CYPRUS AND TURKEY’S EU PROCESS
By Sedat Laciner
Translated By: Abdi Noyan Ozkaya
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 20 2006
The Republic of Cyprus was not founded as a Greek state or a Turkish
state. It was founded as a state based on the equal partnership of
two ethnic communities and with the guarantorship of Turkey, Greece
and Britain. In other words, the Turkish Cypriots, though less in
number, were not a minority but a founder of the Republic with equal
status. However, the Greek Cypriots considered the Republic as a
‘transitory stage’, a ‘temporary period’ which would eventually lead
to an independent Greek state on the island. It was this ambition
which caused the state to disfunction in Cyprus. First of all, the
Turkish Cypriots were de facto deprived of all their government posts
granted to them by the constitution. The Greeks were placed to all
Turkish contingencies in security forces, and the ultra-nationalist
Greeks made it impossible for Turks to fill their posts in politics
and bureaucracy. As a result, the Cypriot state was usurped by the
Greeks through the violation of the constitution. The Turks were
unable to participate in the executive and legislative bodies.
Moreover, many Greeks from Greece were brought to the island for
settlement. During the course of the events, the international
community as well as Greece and Britain, which were the guarantors
of the Cypriot State and held rights and responsibilities including
military intervention in case of disruption in constitutional order,
only preferred to watch. As the Greek policy of deporting Turks out
of the island occasionally turned into massacres, the UN Peace Force
(UNFICYP) was deployed in the island in 1964. This was the beginning
of the never-ending adventure of the UN in the island.
Though the UN arrived at the island, it neither managed to stop the
violence nor was it able to put the rights granted to Turks into
practice. In the meantime, the armament of the Greeks continued apace.
The military coup in Greece on 21 April 1967 had negative effects on
the Cyprus issue. Although Turkey wanted to intervene in Cyprus as a
guarantor state in these years, this action was prevented by the US
and Britain.
The intercommunal talks failed many times, and the UN and the
international community clearly proved their inability to save
the Turkish Cypriots, who were forced to live in enclaves. But the
Turkish public felt very disturbed upon the release of the photos of
massacred Turks in the international media. Among the photos was a
photo of a child killed in a bathroom. The final event that caused
Turkish frustration took place in 1974. The radical nationalist
Greek Cypriots considered unacceptable even the policies of Makarios
that caused the exclusion of the Turks from the system as moderate
and ousted the Makarios government. As Makarios hardly survived,
more uneasy days were ahead for the Turks. The constitutional order,
which had already ended practically, was now being wiped off by use
of armed force and violence, and the island was being transformed
into a Greek homeland. Turkey called Greece and Britain to stop the
violence and take necessary measures to save the Cyprus Republic,
but she was turned down. The international organizations and great
powers did nothing but released statements of regret for the Greek
coup on the island. Consequently, Turkey, upon the rights granted
to her by international agreements, intervened in the island. Turkey
had two goals with this intervention:
1) To protect the Turkish Cypriots who were facing the threat of
annihilation,
2) To revive the Republic of Cyprus, within the framework of the
international agreements and the constitution.
Turkish troops – though able to seize the entire island – only
seized the north of the island, where Turks were densely populated,
and stopped there. During the 1970s, Turkey permanently defended
that the island be reunited on the basis of the constitution and the
international agreements. In the South, the coup attempt failed and
the Greek Cypriots maintained the Republic of Cyprus unilaterally. On
the other hand, the Greeks did not allow the Turks to cross to
the southern part and to assume posts in any of the government
institutions. However, even the flag of the Republic was designed by
a Turkish Cypriot (Ismet Guney) and the constitution allocated seats
to Turks in every institution including government.
As the Turks were unable to cross to the South, they formed their
own administration in the North. As the Turkish hopes for unification
continued, they did not declare independence; but there were now two
separate states on the island practically.
Unfortunately, the international community has never been neutral
enough in the Cyprus issue. Particularly the Western organizations and
states gave notable support to the Greek side and this support has been
viewed as a ‘Christian solidarity’ by Turkey. The US, which was unable
to protect the Turkish Cypriots and to assist them in regaining their
rights in the state, even resolved on an arms embargo against Turkey,
thanks to the influence of the Greek lobby in the Congress. This may
be the first time that an arms embargo was imposed against a military
ally. By the same token, the then-European Community (EC) strictly
warned Turkey as the Greek Diaspora managed to get support of ‘its
fellows in Europe’. Despite these events, both the US and the EC were
aware of Turkey’s status of guarantorship during the 1970s. Both the
US and the EC admitted that the Cypriot state was unable to join any
international organization without the approval of its guarantors as
it was written down in the international agreements. As Greece was
progressing on the way to the EC (that is, the European Union, EU)
and as Turkey was lagging behind in this process due to the economic
problems and internal political instability, Brussels assured Turkey
that Greece’s membership would not affect the EU’s stance on the
Cyprus and Aegean disputes. In other words, the EU would not act
partial on the Cyprus issue in case Greece is admitted. Naturally,
the promises were broken. As Turkey remained outside, the EU neutrality
was seriously damaged on the Cyprus question.
On the Turkish side, the Turkish Cypriots formed their own
administration on the north of the island in 1975. Though its name
was not a “state”, this structure was a state in fact. In terms of
elections and parliament, it was a more democratic state than those of
Turkey and Greece. On one hand, the Turkish Cypriots tried to overcome
their state needs by practical solutions, while on the other hand
they strived to be included in the state, which was closed to them by
the Greeks in the South, within the limits of the constitution. The
UN’s efforts, expectedly, failed again. The Vienna Rounds could only
produce more distrust. While the Greeks did not admit that Turks were
the constituent community in the Cypriot state, the Turks disavowed
to depend on the mercy of the Greeks. The initiatives followed
initiatives. As the Canadian, English and American proposals were
presented, the Turks were unable to cross to the Greek side even for
negotiations. When the negotiations stalled, the Turkish Cypriots
unilaterally founded their own state in the North on November 15,
1983. However, the Turkish hopes for the unification of the island
continued. Both Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(TRNC) maintained that the two communities could unify under a single
entity, be it federalism or another solution.
During the 1980s, the TRNC was only recognized by Turkey, and the
Greeks acted as if they were the only representatives of the island.
Not only the flag of the Republic of Cyprus, which was founded
collectively by the Turks and the Greeks, but also all posts in the
ministries, military, police etc. were occupied by the Greeks.
The problem faced by the Turkish Cypriots was not only
non-recognition. Initially, they were barred from exporting potato and
citrus to the EU countries. They were even unable to send a letter. You
needed to write an address in Turkey in order to send a letter to TRNC
from the US or Europe. The world, so to say, ignored the TRNC. The
Turkish Cypriots were even unable to play matches against teams of
other nations. It was impossible to take a direct flight to Northern
Cyprus. The UN efforts, definitely, continued in the 1980s as it did
in 1960s and 1970s. England, the US and other powers continued their
roles as mediators, though useless…
The scene continued with no change in the 1990s. Negotiations,
failures, mediations, and endless plans…
In 1994, the European Court of Justice, with the lobbying of Greeks
and Greek Cypriots, outlawed any trade with the north of the island.
Strangely, the Court decided that the export of potatoes and oranges
from the North was illegal. As the parties on the island were trying
to agree on confidence-building measures, this event cast doubts on
the neutrality of the ‘Europe’. The Turkish Cypriots were isolated
in the EU and the Greek Cypriots were made the sole possessor of the
island. The EU support encouraged the Greeks and the Greek militants
attacked on the Turkish border posts.
The EU, in 1998, listed Cyprus (that is, only the Greek part) among
“the potential countries” to join the EU. As a matter of fact,
this resolution was in violation of the international agreements
in two aspects. First of all, it was impossible for a country with
border disputes to be a member of the EU. Secondly, it was impossible
for the Republic of Cyprus to enter any international organization
without the approval of Greece and Turkey, based upon the agreements
and documents that established the Republic of Cyprus. As Turkey did
not approve the Cyprus’ membership under these conditions, the EU
was defying both its laws and the international agreements.
The UN had to renew its 36-year mission to Cyprus in 2001. The
same year, after failed efforts to convince the EU, Turkey and
TRNC collectively announced that they might consider unification
of the North with Turkey. For Turkey, the EU was, unilaterally
and in violation of all international law documents, preparing to
admit the Greek Cypriots as a member as if they were the only legal
representatives of Cyprus.
The Greek and Turkish leaders, Clerides and Denktaº, started
negotiations with the UN’s good offices in 2002. Same year, the
UN General-Secretary Annan presented a comprehensive plan to the
parties. The plan seemed to be in favor of the Greeks. However,
the lack of a settlement was more to the disadvantage of Turkish
Cypriots. Hence, the Turkish side seemed to be more in favor of
unification on the basis of a federation. As the UN was pressuring the
both sides for a settlement, the US and the EU could have assisted the
UN’s efforts. Especially the EU could have easily pressured the Greek
Cypriots, who were on the accession process, for a solution. However,
instead of this option, the EU called for the full membership of Cyprus
(that is, the Greek side) in the Copenhagen Summit in 2004. So, the
Greek Cypriots were able to obtain whatever they hoped for, that is,
the EU membership and the guarantee of full membership. As a result,
the Greeks had no more expectations from the negotiations.
A few weeks before the submission of the Annan Plan to the sides,
Tassos Papadopoulos defeated Clerides, who were on the negotiation
table by then, in the parliamentary elections in the South. As a
result, a leader who was opposing the Annan plan became the president
in the Greek side and the prospect for the approval of the plan was
in jeopardy. On the eve of the plan’s referendum in both sides of
the island, the EU and the US announced that the party which voted
in favor of the plan would be rewarded whereas the one which voted
negatively would face the consequences. Significant promises were
given especially to the Turkish side. It was promised that direct
talks would be initiated with the TRNC and the isolation on the
Turkish side would be lifted, provided that the TRNC voted in favor.
The Turkish side overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Annan Plan. The
situation was exactly the opposite in the Greek part. The Greeks
overwhelmingly voted against the plan. TRNC and Turkey were hopeful
about the results. It was hoped that the Greek side, which voted
“no”, would face the consequences whereas the promises given to the
Turkish side would be realized.
To demonstrate their goodwill, Turkish Cypriots not only voted “yes”
in the referendum but also opened the borders with the South. They
allowed the passage of all Greek Cypriots to the North. So, the Greeks
personally saw that there were people in the North and that Turks were
human beings just like Greeks. But the promises were soon forgotten and
it was the party who refused the plan, not the one with the goodwill,
which was rewarded. The Greek Cypriot Administration was admitted
in the EU as the representative of the Republic of Cyprus on May 1,
2004. The Turkish Cypriots were left outside. Thus, the confidence
crisis between Turks and the EU peaked.
It has been more than two years since the referendum was carried out.
The isolation of the Turkish Cypriots still continues. However, the
Greek Cypriots do not even attempt to negotiate with the Turkish
side. Because the Greek side is an EU member and the problem has
become an issue between the EU and the Turkish Cypriots. The EU,
which was an “arbitrator”, has suddenly become “the other party” in
the problem. Likewise, the UN General-Secretary clearly stated that the
Cyprus’ membership to the EU caused a deadlock in the peace process.
Honestly, the EU’s admission of Cyprus, that is the Greek Cypriots
unilaterally, was madness. The admission caused deadlock on the
issue. This policy made it causeless for the Greeks to negotiate with
the Turkish side. However, much more madly and incomprehensible is
to condition Turkey’s membership on the Cyprus issue. To condition
Turkey’s membership on a problem that the UN was unable to settle for
42 years, that is, the Cyprus problem, is to never let Turkey into
the EU. It is to have no goodwill. It is to come up with reasons to
procrastinate Turkey. To demand new concessions from Turkey, though
Turkey has given all, still not stepping forward even an inch is to
act unjustly against Turkey. It is even mocking with Turkey. But
this isn’t surprising. There are countries which oppose Turkey’s
membership due to cultural reasons, and France and Austria are the
leading countries of this position. These countries can not prevent
Turkey’s membership on the basis of economic and political criteria.
Both the December 15 (2004) and October 3 (2005) summits have proved
that Turkey’s economy and democracy easily met the minimum requirements
of the EU. In this case, there is no reason left to impede Turkey’s
membership. There are only few obstacles left against Turkey as it
is evident that Turkish economy, the world’s 17th largest, performs
far better than Romanian and Bulgarian economies.
One of these obstacles is the Cyprus issue, and the other is the
Armenian problem. The Cyprus issue hasn’t been resolved for half a
century and the Armenian problem hasn’t been resolved for a century.
It seems that a solution is impossible with these conditions because
Turkey is told to “shut up and accept what is said”. Given that it is
almost impossible for Turkey to accept this situation, to condition
Turkey’s membership on the Cyprus and Armenian issues means that the
EU doesn’t want Turkey’s full membership.
The EU should be more sincere within this context. The procrastination
policy no more works. The EU violates its own rules one by one. It
makes up new criteria to leave Turkey outside and this harms EU more
than it harms Turkey. There is very little Turkey can lose at the end
of this process because Turkey has reached this level without the EU,
or even despite the EU. Hence, Turkey will not face much difficulty
if she proceeds without the EU from now on. But how easily can the EU
without Turkey proceed? We will cover this topic in our next comments.
–Boundary_(ID_HNMF68pV8P1JAOD2N/om0g)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NKR FM STATED REPRESENTATIVES OF NKR MUST PARTICIPATE IN SEARCH FOR MISSING PEOPLE AND HOSTAGES
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 20 2006
June 19 Nagorno Karabakh Republic FM Georgy Petrosyan received
a delegation of the International Working Group (IWG) on the
search for the missing people, hostages and release of POWs. The
IWG Co-Chairs Bernhard Klazen (Germany) and Paata Zakareishvili
(Georgia), Coordinators Karine Minasyan (RA), Avaz Gasanov (AR)
and Albert Voskanyan (NKR) are in the delegation.
In the course of the meeting the interlocutors discussed the IWG
present activity, the issues referring to activation of the search for
the missing people and burial places, current problems and perspective
plans, REGNUM reports quoting the NKR MFA Press Service. Georgy
Petrosyan noted Nagorno Karabakh constantly promoted the IWG activity
and was open for cooperation, while the Azeri authorities persistently
deny contacts with the NKR corresponding state committee. In
this connection the Minister spoke up for the inadmissibility of
the sphere’s politicization and called on the IWG members to more
precisely express their attitude to the issue contradicting with the
humanitarian law’s principles. NKR FM underscored the hostilities
had been committed on the territory of Nagorno Karabakh, and the NKR
representatives must directly and actively participate in the search
for the missing, hostages and release of POWs.
The IWG members agreed with the NKR FM’s opinion on the Karabakh
party’s openness and its assistance to the group’s work. At the
same time Bernhard Klazen regretted that former POWs were judged and
persecuted in Azerbaijan.
He noted the IWG would do its best to persuade Baku to abandon the
practice.
The meeting’s participants spoke up for all the concerned parties’
active cooperation in the settlement of the humanitarian sphere’s
issues.
The same day the IWG delegation met with the Chair of the NKR
State Commission for POWs, hostages and the missing people Victor
Kocharyan. The member of the State Commission, NKR Deputy FM Masis
Mailyan participated in the meeting as well.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ANTHOLOGY OF IRANIAN CONTEMPORARY POETRY PUBLISHED IN ARMENIA
Mehr News Agency, Iran
June 20 2006
TEHRAN, June 20 (MNA) – An anthology of Iranian contemporary poetry
entitled “The Rise of the Prophet” was published in Armenia.
Translated into Armenian by Edward Haqwerdian, the book contains the
works of post-Islamic Revolution bards, including Mehdi Soheili,
Ali Musavi Garmarudi, Qeisar Aminpur, Bahman Salehi, and Tahereh
Saffarzadeh.
The introduction written by Iran’s Cultural Attache Reza Atufi reads
that Iran’s Islamic Revolution has helped raise the status of Persian
poetry and literature throughout the world.
The book gives a strong warning to those, who have recently desecrated
Prophet Muhammad (S) in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

OLLI REHN: FIGHTING EU ENLARGEMENT FATIGUE
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 20 2006
Olli Rehn, the European Union’s expansion commissioner, issued a
strong call Monday to European leaders to sell enlargement to voters
and not make it a scapegoat of larger policy failures such as high
unemployment and globalization.
“Enlargement blues could be called ‘unemployment blues’ or
‘globalization blues’,” Rehn, a Finn, said in an interview at his
office. “The origins are much deeper in our social fabric.”
Rehn, who has been responsible for enlargement for almost two years,
acknowledged that the policy was a tough sell. On vacation last summer
in France and Germany, he said, he heard popular criticism. “I am not
blind or deaf,” he said. “I could see there is a certain enlargement
fatigue.”
But, he argued, Europeans are often “more rational” than their
governments and can be sold on the notion that the absorption of eight
former communist countries and Cyprus and Malta – all of which became
members in May 2004 – has been a success story, uniting a Continent
previously divided by the Cold War.
“We should not make enlargement a scapegoat for our domestic policy
failures,” he said, adding, “The European Union has been better at
doing enlargement than communicating enlargement.”
For instance, the EU summit meeting last week ended with a statement
trumpeting the success of the May 2004 expansion. “That’s the kind
of thing I want to hear,” Rehn said.
Asked whether European politicians were doing enough of that kind
of talk once they left the summit halls of Brussels, Rehn mentioned
President Jacques Chirac of France as an example of someone who had,
in his view, done that, but declined – in the characteristic manner
of EU officials who must please 25 constituencies – to single out
countries that were not playing their part. When reminded that Chirac
must leave office within a year, he smiled and acknowledged that Chirac
would not be a candidate in next year’s race for the French presidency.
Enlargement “has been a success story,” Rehn said. “The EU should
have all the reasons to be proud of it.” Asked, therefore, why this
pride was not more palpable, he said it was linked to “bad feelings
and social discontent in many EU states.”
He also noted that the expansion in May 2004 was essentially
“yesterday’s news” when it happened because the EU and the new member
states had been so careful to negotiate economic, social, political
and other reforms in advance of membership.
That pattern, he noted, is continuing in the efforts to include new
members from the Balkans and in the case of Turkey.
The summit meeting was also dominated by talk of the 25-nation bloc
having reached its capacity to absorb new members. Rehn stressed,
however, that this was not so much a sign that Europe should not
expand but proof that it could not function smoothly without altering
institutions and operations to reflect that it was no longer a cozy
bloc of a dozen or 15 overwhelmingly West European states.
Romania and Bulgaria are the two nations due to join next, with a
review process this fall to determine whether or not the EU will stick
to the current date of Jan. 1 next year for their admission. Turkey,
which is not expected to complete membership negotiations for another
10 to 15 years, poses much bigger questions.
Rehn said Turkey had made significant progress in reducing systematic
torture but that the pace of judicial reform guaranteeing freedom of
expression was “more schizophrenic.”
The prosecution of the Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk last spring for
remarks acknowledging Turkey’s role in the genocide against Armenians
in the early 20th century was “a disappointment in the beginning,”
said Rehn, who met Pamuk on his last visit to Turkey. Eventually,
however, the case was dropped – resolved in a way, he said, that
should serve as a benchmark for other cases concerning free speech.
He added that skepticism toward Turkey appeared to be softening
in the most unlikely of places, noting that France and Germany –
two countries where politicians and voters are highly critical of
Turkey’s projected EU membership – each awarded the maximum, 12 points,
to Turkey’s act in the recent Eurovision song contest.
Both Romania and Bulgaria have made progress in the key area of
judicial reform, Rehn said, but the EU needs to be sure that the
changes are genuine and likely to last.
Romania has made large strides in the past 18 months, he said,
and Bulgaria has started to do the same, but must stay the
course. Bulgarian legislators had to forgo some vacation last summer to
put necessary changes in place, he noted, and this summer it should be
the prosecutors and judges who stay at work to make convincing changes.
“We can’t say yet that it’s on the right track,” he said. When asked
to specify which changes would convince Brussels, he stressed: “We
can’t start a witch hunt and ask for a certain number of people to
be arrested because that would be against European standards. But we
need to be assured that countries, when they join, have functional
judicial systems.”
As for other Balkan countries – Albania and former Yugoslav republics
that are now independent – Rehn underlined the importance of sticking
to standards set by agreements such as the Dayton accords that
brought peace to Bosnia after the conflict of the 1990s or the likely
international accord now being negotiated on the status of Kosovo,
the Serbian province that has been under UN administration since 1999.
Asked how Balkan leaders could be expected to stick to such criteria
when the EU itself waives its own rules on such matters as national
budget deficits, Rehn said simply, “Of course, applying double
standards is incorrect and counterproductive.” The difference, he
added, is one of degrees.

AMBASSADOR TO ITALY MEETS WITH DIPLOMATIC ADVISER OF ITALIAN PM
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
June 20 2006
Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Italy Emil Karimov met in Rome with
Ambassador Stefano Sanino, the Diplomatic Adviser of the Chairman of
the Italian Council of Ministers.
Ambassador Karimov conveyed congratulations and greetings from
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev to newly elected Prime Minister
of Italy Romano Prodi. He recalled Mr. Prodi’s meeting with national
leader and late President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev in 1997 in Rome
and with incumbent President Ilham Aliyev in 2004 when the Italian
Premier was in Baku as the President of the European Commission.
Speaking of the current state of Azerbaijan-Italy relationship,
Ambassador Karimov noted there were good opportunities for enhancement
of cooperation between the two countries in various areas. He added
that the last year’s official visit to Italy by President Ilham Aliyev
opened a new area in the bilateral relations, and informed Mr. Sanino
on the meetings held and documents signed during the visit, as well
as the positives of the Italy-Azerbaijan business forum.
Mr. Karimov named Italy the Azerbaijan’s largest trade partner
pointing to good opportunities for cooperation and making
investments in the country’s agriculture and chemical, tourism
and light industries. Reminding of the recent commissioning of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, he let Mr.
Sanino know that a number of Italian companies show great interest
in transportation of gas through Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline to
start operating soon.
The Azeri Ambassador said the leadership of Azerbaijan intends
to continue cooperation with the new Italian government noting the
importance of organizing high-level reciprocal visits, in particular,
that of Prime Minister Romano Prodi to Azerbaijan.
Ambassador Stefano Sanino expressed satisfaction with the current state
of Azerbaijan-Italy relationship especially noting the cooperation
in energy field. He said his country attaches particular importance
to enhancement of cooperation with Azerbaijan. Mr. Sanino confirmed
that Prime Minister Romano Prodi welcomes Azerbaijan’s European
integration efforts, and supports the region countries’ joining the
New Neighborhood Policy of the European Union.
Ambassador Karimov also spoke of the democratic reforms in Azerbaijan,
the steps taken to ensure economic growth and social improvements
in the country, and touched on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh. He described the conflict, which has lead to
occupation of 20% of the Azerbaijani territories and over one million
people’s becoming refugees and internally displaced, as a major threat
to cooperation and security in the region. The diplomat expressed
gratitude to the Italian government for supporting Azerbaijan’s
position in the conflict.
Ambassador Sanino regretted that the conflict has not yet been resolved
and expressed readiness of his country to contribute to its peaceful
resolution.

THE BLEEDING HEART OF ISLAM
By Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal
IsraPundit, Canada
June 20 2006
Picture a map of Muslim lands, circa 1993. In the Balkans,
Orthodox Serbs were at war with Bosnian Muslims. In Sudan, the
Islamist government in Khartoum was waging a campaign of murder
and enslavement against the Christian south. Israel was fighting
Hezbollah in southern Lebanon even as it signed a peace agreement
with the Palestinians – one that would, in time, literally explode
in its face. In the Caucasus, Muslim Azeris and Christian Armenians
were battling over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, while 200 miles north
Muslim Chechnya had declared independence and was about to be invaded
by Russia. Further east, India and Pakistan were lobbing artillery
shells across the Line of Control in Kashmir.
Picture that map today. The violence at the periphery of Islam has, for
various reasons, faded. But the antagonisms at its center have grown.
Look at Palestine, where the ostensibly secular Fatah party of
President Mahmoud Abbas and the fundamentalist Hamas of Prime
Minister Ismail Haniyeh may be in the early stages of civil
war. Look at Darfur, where Arab Muslims are slaughtering African
Muslims. The dynasts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are being forced to
confront the terrorism of al Qaeda. In Egypt, liberals oppose the
Muslim Brotherhood, the Brotherhood opposes the government, and
the government suppresses them both. In Iran, the youth confront
the clerical establishment. Pro-independence factions in Lebanon
are struggling to survive a campaign of assassination and terror by
Syria. The bloody heart of it all, of course, is Iraq.
Amid routine slaughter in Baghdad and Darfur, nobody would call the
present state of affairs good. But it is an improvement over the
previous state, not only because a clash within one civilization is
better than a clash among several, but because Islamic civilization
has long been in need of a reformation. That’s what’s happening today
in one Muslim state after another: The struggle for power has become
a contest of ideas (and vice versa), with fateful consequences and,
sometimes, good results.
Take Saudi Arabia. Before Sept. 11, says Hawazen Nassief, a Saudi
journalist at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, “the Saudi
government lived in denial and refused to acknowledge that its blind
support for strict Wahhabi religious institutions and preachers was
breeding extremism, intolerance and violence.” The denial persisted
even after the disclosure that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
What changed? Ms. Nassief points to the succession of al Qaeda attacks,
beginning in May 2003, on residential complexes, government offices,
oil facilities and foreigners. “It was a slap on the face,” she
says. “There was no international player to blame for this deviancy
except the political, social, economic and religious climate of
the kingdom. The shattering of the viable image of the kingdom led
the government to allow critical voices that were previously pushed
underground. . . . The minute the government loosened its restrictions,
people flooded the media with criticism of the status quo.”
A similar dynamic took hold elsewhere in the Arab world as the
phenomenon of suicide bombing – widely admired when the victims were
Israeli or American – boomeranged on Muslims. After Sept. 11, Jordanian
newspapers were filled with speculation that the deed could not have
been the work of Muslims and must have been orchestrated by Zionists,
Christian evangelicals, the Bush administration or some combination
thereof. But the delusion and the pretense came abruptly to an end
after suicide bombers murdered 63 Muslims at three hotels in Amman,
Jordan, on Nov. 9, 2005. The Amman bombings, Salafist cleric Abu
Basir al-Tartusi wrote in a Web posting translated by Memri, “cannot
be considered Islamic,” adding that “he who approves of a sin is like
he who committed it.”
At an off-the-record session last month of young Arab leaders at
the World Economic Forum in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, the sense of
exhaustion with the way things are was palpable. A young Saudi
on his social life: “I can’t go anywhere. Malls are strictly for
families. It’s horrible.” A Gulf State participant on her upbringing:
“Teachers don’t encourage disagreement. We are not raised to choose. We
don’t have a culture of accepting the other.”
An Egyptian on Arab political life: “‘Deviant’ ideas are
dangerous. Young people are suspect. Leaders are inaccessible.”
Not that the participants there – upper class, fluent in English,
many of them educated in the West – were especially representative of
their societies. But what struck an outsider was the extent to which
the nature of elite conversation had changed. The Arab intelligentsia’s
stale litany of complaint against imperial America, perfidious Zion,
the legacy of colonialism and so on – what Bernard Lewis described
as the habit of asking, “who did this to us?” – is giving way to a
new mentality. Now the question is: “What did we do wrong?”
It’s in this context that an event such as January’s protests over
the Danish cartoons is best understood. The (mostly orchestrated)
demonstrations were, above all, an attempt by Islamists and autocrats
to remind Muslims that their principal grievances were external,
not domestic. They sought to impress Western audiences with the
intensity of Muslim rage while silencing domestic critics who didn’t
share that passion. Burning down Scandinavian embassies, however,
does not contented Muslims make. Six months after l’affaire Muhammad,
the offending cartoons have faded from memory, whereas the reality
of domestic misrule remains.
There is a perception in the West – general in Europe but strong also
in the U.S. – that the Reformation of Islam awaits the resolution
of a centuries-long Hegelian dialectic. The world moves faster
than that. Through wireless connections and satellite dishes, the
outside world is filtering into the Middle East, mostly uncensored
by regimes or imams. Not everyone likes it, but many do, and the
difference between them not only bloodies the Middle East, but also,
increasingly, offers it hope.
ABOUT BRET STEPHENS
Bret Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial
board. He joined the Journal in New York in 1998 as a features editor
and moved to Brussels the following year to work as an editorial
writer for the paper’s European edition. In 2002, Mr. Stephens,
then 28, became editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, where he was
responsible for its news, editorial, electronic and international
divisions, and where he also wrote a weekly column. He returned to
his present position in late 2004 and was named a Young Global Leader
by the World Economic Forum the following year.
Mr. Stephens was raised in Mexico City and educated at the University
of Chicago and the London School of Economics. He lives with his
family in New York City. He invites comments to [email protected].

“NKR: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE”: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN STEPANAKERT
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 20 2006
June 21 the international scientific conference titled “Nagorno
Karabakh Republic: Past, Present, Future” dedicated to the 15th
Anniversary of the NKR’s declaration starts at the Artsakh State
University in Stepanakert.
About 200 representatives of over ten countries, including France,
the U.S., Russia, Germany, the U. K. and Armenia, will participate in
the conference initiated by the Republic government, the NKR Minister
of Education, Culture and Sport Kamo Atayan said in an interview
with DE FACTO Agency. “Holding such a representative conference we
will again confirm that the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is a reality,
a state that de facto exists having all necessary state structures”,
the Minister said. According to Kamo Atayan, the fact that “the NKR is
developing under conditions of blockade, taking into consideration that
the Republic has not been recognized by the international community”
is of peculiar interest.
There will be three sections in the course of the conference
– historical, cultural, as well as political-legal and
social-economic. Kamo Atayan said for the first time the section
of culture would be held in the Gandzasar Monastery (XIII century)
in the NKR Martakert region.

UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER DISCUSS BILATERAL RELATIONS
Interfax, Russia
June 20 2006
Kyiv, June 20 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko
and Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian discussed relations
between the two countries on Monday.
Yuschenko said he was pleased with the rise in trade with Armenia
and invited Armenian President Robert Kocharyan to visit Ukraine,
the presidential press service reported.
In turn, Oskanian said the two nations had always been good friends. He
added that Ukraine and Armenia had already signed about sixty bilateral
agreements.

AZERBAIJAN CONCERNED ABOUT RUSSIA SUPPLYING MILITARY BASE IN ARMENIA WITH ANTIAIRCRAFT EMPLACEMENT
TREND, Azerbaijan
June 20 2006
Russia indents to supply its military bases abroad, especially the
102nd base in Gumru, Armenia with S-400 antiaircraft missiles in
near future.
APA reports quoting military sources that one of the antiaircraft
battalions in the 102nd base will be supplied with the S-400
antiaircraft missiles. A group of officers and technical staff
of the base will attend trainings of Russian Air Attack Defense
Troops to master technical and tactical characteristics of the S-400
emplacements.
Russia has started supplying its Armed Forces with new S-400
antiaircraft missiles since last year. It plans to establish five
missile brigades supplied with S-400 antiaircraft emplacement within
five years.
Azerbaijani Defense Ministry press secretary, Colonel Ramiz Malikov
told the APA that the Ministry have control on the armament process
in the region and is informed about it.
“We were informed about this. Russia’s arming the aggressive Armenia
and sending additional forces to this country poses threat to not
only the South Caucasus but the entire Europe,” the press secretary
said.

PRESENTATION CEREMONY OF DOCUMENTARY FILM “AZERBAIJAN – WAY OF ETERNITY” WAS HELD IN BAKU WITHIN 33RD SESSION OF OIC
Author: R.Abdullayev
TREND, Azerbaijan
June 20 2006
On June 20, a presentation ceremony of a documentary film “Azerbaijan –
way of eternity” was held in Baku within the 33rd session of Foreign
Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), Trend
reports.
The 28-minute film is related to the historical and cultural heritage
of Azerbaijan, particularly architectural and historical monuments
located in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan by Armenian
aggressors, as well as Nagorno-Karabakh.
The documentary film has been taken by the studio “Salnama”, with
request of Azeri Foreign Ministry for the participants of the 33rd
session of OIC.
The film has been translated into 6 languages, and provided in format
of DVD. The producer of the film is – Igbal Mammadaliyev, executive
producer – Kamil Mammadov, consultant – Elkhan Aliyev.