ARMENIAN MINISTER SAYS LEADERS’ TALKS POSSIBLE
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
May 17 2006
Baku, May 16, AssA-Irada
The OSCE mediators brokering settlement to the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper
(Nagorno) Garabagh conflict are due to visit the region May 25-26,
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian has told the press.
Unlike previous separate visits, all the three co-chairman of the
Minsk Group will hold talks in the two countries, he said.
Commenting on some reports suggesting that Armenian President Robert
Kocharian has refused to meet with his Azerbaijani counterpart
Ilham Aliyev, Oskanian said such a meeting is not ruled out. “This
will depend on the upcoming meeting of the two countries’ foreign
ministers in Strasbourg and the outcomes of the intermediaries’
visit to the region.”
The parties failed to agree upon the issues of principle during
the latest talks held by the two leaders in Rambouillet, France in
February, which was followed by mutual threats.
The Armenian diplomat said the mediators have laid out several new
ideas to the conflicting sides, which will be discussed in France at
a meeting of the foreign ministers with the co-chairs. He avoided
revealing the gist of the proposals, but said they include both
advantages and downsides. Therefore, all the disputed issues should
be resolved during the negotiations, Oskanian said.
“We will try to maximally bring our positions closer at the Strasbourg
meeting,” the Armenian official added.

TURKISH-REFORM FATIGUE TROUBLES EU
By Peter Ford and Yigal Schleifer
Christian Science Monitor
Deseret News, Utah
May 17 2006
PARIS AND ISTANBUL, Turkey – Barely six months after the European
Union ended years of indecision by starting talks aimed at allowing
Turkey to join the club, doubts about the wisdom of that move are
coming to the fore on both sides of the table.
A series of well-publicized court cases, including one Tuesday,
against Turkish writers has made Europeans wonder anew whether Ankara
really shares their understanding of freedom of speech. Many Turks,
meanwhile, see a double standard over head scarf bans and a proposed
French law that would ban any suggestion that the Armenians did not
suffer genocide in 1915.
The dubious mood clouding the “talks about talks” that Turkish
and EU officials have been holding since the beginning of the year
indicates just how long and bumpy the process of turning Turkey into
a full-fledged European nation will be, say observers on both sides
of the Bosphorus.
“There is a sense that the political will in Ankara is not as strong
as it was, if there’s any left at all, to invest in this process
with Europe,” says one EU diplomat in the Turkish capital, who asked
to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue. “The
commitment . . . that they are still professing is less convincing
because it is not being reflected by their actions on the ground.”
Especially worrying to the Europeans is the way prosecutors have used
a controversial article of Turkey’s revised penal code against writers
accused of insulting state institutions or Turkish identity. A number
of these cases, such as the one against author Orhan Pamuk, have been
dropped after sharp EU criticism. But Tuesday, the trial began of an
Armenian-Turkish newspaper editor who is charged with “attempting to
influence the judiciary” against the penal code. The editor, Hrant
Dink, was met with shouts of “traitor” as he entered the courtroom.
Rights activists also fear that a planned anti-terror bill,
which would allow the imprisonment of journalists found guilty of
“propagating terrorism,” might be used against anyone expressing
support for Kurdish separatists. A recent upsurge in violence in
the majority-Kurdish southeast of Turkey, meanwhile, could lead the
military to reassert itself in domestic affairs.
The EU last month urged the Turkish authorities “to make sure that
the security forces show the necessary restraint” in the wake of
street clashes that left 16 people dead and 36 children in jail,
some facing 24 years in prison.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has brushed aside charges of
“reform fatigue,” insisting recently that “our reform efforts aimed
at raising standards and practices in all areas of life to the highest
contemporary standards will resolutely continue.”
But the approach of elections next year, coupled with a drop in public
support for EU membership to 50 percent from 80 percent two years ago,
means that leaders of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)
“don’t want to take risks,” says Mensur Akgun with the Turkish Economic
and Social Studies Foundation, a think tank in Istanbul.
The government “is focusing on elections and on the mood in the
country, and that mood is very inward-looking,” says the European
diplomat. “Instead of showing the way and leadership, the government
is listening much more to these ghosts that have been haunting Turkey
for decades.”
“There is a rising nationalism in the country,” adds Akgun, and the AKP
“has a constituency that is rather conservative in a nationalist sense,
and they have to reciprocate to their feelings.”
That nationalism has been fed by two rebuffs from the EU.
Ankara is galled that the Turkish-populated half of the divided
Mediterranean island of Cyprus remains under economic embargo even
though Turkish Cypriots accepted a UN plan to reunite the two sides.
Late last year, religious Turks were upset when a European Court
of Human Rights ruling upheld Turkey’s head scarf ban in public
universities.
Turks have also been angered by a vote next Thursday in the French
Parliament on a bill that would criminalize any statement casting doubt
on the Armenians’ claim that they suffered genocide at Turkish hands in
1915. The bill would impose jail sentences and a fine on historians,
journalists or others who challenge Armenians’ version of events, in
the same way French law punished revisionists who deny the Holocaust.
The bill is unlikely to pass, but it reflects longstanding mistrust of
Turkey in Europe. That mistrust is fed by freedom-of-expression cases
being brought against writers, says Joost Lagendijk, who heads the
European Parliament delegation to the joint EU-Turkey parliamentary
committee.
“The mood in Europe is that nothing has happened in Turkey since
October except setbacks,” warns Mr. Lagendijk. Quietly, Turkish and
EU civil servants have been reviewing the 35 “chapters” of Turkish
legislation that will have to be brought into line with EU law,
and have agreed on negotiating points for 19 of them, officials
say. Substantive negotiations on education and science are due to
begin next month.
Nobody expects Turkey to join the EU until 2015, even if things go
well. That, says Lagendijk, is a good thing, since EU citizens are
displaying doubts about the union’s future and purpose.
“We have some time ourselves to solve our own problems before we have
to deal with Turkey,” he says. “In the meantime, the negotiations
will continue behind the scenes.”
,124 9,635208056,00.html

TURKEY WARNS FRANCE NOT TO PASS ARMENIAN BILL
Turkish Press
May 17 2006
Press Review
Turkiye
The French Parliament is set to vote a bill tomorrow which would
criminalizes questioning the so-called Armenian genocide. In the
runup to the vote, Turkey has sent messages to that country saying
that if the bill passes, bilateral relations will be hurt. Ankara
underlined that the French government would be responsible for any
crises in the aftermath of the bill passing, adding that economic
relations between the two countries, including French firms’ vying
for defense and nuclear power plant projects, would be reviewed. In
related news, speaking at his parliamentary group meeting, opposition
Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal sharply criticized
the bill, stressing that Turkey would defend its rights and honor to
the end.

I DON’T EXCLUDE THAT DEPUTIES CAN LEAVE THE RPA, TOO
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
17 May 06
The RPA and NA deputy chairman Tigran Torosian says.
Last year when there were a lot of affirmations that the coalition
would stop its existence in the pre-electoral year Robert Kocharian
ordered the coalition to work till May of 2007 as a matter of
honor. “The coalition is so called political agreement among 4
subjects; 3 parties and the President. And it is an agreement for four
years. We have obligation and responsibility towards people till May
2007”. In your opinion who is guilty for stopping the obligations of
the agreement?
There is no need to find guilty persons here, as we don’t deal with
criminals. There was a political situation and a solution has been
found. I think all parts of the coalition are sincere in marking that
situation. And all parties would like to continue those relations
till next elections. But a civil and honorable solution was found in
that situation.
The NA deputy chairman Vahan Hovhannisian described the behavior of
the OEP businessmen by this parallel that the political building of
that structure is based on sands. Is it a right description? Besides
don’t you think that the overwhelming majority is on that same “sand”
and this situation can be repeated in your party, too?
Artistic and figurative formulations are attractive. But I think
it will be better to give political remarks. Everybody has a right
to give remarks on different demonstrations. But I’m sure that this
period when the OEP declared about its leave will be a 20-30 day trial
period for all parties of the coalition. It is interesting for me
who and how will behave himself. It is also a trial. And it will be
better for us to go out from this situation with dignity. As regards
the presence of businessmen deputies in the parliament I think all
of them shouldn’t be marked in the same way. A businessman can be a
party member and become ac deputy during his party activities. So I
can’t exclude that some people can leave the RPA, too. Everybody must
be marked according to his behavior, irrespective of the circumstance
whether he is a businessman or not.
The pro-authority mass media produce such interpretations as if Arthur
Baghdasarian’s bright future turned into sad past in a day.
I don’t admit situational approaches. And I want to repeat that this
is a trial for all of us. The life isn’t over today. We worked with
the OEP 3 years having successes and omissions.
Why did the NA speaker’s position about becoming the EU member get
such negative replies when all our leaders admit the necessity of
close integration to such structures in their declaration?
Undoubtedly. Discrepancies on this occasion aren’t principal, as
integration into the EU has been declared as the aim and a superior
direction in foreign policy of our country. Discrepancies referred
to the appraisals how it must be done and how. The main discrepancy
appeared on the occasion of the declaration about NATO membership. We
must admit that the NATO membership hasn’t been declared as the
aim. It isn’t fair when some people try to find discrepancies here
because there are EU member countries, which aren’t the NATO members.
But all these don’t exclude that a party can declare NATO membership
as an aim for it, for the future of Armenia.

THE TIME OF PROFESSIONALS
Aram Abrahamian
Aravot.am
17 May 06
We had an acquaintance in my youth who filled a high post in the soviet
hierarchy. It happened so that he was dismissed from his post and that
50 years old person grew old in a day and lost the interest towards
the life. He even didn’t want to take his cloths on and was staying
in bed for days. Finally he hung himself in some months. There are
professional politicians and nomenclature officials in the developed
social order. That professionalism has its positive and negative sides.
Non [professionals appear in revolutionary period, which is natural,
change of elite is made. “Karabakh” committee consisted of such
“amateurs”. And that “amateurishness” as everything in the world,
has its positive and negative demonstrations and frankly speaking,
I like it. The brightest example of that “non-professionalism” gives
the Ra first president Levon Ter-Petrosian from whom 10 years of state
and political activities are temporary interval for his main scientific
work. The professional politician will never say, ”national ideology
is a false political category” /though it is true for me/. And it
is specific that only Vazgen Manoukian has remained from “Karabakh”
committee.
The revolution was over, perhaps in 94-95 and professionals occupied
the sphere. Besides the above-mentioned populism, egocentrism
is an important specific for the political professional, they
are sure that the whole world is interested in them, the extreme
uncertainty and paranoia as a result. On this occasion our most
professional politicians are Paruyr Hayrikian, Artashes Geghamian,
Aram Karapetian. The latter is sure that the whole interests of the
NSS are to know his secrets. Or Artashes Geghamian can’t even suppose
that Serge Sargsian thinks of other thing than how to trust in him,
Geghamian.
Robert Kocharian and Serge Sargsian are professional members of
nomenclature. Certainly I don’t admit, that they will hang themselves
without a post. But it is difficult to believe that they will work
with pleasure as an engineer or a teacher of Armenian language. The
same is our former colleague Sergo Yeritsian; he doesn’t want any more
or can’t make TV programs. Like Aghvan Vardanian to write articles
or poems or Vahan Hovhannisian to excavate things.
They have already smoked the hashish of the authority and have got
used to it.
And for avoiding ”breaking” /lomka/ that do their best for getting
a new doze.
–Boundary_(ID_V7soxkqGS9wDLXvJLDbHrA)–

HARPER’S COMMENTS DAMAGING TO A VITAL ALLY
by Scott Taylor, Osprey News Network
Pembroke Observer (Ontario)
May 17, 2006 Wednesday
Final Edition
As this is obviously an incredibly sensitive issue for all of those
involved, I wish to state from the outset that I have close contact
and a good relationship with a number of senior Turkish officials.
Turkish intelligence officers successfully negotiated my release from
Iraqi insurgents in September 2004 and, having visited the Turkish
residency in Ottawa on numerous formal and informal occasions, I
consider Ambassador Aydemir Erman to be a personal friend. The fact
that Erman has temporarily been recalled to Ankara in protest over
comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper has therefore hit
close to home.
That being said, I honestly believe that the recent statement made by
Harper concerning the Armenian tragedy of 1915 was not only damaging
to Turkish-Canadian relations, but also completely unnecessary.
Two years ago, Bloc MP Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral brought forward
a bill condemning the mass deportation of Armenians from eastern
Anatolia during the First World War, which resulted in the death of
hundreds of thousands. According to the bill, it was a deliberate
genocide on the part of the Ottoman Empire.
While some may question why Canadian parliamentarians would spend their
time passing historical judgment on events that transpired 90 years
ago in the Middle East, Bill M-380 was actually passed on April 21,
2004 after a free vote in the House of Commons.
The Turkish government voiced its opposition to this ruling and offered
up its own version of events. While not denying that the Armenians
died in droves, the Turks pointed out that in 1915 eastern Anatolia
was being threatened by Czarist Russian troops, the Ottoman Empire
was crumbling on all sides, and Armenian nationalists chose to rise
up in open revolt. The forced relocation of the potentially hostile
Armenian population into northern Iraq and Syria was undertaken by
an Ottoman administration so cash-strapped and inept that some 80,000
Turkish troops died that same year on the Russian front from frostbite
and starvation.
The Armenians claim the resultant widespread death of their refugees
was a deliberate premeditated genocide, while the Turks maintain it
was a regrettable tragedy exacerbated by brutal wartime conditions.
Realizing that Bill M-380 was an impediment to Canadian-Turkish
relations, the cabinet of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin voted
against the motion and the bill was considered non-binding.
In the interim, the Turkish government has proposed a joint commission
of historians from Armenia and Turkey to attempt to thoroughly
re-examine the past to determine a ‘true’ account of the 1915
tragedy. Although modern Turkey was founded in 1923 from the ashes
of the Ottoman Empire, the actions of the former ruling Caliphate
leadership still impacts on the nationalist psyche of the Turks. For
this reason, Turkey has agreed to re-open the old archives and share
the documentation with the Armenians. Surprisingly, the Armenians
have yet to agree to participate in the study.
Nevertheless, on April 18 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan forwarded a letter to Stephen Harper urging him to support
the new academic study. Instead, Harper used the first opportunity to
reaffirm his support of M-380 at a Winnipeg press conference the next
day. Somewhat prophetically, Erdogan had written warning Harper that
“the Armenian lobby has not given up its intention to create problems
in Turkish-Canadian relations.”
Although the prime minister’s official Web site only briefly
displayed Harper’s statement concerning M-380 before removing it,
Armenian-Canadian Web sites continue to post the comments. Turkey
responded by officially (temporarily) recalling Ambassador Erman and
formally withdrawing from a joint NATO fighter jet exercise at Cold
Lake, Alberta.
While these actions may seem harmless and petty, it must be remembered
that Turkey is a key NATO ally and a vital partner to the mission
in Afghanistan. More importantly, if Stephen Harper is anxious to
mend fences with the U.S. State Department, he should have first
consulted their position on the Armenian issue. The U.S. does not
insist on using the word “genocide” and they are prepared to wait
for the results of the new study.
As a secular Muslim democracy – that recognizes the state of Israel –
Turkey is the cornerstone to America’s Middle East policies. Thus,
maintaining good relations with Ankara is a high priority for the U.S.
Closer to home, the fanatical elements of the Armenian nationalists
have not always resorted to diplomatic measures to bring attention
to their cause here in Canada. In 1982, an Armenian assailant gunned
down the Turkish military attache, and in 1985 the Turkish ambassador
narrowly escaped being murdered when Armenian gunmen forced their
way into the official residence.
Historical records are all too often written by the victors at the
expense of the vanquished. However, in the case of the Ottomans and
Armenians, both sides lost that war and suffered terrible casualties.
Clarification of this tragedy needs to be addressed by historians
examining the facts, not politicians appeasing a lobby group.
Canada’s current relations with a vital ally and trading partner should
have taken precedence over passing judgment on a 90-year-old incident.
Scott Taylor is a member of the Osprey Writers Group and is publisher
and editor of Esprit de Corps Books & Magazine in Ottawa.

TURKEY NEEDS TO CONFRONT PAST REALITIES
by Harry Sterling, Special to The Windsor Star
Windsor Star (Ontario)
May 17, 2006 Wednesday
Final Edition
‘The Armenian claims are a direct attack on our identity, on Turkey’s
history.”
With these words Turkish embassy counsellor Yonet Tezel explained
his government’s decision to recall its ambassador to Canada, Aydemir
Erman, for “consultations.”
The move followed recent remarks by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper associating his government with Canadian parliamentary
resolutions describing the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey
during the First World War as an act of genocide.
Turkey has made a similar move against the French government for
contemplating a proposed law making denial of the Armenian genocide
a crime.
As a further indication of its displeasure, Turkey has announced
it is cancelling participation of Turkish fighter aircraft in an
international military air exercise May 17 to June 24 in Cold Lake,
Alta.
Despite its actions directed at Ottawa and Paris, Turkish authorities
stressed the recalls were only “… for a short time for consultations
over the latest developments about the baseless allegations of
Armenian genocide.”
While the statement by the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan was essentially pro-forma, for many it was indicative of
Turkey’s inability to confront an issue that is never going to go
away until the Turks come to terms with it.
Turkish governments have always maintained that the large-scale
deaths of Armenians during the First World War and after occurred
when the then-Ottoman government was trying to put down Armenian
nationalists aligned with invading Russian forces and was not an act
of premeditated genocide.
They also insist the figure of 1.5 million deaths is inflated and
that during that turbulent period hundreds of thousands of Turks in
eastern Turkey also died.
While these explanations are widely shared by the Turkish population,
some Turks have called for a more open-minded approach to the issue,
including Turkey’s internationally recognized author Orhan Pamuk.
He was subjected to widespread criticism and physical threats for
commenting during an interview about the Armenian genocide and
repression of the country’s Kurdish minority, both considered taboo
subjects, especially by Turkish nationalists. He was charged with
denigrating the nation and faced a stiff prison sentence. However,
as a result of international pressure, particularly from the European
Union — which Turkey wants to join — the government dropped the
charges on technical grounds.
A number of Turkish academics have also voiced support for examining
the genocide issue with more of an open mind.
One way to do this would be to open up Ottoman-era archives and other
documentary sources, including Russian military reports that might
shed light on what took place during fighting in the region.
Investigations carried out by German and U.S. analysts concerning the
deaths concluded that the catastrophic defeat of Turkish troops engaged
against Russian forces during the early stages of the First World
War, and the Turkish army’s claim it had been stabbed in the back by
Armenian nationalists, resulted in the Turkish military disarming and
executing countless Armenian men as traitors, regardless of whether
they were engaged in an anti-Turkish insurgency.
The Turkish army purportedly then rounded up Armenian women and
children, ordering their deportation via the Syrian Desert, resulting
in massive deaths.
Turkish authorities dispute such findings, maintaining there was
no official policy to exterminate Armenians and that most deaths
were caused during the deportation to Syria due to lack of adequate
provisions at a chaotic time in eastern Anatolia.
Notwithstanding contradictory views on what transpired nine decades
ago, what is incomprehensible to many outside Turkey is why current-day
Turks are unable to look back on those horrific developments in a
more balanced fashion, instead of insisting Armenian claims have
absolutely no foundation in truth.
One reason that has been cited concerns the Turkish military, seen as
the true power in Turkey. The modern-day Turkish military founded by
Kemal Ataturk has always seen itself as the defender not just of the
country’s independence, but also of its national honour and dignity.
The Turkish officer caste takes its role in society extremely
seriously, even executing a prime minister for allegedly endangering
the stability of the state. Anything that could raise doubts or
undermine the military’s ability to present itself as guardian of
Turkey’s national honour and territorial integrity, or which portrays
Turks behaving in a barbaric fashion, is unacceptable.
This, some claim, is why it’s near impossible to confront the realities
behind the tragic fate of Turkey’s Armenian population 90 years ago
— or Turkey’s treatment of its Kurdish population — since it could
undermine Turkey’s own idealized perception of itself as a modern,
liberal society.
But like Germany, Turkey must confront the realities of the past if
it expects to be accepted as a nation capable of dealing open-mindedly
with its own history, however disagreeable that might be.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator. He
served in Turkey.

SCUFFLES MAR TRIAL OF TURKISH-ARMENIAN JOURNALIST
Agence France Presse — English
May 16, 2006 Tuesday 2:12 PM GMT
Scuffles and protests by nationalist extremists forced the immediate
adjournment of the trial that began here Tuesday of a prominent
Turkish-Armenian journalist.
Lawyers for Hrant Dink, editor of the bilingual Turkish-Armenian
weekly Agos, accused a group of far-right lawyers called the Jurists’
Union of disrupting the proceedings.
The organization, led by attorney Kemal Kerincsiz, filed the criminal
complaint that led to the trial of Dink and three colleagues on charges
of attempting to influence the judiciary in columns that appeared in
Agos in October.
Dink, his son and assistant Arat Dink, publisher Serkis Seropyan and
columnist Aydin Engin risk up to four and a half years in jail if
found guilty.
A group led by Kerincsiz demanded to participate in the trial as the
intervening party for having filed the original criminal complaint.
“Kerincsiz came with a crowded team and they harassed us physically
and verbally,” Dink’s attorney Fethiye Cetin told AFP, adding that
she, the defendants and other defense lawyers left the courthouse
under police protection.
Dink said: “When I entered the court room, they came at me shouting,
‘Get out of this country’, and spat at me.”
He said he left the building from a back door under police escort.
The judge adjourned the trial to July 4.
Outside the courthouse, several dozen far-right protestors shouted
“traitors” as the defendants arrived and argued with police for not
being allowed in.
They exchanged punches with a group demonstrating in favor of Dink
with the chant, “They are our intellectuals, our brothers,” an AFP
photographer said.
The incriminated Agos articles criticized Dink’s conviction in
another freedom-of-speech case, in which he received a six-month
suspended sentence for “denigrating the Turkish national identity”
in an article on the Armenian massacres of World War I.
The Jurists’ Union has been behind a series of criminal complaints
against Turkish intellectuals who contest the official version of the
killings, the resulting lawsuits casting a pall on Turkey’s democracy
record at a time when it is seeking to join the European Union.
A public debate on the World War I killings, one of the most
controversial episodes in Turkish history, has only recently begun
in Turkey, often sending nationalist sentiment into a frenzy.
Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered between
1915 and 1917 in what they, and many Western countries, consider
a genocide.
Turkey categorically rejects the claim and the label, saying 300,000
Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife when the
Armenians sided with Russian troops invading Ottoman soil.

ARMENIA AND DIASPORA TO TACKLE NATIONAL TASKS
by Tigran Liloyan
ITAR-TASS News Agency
May 16, 2006 Tuesday 02:21 PM EST
The ways for Armenia and the Armenian diaspora jointly tacking national
tasks were in the focus of attention at the meeting of Armenian
President Robert Kocharyan and members of the General Council of the
World Armenian Congress and the organization’s president Ara Abramyan.
Robert Kocharyan dwelt especially on the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict and international recognition of the Armenian genocide, the
presidential press service told ltar-Tass. The president hailed the
fact that the initiatives of the World Armenian Congress concentrate
increasingly on Armenia and assume nation-wide character.
Ara Abramyan posted the Armenian president on the work of the Tuesday
meeting of the General Council of the World Armenian Congress.
Members of the Council made assurances that they were ready to do their
utmost for fulfilling national tasks and advanced their proposals.
Abramyan said computer classes in 600 secondary schools and other
educational establishments of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh had been
set up with the assistance of the World Armenian Congress and the Union
of Armenians of Russia. This programme is spread to the diaspora. Such
classes have been set up in the Armenian community in Brazil and will
also be formed in Argentine. Computer centres for invalids, orphans and
children from the poor families have been set up in Armenian regions.

TURKEY GENOCIDE CLAIM
Peter Begg With AP
Geelong Information
May 17 2006
GEELONG Province MP John Eren yesterday declined to comment on a
colleague who accused Turkish people of ignoring acts of genocide
early last century.
Parliamentary secretary for justice, Jenny Mikakos, who is of Greek
heritage, told the Upper House that more than 300,000 Pontic Greeks
died in Turkey early last century as a result of genocide.
Mr Eren, who is from Turkey, and another MP with a Turkish background,
Adem Somyurek, reportedly interjected during the speech, but failed
to stop Ms Mikakos.
The female MP claimed more than a million Pontic Greeks were forced
into exile early last century, and in the preceding years, 1.5
million Armenians and 750,000 Assyrians in various parts of Turkey
also perished.
Mr Eren was born in Turkey and immigrated to Australia with his family
when he was six years old.
Earlier yesterday Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said the MP’s
parliamentary speech was a sign of free speech at work.
In a short speech to the Victorian Upper House during the last session
of parliament, Ms Mikakos reportedly said: “On May 19, the Pontian
community in Victoria and around the world will commemorate the
87th anniversary of the Pontian genocide that occurred in present-
day Turkey.
“Between 1916 and 1923, over 353,000 Pontic Greeks living in Asia
Minor and in Pontus, which is near the Black Sea, died as a result of
the 20th century’s first but less-known genocide,” Fairfax reported
her as saying.
“Over a million Pontic Greeks were forced into exile. In the preceding
years, 1.5 million Armenians and 750,000 Assyrians in various parts
of Turkey also perished.”
Two Labor MPs of Turkish descent, Mr Somyurek and Mr Eren, interjected
but Ms Mikakos continued speaking.
“The Turkish government must begin the reconciliation process by
acknowledging these crimes against humanity. The suffering of the
victims of the Pontian genocide cannot and will not be forgotten,”
she said.
The comments, made under a system of 90-second free statements for
MPs established by the Bracks Government, have outraged Turkish and
Jewish groups.
But Mr Bracks yesterday said Ms Mikakos, one of two members for
the safe Jika Jika province in Melbourne’s north, was free to make
the speech.
.asp?articleid=19791