Author: Emil Lazarian

CONCERN OVER FRENCH LEGISLATION ON GENOCIDE OF ARMENIANS
SR International – Radio Sweden, Sweden
Oct 17 2006
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has expressed concern after the
passage of legislation in the French Chamber of Deputies making it
a crime to deny the 1915 massacre of Armenians in Turkey.
Turkey, which is a candidate to join the European Union, has reacted
strongly to the legislation. In Turkey the event is played down as
mutual attacks between Turks and Armenians because of World War I.
EU foreign ministers are discussing relations with Turkey in a meeting
in Luxembourg Tuesday. Carl Bildt says the French legislation can
cause problems in negotiations over issues such as opening Turkish
airports and harbors to traffic from Cyrpus.
He says, however, that the French bill may never become law, since
it still has to be approved by the Senate and signed by President
Jacques Chirac.
hetssidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2054&Nyheter=& amp;artikel=973877
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

…WHEN A WAITER DROPS A TURKEY
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Times of Malta, Malta
Oct 17 2006
What happens when a waiter drops a turkey? The Downfall of Turkey,
the Spreading of Greece, the Breaking of China and the Leaving of
Hungary! Such was the rather droll method of remembering historical
facts employed in the schoolroom a century or so ago.
Since the downfall of Turkey, read The Ottoman Empire, the Middle
East and the Mediterranean Basin have been in a constant state of
flux. There was something about the Ottoman Empire which since its
inception in 1453 kept and contained the vicissitudes of its far-flung
territories strictly within its borders.
The Turkish menace waned slowly and painfully after Lepanto, stifled in
its own reactionary stance until a very imperialist and expansionist
Western Europe along with Russia decided that Turkey was The Sick Man
of Europe (please note “Europe” not “Asia”) and fought over it in the
Crimean War. It was in fact a scenario rather similar to that of the
Eastern bloc in our own lifetimes before the Wall fell and the USSR
was dismembered.
We were, in the days of Tito’s Yugoslavia, blissfully unaware of
situations like that between Serbs and Bosnians. We were brought
up to view a globe where any country beyond the Iron Curtain was
impenetrable. Very little news was allowed to be filtered through
and many of us were surprised at the avalanche that took place after
the liberalisation of Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro etc;
incidentally all of which were countries that till the 19th century
were part of the Ottoman Empire.
Therefore the uncanny similarity in policy between the Ottoman and
Soviet empires kept the ethnic and religious conflicts and situations
in the countries in question very much under wraps. Today the situation
is vastly different. Europe itself has doubled in size and the EU is
poised to take in many other countries that formerly lay within the
bloc. Strangely enough it is not these countries that are causing
controversy but Turkey.
It all started when the present Pope was still Cardinal Ratzinger and
pronounced himself as being against Turkey’s entry into the EU because
Turkey, he said, has always been different; a very debatable point. He
added that the Turks had laid siege to Vienna, twice, if you please,
and other irrelevant historical facts that could have been easily
ascribed to Spain or his own homeland Germany, while conveniently and
inexplicably leaving out the two worst blots on the Turkish escutcheon;
the Armenian and Kurdish genocides.
Next month Benedict XVI is off to Turkey. Very few people realise how
controversial and significant this visit is. Apart from the Ratzinger
pronouncements, one must contend with the ill-advised and to me still
inexplicable remarks that caused such a furore in Regensburg last
month and also the stormy relations the papacy has always had with
Islamic Istanbul and previously Christian Constantinople for 1,000
years and more!
Let us not forget that it was a Turkish gunman who tried to assassinate
John Paul II. The visit will, I am sure, prove to be one of the great
watersheds of contemporary history. We will see which way the cat
will jump and pray that it will bring peace.
Recently French MPs approved an Armenian Genocide Bill by which
if it is ratified by the Senate will make it a crime to deny that
Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. This
has provoked anger in Turkey and has raised fresh doubts about its
EU ambitions. Denying the Armenian Genocide in France carries the
same penalties as denying the Jewish Holocaust.
The move has been identified as a vote-catching exercise for all
Armenians who live in France. However, as Turkey still officially
denies that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred during and after
WWI, when the empire was dismembered, the move is proving to be very
sensitive and controversial. It will also undermine the pro-EU movement
within Turkey itself and further strengthen the nationalists.
I do not profess to fully understand Turkey and the Turks. We in Malta
still hold, by and large, a warped impression, coloured by the Great
Siege mentality, which is completely unfocused.
Let me start by saying that, from the very beginning, the Ottomans
who conquered Constantinople in 1453 did not sack it as the Western
Christians did during the Fourth Crusade 200 years before under the
leadership of the unscrupulous blind doge, Enrico Dandolo. Mehmet II,
aptly called The Conqueror, merely let his troops wreak the minimum of
damage as allowed by convention and immediately set about reorganising
Byzantine bureaucracy in his own way.
Only a couple of days after the entry into the Rome of the East,
Mehmet conferred ecclesiastical concessions on the Oecumenical
Patriarch Gennadios, a move that drove the wedge between Eastern and
Western churches even deeper than ever before.
When one examines Mehmet’s portrait by Gentile Bellini, who lived
in Constantinople as the Sultan’s guest from 1479 to 1481, we see
a sensitive and pensive aristocratic face that belies his fierce
reputation as the Scourge of Europe.
Mehmet’s adoption of Byzantine policies and methods was so successful
that it did not take countries like France long to reap the advantages
and establish diplomatic relations with what came to be known as The
Sublime Porte. This policy existed with variations right up to 1924.
Just to give you an example of the friendly relations countries like
France and its allies like the Order of Malta under de Rohan enjoyed
in the 18th century, our own Antoine Favray spent time in Istanbul
painting the portraits of the French Ambassador to Turkey, the Comte
de Vergennes, and his wife in Ottoman dress. His paintings of harems
and zenanas grace many a wall in museums and private houses in Malta.
It goes further into the 19th century too.
The Most Noble Amodeo, Count Preziosi worked in Constantinople from
1842 to his death in 1876 while other artists like Thomas Allom and
Jean Etienne Liotard worked in both Turkey and Malta.
Turkey is a country of strong contrasts and contradictions. While it
professes to be a secular state, Islamic permutations have allowed
crimes like honour killings to proliferate, not only within its own
borders but also in the countries that have adopted millions of Turks
as cheap labour like Germany!
Freedom of speech is as curtailed as it is in other Islamic states
as can be attested by Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s best-known contemporary
novelist, who has just won the 2006 Nobel Prize for literature. Mr
Pamuk faced trial for “insulting his country” earlier this year. This
coincided with the French parliamentary move to criminalise denying
the Armenian Genocide.
Mr Pamuk’s novels also criticise the mania, started by Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk, to make Turkey more Turkish which because of the complexity
of the Byzantine/Ottoman Empire entailed ethnic cleansing to achieve.
Anyone who has read Louis de Berniere’s excellent and riveting
novel Birds Without Wings will be horrified by the displacements of
entire peoples from Greece to Turkey and vice versa for instance. The
Greco-Turkish problem in Cyprus is a direct consequence of this.
It is Mr Pamuk, however, who symbolises free thought and is held
by the West as one of the reasons that could make Turkey a valid
and contributing member of the EU family. The Turks themselves must
face the fact that they must be part of a homogenous whole and that
mediaeval mentalities have no place in it. In fact joining the EU
requires Turkey to make such a great leap forward (with apologies
to the late Chairman Mao) that I cannot see it happening for another
decade at least.
I have been told by many who follow my weekly scribbles that I am,
at times, a bit too historical to follow. To explain a situation like
this entails delving into the past to find out why and how things
developed the way they have. Events rarely happen in isolation.
I am sure there are scholars and historians far more well-informed
and accomplished than I on the subject next to whom I am mere acolyte.
We cannot ignore the situation that has developed in the world between
what used to be conveniently called the struggle between the Cross
and Crescent. Although what is happening today is a direct derivation
of that same struggle we must realise that not since the death of
Suleiman the Magnificent has the Crescent been such a threat to our
own Western civilisation and way of life.
Today’s Islamic states with their oil and riches hold the world to
ransom. Allowing Turkey to join the EU and encouraging it to adopt
many of our own mores while abandoning their own outdated ones will
in the long run benefit both and will symbolise the beginning of a
rapprochement that will, with a bit of luck and goodwill, enable the
Cross and the Crescent to co-exist in future and bring what may be
called “Peace in Our Time”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ROBERT FISK – LET ME DENOUNCE GENOCIDE FROM THE DOCK
AZG Armenian Daily
17/10/2006
The Independent (London), October 14, 2006 Saturday,
First Edition
This has been a bad week for Holocaust deniers. I’m talking about
those who wilfully lie about the 1915 genocide of 1.5 million
Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turks. On Thursday, France’s
lower house of parliament approved a Bill making it a crime to deny
that Armenians suffered genocide. And, within an hour, Turkey’s most
celebrated writer, Orhan Pamuk – only recently cleared by a Turkish
court for insulting “Turkishness” (sic) by telling a Swiss newspaper
that nobody in Turkey dared mention the Armenian massacres – won the
Nobel Prize for Literature. In the mass graves below the deserts of
Syria and beneath the soil of southern Turkey, a few souls may have
been comforted.
While Turkey continues to blather on about its innocence – the
systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of male Armenians and of
their gang-raped women is supposed to be the sad result of “civil war”
– Armenian historians such as Vahakn Dadrian continue to unearth new
evidence of the premeditated Holocaust (and, yes, it will deserve its
capital H since it was the direct precursor of the Jewish Holocaust,
some of whose Nazi architects were in Turkey in 1915) with all the
energy of a gravedigger.
Armenian victims were killed with daggers, swords, hammers and axes
to save ammunition. Massive drowning operations were carried out in
the Black Sea and the Euphrates rivers – mostly of women and children,
so many that the Euphrates became clogged with corpses and changed its
course for up to half a mile. But Dadrian, who speaks and reads Turkish
fluently, has now discovered that tens of thousands of Armenians were
also burned alive in haylofts.
He has produced an affidavit to the Turkish court martial that
briefly pursued the Turkish mass murderers after the First World War,
a document written by General Mehmet Vehip Pasha, commander of the
Turkish Third Army. He testified that, when he visited the Armenian
village of Chourig (it means “little water” in Armenian), he found all
the houses packed with burned human skeletons, so tightly packed that
all were standing upright. “In all the history of Islam,” General Vehip
wrote, “it is not possible to find any parallel to such savagery.”
The Armenian Holocaust, now so “unmentionable” in Turkey, was no
secret to the country’s population in 1918. Millions of Muslim Turks
had witnessed the mass deportation of Armenians three years earlier
– a few, with infinite courage, protected Armenian neighbours and
friends at the risk of the lives of their own Muslim families – and,
on 19 October 1918, Ahmed Riza, the elected president of the Turkish
senate and a former supporter of the Young Turk leaders who committed
the genocide, stated in his inaugural speech: “Let’s face it, we
Turks savagely ( vahshiane in Turkish) killed off the Armenians.”
Dadrian has detailed how two parallel sets of orders were issued,
Nazi-style, by Turkish interior minister Talat Pasha. One set
solicitously ordered the provision of bread, olives and protection for
Armenian deportees but a parallel set instructed Turkish officials to
“proceed with your mission” as soon as the deportee convoys were far
enough away from population centres for there to be few witnesses to
murder. As Turkish senator Reshid Akif Pasha testified on 19 November
1918: “The ‘mission’ in the circular was: to attack the convoys and
massacre the population??? I am ashamed as a Muslim, I am ashamed as
an Ottoman statesman. What a stain on the reputation of the Ottoman
Empire, these criminal people???”
How extraordinary that Turkish dignitaries could speak such truths
in 1918, could fully admit in their own parliament to the genocide
of the Armenians and could read editorials in Turkish newspapers of
the great crimes committed against this Christian people. Yet how
much more extraordinary that their successors today maintain that
all of this is a myth, that anyone who says in presentday Istanbul
what the men of 1918 admitted can find themselves facing prosecution
under the notorious Law 301 for “defaming” Turkey.
I’m not sure that Holocaust deniers – of the anti-Armenian or
anti-Semitic variety – should be taken to court for their rantings.
David Irving is a particularly unpleasant “martyr” for freedom of
speech and I am not at all certain that Bernard Lewis’s one-franc fine
by a French court for denying the Armenian genocide in a November
1993 Le Monde article did anything more than give publicity to an
elderly historian whose work deteriorates with the years.
But it’s gratifying to find French President Jacques Chirac and his
interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy have both announced that Turkey
will have to recognise the Armenian death as genocide before it
is allowed to join the European Union. True, France has a powerful
half-million-strong Armenian community.
But, typically, no such courage has been demonstrated by Lord Blair
of Kut al-Amara, nor by the EU itself, which gutlessly and childishly
commented that the new French Bill, if passed by the senate in Paris,
will “prohibit dialogue” which is necessary for reconciliation between
Turkey and modern-day Armenia.
What is the subtext of this, I wonder. No more talk of the Jewish
Holocaust lest we hinder “reconciliation” between Germany and the
Jews of Europe?
But, suddenly, last week, those Armenian mass graves opened up
before my own eyes. Next month, my Turkish publishers are producing
my book, The Great War for Civilisation, in the Turkish language,
complete with its long chapter on the Armenian genocide entitled “The
First Holocaust”. On Thursday, I received a fax from Agora Books in
Istanbul. Their lawyers, it said, believed it “very likely that they
will be sued under Law 301” – which forbids the defaming of Turkey
and which right-wing lawyers tried to use against Pamuk – but that,
as a foreigner, I would be “out of reach”.
However, if I wished, I could apply to the court to be included in
any Turkish trial.
Personally, I doubt if the Holocaust deniers of Turkey will dare to
touch us. But, if they try, it will be an honour to stand in the dock
with my Turkish publishers, to denounce a genocide which even Mustafa
Kamel Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state, condemned.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UNITED ARMENIAN FUND RENDERS $6,2 MILLION OF HUMANITARIAN AID TO ARMENIA
By Ruzan Poghosian
AZG Armenian Daily
17/10/2006
The United Armenian Fund has been rendering humanitarian aid to
Armenia by sea boxes since the first nine months of 2006. The Fund
has already rendered $ 6,2 million of humanitarian aid to Armenia.
Chairman of the Fund Harout Sasuonian expressed gratitude to all of
the donators who participated in the humanitarian aid. The following
donators participated in the program: World Vision U.S. Inc.
($459,000), Hope for the City ($489,000), “medical Aid to Armenians”
($365,000) organizations, Centre Hospitalier Lucien Hussel from France
($312,000), The Armenian Evangelical Union of Armenia ($293,000),
World Vision Canada ($251,000), Vahe Enterprises ($244,000), Mihran
Mahmouzian and Jack Mazmanian ($235,000), Roubik and Gilta Asatrians
($221,000) ans others.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARTICLE 301 CASES AGAINST WRITERS CONTINUE
Kurdish Info
ews&file=article&sid=4361
Date: Thursday, October 12 @ 03:15:41 CDT
Bianet-Balbal protests obstacles in front of freedom of opinion and
Penal Code article 301 at Justice Ministry gates after being sentenced
to 10 months for his book “Flowers of Blood From A Captive General
on Ararat”.
The suffering of Turkish writers and publishers under controversial
Penal Code article 301 continued in the first week of October with one
author staging a protest in front of the Justice Ministry in capital
Ankara and a publisher standing trial in Istanbul for publishing
books containing Armenian memoirs of the past.
One Turkish activist, meanwhile, was acquitted of article 301 charges
where the prosecution previously demanded imprisonment for public
“remarks” he had made.
The end of last week saw a protest staged by the author of “Flowers
of Blood From A Captive General on Ararat”, Mustafa Balbal, who was
sentenced two months ago to 10 months imprisonment under article 301
for his book.
“301 is the greatest shame challenging the freedom of expression”
Balbal said, calling for certain codes in Turkey that “were inspired
by the Fascist Italian Constitution” to be lifted.
Taking his place at the gates of the Ministry but barred from making
a statement there, the author then moved to ministry’s Guven Park
entrance where he covered his mouth with black tape in protest of
obstacles before freedom of expression and article 301.
Balbal is one of many Turkish writers who have faced the threat
of the docks for books of historical value and research under the
controversial article.
His own work of research, based on the memoirs of those who witnessed
the uprising on and around Mount Ararat at the beginning of the 20th
century, covering the life of Sheik Zahir who lost four brothers in
the uprising before being killed himself, is still banned in Turkey
after being prosecuted for “conducting separatist propaganda”.
He himself was charged and found guilty of “public denigration of the
Turkish Republic State” and “insulting the armed forces of the state”
in the book that was published in August 2002 – and originally seized
on an order issued by the now-defunct State Security Court (DGM). He
was sentenced to five months each on both counts.
Armenian Memoirs Case Continues
Balbal’s peaceful self-style protest of 301 and its consequences in
capital Ankara came in the wake of the ongoing trial of a well-known
Turkish publisher in Istanbul who faces a prosecutor’s demand for up
to 13.5 years imprisonment publishing the memoirs of two Armenians
in the Turkish language.
Belge Publishing House owner and journalist Ragip Zarakolu appeared at
the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance on Thursday where
he is charged under article 301 for publishing Dora Sakayan’s “An
Armenian Doctor’s Experiences: The Ä°zmir Diary of Garabet Hatcherian
on 4 March” and George Jerjian’s “Freedom Will Free Us”.
His case was monitored by Sanar Yurdatapan of the Initiative Against
Though Crime and in this most recent hearing, the defendant submitted
a letter sent by Sakayan himself to the bench.
“”Who should Zarakolu be prosecuted for giving Turkish readers a book
based on Dr.Hatcherian’s diary?” Sakaryan’s letter asked. “Does the
Turkish reader need to be told what to read and what not to read? Can
Turkish readers themselves not decide on whether the book contains
insults against Turkishness?”
Sakaryan stressed in the letter that the author of the book was not
Zarakolu himself but was Dr. Garabet Hatcherian who he described
as “a loyal citizen of Turkey and an officer of the Turkish army”
expressing belief that the court would acquit the publisher.
Article 301, said Zarakolu after the hearing, “is putting both the
government and Turkey into a difficult situation. It is putting them
in difficulty in front of the European and world public opinion”.
The Zarakolu case was adjourned to December 14.
One Acquittal But Still..
Balbal’s protest in Ankara and Zarakolu’s trial in Istanbul follow
one acquittal last Tuesday where “Haksoz” magazine author and Free
Opinion and Education Rights Association (Ozgur-Der) member Mustafa
Bahadir Kurbanoglu was cleared of charges under article 301.
Unlike the author and publisher, Kurbanoglu was charged due to
“remarks” he made in April 2006 during an Ozgur-Der gathering at
Istanbul’s Fatih Sarachane Park. His public criticism of the dismissal
from duty of Van prosecutor Ferhat Sarikaya under a decision taken
by the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors was deemed an offense.
“Even if I’m acquitted, 301 is still in place” Kurbanoglu said after
his verdict.
What is Article 301?
Article 301, on the denigration of “Turkishness”, the Republic, and
the foundation and institutions of the State, was introduced with
the legislative reforms of 1 June 2005 and replaced the controversial
Article 159 of the previous penal code. It states that:
“1. Public denigration of Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand
National Assembly of Turkey shall be punishable by imprisonment of
between six months and three years.
2. Public denigration of the Government of the Republic of Turkey,
the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security
structures shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months
and two years.
3. In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a
Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased
by one third.
4. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute
a crime.”
–Boundary_(ID_VopFDez5pG1tynKi5IFIx Q)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FM GUL: FRENCH DECISION DEALT SERIOUS BLOW TO TURKEY-FRANCE RELATIONS
Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 16 2006
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has commented on the recent French
Parliament decision to approve a bill calling for jail time and
monetary fines for people publicly denying the so-called Armenian
genocide, saying “Unfortunately, French-Turkish relations have been
dealt a serious blow.”
Gul, who was on his way yesterday to attend Turkey-EU meetings
in Luxembourg, told reporters that France had “been shamed” by
the international community and the EU following its parliamentary
decision. Said Gul, “France’s credibility has been really damaged. I
hope that French politicians and government members would be aware of
this, and will take precautions to ensure that its credibility will
not be rocked anymore.” Taking note of the broader implications for
Turkey’s EU quest, Gul said that “With France’s stance, the Copenhagen
criteria have changed. I am going to speak to my counterparts about
this.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TURKEY’S POLITICAL FUTURE
Washington Times, DC
Oct 16 2006
In Turkey’s 2002 elections, only two parties received more than the
10 percent of the vote required to win seats in parliament. This gave
the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which elected Recep Tayyip
Erdogan prime minister in 2003, a two-thirds majority in Turkey’s
first two-party parliament since 1954. Several polls now have AKP
lower than its 2002 election performance. If the election were
held today, says Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, AKP would receive around 25 percent
of the vote. Opposition parties, the Republican People’s Party
(CHP) and the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), would likely receive
around 20 percent each. A three-party parliament is almost certain;
a four-party parliament is also quite possible. Even if AKP were to
win 30 percent of the vote, it would lose its parliamentary majority,
and some form of coalition government would be formed.
To achieve electoral success in Turkey, Mr. Cagaptay said, a party
needs two indispensable elements: a well-organized party structure
with good grass-roots support, and a charismatic figure with strong
name recognition. Turkish politics is largely personality-driven,
and Mr. Erdogan, by all accounts a captivating speaker, fits the bill
for the AKP. While several of the opposition parties have strong
organizational structures, they lack leaders with Mr. Erdogan’s
charisma.
The only opposition party to cross over the 10 percent threshold
in the 2002 elections was CHP, which is also the best contender
to overtake AKP in the Nov. 2007 election. CHP is nationalist,
secular and supports government involvement in the private sector —
a left-of-center party similar to the British Labor Party before
Tony Blair. As the only opposition party with seats in parliament,
CHP has also become functionally an anti-AKP party, opposing it on
every issue, sometimes irrespective of its own ideology.
MHP is a nationalist party that naturally picks up support as anger at
AKP — particularly the perception that AKP is failing to deal with
the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) — grows. The PKK is a
particularly difficult issue for Washington and has proved to be one
obstacle in restoring the U.S.-Turkey relationship that soured in 2003
when Turkey denied the United States use of its territory during the
invasion of Iraq. In the years since, Turkey has been upset by both
the emboldening effect that any increased Kurdish autonomy in Iraq will
have on Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Washington’s refusal to allow
Turkish forces to strike PKK camps located in Northern Iraq. Turkish
attitudes toward America have deteriorated accordingly. Although CHP
and MHP reflect the strong and widespread anti-American sentiment,
both are less vehemently anti-American than Mr. Erdogan’s ruling party.
Opposition to AKP is also widespread in the country’s roughly 50
minority parties. Ali Mufit Gurtuna, like Mr. Erdogan a former mayor
of Istanbul, last week told us of his plans to use his strong name
recognition and good relations with civil society groups to bring
together minority opposition groups in 2007. Mr. Gurtuna, who called
for Turkish support of the U.S. action against Iraq, spoke persuasively
about the need for real political opposition to AKP. In addition to the
PKK, the 2007 election will hinge on corruption and the escalation of
nationalist sentiment. AKP came to power with anti-corruption pledges,
but it has been losing that reputation in recent years due to scandals
involving lower-level party officials.
The problems Turkey has encountered during its European Union accession
to some extent reflect negatively on AKP, as many Turks believe the
process has not been what the government promised. Turkey believes
the EU is treating it unfairly by demanding concessions in Cyprus
and recognition of the Armenian genocide, a dark episode in Turkey’s
history that the government has never acknowledged. At the same time,
many secular Turks are troubled by a shift in the AKP’s position
away from secularism and towards Islamist fundamentalism in both
its domestic and foreign policy. The result of next year’s Turkish
election may well determine whether Turkey remains a friend of the
West, or slips deeper into a hostile Islamist Middle East.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

POLITICS OVER THE PAST
Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
Oct 16 2006
Editorial
RAKING up the past is a favourite pastime of the politicians. This
past week, France’s lower house passed a bill that makes it a crime
to deny Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks.
Turkey is understandably upset over the timing of the move by French
lawmakers. Ankara views the development as yet another attempt
to undermine its ambitions to join the European Union. Which is
a legitimate concern, given the growing paranoia in Europe with
respect to Muslim presence on the continent. Turkey does not deny the
excesses against Armenians during the World War I but they had been
part of a larger conflict that saw casualties on both sides. And the
modern Turkey is trying to heal the historical wounds by reaching
out to Armenia.
The French bill, introduced by opposition Social Democrats, does not
help this process of reconciliation between the two countries.
Besides, if we all go on digging up the past, where are we all going
to end up? And what about France’s own role in Algeria? It is better
for everyone to let sleeping dogs lie.

ZAVEN ANDRIASIAN WINS TITLE OF WORLD CHAMPION
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 16 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 16, NOYAN TAPAN. Chess World Youth Championship ended
on October 16 in Yerevan. 17-year-old Zaven Andriasian (Armenia) gained
9.5 out of 13 possible points and won the title of world champion
in competition among 83 boys. The following 2 places were taken by
Nikita Vityugov (Russia) and Yuri Krivoruchko (Ukraine), respectively.
Delegates from China Shen Yang, Hau Hi Fan and representative of
Georgia Salome Melia gained 9 points each and took the first three
places in accordance with their coefficients at the tournament with
participation of 57 ladies. The best of Armenian lady chess-players
was Siranush Andriasian who was the 19th with 7 points.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A VOICE FOR TURKEY
The Irish Times
October 14, 2006 Saturday
In awarding this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature to Turkey’s most
famous and controversial novelist, Orhan Pamuk, the award committee
was as much making a point about freedom of conscience and expression,
as honouring the literary achievements of this great writer. Indeed
Pamuk has probably gained wider fame and acclaim for his brave and
outspoken comments on his country’s amnesia regarding its treatment
of Ottoman Armenians, than for his accomplishments as a powerful and
innovative contemporary novelist.
Some years ago when receiving a German peace prize, Pamuk said he
considered it a shortcoming “if a Turkish writer today does not deal
with the Kurds, with minorities in Turkey and with the unspoken dark
moments in our history”. Pamuk has been a moral voice dealing directly
and bluntly with those dark moments, reminding fellow Turks of deeds
and events written out of their country’s history.
In touching on these taboo subjects, Pamuk the truth-teller landed
himself in trouble for the crime of having “publicly denigrated Turkish
identity”. He became the subject of a hate campaign and his books were
burned. Around that time he wrote that he lived in a country that
“honours its pashas, saints, and policemen at every opportunity but
refuses to honour its writers until they have spent years in courts
and in prisons”.
His own trial and likely prison sentence were probably only averted
due to his international profile and Turkey’s aspirations for entry
into the European Union. Pamuk himself has been an ardent advocate
for accession, arguing that the survival of modern Turkey and its
more democratic elements depends on inclusion in the European fold.
In his novels Pamuk has reflected the contradictions of modern Turkey,
showing himself to be a writer of immense insight into the complexity
of those contradictions.
The significance and prestige of the Nobel Prize stands greatly
enhanced by the decision to make Pamuk this year’s recipient,
particularly as he follows Harold Pinter in receiving the honour,
another writer equally vociferous and vigorous in his criticism of
human rights abuses and equally committed to speaking out on matters
of principle when it comes to political and moral issues.
In a week in which a Russian journalist was murdered for her pursuit
of the truth in Chechnya, it is indeed fitting that the Nobel Prize
goes to a writer who sees it as his duty to light the way in the cause
of freedom of speech and in the names of those with no one else to
speak on their behalf.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress