Author: Kanayan Tamar

Turkey left out in cold as Austria digs in heels over EU entry talks
The Times, UK
October 03, 2005
BY ANTHONY BROWNE, BRUSSELS CORRESPONDENT
TURKEY’S 40-year campaign to join the European Union is on the brink of
collapse after emergency talks between EU foreign ministers broke up without
agreement just hours before entry negotiations were due to start.
Amid frenetic diplomacy and warnings of dire consequences if the EU rejected
Turkey, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, chaired fraught negotiations
through the night in an attempt to stop Austria from torpedoing the
membership talks.
Failure to secure the start of Turkey’s entry into the Union will be
humiliating for Tony Blair, who made it one of the priorities of his
six-month presidency of the EU.
Initial optimism gave way to gloom as the meeting of European foreign
ministers ground on through a series of informal and formal meetings, with
diplomats reporting no progress.
A dinner of EU foreign ministers overran by two hours as EU countries put
pressure on Austria to back down. By the early hours, tempers were flaring
and British diplomats stormed around the EU complex with long faces.
The talks are due to start again this morning, but hopes of securing a deal
were fading last night. A clearly exhausted Mr Straw said: `We have been
unable to reach agreement. It’s a frustrating situation, but I hope and pray
we may be able to reach agreement. We have a situation where 24 have decided
to move forward and one has not. It is not the first time that has happened,
and I am sure it will not be the last.’
A review of Croatia’s progress towards starting membership talks – an issue
close to Austria’s heart – due to be held today has been postponed by
Britain, as holder of the EU presidency, until the mandate for Turkey is
resolved.
Membership talks with Turkey, which were agreed in principle last December,
had been due to start at a special ceremony this afternoon, beginning a
process that is expected to take ten years.
Austria has demanded that Turkey be offered a `privileged partnership’ as an
alternative to full membership, an offer that Turkey has made clear is
unacceptable. Although Austria stands alone on the issue, it has the power
of veto.
Previously agreed points were being called into question as Turkey started
raising objections to a demand that it must stop vetoing Cyprus’s membership
of Nato.
In a final attempt to change Austria’s mind, Mr Blair telephoned Wolfgang
Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, and Mr Straw held repeated meetings with
Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian Foreign Minister, to warn her of serious
consequences if the EU rejected the Muslim country. Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
the Prime Minister of Turkey, also phoned Herr Schüssel to try to reach a
deal.
Before the talks, Mr Straw gave warning about the impact it would have on
relations between Islam and the West if Austria wielded its veto: `This is a
crucial meeting for the future of the European Union. We’re concerned about
a so-called clash of civilisations. We are concerned about this
theological-political divide, which could open up even further the boundary
between so-called Christian-heritage states and those of Islamic heritage.
The heavy responsibility rests on all member states.’
Mr Erdogan told Turkish television: `Either the EU will decide to become a
world force and a world player, which would show its political maturity, or
it will limit itself to a Christian club.’
Opponents of Turkish membership claim that the country is too big, too poor
and too culturally different to join the EU. With the EU in crisis over the
rejection of its constitution by French and Dutch voters, they claim that it
is not capable of absorbing the Muslim country.
Opinion polls show that the majority of EU citizens are opposed to Turkey’s
membership, with opposition particularly high in Austria, France, Germany
and the Netherlands.
Frau Plassnik said: `We should now listen to the concerns voiced by so many
people across Europe.’
Turkey’s moderate Islamist Government has made joining the EU its top
political priority, and completed a feverish round of reforms – including
giving more rights to its Kurdish minority and abolishing the death sentence
– to meet the criteria for starting entry talks. To join the EU, it would
need to adopt about 80,000 pages of European legislation, which is expected
to take a decade.
Rejection at the last minute would be a serious political blow. Abdullah
Gul, the Turkish Foreign Minister, summoned his political advisers last
night and told Mr Straw he would not fly to Luxembourg until he had seen the
negotiating mandate approved by the 25-nation bloc.
Mr Gul has also made clear that if the talks do not start now, Turkey will
not come back to the table. `I cannot see them happening again,’ he told the
Yeni Safak newspaper.
European diplomats believe that Austria’s hardline stance is partly dictated
by internal politics, with 80 per cent of Austrians and all main political
parties opposing Turkey’s membership.
,,13509-1808868,00.html

ARMINFO News Agency
September 30, 2005
ARMENIAN-GEORGIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION FOR ECONOMIC
COOPERATION CONVENES IN YEREVAN
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 30. ARMINFO. The 4th sitting of the
Armenian-Georgian Intergovernmental Commission for Economic
Cooperation convened in Yerevan, Thursday.
The Armenian Governmental press-service reports that the results of
the third sitting and the fulfillment of the tasks were discussed at
the 4th sitting. In this connection, the two countries’ foreign
ministries were instructed to hold relevant discussions once in six
months. The sitting participants agreed to activate the preparations
for an intergovernmental agreement to combat hijacking.
The Armenian Ministry for Trade and Economic Cooperation and the
Georgian Ministry for Economic Development were instructed to prepare
an agreement of mutual recognition and protection of geographical
names and trade marks by the end of the year; to form a bilateral
working group to prepare a complex of proposals for settlement of
current problems in the trade and economic cooperation; to activate
the cooperation under the agreement of cooperation between the two
countries’ chambers of commerce and industry dated October 2004; to
contribute to development of cooperation and establishment of JVs; to
secure free information flow on the enterprises privatized.
The customs structures of the two states were instructed to prepare
an agreement of cooperation and mutual assistance in the customs
sphere by the end of the year. The parties agreed to prepare a
mechanism of border control to establish an uninterrupted passenger
railway communication. A proposal was made to modernize the bilateral
legal filed in the sphere of customs and border relations. The
ministries of transport and communication were to prepare a new
agreement of motor-transport communication and start its
implementation by April 1 2006. Besides, the ministries were
instructed to prepare an agreement of air communication, restore the
flight Yerevan-Batumi-Yerevan, and establish road and railways
communication between Yerevan and Batumi. The Georgian party
expressed readiness for contributing to development of train-ferry
Kavkaz-Poti.

EUobserver.com, Belgium
Sept 30 2005
[Comment] Why we should delay opening accession negotiations with
Turkey
30.09.2005 – 11:02 CET | By Peter Sain ley Berry EUOBSERVER / COMMENT
– The British Presidency, we are told, has been working very hard to
ensure that the negotiations to allow Turkey to accede to the
European Union will begin, as scheduled, on 3rd October – that is
next week. They may indeed begin. Or on the other hand they may not.
If they begin they may be broken off, perhaps indefinitely. If they
are postponed now they may never start. The situation is not a happy
state of affairs for anybody. This may be the 21st century but
diplomacy remains an artisanal craft.
The immediate reason why the talks may not commence is that Austria
is reportedly still not happy with the UK Presidency’s negotiating
framework. The only intended outcome this envisages is full EU
membership for Turkey. Austria would prefer to see reference to a
‘privileged partnership,’ as an alternative. Turkey has countered by
indicating that it would not enter negotiations on this basis.
Regardless of this there are at least seven other good reasons why
the talks should not commence next Monday, despite that being the
desire of the British Presidency, the European Commission, the
European Parliament, at least 23 of the EU’s 25 member states and, of
course, Turkey itself. These reasons, moreover, have nothing to do
with the merits, or otherwise, of Turkey’s case for Union membership
sometime around 2015. Nor do they have anything to do with Turkey
being predominantly poor, predominantly Muslim or predominantly in
Asia.
EU cannot negotiate honestly
The first is that the Turkish negotiations are already in a big hole
before they have even started. And the first thing you should do when
you are in a hole is to stop digging, or as the early pilots were
instructed should they find themselves in a tailspin: ‘centre all
controls and pray like hell.’ Pursuing the negotiations now is likely
to harm both parties: both Turkey’s prospect of eventual membership
and Europe’s own necessary constitutional reform process.
The second reason to postpone the talks is that the EU is simply not
in a position itself to negotiate honestly with Turkey at this time.
It is currently deeply divided on Turkish membership. There is major
– if not majority – opposition in all the EU’s institutions and in
national parliaments. A substantial part of the European Parliament
is opposed, as are an even wider section of the European electorate.
This absence of full-hearted consent will hamper the negotiations.
The persistence of such a split will damage coherence within the EU,
making constitutional and economic reforms far more difficult to
achieve.
This split in European opinion can be attributed to several factors –
several of which can be addressed. If they are – and Turkey does
certain things and Europe does others – public opinion may well
become more favourable.
Not recognising Cyprus is ridiculous
It is ridiculous, for instance, that Turkey does not currently
recognise one of the states of the Union it is seeking to join. As
its delegates sit down to negotiate Turkey will still be banning
certain EU ships and aircraft (namely those from Cyprus) from its
ports and airports.
It is also ridiculous that Turkey should be still prosecuting
writers, like the respected novelist Orhan Pamuk, for expressing
non-violent opinions and that it should keep active on the statute
book laws that make it a crime to ‘denigrate Turkish identity.’ This
is the third reason why talks should not start now. Turkey should
address such fundamental un-Europeanism before embarking on accession
negotiations: not during those negotiations.
But Europe also needs to do certain things if it is to bring its own
citizens ‘on-side.’
It needs to have, for instance, an overall enlargement policy – not
just for Turkey, but for the Ukraine, for the Balkans, for the
Caucasus states, for Belarus and Moldova. How large should the Union
become? How should it be managed at that size? How financed? In other
words, where are we going? Many, especially in France and the
Netherlands, would like to know.
EU needs overall enlargement policy
Until we ourselves have formed an opinion on these matters how can we
negotiate with Turkey? That is the fourth reason for delay. We need
to be able to fit Turkey into a wider enlargement framework before we
open talks.
Part of this framework would be the institutions we might need to
manage an expanded Europe. The late lamented European constitutional
treaty proposed institutional change to accommodate 25 member states,
not 35. In any case it was rejected and we are left with the existing
‘stretched’ version of a system designed for 15. We can’t honestly
embark on discussions about further European enlargement before we
put our own constitutional house in order – for what is adding new
member states but changing the fundamental nature of the Union? This
is the fifth reason why the accession talks should not begin now.
Then we have the problem of Northern Cyprus. Of course, with
hindsight, we should not have allowed Cyprus to join the Union before
reunification of the island. The Turkish Cypriots loyally voted for
the UN backed reunification settlement. The Greek Cypriots, knowing
they had nothing to lose, did not. The result is an unresolved mess
and a state of bitterness and non-recognition between Turkey and the
Cypriot government. This festering sore needs to be healed before the
Turkish accession talks commence. This is the sixth reason to delay.
A seventh reason is the events – I don’t want to be prejudicial – of
1915. So many Turkish diplomats have been killed and still are killed
by those who hold them, even today, responsible for tragedies that
occurred ninety years before, that this is also unfinished business
that risks clouding a new political future. What happened to Turkey’s
Armenian population – and to indigenous Turks in Turkish Armenia –
should, three generations later, surely be a matter for independent
historians. That also requires action by Turkey, but not only by
Turkey.
Turkey’s hinterland
These then are the reasons for delay. But postponing the talks by a
few years need not delay eventual Turkish accession. Both sides have
problems to sort out. Once these are resolved, the accession
negotiations will proceed more speedily and still could conclude by
2015.
In the meanwhile, Turkey and the EU should talk about the economic,
military and political future of the eastern Mediterranean and its
large hinterland. Turkey is not an island: it is rather the centre of
a region, one of the reasons that a hundred years ago it had a large
empire. The future of the region as a whole should not be divorced
from Turkey’s bid for EU membership. And that provides yet another
reason, if one were needed, for not rushing into talks which, on
present omens, look destined to end in tears. The enemy of diplomacy
is rush. ‘N’ayez pas trop de zèle,’ as Talleyrand used to say.
The author is editor of EuropaWorld

Associated Press Worldstream
September 29, 2005 Thursday
EU envoy praises Armenia’s constitutional amendments
YEREVAN, Armenia
An EU envoy on Thursday hailed constitutional amendments passed by
the Armenian parliament as a step in the right direction.
The nation’s parliament on Wednesday gave final approval to the
amendments, which are intended to impose a more strict separation of
powers between the judicial, executive and legislative branches.
“Now that the amendments are there, we can state that the country is
moving in the right direction,” said Heikki Talvitie, the EU’s envoy
to southern Caucasus.
Talvitie said that the EU is planning to expand its contacts with
Armenia and the ex-Soviet Caucasus nations of Georgia and Azerbaijan
under its initiative “Expanded Europe: New Neighbors.”
Tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains high more than a
decade after a 1994 cease-fire ended a six-year war that left the
disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenian hands.
Some 30,000 people were killed and a million displaced, and the lack
of resolution of the enclave’s status has impeded economic
development in the region.
A draft budget for next year approved by the Armenian Cabinet
Thursday envisages a 13-percent hike in defense spending to the level
equivalent to US$150 million ([euro]125).
The oil-rich Azerbaijan, which budgeted over US$300 million
([euro]250 million) for defense this year, will double its defense
spending next year.

ANKARA DID NOT LIKE EP RESOLUTION
Pan Armenian News
29.09.2005 03:16
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “The Europarliament Resolution does not have
obligatory,” Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated, when commenting
the EP passage of a resolution providing for recognition of the
Armenian Genocide by Ankara as a “compulsory conditions” for Turkey’s
EU accession. “No matter what a resolution they have passed, we
will not surrender our position,” the Turkish PM said. It should
be reminded that the resolution “gave OK” to the launching of the
talks on Turkey’s accession to the EU October 3. It should also be
noted that the resolution was passed with 356 MPs for, 181 against,
and 125 abstained.

Prime-Tass English-language Business Newswire
September 27, 2005
France’ Pernod Ricard denies plans to sell Yerevan Brandy Co
MOSCOW, Sep 27 (Prime-Tass) — France’s wine producer Pernod Ricard
denied any plans to sell the Yerevan Brandy Company, or YBC, Pernod
Ricard’s management said Tuesday, ITAR-TASS reported.
Pernod Ricard bought YBC from the Armenian government for U.S. USD 28
million in 1999.
Earlier an Armenian lawmaker has claimed Pernod Ricard wanted to sell
the Armenian company.
Aram Sarkisyan, the leader of the Armenian opposition Democratic
Party said recently that Pernod Ricard was considering the sale of
YBC for USD 770 million.
The lawmaker said he planned to initiate a probe into the YBC’s
acquisition by the French wine producer, which he said was either
“incomplete” or went against law.
Sarkisyan also went on to claim that the YBC would not be able to
produce its branded cognacs soon.
YBC’s management denied Sarkisyan’s claims that the company had used
half of its alcohol reserves without replenishing them.
YBC is the leading cognacs producer in Armenia, and is the producer
of ArArAt cognac, which was a widely regarded brand in the Soviet
Union and still is throughout the region.
YBC’s sales quadrupled since the company’s acquisition, the company
said without providing exact figures.
The ArArAt cognac brand is one of the top Pernod Ricard brands, and
the French producer looks to it to provide further development in
such countries as Russia, YBC said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmInfo News Agency, Armenia
Sept 28 2005
AZERIS CLAIM YEREVAN BACK
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 28. ARMINFO. The Azeri nationalists demand that
Yerevan be given back to Azerbaijan.
The “31 March” organization (the day of “the Azeri Genocide”) has
asked the speaker of the Azeri parliament Murtuz Aleskerov to raise
at UN, OSCE and CE the issue of “Armenia’s occupation of Zangezour
and other Azeri territories.”
The Echo newspaper (Baku) reports the chairman of the organization
Hagani Ismail as alleging that May 29 1918 the National Council of
Muslims decided to grant Irevan (Yerevan) to Armenia.
Ismail says that the Azeri public is concerned over the OSCE’s
ineffective work in the Karabakh peace process. He personally
believes that this is due to the effective work of the Armenian
“mafia.”

Associated Press
Sept 28 2005
Turkish premier rejects EU call for Ankara to recognize Armenian
killings as genocide
AP Worldstream; Sep 28, 2005

Turkey’s prime minister on Wednesday rejected a European Parliament
resolution calling on Ankara to recognize the mass killings of
Armenians around the time of World War I as genocide.
“That resolution is not binding. It does not matter whether they took
such a decision or not. We will continue on our way,” private
CNN-Turk television quoted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as
saying during a visit to Abu Dhabi. Turkey is scheduled to open
accession talks with the EU on Monday.
The EU lawmakers said in their resolution that recognition of the
1915-1923 killings as genocide should be a prerequisite for Turkey to
join the European Union.
Armenians say that 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks
around the time of World War I, which Armenians and several nations
around the world recognize as the first genocide of the 20th century.
Turkey denies that the massacres were genocide, saying the death toll
is inflated and Armenians were killed in civil unrest as the Ottoman
Empire collapsed.
Speaking to Turkish reporters in Abu Dhabi, Erdogan also reiterated
his view that the EU has to admit Turkey or risk being branded a
“Christian Club.”
“The EU … has to prove that it is not a Christian Club. To say ‘the
EU is not a Christian Club’ won’t save it from becoming a Christian
Club,” Erdogan said.
“What will the EU achieve by admitting Turkey? It will become a
bridge between the 1.5-billion strong Muslim world and the EU. It
will start an alliance of civilizations,” he added.

Imedi TV, Tbilisi, in Georgian
24 Sep 05
Ethnic Armenian groups planning to petition for federal Georgian
state
After Kvemo-Kartli, separatist groups are now becoming more active in
Samtskhe-Javakheti. The Armenian population in Akhalkalaki is calling
for autonomy. Members of the local Javakhk and Virk organizations
raised this issue at a forum of an Armenian public organization
called the Samtskhe-Javakheti union. The forum, which ended about an
hour ago, was attended by Armenians from Tbilisi and Yerevan. They
plan to petition for a federal Georgian state. Staff from several
Russian television channels and new agencies were also in Akhalkalaki
today.

The Washington Post
September 25, 2005 Sunday
Final Edition
In Istanbul, a Crack In the Wall of Denial;
We’re Trying to Debate the Armenian Issue
by Elif Shafak
ISTANBUL
I am the daughter of a Turkish diplomat — a rather unusual character
in the male-dominated foreign service in that she was a single
mother. Her first appointment was to Spain, and we moved to Madrid in
the early 1980s. In those days, the Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia, known as ASALA, was staging attacks on Turkish
citizens — and diplomats in particular — in Rome, London, Zurich,
Brussels, Milan and Madrid; our cultural attaché in Paris was
assassinated in 1979 while walking on the Champs-Elysees. So
throughout my childhood, the word “Armenian” meant only one thing to
me: a terrorist who wanted to kill my mother.
Faced with hatred, I hated back. But that was as far as my feelings
went. It took me years to ask the simple question: Why did the
Armenians hate us?
My ignorance was not unusual. For me in those days, and for most
Turkish citizens even today, my country’s history began in 1923, with
the founding of the modern Turkish state. The roots of the Armenians’
rage — in the massacres, atrocities and deportations that decimated
Turkey’s Armenian population in the last years of Ottoman rule,
particularly 1915 — were simply not part of our common historical
memory.
But for me today, and for a growing number of my fellow Turks, that
has changed. That is why I am in Istanbul this weekend. I came to
Bosphorus University to attend the first-ever public conference in
this country on what happened to the Ottoman Armenians in and after
1915. As I write, we are fighting last-minute legal maneuvers by
hard-line opponents of open discussion to shut the conference down. I
don’t know how it will turn out — but the fact that we are here,
openly making the attempt, with at least verbal support from the
prime minister and many mainstream journalists, highlights how far
some in my country have come.
Until my early twenties, like many Turks living abroad, I was less
interested in history than in what we described as “improving
Turkey’s image in the eyes of Westerners.” As I began reading
extensively on political and social history, I was drawn to the
stories of minorities, of the marginalized and the silenced: women
who resisted traditional gender roles, unorthodox Sufis persecuted
for their beliefs, homosexuals in the Ottoman Empire. Gradually, I
started reading about the Ottoman Armenians — not because I was
particularly interested in the literature but because I was young and
rebellious, and the official ideology of Turkey told me not to.
Yet it was not until I came to the United States in 2002 and started
getting involved in an Armenian-Turkish intellectuals’ network that I
seriously felt the need to face the charges that, beginning in 1915,
Turks killed as many as 1.5 million Armenians and drove hundreds of
thousands more from their homes. I focused on the literature of
genocide, particularly the testimony of survivors; I watched filmed
interviews at the Zoryan Institute’s Armenian archives in Toronto; I
talked to Armenian grandmothers, participated in workshops for
reconciliation and collected stories from Armenian friends who were
generous enough to entrust me with their family memories and secrets.
With each step, I realized not only that atrocities had been
committed in that terrible time but that their effect had been made
far worse by the systematic denial that followed. I came to recognize
a people’s grief and to believe in the need to mourn our past
together.
I also got to know other Turks who were making a similar intellectual
journey. Obviously there is still a powerful segment of Turkish
society that completely rejects the charge that Armenians were
purposely exterminated. Some even go so far as to claim that it was
Armenians who killed Turks, and so there is nothing to apologize for.
These nationalist hardliners include many of our government
officials, bureaucrats, diplomats and newspaper columnists.
They dominate Turkey’s public image — but theirs is only one
position held by Turkish citizens, and it is not even the most common
one. The prevailing attitude of ordinary people toward the “Armenian
question” is not one of conscious denial; rather it is collective
ignorance. These Turks feel little need to question the past as long
as it does not affect their daily lives.
There is a third attitude, prevalent among Turkish youth: Whatever
happened, it was a long time ago, and we should concentrate on the
future rather than the past. “Why am I being held responsible for a
crime my grandfather committed — that is, if he ever did it?” they
ask. They want to become friends with Armenians and push for open
trade and better relations with neighboring Armenia . . . . as long
as everybody forgets this inconvenient claim of genocide.
Finally, there is a fourth attitude: The past is not a bygone era
that we can discard but a legacy that needs to be recognized,
explored and openly discussed before Turkey can move forward. It is
plain to me that, though it often goes unnoticed in Western media,
there is a thriving movement in Turkish civil society toward this
kind of reconciliation. The 50 historians, journalists, political
scientists and activists who have gathered here in the last few days
for the planned conference on Ottoman Armenians share a common belief
in the need to face the atrocities of the past, no matter how
distressing or dangerous, in order to create a better future for
Turkey.
But it hasn’t been easy, and the battle is far from over.
Over the past four years, Turks have made several attempts to address
the “Armenian question.” The conference planned for this weekend
differed from earlier meetings in key respects: It was to be held in
Istanbul itself, rather than abroad; it would be organized by three
established Turkish universities rather than by progressive Armenian
and Turkish expatriates; it would be conducted completely in Turkish.
Originally scheduled for May 23, it was postponed after Cemil Cicek,
Turkey’s minister of justice, made an angry speech before parliament,
accusing organizers of “stabbing their nation in the back.” But over
the ensuing four months, the ruling Justice and Development Party
made it clear that Cicek’s remarks reflected his views, and his
alone. The minister of foreign affairs, Abdullah Gul, announced that
he had no problem with the expression of critical opinion and even
said he would be willing to participate in the conference. (As it
happens, he has been in New York in recent days, at the United
Nations.)
Meanwhile, the Armenian question has been prominently featured in
Turkish media. Hurriyet, the nation’s most popular newspaper, ran a
series of pro and con interviews on this formerly taboo subject,
called “The Armenian Dossier.” The upcoming trial of acclaimed author
Orhan Pamuk, charged with “denigrating” Turkish identity for talking
about the killing of Kurds and Armenians, has been fervently debated.
Various columnists have directly apologized to the Armenians for the
sufferings caused to their people by the Turks. And stories have been
reported of orphaned Armenian girls who saved their lives by changing
their names, converting to Islam and marrying Turks — and whose
grandchildren are unaware today of their own mixed heritage.
All this activity has triggered a nationalist backlash. That should
be expected — but organizers of the Conference on Ottoman Armenians
were nevertheless surprised last week by a crafty, last-minute
maneuver: a court order to postpone the conference pending the
investigation of hardliners’ charges that it was unfairly biased
against Turkey. The cynicism of this order was clear when we learned
that the three-judge panel actually made its decision on Monday; it
was not made public until late Thursday, only hours before the
conference was to begin.
Organizers said they would try to regroup by moving the site from
Bosphorus University, a public institution, to one of the two private
universities that are co-sponsors. We were encouraged by the
immediate public reaction: Not only did some normally mainstream
media voices denounce the court order, but Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, in televised interviews, repeatedly criticized it as
“unacceptable.” “You may not like the expression of an opinion,” he
said, “but you can’t stop it like this.” Foreign Minister Gul, in New
York, lamented what effect this would have on Turkey’s quest to join
the European Union: “There’s no one better at hurting themselves than
us,” he said.
Whatever happens with the conference, I believe one thing remains
true: Through the collective efforts of academics, journalists,
writers and media correspondents, 1915 is being opened to discussion
in my homeland as never before. The process is not an easy one and
will disturb many vested interests. I know how hard it is — most
children from diplomatic families, confronting negative images of
Turkey abroad, develop a sort of defensive nationalism, and it’s
especially true among those of us who lived through the years of
Armenian terrorism. But I also know that the journey from denial to
recognition is one that can be made.
Author’s e-mail: [email protected]
Elif Shafak is a novelist and a professor of Near Eastern Studies at
the University of Arizona. She commutes between Tucson and Istanbul.