Author: Emil Lazarian

PanARMENIAN.Net
Adoption of Armenian Genocide Bill Will Change Many Things for France
13.10.2006 17:14 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “A wrong step taken on October 12th will change many
things for France and not for Turkey,” said Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan when commenting on the French bill criminalizing
the denial of the Armenian Genocide.
“Initiative of France to turn a historical lie into a law is a big
challenge against EU`s fundamental values. The most valuable asset of
Copenhagen criteria is freedom of thought and expression. So when a
scientist says “this thing is against scientific and historical
realities” and this will be considered as a crime; then where is the
freedom of expression? Moreover, how can France be part of a problem
between Turkey and Armenia?” Erdogan asked. He said that international
politics cannot be made by avoiding scientific and historical
documents and remarked that France should look at what happened in
Algeria between November 1st, 1954 and March 19th, 1962, reports
Turkishpress.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Reuters, UK
Oct 13 2006
Nobel laureate Pamuk chronicles Ottoman past
Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:27 AM BST

By Gareth Jones
ANKARA (Reuters) – Orhan Pamuk, who on Thursday became the first Turk
to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, shot to fame with novels that
explore Turkey’s complex identity through its rich imperial past.
But his criticism of modern Turkey’s failure to confront darker
episodes of that past has also turned Pamuk more recently into a
symbol of free thought both for the literary world and for the
European Union, which Ankara wants to join.
The bespectacled, boyish-looking Pamuk, 54, went on trial last year
on charges of insulting Turkish national identity under a
controversial article of the country’s penal code strongly criticised
by the EU.
Pamuk had upset nationalists by telling a Swiss newspaper that a
million Armenians had died in Turkey during World War One and 30,000
Kurds had perished in recent decades.
Though the court dismissed the charges against Pamuk on a
technicality, other writers and journalists are still being
prosecuted under the article and could face a jail sentence of up to
three years.
In a curious twist of irony, the Swedish Academy declared Pamuk
winner of the 2006 literature prize on a day when, to Turkey’s fury,
the French lower house of parliament approved a bill making it a
crime to deny the Armenian genocide.
Ankara says there was no genocide but that large numbers of both
Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks died in a partisan conflict
raging at that time as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
The Pamuk trial was a big embarrassment for Turkey’s pro-Western
government, which has introduced a flurry of human rights reforms and
last year finally began EU accession talks.
At the height of the nationalist hysteria over his comments, one
provincial official called for Pamuk’s books to be burnt.
SPEAKING TRUTH
“What I said is not an insult, it is the truth. But what if it is
wrong? Right or wrong, do people not have the right to express their
ideas peacefully,” Pamuk asked during the trial.
His work has been translated into many languages and has earned him a
growing fan club in Europe, America and beyond.
In his novels, Pamuk chronicles the clash between past and present,
East and West, secularism and Islamism, often against the colourful
backdrop of his native Istanbul, a city which straddles Europe and
Asia.
In “The White Castle”, he explores the complex relationship between a
17th century Ottoman Muslim master and his Italian Christian slave.
“Snow”, his most political work to date, Pamuk tells the tale of a
poet-journalist who returns from exile in Germany and travels to the
eastern Turkish city of Kars to investigate the suicides of a number
of pious, young headscarved women.
It is critical of both Westerners and Islamists in Turkey.
His most recent work, “Istanbul: Memories of a City”, intersperses
personal reminiscences of childhood and youth with reflections on the
city’s Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman past.
“Istanbul’s fate is my fate. I am attached to this city because it
has made me who I am,” he says.
Pamuk was born into a wealthy, Westernised family in Istanbul in
1952. He speaks fluent English and spent several years as a Columbia
University scholar in the United States.
He has pioneered a style of writing that combines traditional
story-telling with experimental devices and a very modern
preoccupation with identity and fears of a “clash of civilisations”.

AZG Armenian Daily #196, 14/10/2006

Turkey
MESROP MOUTAFIAN AND HRANT DINK ON FRENCH BILL ON DENIAL OF ARMENIAN
GENOCIDE
According to Turkish Milliet newspaper, Hrant Dink, editor-in-chief of
Agos, stated that after the adoption of the French bill on the
Armenian Genocide Turkey appeared in more beneficial position that
Armenia. He explained this by the fact that the international
community had always considered the Armenians as victims in this
issue, while at present; the Turks have occupied this favorable
position. At the same time, Dink stated that the adoption of the
French bill was a shame from the viewpoint of the freedom of speech.
According to the Turkish newspaper, Mesrop Moutafian, Patriarch of
Constantinople, stated that the French bill made great harm to the
tense Armenian-Turkish relations. He added that the bill is
anti-democratic, as it hinders the right of the freedom of speech.
Besides, Moutafian said that the Armenian residents of Turkey follow
the developments with concern and expect pressures from the Turks
after the adoption of the abovementioned bill.
In his turn, Famous Turkish writer Elif Safak said in the interview to
the French Le Monde, that the adoption of the bill would not
contribute to the recognition of the historical issue (the Armenian
genocide). At the same time, he added that that the Turks should share
the grief of the Armenian people, respect that and get along with the
past. He expressed hope that the Turks are able to discuss the mistake
committed by their ancestors.
By Hakob Chakrian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Kathimerini, Greece
Oct 13 2006
Nicosia puts foot down on Turkey
Cyprus cannot act as if all is well in Turkish negotiations with the
European Union when Ankara persistently refuses to fulfill its
obligations as an EU candidate state, Cypriot Foreign Minister
Giorgos Lillikas said yesterday ahead of talks with Dora Bakoyannis
in Athens.
«We are simply implementing a policy which Nicosia had declared early
on to the European Union presidency and the European Commission,»
Lillikas said.
He was elaborating on an earlier declaration by Cypriot government
spokesman Christodoulos Pasiardis according to which Nicosia will
block progress in Turkish accession talks until Ankara opens its air
and sea ports to Cyprus.
According to Greece’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Giorgos
Koumoutsakos, Ankara’s failure to extend its customs agreement to
include Cyprus is «politically illogical.» «The obligations (Ankara)
has undertaken as regards the protocol are autonomous and
established,» he said.
Koumoutsakos also criticized Ankara for threatening France over its
draft law that aims to make it a crime to deny that the 1915-1917
genocide of the Armenians took place. «Threats or insinuations and
the aggressive tone of public statements do not befit a country on
the road to joining the European Union,» he said.
The Greek Parliament voted in 1996 to condemn the Armenian genocide
but Koumoutsakos said, «In the modern world, the past should not act
as a hindrance to the future.»
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Unison.ie, Ireland
Oct 13 2006
French Pass Bill That Punishes Denial of Armenian Genocide
PARIS, Oct. 12 – The National Assembly, defying appeals from Turkey,
approved legislation Thursday that would make it a crime to deny that
the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I
were genocide.
The legislation, which was criticized by Turkey’s government and some
European Union officials, could further complicate talks for Turkey’s
admission to the Union.
With 106 deputies voting in favor and 19 against, the law sets fines
of up to 45,000 euros, or about $56,000, and a year in prison for
denying the genocide. Of the 577 members of the Assembly, 4 abstained
and 448 did not vote at all, raising the question of whether there
would be enough political will to push the law through the Senate.
Scholars and most Western governments have recognized the killing of
more than a million Armenians by Ottoman Turks from 1915 to 1919 as
genocide. But the subject is still taboo in Turkey, and charges have
been pressed against writers and others who have brought attention to
the genocide, including Orhan Pamuk, who was just awarded the Nobel
Prize in literature.
`The Turkish people refuse the limitation of freedom of expression on
the basis of groundless claims,’ the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in
a statement. `With this draft law, France unfortunately loses its
privileged status in the eyes of Turkish public opinion.’
Ali Babacan, the Turkish economy minister and the country’s lead
negotiator on talks with Europe, said he could not rule out
consequences for French companies.
`What happened in France today, we believe, is not in line with the
core values of the European Union,’ Mr. Babacan said, adding that the
government would not encourage a boycott of French goods.
In Brussels, the European Union warned that the law could have a
harmful effect on negotiations. `It would prohibit dialogue which is
necessary for reconciliation on the issue,’ said Krisztina Nagy, a
spokeswoman for the Union. `It is not up to law to write history.
Historians need to have debate.’
Turkey’s potential membership in the European Union has been a hot
political topic here ahead of the presidential elections next spring.
The leading candidates to succeed President Jacques Chirac, including
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, have agreed
that Turkey must acknowledge the genocide before gaining membership.
But the new legislation has been more of a campaign issue in France,
which has one of Europe’s largest Armenian populations.
Although most of France’s top politicians supported the European
Union’s planned constitution, the French rejected it last year in a
referendum that was also seen as a vote against further European
expansion. The problem for politicians seeking to succeed Mr. Chirac
is how to oppose Turkish entry without taking on the xenophobic tones
of the far right.
After the vote, Mr. Chirac’s government, which opposed the
legislation, expressed eagerness for dialogue with Turkey and said
the bill was unnecessary and inopportune. `We are very committed to
dialogue with Turkey, as well as to the strong ties of friendship and
cooperation which link us to that country,’ said Jean-Baptiste
Mattéi, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry.
Ms. Royal, who is the leading Socialist candidate for president, has
loudly supported the bill. On Wednesday, she reiterated that
`obviously,’ Turkey would have to recognize the genocide, and added,
`My opinion is that of the French people.’
Two other senior Socialists, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Jack Lang,
had reservations about the bill.
On the center right, Mr. Sarkozy has opposed Turkey’s joining the
European Union, but he kept silent about the genocide bill, which was
sponsored by the Socialists.
A leading Turkish analyst of the European Union, Can Baydarol, said
that although the decision would seem to have no direct effect on
Turkey’s relations with Europe, the hostile attitude of French
lawmakers demonstrated some of the obstacles to Turkish membership.
`Now people see that more than the technical details, political
maneuvers will mark the years-long process on the way to full
membership,’ he said.
Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting from Istanbul.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ha’aretz, Israel
Oct 13 2006
Taking sides on genocide

By Jonas Attenhofer

On an official visit to Turkey, Swiss justice minister Christoph
Blocher expressed sympathy for his hosts’ anger at Switzerland’s
prosecution of two Turkish men who publicly denied the Armenian
Genocide. The two, a historian and a politician, are being prosecuted
under a Swiss anti-racism law.
Blocher, leader of the right-wing People’s Party, also mentioned
during his visit that the Department of Justice he heads was working
toward a revision of the law, which he said caused him pain as well.
These remarks caused an uproar in Swiss political and academic
circles, which broadly support the law that withstood a referendum in
1994. Aside from racism in general, the law explicitly prohibits the
public denial, grave belittlement, or attempted justification of
genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Upon his return to Switzerland, Blocher stated his intention of
working to exclude from the anti-racism law the section that
prohibits denial of a genocide. He was quoted as saying that this
particular passage could impair freedom of expression, as well as
Switzerland’s relations with other states. Regarding freedom of
expression, the question is whether a law that prohibits the
racially, ethnically or religiously motivated violation of the human
dignity of particular individuals, represents a serious limitation of
individual freedom.

The president of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, Giusep
Nay, sees the law as a necessary limitation to freedom of expression.
He sees no threat to this freedom as expressed in the Swiss
Constitution and the United Nations Charter. A state’s interest in
limiting this basic right was explained by the Armenian Republic’s
ambassador to Switzerland, who observed that by allowing the denial
of past genocides, the perpetrators remain unpunished by public
opinion, and the prevention of future genocides is undermined.
The Swiss law covers only public statements. In a case in which a
group of Swiss soldiers gave the Nazi salute and expressed racist
sentiments while serving in the army, a military court recently
applied the term “public” to expressions made during military
training. If the anti-racism law were rescinded, it would become
easier to dismiss historic facts surrounding a genocide – effectively
favoring freedom of expression over the moral integrity of minority
groups. Equally controversial is the surrender of their moral
integrity by dropping the law in favor of good relations with states
that might disagree with it.
In the case of Switzerland and Turkey, Blocher’s call to weaken the
law has not earned much support among fellow cabinet members, whose
scheduled visits to Turkey have been cancelled by the host country
over frictions about the question of the Armenian Genocide. The Swiss
National Council had previously recognized the Armenian Genocide, and
this may be seen as the official Swiss position.
Blocher was sharply criticized by his colleagues in the seven-member
cabinet for disagreeing with a Swiss law while in a foreign country,
for not aligning his statements with the official positions of the
joint cabinet and for not fully coordinating his activities abroad
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
As minister of justice, Blocher was not involved in any official
negotiations, but merely accepted an invitation by his Turkish
counterpart on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the
establishment of Turkish civil law, which is modeled on the Swiss
Civil Code (ZGB). At the ceremony, the dean of the faculty of law of
Ankara University mentioned the constructive role Western European
law codes played in the shift from an Islamic society to a modern,
secular one.
Should neutral Switzerland engage in Armenian-Turkish mediation in
the future, recognition of the Armenian Genocide will unlikely be
subject to negotiations. Upholding its humanitarian tradition,
Switzerland can be expected to maintain a firm stance on the issue.
This also seems to be the intention of France’s Jacques Chirac and
Germany’s Angela Merkel, who want to make the issue a precondition
for Turkey to enter the European Union. France is presently
discussing implementation of a law that explicitly prohibits denial
of the Armenian Genocide.
The situation could have significance for the Middle East. The
European Union will eventually share a border with Iran. When a
Western European country considers weakening its stance against
public denial of the Holocaust, how is the message perceived in the
Middle East?
The writer is a law student at the universities of Zurich and Berne.

Arab News, Saudi Arabia
Oct 13 2006
Editorial: Confronting the Past
13 October 2006

TURKS prize the characteristics of toughness and fixity of purpose
that have made the ordinary Turkish soldier such an indomitable and
ferocious foe on the battlefield. The elite Janissaries from the
country’s Ottoman past, with their alarming tactic of relentless
advance using an eccentric swaying march, epitomize a sturdiness,
which after the humiliations of defeat in 1918, the Turks reasserted
under Ataturk’s leadership and threw occupation forces out of the
country.
However, in this formidable stubborn strength lies Turkey’s weakness
as the country bids for EU membership, for which in many other ways
it is eminently qualified. Turkey’s obdurate denial of the massacres
that took place for three years after an Armenian insurrection in
1915 is a folly that helps only those who wish to exclude it from the
EU.
With the 1983 return of democracy under Turgut Özal, work was
actually begun on a public-relations campaign that would at last have
recognized the horrors in Eastern Turkey. It would have argued that
the government of Enver Pasha feared a czarist Russian-inspired
rebellion that could have opened a further front for the already
overstretched Turkish armed forces. The point would also have been
made that Kurds, who turned on their more prosperous Armenian
neighbors, did much of the killing. In the event the project was
abandoned in favor of publishing a collection of source documents
that majored on the atrocities committed by Armenian rebels. History
is never black and white. Unfortunately almost a century after the
fact, Turkey is still stubbornly committed to a denial, not only that
there was official sanction for the massacres of maybe up to 1.5
million Armenians, but also of the fact that the massacres took
place. In France, which has a very large Armenian community,
legislators are making denial of the Armenian massacres a crime.
Regardless of the wisdom of this curtailment of free speech (proposed
by the opposition Socialists), the move is only the latest by French
parties of all political colors to block Turkey’s EU entry.
Socialist presidential challenger next year Segolene Royal, her rival
Nicolas Sarkozy, and President Chirac have all called for a
referendum on Turkish membership. Given current anti-Muslim feeling
and the articulate and wealthy Armenian community, that vote would
likely go against Turkey. Even in Italy and the UK, Turkey’s leading
supporters, there is now some concern that though many reforms
demanded by Brussels are being implemented by Ankara, Turks have not
grasped the wider implication of EU membership: that Europe is built
on compromise often hammered out in exhausting all-night
horse-trading sessions.
As the French themselves have been learning in recent years,
`nationalism’ is a dirty word in the EU. National pride is fine, but
it cannot be carried over into nationalist policies that tear apart
this unique economic and political organization of nation states.
Turkey’s staunch nationalism and obdurate refusal to confront a
tragic past plays right into the hands of its opponents.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

People’s Daily, China
Oct 13 2006
Turkey slams France over adoption of Armenian genocide bill

Turkish Foreign Ministry on Thursday slammed the French Parliament’s
adoption of a proposed draft law criminalizing any denial of the
alleged massacres of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World
War I.
Relations between Turkey and France have suffered “a heavy blow due
to irresponsible initiatives of several French politicians who are
not able to predict consequences of their policies,” the ministry
said in a statement.
“Despite our all diplomatic and parliamentary initiatives, and
efforts of our citizens living in France, non-governmental
organizations and business circles, the French parliament adopted the
bill submitted by the Socialist Party on criminalizing of any denial
of so-called Armenian genocide. We profoundly regret the adoption of
the bill,” the statement said.
French lawmakers on Thursday voted 106-19 for the bill, which calls
for up to a year in prison and fines of up to 56,000 U.S. dollars for
anyone who denies the Armenian genocide, according to the Turkish
media.
The bill must be passed by the Senate and signed by French President
Jacques Chirac, the reports said.
Reacting to the adoption of the bill, Turkish Parliament Speaker
Bulent Arinc said on Thursday, “It is a shameful and hostile
resolution. It is totally unacceptable.”
Arinc expressed his regret over adoption of the draft and said,
“France is considered the cradle of individual freedoms. This
decision contradicts with freedom of thought and expression.”
Turkey, a secular Muslim country which is seeking for the European
Union (EU) membership, has vowed to impose economic sanctions on
France if the bill is passed in the French parliament.
According to the Zaman daily newspaper, Turkey is the fifth- largest
customer of France outside the EU. The volume of trade between Turkey
and France is about 10 billion dollars. French exports to Turkey are
5.9 billion dollars while its import remains at 3.8 billion dollars.
Turkey has always denied that up to 1.5 million Armenians were
subjected to genocide in the period between 1915 and 1923.
However, it does acknowledge that up to 300,000 Armenians died during
fighting and efforts to relocate populations away from the war zone
in eastern Turkey.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Sabah, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
French companies say: “we believe in Turkey”
Renault, the longest standing French company in Turkey said:
“companies which contribute to export and the development of the
country believe in Turkey.”
After the approval of the Armenian genocide denial bill in France,
Renault declared in writing that: “Renault believes in Turkey and is
monitoring these happenings very closely.” The communication manager
of the company, Jean-Christophe Nougaret, stated that Renault has
performed commercial and industrial activities within the partnership
of OYAK for 37 years and thus Renault has been contributing to the
development and continuous growth of Turkey with its production and
export performances. ”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Daily Star, Lebanon
Oct 13 2006
Outstanding – and outspoken – Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk wins Nobel
Prize for Literature
Writer recently occupied international spotlight not for his work but
as a target of his country’s prosecutors
By Kaelen Wilson-Goldie
Daily Star staff
Friday, October 13, 2006
BEIRUT: His name has been floated for years now, with bookies often
quoting the odds in his favor over a pack of strong contenders –
including Syrian poet Adonis, American novelist Philip Roth, Polish
journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski, Mexico’s Carlos Fuentes, Algeria’s
Assia Djebar and Peru’s Mario Vargas Llosa. But the coveted Nobel
Prize for literature has eluded Orhan Pamuk – until now.
On Thursday, Turkey’s leading novelist finally got the award, making
him the first Nobel literature laureate from the Middle East – if one
considers Turkey to be a part of the region, and this newspaper does
– since the late Naguib Mahfouz of Egypt, who won in 1988. (Israel’s
Shmuel Yosef Agnon split the Nobel with German poet and playwright
Nelly Sachs in 1966. No Turkish writer has ever been honored in the
prize’s 105-year history).
Making the announcement at mid-day on Thursday, the Swedish Academy
in Stockholm – charged with doling out the award and its attendant
check for $1.36 million – praised Pamuk for discovering “in the quest
for the melancholic soul of his native city … new symbols for the
clash and interlacing of cultures.”
Pamuk has published one memoir – “Istanbul: Memories and the City” –
and nine novels, five of which have been translated into English.
Overall, his work has earned widespread critical acclaim and
international recognition while finding its way into print in some 40
different languages.
That said, with the exception of a pirated translation from Syria of
his first novel “Cavdet Bey,” his work is not widely available in
Arabic, and Pamuk himself has reportedly made a few disparaging
remarks in the past about there being little need for such
translations as so few Arabic speakers read novels.
However, outside literary circles and those who do, whatever the
language, read novels, Pamuk is best known as the famous writer who
went on trial in Turkey. In February 2005, he gave an interview to
the Swiss publication Das Magazin, in which he declared: “Thirty
thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and
nobody but me dares to talk about it.” For that statement, a
prosecutor named Turgay Evsen charged Pamuk with violating Article
301 of Turkey’s controversial penal code, which prohibits public
denigration of Turkish national identity, the republic or the
national assembly.
In December 2005, Pamuk’s trial stalled as soon as it started. The
presiding judge, Metin Aydin, postponed the proceedings for two
months on a technicality and eventually the entire case was dropped.
Though he is known for his reclusive and introverted work ethic,
Pamuk never ceases to speak out in defense of free speech and on
behalf of lesser-known colleagues who, without the benefit of kicking
up an international storm of ultra-nationalist protestors on one side
and lemon-faced European Union observers on the other, have been or
are being brought up on the same charges, particularly the
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Another Turkish novelist,
Elif Shafak, went on trial for violating Article 301 last month. Her
case, dropped for lack of evidence, had the rare distinction of being
based entirely on the words Shafak put into the mouths of fictional
characters in her novel “The Bastard of Istanbul.”
Beyond his ability to puncture the often tough tissue of
sociopolitical taboo, Pamuk is arguably unrivaled in his ability to
capture the complexities of the Turkish psyche and, more broadly, the
disappointments and depravations of those living in the developing –
but not yet embraced as developed – world.

Pamuk is a brilliant literary stylist. He coils one story into
another and then another, all in the space of a single page, often
even a single paragraph. He crafts his novels into compelling,
blood-rushing narratives of pursuit – his books are essentially
detective stories shot-through with post-modern twists, turns,
doubling backs and returns.
“Snow,” his most recent novel to appear in English, follows the poet
Ka to the remote Turkish city of Kars, where he is to report an
investigative feature for a newspaper on a rash of suicides by
so-called “headscarf girls.” Really, though, he has traveled to this
foreboding corner of the country to find his first love, Ipek. Just
as he sits down with her in a cafe, a man one table over is shot to
death in the chest, a victim of political assassination.
Yet the core of “Snow” is filled with a certain melancholy
characteristic of all Pamuk’s work. The poet Ka – secular, Western –
wonders why people are growing so religious. He strains to understand
but at the same time seems to seek an alternative source of
spirituality – inseparable from the creativity of his craft – to
either fill the gap of godlessness or protect him from the impulse to
give up and go religious himself. (Pamuk, who was born to an elite
family in Istanbul, has said in the past that members of his social
class regard religion as the reserve of the poor and provincial).
Yet Pamuk’s take on class division betrays no arrogance. Rather, it
is part of a more mournful attempt to document and probe what is too
often reduced to a clash of civilizations. In 2001, Pamuk penned one
of the most cogent responses ever committed in print to the ways in
which the attacks of September 11, 2001, changed the dynamic of
global politics.
“The Western world is scarcely aware of [the] overwhelming feeling of
humiliation that is experienced by most of the world’s population,”
he wrote in The New York Review of Books. “This is the grim, troubled
private sphere that neither magical realistic novels that endow
poverty and foolishness with charm nor the exoticism of popular
travel literature manages to fathom. And it is while living within
this private sphere that most people in the world today are afflicted
by spiritual misery.
“The problem facing the West is not only to discover which terrorist
is preparing a bomb in which tent, which cave, or which street of
which city, but also to understand the poor and scorned and
‘wrongful’ majority that does not belong to the West.”
Pamuk’s strength as a writer lies in his skill for channeling such
concerns into fiction and then going one step further by inscribing
them onto the surface of the city he loves most. Mid-way through his
masterful novel “The Black Book,” Pamuk’s only work of fiction set
wholly in Istanbul, the protagonist Galip, who is searching for his
missing wife and her half-brother, whom he suspects may be together,
remarks: “While it was possible to perceive the city’s old age, its
misfortune, its lost splendor, its sorrow and pathos in the faces of
the citizens, it was not the symptom of a specifically contrived
secret but of a collective defeat, history, and complicity.” – With
agencies
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress