Author: Tambiyan Samvel

EU SUMMIT APPROVES DECISION TO SUSPEND NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY BY 8 ARTICLES
By Hakob Chakrian

AZG Armenian Daily
19/12/2006

The Brusselles EU Summit at last came to end. As it was expected
the participants approved the decision to suspend by 8 articles the
negotiations on Turkey’s EU membership, so as to satisfy the public
opinion in Europe. This decision was included in the EU declaration,
which also emphasized the importance of fulfilling the commitments
of the European states.

Apparently, Ankara is satisfied with such approach of the EU, as the
latter did not impose definite terms either of opening Turkey’s air
and sea space for Cyprus or recognizing the republic.

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Dec 16 2006

Shahoglan Mirzayev, killed and wounded Armenians, to be pardoned

[ 16 Dec. 2006 15:09 ]

Shahoglan Mirzayev, 64, who is serving his sentence in the Prison #1,
has many times appealed to the President for a pardon.

The prisoner told an APA reporter that he was sentenced to 14 years
in jail for having killed two Armenians and wounded two.
He said he was attacked by Armenian nationals outside his house in
Novan settlement in 1993, and opened fire on them by his
fowling-piece.
He served ten years in Gobustan Jail, but sentenced additional three
years for prison riot. He has been served four years in Prison #1.
Now he is worried about his only daughter.
Mirzayev thinks his appeal didn’t reach the President.
`I would have been granted a presidential pardon, if my appeal had
been delivered to him. I was in prison or having killed
enemy-Armenians,’ he complained. /APA/

A1+

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS CONFUSED
[08:35 pm] 15 December, 2006

Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan noted about the attitude of the
international structures towards the December 10 Constitutional
Referendum in NKR that the most acceptable attitude for him was that
of the NATO officials according to which the Karabakh conflict is
being settled by the Minsk group and the NATO does not interfere with
it.

«The attitude of many people and officials towards the NKR referendum
was rather strange for me: I think they are confusing something. Some
of them think it was an independence referendum, but it was merely a
constitutional one. If some people do not want Karabakh to have a
referendum, that is another question».

SWEDEN TO ALLOCATE 3.2 MILLION EUROS TO ARMENIA, GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN

ArmRadio.am
14.12.2006 12:06

In the current year Sweden will allocate 3.2 million Euros to Armenia,
Georgia and Azerbaijan for accomplishment of regional projects.

"Region" portal informs that the means will be directed at the
effective implementation of economic reforms and the reinforcement of
democratic institutions. The program verifies the priorities included
in the Action Plan of the European Neighborhood Policy.

The cooperation of the South Caucasian countries with Sweden dates
back to 1998.

IS IT TIME TO LIFT THE TABOO ON HOLOCAUST DENIAL?
by James Kirkup

The Scotsman, UK
December 13, 2006, Wednesday
1 Edition

IT IS difficult to imagine a more grotesque and unpleasant gathering
than the conference taking place in Tehran this week under the
innocuous title of "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision". For all
its pretence of scholarship and objective analysis, the event’s true
nature is not in doubt, as a glance at the guest-list makes clear.

Whatever else he is, David Duke, a former imperial wizard of the
Ku Klux Klan, is not an objective scholar of 20th-century European
history. Nor are the rest of the bunch that assembled under the
aegis of the Iranian foreign ministry, among them Michele Renouf,
who reportedly enjoys the remarkable distinction of being considered
"too extreme" to address the British National Party.

The whole nasty affair is the work of Iran’s nasty president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who says it is nothing less than an exercise
of free speech, and one that raises serious questions for the West,
and Europe in particular. Whether he’s rattling his sabre at Israel
or persecuting Iranians who criticise him, Mr Ahmadinejad is at least
as unpalatable as his guests this week. But, uncomfortable as it may
be to admit it, he has raised an important point.

The argument he mounts is that Europe is inconsistent in its adherence
to the values of free speech: deny that Hitler’s Nazi regime killed
six million Jews and you can end up in prison in several European
countries. But publish drawings or writings denying that Mohammed is
the prophet of the one true god and the authorities will defend you
to the hilt.

Mr Ahmadinejad argues that devout Muslims suffer just as much
distress from the latter as Jews do from the former. On one level,
it’s a specious argument, because according to its advocates, banning
Holocaust denial isn’t about preventing emotional distress, it’s about
preventing incitement to another genocide. But the very fact that Mr
Ahmadinejad can even draw the comparison should ring alarm bells:
extremists of all sorts find the most fertile soil in grievances,
real or imagined. By making an exceptional case of the Holocaust,
we risk handing ammunition to those who falsely claim that western
societies are biased, against Muslims and towards Jews.

By the way, Mr Ahmadinejad has never said how he would treat the
author of the blasphemous or offensive cartoons, but I think I have
an idea. Almost seven years ago in Tehran, I met Nikahang Kowsar,
the country’s leading political cartoonist. He’d just finished a jail
sentence imposed because one of his cartoons had offended one of the
hardline clerics who now keep Mr Ahmadinejad in his job. And that
was during one of Iran’s more liberal periods; since then, Mr Kowsar,
like a great many inspirational Iranian journalists, has sought exile
abroad, apparently unwilling to entrust his safety to Mr Ahmadinejad’s
proclaimed commitment to free speech.

There’s another problem with making a legal exception of the German
Holocaust, which is that by giving one atrocity special status above
all others, we make it somehow attractive to the stupid and the
malicious, in a way that other genocides are not.

Not many disaffected European youths are drawn to neo-Stalinist groups
and denials that the Communist tyrant killed 20 million.

Outside Turkey at least, not many demagogic politicians can make
capital out of denials that the Turks killed hundreds of thousands
of Armenians in 1915. Its near-sacred position in our collective
imagination has made the Nazi genocide into a malign cause celèbre,
and its sceptics into martyrs.

CONSIDER one of the missing guests at the Tehran conference,
David Irving. In 2000, Irving was a discredited pseudo-historian,
his amateurish attempts to deny the Holocaust shattered in a London
courtroom by a genuine historian, Deborah Lipstadt, in a defamation
case he brought. But last year, Irving was jailed in Austria,
where his pathetic writings constitute a crime. A quick trawl of the
internet confirms that his jailing has elevated him to the status of
demi-god among the far-right; his name was intoned with reverence at
the Tehran conference.

According to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, three-quarters of young
British people know when the Holocaust took place; more have heard
of Auschwitz. That is unquestionably a good thing. But how many of
them have reached the conclusion that Jews were slaughtered in their
millions because they have inspected and weighted the evidence of
the Holocaust, or at least read the work of credible historians who
have done so? Given the parlous state of history teaching in most
British schools, I fear Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List is more
significant here than less cinematic but more objective works such
as Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews or Christopher
Browning’s The Origins of the Final Solution.

There’s nothing wrong with getting interested in history because of
films. But films aren’t history; just consider the ruinous effects
Braveheart has had on Scottish political discourse. True historical
understanding comes only from calmly and coldly sifting the facts
from the assertions, the evidence from the propaganda. Despite the
undoubted good intentions behind them, Europe’s social and legal
taboos on discussion of the Holocaust risk suppressing that discussion.

Anyone who believes that the memory of the Holocaust is important, that
it must not be forgotten, should always recall the priceless advice
of JS Mill’s Essay on Liberty: "However unwillingly a person who has
a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be
false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true
it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,
it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.

Western society is nothing if it is not free, and our beliefs are
nothing if they are not questioned. It is regrettable if it takes
someone as illiberal as Mr Ahmadinejad to remind us of that.

–Boundary_(ID_JJ6AAxhp8QC019VzX94V5g)–

ARMENIAN REPORT 98 PER CENT VOTE YES IN KARABAKH REFERENDUM

Mediamax News Agency, Armenia
Dec 11 2006

Yerevan, 11 December: According to preliminary data, 98.58 per cent of
the voters, who took part in the referendum on 10 December, supported
the draft constitution of the Nagornyy-Karabakh republic [NKR].

Only 0.7 per cent of the participants in the referendum voted against
the draft constitution, our special correspondent has reported from
Stepanakert [Xankandi].

According to the data, turnout for the referendum was 87 per cent,
or 78,389 people.

A total of 90,077 people were included on the voting lists.

PARTY LEADER ANGRY WITH RUSSIANS

Panorama.am
16:01 05/12/06

Leader of Christian Democratic Union party, Khosrov Harutunyan, almost
cursed Russian for their supposed intervention into the internal
political life of Armenia.

He believes it is painful that Armenians take foreign influences
easily. He was very angry at the statement which says that whoever
Russia supports will become a president of Armenia.

At the same time, he justified the attempts of Americans to appoint
Sahakashvili as the president of Georgia because he believes that
was the will of people. "If Georgian people did not want, they would
boycott as they did with Shevardnadze," he said.

PRAYING FOR THE IMPERFECT STORM: THE IMPLICATIONS OF A COUP D’ETAT IN TURKEY
Barin Kayaoglu

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Dec 3 2006

What are the chances of another military coup in Turkey? Impossible?
Unlikely? Imminent? According to Turkish analyst Zeyno Baran, who is
currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based think tank Hudson
Institute, "the chances of a military coup in Turkey occurring in 2007
are roughly 50-50." Based on her recent conversations with unnamed
senior officers, Baran argues that Turkish Armed Forces might decide
to step in to avert Turkey’s perceived march toward Islamism under
the Erdogan government next year. [1]

In similar exchanges, claims Baran, she had seen the previous "coup"
back in 1997. According to one of Baran’s contacts, who had "asked the
Iranian generals after the 1979 [Islamic] revolution why they had done
nothing to stop it," their Iranian counterparts responded that by the
time they had realized what was going to happen, it was too late to
stop it. "We will never let that happen in Turkey," vowed the Turkish
generals. Perceiving the current situation in Ankara in similar terms,
Baran informs us that the 50 percent prospect is more likely than not.

Coup-mongering is as old a problem in Turkish intellectual circles as
coups themselves. Turkish political history has been marked and marred
by varying degrees of military interventions. The first one was in
May 1960, when a junta led by junior-ranking officers overthrew the
democratically elected but inept government of Adnan Menderes. The
next one came in March 1971, when the Chief of General Staff sent
a memorandum to Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel that the military
was not happy with the ongoing political turmoil and "advised" the
formation of an "above-party" government to bring order. Following
the memorandum, Demirel got the message and resigned. Less than a
decade later, Demirel, together with the late Bulent Ecevit, failed
to stabilize the country and was once again ousted by a military
coup in September 1980. The subsequent plebiscite in 1982 produced a
constitution which had to be amended more than a dozen times to fit
the needs of a rapidly transforming Turkey. Finally, in February 1997,
mounting pressure against the coalition government led by the Islamist
Necmettin Erbakan culminated in a standoffish National Security Council
meeting with the military top brass and led to Erbakan’s resignation
a few months later. That move also failed to bring about economic
and political stability to Turkey since then.

This synopsis tells volumes as to why another military intervention
in Turkey is a bad idea. The first reason is that not a single coup
has attained its goals. None of military coups have resulted in
bringing long-term political stability to Turkey. The most common
word in Turkish political lexicon is still "crisis" and not "merit"
or "success." On the contrary, many of the times those who were
ousted came back even more strongly. The Ecevit-Demirel-Erbakan trio
came back in the 1990s and did their thing, arguably leading to the
economic crisis of 2001. In that regard, coups have been an assured
way for those incompetent politicians to ultimately keep their clout,
the exact reason why those coups are carried out in the first place.

Coups are also bad for business. Turkey is still on the economic
margins of Europe, in stark contrast to where it could and should be.

In living standards, Turkey still fails to provide its citizens
adequately. Public education is a mess. Those who wish to remain
healthy try to avoid hospitals. Roads, electricity and water grids,
and urban planning fall quite below public needs. Unemployment cannot
be pulled down and direct foreign investment does not go up. Research
and development is still not a sector in and of itself.

Coups do not address any of these problems. Worse yet, they produce
setbacks through their own devices. The most dangerous of these is the
negative impact on the military’s professionalism. The primary duty of
a country’s armed forces is not to run that country but to defend and
promote its political interests in the international realm. In other
words, the best military is that which does not govern at all. When
an officer corps that is trained to lead infantry charges, fire
artilleries, fly airplanes, and command naval vessels are asked to
do myriad things such as running municipalities, inspecting schools,
prosecuting criminals, conducting diplomacy, setting agricultural
policy, and writing constitutions – all at the same time – the result
can be anything but satisfactory. The military’s energetic and vibrant
officers, who are well-trained in martial affairs, will only not be
successful if they assume control over matters that are not a part of
their training. Consequently, that can have adverse effects on their
professional self-esteem and would certainly hamper on the Turkish
military’s effectiveness as a fighting force and Turkey’s security
and defense policy.

Coups are self-fulfilling prophecies. The more likely they get, the
more insecure that civilian politicians become. The more insecure they
become, the deeper their ineptitude gets. Even though popular belief in
Turkey maintains that military "oversight" helps to "straighten out"
politicians, a good deal of the time the result is the opposite. In
terms of civilian control of the military, this is pretty bad. The
Turkish military’s professional attitude is that (as it is true with
all respectable militaries around the world) they dislike weakness in
superiors and subordinates. Professional soldiers do not like personal
weakness; they respect strength, character, and expertise – qualities
that Turkish civilian leaders lack most of the time. Yet overthrowing
democratically-elected governments, no matter how tempting, is not
a remedy but a guarantee for the perpetuation of strained relations
between the civilian and military wings of the government.

Another reason why a coup d’etat is a bad idea is because Turkey
has changed too much for that. Twenty-six years ago, Turkey
was not integrated to the global economic system. There were no
private television or radio networks. Mass communication was not
as ubiquitous and society was not as open as it is today. It was
easy to talk down to the public, implement massive curfews, and
streamline a poorly-written constitution. Today, doing those things
are nigh-on-impossible. Administering the required discipline and
regimentation on a society that has enjoyed the blessings of greater
openness is not that easy and would create insurmountable tensions
between the idolized army and the Turkish people.

In as much as they believe in their duty to protect their country
from internal and external enemies, Turkish officers also know
that they have a standing order from Ataturk not to get involved in
politics. Ataturk’s vision for Turkey was not a place where those
who wake up earlier have a better shot in staging a coup. Even though
he failed in his life-time to consolidate a liberal democratic form
of government, Ataturk was a democrat at heart and he was aware
of his country’s shortcomings. He firmly believed that Turkey’s
problems of backwardness and democratization could only be remedied
by modernization. Democracy, Westernization, and modernization meant
more or less the same thing. He reportedly said in the mid-1920s that
"Turkey is going to build up a perfect democracy." U.S. ambassador
Joseph Grew observed Ataturk’s failed attempt to commence multi-party
democracy in 1930 as follows:

Ataturk began to think the single party as a sign of Turkey’s
inferiority in comparison with Europe and the West. American and
European writers have in recent years devoted much space to the
Turkish dictatorship which has often been described as Western in
form but Oriental in fact. These descriptions have been brought to
the Gazi’s attention and he has not been pleased.[2]

A coup d’etat would only affirm that Turkey is indeed a dictatorship
that is "Western" in outlook but "Oriental" in essence. Zeyno Baran
would probably disagree with my statement, as her concluding remarks
reveal:

If a coup were to happen, it would not necessarily translate to a
non-democratic Turkey. More likely, it would simply mean the end
of Turkey’s current "Islamist experiment" and a return to a more
conservative government-stalwartly secular, yes, but a democracy
nonetheless. Ironically, this Turkey might ultimately be seen to be
a better member of Europe than today’s.

This is too serious a joke to warrant laughter. It is an indisputable
fact that democracy cannot exist without secularism. Religion plus
politics equals disaster. On the other hand, a "stalwartly secular"
system does not automatically guarantee the stature of democracy to
a political regime. A coup d’etat would only demonstrate that, in
the face of the perceived Islamist challenge, Ataturk’s principles
are ineffective in modernizing Turkey and need to be defended by force.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Turkey will not turn Islamist
as long as variables operate in the realm of the real. The previously
quoted Iran analogy is therefore extremely ill-suited in explaining
Turkey’s position. The problem with Iran during the 1970s was the
irresolvable conflict between its socio-economic structure and its
political system. Mohammed Reza Shah’s feverish modernization policies
which started in 1963 resulted in a country that had the best shot
in becoming the industrial, commercial, and military center of the
Middle East by the late 1970s. The Pahlavi monarch’s insistence on
maintaining a firm grip on political power, however, coupled with
mistreating Iranian citizens at the hand of his infamous intelligence
agency SAVAK, destroyed whatever support there was for the Shah’s
regime and led to his ultimate downfall.

For all its faults, lack of heeding popular will is not a deficiency
on the part of Turkey’s political system. Elections happen regularly;
they are contested fairly; and result in a change of political
leadership. Turkish people might still be frustrated with the slow
pace of improvement in their lives, but there is a lot of room for
optimism. Freedom of expression, notwithstanding the hideous article
301 of the penal code, is light years further from what it was just
ten years ago. Turkey is discussing its touchy Armenian and Kurdish
issues with an unprecedented amount of maturity. These advancements
might be the first losses in the face of a coup d’etat and it therefore
eludes reason as to how that course would "not necessarily translate
to a non-democratic Turkey."

Looking at this picture, what are the chances of a coup d’etat in
Turkey next year? 5 percent? 50 percent? Less? More? One cannot know.

That is not even the point. Meteorologists are more equipped in
predicting actual weather patterns than political analysts who quite
often fail in foretelling the political climate. Maybe Ms. Baran
is right and I am wrong. But before praying for the imperfect storm
that would damage Turkey’s political landscape, it is necessary to
consider what the implications of a coup might be for Turkey.

Patriotism dictates that the Turkish High Command and Mr. Erdogan’s
government need to think about that before making their next move.

2 December 2006, JTW

+++

Barin Kayaoglu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to
the Journal of Turkish Weekly.

E-mail: [email protected]

[1] Zeyno Baran, "The Coming Coup d’Etat?" Newsweek, Dec. 4, 2006;
available from .

[2] Grace Ellison, Turkey To-Day (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1929),8;
quoted in Ertan Aydin, "The Peculiarities of Turkish Revolutionary
Ideology in the 1930s: The Ulku Version of Kemalism, 1933-1936"
(Ph.D. diss., Bilkent University, 2003), 8; Joseph C.

Grew, Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years, 1904-1945,
(London: Hammond, Hammond & Co., 1953), 869.

=2373

International Herald Tribune, France
Dec 1 2006

Belgium says Turkey should be given ‘honest chance’ to continue
membership talks

The Associated Press Published: December 1, 2006

BRUSSELS, Belgium: In another sign of the disagreements over Turkey’s
drive to join the EU, Belgium said Friday that the predominantly
Muslim country should be given an "honest chance" to continue
membership negotiations.

A Dec. 14-15 summit of EU government leaders will decide whether to
act on a recommendation by the EU’s executive arm to partially
suspend the negotiations, which began a year ago.

Countries like Germany, France, Greece and Cyprus are seeking tough
measures against Ankara until it opens its ports to Greek Cypriot
ships and planes. Others, like Britain, Spain and Sweden want to make
sure a potential important ally like Turkey is not excluded.

"To refuse Turkey an honest chance would be a historical error,"
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht wrote in an op-ed piece in De
Morgen newspaper. Yet he criticized recent developments in Turkey.

"Trials against intellectuals for insulting the Turkish identity,
discussions about the Armenian genocide, quarrels about relations
with Cyprus," he said. "Old symbols are coming to the fore."

De Gucht said, however, that the EU had to look beyond the current
differences.

"Enlargement is a good thing and Turkey deserves the benefit of the
doubt," he said.

On Wednesday, divisions among EU nations were laid bare after the
European Commission recommended partially halting membership talks
because Turkey refuses to extend a customs union with the EU to
include Cyprus and nine other countries that joined the bloc in 2004.

"It is of major importance that Turkey remains a stable, secular
democracy," De Gucht said.

"Joining the Western club, which is the European Union, would send a
very strong signal to the world that the ‘clash of civilizations’ is
not inevitable."

If the talks are partially frozen, it would significantly slow
Turkey’s EU membership talks, which already were expected to last at
least a decade. The EU has always stressed they offer no guarantee of
membership.

"Negotiating with such a strong neighbor can only be a tough,
time-consuming process," said De Gucht.

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Nov 30 2006

ARMENIAN HAYPOST COMPANY TRANSFERRED TO DUTCH "HAYPOST TRUST
MANAGEMENT"

YEREVAN, November 30. /ARKA/. The Haypost Company is handed over to
Dutch "Haypost Trust Management" on trust management terms.
Karine Kirakosyan, the head of the state property management
department, and Hans Bonn, the representative of ING Company, signed
the corresponding agreement Thursday in Yerevan.
Under the agreement, Haypost is transferred on trust management for
five years, allowing for another 5-year prolongation.
K. Kirakosyan stressed the importance of the handover saying it will
give an opportunity to reform the mailing services’ system and bring
it into line with the international standards.
Tigran Sarkisyan, the chairman of the Central Bank of Armenia, said
the required action program has been developed by the Dutch ING
company to improve the quality of post services and implement a
revolutionary reformation of the system. Adoption of a number of
legislative acts is also envisaged, Sargsyan added.
Under the program, the Dutch company has founded Post Bank to be
registered in the Central Bank of Armenia and operate in accordance
with the Armenian law.
The Haypost national post operator has 900 post offices in the
country with 4,000 personnel and profit totaling $7mln as of the end
of 2005. Amsterdam-based Haypost Trust Management is founded
particularly for trust management of Haypost and operates in
cooperation with Post Finance International, which is specialized in
reformation and modernization of post services in developing
countries. N.V. -0–