Month: February 2012

OIC GROUP TO SHUN FRENCH ‘GENOCIDE’ BILL

Hurriyet Daily News
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

Lawmakers from member countries of the Organization of the Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) have agreed to denounce a French law criminalizing
denial of Armenian genocide claims in a final declaration of their
conference, Anatolia news agency reported.

“This is going to be the first joint response from an international
meeting to the French bill which was adopted by the French Senate,”
said Emrullah Ä°Å~_ler, head of the Turkish delegation at the OIC
parliamentary assembly. The OIC Parliamentary Union has decided to
include a paragraph in the final declaration of their 7th conference in
Palembang, Indonesia, that shuns the French denial bill as “virtually
non-existent” after a proposal by Turkish delegates to the conference
and the backing of other members of the OIC Parliamentary Union.

Armenian Diaspora criticizes Clinton’s remarks on the bill

Meanwhile, the Armenian Diaspora group criticized U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton for her remarks on the French bill. “The
Obama-Biden administration – with Secretary Clinton’s latest remarks –
continues to dig itself deeper and deeper into a hole of complicity
in Turkey’s genocide denial,” said Armenian National Committee of
America (ANCA) Executive Director Aram Hamparian according to the
Armenian website Asbarez.

From: Baghdasarian

ANKARA RETAINS HOPE FOR NIXING FRENCH BILL

Hurriyet Daily News
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

There are positive developments on collecting the 60 signatures
required to challenge France’s “genocide” denial law, a Turkish
politician said, although the sufficient number had not yet been
reached.

“There are positive developments on the issue of signatures, but all
is not clear yet,” said Omer Celik, deputy chairman of the Justice
and Development Party (AKP), speaking in a TV broadcast yesterday.

Turkey is currently waiting for the conclusion of the legal process
in France. If the law is adopted Ankara will implement ready-prepared
sanctions against France, Celik said.

On the other hand, the European Union has expressed hope on
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia despite the current
Franco-Turkish spat.

“The EU supports good neighborly relations between states. We hope
Turkey and Armenia pass over these difficulties,” Jean-Maurice Ripert,
new head of the European Union Delegation to Turkey, told reporters
after meeting with Turkey’s EU Minister Egemen BagıÅ~_ yesterday.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said last week he was disappointed
by the silence of the European Union on the matter. If any candidate
country to the EU had implemented such a law, the union would have
raised the issue, included it in its progress reports, and made its
removal a precondition of entry, he said, adding that Turkey expected
the EU to impose sanctions on France.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also claimed Turkey was keeping
up its efforts for the French senators who objected to the denial
law to apply to the Constitutional Council.

The law passed by the French Senate criminalizes denial of Armenian
genocide allegations.

NEW RESIDENCE LAW ‘TRAUMA’ FOR STUDENTS FROM ARMENIA

Hurriyet Daily News
Jan 31 2012

Some families send their children to the basement of the Armenian
Protestant Church in GedikpaÅ~_a where they receive their school
education informally. DAILY NEWS photo

Children of Armenian workers that are enrolled in Turkish minority
schools are waiting apprehensively for a new foreigners’ residence
law as the new regulations could result in many foreigners being
expelled from the country.

“These kids have grown up in Turkey. This is where they received their
education. It will turn their lives upside down if they are sent
back,” Karekin Barsamyan, the director of the Mıhitaryan Private
Armenian High School in Istanbul’s NiÅ~_antaÅ~_ı neighborhood,
told the Hurriyet Daily News.

The law, which will only permit foreigners to reside in Turkey 90
days out of 180 unless they pay to obtain an insurance premium,
goes into effect tomorrow.

Sixty students from Armenia are enrolled in Armenian minority schools
across Istanbul, Barsamyan said, adding that the concept of being a
“guest student” had already led to traumatic problems for the children.

“A person who resides in Turkey for three months has to wait for
another three months before going back into Turkey again according
to the new residence law. It’s possible that these kids’ education
is going to be disrupted,” he said.

The children were admitted into Armenian minority schools for the
2011-2012 education year by means of a special permit granted by
the Education Ministry. They receive education under the status of a
“guest student,” which means they receive neither report cards nor
diplomas. Students enrolled in minority schools must hold Turkish
citizenship based on the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, while pupils are
further affected by the restrictive Armenian Schools Law that was
passed in the 1940s.

“Even though this law seems to be universal, the real target is the
people from Armenia. Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan had openly
hurled threats in 2010. The government contradicts itself. On one hand,
it grants the status of a ‘guest student’ to the children and says
it will enact new legal arrangements while trying to deport families
on the other,” Pastor Krikor Agabaloglu of the Armenian Protestant
Church in Istanbul’s GedikpaÅ~_a neighborhood told the Daily News.

Angered at the time by foreign parliaments passing motions related
to the events of 1915, Erdogan threatened in 2010 to retaliate by
deporting up to “100,000” Armenian citizens living illegally in Turkey.

Some families send their children to the basement floor of the
Armenian Protestant Church in GedikpaÅ~_a where they receive education
informally so as to avoid exposing their identities.

“Yes, those who pay 400 Turkish Liras in insurance premiums will be
able to continue residing [in Turkey] in accordance with the new law,
but almost 90 percent of those coming here are women, and the wages
they earn are too low. They cannot meet this price. As a church, we
strive to help them materially and spiritually to get them to hold
onto life. Our [means] are inadequate, however,” Agabaloglu said,
adding that he condemned the new law.

All these women are university graduates who found employment in
patient care, baby-sitting and house labor to meet their families’
needs, he said. “I call on people’s conscience. Do not let this law
go through.”

STAY OUT OF KARABAKH, NALBANDIAN TELLS TURKEY

Hurriyet Daily News
Jan 31 2012

If Turkey wants to contribute Nagorno-Karabakh issue, it should stay
away from the process, Nalbandian says.

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian called on Turkey to not
involve itself in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue if it wants to make
any contribution.

“If Turkey really wants to contribute to the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, it should stay as far as possible from the
process,” Nalbandian said, according to the armradio website yesterday.

Responding to a question on the recent statement of Turkish Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu that France should withdraw from the OSCE
Minsk Group as it could no longer remain neutral, Nalbandian said,
“These are senseless statements. The bill adopted by the French Senate
is not directed against any concrete country.

“When Turkey says that only Armenians speak of genocide, it is the
same as to say that only Jews speak about Holocaust,” Nalbandian said,
adding that Turkey cannot keep the Armenian border closed forever. A
subcommittee on Nagorno-Karabakh under the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE) is likely to suspend, said the Armenian
delegation to PACE, according to the ArmeniaNow website.

“The newly appointed president of PACE, French Jean-Claude Mignon, is
believed to have a more pro-Armenian stance than the former president,
Turkish Mevlut CavuÅ~_oglu,” said the website, adding that Mignon
had offered to “reconsider the expediency of the subcommittee’s work.”

The PACE bureau proposed to discuss resumption of the subcommittee’s
work after discussing the issue with the delegations of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, according to the website. The subcommittee’s work on the
issue prevents the Minsk Group from having the “exclusive rights”
to the Karabakh issue settlement, according to the website.

TURKEY’S CHALLENGE TO FRENCH CO-CHAIRMANSHIP

Today’s Zaman
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoglu has spoken out once again
in opposition of France remaining part of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, following its adoption
of a law criminalizing the denial of the 1915 Armenian ‘genocide.’

On CNN Turk’s Egrisi Dogrusu program, Davutoglu declared that either
France should resign its co-chairmanship or Turkey should be made a
co-chair. This follows President Abdullah Gul’s proposal that France
end its involvement in the mediation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
given that through this bill, it has renounced its neutrality. During
the program, leading journalist Taha Akyol asked whether Azerbaijanis
will call upon France to leave the Minsk Group.

In fact, Azerbaijan has on multiple occasions questioned the Minsk
Group’s efforts on the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; there
has already been discussion of France’s position in the Minsk Group,
as well as the possibility of bringing in Turkey as co-chair. In the
recent protest against the French bill, Azerbaijani youth demanded
France leave the Minsk Group. There is a strong belief among the
Azerbaijani public that France is not neutral and that any future
promises of objectivity are tempered by this new law. The key question
today, in my opinion, is not simply the neutrality of the group’s
co-chairs. There is a complex matrix of demands and alliances at play,
including the suggested exclusion of France, challenges to the Minsk
Group’s role in the resolution process and the possible inclusion
of Turkey.

The Minsk Group since its inception has almost exclusively focused
on peacemaking — i.e. efforts toward achieving an agreement rather
than a comprehensive solution. Following the 2004 Prague Process,
more space was given to direct talks between the conflict parties.

Disappointed that the Minsk Group had not achieved even a basic outline
of a conflict resolution strategy, the Azerbaijani public was and
remains skeptical of the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries’
objectivity. The Kazan meeting in June 2011, held before the official
meeting with the OSCE Minsk Group, was the most promising meeting
to date. It seems perhaps the OSCE Minsk Group never really served
as an effective mediator. It lacks the necessary carrot-and-stick
policies to actually persuade the parties to make concessions. During
the negotiation process, both sides on occasion accused the OSCE of
being biased.

Under these circumstances, anyone might question the effectiveness
of the current framework for negotiations. Questioning the neutrality
of France or other Minsk Group co-chairs is in fact coming very late
in the game — the world’s largest and most influential Armenian
communities are concentrated in the three co-chair countries of
the current OSCE Minsk Group. The US, despite initial opposition
from the State Department, provides direct financial aid to the
separatist authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia is Armenia’s main
military and political ally, and France, with its traditional strong
cultural and social relations with Armenia, is its main lobbyist in
the European arena. Russia was and still is something of an unknown
quantity with regard to this conflict; in some situations, it has
acted in support of Armenia, while in other cases, it has strongly
advocated for peaceful conflict resolution. The US policy towards
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has always been pulled in opposing
directions, with its domestic politics (the influence of the Armenian
diaspora) in conflict with its economic and strategic interests in
the Caspian region. France has never had much incentive to act as
an honest broker in terms of eliciting Armenian concessions, which
would dissatisfy French-Armenians.

In this regard, i.e. if the current negotiations under the Minsk Group
format do not seem to be geared towards genuine conflict resolution, is
it time to be discussing Turkey’s inclusion? Even if Azerbaijan were to
propose such a plan, there are a number of obstacles that preclude it.

Firstly, none of the current mediators can afford to withdraw or
terminate the mediation efforts under the current format. Their
national interests are at stake, and they are not keen to initiate
another mediator. Secondly, Armenia as direct party to the conflict
has always opposed Turkey’s involvement in the resolution process
and strongly objects to the possibility of Turkey taking on the role
of co-chair.

I asked this question to Gerard Libaridian, former senior adviser to
Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian and current professor in the
history department at the University of Michigan, who said: “Ahmet
Davutoglu has always struck me as a most intelligent and visionary
statesman. It is unfortunate that he is increasingly grounding that
vision in failed experiments in history, for example the late Ottoman
Empire with its failed reforms and the consequences of those willful
failures, as well as the more recent Minsk Group process, which can
best be characterized as still-born mediation.”

Thirdly, current negotiations under the auspices of the Minsk Group
are not doing enough to change the perceptions of the warring parties,
to transform their “zero-sum game” mentalities to visions of a win-win
solution, a shift that is essential to the solution of the conflict.

In this respect, it is also important to bear in mind that Turkey’s
inclusion in the Minsk Group could be good opportunity to reinvigorate
the negotiations, but it is almost certain that not only would Armenia
directly oppose such a proposal, the other Minsk Group countries
would say — diplomatically — there is “no need to change the
existing format.”

For these reasons, opening the debate on France’s exclusion or
Turkey’s inclusion will not be productive and is not something that
Azerbaijan can do. It would be naïve to believe Azerbaijan could
present a considerable challenge to France’s co-chair position;
the co-chairs were specially appointed by the OSCE at the Budapest
Summit in December 1994 to lead the Minsk group.

To return to the question of the new French law, Turkey has tried to
recruit 60 French MPs to ask the constitutional council to examine the
bill to determine whether it is constitutional. If Turkey succeeds in
blocking the bill, will Ankara still push for France’s abdication of
its Minsk Group seat? I think Ankara’s energy could be best directed
towards challenging the Minsk Group’s role in the resolution process;
in any case, due to the forthcoming elections in all three Minsk
Group co-chair countries as well as Armenia, most of us have already
accepted that 2012 is a lost year.

FRENCH PARLIAMENTARIANS APPEAL GENOCIDE BILL, TURKEY APPLAUDS MOVE

Today’s Zaman
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

French parliamentarians appealed to the country’s supreme
Constitutional Council to overturn a bill that penalizes denial of
Armenian genocide claims, a development that raised prospects of
annulment of the controversial legislation which has angered Turkey.

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

At least 60 signatures from either houses of parliament, the
Senate or the National Assembly, are needed to appeal a bill at the
Constitutional Council.

Some 77 senators from across the political divide made the appeal
to the court. Another 65 lawmakers in the lower house agreed to
the appeal.

The 11-member Constitutional Council has 30 days to decide whether
the legislation is unconstitutional. But it may be forced to rule in
eight days if the government requests an emergency decision.

The bill, which received final parliamentary approval on Jan. 23,
needs to be approved by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who backs
it, in order to go into effect. But the Constitutional Council may
now annul it on grounds of violating the French constitution before
it gets to Sarkozy.

The Constitutional Council, whose 11 members include former presidents
and others appointed by the president, and presidents of the Senate
and the National Assembly, rule on conformity of legislation after
they have been voted by Parliament and before they are signed into law
by the president. Former French presidents Valerie Giscard d’Estaing
and Jacques Chirac are currently members of the council, headed by
Jean-Louis Debre.

If the bill goes into effect, those who deny that the killings
of Armenians during World War I in eastern Anatolia amounted to
genocide will face punishment. It sets a punishment of up to one
year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros for those who deny or
“outrageously minimize” the killings — putting such action on par
with denial of the Holocaust.

Turkey has protested the bill, saying it is an attack on freedom of
expression. It has also warned it would impose unspecified sanctions if
the measure eventually goes into effect. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan attacked the French parliament for passing what he said was
“discriminatory and racist” legislation.

Turkey hails appeal On Tuesday, Erdogan praised the French
parliamentarians for seeking to reject the bill. “This is what befits
France. The senators did what befits France,” he told reporters.

Observers say French senators and lawmakers were under intense
pressure from leaders of their parties in order to not appeal the
legislation, in order not to upset ethnic Armenian voters ahead of
upcoming presidential elections. Both incumbent President Sarkozy
and opposition Socialist Party’s contender Francois Hollande are
candidates in the upcoming polls.

“Both opposition and government party leaders imposed pressure on
senators and National Assembly members so that this bill is signed
into law quickly,” Turkish Ambassador to France Tahsin Burcuoglu said
in televised comments after the French parliamentarians appealed the
bill. “It is never easy for politicians to do it. They have shown
courage and I thank them for this,” Burcuoglu said.

President Abdullah Gul also lauded the move, saying he knew “the
French would not allow such a shadow to be cast over their country.”

“The Constitutional Court will deliver the right decision,” Gul told
reporters during a visit to Dubai. “Freedoms are the most important
source of strength for a country. And the freedom of expression
is what lies at the heart of freedoms. This bill is detrimental to
freedom of expression.”

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also praised the French
parliamentarians, saying they “stood up for their own values.”

“What needs to be done now is to wait patiently for the outcome of
the process at the Constitutional Council. I hope the Turkish-French
friendship will win in the end,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

HRANT’S FRIENDS CALL ON STATE TO PUNISH PERPETRATORS

Today’s Zaman

Jan 31 2012
Turkey

In their ongoing search for justice, a group of people who identify
themselves as “Hrant’s Friends” released a press statement on Tuesday
calling on the government to punish the perpetrators in the 2007 murder
of journalist Hrant Drink, a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent.

Civil society was outraged when the Ä°stanbul 14th High Criminal Court
issued its ruling in the 25th hearing of the Dink case this month,
ending a five-year trial. The main suspects, Yasin Hayal and Erhan
Tuncel, as well as all other suspects were cleared of charges of
membership in a terrorist organization. Tuncel was given 10 years,
six months for an unrelated McDonald’s bombing in 2004.

Tuncel was previously a police informant, but was accused of being
an instigator of the Dink murder. He said the murder was the work
of Ergenekon, a clandestine organization whose alleged members are
currently standing trial in court cases on charges of plotting to
overthrow the government.

The late editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, Dink
was shot dead on Jan. 19, 2007 by an ultranationalist teenager, Ogun
Samast, outside the offices of his newspaper in Ä°stanbul in broad
daylight. Evidence discovered since then has led to claims that the
murder was linked to the “deep state,” a term used in reference to
a shady group of military and civilian bureaucrats believed to have
links to criminal elements.

Reading the press statement on behalf of Hrant’s Friends, journalist
Umit Kıvanc stated:

“The government says: We did everything the judiciary demanded of us.

And we say: It’s shameful to say that because, first of all, there
have been so many things that you could have done but did not. Second,
the court was scandalous not because of its verdict but because of the
way it was set up from the beginning. You did not do the things that
were required of you. All of the officials who destroyed evidence,
forged documents, altered documents, made fun of the lawyers who
have been trying hard to make their voices heard during the trial,
they are all your employees. Had you given real support to justice,
none of these disgraceful events would have occurred. You managed to
achieve something unbelievable, being an accomplice, in the act that
appears to have targeted your government. Congratulations.”

The statement then provided examples of what was not done in the
trial. The group also gave the names of top officials who allegedly
engaged in gross negligence of duty in the process that led to
Dink’s murder.

“No doubt, we should start with MÄ°T [the National Intelligence
Organization]. No information came out from the state’s most important
intelligence agency regarding the murder of Hrant Dink. When the court
demanded information from them, they said, ‘We have no information.’ A
serious government would ask how come they don’t have any information
in that regard,” the statement said.

The statement also said it became clear that Trabzon police had tapped
the phone lines of some suspects and even physically followed them,
but when the court asked for those records, the Trabzon police said
they did not tap any phone lines in relation to the murder:

“However, the police chief said Trabzon did do it. When their lies
came out, Trabzon police said they erased those records. Some of the
records that could be acquired they forged.”

The statement also mentioned the Ä°stanbul Police Department’s deletion
of video footage around the murder site:

“The Ä°stanbul Police Department’s actions in relation to the
assassination of Hrant Dink are scandalous. Concealing the notification
of the planned murder and then forging documents would be enough. All
of that remained unpunished. Fine. Ä°stanbul police destroyed video
footage of the crime scene on the day of the murder. …

Did the interior minister and the prime minister ask anyone about
what happened and why that footage was deleted?”

The statement goes on to provide more examples, resistance from the
Telecommunications Directorate (TÄ°B) as it for years failed to provide
the court the records of phone conversations of suspects and the
deletion of Tuncel’s MSN conversation records by the Ä°stanbul police.

Hrant’s Friends point out “untouchable” officials allegedly responsible
for Dink’s murder:

Muammer Guler, who was the governor of Ä°stanbul at the time and
currently a lawmaker, is listed as being responsible because Dink was
threatened by two MİT officials, Ozel Yılmaz and Handan Selcuk,
at the office of Deputy Governor Ergun Gungör. Other individuals
listed as being responsible for Dink’s assassination include Osmaniye
Governor Celalettin Cerrah, who was the Ä°stanbul chief of police at
the time of the murder; Ahmet Ä°lhan Guler, then head of intelligence
at the Ä°stanbul Police Department; ReÅ~_at Altay, then Trabzon police
chief; Engin Dinc, then head of intelligence at the Trabzon Police
Department and the man who told the Ä°stanbul Police Department that
Dink was going to be killed; police officers Faruk Sarı, Ozkan Mumcu,
Muhittin Zenit and Mehmet Ayhan, who were in direct contact with Tuncel
at the Trabzon Police Department; Ä°stanbul police officers Ä°brahim
Pala, Ä°brahim Å~^evki Eldivan, Volkan Altınbulak, Bahadır Tekin and
Ozcan Ozkan, who forged documents; Ali Oz, the then commander of the
Trabzon Gendarmerie Command, who covered up information regarding
plans to murder Dink; and Ramazan Akyurek, who was the chief of
police in Trabzon when Tuncel was made an informant and who held
the same position when the information regarding the planned Dink
assassination reached his office.

“They get angry with us when we say the state is a murderer. However,
they have been making fun of us for five years as we have not given
into our anger. These words are not statements made out of anger. They
are an expression of the situation. Come and do something different
and we will never use that word again. Can you do that?” the statement
said in conclusion.

FRANCE-TURKEY: THE NIGHT WILL END
by Maxime Gauin*

Today’s Zaman
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

The Armenian claims have been discussed in the French Parliament since
1975 (rejected in 1975, 1985, 1987 and 1996, adopted from 1998-2001),
but, clearly, the discussions and the vote had never come so far.

What has happened since December could appropriately be called
the culmination of stupidity. One senator, Sophie Joissains of
the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP or Union for a Popular
Movement), elected from Bouches-du-Rhône — the county with the most
vituperative Armenian community of France — even expressed regret
that the Treaty of Sèvres was never implemented. On the other hand,
if in the National Assembly chairman of the Franco-Turkish Friendship
group, Michel Diefenbacher, was a bit alone in maintaining honor by
his good speech delivered against the Boyer bill, a significant number
of members of parliament fought the text fiercely in the Senate,
accumulating motions of dismissal, cancellation of amendments and
speeches to defend their position.

The responsibility falls primarily on Nicolas Sarkozy, who pressured
the UMP group to either abstain from voting or vote for the bill.

Indeed, the main change in comparison to the vote of May 4, 2011,
when the previous Armenian bill was rejected, is the change of votes
within the UMP: 19 voted against, but 137 did so on May 4, 2011; 56
abstained, but only 10 did during the preceding vote; 57 voted for,
but only nine did the last year. The Socialist group was pressured as
well, but the results were much more mixed: On May 4, 2011, 21 voted
against the bill, 39 for and 55 abstained; on January 23, 2012, 26
voted against, 56 for and 48 abstained. In addition to the courageous
fight of the Socialist chairman of the Law Committee, who presented in
vain a motion of dismissal, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee
Jean-Louis Carrère, also a Socialist, repeatedly expressed his anger
against the bill and voted accordingly. Other examples can be provided.

We have not been closer to a rupture in Turkish-French relations since
the Ankara Agreement of 1921. Regardless, paradoxically, the crisis
can be resolved by the collapse of Armenian nationalism in France.

Indeed, the Boyer bill is totally unconstitutional (a violation of
free speech, among other rights) and is backed by a January 2001 law
of that recognizes the unsubstantiated “Armenian genocide” claims.

Article 34 of the French Constitution precisely defines the scope
of the law and there is no legal value for simple statements. The
jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council is clear: When two laws
are closely connected, and when someone is apprehended for having
violated one of them, the council can check both; if an article of law
is pure rhetoric, it is simply censored. As a result, if 60 senators
(among the 86 who voted against) take the issue to the Constitutional
Council, the two bills will be thrown out. If not, the first person
to be charged could file a Priority Question of Constitutionality; it
would take more time, but the result would be exactly the same. In any
case, the Armenian nationalist leaders would have to explain to their
activists why they vehemently supported the suicidal second bill. The
strident hostility of most editorialists, of many historians, jurists
and other intellectuals as well as many ordinary citizens, shows that
the throwing out of these bills would be welcomed. For the moment, the
Turkish government’s reactions are relatively quiet, chiefly because
of this constitutionality problem. That is why we can hope that the
Armenian nationalists will not completely achieve their traditional
objective: to create crisis between Turkey and other countries.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) joined the Italian Fascists
and the Nazi regime in the 1930s not only for ideological reasons, but
also with the hope of sparking a war with Ankara. The ARF shamelessly
joined the USSR in 1972 to participate in the destabilization of a
NATO member. Since 1987, hindering the Turkish candidacy to the EU
has been one of the main objectives of Armenian nationalist groups.

On the other hand, it would be totally wrong for the Turkish side to
simply wait in the hope that the Constitutional Council finishes off
Armenian nationalism in France. Turkey believed Armenian nationalism
was dead in 1923, for example, but it was not. More particularly for
the current French case, the pressures on the Socialist group are
mostly due to the close relations between ARF leader Mourad Papazian
and the Socialist candidate for the presidency, Francois Hollande.

There is no miraculous method through which to seize the current
situation and thoroughly crush Armenian nationalism in France.

However, there are partial, efficient solutions. One of them is to
organize, by all legal means, the defeat of a significant number of
deputies who voted for the Boyer bill in the National Assembly.

Another is to finally translate into French the main scholarly
contributions to the Armenian question and other sensitive aspects of
Ottoman and Turkish history published during the last 20 years — those
of Ferudun Ata, Edward J. Erickson, Yusuf Halacoglu, Guenter Lewy,
Justin McCarthy and others. More generally, relations with France
(the second-largest investor in Turkey) deserve new, additional,
permanent structures and, in such a perspective, US-Turkish relations
could provide a certain inspiration.

Between 1921 and 1922 the Franco-Turkish alliance was restored, in
great part by two ministers of foreign affairs: Raymond Poincaré
from the center right and Aristide Briand from the center left. We
could have a kind of new Raymond Poincaré with Alain Juppé. A new
Aristide Briand is wanted.

*Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research

Organization (USAK) in Ankara.

TURKEY NEEDS TO DEVISE A 2015 STRATEGY

Today’s Zaman
*.html
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

The recent step by France with respect to the 1915 incidents represents
a great victory for the Armenians before 2015, the 100th anniversary
of the incidents.

The rising image of France, which kept its promises to the Armenians,
may appeal to the leaders of other countries where the Armenian
diaspora has been active. Leaders who exerted efforts to attract the
support of Armenians in elections have more often than not changed
their attitude and stance after the elections; in most cases, they
failed to keep the promises they made during their election campaigns.

This situation has now been changed.

Yerevan welcomed the French move, as evidenced by joyous demonstrations
held around the French Embassy by Armenians and political party
representatives. In particular, old ladies hugged the French diplomats
and officers there and sobbed; this sends a clear message and signal
as to what sort of sensitivities should be held on the matter. Turkey,
which failed to appreciate and notice the growing French investments
in Armenia following an important visit by Nicolas Sarkozy to Yerevan
in October, was shocked by the French move and started new discussions
on French policy.

As these discussions now focus on what kind of attitude Turkey should
adopt vis-à-vis France, the Armenian side refers to this ironic
situation as surprising; it seems Turkey has been ignoring the main
points — that is to say, the 1915 and Armenian issues. Armenian
experts note that Turkey should develop dialogue with Armenia
immediately and recall that they do not understand why Turkey is
focusing on potential measures against France.

The Armenian authorities last year set up an international commission
for the remembrance and commemoration of the 100th anniversary of
the Armenian genocide; the commission has so far engaged in lobbying
activities and carried out a number of studies as well as completed
scientific research concerning 2015. Likewise, Armenia has intensified
its ties with the diaspora; to this end, they held meetings where they
decided to generate policies focusing on the link between Armenia,
the diaspora and Nagorno-Karabakh.

In fall 2011, at the Pan-Armenian Congress, where a number of Armenians
from different countries participated and which focused on the
intensification of ties with the diaspora, domestic and international
developments were discussed; the congress also discussed several
matters on youth, language and education, preparations towards the
100th anniversary of the genocide and improvement of relations with
the diaspora.

‘The diaspora should be fed by the homeland’

President Serzh Sarksyan, who said, “Our formulation is clear: We
want the maximum of the homeland opportunities for the diaspora and
the maximum of the diaspora opportunities for the homeland,” stated
the need for the diaspora and the importance attached to it at the
Pan-Armenian Congress as follows: “The diaspora and the homeland
should ensure their mutual survival. The diaspora should be fed by the
homeland in political, cultural, scientific, health and sports terms;
and the homeland should also be fed by the diaspora as well.”

The gains of Armenia and the diaspora may of course be linked to the
decision of the Jewish lobby in the West to no longer support Turkey.

However, this could only have a limited impact based on the political
reflex considering the intricate web of relations in the Caucasus,
particularly along the Israel-Azerbaijan and Iran axis. In addition,
some unexpected developments may take place with regard to the
Armenian genocide up until 2015. In this case, Turkey needs to devise a
short-term strategy on 2015 and drop its longstanding traditional and
routine policies. This strategy should complement the normalization
process with Armenia and focus on existing problems rather than
imitating the steps of the diaspora. Turkey should realize that
the publication of some books in response to thousands of scholarly
accounts on the historical aspect of the problem will not do anything
influential; instead, focusing on public diplomacy may alleviate the
fever. Considering that it is not possible to train genocide experts
in a very short time, it will be appropriate to rely on civilian
democracy and the improvement of economic relations.

Institutions which have firsthand ties with Armenia should be supported
to create a common bridge in Turkey. This should be considered in
reference to additional efforts on educational, economic, cultural
and political relations. As part of bilateral educational cooperation,
comprehensive programs may be developed to attract students in Turkish
studies departments in Armenia and Armenian youngsters who speak
the Turkish language. The Yunus Emre Institute has been pursuing a
similar strategy in a number of countries.

In order to improve commercial ties with Armenia, the relevant think
tanks focusing on economic affairs might be supported to resolve the
problems in bilateral commercial relations through joint action.

Considering that 70 percent of the Armenian people support this type
of action, it becomes apparent that immediate steps should be taken on
this matter. In cultural terms, an approach of civilian diplomacy by
which both sides would recognize each other should be advanced. The
parties and people who have never seen an Armenian or a Turk in
their whole life should be brought together. Political relations
will represent the final stage of this process, where Turkish foreign
policy will secure great achievements in this conflict-torn region.

By approaches that consider the sensitivities and demands of the
Armenian side without turning a blind eye to the reality and truth,
Turkey may gain a more prestigious place in the eyes of the Armenian
people than the one France has gained and facilitate the resolution
of common problems. An Armenia which has to buy agricultural devices
from Belarus will be able to have the chance of purchasing its needs
from Turkey after the resolution of its problems. If reconciliation
is desired, increased attention should be paid to the process of
normalization.

*Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu is a strategic outlook expert with the Yerevan
European Regional Academy.

FRENCH BILL AND READERS’ COMMENTS

Today’s Zaman
Jan 31 2012
Turkey

I have just read that the French bill to criminalize the denial of
Armenian genocide has been brought before the French Constitutional
Court.

The bill has provoked hot debate not only in Turkey but across
the globe. In my article (“French bill again”) that was published
by Today’s Zaman last week attracted quite fervent reactions from
readers: some support me, some criticize and some have brought new
perspectives on the subject. Sometimes we columnists need to give
the floor to our readers. In this context, I would like to share
some comments from my readers that I have received through emails,
Facebook, Twitter and from readers’ comments posted under my column
on In order to fit them into my space, I have
shortened some of them; I apologize in advance to my readers if my
shortened versions cause the loss of some sense from their comments.

Here they are:

>From Vahe: “This is a solemn moment for all Armenians who long suffer
from Turkey’s denial and the silence of those countries who were
observers at the time of the genocide.”

>From Ararat: “Turkish leaders and politicians are insincere
opportunists. Each and every Turkish government over the years has
acted and reacted [in] the same manner in regards to the Armenian
issue. Every time this issue has come up anywhere they have tried to
buy their way out of it. They have never tried to have a dialogue with
their victims.” From Jack: “Turkey was given a chance at immense US
expense to clear the matter in 2009. It chose not to do that. Okay,
things will remain as they are and in about 15-20 years the last
Armenians will leave Turkey insuring a pure Turkic country forever.

Congratulations.” From Mani: “Yes, Orhan, perhaps Sarkozy is trying to
hit a few birds with one stone. He is a politician after all. However,
we all know and I think you agree that Sarkozy in this case is not
the main relevant issue. The denial of the Armenian genocide by Turkey
is HURTING Turkey more than if it was to admit to it and open to the
reality of taking the path of truth and justice. If anything, Turkey
should take Germany as its model and the civil path that Germany took
after the Holocaust and murdering millions of people.”

>From Anastasia: “Orhan, referring to your article about the
French bill, I would like to go even further and say that Armenians
themselves should oppose the bill because: 1. They have a moral duty
towards their forefathers to protect them from being used by a mean
political opportunism; 2. Coercitive legal measures are of no use for
a progress in denialists’ consciousness … nor do they contribute
to the redemption of the victims, since the authors of the genocide
do not recognize and assume their crimes; 3. Instead of focusing on
denialism and criminalization of denialists, they would better turn
their attention to positive actions and give their support to those
brave and honest people in Turkey, who serve their cause; [and] 4.

Finally, Armenians have to get rid of a static vision of Turkish
politics, or at least appreciate all this preparatory work, done by
journalists, intellectuals, etc. towards the awakening of the public
opinion in Turkey. If this preliminary work is not accomplished,
the Turkish government cannot recognize Armenians’ massacres as
a genocide.”

>From Ralph: “How can Orhan Kemal Cengiz, of all people, conflate
and confuse distinct issues — unless the subject has disturbed
him beyond sense. The premeditated and meticulously orchestrated
massacre by the Young Turk ‘junta’ of the Armenians of Anatolia,
by various means, not least the death march (one copied by Tito)
fully fits the definition and intent of racial genocide. This is quite
distinct from French political ‘conspiracy’ — as claimed by many —
to ‘use’ the issue to garner votes from the French Armenian diaspora
(if indeed this is the sole motive — doubtful. Surely some/many
proponents and supporters of the bill are sincere). Above all,
the fact remains that modern Turkey, and apparently the majority
of the citizens of Turkey, have failed dismally to come to terms
with the dreadful events of 1915 perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish
authorities, nationalist and racist and murderous, of that time, many
of whom became protagonists and prominent figures in the founding
and evolution of the Republic of Turkey. Most bewildering is Orhan’s
claim that the French bill, come law, to make denial of the Armenian
genocide a criminal offence, obstructs Turkish recognition of this
genocide. This is nonsensical. …

The French bill, whether to be approved by the president or not,
should encourage the people of Turkey to demand the same in their
own Parliament, to acknowledge the truth and bury the lie Turkey has
lived for almost a century. Let the citizens of Turkey be set free from
this dreadful denial of one of the greatest crimes of recent history.”

There are so many other brilliant, thought-provoking comments, but
my space has allowed me to only quote this much.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress