Author: Kanayan Tamar

FRENCH AMBASSADOR’S STATEMENT CRITICIZED IN TURKEY
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 25 2006
“Ambassador of France to Armenia Henri Cuny’s remarks on the issue
of Turkish borders are not wise,” Dr. Sedat Lachiner, Director of
Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization, stated,
APA ‘s Turkey reports.
He said all countries have their own control on their own borders.
This kind of claims badly affects Turkish public opinion and undermine
the credibility of the EU and France in Turkey.
“Most of the people now in Turkey consider France as hostile country
and see the French support for the Armenians as the religious
solidarity” Dr. Laciner added. Similarly Dr. Mehmet Ozcan, another
Turkish expert, said that Turkey sincerely seeks to develop good
relations with Armenia and air borders have been open between Turkey
and Armenia. But no improvement was seen in relations because of
Armenia. According to Mr. Ozcan, Armenia does not want to develop
relations with Turkey.
“Armenia aims to increase the tension to get the Western support
against Turkey. They do not recognize Turkey’s national borders and
they do expect open borders. If Turkey does not recognize France’s
national borders and occupies an EU member state, will France keep
its borders with Turkey open?” he said.
Henri Cuny, Ambassador of France to Armenia, said when meeting with
Armenian students in Armenia that once Turkey joins the EU, the issue
of its borders will be decided not by itself but by the central EU
headquarters in Brussels.
“This is the order. And entering the EU suggests open borders. The
question is, when this is to happen”, said Cuny.

RESOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN LEGALIZED YET, POUDADE
Turkish Press
Oct 25 2006
ANKARA – The resolution on so-called Armenian genocide has not been
legalized yet, French Ambassador to Turkey Paul Poudade said today.
In an interview with the private NTV channel, Poudade said that the
French parliament adopted the resolution, and therefore, bilateral
relations will be negatively affected for a few weeks. “But, I will
do my best to make them better,” he stated.
Recalling that Senate’s approval is obligatory for legalization of
the resolution, Poudade said, “not only the governments but also
parliamentarians, businessmen and intellectuals should continue
dialogue.”
Noting that history should be left to historians, Poudade noted that
this matter is not a new criterion before Turkey’s EU membership.
“Turkey has been disappointed, but we have deep-rooted relations,”
he added.
-NOBEL LITERATURE PRIZE-
On prominent Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, who won the 2006 Nobel
Prize for literature, Poudade said that he only read Pamuk’s book named
“Benim Adim Kirmizi” (My Name is Red).
Stating that Pamuk narrated friendship with France and Italy in this
book, Poudade said, “I hope this friendship will not change with a
parliament decision.”

WHAT WILL ROBERT KOCHARYAN AND VLADIMIR PUTIN DISCUSS?
Lragir.am, Armenia
Oct 25 2006
While the media reported that if the Russian embassy first informs
about the upcoming visit of Robert Kocharyan to Moscow, it means
Russia does not respect Armenia and the Armenian government, the
leader of the Nor Zhamanakner Party Aram Karapetyan outlined October
25 the framework of the talk of Robert Kocharyan and Vladimir Putin.
The two presidents will first speak about the question of Nagorno
Karabakh. “When the Israeli prime minister arrived in Moscow and it
became clear that the Iranian problem, unfortunately, is proceeding
towards a military settlement, it is clear that in this context it
becomes a vital problem for the United States to control the liberated
territories. The Americans will need to control the Armenian political
sphere in the geopolitical context. It is clear that in this relation
the Russian geopolitical interests presuppose certain actions in
reply,” states Aram Karapetyan.
Afterwards, Robert Kocharyan and Vladimir Putin will speak about gas.
“Perhaps, the Russians want definite information on when the
Iran-Armenia pipeline will be operated, because soon there will be a
problem of gas with Georgia. The price of the gas supplied to Georgia
will go up. Iran will supply us,” thinks Aram Karapetyan.
The presidents of Armenia and Russia will not forget about the
problems of Javakheti and Georgia. “For Russia, the passive stance
of the Armenian government is not clear.”
Besides, Vladimir Putin will inquire about all the developments that
are underway in Armenia, “As a country, which possesses considerable
property in Armenia, Russia is interested in the future developments.”

ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES HAVE PROBLEMS WITH RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES, NOR ZHAMANAKNER PARTY LEADER DECLARES
Noyan Tapan
Oct 25 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 25, NOYAN TAPAN. “The goal of the Armenian ruling
clique is to retain power at any price and this idee fixe dominates
over everything.
However, this circumstance can lead to complication of both home
and foreign situation for Armenia.” Aram Karapetian, Chairman of
the Nor Zhamanakner (New Times) Party, declared at the October 25
press conference. Dwelling upon characteristics of Armenian-Russian
relations, he expressed disagreement to the opinion of some media
that the statement of RF State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin
about necessity of Armenia’s choosing between Russia and Georgia
was sanctioned by the Kremlin. In A.Karapetian’s words, the Armenian
authorities have problems with the Russian authorities. In his opinion,
Robert Kocharian’s visit to Moscow can be explained by Nagorno Karabakh
problem’s topicality.
Besides, A.Karapetian did not exclude that the course of Iran-Armenia
gas pipeline construction can be discussed in Moscow. “Redistribution
of power does not mean strategic partnership and striking of this
or that bargain is the basis of Armenian-Russian relations today,”
A.Karapetian declared. He said that Armenia should not intervene in
complicated relations between RF and Georgia.
A.Karapetian considers that Armenia should do everything possible for
preserving normal relations with these two countries. A.Karapetian said
that public hearings organized by the Nor Zhamanakner Party are to take
place on October 26. The hearings will be dedicated to the reasons of
the A-320 plane’s accident. In his words, the reasons of this tragedy
are surrounded by various rumors due to lack of information. The
Nor Zhamanakner Party is going to apply to the country’s President,
Prosecutor General, RA National Security Service and National Security
Council for explanations.

OPPOSITION LEADER SAYS ECONOMIC GROWTH IS A BALLOON
Panorama.am
13:00 24/10/06
Speaking about the recent incident with Hakob Hakobyan, sanctioned
to be arrested by the parliament, Gagik Melikyan, secretary of the
Armenian Republican Party (HHK), said they did not know about the
dealings of Hakobyan. Otherwise they would not accept him in their
party, he said. The deputy thinks that Hakobyan’s behavior discredits
the state structures, as he is a public official. He said HHK voted for
the sanction of arrest on the logic that “he may prove his innocence
if he can.”
Grigor Harutunyan, secretary of Justice block, an opposition fraction,
said many HHK members asked them to participate in the voting so that
they could claim that the opposition voted against Hakobyan’s arrest.
Harutunyan said later Robert Kocharyan could claim that the
anticriminal balloon exploded also saying the balloon is the economic
growth claimed by power authorities.

TURKEY-EUROPE: THE WIDENING GAP
Prepared by: Carin Zissis
Council on Foreign Relations, New York
Oct 24 2006
A supporter of the True Path Party marches under a giant Turkish flag
during an anti-France protest. (AP/Murad Sezer)
The possibility of Turkish EU accession appears increasingly
uncertain. In recent weeks, European leaders have voiced unease over
Ankara’s membership bid, citing concerns over Turkey’s infringement
on freedom of expression and its embargo on Cypriot ships and planes
(AP), the latter a manifestation of a long-standing dispute over
division of the Aegean Sea with Greece. Some EU members, including
France and Germany, have suggested Turkey seek “privileged partnership”
rather than full membership. Olli Rehn, commissioner of EU enlargement,
opposed this idea, but warned the Turkish accession process that began
in October 2005 has been slowed by Ankara’s failure to repeal Article
301, which gives the government free reign to arrest journalists
and activists for disparaging Turkey. In an interview with the BBC,
EU President Jose Manuel Barroso said it could take twenty years for
Turkey to become a member nation.
Recent events have done little to ease growing EU-Turkey tensions
and Europe seems hesitant to absorb the overwhelmingly Muslim nation
of more than 70 million people. France’s parliament recently angered
Ankara when it decided to make criminal the denial of mass killings of
Armenians under the Ottoman Empire. The law was condemned by Turkish
author Orhan Pamuk (Reuters), who was previously indicted under Article
301 for raising the issue of the genocide and who received the Nobel
Prize for Literature the same day the French rule passed. Europe-Turkey
relations also took a hit last month when Pope Benedict XVI’s comments
about Mohammed sparked widespread Muslim protests and temporarily
put the pope’s November visit to Turkey in doubt.
Experts say such obstacles to Turkey’s EU membership could lead
to missed opportunities for making inroads in Christian-Muslim
relations. Denis MacShane, Britain’s former Europe minister, writes
in the Financial Times that the Armenian genocide had little to do
with modern Turkey and warns against Europe’s increasingly demeaning
attitude toward Ankara. He asks, “How much longer will this secular,
democratic, Muslim country look westwards to a European future,
instead of turning east?” Sedat Laciner, director of Ankara-based
think tank International Strategic Research Organization, criticizes
“unsuccessful politicians” in Europe for condemning his country, and
argues that EU accession would help “erode the unilateral policies”
of the United States and Israel in the Middle East by drawing Europe
closer to the region.
The problems in Europe coincide with a breakdown in U.S.-Turkey
relations, despite Washington’s support for the country’s EU
membership. This Council Special Report from June describes the
“fractured alliance” and says that although Washington and Ankara
agree that an Iraq splintered into three independent states is not in
either country’s interests, Turkey is frustrated by the U.S. handling
of the Iraqi war. Tensions also exist over America’s failure to
support the Turkish fight against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK). In an August interview, CFR Fellow Steven A. Cook said
the United States is unwilling to go after PKK cells in northern
Iraq because “it would be foolhardy from a military perspective…to
go after the PKK and destabilize the one region where people really
aren’t shooting at Americans.” Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise
Institute says the United States is too soft on Turkey’s government
(WSJ) and U.S. diplomats should stop delivering “PC platitudes” that
fail to address the “anti-secular agenda” of Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party.

TURKS IN FRANCE SELF-CRITICAL OVER ARMENIAN BILL
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 24 2006
Turkish businessmen in France have admitted their failure in handling
the situation with the French parliament’s controversial Armenian
genocide bill.
Murat Ercan, chairman of the Union des Entrepreneurs Franco-Turcs,
a group for Turkish entrepreneurs in France, said that Turkish
businessmen were not concerned with the Armenian bill passed in the
French parliament.
Even the reactions against the law proposal remained weak and
ineffectual, said Ercan, who focused attention on the need for the
formation of a lobby.
Forming a lobby would require organization, said Ercan. “The French
news media did not even ask Turks living here in France to express
their opinions. We have to have full awareness of our position.”
There was a lack of coordinated action among Turkish people living
in France against the Armenian bill, said Ercan.
“The parliamentary approval of the Armenian bill came as a blow to
the reputation of Turkish people in France. Even the Turkish reaction
against the law proposal was very weak,” said Ercan.
Ercan blamed inexperience and a lack of knowledge on the part of some
Turkish companies, who in turn perhaps harmed all.

LE PRESIDENT AZERBAïDJANAIS EN FRANCE EN JANVIER 2007
Agence France Presse
23 octobre 2006 lundi 6:33 PM GMT
Le president de l’Azerbaïdjan Ilham Aliev est attendu pour une visite
d’Etat en France en janvier 2007, a-t-on indique lundi de source
francaise après un entretien entre le chef de la diplomatie francaise
Philippe Douste-Blazy et son homologue azerbaïdjanais Elmar Mamediarov.
M. Douste-Blazy s’est felicite que ce projet de visite s’accompagne
d’un developpement des relations entre les deux pays, en particulier
sur le plan economique, selon un communique du quai d’Orsay.
“Les echanges commerciaux sont en pleine expansion et ont connu un
triplement de leur volume, avec près de 500 millions d’euros en 2005.
Nos entreprises sont bien representees en Azerbaïdjan”, selon ce
communique, qui souligne egalement le developpement de la cooperation
dans les domaines culturel et de la securite civile.
Cette rencontre avait lieu a la veille d’une reunion mardi a Paris
entre le chef de la diplomatie azerbaïdjanaise et son homologue
armenien Vartan Oskanian consacree a la recherche d’une solution
negociee au conflit du Nagorny-Karabakh.
Les deux ministres se reuniront avec des representants des trois
pays –France, Etats-Unis, Russie– mandates dans ce dossier par le
“groupe de Minsk”, une emanation de l’OSCE (Organisation pour la
securite et la cooperation en Europe).
Une precedente reunion consacree a ce dossier a eu lieu le 6 octobre a
Moscou pour decider du lancement d’un nouveau cycle de negociations,
après l’echec en fevrier d’entretiens organises a Rambouillet, près
de Paris, entre le president armenien Robert Kotcharian et M. Aliev.
Le Nagorny Karabakh est une enclave habitee en majorite par une
population armenienne et qui a fait secession de l’Azerbaïdjan après
un conflit meurtrier au debut des annees 1990. Un cessez-le-feu est
intervenu en 1994, mais la situation reste tendue.
–Boundary_(ID_US7/0/1MIV3nc2/XnnkW7Q)–

ARMENIA: PRONTI A UN COMPROMESSO SU NAGORNO KARABAKH
ANSA Notiziario Generale in Italiano
October 18, 2006
INCONTRO SOTTOSEGRETARIO CRUCIANELLI-MINISTRO DIFESA ARMENO
(ANSA) – EREVAN, 18 OTT – “Noi ci consideriamo Europa” e siamo pronti
a un compromesso sul Nagorno Karabakh con l’Azerbaigian: ha esordito
cosi’ Serge Sarkisian, ministro della Difesa e presidente del Consiglio
di Sicurezza nazionale armeno, nel colloquio avuto oggi a Erevan con
il sottosegretario agli Esteri Famiano Crucianelli in visita nel paese.
Sarkisian punta ad un rapporto sempre piu’ stretto non solo con
l’Europa ma anche con la Nato, che vada oltre l’ ‘Individual
partnership action plan’ firmato nel 2005. Erevan e’ pronta a
collaborare con l’alleanza atlantica, e anche bilateralmente con
l’Italia – ha sottolineato il ministro della Difesa – sul fronte
dell’addestramento militare e della riforma dell’esercito.
Apprezzamento, da parte armena, e’ stato espresso per le missioni di
peace-keaping italiane, considerate tra le piu efficaci nel mondo. E
a questo proposito si e’ parlato anche della missione italiana in
Libano dove, tra l’altro, c’e un’importante comunita’ armena.
Disponibilita’ a soluzioni di compromesso, da parte del numero
due armeno, sul territorio conteso del Nagorno Karabakh, enclave
in territorio azzero abitata da armeni che tra il 1988 e il 1994 ha
provocato un conflitto in cui sono morte 35 mila persone. E ha trovato
“interessante” un’ipotesi – di cui ha discusso con Crucianelli – che
potrebbe essere utilizzata: e’ la formula concordata internazionalmente
per il Kosovo, una sorta di indipendenza con sovranita’ limitata
e garanzie internazionali sulla multietnicita’. Anche se, molti dei
paesi con conflitti territoriali “congelati”, e quindi anche l’Armenia,
aspettano la fine dell’anno, quando dovra’ essere presa una decisione
per il Kosovo.
Una cosa e’ certa, per il governo armeno e’ meglio un buon
compromesso che la situazione attuale di stallo: il ministro della
Difesa ha difatti espresso a Crucianelli la sua “preoccupazione”
che l’assenza di un compromesso possa aprire la strada a un atto di
forza dell’Azerbaigian. (ANSA).

FRENCH AGAINST TURKS: TALKING ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
>From the desk of James McConalogue
Brussels Journal, Belgium
Oct 21 2006
Why has the French government now chosen to punish its citizens for
denying the Armenian genocide? On Thursday 12 October, the lower house
of the French Parliament adopted a bill which would provide a jail
sentence and a heavy fine to anyone denying the genocide committed
by Ottoman Turks against the Armenians in 1915. The bill was passed
in the National Assembly by 106 votes to 19. The punishment to be
issued for the denial of the Armenian genocide – set at a maximum
of one year prison term and 45,000 euros (£30,000) fine – is equal
to the punishment already dealt under French law for the denial
of the holocaust. To many states in the international community –
in particular Turkey – this move aggressively counters an already
problematic Turkish law, under which a writer may be prosecuted for
the opposite: proposing that there were a set of atrocities in 1915
that the government should accept as “genocide”.
To be clear, according to the UN and many Western scholars, the
Armenian genocide did happen. International authorities do recognise
the event as the Armenian genocide of 1915, a direct case of that
led to the persecution and death of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians. To
date, the Turkish government and a number of Turkish nationalists do
not recognise those series of events as constituting anything like
“genocide.” There is, in this sense, a huge open public space prepared
for discussion.
Yet in this new legislative development, it seems important to ask
why the French government has adopted the bill? Will this bill greatly
disturb Franco-Turk relations? Why have the French chosen to intervene
on the free expression of the Armenian genocide at this peculiar time,
marked by the attempted Turkish EU-membership and the high profile
controversies surrounding the freedom of speech in Turkey? In my view,
there is a decisive background to how the French authorities have
adopted the “denial bill” – but there is a huge vacuum in explaining
why it has asserted the bill at the cost of infuriating Turkey. The
French government has passed a bill which first, not only threatens the
freedom of expression on the Turk-Armenian genocide issue but second,
will possibly damage Euro-Turk political and economic relations
irretrievably.
The adoption of the French “anti-denial bill” was taken as an insult
by the Turkish government. The Turkish had warned France not to pass
the legislation. Furthermore, almost as soon as the bill had been
passed in the National Assembly, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued
the following statement: “Turkish-French relations, which have been
meticulously developed over the centuries, took a severe blow today
through the irresponsible initiatives of some short-sighted French
politicians, based on unfounded allegations.” Given the degree of
disgust experienced by the Turkish authorities, why did the French even
choose to consider the nightmare legislation? The only alleviation
of the tension seems to have come from President Chirac’s subsequent
half-hearted apology to the Turkish Prime Minister – and perhaps the
fact that the bill has yet to pass before the Senate and the President
before it can finally become law.
In several high profile literary controversies, it became immediately
noticeable that the Turkish penal system opposed the free discussion,
publishing and writing on the Armenian genocide. The most influential
of those trials were those of Orhan Pamuk – who has since won the
Nobel Prize for Literature – and Elif Shafak – who courageously gave
birth as her trials were being held. Both authors faced charges
of “insulting Turkishness” under the notorious Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code. In late December 2005, Orhan Pamuk was charged
with “insulting Turkishness” after the author had claimed in a Swiss
newspaper that 30,000 Kurds and one million Ottoman Armenians were
killed in Turkey yet nobody in the Turkish population would dare
talk about it. The trial was dismissed by the Turkish Ministry of
Justice at the beginning of 2006. Later this year, author of Bastard
of Istanbul, Elif Shafak, also faced charges of “insulting Turkishness”
under the antediluvian legislation. Subsequent to an earlier dismissal
in the year, the seventh High Criminal Court had revived the charges
made by Kemal Kerincsiz’s nationalist jurist group, ‘The Unity of
Jurists.’ Fortunately, in the final week of September, Shafak was
immediately acquitted – but not without significant intimidation of
her novel-writing which delved into the dialogues of the 1915 genocide.
The suppression of free expression in Turkey has occurred for writers
and journalists such as Pamuk and Shafak because of the notorious
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, prohibiting “insulting
Turkishness”. Ironically, the troubled legislation was passed in
2005 as a measure of bringing Turkish law into alignment with the
Copenhagen criteria of the European Union. After the Shafak trial,
the EU Commission spokesperson, Krisztina Nagy, insisted that Article
301 “continues to pose a significant threat to freedom of expression
in Turkey and all those who express a non-violent opinion.” That,
in many respects, reflects the majority-opinion of the EU.
Then, more recently, it became visible that the Turkish genocide
issue was not only angering the French government but it was an
identifiable issue upon which the French were pushing for Turkish
EU-access membership to be granted – i.e. ‘the Turkish should be
pushed to admit the Armenian genocide, and if they refuse, then they
shall forfeit a place as an EU-member state’. The opposing French
Socialist Party – which pushed through the legislation – held that
the bill protects and rewards the Armenians in exile from a country
that still refuses to accept the atrocity. Then, on 30 September,
in a visit to Yerevan, the French President confirmed his position:
“Should Turkey recognize the genocide of Armenia to join the EU? … I
believe so. Each country grows by acknowledging the dramas and errors
of its past. … Can one say that Germany which has deeply acknowledged
the holocaust, has as a result lost credit? It has grown.”
I subsequently reported on how France had been left alone on this
position since other EU-member states seemed ready to treat Turkey
softly on this issue – I also speculated, quite rightly, that
this would have detrimental diplomatic relations with the Turkish
government, by arguing: “It might also be thought that Chirac
could not afford to push the condition too far, since it may bring
substantial damage to Franco-Turk relations before Turkey has even
begun to attempt its progress towards European harmonization.” Now,
that problematic tension has evolved, it is clear enough for us
all to see the aggravation caused, illustrating both bilateral and
multilateral tensions.
The various European institutions, eager not to be seen as possessing
double-standards, have been as strong in their condemnations of
France’s new bill as they have been of Turkey’s Article 301 in the
past. Both pieces of legislation condemn the freedom of discussion on
the 1915 genocide issue; in opposition, the respective governments
only recognise the acceptance of the genocide (France) or the
rejection of it (Turkey). EU Enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn,
has issued many warnings to Turkey over the literary controversies for
“insulting Turkishness” but on 9 October, he turned to France to issue
a similar warning: “…The French law on the Armenian genocide is of
course a matter for French lawmakers, but there is a lot at stake for
the European Union as well, and the decision may have very serious
consequences for EU-Turkey relations … This [legislation] would
put in danger the efforts of all those in Turkey – intellectuals,
historians, academics, authors – who truly want to develop an open
and serious debate without taboos and for the sake of freedom of
expression.” That is to say, in a nutshell, that the predicament of
problematic tensions is characterised by a removal of free expression
on a very pertinent political issue as well as the damage to Turkey’s
future relations in Europe.
The most flawed of all the French proponents of the bill was French
MEP, Patrick Gaubert, claiming that “Europe is a continent where
freedom of speech is guaranteed in an extraordinary manner. But free
speech ends when the memories of a people are abused and their feelings
are suffering from lies.” Obviously, Gaubert needs to radically revise
his reviews since that is not the accepted view of defending free
expression and contrary of his opinion, it is more important to talk
about sensitive issues such as “genocide” than to lock people up for
them. Unfortunately for France, it is widely recognised that one of the
most fundamental defences of free expression in relation to a diversity
of religious and political doctrines derives not from a French source
but from one of Britain’s great philosopher’s, John Stuart Mill. In
the doctrine of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859,
the right to freedom of expression and its conditions are stated
concisely and transparently.
The most fundamental principle of a freely operating liberal society
is the right to the “freedom of opinion.” The only exception in
which Mill could conceive that this freedom might be limited was if
it were to impose severe physical harm onto others – and only under
very rare conditions could this exception be true. As a result,
the French government’s intervention into a literary controversy
should not have been at all possible. In France’s peculiar rationale,
it somehow thought that the socialist cause, with the backing of
the free vote from the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP),
was enough to bar free expression. For the rest of Europe, that is
not reason enough to bar the fundamental right to free expression. Nor
does the new French reasoning seem reasonable enough to destroy further
diplomatic relations with Turkey – whether it enters the EU or not.
— Boundary_(ID_HMkRoH70E4VfIG6JJ/jtOw)–