Author: Zaminian Bedik

US Dept of State (press release), DC
Feb 9 2007

The United States-Turkish Relationship

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs

Digital Video Press Conference with Turkish Reporters Following
Washington Visit of Foreign Minister Gül
Washington, DC and Ankara, Turkey
February 8, 2007

Assistant Secretary Fried: I’m certainly grateful for the
opportunity. Good afternoon everyone and Merhaba.

Foreign Minister Gül is winding up several days of visits in
Washington. He has met with Secretary Rice, he has met with the Vice
President, he met with key congressional figures and leaders, and, of
course, with the rather extensive friends of Turkey group in
Washington. I was at a dinner last night hosted by the German
Marshall Fund in his honor which featured a very good discussion.

The United States-Turkish relationship is both deep and broad. It is
deep because our friendship goes back a very long way, and we work
together extremely closely on key issues. It is broad because it
touches a great number of issues.

The agenda with Turkey includes almost every issue in the Middle East
and the greater Middle East. We discuss with the Turks Lebanon,
Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. We discuss the South
Caucasus. Not just Nagorno- Karabakh but Georgia, Azerbaijan, energy.
We discuss Central Asia, whether it’s Turkmenistan and the changes
that may be underway there or Kazakhstan and its future. We discuss
energy independence and energy dependence and the problem of
diversification of energy supplies.

And yes, of course we discussed the issue of the PKK, a terrorist
organization which we believe should be eliminated and the threat to
Turkey reduced to zero. In that context I was delighted to learn that
European officials, French officials have arrested a large number of
PKK operatives. This does, as has been reported, follow some close
cooperation between the United States and Turkey. This cooperation is
continuing. It will continue, and our cooperation is not limited to
Western Europe, let me put it that way.

And yes, in anticipation of some of your questions, of course we
discussed the resolution which has been introduced about
Armenian-Turkish issues, about the Armenian, what its supporters call
the Armenian Genocide. This bill does not have the support of the
administration. The administration opposes this bill. We have made
that clear. We are continuing to make it clear. Later today I am
going up to meet with key figures in the Congress about this bill and
I expect our efforts will continue.

The U.S.-Turkish relationship, though, is more important than any
particular issue. We have dealt with areas in which we disagree,
about Iraq in 2003, and other issues where we have had differences.
But despite those differences we remain friends. We are linked by
common values, and, critically, we are linked by common interests.
Our relationship with Turkey is knit together not simply by sentiment
but by strong, common interests, interests in a stable, more peaceful
Middle East; interest in the spread of our common values in the South
Caucasus and Central Asia. We have common interests in combating
terrorism. Turkey has played a strong role in the promotion of reform
in the broader Middle East. So our relationship with Turkey is a
strong one, it is a relationship which can withstand the occasional
disagreements because we are, after all, not children. We are not
prone to obsess about areas where we disagree or squabble for the
sake of squabbling, but to put any disagreements behind us and work
on the basis of our common objectives.

Now, with that, I’ll be happy to take any of your questions.

Media: Hi, I’m Evren Mesci working for Sabah Daily Newspapers.

Mr. Fried, you have talked of the relationship between Turkey and the
United States and you talked about how strong it is. So you also
talked about the resolution concerning the Armenian issue. How do you
think it would affect the strategic partnership between Turkey and
the U.S. if that resolution is passed from the Congress? And you said
you are going to talk with the key figures at the Congress. What will
be your thesis in order to convince them not to support this bill?
Thank you.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I and I suspect more senior people in the
U.S. administration than I will be discussing this.

Our argument is essentially this. Such a resolution will damage
U.S.-Turkish relations and for no good purpose. Such a resolution
would not in fact advance Turkish-Armenian dialogue and it would not
advance the process of Turkey’s examination of its own past.

I’ve always been of the view that democratic countries need to take a
hard look at the dark spots in their own history. And by the way, I
start with my own country. We do have dark spots in the United
States. Our past includes a past in which slavery was an institution
that existed in this country for centuries. We fought a civil war to
end it and still its affects linger to the present day. That is a
dark spot and we had to confront it honestly.

Our treatment in the 20th Century of Japanese-Americans in World War
II; our treatment of American Indians were dark spots in our history.
We had to deal with this honestly and painfully.

Our view is that Turkey is going through a process of looking at its
own history with Armenians. The killings in 1915 were horrific. They
need to be looked at honestly and without taboos, but not because
Americans say Turkey should look at this. It should be looked at
because Turks in the process of building a democracy and deepening a
democracy are looking at these issues for their own reasons.

I think this process is going on in Turkey. It is painful, it is
emotional. There are nationalist forces and it was an extreme
nationalist, it seems, who murdered Hrant Dink and there are millions
of Turks who reject this dark legacy of nationalism including the
hundreds of thousands of Turks who marched in the streets of Istanbul
at the Hrant Dink funeral saying things like we are all Armenians, we
are all Hrant Dink, which I interpret as Turkey’s rejection of
nationalism.

So my argument to the Congress will be that this natural, painful
process in Turkey needs to be allowed to unfold with encouragement
and support, but not pressure from the outside. That will be my
argument.

Now I don’t expect that everyone will accept it, but I will make the
case as best I can. And it won’t be just me. There will be more
senior people than I making the case and pointing out that
Turkish-U.S. relations should not be damaged for no good purpose.

But this is obviously a very emotional issue and I believe it is in
Turkey’s interest for its own reasons to take steps to examine its
past and to reach out to Armenians worldwide and to Armenia despite
the fact that Turks don’t like all of the things that Armenian
communities say.

Long answer, I’m sorry, but it’s a complicated question.

Media: Sevil Kucukosum from Aksam Daily. Regarding the murder of
Hrant Dink, do you think that this murder can create an opportunity
for reconciliation or normalization of relations between Turkey and
Armenia? Do you have any message to both sides?

Assistant Secretary Fried: It is not for the United States to tell
Turkey what to do. I was deeply saddened by the murder of Hrant Dink.
I felt the reaction in Turkey was the reaction of an honest and
democratic people, and the reaction I have in mind is the reaction of
horror and revulsion. The reaction of Turks who took to the streets
to identify with Hrant Dink as a man who refused to indulge in
nationalism but believed in a Turkey which embraces a multi-cultural
cosmopolitan identity for itself. I thought that was a healthy,
strong reaction.

Is there an opportunity for reconciliation? Perhaps, perhaps there
is. It seems clear that in Turkey the society as a whole, as much as
one can generalize, has rejected nationalism or is rejecting
nationalism, and I hope that Turkey’s leaders will build on this
strong legacy of tolerance in at least that part of the society and
reach out to Armenia and to Armenians.

This is not easy. It’s easy for me to sit here and say things like
this. It’s hard to do the right thing. But I think through strong
leadership it is possible to do this and I hope that Turkey takes
advantage of the opportunity.

Media: Mr. Fried, I have two questions. One, in the Turkish press
there is a feeling that Gül’s visit was a failure, and probably
because we were expecting lots of things. You are in a better
position than us to see how the American administration sees this
visit, the results of the visit. Also, the friends of Turkey in
Washington, the American Turkish Council, how they are receiving the
results of this visit.

The second thing is we are hearing from the American administration
that Turkey is no longer in a position to listen from Washington, but
in a position to advise Washington on certain issues. You counted
Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iran and Lebanon. I wonder if really
Turkish Foreign Ministry has things to advise to Washington about,
for example, Israeli-Palestinian relations or Lebanon.

Assistant Secretary Fried: Our relationship with Turkey is certainly
a two-way street. By that I mean that we welcome Turkish advice.
Turkey has a lot of experience in the Middle East. It has contacts,
connections. It has a deep knowledge of the history, from the Ottoman
period, and we welcome Turkish advice. And yes, Foreign Minister Gül
is not only an eloquent person, but he gave us advice on issues like
Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, and frankly, that’s
welcomed.

Our relationship is not one where Turkey simply is a passive object
and receives advice. No one who has the slightest understanding of
the relationship would believe that. We welcome Turkish input and
advice and it tends to be pretty sound advice at that.

I don’t understand how any Turkish newspaper could call Foreign
Minister Gül’s visit a failure. I suspect that such articles, like
similar articles that appear in the United States about Secretary
Rice from time to time, are a function of domestic politics rather
than reality. I suspect that. I haven’t read these articles.

But look, this is the real world. In the real world when a foreign
minister comes to visit he and his counterparts go over a series of
issues. Issues on which they agree, issues on which they may have
differences, issues on which they need to take common action.

It was a successful visit in that we heard directly from Turkey
issues of concern to Turkey. It was a success because we were able to
discuss common objectives with respect to a number of issues. Foreign
Minister Gül presented Secretary Rice with some concrete ideas which
frankly we find very valuable, and we are going to work together with
Turkey on that basis.

It is also true that Foreign Minister Gül was very eloquent and
strong in presenting Turkey’s concerns about the Armenian Resolution
and about the PKK, and we welcomed this. It does no good for Turks
not to tell us what’s on their mind and what’s troubling them. We
welcome this.

So it was a good visit. We appreciate this dialogue. Our dialogue
with Turkey is intense. Under Secretary Burns was recently in Ankara.
General Ralston has been traveling to the region. He’s our envoy for
countering and combating the PKK. Our Economic Partnership Commission
is taking place this week in Turkey. Policy planning talks will be
held later. Our dialogue with Turkey is very rich and there is a lot
to talk about.

Media: Mr. Fried, my name is Hilal from Radikal daily. Actually I’d
like to ask a question about combating the PKK in Northern Iraq, but
also nowadays in Central Europe, in Belgium, in France there are some
operations, and members and leaders of the PKK have been captured
through this. Is there any direct link between these operations and
that visit, Mr. Gul’s visit United States? Just how do you evaluate
this issue? How do you see these operations [inaudible]? Thank you.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I doubt that the French police arrested
PKK terrorists to help the atmospherics around the visit of the
Turkish Foreign Minister in Washington. We appreciate our French
friends’ efforts, but the timing is clearly a coincidence.

But it is true that the United States and Turkey have been working
with our West European friends about the problem of the PKK. And it
is true that West European governments understand the nature of the
problem, and these arrests have been made. This is good news. These
aren’t the first arrests; I doubt they will be the last arrests.

But you are also correct when you suggest that the problem of the PKK
is obviously not confined to Western Europe. It’s also a problem in
Northern Iraq. We are cooperating with Turkey to deal with that
problem.

Solving it will require cooperation between Turkey and Iraq, both the
Iraqi central government and the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government
and I think this cooperation is moving forward.

We are working together on projects like the closing of the Makhmour
camp which had become, frankly, very heavily infiltrated by the PKK.
This process is underway now.

There are other things which might be done, but they are of a nature
that should not be discussed with the media openly.

Media: According to some latest news USA has started a huge operation
in Iraq, but on the other hand, some news agencies and a very close
person to Prime Minister el Maliki declare that there is no such
operation. So what is the truth? To whom are we to believe, has
America started an operation?

Assistant Secretary Fried: The Iraqi government with our support has
begun an operation to try to improve security in Baghdad, if that’s
the operation you’re referring to. That has started today. The
efforts will intensify. President Bush has made the case to the
American people that although Iraq is in grave difficulties to
withdraw from Iraq, to pull out would lead to a situation far worse
than it is at present, which is bad enough. To help stabilize Iraq
and give the central government time to establish itself we need to
help the Iraqis get a handle on the violence in Baghdad. That’s what
we are intending to do. The surge, as it’s called, the reinforcement
of U.S. forces in Baghdad, is intended to support the Iraqi
government which is launching this operation.

Turkey has played a supportive role working with Iraq. One of Foreign
Minister Gül’s messages throughout his trip is that despite some of
the differences between the United States and Turkey, Iraqis’ success
will be Turkey’s success. Iraqis’ failure will be Turkey’s failure
and Turkey has played a good role.

An Iraq which is more stable, more united – albeit federal, but one
country – is apt to be a better neighbor for Turkey and a less
hospitable place for the PKK.

Media: Zeynep Gurcanli from Vatan Daily Newspapers. You said in your
opening remarks that the Western European operation towards PKK was
not limited to Western Europe. So can we expect also a new operation
in Northern Iraq? And also what is the U.S. government position for a
possible cross-border operation, military operation, of Turkey
towards PKK in Northern Iraq?

Assistant Secretary Fried: To state the obvious but to start from it,
of course there is a problem of the PKK presence in Northern Iraq. Of
course this problem has to be dealt with. We are discussing with
Turkey and our Iraqi friends this problem. I’m not going to say any
more in this channel about it.

I understand in the press there has been speculation about unilateral
Turkish cross-border operations. I understand perfectly Turkish
frustration with the PKK bases and camps in Northern Iraq. This is
understandable. But the responsibility for the outcomes of such an
operation is something Turkey needs to think about.

It’s easy to talk about it, but the consequences can be not what
Turkey intends. So our view is that it is better for Turkey to
cooperate with the regional, the Kurdish regional authorities and
with the Central government and with us, and it is very fair for
Turkey to say that this cooperation should be meaningful, concrete
and yield results, but that’s our view.

Media: Mr. Fried, Gulsen Solaker from Anatolian Agency. You say that
you welcome the advices of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on some
issues. Is the United States listening also to the advices about the
Kirkuk issue? What is the latest position of United States government
about the Kirkuk referendum?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We understand Turkey’s interest in Kirkuk.
Ultimately this is an issue for Iraqis to decide. They have
constitutional provisions which require a referendum, but we think
it’s very fair for Turkey to express its views and its concerns about
this. This issue has come up. It’s something which Turkey should feel
free to express its concerns directly to the Iraqis and to the Kurds.
The solution will hopefully be one that contributes to stability in
Iraq, not detracts from it.

As I said, ultimately it’s an Iraqi decision. It’s their country, not
our country. But Turkey has every right to make its views known. We
found it interesting to hear the Foreign Minister’s arguments about
this.

Media: Conxita Isik from ANKA News Agency. There has been a problem
between Turkey and the Greek Cypriots regarding the latest attempts
to launch oil exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean. I would like
to know your position regarding this.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I’ve heard about this. I’m not familiar
with the details of the oil problem, but I will say this. We
supported the Annan Plan a couple of years ago because we believed it
was the best chance to reunite the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal
federation. We also appreciate, frankly, the role of the Turkish
Cypriot leader Talat in strongly supporting reunification. I think it
is terrible that this opportunity was missed. There we are, however.
We think in the meantime it’s important to end the isolation of the
Turkish Cypriot community to help that economy develop and to support
reunification.

Now that there is a Turkish-Cypriot leadership that supports
reunification, that does not support separatism, it is the time now
to support this leadership in a way consistent with our position that
it ought to be a reunited island. This has been our position, we
don’t make a secret of it, and we welcome the efforts to increase
contacts between the two communities.

Media: Mr. Fried, at the beginning of your speech you said that Mrs.
Pelosi was planning to meet Minister Gül, also. Do you make any
effort to (audience noise) – Sorry, I understood like that maybe. We
know that Minister Gül wants to meet Ms. Pelosi. Do you make any
effort to gather them? And just how do you solve this crisis?

Assistant Secretary Fried: Speaker Pelosi and Foreign Minister Gül
did not meet. We think that such a meeting would have been a good
idea. The Speaker, let me put it this way, does not always listen to
all the advice from the administration. She does represent a
different political party. She is, after all, now I suppose the
leader of the opposition in Congress.

We do not support this resolution. We will make efforts to see that
this resolution does not pass. That is an unequivocal statement of
the administration’s position. I hope that Turkey, without regard to
this resolution, makes every effort to reach out to Armenia and
Armenians and makes every effort to examine its own history. Not
because of outside pressure, but because this is appropriate for
Turkey’s own development as a democracy.

The debate in Turkey about its history, the position of writers such
as Orhan Pamuk, the position of intellectuals, the participation of
Turkish scholars in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission some six
years ago is all the result not of any outside pressure. Orhan Pamuk
doesn’t care at all what the Americans think. It’s the result of
internal Turkish processes. I applaud these, and I hope that Turkey
for its own reasons will do everything it can to reach out to Armenia
and Armenians.

Great nations are not afraid to confront the dark spots of their
past. The United States had to do so and we were not our best selves,
we were not true to our best traditions until we had done so.

I believe the same is true of all countries. I believe the same is
true, therefore, of Turkey. I hope Turkey does this not to please the
United States but because of itself and this is something the United
States can best influence by being a friend, not by passing
resolutions. That is my view and I hope I can help convince the
Congress of it.

Ankara Public Affairs Officer Daniel Sreebny: Thank you very much for
the time. We’d love to keep you longer but we know you are just at
the start of a very busy day. We appreciate this and we hope you’ll
come out and visit sometime soon.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I love my visits to Ankara. I love my
visits to Istanbul, as well. I look forward to my next trip to
Turkey. Thank you.

The European Parliament issues a report on Hrant Dink assassination

ArmRadio.am
09.02.2007 17:10

The European Parliament issued a report on the assassination of the
editor-in-chief of the Agos daily Hrant Dink, in which it suggests
the European Union to exert pressure on Turkey connected with the
guarantee of human rights and the Armenian Issue.

Turkish "Zaman" informs that the report was prepared by Co-Chair of
the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission Joost Lagendijk. The
document particularly refers to the disputes about Dink assassination
and the funeral ceremony. "The funeral ceremony was a historic event
for Istanbul, which assembled thousands of people, who came to pay
tribute to Hrant Dink’s memory and express their protest," the document
reads. The rapporteur, who witnessed those painful events, notes that
despite the speedy detainment of the murderer many questions still
remain without answer. "Hrant Dink’s approach towards the events
of 1915 was much more effective than the Diaspora’s approach," the
document reads. "He was concerned about the painful historic facts
of the Armenian nation no less than the Diaspora, but he had chosen
another, and probably a more productive approach. In his speeches and
articles he was escaped using the word "genocide" leaving the choice
for characterization of the events to the readers and audience,"
the document notes.

The report call to assist the Agos newspaper, "since closure of the
paper will be a great loss for Turkey. It is note din the document that
"the European Parliament would like to get convinced that the Armenian
Issue and question connected with freedom of speech are a priority
in the agenda of the Turkish Government. The source reminds that
the European Parliament officially recognized the Armenian Genocide
in 1987 and calls on Turkey to follow its example for joining the
European Union.

TRANSCRIPT: ELIF SHAFAK: ON BEING TRIED IN TURKEY FOR DENIGRATING TURKISHNESS

WHYY.
FRESH AIR
SHOW: Fresh Air 12:00 PM EST NPR
February 6, 2007 Tuesday

Elif Shafak, author of "The Bastard of Istanbul," on being tried in
Turkey for denigrating Turkishness, her fascination with language,
and women’s roles in Turkey

ANCHORS: TERRY GROSS

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross.

My guest, Elif Shafak, faced three years in prison for comments made
by characters in her novel "The Bastard of Istanbul," which has just
been published in the US. Shafak is from Turkey, where Article 301 of
the penal code makes it illegal to insult Turkishness, and for those
Turks behind this law, one of the most egregious ways of insulting
Turkishness is to use the word "genocide" when describing the mass
killings and deportations of Armenians by Ottoman Turks beginning in
1915. Shafak has acknowledged that her novel tackles a political taboo,
quote, "what we in Turkey call the Armenian question," unquote. One
of the characters in Shafak’s novel uses the word genocide.

"The Bastard of Istanbul" tells the story of two families, a Turkish
Muslim family in Istanbul and an Armenian-American family in San
Francisco. Shafak says the novel is about the tension between the
need to examine the past and the desire to erase it. Shafak was
acquitted of violating Article 301, but a journalist who described
himself as an Armenian from Turkey was found guilty. That journalist,
Hrant Dink, was assassinated last month. Now many Turkish writers
and intellectuals, including Elif Shafak and the Nobel Laureate Orhan
Pamuk, find their safety threatened. It’s unsafe for some of them to
publicly discuss what happened to the Armenians in 1915. I spoke with
Elif Shafak yesterday.

Elif Shafak, welcome to FRESH AIR. What was the significance in Turkey
of the murder of Hrant Dink?

Ms. ELIF SHAFAK: I think the best way to understand that is to look
at Hrant’s funeral. It brought people of all sorts of ideological
backgrounds, people of all walks of life, ethnicities, religions,
were there, and it was a very poignant, moving experience. Everyone
was chanting, `We’re all Hrant. We’re all Armenian," and Christians
and Muslims buried him together.

GROSS: What was he tried for before he was assassinated?

Ms. SHAFAK: He was tried several times for insulting Turkishness. He
was an outspoken critic of lots of things, but basically he was someone
who wanted to bridge the gap between Armenians and Turks. I think he
wanted to be a bridge, and he believed that these two communities
had much more in common that they wanted to recognize because of
politics. And he very much believed in the need to empathize with
the others.

GROSS: What does this mean for other Turkish intellectuals and writers
and journalists who are independent thinkers?

Ms. SHAFAK: Well, I think in Turkey, ever since the late Ottoman
era, intellectuals, intelligentsia has played a very fundamental
role in terms of triggering social transformation. This is the case
right now. It was the case in the past but of course after Hrant’s
assassination, everybody is very nervous and lots of–I mean,
not lots of, but several writers and intellectuals have been given
police protection. Right now everything is quite tense, and we–the
investigation is still going on. It’s still too early to talk about,
but the government’s taking the investigation very seriously and,
hopefully, everyone who is culpable will be brought to trial because
of this.

GROSS: Would you describe Article 301, which is the law that Hrant
Dink was tried under and you were tried under?

Ms. SHAFAK: It’s quite ironic, actually, because Article 301 was
part of the reforms process. I mean, it was introduced as a positive
step, as a progressive step, in terms of bringing the country to
EU standards. And when compared with the older articles that were a
stumbling block in front of freedom of expression, it was in itself
a step forwards. Nevertheless, the problem with Article 301 is that
it’s quite vaguely formulated. What does it mean to insult Turkishness?

GROSS: Right. It prohibits public denigration of Turkishness. What…

Ms. SHAFAK: Right.

GROSS: What does that mean?

Ms. SHAFAK: Right. But what exactly that means, I mean, nobody’s
quite sure of, and that’s where the problem lies because it’s so
vaguely formulated. It is open to interpretations and therefore
misinterpretations. So that’s the problem with the article. But
in addition to that, what some civil groups within civil society,
groups with more ultranationalistic tendencies, have exploited this
article in order to silence critical minds, in order to bring critical
minded people to court. So the article is open to exploitation. And
that was the biggest problem with it.

GROSS: You were the first person charged with violating Article 301
because of a work of fiction.

Ms. SHAFAK: Right.

GROSS: What were the parts of your novel that came into question,
you know, that were accused of insulting Turkishness?

Ms. SHAFAK: I mean, my case was a bit surreal. Until today, Article 301
has been used to bring various people, various journalists, editors,
publishers, even translators, to court for denigrating Turkishness. So
in that regard, my case was yet another one. But in another sense,
it was quite unusual because, as you said, this time it was a work of
fiction and, more precisely, the words of fictional characters that
were seen as a problem. Basically, some of the Armenian characters in
my novel "The Bastard of Istanbul" say negative things about Turks
or the history of Turks and Armenians, so those words were singled
out and used as evidence that I was denigrating Turkishness, and that
was quite surreal.

GROSS: And let’s talk about some of the things those characters said.

Ms. SHAFAK: There are some Turkish characters in the book who have a
negative opinion of Armenians, and there are some Armenian characters
in the book that have a negative opinion on Turks that the book, the
novel, is composed of multiple characters, you know. There are many
different characters. One of them, for instance…(unintelligible)…at
some point talks about the 1915 events, massacres and deportation of
Armenians, so that paragraph has been cut out and used has evidence.

Let me give you another example. At the beginning of the book,
there’s a very vivid character called…(unintelligible)…Zehila
and she’s walking on the streets of Istanbul. She’s very angry, you
know, furious, and she’s swearing at the rain, at God, at everything,
including the Ottoman dynasty for once upon conquering Istanbul and
then sticking to the mistake.

So that paragraph has a certain, you know, level of humor in it,
but the whole paragraph has been singled out, and I was accused of
denigrating, belittling our ancestry. So it wasn’t only the Armenian
characters in the book, but each time a character said something
negative about our past, that was singled out and cut and used as
evidence.

GROSS: Now, the prosecutor in your trial said he saw no grounds for
indictment, but a judge reversed that and you were indicted and tried
anyways. And how did you finally get off?

Ms. SHAFAK: Well, we went through several stages. At first, there was
an interrogation and that was dropped, and we were happy. I mean, I
thought I was off the hook, to tell the truth, because the prosecutor
concluded, you know, there was no ground for that. But what happened
was, this ultranationalist group of lawyers, they took the case to
an upper court and somehow the upper court reversed the decision of
the lower court, and the trial was automatically initiated and that
was quite unexpected, frankly. It was a legal twist that I wasn’t
expecting.

GROSS: And were the charges finally dropped?

Ms. SHAFAK: They were. I was acquitted at the first hearing.

GROSS: Now you didn’t go to the trial because you were about to,
or had just delivered your baby.

Ms. SHAFAK: I had just delivered my baby, yeah. I was at the hospital
still.

GROSS: That must have made it even more surreal.

Ms. SHAFAK: It was. And I remember at some point, you know, I was in
the hospital room and I was watching TV, the case was all over Turkish
media on the Turkish channels, so I was watching a group of protestors
burning my picture on the street, and on the one hand, you see such
violence, such hatred; and on the other hand, you’re in this hospital
and babies are born every minute, you know. There’s optimism, there’s
hope, there’s faith. The dark side of life, the bright side of life,
you know, it’s always side by side. That was quite surreal. I mean,
the whole experience was very, very surreal.

GROSS: Now, the group behind these trials is called the Unity of
Jurists.

Ms. SHAFAK: Right.

GROSS: It’s an ultranationalist group.

Ms. SHAFAK: Right.

GROSS: What do they stand for?

Ms. SHAFAK: What makes me sad is they’re a very small, you know,
limited number of people but sometimes, especially people in the West,
think that they compose–they represent the whole Turkish society, or
the majority of Turkish society. I don’t think that’s the case at all.

Let me tell you my experience. This novel came out on the 8th of
March, the International Women’s Day, because it’s a book in which
women played a very, very, you know, fundamental role. And ever since
the day it came out, it became a best seller in Turkey, it was read,
circulated, and discussed freely. It sold more than 120,000 copies
to this day, and I had a tremendous positive feedback from very
different segments of Turkish society. So my general experience with
the readership in Turkey has been quite positive.

But then, after three or four months, like a backlash coming, this
group sued me and, because of that, I was interrogated and brought to
trial. But what I’m trying to say is Turkish society is composed of
different voices. And this group is only one among many voices. They
do not represent the majority of the society.

And, frankly, my opinion is they are targeting intellectuals and
writers precisely because they want to stop the EU process. They
have made it very clear that they’re against Turkey’s EU membership
and they would like to see the country as a more insular place,
a more xenophobic, you know, nation state, a closed society. That’s
what they would like to see happening, so I think we’re not the real
targets there. The real target is Turkey’s EU membership.

GROSS: One of the real controversies, and something that’s gotten
several people into trouble, including yourself, in Turkey, is the
question of whether, in 1915, Armenians were killed by Turks in which
has often been described as a genocide. And what’s–you know, there are
many Turks now who deny that that happened, and so the whole question
of history is at stake here, and the meaning of history for Turks and
Armenians is one of the subjects of your book. Can you talk a little
bit about how you see Turks and Armenians having a different sense
of history during that period? Or a different sense of the importance
of remembering history.

Ms. SHAFAK: Right. When I set to write this novel, I did not want to
deal with macro questions. You know, that wasn’t my starting point.

My starting point, you know, was the very simple fundamental duality
between memory and amnesia, and I think that’s an important duality
for individuals, as well as for collectivities for societies. It
intrigues me to see how Armenians, especially the Armenians in the
diaspora, how they tend to be past-oriented, memory-oriented.

Whereas, when you look at the Turks in Turkey, that’s not the case
at all. We are more future-oriented. And in some ways, we are a
society of collective amnesiacs. So it’s not only 1915 that we are
unable to talk about but the whole past. For many people in Turkey,
history starts in 1923, the day the Republic was established. That
is the beginning, and anything that might have happened before then
is of no real interest. I mean, people have lost their connection,
their sense of continuity with the past.

GROSS: Why did you want to go there, you know, to go to what is
perhaps the most controversial question in Turkey and deal with it
in your novel and deal with characters who are facing it?

Ms. SHAFAK: As I said, my starting point was this duality between
memory and amnesia and, basically, I was dealing with one simple,
fundamental question. If the past is gloomy, is it better to know more
about it or is it, you know, preferable to know less about it and to
let bygones be bygone and be more future-oriented. I think that’s a
very central question not only for, you know, societies, but also for
individuals. And maybe my own childhood was my inspiration because
my childhood was a bit gloomy, too, and that was a question I asked
myself, you know: Is it better to probe it, to know more about it,
or shall I see the past as a completely different country and be
more future-oriented.

GROSS: My guest is Turkish novelist Elif Shafak. Her novel "The
Bastard of Istanbul" has just been published in the US. We’ll talk
more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: My guest is Turkish novelist Elif Shafak. Her new novel,
"The Bastard of Istanbul," was a best seller in Turkey, but it was
also accused of insulting Turkishness, which is a crime under Article
301 of the penal code. She was tried and acquitted.

Your new novel "The Bastard of Istanbul," among other things, deals
with out-of-wedlock sex and abortion. Now, in writing about female
sexuality in a secular-but-predominantly-Muslim country, what were
some of the issues that you faced? I mean, for instance, in an essay,
you asked the question, `How could a Turkish woman novelist approach
eroticism and sexuality in her writing?’ I mean, how did you answer
that for yourself?

Ms. SHAFAK: I think the Turkish case is quite unusual, and it’s very
interesting because we have a tradition of state feminism. And this
sounds like an oxymoron, but this is precisely what happened in my
country. With the establishment of the new Turkish nation state,
creating a new Turkish woman became one of the biggest ideals, one
of the biggest goals of the reformist Kemalist ideology, and they
introduced lots of legal reforms to accomplish that. On the one hand,
it was great because more and more women were able to enter into the
public space and to be visible in professions like lawyers, doctors,
you know, you name it. But on the other hand, women’s visibility in
the public space was possible when they defemininized themselves,
and I think that’s very important. And in addition to that, the state
was above everything, so, I mean, it was a feminism introduced by
the state and controlled by the state.

To this day, when women are talking about those reforms, they say,
for instance, `Ataturk gave us our rights.’ Or, `The early reformists
gave us our rights.’ Now when you say, `The state gave me my rights,’
that’s something else than saying, you know, `We women earned our
rights by an independent women’s movement.’ It’s a big difference
because in the former, you are grateful to the state, and when you’re
grateful, you can’t question it anymore. I think what we need is an
independent women’s movement in Turkey.

GROSS: So do you think that women ended up having to publicly
desexualize themselves…

Ms. SHAFAK: Right.

GROSS: …in order to have the freedoms?

Ms. SHAFAK: Right. And in time, this created a tradition. Even today
in the intelligentsia, I can see this pattern repeating itself over
and over again. The best way to ensure that a women is respected by
her brains rather than, you know, by her work, is for her to age
as quickly as possible. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in
non-Western societies or in societies like Turkey, women age very
quickly, especially, you know, women who want to prove themselves
with their work, because when you’re old in the eyes of the society,
that’s OK, then you have no connection with femininity, with sexuality
any more. And people respect you more. So to become old in the eyes
of the society is safe ground, but when you’re young and when you’re
a woman, that’s not a good combination in the eyes of the society.

What I have observed is, women intellectuals, women writers, have
developed different strategies to deal with this patriarchal pattern.

They either try to age themselves very quickly or they try to
defeminize themselves, and I think these are different strategies to
cope with the same problem.

GROSS: What was your strategy?

Ms. SHAFAK: Well, I try not to do either, you know. I try to follow
a different path, which I see as the Sufi path because, you see,
although sexuality is repressed, at the same time, we also have, in
the Middle East, in the Islamic tradition, a very rich literature in
which sexuality and pleasure and delight is venerated, is praised,
and there’s a huge literature, you know, a big history behind that.

So my path, my strategy, has been to dig into that literature and
to bring back those roots in which delight and body and sexuality
and especially love has been praised and emphasized. I like that
literature. I like that tradition very much and I think it’s time to
remember it.

GROSS: Elif Shafak is the author of "The Bastard of Istanbul," which
has just been published in the US. She’ll be back in the second half
of the show.

I’m Terry Gross and this is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross, back with Elif Shafak. Her
latest novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul," was a best seller in Turkey,
but it also led to charges that she denigrated Turkishness, which
is a crime under Article 301 of the penal code. She was tried and
acquitted. The charges came from tackling a subject which she describes
as a political taboo in Turkey: the mass killings and deportations
of Armenians by Ottoman Turks beginning in 1915, which is described
by many journalists and historians as genocide. Shafak’s novel also
deals with sexuality, abortion, and pregnancy out of wedlock.

You’ve written that you had two grandmothers, one who believed in
the religion of fear, the other the religion of love. What were
their differences between how they approached life and how they
approached love?

Ms. SHAFAK: Right. You know, my point is, sometimes Islam is seen as
a monolithic whole in the West, as if it is composed of one single
interpretation, or as if it were something static. That’s not the
case at all. There are different interpretations of Islam. There
always have been, and I have experienced this, you know, firsthand
in my childhood. There was a time when I grew up with two different
grandmothers. The mother of my father was a woman whose interpretation
of Islam was much more based on the element of fear, so her god was
like an omnipresent celestial gaze always watching you from above
and writing down your sins, and I learned to be afraid of Allah from
her. It was the Gelal side of God, a more masculine God.

But when I came to this other grandmother, her world–her
interpretation was quite different. It was a world full of
superstitions. You know, you could always negotiate. It was more
fluid. You could always flow, and it was based on love, not fear. At
the first glance, these two women belonged to the same age group,
they are coming from the same society, from the same culture, both
are Muslim, but their interpretation was completely different. And
I think the difference between a more orthodox interpretation of
Islam and the more heterodox or Sufi-based interpretation of Islam,
is very much alive today as it was in the past.

GROSS: Well, you’ve described yourself as attached to Islamic as well
as Jewish and Christian mysticism. What do you mean by that?

Ms. SHAFAK: Well, if you’re interested in mysticism, it means you’re
always traveling in the–you’re trying to transcend the boundaries
between religions because the Sufi’s someone who is after the essence
of religion, not the outside appearance, but the inside, to the very
essence. And when you’re after that essence, there’s very little
difference between religions. I’m very interested in Sufi thought,
in Islamic mysticism, that tries to look at the inner meaning, not
the outside appearances.

GROSS: You wrote your new novel "The Bastard of Istanbul" in English,
and you’ve described the Turkish language as having been purged when
the modern Turkish state was created. Are there aspects of the Turkish
language, the way it’s spoken now, that you find to be inhibiting or
not quite what you need to express what you want to say?

Ms. SHAFAK: I wrote my first five novels in Turkish, but in a
Turkish which is replete with old words, Ottoman words, expressions,
and especially Sufi words. And that was a surprise for many people
because they were saying, you know, `If you’re not older than, you
know, 60 years or if you’re not a conservative person, this is not
the language you should be speaking.’

In Turkey, what we did was to Turkify the language to get rid of words
coming from Arabic origin or from Persian origin, and I think, in time,
our vocabulary shrunk and when our vocabulary shrunk, our imaginations
shrunk rapidly. When we lost the words, we lost the meanings, the
cultural heritage that they carried with them so we didn’t only lose
the letters, we lost–you know, there’s a huge cultural loss there and
I’ve always been very critical of this. I think when we’re learning a
new language, like when you’re learning French or German or English,
you spend more time, more energy, money for that. But you see your
own language, your mother tongue, as a given, and you don’t spend
any energy for that.

So my approach has been just the opposite, and that’s maybe because
I had to spend part of my childhood abroad so I could never take my
language for granted. And every time I came back to Turkey I had to
spend more time for it, and I had to realize that language was not a
static thing, you know. You might lose your language. That fear of
losing my mother tongue made me more sensitive to this question in
time, and I’ve started to study dictionaries, Ottoman dictionaries.

So, today, my Turkish is very rich, precisely because I feared losing
my Turkish as a child.

GROSS: So when the Turkish state was created in 1923, certain Ottoman
words were purged from the language, you say, and you’ve been trying
to recapture some of those words. Can you give us an example of a
word or a phrase that you think is really rich that you’ve used even
though it was basically written out of the language after 1923?

Ms. SHAFAK: Well, one, you know, very crucial example for me is colors
and hues. In modern day Turkish and can, let’s say, use 10 different
words for colors, but we have lost the shades in between because most
of those shades, I mean the names for the shades and hues in between,
let’s say between yellow and red, were coming from Persian origin. By
taking out those words, you’re losing the shades.

What I’m trying to say is we lost the nuances of the language, and I’ve
been very critical of that. But basically, people used to criticize me
for, you know, my passion for Ottoman words and then they criticized
me more when I started writing in English because they saw it as a
cultural betrayal. The thing is, language is a very politicized theme
in Turkey. Culture is a very politicized arena in Turkey.

But basically, although these two things might look very, you know,
disconnected, for me they’re very much related, because at the root
of everything lies my passion and my love for language. Language,
for me, is not a tool. It’s not an instrument. I don’t think I’m a
writer who uses language. I breathe inside language, I write with
and within language. So it is the labyrinth of language that makes
it possible for me to imagine to write. That’s crucial for me. I’m in
love with the letters, like a Jewish or Muslim mystic is in love with
letters, with the meaning, with the miracle behind letters. That’s
a fascinating experience for me.

And to this day, I think, I do not have to make a choice between
English and Turkish. There are certain things I’d rather write in
Turkish, especially…(unintelligible)…I find it easier to express
in Turkish, but maybe certain other things I’d rather write in English
because English is the language of precision. If you’re looking for
the precise word, it’s out there, the vocabulary is immense. It’s
amazing. It’s a more mathematical language for me. So depending on
the theme, depending on the story, I might choose to write it either
in Turkish or in English.

GROSS: You said that you can’t write anything with an ironic tone in
Turkish, that that would be hard for you to do. You turn to English
if you want to say something ironic.

Ms. SHAFAK: Right. Because–it’s a bit difficult to talk about this,
but the tradition of irony–I mean, we have a very solid tradition
of black humor, but black humor is not irony. Black humor has a very
specific target. Or, we have a very solid tradition of political humor,
but other than that, irony, making fun of yourself, not only of the
world outside, this carnivalesque tradition in which the writer turns
herself, the whole world upside down, that’s more difficult to do in
contemporary Turkish. I find that easier to do in English.

But basically, for me, and I think people who are, you know, grown up
bilingual, or who have been traveling, commuting between different
cultures, might agree with me. Every language brings you a new
zone of freedom, a new zone of expression. It’s a very existential
journey. It’s not only a linguistic journey. I have, for instance,
met various middle class or upper class Turkish women who can never
swear in Turkish because of the way they have been raised. You know,
they always need to behave like good women in Turkish, but when
they’re speaking English, they can swear freely because it’s OK to
swear English. Every language gives you a new zone, and I find that
experience, that discovery fascinating.

GROSS: You faced trial in Turkey because of things that you said in
your new novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul." An Armenian journalist in
Turkey was killed by somebody who objected to things that he wrote,
and now there are many Turkish intellectuals and writers who are
facing related threats. When you decided to become a writer, did you
think that bravery was going to be one of the credentials that you’d
need to be a novelist? Courage?

Ms. SHAFAK: No, I didn’t think–that never occurred to me. And you
know, when I look at myself, I am not a brave person at all. Just the
opposite. I’m a person who has lots of anxieties, lots of fears. But
the thing is, I think I’m curious. I just like to ask questions. When
somebody says, you know, `Don’t transcend this frontier, this is
a mental frontier,’ I’m curious about what’s beyond that mental
frontier. So curiosity’s my guide, not courage.

GROSS: Well, do you feel like you’re becoming a courageous person
even though you don’t think of yourself as being that way?

Ms. SHAFAK: No. I really don’t see myself as a courageous person. The
only thing I can tell is, when I’m writing fiction, my personality
changes, you know. It is as if you’re using a different part of your
brain, because when I’m writing, I’m following a story. I’m just
following the footsteps of the characters as they shape themselves.

So it’s a completely different psyche. It’s very different than who I
am in my daily life. When the book is over, when the novel is over,
I’m a more anxious, more timid person. I wish I could always be the
person I am while I’m writing.

GROSS: Well, I wish you the best and I thank you for very much for
talking with us.

Ms. SHAFAK: Thank you for having me.

GROSS: Elif Shafak’s novel "The Bastard of Istanbul" has just been
published in the US. She divides her time between Istanbul and Tucson,
Arizona, where she’s an assistant professor of near-Eastern Studies
at the University of Arizona.

Coming up, we talk about the experience of illness.

This is FRESH AIR.

US BLAMED FOR FAILURE TO DIMINISH PKK PRESENCE IN IRAQ

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 9 2007

The failure of American plans to curb terrorist activities in
northern Iraq was brought up by Turkish deputies at a meeting
in Washington, where they said that the fight against separatist
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants in northern Iraq had fallen
short of expectations.

The deputies also appealed for help from neutral countries to increase
dialogue between Turkey and Armenia before the Armenian "genocide bill"
comes to table at the US Congress. Although the United States could
have fought in northern Iraq against the terrorist PKK in many ways,
the only thing the US administration did was appoint a coordinator,
said Turhan Comez of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK
Party) at a meeting at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Speaking of his meeting with Joseph Ralston, a retired American
general who was appointed to coordinate American plans to reduce
the PKK presence in northern Iraq, Comez said that when the American
troops went to attack the Mahmur Camp, they found the camp evacuated
well before the planned operation began. Although Ralston said the
American military has no idea where the PKK militants might have gone,
Comez referred to personal information from Turkmens in Kirkuk who
alleged that some PKK militants were in hiding in Kirkuk.

Orhan Ziya Diren of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)
said if the planned referendum is to be held in Kirkuk in 2007 and if
it yields a result that links Kirkuk to a Kurdish area in Iraq, then
a civil war will likely follow that would last for several decades —
a serious concern for the Turkish government. The problem stems from
plans to create a demographic change in the area, said both Diren
and Comez, arguing that there are Kurdish people who have no idea
whatsoever why they are brought there from other parts of the country.

ARMENIAN MOUNTAIN SKIERS TO PARTAKE IN THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

ArmRadio.am
07.02.2007 12:23

Four mountain skiers of Armenia – Abraham Sarkakhyan, Arsen Nersisyan,
Armen Harutyunyan and Arsen Poghosyan – will participate in the
World Mountaing Skiing Championship. State mountain skiing coach
Lyova Harutyunyantold Armenpress that the trainers of the Armenian
team are Asatur Poghosyan and Samvel Hakobyan.

JOURNALISTS ARE OPPRESSED

A1+
[07:04 pm] 05 February, 2007

The number cases of assassination or imprisonment of journalists
while carrying out their professional duty has grown in 2006.

According to the annual report "Attacks on Press" of the Journalist
Protection Committee which operates in New York, 55 journalists have
been killed in 2006 while carrying out their professional duties. 27
of the 55 cases are still being investigated. 134 more journalists
have been imprisoned.

In Iraq 32 journalists have been killed in the previous year. 30 of
them were locals.

In 2005 only 17 journalists had been killed, whereas 125 had been
imprisoned, radio station "Azatutyun reports".

People’s Daily Online, China
Jan 3 2007

Turkish security officials removed from office over inappropriate TV
image of journalist murder suspect

Four police officers and four gendarmery officers were removed from
offices in Turkey’s northern city of Samsun on Friday, over footage
showing some security troops posing for "souvenir pictures" with the
alleged murderer of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink.

According to the semi-official Anatolia news agency, the Turkish
Interior Ministry announced its decision to dismiss four police
officers in Samsun where Ogun Samast, 17, the alleged murderer of
Dink, was arrested.

Furthermore, the Gendarme General Command also transferred four of
its staff, said the report.

Anatolia reported that this happened after private TGRT television
channel broadcast on Thursday night a video footage showing Samast,
who has confessed to the murder of the journalist, posing in front of
a Turkish flag, flanked by some uniformed security officials.

The images and footage were taken at the anti-terror department in
Samsun, where Samast was arrested 32 hours after Dink was shot dead
outside his newspaper offices in Istanbul on Jan. 19, it was
reported.

The footage had emerged as an embarrassment for Samsun security
forces, which were accused by the press as having treated Samast the
murderer as a "hero."

During a weekly press briefing in Ankara, the spokesman of the
Security Directorate General Ismail Caliskan said a probe had been
launched to find out by whom or why the video footage and images were
shot.

Caliskan added that inspectors of the interior ministry have been
carrying out an investigation in northern cities of Trabzon, Samsun,
Istanbul and Ankara.

Hrant Dink, a 53-year-old Turkish citizen of Armenian descent, was
well-known for writing controversial articles about the alleged
Armenian genocide by Ottoman Turks during World War I and had
received a six-month suspended sentence.

Dink had received threat from nationalists who considered him as a
traitor. Turkish officials said that they have charged seven people
over the murder of Dink.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Russia’s position on Karabakh constructive and honest
03.02.2007 15:05 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The process of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement has entered a rather complicated stage, Russian Ambassador
to Azerbaijan Vasiliy Istratov said. In his words, the negotiation
process depends not only on the mediators but also on the sides.

`Russia jointly with the other OSCE MG Co-chairs tries to be maximally
constructive and honest,’ he said.

As for President Putin’s statements on the increase of number of the
Russian military bases in Armenia, Vasiliy Istratov underscored that
the `President clearly said that the military base in Armenia is by
means targeted against any state of the region, including
Azerbaijan. Presence of Russian military in any conflict region does
not mean participation in the conflict,’ reports APA.

EVENING PARTY DEDICATED TO 295th ANNIVERSARY OF SAYAT-NOVA TAKES PLACE
IN MINSK

MINSK, FEBRUARY 2, NOYAN TAPAN. A literary music evening party
dedicated to the 295th anniversary of eminent Armenian composer
Sayat-Nova was held on January 31 in Minsk, at the Peoples’ Friendship
House, by efforts of the Belarus "Belarus-Armenia" association and
Association for Friendship and Ties with Foreign Countries, with the
assistance of the Armenian community of Belarus and the Embassy of
Armenia.

During the evening party Sayat-Nova’s works were performed in the
Armenian, Russian and Belarusian languages. Parts from the
"Sayat-Nova" film where his works are performed were shown.

Toronto Star, Canada
Feb 2 2007

Then we take Berlin

Clement Virgo joins a host of Canadian filmmakers ready to make their
mark at next week’s Berlinale film festival

Feb 02, 2007 04:30 AM
Michael Levitin
Special to the Star

BERLIN, Germany-Around this time last year, Clement Virgo wasn’t just
hanging out at the Berlin International Film Festival, watching as
the foreign buyers snapped up rights to his 2005 film Lie With Me.

He was also busy prepping his next film, Poor Boy’s Game, a boxing
drama that digs into themes of race and tribalism in Canadian
communities, which he shot in Halifax in June. Next week he returns
to Berlin for the movie’s world premiere.

At 40, Virgo is hitting his stride as a director internationally –
and he appears to be doing it on his own terms, asking hard questions
"in an honest way, hoping to engage people as well as entertain them.

"We don’t do well in this country when we try to imitate what others
are doing, like creating American-style genre films," Virgo said in
the run-up to the festival.

"We do well when we do very specific, idiosyncratic Canadian films.
That means making films about things we know – and when we do that, I
think those films translate well and resonate around the world."

Virgo is part of a stellar lineup of Canadian directors set to show
their works at the prestigious Berlinale, which runs Feb. 8 to 18.

Among the nine features and two short films to be presented, three
are world premieres. Another eight films, including Ian Iqbal
Rashid’s recent Sundance sensation How She Movs, will be screened
separately through Telefilm’s Perspective Canada-Berlin initiative in
the hopes of finding international distributors.

After an impressive showing here last year (with Marc Evans’s Snow
Cake opening the competition and Claude Gagnon’s Kamataki widely
praised), Canadian filmmakers are waiting to see if their works
create another stir in Berlin this time around – possibly even from
some of the newcomers in the field.

"I didn’t do this film as a way of making a political statement,"
said 36-year-old Gariné Torossian, whose family immigrated to Canada
from Lebanon in 1979.

Torossian’s first feature film, Stone Time Touch, starring Arsinée
Khanjian (Sabah, Ararat), explores issues of Armenian identity and
the meaning of homeland.

A resident of Toronto, Torossian has shown 19 short films
internationally, including Girl From Moush (1994), which won Best
Experimental Film at the Melbourne Film Festival. But nothing she’s
done to date compares to the "diversity of communities in Armenia,
the extremes and the complexity of history since the genocide" she
feels she captured visually in her latest effort.

"The theme of identity and imagination has concerned me from the
beginning of my work. I feel Canadian and the more I connect with
other places the more Canadian I feel. (But) Armenia was always the
destination," Torossian said. "This film was mostly about
understanding the homeland that we imagine – and finally seeing it
for real."

As for Canada’s more recognizable names on the Berlin circuit, Bruce
McDonald is here with his world premiere, coming-of-age story The
Tracey Fragments starring Ellen Page, which opens the Panorama
program of the festival.

Driven by a rockin’ and rollin’ musical score, Fragments is based on
the novel by Vancouver author Maureen Medved and represents a virtual
comeback for McDonald, who has struggled through filmmaking mishaps
over the last six years.

Not to be forgotten: it was in Berlin where the Kingston-born
McDonald saw his first feature, Roadkill, premiere in 1989.

Another headliner is Sarah Polley, who turns from acting to directing
with her first feature, Away From Her.

Julie Christie stars in this film adapted from a story by Alice Munro
about a couple coming to grips with Alzheimer’s disease. Having made
an unexpected splash last month at Sundance, the film’s European
premiere may be what launches the 28-year-old Canadian star’s career
internationally.

Creating a different sort of stir is Guy Maddin with an experimental
silent film about his remembered childhood, Brand Upon the Brain!

For its European premiere on Feb. 15, the film will be performed at
the historic Deutsche Oper Berlin featuring a live orchestra and
narration by Isabella Rossellini.

Other Canadian flicks to watch for include Catherine Martin’s
meandering journeys of In the Cities and The Spirit of Places; Salif
Traore’s Faro, about a man’s return to his African village; John
Price’s short View of the Falls from the Canadian Side; Andrew
Currie’s Fido (Bill Connolly) about a zombie-infested town; Reg
Harkema’s Monkey Warfare; Robert Favreau’s A Sunday in Kigali; and
Jennifer Baichwal’s Manufactured Landscapes, about photographer
Edward Burtynsky’s pursuit to document China’s vast industrial
revolution.

If Telefilm’s executive director Wayne Clarkson is right – that
Canadian cinema with its "sense of wide-eyed adventure and whimsy …
has what it takes to light up the world’s screens" – then it’s safe
to expect not only the German public’s approval, but a jump in global
sales when Canadian films hit Berlin next week.

"We’re seeing a new generation," Virgo said, citing the boost that
innovative filmmakers like Atom Egoyan, David Cronenberg and Denys
Arcand gave to Canadian cinema in the early 1990s.

Nowadays, directors are "more savvy, thinking locally but also
globally.

"We are on the verge of a renaissance. And I’m hoping to be part of
that movement."