US bureaucrat calls pressurizing Armenia
Regnum, Russia
Oct 19 2006
US Permanent Representative to the OSCE Julie Finley deems
very important inviting OSCE observers to monitor the process of
parliamentary elections 2007 in Armenia. The US functionary expressed
her urge to journalists Oct 19 in Yerevan following an OSCE conference
on trafficking.
Finley said at an informal meeting that pressure should be exerted
upon Armenian government so that it invited the OSCE observers,
for they could not perform monitoring without an invitation. She
says that talking with Armenian officials, she has heard that the
Armenian side intents to hold democratic elections in 2007, and she
so far has no reason not to believe them.
The US Ambassador to OSCE says she regrets that the President of
Armenia, for the reason that his schedule had been too tight, had
not admitted her. She says she wanted to discuss with the president
the future of Armenia.
According to REGNUM information, the US representative to the OSCE did
not appeal in advance to schedule the meeting with the President of
Armenia. Besides, according to the official protocol, an ambassador
of a foreign state to an organization does not belong to the circle
of officials who can be admitted by a head of state.
From: Baghdasarian

Does Armenia’s Liberal Progressive Party assume Karabakh can be returned to Azerbaijan?
Regnum, Russia
Oct 19 2006
“In 2006, there is a chance of moving forward in the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict settlement,” leader of Armenia’s Liberal Progressive Party
Hovhannes Hovhannissyan has announced at a news conference on October
19. As a REGNUM correspondent reports, according to the party leader,
Yerevan and Baku have almost agreed on all principal questions, and
only the issue of Kelbajar is not settled yet. “According to the data
I have, the Armenian and Azerbaijani side have already agreed on this
issue too, and it will be fully settled at the upcoming meeting of
Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers,” Hovhannes Hovhannissyan
noted adding that both the USA and French President Jacques Chirac
are interested in solving the issue.
The party leader noted also that several months ago the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict was considered to be a part of the Iranian dossier,
and up to now the settlement is seen as a separate process. At the
same time, Hovhannes Hovhannissyan mentioned that in the coming years
terms of Armenian and Nagorno Karabakh presidents will expire, and
they will be trying to maintain the status quo until their terms are
over. “The soonest settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is in
Armenia’s interests,” the politician believes.
Speaking on the address of the Abkhaz parliament to the Russian
president and parliament, the Armenian party leader labeled it as
“absurd.” According to him, “Russia will never recognize Abkhazia’s
independence, because otherwise world community will recognize
independence of Chechnya.” “Abkhazia lost its chance to become a
sovereign state, and such decision was possibly made under dictation of
Russia aimed at further deterioration of the Georgian-Abkhaz relations,
as well as establishment of a reason for the Abkhaz side to force out
Georgian Armed Forces from Kodori Gorge,” the Liberal Progressive Party
leader notes adding that international community will never allow that
“a part of one sovereign state joins another sovereign state.”
Commenting to a REGNUM correspondent on the statement of the
Armenian politician, expert on South Caucasus Viktor Yakubyan noted:
“It is difficult to say, for what reasons Hovhannissyan deprives
the Abkhaz people of the right for sovereignty. As far as I know,
the Armenian diplomacy is stubbornly trying to prove that the right
of a nation for self-determination (especially, won in a war) is no
less important than the principle of territorial integrity of this
or that sovereign state. Why, following the logic of the politician,
is Abkhazia’s joining Russia (although Abkhazia did not ask for it,
they claim for independence and associate relations with Russia)
impossible, and Nagorno Karabakh’s joining Armenia possible? Well,
maybe Mr. Hovhannissyan meant a different outcome speaking on prospects
of Karabakh settlement? Say, Karabakh people yield to the will of
Azerbaijan? In this case, logic ca the Liberal Progressive Party
leader is clear. Otherwise, it is nothing but application of double
standards, in which it is difficult to suspect him, although he is
a staunch supporter of Atlantism.”
From: Baghdasarian

International Herald Tribune, France
Oct 19 2006
Mind your own business, France
Suat Kiniklioglu International Herald Tribune
Published: October 19, 2006
ANKARA Turkey is in an uproar. Turks are reacting bitterly to the
tactlessness of the French National Assembly in passing a bill that
would criminalize “denial” of the Armenian “genocide.”
Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy of France is right: The vote
is seen as an unfriendly gesture by a vast majority of the Turkish
people. We are dismayed by the ease with which French lawmakers seem
willing to jeopardize relations between France and Turkey dating from
the 16th century.
What puzzles us even more is that of all countries, France – seen by
us as the symbol of civil liberties and free speech – would become
hostage to a small, if influential, lobby that exploits every electoral
opportunity to advance its narrow agenda.
Lawmakers are not historians and their attempt to establish facts about
an extremely sensitive and complicated historic event is misguided
at best. Further, the proposed bill represents a blow to freedom
of expression at a time when European Union member states regularly
lecture Ankara on legislation they view as curtailing free speech.
Both on grounds of substance and process, the National Assembly’s
action is deeply offensive and counterproductive. That is why the EU
enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn, and 16 prominent French historians
opposed the bill.
Many Turks interpret the National Assembly’s action as not just an
attempt to appease an active lobby, but also as a populist appeal to
the majority of the French public opposed to Turkish membership in
the European Union.
In the run-up to what promises to be a very competitive presidential
race next spring, both the French left and right seem ill disposed
toward a predominantly Muslim country interested in EU membership.
Bound legally by the EU Council’s decision to start accession
negotiations with Turkey, French lawmakers may hope to provoke an
already unsettled Turkey to quit the negotiations by touching a
sensitive nerve. Whether such irresponsible behavior hinders efforts
to heal the wounds of World War I and the tragedy of Ottoman Armenians
seems to be lost on them.
Ironically, this ill-considered action comes at a time when Turkey’s
domestic debate on the Armenian issue is more open than at any time
in the past. Turks on both sides of the issue are intensely discussing
what happened in 1915-1916 and whether it can be defined as genocide.
Last year, in an unprecedented move, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan suggested that Turkey and Armenia set up a joint commission of
historians to determine whether the events of 1915-1916 constituted
genocide. The offer was rejected by Armenia. Turkey also organized
its first international conference on the Armenian issue with Armenian
historians last year. Furthermore, Turkey’s determination to join the
EU provides ongoing impetus for this healthy process of reconciliation
to continue.
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation cannot be facilitated by laws passed
in foreign parliaments. Such moves only help those who thrive on the
continuation of the impasse between Turks and Armenians.
As tempting as gesture politics may be for French politicians, any
genuine effort at reconciliation must be based on the recognition
that both Armenians and Turks suffered immensely during the fateful
years of World War I. To move forward, the focus must be broadened
to include common losses and experiences during this period, rather
than limited to the question of whether the events of 1915-1916 can
be qualified as genocide. Context is critical.
Having Turkey as a member in the EU is both in Europe’s and Armenia’s
interest. Provoking Turkey on a sensitive issue only serves to further
alienate a country whose destiny will have a major impact on the
greater Europe of which Armenia is also part.
As the British Armenian historian Ara Sarafian eloquently noted,
the ultimate irony is that France, which has not faced up to its own
genocidal past, dares to pass legislation on Turkey’s past.
Thankfully our lawmakers are unlikely to follow that path. After all,
we want to remain true to the ideals of Rousseau, Voltaire and the
French encyclopedists who inspired us and the European Enlightenment.
Suat Kiniklioglu is director of the Ankara office of the German
Marshall Fund of the United States.
ANKARA Turkey is in an uproar. Turks are reacting bitterly to the
tactlessness of the French National Assembly in passing a bill that
would criminalize “denial” of the Armenian “genocide.”
Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy of France is right: The vote
is seen as an unfriendly gesture by a vast majority of the Turkish
people. We are dismayed by the ease with which French lawmakers seem
willing to jeopardize relations between France and Turkey dating from
the 16th century.
What puzzles us even more is that of all countries, France – seen by
us as the symbol of civil liberties and free speech – would become
hostage to a small, if influential, lobby that exploits every electoral
opportunity to advance its narrow agenda.
Lawmakers are not historians and their attempt to establish facts about
an extremely sensitive and complicated historic event is misguided
at best. Further, the proposed bill represents a blow to freedom
of expression at a time when European Union member states regularly
lecture Ankara on legislation they view as curtailing free speech.
Both on grounds of substance and process, the National Assembly’s
action is deeply offensive and counterproductive. That is why the EU
enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn, and 16 prominent French historians
opposed the bill.
Many Turks interpret the National Assembly’s action as not just an
attempt to appease an active lobby, but also as a populist appeal to
the majority of the French public opposed to Turkish membership in
the European Union.
In the run-up to what promises to be a very competitive presidential
race next spring, both the French left and right seem ill disposed
toward a predominantly Muslim country interested in EU membership.
Bound legally by the EU Council’s decision to start accession
negotiations with Turkey, French lawmakers may hope to provoke an
already unsettled Turkey to quit the negotiations by touching a
sensitive nerve. Whether such irresponsible behavior hinders efforts
to heal the wounds of World War I and the tragedy of Ottoman Armenians
seems to be lost on them.
Ironically, this ill-considered action comes at a time when Turkey’s
domestic debate on the Armenian issue is more open than at any time
in the past. Turks on both sides of the issue are intensely discussing
what happened in 1915-1916 and whether it can be defined as genocide.
Last year, in an unprecedented move, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan suggested that Turkey and Armenia set up a joint commission of
historians to determine whether the events of 1915-1916 constituted
genocide. The offer was rejected by Armenia. Turkey also organized
its first international conference on the Armenian issue with Armenian
historians last year. Furthermore, Turkey’s determination to join the
EU provides ongoing impetus for this healthy process of reconciliation
to continue.
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation cannot be facilitated by laws passed
in foreign parliaments. Such moves only help those who thrive on the
continuation of the impasse between Turks and Armenians.
As tempting as gesture politics may be for French politicians, any
genuine effort at reconciliation must be based on the recognition
that both Armenians and Turks suffered immensely during the fateful
years of World War I. To move forward, the focus must be broadened
to include common losses and experiences during this period, rather
than limited to the question of whether the events of 1915-1916 can
be qualified as genocide. Context is critical.
Having Turkey as a member in the EU is both in Europe’s and Armenia’s
interest. Provoking Turkey on a sensitive issue only serves to further
alienate a country whose destiny will have a major impact on the
greater Europe of which Armenia is also part.
As the British Armenian historian Ara Sarafian eloquently noted,
the ultimate irony is that France, which has not faced up to its own
genocidal past, dares to pass legislation on Turkey’s past.
Thankfully our lawmakers are unlikely to follow that path. After all,
we want to remain true to the ideals of Rousseau, Voltaire and the
French encyclopedists who inspired us and the European Enlightenment.
Suat Kiniklioglu is director of the Ankara office of the German
Marshall Fund of the United States.

International Herald Tribune, France
Oct 19 2006
A bold message, lost on Turkey
Vartan Oskanian International Herald Tribune
Published: October 19, 2006
YEREVAN, Armenia Armenia should be rejoicing at the passage of a bill
last week by France’s National Assembly that would make it a crime
to deny the genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire in the early
20th century.
The message from France is clear: So long as Turkey refuses to confront
its own history, others will feel impelled to do so. If, on the other
hand, Turkey embarks on the difficult road of acknowledgement and
reconciliation, then others will have reason to step aside and let
the process take its course.
Instead, we note with dismay that this very strong message is being
lost on Turkey. It continues to surround itself with myths, evade
the past, and thus elude the future.
As we observe the reactions in Turkey, we find it disingenuous for
a country that itself doesn’t allow free speech and criminalizes
even the exploration of certain areas of its own (and therefore our)
history to be so indignant over a law that criminalizes the rejection
and denial of that same history.
After all, the actual, difficult discourse must evolve in Turkey,
and not in France, or Switzerland. It is in Turkey that a free and
open dialogue is deeply needed, and sorely absent. Those who cry
“leave history to the historians” have gagged the historians.
At the same time, Turkey objects vehemently to the involvement of
third countries in a discussion that really must take place between
Turks and Armenians.
No one wants such a dialogue more than Armenia. Yet Turkey has made
such give-and-take between our peoples and our states impossible. In
addition to the restrictions on speech, our borders remain closed.
Nor are there diplomatic relations between our countries.
In other words, there are no opportunities for new experiences, new
memories, new interactions to build up alongside the old. Instead,
there is a lingering security concern about a neighbor that has not
repudiated such state violence.
As Turkey continues to corner itself, it handicaps the future of this
region and impacts the lives of its people and ours. Worse, those
extremists who understand the great risks and costs of tolerance,
openness and rapprochement, are emboldened.
We are not the only neighbors in the world who have a troubled
relationship. Yet it is exactly because we live right next door that
we must be willing and prepared to transcend the past.
France’s principled acknowledgement of the 20th century’s first
genocide offers the hundreds of thousands of French Armenians, all
descended from genocide survivors, the dignity that they have been
denied because of the Turkish government’s continuing insistence that
the atrocities they lived through are unproven myths.
There is no doubt that if the word “genocide” had existed in 1915,
every one of the hundreds of articles in newspapers around the world
would have used it. Look how frequently the word is used today to
describe events and cases where the scale and depth of the carnage
are even smaller.
When a government plans to do away with its own population to solve
a political problem, that’s genocide. The U.S. ambassador to Turkey
from 1913 to 1916, Henry Morgenthau Sr., called what he witnessed the
“Murder of a Nation.” Others called it “race murder.” They did so
because the term genocide did not exist yet.
Those who deposed the Ottoman rulers – the early leaders of modern
Turkey, including Kemal Ataturk – actually court-martialed those
who instigated these crimes. Today’s Republic of Turkey, which has
inherited the nationalism of its founders but not their memory,
spends untold amounts to convince the world they didn’t happen.
Not just money. Today, their continued insistence on rejecting and
rewriting history costs them credibility and time. Today’s Turks do
not bear the guilt of the perpetrators, unless they choose to defend
and identify with them.
It is a political reality that both Turkey and Armenia exist today
in the international community with their current borders. It is a
political reality that we are neighbors. It is a political reality
that Armenia is not a security threat to Turkey. Finally, it is a
reality that today’s Armenia calls for the establishment of diplomatic
relations with today’s Turkey.
Armenia has no preconditions for establishing diplomatic relations.
Nor is Armenia opposed to Turkey’s membership in the EU. We’d like
to see Turkey meet all European standards. We’d like to see Turkey
become an EU member so that our borders will be open and we can
cooperate to build a secure, prosperous region.
We can only assume that Europe will expect that a Turkey which is
serious about EU membership will come to terms with its past. A few
in Turkish society have begun that difficult process of introspection
and study. We can only welcome this process.
It is essential that the international community does not bend the
rules, does not turn a blind eye, does not lower its standards, but
instead consistently extends its hand, its example, its own history
of transcending, in order for Armenians and Turks, Europeans all,
to move on to making new history.
Vartan Oskanian is the minister of foreign affairs of Armenia.
YEREVAN, Armenia Armenia should be rejoicing at the passage of a bill
last week by France’s National Assembly that would make it a crime
to deny the genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire in the early
20th century.
The message from France is clear: So long as Turkey refuses to confront
its own history, others will feel impelled to do so. If, on the other
hand, Turkey embarks on the difficult road of acknowledgement and
reconciliation, then others will have reason to step aside and let
the process take its course.
Instead, we note with dismay that this very strong message is being
lost on Turkey. It continues to surround itself with myths, evade
the past, and thus elude the future.
As we observe the reactions in Turkey, we find it disingenuous for
a country that itself doesn’t allow free speech and criminalizes
even the exploration of certain areas of its own (and therefore our)
history to be so indignant over a law that criminalizes the rejection
and denial of that same history.
After all, the actual, difficult discourse must evolve in Turkey,
and not in France, or Switzerland. It is in Turkey that a free and
open dialogue is deeply needed, and sorely absent. Those who cry
“leave history to the historians” have gagged the historians.
At the same time, Turkey objects vehemently to the involvement of
third countries in a discussion that really must take place between
Turks and Armenians.
No one wants such a dialogue more than Armenia. Yet Turkey has made
such give-and-take between our peoples and our states impossible. In
addition to the restrictions on speech, our borders remain closed.
Nor are there diplomatic relations between our countries.
In other words, there are no opportunities for new experiences, new
memories, new interactions to build up alongside the old. Instead,
there is a lingering security concern about a neighbor that has not
repudiated such state violence.
As Turkey continues to corner itself, it handicaps the future of this
region and impacts the lives of its people and ours. Worse, those
extremists who understand the great risks and costs of tolerance,
openness and rapprochement, are emboldened.
We are not the only neighbors in the world who have a troubled
relationship. Yet it is exactly because we live right next door that
we must be willing and prepared to transcend the past.
France’s principled acknowledgement of the 20th century’s first
genocide offers the hundreds of thousands of French Armenians, all
descended from genocide survivors, the dignity that they have been
denied because of the Turkish government’s continuing insistence that
the atrocities they lived through are unproven myths.
There is no doubt that if the word “genocide” had existed in 1915,
every one of the hundreds of articles in newspapers around the world
would have used it. Look how frequently the word is used today to
describe events and cases where the scale and depth of the carnage
are even smaller.
When a government plans to do away with its own population to solve
a political problem, that’s genocide. The U.S. ambassador to Turkey
from 1913 to 1916, Henry Morgenthau Sr., called what he witnessed the
“Murder of a Nation.” Others called it “race murder.” They did so
because the term genocide did not exist yet.
Those who deposed the Ottoman rulers – the early leaders of modern
Turkey, including Kemal Ataturk – actually court-martialed those
who instigated these crimes. Today’s Republic of Turkey, which has
inherited the nationalism of its founders but not their memory,
spends untold amounts to convince the world they didn’t happen.
Not just money. Today, their continued insistence on rejecting and
rewriting history costs them credibility and time. Today’s Turks do
not bear the guilt of the perpetrators, unless they choose to defend
and identify with them.
It is a political reality that both Turkey and Armenia exist today
in the international community with their current borders. It is a
political reality that we are neighbors. It is a political reality
that Armenia is not a security threat to Turkey. Finally, it is a
reality that today’s Armenia calls for the establishment of diplomatic
relations with today’s Turkey.
Armenia has no preconditions for establishing diplomatic relations.
Nor is Armenia opposed to Turkey’s membership in the EU. We’d like
to see Turkey meet all European standards. We’d like to see Turkey
become an EU member so that our borders will be open and we can
cooperate to build a secure, prosperous region.
We can only assume that Europe will expect that a Turkey which is
serious about EU membership will come to terms with its past. A few
in Turkish society have begun that difficult process of introspection
and study. We can only welcome this process.
It is essential that the international community does not bend the
rules, does not turn a blind eye, does not lower its standards, but
instead consistently extends its hand, its example, its own history
of transcending, in order for Armenians and Turks, Europeans all,
to move on to making new history.
Vartan Oskanian is the minister of foreign affairs of Armenia
nion/edoskan.php

Orhan Pamuk’s Nobel Prize throws Turkish nationalists
by Ron Margulies, Istanbul
Socialist Worker, UK
Oct 19 2006
We may have our own views about Orhan Pamuk’s novels, but there can
be no doubt that Pamuk richly deserves the prize both in literary
terms and as a man with deeply-held views which he is not afraid to
express regardless of the consequences.
Watching the Turkish media and political world squirm and agonise has
been as joyful and magnificent as the expression on Pamuk’s face must
have been upon hearing the news.
The prize was announced on the very same day that the French parliament
voted to make it a criminal offence to deny the Armenian holocaust. In
1915, the dying Ottoman Empire drove its Armenian citizens into a
forced migration, which caused one million or more to perish.
Turkish governments have always denied that there was a systematic
attempt at ethnic cleansing, that so many Armenians died and that
this was a holocaust. They admit to a figure of 300,000, claim that
there was killing on both sides and that the whole incident was an
unfortunate but unavoidable sideshow of the First World War.
Pamuk, whose every novel is a literary event and sells hundreds of
thousands in Turkey, was prosecuted last year for simply saying to
a German journalist that a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds had
been killed in Turkey. He was neither the first nor the last writer
to be prosecuted under Law 301 which makes it a crime to “insult
Turkishness”, but he was the most prominent internationally. Like
most of those prosecuted under 301, he was acquitted. But he also
became a figure of hate for the right and most of the media.
Normally, a Turk winning an international prize (like a Turkish team
winning a football game abroad) would be cause for jubilation and
nationalistic frenzy. In this case, however, the right didn’t know
what to do! On the extreme right, the response was “Pamuk is a traitor,
he sold his country, and this is his reward”.
The more common response, expressed in one particular newspaper
headline, was “I don’t know whether to be glad or sad”.
Even those who praised Pamuk and agreed that he deserved the prize
for his novels couldn’t stop themselves from saying that he may not
have been given it if he hadn’t spoken out about the Armenians. Prime
Minister Erdogan telephoned Pamuk to congratulate him, but President
Sezer pointedly did not do so.
But most amusing of all was the sight of politicians and journalists
who have never said a word about any of the many anti-democratic
laws in Turkey rage about the anti-democratic vote in the French
parliament. Having never worried about Law 301 here, they suddenly
became very concerned about the democratic rights of any French
citizen who wishes to say that there was no Armenian holocaust.
In ten years time nobody will remember any of these people. Unlike
Pamuk, who has already taken his place in world literary history.
.php?article_id=9979

GEORGIA: Will mob halt Assyrian Catholic centre?
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service <; Forum 18, Norway Oct 19 2006 Assyrian Catholics in Georgia's capital Tbilisi fear more mob attacks, after a religious and cultural centre was attacked by a mob, Forum 18 News Service has learnt. "The Orthodox Church and fundamentalists don't want a Catholic presence," Fr Benny Yadgar told Forum 18. "If we start to use the centre for worship these fanatics could attack our people with knives and wooden posts. Our people have a right to be protected." Fr Yadgar insists that the problems do not come from the authorities, but a current signature campaign could lead to pressure on the authorities. Police have refused to comment to Forum 18 on the attacks. The Georgian Orthodox Church and the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee - unlike human rights activists, religious minorities and the Human Rights Ombudsperson - have refused to defend the Assyrian Catholics. "I called on Patriarch Ilya to defend our church, but he says it is not his business," Fr Yadgar stated. One month after a hostile mob invaded and damaged a new religious and cultural centre Tbilisi's Assyrian Catholics are building in the Georgian capital, the community lives in fear of attack. "The Orthodox Church and fundamentalists don't want a Catholic presence in Georgia," the community's priest Fr Benny Yadgar told Forum 18 News Service from Tbilisi [T'bilisi] on 18 October. "I fear that if we start to use the centre for worship these fanatics could attack our people with knives and wooden posts. Our people have a right to be protected." Giorgi Khutsishvili, head of the Tbilisi-based International Center of Conflict Negotiations, said the "disturbing" attack was instigated by fundamentalist Orthodox determined to prevent a Catholic church being built. "This is a clear issue: the Assyrian community has the right to build its centre," he told Forum 18 on 18 October. "So what if it is going to be used for worship?" His centre has hosted a meeting of the multi-faith Religions Council to discuss the issue. Fr Yadgar insists that the problems do not come from the authorities. "The government says: 'Go ahead, don't worry!'" he told Forum 18. He added that the police had offered to send officers to protect the building, as long as the Assyrians paid for it, an offer the community had turned down. "We don't want the police to have to stand at the doors of our place of worship." But he fears that a signature campaign now underway in the local district could lead to further pressure on the authorities. "They go around saying they need 200,000 signatures to block us." Fr Yadgar said the office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson has been sympathetic and has scheduled a 27 October meeting to discuss their concerns to which he and the Catholic bishop, Giuseppe Pasotto, have been invited. Forum 18 was unable to reach Georgi Siradze, police chief for Vake-Saburtalo district where the Assyrian Catholic centre is based, to find out how the rights of the community will be protected. Reached on 19 October, the duty officer said the police were not allowed to give information to journalists and refused to give Siradze's number. Fr Yadgar said the Georgian Orthodox Patriarchate has failed to speak out against the threats. "I called on Patriarch Ilya to defend our church, but he says it is not his business." Despite the fact that the attack was widely reported in the media and was the subject of a debate on Rustavi-2 television, Zurab Tskhovrebadze, spokesperson for the Orthodox Patriarchate, told Forum 18 on 19 October he had never heard anything about any problems over the Assyrian Catholic centre. "If it was true, of course it would be unacceptable for us Orthodox to use force, whether for political or religious ends." The Orthodox Patriarchate retains a powerful hold over society and the government and has successfully prevented almost all minority faiths from openly building new places of worship in recent years (see forthcoming F18News article). Some Georgian Orthodox priests have a record of inciting mob violence against religious minorities (see eg. F18News 25 May 2005 =569). Intolerance of religious minorities is widespread within Georgian society, despite some legal improvements (see F18News 24 May 2005 =568). Georgia's politicians have shown little interest in the Assyrian Catholics' concerns. "This was not an attack - it was merely misinterpretation of the feelings of people," Lali Papiashvili, deputy head of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, told Forum 18 from Tbilisi on 19 October. "People were falsely informed by some kinds of activists that the building may cause religious problems for the local population." She denied that anyone would object to the building of a non-Orthodox place of worship. "I don't have any information that the Assyrian population is afraid." Papiashvili's colleague, Elene Tevdoradze, who chairs the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, was equally unconcerned. "I haven't been to the Assyrian centre, but I've received no complaints," she told Forum 18 from Tbilisi on 18 October. Human rights activists and other religious minorities, however, have defended the embattled Assyrian Catholic community. "The city authorities were wrong to take into account Orthodox objections to the Assyrian centre," Bishop Malkhaz Songulashvili, head of Georgia's Baptist Church, told Forum 18 on 4 October. Support for the Assyrians has also come from the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Lutherans, Fr Yadgar told Forum 18. Fr Yadgar said the new centre was invaded by a mob of about 60 people on 18 September, three or four days after anonymous, undated leaflets started to circulate in the district, stirring people up against the Catholics and urging them to come to the centre. "The letter alleged that Catholics are aggressive proselytisers who killed our monks in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It also alleged they marry cats and dogs and give the Eucharist to animals." Fr Yadgar was away at the time of the mob invasion, but Giuni Gulua was one of two community members who tried to explain to television journalists and to the mob why the community was building the centre. "Part of the mob obviously had no clue as to why they were there, but the other part was very aggressively hostile, saying we had no right to build a Catholic church," she told Forum 18 on 19 October. "We explained that we had all the legal documents we needed to build the church, but many of them weren't prepared to listen to us. We then left to avoid any possibility of violent confrontation." She said some of the mob then went down to the cellar and damaged the interior walls. Fr Yadgar said the cultural centre deliberately combines classrooms and meeting rooms with a sanctuary for worship. "Without Christianity, we Assyrians have no culture, so it is natural the two go together," he told Forum 18. "But in any case, we are not recognised in law as a religious organisation and do not have the right to build a church." After initial difficulties (see F18News 14 November 2003 ) , he eventually managed to get all the approvals they needed from the city authorities. Construction work began in 2004, he added, but finding the necessary money has delayed building. "Because of the situation in Iraq we have had no support from there." Although all the external work is now complete, Fr Yadgar said completing the interior could take another year, especially in the wake of the damage and any potential attack. (END) For the comments of Georgian religious leaders and human rights activists on how the legacy of religious violence should be overcome, see For more background see Forum 18's Georgia religious freedom survey at A printer-friendly map of Georgia is available at las/index.html?Parent=asia&Rootmap=georgi

October 20, 2006
PRESS RELEASE
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate
6252 Honolulu Avenue
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Tel: (818) 248-7737
Fax: (818) 248-7745
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
DURING A MEETING WITH THE ARMENIAN ECCLESIASTICAL BROTHERHOOD
SPIRITUALITY MUST RADIATE THROUGH OUR LIVES AND OUR MISSION
On the morning of Thursday, October 19, H.E. Archbishop Moushegh
Mardirossian, Prelate, welcomed executives of the Armenian
Ecclesiastical Brotherhood to the temporary Prelacy offices in Encino.
Also participating in the meeting was Christian Education Department
Co-Director Very Rev. Fr. Barthev Gulumian, who is the representative
of the Prelate at the Ecclesiastical Brotherhood.
During the meeting, the Brotherhood executives briefed the Prelate
on their current and future activities. The Prelate commended their
devotion to the Armenian Apostolic Church, as well as their role
in the spiritual nourishment of Armenian youth, and subsequently
reaffirmed the Prelacy’s support to the Ecclesiastical Brotherhood.
The Prelacy has a history of collaboration with the Brotherhood
including, but not limited to, Prelacy clergy members visiting the
center of the Brotherhood to lecture to the faithful.
In keeping with the collaborative tradition, the members requested that
the Thanksgiving event they are planning for November 20 be held under
the auspices of the Prelate. Furthermore, on the evening of Saturday,
October 21st, Very Rev. Fr. Barthev Gulumian will be lecturing to the
youth at the Brotherhood’s center on the Armenian Church and Halloween.

The Turkish UNIFIL Troops Set off for Lebanon
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Oct 19 2006
Thursday , 19 October 2006
A. Noyan Ozkaya, JTW (Ankara) – Some part of the Turkish military unit
to participate in the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL II)
set off on Thursday from Mersin Port. 95 soldiers of the 261-strong
engineering company left the Mersin Port after a sending-off
ceremony. The rest of the land unit will be sent on Friday by air
from Ankara to Beirut, and non-military vehicles will be sent overland
through Syria. The Turkish military unit is commanded by a major and
is composed of 261 personnel, 24 of which are civil engineers and 63
engineering vehicles, including non-military ones.
The Turkish engineering unit will be located in the village of
ash-Shaatiyah, 8 km. southeast of Tyre (Sour), and is expected to
help rebuild damaged bridges and roads. The initial location of the
Turkish troops was Baqbuq, a village in the south of Tyre, but it
was changed two days ago to ash-Shaatiyah because of the risk posed
by undiscovered landmines beneath the would-be headquarters of the
Turkish contingents in Baqbuq.
Besides the land units, a frigate from the Turkish Naval Forces
was sent to Lebanon on October 6. The frigate, TCG Gaziantep, began
patrolling off the Lebanese coast on October 15. The frigate includes
234 military staff and is commanded by a lieutenant colonel.
Turkish troops are the first Muslim peacekeepers to arrive in Lebanon
for the expanded UN force.
The Lebanese political leaders, including Hizbullah, have given their
consent for the participation of the Turkish troops in the peacekeeping
force. Turkish participation in the UNIFIL II is opposed only by
the Armenian community, with an estimated population of 150.000, or
nearly 4% of the Lebanese population. On October 13, an estimated 5.000
Armenians in Lebanon protested Turkey’s participation in the UN force.

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006
If our Ambassador to Paris had been Armenian…
ALI H. ASLAN
10.19.2006 Thursday – ISTANBUL 20:41
The first Turkish novel, “Akabi Story” was written by Armenian Vartan
Pasha in the middle of the 19th century and printed in the Armenian
alphabet. What an interesting manifestation of fate is that the first
Nobel Prize for Turkish literature has an Armenian element as well.
Our successful novelist Orhan Pamuk, who was subjected to national
anger after referring to events experienced by Anatolian Armenians
during World War I in a way different than the ‘official history’
rhetoric, received this prestigious award.
Carefully followed by the world’s elite, the Nobel Prize’s presentation
to a Turk should normally be expected to make a positive impact
on Turkey’s image. However, the bestowal of the prize on an author
whose name has been identified with the Armenian question due to some
outdated legal practices, such as Article 301, that are contrary to
freedom of expression will most likely create some new hurdles for
Turkish diplomacy.
There are many who tie the Nobel committee’s choice to political
reasons. We are also angry with the latest efforts of the French
parliament to outlaw views that deny the so-called Armenian
genocide with complete disregard to freedom of expression. However,
it is obvious that we have not been able to overcome the vengeful
Armenians. They increasingly gather the world intelligentsia behind
them and deal defeat after defeat to Turkey. Wherever we go in the
international community, an “Armenian genocide” ghost appears in front
of us. The attacks in the U.S. Congress have been warded off so far,
but actually the illness long ago infected that place as well.
It comes out of incubation during periods whenever the immune system
is weakened in Turkish-American relations. Sooner or later it will
eventually reach its goal.
As a grandchild of the Ottomans, who treated minorities in a much
more civilized way than its contemporaries did, I get upset when
controversial aspects of our history are highlighted in the West. On
the other hand, I believe that our neglect has also played a big role
in events coming to this point, and I bemoan this.
If only we had been able to take reasonable precautions against
the exploitation of some of our non-Muslim citizens by imperialists
during the final period of the Ottomans. If only we had been able to
realize our passage to the nation state model by better protecting our
multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnical structure. If only
we had kept Turkey’s ties alive through Armenian and Greek Ottoman
Diasporas especially, which formed after the disintegration of the
empire, instead of alienating them this much. If only we had kept the
door open to a return to their motherland and over time forgive even
those who tormented their Muslim brothers because they were fooled by
the land promises of the imperialists. Had we done so, perhaps many
hurdles that are now consuming Turkey’s energy and blocking its path
might have been buried before they were even born.
The Ottomans appointed our Armenian citizens as ambassadors to Belgium,
Italy and England. Here is what I think: If our current ambassador in
Paris was also an Armenian, could the French parliament insult us this
easily? During the 19th century in the Ottoman state, Armenian citizens
were appointed to the following upper-echelon posts: 29 generals,
22 ministers, 33 members of parliament, seven ambassadors, 11 consul
generals-consuls and 41 high-level bureaucrats. If as modern Turkey,
we had done even a small portion of this, who would have adopted the
Armenian genocide thesis?
But alas, Armenians and Greeks, whose century-old criminal records
we haven’t yet erased, even the Jews, whose positive image generally
persisted during the Republic period, still have difficulty today
in openly taking jobs in the Turkish bureaucracy. Recently an ugly
campaign was carried out against Chief of Staff General Yasar Buyukanit
with the claim that he is Jewish. I don’t know if the claim is true
or not. But assuming it is, why should the religious preferences and
ethnic roots of our statesmen be a problem, as long as they remain
loyal to this country, flag and nation?
Actually, it would be a great contribution to both our nation’s
internal harmony and international status if non-Muslim and non-Turkish
elements were comfortable enough to put forth their real cultural
identities in every aspect of life, including bureaucracy.
Those who openly say “I’m Jew, I’m Armenian, I’m Greek, I’m Alevi,
I’m Kurdish, or I’m a religious Sunni” can face serious obstacles,
especially in bureaucratic careers. Hence, most of them hide their
identity by survival instincts and trip up those they see as a
threat. At the root of the political fights that shows our country
as unstable to the world is this type of continuous quarreling. The
Republic of Turkey should be rescued from being a kind of “republic
of pretense” where different elements of the nation hesitate to put
forth their original identities. Instead of trying to deter and punish
those who would like to express themselves honestly, our legal system
should provide them more assurance.
Our ethnic and religious differences can be turned from being our
weak spot, particularly in foreign policy, into being an advantage.
For example, we’re sending troops to Lebanon. Why not put at the
top of our troops a commander who can, with no hesitation, express
his Arab roots and can speak Arabic? After all, the United States
is trying to utilize its ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity
in its global policies. In Iraq, their ambassador (Zalmay Khalilzad)
and number-one commander (General John Abizaid) are of Arab descent.
Turkey is a country which is a home for all cultural colors in the
region. If we know how to respect, protect and utilize our human
heritage, wouldn’t we have social and regional peace more easily?
Wouldn’t we reach our goal of contemporary civilization and EU
membership faster? Wouldn’t we be a more modern and stronger country?
Wouldn’t our enemies lose their biggest trump cards?

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006
Turks to File over 6,000 ‘Genocide’ Lawsuits
By Adem Yilmaz, Anadolu News Agency (aa), Cihan News Agency,
Gaziantep
Thursday, October 19, 2006
zaman.com
Sevret Saltan, president of the Turkish National Power Veterans
Association said they would open lawsuits for each of the 6,317 Turks
martyred by the French and Armenians while defending their hometown
of Antep, a southeastern Turkish city which was occupied by France
during World War I.
Saltan visited current Gaziantep Mayor Asim Guzelbey.
During their visit, Saltan announced their intention to pursue a
legal course of action, adding, “Our aim is to prove that Armenians,
in cooperation with the French forces, perpetrated genocide in
Gaziantep.”
Saltan remarked that they would not remain silent when faced with the
notorious French bill and said that they were ready to provide all
the documents supporting the atrocities perpetrated against innocent
civilians during the occupation of Gaziantep by France.
Saltan said that they were going to open compensation lawsuits on
behalf of the 6,317 massacred people and defend the violated rights
of their ancestors in the international arena.
Saltan further noted that they spoke to Aziz Canatar, president of
the Gaziantep Bar Association, and asked the association for
assistance.
“The Gaziantep Bar Association is going to help us and will conduct
the required research. We will call those accusing us of genocide to
account for what they did in Gaziantep.”
Emphasizing the documents in their possession concerning the mass
killings of Turks by French forces, Saltan remarked “If we win the
lawsuit, we will build a great monument for the martyrs of
Gaziantep.”
Saltan also said they discovered that 93 women were martyred in
either their homes or in the street in addition to male victims.
Noting that 36 out of 93 women were martyred in their homes, he
stated that their intention was to gather all the documents and
information together in one place.
Gaziantep Bar President, Aziz Canatar said they would submit Servet
Saltan’s demand to the Turkish Bar Association, and confirmed that
they were willing to take action on behalf of Turkey at the European
Court of Human Rights after accumulating all the evidence and
documents available