Zaman Online, Turkey
Oct 14 2006
`Adoption of French bill not to Harm Turkey’s EU bid’
By Cihan News Agency
Friday, October 13, 2006
zaman.com
Adoption of a French bill, which will penalize anyone who denies the
so-called Armenian genocide, will not affect Turkey’s European Union
(EU) membership, a senior European Union (EU) official said.
The EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero Waldner told on
Friday in an interview with Finnish public television YLE that the
issue of the Armenian genocide has come up from time to time in
France since there is a strong (Armenian) community in the country.
Waldner assured that what happened in France and how they treat
candidate countries of EU were completely two different things.

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 14 2006
Azeri Parliament Passed Protest-Statement against French

Source: Trend
Author: J.Shahverdiyev

13.10.2006

The next meeting of Milli Majlis [Azerbaijani Parliament] has passed
a protest-statement against the French Parliament. The statement was
passed to protest French Parliament’s adopting the law penalizing
denial of so-called `Armenian genocide’, Trend reports.
The same decision of the French Parliament is condemned in the
statement and it is mentioned that this decision is contrary to the
European values, human rights and democracy.
The statement was prepared by the commission under the chairwomanship
of the Vice Speaker Bahar Muradova.

Reporters without borders (press release), France
Oct 14 2006
Reporters Without Borders regrets adoption of law making it a crime
to deny Turkish genocide against Armenians
Reporters Without Borders can only regret the adoption by the French
National Assembly, on 12 October 2006, of a draft law making denial
of the Armenian genocide a crime. It will now be punishable by five
years in jail and 45,000 euros fine.
The law complements that of 19 January 2001 in which France publicly
recognised the 1915 Armenian genocide.
`There is obviously no question of going back on the recognition of
the Armenian genocide, but legislating on it will expose anyone
denying it to harsh judicial penalties set out by the 18 July 1881
law on press freedom (Article 24a). Memorial laws contribute to the
creation of an official historical truth. This practice is
incompatible with France’s fundamental values, starting with freedom
of expression,’ said the organisation.
`Not only is it absurd that free expression – however contestable and
that is not the question – should be submitted to a constraint which
is also an additional threat, but it seems to us that this legalistic
concept of history will be much more likely to stoke up antagonism
rather than promote debate.
`It is particularly symbolic that this vote should have been held on
the same day of the awarding of the Nobel Prize for literature to
Orhan Pamuk, who was himself taken to court by the Turkish
authorities for having raised the issue of this genocide,’ Reporters
Without Borders stressed.
Reporters Without Borders hopes that senators due to examine the law
at the second reading, will show less attention to forthcoming
elections and will have the wisdom to reject it. If not it could have
incalculable consequences for all historians and of course for press
freedom.

The Age, Australia
Oct 14 2006
Fighting words from Turkey’s Nobel author
LAST year – not long after Orhan Pamuk was tried for insulting
Turkishness – an Istanbul newspaper ran an article entitled Who is
Maureen Freely? Their answer was that I was more than just Orhan’s
friend and translator: I was a shadowy master-agent whose sole
purpose in life was to win my client a Nobel prize.
It was part of a much larger hate campaign in the right-wing press,
just one lie among thousands. The campaign was so vicious that I was
sure that – even if it wanted to honour Turkey’s foremost writer –
the Nobel Academy, which shies away from controversy and does not
wish to take instruction from shadowy master-agents, would want to
wash its hands of the whole thing.
So though I’ve often used the N word when writing about Pamuk’s work,
I was probably the most surprised person in the world when the
academy awarded him the 2006 prize for literature. I was just
finishing a fiction seminar at the University of Warwick when he rang
me with the news and I’m afraid I screamed. He was calm and courteous
as I, too, tried to be on a series of radio programs afterwards. But
I am troubled that almost every interview began with the same
question. Did I see this prize as political?
No, I don’t. Orhan Pamuk has been on the world stage for 15 years
now. He is a hugely innovative literary writer whose books owe as
much to the great 19th-century novelists as they do to the modernist
traditions.
His subject is the clash of civilisations, or rather, the strange and
subtle interweavings of contradictory cultures in Turkey past and
present. In his historical novels – The White Castle and My Name is
Red – he presents dark metaphors that illuminate the contradictions
of contemporary life. In his contemporary novels, he pierces the
silences enforced by state ideology to expose the truth about power
and its masters.
But like all important writers in Turkey, he has often been asked to
speak on matters of political principle. He has spoken most
consistently and eloquently on free expression.
For many years, his high profile in the West allowed him more freedom
than most. That ended in February 2005 when he told a Swiss
journalist that though a million Armenians had been killed in the
country of his birth, no one talked about it. The firestorm in the
Turkish press was so fierce that he briefly left the country.
And then there was the lawsuit, which seemed to come at such an
awkward time for Turkey. Here it was, trying to join the EU. But here
it was, prosecuting yet another writer for his words. It wasn’t doing
itself any favours, was it?
The story has moved on – as many as 80 writers, scholars, artists,
and activists have been prosecuted for insulting state, the
judiciary, or Turkishness itself; 45 more cases are set to go to
trial before year’s end.
The ultranationalist lawyers who brought the case against Pamuk hope
to to trample democratic debate. Here they have not (yet) succeeded.
The intelligentsia is putting up a good fight. But it has come at a
cost for those who are known in the West, and especially for Orhan.
His life story eclipsed the stories in his books.
My hope is that this will change now. The Nobel has gone not to the
man and not to his politics but to his words, his characters, and his
ideas. Born into a culture that had (recently) clipped its Eastern
roots, and that was struggling to define itself as Western, he has
(like all of us who grew up in Istanbul) grappled with double
identities all his life. What might have seemed a curse to a young
man is the source from which his imagination feeds.
He has taken both sides of his clashing heritage and made them whole.
Though he is often praised for making Turkey “visible”, his greater
achievement is to make the West see what it looks like from the
outside.
Now that he has won the prize of prizes, will he be allowed to shed
his political persona and go back to his desk? It’s too early to
tell. He is still a controversial figure in Turkey. He will, no
doubt, continue to challenge its official history when he thinks it
right to do so, just as he will continue to challenge Islamophobia
and ultranationalism in the West. But now, at last, his books will
come first.
GUARDIAN
Author Maureen Freely was born in the US but grew up in Istanbul. Her
translation of Orhan Pamuk’s Snow was published in 2004. She is a
senior lecturer in the Warwick writing program in the Department of
English at the University of Warwick.

The Age, Australia
Oct 14 2006
A wake-up call better late than never
October 13, 2006
NOBEL literature laureate Orhan Pamuk said he was honoured to win,
even though his initial reaction was confusion about the late-night
call.
“It’s such a great honour, such a great pleasure,” Pamuk told
journalists at Columbia University, New York, where he studied in the
1980s.
“I’m very happy about the prize.”
The boyish Turkish author, now a fellow at Columbia, said the award
was a cause for celebration not just for him, but his country and
culture.
“I think that this is first of all an honour bestowed upon the
Turkish language, Turkish culture, Turkey and also recognition of my
labours,” he said.
The decision to award the prize to a writer and campaigner who is an
advocate of Turkey’s European ambitions, and a harsh critic of
authoritarian trends in his country, comes as a boon to freedom of
expression and to Turkey’s beleaguered literary class.
But Pamuk, a hero to Istanbul liberals, is reviled by his country’s
nationalists, who see him as a traitor.
A 54-year-old native and chronicler of Istanbul who has devoted
himself to his writing for more than 30 years, Pamuk was in New York
when the 1.1 million ($A1.8 million) prize was announced in
Stockholm on Thursday.
Sporting a wide grin, the novelist was ebullient as he described how
he learned of the award. His first reaction? “Who is calling me in
the middle of the night? I have a new mobile, there’s something wrong
with my mobile.”
Pamuk, who has courted controversy in Turkey by tackling such
subjects as the treatment of the Kurdish minority and the Ottoman
massacre of Armenians during World War I, declined to be drawn by
reporters’ questions.
“This is a time for celebration, for enjoying this, rather than
making political comments,” he told journalists.
When pushed, he said: “This is a day for celebration, for being
positive.
“I have lots of critical energy deep in me but I’m not going to
express it today.
“I want to tell my readers, both in Turkey and all over the world,
that this prize will not change my working habits, my devotion to
this art.”

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Oct 14 2006
France no longer home of freedom: Gul
The Turkish Foreign Minister said that the vote of the French
parliament was shameful.
NTV-MSNBC
Güncelleme: 17:05 TSÝ 13 Ekim 2006 CumaANKARA – France will have to
live with the consequences of the French parliament’s decision to
approve a bill making it a criminal offence to deny allegations that
Armenians were massacred by the Ottoman Empire, Turkey’s Foreign
Minister said late Thursday.

Speaking at a joint press conference with visiting Afghani Foreign
Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta in Ankara, Foreign Minister Abdullah
Gul said that France could no longer describe itself as the home of
freedoms. `France will live with this shame,’ Gul said. `I hope that
France will take a backward step from this dead end.’ Turkey will
take every step necessary to counter the impression created by the
passing of the legislation, he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Oct 14 2006
Turkey slams passing of French genocide denial bill
The Armenian Patriarch warned that the new law will strengthen the
hands of far right nationalists in both France and Turkey.
NTV-MSNBC
Güncelleme: 17:05 TSÝ 13 Ekim 2006 CumaANKARA / ISTANBUL – The
passing of controversial legislation by the French parliament
outlawing the denial of allegations that the Ottoman Empire massacred
Armenians during the First World War has sparked an outpouring of
criticism across Turkey. The bill, approved by the lower house of the
French parliament on Thursday, foresees fines of 45,000 euros and up
to one year behind bars for those found guilty of denying the so
called genocide.

Deniz Baykal, chairman of the opposition Republican People’s Party
(CHP), said it was impossible to mortgage history by making such
decisions. `This decision aims at preventing talks over historical
facts,’ he said. Mehmet Agar, the leader of the opposition True Path
Party (DYP), said that the decision was a violation of democracy,
human rights and freedom of expression. `It will lead to
irrecoverable damage in the bilateral relations between Turkey and
France,’ Agar said.
Another to criticise the decision of the French parliament was Mesrob
II, the Armenian Patriarch in Turkey, who said that the new
legislation will strengthen the hands of not only Turkish but also
Armenian extreme nationalist and racist groups. `The French, who have
put several obstacles before Turkey on its road to the EU, have given
a major blow to the very limited dialogue between Turkey and
Armenia,’ he said. `I think that this resolution, adopted by the
French parliament, is anti-democratic because it limits personal
freedom of expression.’
Turkey’s leading business lobby group, the Turkish Industrialists’
and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD), said that the vote of the
French parliament was a great mistake and was contrary to the
European Union’s philosophy and its standards of democracy. In a
statement issued late Thursday TUSIAD said that France had mortgaged
its foreign policy in order to gain the votes of the Armenians in
France. French politicians didn’t have the required authority and
expertise to make a judgement on the issue, the statement said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 14 2006
An Irony of Fate
Friday, October 13, 2006
zaman.com
This is an irony of fate. Orhan Pamuk, who was tried for saying
`30,000 Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these lands,’
was awarded the Nobel literature prize on the same day the Armenian
genocide bill was passed by the French parliament.
These two points are being linked in every comment about the issue.
Pamuk, who gained a considerable number of enemies with his
statement, is bound to hear comments that if somebody curses Turkey
like he did, that person will also get a prize.
A big `Armenian shadow’ will be cast over this prize. In all
likelihood, Pamuk himself is not happy with such a coincidence,
either.
If all these things had not happened, such as Pamuk saying such big
words, the subsequent controversy and the Nobel prize being announced
right after the bill penalizing those who deny the purported Armenian
genocide, we would now be talking about Pamuk’s words, his literary
competence and about the doors this prize would open for Turkish
literature.
However, whether desired or not, his words will follow him like a
shadow and some will regard the Nobel prize as an award for Pamuk’s
words and behaviors that `offended’ Turkey and the Turkish people.
Aside from all these discussions, Orhan Pamuk is Turkey’s most
well-known novelist.
His `opposing’ attitude and `discourse’ certainly play a part in his
worldwide fame.
As a matter of fact, it is no longer an author’s works that make him
famous in today’s world, just as it is not only `literary competence’
that influences the Swedish Academy’s decision who receives the Nobel
prize.
All these will cause endless conflicts in both literary and political
circles.
However, the truth despite all is that Pamuk has been awarded the
Nobel Literature Prize in 2006. It is impossible to deny or ignore
this.
Political conflicts, even crucial social events, may be forgotten
with time but literature has an ability to resist time. Even though
the Nobel Prize always causes controversy and it is claimed to be
given for political reasons, it is the most respectable literature
prize in the world.
None of today’s conflicts will be remembered within a 100 years’ time
but Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist’s name will remain in the list of
the Nobel literature prize.
If we leave all conflicts, praises and criticisms alone, Pamuk’s
Nobel Prize will increase his worldwide fame as well as the interest
in the Turkish literature. It can also be said that Pamuk will serve
as an impulsive force in Turkish literature’s project of opening up
to the outer world.
Ali Colak
———————————————- ———————————-
‘The Prize will not Change me and my Works’
Holding a press conference in New York yesterday, Pamuk stated the
prize was given not only to him but also to the Turkish language,
Turkish culture and Turkey and said he was very happy and proud of
this.
Reminding the reporters that this was the first time Turkey was
awarded a Nobel prize, Pamuk said `I am very happy, at least, for
this reason.’
Speaking at the library of Columbia University’s Center on Global
Thought where he teaches as a guest lecturer, Pamuk said he wrote The
Black Book in the small rooms of this university 22 years ago.
`I am happy to receive the news on the prize at the same university,’
Pamuk said, adding the award wouldn’t change him or his work.
Stating he found out the news upon a phone call at midnight, Pamuk
said, `The Swedish Academy of Sciences chairman called me. He said I
was awarded the prize and asked whether I would take it. I said I
would take it. Claims that I would decline it are baseless.’
Emrah Ulker, New York

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Oct 14 2006
EUROPE’S PATRONIZING ATTITUDE TOWARD TURKS CAN PUSH ANKARA CLOSER TO MOSCOW
By Igor Torbakov
Friday, October 13, 2006
Turkey’s prospects of becoming a full-blown member of the European
Union are again seriously endangered — this time by a fierce row
with France over the `Armenian genocide’ bill. According to analysts,
the West’s continuous snubbing of the Turks could result in Ankara’s
moving strategically closer to Moscow.
On October 12, France’s National Assembly approved a bill making it a
crime to deny that the mass slaughter of Armenians in the final years
of the Ottoman Empire was genocide. The Socialist-backed legislation,
which gained support from right-wing assembly members, stipulates
that anyone denying that genocide took place will be jailed for up to
five years. (France recognized the killings of Armenians as genocide
in 2001, but that bill did not provide for any criminal penalties for
denying genocide.)
The Turkish government adamantly denies any accusations of genocide,
insisting that hundreds of thousands of Turks and Armenians died in
civil strife that was merely a part of the larger World War I
conflict.
The French vote caused a wave of indignation in Turkey with thousands
of protesters marching in Istanbul and the country’s parliamentary
speaker calling the vote a `shameful decision.’ There have been calls
across the country to retaliate by starting a boycott of French
goods.
Although both the French Foreign Ministry and the European Commission
distanced themselves from the bill and called it `unhelpful,’ most
Turks believe they are purposefully discriminated against by the
Europeans, who do not want to see Turkey in the EU and thus put
ever-new hurdles on Ankara’s European path. The French vote came two
weeks after the European Parliament issued a report calling on Turkey
to acknowledge the Armenian killings as `genocide.’ Last week, French
President Jacques Chirac suggested, while visiting Yerevan, that
recognition of `genocide’ against the Armenians should be a
precondition of EU entry. And the leading French presidential
hopeful, Nicolas Sarkozy, a long-time opponent of Turkish entry into
Europe, raised the stakes further by saying that even if Ankara
admitted genocide, that change should not guarantee it EU entry.
The mishandling of the `Turkish question’ could prove too costly for
Europe’s strategic interests, a number of the Western and Turkish
analysts warn.
First, the rebuffs of Ankara’s European ambitions undermine support
for the pro-EU forces in Turkey’s domestic politics, as a growing
number of the country’s policymakers and experts begin to doubt
Europe’s intention to negotiate Turkey’s accession seriously. Some
Turkish observers note that with the growing frictions between the
West and the Muslim world, the Turkish political discourse has come
to be dominated by Islamic considerations. As a result, more Turks
tend to view their country and the world around it exclusively
through a religious prism — a trend that leads to the perceived
dichotomy between Turkey and the West. According to recent opinion
polls, almost half of the Turks think that Turkey does not belong in
the EU because it is predominantly Muslim. At the same time, an
increasing number of Turks appear to feel stronger affinity with
other Muslim peoples in the Middle East — a development that results
in public demands to establish closer ties with neighboring countries
such as Syria and Iran. The rise of the ruling Islamist-leaning
Justice and Development Party, which rests on resurgent Islam, and
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which is severely condemned by the Turkish
public, `created strong feelings of solidarity between Turkey and its
Muslim neighbors,’ a recent policy paper suggests.
Second, Europe cannot take Ankara’s loyalty for granted because
Turkey has strategic alternatives. One such alternative, notes Denis
MacShane, Britain’s former Europe minister, in a Financial Times
commentary, is that `it can create a Black Sea alliance with Vladimir
Putin’s increasingly authoritarian Russia.’
Many Turkish analysts consider the Kremlin’s more assertive policy in
the Middle East as a positive development rather than as a potential
threat. Ankara sees Moscow, which seeks to take a more independent
line in the region and is keen to dispel the image of being
Washington’s junior partner, as a useful counterbalance to what the
Turks perceive as dangerously destabilizing U.S. policies. Both
Russian and Turkish experts note the affinity of Ankara’s and
Moscow’s positions regarding Middle East issues. `In the final
analysis, Turkey’s views are different from the West and closer to
Russia,’ one influential Turkish analyst argues.
Similarly, both Ankara and Moscow share a pronounced bias in favor of
preserving the status quo in the Black Sea and Caucasus region. The
U.S. and EU policies of `spreading democracy’ make both Turkey and
Russia jittery. Their outlooks on the West’s democratic proselytizing
are almost identical: reform and change should come as a result of
the countries’ internal dynamics; no external influence should be
allowed.
(Turkish Daily News, New Anatolian, October 13; RFE/RL, October 12;
Financial Times, October 11)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TREND Info, Azerbaijan
Oct 13 2006
Presidential Administration`s Department`s Chief: Steps Taken by
France`s Parliament May Have an Influence on International Relations

Source: Trend
Author: A. Ismayilova

13.10.2006

Such a country like France, where democratic and human rights
principles are highly developed, should be very careful in discussing
such a sensitive issue, Novruz Mammadov, Chief of External Affairs
Department of the Azerbaijan President`s Office exclusively told
Trend today commenting the law envisaging a punishment for a denial
of the Armenian Genocide, which was adopted by the French National
Assembly yesterday.
Mr. Mammadov thinks that such actions may have a negative influence
on international relations. He is sorry that a group of MPs of the
French National Assembly have been caught by an effect of the
inventory `Armenian Genocide’, had not counted its steps.
Mr. Mammadov is sure that adopting of such a law is contrary to
principles of the freedom of person existing in France. `Just imagine
that in the country with the population of 60 m., all the citizens
will suddenly be punished for expressing their opinions relating the
events happened 100 years ago. How you can explain it?’ , he told.
The Head of the Presidential Administration’s External Affairs
Department told that first of all it is necessary to find out the
exact opinion relating these events, study archives, and only then
express their position. `At present, the advantage of political
factor is evident. And the Armenian influence on these processes is
direct’, he told.
`The French Parliament has already acknowledged the Armenian
Genocide. Why should they have raised this issue again? Politicians
cannot give an exact estimation to historic events. Moreover, some
French figures, specialists, and international historians have many
times stated that this issue was invented, and given the adequate
sources’. Taking the decision when the clarity has not moved for all
that may trigger negative tendencies in international relations, as
well as affect the constructivity of the current negotiations on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. Soon they will realize that the
step they took was wrong’, he thinks.
He also considers that amid the happening, France, as a Co-Chair of
OSCE Minsk Group will have to do its best in order that its neutral
position and sincerity was out of the question.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress