AS THE GOVERNMENT EMPHASIZES THE EU AGENDA…
By Abdulhamit Bilici, Luxembourg
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 17 2006
[NEWS IMPRESSION] — When I was invited to take part in Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul’s trip to Luxembourg, I assumed the number of
journalists accompanying him would be no more than five.
I realized I was mistaken when I entered the small VIP hall of
Ankara’s Esenboga Airport and was greeted by a large number of media
representatives, the likes of which I’d only seen on critical dates
such as Dec. 17 and Oct. 3.
Major newspapers’ Ankara correspondents as well as columnists
Taha Akyol, Cengiz Candar and Mehmet Altan were invited. The
editor-in-chiefs of certain newspapers were also invited, but Referans’
Eyup Can was the only one who came.
TV channels were not forgotten either. A Turkish Airlines Airbus was
chartered for the occasion because the number of attendees was so high.
At first I wondered if the Oct.16 troika meeting had an important
aspect we hadn’t considered yet. While it was certainly important,
it was not a meeting where historical decisions would be taken. The
troika meeting is routinely held once during each six-month EU term
presidency.
This particular meeting could almost be considered symbolic, for it
nearly coincided with the anniversary of Oct. 3, the starting date
for Turkey’s EU membership negotiations.
Besides, this troika would be held just a week the screening process
was completed. This presented a good opportunity to evaluate the
previous year and to handle the upcoming term in a sense.
It was also important for it would be the last top level meeting before
the expected Nov. 8 Progress Report. The Cyprus issue that could cause
a “train crash” in the EU process along with the Finnish proposals
would be discussed in this meeting, though nobody was expecting a
final Cyprus solution to emerge.
After having considered these possibilities one by one, I thought this
trip’s intended message, with such a crowded media contingent, was
more important than the troika meeting itself, especially considering
that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) had been criticized
lately for slowing down EU reforms.
In political terms, there were some points vindicating this slowing
down. For instance, domestic support for the EU was rapidly falling,
partly because of Europe’s unjust statements on the Cyprus and
Armenian issues.
Support in Turkey regressed to 40 percent, an EU poll revealed.
Moreover, dealing with the issues of Cyprus and article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code, the solutions of which could be regarded as
concessions in an election atmosphere, also complicated support for
the EU issues.
However, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement that he
instructed State Minister Ali Babacan to spend one week of every
month in Europe was the first signal that the government had decided
to handle the issue again.
As a matter of fact, Babacan, accompanied by journalists, visited
three EU capitals last week. Erdogan met Tony Blair on the way back
from the United States and hosted German Chancellor Angela Merkel
when he returned to Turkey.
As such, Erdogan made his own contribution to this process. Probably
for this very reason, Minister Gul decided to travel to the Troika
meeting accompanied by a large delegation.
Though the increasing frequency of these visits reinforces the image
that the European Union agenda has not been forgotten, the government,
claiming it is distancing itself from a populist discourse, will be
mainly tested on the issue of article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.
This is the right time to take a step for freedom of thought and gain
the approval of the EU because its attitude toward Turkey softened
after France’s ban on freedom of expression.
However, the government’s wait-and-see approach has resulted in a
slowing down, and as a result, our criticisms against France weaken.

CONCERN OVER FRENCH LEGISLATION ON GENOCIDE OF ARMENIANS
SR International – Radio Sweden, Sweden
Oct 17 2006
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has expressed concern after the
passage of legislation in the French Chamber of Deputies making it
a crime to deny the 1915 massacre of Armenians in Turkey.
Turkey, which is a candidate to join the European Union, has reacted
strongly to the legislation. In Turkey the event is played down as
mutual attacks between Turks and Armenians because of World War I.
EU foreign ministers are discussing relations with Turkey in a meeting
in Luxembourg Tuesday. Carl Bildt says the French legislation can
cause problems in negotiations over issues such as opening Turkish
airports and harbors to traffic from Cyrpus.
He says, however, that the French bill may never become law, since
it still has to be approved by the Senate and signed by President
Jacques Chirac.
hetssidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2054&Nyheter=& amp;artikel=973877
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PARLIAMENT TO DEBATE FRENCH BILL IN SPECIAL SESSION
By Cihan News Agency
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 17 2006
The Turkish parliament is set to convene on Tuesday afternoon with a
special agenda to discuss the French parliament’s decision to approve
a bill that criminalizes denying that the World War I-era deaths of
Armenians in Turkey were genocide.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul will brief Turkish lawmakers
on the latest developments following the adoption of the bill in the
French parliament.
For further information please visit

ARMENIA ARMED FORCES FIRES ON AZERBAIJANI POSITIONS
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 17 2006
Armenian Armed Forces continue to violate the ceasefire, Azerbaijani
Defense Ministry press service told the APA.
Armenian Armed Forces units in one km north -east of occupied Sarijali
village of Aghdam region fired on opposite positions of Azerbaijan
Armed Forces with submachine beginning from 23.30 to 23.35 on October
16. The enemy was silenced by response fire. No casualty was reported.
Armenian Armed Forces also violated the ceasefire in Fuzuli front,
APA Garabagh bureau reports. Armenian Armed Forces units in occupied
Mehdili village of Jebrail region fired on opposite positions of
Azerbaijani Armed Forces in Jojug Mercanli village of Jebrail region
with submachine for 15 minutes beginning from 21.40. The enemy was
silenced by response fire. No casualty was reported.

OZDEMIR: GIVING BACK THE LEGION D’HONNEUR MEDAL: NOW THAT’S THE WAY TO PROTEST
Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 17 2006
Historical truths sit clearly, right in the middle for everyone to
see. But for some reason, we don’t seem to be able to convey them or
explain ourselves. Why? It always happens this way: first of all,
disaster befalls us, or is made to befall us (read: the Armenian
genocide bill in France). Then we start to feel the aches and pains.
But from time to time, the reactions we show are actually funnier
than the events themselves.
For days now we have been talking about the French genocide denial
bill. Developments in France and Holland brought this whole issue
onto our agenda again. We are a people who forgets fast though.
Otherwise, those who even slightly followed history would know that:
genocide allegations do not stick to us, and cannot be made to stick
to us.
The events of 1915 were mutual slaughter. Turks and Armenians died.
But the individual Armenian terror which began in 1973 turned into
organized terror by 1975, and since then, 42 of our diplomats and 4
foreigners have lost their lives as a result of it all.
***
Does it always take a catastrophe to bring us to our senses? We
should know by now which “headaches” will appear before us from time
to time. And we should really be prepared. And armed with knowledge.
Known as a faithful sector of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians were
provoked by the West in 1915, as they being provoked by the West
today. By which I mean, in 1915, the West was a supporter of the
mutual slaughter, and today, is a partner in the baseless accusations.
Speaking to journalist Can Dundar, Ismail Cem pointed out recently
“Chirac’s apology to Erdogan was like a joke. Chirac seems to see
Turkey, the Turkish public, our press, but mostly Prime Minister
Erdogan, as ‘naive.’ If he was even in the slightest bit genuine, he
would have spoken these words of apology not in a private telephone
call, but in front of the world.” Don’t you think Ismail Cem is right
about this?
***
Today you will read in the Turkish newspapers about a response
appropriate for Chirac: that Tezic, the president of the Turkish
Board of Higher Education, has decided to return his medal of honor to
France. It had been awarded to him in 2002. In his letter to Chirac,
Tezic underscores the problem, as he sees it, with Chirac’s quick
rush to deny support of the recently accepted “genocide denial” bill:
“In statements, you bring to attention over and over again that the
French government was outside of and not involved in this initiative
by parliament members to approve the bill. But during an official
visit to Armenia at the start of October, you expressed the view that
‘Turks did commit a genocide against the Armenians.’ In saying so, you
clearly made this issue French state policy…..I can no longer carry
the ‘Commandeur de la Legion d’Honneur’ medal which was awarded to me.”
Tezic, in returning his Legion d’Honneur, has become the first person
ever to do so. These actions need no more words to explain them;
when you say ‘protest,’ this is the way to do it.

LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR?
WaluEurope
Tiscali Europe, UK
Oct 17 2006
New EU poll sheds light on countries from the Caucasus to the Atlas
mountains
The latest Commission survey looks over the fence at countries
bordering the European Union. This ‘Special Eurobarometer’, published
in October, asked the opinions of 30,000 people across the EU25, as
well as accession countries Bulgaria and Romania, candidate countries
Croatia and Turkey, and finally Northern Cyprus.
The questionnaire probed our knowledge and attitudes towards Europe’s
nearest neighbours, as well as EU policy on the ‘arc’ stretching
from the Caucasus to the Atlas mountains. First and foremost, it
revealed that just one in five people across Europe has even heard
of the European Neighbourhood Policy – but they still have opinions
on a wide range of issues.
When asked about Europe’s neighbours, we look first to countries
sharing a land border with the EU (Ukraine 58% and Russia 57%) before
those on the southern or eastern shores of the Mediterranean, also
known as the Maghreb and Mashrek respectively.
Close on three quarters (72%) of those interviewed say they are in
favour of more countries joining the club so long as the process is not
rushed. A similar proportion (70%) also back more special relationships
that stop short of full EU membership – mirroring the views of German
chancellor Angela Merkel and French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy.
European public opinion is, however, more divided over whether the
EU should treat neighbouring countries in the same way as any other
third countries after the current enlargement process (52% the same
way vs. 36% not the same way).
“Perception is strong and sight weak,” said warrior-philosopher
Miyamoto Musashi. And though some capitals do not see eye to eye with
Ankara among others (France last week passed a law banning denial of
the Armenian genocide) the general public tends to have a positive
perception of relations with neighbouring countries. Some 60% of
respondents say these countries do not share the same values as the
EU, but they still believe that cooperation is good for both sides.

FRANCO-TURKISH RELATIONS STRAINED
ISN, Switzerland
Oct 17 2006
A bill to penalize Armenian genocide denial has put tension on
relations between France and Turkey, as the latter attempts to shore
up support for its quest to join the EU.
Commentary by Federico Bordonaro in Rome for ISN Security Watch
(17/10/06)
The French National Assembly on 13 October passed a bill, which,
if approved by the Senate and signed by President Jacques Chirac,
would penalize anyone denying the Armenian genocide at the hands of
the Ottoman Turks with a fine of up to ~@45,000 (US$56,000) and one
year in prison.
The bill was proposed by the Socialist Party.
The French decision infuriated Turkey, whose government accuses Paris
of using the memory of the Turkish-Armenian clash in a demagogic way
and for domestic political reasons, as France prepares for the 2007
general elections.
Presidential candidates, according to an official in Ankara, are
trying to win the votes of those citizens opposed to Turkey’s EU
accession bid. Moreover, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s
administration believes that France is “permanently hostile” to
Ankara’s EU integration.
Armenia claims that between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire
systematically murdered 1.5 million ethnic Armenians when Ankara
forced them out of its eastern regions. Turkey, however, says that
Armenian casualties were between 250,000 and 500,000, and denies that
any systematic genocide took place.
Chirac expressed his view during a phone conversation with Erdogan
on 14 October, reportedly saying that although France recognized the
Armenian tragedy as a genocide, the proposed law was “useless.” The
French president’s attempt to appease Ankara came after Turkey
threatened the possibility of economic retaliation.
However, the controversy is far from over, and its economic and
political fallout is already spreading.
Turkish citizens protested against France over the weekend, while
Turkish Economy Minister Ali Babacan told media that although
the Erdogan government would not start a boycott campaign, other
organizations in Turkey might.
In fact, on 16 October, the Turkish daily Hurriyet quoted Bulent
Deniz, president of the Turkish Consumers’ Federation, as saying
that “a boycott against French products has already resulted in an
observed 30 percent drop in sales of goods for […] Total,” a French
oil company and one of Paris’ top players in Turkey.
Moreover, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in an official
statement on 14 October that Ankara had warned Paris that “if such a
bill were passed by its parliament, the loser would be France. Paris
will always be embarrassed by this.”
France’s strategic and commercial relations with Turkey may be damaged
in such a way that large industrial interests, as well as defense
and energy-related cooperation projects, could be hindered.
Frederic Saint-Geours, CEO of Peugeot Automobiles, said last week
that economic retaliation by Turkey against French goods was “almost
certain,” and would likely be painful for Peugeot, which holds between
5 and 6 percent of Turkey’s automobile market.
The Franco-German defense giant Eurocopter, which is owned by the
European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, competes with other
big groups to provide Ankara with some 52 civilian and military
helicopters. The company could also suffer from the deteriorating
bilateral relations.
Lucrative contracts for civilian nuclear power plants and the massive
infrastructure of the fast-growing Turkish economy are also being eyed
by big French corporations. Should Ankara decide to boycott Paris,
the economic damage for France could be substantial.
However, the dispute is a politically thorny issue for Paris and
the EU. The French Parliament’s move comes at a time of increasing
difficulties in Euro-Turkish relations.
Prominent politicians in France, Germany and the Netherlands have
taken a hostile stance to Turkey’s EU integration, and now openly
speak in favor of a mere “special relationship” between the EU and
Ankara as opposed to its accession.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Erdogan on 5 October that “Turkey
must fully recognize [Greek-controlled] Cyprus” if it were to join the
EU. Since Germany will take the helm of the EU’s rotating presidency
next January, the announcement was a sign that Merkel would again
put pressure on Ankara.
Although Turkey remains crucial for European security, including in the
area of energy, Western European leaders appear increasingly sensitive
to cultural aspects of the integration issue, as the intellectual
debate over the political and social aspects of Islam is heats up
in Europe.
While Chirac may work to annul the bill, his chances of success are
not high, and the short-term outlook for Franco-Turkish relations is
bleak. Nicolas Sarkozy, the Union for a Popular Movement’s candidate
for the French presidency next year, is wagering on his electorate’s
opposition to Ankara’s accession, while the Socialists do not show
any enthusiasm for it, either. More generally, Euro-Turkish relations
appear to be deteriorating even as Ankara remains determined to join
the EU.
Federico Bordonaro, based in Italy, is an analyst of international
relations and geopolitics with the Power and Interest News Report
and Strategic-Road.com. He is an expert on the new structure of the
international system after the Cold War, the European integration
process, security and defense issues and political realism.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only,
not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).

IN TURKEY, WRITING HISTORY’S WRONGS
By Roshni Sharma
Jerusalem Post
Oct 17 2006
Last September, the rising young Turkish novelist Elif Shafak was
charged with “public denigration of Turkishness” under Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code. The subsequent legal case became only one
of a series of trials aimed at suppressing internal discourse about
the 1915 Armenian massacre, with the Turkish government continuing
to reject responsibility and the term “genocide” when describing the
fate of 1.5 million Armenians in the country during World War I.
Since the Article’s induction last year, a number of distinguished
Turkish writers and journalists have faced similar charges, including
Orhan Pamuk, who received the 2006 Nobel Prize for literature last
week. (In a well-publicized interview with Swiss journal Tages
Anzeiger, Pamuk had stated, “One million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds
were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares talk about it.”
The case against him stalled and was eventually dismissed against a
backdrop of growing international outrage.)
France’s lower house of parliament approved a bill making it a crime
to deny the Armenian genocide last week, just as Pamuk was announced
as the Nobel prize winner. President Chirac is expected to block the
bill’s progress, but if the law is passed the Armenian genocide will
join the Holocaust as something illegal to deny in France. The law
cuts to the heart of European-Turkish tensions, with Turkey’s highly
contested “literature trials”threatening to undermine the Muslim
country’s application for European Union membership.
The case against Shafak, a critically acclaimed, bestselling
novelist, was considered exceptional even among the recent court
scandals. In contrast to Pamuk, Shafak was prosecuted not because of
public statements she had made, but because of the opinions of her
fictional characters.
The novel at the heart of the controversy, The Bastard of Istanbul,
follows four generations of women in two families – one in Turkey
and the second a group of migr s based in the United States. Among
the book’s offending statements is the line, “I am the grandchild
of genocide survivors who lost all their relatives at the hands of
Turkish butchers in 1915, but I myself have been brainwashed to deny
the genocide because I was raised by some Turk named Mustapha!”
Originally written in English, the novel was released in Turkey last
March and became an overnight bestseller, selling over 60,000 copies.
>From her home in Istanbul, Shafak spoke recently with the Jerusalem
Post.
You didn’t attend the September hearing against you because of your
pregnancy, but why was The Bastard of Istanbul a political target in
the first place?
I gave birth four days before my trial, so both the trial and the
delivery took place in the same week. The book became the target
of ultra-nationalists. These groups compose a very small segment
of the society, but because their voices are so loud and message so
aggressive, they manage to dominate the political agenda. There is
this nationalist backlash that wants to prevent Turkey’s European
Union membership. So they are targeting intellectuals deliberately.
We’re not the main targets. The main target is Turkey’s EU process.
What was the initial response to the novel? Were there changes to
this response during or following your trial?
The book came out on March 8, International Women’s Day. It was read
and circulated freely. The feedback that I received from different
segments of Turkish society has been incredibly positive … This
nationalist reaction, the backlash, came much later. My experience
with Turkish society is yes, I think people are discussing issues.
It’s not easy, but the civil society here is quite dynamic. That’s
why [the trials are] a pity, because nationalist groups are giving
the whole country a black eye.
Did thoughts of flight cross your mind during the trial, or did you
expect the verdict?
I wasn’t expecting this trial. It caught me by surprise, but I never
thought about abandoning Turkey, going away once and for all.
There is a metaphor I like very much in the Koran: it’s a tree called
Tuba that’s supposed to have roots up in the air. Sometimes when
my nationalist critics accuse me of having no roots, I say I feel
like the Tuba tree … My roots are in the air, not in the ground,
and when your roots are in the air you can feel connected to more
than one country, culture, and identity. I like that flexibility.
What is your response to this notion of a “clash of civilizations”?
What was your take on the Pope’s controversial recent statements
about Islam?
I found the Pope’s recent statements worrisome because we are living in
an increasingly polarized world and we don’t need further polarization
… There are very rigid ultra-religious within the Muslim world,
in the Christian world, and in the Jewish world, and I think that
these hardliners have a lot in common. They have the same mentality
based on exclusion, and they think they are better than others …
I do not believe there is a clash of civilizations between Islam and
the West, but I think there is a clash of opinions in each country. I
think Islam is … not one color or one voice. It is composed of
different voices, different interpretations, just like every other
religion. There are progressive, heterodox forces within Islamic
history and the Islamic domain. What worries me most is to see how
people on both sides believe in a clash of civilizations. I think
this is very dangerous.
What is the Turkish writer’s relationship with censored history?
For me, history is important, memory is important, a sense of
continuity is important. Turkey is a dynamic, future-oriented society,
but that potential for transformation came at the expense of memory
… The events of 1915 are part of that. Many Turks do not have a sense
of curiosity for our past. There is this mentality to let bygones be
bygones and a tendency to draw a clear demarcation line between past
and present.
Walter Benjamin has a metaphor I like very much. He said, “sometimes I
feel like I’m walking on a pile of rubble and I try to listen to the
sounds coming from beneath, to understand if there is still something
alive underneath that rubble.” Sometimes I try to see if there are
still stories or words that are alive under the ground and, when I
encounter something, I pull it from the ground, I shake off its dust
and put it in my novels so that it can live and circulate.
In fall 2005, you taught a course entitled “Gender Issues and Women’s
Literature in the Middle East” at the University of Arizona. You
asked, “Do women write differently than men? Are there essential
differences between Western women writers and those coming from the
Middle East?” How would you answer those questions?
These are questions that are very dear to me. I think about these
questions a lot. I don’t think there are fundamental differences
between women writers and male writers that are biologically determined
… our pen, our writing, should be bi-sexual; it should transcend
gender boundaries. And I am against making a distinction between
Middle Eastern writers and Western writers. I prefer to see each and
every writer in his or her own individuality.
Did you receive any threats to you or your family during the trial?
I have received some very poisonous letters, few in numbers, but
they were quite full of hatred and rage. That being said, it was
interesting to see that most of the [negative] letters came from Turks
living abroad, in America or in Europe. I tend to think immigrant Turks
[are] much more nationalist, religious or conservative than the Turks
in Turkey.
You’ve quoted Bertolt Brecht, “Unhappy the country that needs
heroes.” How would you respond to this, in terms of your relationship
with national heroes?
It troubles me very much. I think only true democracy can come from
below, from civil society, and it can be achieved collectively,
not individually.
When Turkish writers are persecuted, sometimes the Western media
treats us as if we were victims, and I don’t like that. I’m not a
victim. I’m not a hero, either. We don’t need individual heroes. We
need collective networks, collective movements of progressive people.
I think there should be more collaboration between progressive,
democratic forces in Turkey, in Israel, progressive democratic forces
in France. We don’t need heroes, but we need these movements, civil
society movements coming from below.

ARMENIAN LOBBY TRIES TO USE AUTHORITY OF NOBEL LAUREATE
Author: A.Alasgarov
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 17 2006
A Turkish writer, Orkhan Pamuk, who has been recently awarded the
Nobel Prize for his contribution to culture, is invited to present a
report at the European Parliament on the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’.
Trend Special Correspondent in Ankara reports that Pamuk received
this proposal from the Italian MP, Mario Rgetzio, who is well-known
for his pro-Armenian views.
Earlier Pamuk was criticized for his statements indirectly
acknowledging the Country’s guilt in the ‘termination of Armenians’.

IF PEACEFUL TALKS REGARDING NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT DON’T YIELD ANY RESULTS, AZERI ARMED FORCES TAKE STEPS – AZERI DM
Author: S.Ilhamgizi
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 17 2006
We hope that the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be
settled peacefully. However, should the talks prove to be unsuccessful,
the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan will, with the determination of the
Azeri people and the approval of the State Head, take action to release
the Azerbaijan land from the Armenian invaders, the Azerbaijan Defense
Minister, Colonel-General Safar Abiyev stated on 16 October in Baku
during the meeting with the delegation of the Ad Hoc Committee for
Future Defense and Security of the Defense and Security Committee
of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly which was headed by the Chairman,
Vahid Erdem.
The Defense Minister stressed that Azerbaijan co-operated with NATO
in 1994 within the framework of the Program “Partnership for peace”,
and since 2004 the co-operation has been continuing on the basis of
the Individual Partnership Action Plan. Abiyev informed the delegates
of the military-political situation in the region of South Caucasus,
as well as the history of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. He
stressed that placing large military arsenals in the Azerbaijani
territories occupied by Armenia imposes serious threats for the
large-scale economical projects in the region.
Erdem voiced his confidence that the conflict will be resolved
peacefully. He was interested in the structure of the Azerbaijani
Armed Forces, the military budget and the character of co-operation
with NATO. He stated that the participation of the Azerbaijani Armed
Forces in the peacemaking operations carried out by NATO testifies that
the relations between Azerbaijan and NATO are developing favorably.