Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

Music in Belgium
1 janv 2012

GUERGUERIAN, River – Grooves for Odd Times

Né à Montréal (Canada) en 1967, ce percussionniste d’origine
�gypto-Arménienne vivant en Caroline du Nord est diplômé de la
Manhattan School of Music Conservatory.

à lire sa biographie, l’homme ne manque ni d’activités ni d’horizons.
Il semble avoir participé à plus de cent cinquante albums ou musiques
de films, à de nombreuses tournées à travers le monde en tant que
simple accompagnateur (BBC Concert Orchestra, Tibetan Singing Bowl
Ensemble, Tan Dun, Chuck Berry, ¦) ou associé à divers projets plus
personnels (Free Planet Radio, Talujon Percussion Ensemble). Il
s’intéresse aux musiques du monde et à leurs instruments spécifiques,
enregistre de la musique de méditation et de relaxation («?Trance?», «
Tibetan Bowl Meditation?», ¦) et enseigne. à une époque, il s’était
même retiré dans un sanctuaire Himalayen.

Son nouvel enregistrement, «?Grooves for Odd Times?», représente le
fruit d’un travail de cinq ans. à aucun moment, il ne déçoit et
dépasse largement le cadre strict de l’univers d’un percussionniste.
L’ensemble est équilibré, harmonieux, varié et quiet. La performance
technique n’apparaît jamais comme l’objectif ultime, au contraire de
la recherche d’atmosphères et de plénitude.

Les percussions sont nombreuses, parfois surprenantes, de toutes
formes et dimensions, de toutes sonorités et amplitudes, d’origines
géographiques diverses. Elles peuvent être employées sous leur forme
primitive ou adaptées aux technologies les plus modernes. Les
instruments à cordes sont également présents en quantité. �lectrifiés
la plupart du temps, violon, guitare, luths (oud et dotar) et basses
apportent ponctuellement une dimension forte ou particulière. Quant
aux didgeridoos (instruments à vent utilisés par les Aborigènes
australiens) et aux voix, ils créent de nouveaux climats ou de
nouvelles amplitudes.

River Guerguerian signe ici une Å`uvre originale, hors du temps et des
sentiers battus. Si vous appréciez les musiques ethniques non figées
dans leur espace restreint d’origine, les atmosphères cosmiques, les
sonorités moins convenues et les fusions au sens large, ce CD ne
pourra que vous ravir.

Les titres (46’59)?:

Boulevard (3’44)
Twenty Three Beats (2’20)
She Walked In (4’15)
Seven Tambourines (4’00)
Gong Lab (3’41)
Odd Reflection (4’55)
Seventeen Eights (5’16)
Overture Six (4’16)
Mud People (5’01)
Ten For You (3’26)
Overture (6’05)

Les interprètes?:
River Guerguerian?: Percussions diverses, Production & Compositions
Chris Rosser?: Oud (4, 9), Dotar (4, 10), Guitare électrique (5) &
Piano (3, 4, 10)
John Vorus?: Didgeridoos (4, 8, 9, 11)
Ducan Wickel?: Violon (3, 4)
Eliot Wadopian?: String Bass (1)
Jake Wolf?: Basse électrique (4, 9)
Kat Williams?: Voix (4, 8, 11)
Sage Sansone?: Voix (4, 8, 11)
Michael Lipsey?: Gongs (7) & Dun Dun (7)

Pays: US
River Guerguerian
Sortie: 2012/01/10

From: Baghdasarian

ITAR-TASS, Russia
January 1, 2012 Sunday 09:56 AM GMT+4

Azerbaijan reaches all 2011 objectives – President Aliyev

BAKU January 1

The year 2011 was successful for Azerbaijan, the country’s President
Ilham Aliyev said in his New Year address to the nation.

Aliyev stressed that “all basic tasks, which Azerbaijan faced, were
reached.” “We have assured successful economic growth of Azerbaijan.
It is very positive that the country’s oil sector grew rapidly in
2011.”

Azerbaijan’s currency reserves are over 40 billion dollars, the
president continued. Businesses offered about 100,000 new jobs, and
monetary revenues of the nation grew by almost 20 percent, the level
of inflation is not over eight percent. Unemployment has reduced to
5.5 percent.

“All these figures let us say that this country is developing very
dynamically and successfully,” Aliyev said.

Among the successes of Azerbaijan in 2011, the president named growth
of the nation’s wellbeing, important achievements in the energy
sector, including opening of new deposits of gas, which grew
sufficiently the gas potential of the country, organisation of the 1st
international humanitarian forum, which raised the role of the
republic in establishment of cultural and civilisation dialogues.
Aliyev highlighted election of Azerbaijan in 2011 non-permanent member
of the UN Security Council.

“I take it as our biggest victory over the 20-year period of our
independence. In the complicated fight we have achieved trust from the
entire international community,” he said, adding that over coming two
years Azerbaijan “will defend at the Security Council principles of
justice.”

Speaking about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Aliyev said that his
country will continue diplomatic and political efforts for settlement
of the problem.

“We follow a principle position at the negotiations. We shall not
deviate from it a single step,” he said stressing that Azerbaijan’s
territory integrity should be reconstructed, and the citizens should
return to the occupied lands.

“Only after it, long-term peace may be reached,” the president said.
“Hopes for negotiations are not over yet, and they should continue.”

From: Baghdasarian

The Australian
January 2, 2012 Monday
1 – All-round Country Edition

France a target over Armenia

BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL

DEATH threats against politicians and “cyber attacks” on Paris by
Turkish nationalists have followed the introduction of a law by
France’s national assembly that would make it illegal to deny Turkey’s
genocide against Armenia in the early years of the last century.

Valerie Boyer, an MP from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right
party, is under police protection after receiving anonymous death
threats for proposing the genocide bill that must be approved by the
Senate before becoming law.

At the same time, various websites, including Ms Boyer’s and that of
the Senate, have been blocked by Turkish nationalist groups.

An enraged Turkey withdrew its ambassador for consultations and
announced a freeze on military co-operation with France after the
national assembly approved the legislation last month. Ankara has
threatened further sanctions if the French Senate approves the law,
which would impose a one-year prison sentence and a fine of E45,000 on
offenders. “If the proposal becomes law, this unjust measure will be
contested in all possible ways,” Turkey’s national security council
said in a statement. Its Foreign Minister said the proposed law was
“an attack on our national dignity”.

It is not known when the Senate will begin debate.

A key supporter of the law is Charles Aznavour, the 87-year-old singer
of Armenian origin who wrote to Mr Sarkozy to thank him for supporting
the bill.

Mr Sarkozy is in the midst of preparations for a difficult re-election
campaign this year and pleasing Aznavour is considered a key to
winning 500,000 French-Armenian votes and support from the singer’s
extensive, if elderly, fan base. Despite announcing a “farewell
tour” in 2006, Aznavour, or “Le Grand Charles”, is still performing
after a career spanning seven decades.

He enjoys the title of “national hero” in Armenia and in 2009 became
the Armenian ambassador to Switzerland, where he lives. He is
regularly rated in polls as among the most popular figures in France.

Unpopular at home, “Sarko”, who is trailing in the polls behind
Francois Hollande, the Socialist candidate, has become a Turkish hate
figure. Even before his support for the genocide bill he had incurred
the wrath of Ankara by opposing Turkey’s application for membership of
the EU on the grounds that it was too big, too poor and too Muslim.

Mr Sarkozy is reported to have promised Aznavour years ago to promote
a law outlawing denial of the Armenian genocide. Aznavour reminded him
in March.

Alain Juppe, the Foreign Minister, is reportedly furious at seeing
French diplomacy hijacked. “This law will kill off dialogue with the
Turks,” he told Mr Sarkozy. “We mustn’t forget that the Turks have
just ordered 100 Airbuses and there are 1000 French companies doing
business in Turkey.”

In a meeting with his aides, Mr Juppe was apparently less diplomatic:
“Intellectually, economically and diplomatically, this law is an
unimaginable stupidity . . . all that to try and win back some
Armenian-French votes. It’s ridiculous.”

French business leaders fear a Turkish boycott if the law is passed by
the Senate.

From: Baghdasarian

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 2 2012

Turks in Russia condemn French bill

0 2 January 2012 / TODAY’S ZAMAN WITH WIRES, ?Ä?°STANBUL

Dozens of people from Turkey and the Azerbaijani diaspora living in
the Russian city of St. Petersburg staged a protest outside the city’s
French Consulate-General on Saturday to protest the French
parliament’s vote on a bill criminalizing denial of the alleged
Armenian genocide, the Cihan news agency reported Monday.

Close to 100 protestors waved placards and banners with messages
condemning France’s decision to pass the bill and chanted slogans
condemning French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Armenian President
Serzh Azati Sargsyan.

The protest, which was organized by the International Diaspora Center
(IDC), was supported by minorities in St. Petersburg from a number of
Turkic-speaking nations, including Turkey, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan.

Speaking at the protest, the group’s chairman, ?Ä?°smail A?Ä?ayev, said the
group had gathered to defend their freedom and condemn France’s
decision to pass such a bill. `We want to make a show of solidarity
and friendship with our Turkish brothers,’ he said.

Protestors also demanded that France be removed as one of the
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group. The OSCE Minsk Group, which was
created in 1992 by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) to encourage a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the landlocked region
Nagorno-Karabakh, is currently co-chaired by representatives from
France, the US and Russia.

At the end of the protest, which passed uneventfully, protestors
issued a letter of complaint and condemnation to a representative of
the consulate.

From: Baghdasarian

Le Monde, France
29 dec 2011

Le génocide arménien : le négationnisme d’Etat turc (3/3)

Professeur à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS),
Vincent Duclert est notamment spécialiste de l’affaire Dreyfus. Son
travail sur les mobilisations intellectuelles l’a amené à s’intéresser
à la question du génocide arménien, et au-delà, à la vie
intellectuelle en Turquie. Il a notamment publié un ouvrage sur les
engagements intellectuels turcs dans les années 2000, L’Europe
a-t-elle besoin des intellectuels turcs ? (Armand Colin, 2010) à
travers l’étude de plusieurs pétitions emblématiques de l’évolution de
la société turque, notamment celle du 15 décembre 2008 de demande de
pardon aux Arméniens pour la “grande catastrophe” de 1915. La
traduction de ce livre devait être publiée en Turquie par l’éditeur
Ragip Zarakolu, mais celui-ci a été arrêté comme “terroriste” le 29
octobre et ses manuscrits saisis. Vincent Duclert a co-fondé avec
Hamit Bozarslan, Cengiz Cagla, Yves Deloye, Diana Gonzalez et Ferhat
Taylan le Groupe international de travail (GIT) “Liberté de recherche
et d’enseignement en Turquie” ( et
)

Comment la recherche sur le génocide arménien avance-t-elle, malgré
tout, en Turquie ?

Il y a une élite intellectuelle de très grande qualité, qui a compris
qu’il y avait un devoir à la fois scientifique et civique de se saisir
du refoulé, d’envisager les questions interdites : le génocide
arménien, la nature de l’Etat kémaliste, présenté en Turquie comme le
modèle indépassable alors qu’il s’apparente aussi à des formes de
dictature, la guerre contre les Kurdes, la situation de l'”Etat
profond”, le pouvoir militaire, les réseaux religieux…

Ils veulent ouvrir ces dossiers, et sont prêts à prendre des risques
considérables : Taner Akçam a été emprisonné, avant de devoir s’exiler
; Hrant Dink, qui lui aussi a mené un travail très important avec sa
revue bilingue arméno-turque, a été assassiné en 2007 dans un contexte
de chasse à l’homme. Hrant Dink a été visé parce que ses travaux
tendaient à rappeler combien la société turque est en réalité
mélangée, complexe, et que c’est la prise en compte de ce tissage –
souvent tragique – qui permettrait de faire la paix avec le passé et
de préparer l’avenir. Et puis il n’y a pas que les problèmes ethniques
et religieux, il y a la place du genre, des femmes, des homosexuels…

Pour le gouvernement turc, le fait que des universitaires se décident
à étudier ces pans du passé constitue une menace pour l’intégrité de
la nation, pour la mémoire de Mustafa Kemal. Ils ne peuvent plus
incriminer un complot de l’étranger, même s’ils essaient par tous les
moyens de discréditer ces recherches et d’imposer le silence aux
chercheurs, y compris en recourant à l’emprisonnement et aux procès
arbitraires. Il est certain que le vote de la loi va rendre encore
plus difficile leur travail en les faisant passer, encore davantage,
pour des ennemis intérieurs.

Comment les intellectuels turcs peuvent-ils se tirer du piège dans
lequel la loi votée par l’Assemblée française le 22 décembre les place
: soutenir la loi, au risque de passer pour ennemis de la nation, ou
la rejeter, au risque de devoir s’allier à ceux qui nient le génocide
?

Lorsqu’il y avait eu la première tentative française de pénalisation
de la négation du génocide, en 2006, Hrant Dink et d’autres
intellectuels démocrates avaient protesté contre une loi qui
menacerait leurs recherches. En 2011, certains, notamment les membres
de l’association des droits de l’homme turque, ont souligné que le
plus important est de combattre le négationnisme.

Ils soulignent la vacuité des arguments officiels, notamment lorsque
le pouvoir affirme que cette loi française est contraire à la liberté
d’expression : en Turquie, la liberté d’expression sur ces sujets-là
n’existe pas.

Tout de même, il est possible aujourd’hui, en Turquie, d’affirmer
qu’il y a eu un génocide…

Le nouveau pouvoir dit “islamiste modéré” a créé l’illusion, à partir
de 2002, qu’il était porteur d’une vraie démocratisation. Il y a eu
des évolutions, indéniables, sur le plan de la liberté d’expression,
surtout sur les sujets mettant en cause le régime kémaliste. Mais
lorsqu’ils s’intéressent aux liens entre le gouvernement et les
religieux, les journalistes sont aussitôt emprisonnés.

Cette relative démocratisation a permis des avancées comme l’édition
et la traduction d’ouvrages, ou l’organisation de colloques sur les
événements génocidaires de la Première Guerre mondiale, ou sur les
massacres d’Adana de 1909. Mais depuis la fin 2009, il y a eu un
raidissement considérable. Les intellectuels et historiens qui
travaillent sur le passé vivent sous la menace permanente
d’arrestations et de procès. C’est dans ce contexte, et pour soutenir
ces chercheurs, que nous avons créé, à Paris, un groupe international
de travail (GIT) “Liberté de recherche et d’enseignement en Turquie”.
Plusieurs branches sont déjà créées ou en cours de fondation, en
France, aux Etats-Unis, en Grande-Bretagne, et en Turquie même, bien
sûr. Il s’agit de déployer la recherche sur la recherche, et de mettre
sous surveillance les pouvoirs qui terrorisent les chercheurs.

Comment les intellectuels turcs ressentent-ils que ce soit la France
qui se penche, par la loi, sur leur passé ?

La vérité historique ne nécessite pas une loi pour se fonder. C’est
même un risque d’affaiblissement. Mais il faut considérer l’importance
de l’offensive négationniste. Ce que veulent les autorités turques, ce
sont des commissions constituées uniquement d’historiens turs et
arméniens. Or l’Arménie a tant besoin de la Turquie que cela ne peut
être qu’un marché de dupes. Il faudrait des commissions plus larges :
cette question dépasse du reste le cadre historiographique des deux
pays.

Reste que même une loi pleine de bons sentiments amène un encadrement
de la recherche, donc son affaiblissement, alors même que les travaux
sur le génocide arménien demeurent insuffisants. La demande légitime
des Arméniens de lire et de retrouver leur histoire est paradoxalement
menacée. L’histoire du génocide arménien reste sous-dimensionnée. Il
n’y a pas de chaire sur ces questions, d’étude d’histoire comparée sur
les génocides, les publications sont peu nombreuses, les maisons
d’édition fragiles. Des ouvrages majeurs sur les génocides – incluant
le premier des génocides comme A Problem from Hell. America and the
Age of Genocide de la politiste d’Harvard Samantha Power (2002) – ne
sont toujours pas accessibles en langue française…

Même si cette loi peut se comprendre, elle aura des effets dangereux
sur la recherche en Turquie et en France. D’autant que le
jusqu’au-boutisme des associations, déjà puissant à l’époque des
affaires Bernard Lewis et Gilles Veinstein, risque d’amener les
chercheurs à se désengager de ce terrain. Il y a un vrai risque pour
la recherche indépendante. La loi vise à défendre la vérité
historique, mais elle en sape les bases théoriques et morales.

Mais si on ne peut pas faire de lois, comment lutter contre le négationnisme ?

La vraie solution, c’est de développer la recherche. Si un pouvoir
politique veut lutter contre le négationnisme, il peut créer des
chaires, ouvrir des laboratoires, soutenir des publications… Il peut
aussi défendre le travail des chercheurs sur le terrain. Il est ainsi
regrettable que la France n’ait pas voulu soulever la question des
intellectuels persécutés en Turquie. Quand le ministre des affaires
étrangères, Alain Juppé, est allé à Ankara, en novembre dernier, il ne
s’est pas inquiété du sort des chercheurs emprisonnés… La mise au
clair du passé, en Turquie, ne se fera que par l’évolution de la
société. Cette évolution est en cours mais elle risque d’être bloquée
par cette loi. Et les historiens indépendants en payeront à nouveau le
prix fort.

Propos recueillis par Jérôme Gautheret

From: Baghdasarian

France Soir
28 décembre 2011

Génocide arménien : La France touchée au portefeuille ?

La Turquie prépare-t-elle des sanctions commerciales contre la France,
coupable d’avoir voté une loi punissant la négation du génocide
arménien de 1915 ? Le secrétaire d’Etat au Commerce extérieur Pierre
Lellouche a mis en garde contre une telle éventualité mardi sur France
2, la qualifiant de « proprement illégal ». Tout en appelant à la «
désescalade » entre les deux pays, il a rappelé que la Turquie, membre
de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (l’OMC, qui règle les
différents commerciaux et promeut l’ouverture économique), était liée
à l’Union européenne par un accord de libre échange. « Il est hors de
question pour qui que ce soit de discriminer les sociétés françaises
», a-t-il averti.

De quoi freiner les ardeurs turques ? Autrefois « l’homme malade de
l’Europe », la Turquie est aujourd’hui une puissance en très forte
croissance économique (8,9% du PIB en 2010), la 17e mondiale. Nombre
d’observateurs estiment que le pays ne prendra pas le risque de
perturber ses échanges avec la France, évalués à 12 milliards d’euros
l’année dernière. Si la République turque a promis dans un premier
temps une riposte économique et annulé un forum commercial franco-turc
prévu en janvier, son ministre de l’Économie a néanmoins exclu toute
sanction lors d’un déplacement en Arabie Saoudite le 25 décembre.

Appels au boycott
En revanche, les appels individuels au boycott ont fleuri
immédiatement après le vote de la loi. Le correspondant du Monde dans
le Bosphore évoque l’annulation par le maire d’Ankara, la capitale,
d’une commande de voitures électriques Renault (made in… Turquie),
ou encore la résiliation du contrat liant la direction de la police
nationale à son concurrent Peugeot. Des produits français ont
également été jetés aux ordures, sous l’`il des caméras, sur le modèle
de la campagne de boycott lancée aux Etats-Unis en 2003, au plus fort
du contentieux sur l’Irak. Une campagne qui avait fait « pschitt » au
final.

Les autorités turques ont désormais fait comprendre que tout pourrait
bien dépendre du vote du texte de loi au Sénat. Prié de dire mardi
s’il souhaitait que la Chambre haute du parlement inscrive rapidement
le texte à l’ordre du jour, Pierre Lellouche ne s’est pas prononcé.

From: Baghdasarian

The Hindu, India
Jan 1 2012

Madras miscellany
S. MUTHIAH

An Armenian representation

The Armenian Ambassador to India, H.E. Ara Hakobyan, was in Madras
last week to inaugurate the Consulate office of Armenia in the city.
The first Honorary Consul of Armenia in Madras is Shivkumar Eashwaran,
a businessman. The inauguration was an occasion to remember the
Armenian presence in Madras as far back as the 1660s, a fact attested
to by the finding of a tombstone with the date 1663 near Little Mount.
The name engraved on it was `Khoja David Margar’.

The Armenian presence in Madras began to increase from 1688 when the
East India Company, finding the Armenians `sober, frugal and wise’,
gave them the same trading rights as English freemen. These privileges
were granted after negotiations between Coja Panous, Calendar of
Isphahan, and the Company in London. The agreement was dated June 22,
1688 and was in due course communicated to the principal Armenian
merchant in Madras, `Gregorio Paroan’, and his fellows. By these
terms, they could not only trade on the same terms as the English but
also had all the rights of British subjects in Madras, including the
right to own land in Fort St. George, White Town.

It was also promised to them that as soon as there were 40 Armenian
merchants in Madras, ground would be granted to them to build a
permanent church. This was done in 1712 and for the next seven years
the church received £50 a year from the Company to maintain a priest,
under terms of the grant.

The first known house of an Armenian in Fort St. George is what is
called Admiralty House today. It was built by Coja Nazar Jacob Jan who
arrived in Madras in 1702. On his death in 1740, it passed into the
hands of Coja Sultan David to whom it had been bequeathed. On Coja
David’s death the house, by then known as `The Great House on Choultry
Street’, was inherited by his son, Aga Shawmier Sultan (Suthanoomian).
This house was taken over by the Company post-1757 and served in town,
as Governor’s residence, Governor’s entertainment space and the venue
of sessions of the Admiralty Court. Robert Clive too lived in this
building after his marriage.

Aga Nazar Jan was the first of the great Armenian merchants of Madras
and was followed by the legendary Coja Petrus Uscan – who has
warranted much space in this column in the past – Aga Shawmier Sultan,
and Aga Samuel Moorat. When Samuel Moorat died in 1816, his son Edward
Moorat ran through his huge patrimony in enjoying a life of luxury.
With his death, the Armenian presence in Madras began to fade.

One Armenian of this era who left a different kind of mark was the
Rev. Harathun Shimavonian, who started in Madras in 1794 the first
Armenian journal in the world, Azdarar, and published several Armenian
classics before he died in 1827.

Madras once had a substantial Armenian presence, but the Armenians
followed the seat of power (they had started in Agra) and were a few
thousand in number in Calcutta during the heyday of the Raj. Their
numbers warranted starting a school there and Armenian College still
exists, struggling on with an intake of orphans from Armenia. Perhaps
it’s time to establish a branch of that institution in Madras. It was
a thought that struck me at the reception when I met one of the few IT
entrepreneurs in Armenia. Why doesn’t he partner someone in Madras and
establish an IT training centre for young Armenians in an Armenian
College, Madras branch?

From: Baghdasarian

Center for Research on Globalization, Canada
Dec 31 2011

French Genocide Bill Provokes Uproar, Sparks Debate: Turkish
Overreaction May Backfire

by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

The bill voted up on December 22 by the French parliament (Assemblee
Nationale), which would make denial of genocide (including the 1915
genocide against the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey) a crime, has
provoked strong reactions from the Turkish government and sparked a
debate among Turks and Armenians worldwide. The bill, which must still
be debated by the senate, would penalize anyone denying the genocide
with up to one year in prison and a 45,000 fine. (1)

The response from Ankara was swift and furious. Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan announced that he had recalled his ambassador from France,
frozen all military cooperation with France, and suspended economic
and political meetings. (2) In addition, Turkish President Abdullah
Gul urged that France withdraw from the Minsk Group, on grounds it
could no longer claim to be impartial in the Nagorno-Karabach dispute.
(3)

There were not a few ironies to the development. First, Turkish
opponents to the bill claimed it would criminalize free speech and
hamper historical research – yet, according to Turkey’s penal code
Article 301, any mention of the Armenian genocide, in so many words,
is deemed an offense and is punishable — so much for free speech and
historical research. Over the past months, scores of Turkish
intellectuals, journalists, and civil society leaders have been jailed
on allegations of affiliation with terrorist organizations because
they have spoken out regarding Kurdish civil rights and the Armenian
issue. For years writers who addressed the Armenian case, even those
who judiciously avoided using the proper term genocide, have been
jailed, mishandled, and, in the case of Hrant Dink, murdered. A
further irony lies in Erdogan’s charge that France has no right to
launch such accusations when it was itself guilty of genocide against
Algerians in the independence war. As many journalists noted, this was
a back-handed admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Ottoman
Turks.

Finally, criticism from Ankara pointed out that French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, whose UMP party presented the bill, was doing so
because it was speculating on winning support from the estimated half
million Armenian voters in France in the next elections. No irony
here: it is quite obvious that Sarkozy is using the Armenian issue as
a political football. This is, sadly, not the first time that the
genocide issue has been cynically exploited. Whenever Washington would
get upset with some foreign policy initiative coming out of Ankara,
the knee-jerk reaction would be to threaten to use the `g-word’ at the
White House. Recently, the Israeli Knesset has brought up discussion
of the Armenian genocide, as a not-so-subtle response to Turkey’s
having put bilateral relations on ice. Such exploitation of mass
murder is morally repugnant and only adds to the offense against the
memory of those who perished in 1915-1917.

That said, there are a couple of intriguing questions provoked by the
French legislators’ move worth mention. First: is the vote truly
representative of the French parliament’s viewpoint? According to
French press reports, the bill passed by a `large majority of the
fifty or so parliamentarians present,’ and `about half a dozen voted
against it.’ Out of a total of 577 members of parliament, this does
not strike me as constituting an overwhelming mandate. But numbers
aside, is it in principle the prerogative of any elected parliamentary
body to determine by vote whether or not genocide has been committed?
To most honest intellectuals, the Armenian genocide is a historical
fact documented through primary sources on various sides, including
American, Danish, German, as well as Armenian and Turkish. Secondly,
can one legislate morality, by criminalizing denial of historical
facts? If it becomes illegal to deny the genocide, does that make its
affirmation somehow `more true?’ Does that mean that those who deny it
will, under threat of punishment, alter their views? Is it not wiser
to thrash out the issues of the controversy, as prominent genocide
historians continue to do, in the patient effort to convince the
doubting Thomases or ideological denialists that what they
hysterically reject did in fact occur?

This leads to the real point, and the one occupying center stage in
the debate inside Turkey, a debate ironically nourished in part by the
French vote. The real point is Turkish recognition of what occurred in
1915. Why cannot the Turkish establishment acknowledge the historical
record, relieve itself and its people of the burden of collective
guilt, apologize to the descendants of the victims, and work towards
reconciliation? Energized by the debate about the French vote, it
appears that a growing number of individuals and civil society
organizations are accelerating their efforts to arrive at just such a
goal. The Human Rights Association Istanbul Branch, put out a press
release on December 22, entitled, `Let’s Raise Our Voice Against
Denial, Not the French Parliament.’ (4) In their view, denial of a
crime against humanity, like genocide, could not be considered a
violation of freedom of expression. On those grounds, they called on
intellectuals and others to end their campaigns against the French
parliament and instead `work for the recognition of the Armenian
genocide, the Assyrian genocide and the ethnic cleansing of Greeks by
the state and the society as a whole.’

On December 24, the DSIP (Revolutionary Socialist Workers’ Party) put
out a press release arguing along similar lines, and urged recognition
of the genocide including all relevant legal, cultural, and political
aspects.

A day earlier, Today’s Zaman carried an article by Ahsan Yilmaz who
criticized the Erdogan government reaction as exaggerated and went on
to suggest that the proper way to deal with the problem would be to
seek `normalization vis-à-vis 1915.’ Citing the official Turkish
version of events, according to which `several hundred thousand
Armenians were either massacred or died because of the terrible
conditions during their forced deportation,’ he put forward the view
that the state had a duty to protect these citizens and had failed to
do so. `Turkey has to apologize, he concluded, `at least for its
inability to protect them. Then, it must invite Armenians abroad to
come and get their inheritance in Turkey. Thirdly, Turkey must erect
some monuments and build museums for these massacred, great people who
had lived in these lands for thousands of years but faced extinction
because of some secular-nationalist Committee of Union and Progress
(CUP) dictators’ faulty, to say the least, decisions and actions.’

Although the author compromises with the official Turkish propaganda
line, carefully side-stepping any reference to the documented intent
to annihilate the Armenian people, what is noteworthy in his article
is his insistence that Turkey must somehow finally deal with its past.
That such an article could appear in a leading English-language
Turkish publication indicates the breadth of the debate now raging in
Turkey. The same Zaman carried a similar piece days later by Sahin
Alpay, who saw the crux of the issue in the fact that, despite
controversy over the term `genocide,’ Armenians were killed through
forced deportations, during which even denialists estimated that up to
700,000 died. He concludes with a call for an official apology and
cites a retired Turkish Ambassador, Volkan Vural, who said: `What
happened in history is unworthy of the Republic of Turkey. If I were
in charge, I would also apologize. A state like ours has to do this.
The state must tell the deported Armenians and to Greeks forced to
leave the country…. `I am extending citizenship to you and to your
descendants.’ The Armenian problem can be solved not by historians but
by politicians. Historical facts are well known.’

With all their limitations, what these articles illustrate is an
unprecedented discussion process unfolding in Turkey. Robert Fisk, a
seasoned journalist for the Independent, provided further insight into
it in a piece entitled, `Turkey’s long road to reconciliation’
published on December 25. (5) He was reporting on a promotional tour
in Turkey that he had just completed to push the Turkish translation
of his book, The Great War for Civilisation. He had conducted a
whopping 21 interviews with Turkish TV and press to introduce his
book. And the book, he writes, contains a chapter on 1915 entitled,
`The First Genocide,’ – yes, `genocide’ even in the Turkish
translation — despite Article 301. Fisk said that that most
journalists did not even question his account, for the simple reason
that, although officialdom denies it, `[f]or hundreds of thousands of
Turks, the Armenian genocide is now a fact of history.’ How so? he
asks rhetorically. And he explains that it is because `[t]housands of
Turks are digging into their own family histories. Why, they are
asking, did they have Armenian grandmothers and great-grandmothers?’
(6)

Fisk poses the obvious question: why can’t the Turks face up to this
history as the Germans dealt with the Holocaust? He referred to
Erdogan’s admission just a few weeks earlier of the massacres of
thousands of Kurds, adding that Zaman’s coverage of that event had
queried whether or not this might be a prelude to acknowledgement of
the Armenian genocide. Again, Fisk pointed out, the phrase used by
Zaman was not `alleged genocide’ but `genocide.’ Such ostensibly minor
details might be considered nitpicking, but they are actually loaded
with significance, and may indeed presage some positive developments.

Looking at such events as part of a long but steady process of
questioning inside Turkey, it appears that the French bill, quite
irrespective of its merits or demerits, may have given a healthy nudge
to that process.

Notes

1. For the vote and the text see
,
,

2. See ,

3.

4.

5.

6. The phenomenon of Turkish citizens` discovering their Armenian
ethnic roots going back to the 1915 genocide first broke through
public silence when Fetiye Cetin published her book, My Grandmother in
2004. Since then numerous biographical studies have appeared in Turkey
as personal memoirs or institutional studies documenting the fact that
tens if not hundreds of thousands of Armenian chidren, especially
girls, were spared death and forcefully assimilated as concubines,
slaves, or wives of Turks. Their offspring and their descendants now
bear witness to this fact. But how to interpret this unique
occurrence? On the one hand, it shows that, although some Turks sought
to exploit the Armenian females, others sought to save the young girls
out of human compassion. On the other hand, it demonstrates a very
fundamental principle: truth will prevail. If the thousands of
Armenians slaughtered in the genocide can not come back and testify
before a court of law as to what happened, their grandchildren, born
of mixed marriages with Turks, can. They need not go to court. Their
mere existence as Turkish citizens of Armenian descent constitutes the
most damning proof of what happened almost 100 years ago. For a
discussion of the implications of this phenomenon in Turkey today,
see:

Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

From: Baghdasarian

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 1 2012

2011 and the ups and downs of Turkish foreign policy

AMANDA PAUL

First, I would like to wish all Sunday’s Zaman readers a Happy New
Year.Turkish foreign policy faced many challenges in 2011, with
Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu’s `zero problems with neighbors’
approach coming rather unstuck.

Of course successful foreign policy is driven by two sides, meaning
the unraveling of the policy was not entirely Turkey’s fault. Turkey
is situated in a tough neighborhood that faces many challenges,
including weak governance, frozen conflicts and trafficking and
illegal migration — the result being a neighborhood anchored in
instability and security threats.

Since coming to power, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)
has reshaped Turkish foreign policy. Barely a decade ago, Turkey’s
relations with several of its neighbors were plagued by mutual
recriminations. The AKP pledged to turn this around and deepen both
economic and political ties. It achieved a high degree of success,
particularly in the Middle Eastern region. Turkey also put itself
forward to mediate just about every conflict going; it moved — but
failed — to normalize relations with Armenia and strengthened ties
with Moscow, with regional powers overall welcoming Turkey’s
pro-active role, which was also applauded by the West.

Then came the Arab Spring, which went on to dominate Turkish foreign
policy for the whole of 2011. The Arab Spring took Turkey, as the rest
of the world, by surprise and Turkey hesitated in its reaction,
particularly vis-Ã-vis Libya and Syria, where Ankara had spent much
political capital on the two leaderships. However, Turkey eventually
got its game together and understood that `sitting on its hands’ or
continuing to `dither’ gave the impression it supported dictators.
While Turkey initially rejected NATO cooperation in Libya, it went on
to support it and, after a long time asking Syria’s president for
reform, Ankara opened itself to the Syrian opposition and asked Bashar
al-Assad to quit. Ever since, Turkey has been at the center of the
action and, in the case of Syria, heavily relied on by the West.
Turkey’s leadership was among the first to visit Egypt, Libya and
Tunisia, and the West has called Turkey a role model for the new
emerging leaderships to follow.

Other areas of Turkish foreign policy were also turned on their head,
the first being Turkey’s old friend-turned-foe, Israel. With relations
already sour, Turkey froze trade and military deals with Tel Aviv in
September, following Israel’s refusal to apologize, lift the Gaza
blockade and offer compensation for loss of life for the victims of
the Mavi Marmara incident that resulted in the deaths of 9 civilians.
While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an’s negative rhetoric against
Israel may have boosted his popularity on the Arab Street, the dispute
also served to create more tensions in an already heated region and
created a difficult situation for the US, having its two key allies in
the region at loggerheads. Israel also angered Turkey for cooperating
with the Greek Cypriots in oil exploration projects in the eastern
Mediterranean, which resulted in Ankara sending naval vessels near to
where the exploration was taking place.

While Turkey improved ties with both Georgia and Azerbaijan, relations
with Armenia remained sour. Armenia’s president outraged Turkey in
July by responding to a school boy’s question over the possible return
of `western Armenian, along with Mount Ararat,’ which Turkey perceived
as highly provocative, while the recent vote in the lower house of the
French parliament, to make it a criminal offence to deny the Armenian
genocide of 1915 (which was backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy
and applauded by Armenian leadership), has created fresh tensions with
Yerevan as well as brought Turkey’s relationship with NATO ally France
to an all-time low.

Relations with Iran have also been spoiled as a result of Turkey’s
position on Syria as well as Ankara’s decision to host part of the US
missile defense system. And while Turkey’s relations with the US
warmed somewhat in 2011, with the US offering greater support to
Turkey in the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK),
Turkey’s EU membership negotiations remain frozen. No new chapters
were opened and Ankara made very little progress on EU-demanded
reforms.

The year has ended with, in the words of Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin, `a New Year’s gift for Russia.’ Ankara signed an
agreement with Moscow that will allow Russia to use Turkey’s Black Sea
Exclusive Economic Zone for its South Stream pipeline. The completion
of this pipeline, together with the recently completed Nord Stream
Pipeline, could `kill off’ Ukraine as a transit state. Thereby, Kyiv,
which believed it was building a strong partnership with Ankara,
following yet another visit of Ukraine’s leadership to Ankara, has
been left devastated.

All in all, 2011 has been an interesting and challenging year for
Turkish foreign policy, with this trend set to continue in 2012.
Events in the Arab world will continue to test Turkey, and with Cyprus
taking up the EU presidency, Turkish-EU relations will once again
navigate difficult waters.

From: Baghdasarian

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 1 2012

Sarkozy lives in a glass house and shouldn’t throw stones

by Othman Ali*

Last Thursday the French National Assembly passed a bill that
criminalizes any disagreement with the Armenian claim of a genocide
having been committed against them by the Ottoman Empire.
The passing of this resolution has had many implications throughout
Europe and will adversely impact the freedom of expression in France
and sets a bad precedent for others. Turkey’s relation with the EU
will also witness tension at a time when the West needs Turkey to
channel its positive input on the historic developments that are
taking place in the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular.
This move on the part of the French government has a multitude of
reasons: the fanning of Islamophobia for electoral purposes, the
influence of the pro-Israeli lobby on French politics and the alarm
with which some circles in Europe are viewing Turkey’s rising
political and economic power.

It is ironic that of all European powers France, which has an alarming
record of genocidal policies on several continents in the past, chose
to lead the crusade against Turkey. It is more ironic that Europe,
which remained silent on this particular issue when Turkey was
governed by malfunctioning military dominated regimes, raised the
issue at a time when Justice and Development Party (AKP) government is
in power, a party that helped the country make significant inroads to
establish democracy and uphold human rights to meet the Copenhagen
criteria. Besides, there is a serious self-examination in progress,
including attempts to correct the many wrongdoings of the past, and
Turkish officials, more than at any time in the past, have signaled
Turkish readiness to address the wrongs done to the Armenians,
including a readiness to give unlimited access to Ottoman archives and
holding open debates on the matter on a national and international
level.

An effort to gain more votes

Analysts tend to attribute French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s sudden
attention to the Armenian issue to his efforts to gain more votes in
the upcoming national election and be re-elected for a second term.
Among French politicians Sarkozy has a well-known record for his
indifference in the past to the plight of Armenians. The sudden
conversion on the part of Sarkozy comes as result of his concern to
win over the votes of the extreme right and the 500,000-strong
Armenian community in France. Sarkozy, who faces a tough challenge
from a rejuvenated far right in next year’s presidential elections,
has decided to reach out to Catholic voters. Recently, he courted the
Christian voters and visited many symbolic Christian places of worship
in France. Opponents accused the leader, who is struggling in the
polls, of stirring up racial and religious divisions in a bid to win
votes from the far-right National Front (FN), now gaining ground under
Marine Le Pen, daughters of its founder Jean-Marie Le Pen. Sarkozy
appears to be returning to the fray. In January 2011, he declared that
multiculturalism had been a `failure.’ In order to appease the far
right, he targeted Roma last year to have them expelled from France.

Islamophobia is another tool that Sarkozy has been continuously
utilizing to win the votes of the rising extreme right for his
center-right Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP). This is what
gained him notoriety and fame at the same time when he was minister of
the interior. Consequently, this made him the rising star of the right
in France, and eventually earned him the French presidency. The
powerful pro-Israeli lobby in France is very much annoyed with the
rising influence of the 5 million French Muslims in French society and
politics, and has been stirring the extreme right against Muslims. On
Nov. 29, 2009, in a Swiss referendum in which 53 percent of the
electorate voted, 57 percent of voters voted to ban the building of
minarets in Switzerland, a country of 7.5 million with some 400,000
Muslims and just four mosques. French Foreign Minister Bernard
Kouchner reflected the general public opinion in Europe and elsewhere
when he said he described himself as shocked and affronted by the vote
and called for the ban to be reversed. Days later (on Dec. 9), French
President Sarkozy wrote a column in the Le Monde daily defending the
vote. The recent call by Sarkozy’s UMP for a national debate on Muslim
religious practices in France, raising the banner of Islam’s threat to
secular French values, and the ban on the Muslim veil are all
indications that Sarkozy is utilizing Islamophobia to get re-elected
as president for a second term, using the tragedy of the Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire a century ago as a part of this hypocritical but
dangerous game.

The English saying that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
could not be more applicable to Sarkozy’s France. The country has an
infamous record of genocide, committed by both the French monarchical
and republican regimes. It suffices to say in this regard that the
colonial French power was an equal partner of the British Empire in
the genocide that was committed against the indigenous population of
America. This well documented genocide reduced the pre-16th century
population of 30 million to only 500,000 in 1908. The French colonial
power has committed more genocide in Southeast Asia and Africa than
any other European power. This led to the death and enslavement of
millions of native people in those regions. French colonial policy was
particularly known for its brutality and attempts to uproot people
from their lands and for pursuing policies of cultural and physical
genocide to turn the natives into cultured French people, eliminating
those who resisted.

Taking a look at Algeria from 1830-1962

A close examination of French policy in Algeria during the years
1830-1962, for example, proves that it fits well into the definition
of genocide as mentioned in the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948: It is the deliberate and
systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic group.
During the four decades of their colonial rule no less than 70 percent
of Algerians were either killed, uprooted, maimed or forcibly
assimilated, and 90 percent of the land was confiscated and given to
French settlers and collaborators, comprising no more than 10 percent
of the population. Had it not been for the Algerian resistance and the
external aid coming from Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and the Soviet
bloc, Algerians would have suffered the same fate as Native Americans.

While French leaders enjoy lecturing Turkish officials on the
necessity of recognizing the alleged Armenian genocide, they, for the
most part, refuse to recognize the genocide in Algeria. In February
2005, France’s ambassador to Algeria, Yves Colin de Verdière, formally
apologized for the Sétif and the Guelma massacres in which 45,000
Algerians were slaughtered in only a few days, calling it an
`inexcusable tragedy.’ It was the most explicit comment by the French
state on the massacres. This apology contains the word `tragedy,’ not
genocide.

President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika has described the Sétif
massacre as being part of a wider campaign of `genocide’ perpetrated
during the Algerian War by the French occupational forces. This was
swiftly denounced by the French government and by various French
historians. On July 5, 2011 the Algerian Minister of Mujahideen (war
veterans) Mohamed Cherif Abbes urged the government to introduce a new
law for criminalizing French colonial practices in Algeria. This
debate in Algiers infuriated the French government, which threatened
to take far-reaching measures against Algeria. The government in
Algiers was forced to withdraw the bill

The most appropriate action that the Turkish government needs to take
is not cutting commercial and other ties with France as this will
create tensions in Europe that will only play into the hands of
Sarkozy. It would be most appropriate to host an international
conference on the French genocide in Algeria. Many French and Algerian
scholars would be glad to attend. The recommendations of this
conference may serve to address the issue in other forums.

* Dr. Othman Ali, Ph.D., is the head of the Turkish-Kurdish Studies
Centre in Arbil, Iraq.

From: Baghdasarian