“ARAB CHRISTIANS”? NOT IN MY VIEW
by Frederick Aprim
The Baltimore Chronicle, MD
Sept 1 2005
This is in response to the article by Raja G. Mattar, titled “Arab
Christians are Arabs.”
There are a few interesting arguments in the article; however, most
of the other arguments are disturbing, misleading, and completely
inaccurate.
For example, the writer stated that: “The fact that Syriac remains
the language of their [Maronites] liturgy. is irrelevant.”
Fact is that there is neither the evidence that the liturgy of the
Maronite Church was in Arabic before the 19th century nor that they
in Mount Lebanon spoke Arabic before late 18th century and early 19th
century. Assyrians continue to speak Assyrian (Syriac) until today.
Only Arabization policy of the Iraqi past Ba’athist regime has forced
some of them to speak Arabic.
Next, the writer associated all the early Christian communities
in today’s Arab world, including Copts, Nestorians, Jacobites, and
Maronites, with the Arabs and brought the book of El Hassan Bin Talal,
Christianity in the Arab World, as a reference.
The fact is that even the old Arab Islamic writers referred to Egypt
for example as “the house of the Copts,” as there were no Arabs
in Egypt (Antonie Wessels. Arabs and Christians: Christians in the
Middle East. The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995). I
challenge the writer to present any reliable historical reference
proving that Arabs existed in Egypt, Mount Lebanon, and northern
Mesopotamia before the Islamic Arab conquest. While there existed,
for example, Arabs who were Nestorian Christians, by the same token
there were Persian, Hindu, Chinese, Mongol, and Assyrian Nestorians
as well. Nestorianism was a faith and many nations professed it,
although today only Assyrians remain linked to the Nestorians.
The Nestorians of Mesopotamia, who carried the gospel to the entire
Asian continent, were not Arabs. Not a single shred of evidence exists
to such fallacy. Arabs never inhabited the mountainous regions of
northern Mesopotamia, the home of the Nestorian Assyrians. Arabs are
well known throughout history to live in plain and desert lands.
The writer stated: “The language prevalent in the Arab world today
is called Arabic, but it is no more than the dialect of one major
Arab tribe, Qureish, which became the language of the Qur’an. That
language spread like wildfire in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and
northern Egypt because the people in these areas were effectively
already speaking dialects of the same language.”
This statement is misleading. While Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac,
for example, are Semitic languages and are close, there are still
distinct differences between them. Arabic only spread through northern
Mesopotamia and Egypt after the Moslem conquest. Arabic was not used
in these regions. Many people who speak any one of these languages is
not necessarily able to communicate with the other two groups. The
grammar of these languages is different. For example, Syriac is
more sophisticated and richer than Arabic. As I wrote in my book,
Assyrians: The Continuous Saga, Philadelphia: Xlibris 2005, page 39:
“Arabic literature prides in maqamat al-Harriri and the one liner
poem that if read from left to right and vice versa it gives the
same meaning. Mar ‘Abd Isho’, Metropolitan of Nisibin (1291-1316)
composed a poem in Syriac from 29 lines. In his poem every single line
could be read from right to left and vice versa without altering the
meaning. Furthermore, in every line, the same exact letters repeated
themselves going from right to left or the other way around.
Additionally, the poem is composed in a way where the first letter
of the subsequent lines are arranged in alphabetical order.”
…fact is that the non-Arabs, non-Moslem Syriac-speaking Nestorian.
and Jacobites have great influence in advancing this civilization and
knowledge because it was these Christians who translated much of the
Greek knowledge from Greek language to Arabic through Syriac. What is
more interesting that the much of the Greek knowledge came originally
from the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians before Arabs
of the Jazeera had any interest in such knowledge.
…It is well established that many indigenous Christian communities.
in the Middle East remained unassimilated after the Arab Islamic
conquest. They carried the blood of their ancient forefathers,
and continue to be different to this very day. Sweet writes that
the Armenian and Assyrian communities remained unassimilated in the
Moslem world. (Louise Sweet, Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East:
Cultural Depth and Diversity. New York: New York Natural History
Press, 1970). The Moslems created what is called the Moslem Umma. It
segregated the Moslems and non-Moslems through the taxes and the
laws applied on both communities. Until very recently, we could see
this to some degree in Christian neighborhoods that remain segregated
from Moslem neighborhoods in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Aleppo, Khabor
region, etc.
The writer then stated: “Apart from the obvious racial minorities
(Christians and animists in Southern Sudan, Kurds in Syria and Iraq,
Berbers in North Africa, and a few others), the rest of the population
is culturally Arab. Culture is the language they speak, the poetry
they recite, the songs they sing, the foods they eat, the music they
dance to, and the history they share.”
By stating this, the writer contradicted his entire thesis. Assyrian
culture, including language, food, music, dance, and history,
is different from that of the Arabs. I do not have to prove this;
it is a well-known fact.
Next he stated: “The millions of Christians are a dynamic part of the
Arab landscape and should remain so. They should cooperate with the
Muslims to develop a secular society where all citizens are equal,
regardless of religious affiliation or ethnic (imagined or real)
background.”
I agree with this statement; however, I hope that the writer will
deliver this message to the majority of the Moslem world in Asia and
Africa. Allow me to ask, how did the Arab Moslems become a majority
in northern Mesopotamia and the entire northern Africa when no
Arab existed in these lands before the Islamic conquest of the 7th
century? We all know that not a single Arab existed in northern Africa
before the Islamic conquest. Some of them existed of course in Jazeera,
but they were a minority before Islam.
Finally, I wonder for whom the writer speaks. Is he speaking on his
behalf or is he representing officially a certain community? It
is his privilege to look at himself as an Arab Christian, but he
has no right whatsoever to put that in plural and proclaim “we
Arab Christians.” If the policy of the Arab Moslem governments and
religious leaders in the past has been to protect the non-Moslem,
non-Arab, Syriac-speaking Christians of the Middle East, they would
not have looked for a savior from the West…..
Fred Aprim is a widely published author of articles on this and
related subjects.

A DAY FOR DARFUR: STOP THE GENOCIDE, PROTECT THE PEOPLE
Sudan Tribune, Sudan
Sept 1 2005
“A Day for Darfur: Stop the Genocide, Protect the People” On One-Year
Anniversary of Bush Administration’s Finding of Genocide in Darfur,
Powerful Event will Draw Hundreds to Demand White House Action
WHAT: A special event to mark the one-year anniversary of the Bush
Administration’s recognition of genocide in Darfur, Sudan and to
demand immediate action from the White House to stop the genocide
and protect the people of Darfur.
WHO: Civil & political leaders, celebrity figures and advocacy groups
will join hundreds of activists. Invited speakers include:
Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, General
Secretary, National Council of
Churches
Fatima Haroun, Darfurian Representative of Sudan Peace Advocates
Network
Ruth Messinger, President, American Jewish World Service Rev. Jim
Wallis, Founder and Editor in Chief of Sojourners Magazine
Salih Booker, Executive Director, Africa Action David Rubenstein,
Executive Director, Save Darfur Members of Congress
WHEN: Thursday, September 8, 2005, 12pm – 1pm
WHERE: Lafayette Park in front of the White House (near the
intersection of 16th Street & H Street, NW, Washington DC)
One year after the Bush Administration’s declaration that genocide
is occurring in Darfur, Sudan, the genocide continues. More than
400,000 lives have been lost, and yet the President has done little
to provide protection to the people of Darfur. “A Day for Darfur”
will bring hundreds of people together to express their outrage and
to demand that the President take every step necessary to ensure an
immediate multinational intervention to support the African Union
and provide security to the people of Darfur.
This powerful event will feature musical performances, dramatic
visuals, and remarks from leadership figures and celebrities, who
will lead a call to conscience and urge immediate action from the
Bush Administration to stop the genocide in Darfur. The event will
close with a coordinated calling campaign at 1pm, where participants
in the park will pull out their cell phones, and thousands across
the country will pick up their own phones to call President Bush and
pressure him to take immediate steps to stop the genocide.
This event accompanies a nationwide grassroots petition effort, which
has gathered tens of thousands of signatures in recent weeks, and
which also calls on the White House to support an urgent multinational
intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur.
This major event is the latest of more than 1,000 actions on Darfur
held around the U.S. in the past 6 months alone. “A Day for Darfur”
will kick off a period of renewed activism by people of conscience
across the country, who will increase their pressure on President
Bush in the coming weeks to take action to stop the genocide in Darfur.
“A Day for Darfur” is organized by a diverse coalition of advocacy
groups.
EVENT SPONSORS AND ENDORSERS: Africa Action, American Jewish World
Service, Armenian National Committee of America, Darfur Rehabilitation
Project, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Faithful America,
Greater Washington Jewish Task Force on Darfur, Human Rights First,
NAACP, National Council of Churches, Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism, Save Darfur Coalition, Sojourners, STAND, Sudan Peace
Advocates Network, TransAfrica Forum, and the United Methodist Church.

EU DEBATES PROS AND CONS OF TURKEY’S MEMBERSHIP
By Gareth Harding
World Peace Herald
Sept 1 2005
BRUSSELS — 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
in 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.

U.K. BACKS AZERBAIJAN LINE ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH – MINISTRY
Interfax
Sept 1 2005
BAKU. Sept 1 (Interfax) – Britain backs Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev’s line on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Azerbaijani Defense
Ministry cited British Ambassador to Azerbaijan Laurie Bristow as
saying at a meeting on Thursday with Azerbaijani Defense Minister
Safar Abiyev.
Bristow also said at the meeting, held in Baku, that Azerbaijan was
working successfully to settle the conflict, according to a ministry
release.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ROBBEN DOUBTFUL FOR ARMENIA QUALIFIER
Supersport, South Africa
Sept 1 2005
Chelsea winger Arjen Robben is doubtful for the Netherlands’ World
Cup qualifier against Armenia on Saturday with an ankle problem.
The Dutch are already without striker Roy Makaay, who left their
training camp in Noordwijk earlier on Thursday because of a knee
injury.
Maakay will return to his club, Bayern Munich, for treatment and is
due to contact the Dutch team’s technical and medical staff on Sunday
to decide whether he will play against Andorra next week.
Robben will have a fitness test on Friday on the ankle injury he
sustained in a Premier League game against West Bromwich Albion
last week.
“Arjen trained separately today but he did well and proved fit in
controlled training without any ball contact,” coach Marco van Basten
told a news conference.
“Tomorrow after the group training we will take a decision about the
coming match but we have some good alternatives.”
Arsenal winger Robin van Persie could replace Robben on the left
flank for his first start.
Defenders Tim de Cler and John Heitinga and midfielder Nigel de Jong
were dropped by Van Basten, who reduced his squad from 23 to 19 men.
“We made this choice because the other players are better and also
because we want two substitutes, one right and one left footed,
for every line,” the coach said.
The unbeaten Dutch are top European Group One a point ahead of the
Czech Republic. They play Armenia away on Saturday and then host
Andorra four days later in Eindhoven.
Squad:
Goalkeepers: Edwin van der Sar (Manchester United), Henk Timmer
(AZ Alkmaar)
Defenders: Giovanni van Bronckhorst (Barcelona), Jan Kromkamp
(Villareal), Barry Opdam (AZ Alkmaar), Khalid Boulahrouz (HSV Hamburg),
Wilfred Bouma (PSV Eindhoven), Theo Lucius (PSV Eindhoven)
Midfielders: Hedwiges Maduro (Ajax Amsterdam), Wesley Sneijder
(Ajax Amsterdam), Denny Landzaat (AZ Alkmaar), Rafael van der Vaart
(Hamburg SV), Phillip Cocu (PSV Eindhoven)
Forwards: Ryan Babel (Ajax Amsterdam), Robin van Persie (Arsenal),
Arjen Robben (Chelsea), Dirk Kuyt (Feyenoord), Ruud van Nistelrooy
(Manchester United), Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink (PSV Eindhoven)

MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN, SAYS REFUGEE IN ARMENIA
By Rosa Minasyan UNHCR Armenia
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Reuters AlertNet, UK
Sept 1 2005
YEREVAN, Armenia (UNHCR) – Destiny has come full circle and brought
Sergey Danielyan back to his origins, to his ancestors’ land where
his life started.
Danielyan was born in 1936 in eastern Armenia. As a young man, he
joined his brother in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, where he worked as
a driver and started a family.
In 1989 and 1990, tensions between the two countries over the disputed
region of Nagorno-Karabakh erupted into massacres of Armenians in
Azerbaijan’s Sumgait and Baku. As ethnic Armenians, Danielyan and
his family had to flee. But he wanted to go to Armenia while his
wife decided to join her family in Brest, Belarus, taking their two
daughters with her.
“I did not go with my family as I wanted to come back to my
motherland,” Danielyan explains. So he went alone to Armenia, where
he was recognised as a refugee. In the beginning, he received some
humanitarian assistance from the UN refugee agency, like food, clothing
and other basic supplies. The Armenian Department for Migration and
Refugees gave him shelter until he moved to his grandfather’s old
house in Shinuayr village, not far from Goris city in eastern Armenia.
Situated at the bottom of a gorge, the isolated village is accessible
only on foot or donkey through a narrow road. It is completely cut
off from the outside world once the rains start. Villagers gather in
their garden during harvest time, but Danielyan is the only person
who lives there permanently.
“I’ve done all the repair works myself,” he says proudly to a visiting
UNHCR team. “I planted new trees in the old garden. In addition I
cultivate saplings, which I give for free to other villagers. Everybody
likes and respects me. I don’t even want to keep a dog, so that people
can freely come to my place.”
Sergey Danielyan near his home in the remote Shinuayr village
in eastern Armenia. © UNHCR/R.Minasyan
At 69, Danielyan is cheerful and agile. He can easily climb trees,
and walk to the upper village and look after his brother’s garden.
The earth there is stony and he has to carry the soil in a bucket.
But he says it is not hard for him to do all this work alone. He is
already used to it and feels satisfied with his way of life.
Although he lives alone – his daughters are working as a teacher in
Belarus and a lawyer in the United States – he seems happy living
with nature. Everything he needs is grown in the garden and he gives
corn and cherries freely to everybody. “Let them take!” he booms,
gesturing around the garden.
All passers-by stop and greet him or talk for a few minutes out of
respect. Once a month, his relatives living in the upper village send
him lavash (flat bread). His neighbours also bring him fresh milk and
yogurt. “In principle, I don’t need much, I eat very little. Fresh
air and nature are quite enough for me,” says Danielyan.
There’s an Armenian saying that people living in harmony with nature
become wise men. Danielyan is a living example of this. Despite his
remote location, he is fully informed on current affairs around the
world. He rattles off facts on the number of Russians living below
the poverty level, on Russia’s military pullout from Georgia, on the
Baku-Jeyhan oil pipe line, and on relations between the government
and opposition in Armenia.
“I don’t need TV,” he says. “It will not show anything here because
of the weak signal. Instead I have a radio, which helps me to be
aware of the situation in and outside the country.”
Danielyan himself is a custodian of history – his garden is filled with
ancient cross stones and pagan monuments. The most eye-catching item
is a 3-metre-high cross stone with text engraved in ancient Armenian.
“When I was born, this cross stone was already here,” he says.
“People say that this cross stone was put up by [18th century Armenian
national hero] David Bek. The specialists came from Yerevan and said
that they were going to take it away to the museum. But its place is
here and it should stay wherever our ancestors put it. That’s why I
cemented its base.”
The village authorities call Danielyan “director of the open air
museum”. They even promised to pay him a salary, which he received
just twice. Still, he continues to maintain these monuments without
expecting any assistance or words of thanks.
“I am a person with a sincere heart and the doors of my house are
always open to everybody,” he says of his life credo.
Ethnic Armenians from Azerbaijan like Danielyan form the biggest
group of refugees in Armenia today, numbering more than 230,000.
UNHCR opened its office in Armenia in 1992 to help the government
meet the needs of more than 360,000 ethnic Armenian refugees from
Azerbaijan who fled because of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
The refugee agency and its partners have worked to provide humanitarian
assistance for refugees, and permanent shelter for those living in
temporary dwellings.
In recent years, UNHCR has focused on local integration, actively
participating in the development of the refugee law in Armenia, and
advising on how to facilitate the naturalisation of refugees. This
means that refugees from Azerbaijan can simply apply for citizenship
at the Armenian Social Protection Unit of the Department of Migration
and Refugees, instead of having to live permanently in Armenia for
several years in order to qualify for citizenship.
Some 62,660 ethnic Armenians from Azerbaijan have so far been
naturalised in Armenia. Those who remain refugees live among the local
population and have been included in the National Poverty Reduction
Strategy paper along with other vulnerable Armenians.
This year, the Armenian government has allocated funds to solve some
of the refugees’ accommodation problems by providing housing purchase
certificates in all regions of the country except Kotayk and Yerevan.
UNHCR continues to provide legal assistance to those refugees in
need of protection, and produces bulletins and TV programmes to raise
public awareness on refugee issues in the country.
–Boundary_(ID_tOImhTBTWgsItMzt080CHA)–

The Soviet Nation
MOST RUSSIANS, ARMENIANS AND UZBEKS ARE SURE OF THEIR ANCIENT ORIGINS AND UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS. BUT THE PAST THEY SHARE IS JUST AS MUCH A PART OF WHO THEY ARE TODAY.
By Ronald Grigor Suny
Moscow Times
Sept 2 2005
In the West, at least before the Gorbachev years, the Soviet Union
was almost always referred to as Russia. Sports stars or politicians,
like Igor Ter-Ovanesyan or Anastas Mikoyan, were invariably called
Russians, as if in a self-conscious effort to either deny the
country’s multinational character or to push the point that Soviet
policies and practices were aimed at Russification and homogenization
of the whole Soviet people. The dominant view of scholars for most
of the Cold War was that Lenin’s nationalities policy of “national
self-determination” for all peoples was disingenuous, dedicated in
reality to the aggrandizement of the central state’s power.
It was only in the 1980s, as non-Russians in the South Caucasus and
Baltic region began agitating for autonomy and independence, that a
few historians and political scientists began to reconsider Bolshevik
attempts to foster ethno-national cultures, promote leaders from
non-Russian nationalities and organize the first state composed of
national territorial units. With the disintegration of the Union and
the formation of 15 independent nation-states just a few years later,
a small army of younger scholars — Yuri Slezkine, Jeremy Smith,
Terry Martin and Francine Hirsch among them — took up the study of
how the Soviet Union was formed.
Now an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin,
Francine Hirsch takes us deep into the politics and processes of the
nascent federation with “Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge
and the Making of the Soviet Union.” For most Marxists, nation
and nationalism were impediments to the building of a classless,
socialist society. But Lenin, almost alone of the leading Bolsheviks,
believed that small-nation nationalism could aid in the struggle
against Western imperialism. Russia could prove to oppressed peoples
everywhere that a large socialist state was an ally, not a threat,
to their cultural and political development. Lenin’s policy granted
territory, education and limited political rights to non-Russians but
stopped short of real sovereignty or complete freedom of expression.
As Hirsch shows, the state’s efforts led to a “double assimilation”:
the coalescing of unstructured populations into nationalities and the
further assimilation of these nationalities into a Sovietized society.
Referring to the Soviet Union as an “empire of nations,” Hirsch
demonstrates through prodigious research how ethnographers from
the former tsarist regime collaborated with the Leninists to shape
the new state. Hers is the tale of a modernizing, self-styled
scientific state that imposed categories, names and programs on
ethnic populations with relatively little say in their own fate. The
whole enterprise is reminiscent — indeed, parallels — what European
imperialists, like the British in India, did to their conquered and
colonized subjects. Yet Hirsch is careful not to subscribe to the
older view that Lenin was driven by power alone. Rather, she sees
the building of the Soviet multinational state as the product of a
joint intelligentsia project, at times enthusiastically backed by
ethnographers and others, to liberate a benighted population and
propel them along the evolutionary path toward modernity. Sometimes
the consideration for ethnicity gave way to other more compelling
interests, like economics or defense, but the Soviet state never
abandoned its official commitment to nation-making.
Cornell University Press
The Soviets, like the Nazis, engaged in race science with studies
such as this one, from 1927, of Mordvin and Russian men. But unlike
the Nazis, the Soviets believed that race was a product of history,
and therefore still open to change.
Hirsch is particularly good on how Soviet “race science” differed
from that of the Nazis. Whereas the Hitlerites saw biological race
as immutable and a fundamental determinant of a people’s abilities,
Soviet ethnographers saw “race” as a product of history, therefore
changing and developing. All peoples, in their view, were capable of
progressing through time. They advanced most rapidly in a socialist
society, and there they would eventually form a multicultural community
— the Soviet people.
“Empire of Nations” is an exceptionally rich book and a significant
addition to the growing literature on the construction of the Soviet
state. Beautifully written and clearly presented even when the story
hovers on complicated administrative matters, Hirsch’s account of
the Soviet Union as a “work in progress” that neither began with a
blueprint nor achieved completion reaffirms the now widely accepted
view of nation-formation as a process of human intervention and
invention. Nations, scholars generally agree, are not “primordial”
collectives that have always existed and only await their moment of
awakening and freedom. Rather, they are the product of a conscious
effort to piece together elements of shared language or culture in
defense of the right to political freedom. This “constructivist”
view that nations are made in modern times is illuminated by the
Soviet experience, where the socialist state played a particularly
forceful role in delineating and consolidating nations within its
fold. The great irony of Soviet history is that it was the regime’s
very success in creating and fostering nations that led eventually
to disintegration once the central government began loosening its
hold over the empire’s peripheries.
Every scholar aspires to making an original contribution to her or his
field, and Hirsch can take pride in adding enormously to our knowledge
of the cultural technologies of Soviet rule. And the fact that she is
in an active company of colleagues toiling nearby in the histories of
the non-Russians in no way diminishes her work. Regrettably, she does
not adequately acknowledge those fellow toilers and instead repeatedly
emphasizes how she disagrees with their views. Indeed, Hirsch is one
of the most “disagreeing” scholars one is likely to read, footnoting
over and over again her differences with the other major players.
There is nothing wrong with vigorous scholarly debate, but Hirsch’s
disagreements are not very substantive. To take just two examples,
she disagrees with Harvard historian Terry Martin’s notion of an
“affirmative action empire,” the idea that the Soviet state promoted
the fortunes of non-Russians particularly in the 1920s, although
his analysis jibes perfectly with her own. She also takes Martin
to task for arguing that in the 1930s the Soviet Union shifted
from a “constructivist” to a “primordialist” approach to defining
nationality. But she then goes on to elaborate how the secret police
in the late 1930s required that nationality on internal passports be
based not on an individual’s “choice,” as before, but on his or her
parents’ ethnicity. This greater emphasis on descent, it would appear,
reflects the move under Stalin from subjective national identification
to a more primordial, almost racial idea of nationality.
Thinking of nations as primordial is still common among post-Soviet
peoples. Most citizens of present-day Russia, Armenia or Uzbekistan
are certain that they are distinct and different from their
neighbors precisely because of their ancient origins and unique
cultural characteristics. But this is only one of the legacies of
the long Soviet experiment. Besides inclusion in and allegiance to
a particular nation, post-Soviet peoples share the mentalities and
habits of another unique cultural formation: the culture that can
only be described as Soviet. It might be that you can take peoples
out of the Soviet Union, but you may not, at least for a long time,
take the Soviet out of the people.
Ronald Grigor Suny is a professor of political science and history at
the University of Chicago and the author of “The Soviet Experiment:
Russia, the U.S.S.R. and the Successor States.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DIE TURKEI UND IHR STOLZ
von Orhan Pamuk
Die Welt, Deutschland
1 sept. 2005
Als Befurworter des turkischen EU-Beitritts kommt man sich manchmal vor
wie ein Hundebesitzer, der um die Qualitaten seines Tieres weiß und
angstliche Passanten trotzdem immer wieder vor dem Klaffer beruhigen
muß: “Der will nur spielen.”
Vor zwei Monaten erst meinte der turkischstammige deutsche Autor
Feridun Zaimoglu zu den Anfeindungen, denen sich der Schriftsteller
Orhan Pamuk in seinem Land ausgesetzt sieht: “Man muß den Turken Zeit
lassen”, in wenigen Jahren sei “ungeheuer viel in Bewegung” gekommen,
“man sollte einiger durchgeknallter Kreispolitiker wegen die Turkei
nicht an den Pranger stellen.” Er hat recht.
Jener Staatsanwalt, der jetzt Klage gegen Pamuk wegen “Herabsetzung
des Turkentums” eingereicht hat, ist nicht viel mehr als ein
nationalistischer Beitrittsgegner, dem ein bewundernswerter Mediencoup
gelungen ist. “Verunglimpfungsparagraphen” hat jeder Staat (in
Deutschland ist es § 90 des Strafgesetzbuches), ein hoherer Richter
hatte die Klage zuvor abgelehnt, zur Verhandlung wird es auch jetzt
kaum kommen, selbst Pamuk gibt sich gelassen. Und doch: In der Turkei
ist es also moglich, angeklagt zu werden, weil man sagt: “Man hat hier
30 000 Kurden umgebracht. Und eine Million Armenier.” Pamuk ist alles
andere als ein Radikaler, das Wort “Genozid” nimmt er wohlweislich
nicht in den Mund. Er hat nur eine Zahl genannt.
Aber an dieser Zahl hangt ein Jahrzehnte altes, muhsam aufrecht
erhaltenes Konstrukt. Ataturk trennte sein Land mit einem radikalen
Schnitt von der osmanischen Vergangenheit und der islamischen Welt,
indem er den Turken einen Nationalstolz aufoktroyierte, der auf den
festen Glauben an ein einziges, einiges und unfehlbares turkisches
Volk baut. Und so wird das turkische Geschichtsbewußtsein bis heute
nicht vom Verstand gelenkt, sondern von Emotionen, und eine kritische
Geschichtsschreibung steckt noch in den Kinderschuhen. Das ist
eine Erklarung, keine Entschuldigung. Die Turkei bewegt sich zwar,
und einzelne Krafte auf dem Niveau “durchgeknallter Kreispolitiker”
sollten den Marsch gen Westen nicht aufhalten konnen. Aber klingt
dieser Appell nicht langsam wie ein Hundebesitzer, der Passanten
ermutigt, seinen Liebling doch erst einmal besser kennenzulernen?
Nein, erst muß der Koter aufhoren zu klaffen.
–Boundary_(ID_hUuVIjmmDNyngVK0xM3b8Q)–

ISTANBULS STAATSANWALT KLAGT ORHAN PAMUK AN
Von Hubert Spiegel
Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung
1 sept. 2005
31. August 2005 Orhan Pamuk hat keinen Hehl daraus gemacht, daß
seine personliche Lage in der turkischen Heimat in den letzten Jahren
zunehmend schwierig wurde.
Die Hetze nationalistischer Kreise gegen den international bekanntesten
Schriftsteller der Turkei nahm dabei zum Teil beangstigende Formen
an. Pamuk, der in diesem Jahr den Friedenspreis des Deutschen
Buchhandels erhalt, hat dies nur angedeutet, als er im Gesprach mit
dieser Zeitung vor wenigen Wochen sagte: ~DZu oft – und jedes Mal
mit mehr Nachdruck – wurde mir nun schon gesagt, ich solle auf meine
Worte achtgeben, auf meine Bucher, meine Kommentare, meine Interviews,
auf jede Äußerung, die ich Journalisten oder Auslandern gegenuber
fallenlasse” (Orhan Pamuk im Interview). Jetzt ist der Druck auf den
Friedenspreistrager noch einmal massiv erhoht worden: Die turkische
Staatsanwaltschaft hat ein Verfahren gegen den Dichter eroffnet,
das Pamuk mit einer Haftstrafe von bis zu drei Jahren bedroht.
Dafur hassen Sie mich
Der Staatsanwalt des Istanbuler Bezirks Sisli beruft sich dabei auf
Artikel 301/1 des turkischen Strafgesetzbuches, der die Herabsetzung
oder Beschadigung der ~Dturkischen Identitat” und des ~DTurkentums”
als Straftat definiert und Freiheitsstrafen zwischen sechs Monaten
und drei Jahren dafur vorsieht. Pamuk werden Äußerungen aus einem
Interview zur Last gelegt, das im Februar dieses Jahres im Magazin
des Schweizer ~DTages-Anzeigers” erschienen ist. Damals hatte Pamuk
kritisiert, daß die Massaker an den Armeniern in der Turkei noch immer
tabuisiert sind: ~DMan hat hier dreißigtausend Kurden und eine Million
Armenier umgebracht. Und fast niemand traut sich, das zu erwahnen. Also
mache ich es. Und dafur hassen sie mich.”
Wie der Generalstaatsanwalt aus der bloßen Erwahnung historisch
weitgehend verburgter Opferzahlen ein Verbrechen wider das Turkentum
konstruieren will, bleibt vorerst sein Geheimnis. Ebenso ratselhaft
bleibt, warum ein Land, das seine Aufnahme in die Europaische
Union energisch betreibt, einen seiner prominentesten kulturellen
Botschafter mit Freiheitsentzug bedroht, weil er sagt, was in jedem
Geschichtsbuch außerhalb der Turkei nachzulesen ist. Orhan Pamuk
befurwortet den EU-Beitritt seines Heimatlandes. Nun muß ihn neben
der personlichen Bedrohung besonders schmerzen, daß ausgerechnet sein
Fall die Hoffnungen der Turkei erheblich schmalern konnte. Denn wer in
Europa wird sich noch fur die Aufnahme eines Landes aussprechen, das
seine bedeutendsten Dichter verfolgt, weil sie historische Wahrheiten
aussprechen? Wie immer der Prozeß ausgeht, er hat schon jetzt mehr
daruber verraten, welches Verstandnis der ~Dturkischen Identitat”
von Teilen der Justiz des Landes gepflegt wird, als dem turkischen
Volk lieb sein kann.
Ein typischer Gummiparagraph
Der Artikel 301/1 ist ein typischer Gummiparagraph, denn weder die
~Dturkische Identitat” noch der Akt ihrer Herabsetzung sind darin
naher definiert. So ist beides vollkommen ins Ermessen der Justiz
gestellt und sind der Willkur Tur und Tor geoffnet. In jungster
Zeit soll der Paragraph Intellektuellen gegenuber bereits mehrfach
aus der Mottenkiste der Repression gezogen worden sein, ohne daß es
aber zu Verfahren gekommen ware. Deshalb schien ein Prozeß gegen
Pamuk zunachst wenig wahrscheinlich, als die deutsche Ausgabe der
weitverbreiteten turkischen Zeitung ~DHurriyet” vor einigen Monaten
meldete, daß die Staatsanwaltschaft in Istanbul die Moglichkeit eines
Verfahrens gegen den Schriftsteller prufe. ~DHurriyet” gehort zu den
turkischen Zeitungen, die Pamuk als ~DHund” oder ~Delende Kreatur”
zu bezeichnen pflegen.
Entscheidend fur die Einschatzung des Vorgangs durfte jedoch nicht
zuletzt die Frage sein, wie die treibenden Krafte hinter dem Verfahren
beschaffen sind. Als vor einigen Monaten ein Landrat in der turkischen
Provinz die in funfunddreißig Sprachen ubersetzten Bucher Pamuks
aus den offentlichen Bibliotheken seines Machtbereiches verbannen
und vernichten lassen wollte, wurde der Vorfall hierzulande eher als
Kuriosum verbucht. Denn zum einen riefen ubergeordnete Instanzen den
Mann zur Ordnung, zum anderen stellte sich heraus, daß in den Regalen
der betroffenen Bibliotheken ohnehin kein einziges Werk Pamuks zu
finden war. Aber auch diese Farce hatte einen ernsten Kern, zeigte
sie doch, wie blindwutig jene vorgehen, die allein ihr Ressentiment
zum Handeln treibt.
Unklare Motivlage
Noch laßt sich nicht erkennen, welche Motivlage diesmal das
absurde Vorgehen gegen Orhan Pamuk steuert. Handelt hier ein
Bezirksstaatsanwalt auf eigene Faust oder auf Anweisung? Duldet oder
unterstutzt der Justizapparat dieses Vorgehen? Man darf gespannt
sein, ob und wie die turkische Regierung das Verfahren gegen den
Friedenspreistrager des Deutschen Buchhandels kommentiert. Als der
Deutsche Bundestag im vergangenen Juni die Massaker an den Armeniern
vor neunzig Jahren verurteilte und dabei ausdrucklich die deutsche
Mitschuld betonte, fand der turkische Außenminister erstaunlich
deutliche Worte: Der Bundestag habe ~Dverantwortungslos, besturzend
und verletzend” gehandelt.
Orhan Pamuk selbst hat gegenuber dieser Zeitung erklart, daß er sich
vorerst nicht zu dem Verfahren außern mochte, das am 16. Dezember
in Istanbul gegen ihn eroffnet werden soll. Aber im Gesprach
ist ihm anzumerken, wie sehr ihn dieser Schritt der Istanbuler
Staatsanwaltschaft bedruckt. Es ist ein Schritt in die falsche
Richtung. Denn er fuhrt die Turkei weg von Europa.
–Boundary_(ID_xsMsDlFmAo+F4jDgWQPhzQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SCHRIFTSTELLER SOLL WEGEN KRITIK ZU ARMENIER-FRAGE IN GEFäNGNIS
SwissInfo
1 sept. 2005
ISTANBUL – Der turkische Schriftsteller Orhan Pamuk soll wegen seiner
in der Schweiz veroffentlichten Kritik an der Armenier-Politik
der Turkei ins Gefangnis. Er muss sich ab Dezember auf Antrag der
Staatsanwaltschaft vor Gericht verantworten.
Dies sagte eine Sprecherin von Pamuks turkischem Verlag Iletisim
Yayincilik in der turkischen Metropole. Bei einer Veurteilung drohen
Pamuk sechs Monate bis drei Jahre Gefangnis.
In einem Interview Pamuks im Magazin des “Tages-Anzeiger”, das Ende
Februar erschienen war, hatte Pamuk unter anderem gesagt, in der
Turkei seien 30 000 Kurden und eine Million Armenier ermordet worden.
Niemand ausser ihm wage es, daruber zu sprechen.
Damit habe sich Pamuk nach Meinung der Staatsanwaltschaft im Istanbuler
Stadtteil Sisli der offentlichen Beleidigung des “Turkentums” nach
Paragraf 301 des turkischen Strafgesetzbuches schuldig gemacht,
teilte Pamuks Verlag mit.
Die offizielle Turkei steht auf dem Standpunkt, dass bei Massakern
und Todesmarschen in Anatolien im Ersten Weltkrieg zwar mehrere
hunderttausend Armenier ums Leben kamen, dies aber nicht das Ergebnis
eines gezielten Volkermordes gewesen sei. Vielmehr habe es sich um
eine kriegsbedingte Tragodie gehandelt.
Wegen der Armenier-Frage ist es in der Vergangenheit verschiedentlich
zu Spannungen zwischen der Schweiz und der Turkei gekommen.
So laufen momentan zwei Verfahren gegen den Politiker Dogu Perincek
und den Historiker Yusuf Halacoglu wegen Genozid-Leugnung. Zudem
wurde in der Folge ein fur September geplanter Besuch von Bundesrat
Joseph Deiss in der Turkei von der Regierung in Ankara kurzfristig
verschoben, wie es offiziell hiess.
–Boundary_(ID_zoDvZb88K9eRP9ggbrK2WQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress