Month: November 2006

FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief
========================================== ======
Wednesday 22 November 2006
TURKEY: POPE BENEDICT XVI’S VISIT AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Turkey spotlights religious freedom, notes
Otmar Oehring of the German Catholic charity Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte>.
Some are optimistic that the new Foundations Law will resolve property
problems for the organisations allowed to non-Muslim communities, but this
has yet to be seen. Astonishingly, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gul may not meet Pope Benedict. Officials fear
that the Pope may discuss the problems facing Catholics and other
religious minorities, including Muslim minorities. In this personal
commentary for Forum 18 News Service <;, Dr Oehring maintains that - despite hopeful signs such as several Protestant churches gaining association status - there has been little overall progress this year in religious freedom. For example, minorities such as the Syrian Orthodox do not have the legal right to undertake activities essential for a functioning peaceful religious community. TURKEY: POPE BENEDICT XVI'S VISIT AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM By Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio <; Rarely can religious freedom in Turkey have been more in the spotlight than in the time surrounding the first visit to Turkey as pope by Benedict XVI. His visit - due from 28 November to 1 December - comes shortly after the latest European Union (EU) accession report, which again criticised Turkey for lack of progress on religious freedom, though in mild tones that surprised some commentators. Domestically, the papal visit comes just after President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's approval of a new Foundations Law, approved by parliament on 8 November. Some optimistically argue that the Foundations Law will resolve property problems for the organisations allowed to some non-Muslim ethnic/religious communities. Whether this will be the case has yet to be seen. The impending papal visit is complicated by Benedict's recent remarks on Islam during a speech in Germany in September, where he quoted harsh medieval criticism of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. As recently as 14 November, Professor Ali Bardakoglu, head of the government's Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs), himself made hostile remarks about Pope Benedict and said how hurt Turks were by the pope's remarks in Germany. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will be out of the country during the visit. But, astonishingly, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Abdullah Gul, is still considering whether or not to meet Pope Benedict. It appears that senior officials fear they would be forced to respond, if the Pope hands over a memorandum on the problems facing the Catholic Church and other religious minorities - including Muslim minorities - in Turkey (see F18News 26 July 2006 < e_id=817>).
The general mood – including among officials and the media – is that for
the Pope even to raise any problems would be wrong as, in their view,
Turkey’s religious minorities do not have problems. They claim that
minorities have the possibility to worship and that to complain over their
lack of recognised legal status does not reflect Turkish reality.
Therefore, they oppose any discussion at all of these issues.
At a meeting in Venice in mid-November, organised by the international
Catholic movement Pax Romana, the chief advisor to Prime Minister Erdogan
said openly that there is no point looking back to the past over the way
religious minorities have been treated, as mistakes lie on both sides.
Instead, he insisted, everyone should look to what Turkey will be like in
fifteen or twenty years. He claimed that the future will be bright, with
no problems for religious minorities. However, he did not identify which
problems still exist and how he thinks they will be overcome. There seemed
to be no wish on his part to discuss the current reality.
The controversial Article 301 of the Penal Code, which punishes
“anti-Turkish statements”, has been used against numerous writers and
journalists. But its recent use to prosecute members of religious
minorities marks a new turn. Compass Direct reported that two Protestants
were charged in October under this article in Silivri, near Istanbul,
after being accused of “illegal missionary activities”. Interpreting
non-Muslim missionary activity as “anti-Turkish” is alarming. Amid
worldwide criticism of Article 301, Prime Minister Erdogan has said that
by-laws would be produced to explain the aims of the article and what
“Turkishness” actually means. However, this appears to be merely an
attempt to avoid a real answer. Rumours circulate in Turkey that this
article will be abolished, but no-one knows if this will happen.
Even were Article 301 to be abolished, there are other articles in the
Penal Code which could be used by nationalist prosecutors and judges to
punish what they regard as “crimes against Turkishness”.
The one positive point in the new Foundations Law is that it will require
the return of properties confiscated from community foundations. Yet a
serious obstacle to this is that many of these properties have been sold
to third parties. Discussion of the Foundation Law has been going on for
many years (see F18News 13 December 2005
< e_id=704>), so it should have
been possible by now to resolve the problem of cases where return is
impossible.
Some religious communities with many such foundations, such as the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Armenian Patriarchate, have argued that
this law – if it gains Presidential approval – will allow them finally to
get back some of their properties. But they also point to the law’s
failure to resolve the issue of confiscated properties sold to third
parties.
Discussion on this aspect of the Foundations Law has focused on whether
religious communities unable to recover their properties should be
compensated financially, but the reaction to such suggestions has been
harsh. Earlier this year, parliamentary deputies argued in the parliament
that this would be a “waste of money”, complaining that “trillions and
trillions” of (old) Turkish lira would have to go to Christians and Jews
in compensation for property taken earlier. At the same time, Turkish
newspapers have worried that not paying compensation for property sold to
third parties would lead to hundreds of court cases, with many likely to
end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So a solution
to this problem is at present blocked.
The new Law does not address a key complaint: the impossibility for
religious communities to run their own theological training
establishments. This featured in the European Commission’s Proposal for
the Accession Partnership 2005 (see F18News 13 December 2005
< e_id=704>). The Ecumenical
Patriarchate has long hoped for progress on reopening its seminary on the
island of Heybeliada (Halki in Greek) in the Sea of Marmara – closed down
in 1971 along with the Armenian seminary – but progress has been elusive.
In mid-October, parliament discussed a proposal to reform the law on
private schools. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) introduced
changes that would have enabled non-Muslim religious minorities that
currently cannot run their own schools – such as the Syrians and Chaldeans
– to introduce them on a par with existing Greek Orthodox and Armenian
schools. The main opposition party, the traditionally secularist
Republican People’s Party (CHP), fiercely attacked the proposal, arguing
that it would represent a sell-out of Turkey.
Crucially for the Alevi Muslims, the second largest religious community in
Turkey, neither the Foundations Law nor the possible new law on private
schools would benefit them. Neither the Alevis – nor the Protestants or
Catholics – have community foundations. Nor would the Foundations Law give
legal status to any religious community, whether Muslim or not (see F18News
12 October 2005 < 670>).
The EU report
< _documents/2006/Nov/tr_sec_1390_en.pdf>
– released on 8 November – was blunt that religious minorities still face
problems, but the section on religious freedom was far shorter than in
previous years and was not very precise over what these problems exactly
are. The short section devoted to religious freedom is not long enough to
explain the real problems. It is possible this was done deliberately:
perhaps EU officials did not want to make Turkey appear in too negative a
light. A reader of this section of the report would need an informed
knowledge of the situation to understand what the EU is saying in the
Turkish context. The informed reader would regard it as a fairly mild
summary of the many problems that exist, but the uninformed reader would
mistakenly conclude from the EU report that the situation was not too bad.
The response in Turkey to the EU report was that it was not as bad as many
had expected. Liberals and some journalists said they expected some
condemnation and pointed out that it had been fairly mildly presented.
Pro-government activists say that despite accusations in earlier reports,
this one was not so bad.
These reactions come against a backdrop of hostility to such normal
religious activity as the peaceful sharing of non-Islamic beliefs, which
may have been a factor in the February 2006 murder of Fr Andrea Santoro
(see F18News 9 February 2006
< e_id=724>). The complexity of
Turkish social attitudes to religious freedom is rarely understood and
addressed (see F18News 19 January 2006
< e_id=716>).
As for the impending papal visit, it is important to bear in mind that the
Turkish public will not be present in large numbers at any speaking event.
Any views they might have of the visit – and of the Pope’s addresses and
comments during it – will be formed by how the local media covers the
visit.
Pope Benedict’s visit may have no impact on religious freedom in Turkey,
though this may depend on what he says at his meeting with the diplomatic
corps in the Holy See’s Nunciature in Ankara. When he visits the state’s
Diyanet – which controls Islam in this proclaimed secular state – he will
most probably be almost alone and the Vatican is unlikely to release
details of the meeting.
As head of the Diyanet under an Islamist-leaning government, Professor
Bardakoglu has more influence than he could expect to have under a
secularist government. If the Pope complains about the way Christians and
other minority faiths are treated, Bardakoglu will probably deny that
Christians have any problems. At the same time, he is likely to argue
(correctly) that non-Islamic faiths are outside the remit of his office,
which is responsible only for Sunni state Islam.
The forthcoming visit has also seen a minor spat between the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and the government, with officials attacking the Patriarchate
for insisting that journalists covering the trip seek accreditation from it
as well. Officials declared bluntly that the patriarchate is a Turkish
institution and regarded its demands as “impertinence”. However, both
sides sought to close down the issue.
Despite the murder of Fr Santoro, some improvements have occurred in the
overall religious freedom situation. There is more freedom of speech and
openness about the old taboos – even over whether the mass killing of
Armenians in the late Ottoman period constituted genocide. This year, four
Protestant churches gained a substitute legal status as religious
associations – Derneks – but not as religious communities. (This was under
a legal provision that applicants for association status, which are not
rejected automatically, receive this status after a set period.) Only one
Protestant church gained association status in 2005.
A breakthrough occurred in September 2006, when the Altintepe Protestant
Church in Istanbul became the first church building since the founding of
the Turkish Republic in 1923 to be ratified as a new place of worship.
This followed a four year bureaucratic and legal battle. The church had
been functioning since 2003 under another legal identity, as a Vakif
(Foundation), but the law has since been changed closing the Vakif option
for others.
A total of five Turkish Protestant churches are now recognised as Derneks
or associations, as well as one international church in Antalya. But, as
Compass Direct has noted, due to restrictions in planning and local
authority laws more than 20 legal cases are in the Turkish courts
requesting recognition of Protestant places of worship. Several cases are
also being taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
Association or Dernek status appears to be a pragmatic solution – at least
for the Protestants – to the problem of their lack of any legal status at
all (see F18News 12 December 2005
< e_id=670>).
But religious communities such as the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the
Armenian Apostolic Church – whose existence in the land of Turkey
pre-dates the arrival of the Turks and Islam – are unlikely to want to
accept such a lowly legal status.
Lack of legal recognition of religious communities as religious
communities forces one to the conclusion that there has been little
overall progress this year in the religious freedom situation (see F18News
26 July 2006 < 817>).
Islam remains a branch of the state and no other religious community –
including Muslim minorities – has or can get legal status as a religious
community (see F18News 12 October 2005
< e_id=670>).This problem of
non-recognition means that religious communities do not have the legal
right to take the internal spiritual and financial decisions necessary for
the normal functioning of a peaceful religious community. Without legal
status as a religious community, religious communities cannot buy, use,
sell or remodel property. They remain unable to maintain educational
establishments to train religious personnel, including priests, ministers
or rabbis. Despite the impossibility of training their own personnel
within Turkey, they do not have the right to bring in personnel from
abroad. Personnel from outside Turkey have come in under ad hoc
arrangements, which could be revoked at any time.
De facto, religious communities can undertake some activities, but this is
not enshrined in any law. For example, the two main Syrian Orthodox
monasteries, in Turkey’s south-east, run monastic schools for boys, where
they are trained in the liturgical language, in catechism and in singing
for the liturgy. This is essential for the celebration of the Orthodox
liturgy. Some boys go on to become catechists and choir leaders.
Officially the schools are merely boarding houses, but the state knows
what they are doing although, technically, this is illegal.
However, the problem remains as to how Syrian Orthodox girls can be
educated, especially as the Syrian population in south-eastern Turkey
faces such pressure from local Muslim Kurds and Turks. Syrian Orthodox
girls in school are routinely threatened with rape or kidnap. The Syrians
remain at the mercy of attackers and it is unclear who they are.
There has been no change to the recording of religious affiliation on
identity cards – a major problem which lays religious minorities open to
social ostracism or hostility (see F18News 26 July 2006
< e_id=817>).
A recent poll by TESEV, an Istanbul-based think-tank, found that Turks did
not believe that Islam is gaining in influence. Although some question
whether this is true – and the growth in the number of women wearing
Islamic headscarves on the streets of Ankara and Istanbul might be an
indication that the influence of Islam could be growing – I believe that
nationalism, not Islamic sentiment or any resurgence of Islam lies behind
the restrictions on minority faiths. (END)
– Dr Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte>, a
Catholic charity based in Germany, contributed this comment to Forum 18
News Service. Commentaries are personal views and do not necessarily
represent the views of F18News or Forum 18.
For further overviews by Dr Oehring of religious freedom in Turkey, and of
the need for fundamental reform of the Constitution, see
< =68>.
For commentaries by the Anglican Chaplain in Istanbul on the roots of
Turkey’s attitude to religious freedom see
< _id=716>, and on Turkish
society’s reaction to the murder of Roman Catholic priest Fr Andrea
Santoro, see < 724>.
For a personal commentary on religious freedom under Islam, see
< _id=227>
A printer-friendly map of Turkey is available at
< s/atlas/index.html?Parent=mideast&Rootmap=turk ey>
Adobe Acrobat PDF and printer-friendly views of this article are available
at < 875>.
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at

EU raises the pressure on Turkey
20.11.2006 – 14:09 CET | By Honor Mahony
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The Finnish EU presidency has raised the political
stakes in the faltering EU-Turkey talks, giving Ankara just over two weeks
to put them back on track and calling on the European Commission to
concretely say what it will do if no solution is found.
In a speech on Monday (20 November), Finnish prime minister and current head
of the EU Matti Vanhanen said that “time is running out.”
“If there is no agreement and Turkey does not honour its commitments, the EU
will need to consider the implications for the accession process,” he said.
“As for deciding on an appropriate EU response in those circumstances, we
expect the Commission to come forward with recommendations during the first
week of December.”
Foreign ministers would then decide what to do with the issue at meeting on
11 December.
These remarks give a whole new urgency to the talks with many assuming they
would drag on until mid-December forcing EU leaders to tackle the thorny
topic and try and thrash out a deal.
However, Mr Vanhanen ruled out this scenario saying “I want to make one
thing very clear. The Presidency has no intention of raising the Turkey
issue at the December European Council. Decisions will be made before that.”
“The real deadline is before the Commission presents its recommendations.”
These remarks put the commission in the hot spot after it on 8 November
published a report on Turkey’s slow progress towards EU membership but
refrained from coming out and saying talks should be stopped over Ankara’s
refusal to normalise relations with EU member Cyprus.
The EU has given Turkey until the end of the year to make good on a promise
to extend a customs deal to Cyprus and free up its ports to Cypriot
shipping.
But Ankara has dug its feet in saying it will not apply the agreement until
the EU takes steps to end the economic isolation of Turkish-controlled
northern Cyprus.
Mr Vanhanen’s timetable also put pressure on his country’s own diplomats who
have been working behind the scenes to try and broker a deal which would
allow direct trade with the northern part of Cyprus and open Turkish ports
and airports to Cypriot vessels and planes.
Until now Finnish diplomats have failed in their efforts. But Mr Vanhanen
remarked that as no one has come up with an alternative plan or said that
the proposal is unacceptable, he still believed that a solution was
possible.
Turkey talks tough
The tougher Finnish line follows calls from some member states to make it
clear that things cannot simply continue as they are now if Turkey does not
make some concessions.
Similarly, MEPs are expected to say in a report later this week that the
commission should be clear about the consequences for Ankara of continuing
its present stance towards Cyprus.
But reacting to the new ultimatum, Turkey remained defiant.
“Turkey’s policy is very clear and determined,” said Justice Minister Cemil
Cicek, according to AFP.
“It is the EU authorities who have failed to fulfill their promises,” he
continued referring to EU promises about ending the economic isolation of
the northern part of Cyprus.

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. (202) 775-1918
Fax. (202) 775-5648
Email [email protected]
Internet
PRESS RELEASE
November 22, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DENIER BERNARD LEWIS
AWARDED NATIONAL HUMANITIES MEDAL
— Pres. Bush Honors Recipients at White House
Ceremony
WASHINGTON, DC – Armenian Genocide denier and controversial Middle
East historian Bernard Lewis was amongst those honored by President
Bush this month with the prestigious National Humanities Medal,
reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA.)
President Bush, joined by First Lady Laura Bush, bestowed the medal
at a November 9th ceremony held in the White House Oval Office.
“The President’s decision to honor the work of a known genocide
denier – an academic mercenary whose politically motivated efforts
to cover up the truth run counter to the very principles this award
was established to honor – represents a true betrayal of the public
trust,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.
Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University in the
department of Near Eastern Studies, began his career as a historian
with an honest assessment of the Armenian Genocide as a “terrible
holocaust.” He soon reversed his position, serving as leading
spokesman for the Turkish government’s denial campaign, along with
Princeton University Professor Heath Lowry. Lowry was exposed as a
paid spokesman for the Turkish government’s worldwide campaign of
genocide denial in the seminal journal article, “Professional
Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide”, (“Holocaust and
Genocide Studies,” 1995).
Lewis’ genocide denial became international news on June 21, 1995,
when a French court condemned him for statements he made during a
1993 interview with French newspaper “Le Monde.” The case, which
argued that Lewis’ statements caused harm to Armenian Genocide
survivors, was filed by the International League Against Racism and
Anti-Semitism and the Forum of Armenian Associations, representing
a number of French Armenian organizations, including the ANC of
France. The Court found Lewis “at fault,” stating that, “his
remarks, which could unfairly revive the pain of the Armenian
community, are tortuous and justify compensation.” The court
further affirmed that, “the historian is bound by his
responsibility toward the persons concerned when, by distortion or
falsification, he credits the veracity of manifestly erroneous
allegations or, through serious negligence, omits events or
opinions subscribed to by persons qualified and enlightened enough
so that the concern for accuracy prevents him from keeping silent
about them.” Lewis was symbolically fined one franc and “Le Monde”
was ordered to reprint portions of the French court judgment, which
appeared two days later.
Nine individuals and one institution were awarded the National
Humanities Medal in 2006, including: Fouad Ajami, James M.
Buchanan, Nickolas Davatzes, Robert Fagles, Mary Lefkowitz, Bernard
Lewis, Mark Noll, Meryle Secrest, Kevin Starr, and the Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
The National Humanities Medal honors individuals or groups whose
work has deepened the nation’s understanding of the humanities,
broadened citizens’ engagement with the humanities, or helped
preserve and expand Americans’ access to important resources in the
humanities. The award, given by the National Endowment for the
Humanities, was established in 1988. The National Endowment for the
Humanities is an independent agency of the U.S. government that
supports research, education, preservation, and public programs in
the humanities. It was created by the U.S. Congress in the National
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965.

Sunday, November 19, 2006
**********************************************
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Italian philosopher and dissident: “There are those who lament and others who curse. But no one, or very few, ask themselves, had I lived up to my responsibility as a citizen, had I done what I should have done, maybe what happened wouldn’t have happened.”
*
When Orhan Pamuk mentioned the Armenian genocide in a recent interview, he was not being “a good Turk” as defined by the regime in Ankara, but an honest man. And when we blame all our misfortunes on others, including the Good Lord (“we are what God made us”) we speak not as honest men in full possession of our faculties but as dupes of nationalist leaders whose first and most important concern is not to serve the people but to project the image of competent statesmen.
*
And speaking of competence: It makes no difference how competent a right-wing (conservative) or left-wing (liberal) critic is, he will convince only his partisans. The same could be said about an Armenian or Turkish critic.
*
What matters about a critic is not his love of country, or his commitment to this or that ideology or school of thought, but his honesty and objectivity. A critic without honesty and objectivity is not and cannot be a critic, only a propagandist.
*
My analysis of the Armenian psyche is based on a close reading of our writers, beginning with Gregory of Narek (who at one point in his LAMENTATIONS identifies himself as “an abusive contradicter”), personal observations and encounters, and last but far from least, self-analysis. If I call some of my readers dupes, fanatics, and hoodlums it’s because I was all of these things. I at no time have said anything about my fellow Armenians that I am not prepared to say about myself. And when our dupes and hoodlums assume a morally superior stance and look down at me as a lesser man or a bad Armenian, I have every reason to suspect they fool no one, not even themselves. Hence, their faceless, nameless cowardly anonymity.
#
Monday, November 20, 2006
*******************************************
Daniel Varoujan (1884-1915), Armenian poet and Genocide victim: “What’s the use of acquiring knowledge and developing one’s esthetic judgment in a world run by ignorant scum?”
*
Anonymous (dates unknown), one of the greatest and most prolific thinkers of all time, very probably of Armenian descent: “In troubled waters, the scum rises to the top.”
*
Insulting Turkishness is against the law in Turkey today. Nothing new in that. Because in one of his letters Solzhenitsyn made a derogatory remark about Stalin, he was bundled off to Siberia. I assume there were corresponding laws under Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Franco, and Genghis Khan.
*
What is considered an insult in Turkey? Mentioning the Armenian genocide for one, thus implying that the founders of the Turkish Republic may have been war criminals.
We are lucky; we don’t have a law against insulting Armenianism. That doesn’t mean, however, that if you dare to mention our scumbags (of which we have our share) you won’t be called a scumbag by loudmouth gutless, faceless, nameless. anonymous scumbags.
*
If Baronian and Odian were alive today and wrote with the same degree of honesty about our bosses, bishops, and benefactors as they did at the turn of the last century, not only they would be called scumbags by our ubiquitous commissars of culture and defenders of the faith, they would also be alienated, silenced, ignored, forgotten, and buried alive. There is more than one way to send an innocent man to the Gulag.
*
A thousand years ago Gregory of Narek (in addition to being a saint, also our Dante and Shakespeare combined) in his celebrated BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS (translated into English by Mischa Kudian, among others), made a long list of his personal failings (“a wicked and slothful servant, an abusive contradicter, an ass’s foal, inscrutable, wild and uncouth; the broken lock on a door; the useless coin buried beneath the soil; ever active in satanic inventions; slow in mine observance of promises; diligent in malignant acts of ribaldry,” and so on and so forth). If anyone were to write in that vein today, what would happen to him? Who would read him? How would our holier-than-thou brown-nosers react?
*
What happened to us between then and now? Is it conceivable that the only thing we learned from the Genocide are intolerance, dishonesty, doubletalk, and cowardice? Is it possible that the Turks did not just massacre our bodies but also our critical faculties?
*
To end on a more positive note: All nations spawn their share of white trash. Why should we be an exception?
*
A digression and a p.s. here: Has anyone ever accused Washington or Jefferson of war crimes? Why would anyone, let alone a Turk, even consider questioning the greatness, integrity, and nobility of such statesmen of vision as Talaat and Kemal? Unless of course… No, strike that! It is not my intention to cast aspersions on anyone here. I am just asking questions because, I don’t mind admitting, I know next to nothing about Turkish history, and I don’t understand, neither can I guess why, noble specimens of humanity like Talaat and Kemal would be in need of a law whose unmistakable intent is to protect their impeccable reputations.
#
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
****************************************
NOW THANK WE ALL OUR GOD
*******************************************
Siamanto (real name Adom Yerjanian: 1878-1915) poet and victim of the Genocide: “Our perennial enemy, the enemy that will eventually destroy us, is not the Turk but our own complacent superficiality.”
*
If our misfortunes are not our fault but must be ascribed to factors and circumstances beyond our control, such as bloodthirsty neighbors, geographic position, and the Good Lord Himself, it follows: literature lies, propaganda speaks the truth.
Political leaders are honest men, writers enemies of the people.
Which also means, our politicians have been consistently right and our writers consistently wrong.
Let us therefore trust our leaders and ignore our writers, and whenever possible, silence and starve them. They deserve no better.
*
Since our problems are not our problems but someone else’s, there isn’t much we can do except adopt a passive stance and wait until our bloodthirsty neighbors see the light and turn into vegetarians, our mountains and valleys yield oil or gold or some other valuable mineral, and the Good Lord takes pity on us.
*
Yeghishe was dead wrong when he said, “Solidarity is the mother of good deeds, divisions of evil ones.” Solidarity is for wolves. We prefer to live as divided sheep because we are morally superior to wolves.
*
Raffi was wrong when he said we have no future in Turkey. Mass exodus from Turkey in the 19th century would have been a tragic mistake. As for mass exodus from Armenia today (a million and a half so far): that must be seen only as a temporary minor setback in the aftermath of war and earthquake (those damn carnivorous neighbors and cursed geography again).
*
To conclude: we have nothing to worry about because we are in the best of hands. Let us therefore go down on our knees and give thanks to the Lord and His representatives on earth (our bosses, bishops, and benefactors), and count our blessings.
Amen.
#
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
***********************************************
MEMO
*************************
To readers who find my comments disturbing enough to foam at the mouth: In Hollywood, to put things into perspective, even when there are reputations and millions of dollars at stake, they say, “It’s only a movie.” And I say to you, “Relax, it’s only one man’s opinion.” There is no law that says only the right opinion by wise men may be voiced. None of us, not even you, can claim to be consistently right and wise. Only the abysmally ignorant and arrogant think their way of thinking is the only right one and all others should be ignored, and whenever possible, silenced. When I was young and foolish I too thought there were only a very limited number of ideas and worldviews and my familiarity with all of them allowed me to know which were right and which wrong. I was a fascist and I didn’t know it. I had no doubt whatever in my mind that all Turks were rapists and butchers, it was the patriotic duty of all Armenians to hate them, and the only good Turk was a dead Turk. It took me many years to appreciate the advantages of living in a multicultural and multiracial democracy and enjoying the fundamental human right of free speech. I wonder how many of my readers, be they bosses, bishops, benefactors, editors, and publishers of weeklies and periodicals suspect that treating someone who disagrees with them as an enemy is neither patriotic nor Armenian but fascist. This indeed may well be one of our most dangerous blind spots: namely, our tendency to confuse an Ottomanized and Sovietized brand of fascism with Armenianism. Speaking on this very same subject, Zarian has this to say in his TRAVELLER AND HIS ROAD: “They are spitting on Raffi. They are spitting on Aharonian. They are spitting on Derian. And that with the borrowed, consumptive spittle of Muscovite ‘masters.’ Even their filth is second hand. Even their trash has not been picked up from our streets but from foreign gutters. Danger, danger, danger!”
#

PRESS RELEASE
The Armenian Students Club at Columbia University &
National Association for Armenian Studies and Research
395 Concord Avenue
Belmont, MA 02478
Tel.: 617-489-1610
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Marc A. Mamigonian
Contact: Shaunte Baboumian
e-mail: [email protected]
`THE ARMENIAN LOBBY: THEN AND NOW’
TO BE EXAMINED AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Gregory Aftandilian, currently a Research Fellow at the Belfer
Center at the John F. Ken-nedy School of Government, Harvard
University, will present a lecture entitled `The Armenian Lobby
Then and Now: The 1918-27 Period and the Present Day,’ on
Wednesday, December 6, at 7:30 p.m., at the Kellog Center, at the
Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, 420
W. 118th Street, New York, NY. The lecture is co-sponsored by the
Columbia Armenian Students Club and the National Association for
Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR).
Aftandilian, a member of the NAASR Board of Directors since 2004,
has previously worked at the National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs, the Senate Foreign Rela-tions Committee, and
the U.S. Department of State. A recognized expert on Middle East
affairs, he is the author of two books: Egypt’s Bid for Arab
Leadership: Implications for U.S. Policy and Ar-menia: Vision of a
Republic: The Independence Lobby in America, 1918-1927. He holds
degrees from Dartmouth College, the University of Chicago, and the
London School of Economics.
Shedding Light on Two Eras
This lecture will examine the activities of the American Committee
for the Independence of Armenia in the period of 1918 to 1927 and
compare it to today’s Armenian Lobby in terms of effectiveness,
shortcomings, access to leading policy-makers, and sustainability.
Key issues that will be addressed are the makeup of the lobby
groups, the socio-economic conditions of the Armenian-American
community, the impact of opposing lobbies and countervailing
pressures, the attitudes of Congress and the White House, and the
salience of the `Armenian issue’ in the American political context.
Aftandilian will highlight some important similarities and
differences between the two eras. In both periods, the
pro-Armenian Lobby had the difficult task of supporting a small
country that lacked natural resources. Whereas in the earlier
period the lobby relied primarily on American public sympathy as
well as important political figures for support, the current period
has wit-nessed a reliance on the rising stature of the
Armenian-American community and its increasing involvement in the
American political system. Countervailing pressures in both
periods have included the impact of oil and other economic
interests
More information about the lecture is available by e-mailing Shaunte
Baboumian at [email protected], or by calling 617-489-1610, faxing
617-484-1759, e-mailing [email protected], or writing to NAASR, 395
Concord Ave., Belmont, MA 02478.
# # # # #
Belmont, MA
November 13, 2006

A.R.F. Shant Student Association
104 North Belmont Street, Suite 306
Glendale, California 91206
Tel: 818-462-3006
E-Mail: [email protected]
Website:
PRESS RELEASE
November 21, 2006
ARF Shant to Host Expert Panel Discussion on Development and
Integration of Western Armenian Lands Post Armenian Genocide
Recognition
HOLLYWOOD, CA – On December 3, 2006 at 6pm, the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation Shant Student Association (ARF Shant) will host a
pioneering expert panel discussion. The topic of the evening will be
the re-integration and re-development of Western Armenia upon
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. By hosting such a unique event,
the ARF Shant’s goal is to take the Armenian Cause to the next level
and begin planning for what comes after Turkey has been forced to
recognize the Armenian Genocide and provide restitution and
reparations.
The panel discussion will concentrate on the political,
constitutional, economic, and infrastructural challenges that the
Armenian nation faces in the implementation of a free, independent,
and united Armenia.
The renowned experts who will be making presentations and
participating in the panel discussion are historian and political
scientist Dr. Garo Moumdjian, economist Dr. Ara Khanjian, and Civil
Engineer Mr. Aram Kaloustian. The panelists will also field questions
from the audience.
This first of its kind event is open to the entire community and will
take place at Karapetian Hall, located at 1614 N. Alexandria Ave in
Hollywood, California. For more details, please visit
or call (818) 462-3006.
The mission of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation “Shant” Student
Association (ARF Shant) is to bring a higher level of political and
cultural awareness to Armenian students within American Universities
and institutions of higher learning. The ARF Shant’s goal is to work
side by side with the Armenian Student Associations and other Armenian
Student organizations to further the Armenian Cause.

OFFICE OF THE NAGORNO KARABAKH REPUBLIC IN THE USA
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 223-4330
Fax: (202) 315-3339
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site:
PRESS RELEASE
November 21, 2006
NAGORNO KARABAKH PRESIDENT ARKADY GHOUKASIAN CALLS FOR REGIONAL
PEACE, EXPANSION OF RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Los Angeles, CA – On November 16, 2006 H.E. Arkady Ghoukasian,
President of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Artsakh, addressed the
Los Angeles World Affairs Council (LAWAC). Speaking to an audience
of about 200 people, President Ghoukasian discussed the most recent
developments in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process, as well as
democratic and economic progress in Artsakh. (See below the full
text of remarks.)
President Ghoukasian called on the United States and other leading
international players to take additional steps to prevent Azerbaijan
from potentially undermining regional stability. He added that in
this regard `an international embargo on weapons supplies to
Azerbaijan’ should be considered. The President also suggested the
initiation and signing `of a separate memorandum between the parties
to the conflict that would state their commitment to resolve the
existing disagreements through peaceful negotiations.’
The President also thanked the U.S. Government and the American
people for the ongoing U.S. humanitarian assistance and called for
increased American and international role in Nagorno Karabakh’s
democratic and economic development.
President Ghoukasian is in California as part of his working visit
to the United States. On November 23, he will take part in the
Armenia Fund’s 9th International Telethon to help raise funds for
infrastructure and development programs in Hadrut Region of Artsakh.
* * *
Remarks by President of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic H.E. Arkady
Ghoukasian
at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
November 16, 2006
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
It has been seven years since my last appearance at this
prestigious Center in 1999. In this time, the world, the United
States and Karabakh have experienced significant events. I
certainly cannot fail to mention the September 11, 2001 terrorist
act nor the destructive consequences of Hurricane Katrina last
year. Trust me that we were shaken by these events as well.
Instability persists in a number of the regions of the world, and
unfortunately there is a danger that this instability could spread
to neighboring regions. We remain hopeful, however, that people
will find in themselves the power and the wisdom to solve pressing
problems without violence.
As far as the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) is concerned, the only
sphere where there has practically been no progress in the past
seven years is the Karabakh peace process. Rest assured this is not
something of our doing. Unfortunately, the Azerbaijani leadership
still prefers to act contrary to the logic of historical
development, which does not contribute to conflict resolution and
only adds to serious obstacles on the road to viable peace and
stability in our region. The Azerbaijani leadership had the same
illusory sense of superiority when it introduced a total blockade of
NKR and unleashed a full-scale war against us. That illusion of
superiority, as well as Azerbaijan’s refusals to end the fighting,
which was at the time repeatedly confirmed by international
mediators, ultimately resulted in the defeat of the Azerbaijani
armed forces, and the complete or partial loss of the seven
districts around NKR. In other words, the current status quo is a
natural and logical result of Azerbaijan’s failed aggression.
Today, official Baku is trying to intimidate us by pouring oil
revenue into its military budget. This approach of the Azerbaijani
government has absolutely no prospect for success. There is no
military solution to the Karabakh issue. A war would only bring
great losses and suffering to the peoples of both nations. The
Azerbaijani leadership must give up these foolish and suicidal hopes
for revenge and resolve all issues, no matter how complex, at the
negotiating table with the equal participation of Nagorno Karabakh
as a full-fledged party to this conflict. Azerbaijani calls for a
military solution of the Karabakh question only reflect the absence
there of democratic traditions of civilized dialogue with political
opponents, when the other side’s interests must also be taken into
account.
A peaceful settlement of the conflict with Azerbaijani tops NKR’s
foreign policy agenda. Conceptually, our approach to conflict
resolution is based on the understanding of the new rules in
international relations, which, when strictly followed, provide all
nations and states with an equal opportunity to safeguard their
interests. It is this tendency that gives us hope for a political
settlement of the Karabakh conflict. At the same time, any peace
agreement cannot undermine the historical choice made by the people
of NKR in favor of independent, democratic development.
Our preference for a peaceful settlement should not be construed as
a sign of weakness. We will be able to defend our homeland in case
of war. Should Azerbaijan choose to once again resort to military
action, it will receive a deserving counterblow from NKR’s proven
Defense Army, which is capable of successfully dealing with the most
difficult problems when it comes to security of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic and its people. But to reiterate, the conflict cannot be
resolved through war, and to rely on increased military spending, to
hope for revenge – would be a terrible, I would say suicidal
miscalculation.
When it comes to settlement scenarios, any option that would
undermine our security or put in doubt Nagorno Karabakh’s
independence from Azerbaijan would be completely unacceptable. I am
certain that any effort to address the issues of territories and
refugees in isolation from the most fundamental issue of Nagorno
Karabakh’s status would be a fruitless one. There are no taboo
subjects for us, but this does not mean that we are ready to make
unilateral concessions. The extent of our compromises depends
directly on the extent of compromises made by the Azerbaijani side.
We chose the way of independence to be able to realize our natural
rights and freedoms, which were crudely abused by Azerbaijan’s
leaders. Time has shown that we chose the right path. Take a look
at the Azerbaijani government’s behavior towards Nagorno Karabakh.
They are threatening to annihilate us, if we refuse to become part
of Azerbaijan. Is this a serious approach? Can civilized leaders
win over their neighbors to live together through threats or
blackmail? This is simply illogical. The people of Nagorno Karabakh
harbor no animosity towards the Azerbaijani people. The situation
in Azerbaijan is fundamentally different. There, hatred towards
ethnic Armenians is cultivated on the state level. One of the
reflections of this is that in Azerbaijan the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict is presented as an ethnic Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict,
which in itself creates a serious obstacle to resolving one of the
central issues of this conflict – establishment of historical
reconciliation between the two nations.
The Nagorno Karabakh Republic is a reality recognized by many in the
world. We were able to defend our independence in the war forced on
us by Azerbaijan. Moreover, in a relatively brief period of time we
were able to overcome the war’s consequences and build a state,
which according to many criteria is ahead of many recognized states.
It is my conviction that our republic’s accomplishments are
fundamentally based on a conscious choice that we made in favor of
democracy and a civil society. This path was not without its trials
and tribulations. The turning point in the history of our democracy
came in 2000, when our republic overcame the last vestiges of the
post-war syndrome, and firmly established itself on the path of
democratic development.
Elections serve as one of the benchmarks for any democracy. And in
this case too we have something to be proud of. Elections in
Karabakh, and this is confirmed by all international observers
including those from the United States, are conducted on a high
level and without major violations. Some of the polls are won by
the political opposition. This was the case during the 2004
municipal elections, when an opposition candidate was elected mayor
of the Karabakh capital. Over the last several years, our electoral
laws have undergone substantial changes towards democratization and
transparency. Next year, there will be presidential elections in
Karabakh. Although I will not participate as a candidate, I will use
the established institutions to do everything I can so that the
positive democratic trends in our country continue and deepen.
In the last several months we in Karabakh have been discussing a
draft of our future Constitution. This process involves political
parties as well as non-government entities. The product of this
discussion will be a document that reflects the fundamental values
of our people and a social consensus about the administration of our
state. Our citizens will judge the constitutional proposal at a
referendum set for December 10, 2006.
I would note, that while these, and other, democratic processes are
welcomed by our international partners, NKR remains an
internationally unrecognized state. In practice, this means that we
are denied the opportunity to receive aid from the international
community, such as loans and financial assistance from international
organizations: this, in a context where our people have lived
through war that caused so much damage to Nagorno Karabakh. Even
the refugees resident in NKR have been denied help from
international organizations. These refugees are left outside their
purview. But can these people be blamed for living in a state that
is not internationally recognized? This is a case when political
considerations ought not to trump basic humanitarian needs. I am
happy to welcome the United States’ leadership in this matter, and
specifically the continuing program of U.S. humanitarian assistance
to the war-ravaged people of Karabakh. I extend to the American
people and its government our most sincere appreciation for this
vital assistance.
In spite of the lack of assistance from international organizations,
life in our republic continues to dynamically develop. Our economic
development also gives us something to be proud of. We have enjoyed
sustained economic growth in the last several years. Structural
reforms continue to improve conditions for a market economy and
entrepreneurship. We pay particular attention and provide state
support to small and medium businesses. Over the past decade, the
average annual increase in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been
about 10 percent. Thanks to our liberal tax laws there has been an
increase in private investments in NKR’s economy. In the last seven
years, such investments have totaled 80 million U.S. dollars. These
investments come primarily from our compatriots in the United
States, France, Russia, Australia, Switzerland, Lebanon, Canada and
other countries. Local entrepreneurs are also increasing their
business activity, and a share of domestic investments is increasing
daily. Today, Nagorno Karabakh exports its products to Armenia, the
United States, Russia and countries of the European Union. Compared
to 1999, our export volumes have increased 16 times.
Just recently, at the beginning of October of this year, 77 members
of the U.S. Congress wrote to President George W. Bush to stress the
need to expand the United States’ relations with Nagorno Karabakh.
Using this opportunity, I would like to share our vision of our
relations with the United States and other countries. First, it is
difficult to overestimate the U.S. role as a mediator in the peace
process. In my view, the United States and other leading
international players interested in maintaining stability in our
region, should actively prevent Azerbaijan’s campaign to again
militarize the Karabakh conflict. In this regard, several steps
could be envisioned, including an international embargo on weapons
supplies to Azerbaijan, particularly keeping in mind that this
country is already in violation of its commitments under the
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
I would also call on the mediator-countries to initiate the signing
of a separate memorandum between the parties to the conflict that
would state their commitment to resolve the existing disagreements
through peaceful negotiations and reject military means. Such a step
could serve as a clear demonstration by the parties of their
commitment to civilized solutions to problems, while the document
itself could serve as the basis for future regional security
arrangements.
Second, the level of relations between NKR and the world cannot and
must not be determined by Azerbaijan. Believe me that were it up to
Azerbaijan there would be no democratic or economic development in
Karabakh. Moreover, since we are dealing with a totalitarian, an
extremely aggressive and dangerous regime, Azerbaijan could well try
to deliver on its threats to completely wipe out our homeland.
Certainly, such a regime cannot be permitted a veto in matters of
Karabakh’s development.
Therefore, we would like to see a much more active U.S. and
international role in Nagorno Karabakh’s democratic and economic
development. While we have our accomplishments, there are plenty of
unresolved issues, where we need the help of the international
community, and we certainly still have a lot to learn.
In conclusion, let me say that Nagorno Karabakh is one of the most
beautiful corners of the world. This is a country of kind, wonderful
people, unique cultural heritage, and natural settings of
astonishing beauty. Today, Karabakh has the necessary
infrastructure both for doing business, as well as for recreation
and tourism. I would like to invite you to Karabakh, please come and
see it with your own eyes.
Thank you for your attention!
* * *
This material is distributed by the Office of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic in the USA on behalf of the Government of the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. The NKR Office is registered with the U.S.
Government under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Additional
information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.

ARMENIA PROPOSES BROADENING COOPERATION BETWEEN ODKB AND SCO
Source: Novosti Armenii, November 17, 2006
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
November 20, 2006 Monday
Armenia proposes broadening cooperation between the Collective Security
Treaty Organization (ODKB) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). Vitaly Strugovets, advisor of the information department of
ODKB, reported this on Friday.
According to Strugovets, Armenia made a fundamental proposal regarding
broadening cooperation between the two organizations in counteraction
to illegal migration.

ARMENIA’S ECONOMY POSTS 13% GROWTH IN JAN.-OCT. 2006
RIA Novosti, Russia
November 20, 2006
YEREVAN, November 20 (RIA Novosti) – Armenia posted a 13% GDP growth
rate in January-October of 2006, as compared with 12.2% a year ago,
the country’s national statistics service said Monday.
Consumer prices rose over the period by 2.4%, year-on-year, while
industrial prices dropped 3.1%.
Foreign trade turnover reached $2.5 billion – a 14.3% increase on
last year.
The 2006 budget projects this year’s economic growth at 7.5% and
inflation at 3%.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN RUSSIA PROVOKES GROWTH IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES
Source: Biznes, November 15, 2006
Agency WPS
The Russian Business Monitor (Russia)
November 20, 2006 Monday
The CIS became a world’s leader according to the speed of GDP growth
among the economic alliances. According to the EBRD, in 2006, GDP
growth of the CIS countries will amount to 6.9% and will remain on
such level in the next few years. The main locomotives of the CIS
are Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan whose growth is based on raw
materials export, consumption and growing investments. In its report
the EBRD remarks that growth in such countries as Armenia, Georgia and
Ukraine is provided by “strong money transfer flows.” Experts are not
surprised by such conclusions and say that economic growth in Russia
inevitable provokes growth in neighboring countries through capital
of private individuals who earn money in Russia but spend it in the
CIS countries.
In its report the EBRD says that economic growth of the countries
located between Central Europe and Central Asia is getting increasingly
provided by growing domestic demand. In general, economic growth in
this region in full year 2006, will amount to 6.2%. Along with this,
according to the EBRD, the CIS became the international regional
organization with the highest speed of economic developing approaching
7% closely. For example, growth of economies of the Southeastern
Europe is forecasted at a level of 5.9%, for Eastern Europe and
Baltic republics the growth is forecasted at 5.3. According to the
speed of growth the CIS outran also NAFTA countries (US, Canada and
Mexico). Eric Berglof, senior analyst of the EBRD, remarks, “We have
not expected such rapid growth of economies of the CIS countries.”
The EBRD expects that in 2006, Russia’s economy will grow 6.5%. All
records are broken by Azerbaijan. Its GDP growth is estimated at 26%.
Analyst Olga Belenkaya of investment company Finam comments, “Such
growth happens primarily on account of the low base effect.” Agvan
Mikaelyan, Deputy General Director of FinExpertiza, remarks, “The
higher the GDP the smaller the influence of the change. For example,
construction of even one plant in an industrially undeveloped country
can lead to a noticeable growth of its economic parameters.”
Peter Westin, senior economist of MDM-bank, adds, “East European
countries already demonstrated economic growth at the beginning of the
1990s. They were also going to become members of the European Union
and NATO from the very start.” Westin added that at the beginning
of reforms the CIS countries were in much worse position and the
initial economic decline was more dramatic than decline in the East
and Central European countries. He also says, “This partially explains
rapid growth of the CIS countries now.”
According to experts, it would be more correct qualitative parameters
like GDP per capita. Westin explains, “In the East and Central European
countries it amounts to $10,000, whereas for CIS countries it amounts
to $1,684.”
In its report the EBRD remarks that growth of Russia’s economy
is conditioned by consumer boom, as well as by growing foreign
investments. The EBRD insists that the nearest task of Russia is
diversification of economy enabling the country to reduce dependence
on raw material export. As to the other CIS countries not rich with
energy resources (Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine), the EBRD sees sources
of their current economic growth in growth of private consumption and
in cash transfer flows. Mikaelyan comments, “Almost all able-bodied
population of these countries works in Russia. These are not only
workers but also businessmen. Russian growth automatically turns
into money that those who have earned it transfer to their countries
and spend it there.” He continues that, for example, Georgia consumes
$2-4 billion brought from Russia, Moldova consumes $1.-1.5 billion and
Armenia and Ukraine consumer $1-2 billion each. The expert concludes,
“Hence there is growth of consumption in these countries.
Our economies are integrated through workers and economic growth of
a number of the CIS countries is provided by growth of the Russian
economy.”