Zaman, Turkey
Oct 20 2006
L’Oreal next Target of Turkish Boycott
By Cihan News Agency
Friday, October 20, 2006
zaman.com
Having called for a boycott against French oil company Total last week,
the Turkish Consumers Union has declared that next target is L’Oreal,
the world’s largest cosmetics group, in protest at the adoption of
the Armenian “genocide” bill in the French parliament.
Bulent Deniz, chairman of the Turkish Consumers Union, announced
on Thursday that they would put all the products of French cosmetic
giant L’Oreal on the boycott list next week.
L’Oreal products, including Biotherm, Cacharel, Garnier, Giorgio
Armani, Inneov, Kerastase, Lancôme, Matrix, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren,
and Vichy will be on the boycott list, Deniz said.
Turkey’s main consumer group last week decided to publicize one French
company or brand every week and encourage Turks to boycott it.
L’Oreal has been in the Turkish market since 1989 and has increased
its sales throughout the country 45 percent in the last five years.
Last a boycott began for Total, a French gas station, with a reported
30 percent drop in sales.
Apart from French oil group Total, which has 500 gas stations across
Turkey, other French companies such as Carrefour, Renault, Axa and
Lafarge could also be facing consumer boycotts in the coming weeks.
–Boundary_(ID_G2X1KYB02NLWpeG8mUmINw)–

A refracted world view
Mail & Guardian Online, South Africa
Oct 20 2006
Aida Edemariam profiles Orhan Pamuk and the writings that won him
this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature
>From a very young age,” begins Orhan Pamuk’s memoir of his lifelong
home, Istanbul, “I suspected there was more to my world than I could
see: somewhere in the streets of Istanbul, in a house resembling ours,
there lived another Orhan so much like me he could pass for my twin,
even my double.”
When his parents’ frequent quarrels overwhelmed him, he would play what
he called the “disappearing game”: sitting at his mother’s dressing
table, he would adjust her three-way mirror until Orhans reflected
Orhans reflected Orhans, ad infinitum. He notes that it was a game he
would later play in his novels, which is true enough; they are full of
refracted selves and voices and bit parts for a narrator called Orhan.
This is also, however, a useful way to think about Pamuk the writer and
his place in the world. He is published in more than 40 languages, and
has had to slowly get used to the fact that “my books are being read
with completely different reactions in different countries”. In Turkey
he is both a literary difficult author, and a teller of absorbing
whodunnits; a European-influenced stylist and an assiduous miner of
Turkish history.
Pamuk is the author of five novels, one of which, My Name Is Red,
won the International Impac Award; another Istanbul was shortlisted
for the Samuel Johnson prize and in the history category of the
British Book Awards. So he is a major writer in the United Kingdom,
but this is nothing compared with how big he is in Turkey. Thanks
to The New Life, which, at the time of its publication in 1994, was
the fastest-selling novel in Turkish history, and the bestselling My
Name Is Red, he has been a celebrated figure at home for some time;
he was really catapulted to infamy, however, when he remarked to a
Swiss interviewer in February last year that “a million Armenians
and 30 000 Kurds were killed in this country and I’m the only one
who dares talk about it”.
Turkish newspapers launched hate campaigns against Pamuk, some
columnists even suggesting he should be “silenced”. His books and
posters of him were burned at rallies and he received death threats,
after which, for a while, he went into hiding abroad.
Eventually he returned to face trial and a possible three years’
imprisonment. In January this year the court decided there was no case
to answer. It has been said this was only because of the international
condemnation the trial provoked, yet though Pamuk now insists the
case would have been dismissed regardless, it would be foolish to
ignore the fault lines it exposed.
Snow, which he began writing two years before 9/11, is set in Kars
in north-eastern Turkey and tackles the urgent issues of secularism
and religion in a country that has been torn between the two for most
of the past century. It is full of intimations of trouble. “Can the
West endure any democracy achieved by enemies who in no way resemble
them?” asks one character; another comments that “the world has lost
patience with repressive regimes”.
Pamuk begins Snow with the famous Stendhal quote: “Politics in a
literary work are a pistol-shot in the middle of a concert, a crude
affair though one impossible to ignore. We are about to speak of
very ugly matters.” The irony is that the rest of his fiction is
also political, if far more obliquely so; it has set up, within its
characters, opposing ideological poles, then patiently probed what
Pamuk calls “the confusion in between”.
>>From his penthouse window in his Istanbul home — where he grew
up — he can see Hagia Sophia, the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorus,
the Golden Horn, the Topkapi palace, the suspension bridge that links
Europe and Asia — “all the essentials”, as he puts it.
He hasn’t much time for my theory about how his still living here is
unusual in these days of mass migration — that is a myth, he feels,
perpetrated by a highly visible, mobile minority. “The rest of the
world lives in the same street, the same building. The father builds
a house, then the child lives there. So I don’t want to talk about
my experience as a unique thing.” On the other hand, he concedes that
still living in this place does perhaps give him “a strong centre in
my spirit. The world, for me, has obvious beginnings.”
Pamuk grew up in a rich Ottoman family that was, through profligacy
and mismanagement, progressively becoming less so. The young Orhan
was meant to become something useful, preferably an engineer or
an architect. He chose painting initially, then writing, despite
his father’s exhortations that he should enjoy himself more. When
is he happiest now? “If you leave aside sensual pleasures, sexual
pleasures, good food, good sleep, and so on, then the happiest thing
is that I have written two and a half to three good pages. I am almost
assured that they are, but I need confirmation. My girlfriend comes,
we are happy, I read to her, she says, ‘This is wonderful’ — that’s
it! That’s the greatest happiness.”
Although when he was in his 20s he read the Marxist pamphlets
favoured by his friends, Pamuk simply found Woolf or Faulkner more
interesting. He has been criticised for being too Western a writer,
though, he points out, “A bit of experimentalism is always ‘betraying
the nation’ in my part of the world.”
Pamuk’s fiction plays with voice and subject — for him, this is a
way of exploring what it means to be Turkish. So The White Castle
(1995), in which a 17th-century Italian scholar is captured by
Ottoman pirates and sold to a Turk eager to learn about the West,
“is a sort of intense personal conflict … Of course, it was also a
story of doubles. That was the first book that had some international
success. Then, when I was doing interviews, thinking about the book
in an international context, I realised that doubles are Turkey’s
subject: 95% of Turks carry two spirits in themselves. International
observers think there are the good guys — seculars, democrats,
liberals — and the bad guys — nationalists, political Islamists,
conservatives, pro-statists. No. In the average Turk, these two
tendencies live together all the time. Every person is fighting
within himself or herself, in a way. Or maybe, very naively, carrying
self-contradictory ideas.”
My Name Is Red (2003), the sprawling intellectual whodunnit that
made his name outside Turkey, dramatises the tussle between Islamic
manuscript illuminators and artists seduced by the Western concepts
of style, originality and representation.
“It’s a metaphor for a very common Middle-Eastern fantasy,” says Pamuk,
“that of taking sophisticated, attractive inventions, techniques,
[or] objects from the West, without paying the spiritual price. To
appropriate an invention, be it artistic or technical, you have to
have at least a part of your spirit embracing it so radically that
you somehow change. That is one of the things that I see in my culture
that makes me very angry.”
He is not angry, he says, because of the urge to copy in itself:
“Though that is deplorable, hateful, I have great understanding for the
inevitable desire to imitate. I’m angry because that kind of fantasy
is based on a very simplistic world picture. In the novel I’m writing
now [to be called The Museum of Innocence], there is a dialogue about
poor people. A cruel but observant upper-class person says words to
the effect that, ‘They are so naive that they believe being poor is a
sin and their guilt will be forgotten as soon as they get some money.’
“So all these fragile feelings of imitation, of not having, of being
angry with your own country, with the West, with everything — I think
that the whole non-Western world is living these damning personal
dilemmas. To understand nationalism and anti-Western sentiment in the
rest of the world, you have to go to these shadowy places, rather
than to the latest political developments, which are actually just
end products.” — © Guardian Newspapers 2006
–Boundary_(ID_wldGTjyi04A1P7J54FZxIg)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Giving the People credit
By Brian Self
Cyprus Observer, Cyprus
Oct 20 2006
20.10.2006
In a replay of what happened in June an allergy struck this week,
coinciding as then with a tangible shift in the seasons. At summer’s
start I hadn’t noticed the arrival of the cicadas but the first October
storm was unavoidable; the scent of wet tree bark, and at night cloud
banks over the Karpaz torn apart by lightning – a demented stage
setting for the arrival of Mozart’s ‘Queen of the Night’. That day
dusk came on with a deepening yellow light belonging to the deserts in
central Asia, where dust and the vast emptiness are palpable qualities
of an otherworldliness. Together with the alarmingly frequent power
cuts in Lapta; the small ants still coming out with sugar from the
dispenser, the scene might easily have tipped into autumnal melancholy,
but no, I recognised the symptoms of over exposure to news from certain
places in the world, in this case brought on by a Guardian article:
Aura of fear and death stalks Iraq.
The antidote – good news – was nowhere to be found, and what appeared
to be cause for optimism was rapidly taken away. British army Chief
Sir Richard Dannatt’s ‘blistering’ denunciation of Tony Blair’s foreign
policy and his call for withdrawing British troops out of Iraq ‘soon’
was welcomed by the Stop the War Coalition and large numbers of the
British public. But on the morning of Friday the 13th as the Guardian
wrote of “a political bombshell” and an outspoken intervention
“unprecedented in modern times” Sir Richard was talking on the BBC
downplaying and revising his remarks, stating that they were not
“substantially new or newsworthy.” The encouragement felt by anti-war
campaigners was further dissipated when Tony Blair, who “was bound
to be infuriated by the interview” responded by saying he agreed with
“every word” the General said. The original interview with the Daily
Mail contained more outspoken views than the next day’s headlines
suggested; several times Dannatt wandered away from military matters
by saying that planning for the post-war phase in Iraq was “poor,” and
that a moral and spiritual vacuum in Britain might help the “Islamist
threat” make “undue progress.” Blair’s position is too weak to sack
a general whose understanding of the British public’s mood is far
better than his own. The pity is that valid issues were raised whose
urgency was immediately drowned in Whitehall and cross-party bickering
reminiscent of the Blair-Brown leadership squabbles. A conservative,
Christian General questioning his own Prime Minister’s faith based
certainties is an oddity deserving more serious attention.
Time on their side As news from Baghdad resembled aspects of a
Hollywood scripted horror film another British General in Afghanistan,
Lt. General David Richards was giving an interview to the New York
Times and also revising some of his more recent remarks to the
press. He was using the opportunity to vent his indignation over a
Guardian column by Simon Jenkins who wrote that he was baffled by
Richard’s naivete about the Taliban. “I am not naïve; he’s naïve,”
the General complained, insisting that the surge by the Taliban across
southern Afghanistan was not a popular uprising. Jenkins was generous
with some of his ‘facts’, but there was one salient point not commented
upon by Richards. The International Security Assistance Force he
commands numbers 31,000 troops; when the Russians left in 1989, their
defeated and humiliated divisions had 110,000 soldiers spread across
the entire country. “People do not want a return to the Taliban,”
said Richards, “but we need time to allow that aspiration to win.”
The Taliban have time on their side but Richards does not have very
much left. Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan echo their political
masters in Washington and London in saying they cannot afford to fail,
but they are failing; the facts are there for all to see.
Poles growing further apart By Wednesday morning there was no escaping
from sanctions against North Korea, American Congressional cover-ups
and the latest estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties. Writing about
the meaning of 655,000 deaths the editor of the Lancet Richard Horton
ended on an idealistic note. “We need a new set of principles to govern
our diplomacy and military strategy – principles that are based on the
idea of human security and not national security, health and wellbeing
and not economic self-interest and territorial ambition. The best
hope we can have from our terrible misadventure in Iraq is that a
new political and social movement will grow to overturn the politics
of humiliation. We are one human family. Let’s act like it.” Well,
the world acts otherwise, but this was the stuff I wanted to hear;
to become permanently jaundiced by an unending stream of reports of
killing, cruelty and the incompetence of those governing us is as
damaging to the spirit as misplaced optimism. And there were other
idealistic notes as well, in unexpected places. The growing carnage in
Iraq and Afghanistan and heightened tension with Iran has connected
parallels with a schism between Islam and the West which seems to be
deepening. Protests at the Pope’s remarks, at Jack Straw’s comments
on the wearing of veils, Turkey’s reaction to the French government’s
handling of the Armenian genocide issue are only the most publicised
incidents among many pointing to an increasing polarisation.
The Cordoba Initiative was founded in 2002 as a multi-faith
organisation whose objective is ‘to heal the relationship between the
Islamic World and America’. Its founder Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was
interviewed last month by Foreign Policy magazine about the Pope’s
remarks, US foreign policy towards the Muslim world and Iran in
particular. On the subject of possible sanctions against Iran Rauf
said: “Imposing sanctions on Iraq had no impact on Saddam Hussein …
When you employ sanctions, you’re creating an artificial economic
depression. If there are sanctions against Iran, it will strengthen
the Iranians’ resolve.” He went on to say: “People basically want
a few simple things in life: a decent meal, the ability to clothe
themselves, and a roof over their heads. And they want their pride.
To do that you have to engage with people on an equal basis.” The
contrast between Rauf’s words and those of most European and American
politicians could not be greater.
Surprise!
On Thursday morning the permanent secretary of that most secretive and
discreet body, the Nobel Prize Committee, was asked by the BBC if he
would give a hint as to who would be awarded the Peace prize. “No,
I want to keep my job,” he said, only revealing there were 191
nominations and prompted by the interviewer said yes, the winner would
be a surprise. It was in fact a well kept secret. When a journalist,
days before the announcement, handed the Nobel Institute’s head Geir
Lundestad a bookmaker’s list of 60 candidates, he remarked that it
was “a good list.” Finland’s former president Martti Ahtisaari who
brokered a peace settlement in Indonesia’s Aceh province – widely
tipped as the favourite – was at the top. Two hours after the BBC
interview the Laureate’s name was announced; neither Muhammed Yunus
nor his Grameen Bank were on the bookmaker’s list.
Journalists at the prize giving ceremony, accustomed to statesmen
or humanitarian agencies as recipients were shocked; no financial
institution or banker had ever won the Peace prize.
Breaking the cycle of poverty In the Citation was the sentence:
“Every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right
to live a decent life.” By creating a new kind of bank, giving small
loans to the poorest of the poor without collateral, Yunus, according
to the World Bank’s Bangladesh director has improved the lives of
half of the country’s 140 million population. Destitute widows,
abandoned wives, rickshaw drivers, sweepers, landless labourers and
beggars use loans from $12 to $80 to buy cows, chickens, bamboo for
crafting stools, or incense to sell in stalls. Beggars were encouraged
to take merchandise with them to sell from door to door, ribbons or
biscuits; some have stopped begging. But the true significance of
breaking out of poverty for people who live on less than $1 a day,
is the self-respect and status which comes from having all children of
school age in school, where all family members eat three meals a day,
have a sanitary toilet, a rainproof house, clean drinking water and
the ability to repay $8 a week on their loan.
At present the bank has 6.5 million borrowers, 97% of whom are women,
and the loan repayment rate is almost 99 percent.
Yunus has his detractors and critics. Interest rates are higher
than those charged by commercial banks, but loan agreements have
no provision for legal recovery in the event of default. Some right
wing American organisations view the Grameen Bank as far left and its
empowerment of women as an enemy to procreation and the family. But, as
the Citation speech said, “Microcredit has proved to be an important
liberating force in societies where women in particular have to
struggle against repressive social and economic conditions.”
And, said the Nobel Committee, “development from below also serves
to advance democracy and human rights.” It also serves to engender
pride, and the simple things of a decent life; something the barrel
of a gun never achieves.
–Boundary_(ID_G52b1VM4PvLZInfwF+l5Rg)- –

The bill has no future
Cyprus Observer, Cyprus
Oct 20 2006
20.10.2006
French Ambassador to Ankara, Paul Poudade spoke about the future of
the ‘genocide denial bill’ approved at the French Parliament last
week.
Question: Ambassador Pou­d­ade, what do you feel the future is for
the bill approved by the French Parliament on October 12?
Answer: I do not believe that there is any legal future for this
bill. I do not believe it will be passed into law. In order for it to
become law, it must first be accepted, without a single word change,
by the French Senate, and then signed by the French President to be
implemented. This would mean the going back and forth between the
Parliament and Senate many times, and if the bill were not approved
by the time this particular parliament comes to a close, in February
2007, the bill would fall by the wayside. Moreover, barring all of
this, the bill could even go to our Constitutional Court. I think
this was an untimely and unnecessary initiative. This is why
President Chirac’s phone call to Prime Minister Erdogan expressing
the hope that no damage would come to French-Turkish relations as a
result of this bill was very important.
Q: What reaction did the French people themselves have towards this
bill?
A: The French people feel much sympathy and closeness to the
Armenians. But this bill created great displeasure in the general
society, as well as raising many question marks…..As it was, all of
the Paris newspapers, and even more importantly, all the provincial
papers (aside from one printed in Marseilles) expressed the same
opinion.
Previously published in Hurriyet on Tuesday, 18 Obtober 2006.
Chirac sorry for Armenian bill
French President Jacques Chirac told Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan last weekend that he was sorry about the recently adopted
French bill on the alleged ‘Armenian Genocide’. Chirac made the
statement last weekend in a phone conversation with Erdogan.
Press reports in Turkey claimed that the French President, in
addition to saying he was sorry, also apologised for the adopted bill
that was to open a way to punish those who deny the ‘Armenian
Genocide’ in France. Nonetheless, dependent upon very reliable
sources, the Turkish daily Hurriyet clarified on Tuesday that the
President only said that he was sorry and that he would do his best
to stop the bill’s entering into law.
Reactions
Chirac’s move created reaction at the French Parliament. “It is
disappointing that he (Chirac) apologised for parliamentary work,”
Didier Migaud, a deputy from the Socialist Party, was quoted in an
interview. “It is easier to talk about genocide in Yerevan, rather
than in France,” Migaud concluded referring to Chirac’s pro-Armenian
statements during his visit to Armenia last month.
Professor Erdogan Tezic, head of Turkey’s Higher Education Board
(YOK), returned an award from France on Monday in protest at the
French bill. Receiving the Legion d’Honneur in September 2004, Tezic
was the first and only Turk to hold it.
The bill still must be voted at the French Senate and signed by the
President before entering into force.
–Boundary_(ID_3C1vm5KmvFNyRntCBKbTrw)–

Turkish Daily News
Oct 20 2006
An ‘innovative’ open letter to a French presidential candidate
Friday, October 20, 2006
This letter is to salute your courageous and visionary call last
Thursday for expenditures by European Union governments in the areas
of research and development and in innovation to be exempt from the
budgetary constraints of the Growth and Stability Pact, the so-called
‘Maastricht Criteria.’ Your ‘blueprint’ outlined last week touched on
many important areas, from labor standards to agriculture. It is
consequently my hope that the breadth of your vision and blueprint
does not lead to neglect by the media and others of the specific
incentives to boost intelligent spending on R&D and innovation. For
yours is without question the most original idea I have heard in
recent years to revitalize Europe’s technology-based industries and
prepare them for a future in which they can compete without resorting
to ‘flight’ to the United States or ‘outsourcing’ to low-cost China
and India. In short, this dimension of your set of proposals deserves
a thorough airing.
David Judson
Mme. Segolene Royal:
This letter is to salute your courageous and visionary call last
Thursday for expenditures by European Union governments in the areas
of research and development (R&D) and in innovation to be exempt from
the budgetary constraints of the Growth and Stability Pact, the
so-called “Maastricht Criteria.” Your “blueprint” outlined last week
touched on many important areas, from labor standards to agriculture.
It is consequently my hope that the breadth of your vision and
blueprint does not lead to neglect by the media and others of the
specific incentives to boost intelligent spending on R&D and
innovation. For yours is without question the most original idea I
have heard in recent years to revitalize Europe’s technology-based
industries and prepare them for a future in which they can compete
without resorting to “flight” to the United States or “outsourcing”
to low-cost China and India. In short, this dimension of your set of
proposals deserves a thorough airing.
I hope you will forgive the temerity of a journalist’s resort to
the device of an “open letter” to offer my praise. But given the fact
your R&D proposal came on the same day as the unfortunate vote in
France’s Parliament to censure those who disagree with a particular
interpretation of events surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire at the beginning of the 20th century, I am sure you will
understand my motives. The history of the tragedy that befell the
Armenian people in 1915 is a separate matter. But as that vote has
set in motion a train of political events that may well stalk
relations between France and Turkey for many years, the timing of
your proposal on European economic regeneration may well be a source
of hope for the continuation of productive dialogue and collaboration
between the two countries.
The reasons for this are two:
First, Turkey is deeply engaged in its own debate about nurturing
and supporting the concept of innovation. Books on the topic go
through multiple printings, innovation is frequently in the headlines
of virtually all the press and the importance of innovation is one we
champion in my own newspaper, Referans, the national business daily.
With strong academic networks and a student population that is more
than twice as large as that of any other European country, Turkey has
much to contribute to innovation in the broader European context in
life sciences, IT, engineering, agro-industry and in many other
sectors. Turkey’s resources in this area are, in my view, key to
restarting the so-called “Lisbon Agenda” of 2000 that seeks to make
Europe the world’s most competitive economic bloc.
The second reason goes to the underlying logic in your proposal of
exempting expenditures in support of long-term economic
sustainability from the constraints of short-term fiscal accounting.
As you are aware, Turkey is well on the way to orienting its own
economy to the terms of the EU’s “Growth and Stability Pact.” But
Turkey also faces an additional fiscal burden imposed by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). I refer to the IMF-imposed
requirement to maintain a budgetary surplus exclusive of interest of
6.5 percent. This criterion leaves planning for Turkey’s 2007 budget
with a current shortfall of some YTL 6 billion, a sum equivalent to
about 3.25 billion euros. At this juncture, the logic and elegance of
your proposal is something that should be brought to the attention of
the IMF, not just as it relates to the case of Turkey but perhaps as
its potential relates to the health of other emerging economies as
well.
I wholeheartedly support your view as you expressed it last
Thursday that “There is a demand for the French in Europe and a
demand for Europe in the world.” There is also a demand in Turkey, in
Europe and the world for the kind of economic thoughtfulness you so
articulately put forward last week at a moment when our attentions
were elsewhere.
I would certainly appreciate your forwarding of this letter to
those members of your economic policy team who might assist us in
exploring the specifics of what you propose. Similarly, if either you
or anyone on your team might envision a trip to Turkey, we would be
pleased to host you as guests and provide you with a broad forum for
the further sharing of your ideas.
With kind regards and best wishes for your success,
David Judson
Managing Editor
Referans

Turkish Daily News
Oct 20 2006
Aðar was not intimidated
Friday, October 20, 2006
When the DYP leader ventured outside the official stance and proposed
an alternative way to solve problems, he was criticized by all. Most
expected him to retract his statement, claiming he was the victim of
a misunderstanding. However, nothing intimidated him.
Mehmet Ali Birand
True Path Party (DYP) leader Mehmet Aðar is displaying very
interesting progress.
He is an individual who spent most of his life being a part of the
“deep state” and the state institutions that are included in it. His
name is mentioned in all books on the fight against the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK). His name is synonymous with the police and
military forces.
For some time after becoming the DYP leader, he was seen in the
shadow of his own past. I don’t know what happened, but in recent
times he has been transforming himself.
First he said: “When I become prime minister, military officers
will not be able to speak out.” What he really meant was that he
would govern the country so perfectly that the military would have
nothing to speak about. However, it was interpreted differently.
And then came his remark on allowing all PKK members, apart from
the leaders and those involved in murder, to get involved in domestic
politics.
These comments were not things we would have expected the old Aðar
to make. The statements pointed to a fact no one else was courageous
enough to voice.
It didn’t take long for reactions to come. The first harsh response
surprisingly came from Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz
Baykal. However, everyone was interested in what the military would
say. We didn’t have to wait too long for that, either. Chief of
General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt made a very harsh but indirect
statement. He openly admonished Aðar.
We all expected Aðar to accuse the media of taking his statements
out of context, arguing that he was misunderstood. That was something
the old Aðar would do. Some political leaders of the past would
mistakenly make a statement that would anger the military. We all
knew how they used to backtrack on their statements after being
reprimanded by the military. We would not have been surprised if Aðar
had pleaded misunderstanding.
However, that’s not what happened.
Aðar surprised most everybody by refusing to correct what he said.
He said he was misunderstood; however, he said this not to deny what
he said but to clarify his statements. He for the most part stood
behind his remarks.
Instead of trying to make Aðar sorry for what he said, we should
point out how important it is for an individual like Aðar to say that
there is a need for alternative policies. If he is acting this way
despite his knowledge of Turkey’s red lines, wouldn’t it be better
for us to listen rather than castigate him?
Fine-tuning of red lines:
We love drawing red lines.
We say, “These lines cannot be crossed,” but we always ignore the
fact that in time, with changing realities, these lines may shift.
Then one day we face such a development that we don’t know what to
do. Those who are usually blamed are “politicians who care about
nothing but votes” and those traitors in our midst. We also start
believing in conspiracy theories accusing foreign powers of being
against us. We never blame the red lines themselves.
Aðar crossed some red lines, but no one is accusing Aðar of being a
traitor. His past alone gives him enough credibility. Actually, what
Aðar is doing is fine-tuning the red lines, and what is even stranger
is the fact that the government is secretly supporting what he is
doing. If we consider what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul are saying openly and what they are
saying between the lines, we can see that the support they are giving
is substantial.
Red lines also affect the judicial system. You can see this from
the reflexes of our judges and prosecutors. Just look at their
decisions and the charges they come up with. On certain issues, like
Kurdish nationalism, PKK terrorism, Cyprus or Armenian genocide, if
you say something different from the official stance, you will be
made sorry. No matter how much you argue there is freedom of
expression, no one will listen to you.
As seen by the public, there are some efforts to change the guilty
verdict given to the two soldiers in the Þemdinli trial. Some are
trying to fine-tune the red line drawn in Þemdinli.
No one can decide on anything. No one is issuing a directive
ordering this. There are only some prosecutors who believe they need
to act after hearing certain statements.
State can file a complaint but…:
In my article on Wednesday there was a section on how states cannot
file a complaint against another state. Former Justice Minister
Hikmet Sami Turk called me to make a correction. I looked at the
article again and realized that he was right. I failed to explain
myself properly. According to Article 33 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, states can file complaints against one another.
That’s where my mistake begun. I failed to note how hard it is for
Turkey to file a complaint against France.
I would like to apologize to my readers.
This is what I should have said: A state can file a complaint
against another state because of a law, arguing that there is a
violation of the convention. However, that state also needs to
understand the political cost of its action.
For example, if the bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian
genocide becomes law in France, Turkey can file a complaint against
France at the European Court of Human Rights. However, Turkey also
needs to assess the process that will follow. Filing a complaint is
nothing like a boycott, leaving French firms out of state tenders or
breaking off political dialogue. It involves a huge political clash
with no apparent end in sight.
Some may say “Isn’t that exactly what we want? Shouldn’t we
initiate a huge political clash with France in exchange for them
hitting us where it hurts the most?”
In terms of public sentiment, that argument might make sense.
We can truly hurt France politically. However, we also must
consider one fact: This process will result in placing France and
Armenia on the same block in the genocide argument and may take the
matter to a whole different level. In other words, the matter may
grow into something we may not like.
This is why states usually prefer not to file complaints against
each other. The clashes last too long and cause irreparable wounds.
States have to act more pragmatically.
This is, of course, a matter of choice, and signs coming from
Ankara imply filing a complaint may be among the actions it is
considering.
–Boundary_(ID_IViO9L6WD6NeaXDGY0 Znfw)–

Autumn Session of PA OSCE due in November
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 20 2006
Source: Trend
Author: A.Ismayilova
20.10.2006
The Autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE will
be held in Malta from 17 – 19 November. Representatives of the PA
traveled to Malta from 8 – 10 May in order to begin preparations for
the OSCE PA 2006 Autumn Meetings.
During their stay in Malta, members of the Secretariat also held
meetings with the staff of the Parliament that will be responsible
for the organization of the meetings. The Autumn Meetings include
a parliamentary conference, a meeting of the Standing Committee and
the OSCE PA Mediterranean Forum, which targets the consolidation of
an inter-parliamentary dialogue on OSCXE obligations and values.
Earlier Bahar Muradova, head of the OSCE Azerbaijani parliamentary
delegation advised Trend that the delegation intends to raise the
subject of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as the fires in
the Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territory.

[Comment] Two giants from the past: A lesson for the present
20.10.2006 – 09:25 CET | By Peter Sain ley Berry
EUObserver, Belgium
Oct 20 2006
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT – A very long time ago, in circumstances now
lost in the mists of time, I acquired a few first edition volumes of
Voltaire’s collected works, printed in 1756. I have before me now the
thirteenth volume – part of his general history – and it is entitled,
appropriately enough, ‘State of Europe.’
What is remarkable is how little the fundamental characteristics and
spirit of the nations he writes about have changed in the intervening
two and a half centuries. If ever you want a lucid demonstration of
‘plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,’ then M. Voltaire is
your man.
Take Russia, for instance, which he describes as an emerging nation.
He writes of its power – not yet threatening to Europe – of its
resources, mostly derived from plunder, but above all of the absolutist
nature of its government, the reservation to its authorities of most
trade and commerce and hence the poverty of its citizens.
It strikes me that this is a strikingly topical view of the Russian
state and one that would not be out of place when Russia’s increasingly
authoritarian President Putin sits down with the European Union
politburo of 27 in Finland on 20 October.
The EU would like to change Russia’s stance – on energy in particular –
as well as encouraging it to be nicer to the Georgians. Fat chance!
Putin’s boots are firmly caked with the mud of history. We must deal
with Russia as she is.
It surprises me that we do not do more to honour the great European
thinkers of the past. A European Voltaire day perhaps, when we could
celebrate this best of all possible Continents. Something, anyway,
more than the odd name on a street map where such giants are forced
to rub shoulders with obscure nineteenth century lawyers.
Armenia and Voltaire But one way in which Voltaire is most certainly
not being honoured is in the quite ridiculous law being enacted
by French legislators seeking to outlaw disavowal of the so-called
Armenian genocide of 1915. Voltaire’s dictum ‘though I dislike what
you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ has clearly
been forgotten by the National Assembly.
What makes it even worse, of course, is that this is a cynical
measure. The French have no particular interest in the Armenians – if
they had they might not have waited 90 years before intervening. No,
this law is designed to make it harder on the Turks as they pursue
their rocky and uneven path towards EU accession, to which France is
fundamentally opposed.
Despite their 250 years, the pages of my Voltaire history are still
in quite excellent condition. They turned up in a London attic and
I have always wondered about their provenance. Who brought them to
London and why the attic? Were they the property of some emigré,
short of a bob or two, and sold to pay gambling debts?
In my more fanciful moments I even think they may have belonged to
Talleyrand, the grandfather of modern diplomacy, who escaped the
‘Terror’ of the French Revolution by the skin of his teeth, removing
to London on a commission to research – of all unlikely things –
weights and measures. In London he sold his library to pay his way.
Almost certainly it would have included a collected edition of
Voltaire.
Talleyrand is not held in high esteem by the French, nor for some
unaccountable reason by the Belgians, though he did as much to
bring Belgium into existence as anyone. The French hold him to be
irredeemably evil and corrupt, even by French standards.
This is a great pity for modern diplomacy – surely not currently the
western world’s strongest suit – could learn from his techniques. For
evidence of his genius you need look no further than the borders
of France themselves, which were considerable extended by the
revolutionary wars, and then, at his instigation and despite France’s
utter defeat, legitimised by treaty.
Imagine if, in 1945, German negotiators had not only retained
Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia, but the Sudetenland as well,
and you have a measure of his diplomatic achievement. Or maybe, had
he been working for Argentina in 1982, he might have negotiated the
retention of South Georgia as a gesture of good will.
Seeing through the Hallucinations But to revert to the
present, Mr Barroso, President of the Commission, gave a
most excellent and statesmanlike speech in London this week
outlining why Britain should use the EU as a lever to pursue her
own strategic interests. Intellectually it was well-founded and
unassailable. Accurately, if somewhat cheekily, he called it ‘Seeing
through the Hallucinations.’
By coincidence I had listened to a very similar discourse, just three
days previously, from Lord Howe who, as Sir Geoffrey Howe, was Mrs
Thatcher’s foreign secretary from 1983 to 1989. His title was more
prosaic: ‘Re-creating Britain’s Foreign Policy.’
The British view of Europe and the European view of Britain came
to identical conclusions, indeed were couched almost in the same
language. What then is the problem between Britain and the rest of
the European Union?
It is this: while a third of Britons follow this unassailable logic,
another third refuse to be so beguiled and for reasons of history
the refuseniks carry the undecideds with them.
I fear it was ever thus; may always be thus. Britain, like Russia,
remains in spirit detached and enigmatic, suspicious of dancing to
any Continental tune.
Wordsworth – the English poet – might write about the French Revolution
‘Bliss was it in that very dawn to be alive.’ But the popular reality
– as Talleyrand found on his first diplomatic visit to London –
was that the Revolution was equated with contagion.
People turned their backs and went away muttering.
They are still muttering. It is that hallucination, that fear of
contagion, that is at the root of the problem that Britain has with
Europe today. It cuts through the intellectual case for closeness like
a hot knife through butter. It prompted the British Foreign Secretary
this week to dismiss the European constitution – and presumably the
ideas that lie behind it – as a ‘grandiose failed project.’
It is interesting to speculate how Talleyrand might have approached
the British problem – or the Russian problem for that matter. Maybe
he would advise that we should start by treating those nations as we
find them, as history has left them, and not as we might fondly want
them to be or fondly imagine they may become.
This has consequences for policy. Talleyrand had read his Voltaire
even if his editions were not perhaps mine.
The author is editor of EuropaWorld
–Boundary_(ID_hxU/9obqa+mhXnGCN0KzeA )–
From: Baghdasarian

Turkish Daily News
Oct 20 2006
Turkish Press Yesterday
Friday, October 20, 2006
The French made ‘a bad mistake’:
Yeni ªafak yesterday reported statements from European Union term
president Finland’s Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja on the adoption
of a bill by the French Parliament making it a crime to deny claims
of genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.
The Finnish foreign minister said that the French Parliament’s decision
was “a bad mistake” and expressed hope for its rapid withdrawal.
“Parliaments and governments are not to intervene in by legislating
which historical truths are to be allowed and which are not,”
he added. Tuomioja also said the bill would increase the power of
hard-liners in Turkey.
–Boundary_(ID_JZXbpfARPjIewtoWQcO4Jg)–

Economist
Oct 20 2006
Troubles ahead
Oct 19th 2006 | ISTANBUL
>>From The Economist print edition
There may be serious fall-out from Turkey’s present poor relationship
with both the European Union and America
AP
“THERE’S a lot of talk these days of a train-wreck later this year
bringing Turkey’s negotiations for membership [of the European Union]
to a shuddering halt. Is this exaggeration? Or just brinksmanship?
Neither, I fear. The danger is real.” These valedictory words from
the outgoing British ambassador, Sir Peter Westmacott, reflect a
growing concern over Turkey’s relationship with the EU.
The trigger for the looming derailment is Cyprus, which joined the EU
as a divided island in 2004. The EU insists that Turkey must honour
its pledge to open its ports to Greek-Cypriot ships and aircraft.
Turkey retorts that part of the deal was to end the economic isolation
of the Turkish-Cypriots. It will not budge on the ports until the
embargo on Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus is lifted. If this row
is not settled by the end of the year, the EU membership talks may
be suspended.
A longtime NATO ally, Turkey’s strategic importance and size mean
that a rupture with the EU would have effects far beyond its borders.
It would confirm suspicions across the Islamic world that the union
is a Christian club. Mindful of the stakes, Finland, which holds the
EU presidency, has been pushing a plan that would let Greek-Cypriots
use Turkish ports and Turkish-Cypriots export their goods, under
union supervision, from the Turkish-controlled port of Famagusta.
This week Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, and Ali Babacan,
the economy minister and lead negotiator with the EU, both said they
were hopeful of a breakthrough before the European Commission issues
its progress report on Turkish accession on November 8th.
In private, Turkish officials say that any deal would have to include
reopening northern Cyprus to commercial air traffic, because tourism
is the only way of ending its dependence on handouts from Turkey. And
the Greek-Cypriots say this is out of the question so long as Turkey
refuses to recognise their government as the only legitimate one on
the island.
Barring a last-minute miracle on Cyprus, the best hope is that
negotiations are allowed to continue on chapters that are unrelated
to trade or other matters that affect the Greek-Cypriots directly.
But that means persuading the Greek-Cypriots to lift their veto on
opening new chapters. And the suspicion in Ankara is anyway that
countries such as Austria and France, where there is strong public
resistance to Turkish accession, would be only too happy to see the
talks suspended.
How else, say the Turks, can one explain the French National Assembly
vote for a bill to criminalise denial that the mass slaughter of the
Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 was genocide? Or the demands by
French politicians that recognition of the genocide should be made
a condition for Turkey’s membership, even though the enlargement
commissioner, Olli Rehn, has firmly declared that it should not be?
Given the public response in Turkey to what are seen as European
snubs, some are now speculating that it will be Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
the Turkish prime minister, who is the first to walk away from the
talks. With support for EU membership dipping below 50%, a firm show
of defiance might be a good way of drawing nationalist votes to Mr
Erdogan’s mildly Islamist AK party in the parliamentary election that
is due by next November.
As ever, pro-European Turks are pinning their hopes on America to
ride to the rescue. The economic and political ructions that many fear
would follow a suspension of the EU membership talks might galvanise
America into using its influence with heavyweights such as Germany’s
chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is due to assume the EU presidency
in January.
The trouble is that Mr Erdogan now has so few friends left in
Washington. His failure to deliver on promises to facilitate America’s
invasion of Iraq and his overtures to Iran and Syria have made him
seem an unreliable partner. This matters as America ponders the best
response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
At home too, Mr Erdogan is facing problems with the country’s hawkish
new chief of the general staff, General Yasar Buyukanit. Since taking
over in August, the general and his fellow commanders have turned up
the volume of rhetoric they aim at both the government and the EU.
When Mehmet Agar, leader of the opposition True Path Party, declared
last week that he would not allow the generals to talk when he came
to power, General Buyukanit responded that he would continue to talk
“even if you are in charge.”
The army’s assertiveness is aimed in part at bullying Mr Erdogan
into renouncing his presumed ambitions to succeed the determinedly
pro-secular Ahmet Necdet Sezer as president when his term expires in
May. Mr Sezer has spent the past three years blocking any legislation
proposed by Mr Erdogan that he has deemed to be a threat to the
secular tenets of the constitution. For secularists the presidency
is their sole remaining bastion; should the overtly pious Islamist
Mr Erdogan conquer it, they fear that it will be the end of Ataturk’s
republic. The knee-jerk anti-Semitism displayed by some of Mr Erdogan’s
colleagues has not helped him.
General Buyukanit may well be tempted to voice these concerns when
he visits Washington shortly. His views on Iran (he once described
Iran’s theocracy as the “antithesis” of Ataturk’s republic) will
undoubtedly appeal to his hosts. Should the EU talks collapse, the
army may be given an even freer hand. There is loose talk of a repeat
of the generals’ so-called “soft coup” in 1997, when they managed to
lever Turkey’s first Islamist-led government out of power.
Yet although some in America might be tempted to welcome such an
outcome, the chances of its happening remain tiny. Unlike 1997,
the opposition parties lack the parliamentary strength to form
a government. Foreign investors, crucial to sustained economic
growth, would take fright if the army moved. Another risk is that
opposition to a military-backed government would no longer come only
from mainstream Kurdish and Islamic groups, but from their militant
hardcore detractors, with suspected ties to Islamist terrorists.
That such scenarios are now seriously conjured up only goes to show
that EU membership, warts and all, is the best-and possibly the
only-guarantee of Ataturk’s dream of a firmly pro-western democracy.
With the right vision and selfless leadership Mr Erdogan could still
go down in history as the man who made it come true. But he will have
to show statesmanship-and the EU (and America) will have to help him
along the way.