US diplomat concerned about Karabakh fires
ANS TV, Baku
25 Jul 06
Presenter] The fires set by the Armenians to occupied [Azerbaijani]
territories are a serious incident and international organizations
must seriously deal with this issue, an official of the US embassy
in Baku, Jonathan Henick, has told journalists in Ganca. He said that
the embassy is keeping an eye on the issue.
[Jonathan Henick, public affairs officer of the US embassy in
Azerbaijan, captioned, shown speaking in Azerbaijani] This is a
very serious incident. We are watching it very closely. We hope that
these fires will be stopped very soon. But, of course, international
organizations may deal with this problem since this is a war-affected
region. We also have meetings and talks with them. Our main aim is
to stop the fires.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Eurasia as the center of the conflict among great powers: Potential
developments and Turkey
Turkish Daily News; Jul 25, 2006
Part 1.
The Eurasian geography, over which the great powers have been fiercely
fighting since the beginning of the 1990s in the pursuit of their
economic interests and in which they aim at exporting their own
institutional systems and socio-cultural understandings, obviously
bears vital importance for Turkey as well.
The fact that the U.S. has taken much interest in Eurasia, which
bridges Europe to Asia, and has included it into the Greater Middle
East Project, inspires some strategists to dwell on the “Greater
Eurasia Project.” Located at the center of Eurasia, Turkey should at
once benefit from its economic and strategic advantages granted by
its unique geographical position and develop new policies concerning
the region, which will certainly undergo significant socio-cultural
changes in the coming years. Turkey needs to reassess its own geography
in this way.
Extremely open to external influences, the Eurasian region has been
experiencing a sudden cultural shock common to all peoples that
found themselves independent unexpectedly and unprepared consequent
to the termination of long-lasting Soviet pressure. Yet, they
have been suffering considerable hardship while trying to accord
their institutional settings in tune with the new world order and
democratic practices. These are the two prominent characteristics of
the region. At this stage, it appears imperative to judge accurately
this current situation, understand the past and present state of
affairs in the region by taking into account both the history and
recent restructuring of Eurasia and thus draw some useful conclusions.
Retrospectively, first of all, the countries in the region, mainly
due to the power asymmetry caused by their geopolitical situation,
were no more than semi-colonies within a center-periphery relation
during the bi-polar era. In this respect, almost all states in
the Eurasian geography had to develop external relations based on
one-sided dependence, primarily to the USSR. In other words, most of
the so-called axis countries of the Cold War were, in varying degrees,
related to and dependent at different levels on either the United
States or the USSR, which in this context constituted the center. Once
emancipated from this one-sided dependence in the post-Cold War era,
these states had to come to terms with their disadvantage of power
asymmetry. After years of dependence on another state, the Eurasian
countries then found themselves in the position to survive on their
own. Thus, multilateral alliances and regional co-operation projects
have gained much importance.
At this point, it is necessary to elaborate on the regional interests,
goals and designs of the United States, which is generally seen as the
only global factor, and those of other countries, which are inclined
to share the United States’ global power.
Soft war fought by the imperialist states in the region:
At a quick glance of the novel political trends, one would see that
the Greater Middle East and North Africa Project of the United States
unfolds to an “American Eurasianism.” Today, consequent to a shift in
its rationale, the United States seems to ground its strategies in the
notion of “land power” and thus aims to extend its support, through
land forces, to the Anglo-Saxon naval civilization, which is in fact
greatly under American control. This scheme of acquiring territorial
dominance in Eurasia points to a new phase in American policy,
reinforcing the United States’ uniqueness as a superpower. After
years of dependence on another country, the Eurasian states, in the
post-Cold War era, have acknowledged the fact that they now have to
take care of themselves.
The regional cooperation initiatives and multi-dimensional alliances
have gained significance for them. Nevertheless, due to their
socio-cultural characteristics, these countries have at the same
time gone through a change of consumer practices and a complete
cultural shock. Taking notice of the “newly-emerging” demands in these
countries, the Western powers have set their eyes on the region to
make the most of the situation. Of course, what these Western powers
possess as the instrument of influence is not delimited to their
communication means. The influence created by military and economic
institutions such as NATO is an important factor in this respect. It
is plausible to note here that the eastward enlargement of NATO,
which is an efficient power under American control, poses a potential
threat to not only Russia but Europe as well. The American tendency
first to control certain states militarily and then to shape them
culturally has become a common practice of the United States.
The United States desires that NATO operates on that principle. This
fact may even lead to the Americanization of Europe and give way to
a very effective cultural imperialism.
Moreover, such usage of NATO by the United States may harm the
way that Europe is perceived globally and thus weaken the EU in the
international arena. One point worthy of mentioning in this context is
that when compared with the Eastern culture or Russian hegemony, the
Western culture may appear more appealing to the peoples of Eurasia,
which are targeted in the war of economic and cultural influence —
or, as one may say, in the competition of distorting their cultures,
societal values or simply their way of living.
Turkey and Russia:
Nonetheless, it is important to underline here that Russia and Turkey,
both of which are at once European and Asian, have the potential to
come up with more realistic approaches towards the region’s peoples
in compliance with their values, habits and cultures. Both granted
with the advantage of geographical proximity, both states could
be influential upon the socio-cultural setting of the region with
much lesser effort. On accounts that Russia, as an Asiatic power,
leans towards the West and Turkey shows the same orientation, these
two countries both have an upper hand in the Western attempts at
socio-cultural shaping of the region’s peoples. Russia, which has
nowadays returned eastwards via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
is fully aware of such an advantage. Unfortunately, however, Turkey,
like in any other matter, is throwing its historical chance away by not
appreciating this potential. Turkey cannot currently put into motion a
Eurasian project because the government does not seem to take interest
in the issue and, second, the geographical distance between Eurasia
and Turkey sometimes breaks up the communication. Similarly, it is
a great disadvantage that Turkey does not share a common border with
Azerbaijan. In order that our country rules out such a disadvantage and
plays a remarkable role in the region, it is necessary to ally with
Azerbaijan and keep constant the currently tense Armenian-Georgian
relations on the verge of crisis.
Moreover, it is essential for Turkey, which is 75 percent dependent
on external energy suppliers, to exercise socio-cultural influence
over the region by making use of its historical legacy and thus to
access more easily Eurasian natural resources. Nevertheless, it should
here be emphasized that Russia as Turkey’s potential, alternatively,
ally or rival in the region and its version of Eurasianism is nothing
to be underestimated.
Firstly, it is clearly a fact that the Russian Orthodoxy, which
is in essence a strict belief with nationalistic implications,
plays an important role in this region. As its economy enhances,
Russia is soon going to employ more coercive measures within its
Eurasianism. Particularly, the Central Asian republics, in which
Russian culture has been already fiercely maintained as the dominant
power, will be aimed at. Thus, Russia will succeed in cutting loose the
peoples of the region from the increasing American influence. Yet,
it will do this systematically in order to challenge the United
States, which is the prominent global power. The Eurasian geography,
in that sense, opens to the impact of the interplay of various ethnic,
religious, cultural and socio-economic factors and this situation
could lead to a change in the perceptions of sovereignty and unity
in the region.
* Ali Kulebi is the acting president of the National Security
Strategies Research Center (TUSAM). He can be contacted at
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])

Armenian agency calls for clear-cut Middle East policy
Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
24 Jul 06
24 July: On 23 July, all Armenian churches gave prayer for the
restoration of peace in the Middle East. This is quite understandable –
an Armenian community of 120,000 people lives in Lebanon. It is one
of the most united and well organized communities of the Armenian
diaspora.
[Passage omitted: known details about Armenia’s relations with Israel,
Turkey, Iran]
The new spiral of tension in the Middle East is a serious challenge
for Armenia, as Israel and the USA do not conceal that this time they
are going to finally resolve the “Hezbollah problem”. This means that
the new conflict in the Middle East may last long and result in the
direct or indirect involvement of Iran and Syria in it. In this case,
Armenia, which is now implementing the Individual Partnership Action
Plan (IPAP) with NATO, will obviously have to revise some aspects of
its foreign policy.
As back as six months ago, in one of our weekly analytical reports
we expressed doubt as to whether Yerevan has a clear strategy of
relations with the Greater Middle East. Unfortunately, our doubts
have not only disappeared during this time but have strengthened.
The USA does not make it secret that it views the so-called Wider Black
Sea region (including the South Caucasus) as one of the elements of
its “strategic rear” and keeps on indicating to the interdependence
of processes in the Caucasus and Middle East. This makes Russia,
Turkey and some European neighbours of the USA nervous. Such clash
of interests followed by the growing tension over Iran’s nuclear
programme should make the Armenian leadership seriously think over
its place and role in the Great Middle East and work out a relevant
program of action for a long-term perspective.
Speaking about foreign policy immediately after his election as
Armenian president in 1998, Robert Kocharyan said: “We don’t see
the world in black and white colours any longer.” Today, two years
before the end of his terms in office, Kocharyan has a chance to
use the whole scale of available political colours to rule out the
possibility that the echo of today’s explosions in the Middle East
may ever affect Armenia.

Caspian Energy Exports & the Black Sea Corridor
Friday, July 28, 2006
Location:
The Grand Ballroom
Willard Hotel
14th & Pennsylvania
Agenda:
09:00 a.m. – 09:15 a.m. Coffee and Registration
09:15 a.m. – 09:20 a.m. Opening Remarks
Glen E. Howard
President, Jamestown
Foundation
09:20 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. Introduction
Ambassador Steven Mann
Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for South & Central Asian Affairs
U.S. State Department
9:30 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Keynote Address
Traian Basescu
President of Romania
“Romania: An Energy Gateway to Western Europe”
10:15 a.m. – 10:35 a.m. Questions and Answers
CASPIAN ENERGY & THE BLACK SEA CORRIDOR
10:35 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Matt Bryza
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia
U.S. State Department
Richard Ennis
Managing Director, Head of Natural Resources, ING Capital LLC
“Romania’s Role in Black Sea Oil Transport”
Edward C. Chow
International Energy Consultant
“Conditions & Opportunities for Caspian Energy Exports to Europe”
Vladimir Socor
Senior Fellow, Jamestown Foundation
Overview and Conclusions: “The Changing Geopolitics of Eurasian Energy”
12:00 p.m. – 12:30 p.m. Questions and Answers
Closing Remarks
RSVP by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 27, 2006
[email protected]

Torosyan Suggests Establishing EU Plenipotentiary Representation in Armenia
PanARMENIAN.Net
25.07.2006 13:19 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ July 24 Armenian Speaker Tigran Torosyan received a
delegation let by EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus,
Ambassador Peter Semneby, reports the Press Service of the Armenian
NA. When assessing the high level of EU-Armenia relations, Torosyan
underscored the need to strengthen the cooperation more. He remarked
that creation of a commission for cooperation with European structures
under the charge of the Armenian Speaker is another step by Armenia,
confirming the priority of European integration in the country’s
foreign policy. The Armenian Speaker suggested establishing an EU
plenipotentiary representation in Armenia.
As proposed by the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus,
T. Torosyan turned to the draft Election Code and arranging for the
parliamentary election in 2007. It was underscored that resulting
from a discussion of 40 proposals of the Venice Commission, the
political forces of the Parliament managed to reduce the number of
remarks causing differences, from 15 to 6-7. This will allow hoping
that in late August, during the discussion with participation of
Venice Commission the Electoral Code will take its final shape, fully
in line with European criteria. To hold free, fair and democratic
election Torosyan specially underscored the importance of forming
a favorable atmosphere between the authority leaning and opposition
political forces.
During the meeting the issue of establishment of the Individual
Action Plan was also discussed. Peter Semneby noted that Brussels
is well aware of Armenia’s serious approach to relations with the EU
and after a few clarifications the Plan will be adopted.

ANCA Hopes for Massachusetts Court to Turn down Anti-Armenian Lawsuit
PanARMENIAN.Net
25.07.2006 14:01 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ A hearing date on whether or not to consider an
Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) backed lawsuit to
compel the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include denialist material
in their Armenian Genocide curriculum resource materials has been
set for September 18th, reported the Armenian National Committee of
Eastern Massachusetts. U.S. District Chief Judge Mark Wolf scheduled a
hearing for oral arguments on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts motion
to dismiss the lawsuit, filed by the ATAA, two teachers and a student.
“We welcome the scheduling of a hearing date and look forward to
the court taking this opportunity to dismiss this clearly unfounded
and deeply flawed lawsuit,” said ANC of Eastern Massachusetts Chair
Sharistan Ardaljian. “The authors of this suit – in acting as effective
surrogates for Armenian Genocide deniers in Ankara – have committed
a grave disservice to the truth, to the cause of tolerance, and the
growing worldwide movement to prevent genocide.”
The ATAA lawsuit calls for the inclusion of their website in a list
of educational sources for teachers, as part of a teacher’s guide on
genocide education provided by the State. The ATAA lawsuit also calls
for the addition of other websites, including that of the Embassy of
the Republic of Turkey, which the ATAA had lobbied to include in the
guide, but were disqualified because they denied the Armenian Genocide,
in direct contravention of the Massachusetts statute requiring the
teaching of the Armenian Genocide.
Soon after the lawsuit was introduced, the Massachusetts District
Attorney’s office had filed a motion to dismiss the case. The Armenian
Bar Association joined with the Armenian National Committee of America,
Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and Irish Immigration
Center, in filing a friend of the court brief in March 2006, in support
of the dismissal, arguing that inclusion of Genocide denial materials
in the curriculum would fly in the face of repeated Massachusetts
proclamations and State Resolutions properly characterizing the
Armenian Genocide as ‘genocide.’

US against Turkish Invasion of Iraq
PanARMENIAN.Net
25.07.2006 14:41 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The United States appealed to Turkey to delay
its invasion of Iraq in an effort to destroy Kurdish insurgency
strongholds. Over the weekend, President George Bush telephoned Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and urged a postponement of an invasion
of Iraq. Officials said Bush, in his second phone call in three days,
pledged to intensify US efforts to eliminate strongholds of the Kurdish
Workers Party, or PKK, in Iraq’s Kandil mountains. US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice also contacted her Turkish counterpart Abdullah
Gul. They said whatever is necessary will be done. Matthew Bryza,
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,
held a press conference in Washington and promised concrete steps
would be taken against the PKK soon.
The most important item in Rice-Gul’s phone conversation was the
PKK issue. Gul told Rice that Turkey wanted an immediate, visible,
sensible, and concrete solution to the PKK issue. Turkey would be
seriously hampered in its aid efforts to Iraq as long as the PKK
existed, AFP reports.

FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief
========================================== ======
Wednesday 26 July 2006
TURKEY: LITTLE PROGRESS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Despite hopes, there has been little progress in achieving true religious
freedom in Turkey, argues Otmar Oehring of the German Catholic charity
Missio
< schen-kulturen/themen/menschenrechte>.
Delays in changing the Foundations Law; declining official interest in
acting on EU and Council of Europe advice; the lack of concrete impact of
limited changes in the way the state records individual religious
affiliation; “massive nationalistic indoctrination” in schools; and
continuing systematic discrimination against Muslim and non-Muslim
minorities contribute to Turkey’s religious freedom deficit. In this
personal commentary for Forum 18 News Service <;, Dr Oehring maintains that the Turkish government no longer seems willing to improve the religious freedom and human rights situation. Many think that EU accession negotiations may fail, and he suggests that this is likely to end any progress towards religious freedom. TURKEY: LITTLE PROGRESS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM By Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio <; The Turkish parliament has now departed for the holidays - without approving the new Law on Foundations as it had been expected to do. The proposed Law would regulate how "community foundations" - the organisations allowed to some non-Muslim ethnic/religious communities - own and recover property. Parliament said it would come back early from holiday and reconvene in September, rather than October, to consider this proposed law and other laws aimed to bring Turkish laws into line with European Union (EU) norms. The aim is, reportedly, to approve at least the Foundations Law before the EU reports again on accession in early October. Although politicians and the EU are concentrating now on the Foundations Law, this focuses only on one fairly narrow issue: what to do with buildings and other property taken from religious communities by the government and sold to third parties (see F18News 13 December 2005 < e_id=704>). The government
cannot now give these properties back, so it will have to offer
compensation. However, it is not willing to do so and parliamentary
deputies think Turkey should not offer such compensation. As the European
Commission is telling the Turkish government it must do so, the issue is
deadlocked.
Despite the urging of the European Commission’s Enlargement
Directorate-General that Turkey should use the good offices of the Council
of Europe, both to help it understand what needs to be done in the area of
religious freedom and to help draw up laws on religious freedom and the
status of religious communities, the Turks are reluctant. In April 2006,
the Turkish government contacted the European Commission to ask for
specialists who could advise on these issues. The EU was willing to send
three experts, two from the Council of Europe as well as a French expert
on “laicism”. But to the astonishment of those involved, the day before
the experts were due to travel the Turkish government informed them there
was “no need” to come.
The involvement of the Council of Europe in helping Turkey’s
transformation is very tricky. Its Venice Commission – which advises on
how constitutions and other fundamental laws could conform to European
democratic standards – could help Turkey on religious freedom, but can
only get involved if Turkey invites it to do so. But Turkey is not
interested.
Official religious affiliation records
One small step has been taken in the way the state records individuals’
religious affiliation. A new Personal Status Law approved on 25 April
gives citizens for the first time the possibility to ask the authorities
to remove information about their religious affiliation (or presumed
religious affiliation) from their official records. However, the law is
contradictory: while Article 35 paragraph 2 allows individuals to ask for
their religious affiliation to be removed from their records or amended,
Article 7 paragraph 1(e) specifies that citizens have to provide such
information.
Yet despite discussion for at least the past decade, Identity Cards still
carry a section giving the holder’s religion. One of the major
contributors to the debate was Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who is now Turkey’s
President, in his former capacity as Chief Justice of the Constitutional
Court. A committed secularist, he argued that, in a secular state, an
individual’s religion should not be mentioned in official documents.
Changing religious affiliation on an individual’s personal records was
possible before, but required an individual to do this through the courts.
Fear of social ostracism or hostility meant that few did this.
Although the new Personal Status Law appears to be a positive step, this
is not the case. In practice, individuals trying to change their religious
affiliation in their official records could still face problems. For a
start, they would have to tell officials – who could just record that the
individual had requested to change their religious affiliation without
actually changing it. At least this Law offers the possibility to remove
any religious affiliation from individuals’ Identity Card, but if this
does not become common any official or police officer would then ask an
individual why no religion was given. Giving no religion would be
tantamount to an admission that the individual is possibly a Christian or
a Jew – the only faiths apart from Islam allowed to be listed.
It remains unclear how many people have asked to change the affiliation on
their official records since the new law came in. In the past, individuals
did of course change their religion, but were not always prepared to do so
publicly through the courts. The authorities have given conflicting numbers
of such converts. In February 2005 the Interior Ministry’s
Directorate-General for Administration of the Provinces told parliament
that 344 people had converted from Islam to Christianity between 1997 and
2004, while six had converted from Islam to Judaism. No converts to other
faiths were mentioned. However, Minister of State Mehmet Aydın,
quoting figures from the government’s Presidency of Religious Affairs
(Diyanet) (see F18News 12 October 2005
< e_id=670>), said 368 people had
converted “under the influence of missionary activities”.
There is much hostility to the peaceful sharing of non-Islamic beliefs,
which may have been a factor in the murder of Fr Andrea Santoro (see
F18News 9 February 2006
< e_id=724>).
The way officials record religion on personal records is predictable.
Children born to parents who are recorded as Muslims are automatically
recorded as Muslim. De facto, only three religions are permitted in the
records: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Atheist or non-believer are not
in practice allowed as options. Nor are Baha’i or Jehovah’s Witness, to
take two other examples. It remains unclear whether this has now changed,
though in practice the whims of the official are likely to override any
official decision. And if an individual asks to change the religion on
their identity card, there is no guarantee officials will also change it
on their personal record on the national register. And when you need any
official document, the first place officials look is on the register.
Islam, Islamic Minorities and Citizenship
In the Muslim world, there is a tradition that the nationality is Islam:
the nation is the umma, the body of Muslim believers. The concept of
citizenship separate from religion is not known in Islamic law and
tradition. Despite the government’s insistence that it is “secular”,
Turkey remains a deeply Islamic society so these views have a strong hold
on the population.
For almost a quarter of a century, Alevi Muslims have been pushing for
recognition as a distinct community able to organise themselves in
accordance with their own beliefs. But in May, Professor Ali Bardakoglu,
the head of the government’s Diyanet <; - which controls all official Muslim life in Turkey, despite the claimed secularism of the state - declared once again that Alevis are de facto Sunni Muslims. This is like saying that all Protestants are Catholics. Predictably, Alevis were unhappy over this statement, which means that in practice, the government does not recognise that Alevis and Sunnis are different. The government maintains that Cem Houses, where Alevis worship, are not considered places of worship but cultural centres. "We're not against Cem Houses, but they're no alternative to mosques," is the government message. The Alevis are divided as to how to respond to the government's attitude - some groups are broadly pro-government, some anti-government and some pro-Kurdish. The Republican Education Foundation, which is under Alevi control, is regarded as more ready to work with the government. It says it does not want to see a separate government body to handle Alevi affairs, but argues that taxes from Alevis are being used (or misused) solely on Sunni mosques and imams. It insists that as Alevis are Turkish citizens and taxpayers it wants to see their taxes used to support Alevi structures. Islamic groups that do not regard themselves as being under government control - such as the Islamic brotherhoods (the Sunni Nakchibendis, Mevlevis and others as well as the Shi'ite Bektashis) or new Islamic movements (such as the Nurcus and Suleymancis) - are in practice left alone. Yet there is no chance that the government will recognise Muslim differences, even though Turkey has Sunnis, Alevis and a small Shia minority. This indicates that the government is not just Muslim, but specifically Sunni Muslim, despite its proclaimed secular nature. Nationalism in Education Discussion continues over changing the school curriculum to treat all faiths in Turkey in a new way. The Alevis - like other religious minorities - complain that no progress has been reached for their teachings to be mentioned in school curricula. Further, Alevis have warned that if the government does not introduce separate religious education for Alevi children, they will lodge a case against it at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - to which Turkey is subject, as a member of the Council of Europe. Education remains very nationalistic (see F18News 12 October 2005 < e_id=670>). Some officials of
the EU and of EU member states have complained of what one privately
described as “massive nationalistic indoctrination” in schools. So it is
highly unfortunate that the Education and Culture chapter (Chapter 26) in
the EU accession negotiations was opened and closed on the same day,
without addressing this central point. Without change in the curriculum
and teaching, there can be no progress in a society whose nationalism has
a noticeable impact on social attitudes (see F18News 19 January 2006
< e_id=716>).
Non-Muslim Minorities
Meanwhile, tensions for religious minorities remain high, as evidenced by
the murder of one Catholic priest and attacks on other priests this year.
Speculation persists that the “deep state” – the nationalist circles in
the army, police, National Intelligence Organisation (MIT) secret police
and state administration which regard themselves as the custodians of the
Ataturkist ideology – might have been behind the murder in February of
Italian priest Fr Andrea Santoro in his church in the Black Sea port of
Trabzon, an area well known as a nationalist stronghold. Other factors
behind the murder are also suggested (see F18News 9 February 2006
< e_id=724>). Such attacks on
priests could spread to other nationalist areas. Some Catholic leaders
still have police outside their residences, though how an unarmed,
plainclothes police officer could offer any protection remains unclear.
Some wonder whether they are there more to listen to what those leaders
are saying than to protect them.
Of course, all religious minority leaders remain under government
surveillance, forcing them to be very cautious in everything they say – or
to be willing to pay the price for their frankness. They know their
telephones are occasionally tapped and mail is sometimes opened before it
is delivered. “Walls have ears,” religious minority leaders say. Secretive
officials occasionally come to visit them to ask questions – people
speculate that they are from the MIT secret police.
In what is seen by Turkish Christians as a continuing humiliation, all
Christian Churches – whether their leaders and members are Turkish
citizens or not – are regarded as foreign. This attitude persists, even
though Christian communities were present on the territory of what is now
Turkey many centuries before the Turkish state, its ancestor the Ottoman
Empire, and Islam. Discussions between Christian Churches and the state
are normally handled by the Foreign Ministry, or sometimes by another
state authority chosen by the government. This humiliation is clearly
deliberate.
Nothing has happened about plans for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be
able to reopen its seminary on the island of Heybeliada (Halki in Greek)
in the Sea of Marmara, once famed for its scholarship throughout the
Orthodox world. Closed in 1971, Turkey has grudgingly promised to reopen
it under US and EU pressure, but that now seems further off than ever.
Discussion has now fizzled out, though Patriarch Bartholomew always tries
to raise the issue whenever he can. The Armenians saw their Holy Cross
seminary in Istanbul closed at the same time, but have given up any hope
to be allowed to reopen it as a separate institution. Armenian Patriarch
Mesrop has instead proposed inaugurating a chair of Armenian Studies at
one of Istanbul’s state universities – so far with no result.
Pope Benedict’s Planned Visit
The planned visit of Pope Benedict XVI, due in November 2006, could also
raise tensions. Benedict is scheduled to meet the Turkish President and
government in Ankara, and address a selected public in the capital.
Presumably, the Pope will want to talk about relations between the
Christian and Islamic worlds and seek to overcome ideas about the “clash
of civilisations”. The Turkish public is unlikely to be present. Any views
they might have of the speech will be formed by how the local media covers
it. In Istanbul, Benedict will meet the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Armenian
Patriarch and other local religious leaders, as well as the Catholic
community.
Most Turks either do not want the Pope to visit, or are indifferent to his
visit. Some Western-oriented Turks welcome it, as they think it could help
Turkish society better understand both the Catholic Church and western
views of Islam. Some of these Turks also hope that the visit will help
Turkey understand the progress it needs to make on religious freedom. But
nationalists who strongly oppose Europe and accession to the EU – who are
growing more influential – could cause headaches for the police during
Benedict’s visit.
The government too will be closely scrutinising the Pope’s words for any
hint of anything that could be interpreted as anti-Turkish and
anti-Islamic. As soon as any comments are linked to Turks as a people and
a society, problems will arise. The Pope will doubtless be very delicate.
The row stirred up by remarks about the Armenian genocide in the final
years of the Ottoman Empire made by the Armenian Catholicos, Karekin II,
on a visit in June is ostensibly related to a historical ethnic conflict
dating back ninety years. But it is relevant to a discussion on religious
freedom, especially as the Istanbul prosecutor’s office decided to
investigate the remarks for a possible prosecution of the Catholicos for
“anti-Turkish remarks”. The very prospect of a criminal case over these
remarks shows the lack of freedom of speech. But whenever religious
leaders are prosecuted there is a knock-on effect on the rights of the
religious community. The Armenian Apostolic community – the largest of
Turkey’s Christian communities by far – was embarrassed by Karekin’s
remarks, knowing they will make their already precarious existence more
difficult.
What Prospects for the Future?
The prospect of Turkey’s EU accession seems to be the only thing capable
of driving change in the area of religious freedom and human rights more
widely. Yet the government is now not willing to enact change. Indeed, it
is becoming ever more nationalist – even if this might simply reflect the
AKP’s need for votes from the nationalist constituency. It is careful not
to show too openly that it is Islamist, as this would cause problems with
the President and the military.
All this could change after the next parliamentary elections (due in late
2006 or early 2007) and the presidential election (due next year), if the
current ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) wins. If the current
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – or a puppet – succeeds in becoming
President, the Ataturk legacy could be changed. There will then not be a
President willing to veto laws that contradict this legacy. This would
definitely lead to a worsening climate for religious freedom. The position
for Sunni Muslims would improve, while for Alevis the situation would
remain as restrictive as it is now. Despite the religious differences with
the majority population, the Sunnis are still seen as Turks. For other
minorities – especially Christians – the situation would be worse.
Government officials sympathetic to the ideal of secularism – and
secularists more widely – are growing increasingly concerned. They fear
that, if the AKP substantially increases its vote at the next election, it
would be strong enough to change the Constitution – even against the wishes
of the opposition. It could also install a President from its ranks, who
would not then veto laws deemed to be part of an Islamist agenda, as the
current President has done.
Secularists in particular are afraid for the future. Turkish diplomats –
who are already concerned over the changing mood among state officials as
an increasing number of AKP supporters fill official positions – are very
afraid of a fundamental change in the country’s course. Many believe any
sweeping AKP victory in the next national elections would speed up the
replacement of state officials with AKP loyalists.
The old establishment is seeking to build up political forces attractive
to the electorate, in a last-ditch bid to head off the AKP challenge.
However, it remains unclear if the electorate will back them. Voters threw
out the old establishment in disgust at its corruption and ineffectiveness.
The AKP has been careful to be on its best behaviour during its current
period in office.
Although there is much talk of a military coup in the event of such
fundamental changes, no-one knows if the majority of army officers still
support Ataturk-defined secularism – or if they would be prepared to back
such an anti-Islamist coup.
Prospects for EU Accession
The level of optimism or pessimism over the future depends on who you talk
to. Western-oriented Turks still hope EU accession negotiations will
continue and that Turkey will eventually join the EU. They hope
desperately that the process will generate its own momentum that would
force the government, the administration and the army to look forward and
support reforms. This could happen, but it looks unlikely.
As the general election looms, the government is doing nothing that could
be seen as a positive step towards the reforms the EU would welcome.
Many observers are not optimistic. They do not believe the Turkish side –
whether the current AKP government or the “deep state” – is interested in
seeing such reforms. Many Turks have not even understood what religious
freedom – for example as defined in the rights set out in Article 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – actually means (see F18News 13
December < 704>). Or they
understand it – but reject it. Turkey ratified the ECHR in 1954, but over
50 years later has yet to abide by it.
Ataturkists fear that granting religious freedom as outlined in the
Convention would give power to the Islamists. Yet Paragraph 2 of the
ECHR’s Article 9 prevents the abuse of religious freedom by freedom’s
enemies. This states that “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs
shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for
the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others.” Indeed, Article 9 would safeguard a
real separation of religion and the state, as the Ataturkists claim to
want.
This fear is also felt on the EU side, which means that it too is
increasingly reluctant to clearly advocate religious freedom along the
lines of the ECHR. EU governments also fear such rights would open the
doors to Turkey’s Islamist groups. Although EU officials involved in the
accession process are interested in seeing religious freedom promoted
properly – indeed, they regard it as the second most important issue after
recognition of Cyprus – they seem to know that this is seen as a political
issue which is over their heads.
Many believe the accession negotiations will fail this autumn, not over
democratisation and human rights, but over the Turkish government’s
refusal to recognise the government of Cyprus in Nicosia. Many Turks would
not be unhappy at this. Yet if the EU suspends the accession negotiations,
the Turks will feel insulted and spurned by Europe. Some believe the
European Commission is therefore trying to manoeuvre to find a way for
Turkey itself to suspend the negotiations.
Possible Impact on Religious Freedom
Yet any suspension will have a very negative impact on religious freedom –
indeed, the position for religious minorities could end up being worse than
when the negotiations started. Suspension would incite nationalist feelings
and many Turks would openly say that the negotiations and even membership
of the EU itself would not benefit Turkey. Then a hunt would begin for
those who had caused the mess. Most Turks would not point to their own
government but to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Armenian Patriarchate,
the Catholic Church, the Protestants, and other obvious symbols of the
outside world.
The only hope many can see for progress towards religious freedom is that
the EU accession negotiations continue. If EU negotiations stop
completely, no hope for religious freedom will remain. Yet even if the
negotiations stagger on, it is doubtful that the majority of the
population is prepared to change its attitude to nationalism and religion,
and even consider accepting Alevis and non-Muslim Turks as full Turkish
citizens. The only other possible hope is that the reform process will
gather its own momentum independent of the EU. However, at present, there
is little sign of this happening. (END)
– Dr Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte>, a
Catholic charity based in Germany, contributed this comment to Forum 18
News Service. Commentaries are personal views and do not necessarily
represent the views of F18News or Forum 18.
For further overviews by Dr Oehring of religious freedom in Turkey, and of
the need for fundamental reform of the Constitution, see
< =68>.
For commentaries by the Anglican Chaplain in Istanbul on the roots of
Turkey’s attitude to religious freedom see
< _id=716>, and on Turkish
society’s reaction to the murder of Roman Catholic priest Fr Andrea
Santoro, see < 724>.
For a personal commentary on religious freedom under Islam, see
< _id=227>
For a personal commentary assessing western European “headscarf laws”, see
< _id=469>
A printer-friendly map of Turkey is available at
< s/atlas/index.html?Parent=mideast&Rootmap=turk ey>
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at

80 PERCENT OF WATER CONSUMPTION IN ARMAVIR ILLEGAL
Armenpress
ARMAVIR, JULY 25, ARMENPRESS: Water authorities in
Armavir province are walking door to door to reveal
cases of water stealing by households. Norik
Gevorkian, head of the local water company, said they
revealed three cases of illegal tapping on the main
water pipeline in Armavir town.
They say they revealed also other cases when owners
of apartments use various tricks to make their water
meters stop when they have running water. Gevorkian
says the town of Armavir, which has a population of
7,300, consumes every month 600,000 cubic meters of
drinking water, while most simple calculations show
that 100,000 cubic meters would be quite enough to
satisfy their all needs.
With this figure water losses every month make
500,000 cubic meters or 79 percent. Authorities have
found that people use the stolen water for watering
their orchards and filling pools.

YEREVAN BRANDY COMPANY TO BUY 30,000 TONS OF GRAPES
Armenpress
YEREVAN, JULY 25, ARMENPRESS: The French-owned Yerevan Brandy Company
(YBC) reported a commodity turnover of 19 billion Drams for the past
12 months.
Zara Nazarian, head of the company’s press office, told journalists
on Monday that the company remains committed to raising the share of
brandy prepared from 10-20 year-old spirit in its overall sale volumes.
She said the volume of sale of Super-Premium products rose to 180,000
liters. In the same time span of the past 12 months 3.4 million liters
out of 3.5 million liters produced were sold and of this 2.5 million
liters in Russia.
In the past 12 months the Yerevan Brandy Company, owned by Pernod
Riccard, has invested 350 million drams in its Armavir branch and
260 million Drams in Aygavan branch. Last year the company bought
25 percent more grape, overall 23,500 tons- than in the previous
year. The company has contracts with 5,500 wine-growers and this
autumn it will raise procurements up to 30,000 tons.
The company sells also its brandies in Germany, Israel, USA, Ukraine,
Belarus and some other countries.
A financial director of the company said one of the biggest problems
was the strengthening of the national Armenian currency- Dram-
against the US Dollar, sustaining damages to all exporters.