The Guardian, UK
Comment
Regime change, European-style, is a measure of our civilisation
European self-interest must not be trumped by the politics of identity on
the road to Turkey’s accession to the EU
Madeleine Bunting
Monday September 26, 2005
A week from today, barring a last-minute upset, there will be a small, quiet
signing ceremony, probably in Strasbourg. Not even the UK Foreign Office
seems entirely sure of the venue or its format. But no one is questioning
the scale of the ambition nor the risks which underpin this event – the
opening of the accession process for Turkey’s membership of the European
Union. Welcome to regime change, European-style.
The parallels are inescapable: the US launched its regime change in a Muslim
country with shock and awe, an unprecedented onslaught of military power.
The EU quietly initiates its regime change in the Muslim country next door
with the shock of 80,000 pages of EU regulations on everything from the
treatment of waste water to the protection of Kurdish-minority rights. While
one sends in its Humvees and helicopters, the other sends in an army of
management consultants, human-rights lawyers and food-hygiene specialists.
The more the US model of regime change disintegrates into violent chaos in
Iraq, the more the EU glows with discreet pride in its own unparalleled
record of successful regime change, from post-dictatorship Spain and
Portugal to the more recent enlargement countries such as Hungary and
Estonia.
The EU model uses the incentive of membership to insist on dramatic change –
once a country is a member, the leverage is lost. So Turkey will have to
jump through a number of hoops on issues such as corruption and sewerage,
which might trip up many of the oldest EU members. It’s a style of regime
change which is “cheap, voluntary and hence long-lasting”, points out Steven
Everts in a new pamphlet,Why Europe Should Embrace Turkey.
This kind of regime change is the only way in which the EU can lay claim to
being a serious global player – on almost every recent international crisis,
from Bosnia to Iraq, internal squabbles crippled an effective response. No
wonder then that there are plenty of Europhiles, particularly in the UK,
whose eyes glitter at the prospect of Turkey in the EU queue. They rattle
off the long list of advantages: the geostrategic significance of Turkey in
relation to the Caucasus and the Middle East; the key gas supplies that now
run through Turkey; the demographic advantages of a much younger population;
the dynamic Turkish economy – grown by a quarter since 2001; securing
Europe’s back door against drugs and people-trafficking.
Besides, Turkey has aspired to EU membership for over 40 years, and such has
been its enthusiasm in the past few years that, to win Brussels’ favour, it
has agreed to the most ambitious political and economic reform programme
since the great secular moderniser Kemal Ataturk. Regime change is already
well under way in Istanbul, but not irrevocable; the prospective trial of
the novelist Orhan Pamuk for his comments on the Armenian massacre indicate
that some in Turkey are only too keen to torpedo the whole process. If
Europe was to turn truculent with Turkey, an extraordinary opportunity to
strengthen human rights and ensure stable democracy would be lost. The
conclusion is clear: Turkish membership is a “no-brainer”, insist Britain’s
Euro elite – commentators, government and analysts alike.
What fuels this British enthusiasm is that Turkey offers the tantalising
possibility of exorcising the “clash of civilisations” ghost. If there was a
secular, democratic, economically successful Muslim state it would kill off
intense arguments about the incompatibility of Islam with democracy or Islam
with human rights and modernity. Furthermore, 80 million Turks within the EU
would also kill off the EU’s credibility deficit in the Muslim world, where
it’s seen as a Christian, white club with a dodgy imperial past (although
the latter is as much a Turkish problem as a European one in the region).
Finally – the coup de grace – it would strengthen the claim of Europe’s 15
million-strong Muslim minority to a home in Europe. In sharp contrast to the
US, Europe could shape a new, prosperous and peaceful accommodation between
Islam and the secular west.
But this is the nub of the problem – vast swaths of Europe don’t buy it.
Either they don’t believe a peaceful accommodation with Muslims is possible
or they fear it requires such a dilution of European identity that they
don’t want it. Britain’s enthusiasm is echoed in only a few countries such
as Poland and Spain, while across the rest of the continent the “clash of
civilisations” argument is flourishing. Hence the quietness of the short
ceremony next Monday. No one has any desire to launch this project of regime
change with a fanfare – it fills European populations with horror. The
figures from a recent Eurobarometer poll tell it all: 80% of Austrians are
against, and only 10% in favour; 70% of the French are against and 74% of
the Germans. It’s going to need a very hard sell to convince millions of
people that Turkish membership is in their interests, and after the failure
of a previous Euro elite project – the constitution – no one’s relishing the
challenge.
The accession process will take at least a decade and over that time both
the EU and Turkey are likely to change dramatically, but what will make the
process so fascinating is that as the rows rumble on (no one denies that
it’s going to be rocky – the Turks are allegedly “terrible negotiators”,
every detail becoming a point of national honour) it will be the canvas on
which will be projected all of Europe’s crucial choices.
Will self-interest – put crudely, young Turks might pay for ageing Europe’s
pensions – be trumped by the unpredictable politics of identity as an
insecure Europe, aware of its shrinking demographic and economic weight in
the world, pulls up the drawbridge and opts to define itself more narrowly
around its historical Christian identity?
This self-interest isn’t obvious: it will need European politicians to do a
lot of explaining. Geostrategic thinking doesn’t come easily to your average
voter and they’ll need reassurance that they are not going to be swamped by
cheap Turkish labour. Free movement of labour can be staggered, as it is for
the new eastern European members, and is unlikely to come before 2022.
Similarly, structural funds are not going to be swallowed up whole in the
peasant hinterland of Anatolia and probably won’t be accessible by Turkey
until after 2020.
But the reticence about taking on the advocacy role for Turkish membership
has been evident across the political spectrum in Germany as politicians
fear being ambushed by the visceral emotions stirred up by Turkey. Austria
and Germany are still thinking of the geese whose honking woke the army when
Vienna was under siege from the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century, commented
one seasoned observer.
Can such history be laid to rest when it has sunk such long and deep roots
into the national identity? All over the world, in places such as Rwanda and
South Africa, there are many grappling with different formulations of just
that question. The EU ploughs funds and diplomacy in to achieve an
affirmative. How hollow does that ring if Europe itself, despite all its
vaunted values of freedom and tolerance and its envied prosperity, fails the
test and lets history win. Watch Turkey’s accession process in the years to
come as the barometer of Europe’s degree of civilisation.
[email protected]
,3604,1578131,00.html

The Christian Science Monitor
September 26, 2005
In Turkey, a first-ever debate about Armenian mass killings
On eve of EU accession talks, a conference on the World War I massacres
stirs controversy.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ISTANBUL, TURKEY – Opposition to a conference about mass killings of
Armenians moved from Turkish courtrooms to the street over the weekend as
scholars discussed the World War I massacres publicly for the first time on
Turkish soil.
Turkish nationalists, who back the official line that there was no Armenian
genocide, sought to make their views embarrassingly plain by hurling eggs
and tomatoes outside Istanbul Bilgi University, a back-up venue used to
skirt a court order Thursday that sought to shut down the conference at
another location.
But participants cast the event as a breakthrough for expanding civil
society – a key issue as Turkey prepares to open talks Oct. 3 over accession
to the European Union. “The most important thing is that this [conference]
is happening at all,” said Cengiz Candar, a prominent columnist for Bugun
newspaper, who was hit by an egg as he spoke outside the conference. “It
will help to recoup some of Turkey’s negative image and, more fundamentally,
its commitment to the EU and democracy.”
Potential EU membership has prompted a raft of democratic changes in recent
years – including more freedom of expression. EU officials say they view the
conference as a benchmark for tolerance, warning after the court ruling of a
“provocation” that could hurt Turkey’s case.
Armenians say that 1.5 million Armenians (historians often count 1 million)
died in the first systematic genocide of the 20th century, at the hands of
Ottoman Turkish forces.
In Turkey, the official version holds that some 300,000 Armenians died as
they took up arms to push for independence and sided with invading Russian
armies. The partisan conflict, Turkey has argued, took just as many Turkish
Muslim lives.
Questioning that version can lead to prosecution of people considered
traitors, the term used by nationalist lawyers who petitioned for the
conference closure. Well-known novelist Orhan Pamuk faces trial in December
for “denigrating” the Turkish state by mentioning an Armenian and Kurdish
death toll during an interview.
Last May, the justice minister said the conference was a “stab in the
Turkish nation’s back,” prompting it to be postponed, and tapping into
hard-line elements.
“Laws change during a war, and when some of your citizens, on your soil, hit
you in the back, then any nation on earth would punish them,” says Volkan
Ekiz, a protester whose group lobbed eggs and tomatoes this weekend as
police looked on.
“It’s not a scientific conference. It’s the Turkish war of independence, and
nobody can say that it’s genocide,” said Uckun Gerai, a central committee
member of the nationalist Worker’s Party of Turkey, outside the conference.
“Turkey has a problem with the US and EU, but it’s a political problem.”
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah
Gul, keenly aware of the challenges ahead in EU talks, spoke forcefully in
favor of the conference after the Thursday court decision. Mr. Erdogan said
he wants a Turkey “where liberties are practiced to the full.”
Halil Berktay, coordinator of the history department at Sabanci University,
says the opposition was not surprising. “This is a country of more than 70
million, with a strong nationalist past; there are strong forces opposed to
the European Union, to democracy and opening up,” he says.
But, he adds, “the question of what happened in 1915-1916 is not a mystery,
it’s not like we know just 5 percent. We know 85 percent, so the question is
not finding more evidence. The question is liberating scholarship from the
nationalist taboos….”
Finding the balance between modernizing Turkey – the eastern anchor of the
NATO alliance – and dealing with its staunchly statist history has not been
easy. A further challenge is overcoming reluctance in the EU to accepting a
Muslim state.
“Turkey has to confront its history, and the fact of the violence of 1915
and 1916, and lack of accountability, sanctioned more [state] violence,”
says Fatma Muge Gocek, a sociologist at the University of Michigan and a
conference adviser.
“The discourse is not new; the fact that it is said in Turkey is what
matters,” says Ms. Gocek. “They are great developments.”
Candar shares the optimism. “The judiciary is one of the most reactionary
and backward institutions in Turkey, and the illegal [court] verdict
reflects the inherent problems,” he charges. “But the fact that we are
discussing this is ample evidence to be optimistic.”

#19 Kirk Kerkorian
Net Worth: $10.0 billion
Source: Investments, investments, casinos
Self made
Age: 88
Marital Status: Divorced, 2 children, 3 divorces
Hometown: Los Angeles, CA
Education: High School, Diploma
Low-key investor with eighth-grade education scored big with $7.9
billion takeover of Mandalay Bay Resorts last year. MGM Mirage now
owns more than half the hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip. Stock up
100% in the past year. Born in Fresno to Armenian immigrants, flew
planes across Atlantic during World War II. First fortune: selling
Trans International Airlines for $104 million profit in the 1960s.
Invested proceeds in Sin City: acquired Flamingo hotel 1967, built
International hotel 1969. Sold both properties to Hilton Hotels in
1970. Built first MGM Grand (now Bally’s), opened second incarnation
1993. Took over Steve Wynn’s (see) Mirage Resorts in $6.4 billion
buyout 2000. Longtime romance with MGM movie studio now over: 3-time
studio owner closed $5 billion deal with Sony, 3 private-equity firms
and cable giant Comcast in April; netted $1.8 billion. Former
DaimlerChrysler shareholder now buying General Motors stock; owns 9.5%
stake. Tennis junkie, said to play every day.
Distribution of the Forbes 400 by U.S. State

Turkey muzzles speech
The Globe and Mail, Canada
Sept 26 2005
Editorial
It is still a crime to speak freely about the past in Turkey. Earlier
this month a Turkish prosecutor charged leading novelist Orhan Pamuk
with denigrating the Turkish identity, for having said, in an
interview with a Swiss newspaper, that the genocidal killing of
Armenians in 1915 is a historical fact. Then on Thursday, a Turkish
court tried to ban an academic conference on the events of 90 years
ago. It also made an outrageous demand to review the credentials of
each participant at the conference.
The freedom to think loses meaning if a person can’t speak his
thoughts and share them with others. Mr. Pamuk is sometimes mentioned
as a possible Nobel laureate. His most recent novel, Snow, was lauded
by Margaret Atwood in a front-page New York Times Book Review last
year. Speaking up, as he has done, may shape the thoughts of others.
Those others may in turn have something to say. The freedom to
inquire into a nation’s past is closely linked to the freedom to
think.
The genocide is, as Mr. Pamuk says, a historical fact,
well-established in diplomatic reports and news dispatches at the
time (Canadians were so distressed they made an exception to their
discriminatory immigration rules and took in 100 Armenian orphans in
the 1920s) and affirmed since then by independent historians.
Mr. Pamuk’s willingness to challenge the official truth is one
encouraging sign of change. Another is that the academics that the
court wished to silence said they would go ahead anyway at a
different venue. As Turkey presses on with its bid to join the
European Union, it will find that the country is increasingly
buffeted by currents of thought it cannot control.
;ord=1127746660451&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Despite Late Challenge, Scholars Finally Hold Meeting in Turkey on Armenian
Genocide
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, September 26, 2005
An academic conference on Turkey’s controversial “Armenian question” took
place over the weekend in Istanbul, despite legal maneuvering by Turkish
nationalists that had threatened to prevent it. The conference was
originally to have taken place in May, but was postponed at the last minute
under pressure from government officials.
The meeting was rescheduled for this past weekend at Bogaziçi, University,
also known in English as Bosphorus University, but was once again postponed
on the eve of its opening, this time because of a legal challenge that
questioned its scientific validity and the qualifications of its
participants. The challengers also said it was inappropriate for Bogaziçi, a
public university, to be the venue for such a gathering, which they said
contravened its mission.
Academics from Bilgi University, Bogaziçi, and Sabanci University, three of
Turkey’s leading higher-education institutions, organized the meeting, which
they described as the first conference on the Armenian issue in Turkey not
organized by state authorities or government-affiliated historians. Bilgi
and Sabanci are private.
Armenians have long contended that the killings of up to 1.5 million
Armenians in 1915 and subsequent years, during the waning days of the
Ottoman Empire, constituted genocide by Ottoman Turkish forces. Turkey
officially rejects that view. Turkish historians and other academics have
become increasingly outspoken in challenging the nationalist line on the
issue, however, and growing international attention has also focused on the
matter. Talks on Turkey’s bid to join the European Union are set to begin
this week, and the government’s inflexibility on the Armenian question
remains a sticking point.
The conference, titled “Ottoman Armenians During the Demise of the Empire:
Issues of Democracy and Scientific Responsibility,” was postponed in May
after its organizers decided they could not guarantee participants’ safety
(The Chronicle, May 10).
Last week, participants had arrived in Istanbul and the rescheduled meeting
looked set to begin on time when the fresh legal challenge against it came
to light. A three-judge panel of an administrative court had ruled, 2 to 1,
that a legal investigation of the conference’s validity should take place,
even though its organizers were notified of the decision only the day before
the conference was to begin. With that inquiry pending, Bogaziçi could no
longer play host to the conference without being held in contempt of the
court’s ruling. Organizers hastily shifted the venue to Bilgi so the
conference could proceed.
The official response to the threat to the rescheduled conference differed
starkly from the government’s approach in May, when the justice minister
took to the floor of Parliament to brand the meeting “treason” and a “dagger
in the back of the Turkish people.” This time, in comments broadcast on
television, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he was saddened by the
new threat to the conference. He characterized the legal challenge as an
“anti-democratic development” to which he was opposed.
Aybar Ertepinar, vice president of the Council of Higher Education, a
government-financed organization that oversees all Turkish universities,
said on Sunday that although his group had not been invited to take part,
the conference should have been allowed to proceed at Bogaziçi. “Our
Constitution grants academic and scientific freedom to universities,” he
said. Taking up the opponents’ challenge “was an unfortunate decision of the
court that went beyond the borders of its responsibility,” he said.
With the more than 350 participants once again assembled in Istanbul, the
conference’s organizers decided that “we can either do this now or we cannot
do it all again,” said Fatma Müge Gocek, an associate professor of sociology
at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor who was on the meeting’s advisory
committee.
Organizers had selected Bogaziçi as the venue for the meeting precisely
because it is a public institution, but they decided they had no choice but
to relocate to Bilgi. The rectors of all three sponsoring universities
welcomed the participants, who met in marathon sessions to condense into two
days a program that was to have been spread over three.
Because the conference had received so much attention in the Turkish news
media, participants did not even need to be notified of the change, said Ms.
Gocek. Opponents were also aware of the new location, and about 100
protesters showed up on Saturday to heckle participants and pelt them with
eggs and tomatoes, she said.
As the conference concluded, Ms. Gocek said she felt a real “paradigm shift”
had occurred. “We had lots of Turkish journalists there who said they are
not going to use the word ‘alleged’ from now on, in terms of talking about
the genocide. They may refer to ‘genocide claims,’ but they will no longer
talk of an ‘alleged genocide,'” she said.
Papers from the conference will be published immediately in Turkish, which
was the working language of the gathering, and as soon as possible in
English, Ms. Gocek said.

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian National Committee
of New Jersey
461 Bergen Boulevard
Ridgefield, NJ 07657
Contact: Ani Tchaghlasian
Tel: 201 945 0011
Fax: 718 651 3637
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
ANC of NJ Commends Congressman Garrett for His Staunch Support on
Armenian-American Issues
PARAMUS, NJ – The Armenian National Committee (ANC) of New Jersey held a
meeting with Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) on Wednesday, August 31, in
his district office in Paramus, where activists thanked the U.S.
Representative for his support and informed him of how he could become an
even greater friend to the large Armenian-American community in his
district. The district includes the largest concentration of Armenians in
the state of New Jersey including the communities of New Milford, Paramus
and Franklin Lakes as well as encompassing the churches of St. Thomas, St.
Leon’s and the Armenian Presbyterian Church.
Representing the ANC were the chairperson of the New Jersey chapter Ani
Tchaghlasian, as well as ANC of New Jersey activists Alex Sarafian, Melanie
Tavitian and Michael Tcheyan. The congressman was accompanied by Director
of Outreach Matthew Barnes and Constituent Services Officer Rudy Solar.
Tchaghlasian and Sarafian thanked the congressman for signing the letter
addressed to President Bush, urging him to issue a strong April 24th
Statement, as well as for being one of the earliest co-sponsors of H.R. 316,
which would reaffirm the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. They also
thanked him for co-sponsoring H.R. 3361, which would prohibit U.S.
assistance for the building of railroads traversing the Caucasus that
circumvent Armenia. The measure, entitled the “South Caucasus Integration
and Open Railroads Act of 2005,” was introduced by Congressman Joe
Knollenberg (R-MI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and George Radanovich (R-CA).
Congressman Garrett and ANC activists focused much of their discussion on
the importance of Armenia being included in all regional economic and
commercial projects in the South Caucasus. The World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund have recognized Armenia for making the most
rapid progress in adopting free market reforms in the region. This is
largely why the Heritage Foundation has characterized Armenia as the only
mostly free society in the Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet
Union.) Garrett agreed that attempts by neighboring countries like
Azerbaijan and Turkey to lay down transportation infrastructure around
Armenia should not receive the U.S. government’s financial support.
Tchaghlasian and Sarafian asked the Congressman to consider becoming a
member of the House International Relations Committee (HIRC) or the
Appropriations Committee, where the most important legislation concerning
Armenia must originate before becoming law. On September 15, the HIRC voted
overwhelmingly in favor of recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
`We deeply appreciate Congressman Garrett’s unequivocal support on issues of
importance to the Armenian-American communities of New Jersey,’ said ANC of
NJ Chair, Ani Tchaghlasian. `Whether it is recognizing the Armenian
Genocide, ensuring a just settlement to the Karabagh conflict or supporting
Armenia’s developing economy, he has demonstrated that he is a true friend
in Congress to his Armenian-American constituents.’

PRESS RELEASE
Council of Europe Press Division
Ref: 491a05
Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60
Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11
[email protected]
internet:
Terry Davis: “Both Turkey and Europe must honour their word”
Strasbourg, 26.09.2005 – Following a conference on the fate of Turkish
Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire, which was held at Bilgi
University in Istanbul this weekend, Terry Davis, Secretary General of
the Council of Europe, made the following statement:
“I want to congratulate the organisers of the conference on their
courage and determination. Those believing in a modern, democratic and
tolerant Turkey refused to be intimidated and silenced by extreme
nationalists on the streets of Istanbul.
I reiterate my strong support for the position taken by Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has supported freedom of expression in Turkey.
I hope that such an attitude will also prevail with regard to the
shameful prosecution of one of the most renowned Turkish writers, Orhan
Pamuk, who was recently indicted for speaking openly on the Armenian
issue.
I appreciate the sensitivity of this question for the Turkish
authorities and the public opinion, but, however painful, such issues
must be resolved through dialogue and truth, not repression and
propaganda. As a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey is obliged to
respect the European Convention on Human Rights, and I am confident that
the Turkish authorities will not waver in their democratic and human
rights reforms at this critical junction in relations between Turkey and
Europe. I also hope that leaders in other European capitals will rise to
the occasion, remember their commitments and honour their word to
Turkey”, concluded the Secretary General.
To receive our press releases by e-mail, contact :
[email protected]
A political organisation set up in 1949, the Council of Europe works to
promote democracy and human rights continent-wide. It also develops
common responses to social, cultural and legal challenges in its 46
member states.

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
================================================
Monday 26 September 2005
RUSSIA: PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO BE CONFISCATED?
Its registration liquidated in 2003 for “administrative violations” and
with subsequent registration applications denied, the Emmanuel
Presbyterian Church in Mozdok in Russia’s North Caucasus now faces the
confiscation of its “beautiful Gothic-style” prayer house, church
administrator Olga Mazhurova told Forum 18 News Service. The local
administration told the congregation in early September that there is
enough evidence to file suit for its confiscation, though no date for a
court hearing has been set. The church admits it “made mistakes” over the
way the church was built without planning permission, but claims it has
been blocked from regularising its position due to local suspicion of its
foreign connections. Officials at Mozdok district prosecutor’s office have
refused to discuss with Forum 18 why they are seeking to confiscate the
church.
RUSSIA: PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO BE CONFISCATED?
By Geraldine Fagan, Forum 18 News Service
A 600-strong Presbyterian church in the Northern Ossetian town of Mozdok
in Russia’s North Caucasus looks set to have its prayer house confiscated
by the local state authorities. Emmanuel Church’s administrator Olga
Mazhurova acknowledged to Forum 18 News Service on 20 September that her
community had “made mistakes” in the past over the way the church was
built, primarily due to a lack of legal expertise, but claims it has been
blocked from regularising its position due to local suspicion of its
foreign connections. Mozdok is close both to Beslan – where Emmanuel has
given material support to victims of the September 2004 school siege – and
to the conflict zone of Chechnya and Ingushetia. Officials at Mozdok
district public prosecutor’s office have refused to discuss with Forum 18
why they are seeking to confiscate the church.
The Mozdok Presbyterians – who are predominantly Russian, Ossetian and
Korean but also Armenian and Chechen – have been able to gather freely for
worship at their building since the church’s registration was liquidated in
2003, Mazhurova told Forum 18. At the beginning of September 2005, however,
they were informed by the local administration that there is now sufficient
evidence to file suit for the confiscation of their prayer house, she said,
although no date for a court hearing has yet been set.
Founded by South Korean missionaries, Emmanuel Church bought two adjacent
plots of land in Mozdok in approximately 1997, according to Mazhurova, and
then knocked down the two village houses located there. Repeatedly refused
planning permission – in her view due to its foreign connections – the
church nevertheless completed construction of its 1000-seater “beautiful
Gothic-style” prayer house at the site in approximately 2000, she said,
hoping to legalise it post factum. “We decided on that course of action
because we had no lawyer at the time.”
Instead, however, the local authorities began to take note of the church’s
administrative violations in an atmosphere increasingly hostile towards the
Presbyterians, Mazhurova continued. “We didn’t have much contact with the
local authorities, so they thought the church might be a cover for
espionage – there is an aerodrome near here – or conducting anti-Russian
activity. Local press articles began to maintain that we were turning
people into zombies, almost killing them.” When laws became more complex,
she added, what had seemed like minor technical violations “snowballed
against us”.
As well as pointing to the absence of planning permission, Mazhurova told
Forum 18 that local officials claimed Emmanuel’s English-language classes
and medical centre were not properly registered. Pavel Bak of the
Moscow-based Pentecostal union to which the church is affiliated told
Forum 18 on 20 September that a further violation was considered to have
taken place when South Korean and US missionaries working with the Mozdok
Presbyterians some years ago overstayed the validity period of their
Russian visas. As a result, according to Mazhurova, a local Mozdok court
liquidated Emmanuel Church in September 2003. For the next two years, she
added, the community tried to register anew without success.
Protestant communities in Russia are increasingly reporting bureaucratic
opposition to their church building projects (see F18News 24 August 2005
<;). On 21 September, a secretary at Mozdok district public prosecutor's office who was clearly familiar with the situation asked Forum 18 to ring a different number at the same office in several hours' time. He declined to name the official dealing with the Presbyterians' case, but claimed that anyone answering the given number would be able to respond to Forum 18's query, promising to warn staff so that they could seek out relevant documentation in the mean time. Telephoning the number at the appointed time, however, Forum 18 was told that the person dealing with the Presbyterians' case was on holiday. The person who answered claimed that he did not know anything about the case and refused to discuss anything by telephone. To Forum 18's knowledge, Emmanuel's is the first case in which a religious organisation has been liquidated for purely administrative violations since - and contra to - a 7 February 2002 ruling by Russia's Constitutional Court. Concerning, but not limited to, the Moscow branch of the Salvation Army, this stipulated that a religious organisation may be liquidated only if found to be conducting anti-constitutional activity or "properly proven to have ceased its activities". In August 2002 an independent Baptist community in the Pacific port of Vanino founded by US missionary Dan Pollard avoided liquidation as a result of this ruling. Latterly, however, a charismatic church in the Tuvan capital Kyzyl similarly escaped liquidation for minor administrative violations only by voluntarily disbanding (see F18News 18 July 2005 <;). Forum 18 notes that last year's liquidation of the Moscow organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses was ordered on the basis of alleged anti-constitutional activity (see F18News 29 March 2004 <;). For a personal commentary by an Old Believer about continuing denial of equality to Russia's religious minorities see F18News <; For more background see Forum 18's Russia religious freedom survey at <; A printer-friendly map of Russia is available at < s/atlas/index.html?Parent=europe&Rootmap=russi >
(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
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
—————————————— —-
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +37410. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +37410. 562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
26-09-2005
Minister Oskanian Receives the “Grosso d’Oro Veneziano” Award in Veneto,
Italy
The Grosso d’Oro Veneziano award was bestowed on Armenia?s Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian by the Masi Foundation of Italy’s Veneto Region, on
September 24. The prize is a special award on an international level for
individuals who have contributed to the cause of peace and brotherhood among
nations. It was conferred on Minister Oskanian for his contribution to
Armenia?s integration into European structures, to the deepening of
Armenia-Italy ties, and for his active involvement in peace talks.
In the 8th century St. George Cathedral in Verona, before several hundred
Italian intellectuals, artists and businessmen, the Masi Foundation held its
25th awards ceremony.
After receiving the award – a sculpture in silver, decorated with grapes as
well as designs from ancient khachkars, and topped with a gold medal- the
Minister spoke about Armenia’s determination to pursue the path of European
integration. He also spoke about traditional Armenian-Italian ties and the
upcoming Italian-Armenian Days in Yerevan.
During the ceremony, other awards were also given to those who protect and
promote Veneto’s historic legacy and cultural values. The Masi Foundation,
in line with its guiding philosophy and with an original policy for
recognizing subtle changes in the world, awarded prizes for excellence in
education, medicine, theater, fashion, as well as in the area of
vinoculture. The Masi Foundation was created and is run by the descendants
of the Italian poet Dante Alighieri.
The only other recipient of the Grosso d’Oro Veneziano has been Slovenia’s
former President, Milan Kucan.
Below is the text of the Minister’s remarks:
Honorable members of the Board of Directors of the Fondazione Masi,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am privileged to receive this prestigious award, il Grosso d’Oro
Veneziano. This is a special day for me. And this is, of course, a special
place, a special foundation and a special family with a glorious history of
650 years stretching all the way back to one of the greatest poets of all
times, Dante Alighieri.
Dante’s descendants valued their heritage and helped pass on his legacy.
This legacy clearly manifests itself in modern Italy and the Region of
Veneto.
Italy and Veneto also share a legacy with Armenians. There is much symbolism
in the fact that Armenia’s coming back to Europe is being noted and
celebrated here, in Italy.
Armenian-Italian connections are based on rich and ancient traditions. It
was in Italy in 1512, that Hakob Meghapart published the first book ever in
Armenian. The Urbatagirk (or Book of Days) was followed in 1513 with the
first published Armenian calendar. The renowned Briton, Lord Byron, referred
to the Venetian island of San Lazaro as a fortress of Armenian independence,
since the Armenian monks of the Order of Mekhitar had found refuge there in
the early 1700s. For the last three centuries, that haven has turned into a
scientific and cultural locus.
Today, if you ask the Mekhitarist fathers whether they are Venetian, they
will say yes. If you ask them whether they are Armenian, they will say yes.
One can say that they were pioneers in establishing a common European
identity, about which we speak proudly, yet with some apprehension.
If it used to be religion that bound Europe together a millennium ago, it
certainly isn’t any longer. Nor is it the economic advancement that was
specific to Europe two centuries ago. It isn?t ideology either, which was
both adhesive and encumbrance for decades in the last century.
Europe is more than its common history, more than geography, more than a
club for members. All those who’ve said Europe is an idea are right. It is
the idea of a Europe that is the common, if unattainable ideal.
Even those living outside this space have imagined and desired a Europe
which can be addressed collectively, a partner which can be enlisted
conveniently, a Europe to which they yearn to belong.
Armenia is Europe. This is a fact, it’s not a response to a question.
The collapse of the USSR brought us to a point of economic and political
crisis. I remember our discussions in Armenia, before our entry into the
Council of Europe. There were many questions about the choice of path to
take.
Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who
in a period
of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. I’m happy to say I won’t be going
there
because I was among the loudest advocates of the European path.
The choice was clear. Armenians believe in the values of the European
enlightenment, of European civilization. The moral, ethical and existential
choices that bring individuals and societies to select democracy over other
forms of government, rule of law over rule of man, human rights over
selective rights – those choices have been made.
A people who have lived under subjugation, have seen ethnic cleansing and
genocide even before the terms existed, have lived as a minority without
rights, now belong to a world where warring neighbors have found that they
can accept new borders based on realities on the ground and move on.
Europe?s nation-states have found that they can transcend borders, without
diminishing or ignoring cultural spaces, without expecting historical
identities to vanish.
The European Neighborhood Policy brings Armenia back home since Armenia’s
foreign policy priority is the gradual integration of Armenia into European
institutions.
In his presentation, my good friend, Senator Demetro Volcic described in
ponderous detail my country’s foreign policy priorities. I must admit that
he is well aware of them not as a common bystander, but as a caring and
thoughtful professional, who has proven to be instrumental in helping to
integrate Armenia into the modern European architecture.
The double digit GDP growth, which Armenia achieved each of the last five
years, the successful admission into the WTO, the spirit of the free
enterprise, the changing political system and society are promising signs
that we are on the right track. However, it is too early to say that the
European standard is round the corner. It is not as close yet as Europe
itself, as Venice, as Verona, as the shared cultural and religious values of
the past and present.
To highlight and share those values, we will be launching a two-month long
Days of Italy in Armenia, beginning in early October. This project has
received the blessing and patronage of President Ciampi, President Kocharian
and Governor Galan. The centerpiece of these important events will be an
exhibition of the riches from the Isla Armena.
In light of all this, then, the Fondazione Masi has, in bestowing upon me
this award, put a great stamp of approval on Armenia, its foreign policy
directions, its European orientation, its future.
I thank you.

The New York Times
September 26, 2005
Try and Try Again
By GARY J. BASS
Princeton, N.J. – “For these crimes,” wrote Hannah Arendt during the
Nuremberg trials, “no punishment is severe enough. It may well be
essential to hang Göring, but it is totally inadequate.”
Saddam Hussein’s punishment will surely be inadequate too – all the
more so if he is executed too soon.
The Iraqi war crimes tribunal’s first case against Mr. Hussein, which
opens Oct. 19, charges him with the 1982 massacre of at least 143 men
and boys from the village of Dujail. This was meant to be a test case
of manageable scope and strong evidence. Unfortunately, Laith Kubba, a
spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, says that once the
court has reached a guilty verdict in the Dujail case, the
near-certain sentence of death “should be implemented without further
delay.”
But if Mr. Hussein is executed for the Dujail killings, he will never
be called to account for the larger atrocities on which he was
arraigned in July 2004: killing political rivals, crushing the Shiite
uprising in southern Iraq in 1991, invading Kuwait in 1990, and waging
the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Kurds in 1988, including
gassing Kurdish villagers at Halabja.
It is easy to understand the temptation to get the high-profile trial
over with quickly. The lives of the tribunal’s officials – including
the young chief investigative judge, Raid Juhi, who confronted
Mr. Hussein in a televised courtroom showdown – are at constant risk
from the raging insurgency. And the international tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, where Slobodan Milosevic has dragged his trial into
its fourth year with his theatrics, furnishes a cautionary example. A
shorter trial would afford less time for Mr. Hussein to make defiant
final speeches to Arab nationalists.
What’s more, the tribunal is a political football. The Dujail trial is
set to start just four days after Iraq’s referendum on its draft
constitution – a time when ethnic rivalries will probably run high –
and not long before the Dec. 15 elections. Saleh al-Mutlak, a former
Baathist who led the Sunni delegation’s rejection of the draft
constitution, has accused the Iraqi government of speeding Mr. Hussein
to trial in order to win election-season political points, presumably
with Shiites and Kurds. Mr. Mutlak menacingly warns that the trial
could touch off more violence.
Nonetheless, the Iraqi tribunal would do well not to rush Mr. Hussein
to the gallows. A hasty execution would shortchange Mr. Hussein’s
victims and diminish the benefits of justice. Baathists would be all
the more likely to complain about a show trial. Kurds would rightly
feel that they were denied their day in court for the Anfal
campaign. Shiites in the south would also be deprived of a reckoning.
A thorough series of war crimes trials would not only give the victims
more satisfaction but also yield a documentary and testimonial record
of the regime’s crimes. After Nuremberg, the American chief prosecutor
estimated that he had assembled a paper trail of more than five
million pages. A comparably intensive Iraqi process would help drive
home to former Baathists and some Arab nationalists what was done in
their names. The alternative is on display in Turkey, where the
collapse of a war crimes tribunal after World War I paved the way for
today’s widespread Turkish nationalist denial of the Armenian
genocide.
In June, Mr. Kubba said that Mr. Hussein could face as many as 500
charges, but that Iraqi prosecutors would pursue only about 12
well-documented counts. Now it may be down to just one. Because Iraq
and the United States have chosen the hard road of courtroom justice,
the war crimes tribunal should see it through. The Dujail case is a
good start but not a good finish.
Gary J. Bass, an associate professor of politics and international
affairs at Princeton, is the author of “Stay the Hand of Vengeance:
The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals.”

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company