The Armenian Reporter
April 8, 2006
Editorial
A Genocide Documentary That Will Resonate
A few years ago, when “Images of the Armenian Spirit” aired on PBS,
its producer, Andrew Goldberg, made public his intention of making a
documentary specifically devoted to the Armenian Genocide and launched
a campaign to raise the necessary funds to bring that project to
fruition. At the time, members of the American-Armenian community
questioned the desirability, even the necessity of such a documentary,
given the existence of several devoted to said topic. Some even
doubted Goldberg’s qualifications and/or motives, despite his having
already produced two credible documentaries on the Armenians — the
aforementioned one, and its predecessor, “The Armenians: A Story of
Survival.”
A week or so from now, people in practically all parts of the United
States will be able to judge the merits of “The Armenian Genocide” for
themselves. If the reaction of some hundred persons who previewed the
film this Monday evening at the Tribeca Film Center in New York City
is at all indicative, viewers on the night of April 17 will consider
the end product well worth the time, effort and money spent.
“The Armenian Genocide” is a welcome, innovative contribution to the
genre of Armenian Genocide films. Faced with the daunting task of
compressing a topic of epic dimension into the time frame of just one
hour, Goldberg has managed to create as comprehensive and balanced a
story as possible. He has quite seamlessly pieced together
photographs, film footage, interviews, and commentary, which
complement each other to make the parts into a forceful whole.
What makes “The Armenian Genocide” stand out, in particular, is its
inclusion of remarks from Turks — genocide experts living not only in
the West but also in Turkey, who acknowledge the Genocide as
historical fact; ordinary Turkish citizens, who relate what they
remember from their parents and grandparents, as well as “scholars”
and others who continue to refute the Genocide. It would be an
understatement to say that the latter are much less convincing than
the former.
By watching “The Armenian Genocide,” viewers who were previously
unfamiliar with the topic will learn what happened to the Armenian
people in 1915-1923 and why. They will also learn why the denial of
genocide by subsequent Turkish governments down to the present has
prevented the matter from being relegated to the dustbin of history
and, on the contrary, kept it on the front burner.
Two Cats Productions and Andrew Goldberg, in particular, as well as
Oregon Public Broadcasting, deserve our deep thanks and appreciation
for this noteworthy achievement. So do the individuals whose
contributions made it possible. We are buoyed by the realization that
over 90% of America will have access to “The Armenian Genocide” in the
coming days. However, in order for the Armenian Genocide to become
common knowledge among the vast masses of the population of this
country, “The Armenian Genocide” must be given wider exposure, ideally
by being shown and discussed on the major networks, such as ABC, CBS
and NBC.
Making such exposure a reality should be a cause taken up by our
national organizations. In the meantime, we strongly recommend that
all American Armenians watch “The Armenian Genocide” (even those who
think they know the Genocide story will learn something new). Equally,
and perhaps more importantly, they should likewise inform
non-Armenians in their business, professional and personal circles of
this unique opportunity to learn about this 20th-century catastrophe,
the effects of which are still lingering in the 21st.

OSCE Office in Yerevan co-organizes international workshop on education
reform in Armenia

ArmRadio.am
06.04.2006 14:05
An international workshop aiming to help further reform in Armenia’s
education system has attracted more than 80 officials and
international experts from Norway, Serbia, Latvia and Georgia.
Participants in the three-day workshop, organized jointly by the OSCE
Office in Yerevan, the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation,
the British Council and UNICEF, are sharing experiences and best
practices in the field of education policy and management, as well as
education fostering democratic citizenship.
“We appreciate the co-operation with international organizations as
their experience helps us reform the education system in a democratic
manner, which is a strategic goal for the Republic of Armenia” said
Education and Science Minister Sergo Eritsyan.
Jeannette Kloetzer, OSCE Economic and Environmental Officer in
Yerevan, said the OSCE considers environmental education, particularly
of children and youth, crucial.
`Environmental issues should be an integral part of education for
democratic citizenship as fully informed and empowered citizens
benefit democracy, stability and security,’ she said.
She urged participants in the workshop, which ends today, to take
advantage of the National Environmental Information Centres (Aarhus
Centres) established in Yerevan and the Armenian provinces of Syunik,
Tavush and Lori. The centres give the public access to environmental
information.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia recognises the Armenian
Genocide

ArmRadio.am
06.04.2006 12:48
The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia unanimously adopted a
Private Member’s Motion 59, recognising the Armenian Genocide and to
designate April 24th of every year as a remembrance day for the 1.5
million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of the 20th
Century.
The debate on the Motion, which was sponsored by Member of the
Legislative Assembly (MLA) Adrian Dix (Vancouver-Kingsway), commenced
at 11:00 p.m. and was voted upon at the end of the allotted one hour
according to Private Member’s Motion rules.
MLAs Adrian Dix (Vancouver-Kingsway), Rob Fleming (Victoria-Hillside),
Randy Hawes (Maple Ridge-Mission), Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead),
John Horgan (Malahat-Juan De Fuca), Murine Karagianis
(Esquimalt-Metchosin), Leonared Krog (Naniamo), Kevin Krueger
(Kamloops-North Thompson), John Nuraney (Burnaby-Wellingdon), Micheal
Sather (Maple Ridge – Pitt Meadows), and John Yap
(Richmond-Stevenston) spoke in support of the Motion.
Since last August The Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC),
The Armenian National Committee of Canada – West (ANCCW), and The
Armenian National Committee of Vancouver (ANCV), have worked closely
with the MLAs Dix, Hawes, Sather, and Hayer to build non-partisan
support for Motion 59. The ANCC, ANCCW and ANCV delegates had numerous
meetings with various MLAs to brief them on the Motion’s importance as
a universal human rights issue. In addition, the delegates presented
historical overview of the Genocide and supporting documents.
The executive director of The Armenian National Committee of Canada
Aris Babikian, on behalf of the Canadian-Armenian community, thanked
MLAs Adrian Dix and Randy Hawes for their leadership role in the
successful adoption of the Motion. Furthermore, Mr. Babikian thanked
members who spoke in favour of the Motion and the members who voted to
adopt it.
Mr. Babikian said: “This is a historic day for our community in Canada
and in British Columbia. The steadfast support and the unanimous vote
of the MLAs demonstrates once again that the Turkish Government’s
denial policy and rewriting of history will not succeed.

We call upon the Turkish Government to be constructive, to come to
terms with its dark history and to acknowledge its predecessors’ guilt
and extend a hand of atonement and reconciliation to the Armenian
People.”

US Considers Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Iran
Saturday, April 8, 2006
by Agence France Presse ()
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive
bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear
bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The
New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh
( 0417fa_fact) said that
Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
“That’s the name they’re using,” the report quoted a former senior
intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying
that “this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem
is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.”
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as “enormous,”
“hectic” and “operational,” Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on
a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the
religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the
government,” The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks
on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of
Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a
bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure
the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh
writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given
to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the
military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an
attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in
Iran failed, according to the report.
“There are very strong sentiments within the military against
brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the magazine
quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction”
of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world
and might also reignite Hezbollah.
“If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” the
adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

Iran accuses U.S. of waging a “psychological war” against it
15:46|09/ 04/ 2006
TEHERAN, April 9 (RIA Novosti) – Iran on Sunday called “a
psychological war” a report that the U.S. was preparing for possible
military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

A report by influential journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker
magazine said the United States was considering using tactical nuclear
weapons to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

“This is a psychological war launched by Americans because they feel
desperate regarding Iran’s nuclear dossier,” Iranian Foreign Ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

Asefi said the United States was unwilling to solve the Iran nuclear
problem peacefully and was seeking to create a crisis around this
issue.

Concerns about Iran’s nuclear program have been growing since the
Islamic Republic announced its intention to resume nuclear research in
January and the country’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
made a number of controversial remarks, including a call to wipe
Israel “off the face of the map.”

A number of countries have expressed alarm over Iran’s controversial
nuclear programs and have pushed for the UN Security Council to impose
sanctions on the country, as they suspect that Tehran is using its
civilian-energy programs to disguise military projects.

Russia has been at the forefront of efforts to solve the escalating
crisis diplomatically. Moscow has offered to enrich Iranian uranium –
a vital component in both civilian energy and military projects – in
Russia. But Tehran said in March that it would enrich a small amount
of the radioactive substance anyway, an announcement that was greeted
with widespread condemnation.

Iran says pressure will not force it to give up enrichment
14:44|09/ 04/ 2006

TEHERAN, April 9 (RIA Novosti) – The Iranian Foreign Ministry
spokesman said Sunday that threats and pressure would not force Iran
to give up its right to peaceful nuclear technologies.

“We don’t believe that threats and pressure, including using the UN
Security Council, will make Iran relinquish its legitimate rights [to
peaceful nuclear energy]. Nuclear research activities are continuing,”
Hamid Reza Asefi said.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman also said that Iran was ready
to continue cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency
and hold negotiations with all countries to solve the Iran nuclear
issue.

Asefi made his comments as a team of experts from the international
nuclear watchdog was in Iran inspecting the country’s nuclear
facilities and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei was expected to visit Iran
next week to discuss cooperation between Tehran and the agency.

Concerns about Iran’s nuclear program have been growing since the
Islamic Republic announced its intention to resume nuclear research in
January and the country’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
made a number of controversial remarks, including a call to wipe
Israel “off the face of the map.”

A number of countries have expressed alarm over Iran’s controversial
nuclear programs and have pushed for the UN Security Council to impose
sanctions on the country, as they suspect that Tehran is using its
civilian-energy programs to disguise military projects.

Russia has been at the forefront of efforts to solve the escalating
crisis diplomatically and as a permanent member of the UN Security
Council could veto measures against Iran. Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov has already questioned the efficacy of sanctions on a number of
occasions.

Moscow has offered to enrich Iranian uranium – a vital component in
both civilian energy and military projects – in Russia. But Tehran
said in March that it would enrich a small amount of the radioactive
substance anyway, an announcement that was greeted with widespread
condemnation.

Is Iran bluffing or not?
20:09|07/ 04/ 2006

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) — The
world is now discussing the possible use of force by the United States
against Iran.

Many experts said Great Prophet, the latest Iranian military exercise
in the Persian Gulf, highlighted Tehran’s determination based on real
military might. Still, others say Iran was merely bluffing.

The Iranian media reported that the national Armed Forces were testing
unique up-to-date weapons and equipment in the Gulf. Notably, Iran
successfully test-fired a high-speed, maneuverable and heat-seeking
Misaq-1 surface-to-air missile (SAM), as well as a medium-range and
remote-controlled Kowsar surface-to-sea missile, which zeroes in on
its target and which can successfully cope with ECM (Electronic
Counter-Measures) systems. Iran also tested a modern flying boat that
can skim waves at up to 100 knots.

The new Fajr-3 radar-evading ballistic missile and the Hut torpedo,
the Iranian Navy’s fastest underwater weapon with a speed of 100
meters per second, were also launched.

Iran made it clear that it completely controlled the Strait of Hormuz,
through which the Middle East exports 80% of its oil. Tehran also said
it was ready for war, and that any encroachment on its interests in
the Persian Gulf would

meet with a resolute response from the water, from under the water,
from the air, from islands and the coast.

The United States and Israel, which are Tehran’s main opponents,
reacted skeptically to this show of force and said Iran was
deliberately bluffing and over-exaggerating its military potential in
the context of possible UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions.

These statements seem logical because six U.S. carrier task forces are
far more powerful than the Iranian Armed Forces. Four of them are
deployed in the Persian Gulf, while two others are plying the southern
Mediterranean. Each carrier task force has 80 to 90 modern warplanes,
compared to the 360 aircraft of the Iranian Air Force. According to
experts, the technical state of 40-60% of these planes leaves much to
be desired.

The Pentagon would therefore easily establish regional air supremacy
over the Persian Gulf, just like it did in the war against Iraq. It
should not be doubted that U.S. warplanes would destroy any
potentially hostile ship in the Strait of Hormuz and deprive Tehran of
its ship-launched Fajr-3 missiles and Hut torpedoes.

Why did Iran hold these war games at a time when it apparently does
not stand a chance against the six U.S. carrier task forces, which
have better personnel and impressive combat cohesion?

Tehran does not seem to be bluffing because it has enough time to
think and to bargain with the UNSC and the United States. Moreover,
Iran could still display its determination to defend uranium
enrichment rights within its nuclear program.

Experts say the United States will not attack Iran before September,
if it sums up resolve to do so. General James L. Jones, Supreme Allied
Commander Europe, said the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) would establish complete control over Afghanistan this August,
rather than in October-November 2006. The United States will not
declare war on Iran, unless it makes sure that Afghanistan is secured.

On the other hand, Washington should not delay the Iranian operation
in the context of the congressional election this
November. Consequently, September – October seem like an optimal
deadline for attacking Iran.

Iran therefore has enough time to display its determination and to
accomplish several objectives. For instance, it could try to persuade
the international community that Washington’s efforts aiming to force
Tehran to renounce its right to uranium enrichment operations are both
dangerous and unjustified. Iran could also try to convince the UNSC
that its nuclear file should be returned to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). And, finally, Iran, which unequivocally wants to
be a leading Mideastern power, could make Washington nervous and show
that the United States is not omnipotent. It seems that Tehran will
not give up its positions without a fight and that it will try to
force Washington to heed its interests.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Tehran ‘lobbies’ for US talks
By Guy Dinmore in Washington

FT
April 7 2006 03:00
Iran has prepared a high-level delegation to hold talks with the US,
but the Bush administration, which insists negotiations be limited to
the subject of Iraq, is resisting a wide-ranging agenda, Iranian
politicians have told the Financial Times.
A senior Iranian official, Mohammad Nahavandian, has flown to
Washington to “lobby” over the issue, according to a top Iranian
adviser outside the US.
However, the Iranian mission to the United Nations said he was in
Washington on private business.
Iran’s willingness to engage the US on Iraq, regional security and its
nuclear programmes is believed to have the approval of the supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It represents the most serious attempt
by the Islamic republic to reach out to the US since the 1979 Islamic
revolution.
“There are none and none are scheduled,” Stephen Hadley, national
security adviser, was quoted by a spokesman as saying about the
prospect of talks with the Iranian delegation in Baghdad next week.
A senior Iranian adviser said the Iranian delegation was headed by Ali
Hossein-Tash, the main deputy to Ali Larijani who is secretary of the
Supreme National Security Council and the chief official dealing with
the nuclear issue.
Three other negotiators, all attached to the council, include a deputy
intelligence minister who was previously based in Baghdad, a former
Revolutionary Guards member and Kurdish expert, and a political
specialist.
Mr Nahavandian, a deputy for economic affairs to Mr Larijani, is in
Washington, several Iranian sources told the FT, revealing the rare
presence of a senior Iranian in the US capital. White House and State
Department officials denied all knowledge of his presence.
The Bush administration is resisting pressure from its European allies
to engage Iran directly over its alleged nuclear weapons programme
rather than leave negotiations to the EU3 of France, Germany and the
UK. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, raised this
with Mr Hadley this week, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is
understood to have spoken about it with President George W. Bush.
Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, stressed
Iran’s willingness to talk in an opinion piece published by the New
York Times yesterday. He denied US claims that Iran had a covert
nuclear weapons programme and said Iran was ready for intrusive
international inspections.
“Pressure and threats do not resolve problems. Finding solutions
requires political will and a readiness to engage in serious
negotiations. Iran is ready.
We hope the rest of the world will join us,” he said.
One US insider suggested the Bush administration might agree to
broaden the agenda after an initial meeting restricted to Iraq. The US
offer of talks about Iraq was made several months ago by Zalmay
Khalilzad, US ambassador to Baghdad.
Meanwhile, the US rhetoric is sounding progressively tougher. Nicholas
Burns, under-secretary of state, yesterday accused Iran of being
“expansionist”, “a central banker of terrorism” and directing attacks
on US citizens. Last week, the UN Security Council issued a mildly
worded presidential statement calling on Iran to resume its suspension
of fuel cycle development.
Russia blocked tougher language. John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN,
said yesterday the next step was to pass a legally binding “chapter
seven” resolution requiring Iran to suspend its nuclear programme.
Additional reporting by Negar Roshanzamir in Tehran
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri rights activist seeks asylum in Georgia – agency
Turan news agency
BAKU
7 Apr 06
An Azerbaijani rights activist has applied for asylum in Georgia,
Turan reported on 7 April.
The head of the Caucasus rights centre to protect freedom of
conscience and religion, Azar Samadov, asked Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili to grant him asylum or allow him to apply for
asylum in foreign embassies in the country, the agency said.
Samadov was detained in Tbilisi on 31 March following a request from
the Azerbaijani security agencies. He is accused of organizing mass
riots in Baku on 15-16 October 2003.
If extradited to Azerbaijan, Samadov might be sentenced to five to
seven years in prison, the agency said.

Review: Arts: Capturing the Conqueror: When Ottoman ruler Medmed II
asked Venice for a ‘good painter’, he was sent Gentile Bellini, whose
portrait of him brought a lasting touch of the Renaissance to the
east. Orhan Pamuk on the story behind a new exhibit
The Guardian – United Kingdom; Apr 08, 2006
ORHAN PAMUK
There are three artists we know as Bellini. The first, Jacopo Bellini,
is remembered today not so much as a painter but as the man who
brought the two more famous Bellinis into the world. His elder son,
Gentile Bellini, was, during his lifetime (1429-1507), the most famous
artist in Venice. Today he is remembered chiefly for his “voyage east”
and the artworks it inspired, most particularly his portrait of Mehmed
the Conqueror, while his brother Giovanni is celebrated by today’s art
historians as one of the great painters of his time. It is commonly
acknowledged that his colouring had an enormous impact on the art of
the Venetian Renaissance and therefore changed the course of western
art. When Sir Ernst Gombrich speaks of that tradition in his lecture
“Art and Scholarship”, remarking that “without Bellini and Giorgione,
there would have been no Titian”, it is Giovanni, the younger brother,
to whom he refers. But it is to his elder brother Gentile that the
National Gallery’s new exhibition, Bellini and the East , pays
tribute.
After taking Istanbul in 1453, at the age of 21, Mehmed II’s first aim
was to centralise the Ottoman state, but he continued his incursions
into Europe, thus establishing himself in the world as a ruler of
consequence. These wars, victories and peace treaties – whose names
every lycee student in Turkey must memorise and recite one by one with
nationalist fervour – led to large portions of Bosnia, Albania and
Greece coming under Ottoman rule.
His power having been greatly enhanced by these conquests, Mehmed II
was finally able to effect a peace treaty between the Ottomans and the
Venetians in 1479, after almost 20 years of war, pillaging and piracy
in the Aegean islands and the fortressed ports of the
Mediterranean. When envoys began travelling between Venice and
Istanbul to bring about this treaty, Mehmed II expressed a wish for
Venice to send him a “good artist”, and the Venetian senate (who were
very pleased with this peace treaty, though it meant giving up many of
their forts and a great deal of land) decided to send Gentile Bellini,
who was then busy adorning the walls of Great Council Hall of the
Doge’s Palace with his gigantic paintings.
So it is Gentile Bellini’s “voyage east” and the 18 months he spent in
Istanbul as “cultural ambassador” that is the subject of the small but
rich exhibition at the National Gallery. Though it includes many other
paintings and drawings by Bellini and his workshop, as well as medals
and various other objects that show the eastern and western influences
of the day, the centrepiece of the exhibition is, of course, Gentile
Bellini’s oil portrait of Mehmed the Conqueror. The portrait has
spawned so many copies, variations and adaptations, and the
reproductions made from these assorted images have gone on to adorn so
many textbooks, book covers, newspapers, posters, bank notes, stamps,
educational posters and comic books, that there cannot be a literate
Turk who has not seen it hundreds if not thousands of times.
No other sultan from the golden age of the Ottoman empire, not even
Suley-man the Magnificent, has a portrait like this one. With its
realism, its simple composition, and the perfectly shaded arch giving
him the aura of a victorious sultan, it is not only the portrait of
Mehmed II, but the icon of an Ottoman sultan, just as the famous
poster of Che Guevara is the icon of a revolutionary. At the same
time, the highly worked details – the marked protrusion of the upper
lip, the drooping eyelids, the fine feminine eyebrows and, most
important, the thin, long, hooked nose – make this a portrait of a
singular individual who is none the less not very different from the
citizens one sees in the crowded streets of Istanbul today. The most
famous distinguishing feature is that Ottoman nose, the trademark of a
dynasty in a culture without a blood aristocracy.
In 2003, to celebrate the 550th anniversary of the Ottoman Conquest,
the Yapi Kredi Bank had the painting brought from London to Istanbul,
and exhibited it in Beyo-lu, one of the busiest districts of the city;
schoolchildren came in by the busload, and hundreds of thousands
queued up to stare at the portrait with a fascination only a legend
can bring.
The Islamic prohibition against painting, the particular fears about
portraits and ignorance about what was happening in portraiture in
Renaissance Europe, meant that Ottoman artists did not and could not
make portraits of sultans that were this true to life. But this
caution towards a human subject’s distinguishing features was not
confined to the world of art. Even the Ottoman historians, who wrote a
great deal about the military and political events of their age, were
disinclined to think or indeed write about their sultans’ defining
features, their characters, or their spiritual complexities – though
there was no religious prohibition against doing so.
After the founding of the modern Republic of Turkey in 1923, when the
westernising drive was just getting under way, the nationalist poet
Yahya Kemal – who lived in Paris for many years and was as well
acquainted with French art and literature as he was oppressed by
doubts about his own literary and cultural heritage – once remarked
ruefully: “If only we had painting and prose, we’d be another nation!”
In so saying, he may have been hoping to reclaim the beauties of a
lost age as documented in painting and literature. Even when this was
not, strictly speaking, the case – as when he stood before Bellini’s
“realistic” portrait of Mehmed the Conqueror – what troubled him was
that the hand that drew the portrait lacked a nationalist motive. One
can sense a profound displeasure in these words, a Muslim writer’s
dissatisfaction with his own culture’s shortcomings. He is also
succumbing to the common fantasy that it might be possible to adapt to
the artistic products of an utterly different culture and civilisation
with ease, and without changing one’s soul.
There are many examples of this childish fantasy on display in Bellini
and the East and its accompanying catalogue. One is the watercolour
from a Topkapi Palace album that is attributed to an Ottoman artist
named Sinan Beg, and is almost certainly inspired by Bellini’s
portrait. The catalogue gives it the title Mehmed II Smelling a Rose ;
because it is neither a Venetian Renaissance portrait nor the classic
Persian-Ottoman miniature, it leaves the viewer feeling unsettled.
In an article about Seker Ahmet Pasha, another Turkish artist who drew
from both eastern and western artistic traditions – the
Ottoman-Persian miniature and European landscape painting, especially
that of Courbet – John Berger spoke of this same unease. And though he
felt it stemmed from the difficulties of harmonising different
techniques, such as the use of perspective and the vanishing point, he
also sensed that the underlying problem was the difficulty of
harmonising world views. In this Bellini-inspired Ottoman portrait,
the one thing that makes up for the clumsiness of the execution – and
it seems to make the sultan uneasy as well – is the rose that Mehmed
II is smelling. What makes us aware of this rose and even its scent is
not so much its colour as Mehmed II’s prominent Ottoman nose. Upon
learning that Sinan Beg, who painted this watercolour, was in fact a
Frankish artist living among Ottomans, and most probably an Italian,
we are reminded yet again that cultural influences work in two
directions and are both complex and difficult to fathom.
Another painting rightly attributed to Bellini takes us away from
scholarly disputes and concerns about political correctness to suggest
a more humane east-west story, and with extraordinary elegance. This
marvellously simple watercolour, no larger than a miniature, shows a
young artist or scribe sitting cross-legged. Because the paper that
the ear-ringed youth is touching with his pen is blank, we cannot be
sure if he is an artist or a scribe. But from the expression on his
face, from his look of concentration and the shape of his lips, even
from the confidence with which his left hand shields the paper in his
lap, I can see that he is utterly devoted to his work. His dedication
to a blank sheet of paper, and his heartfelt surrender of self, make
me respect the young artist. I feel him to be someone who holds the
beauty and perfection of his work (be it a drawing or a text) above
all else; he is an artist who has achieved the happiness that can only
come from giving oneself over to one’s work.
My appreciation of the beauty of the beardless page’s pale face
combines with my appreciation of the compassion that the artist felt
for him while drawing his portrait. It was first noted by the
semi-official historian Kritovoulos of Imbros, and later repeated by
many western, Christian chroniclers, that Mehmed the Conqueror valued
beautiful and handsome youths, took political risks for them, and
asked for their portraits to be painted; from this time onwards, good
looks were an important factor in the selection of pages in the
Ottoman palace. The beauty of the young artist, and the way he gives
himself over to the beauty of that which he is drawing, combined with
the simplicity of the ground and the wall behind him – these give the
painting the air of mystery that I sense every time I see it.
Of course, the mystery has much to do with the fact that the paper the
youth is looking into with such concentration is utterly blank. If
this beautiful artist can think with such concentration of the thing
he has yet to paint, it must mean that he can already see this image
shimmering in his mind. We know from the way he has pressed his pen
against the blank paper, from the way he is sitting, from his very
expression, that this artist knows what he is about to paint. But
there is nothing in his surroundings – no object, text, sketch, mould,
human figure or view – to suggest what the painting in the artist’s
mind might be. We feel as if this frozen moment from 525 years ago
will soon cease to exist, and as the artist scribe begins to move the
pen in his hand, his beautiful face will light up in even greater
happiness, as if he is watching someone else’s pencil race across the
page.
A century ago, in 1905, this painting was still in Istanbul; today it
belongs to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. Years ago,
after wandering among this museum’s great and opulent Titians and John
Singer Sargents, I found my young painter on a display table in a
corner, on one of the top floors. To see him, I had to lift the thick
cloth resting on the glass to protect the painting from light damage
and bow my head. As I gazed down at the painting, the distance between
me and it seemed to be the same as the distance between the painter
and his blank sheet of paper. I was looking at Bellini’s small
painting in just the same way that a sultan might, in a private
moment, look at a miniature illuminating the thick and heavy book in
his hand. I, too, was gazing downwards like the painter in the
painting.
What distinguishes Islamic painting from western painting after the
Renaissance, as much as religious prohibitions and perhaps even more
than that, is this secretive downward gaze that Bellini captures so
profoundly in this portrait. Islamic painting was a restricted art,
permissable only to decorate the insides of books, and so confined to
small spaces; never was it suggested that these paintings might hang
on walls, and they never did! As the scribe sits cross-legged and lost
in thought, gazing down at the blank sheet that will become his
painting, he strikes the same pose that the rich and powerful person –
most likely a sultan or a prince – will be obliged to take to look at
this same painting.
Let us contrast this pose – this downward gaze of the cross-legged
painter as he bends over a blank sheet of paper – with the stance a
western artist might take to view his own painting: Velazquez, for
example, viewing Las Meninas . We see first the things that define
both paintings as objects – the edges of the paper or canvas, the
painter’s pen or brush, and the creative concentration on the artist’s
face. Bellini’s eastern artist’s gaze is not towards his world or his
surroundings; it is fixed on the blank paper on his lap, and we can
tell from his expression that he is thinking of the world inside his
head. The artistry of the Ottoman-Persian miniaturist is to know and
to recall all the great art that has preceded him, and to remake it in
a burst of poetic inspiration. But Velazquez is lifting his head to
see the vanishing point, to the world reflected in the mirror, to the
world itself and the complexity of that which he is painting. We
cannot see his painting either (though we guess that the scene before
us is the one he is painting), but we can see from Velazquez’s tired
and self-interrogating look that his head is full of the weighty
questions rising from the painting’s unbounded composition. Bellini’s
young painter, however, looks at his blank sheet with the happiness of
a youth recalling, with almost metaphysical inspiration, a poem he has
learned by heart.
In my corner of the world, the seated scribe attributed to Bellini is
well-known, even if it is not as famous as his portrait of Mehmed the
Conqueror. The cross-legged figure is commonly thought to be Cem
Sultan, who was treated so cruelly by his older brother and whose
sorry fate was described in numerous exotic and melodramatic
novels. In the textbooks of my childhood – written by the passionately
nationalist westernisers of the early Republic – Cem Sultan was
portrayed as being open to art and to the west, a broad-minded prince
bursting with youth, while his older brother, Bayezid II, who would go
on to poison Cem, was a fanatic who turned his back on the western
world.
After the death of Mehmed the Conqueror, Bellini’s portrait of the
artist was sent first to the Aqqoyunlu Palace in Tebriz, then to the
Safavid Palace in what is today Iran. Before it was returned to the
Ottoman palace, either as war booty or a gift, this extraordinary
painting was much copied, this time by Persian artists. One of these
copies, now in the Freer Museum in Washington DC, is, at least
according to those romantic souls who dream of eastern and western
masters working on the same pictures, sometimes attributed to Bihzad.
To look at this adaptation from close up is to notice that where
Bellini so elegantly chose to place a blank sheet of paper, the
Safavid painter has placed a portrait. In so doing he reminds us how
little Muslim artists knew about the western art of portraiture, and
most particularly the concept of the self-portrait, and how they were
beset by anxieties about their technical inadequacies in these
areas. The Harvard professor David Roxburgh discovered that, 80 years
after its execution, Bellini’s small portrait was placed in a Safavid
album alongside other portraits, including some from the Ming
dynasty. A sentence from its foreword shows that even the greatest
Safavid artists found themselves lacking in this regard: “The custom
of portraiture flourished so in the lands of Cathay (China) and the
Franks (Europe).”
But this is not to say that Persian artists were blind to the
irresistible power of portraits. In the tale of Husrev and Sirin, the
classic Islamic story that inspired more miniatures than any other,
the beautiful Sirin first falls in love with the handsome Husrev just
by seeing his portrait. The irony is that the Persian artists charged
with illustrating this scene were technically naive by Venetian
Renaissance standards of portraiture. In illuminated Persian
manuscripts, this scene requires a painting within the painting, just
as Bellini’s and Bihzad’s retouched portraits do – though almost
always, they depict not a portrait, but the idea of a portrait.
After the Renaissance, the west first felt its superiority over the
east not on the battlefield, but in art. A hundred years after
Bellini’s “voyage east”, Vasari described how even Ottoman sultans
obliged by their religion to take a dim view of painting were in awe
of the skill Bellini showed in his Istanbul portraits and still
inclined to praise them extravagantly. When writing of Filippo Lippi,
Vasari relates how, after the painter was captured by eastern pirates,
his new master asked him to do his portrait; so taken was he by its
shocking realism that he set Lippi free. In our own day, western
analysts, perhaps because they are uneasy about the consequences of
the west’s excessive military prowess, prefer not to talk of the
indisputable power of the art of the Renaissance. Instead, they point
to Bellini’s sensitive portraits to remind us that easterners, too,
have their humanity.
After the death of Mehmed the Conqueror, his son Bayezid II, who did
not share his father’s way of life or his passion for portraiture, had
Bellini’s portrait sold in the bazaar. In the Turkey of my childhood,
our lycee textbooks lamented this rejection of Renaissance art as a
mistake, describing it as a missed opportunity, and suggesting that,
had we gone on from where we’d started 500 years ago, we might have
produced a different kind of art and become “a different
nation”. Perhaps. Whenever I look at Bellini’s cross-legged painter, I
think this “other path” might have served miniaturists best. Because
they could have painted so much better once seated at tables – and
also could have saved themselves from aching joints and legs.
Translated by Maureen Freely. Orhan Pamuk is the author of My Name is
Red , Istanbul: Memories of a City and Snow (Faber). Bellini and the
East is at the National Gallery, London WC2, from Wednesday until June
25. Details: 020-7747 2885.