JACQUES CHIRAC EN ARMENIE POUR UN “VOYAGE DE MEMOIRE”
par Alain Barluet
Le Figaro, France
30 septembre 2006
CERTAINS VOYAGES officiels promettent plus d’emotion que d’autres.
Cette visite d’Etat de deux jours, la première d’un president francais
en Armenie, s’annonce chargee de symboles. Arrive hier soir a Erevan,
Jacques Chirac rendra hommage ce matin au million et demi d’Armeniens
massacres par l’Empire ottoman entre 1915 et 1917. Dans l’entourage de
Jacques Chirac, on parle d’un “voyage de memoire et de retrouvailles
entre deux peuples”. En Armenie, il entend apporter le soutien d’une
“vieille nation”, la France a une “jeune republique independante
(depuis septembre 1991, NDLR) “. Cette visite est aussi pour le
chef d’Etat l’occasion de corriger son image “pro-turque”, alors
que la perspective d’une entree d’Ankara dans l’Union europeenne
suscite toujours une large hostilite dans la classe politique et
dans l’opinion.
Pour Paris, comme pour l’Union europeenne, il n’existe aucun lien
direct entre l’adhesion turque et la reconnaissance du genocide,
un terme recuse par Ankara qui soutient que des massacres, commis
de part et d’autre, ont fait de 300 a 500 000 morts. A Strasbourg,
mercredi, les eurodeputes ont d’ailleurs refuse de considerer cette
reconnaissance comme un prealable a l’adhesion. Jacques Chirac
vient toutefois de souligner la conditionnalite implicite entre les
deux demarches. Interviewe cette semaine par le magazine Nouvelles
d’Armenie, le chef de l’Etat reaffirme qu’il est “essentiel” a ses
yeux de voir la Turquie arrimee a l’Occident. Mais il relève aussi
que “l’Europe, c’est d’abord un effort de reconciliation, de paix,
de respect et d’ouverture aux autres”, ajoutant que cela “s’est
traduit toujours et partout par un effort de memoire”. “L’adhesion a
l’UE est une adhesion a des valeurs”, resume-t-on a l’Elysee où l’on
estime que les Turcs sont maintenant disposes a engager une reflexion
sur l’histoire qui prendra necessairement du temps. Voyage très
suivi par Ankara Ce voyage sera suivi très attentivement a Ankara,
d’autant qu’une autre echeance se profile. Le 12 octobre prochain,
les deputes francais devraient reprendre l’examen d’un projet de loi
socialiste visant a sanctionner la negation du genocide armenien. Ce
texte, destine a completer la loi du 29 janvier 2001 par laquelle la
France reconnaissait le genocide, prevoit de penaliser a hauteur de 45
000 euros et d’un an d’emprisonnement les propos negationnistes. La
proposition de loi avait deja ete examinee en mai dernier et suscite
de fortes divisions a gauche comme a droite. A cause d’une bataille
de procedure et du peu d’empressement du president de l’Assemblee,
Jean-Louis Debre, elle n’avait finalement pas ete soumise au vote.
L’affaire avait surtout provoque la colère de la Turquie qui y avait
vu un nouveau “coup bas” pour lui barrer la route de l’Europe. Ankara
avait meme brandi la menace de represailles economiques contre la
France. L’issue du vote, s’il a lieu, est incertaine, nombre de deputes
UMP etant favorables au texte. L’ire d’Ankara pourrait etre ravivee.
–Boundary_(ID_bFiq8BZdiKTHLUtYvFhlsA)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“WE SHOULD DOUBLE OUR EFFORTS AND CARRY ON MORE DELICATE DIPLOMACY,” VARTAN OSKANIAN SAYS
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Sept 29 2006
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 29, NOYAN TAPAN. “Placing of the issue on protracted
conflicts in the post-Soviet area on the agenda of UN General Assembly
on the initiative of GUAM is not Azerbaijan’s diplomatic victory
and does not cause our anxiety.” RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
declared this at the September 29 press conference.
At the same time, he emphasized that this policy of Azerbaijan is
unequivocally a new challenge for the Armenian side: “One thing is
when you fight one country and another thing is four countries at the
same international instance and in this sense this is a new challenge,
but this does not intimidate us. We should double our efforts and
carry on more delicate diplomacy,” Vartan Oskanian declared adding:
“I cannot make prognoses, but we have no problems connected with
processes in UN.”
The Minister emphasized that Nagorno Karabakh Republic’s participation
is always on the agenda of the negotiations process. At the same
time, if the resolution on protracted conflicts is approved by the
General Assembly, NKR’s participation in the negotiations will become a
necessity and Armenia remaining in the negotiations process “will throw
off from itself the main burden of conducting the negotiations.” He
again reminded that the decisions of UN General Assembly have only
a consultation character and are not subject, in difference to the
decisions of UN Security Council, to obligatory fulfilment.
Touching upon the forthcoming visit of French President Jacques Chirac
to Armenia, Vartan Oskanian declared that this is a historical and very
important visit having a very important political significance. Issues
of political, economic and cultural cooperation will be discussed
within the framework of the visit. The Minister reminded that France
is one of the OSCE Minsk Group country co-chairs and President
Chirac himself takes an active part in the peaceful settlement of
the conflict.
The Minister did not exclude Armenian servicemen’s possible
participation in the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. However, for
this, in his words, we should wait until Israel gives maps of mine
fields. The Minister declared that the issue on sending sappers
“is on our agenda.”

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL¯: HRANT DINK IS “PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE”
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Sept 28 2006
WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 28, NOYAN TAPAN. The American ®Amnesty
International¯ organization expressed its indignation on the occasion
that a criminal action was brought already for the third time with
accusation of “humiliating the Turk” against Hrant Dink, the editor
of the Armenian “Akos” newspaper of Istanbul. “Article 310 must not
only be changed but comletely be taken out of the Criminal Code,”
is said in the statement of the organization.
According to the “Turkish Weekly” periodical, the American organization
believes that this prosecution towards Dink is a bright example
of those pressures which are used against journalists peacefully
making use of their liberty of expression. And Turkey as a state
singed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Right, has a legal commitment to carry out them,”
the statement authors emphasized.
The organization that considered Dink to be “a prisoner of conscience”
demands from the Turkish judicial system to justify him.
–Boundary_(ID_j7xw95CMiBQmRecCbdyMKQ)–

IS BUSH A REVOLUTIONARY?
By Lee P. Ruddin
History News Network, WA
Oct 1 2006
Mr. Ruddin holds an LL.B; MRes (International Security) and a PgCert
(History: Imperialism and Culture).
Many detractors have berated President George W. Bush, condemning
him for jettisoning two centuries of custom. Lafayette History
Professor Arnold Offner was just one who asserted that Bush’s
new policy (the ‘Bush Doctrine’) was an extremely radical–indeed
revolutionary–departure from American practice. National Security
Tsar Stephen Hadley has even weighed in (though not intending to
disparage his chief) underlining the revolutionary ethos of his boss’s
doctrine. Across the pond too, commentators have drained their pen
cartridges accentuating the steroid-driven American exceptionalism
reigning over contemporary US foreign policy.
Undergirding such ‘knowledgeable ignorance’ lay in the cavalier
dismissal of ‘Dubya’ as brainless or as non-compos mentis as King
George III. Put simply, this apocalyptic tsunami of ink projects that
Bush is a Czarina Alexandra-like vacant vassal hijacked by a baleful
neo-conservative cabal-anguished by the worst case of Stockholm
syndrome-who are executing their revolutionary manifesto.
The magnetism of employing history to resolve foreign dilemmas
remains a subject of ongoing contestation. Ernest May has carried
out the most sustained exploration of the phenomenon. In Lessons of
the Past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy,
May effectively argues that to a large extent, America’s Cold War
strategy was supported by analogies to the appeasement policies of
the 1930s and the necessity of avoiding a repeat of history.
Inspired by the British-born Harvard don Niall Ferguson, I illumine the
telestorian’s (my word) affirmation, whereby “the terrorist attacks
of September 11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq-in their
long-run historical context, suggest … that they represent less
of a break with the past than is commonly believed.” Unlike former
Secretary of State Dean Acheson, I do not seek precedents to refute
any allegations of wrongdoing; rather I refute the revolutionary brand.
“The [9/11] terrorist attacks influenced Bush the way Pearl Harbour
affected Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the way the advance of
the Communists in Greece and Turkey after World War II affected Harry
Truman.” So stated Fred Barnes, author of the recent dazzling book
entitled Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency
of George W. Bush. From FDR to Truman, a novel policy backing the
use of military force seeking to substitute tyranny was executed.
However, on national security, the executive editor of the Weekly
Standard professed that “Bush is indisputably Reagan’s successor.
Like Reagan, Bush is a moralist and an idealist” (on steroids)
vigorously tackling the gravest threat to US security in his respective
time.
However, is Reagan the most fitting suitor for Bush? By the time Reagan
became President, the US had been fighting World War III (Cold War)
for 33 years; by contrast, World War IV (as named by Norman Podhoretz)
started only after Bush entered the White House. “In this respect,”
Podhoretz states “it is not Reagan to whom Bush should be compared,
but Harry Truman.” In 1947, at a time when countless commentators
pooh-poohed the Soviet menace, Truman believed it was an aggressive
totalitarian force, which was plunging the world into a disparate world
war. Of similar ilk, Bush understood that (Islamo) Bolshevism was “the
heir of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century.” However,
such scholarly analogies can be rapidly dismissed when just simply
quoting the President. It would appear that Bush does not seem to be
concerned about his place in history. “History.
We won’t know,” he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. “We’ll all
be dead.” The philosophy of John Buchan is apposite at this juncture:
“If the past to a man is nothing but a dead hand, then in common
honesty he must be an advocate of revolution.”
Actually, the scaffolding of President Bush’s National Security
Strategy (NSS) was constructed by another president, President
Eisenhower, practically five decades previously. The liaison is
all too evident. Both Presidents announced their doctrine before
a joint session of congress. Together they stressed that Middle
Easterners could no longer remain on the sidelines-they had to
declare themselves in the contest between freedom and Bolshevism
(both conventional and Ferguson’s ‘Islamo’)–“to stand up and be
counted,” and “you are either with us or against us.” Furthermore,
both doctrines were borne by the catalysing events orchestrated by
quasi-Caliphs: Gamal Abdel Nasser and Osama Bin Laden.
In the wake of the (initial) astoundingly clear-cut victory in
Afghanistan, Bush, Cheney and Pentagon officials experienced an
indistinguishable rush of national power and corresponding illusion
of omnipotence that the McKinley administration had experienced
after the “splendid little war” against Spain. In 1899, the McKinley
administration set aside qualms regarding overseas expansion and
annexed the Philippines. In 2002, the Bush administration sidetracked
objections to invade Iraq. Niall Ferguson cites Mark Twain who
described McKinley as the man, “who had sent US troops to fight with
a disgraced musket under a polluted flag and suggested that the flag
in question should have the white stripes painted black and the stars
and stripes replaced by the skull and bones.”
Despite the vast repertoire of historical continuity in US foreign
policy-both venerable and ominous-history does not always bequeath
laudable precedents. However, when overruled is this revolutionary? I
would concede that the fundamental departure of the Bush Doctrine
was not so much the theory as the practice. When Bush stated that he
was “prepared to fight for freedom in every corner of the world,” he
actually meant it-bizarrely enough. This is conflicting with Woodrow
Wilson’s empty universal rhetoric. The 28th President was unwilling
to intervene in the Middle Eastern expanse to prevent the Armenian
genocide at the hand of the Ottoman Turks. Moreover, Bush’s 2002 State
of the Union address cast aside the 70 year-old American policy of
supporting stable but friendly dictatorships in the Arab world.
The 43rd President confirmed that, “for decades, free nations have
tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In
practice, this approach has brought little stability and much
oppression. I have changed this policy.” Readers must comprehend that
advancing national interests by overturning a deteriorating status
quo is not revolutionary-or nihil novi.
As Frederick Jackson Turner spoke upon Woodrow Wilson’s death,
“fate has dealt hardly with him, but time, the great restorer, and
let us believe, history, will do him justice.” Conversely, history may
illuminate that the Iraq war is comparable to Germany’s annexation of
Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, as an event that set the world on a downward
trajectory. So far as the implementation of Bush’s strategy goes,
it is still, according to Podhoretz, “early days-roughly comparable
to 1952 in the history of the Truman Doctrine. As with the Truman
Doctrine then, the Bush Doctrine has thus far acted only in the first
few scenes” of the morality play on the global stage.
“George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical
disgrace.” These were the opening words in Sean Wilentz’s article in
a recent edition of Rolling Stone. The Princeton historian further
questioned whether Bush “will be remembered as the very worst president
in all of American history.” Well, there have been presidents-Harry
Truman was indeed one-who have left the Oval office in ostensible
ignominy, only to rebound in the estimates of later academics. Let
us trust Bush is next in line.

FRENCH SOCIALISTS: GENOCIDE RECOGNITION SHOULD BE PRECONDITION FOR TURKEY EU ACCESSION
PanARMENIAN.Net
02.10.2006 14:35 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Socialist Party of France shares the opinion of
President Chirac that Turkey should recognize the Armenian Genocide
before accession to the EU, a leader of the party, former Finance
Minister of France Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who is going to run for the
President next year, stated yesterday. Friday in Yerevan J. Chirac
stated that Turkey should recognize the Armenian Genocide if it
wants to join the EU. “The stance of the Socialist Party of France
lies in it as well. We believe that acknowledgement of the Armenian
Genocide should be precondition for Turkey’s accession to the EU,”
Dominique Strauss-Kahn noted. He added, that this precondition is a
symbolical one, reports RFE/RL.

TURKEY DEBATES FREE EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT
Goksel Bozkurt
Turkish Daily News
Oct 1 2006
Turkey is debating freedom of thought and its expression as
intellectuals and politicians confront each other over Article 301 of
the Turkish Penal Code (TCK); intellectuals are pushing for greater
freedom, while politicians are resisting their calls for the removal
of obstacles in the free expression of thought, the most notable of
which is considered to be Article 301.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan has repeatedly stated that
the government might consider amending the article if the way it is
implemented makes an amendment necessary, but so far no concrete steps
have been taken. Leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party
(CHP) Deniz Baykal made his position clear when he told Erdoðan to
“knock on someone else’s door” if he seeks support for changing Article
301. Fearing that such a move could alienate voters, politicians tend
to resist the idea of changing the article.
How much progress can a society, containing intellectuals, artists,
writers and caricaturists that are unable to express themselves,
achieve? Don’t people living in Turkey deserve the right to think and
freely express what they think? Novelist Elif Þafak, who was tried
and speedily acquitted in a case under Article 301, says freedom of
expression must exist in Turkey not because somebody wants us to
have it but for our own people. What can a writer produce if they
can’t express what they can imagine? If they do manage to produce
something, who would like it? Can thought be restricted? Should
non-violent thought and its expression be free? How far are the Turkish
people free to think and express their thoughts? Who will draw the
boundaries? Would the Republic of Turkey be harmed if freedom of
expression was fully ensured? Would the integrity of the state be
endangered then?
These are the questions that surround the Article 301 controversy in
Turkey. Intellectuals, the European Union, Amnesty International and
other human rights organizations are against Article 301. It would be
useful to have a look at certain data and laws regarding freedom of
expression. In a recently released study, the Turkish Human Rights
Foundation identified some 14 articles in the TCK, including 301,
that could potentially restrict freedom of expression.
The lists consists of the following: Article 84 — regulating
encouraging and aiding suicide; Article 125 – on denigrating honor,
dignity and esteem and insulting a public official; Article 132 —
regulating violation of privacy of communication; Article 134 —
regulating privacy of personal life; Article 215 — regulating
praise of crime and criminal; Article 216 — regulating incitement
of hatred and enmity;Article 218 — on crimes committed against
public peace through the press;Article 285 — regulating violation
of confidentiality of investigation;Article 286 — regulating
audio and visual recording of the proceedings of investigation and
prosecution;Article 288 — on attempts to influence fair trial;Article
299 — on the crime of insulting the president;Article 301 — on
insulting Turkishness, the republic and the organs and institutions
of the state;Article 305 — regulating activities against fundamental
national interests;Article 318 — regulating the crime of discouraging
people from military service.
96 people faced trial under 301:
It is clear that there are many articles that restrict freedom of
expression, but today debate mostly centers on Article 301. The same
study says that as of Sept. 18, 2006, some 96 writers, publishers,
journalists and intellectuals have been brought before a court under
Article 301. A closer look at 301 reveals that a similar provision
was included in the penal code in 1936, amended seven times, finally
corresponding to Article 159 of the previous penal code.
Under Article 301, a person who “openly insults” Turkishness, the
Turkish Republic or the Turkish Parliament faces between six months
and three years in jail. A person who openly insults the government
of the republic or the judicial organs of the state, military or
police department could be imprisoned for between six months and
two years. If the crime of insulting Turkishness is committed by a
Turkish national in a foreign country, the punishment is increased
by one-third. The article says that expression of thought for the
purpose of criticism does not constitute a crime.
Prosecutors decide who should face trial under Article 301. They
determine whether statements, writing or actions should be prosecuted
under the article and initiate the trials.
Elif Þafak trial:
Those who have been brought before the court under 301 have included
several famous figures. The latest prominent court case under Article
301 was against novelist Elif Þafak. The court acquitted Þafak at the
first hearing of the case, in which she stood trial for insulting
Turkishness in her novel “The Bastard of Istanbul” (“Baba ve Pic”
in Turkish), as the judge ruled that no criminal act had been carried
out and that the evidence against her was insubstantial.
Speaking in an interview with the TV-channel CNN Turk, Þafak
commented on her acquittal: “Such cases will never end as long
as Article 301 remains. One case will be closed but another will
be opened. Turkey will waste its energy on trials. It will face
difficulties abroad. Therefore I cannot say ‘it’s over’ until legal
changes are made. One should not associate trials under Article 301
with individuals. To believe in freedom of expression is to believe
in respect for the thoughts of people that think differently.”
Victims of 301:
Possibly due to election concerns, politicians are failing to show
the courage to alter Article 301, which went into force in June 2005.
Meanwhile, the number of victims of the article is growing daily.
Many people, including renowned intellectuals, have been tried under
Article 301; some have been convicted. The Supreme Court of Appeals
recently upheld a six-month suspended imprisonment for Armenian
Turkish journalist Hrant Dink. An attack by nationalist protestors
against novelist Orhan Pamuk in the court building during one of
the hearings in his trial under Article 301 was widely covered by
international media.
Some of the journalists and writers who have been tried or convicted
under Article 301, or Article 159 in the previous penal code, are
as follows: Orhan Pamuk, Engin Aydýn, Serkis Saropyan, Hasan Cemal,
Ýsmet Berkan, Burak Bekdil, Haluk Þahin, Murat Belge, Erol Katýrcýoðlu,
Ferhat Tunc, Ýlhan Selcuk, Ýbrahim Kaboðlu, Baskýn Oran, Emin Karaca,
Zulkif Kýþanak, Fatih Taþ, Aziz Ozer, Erkan Akay, Ersen Korkmaz,
Necmettin Salaz, Mehmet Colak and Ýrfan Ucar.
Armenian conference entails court case:
To elaborate on some of these cases, Murat Belge, Hasan Cemal, Erol
Katýrcýoðlu and Haluk Þahin faced trial for “insulting the judicial
organs of the state” because of their comments in newspaper columns
about a court decision banning a conference on Armenian issue.
Although the trial ended in acquittal, the four columnists have not
yet been cleared of charges since the prosecutor appealed the court’s
decision. A prosecutor has demanded up to four-and-a-half years in
jail for Radikal’s columnist Murat Yetkin for criticizing the Pamuk
case in an article. Hrant Dink, editor in chief of Agos daily, was
tried for insulting Turkishness for comments on the alleged genocide
of Armenians and was sentenced to six months in jail, although the
sentence was suspended.
Acquittal in ‘insulting military’:
In his column, journalist Rahmi Yýldýrým criticized retired Gen.
Tuncer Kýlýnc for borrowing $150,000 from a contractor doing business
with the army. An Ankara court of first instance ruled that elements
of the crime of “openly insulting the Turkish Armed Forces” did not
exist. The court said Yýldýrým’s criticism of the army officials’
acts were tough, offending and disturbing but underlined that such
expression of thoughts should be tolerated in a pluralist society.
The court also said it considered the freedom of expression to be
more important than the reputation of the Turkish Armed Forces. The
Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office objected to the ruling and
is currently appealing the verdict.
Writer Mara Meimarid also faced trial for her book, “Wizards of Ýzmir”
(“Ýzmir Buyuculeri”). The book was published in October, 2004 and the
trial came one year later in 2005. Some 50,000 copies of the book,
which tells the story of Greeks, Armenians, Turks and Jews living in
19th century Ýzmir, have been sold in Turkey and Greece.
Translators, too:
The translators of U.S. writer John Tirman’s “Spoils of War: The Human
Cost of America’s Arms Trade” were also brought before a court in an
ongoing trial under Article 301. The prosecutor prepared an addition
to the indictment to charge the book’s translators Lutfi Taylan Tosun
and Aysel Yýldýrým in the case against publisher Fatih Taþ. Claude
Edelmann of Amnesty International called the case “unprecedented.” The
prosecutor is demanding up to three years imprisonment for the two
translators.
What is Baykal saying?:
The CHP’s Baykal strongly opposes a change in Article 301 of the
TCK. Underlining that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP),
which enjoys an overwhelming majority in Parliament, does not need the
support of any other party to change the article, Baykal commented in
a speech this week: “The prime minister is looking for an accomplice
to share the shame of allowing insults against Turkish identity in
Turkey. My answer is, ‘knock on someone else’s door’.”
Baykal noted that provisions similar to Article 301 existed in
European countries such as Italy, France and Germany and added:
“We are almost asked to apologize because we are Turks. We won’t
apologize, we are proud of this.”
What is Erdoðan saying?:
Prime Minister Erdoðan says judicial case law should be established
on Article 301-related cases and states that the article could be
amended if such a need arises. “If legitimate rights and freedoms
are restricted, necessary changes would be made in the law,” he said
this week. Erdoðan cautiously added: “There are certain circles which
confuse criticism with insult. We cannot say ‘yes’ to a certain segment
having limitless freedom. These freedoms should not give any person
the right be insulting.”
A tool for domestic politics?:
An interesting outcome emerged from the Þafak trial, when it was
revealed that politicians were also happy about her acquittal. Many
politicians, mostly within the ruling AKP, were pleased after the court
decision last week. Erdoðan phoned Þafak a day before the hearing and
later expressed his pleasure when the court ruled for acquittal. The
court’s ruling was met with a mixed reception within the CHP, and many,
including Þafak, said the CHP’s reservation on the matter was odd.
But why does Article 301 remain intact when the majority of
parliamentarians are happy at Þafak’s acquittal?
According to observers, the answer lies in the approaching election
period in 2007. At a time when Turkey is heading for elections,
say observers, no politician would brave amending an article that
punishes insulting Turkishness. Therefore, any substantial changes
in Article 301 are highly unlikely in this period, and changes,
if there are any, are bound to be cosmetic. Opposition parties are
openly against changing Article 301 and the AKP is avoiding it,
fearing that it would be attacked by the opposition for scrapping
punishment for insulting Turkishness. Indeed, the CHP is already
doing so and. Thus, amendments to Article 301 have unfortunately
fallen foul of the machinations of domestic politics.
This argument was seemingly proved correct when Justice Minister Cemil
Cicek suggested in televised remarks this week that the opposition
would use any step in direction of amending Article 301 to score
political goals.
“If Article 301 is lifted, then we will be faced with a regime
debate. There are proposals to take out ‘Turkishness’ from the law.
But wouldn’t some people then ask us if we are ashamed of being
Turks?” asked Cicek.
Debates over Article 301 look set to continue in the coming period.
Barring a really big surprise, Turkish intellectuals, writers,
thinkers, activists and others will continue to exercise their right
to free expression in the shadow of Article 301.
–Boundary_(ID_zadmeDctDw7s+kTT9y0s2w)–

AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER INSULTS ATATURK
By Anka, Sidney
Zaman Online, Turkey
Oct 1 2006
An Australian newspaper published a cartoon showing Australian Finance
Minister Peter Costello pulling Ataturk’s body from his grave.
In the cartoon, Ataturk was holding a paper that read “Armenian
genocide.”
A caption under the cartoon read, “He [Castello] raiseth up Ataturk.”
In the article accompanying the cartoon, the writer asserted Turkey
abolished most of the restrictions imposed by Ataturk.
Dennis Altman, writer of the article, indicated it was ironic of
Costello to have praised Turkey last week.
The article claimed Ataturk saw religion as a barrier against progress;
therefore, he attempted to prevent religion from holding a public
role in modern Turkey.
It was further asserted that Ataturk tried to impose his opinions in
a way that could shock both secular and pious Australians.
During a speech last week, Costello pointed to secular Turkey, founded
by Ataturk, who commanded Turkish forces in Gallipoli, as a model of
leadership for the Islamic world.
;alt= &trh=20061001&hn=36965

KOCHARIAN SAYS ECONOMY AFFECTED BY GEORGIA-RUSSIA ROW
Mediamax news agency, Yerevan,
30 Sep 06
Yerevan, 30 September: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said in
Yerevan today that “any tension in Georgian-Russian relations always
tells on Armenia”.
The Armenian president said this when answering a question from a
French journalist at a joint news conference with French President
Jacques Chirac.
“Our transport routes go through Georgia and any deterioration in
Georgian-Russian relations causes a decrease in our trade volume and
negatively affects our economy as a whole,” Kocharyan said.
He expressed his hope that the tension in relations between Georgia
and Russia “will be eased quickly and through negotiations”.
“I have said many times in Moscow and Tbilisi that Armenia, more
than any other country, is interested in friendly relations between
Georgia and Russia,” Kocharyan said.

ARMENIAN, FRENCH PRESIDENTS INAUGURATE SQUARE OF FRANCE
ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russia
September 30, 2006 Saturday
French President Jacques Chirac and Armenian President Robert
Kocharyan inaugurated a square in Yerevan titled the square of France
on Saturday.
The Armenian president declared at the ceremony that France is
Armenia’s reliable partner in the European and international arena.
“History knows no periods of fading Armenian- French friendship,”
Kocharyan said.
After Armenia proclaimed independence France was one of the first
countries to side with the Armenia state, and it continues to promote
fostering of the Armenian statehood, developing its economy, culture
and education, the Armenian president said. He particularly praised
a constructive role France played in the process of settlement of
the Karabakh conflict. “We are proud that during World War II the
Armenian people took part in the Movement of Resistance and Liberation
of France,” Kocharyan said.
The French president arrived in Armenia on Friday on a three-day
state visit. In the framework of the visit France will announce the
beginning of the Year of Armenia in France.

TRILATERAL RAIL PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD
EmÝne Kart
Turkish Daily News
Oct 1 2006
Shrugging off a recent decision by the U.S. Senate’s Banking Committee
with which the committee blocked any funding by the U.S. Export-Import
Bank for a proposed rail link that would connect Turkey with Azerbaijan
through Georgia, bypassing Armenian territory, Ankara has expressed
determination to carry out the project.
A Turkish diplomat hinted that Turkey hadn’t even bothered to prevent
approval of the bill by the Senate committee since Ankara by no
means depends on financial resources beyond those provided by the
partner countries.
“The three countries, Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, are firm on
carrying out this project with their own financial resources,” the
same diplomat said.
–Boundary_(ID_8151urLbf5p4KbFQ3WP33A)–