I DON’T TRUST CHIRAC
By Tufan Turenc
Turkish Press
Oct 16 2006
HURRIYET- I want to write very harsh words about French President
Jacque Chirac. I’m trying hard to stop myself. I don’t trust Chirac
at all. His majesty called Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
told him that he was very sorry. He said that he understands and
shares our feelings and criticism and that this development stems
from the upcoming general elections. Then he promised that he would
do his best to make sure the bill won’t become law. So kind of him!
Where has he been until now as France’s president? I wonder if Chirac
is making fun of the Turkish nation. They immediately forgot the
show that he made in the Armenian capital Yerevan last week. I also
wonder if he didn’t say last week that each country has to face up
to its tragedies and mistakes in the past in line with its level of
development and that Turkey should recognize the Armenian genocide in
order to gain European Union membership. What sort of a statesmanship
is this? How can the Turkish nation trust a president whose words
now contradict what he said just a week before? Who can guarantee
that his majesty won’t say something against Turkey tomorrow? Chirac
should realize that the Turkish nation knows better than to take
him seriously.
I wonder what Erdogan and the Cabinet ministers think about Chirac. I
believe they don’t trust him either. Turkey should act coolly now. We
should see that this nonsensical, illogical law which completely
violates democratic values has damaged France’s international
respectability and we should make use of it very well. We should make a
dignified response to this hostile stance of France. Let’s not sully
our just cause with pointless displays like throwing eggs at the
doors and windows of French representatives and setting their flag
on fire. Let’s not forget that trying to impose excessive sanctions
on commercial interests would only harm us. The Turkish Republic is
a state of law. Harming French firms which have invested in Turkey
would hit us like a boomerang. Our struggle with France should be
done through political and legal avenues. Turkey has the resources,
experience and diplomatic culture to do this.

GEORGE HORTON: AN AMERICAN WITNESS IN SMYRNA
By James L. Marketos
GREEK NEWS, New York
Oct 16 2006
Posted on Monday, October 16 @ 12:00:57 EDT by greek_news
Exactly eighty-four years ago yesterday (September 13, 1922), a
massive fire broke out in the Armenian quarter of Smyrna (modern-day
Izmir). Ever since, controversy has raged over who started the fire,
whether it was an intentional act of genocide, and how many people were
killed. Estimates range from one or two thousand to over 100,000. There
is no dispute, however, that this was the 20th centuryʼs first
holocaust.
In 1922, Smyrna was a large and important commercial port on the Asia
Minor coast. Its population was about 400,000. Roughly 43% were Turkish
Muslims, 45% were Greek and Armenian Christians, 6% were Jews, and 5%
were foreigners. The Greek and Armenian Christians had deep roots in
Smyrna going back countless generations. Many owned successful and
long-established businesses. Others were professionals, artisans,
or educators. They had a thriving cultural life.
The fire raged for four days. A strong breeze drove the flames away
from the Turkish quarter and toward the waterfront, and with it
the cityʼs horrified Greeks and Armenians. The fire eventually
consumed all of the city except the Turkish quarter.
By late afternoon of the 13th, the fire had pinned thousands of victims
on the harborside quay, where they had fled hoping to finds means of
escape. On the narrow quay they found themselves trapped between the
raging fire at their backs and the deep harbor in front.
There they were subjected to unspeakable atrocities while the
uncontrollable fire burned itself out. And over the following weeks
and months, more perished from starvation and exposure while waiting
to be evacuated.
Tragically, the entire scene was witnessed by representatives of
the Allied Powers. They had pledged themselves to neutrality at the
Paris Peace Conference following World War I, and so they watched from
warships anchored about 250 yards offshore. All vessels that had been
tied up along the quay (including the U.S. destroyer Litchfield) had
to move off due to the intense heat of the fire. The foreign crews
evacuated their respective nationals from any danger in Smyrna and
plucked from the sea as many victims as could swim out to the ships.
At night, the foreign vessels drowned out the terrible screams coming
from the quay with band music and tried to keep rapes and murders to
a minimum with occasional sweeps of their powerful searchlights.
Some Turkish apologists contend that resentful, demoralized retreating
Greek army troops started the fire. Others contend that Armenians,
some disguised as Turkish soldiers, started the fire. They also
question why Turks would want to burn such a rich city.
By contrast, the Greek and Armenian version of events is that regular
Turkish army soldiers started the fire by spreading and igniting
petroleum in houses and other locations, and that the numbers
that perished are at the higher end of the estimates. This version
also contends that Turkish nationalist troops rampaged through the
city before and during the fire, assaulting, looting, and killing
Christians. The Greek and Armenian case is persuasively supported by
the testimony of an American eyewitness:
George Horton.
Biographical Information Horton was a literary man. He was a scholar
of both Greek and Latin.
He translated Sappho. He wrote a guide for the interpretation of
Scripture. He wrote several novels and was a renowned journalist in
Chicago, a member of what was called the “Chicago Renaissance.”
He was also a professional diplomat who loved Greece. He became U.S.
Consul in Athens in 1893, where he actively promoted the revival of the
Olympic Games and inspired the U.S. teamʼs participation. He wrote
a lyrical visitorʼs guide to Athens and composed a reflective
description of a few monthsʼ stay in Argolis. And he married
Catherine Sacopoulo, a Greek American woman.
He served twice as U.S. Consul in Athens (1893-1898; 1905-1906). He
also served in Thessaloniki (1910-1911) and then in Smyrna up to the
U.S.ʼs break-off of diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire
(1911-1917) in World War I. He served again as consul in Smyrna
after the war (1919-1922) and remained in Smyrna until after the
fire began on September 13, 1922, spending the last hours before his
evacuation signing passes for those entitled to American protection
and transportation to Piraeus.
Today, George Horton is best remembered for his book about the events
leading up to and during the fire. The book was published in 1926,
and its title, The Blight of Asia, unabashedly refers to the abominable
behavior of the Turks. By the time of publication Horton had resigned
his diplomatic commission, and he wrote strictly in the capacity of
a private citizen, drawing on his own observations and those of the
people he quotes. In these remarks, I draw mostly on Hortonʼs
book, but also informative is the long cable he wrote to the State
Department from the Athens consulate two weeks after the fire.
Horton wanted his book to make four main points.
First, he wanted to illustrate that the catastrophic events in Smyrna
were merely “the closing act in a consistent program of exterminating
Christianity throughout the length and breadth of the old Byzantine
Empire.”
Second, he wanted to establish that the Smyrna fire was started by
regular Turkish army troops with, as he put it “fixed purpose, with
system, and with painstaking minute details.”
Third, he wanted to emphasize that the Allied Powers shamefully
elevated their selfish political and economic interests over the
plight of the beleaguered Christian populations of Asia Minor, thereby
allowing the Smyrna catastrophe to unfold without any effective
resistance and, as he said, “without even a word of protest by any
civilized government.” And fourth, he wanted to illustrate that pious
western Christians were deluded in thinking they were making missionary
headway in the Muslim world. I will address only the first two points.
Historical Background To understand these two points, we first need to
review briefly the key events in Asia Minor in the period leading up to
1922. In World War I, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany. Horton,
you will recall, was at his consular post in Smyrna during the war
until 1917.
After the war, the victorious Allies gathered at Versailles to
formulate peace terms. Among the Peace Commissionʼs thorniest
tasks was partitioning the defeated Ottoman Empire.
Greece entered the war late, but sided with the eventually victorious
Allies. At the Peace Conference, Greeceʼs prime minister,
Eleutherios Venizelos, lobbied hard for the annexation to Greece of
Eastern Thrace, Constantinople, and a large territory along the Asia
Minor coast. In all of these areas there were large populations of
indigenous Greek Christians engaged mostly in commerce and agriculture.
In May 1919, the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Commission
endorsed the Greek armyʼs landing at Smyrna and the establishment
of a Greek administrative zone. From Smyrna, the Greek army pushed
eastward into Anatolia, the Turkish heartland, successfully expanding
the Greek zone; and Greeceʼs claims not only to this zone but
also to Eastern Thrace were ratified by the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres,
which the Great Powers imposed on the humbled Ottoman Empire.
There remained, however, the problem of a rising Turkish nationalist
movement in Anatolia led by a charismatic former Ottoman army officer,
Mustafa Kemal, whose military strength the Great Powers and Greece
dangerously underestimated. The result was the rout of Greeceʼs
over-stretched, war-weary army by Kemal near Afyonkarahisar on August
30, after which Kemalʼs nationalist troops began a relentless
advance toward Smyrna. Before them they drove the remnants of the
Greek army and hordes of frightened Christian farmers and villagers.
According to Horton, news of the Kemalist advances began reaching
Smyrna soon after the Greek defeat and produced immediate panic among
the Christian population. Their panic was completely understandable,
he said, as he had predicted in a consular dispatch that if the
Greek Army retreated in Asia Minor it would be followed by the entire
Christian population. His prediction was based on his nearly thirty
years of consular service and, as he put it, on “some things which
all men who have had long residence in this country absolutely know.”
First, the city filled with refugees from the interior, mostly
small farmers, who were lodged in the churches, schools, and other
public institutions. Many got away in the first days on steamers and
sailboats. “Then,” says Horton, the defeated, dusty, ragged Greeks
soldiers began to arrive, looking straight ahead, like men walking
in their sleep. . . .
In a never-ending stream they poured through the town toward the
point on the coast to which the Greek fleet had withdrawn. Silently
as ghosts they went, looking neither to the right nor the left. From
time to time some soldier, his strength entirely spent, collapsed on
the sidewalk or by a door.
Then they learned that the Turkish army was moving on the city. The
Turkish cavalry units arrived on the morning of September 9, filing
along the quay toward their barracks at the Konak (the Turkish
administrative headquarters building) at the other end of the city.
In the evening of the same day, the looting and killing began in the
Armenian quarter. The following morning, Americans began to report
seeing corpses lying in the streets in the interior of the city.
Horton himself saw Turkish civilians armed with shotguns watching
the windows of Christian houses ready to shoot at any head that
might appear.
The shooting continued in the Christian quarters the night of September
10. Throngs of frightened people were begging to be let into various
American institutions. After the Armenian quarter had been thoroughly
sacked for nearly four days, the fire erupted in the Armenian quarter.
**** A lecture by James L. Marketos at the AHI Noon Forum, on September
14, 2006
To be continued
php?name=News&file=article&sid=5594
–Bou ndary_(ID_wiHhiUstPzP2J68a2RHEKg)–

THE PERILS OF US-AZERBAIJANI STRATEGIC CO-OPERATION
By Justin Burke
Jane’s International Security, UK
Oct 16 2006
In addition to encouraging Azerbaijan to adapt its armed forces to
handle pipeline security, the US wants Baku’s support for a possible
armed response to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The
five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, have
offered an incentive package to Iran in return for Tehran’s commitment
to suspend uranium enrichment. As those negotiations make halting
progress, US officials continue to view military action as a possible
last resort. As Iran’s northern neighbour, Azerbaijan could serve as
a useful platform for raids against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
Azerbaijan’s attention these days is focused on the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. Long-running peace talks remain in stalemate over Karabakh’s
future status. Ethnic Armenians, who won control of the territory in
the early 1990s, seek international recognition of independence with
an eye toward eventual unification with the Armenian nation.
Meanwhile, Baku insists that the territory remains under Azerbaijani
control. A settlement appeared to be in the offing at the outset of
2006 but summits between President Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart,
Robert Kocharian, failed to produce the much-anticipated breakthrough.
As the chances for a political settlement faded, a variety of
Azerbaijani officials, including Aliyev, raised the possibility of
an attempt to regain Karabakh by force. A ceasefire, which has been
in effect since 1994, seems shaky as firefights and mortar exchanges
in the so-called contact zone are now an almost daily occurrence.
Energy exports give Azerbaijan the ability to upgrade its military,
which suffered a thrashing at the hands of Armenian forces during the
war. Rovnaq Abdullayev, the head of Azerbaijan’s State Oil Company,
has indicated oil extraction will more than double over the next four
years, reaching 65 million tonnes by 2009. Azerbaijani officials
openly say that they will use petro-profits to go on a procurement
binge. The country’s draft budget for 2007, submitted on 25 September
to President Aliyev, is expected to total about USD6 billion, of
which 13 per cent is projected to go to defence spending.
[End of non-subscriber extract]
nal_security/news/jiaa/jiaa061016_1_n.shtml

FRENCH AMBASSADOR: “TURKISH-FRENCH RELATIONS WILL BE HURT BY PASSAGE OF THE ARMENIAN BILL”
Turkish Press
Oct 16 2006
Appearing on television yesterday, France’s Ambassador to Ankara
Paul Poudade commented on the French Parliament’s passage of the
Armenian bill, saying that French-Turkish relation could be hurt by
the decision. Poudade pointed out that the bill was passed by the
lower house of Parliament, but had not yet become a law. “Accepting
the so-called Armenian genocide claims is not a precondition for
Turkey’s European Union membership bid,” said Poudade, adding that
dialogue between the sides on the issue should be should be improved.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERI AND TURKISH DIASPORA IN CZECH PROTEST DECISION OF FRENCH PARLIAMENT
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Oct 16 2006
Representatives of the Azerbaijani and Turkish Diaspora in the Czech
Republic held a rally of protest before the embassy of France in
Prague, against the French Parliament’s bill establishing punishment
for rejection of the “Armenian genocide”.
During 15 minutes, the protesters have stood before the Embassy with
posters in their hands exposing falsification of historical events
in Czech language.
Chairman of the Azer-Czech Society Elshan Nazarov has presented
to the Embassy employees a book, “The Armenian Terror”, in French,
Armenian and Turkish, and a CD, demanded form the democratic France
to refrain form its pro-Armenian position.
Since February 2007, the Azer-Czech Society is going to hold numerous
actions on the Khojali tragedy.

BLEAK REVIEW SENDS ANKARA SLIDING DOWN EU ORDER
David Charter, Brussels
The Australian, Australia
Oct 17 2006
THE timetable for Turkey to join the European Union appeared to slip
yesterday when European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso gave
his most pessimistic view of the country’s progress towards membership
since formal talks began one yearago.
Mr Barroso, highlighting a slowdown in vital reforms as he prepared
the ground for a critical assessment report, said it could be up to
20 years before Turkey joined.
Ankara’s case has suffered blows in recent weeks, including last
week’s vote by French deputies to criminalise denial of the World
War I Armenian genocide, an event never recognised as such by Turkey.
While Mr Barroso has made clear that this is not a criterion for EU
membership, he gave a clear signal that Turkey was failing to meet
formal demands that include guarantees for freedom of speech and
greater civilian control over the military.
“We are concerned about Turkey because the pace of reforms is rather
slow, from our point of view,” he said.
“I believe it would be great to have Turkey, if Turkey respects all
the economic and political criteria.
“This is not yet the case. It is a country that comes from a different
tradition. There are efforts in the right direction, but nowadays there
is news that is not encouraging in terms of them coming closer to us.”
This was a warning to expect a bleak assessment by EU Enlargement
Commissioner Olli Rehn, who is due to give an update on Turkish
efforts to prepare for the35 EU entry criteria on November 8.
When formal talks began with Ankara last year, Mr Rehn spoke of a
time frame of “about 10 to 15 years” before conditions would be right.
Mr Barroso has been reluctant to put his own target on the process
but yesterday showed how much Turkey’s case had slipped in 12 months,
saying: “We cannot expect Turkey to become a member in less than 15
to 20 years.”
His assessment will provoke fresh concern in Ankara, which is coming
under intense pressure to step up reform and, in particular, resolve
its blockade of vessels from Cyprus.
A failure to do so before the end of the year could lead to a
suspension of the formal EU accession talks.
But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to have refused to give
any further concessions before a Turkish general election next year.
Mr Rehn has spoken of the need to avoid a “train crash” in Turkish
accession negotiations. Austria and France want to hold national
referendums on further enlargement, adding to the hurdles that Turkey
must overcome.

FINANCIAL TIMES: RISKS ARE HUGE
By Anka
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 16 2006
Claims are being made that the Cyprus problem could derail Turkey’s
admission as a member of the EU by the end of the year.
The Financial Times newspaper warned that the ensuing risks would be
huge. “In Turkey, it could halt the country’s cultural march westward,
which began 80 years ago under the rule of Kemal Ataturk, and instead
empower Islamist and nationalist political forces.”
The newspaper published a commentary by Vicent Bonland and Kerin Hope
on the Cyprus problem and Turkey’s EU negotiation process. Reserving
a page for the issue, the newspaper reported that the Cyprus problem
could be set as a precondition for Turkey to take further steps
towards integration.
“While a row between the Turkish and French last week over
recognition of the Armenian genocide has put another formidable
obstacle in the way of Turkey joining the EU, Cyprus poses a much
more immediate difficulty. It is possible that, by the end of this
year, the problem will derail the admission of Turkey as a member –
the EU’s most ambitious and controversial geo-strategic project,”
the newspaper wrote.
To re-emphasize the warnings of a possible train crash with the EU,
the FT said that, the “risks were huge,” and referred to a statement
by Kirsty Hughes who was quoted as saying: “If Turkey’s EU bid were to
collapse, the EU’s overall foreign policy credibility risks serious
damage.”
France and Austria Could Seek to Halt Negotiations
The Financial times also wrote that many EU diplomats now admit that
it was a mistake to accept Greek Cypriot membership into the EU, as
Turkey accuses the Union of reneging on promises to end the isolation
of Turkish Cyprus.
Turkey refuses to open its ports to Greek Cypriots before the isolation
is removed, the article wrote, adding that “if it does not do so,
opponents of Turkish EU membership such as France and Austria (and,
of course, Cyprus) could insist that the negotiations be ended – the
“train crash” scenario – or suspended, which would be the equivalent
of driving the train into a siding.”
According to diplomats, the Turkish government, which will hold a
general election next year, is stuck between refusing to make further
compromises on Cyprus and keeping its EU negotiations on track.
The article also refers to EU term president Finland’s proposal to
end the deadlock, noting that even Finland’s modest proposals are
too much for Turkey and Greek Cypriot leader Papadopulos.
The newspaper also notes that the TRNC was suffering disproportionately
from the status quo.

EU TO MEET ANGRY TURKEY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW
Al-Arab online, UK
Oct 16 2006
Turkey meets the European Union to review tense relations on Monday,
embittered after French lawmakers passed a bill making it a crime to
deny that Ottoman Turks committed genocide against Armenians in 1915.
Although not formally on the agenda of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul’s
talks in Luxembourg, anger over the French vote seems bound to dominate
the regular session with the 25-nation bloc’s biggest candidate.
The EU, represented by the Finnish and German foreign ministers and
European Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn, will press Ankara again
to open its ports to shipping from EU-member Cyprus to avoid a possible
freeze in entry negotiations.
But European diplomats say the French move, even if it seems unlikely
to become law, made it almost impossible for the Turkish government to
make any concession over Cyprus before elections next year, despite
Finnish diplomatic efforts.
Rehn called last Thursday’s Paris vote “counter-productive” both
for efforts to reconcile Turks and Armenians and for moves to reform
Turkey’s penal code to increase freedom of expression.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted on Sunday as saying
French President Jacques Chirac had telephoned him to apologise and
promise help in heading off the bill.
But the row has fuelled Turkish nationalist arguments that the
Europeans do not really want Turkey as a member, thus it is pointless
to make concessions on Cyprus, Kurdish rights, religious minorities
or ties with Armenia to please Brussels.
Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja is trying to craft a mini-deal
to ease trade ties on Cyprus.
Turkey does not recognize the Greek Cypriot government in Nicosia,
which represents the divided island in the EU.
The executive European Commission issues its next progress report on
Turkey’s candidacy on November 8.
It is likely to conclude that the EU-driven reform process has slowed
and Ankara has not met its treaty obligations on Cyprus.
That could prompt EU leaders at a mid-December summit to freeze or
slow the entry negotiations.
The British ambassador to Turkey, Peter Westmacott, said if the Finnish
move fails, the EU will hold Turkey to account for not meeting its
commitments with the risk that the accession process — at least in
part — would be suspended.
“That would be dangerous. The negotiations, once stalled, would be
very hard to re-start,” he wrote in an opinion piece published in
Turkish Daily News on Monday.
Cyprus is using its EU veto to block the opening of any new “chapter”
or policy area in talks with Turkey.
Cypriot Foreign Minister Georgios Lillikas said his government would
not budge from its position of no new negotiations without a move
by Turkey.
“Cyprus is not in a position to open or close chapters or set
benchmarks,” he said in an interview with German newspaper Financial
Times Deutschland.
“We are firmly determined to pursue this path because any further
concession to Turkey only serves to undermine the EU’s legitimacy.”
The EU will review troubled relations with another long-term aspirant
to membership later on Monday in talks with Serbian Prime Minister
Vojislav Kostunica.
Brussels broke off talks on closer ties with Belgrade in May after
Kostunica failed to make good on a promise to arrest and hand over
former Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic for trial in The
Hague on genocide charges.
Chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte is expected to tell
the EU troika at Monday’s talks that Serbia is still not cooperating
fully with her tribunal.

TWO THIRDS OF FRENCH AGAINST ARMENIAN BILL
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 16 2006
A public survey conducted in France has revealed that most of the
French public is against the Armenian bill passed in the French
National Assembly on Thursday. The Armenian bill makes it crime to
deny that an Armenian genocide occurred during World War I.
According to an online survey, 68 percent of respondents did not
welcome the Armenian bill.
Those who think that this bill serves an Armenian cause say that it is
“harmful” for France at the same time.
Only 26 percent of the respondents support the Armenian bill according
to the survey, while six percent refrained from expressing their views.
First the French Senate and then the President Jacques Chirac must
approve the bill before it can become law.

STORES SHUTTERS COME DOWN
By Zelis Yildiral, Istanbul
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 16 2006
In response to France’s proposed law to criminalize denial of an
Armenian genocide during World War I, some companies are closing
their stores.
Yesterday, most stores in the Taksim Square district that sell French
goods did not open.
Many foreign members of the United Brands Association (UBA), a
non-governmental organization of the Turkish retail sector, are
concerned about reaction to the bill and are taking extra precautions.
Boycotts of French products are spreading all over the country.
>From Istanbul and Izmit in the west, to Konya and Nevsehir in the east,
fresh protests continued. Shelves in a market in Erzurum were cleared
of French products and residents in Nigde, not content to leave it
at that, burnt their French products.
In many stores, once favored products are being returned or left on
the shelves after customers learn of their French origin.
The cosmetic sector is being especially affected as 80 percent of
cosmetic products sold on the market belong to French companies.
Shoppers are going right past shelves stacked with Vichy and Loreal
creams, shampoos and make-up products.
Long-time Loreal user Ayse Genc says, “I don’t know what France is
trying to do, but it’s hurting the friendship between two countries.”
Aysel Ordu says that from now on she is checking the label for French
origins, and adds “I’ve given up a French perfume I really like I’ve
been using for two years.”