MISUNDERSTANDING ISLAM II: IN DEFENSE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
Written by Gregory Borse

ChronWatch, CA
Dec 3 2006

Pope Benedict XVI has just returned from an historic visit to Turkey
and some find his trip remarkable more for what it was not rather
than for what it was: namely, a Christian challenge to Islam.

One example of criticism of the Pope’s visit is from the opinion
section of ABC News International. (I employ it here not because it
is exemplary, but because I think it typical).

In an article entitled "Pope’s Silence on Armenian Genocide Shameful",
Attorney Mark Geragos takes the Pontiff to task for his failure to
call attention to the many shortcomings of the Turkish government,
especially in regards to its refusal to admit to the Turkish sponsored
genocide of Armenians in 1915. Mr. Geragos, who is of Armenian descent,
is to be sympathized with-he is a board-member of the "All-Armenian
Fund," an organization dedicated to raising money in support of
substantial infrastructure improvement in Armenia.

Still, his article is perhaps representative of a type-open
criticism of a Christian leader in a post 9/11 world is less risky
than open criticism of Muslim sponsored terrorism, whether emanating
(historically) from Turkey or (presently) from Iran, Syria, or anywhere
else . . . just ask Salman Rushdie, or the family members of murdered
film maker Theo Van Gogh, or the cartoonists who offended Islam in
the Netherlands, or, for that matter, Pope Benedict himself, whose
remarks at Regensburg University in Germany last September caused such
controversy in the Muslim world and led to the murder of a Catholic
nun in Africa, prompting the would-be assassin of his predecessor,
John Paul the Great, to write a letter warning the present Pontiff
not to travel to Turkey . . .

Mr. Geragos’ opening salvo is to criticize Pope Benedict’s "ill
advised" remarks about the "legacy of Mohammed," in his speech
made at the University of Regensburg. Then, Benedict quoted what
Christopher Orlet called "the antepenultimate emperor of the
Byzantine Empire," the now little known Manuel II Paleologus (go
here: 368). At
the time, Paleologus was traveling 14th century Europe trying to
convince the Western and Eastern Christian Empires to set aside
their differences long enough to repel the Muslim threat against
Constantinople. Paleologus failed, Constantinople fell, and, as
Orlet writes, the "Roman-Byzantine Empire. . . disappear[ed] from
the earth forever."

The comments made by Benedict about Islam and jihad that so offended
Muslims-and apparently Geragos-were widely quoted: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only
evil and inhuman . . ."

But here is the context for the above from Benedict’s actual speech:

"In the seventh conversation
(διά&# 955;εξις – controversy)
edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of
the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads:
‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ According to some of the experts,
this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed
was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor
also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’
and the ‘infidels,’ he addresses his interlocutor with a startling
brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central
question about the relationship between religion and violence in
general, saying: ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached’. . . The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on
to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through
violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is not
pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν
&#95 5;όγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born
of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs
the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence
and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a
strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening
a person with death…’" (emphasis added).

(Go here for a translation of the Pope’s entire speech:
tml?sid=94748)

First, it must be understood that the Pope’s remarks are directed not
at Muslims specifically, but at members of the scientific community at
Regensburg University and his topic is not jihad or even violence in
the spreading of any religious faith, but the notion of the splitting
off of reason from faith (and the reverse) in our understanding not
only of religion or science, but of civilization, politics, society,
culture, and human nature. Benedict recognizes that Peleologus faced
a similar dilemma as we face today: he too lived in a world in which
two essential qualities of the human soul were increasingly at odds
with each other-reason and faith. That Benedict made his remarks to the
scientific community of a German University is telling, as it implies
that Europe’s current problems are rooted in the deep antagonism
that secular-humanist reason has especially toward the specifically
Christian faith upon which European civilization was built. But an
important and related corollary for the post 9/11 Western world is
the deeply antagonistic attitude that a radical interpretation of
Islamic faith has of reason of any kind. And Benedict seems not to
have chosen his words by accident.

In a world in which people who have abandoned faith in favor of reason
are pitted against people who have abandoned reason in favor of faith,
disaster lurks.

Hence, to call Benedict’s comments "ill-advised" is simply to
betray a deep ignorance. Benedict’s remarks are the antithesis of
ill-advised-they are quite carefully considered, crafted, precise,
and deliberate-nuanced even. They imply that Europe today faces a
double enemy-one within and one without. And Europe’s denial of the
enemy within (the insistence upon a false dichotomy between reason
and faith) is precisely the weakness that invites the enemy without
(which operates according to a false dichotomy that pits faith against
reason). In this sense, Benedict is a kind of Winston Churchill on
the eve of World War II-warning Europe that it is on the verge of a
disaster, not only because it cannot and will not recognize the enemy
that openly defies it at every turn, but also because it refuses to
assess appropriately those weaknesses of its own character that may
well prove to be suicidal.

To be fair, Geragos’ real concern, something he credits "more
discerning" members of the European Union for being able to recognize,
is "Turkey’s ongoing legacy of intolerance and oppression." Such
a statement, however, in an article that uses the War in Iraq as a
framing device to imply that any success by that measure is actually
failure, is rather astonishing. Turkey, among Muslim nations,
is a model of moderation-from a Western, and especially American,
point of view. And yet, if Geragos is to be believed (and I have
no reason to doubt any facts Geragos offers about life in Turkey
for its non-Muslim minorities), Turkey ought not to be admitted to
the European Union until it "adopt[s] something other than medieval
standards of justice." Geragos’ clear implication is that the Pope,
as a leader of the Christian world, has missed a real opportunity
to instruct the Muslims in Turkey regarding lessons important to
their civilization and, perhaps more significantly, about joining
ours. This assumes, of course, that the European civilizational model
is superior to Turkey’s and that they ought to want to join Europe,
rather than desire to make the EU like them . .

.a stance that is, Mr. Geragos might be interested to know,
antithetical to the prevailing liberal view (according to which all
cultures are equally valid, including Turkey’s–even when it sponsors
Armenian genocide).

But did Benedict actually miss the opportunity presented to him by
his being received in Turkey?

Perhaps a look at some of Benedict’s own words would be
enlightening. Here is part of what he said to the President of the
Religious Affairs Directorate in Turkey:

"For more than forty years, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council
has inspired and guided the approach taken by the Holy See and by local
Churches throughout the world to relations with the followers of other
religions. Following the Biblical tradition, the Council teaches that
the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny:
God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Christians
and Muslims belong to the family of those who believe in the one
God and who, according to their respective traditions, trace their
ancestry to Abraham (cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate 1,
3). This human and spiritual unity in our origins and our destiny
impels us to seek a common path as we play our part in the quest for
fundamental values so characteristic of the people of our time. As men
and women of religion, we are challenged by the widespread longing
for justice, development, solidarity, freedom, security, peace,
defense of life, protection of the environment and of the resources
of the earth. This is because we too, while respecting the legitimate
autonomy of temporal affairs, have a specific contribution to offer
in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions.

Above all, we can offer a credible response to the question which
emerges clearly from today’s society, even if it is often brushed
aside, the question about the meaning and purpose of life, for
each individual and for humanity as a whole. We are called to work
together, so as to help society to open itself to the transcendent,
giving Almighty God his rightful place. The best way forward is
via authentic dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on
truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better,
respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common. This
will lead to an authentic respect for the responsible choices that
each person makes, especially those pertaining to fundamental values
and to personal religious convictions" (emphasis added).

These words are significant given that they were delivered to an
almost entirely Muslim audience. For, they deny some fundamental
Muslim realities. First and foremost, they seek to lay as common
ground between Christians and Muslims that we share a belief in "one
God." But, the Muslim faith denies the Holy Trinity-and, more to the
point, counts Christians as infidels precisely for their expressed
belief in "one God in Three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

According to Islam, this makes Christians idolators and pagans. But is
this a mistake on Benedict’s part? Perhaps it is an indication that one
of the world’s leading Christian theologians is not very well versed
in the Islamic faith. It would be naïve to believe that to be the
case. Pope Benedict is quite well aware of the differences between
Christianity’s understanding of God and Islam’s. His deliberately
quoting that bit about the 14th century Paleologus’ dialogue with a
"learned Persian" proves it. And yet, in a pilgrimage to Turkey-on
a trip that he was warned not to take in a letter from the would-be
assassin of his predecessor, John Paul the Great-a land rich in
Christian history (Benedict said Mass in Ephesus, honored by both
Muslims and Christians as the home if not the final resting place
of the Virgin Mother), he makes these remarks. They are not a
mistake. They are a challenge.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger chose his name, upon his election as
Pontiff, deliberately-pointing to two other Benedicts, especially,
as foundations for his present pontificate. He explained his choice
of name this way:

"Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak
of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict
XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through
turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the
service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally,
I recall Saint Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life
evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all
to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life:
May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions"
(go here for quote: ).

So, his name evokes two dedicated to Europe-one in "turbulent times
of war" and the other the "co-patron" of Europe, "whose life evokes
the Christian roots of Europe." Significantly, St. Benedict, founder
of the Benedictine Order and of Western Monasticism, is the principal
model in Europe for Christian life as a balance between prayer and
work-in other words, between our concerns for our relations with the
divine and for our relations with our fellow man. The implication is
clear-we must care for both if we are to be whole-as individuals and
as culture-bearers.

It is those Christian roots that are, at present, under attack-not
only in Europe, but in the West. And this Pope has assumed his role
as a Christian leader in a time that requires someone able to see the
forest, as it were, despite the trees. In an age that plays witness
to the ramifications of the war between reason and faith, Benedict
has stepped forth to speak directly to the consequences of such an
artificial-and potentially fatal-bifurcation of the very nature of
man. He makes such comments in the breach. He does so, now, directly
(as at Regensburg) and indirectly, as in Turkey.

And, for such a one, there will be nothing but persecution-from those
within the Europe whose very nature he wishes to preserve and from
those without, members of the Islamic faith, to whom he offers the
olive branch of peace, and an invitation to a coexistence in the
mutual recognition of not merely a common humanity, but a common
humanity rooted in the Divine.

Perhaps the fact that his gestures are being rejected by both parties
is a sign that he is right.

Related: "Misunderstanding Islam" by Gregory Borse
play.asp?aid=23917&catcode=13

–Boundary_(ID_ Z550TtsHZXwhw82+MOK+OQ)–

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

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Dec 3 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 December 2006, JTW

+++

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

E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

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

=2373

LAS VEGAS POLICE OFFICERS CLEARED IN TASER DEATH

KVOA.com, AZ
Dec 3 2006

LAS VEGAS — A coroner’s inquest jury has cleared two Las Vegas police
officers of wrongdoing in the death of a schizophrenic man who choked
to death after being shocked by a Taser gun.

The jury deliberated for 40 minutes before ruling that officers Michael
Martin and Stephen Cwalinski took excusable action when they shocked
29-year-old Vardan Kasilyan twice with a stun gun while trying to
subdue him in his parent’s apartment.

His parents, Areknaz and Vrezh Kasilyan, told the jury their son was
handcuffed at the time, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Saturday.

Medical examiner Dr. Gary Telgenhoff testified Friday that Vardan
Kasilyan died by choking on his own vomit. He said contributing
factors were Kasilyan’s use of methamphetamine and cocaine a short
time before the incident, the mental illness and the use of the Taser.

Areknaz Kasilyan just wanted to get her son to the hospital, she
testified through an Armenian interpreter.

Her son hadn’t been taking his medications and she was afraid he
might hurt himself, she said.

"I didn’t want police to come. I wanted just an ambulance to come to
help him," Kasilyan said.

An ambulance and the officers showed up at the apartment shortly
after Areknaz Kasilyan called for help at about 9:00 p.m. on Sept. 30.

She told the 911 dispatcher that her son might be armed with a
screwdriver or small knife. She made the call discreetly because
when she made a similar call two years ago, her son had jumped from
the second floor when he saw emergency vehicles and broke both legs,
she told the jury.

The officers did not wait for a crisis intervention team member,
who is trained to deal with mentally ill people, before entering
the apartment.

"There was a sense of urgency because we could hear a male voice and
a female voice adamantly arguing," Martin testified.

When he saw the officer in the apartment, Vardan Kasilyan moved toward
a patio door, Martin said.

Martin said he ordered Vardan Kasilyan to show his hands, but he
wouldn’t comply. Martin said he fired his Taser because he worried
Vardan Kasilyan might attack with a screwdriver, escape through the
patio door or grab what Martin thought was a shotgun on the floor
nearby.

The item on the floor was a black metal cane that Vardan Kasilyan
has used since he broke both legs, his father testified.

The officers said they then tackled Vardan Kasilyan to the ground
and tried to handcuff him. Martin was able to put cuffs on his right
hand, but Cwalinski couldn’t get the left hand out from under Vardan
Kasilyan’s body, they said.

The officers shocked Kasilyan again, handcuffed him and rolled him
to his side when he began to vomit immediately, they said.

Paramedics took him to the hospital, where he died.

Both parents testified that police shocked their son while his hands
were handcuffed behind his back.

The officers said they wouldn’t have done anything differently.

"In my mind, there’s nothing we could have done," Martin said. "I
would have to do exactly what I was trained to do and do what I did
that night."

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal,

asp?S=5760175

CAUCASUS: AZERBAIJANI, ARMENIAN, KARABAKH OFFICIALS ASSESS TALKS
Liz Fuller

EurasiaNet, NY
Dec 2 2006

A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL

Over the past 12 months, the three co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk
Group that seeks to mediate a solution to the Karabakh conflict have
warned repeatedly that upcoming elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan
could scupper chances of reaching a peace settlement.

rmenia is due to hold parliamentary elections in 2007. Both Armenia
and Azerbaijan will hold presidential elections in 2008.

In the run-up to those ballots, the co-chairs reason, the two
countries’ leaders will be reluctant to agree on the serious mutual
compromises that a settlement will inevitably necessitate.

Consequently, a sense of urgency has imbued successive meetings this
year between either the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers
or the two countries’ presidents.

The meeting in Minsk on November 28 between Armenian President
Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev was
thus widely perceived as the last chance for some time to reach even
a preliminary agreement.

Comments On Azerbaijani TV

The two presidents did not issue any formal statement after their
meeting in Minsk. But Aliyev told Azerbaijani National Television on
November 29 that since the so-called "Prague process" talks between the
Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers on approaches to resolving
the conflict began, the negotiating process has gone through several
stages. "We are approaching the final stage," he said.

The first Prague talks took place in April 2004, and Aliyev has met
with Kocharian seven times since then; the Minsk meeting was their
third this year.

Aliyev said the Minsk talks "were held in a constructive way," and
that "we managed to a find a solution to a number of problems we could
not agree on before." He added, however, that "divergences remain on
crucial points," and that further progress "depends on us ourselves,"
presumably meaning the conflict sides, as opposed to the Minsk Group.

Position ‘Unchanged’

Aliyev stressed that "Azerbaijan’s negotiating position remains
unchanged," insofar as any solution must preserve Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity. He further stressed that Azerbaijani displaced
persons (whose number he said exceeds 1 million, compared with UNHCR
estimates of 800,000) must be enabled to return to their homes.

Aliyev also said the four resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh adopted by
the UN Security Council (in 1993, and which call for an immediate and
unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied Azerbaijani
territory) must be fulfilled.

He said the population of Nagorno-Karabakh "must be provided with
the highest form of self-government" possible within Azerbaijan. The
constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic defines the Nakhichevan
Republic as an autonomous republic within the Azerbaijan Republic,
with its own parliament, but makes no mention of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenia, however, rules out any "vertical subordination" of the NKR
to the central Azerbaijani government.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, who with his Armenian
counterpart Vartan Oskanian also traveled to Minsk, similarly
described the meeting between the two presidents in a December 1
interview with day.az. He said the meeting took place in a productive
and open atmosphere.

Mammadyarov said that only one issue remains on which the two
presidents have failed to reach agreement, but he declined to
specify what it is, referring to the need to keep the peace process
confidential. He added that he plans to meet in Brussels on December
4-5 with Oskanian and the Minsk Group co-chairs.

Foreign Minister Oskanian for his part was more guarded in his
comments on the Minsk meeting, telling journalists on his return to
Yerevan late on November 28 that "I cannot say concretely whether
progress was made or not, but both presidents assessed the meeting
as positive in terms of atmosphere and constructive approaches,"
RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported on November 29.

Echoing Aliyev, Oskanian said the presidents "mainly concentrated on
the issues in the document on which no agreement has been reached,"
presumably an allusion to a half-page document, drafted by the Minsk
Group co-chairs and enumerating general principles, that the two
presidents discussed earlier this year.

Oskanian also said that the elections due in Armenia next spring
"will not interrupt" the ongoing peace negotiations, but he admitted
that they could make it more difficult to reach any agreement.

Lacking Armenian Response

Kocharian declined to comment on the talks. In Stepanakert, however,
Armen Melikian, an aide to Arkady Ghukasian, president of the
self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), expressed concern
over the implications of President Aliyev’s pronouncements.

"If President Aliyev is saying that the process is moving in a
positive direction, that is quite dangerous in itself," Melikian
told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service on November 30. "To my knowledge,
his idea of a positive direction is that Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be
an independent and sovereign state."

As outlined by the Minsk Group co-chairmen in June, the draft peace
plan under discussion envisages the gradual withdrawal of Armenian
forces from territory they currently occupy contiguous to the NKR;
the demilitarization of that territory, including the strategic
Lachin corridor and Kelbacar, and the deployment of an international
peacekeeping force; then, at some future date, the future status of
the NKR vis-a-vis the Azerbaijani central government would be decided
in a "popular vote or referendum." Insofar as the population of the
NKR is overwhelmingly ethnic Armenian, such a vote would indubitably
register support for independence.

Even so, Melikian admitted to RFE/RL in February that the Karabakh
leadership is not enthusiastic about that draft proposal. He said
that any discussion of a referendum is inappropriate in light of
Baku’s a priori insistence that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity
must be preserved at all costs.

The Armenian leadership, for its part, has repeatedly made clear that
it will not sign any final peace settlement that is unacceptable to
the NKR.

YOUNG ARMENIANS LIGHT UP RUGBY FEST
Anupama Bagri

Kolkata Newsline, India
Dec 2 2006

Kolkata, December 2: There was a different ball game on at the East
Bengal ground today. With the lovely winter afternoon serving as the
ideal backdrop, it was carnival time again as the London School of
Commerce Kolkata Rugby Tens returned to the city in its second year.

The Londoners – the lone contingent from across seven seas – have
been pooled with CCFC and Future Hope, two of the toughest teams
in the city circuit. The boys from LSC may have had a forgettable
day on the field losing both their group matches, but team manager
Judy Parkes said the team is here to enjoy. "The weather here is
just perfect. Back home it’s rainy and cold. The boys may not win,
but they are happy to be part of the sport here," she said.

Meanwhile, the Armenian College team celebrated their entry into the
semi-finals with comprehensive wins over Ashalayam and Jungle Crows.

They huddled together and allowed themselves a loud cheer, their faces
looking brighter than the red jerseys they were sporting. "It’s the
first time since 1997 that we are fielding a full team. We are all
overjoyed having made the semis," said a beaming coach David Purdy.

The Armenians returned to the rugby circuit last season having been
out of business since 1997. As Purdy explained: "There weren’t too
many boys coming to India to study. And, the pool here was either
too young or too old to play. So we had to wait all this while for
the kids to grow up and now we can field a full strength team. I’m
happy we have done well since our return to the circuit."

The boys in red are the youngest team in fray at the Tens, with the
age group varying between 13-19. Captain Armen Markaryan, 17, says it’s
"exciting to lead a side that is young, energetic and raring to go."

The Armenians won the seven-a-side meet at the Police Bodyguard Lines
last month and are now looking to add the Tens title to their kitty.

"We won the plate last time, this year we don’t want to settle for
anything less than the winners trophy," the burly Purdy said.

The adrenaline level is high, the setting is perfect and the colts
are hungry for success. As Purdy said before leaving the ground with
his boys, "We are the side to watch out for in the future."

Today’s results: Future Hope beat CCFC 46-0, Jungle Crows beat
Ashalayam 35-5, Orissa beat LMOB 41-5, YRC beat Bangalore 12-7, CCFC
beat LSC 17-10, Armenian College beat Ashalayam 29-0, TNS Police beat
Orissa 22-0, Future Hope beat LSC 44-5, Armenian College beat Jungle
Crows 17-5, TNS Police beat LMOB 46-0.

p?newsid=211782

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IF TURKEY RECOGNISES THE VENDEE GENOCIDE IN FRANCE

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Dec 2 2006

* France Warned Turks Could Scrutinize their History

France, which is preparing to pass a law to penalize those who deny
the alleged Armenian genocide, received a historical warning from its
own public that it should not history like Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s
Germany, and Mao’s China and leave history to historians.

Historian Henri Amouroux, a member of the prestigious Institut de
France spoke out against the political move to penalize the denial
of the alleged Armenian genocide and mentioned the 1792-1794 Vendee
massacres.

In his article in Le Figaro, Amouroux asked what would happen if the
Turks recognized the Vendee genocide. He said that the French would
certainly respond that this was none of their business and they should
first look at their own past.

Stating this would be a "reasonable" decision, the French historian
wrote it was unacceptable for the Turks to attempt to ban a denied
but apologized for historical issue freely discussed in France.

Amouroux later recalled the terrible massacres in Vendee conducted
by the Republican Army and said no law in France bans discussing or
denying the Vendee genocide.

"The task of the politicians is not to impose their own realities,
let us leave history to time," Amouroux said. The French historian
reiterated the historical manipulations in Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s
Germany and Mao’s China and warned French politicians not to make
the same mistake.

Amouroux said he thinks his country’s legislators "do not intend to
imitate the shame of those making up an official history."

The 1792-1794 Vendee incidents are one of the taboo issues of France’s
history.

People working on farms in several regions in Western France revolted
against the Republican government’s practices to defend their freedom,
church, and king.

Angry at the revolt, Paris initiated a terrible massacre in Vendee.

About 380,000 of the 900,000 people living in Vendee were murdered
in the 1790s, General Hoche informed.

The methods of the Republican army, which including strangling,
burning, and drowning, still spark reactions.

Several French historians regard the incidents as genocide whereas
the state rejects it.

0

POPE’S ADDRESS IN ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CATHEDRAL

Catholic Online, CA
Dec 2 2006

"To Heal the Wounds of Separation"

ISTANBUL, Turkey, DEC. 2, 2006 (Zenit) – Here is Benedict XVI’s
address to Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafina, delivered Thursday during
the celebration of the Word in the Armenian Apostolic Cathedral of
Istanbul. It followed the patriarch’s own address.

* * *

Dear Brother in Christ,

I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet Your Beatitude in
this very place where Patriarch Kalustian welcomed my predecessors
Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. With great affection I greet
the entire Armenian Apostolic community over which you preside as
shepherd and spiritual father. My fraternal greeting goes also to
His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of Holy Etchmiadzin, and the
hierarchy of the Armenian Apostolic Church. I give thanks to God for
the Christian faith and witness of the Armenian people, transmitted
from one generation to the next, often in very tragic circumstances
such as those experienced in the last century.

Our meeting is more than a simple gesture of ecumenical courtesy
and friendship. It is a sign of our shared hope in God’s promises
and our desire to see fulfilled the prayer that Jesus offered for
his disciples on the eve of his suffering and death: "that they may
all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I in you, may they also
be one in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me"
(Jn 17:21). Jesus gave his life on the Cross to gather into one the
dispersed children of God, to break down the walls of division.

Through the sacrament of Baptism, we have been incorporated into
the Body of Christ, the Church. The tragic divisions which, over
time, have arisen among Christ’s followers openly contradict the
Lord’s will, give scandal to the world and damage that most holy
cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature (cf. "Unitatis
Redintegratio," 1). Precisely by the witness of their faith and love,
Christians are called to offer a radiant sign of hope and consolation
to this world, so marked by conflicts and tensions. We must continue
therefore to do everything possible to heal the wounds of separation
and to hasten the work of rebuilding Christian unity. May we be guided
in this urgent task by the light and strength of the Holy Spirit.

In this respect I can only offer heartfelt thanks to the Lord for the
deeper fraternal relationship that has developed between the Armenian
Apostolic Church and the Catholic Church. In the thirteenth century,
Nerses of Lambron, one of the great Doctors of the Armenian Church,
wrote these words of encouragement: "Now, since we all need peace
with God, let its foundation be harmony among the brethren. We have
prayed to God for peace and continue to do so. Look, he is now giving
it to us as a gift: let us welcome it! We asked the Lord to make
his holy Church solid, and he has willingly heard our plea. Let us
climb therefore the mountain of the Gospel faith!" ("Il Primato della
Carita," Ed. Qiqajon, p. 81). These words of Nerses have lost nothing
of their power. Together let us continue to pray for the unity of
all Christians, so that, by receiving this gift from above with open
hearts, we may be ever more convincing witnesses of the truth of the
Gospel and better servants of the Church’s mission.

[Original text: English]

Copyright 2006 — Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Contact: Catholic Online CA, US Catholic
Online – Publisher, 661-869-1000 Email: [email protected]

g/featured/headline.php?ID=3858

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NO XENOPHOBIA IN RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN RELATIONS – MEDVEDEV

ITAR-TASS, Russia
Dec 2 2006

ST. PETERSBURG, December 2 (Itar-Tass) – There can be Xenophobia
in Russian-Armenian relations, First Vice-Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev said.

Speaking at a closing ceremony devoted to Year of Armenia in Russia on
Saturday, Medvedev said, "Russia and Armenia have always understood
each other and preserved a centuries-long experience of tolerant
relations."

He noted that in recent years Russia faced Xenophobia. In his
words, "such ideas cannot be supported by the state where over 100
nationalities live. Over centuries we lived in one state. It is not
only a geopolitical moment – we have a common history, joint labour,
and common tests and achievements."

"The fates of Russia and Armenia are closely inter-related," Medvedev
stressed.

At the end of his speech Medvedev spoke the Armenian language that
was welcomed by hot applauses.

THE POPE IN TURKEY
By Mukremin Albayrak, Sezai Kalayci, Istanbul

Zaman Online, Turkey
Dec 2 2006

Pope Benedict XVI’s Turkey visit, which was closely followed by the
world press with great interest and curiosity, turned out to be far
more positive and beneficial than expected.

The pope gave a much anticipated message at the Blue Mosque. The pope
faced toward the holiest sanctuary of Islam, the Kaaba, in Mecca with
Istanbul Mufti Prof. Dr. Mustafa Cagrici and stood in meditation and
prayed with his hands folded in the proper Muslim prayer position.

With this gesture of goodwill, the pontiff had provided great
support to inter-religious dialogue and the project of alliance of
civilizations. Also giving warm messages for Turkey’s EU membership,
the pope showed his close relationship to Patriarch Bartholomew and
the two churches, by holding his hand.

After the pope’s speech at Regensburg University in Germany, which had
prompted world-wide reactions in the Islamic world, the visit to Turkey
was an issue of global interest. About 2,000 journalists from Turkey
and abroad had made reservations to follow his visit. There were also
various conspiracy theories about his meeting with Patriarch of the
Fener Greek Patriarchate Bartholomew. As expected, the pope mentioned
the Fener Greek patriarch as being "ecumenical," but he balanced his
speech with his sincere prayers and wishes for unity in the Middle
East. During the visit to Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II, Benedict XVI
never mentioned the word "genocide." The pope not only made visits
to the spiritual leaders of the biggest congregations in Istanbul,
but also to the heads of the Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic churches
and the chief rabbi of Turkey, thus giving important messages about
interreligious dialogue.

The most important parts of the visit were the Hagia Sophia and the
Blue Mosque. Frustrating theories that he was going to pray in Hagia
Sophia, the pope toured the huge museum like an ordinary tourist while
he chose to pray in the Blue Mosque. Both native and foreign news
agencies broadcasted this historical moment to the world describing it
as the most striking part of the visit. The pope gave very positive
messages about tolerance and dialogue. He demonstrated his love and
respect for the Turkish nation by first saying "We’d like to see Turkey
in the European Union" and secondly by waving the Turkish Flag given
to him in Ephesus. These gestures of goodwill of the pope made a great
contribution to the project of alliance of civilizations. Pope Benedict
XVI left Turkey saying, "part of my heart will remain in Istanbul."

ANKARA CONDEMNS ARMENIAN BILL IN ARGENTINA
By Cihan News Agency

Zaman Online, Turkey
Dec 2 2006

Turkey has condemned the adoption of a draft bill regarding the
so-called Armenian genocide in the Chamber of Deputies of Argentina
and called for a refusal of the bill.

On Nov. 29, the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the bicameral
Argentinean Parliament, passed a draft bill on the Armenian claims.

During the debates, at least eight lawmakers spoke about the draft,
which passed with 175 votes in favor and 2 abstentions.

Recalling that Turkey opened its archives to international historians
to conduct research on the allegations of the Armenians, Turkish
Foreign Ministry condemned the passage of such bills in a statement
issued on Friday.

"We condemn and find it unacceptable the adoption of such drafts
snubbing Turkey’s proposals to examine its archives and presenting
baseless Armenian allegations as if they were unquestionable historical
facts," the statement said.

The law, which still must be ratified by the Argentine Senate to become
a law, designates every April 24 as the Day for Tolerance and Respect
between Nations in memory of the "genocide of the Armenian people."

The statement also accentuated that the draft in question was not also
violating historical fact but also the international laws, adding that
it would damage the sprit of relations between Turkey and Argentina.

The ministry also requested that the draft be rejected by Argentinean
Senate, the upper house of the parliament, and prevented from being
enacted.