Sadgeh Hedayat’s Buried Alive
By Syma Sayyah, Tehran
Payvand, Iran
Sept 2 2005
Buried Alive is a famous short story by the 20th century Persian
writer Sadgeh Hedayat. In the story Hedayat recounts the diary of
the last days of a man who struggles with suicide. This story was
recently published in a new book by the Hedayat office.
In this book, there is the original Persian text, a translation to
Armenian by Mr. Khachik Khacher, who is a well known writer of short
stories in Armenian, and an English text. The English translation
is the work of Mr. Carter Bryant and was part of a collection titled
“The Blind Owl” published under the editorship of Dr. Michael Hillman
in the USA in 1978.
This book was launched publicly last week at a ceremony which
was attended by many well known scholars of Persian and Armenian
origin in a packed hall at the Artists Forum in Tehran. The program
started surprisingly promptly. First Mr. Jahangir Hedayat, the head
of the Hedayat Office in Tehran, made a short speech explaining
the event and the book. He then introduced and gave some background
information on Mr. Khacher the Armenian translator and the publishers
(the Varjavand Publishing House). He also pointed to the fact that
this is the second authentic book of stories of Sadegh Hedayat that
has been published recently by the Hedayat Office in Tehran using
the original manuscripts. The first one was “Three drops of blood”,
which was published by Nashreh Cheshmeh.
There has also been a book of Sadegh Hedayat pictures which have been
very well received by the public in Iran and abroad, and another book
of his paintings and drawings which is ready to be published. Mr.
Jahangir Hedayat’s easy narrative and pleasant soft voice made
everyone listen carefully to all the information and anecdotes. He
told the story of the “Buried alive” plot, the reasons why Hedayat.
had such a fondness for Armenians, the story of his friendship with
an Armenian painter and the fact that when he committed suicide in
Paris in 1951, by turning the gas on in his small flat, he had made
sure that he would be found by an Armenian couple he was very fond of.
Afterwards Mr. Kacher came to the podium and made a short speech during
which he thanked Mr. Amir Cheltann for his kindness and guidance when
translating the book.
We then were entertained by a short performance based on an extract
of the story wonderfully staged by a group of young actors under the
direction of the well known cinema and TV personality Mr. Seyrous
Ebrahim-Zadeh. It was indeed very well done! After a enjoying a drama
piece in Armenian, the ceremony came to a close and the guests could
buy the new book. Your place was indeed empty (we missed you)!
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Author Orhan Pamuk to face trial for “public denigration” of Turkish identity
IFEX, Canada (International Freedom of Expression eXchange)
Sept 2 2005
Country/Topic: Turkey
Date: 02 September 2005
Source: Writers in Prison Committee, International PEN
Person(s): Orhan Pamuk
Target(s): writer(s)
Type(s) of violation(s): legal action , charged
Urgency: Threat
(WiPC/IFEX) – International PEN greets with shock the news that the
world-famous Turkish writer, Orhan Pamuk, will be brought before an
Istanbul court on 16 December 2005 and that he faces up to three
years in prison for a comment published in a Swiss newspaper earlier
this year.
The charges stem from an interview given by Pamuk to the Swiss
newspaper “Das Magazin” on 6 February in which he is quoted as saying
that “thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in
these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it.” Pamuk was
referring to the killings by Ottoman Empire forces of thousands of
Armenians in 1915-1917. Turkey does not contest the deaths, but
denies that it could be called a “genocide”. His reference to
“30,000” Kurdish deaths refers to those killed since 1984 in the
conflict between Turkish forces and Kurdish separatists. Debate on
these issues have been stifled by stringent laws, some leading to
lengthy lawsuits, fines and in some cases prison terms.
Article 301/1 of the Turkish Penal Code under which Pamuk will be
tried is a case in point. PEN sees it extraordinary that a state that
has ratified both the United Nations International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights,
both of which see freedom of expression as central, should have a
Penal Code that includes a clause that is so clearly contrary to
these very same principles. To quote Article 301/1: A person who
explicitly insults being a Turk, the Republic or Turkish Grand
National Assembly, shall be imposed to a penalty of imprisonment for
a term of six months to three years. To compound matters, Article
301/3 states, Where insulting being a Turk is committed by a Turkish
citizen in a foreign country, the penalty to be imposed shall be
increased by one third. So, if Pamuk is found guilty, he faces an
additional penalty for having made the statement abroad.
International PEN International Secretary Joanne Leedom Ackerman
states that “International PEN is deeply concerned by the efforts of
the public prosecutor to punish and therefore curb the free
expression of Orhan Pamuk, not only in Turkey, but abroad.” She adds
that “It is a disturbing development when an official of the
government brings criminal charges against a writer for a statement
made in another country, a country where freedom of expression is
allowed and protected by law.”
The trial against Pamuk is likely to follow the pattern of those
against other writers, journalists and publishers similarly
prosecuted. Karin Clark, Chair of PEN’s WiPC, points out that “PEN
has for years been campaigning for an end to Turkish courts trying
and imprisoning writers, journalists and publishers under laws that
clearly breach international standards to the Turkish government
itself has pledged commitment.” Although the numbers of convictions
and prison sentences under laws that penalise free speech has
declined in the past decade, PEN currently has on its records over 50
writers, journalists and publishers before the courts. This is
despite a series of amendments to the Penal Code in recent years
which were aimed at meeting demands for human rights improvements as
a condition for opening talks into Turkey’s application for
membership of the European Union. The most recent changes were
enacted in June this year. Journalists in Turkey have staged protests
against the fact that there remain considerable problems in the
revised Penal Code. In April, International PEN joined its the
International Publisher’s Association in a statement to the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights which described the newly revised
Penal Code as “deeply flawed.”
Pamuk is one of Turkey’s most well known authors, whose works have
been published world-wide in over 20 languages. In 2003, he won the
International IMPAC award for “My Name is Red”. His 2004 novel “Snow”
has met with similar acclaim. His most recent book, “Istanbul”, is a
personal history of his native city.
In early 2005, news of the interview for which Pamuk will stand trial
led to protests and reports that copies of his books were burned. He
also suffered death threats from extremists. PEN members world-wide
then called on the Turkish government to condemn these attacks.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Send appeals to authorities:
– expressing concern that Pamuk is to be tried for a statement made
in an interview for an overseas publication
– pointing out that this is in direct contravention of the United
Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European
Convention on Human Rights, to which the Turkish government is a
signatory
– protesting the decision to bring Pamuk to trial
APPEALS TO:
Prime Minister Racep Tayyip Erdogan
TC Easbaskanlik
Ankara, Turkey
Fax: +90 312 417 0476
Cemil Cicek
Minister of Justice
TC Adalet Bakanligi
Ankara, Turkey
Fax: +90 312 417 3954
Similar appeals should be sent to the Turkish Embassy in your own
country.
Please copy appeals to the source if possible.

Persian Journal, Iran
Sept 2 2005
FIRST IRANIAN QUEEN REGNANT WHO RULED IRAN OVER SASSANID EMPIRE
Sep 2, 2005
Manouchehr Saadat Noury – Persian Journal
INTRODUCTION:
A Queen Regnant is a female monarch, who holds all the imperial
powers that a King would have, without regard to gender. This is in
contrast with a Queen Consort, who is merely the spouse or the mother
of a ruling King, and each one on her own has no official powers of
the country. During the Sassanid Dynasty (224-651), Iran had two
Queen Regnants, Pourandokht (PRD) and Azarmidokht (AZD), who ruled
for about three years (629-632). In Ferdowsi’s epic Book of Kings or
Shahnameh, there is also a mythological reference to yet another
Queen Regnant named Homa Shahrzad who ruled over 32 years. In this
article, the information available on First Iranian Queen Regnants,
PRD and AZD, are presented and discussed.
Iranian army of Sassanid Empire included women as fighters
THE STUTUS OF IRANIAN WOMEN IN SASSANID ERA:
In the Iranian tradition, women have always had special respect and
equal treatment. Throughout history, researchers have come across
references to the special role of women in the traditional Iranian
society. According to Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer,
[Iranian women used to participate in social affairs and fight in the
battlefield]. It is also known that the Iranian army of Sassanid
Empire included women as fighters, and Roman sources have described
them a group of excellent fighters. There are, however, some reports
indicating in Sassanid Empire women were not considered as
independent individuals and were completely under the custody of the
patriarch (in Persian: Pedar-Shahi, Pedar-Saalari) of their family.
On the one hand, those reports are most unlikely because there is no
ample evidence to support them. On the other hand, the study of
Avesta, the Zoroastrian holy book, indicates that women in Iranian
society were to some extent equal to men and enjoyed a number of
legal and social freedoms. As is described in Din Kard, an ancient
religious text, women could manage their property, could represent
their husbands at court, could become judges, and could perform
religious ceremonies. It should be also noted that due to the
significant role (s) of women in the society, the ancient Iranian
coins show the queen on one side of the coin.
CONDITIONS WHICH MADE PRD TO BE SELECTED AS A QUEEN:
Since the reign of Khosrow I or Khosrow Anoshirvan (ruled 531-579),
each General (in Persian: Spahbod) or Governor (in Persian:
Ostandaar) in Sassanid Empire regrettably considered his province as
something like a hereditary fief or property. Such Generals or
Governors were tempted more and more to play the part of kingmakers.
For example, Bahram Chobin, and Farrukhan Shahrvaraz (Shiruyeh) made
themselves kings with temporary success. The fatal example was set by
Bahram Chobin and was followed by Shiruyeh with disastrous results
for the unity and independence of the Empire. But the assassination
of Shiruyeh in 629 convinced the nobles of the country that the game
of assuming the throne was too dangerous, and one, which the country,
devoted as it was to the Sassanian dynasty, was not likely to
tolerate. It is documented when Shiruyeh and his son, Ardeshir, were
also murdered, it seemed as if neither a man nor even a male child of
the king’s family survived the bloody rivalries for the throne to
become the king, so the courtiers, though reluctantly, went for PRD,
the daughter of Khosrow Parviz (591-628).
PRD AS A QUEEN REGNANT OF IRAN:
PRD started her ruling as the first Iranian queen regnant in
Ctesiphon (in Persian: Tyssfoon) on May 20, 629 and tried to revive
the sovereignty of Sassanid dynasty. The reign of PRD, whose name
means [successor girl] and it is also synonymous to [a girl with a
rosy face], become contemporary to Abu-Bakr and Omar caliphates. In
ancient books and resources she is described as a wise, just, and a
good-natured woman. PRD is quoted in a letter to her army writing, [A
monarch, regardless of being a queen or a king, must defend his or
her land and treat the people with justice].The outstanding
characteristics of PRD were even undeniable to the first Iranian epic
poet, Ferdowsi (935-1020). Despite his patriarchal attitudes,
Ferdowsi, in his masterpiece of the Book of Kings or Shahnameh, noted
PRD’s justice and the welfare that farmers enjoyed during her reign.
Sadly, after 16 months, when preparing for the deployment of her army
to confront the invader Arabs, PRD got sick and passed away in
Ctesiphon in 631.
HER SUCCESSOR:
AZD, the sister of PRD, ruled Iran as the second queen regnant from
631 to 632 when Hormuz V took over. There is not much information
available on the life story of AZD. It is, however, reported that
General Farrukh-Hormuzd (GFH) who was the governor of Khorassan,
according to historian Tabari, or prince of Azarbaijan, according to
Armenian sources, aspired to the crown and attempted to secure it by
proposing a marriage to queen AZD who refused the proposal. GFH was
the father of Rostam-e-Farrokh Zaad (590-636), who became the first
Iranian famous commander-in-chief few years later.
TODAY, IRANIANS REMEMBER [PRD], [AZD], AND ALL THOSE WHO SERVED THE
COUNTRY DURING A TURBULENT TIME, AND STOOD UP AGAINST INJUSTICE AND
TYRANNY, AND WHO DIED OR SUFFERED FOR HUMAN DIGNITY, THE FREEDOM OF
SPIRIT, AND A FREE CONSCIENCE.

The Australian, Australia
Sept 2 2005
Turkey’s EU bid hurt by charge
Emma-Kate Symons, Paris
September 03, 2005
TURKEY faces a new stumbling block in its bid for EU membership after
it sparked a free-speech row by charging its most celebrated
contemporary writer with “denigrating national identity”.
Best-selling author Orhan Pamuk, whose novel Snow told of a Turkish
poet’s struggles against Islamist radicals forcing girls to wear
Muslim garb in a remote town, could be jailed for three years for
attacking the Ottoman massacre of Armenians after World War I.
Turkey has consistently denied murdering Armenians between 1915 and
1923. Pamuk has been condemned in the Turkish press and received
death threats since he told a Swiss newspaper last year that “30,000
Kurds and 1million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody
but me dares to talk about it”.
At a meeting of Europe’s foreign ministers in Wales yesterday, former
Europe minister Denis MacShane, a British Labour MP, said: “It is a
sickening blow to all pro-Turks in Britain and Europe … that the
Turkish authorities seek to persecute this great European writer.
“I will continue to support and argue for (Turkey’s) right to start
EU membership talks. But if the authorities persist with this attack
on a great European writer, then many of us who are strong supporters
of Turkey will be forced to change our minds.”
Turkey is pressing for full EU membership but is confronted by
mounting anger over its treatment of Pamuk, who has gone into hiding,
and continuing questions over its refusal to recognise Cyprus, an EU
member.
Turkey invaded the island state in 1974 and Cyprus is now divided
into Turkish and Cypriot zones.
Pamuk’s English translator, Maureen Freely, said Ankara had “shot
itself in the foot” with the move.
“This is a man who loves his country deeply, defends it fiercely,
especially when abroad, and who cannot imagine living anywhere else,”
Ms Freely said. “There is no doubt that it (Pamuk’s trial) will raise
questions about the wisdom of Turkey’s EU membership bid.”

What’s Going To Happen In the Middle East
By Robert Locke (09/02/05)
American Daily
Sept 2 2005
The inadvisable Gaza pullout may have the one virtue of revealing
what has long puzzled observers of the Mideast situation: Gen.
Sharon’s long-term intentions for Israel. My guess is that they
are represented by the map below. On this map, the territory to be
returned to Jordan would have its Jewish population removed, and the
territory retained by Israel would have its Arab population removed.
(I am not at all sure of the exact final border. I am aware that that
there is more than one fence either under construction or in planning,
and that there is some controversy as to which will actually get
built, and on what route. But I must assume, based on the logic of
the argument below, that Mr. Sharon wishes to take as much territory
as possible, not as little, so I am actually inclined to go with what
the Arab side considers its worst-case scenario.)
I believe Gen. Sharon believes this map represents the best
long-term sustainable outcome for Israel, i.e. it is the greatest
amount of territory Israel can hold onto permanently. Logically,
the Gaza pullout (if we assume he is logical and leave aside canards
about his patriotism and sanity) only makes sense if he is pursuing
a strategy of giving up land that Israel cannot hold long-term in
order to strengthen Israel’s grip on what land it can.
It is important to note that this is not an unusual operation in world
history: Great Britain gave up the bulk of Ireland in 1922 and kept the
pro-British area of Northern Ireland. Turkey abandoned the remains of
the Ottoman Empire under Atatürk in 1921 to rebuild the nation upon
its Anatolian heartland (pace intrusions upon Armenia, Kurdistan,
etc.) The USA conquered the whole of Mexico in 1848 and only kept the
virtually uninhabited northern sections, which were demographically
tractable to incorporation into the US and became (all or part of)
the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming
and Colorado. The Malaysian Confederation expelled Singapore in 1965 to
rid itself of an urbanized ethnic Chinese population it did not want.
Sharon believes that while it would be politically infeasible
to execute the population transfer of the entire Arab
population of the West Bank, as I and others have proposed
(), it would be
politically feasible to transfer those Arabs residing in the area
indicated as retained by Israel if Israel simultaneously transferred
Jews out of the area indicated as returned to Jordan.
Such a double transfer, while it would of course attract opposition,
could not be depicted to (the reasonable, i.e. swing and therefore
decisive elements of) world opinion as a one-sided act of aggression.
It would largely take on the color of a mutual sacrifice by both
sides for the sake of obtaining a peaceful long-term outcome.
(Frankly, the more Jews in orange shirts howl in misery about it, the
more fair it will appear.) Although it would of course create massive
protest from the usual suspects, such protest would not rise to the
catastrophic levels that a one-sided (Arabs only) transfer would. It
would not be likely to trigger general war in the Middle East. It
could be plausibly represented to the world as a mutual “exchange of
populations” like those that have been carried out before, as between
Turkey and Greece ()
in 1923 and to rectify ethnic German minorities in Central Europe
after WWII.
Politically, Sharon believes that a double transfer would unite the
Israeli center – which desperately craves normality and will probably,
whatever its supposed moral qualms, in the end support anything that
promises to make Israel more like California – and split the serious
Zionists. Given that 1/3 of the Israeli electorate already supports
some variety of population transfer – whether in its full-blown form
or its well-intentioned but implausible “Elon Plan” variety – there
is clearly a base of support for such a program.
Obviously the truly hard-core Zionists must, upon their principles,
denounce this scheme as a betrayal of God-given land (or of national
territorial patrimony, if they are secular), but the more moderate
ones will see this as a way to swap insecure possession of everything
that is rightfully theirs for secure possession of a part of it. If
Mr. Sharon is lucky, this will split serious Zionist circles right
down the middle, rendering them incapable of uniting to mount serious
resistance to his plan. The Irish Republic fought a civil war over
roughly the same question in 1922; that’s not going to be an option
for Israelis, and if the “Palestinians” want to fight over it, they
will be unable to alter the outcome.
As I said, I am not sure of the exact final border. Anyone who
knows the facts on the ground in greater detail than I is welcome to
critique the squiggly line above. The main facts that seem to suggest
the border shown above is at least approximately right are:
1. The main Palestinian population centers have to be returned to
Jordan for demographic reasons. Because there are limits on how many
Arabs Israel will be able to transfer (i.e. not many more than the
number of Jews), the land returned to Jordan must include most of
the Palestinian population. Those who know Israel well will recognize
that the northern and southern “lobes” of the lung-like shape above
contain the bulk of the Palestinian population. Those readers who are
unfamiliar with the detailed geography of the West Bank should note
that the area to the east of these lobes is mostly lightly inhabited,
and the area to the west heavily infiltrated with post-1967 Jewish
settlements.
2. The lightly-populated areas can be retained by Israel because they
contain minimal unruly populations to cause trouble. This mainly means
the closed military zones down by the river, which are of military
interest because, obviously enough, they are on the border towards
potentially hostile foreign states.
3. The territory returned to Jordan must be contiguous,
or it will not be credible to the world community. South
Africa tried setting up discontinuous Bantustans
()
in the 1980’s and nobody bought it. Somehow – I don’t know why –
human beings just naturally assume that nationals are contiguous
pieces of territory. It’s one of those mysterious pre-political
ideas that doesn’t have a lot of pure logic behind it, but it has a
grip on people’s minds and therefore it determines what’s feasible in
politics. I am slightly nervous that Mr. Sharon thinks he can finesse
this, which will almost certainly not work, both because of credibility
problems and because overland transit rights would cause trouble.
4. The territory returned to Jordan must be connected to Jordan. This
is necessary in order for the whole undertaking to be presented,
ideologically, as a ceding of territory conquered in 1967 back to
the possessor ante bellum. This, in turn, has the signal advantage
of making a serious assault on one of the key props of the whole
“Palestinian” war against Israel: the idea that the West Bank
constitutes a nation in its own right, rather than just a section of
Jordan. This premise, which has been admitted by Palestinian leaders,
in unguarded moments, to have been an invention whose sole purpose was
to harness the passions of “nationalism” against Israel, cannot survive
serious scrutiny. The fact that Jordan has, thanks to Palestinian
bullying and Israeli miscalculation, verbally ceded territory it no
longer controls to the nonexistent country of Palestine, will have
to be shrugged off like the joke it always was.
The fact that Jordan will have all sorts of problems re-absorbing
this territory and its unruly inhabitants, will simply be Jordan’s
problem. After all, a country can hardly complain when it gets given
back land it claims was unjustly taken from it!
The odd man out of this arrangement is, of course, Gaza, which by
simple geographic fact cannot be made contiguous with Jordan without
rendering Israel discontiguous, and which wasn’t Jordanian territory
in any case. Egypt, its former owner, does not want it – a fact one
might take as an astonishing reflection on its character and that of
its Arab inhabitants – so perhaps there is no alternative than for
it to become, at long last, the independent “Palestinian” state that
the PLO says it wants. It would be the greatest booby prize in history.
–Boundary_(ID_MCgYmTUYv2BDkgEtQmglZw)–

ARTSAKH IS BUILDING ITS FUTURE
DeFacto.am, Armenia
Sept 2 2005
It has become obvious that only Karabakh’s constructive stand can put
an end to an ancient confrontation. Thus, the channel of Karabakh talks
is one thing, while the channel of developed life in Nagorno Karabakh
is quite another thing. According to NKR President Arkady Ghoukasyan,
“Karabakh cannot and should not suspend the construction of its state
and wait for Azeri leadership to negotiate with it”.
Thus, Karabakh is not waiting for that. NKR Parliamentary elections
that took place in June testify to the fact. International observers
are unanimous: “NKR elections again confirmed that democracy standards
are much higher here than in some neighbor countries that do not
recognize it”, “NKR is a small state with great future”, etc.
Karabakh people’s state mentality assists them to realize their
desires. The confidence proceeds from the present – the NKR economy
has become the pivotal task of the whole Armenian nation. The tendency
of investments into various branches of economy should be taken into
consideration. Very favorable conditions have been created in NKR
for that purpose, such as “mild” tax field, which is an important
precondition for investments. It has resulted in the fact that foreign
investors invest their money in the NKR economy. The total number is
more than $ 50 million. There are a lot of enterprises in Nagorno
Karbakh, such as Max Wood, Andranik Dasht, Shishmanyan, Lusakert,
and Artsakhalko. Special attention should be paid to Base Metals
Company, which annulay gives job to hundreds of people and provides
the Republic budget with hundreds of millions.
The dynamics of economic indicators confirms the accuracy of the
economic course. However, the course should be confirmed day by day,
so Nagorno Karabakh goes on attracting new investors.
A few days ago a number of investment programs was discussed in the
course of the NKR President Arkady Ghoukasyan and American businessman
Albert Boyajyan meeting. Such meetings inspire hope that Karabakh is
going to become a country that is able to credit its economy itself.
The above – mentioned factor is of great importance for Nagorno
Karabakh, as due to the fact both the conflict itself and the
negotiation process connected with it will become just senseless.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

‘Turkey must drop Pamuk charges’: book trade
Expatica, Netherlands
Sept 2 2005
2 September 2005
FRANKFURT – Germany’s book trade, which is to hand its most prestigious
annual award, the Peace Prize, to Orhan Pamuk next month, called
Friday on Istanbul prosecutors to abandon charges against the author
of denigrating Turkey.
It was reported on Wednesday that the novelist is to go on trial on
December 16 for saying, “Thirty thousand Kurds and 1 million Armenians
were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it.”
Turkey denies that a genocide of Armenians took place during World
War One and claims that the numbers of people who died were much
lower than the 1.5 million figure that is often cited.
Dieter Schormann, chairman of the Boersenverein,
the group representing both publishers and booksellers in Germany,
said, “We protest. We demand the Turkish state ceases proceedings
against Orhan Pamuk.
“The freedom of the word is one of the fundamental values of a
democratic society.”
The German Book Trade Peace Prize council also criticized the
prosecution Friday. Pamuk is set to receive the prize, worth EUR
25,000, on October 23 in a ceremony attended by German leaders in
the Church of St. Paul in Frankfurt.
While Pamuk did not actually use the word genocide, his acknowledgement
that 1 million Armenians were killed was enough to raise the ire of
extreme nationalists in Turkey who called for his books to be banned.
Pamuk’s books include “My Name is Red” and “Snow”. The latter was
named in the New York Times Top 10 books for 2004. His books have
been translated into 34 languages.

Azerbaijan: From Showmanship To Brinkmanship
By Liz Fuller
RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Czech Rep.
Sept 2 2005
In the run-up to the parliamentary elections scheduled for 6 November,
Azerbaijani leaders face an unenviable dilemma.
On the one hand, they are under pressure from the Council of Europe,
the OSCE, and the United States to avoid the egregious violations
and outright falsification that marred the elections of 1995, 1998,
2000, and 2003 and to deliver on their repeated pledges that this
time around the vote will be transparent, free, and fair. And, on the
other hand, they need to secure a comfortable parliamentary majority
for the ruling Yeni Azerbaycan Party without sparking postelections
protests on the lines of those that over the past two years have
toppled entrenched regimes in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. The
tactics and strategy selected to achieve that objective appear to
contain elements of both showmanship and brinkmanship.
Showmanship
On 11 May, President Ilham Aliyev issued a decree outlining measures to
improve the conduct of elections. The preamble to that decree admitted
that contrary to the “political will” of the Azerbaijani authorities,
previous elections were marred by “illegalities,” but it blamed those
irregularities on the “lack of professionalism” and “post-Soviet
mentality” of individual local officials and election commission
members. (No effort has been made over the past two years to identify
the individuals responsible for those “irregularities” and bring them
to justice.) The first of 11 measures listed in President Aliyev’s
decree and intended to prevent a recurrence of procedural violations
entailed programs to raise the professionalism and competence of the
officials responsible for the organization of the election process
and the vote count; the second was a warning to those officials
that they will be held legally responsible for any infringements
of the Election Law, such as hampering electioneering by opposition
candidates or intervening in the voting process or vote count. The
Azerbaijani leadership is thus apparently seeking to offload in advance
the blame for possible violations on to regional officials, who will
have to calculate which offense will be perceived as greater: failing
to ensure at all costs the victory of the ruling party’s candidate,
or risking their superiors’ opprobrium should international observers
register and publicly condemn malpractice in voting stations under
their jurisdiction.The final list of candidates is to be announced on
7 September, and manifestations of both brinkmanship and “black PR”
are likely to multiply in the two months remaining before the election.
A third provision of President Aliyev’s decree, ostensibly intended to
contribute to the fairness of the election process, is the provision
for the conduct of exit polls. Paradoxically, however, this provision
could have the opposite effect if voters in rural areas, fearful of
the wrath of the local authorities, claim to have voted for the YAP
candidate when in fact they cast their votes for a member of the
opposition. A glaring discrepancy between the actual division of
ballots cast and the exit-poll results could impel local election
commission members to bring the “official” tally into line with the
inaccurate exit-poll data.
Further aspects of the election campaign to date that could be
construed as manifestations of showmanship include the lifting of
long-standing restrictions on holding opposition demonstrations in
Baku; registration of several controversial opposition candidates,
first and foremost former parliamentary speaker Rasul Guliev; the
MSK’s 12 August appeal to the Armenian population of the breakaway
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to register to elect a candidate
to represent the enclave in the next Azerbaijani parliament; and
the belated launch, on 29 August, of a nominally independent public
television station whose mandate requires it to provide equal access
to both pro-government and opposition parliamentary candidates. On
the same day as the MSK announced Guliev’s registration, the office of
Azerbaijan’s prosecutor-general declared that it has stripped Guliev
of his immunity from prosecution. Should he return to Baku from the
United States, as he has pledged to do, he consequently risks arrest
on charges of large-scale embezzlement.
Following the 11 May presidential decree, in late June, under pressure
from the international community, Azerbaijan’s parliament adopted
43 amendments proposed by President Aliyev to the existing election
law. Those amendments did not, however, include the most important
changes called for by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, nor
did they increase opposition representation on election commissions at
all levels, as the opposition had demanded. (The opposition demanded
equal representation on election commissions, which the authorities
rejected, accusing the opposition of thus seeking to prevent such
commissions from adopting any decisions. Presidential-administration
head Ramiiz Mekhtiev told day.az on 23 July that the opposition’s
objective in demanding equal representation was the desire to be in a
position to paralyze the functioning of election commissions and thus
sabotage the entire election process. The Council of Europe called
for appointing an additional opposition representative to the MSK to
give a total of seven opposition and nine pro-government members.)
..And Brinkmanship .
The presidential administration appears to regard the combined
provisions of the presidential decree and the amended election
law as a panacea against election fraud — provided lower-level
bureaucrats abide by its provisions. Proceeding from that conviction,
the Azerbaijani leadership has apparently switched from showmanship
to brinkmanship, arguing that additional measures to preclude fraud
are unnecessary. For example, Ali Hasanov, who heads the political
department within the presidential administration, told day.az on
1 September that the authorities do not consider it necessary to
accede to the proposal, made most recently during a visit to Baku
late last month by Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE) Chairman Rene van der Linden, to mark voters’ fingers with
indelible ink to prevent multiple voting.
Further, uglier manifestations of brinkmanship include the recourse
for the first time in an Azerbaijani election to “doubles,” meaning
the nomination in a given constituency of additional candidates
with the same name as a prominent oppositionist. The first target
for such confusion is former presidential adviser Edar Namazov,
one of the leaders of the opposition alliance Yeni Siyaset, who will
compete against two namesakes in a Baku constituency. The questionable
allegations of collusion with Armenian special services brought by
the Prosecutor-General’s Office against Ruslan Bashirli, chairman
of the opposition youth movement Yeni Fikir, fall into the same
category. Allegations of treason by association were subsequently
brought against Bashirli’s mentor Ali Kerimli, chairman of the
progressive wing of Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, one of three
opposition parties aligned in the Azadlyg bloc. Some observers
have construed the vilification campaign launched against Kerimli
as an attempt to split Azadlyg by creating the impression that the
authorities consider Kerimli, rather than fellow Azadlyg leader and
Musavat party Chairman Isa Gambar (who lost to President Aliyev in the
October 2003 presidential ballot), as the most popular and influential
candidate, and by extension as a threat to be neutralized.
The final list of candidates is to be announced on 7 September;
manifestations of both brinkmanship and “black PR” are likely to
multiply in the two months remaining before the election.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Feature: Mad about Turkey
by GARETH HARDING
UPI – United Press International (USA)
September 1, 2005 Thursday 11:45 AM EST
BRUSSELS, Sept. 1 — Brussels, the self-styled capital of the European
Union, is a consensual sort of place, where believers in the EU project
far outnumber doubters, and polite debate is preferred to heated
argument. But when it comes to the pros and cons of Turkey’s membership
of the Union, the gloves come off and etiquette flies out the window —
as a demonstration against Ankara’s EU bid proved earlier this week.
On a leafy square wedged between the European Parliament and the
Council of Ministers in the EU quarter of the city, several dozen young
activists from the “Voice for Europe” campaign handed out leaflets
against Turkish membership of the 25-member bloc to bemused motorists,
tourists and passers-by. They held up banners proclaiming “55 percent
vs. 35 percent: can’t you count” — a reference to a recent European
Commission opinion poll showing a majority of Europeans against Turkish
membership, let off balloons with the slogan “Turkey is not in Europe,”
and set up a huge clock with the hand standing motionless at 5 minutes
to noon. The message? Even at this late stage — accession talks with
the predominantly Muslim state are due to begin in Brussels in one
month — the decision by EU leaders to open membership negotiations
with Ankara can be reversed.
It is difficult to get worked up about draft directives and
parliamentary amendments — the usual Brussels fodder — but the
question of whether Turkey should be admitted into the EU in the
latter half of the next decade unleashes powerful emotions.
When Boris Blauth, the German coordinator of the Voice for Europe
campaign, tells United Press International that Turkish immigrants
commit “far more crimes” than locals, a Belgian journalist of Turkish
origin retorts: “Turks don’t have a chance to integrate. They are
put in a ghetto and left to their own devices.” To illustrate his
point, the photo-journalist tells the story of a date he once had in
Brussels. “After two hours talking in a bar, I told the girl my name
and she spat in my face and left.”
A hot-headed Armenian demonstrator has little sympathy for the
reporter’s romantic woes or arguments in favor of Turkish entry. “You
shouldn’t be a journalist. You should be a clown,” he says, to which
the reporter replies: “Go forth and multiply” — but not quite in
those words.
It is easy to see why Turkish membership of the EU, which is the
main topic on the table of a meeting of European foreign ministers
in Wales Friday, sparks such violent reactions.
If Turkey joined the EU in 2015, it would become its most populous
state within a decade due to strong population growth in the
predominantly Muslim republic and low fertility rates in the Union.
As population size largely determines voting power in the EU, it would
leapfrog Germany to become the state with the greatest political clout.
Turkey is considerably poorer than EU states, with a per capita gross
domestic product equal to a quarter the EU average.
“Unemployed manpower will stream into European territories, which
will result in tensions both on the labor force market and on the
level of society,” says a pamphlet distributed by Voice for Europe.
Blauth’s main concern is that Turkish values, which he describes as
in the “Asian, Islamic tradition,” are different from European secular
values such as equality between men and women and freedom to practice
one’s religion. “Let them have their culture and let us have ours,”
says the German.
Opponents of Turkey’s membership of the EU vigorously deny they are
racist or xenophobic, but there is more than a hint of Islamophobia
in some of the arguments they put forward.
“A Muslim state cannot join the European Union,” says Mogens Camre,
a Danish Euro-skeptic member of the European Parliament who took
time out to meet the campaigners Monday. “You can believe in any
God you like, but the Islamic religion is not about democracy. The
Arab world rejects modern society and we don’t want their fingers
on our buttons in Europe. We’ve only been able to develop the way we
have because we are a homogenized society. If the Muslims took over,
Denmark would be a desert.”
These arguments may be crude and pander to the public’s basest fears
about a clash of civilizations between Christian Europe and Muslim
Turkey, but they are widely held in the EU. In a recent commission
poll, three-quarters of Germans and 70 percent of French respondents
came out against Turkish accession, with over half of those interviewed
opposing Ankara’s entry into the 25-member club.
Since it was founded in May, Voice for Europe has collected over
26,000 signatures for its petition against Turkish membership and
has brought its message to Budapest, Copenhagen, Athens, Warsaw,
Prague and other European capitals.
“We have had a very good response on the streets,” says Blauth. “Even
Turkish women in hijabs (headscarves) have signed our petition.”
Despite the muscular campaigning against Turkey’s membership bid by
groups like Voice for Europe and the last-minute doubts expressed by
senior members of the French, Austrian, Greek and Cypriot governments,
membership talks with Ankara are still likely to kick off as planned
on Oct. 3 — over 40 years after Turkey first filed its application
to join. But the public debate about whether to admit the large,
powerful and populous nation on Europe’s eastern fringes is likely
to run and run.

ROBERT KOCHARYAN: NKR IS ABLE TO BE INDEPENDENT
DeFacto.am, Armenia
Sept 2 2005
“I have not given rise to think that our stand in Karabakh settlement
issue has become changed”.
Today RA President Robert Kocharyan who arrived in Nagorno Karabakh
to take part in the activities devoted to the 14th Anniversary of
Proclamation of Nagorno Karabakh Republic has informed journalists
of the fact.
According to RA President, “our stand has not been changed, and the 14
years have testified to the NKR viability. It is able to have its own
statehood”. Robert Kocharyan stressed that Nagorno Karabakh Republic
could serve as an example for some post – Soviet Republics.
“Nagorno Karabakh cannot be subject to bargaining, and people of
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are unanimous in the opinion”, said
President of Armenia.
Touching upon Armenian and Azeri Presidents’ meeting in Kazan Robert
Kocharyan noted it had been favorable. “The negotiation process has
some positive tendencies”, emphasized he.
RA President said Nagorno Karabakh took part in the talks indirectly.
Robert Kocharyan stated after the meetings referring to the settlement
he informed the NKR President of the outcomes.
NKR President Arkady Ghoukasyan refused to make comments on the
settlement process referring to its confidentiality. “I guess it is
not time to throw light on all the particulars of the talks, however,
I believe everything is all right, and Nagorno Karabakh need not
worry”, said NKR President.