NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
Genocide bill betrays France’s own values: Arinc
There is no evidence to suggest that the Ottoman Empire carried out a
systematic genocide of Armenians, a leading Turkish historian said
Friday.
Güncelleme: 16:34 TSÝ 13 Ekim 2006 CumaANKARA – By making the denial
of the alleged massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire a criminal
offence, France has betrayed its on principles, the speaker of the
Turkish parliament said Friday.

Saying that it was a great disgrace for the French parliament to have
passed such legislation, parliamentary speaker Bulent Arinc said that
the Turkish parliament would probably approve a resolution formally
condemning the decision.
On Thursday, the lower house of the French parliament approved
legislation that foresees fines of 45,000 euros and up to one year in
prison for those convicted of denying that the so-called Armenian
genocide took place.
`This is a big shame for France, and it has betrayed its own values
if any,’ Arinc said `It made this decision, violating all its
principles.’
Another to criticise the vote was Doctor Yusuf Halacoglu, the
chairman of the Turkish History Society. Speaking at a meeting of
representatives of Turkish non-government organisations to discuss
the new French legislation, Halacoglu said there was no indication or
document proving that Turks committed genocide.
In order to prove such allegations, there must be an open intention
to annihilate in a genocide, he said. However what had been
experienced by the Armenians during the Ottoman era was a relocation,
Halacoglu said.
`Not only the Ottoman documents but also the reports of the US
consuls indicated that these people were paid some allowances during
relocation,’ he said. `You won’t allocate appropriations to people
whom you want to annihilate. So it is impossible to define as a
genocide legally what the Armenians had experienced during World War
One.’

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
Turkey considering retaliatory measures against France: PM
Erdogan did no specify any steps Turkey might take against France.
Güncelleme: 16:34 TSÝ 13 Ekim 2006 CumaANKARA – Turkey was looking
into measures to retaliate against the French parliament’s decision
to approve legislation making it a criminal offence to deny the
alleged massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during the First
World War.

Highlighting the fact that Turkey and France had trade worth $10
billion, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday that, `We
are going to make proper calculations and then take necessary steps.’
It has been suggested that Turkey will freeze French companies out of
bidding on state tenders worth billions of dollars and various
Turkish groups have called for a boycott of French products.
Under the new law, which still has to be passed by the French Senate
and ratified by the President Jacques Chirac, persons convicted of
denying that the so-called Armenian genocide took place face fines of
45,000 euros and up to one year in prison.

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
Turkish PM’s office condemns French genocide denial law
The passing of the law was a narrow minded act that trampled
fundamental values, the statement said.
Güncelleme: 16:34 TSÝ 13 Ekim 2006 CumaANKARA – The decision of the
French parliament to approve a bill that outlaws denying that the
Ottoman Empire carried out a massacre of its Armenian during the
First World War was regrettable and a historical inconsistency, a
statement issued by the office of the Turkish Prime Minister said
late Thursday.

The statement, released by the Prime Ministry press centre, said that
the decision was shameful when considered in the light of scientific
facts and freedom of thought and expression.
`We regret and condemn adoption of the resolution that makes denial
of baseless Armenian genocide allegations a crime by the French
parliament,’ the statement said.
On Thursday, the French parliament voted to adopt a bill that would
imposed a 45,000 euro fine and a prison term of up to one year on any
person found guilty of denying that the so-called Armenian genocide
took place.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s press office said that the
legislation had been motivated by political interests and not those
of historical accuracy.
`Narrow-minded politicians, who have made France live with this
shame, should think about what will happen from now on,’ the
statement said. `The French parliament has contradicted its own
allegations regarding French history, and trampled the fundamental
values it is defending. Even though this parliament decision is not
enough for legalisation of the resolution, this is a grave and
historic mistake. There is a big reaction against this resolution in
France, and history will naturally try those who close their eyes to
these reactions and insist on this wrong step. Unfortunately, it
won’t be possible to control all the results of this irresponsible
attitude of some French politicians.’
The statement said that Turkey could neither accept nor tolerate such
an unjust decision. `Our public, including our Armenian citizens with
whom we are living together for centuries, are upset,’ it said. `Mr.
Prime Minister is calling on our public, politicians and business
circles to behave with common sense when showing necessary reactions
to this decision.’

Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
Pamuk: This Nobel goes to all of Turkey, the Turks, and Turkish
language
Friday , 13 October 2006
Speaking at a press conference in New York City yesterday, where he
is currently a visiting professor at Columbia University, Orhan Pamuk
told reporters that the Nobel Prize for Literature was not only given
to him, but to all of Turkey, Turkish culture, and the language of
Turkish. Said Pamuk, “Today I would just like to celebrate this good
news. There is nothing else I wish to talk about or comment on.”
Pamuk said that he had learned in the morning of the news via a phone
call from the Swedish Academy. He explained “The head of the Swedish
Royal Academy called me and asked whether I would accept the prize. I
said I would.”
Pamuk told reporters that he hoped the awarding of the Nobel to his
work would raise the profile of Turkish literature and culture in the
world at large, adding “I think that this award will cause the world
to re-examine Turkish culture as a culture of peace, and as a mixture
of East and West cultures. My books are proof that in fact Turkey is
a part of both the East and the West.”
Pamuk declined to answer any questions on Turkey’s controversial
penal code, nor on his previous statements regarding the Armenian
genocide and cultural clashes.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Deutsche Welle, Germany
Oct 13 2006
Pamuk Praised by European Leaders and Contemporaries
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Orhan Panuk’s Nobel
Prize for Literature win was widely praised
European officials and writers reacted with delight to the news on
Thursday that Orhan Pamuk had won the 2006 Nobel Literature prize,
becoming the first Turk to win the coveted award.
Praise was particularly effusive in Turkey itself, where the
political dissident has often clashed with the establishment.
“It is great happiness for us all that a Turkish writer has won such
a prestigious award,” Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül told reporters at
a joint press conference with his visiting Afghan counterpart Rangin
Dadfar Spanta.
In an apparent reference to the controversies Pamuk has stirred up,
Gul said: “Many day-to-day things are soon forgotten but the fact
that a Turkish writer has won the Nobel award will echo throughout
the world… It is great publicity for Turkey.”
“This is a historic day,” said Metin Celal, chairman of the Turkish
Publishers’ Union, forecasting that Pamuk’s success would put Turkish
literature firmly on the world map.

Author delighted with prize
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
Pamuk was congratulated by the Turkish government
France, Germany and the European Commission also hailed the news,
while Pamuk himself said he was delighted.
“It’s such a great honor, such a great pleasure,” Pamuk told
journalists at Columbia University in New York. “I think that this is
first of all an honor bestowed upon the Turkish language, Turkish
culture, Turkey and also recognition of my labors … my humble
devotion to that great art of the novel.”
Turkey’s congratulations came despite bad blood between the
establishment and the 54-year-old author, who has challenged official
policies and rejected the accolade of “State Artist”.
The timing of the award was ironic.
Just hours before the Swedish Academy announced the award, the French
parliament approved a bill making it an offense punishable by prison
to deny that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against Armenians
during World War I.
Pamuk himself was put on trial earlier this year for challenging the
official line on the massacres, which Turkey denies were genocide.
Pamuk praised by those who once damned him
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
Chirac was said to be delighted for Pamuk
French President Jacques Chirac said he was “delighted” that Pamuk
had won the Nobel Literature prize. Chirac said he was “particularly
delighted” saying Pamuk’s “reflection on society is… intelligent,
strong and liberal”.
The case against Pamuk was dropped on a technicality but not before a
provincial official ordered the destruction of Pamuk’s books. Ankara
swiftly stopped the move, wary of undermining its democratic
credentials in European Union eyes.
In Brussels EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn called the award a
victory for “artistic freedom and for freedom of expression.”
A prize for freedom of speech
“It is good news for all those who want to speak, search, learn the
truth, pursue dialogue, exchange thoughts and knowledge — not just
in Turkey but everywhere else,” the Finnish commissioner said.
“Artists … need freedom of expression as desperately as life needs
water and air. Orhan knows more than others how precious and fragile
such freedom is.”
Rehn recalled Pamuk telling him during his legal woes he just wanted
to “write books again and free my mind from all this harassment.”
Pamuk’s novels, which include “Snow” and “My Name is Red,” regularly
tackle Turkey’s decades-old internal struggle between Islam and
secularism.
“In his home country, Pamuk has a reputation as a social commentator
even though he sees himself principally as a fiction writer with no
political agenda,” the Nobel jury commented.
“A builder of bridges”

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
Steinmeier acknowledged Pamuk’s cultural influence
In Germany, whose 2.5-million-strong Turkish community is the biggest
outside Turkey itself, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
hailed Pamuk as a “builder of bridges.
“He is a symbol for the wish of large parts of Turkish society to
become a part of Europe,” said Steinmeier, who supports Turkey’s bid
to join the EU.
Pamuk’s editor in France, Jean Mattern, said the Nobel panel had
rewarded “the quality of his writing and the force of his message.
“His work has always tackled political and historical issues head
on,” he told reporters.
Pamuk’s Turkish publisher, Iletisim, was also delighted.
“We are very happy,” said academic and Iletisim editor Ahmet Insel.
“Pamuk is an important representative of the modern novel in the
world,” he told NTV.
Of the writer’s political views, Insel said: “If we take a look at
the long history of the Nobel Literature Prize, we see that the
authors who won the award have made important political statements on
the future of their countries and the world.”

Zaman Online, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
Parliament to Hold Special Session on Tuesday
By Cihan News Agency
Friday, October 13, 2006
zaman.com
The Turkish Parliament is set to convene on Tuesday for a special
session to discuss the controversial French bill that makes it a
crime to deny the so-called Armenian genocide.
This will be the first session of the Turkish parliament following
the adoption of the bill on Thursday by the French National Assembly,
the lower house of the French Parliament.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul will inform the Turkish lawmakers
regarding the process of the bill. Opposition party leaders are also
expected to deliver speeches about the issue.
A joint declaration of all political parties in the parliament
condemning the French Parliament is planned to be issued following
the debates. A draft text prepared for such a declaration has already
been sent to the parties represented in the parliament.

AsiaNews.it, Italy
Oct 13 2006
Turkey protest: France’s Armenian genocide denial bill leads to calls
for boycott

Turkish government calls action `severe blow’ against relations built
over the centuries; Turkish press calls French MPs `stupid’.
Ankara (AsiaNews) – Reactions in the Turkish press to the French
parliamentary vote making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered
genocide are perhaps stronger than expected. The Turkish government,
despite the popular reaction, responded yesterday with more a
moderate tone, excluding official retaliation.
`Thought Genocide’ titled popular daily Hurryet in a clear reference
to the new law’s denial of free speech. The paper also gave wide
coverage to political reactions, starting with that of Bulent Arinc,
the speaker of the Turkish parliament, who said that it `is a
decision which will cause great embarrassment. It is a stance against
the Turkish people, and we cannot accept this.’
`106 stupid men’ titled another paper, Vatan, referring to the number
of French MPs who voted in favour of the bill. For Milliyet `the
Turkish press is mad at France, whilst Sabah lobbed a meaningful
`J’accuse’ saying that the `French parliament, acting as judge and
jury, took a decision that hurts all Turks’. Finally, Cumhuriyet
reiterated a call to `Boycott’ made by Dervis Gunday, chairman of the
Turkish Traders and Small Businessmen’s Confederation (TESK), French
products.
In the heat of the situation, Turkish Economy Minister Ali Babacan
also hinted at a possible anti-French boycott saying that `it depends
on the people’. But the Turkish government’s official position was
expressed yesterday by the foreign ministry in Ankara. In a press
release it said: `The long-standing historical relations between
Turkey and France, which have grown through the centuries with great
care, have received a severe blow today because of the irresponsible
attempts – based on groundless claims – of a group of French politicians
who are unable to appreciate the consequences of the policies they
follow.’
If the government is concerned about possible repercussions of the
French decision on Turkey’s application to join the European Union,
the nationalist response in the country to the French bill might also
cause problems to those Turkish intellectuals like Nobel Prize
laureate for literature Orhan Pamuk who have tried to push their
countrymen to face head on the Armenian extermination issue and were
taken to court for it.

RIA Novosti, Russia
Oct 13 2006
Russia may use Air Force to protect its peacekeepers in Georgia
15:52 | 13/ 10/ 2006

MOSCOW, October 13 (RIA Novosti) – Russia may use its Air Force in
the event of a Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers stationed in
the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the
Russian Air Force commander said Friday.
Commenting on recent tensions between Russia and Georgia last Sunday,
Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defense minister and a deputy prime
minister, said Russia would not remain indifferent in the event
Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers or citizens, either in South
Ossetia or in Abkhazia.
“If the minister said that we [Russia] would certainly take adequate
measures, than he probably meant the use of air, naval and land
forces,” Vladimir Mikhailov said.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia
following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, unleashing bloody
conflicts in the region. Russia mediated ceasefire agreements between
the sides, and Russian peacekeepers have been deployed in the
conflict zones ever since.
On Friday, Russia asked the UN Security Council to draft a resolution
on Georgia demanding an extension of the mandate for its peacekeepers
in Abkhazia until April 15, 2007.
Since President Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in Georgia on the
back of the 2003 “Rose Revolution,” both the government and
parliament have sought to remove Russian peacekeepers from the
conflict zones of the two self-proclaimed republics, and to force the
withdrawal of Russian troops from two Soviet-era bases that are due
to close in 2008.
Mikhailov also said Russia could also use military transport aviation
for the withdrawal of military hardware and personnel from its two
bases in Georgia.
“If necessary, we will use military transport planes, which could
land in Adler [a Russian city on the Black Sea] or in other airports
to get the job done,” Mikhailov said.
Part of the military equipment being removed from Russian bases in
Georgia will be transferred to the Gyumri base when Russia completes
its withdrawal from Akhalkalaki and Batumi by the end of 2008.
The Russian 102nd military base in Gyumri, about 120 kilometers (75
miles) from the Armenian capital Yerevan, is part of a joint air
defense system of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which was
deployed in Armenia in 1995.
Authorities in Georgia charged four Russian officers with spying last
Wednesday, but released them Monday to defuse what was becoming a
mounting crisis. An enraged Moscow responded by suspending all
transportation and mail links with Georgia, while police targeted
illegal immigrants and businesses suspected of maintaining links with
the Georgian criminal underworld.

Open Democracy, UK
Oct 13 2006
Orhan Pamuk’s prize: for Turkey not against it
Anthony Barnett
13 – 10 – 2006
Orhan Pamuk forges a literature for the world from the intimacies of
his Istanbul, and in so doing gives Turkey’s experience universal
stature, says Anthony Barnett.

Orhan Pamuk gets the Nobel prize for literature. Most commentators
will take their cue from the politics of the award, Pamuk being among
the first writers to be put on trial for mentioning the Armenian
massacres of 1915. Others will discuss his novels. I’d like to
reflect on his compelling memoir Istanbul and how it illuminates his
distinction.
It presents itself as an early biographical reflection. It opens with
his strange sense of himself created by deeply feuding parents and
takes the reader through to the loss of his first love and his turn
from painting to writing – all woven through a careful mapping of his
fascination with his native city.
But Istanbul is also a justification for Pamuk’s profound decision to
become a writer who writes in the same family building in which he
grew up.
Ours is the age of migration. To stay or to leave is the question
that dominates adolescence. Often it expands to a choice of country –
or more often the dream of that choice. The pain, necessities and
consequences of migration have become one of the great themes of the
literature of our time. Never more explicitly than in The Satanic
Verses.
Alas, that novel is not famous for its commanding theme and Salman
Rushdie’s insistence on its long history. Should we back Lucretius or
Ovid, he has his characters ask. Do you break from yourself by
leaving the boundaries of your birth, or is moving a vital act of
freedom that leads to the discovery of who you are? To stay, or to
go, and what then happens?

Salman celebrates movement. Without the death of the old how can the
new be born, is his theme. His laureate doubtless awaits the time
when the old ceases to take mass offence at such apostasy.
Orhan Pamuk stayed. But what a way to remain! He reclaims one of the
world’s great cities for itself. His memoir is not an indulgence. It
records the loss of “old Istanbul” with just the right amount of
sentiment. At the same time it replaces its definition, taking it
from the hands of 19th-century literary travellers.
In a neat passage laced with subdued patriotism for Turkish women,
Pamuk gently turns the tables on Edward Said. In his pathbreaking
study Orientalism, Said makes much of Gustave Flaubert and notes
Flaubert’s description of an Egyptian doctor in Cairo ordering his
patients to show off their cases of syphilis to the visiting French
writer. It is presented as a vivid literary moment in the
19th-century projection of the orient as a combination of beastly
revulsion and sexual allure waiting to be “known” by the western
mind.
What a pity, Pamuk writes, that Said did not continue the story to
Istanbul where Flaubert, himself now suffering the genital
disfigurement of syphilis, manages to get into bed with the reluctant
young daughter of a brothel-owner who then, in Italian, demands that
he uncovers himself first so she can make sure he is not contagious.
Faced with humiliation, Flaubert wrote: “I acted the Monsieur and
jumped down from the bed, saying loudly that she was insulting me”.
She demanded to see him. She did not have the intellectual authority,
the network of interests or the external power to “define” Flaubert,
who ran away rather than expose himself before Turkish eyes. But the
story tells a lot about what Pamuk is doing with his own learning and
fluency. He reassesses the western painters and writers who “told the
world” about Ottoman Istanbul. He surpasses the Turkish westernisers
who were in thrall to them. Pamuk speaks with a world voice, not a
local or Istanbul one. Neither unduly modest nor overly boastful, he
says “we live here”.
To do this he makes much of hüzün, a word broadly translated as
melancholia. For Pamuk this state of feeling, between anguish and
resignation, inhabits the city and its inhabitants, including
himself. He suggests that its origins go back to the decline of the
Ottoman empire followed by its brutal replacement by a Turkey which
in the name of nation-building moved the capital to Ankara, depriving
the ancient heart of empire of its ruling functions.
The Turks I know do indeed share an exceptional, I can only say
civilised, sense of hüzün. Yet I have always found it strange,
because Istanbul fills me with energy and as I got to know it, a
feeling that Europe has a New York, a city of hope.
Orhan Pamuk’s achievement is considerably more than writing some
bestsellers followed by an interview about the massacres of the
Armenians. His Nobel prize is bound to be patronised as further
evidence of the need for solidarity with Turkey’s human-rights
movement, and thus as a sign of Turkish backwardness and its
problems, as if he were a Shirin Ebadi in Iran up against an
overwhelmingly fundamentalist regime.
In fact, he deserves to take the same pedestal as Toni Morrison. Her
government in Washington is undoubtedly parochial and in the hands of
nationalist zealots if not fundamentalists. But her achievement is
not defined by the obvious quality of her opposition to them. She
brought the black experience in America to universal stature. Pamuk
has helped make Turkey a world country, despite the hüzün-inducing
fleabites of rightwing jurists and nationalists. Oh yes, and Europe
should be proud.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Times, UK
Oct 13 2006
Turk who defied official history wins Nobel Prize
From Suna Erdem in Istanbul

ORHAN PAMUK, Turkey’s foremost novelist, who faced trial earlier this
year for comments about the massacres of Armenians in the First World
War, won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Literature yesterday.
Charges of `insulting Turkishness’ brought against Pamuk, 54, were
dropped on a technicality after attracting worldwide attention and
stirring protests that Turkish laws restricted freedom of expression.
The case damaged his country’s aspiration to join the European Union.

He had been favourite to win the prize for a rich body of work that
explores the complexities of identity and clashing cultures in
Turkey, a secular, overwhelmingly Muslim state, that bridges Europe
and Asia.
Intense applause greeted his name when it was announced by Horace
Engdahl, the head of the Swedish Academy.
In a twist that considerably dampened celebrations in Turkey, the
prize was announced on the day that the French Parliament approved a
Bill to make it illegal to deny that the Armenian killings amounted
to genocide. Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, said that his
country would consider retaliatory measures against France. In
Ankara, protesters pelted the French Embassy with eggs.
Mr Engdahl dismissed criticism that politics might have been a factor
in the selection. `I believe that this will be met with delight by
all readers,’ he said. `But it can naturally give rise to a certain
amount of political turbulence. That is not what we are interested
in.’
The Academy said that Pamuk – whose works include My Name is Red, an
historical whodunnit starring Ottoman miniaturists, Black Book,
chronicling a man’s search for his wife through Istanbul, and
Istanbul, an autobiographical portrait of the city – has `discovered
new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures’. It added:
`Pamuk has said that growing up, he experienced a shift from a
traditional Ottoman family environment to a more Western-oriented
lifestyle.’
On winning the Kr10 million (£728,000) prize, Pamuk declined to
answer political questions, but predicted that it would raise the
international profile of Turkish literature. `This will lead the
world to review Turkish culture as a culture of peace,’ he said in
New York.
Pamuk’s win was welcomed in Turkey, with Foreign Ministry officials
and the eminent writer Yasar Kemal offering their congratulations.
But his critics, who concede that Pamuk’s multiple international
awards more than prove the quality of his writing, have said that his
forays outside literature would not have gone unnoticed. `I think you
can say there is more than literature at stake here. Perhaps it’s
always been a mixture between what’s on the printed page and what the
writer stands for politically,’ Ian Jack, the editor of Granta, said.
Ozdemir Ince, the prominent Turkish poet, also said that he believed
Pamuk was honoured because of his politics. `If you ask serious
literature people, they would place Pamuk at the end of the list,’ Mr
Ince said. `Turkish literature did not win the Nobel Prize, Pamuk
did.’
Until last year Pamuk, the Istanbul-born son of a bourgeois family,
had been considered a rather aloof, literary figure. His fanciful,
stylish prose won him acclaim but his acute observations about his
fellow Turks also made enemies.
His trial, for `insulting Turkishness’ followed his assertion that
one million Armenians had been killed in Turkey in 1915, and 30,000
Kurds during an insurgency decades later. Although the case was
dismissed, it caused great embarrassment to Ankara as it tried to
demonstrate to the EU that Turkey is reforming its restrictive laws.