REGULAR INTRIGUE
Aram Abrahamian
Aravot, Armenia
Nov 3 2006
If our nowadays authorities have omitted in several political and
economic fields, we may surely say that they are excellent in carrying
on intrigues and gossips. In comparison with them Machiavellian
was simply a child of nursery school. It is known that the lack of
intellect is made up by slyness, and the sly ruler can swindle easily
a dozen officials.
Slyness considers some settlements, which assist in strengthening the
authority. What is easier; to raise the minimal salary, for example,
100 thousand Drams to provide people’s dignified life or not to allow
any TV Company to tell about the real life. If you can’t subdue the
truth, you subdue the mirror, which reflects it. Or what is easier
to form a vital political system where the projects and ideas will
rival or to destroy opposition parties with the help of intrigues to
make the selection among 2,5 pro-authority groups. The first isn’t
only difficult but it isn’t also profitable for the authorities.
The representatives of the ruling clique know very well the power
of human small passion: vanity and mercenariness and they use that
power to destroy the parties. Communist Party and NDU were destroyed
in that way, which was a serious blow to the political system
of Armenia. Communist Party is a party with its ideology and that
ideology was capable to unify certain strata of our society. Nowadays
communistic parties have no power. And the separation of NDU Party
caused to the fact that one of our famous politicians; Vaszgen
Manoukian is produced as expert who make right analyses but not as
the leader of political power.
Now it’s time for Constitutional Right Union. The explanations of
both sides aren’t complete and it is difficult to understand what they
want. But it is obvious that the current situation is profitable for
the authorities.
I didn’t speak about it if “Iravunq” newspaper, one of the oldest and
popular newspaper of Armenia wouldn’t find itself under danger. I’d
like our partners to solve this problem and don’t include this dispute
in the inter party dispute. All readers and our press will only gain.

RUSSIAN RENOWNED ACTORS IN YEREVAN
Panorama.am
14:27 04/11/06
People’s actor of Russia, Sergei Shakurov, thinks he is an actor of
theater, Shakurov told a news conference today in Yerevan. He said
he is just earning money in films. “I do not play in soap operas,
though,” he proudly noted. In his words, it is a completely different
life on the stage where you get inspired for two hours.
Shakurov and people’s artist of USSR Ludmila Gurchenko brought a
comedy to Yerevan. Shakurov said Gurchenko found the play saying,
“It is very light and there is a place for improvisation.”
Shakurov’s wife is an Armenian, so he often visits Yerevan to visit
his wife’s relatives.

ARTICLE 301 SUMMIT WITH CIVIL SOCIETY
By Abdulhamit Bilici, Isa Sezen
Zaman, Turkey
Nov 5 2006
Turkey’s business world and professional organizations have taken
action to prevent any possible interruption in Turkey’s European
Union membership process.
Leading non-governmental organizations in the country are preparing
to meet with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the
controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.
More than 10 institutions, including the Turkish Union of Chambers
and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB), Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen
Association (TUSIAD), HAK-IS, and IKV have reached a consensus on what
should be done about Article 301. The group began a study 15 days ago
as Turkey’s EU process is reaching a critical stage over this issue.
The 10-page joint document, revised by jurists, will be submitted
to Prime Minister Erdogan today. The document suggests a revision of
the article in accordance with international standards, rather than
an abolishment.
After intensive negotiations before reaching a final consensus, TOBB
Chairman Rifat Hisarciklioglu said that the document would make an
important contribution to the problem’s solution.
While representatives from some institutions stressed that Article
301 should be changed in accordance with international norms, other
organizations insisted on the abolishment of the article.
Representatives will visit Erdogan today and submit the document.
Turkey’s chief negotiator Ali Babacan and Justice Minister Cemil
Cicek will also be available during this meeting.
Article 301 gained wide-spread notoriety after criminal lawsuits were
filed against novelists Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak for “insulting
Turkishness.” Both cases ended in the acquittal of the novelists.
A criminal charge under the Turkish Penal Code, the article has
been used by some lawyers who take issue with what some writers and
journalists have written or said; especially about Turkey’s ‘Kurdish
question’ or an Armenian genocide.

ANALYSIS: TURKEY AND THE EU DRIFT APART
By Benjamin Harvey
Washington Post
The Associated Press
Nov 5 2006
ISTANBUL, Turkey — The cautious courtship between Turkey and
the European Union looks like it might be headed for a messy and
acrimonious breakup.
They were a mismatched couple from the beginning: one wealthy, mostly
Christian and liberal, the other far poorer, overwhelmingly Muslim and
largely conservative. Perhaps it’s no surprise the initial optimism
over Turkey’s bid to join the bloc has deteriorated into mutual
recriminations and a seemingly hopeless inability to communicate.
The mood is likely to worsen after Wednesday when the EU releases
a progress report on Turkey’s bid which says Ankara is dragging its
feet on reform and failing to meet minimum human rights standards,
according to a draft copy viewed by The Associated Press.
The consequences of worsening relations between Turkey and the EU
could be dramatic and far-reaching: At stake is an ambitious vision
of bringing a Muslim nation into European society, proving that a
clash of civilizations between the West and Islam is not inevitable.
Many analysts say that is why negotiations are likely to continue
for the foreseeable future, with neither side committing to a clean
split that would send the message to Muslims everywhere that the West
is not prepared to deal with them on equal footing.
“Of course I support the EU (bid),” said Bayram Kapici, a 38-year-old
security guard in Istanbul. “But the question is, what will our place
in the EU be? I mean, we’re Muslims. Are we barbarians? How will they
see us?”
For the moment, enthusiasm toward Turkey’s bid has cooled dramatically
on both sides, and Turkish leaders’ passionate claims it could
bridge the gap between Europe and the Muslim world are starting to
ring hollow.
Turkish public support for membership has fallen below 50 percent,
and many believe that perceived insults from the EU _ in the form
of frequent criticism and seemingly endless demands for reform _
play directly into the hands of nationalists and Islamists who are
largely opposed to the bid.
Europeans, meanwhile, have a litany of complaints about Turkey,
including its poor record on human rights, intolerance to free speech
and hardline attitudes toward adultery and homosexuality.
Many Europeans also say Turkey has refused to look objectively at its
past, notably the massacre of Armenians after World War I that many
historians call a genocide. Turkey acknowledges that large numbers
of Armenians died, but says the overall figure is inflated and that
the deaths occurred in the civil unrest during the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire.
Many Turks fault the country’s old rivals Greece and Cyprus for the
growing acrimony, claiming they are lobbying the EU to take a hard
line over Turkey’s refusal to open its ports to planes and ships
from the Greek-speaking part of Cyprus. Turkey does not recognize
the Cypriot government and props up the internationally unrecognized
administration in the north of the island.
A last-ditch meeting last week to settle the Cyprus issue was canceled,
leaving the Turks with very little time to negotiate before the EU’s
year-end deadline to concede or see talks suspended.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in remarks released Sunday that
the standoff over Cyprus was “very serious.” Asked if the talks
would be frozen, she said: “The EU cannot simply carry on. Turkey
must understand that there will be no simple ‘carry on’ if there is
no movement” on Cyprus.
If talks collapse, the symbolic value of having an overwhelmingly
Muslim, democratic nation firmly integrated into the West would be
lost. Turkey’s 71 million citizens, taught to look to Europe for
inspiration since the secular Turkish state was founded in the 1920s,
might look elsewhere for positive reinforcement.
The Islamic countries of the Middle East, Central Asia and North
Africa, with which Turkey’s Islamic-rooted government has been forging
increasingly close ties, could be natural surrogates.
“Nationalists are benefiting from this, there’s no question about it,”
said pollster and political science professor Hakan Yilmaz.
But many Turks feel that a complete breakup with the EU is out of
the question.
Yilmaz said many EU leaders were just playing to the crowd by publicly
belittling Turkey.
“Some in the European Union public love this humiliation _ particularly
in France,” he said, alluding to a proposed French law that would
make it a crime to deny the Turkish genocide of Armenians.
Meanwhile, some leading politicians on both sides are trying to
make the relationship so miserable that Turkey will just walk away
on its own, said Ilter Turan, a political analyst at Istanbul Bilgi
University.
Turan said, however, the government would be excoriated by the Turkish
public if it walked away from the EU, despite the current anti-EU
mood in the country.
The key question appears to be how to persuade Turkey to reform
without damaging national pride.
“There is one thing where the Turkish public seems to be rather
adamant,” Turan said. “If there is to be a union, it is to be on
equal grounds.”
___
Associated Press Writer Stephen Graham contributed to this report
from Berlin.

TURKEY OFFERS TO AMEND DRACONIAN LAW
Al-Jazeera, Qatar
Nov 5 2006
The Turkish prime minister says he is ready to amend a law used to
prosecute writers, including Nobel prizewinner Orhan Pamuk, in an
attempt to head off a crisis with the EU.
“We are ready for proposals to make article 301 more concrete if there
are problems stemming from it being vague,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan was
quoted by state-run Anatolian news agency as saying on Sunday.
“In order to prevent a violation of freedoms … we are studying
several options for how we can handle article 301 in harmony with
the spirit of the [EU-oriented] reforms,” he said.
The article has raised questions in Europe about the country’s
commitment to freedom of speech.
The government has been split, some fearing an amendment would
lessen the centre-right government’s chances of harnessing the rising
nationalist vote in general elections next year.
Article 301
The European Commission is expected to lecture Ankara over judicial
action against journalists, scholars and writers for expressing
peaceful opinions in a progress report on November 8 on Turkey’s
European Union accession process.
The EU says article 301, which makes it a crime to insult Turkish
national identity, unfairly restricts freedom of expression and must
be changed.
It has recently been used to bring charges against Pamuk, later
dropped, and to convict journalist Hrant Dink for articles about the
mass killing of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey.
With elections in November 2007, Erdogan’s scope for more reforms has
narrowed, especially given rising euroscepticism among Turks weary
of EU demands and suspicious that the bloc does not really want to
take in their large Muslim nation.

ARMENIANS FIGHT GLENDALE OVER GRILL CHILL
Monterey County Herald, CA
San Jose Mercury News, USA
Nov 5 2006
GLENDALE (AP) – Armenians here are skewering the city’s ban on outdoor
restaurant grilling as an offense to the kebab culture, but efforts
to overturn it have stalled in the City Council.
This city is 40 percent Armenian and Armenian-American. The 85,000
Armenian residents comprise the largest such population in the
United States.
Last year, voters elected three Armenians to the five-member City
Council, partly on an agenda to remove the outdoor grilling ban. But
they have been unable to win the four votes needed for passage.
That annoys Armenians who say indoor gas grills simply can’t do
justice to their traditional cuisine.
Vrej Sarkissian says it takes more than salt, pepper, onions and olive
oil to make a decent kabob. He cooks the skewered meat on charcoal
outside his restaurant.
“People can always tell the difference,” said Sarkissian, owner of
Anoush Banquets & Catering. “They want the original flavor of home.”
“It’s what our culture is about,” said his brother, Sacco
Sarkissian. “It’s great, because they’re able to hold onto their
heritage. They haven’t been forced to Americanize.”
The ban may have a chilling effect on the city’s dining, City
Councilman Ara Najarian argued.
“Most Armenians are highly sophisticated, and they demand the best,”
he said. “It’s developed into a gourmet war between these folks. I
once saw a place serve a flaming rack of lamb.”
“I think we all know that burgers on the grill taste better than on
the frying pan,” Najarian said.
Mayor Dave Weaver, who opposes lifting the ban, accused his colleagues
of playing “the race card.”
“We’re portrayed as anti-Armenian, and that’s so far off the mark,”
he said. “We got a lot of complaints saying, ‘Why are you allowing
them to grill outdoors?”‘
“I’m philosophically opposed to commercial grilling outside,” he
said. “If we open the door, then anybody from Bob’s Big Boy to a
barbecue place can do it.”
“Would you like to smell other peoples’ food all day long?”
resident Nancy Campbell asked. “We were all OK stopping smoking in
a lot of public places.”
Vrej Sarkissian said he is considering moving his steel grill indoors
to comply with the law, although he estimates it will cost him about
$80,000.
“We’re going to do whatever we can to keep the flavor going,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY TURKEY’S CONSTITUTION
By Dana Swartz
Kurdish Media, UK
Nov 5 2006
It is important to remember that although Turkey is considered a
democratic nation, its government is still controlled by the military
regime. The Turkish Constitution, while an attempt to show democracy,
allows for the violation of Human Rights towards the minorities that
live in Turkey. This is proven everyday, when the Turkish government
still attempts to deny the Armenian Genocide, and allows its military
to continue to harass and murder innocent Kurds. Turkey claims that
if Kurds, Armenians, or other minorities are allowed to have their
identity it will destroy the republic. Well the United States, as
you can read from its name, is the unity of 50 states, territories,
and home to thousands of immigrants that are still arriving every year.
Other Western nations also have immigrants who are recognized for
their individuality, ethnic traditions, cultures, and languages,
yet these nations are not destroyed.
So, how can allowing the minorities in Turkey to be seen as distinct
ethnic groups weaken Turkey? One has only to look at history to see
that trying to change or assimilate a group of people, only leads to
civil wars, deep hatred, and horrible atrocities to life. In addition,
the laws that are made using the Turkish Constitution should apply
to every citizen residing within Turkey’s boarders, not just certain
groups of people.
Even though little changes have been made to the Constitution, these
changes have not occurred in real life. Human Rights abuses are still
occurring everyday, in direct violation, of the two greatest democratic
organizations in the world, the United Nations and the European Union.
Hitler was forcibly removed from power for his atrocities towards the
Jews. The Khmer Rouge was tried over the ethnic cleansing in Cambodia.
Saddam Hussein and his Ba’th regime were removed from power by
democratic forces for his government’s policy of genocide towards
Kurds. When will Turkey be punished for its attempts to annihilate
its own minority populations by hiding behind a Constitution that is
legally and morally wrong?
Who are the Kurds?
Today, approximately 40 million Kurds make up the largest ethnic
group of people without a recognized country. The Kurds live in the
mountainous areas in southeast and east of Turkey, northwest of Iran,
north of Iraq, and northeast of Syria. The Kurdish people can claim
their heritage back to Ancient Mesopotamia. The mountainous regions
they live in are harsh areas, which few people could live in and
prosper; however the Kurds made it their home and have lived there for
thousands of years. The major mountain regions they live in are the
Taurus, Zagros, and Elburz Mountains. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers
are the major source of water, not only for the mountains, but also for
much of the Middle East. The Kurds are agricultural: raising sheep,
goats, and cereals, such as wheat, barley, and oats. Another major
crop of the Kurds is tobacco. Some of the finest “Turkish tobacco”
is grown in the land of the Kurds. Kurds belong to clans, which are
part of a tribe. The clans make up the immediate family groups, while
the tribe makes up the extended family. Kurdish people are fiercely
loyal to their family, clan, and tribe. (About the Kurds, History &
Hemin Shekhani).
Another important aspect of Kurdish life is the language that they
speak.
Kurdish language is in the Indo-European family of languages. Kurdish
is broken up into four main dialects, Kurmanci (60%), Sorani (25%),
Zazaki (10%), and Gorani (5%), with many smaller sub-dialects.
According to Kemal Burkay, “Kurdish is a lively and rich language
that has managed to survive despite all the oppression and bans to
which is has been exposed.” (Kurdistan’s Homepage, Para 3). Kurdish
is considered one of the few surviving original languages of the
Mesopotamian people. Because the Kurdish language is so rich and
vibrant, it has created beautiful traditions using songs and poetry.
Before 1991, Kurds were not even allowed to speak their language in
the privacy of their homes without fear of being arrested, or worse,
killed. Since 1991, Kurds are now allowed to speak the Kurdish language
inside their homes, but it is still illegal to write, read or teach the
language. Today more than half of all Kurds living in Turkey cannot
read or write Kurdish because of Turkey’s brutal Constitutional laws
concerning the language. In Turkey if minorities speak their “mother
language” they are branded as traitors, terrorist, and enemies of
the state.
The country known as Kurdistan by the Kurds includes land from Turkey,
Iran, Iraq, Syria, and small parts of Russia. According to census
reports, approximately 50% of all Kurds live in Turkey, with smaller
percentages living in the other areas of Kurdistan. After World War I,
Kurds were promised a separate and independent country-state, in the
Treaty of Servres, but then England and France, decide to divvy up
the land and not give the Kurds their independence. “The Treaty of
Lausanne formalized this division.”
(About the Kurds, History, Para 15). Since this time, Kurds all
over the world have clamored for their rights of culture, language,
traditions, and autonomy. But most importantly, the Kurds have asked
to be recognized as a distinct people.
Quoting directly from Hemin Shekhani’s website, “the Turkish government
also passed various laws forbidding the use of the Kurdish language and
imposing other restrictions on manifestations of Kurdish nationalism.
Although all Turkish Kurds possess full Turkish citizenship and
millions of Kurds have assimilated into Turkish society, relations
between Kurds and the Turkish government continue to be strained.”
(Hemin Shekhani, History of Kurdistan). Kurds in Turkey, for the
last 80 years, were forced to be assimilated into Turks. By this,
the Republic of Turkey has denied the existence of Kurds, their
language, culture, ethnicity, and traditions. Since the 1980’s Kurds
“have waged a war of national liberation” against Turkeys governmental
and military attempts to suppress all signs of Kurdish identity. (The
Kurds & the Future of Turkey, Page 21). The Turkish government has
been exceptionally harsh and repressive to its Kurdish population.
The Washington Post stated in an article, “Turkish government, which
tried to deprive them [the Kurds] of Kurdish identity by designating
them “Mountain Turks, outlawing their language and forbidding them
to wear traditional Kurdish costumes in the cities. The government
also encouraged the migration of Kurds to the cities to dilute
the population in the uplands. Turkey continues its policy of not
recognizing the Kurds as a minority group.” (Washington Post. Para 4).
“The Kurds have been subjugated by neighboring peoples for most of
their history. In modern times, Kurds have tried to set up independent
states in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, but their efforts have been crushed
every time.” (Washington Post, Background: The Kurds Inset). While
many Kurds want a separate and recognized state called Kurdistan, much
could be settle peaceable if Kurds were allowed their identity. Forcing
a people to abandon their culture, traditions, language, music, and
other ideals that make them unique, is cultural genocide. Basic Human
rights are what each of us, as individuals require, so why deny the
Kurds these same rights?
Why should the Kurds be treated separately from any other ethnic
group in the world? Kurds deserve to be recognized, allowed the
freedom of identity, and the right to be the unique people that they
are. Turkey’s Constitution grants the right that all individuals should
be allowed their identity so why are they killing Kurds for saying
“I am a Kurd!” This is not freedom this is murder, this is genocide!
The physical, linguistic, and cultural genocide committed by
Turkey against the Kurds is treated with silence and/or considered
controversial.
The status of the Turkish government in denying their actions has
created pressure on the United States and other Western Nations
governments, universities, and media organizations to treat this
holocaust as delusions of the Kurdish people. The Turkish government
is in full control of media, and many attempts to let the outside
world know what is really happening in Southeastern Turkey [Northern
Kurdistan] are met with beatings, destroyed camera equipment, and
imprisonment for reporters from all western nations. It is even worse
for the Kurds who have tried to document the atrocities occurring,
as they usually just disappear, never to be seen again. The denial
of the Turks and their government in regards to this horrible time
in their recent history suggests that any government that commits
crimes against humanity will go unpunished and suffering of the people
involved will continue.
Turkish Constitutions Articles and Human Rights:
The Turkish Constitution states that it is the law of the Republic
of Turkey. The Constitution is a large document with many articles,
polices, and rules. Only the articles, policies, and laws pertaining
to Human Rights will be discussed in this paper. In this section
of the paper you will see how the Constitution seems to allows for
human rights, but examples will show how those same rights are being
violated were Kurds are concerned.
To begin, here is a quote from the Preamble of the Turkish
Constitution, “they [the people of the Turkish Republic] have the
right to demand a peaceful life based on absolute respect for one
another’s rights and freedoms, mutual love and fellowship, and the
desire for, and belief in, ‘Peace at home, peace in the world.'”
(Constitution of the Republic of Turkey Page 2, Para 1). This
sentence signifies that every citizen in Turkey has the right to
live a peaceful and just life. If this is the case, then why has
the Turkish government forcibly removed Kurds from the homes they
have lived in for centuries? Do you think that having your house,
business, and/or village destroyed and burned to the ground, allows
for a peaceful life? Turkey’s own human rights minister admitted
that the military has been destroying Kurdish villages for years. He
stated, “Some two million Kurds have been displaced, a dozen towns
depopulated and five to six million Kurds forced into western Turkey
by state terror and economic collapse.” (A Test for Turkey, Page 1,
Para 3). Yet when questioned by the United Nations, Turkey’s government
denies they are burning villages or forcibly removing minorities from
their ancestral lands.
Article 10, Section 10 of the Turkish Constitution states, “All
individuals are equal without and discrimination before the law,
irrespective of language, race, color, sex, political opinion,
philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such considerations.”
(Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Page 3, Para. 3). This
statement is a true democratic statement shared by all the democratic
nations of the world. However, while this article gives equal rights
to all citizens, it is not enforced where Kurds are concerned. The
language of the Kurds is forcibly denied to the Kurdish people. The
beginning of the Constitution says that Turkish is the national
language, but Turkey has several languages that are unique to the
individual groups that live within Turkey’s boarders. What threat
is it to the nation as a whole to allow these native languages to be
used, taught, and spoken? How come military personal are allowed to
shoot you in the street for speaking Kurdish or whistling a Kurdish
tune. Outlawing a language because it belongs to a minority group is
ludicrous. Forcing Kurds to give up their mother tongue is cultural
genocide and Turkey’s government has been doing this for over 80
years. Kurds are till not allowed to speak Kurdish in their own homes.
In addition, the Turkish Constitution says everyone born in Turkey
is Turkish, not a Turkish citizen, but Turkish. Well if both your
parents are Kurdish and you are born in Turkey that makes you a
Turkish citizen of Kurdish heritage, not a Turk. For the Turkish
government there is no such thing and they prove this by making
elementary children stand up and recite that they are Turks everyday.
Kurds are not allowed to call themselves Kurds. Kurds are not allowed
to recognize their identity without fear of dreadful repercussions.
Why is it against the law, punishable by torture and death, to call
oneself a Kurd? Does this sound like equality? Kurds are distinct race,
with culture and traditions, which have a right to be recognized,
respected, and treated without discrimination. While Turkey’s
constitution says all people are born equal, clearly, equal only
applies to those who are willing to forget who they are and become
Turks.
Secondly, no one is allowed to speak out or mention the atrocities that
are occurring everyday to the Kurds. While the Turkish Constitution
guarantees the right to speak freely, that only applies as long as you
talk about what the government wants you to speak about. To speak out
against the government or the military actions taken against Kurds
is tantamount to suicide and murder for your family. Leyla Zana,
a member of the Turkish Parliament and a Kurd, was sentenced to
fifteen years in prison for “bearing witness to the Kurdish people’s
immense tragedy in Turkey.” (A Test for Turkey, Page 1, Para 1). Nor
is Leyla Zana the only one, even today many journalists, newspaper
printers/writers, radio stations producers, and academics are being
arrested, imprisoned, or disappearing because they have talked about
the Kurdish Problem, even citizens of other countries. Turkey’s
government refuses to admit there is a problem, one created by their
own hatreds, so instead of trying to compromise and peacefully fix
these issues, the government allows the Turkish military and state
police to commit genocide. This is Turkey’s idea of democracy; make
a constitution then let the military interpret the way they want,
even if it means killings thousands of innocent Kurds.
Freedom of Religion and conscience is defined in Section IV, Article
24 of the Turkish Constitution as: “Everyone has the right to freedom
of conscience, religious beliefs and conviction. Acts of worship,
religious services, and ceremonies may be conducted freely -No one
may be compelled to worship, or be blamed or accused because of
his religious beliefs and convictions. Education and instruction in
religion and ethics shall be conducted under State supervision and
control.” (Turkish Constitution, Page 5, Para. 4). This article shows,
without a doubt, how double standard the government is when it comes
to human rights. In one sentence it defines freedom of religion, and
in another sentence it states the government has control over what
you can believe. In Turkey, the religion is Islamic; the state runs
strict educational programs that only cover the Islamic religion. The
government therefore does not allow for the freedom of religion for
those who follow the Yezidi religion, Christian religion, or any other
religion. Those citizens who chose to follow a different religion
will soon find themselves criminals of the Republic or Turkey and
branded a terrorist.
Article 28, Section 10 of the Turkish Constitution allows for the
Freedom of Press and Publication. It states, “The Press is free, and
may not be censored. The State shall take the necessary measures to
ensure the freedom of the Press and freedom of information.” (Turkish
Constitution, Page 6, Para 4&5). Well, this sounds like a great
Constitutional amendment, it has never been allowed when the newspapers
or magazines are written in Kurdish. It is against the military law
to publish any newspapers, magazines, radio programs, or other such
informative materials in any language other than Turkish.
All types of Press that have opened up and tried to publish in Kurdish
have been forcibly put out of business, and the owners/writers
imprisoned or killed. What kind of Freedom of Press is this? This
is state censorship, and attempt by the government with military
backing to ruin a minorities chance to read and be educated in their
own language. Again, this stresses how Turkey is committing cultural
genocide towards the Kurds while hiding behind a Constitution that is
not worth the paper it is written on. Another thing to remember is
that even the Turkish newspapers can only print what the government
wishes it to print; all articles must coincide with what the government
wants the public to know.
United Nations
Before there was a United Nations, there was the League of Nations.
The League of Nations was founded during World War I under the Treaty
of Versailles. Its mission was “to promote international cooperation
and to achieve peace and security” (History of the United Nations,
Par 4).
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States President came up with the
name United Nations during World War II. This name was officially used
in 1942 when the Declaration by the United Nations was convened by
26 nations committed to continue fighting the hostile Axis Powers of
the Second World War. The United Nations was not officially organized
until 1945 when 50 countries met in San Francisco to work out the
details on how this organization would function. The charter of the
United Nations was signed on June 26, 1945 and the United Nations
was officially open for business on October 24 1945.
According to the United Nations website, the following words are the
reason for it’s [the United Nation] existence.
“The only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of
free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression,
all may enjoy economic and social security. It is our intention to
work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace,
to this end.” (History of the UN Charter, Par 4).
The United Nations was the first organization to introduce human
rights laws for all membership countries to follow. It is believed
that the United Nations greatest achievement was the creation of
Human Rights Laws and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Charter. This Charter defines human rights and what is included
within those rights. The United Nations expects all its members to
commit to this charter and not violate its decrees; the charter is
“one to which all nations can subscribe and to which all people can
aspire.” (United Nations, Human Rights, Par 1). The United Nations has
defined a wide range of rights that include, but are not limited to,
economic, social, cultural, political, and civil rights.
According to the UN the most important individual fundamental rights
are as follows:
1) Dignity 2) Freedoms 3) Equality 4) Solidarity 5) Citizens’ Rights
6) Justice
Guidelines have been drawn to help all the membership nations to
protect and assist their governments in being responsible towards
its citizen’s human rights.
Human Rights law receives its foundation from the United Nations
Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These laws
are important internationally, as they are used to determine if a
country is in violation of human rights. Individuals and nations can
be tried and punished according to the human rights laws enacted by
the United Nations.
Over the years the United Nations has made amendments and adjustments
to the Charter and Universal Declaration to allow more+
Specific standards for women, children, disabled persons, minorities,
migrant workers and other vulnerable groups, who now possess rights
that protect them from discriminatory practices that had long
been common in many societies. Rights have been extended through
groundbreaking General Assembly decisions that have gradually
established their universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness
with development and democracy (United Nations, Human Rights, Par 3).
The United Nations has spent many man-hours and dollars on educational
campaigns to make sure that every citizen or every country knows what
their inalienable rights are. Also, the educational campaigns are
designed to inform the general populations that a national judicial
and penal system is available for grievances to be discussed. This
branch of the United Nations has gained considered power among member
and non-member countries as a champion of human rights issues. In
addition, “the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights works
to strengthen and coordinate United Nations work for the protection and
promotion of all human rights of all persons around the world” (United
Nations, Human Rights, Par 5). According to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations the ideals surrounding peace and security,
humanitarian assistance, and social affairs is the most important
duty of the Organization’s work.
(United Nations, Human Rights, Par 5).
These fundamental rights can be found and describe in detail on the
United Nations website. Every individual should know what these rights
are, there definitions, and every country should apply them to their
populations. Basic Human Rights are guaranteed by the United Nations.
Furthermore, any country that is a member of this great organization
must also guarantee its citizens these fundamental rights. As a member
of the United Nations, Turkey must demonstrate adherence to the laws
provided by this multi-national group. However, Turkey still engages
in cultural and physical genocide towards its minorities while the
United Nations basically turns its head in the other direction.
How can a country, like Turkey, who has proven it-self to be unreliable
in allowing its minority citizens to have basic Human Rights, be
allowed into the United Nations? Since Turkey is a member of the
United Nations why does its Constitution allow for violations of
Basic Human Rights?
According to the United Nations own Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, Turkey is not a country of democracy, but a military
dictatorship that abuses its own citizens. Yet, the United Nations
still allow the atrocities of human rights abuses to continue,
without any kind of repercussions to Turkey. While the rest of
the western world continues to look away from Turkey’s excesses of
military use against its own citizens, the horrors continue. Will we,
the democratic nations, silently look the other way, while innocent
people are abused, murdered, and annihilated?
Will Turkey be allowed to continue its ideals of democracy, using its
constitution as a weapon, and legal document to commit genocide to the
Kurds? How can we live with ourselves, as a nation, as individuals,
if we do not fight against this type of false democracy that Turkey
is projecting to the world with its Constitution and violations of
Basic Human Rights?
Democratic nations cannot condemn Hitler and his Nazis, Saddam
Hussein and his regime and give other governments like Turkey the
right to continue committing genocide towards its minorities. We
can’t undo the past or raise the dead, but we can remember and learn
from history, and stop the abuses that are occurring today. It is our
[The United States] responsibility to show true democratic leadership
and recognize genocide for what it is the annihilation of a people:
their identity, cultures, language; and talk about it truthfully. In
addition, we must hold each nation equally accountable for their sins
and crimes against Human Rights.
Turkey’s constitution on paper sounds democratic, but its government
and military follow a different set of rules and laws, bending
the Constitution to support its atrocities towards the Kurds. When
minorities, like the Kurds, are not allowed Basic Human Rights, which
are guaranteed by the Constitution, how can Turkey be considered
a democratic country, which is a member of the United Nations. The
physical, cultural, and linguistic genocide of the Kurds in Turkey
must be stopped!
Bibliography
About the Kurds. 4 October 2006. Retrived from < ml >
“Articles of the International Press on Human Rights Violations
in Turkey”.
2006.
< l >
Barkey, H and Fuller, G. Turkey’s Kurdish Question. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: 1998.
Fernandes, Desmond & Sarafian, Ara. “Kurdish and Armenian Genocides
Focus of London Seminar.” Armenian Forum. (1999). Page 1-5.
< >
Gunter, Michael M. The Kurds and the Future of Turkey. St. Martin’s
Press: 1997.
Hr-Net Hellenic Resources Network. Copyright 1995-2006.
< >
Kurdistan’s Homepage. 1999. The Kurdish Question – Its History
and Present Situation. 13 October 2006. Retrieved from < >
Rugman, Jonathan. Ataturk’s Children: Turkey and the Kurds. Cassell,
London: 1996.
Shekhani, H. 2001-2007. “Welcome to Hemin Shekhani’s Website.”
History of Kurdistan. Retrieved 16 October 2006.
< >
United Nations. About the United Nations. Human Rights. More
Information.
10 October 2006. < >
United Nations. About the United Nations. History of the UN Charter.
History of the Charter. 10 October 2006 < >
United Nations. About the United Nations. UN History. History of the
United Nations.
10 October 2006. < >
United Nations. Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
10 October 2006.
< >
WashingtonPost.com. 1999. Who are the Kurds? The
Washington Post on the web. Retrived from < ily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm >
Zana, Leyla. “A Test for Turkey: Liberty or Oppression for Kurds
in Parliament?” International Herald Tribune. (7 December 1994). < >

A DECISIVE BATTLE FOR THE CAUCASUS
Daily Georgian Times, Georgia
Nov 5 2006
After the rejection of the EU constitution, the expectation was that
European countries would develop a common foreign policy. Had Europe’s
Constitution been endorsed, the interests of traditional European
countries would have been balanced by the new member countries which
are under the strong US influence, and Europe’s foreign policy would be
subordinated to US foreign interests. This outcome would be absolutely
unacceptable to influential countries Germany, France and Italy.
Apparently, this European triumvirate has independently developed a
foreign policy track which would serve the interests of Europe. It
has to decide two strategic objectives today:
1. Not to allow hostilities near the borders of Europe;
2. to provide energy supplies to Europe via independent stable routes.
The Middle East and the Caucasus are near Europe’s borders but
remain potentially explosive regions. Germany gave a tactical and
polite refusal to strike an energy alliance with Russia despite
Russia’s offer to provide gas from the Shtokman deposit exclusively
to Germany. Instead, Germany and France created a French-German
energy consortium.
Thus, “the job assignments” among European states took place. Italy
was assigned to establish and maintain peace in the Middle East while
France and Germany are taking responsibility for peace in the Caucasus
and will protect a Caucasian energy corridor which will deliver energy
supplies to Europe.
European forces are now concentrating on the Caucasus because Europe
can no longer inhabit the role of “independent observer” in the
US-Russia tug of war. Europe has to take action, or it will miss out.
If the US “wins,” the energy resources of the Caucasus will be taken
over by Turkey and the US, and will then serve as an important lever
in the hands of the US to pressure Europe. If Russia “wins,” it will
acquire total control of Europe’s energy supplies.
The sentiments of Germany, France and Italy are well reflected in
the interview of EU Representative to the South Caucasus, Mari An
Izler Bogen, who said: “Many think today that Georgia has become an
arena of confrontation of the interests of Moscow and Washington, and
that the US tries to acquire control on the Caspian energy resources
and Baku oil deposits. If it is so, than it is really regrettable as
the US is putting its interests above those of all others. Now the
time has come whenever everyone should show their cards and gage the
interests of all parties. I think the EU should condemn such policies
as the whole Caucasus, especially Georgia, is falling victim to this
energy interest.”
Apparently Europe is more concerned about US interests rather than
about Russia’s traditional interests in the Caucasus, where it
itself wants to cooperate with Russia and increase its influence in
the region.
France’s decision to punish those who will not admit the genocide
of Armenians (something which Germany could not afford to do because
of its traditional friendship with Turkey) gives evidence that roles
are now being assigned because of the Caucasus. France has suddenly
acquired dominance in Armenia where Russia (a traditional ally)
and the US (with its Armenian lobby in the Congress) have strong
influences. Add to this France’s historically good relations with Iran
and it seems clear that France is building an Armenian-Iranian vector.
Meanwhile, given its relationship with Turkey, Germany has much
at stake with the Georgia-Azerbaijanian vector. If we imagine that
both vectors are directed by the European center it will not be a
difficult to guess how much influence Europe wants to obtain in the
South Caucasus.
Along with these developments, Russia is putting pressure on Georgia
and on the Georgian population in Russia, bringing the domestic
political situation to a boiling point. The domestic political pressure
in the country will explode somewhere.
The solution is certainly in Europe. In a telephone conversation
between Bush and Putin, Putin forbade the US from mediating
Russian-Georgian relations. However, when asked by Germany, Russia
agreed to soften its resolution about Georgia. We can conclude
that mediation by Germany in the South Caucasus would be acceptable
to Russia.
Thus, pressured by Russia, Georgia should look not to the US but to
Germany (and Europe) for assistance.
The impression is that the Russian-German (European) game has been
agreed.
Russia too has two strategic objectives in the region. First,
to ensure the security of Russia by maintaining peace in the North
Caucasus. Second, to control on the Caspian energy resources transited
via Georgia. The key to both of these objectives lies in Georgia.
Russia’s relationship to the breakaway republics in Georgia have much
to do with ethnicity and history, and less to do with security. If
Georgia joins NATO, the breakaway republics cannot create a buffer
zone to protect Georgia from the provocations of Russia, as Georgia
has quite a big border with Russia. All pipelines are run from
Tbilisi. Therefore, control of the breakaway republics is not enough
to help Russia. Russia wants to have a stronger lever in order to
acquire control of the Caucasian pipelines.
An ideal form which would be acceptable both for Europe and Russia
would be Georgia’s neutrality. That would bring security to Russia,
and joint control of the energy routes without the involvement of a
third party such as the US.
And why not? If Germany and Russia cooperate closely on the North
gas pipeline, why not to do the same on the Southern one?
Besides, why not to implement a scheme similar to the one proposed
by Speaker of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Moroz to Vladimer
Putin about creation a Russian-Ukrainian-German gas consortium? In
this event the strategic interests of both Russia and Europe would
have been upheld in the Caucasus and in Georgia.
The big European triumvirate will not compromise its relations with
Russia for lobbying Georgia’s entry into NATO, as they do not expect
threat from this region. Georgia’s accession into NATO would be in
the interest only of the US who would like to see Georgia in NATO not
because of security considerations but to implement its aggressive
policy. With that in mind Russia and the three European states would
like to squeeze the US out of the Caucasus. The UK which has a big
interest in the region has apparently saw the game, jumped off from
the Iraqi train and is now trying to get on the European one.
It things go as Europeans want to see in the Caucasus, Georgia
will distance itself from all it existing problems by integrating
into Europe and by providing security at the Southern border of its
Northern neighbor.
But the question is will the incumbent government of Georgia pursue
this political tack? Certainly, it will not. The incumbent government
of Georgia has exhausted the limit of trust and confidence in relation
with Russia and represents the only weapon of the US in the Caucasus.
It could only serve the national interests of the US, not those of
Georgia let alone the interests of Russia or Europe. The US which has
the highest level of democracy in the world assesses democracy of other
states according to the level of loyalty of their governments to the
US while resorts to force to ensure its security. In contrast, Europe
sees the security of its interests in the development of democratic
values in these countries.
The incumbent regime with its domestic and foreign relations does
not fit the above-described sceme. The security of Georgia and the
whole region would depend on how fast the US dominance will retreat
in the Caucasus and how soon the undemocratic governance of Georgia
will be changed by democratic one in a true democratic way.

PROPOSAL TO BAN FRENCH MOVIES AND BROADCASTS ON TRT
Turkish Daily News, Turkey
The Corridor
Nov 5 2006
We heard of many proposals to hurt France after its parliament passed
a bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian genocide. Some called for
a boycott of French goods, while some singers canceled their shows
in France. Some more interesting proposals have come in the past
few weeks. CHP deputy from Yozgat Emin Koc noted that Radio France
International (RFI) had stopped its broadcasts in Turkish and asked
the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) to counter this
by suspending its French broadcasts. In a parliamentary question he
submitted, Koc asked State Minister Beºir Atalay whether RFI could
be told that the broadcasts would be suspended until they reinstated
the Turkish broadcasts. He didn’t stop there.
“Which French movies has TRT purchased for this year? Is it considering
broadcasting them on its channels? What are you considering doing
about countering the genocide allegations?”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Council of Radio and Television (RTUK)
recommended that TRT should boycott media products coming from France.
No one objects to protest actions that are within sensible limits.
However, limitations imposed on the arts, literature, cinema and
culture are defined as censorship, and that is a bit beyond what we
should deem acceptable. Tomorrow, someone may come up with an idea to
ban Edith Piaf, Victor Hugo, Francoise Sagan, Montaigne, Pierre Loti,
Montesquieu, Stendhal, Jean Paul Sartre, Moliere or Emil Zola. What
if we are called to prevent our children from reading Jules Verne?
Will we accept that too?
–Boundary_(ID_tCsbeBULo+czmjiEqN50Ag)–

MORIS FARHI’S YOUNG TURK
by Peter Byrne
Swans, CA
Nov 5 2006
Farhi, Moris: Young Turk, Arcade Publishing, 2005, ISBN 155970764 X,
392 pages.
In UK, Saqui Books, 2004, ISBN 0-86356-861-0 (hb), ISBN 0-86356-351-1
(pb), 392 pages.
(Swans – November 6, 2006) Rifat is on the innocent side of puberty
in Istanbul at the end of the 1930s. Ataturk has been consecrated as
savior of the nation. The idea of Turkey as an ethnic monolith has
been planted but its foliage has not yet obscured the evidence of
the senses. Rifat’s neighborhood is a crazy quilt of various peoples
getting along together. The New Turkey exists not too uncomfortably
with the old, myth and magic making room for official Westernizing
Puritanism. A Turkmen, the local fount of traditional wisdom, tells
the boy, who is preparing for his Moslem circumcision ceremony,
that the penis is “the key to heaven (p. 13).” All the same, women
seem to keep the neighborhood going. Rifat’s mentor is Gul, an older
girl with powers of clairvoyance. She’s Jewish, with brothers, and
knowing in circumcision lore. Rifat’s miffed when she calls him a
Donme. He assures her that his distant forebears may have been these
17th century insincere converts, but that his parents chose the Moslem
faith freely. In a letter to Gul he outlines the not so small virtues
of the Moslem circumcision: A boy’s a man as soon as the knife draws
blood, and he doesn’t have to wait around for any bar mitzvah.
So begins Moris Farhi’s Young Turk, a novel told by a baker’s dozen
of friends and acquaintances in the Turkey of the first decades of the
republic. Each voice bears witness to the complexities and richness of
a mixed population as Turkish nationalism and world events impinge
upon it. The freshness of this historical fresco comes from its
being built on the perplexity of children awakening to the sensual
delights of life. The intertwining of death and desire, defeat and
joy lifts the story above the run-of-the mill European or American
novel. Farhi, a Turk of Jewish provenance, lives in London and writes
in English. Born in 1935, he has published four other books and is a
vice president of International PEN. His distance from Turkey seems
only to have intensified his feeling for its life.
Musa grew up in Ankara. His childhood was illuminated by trips
with his Armenian nanny to the women’s baths. He and his friend
Selim acquire fundamental knowledge of the female sphere before the
experienced mistress of the “hamas” bars the boys because their keys
to heaven have grown enough to open locks. Robbie, son of a British
official, steals passports to help his Turkish friends save members
of their Jewish family trapped in Salonica. The Greek city, thanks
to Bulgarian occupation, German pressure, and local collaboration,
began sending its huge Jewish population to Auschwitz in 1943. The
adolescents’ plan fails tragically. This is a novel about children,
not a children’s book.
Selma, a Jewish schoolgirl in Istanbul, feels the racism engendered
by WWII. She’s called a half-Turk by her nationalist teacher.
Turkey’s neutrality doesn’t exclude factions gambling on a
German victory. The Varlik law has been enacted against non-Muslim
minorities. Ataturk is dead. The concept of Turkishness as constituted
by a shared language and culture falls by the wayside.
Jews, Armenians and Greeks are forced out of business by extreme
taxation. Labor camps are set up for those who can’t pay. In March
1944, under foreign pressure and intimations that Germany may not be
a sure bet, the Varlik law was rescinded.
Bilal will perish in the quixotic attempt to bring the passports to
Salonica. He leaves some written musings about the Sephardi and their
long involvement with the Ottoman reign. He accepts an opinion that
might surprise Westerners: “Most Jews who have lived under Islam will
admit, if they are honest, that, over the centuries, Elohim and Allah
have become interchangeable — a solid journeyman who dresses now in
a turban, now in a skull cap (p. 136).” Bilal’s doom seems foretold
in the stormy marriage of his incompatible parents. He glories in his
father’s tale of personal service to a mythic Ataturk in the War of
Independence. We learn that minorities, including Armenians, served in
the army, being especially useful because more likely to be literate.
In 1947, two years after the war, Yusef, at thirteen, travels alone to
Marseilles by ship. A troubled woman takes him in charge, and he soon
covets her as a second mother, his own — a typical Farhi touch —
being uncomfortable in her maternal role. During the trip, the boy
begins to be a man while seeing the woman through the difficult task
of retrieving her husband from an insane asylum. Yusef’s sentiments
have been thoroughly selfish, while the woman hasn’t scrupled to make
use of him as a substitute for her dead son. Intense feelings have
been exchanged, but as between two sleepwalkers.
Hava, a girl of sixteen, is an apprentice juggler. A foundling adopted
by a circus wrestler and his wife, she becomes obsessed with saving
a Caucasian trapeze artist. He has taken to drink out of guilt after
the death in a fall of his male circus partner. The wrestler guru,
whose sport has spiritual overtones in Turkey, will extract the
guilty secret that the survivor had objected to his dead partner’s
“dishonest” touch. Employing do-or-die means, the gentle-giant wrestler
gets the traumatized artist back on the trapeze. Hava will marry him,
aware that their intimacy will be shared with her bridegroom’s new
aerial collaborator.
Mustafa, fourteen, is part of his overbearing but endearing teacher’s
experiment to embody Turkey’s diversity in a college dormitory:
In effect, we twenty-four boys represented almost the full spectrum
of Turkey’s demographic cocktail: Abkhaz, Albanian, Alevi, Armenian,
Azeri, Bosnian, Circassian, Donme, Georgian, Greek Catholic, Greek
Orthodox, Jewish, Karait, Kurd, Laz, Levantine, Nusairi Arab, Pomak,
Pontos, Russian (White Russian, to give their preferred appellation),
Suryani (also known as Assyrians), Tatar, Turk and Yezidi (p. 234).
While the teacher extols the poems of the great Nazim Hikmet, a
mysterious visitor to the college neighborhood extends the teaching
of the Communist poet. This “houri” with a Studebaker, who draws on
a cigarette “like Rita Hayworth” and dresses in black “like Juliette
Greco,” dispenses sex with egalitarian impartiality to the dormitory
boys, but forbids un-socialist jealousy and possessiveness. The
dormitory harmony cracks with the strain as the thirteenth boy has
his turn. Local bigots drive the visitor away despite the teacher’s
defense of her. When the dormitory is disbanded, Mustafa misses it
less than his departed initiatrix, but becomes aware that he has “…
attained the wisdom of experience and developed a heart where every
visitor could sign his or her name (p. 261).”
Atilla spends his adolescence in that peculiar dimension of
Istanbul that is melancholy. His family decimated, he finds another
in a Romanian restaurateur and his “Kabadayt,” a legendary Turkish
Mafioso of the solitary drifter and Robin Hood variety. But yet another
disaster chases Atilla from the sad city. Another boy, Zeki, decides at
twelve to be a writer and becomes devoted to Nazim Hikmet. When Nazim
is released from prison in 1950, and persecution of him continues,
Zeki plays a role in his escape from Turkey. Then, not unlike Farhi,
he goes into exile himself.
Aslan mourns his friend who finally died of cancer after various
misfortunes, including service in the Korean War. The authorities
had imprisoned him for his promotion of Kurdish rights and world
government. His lover, a matchmaker, had been rendered unfit by her
profession to marry and make him happy. She passes, rather brusquely,
from daily life into legend. The two realms are never far apart for
the author.
Davut, writing a thesis in England, returns to Istanbul where he’s
harried by the authorities. Now broken by torture and prison, His
former teacher, the organizer of the multiethnic dormitory, now broken
by torture and prison, urges Davut to flee into exile. The young man’s
lover can’t bring herself to follow. The subject of his thesis is
apropos: “… how the Turks’ innate nobility tempered with the best of
Islamic teaching made them the most tolerant people in the world, while
the plethora of complexes instilled by the worst of Islamic teaching
could — and sometimes did — turn them into ogres (p. 367).” The novel
closes with a letter from the teacher to all his students. He’s dying,
but as always in Young Turk death wears the raiment of physical love
and leaves time for the teacher to utter his pluralist testament:
“True Turkishness means rejoicing in the infinite plurality of people
as we rejoice in the infinite multiplicity of nature (p. 386).”
Disjointed for a novel, Young Turk most effectively portrays
adolescence in a tumultuous epoch. The eternal drives of youth are
colored with the idealism that Ataturk brought. But the regime that
sprang from him proves narrowing and ungenerous, too often brutal.
Moris Farhi misses what he thinks of as the rough tolerance of Ottoman
Turkey and signals underlying realities that haven’t changed despite
the simplistic vision imposed by an insecure nationalism. The insistent
presence of sex among these weighty themes initially disconcerts. But
we soon understand that the surprise comes from our own limitations. If
their bodies weren’t firmly anchored physically, these children of
the storm couldn’t keep up their hopes under the assault of history
and loss.