Author: Kanayan Tamar

HETQ, Armenia
Dec 30 2011

After 22 Months of Captivity in Azerbaijan, Artur Badalyan Recalls the
Nightmares

23:40, December 29, 2011
Anush Bulghadaryan

For 22 months he had the tough planks as his bed and prayers as his
unquenchable hope. Somewhere far behind the mist was his 5-month son,
somewhere nearby – the mice, the non-stop voice of the metal and
humiliations.

Haghartsin village inhabitant Artur Badalyan, 32, carries in his mind
the nightmares of almost two years of the Azerbaijani captivity that
are engraved in his mind, dividing his life into before and after the
captivity.

Though he was back home on March 17, as a result of exchange of
captives, the nightmares, insomnia, the noises in his head and the
permanent feeling of pursuit do not leave him.

On May 9, 2009, Artur and his friends went to pick up mushrooms. In
the area of Berd town he lost his friends and his way and fell into
the enemy’s hands.

`Somebody asked for cigarettes in Armenian, I gave him. He said
nothing more. Only in Russian – don’t be afraid. Then several
approached and took me away,’ he recalls. `I was thinking the worst. I
thought I wouldn’t ever be back, they were going to slaughter me for
their bayram’.

At first, the Azerbaijanis took Artur to a border village military
unit, then to Ghazakh, then to Baku and then back to Ghazakh again.

The only good memory of Artur’s captivity in Baku’s lightless and damp
prison ward is the mouse with her young mice. They were born and grew
up before his eyes. He says they were his only friends in the days of
his nightmares.

He tells that the very second day of the captivity, in the military
unit of the unknown village, two men made him lie on the belly and
hurt his legs by beating him intensively. Afterwards, he was taken to
Azerbaijan’s Ghazakh town military unit, where they were switching
electric current through his arms.

`In Ghazakh I was kept lying one day with my hands tied. They wouldn’t
untie my arms, so that I could at least massage my legs. The next day,
too, they beat me and switched electricity to my arms. I felt the
current through whole my body,’ tells Artur with difficulty but in
details.

He tells that apart from the physical torture they would torment him
psychologically as well, aiming to make him commit suicide.

After Ghazakh, Artur stayed at one of Baku military units for a year
and 3 months.

`In Baku it was terrible. I was treated like a swine and not a human.
The ward had no window, there was no light. They would strike the door
with a metal item every day. I didn’t have a minute of rest.’

During those 2 years, the captive wasn’t allowed to walk, and very
often Artur had to do the deeds in the same ward, where he lived. He
was permitted to take care of his personal hygiene only once in 2-3
months in the yard. He recalls the freezing water jet on his body in
cold weather.

Many days he passed in hunger.

`It was a terrible situation. I washed my clothes only when they were
`cleaning’ the ward with chlorine. Then I had to close my eyes with a
piece of cloth, not to go blind. Whole night, naked, I was shaking my
clothes or lying on them to dry with the heat of my body. There was no
food. I was eating bad bread,’ tell the villager.

He says he was frequently catching cold and hardly being cured without
any medicine and care. It would be naïve even to dream of them.

In November 2010, Artur Badalyan was again moved to the same unit of
Ghazakh town. He says there he was given some medicaments in the food,
since he was feeling very bad, weak and almost insensible.

`They put a belt there for me to hang myself and there was a special
place for hanging, too’ says the survivor of Azerbaijani capture.

When he was in Ghazakh for the second time, he learnt some
representatives of the Red Cross would visit him – before that nobody
had ever paid him a visit.

`I told the Red Cross I went to Ghazakh to ask the Azerbaijani side to
send me to a third country. They had warned me if I failed to say so,
they would send me back to Baku. So, I had to obey, not to appear in
Baku again’, explains Artur Badalyan.

Artur is confident all the pressures he underwent had one aim – make
him go insane: `They were doing all that to make me mad, so that I
wouldn’t be be able to tell anything. They wanted my memory to become
weak, so that they could say I was crazy.’

Now is trying to recover with the help of his family. His son is 2.5
years old now.

For the tortures in captivity that Artur Badalyan suffered, Vanadzor
town’s `Populex’ bar office plans to sue Azerbaijan. This is the first
action in its form. They plan sending the suit to the European Court
of Human Rights within a month.

`A lot of things have changed. I have more goals now. I want to work
to help my family out of the hardships, to restore everything,’ dreams
Artur.

Translated by Narine Aghabekyan

The Jewish Daily Forward
Dec 30 2011

Recognition of Suffering, Far Too Late

Israel Only Marks Armenian Genocide To Settle Turkey Score

By Larry Derfner
Published December 30, 2011, issue of January 06, 2012.

Israel is definitely making progress on the subject of the Armenian
genocide. In late December, during the Knesset’s first ever open-door
debate on the issue, nobody was reported to have questioned whether
the deliberate killing of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-’16 should be
called a genocide, nor whether the Ottoman Empire was the guilty
party, nor whether modern-day Turkey inherited that guilt. For once,
all this was taken for granted, as it has been for decades by
virtually all historians, notably Holocaust and genocide historians.

`As a people and as a country, we stand and face the whole world with
the highest moral demand that Holocaust denial is something human
history cannot accept. Therefore, we cannot deny the tragedy of
others,’ Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin told the Education Committee.

Hear, hear. But this is a far cry from the position taken, for
instance, in 2001 by then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who told a
Turkish newspaper that the Armenian genocide was `a matter for
historians to decide,’ and that Israel `reject[s] attempts to create a
similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations.’

No question, Israel has come a long way. When the U.S. Holocaust
Museum opened in 1993, Armenian-Americans lobbying for inclusion of
the Armenian genocide were met with a counter campaign organized by
Turkish officials and backed, according to museum officials, by the
efforts of the Israeli embassy.

For decades, official Israel not only `stood silent’ about the
Armenian genocide, it deployed the American Jewish Committee,
Anti-Defamation League and other lobbying groups to back up White
House efforts to ensure that Congress stood silent, too. As late as
2007, the ADL fired a senior official for challenging Abraham Foxman’s
opposition to a move in Congress for recognition of the genocide.

`Frankly, I’m pretty disgusted,’ Yehuda Bauer, Israel’s leading
Holocaust scholar, told me in 2005, when only a few academics and
liberal politicians were speaking out against Israel’s role as
blocking back for Turkey’s policy of denial. `I think that my
government preferred economic and political relations with Turkey to
the truth.’

That was then, but this is now, and now Israel’s relations with Turkey
are ice cold, so there’s a lot less to lose by recognizing the
Armenian genocide, and a great deal of satisfaction to be gained. `How
many times can they recall their ambassador?’ Knesset Member Uri
Orbach pointed out.

Shameless hypocrisy, that’s the only term for this Israeli spectacle.
The Knesset said nothing about the Armenian genocide all those years
when Israel wanted to preserve its alliance with Turkey, and now it
has the gall to pretend that it’s raising the issue `so that no one in
the world will think [genocide] can happen again,’ according to
Knesset Member Arye Eldad. The only Knesset members who come to this
issue with clean hands are those of Meretz, which over the years stood
alone among the political parties in demanding recognition of the
genocide and Turkey’s culpability for it.

I don’t know whose hypocrisy is worse – the Knesset’s or that of the
Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry, which oppose
recognition on the grounds that it will cause more bad blood with
Turkey, something Israel doesn’t need. National Security Adviser
Ya’akov Amidror reportedly told Israeli diplomats that now is the time
to `reduce tensions with Turkey, not pour more oil on the fire.’

Funny, but over the last two years, this consideration didn’t deter
the government from 1) sitting the Turkish ambassador on a low chair
to humiliate him in front of the TV cameras; 2) commandeering the
Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on its way to Gaza, which ended with the
killings of nine Turks aboard; 3) refusing to apologize for the
killings; and 4) just this last Thursday, canceling a $141 million
sale to Turkey of air force intelligence equipment.

Each of those moves was apparently worth deepening the rift with
Turkey. But not an attempt to end Israel’s collusion in the denial of
the 20th century’s first genocide, whose early disappearance from
history was cited by Hitler as proof that he could get away with a
genocide of his own.

In the end, though, I agree with the Prime Minister’s Office and
Foreign Ministry: Israel should not do a 180-degree turn and suddenly
recognize the Armenian genocide, especially not now. Like this week’s
`historic’ Knesset hearing, it would be too transparently false, too
embarrassing.

Israel has stood silent this long; let it remain silent.

World Socialist Web Site
Dec 30 2011

France prepares ban on denying a Turkish genocide of Armenians

By F. Dubois
30 December 2011

The National Assembly’s passage on December 22 of a law banning the
public denial of the Armenian genocide has provoked a major diplomatic
crisis between France and Turkey. In the days before the vote on the
law, the Turkish government tried to exert pressure to prevent the
vote, and reacted forcefully once the law was passed.

The Turkish state forbids the use of the term genocide to characterise
the massacres of Armenians perpetrated in 1915 on the territory of the
former Ottoman Empire.

The infringement of the new French law now carries the penalty of a
year in prison and a 45,000 fine.

The initiative for this law came from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s
government. During a visit to the Armenian capital Erevan in October,
he publicly pressed for the recognition of the Armenian genocide,
since `denial was not acceptable.’ Valérie Boyer, a deputy of the
ruling UMP (Union for a Popular Movement) for a Marseille constituency
with a large Armenian community, then proposed a bill on behalf of the
government.

Most of the deputies were not present for the debate before the vote.
The law was finally only voted on by some 50 majority and opposition
deputies, out of 577, with about 10 from both sides voting against.

The Socialist Party (PS) and the Communist Party (PCF) voted with the
government in favour of the law, which, in fact, is a reprise of a
similar law passed by the National Assembly in 2006, which the UMP and
the government then opposed.

Historians who had already opposed such a law, again expressed their
hostility to the present law. In particular, they are worried that it
represents an attack on freedom of enquiry and freedom of speech, and
oppose giving the state the right to gag historians. The French
historian Pierre Nora, who opposes the voting of the law, in the name
of historians’ freedom, is quoted in Le Monde.

The law is deeply reactionary. It allows French imperialism to
hypocritically set itself up as a moral authority as it carries out a
military offensive in the Muslim world – with wars in Libya and in
Afghanistan, and an on-going intervention in Syria carried out with
the US and Turkey. It also facilitates dividing the working class
along ethnic lines, while giving the state anti-democratic censorship
powers.

One of Sarkozy’s more or less openly admitted motivations, in the
context of the campaign for the presidential election in April and May
2012, was to attract the Armenian vote.

Sarkozy is seeking re-election, as his government becomes ever more
unpopular. His inability to provide any solution to the economic
crisis and his repeated attacks on living standards, jobs and civil
rights as well as his defence of finance capital have provoked
hostility in the majority of the population. He is led in the polls by
the PS, and the neo-fascist National Front is close behind.

Sarkozy has systematically opposed the entry of Turkey into the
European Union (EU). The issue of the denial of the genocide, which
the new law penalises and puts at the same level as the Shoah, serves
as a further obstacle to Turkey’s membership of the EU.

As the former UMP minister and vehement supporter of the law, Patrick
Devidjan, admitted: `It’s a political act: just when Turkey wants to
join the European Union, and appear to be a country which defends
human rights, this law helps to reveal the attitude of Turkey on the
international arena and clearly shows that Turkey is not the country
of human rights.’

The announcement of the vote set off a major diplomatic crisis with
Turkey. The Turkish government and media reacted aggressively to the
vote. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened France
with economic and political sanctions, the freezing of military
cooperation, and diplomatic isolation in the Middle East.

Sarkozy’s initiative provoked incredulity and anger among many
bourgeois politicians, even within his own government. Foreign
Minister Alain Juppé (UMP) was quoted in the weekly Marianne saying:
`This bill is intellectually, economically and diplomatically
bullsh*t. We’re not going to get into a genocide competition. All that
just to get the votes of Frenchmen of Armenian extraction. It’s
ridiculous!’

Another rival presidential candidate, Dominique de Villepin, a former
prime minister who left the UMP in February 2011, has called the
voting of the law an `error.’ On December 25 on Europe 1 radio
station, he warned: `Let’s be prudent. We are opening up disputes
which will push us backwards and not forwards.’

That a section of big business should express its misgivings publicly
is not surprising. The past five years have seen a noticeable
rapprochement of France with Turkey, and a strong increase of French
investment in the country. Turkey has become an important export
market. France, which has 11.5 billion direct investments in Turkey,
sold 6.3 billion worth of exports there and bought 5.4 billion worth
of imports in 2010.

French car makers have 20 percent share of the Turkish market, and
French banks have obtain significant interest income there.

At a time when French imperialism is intervening in Syria, where it
partially depends on Turkey for assistance, Sarkozy’s initiative seems
very ill-chosen for large sections of the French bourgeoisie.

France has established close collaboration with Turkey in order to
intervene in the civil war which is developing between the Alawite
regime of Assad and the imperialist-backed Syrian National Council and
the Free Syrian Army. This imperialist intervention in Syria must be
seen in the broader context of a political, and potentially military,
imperialist confrontation with Iran throughout the Middle East.

Ever more pressing demands for a military intervention in Syria by the
imperialist powers, including France, are being expressed. Some days
ago, Bernard Valero, spokesman for the Foreign Office called on the
United Nations Security Council to vote `a firm resolution which
demands the end of the repression.’

According to the French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, and the
Turkish daily Milliyet, the Free Syrian Army is trained by British
soldiers and French intelligences service agents. For weeks the FSA
has been calling for `foreign air strikes’ (according to Le Monde of
November 24). France has committed itself to the establishment of a
`buffer zone’ between Turkey and Syria.

The French Senate must now debate the bill voted by the National
Assembly. The UMP Senator Roger Karoutchi pointed out yesterday that
it had not yet been written into the Senate timetable, adding that it
made him `uncomfortable’. According to Karoutchi, the Senate could
decide to place bill on the agenda for January 10, which would mean
that the Senate would debate it in February.

Zeynep Necipoglu of the French Chamber of Commerce in Turkey (CCFT)
has announced that the CCFT would carry out `a determined campaign
with the senators to make them aware…. of the great amount of damage
that [this initiative] is likely to cause.’ According to the CCFT,
this could enable the French political establishment to `act in order
for the bill to be voted down in the Senate.’

National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: Tell Me More 11:00 AM EST
December 29, 2011 Thursday

Turkey Prospers Amid Neighboring Nations’ Woes

GUESTS: Recep Tayyip Erdogan , John Peet, Rami Khouri, Ahmet Davutoglu

MICHEL MARTIN: I’m Michel Martin and this is TELL ME MORE from NPR
News. Coming up, it’s time for Kwanzaa, the week long celebration of
the African Diaspora. The holiday is supposed to emphasize family and
community and all things homemade, so of course, we’re going to talk
about food you might want to serve for your Kwanzaa celebration or
just because.

But first, as 2011 winds down, we’re taking some time to offer a twist
on the traditional end of year roundup here at TELL ME MORE and, in
fact, across NPR all week, we’re highlighting the people, movements
and ideas that had a good year.

Today, we turn to the country of Turkey. It was once called the sick
man of Europe, but all that has changed in the last decade. Just this
year, its neighbors to the west have gone through an economic crisis
that still threatens to topple the eurozone.

Turkey’s economy has been booming with an estimated seven percent
growth. Its neighbors to the east and south have gone through
widespread demonstrations and political turmoil, but Turkey has
championed the cause of the Arab Spring and is being increasingly
recognized as a regional player.

Let’s listen to this speech by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan addressed to the Syrian president. First, you’ll hear his
voice and then you’ll hear the voice of the translator. Here it is.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan : (Through Translator) If you believe in
yourself, if you are confident as a leader, you would call for
elections. If these ballot boxes take you to power, then you will come
to power and rule that country. You can remain in power with tanks and
cannons only up to a certain point. The day will come when you will
leave.

MICHEL MARTIN: We wanted to talk more about why this has been a good
year for Turkey, so we have called upon Rami Khouri. He is the
editor-at-large of The Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon. We reached him
there. Also with us is John Peet, the Europe editor at The Economist
magazine and we reached him in Wilshire, England.

Thank you both so much for joining us. Happy holidays to you both.

JOHN PEET: Same to you.

RAMI KHOURI: Thank you.

MICHEL MARTIN: So Mr. Peet, I’m going to start with you because the
economy is such a concern in the U.S. and Europe at this time. So I’d
like to ask you why Turkey’s economy has had such a good year.

JOHN PEET: Well, it’s had a series of good years, but this year, 2011,
has been probably better than most of the previous ones. The Turkey
economy was in terrible state up to about 10 years ago. It went
through repeated high inflation, (unintelligible) crises, trouble with
the currency and they did a lot of economic reform at the time.

They sorted out their banks 10 years ago and the last 10 years have
been very good years, booming times, very strong exports to Europe and
increasingly to the region and through Asia and they’ve done well
again this year, so they’re much better off than the rest of Europe.
They look, really, like one of the BRIC countries.

MICHEL MARTIN: And has this rising tide lifted more boats than just
the few? I mean, has it, in fact, improved the living standard of
citizens in a way that they can feel?

JOHN PEET: Very strongly. I mean, the traditional visitor to Turkey
will go to Istanbul and life in Istanbul has been good for quite a
long time, but what I think has changed since I first went to Turkey
10 years ago has been the living standards right across the main
Anatolian land mass.

You go in to towns like Gaziantep or Kayseri in the middle of Anatolia
and living standards have increased very substantially in the last 10
years. People, you know – there are quite a lot of much richer people
and the average is much higher than it was. So it’s been a pretty good
time for most Turks.

MICHEL MARTIN: And Rami Khouri, let’s bring you into the conversation.
Here’s Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, speaking to Al
Jazeera English about their policy toward the Arab Spring protests
this summer.

AHMET DAVUTOGLU: We established two principles. One is, now, it is
time for change in our region. There is a need of a new politics in
our region. Second, the method of this change should be peaceful
transformation.

MICHEL MARTIN: Now, of course, Rami, many, you know, diplomats from
many countries have been saying this, but they are not necessarily
believed. Tell us a little bit about what Turkey’s role has been in
the course of this tumultuous period. And are they seen as an
important player and to what end?

RAMI KHOURI: Well, Turkey has developed much greater influence in the
region and much closer – many closer, tighter connections in terms of
the business interests, some security interests, trade, tourism, open
borders, now they have open travel with many Arab countries. And this
has generated a sense that Turkey is not only a close partner, but
perhaps an influential big brother in some respects for some people in
the region and people look at Turkey in the Arab world, for the most
part, with a lot of admiration.

And almost everybody in the Arab world sees something in Turkey they
like. They like the business development, the economic boom, the
democratic transition, the rule of law. They like the Islamist
cultural influence, the fact that Islamist groups came into power.

Everybody sees something in Turkey that they like and the secular
nature of the system and, therefore, this has given Turkey some real
significant soft power influence in the region and it has tried to
learn over the last two or three years how to use that power, how to
use that influence in a constructive way, and as the foreign minister
pointed out, now they’re pretty much focused on trying to promote
democratic peaceful transitions, which is what they experienced in
their own country, so this is something quite positive and
significant.

How much Turkey can actually be involved inside Arab countries to
promote this remains to be seen and this is their big challenge now,
to translate a broad principle into actual foreign policy and actions.

MICHEL MARTIN: And as part of NPR’s year end series, we’re looking at
how 2011 was a good year for the country of Turkey. We’re speaking
with Rami Khouri of The Daily Star in Beirut and also John Peet of The
Economist.

Rami Khouri, pick up on that theme a bit, if you would. We’re saying
that Turkey is more influential in the region. How does it see itself?
You’re seeing its influence to what end, to help kind of ease the
transition to fuller participation in each of these countries and how?

RAMI KHOURI: Well, one of the things that Turkey is doing is that,
having become powerful, democratic, stable, self-confident, it’s now
learning how to use that potential power and influence that it has
around the region.

At the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Turks were a little bit
caught on the back foot. In mid-year, they weren’t quite sure in the
beginning what to do. They have huge business interests there. Then
they finally came down on the side of the people revolting for their
freedom.

And Syria, the same thing. They tried to intervene and then, finally,
they felt they were not treated honestly by the Syrian government and
they came out on the side of a democratic transition. So they’re
trying. They’re learning how to play the role of a regional power,
which is what they are.

They are doing this primarily for their own self-interests, as any
powerful country does. For them to have a democratic, stable,
prosperous and democratic Arab neighborhood is incredibly positive
because it drives their economy and then it helps in many other
strategic interests that they have.

MICHEL MARTIN: You know what’s interesting is that Turkey, for years,
at least from a marketing perspective and also diplomatically, in some
ways, has positioned itself as kind of the bridge and the buffer
between Europe and the Middle East. But for years, Turkey’s gone after
membership to the European Union with no results.

So John Peet, are Turks less interested now in joining the EU, you
know, as the European economies have struggled and as their own has
boomed?

JOHN PEET: I think they are. I think they are. You can see that when
you listen to Prime Minister Erdogan’s speeches or when you talk to
Foreign Minister Davutoglu, their goal clearly continues to be one day
to join the European Union. But to quite a large extent, they’ve been
rebuffed by the Europeans. The French and Germans have made clear that
they don’t want Turkey as a member and I think they are increasingly
seeing their role in the Middle East as not quite an alternative, but
as giving them some broader position that doesn’t just depend on
Europe.

MICHEL MARTIN: There are still concerns about Turkey’s human rights
record, are there not? This morning, we heard that a Turkish air
strike reportedly killed more than 30 people in a Kurdish area of
Iraq. Do you see these human rights concerns abating as time goes on
or is there still a concern that particularly the current regime kind
of has an authoritarian tilt that is of concern?

RAMI KHOURI: Well, the Turks are really making a transition, which is
a transition that any mature country or regional power goes through,
which is they come out of this idealistic, romantic world where they
say, as they have for years, that they want to have good relations
with everybody. They want to have no enemies in the region and that
worked for a few years.

But then their relations with Israel became tense. Their relations
with Iran may be getting a little bit more tense because of Syria.
They still have the Cypress issue that’s unresolved. The Armenian
issue is unresolved. The Kurdish issue.

So they’re really living in the real world, but it’s a real world in
which the assets and the positives that I mentioned of Turkey far
outweigh the negative ones. And it’s really exciting to watch Turkey
develop. And its problems are still there. They have to address them,
but I think they have the tools to address them more effectively than
has been the case in many other countries in the region.

MICHEL MARTIN: Rami Khouri is editor-at-large of The Daily Star in
Beirut, Lebanon. We reached him there. We heard also from John Peet.
He is the Europe editor at The Economist magazine and he was kind
enough to join us from Wilshire, England.

Thank you so much for speaking with us and happy holidays, once again.

RAMI KHOURI: Thank you and you, too.

JOHN PEET: Thank you. No problem.

Dar Al Hayat (Lebanon)
December 28, 2011 Wednesday
International Edition

The Dispute between France and Turkey

by Randa Takieddine

Members of the ruling parliamentary majority in France erred by voting
in the National Assembly for a law to punish the denial of the
massacres against the Armenians for a number of reasons. First, the
vote took place for purely electoral reasons, since the Armenian vote
in France’s presidential elections in around four months’ time,
followed by legislative elections, is some 400,000-strong. It comes at
an inopportune time because it goes against France’s diplomatic
efforts with Turkey. A few weeks before the vote, Foreign Minister
Alain Juppe made a successful visit to Turkey to discuss joint action
to find solutions to the crisis in Syria. Now, following this vote,
Paris will no longer be able to move in concert with Ankara; Juppe
termed the vote not useful and unproductive. The timing of this move
by the legislature might be useful for a number of MPs from Marseilles
and the south of the country, who are determined to pick up support
from Armenian voters. However, the vote is not part of the
calculations of the French president, who seeks to play a role on the
international stage with the Turks, especially since the Armenians
traditionally vote for the French right.

In the second place, the text of the law contradicts all of France’s
commitments to not legislate matters having to do with earlier phases
of history. In 2008, the speaker of the National Assembly, Bernard
Accoyer, committed himself, in a report he issued, to not tabling
legislation of this sort, which was violated in this recent vote.

Another motivation for the vote is that the majority in the French
Senate is now with the left, following the most recent elections,
meaning the Socialist opposition to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Prior to this, when a right-wing majority held the French Senate last
fall, Sarkozy could have relied on the Senate to defeat the law. Now,
the left-dominated Senate is hinting that it will endorse the law,
even if it contains negative points – it will be a way to irritate
Sarkozy.

These purely electoral reasons were behind pulling the legislation out
of the “freezer,” where it had been since 2007. Sarkozy was aware that
the move would anger the Turks and inspire them to seek political
revenge. Turkey condemned France for committing massacres in Algeria,
while also mentioning Rwanda. The Turks are also resorting to halting
contracts with France which were in any case stumbling, since France
was not among the expected parties to win the contracts. There is a
fear that France will suffer economic losses with the latest
development, as France currently enjoys a surplus in its trade balance
with Turkey.

The move by the legislature will cost France in its diplomatic moves
with Turkey, vis-à-vis the popular uprisings in the Arab world, from
Syria to Libya, and in the Middle East in general, all for electoral
reasons that contain no guarantees, in any case, because the
possibility that the Socialists will take office in France is very
strong.

International Islamic News Agency IINA
Dec 28 2011

Caucasus/Turkey: Caucasian Muslims Office: French decision targets
whole Turkic world
By IINA- December 28, 2011

BAKU, 2 Safar/28 Dec (IINA)- The Baku-based Caucasian Muslims Office
has said a recent decision of the French National Assembly to penalize
deniers of Armenian claims of genocide targets not only Turkey but the
whole Turkic world.

Caucasian Muslims Office Chairman Sheikh-ul-Islam Haji Allahshukur
Pashazadeh issued a written statement on Wednesday in which he
strongly criticized last week’s French move to make it a crime to deny
that the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians constituted
genocide. Stating that the decision was taken against not only Turkey
but also Azerbaijan and the whole Turkic world, he said the approval
of the bill, `which was taken under the influence of the Armenian
lobby in France, is dangerous and against democracy.’

Noting that the decision `fails to strengthen peace and justice,
distorts history and plants seeds of hate,’ he said the French move
would `lead to gross damage and tragedy.’

Stating that the decision cast a shadow on France’s impartiality in
the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute as a member of the Minsk Group, he called
on France to approach such issues objectively.

France, along with the US and Russia, co-chairs the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group, which has
been trying to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute since the 1990s but
has thus far failed to provide a viable solution to the issue.

Pashazadeh also called on French President Nicolas Sarkozy and members
of the senate to strike down the bill.

The lower house of the French parliament voted last week in favor of
the controversial bill penalizing the denial of the alleged Armenian
genocide, ignoring massive Turkish protests against the measure.

The bill sets a punishment of up to a year in prison and a fine of
45,000 Euros ($59,000) for those who deny or `outrageously minimize’
the alleged genocide of Armenians in eastern Anatolia during the final
years of the Ottoman Empire, putting such action on par with denial of
the Holocaust.

The measure now needs to be passed in the senate, the upper house of
parliament, before it will come into effect.

AH/IINA

BILL CRIMINALIZING DENIAL OF MADE-UP “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE” NOT INCLUDED IN FRENCH SENATE’S AGENDA

MilAz.info
Dec 29 2011
Azerbaijan

The bill criminalizing denial of made-up “Armenian genocide” was not
included in agenda of the French Senate, Roger Karoutchi from the
Union for a Popular Movement told Le Figaro.

“The Senate’s working program does not include this text till next
February,” said Senator Karoutchi. “If the bill is not included in
the Senate’s agenda until the end of January, it will be considered as
non-accepted because the parliament will cease its activity beginning
from the end of February and early March due to the presidential
elections”.

Karoutchi said conference of Senate’s chairmen will be held on January
10 and it may decide to include the issue in the agenda.

DAVUTOGLU: FRANCE FED ON THE PAIN OF OTHERS TO ARRIVE AT WHERE IT IS TODAY

Today’s Zaman
Dec 29 2011
Turkey

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has slammed French leaders
throughout history for “arriving at where they are today” through the
pain and sorrow of others, while he sent a veiled message to Armenians
that every pain is worthy of respect, as long as it is mutual.

“Do not engage in imperialist plans over the pain of others,” Davutoglu
said to ex-colonizers, particularly France, as he spoke in Edirne
at a conference titled “From Balkan War to Balkan Peace,” marking
the hundredth anniversary of the Balkan Wars. Davutoglu recalled the
events of 1915, saying that 1915 was the year Turks waged a battle on
multiple fronts against a large number of Western opponents and that
Gallipoli was one of the most profound of those fronts where Turkey
lost 250,000. “You did not suffer in 1915; the ones that suffered
were those 250,000 martyrs in Gallipoli,” Davutoglu unleashed at
France for judging the events of 1915 from a one-sided perspective
that favored one side of history for “political benefits.”

Addressing the French leader, Davutoglu noted that France became what
it is today “by making others suffer,” and now “they are trying to
build history from the pain of others.”

Also calling on the Armenians, Davutoglu repeated that all Armenians
were neighbors to Turks and have shared the same lands, and Turks
respect Armenians. “We share their pain if they respect our pain too,”
Davutoglu urged Armenia, noting one more time that “a fair memory”
would be the solution to the controversy surrounding the events of
1915 when large numbers of Armenians, estimated at somewhere between
hundreds of thousands to more than a million, were killed by Ottoman
Turks as they were sent away from their homelands to calm an armed
uprising, according to Turkish records. Davutoglu also noted that at
the time of the Zurich protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia, he
had prepared a speech calling on Armenia to contribute to “a collective
consciousness.” At the time of the Swiss and US brokered ice-breaker
deal, speeches to be delivered by both sides were cancelled, and
although the protocols were signed, they have not been ratified by
either parliament so far.

With regards to the hundredth year of the Balkan Wars, Davutoglu also
announced “a peace manifesto,” which would enable the Balkans to enjoy
peace after many years of pain and suffering in the region. He called
for a mutual vision among Balkan countries, as he said that prejudice
and keeping enmities alive would continue to harm the entire region.

He also suggested that both the Balkans and the Middle East were
remembered by their connection to bloodshed and wars, “as if it is the
responsibility of the people of the region,” and recalled that none
of the wars in either region was started by the will of the people
who live there. “There has been a bad parenthesis [a pause in peace]
imbedded within the 20th century in the Balkans; now we want to close
it,” he said with reference to the peaceful history of the Balkans,
disrupted only for a century by the intervention of foreign forces.

The foreign minister also bitterly touched on the EU, saying that
the bloc still hesitates on visa waivers, saying that the Balkan
neighbor cities now considered within the EU cannot be separated
from the Turkish ones across the border. “This wall will not hold,
it will collapse,” Davutoglu said, referring to the borders of the EU
that are closed to Turkey since the country is not a member. Turkey
has been negotiating for years for membership, and it is the only
member candidate that does not benefit from a visa waiver that other
candidate countries enjoy with the EU.

The foreign minister also drew a comparison between Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk, the founder of modern day Turkey, and French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that one leader excelled beyond the pain and
the other fed on the pain of others and kept it alive for the sake of
its benefit. He voiced the possibility that Turks could have held on
to their pain suffered on the Western front and held Greeks as eternal
enemies, but they rather held a hand out to the Greeks and made their
peace. On the Western front, Greek forces, one of the Allies during
World War I, waged a war against Turks to break through the Western
front to penetrate Ä°stanbul under the command of the British forces.

Around the same time, ANZAC forces — mainly Australian and New Zealand
— landed at Gallipoli, but Turks were able to defend the Western
front. The Turkish victory fostered the country’s self-confidence and
enabled the establishment of modern day Turkey, but the country was
nevertheless defeated along with the Central Powers, led by Germany.
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Description:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Katia Peltekian
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?ANKARA=3A_Davuto=C4=9Flu=3A_France_fed_on_the_pain_of_others?=
=?UTF-8?Q?_to_arrive_at_where_it_is_today?=

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Dec 29 2011

DavutoÄ?lu: France fed on the pain of others to arrive at where it is today

29 December 2011 / EDIRNE, CEREN KUMOVA/SERVET YANATMA

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu has slammed French leaders
throughout history for â??arriving at where they are todayâ?? through the
pain and sorrow of others, while he sent a veiled message to Armenians
that every pain is worthy of respect, as long as it is mutual.

â??Do not engage in imperialist plans over the pain of others,â??
DavutoÄ?lu said to ex-colonizers, particularly France, as he spoke in
Edirne at a conference titled â??From Balkan War to Balkan Peace,â??
marking the hundredth anniversary of the Balkan Wars. DavutoÄ?lu
recalled the events of 1915, saying that 1915 was the year Turks waged
a battle on multiple fronts against a large number of Western
opponents and that Gallipoli was one of the most profound of those
fronts where Turkey lost 250,000. â??You did not suffer in 1915; the
ones that suffered were those 250,000 martyrs in Gallipoli,â?? DavutoÄ?lu
unleashed at France for judging the events of 1915 from a one-sided
perspective that favored one side of history for â??political benefits.â??
Addressing the French leader, DavutoÄ?lu noted that France became what
it is today â??by making others suffer,â?? and now â??they are trying to
build history from the pain of others.â??

Also calling on the Armenians, DavutoÄ?lu repeated that all Armenians
were neighbors to Turks and have shared the same lands, and Turks
respect Armenians. â??We share their pain if they respect our pain too,â??
DavutoÄ?lu urged Armenia, noting one more time that â??a fair memoryâ??
would be the solution to the controversy surrounding the events of
1915 when large numbers of Armenians, estimated at somewhere between
hundreds of thousands to more than a million, were killed by Ottoman
Turks as they were sent away from their homelands to calm an armed
uprising, according to Turkish records. DavutoÄ?lu also noted that at
the time of the Zurich protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia, he
had prepared a speech calling on Armenia to contribute to â??a
collective consciousness.â?? At the time of the Swiss and US brokered
ice-breaker deal, speeches to be delivered by both sides were
cancelled, and although the protocols were signed, they have not been
ratified by either parliament so far.

With regards to the hundredth year of the Balkan Wars, DavutoÄ?lu also
announced â??a peace manifesto,â?? which would enable the Balkans to enjoy
peace after many years of pain and suffering in the region. He called
for a mutual vision among Balkan countries, as he said that prejudice
and keeping enmities alive would continue to harm the entire region.
He also suggested that both the Balkans and the Middle East were
remembered by their connection to bloodshed and wars, â??as if it is the
responsibility of the people of the region,â?? and recalled that none of
the wars in either region was started by the will of the people who
live there. â??There has been a bad parenthesis [a pause in peace]
imbedded within the 20th century in the Balkans; now we want to close
it,â?? he said with reference to the peaceful history of the Balkans,
disrupted only for a century by the intervention of foreign forces.

The foreign minister also bitterly touched on the EU, saying that the
bloc still hesitates on visa waivers, saying that the Balkan neighbor
cities now considered within the EU cannot be separated from the
Turkish ones across the border. â??This wall will not hold, it will
collapse,â?? DavutoÄ?lu said, referring to the borders of the EU that are
closed to Turkey since the country is not a member. Turkey has been
negotiating for years for membership, and it is the only member
candidate that does not benefit from a visa waiver that other
candidate countries enjoy with the EU.

The foreign minister also drew a comparison between Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, the founder of modern day Turkey, and French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that one leader excelled beyond the pain and
the other fed on the pain of others and kept it alive for the sake of
its benefit. He voiced the possibility that Turks could have held on
to their pain suffered on the Western front and held Greeks as eternal
enemies, but they rather held a hand out to the Greeks and made their
peace. On the Western front, Greek forces, one of the Allies during
World War I, waged a war against Turks to break through the Western
front to penetrate Ä°stanbul under the command of the British forces.
Around the same time, ANZAC forces — mainly Australian and New
Zealand — landed at Gallipoli, but Turks were able to defend the
Western front. The Turkish victory fostered the country’s
self-confidence and enabled the establishment of modern day Turkey,
but the country was nevertheless defeated along with the Central
Powers, led by Germany.

TURKISH MINISTER ACCUSES FRANCE OF “IMPERIALISTIC PLANS”

News.Az
Thu 29 December 2011

Turkey’s foreign minister has accused the French parliament of
“imperialistic plans” based on the suffering of others.

Ahmet Davutoglu made the remarks at a conference “From Balkan War
to Balkan Peace: Turkish Foreign Policy on its 100th Anniversary”
at Trakya University in the northwestern province of Edirne, Turkey’s
semi-official Anadolu news agency reported.

He was speaking after the lower house of the French parliament passed
a bill that will make it a crime in France to deny that the mass
killings of Armenians in 1915 amounted to “genocide”. The bill has
still to be discussed in the French Senate next year.

“Every nation thinks that its agony is unique, however we can
understand the agonies of all nations because we felt the biggest
agony,” Davutoglu told a

Davutoglu said the French parliament should not make imperialistic
plans on the agonies of other people, and drew attention to the
difference in the leadership of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey.

“One of them abandoned the place he was born, and burst into tears
whenever he heard a Thracian song. He could incite his nation,
as the founder of a new nation state, and could make his nation
remember their agonies by telling them that ‘the Greeks occupied the
territories’. However, he did not say this, but extended his hand to
[Greek leader] Venizelos because a leader like Ataturk was the outcome
of a blend of 10 centuries,” Davutoglu said.

Davutoglu also said, “However, I am not only saying this for Sarkozy,
but French leaders have reached where they are today by making other
nations suffer, and now they are trying to build a new history on
the agonies of others.”

NEW SCANDAL INFLAMES MOLDOVA INVOLVING ARMS SALE TO ARMENIA

epress.am
12.29.2011

A new scandal involving the sale of arms to Armenia has erupted in the
Moldovan capital of Chisinau. In September, the country’s parliament
demanded the government explain why the Defense Ministry is supplying
arms to a region with unresolved conflicts, after which the deal was
frozen. However, Moldovan Security Council Chair Yuri Rikichinsky
recently tried to resurrect the deal, which was immediately condemned
by MPs, reports Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

Rikichinsky was called to parliament on Tuesday to provide explanations
on a letter sent to parliamentary speaker Marian Lupu in which he
requested assistance in completing the sale of arms from the National
Army’s arsenal. The deal refers to about 20 tons of rockets and
missiles, which Moldova’s Ministry of Defense is to deliver to Armenia.

An expert with the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed
Forces (DCAF), Viorel Cibotaru, in an interview with the Russian
publication, noted that the deal became a scandal because it was kept
secret even from parliament, and more importantly, “Chisinau did not
hold preliminary talks on this issue with Baku, which closely follows
what is happening around Karabakh.” This, according to the expert, is
the main shortcoming of the country’s leadership. Also, they “didn’t
secure a reliable [partner] for the route of delivery, as a result of
which misunderstandings arose with Latvia,” said Cibotaru. Otherwise,
in his view, all was within the framework of international norms –
Moldova had the right to sell weapons, including those of the type
specified in the Defense Ministry list.

Recall, during a Parliamentary Commission on National Security meeting
it was announced that the deal cost $3 million 250 thousand USD.

Speaking on the matter to Epress.am earlier, Armenian Ministry of
Defense spokesperson David Karapetyan said: “To meet the needs of
Armenia’s Armed Forces, the procurement and acquisition of weapons
and military equipment are carried out under the laws of the Republic
[of Armenia] and relevant international norms and obligations,”
adding that in the interests of national security, the Ministry of
Defense does not disclose details of the quantity or types of arms
it purchases and from which country.