Month: February 2012

LEVON ARONYAN REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN CANDIDATES TOURNAMENT OF WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP IF THEY ARE HELD IN AZERBAIJAN

Mediamax
Feb 2 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. International chess grandmaster Levon Aronyan
ruled out his participation in the Candidates Tournament of World
Championship if they are to be held in Azerbaijan.

Levon Aronyan stated this in his letter to FIDE President Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov and FIDE Presidential Board members, armchess.am reports.

“Dear Presidential Board Members

I learnt from the media, that the Chess Federations of Azerbaijan
and Bulgaria had submitted an application on holding the Candidates
Tournament of World Championship.

I’d like to inform you that general atmosphere in Azerbaijan and
continuous tensions between our countries make my participation in
such high ranked tournament in Azerbaijan impossible. A responsible
and important event, such as the Candidates Tournament, requires peace
of mind and special concentration. No circumstances, if they are not
chess-related, should prevent the grandmaster from demonstrating
all of his skills. Unfortunately, at this moment no Armenian can
find favorable or adequate psychological atmosphere in Azerbaijan,
whereas that is something absolutely necessary. In my opinion, all
the participants should be in equal conditions, which is impossible
in case of holding the tournament in Azerbaijan. Security guaranties
and any kind of additional support cannot be a remedy.

Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, I inform you
that I would be delighted to take part in Candidates Tournament any
other country, but my participation in the candidates tournament in
Azerbaijan has to be excluded”, the letter reads.

Levon Aronyan expressed the hope that FIDE will take into account
his opinion while discussing the issue of the tournament venue at
the Presidential Board Meeting.

CAVALIER OF ST. MESROP MASHTOTS ORDER DISPUTES THE BILL CRIMINALIZING GENOCIDE DENIAL

Mediamax
Feb 2 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Upon the initiative of several dozens of members
of the French Senate and the Lower Chamber of the parliament, the bill
criminalizing the denial of genocides is disputed in the Constitutional
Council of France.

Christian Poncelet, who was the President of the French Senate in
1998-2008, is among the authors of the initiative.

Christian Poncelet was awarded one of the highest state awards of
Armenia- the St. Mesrop Mashtots Order. President of Armenia Robert
Kocharian handed over the award to him in Paris on 15 July 2003.

It seemed that the official who was awarded such a high award could
at least take a neutral stance over the bill and not become one of
its main opponents.

However, it’s not the first time that Christian Poncelet takes an
ambiguous stance on the issue of Armenian Genocide. Visiting Yerevan
in July 1999, he said that “the past century has seen many disasters,
including the Armenian Genocide. But it is also the century of revival
of the Armenian state.” Speaking about why the Senate didn’t discuss
the bill on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide passed by the
National Assembly, Poncelet said then that this problem “will be
resolved sooner or later”, adding that “when the bill was submitted to
the Senate, the events in Kosovo began and France deemed it inexpedient
to discuss such a topic when a new war was blazing in the Balkans.” He
also said that he recommended the government of France to recognize
the Armenian Genocide in 1982.

In February 2000, the Senate headed by Christian Poncelet again
refused to discuss the issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide,
which aroused a wave of resentment in Armenia. In May 2000, Charles
Aznavour said he had turned down Christian Poncelet’s invitation to
sing at the solemn reception in the Senate on July 14.

“If I sung in the Senate on July 14, it would mean I was renouncing my
origin. The Senate made this decision because of Turkey’s threats. But
is France a country that can be threatened?” Charles Aznavour said
then.

We can only state that Charles Aznavour’s question remains timely
also today.

FRENCH HISTORIAN GAUIN: “THE DECISION WILL BE BLOW TO ARMENIAN NATIONALISM IN FRANCE”

Journal of Turkish Weekly

Feb 2 2012

JTW conducted an exclusive interview with Maxime Gauin on the current
debate regarding the appeal of French senators against the bill
prohibiting the denial of genocide.

Q: Seventy French senators collected the required number of signatures
demanding the repeal of a law criminalizing denial of the so-called
“Armenian genocide.” What are the general characteristics of those
seventy senators? Are they generally left wing or right wing? We know
that Jacques Mezard and Michel Diefenbacher spearheaded the appeal
for example but who else?

Maxime Gauin: More exactly, 77 senators and 65 deputies signed two
distinct, albeit similar, applications. For the Senate, this is very
mixed: 22 Socialists, 18 UMP (Nicolas Sarkozy’s party) members,
15 Liberals, 12 Centrists, 8 Greens and even 2 Communists. Such a
convergence of senators from all the groups is absolutely exceptional.

The motivations are mainly driven by the respect for constitutional law
and concern for maintaining good relations with Turkey. The relatively
strong presence of MPs of both the left and right from Alsace,
the region of France with, in proportion to the general population,
the biggest Turkish community, is easy to understand. In addition,
the absence on the list of signatures of some senators notoriously
against the bill is explained by the pressures exerted on them. I
think, for the UMP, on people like Gérard Larcher, former President of
the Senate, currently chairman of the Franco-Turkish friendship group;
for the Socialists, on people like Jean-Claude Carrère, Chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, who interrupted speakers many times
during the debate of January 23, saying “Very good!” when a speech
was against the bill or “The argument is specious!” when an address
was in favor of the text.

Jacques Mézard is from the Radical Party, which is now rather small,
but was the main political party in France from its creation in 1901
to 1936 or 1940. There is a pro-Turkish and even more pro-Kemalist
tradition in this secular and humanist party. Mr. Mézard explicitly
placed his stance in this continuity.

In the Senate, two other main leaders who collected signatures were:
Nathalie Goulet (Centrist), supporter of Azerbaijan against the
Armenian occupation and now a vice-chairperson of the Franco-Turkish
friendship group in the Senate; and Bariza Khiari (Socialist), Vice
President of the Senate, who has a very objective approach of the
Turkish issues.

In the National Assembly, it is clearly different. Among the 65
signatories, you have 52 deputies of the UMP or a center-right party
closely allied to it, 11 Socialists and 2 independents. This is clearly
a kind of revolt by the UMP group, where Mr. Sarkozy was actually
never very popular, except perhaps during the first six months of his
mandate. UMP deputy Lionel Tardy said: “This is an atomic bomb for
the Ã~Ilysée [presidential palace, so Mr. Sarkozy himself], which
did not see anything coming.” I join in this appraisal. Mr. Sarkozy
did not notice the shift, and to be even more explicit, the anger in
the UMP bloc of the National Assembly.

In addition to chairman of the Franco-Turkish Friendship group Michel
Diefenbacher, the leaders in the National Assembly were: Jacques Myard,
a member of this group and a politician notorious for his contempt of
the politically correct; and two deputies of Alsace, Jean-Philippe
Maurer and Ã~Iric Straumann, who even asked the government to use
the urgent procedure, which means the Constitutional Council having
to decide in eight days instead of one month. For Mr.

Diefenbacher and Mr. Myard, the philosophical and foreign policy
reasons are predominant. I loved Mr. Diefenbacher’s comment on
his website: “This law is nonsense. […] France, the ‘country
of Enlightenment,’ has no vocation to join the exclusive club of
countries where the law imposes upon the citizens a certain way of
thinking. We are not North Korea or Cuba. Liberty, dear Liberty!”

For Mr. Maurer and Mr. Straumann, these reasons exist as well,
incontrovertibly; the presence of thousands of French citizens of
Turkish origin in their districts is probably also a reason.

Q: We know how Turkish officials reacted to the appeal, Prime Minister
Erdogan, President Gul, Foreign Minister Davutoglu and EU Minister
BagıÅ~_ all hailed the appeal. What about the French reaction?

Maxime Gauin: Mr. Sarkozy said to UMP deputies, with a considerable
understatement: “It did not help me.” That is very understandable:
He knows that the law is unconstitutional, but he hoped the
Constitutional Council could be seized only by a priority question of
constitutionality (Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité, QPC),
i.e., an application during a court case. The law would be crushed,
too, by a QPC, but later, after the presidential election. Mr. Sarkozy
even used an unsubstantiated argument: The applications of MPs would
threaten the Gayssot Act. This is false. The Gayssot Act forbids the
denial of the existence of a “crime against humanity” condemned by the
Nuremberg tribunal or by a French court. The qualification of these
crimes is left to freedom of expression. The word “Jews” is never
used. For example, if you deny that the Gypsies were subjected to mass
killing by the Nazis, you can be sued in the name of the Gayssot Act;
if you say that there were gas chambers and other criminal ways to
kill Gypsies but challenge the “genocide” label, nobody will sue you.

The Gayssot Act is backed only by the authority of res judicata and
contains no vague incrimination, unlike the Boyer bill. Such a comment
indicates how embarrassed Mr. Sarkozy–a lawyer by profession–is,
because of his improper initiative.

I did not find any comment on the website of the Socialist Party,
which apparently prefers to speak about economic and social concerns.

Actually, such problems are much more important for most of the
electorate than the limitation of free speech regarding events which
happened nearly a century ago in a foreign country.

Q: How will French-Turkish relations stand after the appeal?

Maxime Gauin: Engin Solakoglu, deputy chief and spokesman of the
Turkish embassy’s mission in Paris, stated that the relations, close
to rupture, will ease and the Turkish authorities are now awaiting the
decision of the Council. The applications to the Constitutional Council
are based on a solid argument, and there is no suspense regarding
the fate the Boyer bill, including in the eyes of several Armenian
nationalists. It would only be logical for the Council to censor the
“recognition” of the “genocide” allegation as well, even more since
the application of senators, and as far as I know of deputies as well,
uses Article 34 of the Constitution among other arguments. This article
precisely defines the field of law, and you cannot find any place to
qualify historical events. The MPs were sufficiently clever to avoid
any direct attack against the “recognition” of 2001, but to include
Article 34 in the argument is a barely implicit invitation to suppress
this law as well. Such a suppression would be in perfect accordance
with the jurisprudence of the Council: This institution has for years
considered it perfectly normal, in case of application by QPC or any
other way, to check not only the law charged of unconstitutionality,
but also any other law which is closely connected to it.

If both texts are deleted, excellent prospects will arise. On
the other hand, the Franco-Turkish associations must continue
the movement started during the last weeks and create a structure
comparable to the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA)
or the Federation of Turkish Associations in the United Kingdom
(FTA UK). These associations should be assisted by all legal means,
too. The decision of the Constitutional Council will be a considerable,
perhaps unprecedented , blow to Armenian nationalism in France, but
will not destroy it completely. For the Turkish side, in every aspect,
it is just the beginning.

TURKEY HAS EFFECTIVE ROLE

Anadolu Agency (AA)
February 1, 2012 Wednesday
Turkey

Appeal of French denial law step to protect freedom of expression
Turkish Parliament Speaker Cemil Cicek said Turkey had effective
roles in several international organizations.

PALEMBANG Speaking to AA correspondent regarding the 7th conference of
the Parliamentary Union of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in
Indonesia, Cicek said that they were pleased that Mahmut Erol Kilic
was re-elected the secretary general of the Union.

Cicek has praised a move by French lawmakers to appeal a law that
makes it a crime to deny Armenian allegations on Ottoman era incidents
of 1915.

“Contesting this law on the merits of its constitutionality is a
positive step taken towards protecting the principle of freedom of
expression,” Cemil Cicek said in a press release.

ERDOGAN: WE WON’T REMAIN SILENT TOWARDS ESCALATING RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND ISLAMOPHOBIA IN EUROPE

Anadolu Agency
Feb 1 2012
Turkey

ANKARA (A.A) -February 1, 2012 -Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has said that Turkey would not remain silent towards racism,
xenophobia and Islamophobia which was insidiously escalating in Europe.

The current scene in France is the manifestation of this stealthy
danger in Europe, added Erdogan who spoke at his Justice & Development
(AK) Party meeting in Ankara on Wednesday.

Recently, French Senate adopted a law which penalizes the denial of
Armenian allegations regarding 1915 incidents during Ottoman Empire
period. Under the law, people, who deny the Armenian allegations,
are sentenced to one year in prison and 45,000 euro fine. On Tuesday,
77 senators and 65 parliamentarians in France applied to French
Constitutional Council for the annulment of the law. The Council will
announce its decision within a month.

Erdogan thanked those senators and parliamentarians, and said that
they launched an important initiative to prevent a historic mistake.

He noted that this racist and separatist law, which limited freedom
of thought and expression, would harm both Turkish-French relations
and France’s own values.

Erdogan expressed belief that the French Council would act with common
sense and make a decision which would not be against the values of
France and the European Union.

Everybody admitted that this initiative in France is not for clarifying
1915 incidents, said Erdogan, adding that French President Nicolas
Sarkozy was trying to gain advantage ahead of the upcoming elections
in his country.

There is a racist approach and mentality under this law, said Erdogan,
adding that Turkey would not remain silent towards the rising racism,
xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe.

Erdogan said that seeing this danger and taking measures against it
should be on the top of the agenda of the European Union.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SENATORS SEEK REVIEW OF LAW ON GENOCIDE DENIAL

France24 News
31/01/2012

A GROUP OF FRENCH SENATORS HAVE ASKED THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL TO
REVIEW A LAW PASSED LAST WEEK OUTLAWING THE DENIAL OF A GENOCIDE
RECOGNISED BY FRENCH LAW, NAMELY THE HOLOCAUST OR THE 1915-1916
MASSACRE OF ARMENIANS BY OTTOMAN TURKS.

AFP – A group of French senators said Tuesday they had asked the
constitutional council to examine a new law that punishes denial of
the Armenian genocide, effectively suspending the legislation.

Turkey reacted furiously last week when the Senate approved the law
which threatens with jail anyone in France who denies that the 1915
massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turk forces amounted to genocide.

President Nicolas Sarkozy’s office last Tuesday brushed off angry
threats of retaliation by Turkey and vowed to enforce the law within
a fortnight.

But the left-wing group of senators said Tuesday they had gathered
76 signatures from senators opposed to the law, more than the minimum
60 required to ask the council to examine the law’s constitutionality.

The council is obliged to deliver its judgement within a month,
but this can be reduced to eight days if the government deems the
matter urgent.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has denounced the law as
“tantamount to discrimination and racism”.

On Tuesday he hailed the French senators’ move, speaking on television.

Erdogan has warned that his Islamist-rooted government would punish
Paris with unspecified retaliatory measures if Sarkozy, whose
right-wing UMP party initiated the bill, signed it into law.

France has already officially recognised the killings as a genocide,
but the new law would go further by punishing anyone who denies this
with up to a year in jail and a fine of 45,000 euros ($57,000).

Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their forebears were killed in
1915 and 1916 by the forces of Turkey’s former Ottoman Empire.

Turkey disputes the figure, arguing that 500,000 died, and denies this
was genocide, ascribing the toll to fighting and starvation during
World War I and accusing the Armenians of siding with Russian invaders.

Armenia hailed the passage of the bill through the French Senate,
with President Serzh Sarkisian writing in a letter to Sarkozy:
“France has reaffirmed its greatness and power, its devotion to
universal human values.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DENIAL OF HOLOCAUST MAY ALSO BE APPEALED IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Aysor.am
February 01 2012

Nicolas Sarkozy: In case of abolishment of the draft law, the bill
criminalizing the denial of Holocaust will also be appealed in the
Constitutional Court.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed his discontent as French
lawmakers appealed the bill criminalizing Armenian Genocide in the
Constitutional Court, the “Le Monde” periodic reported.

According to the source, French President has particularly stated:
“In case of abolishment of the draft law, the bill criminalizing the
denial of Holocaust will also be appealed in the Constitutional Court.”

77 senators instead of 60 appealed the bill. France’s Constitutional
Court has one month to decide if the bill is in accord with the
country’s Constitution.

FRANCE’S TURKEY BASTE

The Weekly Times
February 1, 2012 Wednesday
Australia

TURKEY’S Union of Agricultural Chambers will begin a boycott of all
French agricultural products after Paris approved a law criminalising
denial of the Armenian genocide.

The head of the Agricultural Union, Samsi Bayraktar, said his group
represented 5.4 million Turkish farmers and it had decided on the
boycott because the French decision on the Armenian issue disturbed
every Turkish citizen, the Middle East Monitor reports.

“The boycott will deal a blow to co-operation between Turkish and
French agronomists at both the economic and social levels,” he said.

He said he looked forward to the reaction of French farmers.

According to the Turkish Statistics Institute, last year Turkey’s
exports to France reached $6.9 billion, with imports from France
being valued at $8.6 billion.

PROF. DR. GUY CARCASSONNE: THIS BILL GOES AGAINST FRANCE’S PRINCIPLE OF INDEPENDENCE

Sabah
Feb 2 2012
Turkey

Commenting on the Armenian bill accepted by the French Senate, famous
legal professor Dr. Guy Carcassonne, “There are three principles that
make France the nation it is: Equality, independence and fraternity.

This sort of bill does not comply with independence. There is obscurity
present in the bill’s text, which is unacceptable when dealing with
criminal law.”

France’s famous constitutional law professor Guy Carcassonne
contributed to the text of appeal presented to the Constitutional
Council for the cancellation of the bill which intends to criminalize
the denial of Armenian allegations.

Prof. Dr. Guy Carcassonne (61), who is on the faculty for
Paris-Nanterre University and also teaches law at a number of the
world’s most prestigious universities, is also a constitutional
advisor. Carcassonne discussed the text submitted to the Constitutional
Council with Sabah and expressed that the bill does not comply with
France’s principle of independence. “I underlined two elements in
the text. The first being freedom of speech and the second being the
elusiveness present in the text. Obscurity is unacceptable when it
comes to issues involving criminal law,” states Carcassonne.

Is the draft bill being debated in the French Assembly just?

“I have no doubt that genocide transpired. However historical truths
are not the business of legislation. Not in France, nor in any other
country. There are three principles that make France the nation it
is: Equality, independence and fraternity. This sort of bill does not
comply with independence. Once the bill was passed certain senators
and ministers reacted and then took action. In light of the historical
camaraderie with Turkey, a significant majority want to ensure that
such legislation is at the very least respectful of the principles
in our constitution. It’s a good thing there was a majority.”

Which main subject titles were brought up in the text submitted to
the Constitutional Council?

“My theses are based on two fundamental elements. The first being
freedom of speech. This protects the freedom of speech even if
expressions and ideas are hurtful to others. If the person on the
other side does not agree with their opinions, they must absolutely
accept their right to express them. The French Constitution draws a
single line here: ideas or expression must not in any way harm another
individual or public order. This is a violation of constitutional
rights. However, this is not a situation that pertains to this. In
addition, there are significant differences between events such as the
Jewish genocide. The Jewish genocide was ruled as such in accordance
to an international agreement (Nuremberg, 1946). There is not a single
characteristic of the Jewish genocide that could be compared to the
Armenian genocide.

My second argument in my thesis is this: The assembly establishes a
punishment for a crime. The Constitution then applies that punishment
if the crime was ‘clearly’ and ‘definitely’ committed. First
of all it is completely unnecessary to punish the denial of an
incident that did not transpire in France. Secondly, the bill not
only intends to criminalize denial, but it also includes the term
‘extreme belittling.’ However, such terminology is obscure and its
meaning unclear. Thirdly, the bill refers to the denial or extreme
belittling of incidents recognized as genocide by France. Although
this is a reference to the French legislation established in 2001
labeling Armenian allegations as so-called genocide, there also exists
legislation referring to genocides in Ruanda and former Yugoslavia.

Nobody knows if this bill intends to include these genocides. Such
obscurity is unacceptable when it comes to debating criminal code.”

How would such a bill affect relations between two nations?

“The Council will make a decision within one month. When I think
rationally, I can say that I am optimistic of the results. That the
bill will endanger Turkey-France relations is definite. It is extremely
unnecessary to be put into such a situation. For hundreds of years
now, Turkey and France have had amicable relations. This friendship
will survive this rocky period and will continue for years to come
and I am very pleased about this.”

TURKEY’S FIGHT AGAINST SARKOZYISM

Today’s Zaman
Feb 2 2012
Turkey

France has been at the heart of intense debates for its recent
bill that criminalizes denying that the World War I-era killings of
Armenians constitute genocide. The French Parliament, specifically
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, has received harsh criticism from
Turkish politicians, who perceive the bill as an attack.

They argue against terming the killings of Armenians “genocide,” and
they oppose its negative implications for individual rights and the
freedom of expression. On Tuesday 77 senators and 65 députés appealed
to the country’s supreme Constitutional Council to overturn the bill.

The council is now expected to examine whether the bill, passed in
both houses of the French Parliament, violates the French constitution
and its foundation of freedom of expression.

Bugun’s Ahmet TaÅ~_getiren observes that Turkey has recently witnessed
those who planned to overthrow the government be put on trial, such
as the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer trials. But their mindset persists.

“The people of this mindset were actually quite happy to see that the
foreign affairs policy of the government, which has been supported
by many people, does not work anymore, and the government must now
bow its head to French stubbornness. They played the ‘good cop,’
suggesting that the government accept that the events 1915 were
indeed genocide, saying ‘If you give up and term them genocide,
Europe will love and accept you.’ This was a game France started,
but many opposition party members and media outlets made the game
benefit themselves. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
would be in such a tight position that it would either have to abandon
its argument, or its hope of entering the EU,” says TaÅ~_getiren. He
adds that the AK Party understood this and played the situation well
by attacking the bill for contradicting with individual rights and
freedoms. And the support of 142 French senators and lawmakers with
common sense will help the AK Party win this game.

Another columnist from the Bugun daily, Gultekin Avcı, in his article
“The secret aim of Sarkozyism,” says that despite fears and worries,
Turkey has handled the crisis with France well by remaining calm and
reasonable, while insisting on its argument. Avcı says: If Turkey’s
reaction had been more like the internal debates between the ruling
party and opposition parties, things would be much different. But when
it comes to a country’s foreign affairs, politicians should watch their
actions and words 100 times more carefully. “It is true that thousands
of Armenians live in France and the government has to consider the
common good. But there are also some logical reasons why we interpret
this bill as an attack on Turkey,” he says. Avcı describes the bill
as part of a policy of “Sarkozyism.” He says that, in parallel with
France’s obvious opposition to Turkey’s bid to enter the EU, the bill
can be rightfully seen as a move to leave Turkey alone both in Europe
and the Middle East, as is Sarkozy’s hope for the long run.