Mechonneurs de tous les pays

La Nouvelle République du Centre Ouest
11 décembre 2004

Mchonneurs

Mchonneurs de tous les pays

Deux Arméniens, nés en Azerbaidjan et s’exprimant en russe,
comparaissaient, mardi, accompagnés d’un interprète russophone,
devant le tribunal correctionnel pour une banale affaire de
filouterie de carburant. Leurs avocates demandaient l’une et l’autre
l’annulation de la procédure, les deux prévenus n’ayant pas bénéficié
de l’assistance d’un interprète lors de leur garde à vue. Le
procureur de la République, M. Alain Durand, est persuadé que les
deux hommes, qui vivent en France depuis trente mois, feignent de
méconnaître le français. Il leur tend donc un piège diabolique : «
Crachez donc ce chewing-gum », lance-t-il en se frappant les lèvres
du doigt à l’un des deux prévenus qui mchonne effectivement depuis
qu’il est arrivé à la barre. L’homme s’exécute immédiatement. « Ah,
ah, vous voyez, ils comprennent parfaitement le français ! »,
triomphe le magistrat. « C’est que, s’interpose timidement
l’interprète, chewing-gum en russe, ça se dit aussi chewing-gum ! »
Caramba, encore raté !

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UE: Bruxelles face aux pretentions d’Ankara

Le Figaro, France
11 décembre 2004

Non à un élargissement excessif !;
UNION EUROPÉENNE Bruxelles face aux prétentions d’Ankara

Par RUDOLF SCHARPING *

Il ne fait aucun doute qu’en l’état actuel des choses, la Turquie
n’est pas en mesure de devenir membre de l’UE. Si ce pays a accompli
des progrès tout à fait étonnants en un laps de temps des plus court,
il demeure toutefois fort éloigné encore de l’objectif : la société
civile est loin d’être stable ; la Turquie n’assume pas son histoire
dans son intégralité, je pense notamment au génocide arménien. Les
droits de la femme ne sont pas garantis. Les ressortissants turcs
continuent de former le groupe le plus important de réfugiés
politiques en Allemagne. Il faudra attendre plusieurs années et
quelques conflits pour voir si le contrôle du civil sur le militaire
ou l’interdiction de la torture constituent les piliers réels et
durablement acceptés d’une démocratie fondée sur un État de droit
véritable. Pour toutes ces raisons, on ne saurait répéter
l’expérience des années précédentes : l’entame de négociations ne
peut déboucher de manière quasi automatique sur une adhésion.
Pourtant, nombre d’enthousiastes plaident pour l’intégration de la
Turquie. À l’exception du cas de l’Allemagne, ils comptent aussi,
dans leurs pays ou leurs partis respectifs, au rang des sceptiques
résolus lorsqu’il est question d’approfondir l’intégration
européenne. C’est là un fait qu’il nous faut considérer avec
attention. Car, à l’avenir, tout élargissement de l’UE constituera un
«test double», portant sur la capacité d’intégration du pays en
question et sur la capacité d’élargissement de l’Union européenne.

En effet, une Europe dont le corps devient toujours plus massif, mais
dont la musculature politique reste faible, ne sert pas plus les
intérêts de ses citoyens qu’elle ne répond à sa responsabilité au
plan mondial. Nous sommes nombreux à le percevoir, instinctivement.
D’où l’émergence du scepticisme et du refus, y compris en Allemagne.
Et tandis que les uns prônent l’apaisement, arguant que cela n’est
pas pour demain et ne se passera pas comme le craignent les citoyens
et qu’ils ont bien les choses en main, d’autres brandissent d’un ton
hésitant l’idée d’un «partenariat privilégié», sans investir ce
concept d’une signification tangible. Ces attitudes ne sont pas de
nature à aller à la rencontre des citoyens ou à leur donner confiance
dans les capacités de leurs dirigeants. En dépit du grand progrès que
constitue le traité constitutionnel, le corpus institutionnel ne
répond ni à l’exigence de transparence démocratique et d’attribution
claire des compétences, ni à celle d’une action menée avec précaution
et efficacité. Il suffit pour s’en convaincre de considérer le nombre
de députés européens, la taille et la composition de la Commission ou
la pondération des voix au sein du Conseil européen, notamment après
les adhésions à venir. Non, il est de l’intérêt de l’Europe dans son
ensemble que l’UE des Vingt-Cinq s’engage désormais dans une longue
phase de consolidation interne, notamment après l’intégration de la
Bulgarie, de la Roumanie et, probablement, de la Croatie. La
consolidation doit donc être un préalable absolu à tout nouvel
élargissement. Chaque nouveau membre renforce l’obligation de
réformer la politique structurelle et, surtout, la politique
agricole. Cette obligation s’imposerait, ne serait-ce que pour
honorer nos idéaux d’un meilleur développement des parties
désespérément pauvres de notre village global. On peut également
envisager la question des frontières. Toute extension de celles-ci
présuppose volonté et courage, mais, aussi et surtout, d’arrêter des
critères clairs : qui entend intégrer la Turquie tout en barrant la
route de l’UE aux pays des Balkans, à l’Ukraine, ou à d’autres États
? Et qu’est-ce qui différencie, sur le plan sécuritaire, économique,
culturel, historique ou linguistique, l’Anatolie orientale de Tunis,
Rabat ou Casablanca ? Sans parler même d’Israël. Autant de questions
en suspens qui soulignent une lacune lourde de conséquences : il n’y
a pas de politique étrangère commune, même si l’on note, sur des
questions tout à fait importantes, et je ne veux pas sous-estimer ce
fait, des efforts en vue d’une action commune. Toutefois, ces efforts
concernent les «Grands» de l’Union – et non l’Union dans son
ensemble, qui propose, quant à elle, le concept de «wider Europe» ou
une politique de voisinage, laquelle peut permettre de jeter un pont
vers l’Europe, mais ne suffira pas à plus long terme. Faute d’une
politique étrangère et de sécurité commune, faute de conceptions
communes de nos intérêts et de notre responsabilité dans le monde,
tout élargissement fera de l’Europe un marché doté d’une certaine
dose de protection commune des frontières extérieures et de la
sécurité intérieure, ou doté d’un espace juridique commun. C’est déjà
beaucoup. Mais cela ne répond pas à la responsabilité mondiale de
l’Europe. Devenir un partenaire à part entière des Etats-Unis et
demeurer leur ami fiable, pouvoir regarder dans les yeux les
puissances émergentes que sont la Chine, l’Inde, ou encore à nouveau
la Russie, et ancrer de manière irréversible l’idée européenne dans
le coeur et l’esprit des citoyens européens exige des hommes d’État
des accomplissements réellement nouveaux. Dans le cas contraire, tout
nouvel élargissement accroîtra les problèmes de l’Union. C’est
probablement pour cette raison que le président Chirac a plaidé,
devant le Bundestag allemand, pour que chacun puisse avancer à des
vitesses différentes et pour une intégration «différenciée». Quant au
ministre fédéral des Affaires étrangères, il a tenu sa célèbre
allocution à l’université Humboldt à titre privé. C’est pourquoi le
ministre n’entend pas s’en souvenir (ou qu’on la lui rappelle). Les
élargissements devraient-ils «forcer» le noyau dur de l’Europe ? Il
m’apparaît préférable de disposer d’une stratégie claire et de
travailler proprement. Tout autre évolution contribuera à accroître
plus encore la distance entre l’Europe et ses citoyens et à
dépouiller cette oeuvre pacifique extraordinaire de son lustre, de sa
force et de son avenir. * Ancien président de parti et président du
groupe parlementaire du SPD, Rudolf Scharping a occupé, jusqu’en
2002, les fonctions de ministre fédéral de la Défense au sein du
gouvernement Schröder.

L’urgence d’une politique kurde de l’Europe

Le Figaro, France
11 décembre 2004

L’urgence d’une politique kurde de l’Europe;
Le régime turc et le traitement des minorités en question

PAR KENDAL NEZAN *

Dans son plaidoyer pour «le retour à la raison» publié dans Le Figaro
(1), le président Valéry Giscard d’Estaing examine tous les arguments
relatifs au débat sur la question turque, sauf un, qui pour être
embarrassant n’en est pas moins incontournable : l’engagement
solennel et unanime des quinze chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement des
pays de l’UE, réuni en décembre 1999 à Helsinki, d’accorder à la
Turquie le statut d’un pays candidat à part entière et dont la
candidature doit être examinée à la seule aune des critères de
Copenhague. Cette décision est, bien entendu, postérieure à l’accord
d’union douanière conclu en 1995 avec Ankara, que l’ancien président
français semble considérer comme solde de tout compte des promesses
faites aux Turcs depuis 1963. Elle fut cosignée par le président
Chirac qui a, depuis, à maintes reprises, souligné «la vocation
européenne de la Turquie». Les données concernant la géographie,
l’histoire, la culture, la religion, le poids démographique de la
Turquie, étaient connues de tous, notamment des princes qui nous
gouvernent, et elles n’ont pas changé depuis. Les Turcs étaient
appelés à entreprendre des réformes économiques et politiques de fond
pour rendre leur économie, leur législation et leurs institutions
compatibles avec les normes européennes. La Commission a, dès lors,
engagé un processus de préadhésion et débloqué des sommes
conséquentes pour favoriser les réformes turques. Les résultats, sans
être aussi «révolutionnaires» que voudraient nous le faire croire les
avocats d’Ankara, constituent, dans le contexte turc, des avancées
véritables : suppression de la peine de mort et des cours de sûreté
de l’Etat qui les dispensaient régulièrement ; démilitarisation
relative des institutions ; libération de nombreux prisonniers
d’opinion, dont Leyla Zana et ses collègues ex-députés kurdes ;
amendement de la Constitution imposée par les militaires en 1982 ;
introduction d’un nouveau Code pénal en remplacement de celui
emprunté dans les années 20 à l’Italie de Mussolini ; réduction de la
torture, qui n’est plus systématique.

Cependant, les progrès restent beaucoup moins tangibles sur la
question des minorités. La Turquie qui ne respecte pas ses
obligations découlant du traité de Lausanne de 1923, qui est pourtant
à la base de sa reconnaissance en droit international, fait preuve
d’un manque de volonté politique manifeste dans ce domaine. Après des
années de tergiversations, elle a fini par accepter de tolérer
l’ouverture de six cours privés de langue kurde et diffuse, depuis
juin dernier, une émission hebdomadaire de 30 minutes en langue
kurde. Voilà pour ce qui est des droits culturels reconnus aux Kurdes
qui, selon l’estimation du récent rapport de la Commission, sont
entre 15 et 20 millions en Turquie. Comme le constate ce même
rapport, Ankara n’a aucun projet, ni pour la reconstruction des 3 428
villages kurdes détruits dans les années 90 par l’armée turque, ni
pour favoriser le retour sur leur terre des quelque 3 millions de
déplacés kurdes. Sa politique traditionnelle de dispersion et
d’assimilation forcée des Kurdes reste donc inchangée. Une telle
politique ne peut qu’alimenter des conflits et tensions entre Kurdes
et Turcs en Turquie, et, au-delà, entre celle-ci et les communautés
kurdes des pays voisins, notamment d’Irak où s’affirme un Etat kurde
autonome. Si l’Europe veut intégrer à terme la Turquie, elle doit,
sous peine d’importer les conflits de celle-ci avec ses minorités et
avec ses voisins, exiger le règlement préalable de la question kurde.
Mieux encore, elle doit élaborer elle-même une politique kurde afin
d’espérer jouer un rôle dans cette région hautement stratégique du
monde, située dans sa périphérie immédiate. L’absence d’une telle
politique est d’autant plus incompréhensible que les Kurdes jouent
déjà un rôle central dans la construction d’un Irak nouveau, que la
question kurde est au coeur même de la problématique de la
démocratisation de la Turquie qui frappe à la porte de l’Union, et
que celle-ci abrite plus d’un million d’immigrés kurdes. Ce sont deux
puissances européennes, le Royaume-Uni et la France, qui, au
lendemain de la Grande Guerre, ont dessiné la carte du Proche-Orient
en fonction de leurs intérêts coloniaux, écartelant ainsi
arbitrairement le pays kurde entre quatre Etats de la région, alors
que le président américain Woodrow Wilson préconisait la création
d’un Kurdistan indépendant et que le traité international de Sèvres,
avait, en 1920, reconnu le droit des Kurdes à disposer de leur propre
Etat. Pour réparer l’injustice historique faite au peuple kurde et
pacifier sa périphérie immédiate, l’Europe doit proposer un statut
pour les quelque 35 millions de Kurdes du Proche-Orient. C’est là une
exigence de justice mais aussi de cohérence politique. En effet, au
nom de quel droit, de quel principe supérieur peut-elle justifier son
action militante en faveur de la création d’un Etat pour 4 millions
de Palestiniens et, dans le même temps, son silence persistant sur le
sort des Kurdes, qui sont dix fois plus nombreux ? Il est temps de
mettre un terme à cette pratique de deux poids, deux mesures. Le
processus de négociations avec Ankara offre à l’Union l’occasion
d’élaborer une politique kurde basée sur un compromis entre
l’aspiration légitime du peuple kurde à maîtriser son destin, à
organiser sa vie et ses institutions sur la terre de ses ancêtres, et
le respect des frontières existantes. Elle peut exiger d’Ankara de
garantir à ses citoyens kurdes un statut et des droits similaires à
ceux qu’il revendique pour les quelque 150 000 Turcs chypriotes. La
France, qui a souvent joué un rôle moteur dans la construction
européenne, pourrait prendre l’initiative dans ce domaine. Le
président Mitterrand avait, en son temps, amorcé un dialogue avec les
leaders kurdes irakiens et certaines personnalités kurdes de Turquie.
Les fils de ce dialogue interrompu devraient être renoués si Paris
veut un jour jouer un rôle en Irak ou influer positivement sur la
question de l’adhésion de la Turquie. Loin de se réfugier dans une
position frileuse de refus, la France devrait se prononcer clairement
en faveur de l’ouverture des négociations avec Ankara en accompagnant
celles-ci d’une feuille de route rigoureuse en matière de
démocratisation, de droits de l’homme, du règlement du problème
kurde, de la reconnaissance du génocide arménien et du retrait des
troupes turques de Chypre. Si la Turquie remplit ces conditions et
devient un pays démocratique, en paix avec ses populations, ses
voisins et son passé, son intégration ne dénaturera probablement pas
davantage le projet européen que celle, longtemps rejetée par la
France, de la Grande-Bretagne. Sinon, les Turcs n’auront qu’à s’en
prendre à eux-mêmes. * Président de l’Institut kurde de Paris. (1)
«Débats et opinions», 25 novembre 2004.

La democratisation en Ukraine aidera la Russie, pense Zourabichvili

Agence France Presse
10 décembre 2004 vendredi 3:57 PM GMT

La démocratisation en Ukraine aidera la Russie, pense Mme
Zourabichvili (INTERVIEW)

MOSCOU 10 déc

La Russie devrait comprendre que la démocratisation en Ukraine lui
sera bénéfique, a estimé vendredi le chef de la diplomatie géorgienne
Salomé Zourabichvili, dans une déclaration à l’AFP.

Pour que le prochain scrutin en Ukraine se déroule “dans le calme et
la stabilité”, il faut “mettre en garde la Russie contre des
tentations d’ingérence et surtout déployer le plus grand nombre
possible d’observateurs”, de manière à garantir sa transparence, a
dit Mme Zourabichvili, interrogée par téléphone à Tbilissi.

“Si l’Ukraine devient un pays démocratique à la frontière de
l’Europe, il n’y aura que des gagnants”, la Russie comprise, a
poursuivi la ministre géorgienne des Affaires étrangères. Car,
a-t-elle expliqué, “avoir à ses frontières des pays stables et
démocratiques est ce qui peut engager (la Russie) dans cette voie”.

Commentant les violentes critiques adressées récemment par Moscou et
notamment par le président Vladimir Poutine à l’Occident, Mme
Zourabichvili a parlé d'”oscillation permanente entre des éléments où
l’on croit reconnaître une possible normalisation de la Russie et des
retours en arrière, voire des régressions”.

“Il faut tout faire pour encourager la Russie dans cette voie qui est
difficile à prendre. C’est une véritable décolonisation à l’intérieur
qui est en train de se produire en Russie. Il faut l’encourager,
l’encadrer, l’aider dans cette voie difficile, mais qui est la seule
solution possible pour que l’évolution de la Russie se fasse de façon
responsable et aussi sûre que possible pour elle et pour ses
voisins”, a encore estimé le ministre géorgien.

Interrogée sur les accusations russes d'”ingérence” occidentale en
Ukraine, Mme Zourabichvili a déclaré qu’il “n’y avait pas eu
d’intervention”.

“Nous ne sommes pas intervenus en faveur d’un candidat ou de l’autre.
Nous sommes intervenus en faveur d’un processus démocratique. Tant
que la Russie considérera que le soutien à la démocratie, que ce soit
dans le Caucase, en Ukraine ou ailleurs, est quelque chose qui se
fait contre elle, elle n’aura pas compris où va le monde”.

Quant aux manifestations de mécontentement de Moscou, la responsable
géorgienne les a qualifiées de “retour aux instincts de l’Union
soviétique”.

“La grande différence, c’est que cela ne fait plus aucun effet. Les
mauvaises humeurs russes, qui autrefois pétrifiaient la communauté
occidentale, sont prises aujourd’hui avec pas mal de philosophie
(…) et ne produisent plus d’effets attendus”.

Interrogée sur la position de Tbilissi face à la situation confuse en
Abkhazie, Mme Zourabichvili a appelé Moscou à “comprendre que les
anciennes républiques soviétiques étaient devenues pays indépendants”
où la Russie “ne peut pas faire de l’ingérence directe”.

Quant au “conflit ferroviaire” opposant Tbilissi à Bakou – qui bloque
des centaines de wagons soupçonnés de transporter via la Géorgie des
chargements à usage militaire à destination de l’Arménie
(formellement en guerre avec l’Azerbaïdjan), le ministre a souligné
que son pays “entretenait d’excellentes relations politiques et
économiques avec chacun des deux pays”.

Tbilissi accepte d’empêcher le transit par son territoire de produits
militaires ou assimilés. Mais “nous nous refusons à exercer la
moindre sanction économique contre l’Arménie”, a déclaré Mme
Zourabichvili, affirmant la “stricte neutralité” de son pays.

“Sinon, on serait entraîné dans une sorte de surenchère, non
seulement néfaste pour nous et pour nos voisins, mais pour la région
toute entière”, a-t-elle conclu.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Gauche ne doit pas laisser Droite monopole “discrimination positive”

Libération , France
10 décembre 2004

Equité à bbord;
La gauche ne doit pas laisser à la droite le monopole de la
“discrimination positive”.

par Michel Wieviorka sociologue.[#]Dernier ouvrage paru: la Violence
(Balland).

Les Etats-Unis ont inventé l’affirmative action dans les années 60
pour pallier les inégalités structurelles dont ptissaient les Noirs.
Puis la notion a fait son chemin, et nourri bien des débats. Avant
même d’examiner ses enjeux les plus actuels, il faut marquer la
formidable ambivalence imputée à cette notion, vite associée, dans
l’opinion, à des options multiculturalistes qui pourtant ne sont pas
nécessairement les siennes. Car l’affirmative action, qui est
toujours une politique sociale, n’est qu’éventuellement aussi une
politique culturelle. Lorsque, par exemple, des Noirs américains se
posent en “African Americans”, désireux de promouvoir une histoire,
une littérature, des modes propres d’expression artistique, et qu’ils
demandent une reconnaissance de leur identité culturelle au sein des
universités, ils plaident pour un multiculturalisme qui ne présente
en lui-même aucune spécificité sociale.

La confusion, il est vrai, est encouragée du fait que, dans certains
cas, une seule et même politique prend en charge le culturel et le
social. Ainsi, les multiculturalismes canadien ou australien des
années 80 attribuaient des droits culturels à des minorités, et
offraient à leurs membres des facilités particulières d’accès à
l’emploi, à la santé, au logement, etc. Aux Etats-Unis, dans
l’ensemble, les deux dimensions, culturelle et sociale, relèvent de
politiques distinctes.

La France a commencé par disqualifier aussi bien le multiculturalisme
– “à l’américaine”, disait-on parfois pour bien marquer ce refus –
que l’affirmative action, baptisée “discrimination positive”, une
expression particulièrement négative. Dans les années 80 et 90, ce
double rejet était prédominant dans le débat intellectuel et
politique, même si notre pays pratiquait l’un et l’autre, mais sur
des enjeux rares et bien délimités. Il est arrivé que satisfaction
soit donnée à des communautés (par exemple arménienne, lorsque la
France a reconnu officiellement le génocide de 1915 ) ; ou que l’on
s’interroge sur la possibilité de reconnaître jusque dans la
Constitution l’existence d’un peuple corse. Mais surtout, quelques
mesures sociales existent, qui relèvent de la “discrimination
positive”, y compris lorsqu’elles sont nées de demandes portées au
départ par des groupes culturellement définis – le pacs résulte de
pressions exercées avant tout par le mouvement des homosexuels, qui
d’ailleurs n’a été unanime ni pour le réclamer, ni pour s’en
satisfaire. Les écoles placées en ZEP (zone d’éducation prioritaire)
reçoivent des moyens supplémentaires pour donner aux élèves de
milieux défavorisés des chances égales d’accéder au savoir ; cette
politique fonctionne sans discontinuité depuis une vingtaine
d’années, tenant la tête hors de l’eau aux équipes enseignantes qui
en bénéficient. Et les politiques de la ville peuvent comporter, avec
par exemple les zones franches, des éléments allant dans le même
sens. Le plus typique de la “discrimination positive” à la française,
quand elle existe, est qu’elle est territorialisée, mise en oeuvre
sur la base de découpages dans l’espace.

Quels arguments s’opposent à son extension ? On lui reproche d’abord
de masquer une politique qui serait en réalité ethnique, donc de
constituer un multiculturalisme non dit – par exemple à propos des
ZEP, accusées alors de ne bénéficier qu’aux jeunes issus de
l’immigration et au-delà, dit-on alors parfois, à l’islam ou aux
“Arabes”. On y voit, de plus, la mise en cause de valeurs
fondamentales. Ce qui aboutit à une étrange convergence des opposants
: les uns, attachés à des versions pures et dures des principes
républicains, rappellent que, dans l’espace public, il ne saurait y
avoir que des individus libres et égaux en droit, ce qui interdit en
théorie toute mesure en faveur de groupes particuliers ; les autres
mettent en avant des idées libérales, selon lesquelles chacun doit
faire ses preuves sans attendre de l’Etat qu’il compense les
inégalités.

Pourtant, les Français acceptent de mieux en mieux le principe de la
“discrimination positive”. Un récent sondage BVA indique qu’ils
seraient plus de 40 % à y être favorables, certainement beaucoup plus
qu’il y a une dizaine d’années. Et il semble que ce soit à droite
plus qu’à gauche qu’on soit disposé à mettre en oeuvre ou à accepter
ce type de politique sociale – une fois clairement dissociée de ses
éventuelles dimensions ethniques, religieuses ou culturelles. Alain
Juppé, Premier ministre, s’était fait en 1995 le champion de ce type
de mesures dans sa politique de la ville ; Nicolas Sarkozy, ministre
de l’Intérieur, a voulu qu’un préfet musulman – puis, critique
présidentielle aidant, il s’est repris, “issu de l’immigration” –
soit nommé. Le président de l’UMP est favorable à ce type de
politique – ce qui, dans son cas, n’exclut d’ailleurs pas certaines
formes de reconnaissance de communautés culturelles, notamment
musulmanes. Alors qu’aux Etats-Unis, l’affirmative action est une
politique de gauche, même si tous à gauche n’y sont pas favorables,
et si à droite certains y sont, la “discrimination positive”, en
France, est plutôt de droite. Mais pouvons-nous nous en tenir là ?

A gauche comme à droite, on se dirige vers l’acceptation croissante
de telles mesures, et le problème devient surtout de définir ce qui
pourrait distinguer les deux camps. La réponse n’est pas difficile à
formuler. Si la “discrimination positive” doit aboutir à promouvoir
quelques membres d’une minorité ou d’un groupe donné, au détriment de
la capacité de l’ensemble concerné à accéder à l’ascension sociale,
ou si elle encourage un certain communautarisme, par exemple en
déléguant à des leaders ou notables le soin d’organiser la promotion
de certains membres de leur communauté, et en renforçant finalement
les logiques de fragmentation culturelle et sociale, alors ce type de
politique n’est pas digne de la gauche, et pourrait même s’apparenter
à un néocolonialisme à la française. Si, au contraire, elle débouche
sur des chances accrues d’ascension sociale et de réduction des
inégalités pour l’ensemble du groupe concerné, si elle veille en même
temps à décourager les dérives communautaires, alors ce peut être une
politique de gauche. Une politique très supérieure à l’absence de
mesures qui caractérise le “républicanisme”, discours dont
l’universalisme abstrait est sur la défensive, impuissant dans la
pratique à faire reculer l’injustice sociale.

Il est temps, à gauche, de ne pas laisser à la droite le monopole de
la “discrimination positive”, quitte à la dénommer autrement –
“équité” par exemple. Il est temps, à gauche, de se débarrasser des
facilités rhétoriques qu’offre l’ode incantatoire à la République,
qui est non pas menacée, mais au contraire renforcée si l’équité est
un moyen mis au service de l’égalité, qui doit demeurer une fin, et
si des politiques volontaristes s’en prennent aux inégalités les plus
lourdes.

Glendale: Then there were three

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Dec 11 2004

Then there were three
Ropfogel joins City Clerk race; says he’ll drop out if candidate
emerges within clerk’s office.

By Josh Kleinbaum, News-Press and Leader

GLENDALE – Glendale businessman and community activist Steve Ropfogel
took a cautious step into uncharted waters on Friday, announcing that
he will run for Glendale city clerk in April. But Ropfogel said he
will drop out of the race if a candidate with experience working in a
city clerk’s office decided to run.

“It’s no secret that city government is really a passion of mine,”
Ropfogel said. “With my experience, not only with the organizations
that I’m involved with, but with my involvement with so many
departments and things in the city, I think I’m the best person for
the job.

“But if (Asst. City Clerk) Rita (Buchanan) or some other qualified
person from within our City Clerk’s office, or from a city that was
similar in size, if somebody came along that was going to run and was
a professional in the field, I would back out.”

For the first time in 75 years, the election for City Clerk is an
open race. In the past, the position has been handed down, with
clerks retiring mid-term and the City Council appointing a
replacement. The appointed clerk would then run as an incumbent, and
an incumbent hasn’t lost a city clerk election in Glendale during
that 75-year span.

City Clerk Doris Twedt chose to retire at the end of her term,
leaving an open race for her successor. Ardashes Kassakhian,
executive director of the Armenian National Committee’s Western
Region, and Lorna Vartanian, office manager for a law firm, are also
running for the position.

“I’m in this race because I know I can do the job and I can represent
all of the people of Glendale,” Kassakhian said.

Vartanian does not think experience inside a city clerk’s office
would make a candidate more qualified for the position.

“It is an administrative position, and I think that a candidate with
a strong administrative background could go in there and run the
office,” Vartanian said. “It really boils down to a matter of
experience, and I don’t think that one would necessarily have to have
worked in a clerk’s office to be able to properly manage an office.”

Denver: Family’s release brings relief

Boulder Daily Camera, CO
Dec 11 2004

Family’s release brings relief

Judge: Armenian immigrants illegally entered country

By Kim Castleberry, Camera Staff Writer
December 11, 2004

After spending five weeks locked away in a federal detention center,
most people would have an endless list of things to do once they were
released. For Gevorg Sargsyan and his family, a nice dinner at the
Chop House was at the top of that list.

“The first thing we did was go get a good meal,” said Colin Lacy,
Sargsyan’s best friend who picked the family up Thursday afternoon
after they were discharged from the detention center. “Everybody was
so excited.”

Lacy attends the University of Colorado, where Sargsyan was a student
until he and his family were arrested on Nov. 4 for entering the
country with the wrong kind of visa. The family’s lawyer and friends
worked for weeks to get them released from the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement detention center, but the decision came
unexpectedly.

“I found out about 15 minutes before they were released,” said Jeff
Joseph, the family’s lawyer. “We called the ICE officer and he said
that they couldn’t really answer any of our questions.”

Joseph was told that the case had been re-evaluated and the family
was no longer thought to be a flight risk.

“The release does nothing to change the case,” said Joseph, who is
going forward with filing for special visas so the family can stay in
the United States. Sargsyan, his brother, sister and father all were
held at the detention center in Aurora. The family has lived in the
mountain town of Ridgway for more than six years and is now back at
home.

The family could not be reached for comment Friday.

Lacy, who attended Ridgway High School with Sargsyan, and other
residents have been trying to get political support and raise money
for the family’s deportation appeal in federal court. He and Sargsyan
talked all night on Thursday, but he said he’s not sure what his
friend’s immediate plans are.

Sargsyan was a sophomore at CU, where he was studying pre-medicine.
The 20-year-old withdrew from school after an immigration judge ruled
that the family had entered the country fraudulently using student
visas.

The circumstances behind the family’s release are cloudy.

“Nobody knows who exactly made the release or why,” Lacy said. “We’ll
probably never know. All we know is it came from Washington.”

He said reporters from The New York Times interviewed the Sargsyans
on Friday morning and the fact that the family’s story was getting
national media attention might also have factored into the decision.

Family members say they were forced to flee Armenia because of the
Russian mafia and if they returned mobsters would kill them because
of alleged crimes there by a former in-law who is an American.

A grieving son’s journey comes to a crossroads

Los Angeles Times
Dec 11 2004

A grieving son’s journey comes to a crossroads

His father’s unsolved murder haunted him for three decades. When the
mystery was partly solved, he had to decide how far to search for the
whole truth.

By Mark Arax, Mark Arax covers Central California for The Times

One day not long ago, I drove into a valley deep in the mountains of
Oregon, a swath of green pastures edged by wild blackberries and
split by a creek that filled up a nearby lake. It seemed a pleasant
enough place in the world, this hidden valley, but I hadn’t driven
the 500 miles from Fresno simply to take in the fresh scenery. No,
what I had come looking for were answers that had eluded me for 31
years. What I had come looking for were the secrets to my father’s
murder.

He had been gunned down by two strangers in his Fresno bar on a foggy
January night in 1972. He was 40 years old and I, his oldest child,
was 15. Somehow I knew that the cops would never solve the murder.
That night in the emergency room, I told my mother that I would. It
was a promise I kept even after she died 12 years later and my wife
gave birth to our first child.

All through my 30s, I searched for answers, tracking down barmaids
turned junkies, a bouncer who rode with the Hells Angels, a bartender
who became a hit man. I even wrote a book about my journey. But I
never found his killers, never completely put to rest the rumors of
drugs and police corruption and a father who coached Little League by
day and entertained Fresno’s crooks by night.

Then in the spring of 2002, I was handed a new name: Sue Gage. She
was the keeper of the secrets, I was told, the woman who had set my
father’s death in motion. Not long after the murder, she had left
California and moved to southern Oregon. She had been living in a
tiny trailer beside a creek ever since, each year breathing a little
easier as the trail that led back to Fresno and my father grew more
and more faint.

I hadn’t known quite how to act when I called to arrange a meeting.
What tone of voice do you take when the person on the other end,
frightened and cagey, holds answers to questions that have
defined – twisted even – your entire adult life? What words do you let
tumble out?

Part of me, the son, couldn’t stomach the idea of small talk. At the
same time, I was also a journalist who had mastered the game of
opening doors by playing the earnest good guy. And so I held my nose
and put on my best performance. Oh, how I chuckled and listened so
intently as she gabbed on about the coyote unnerving her pit bull and
the vacation she was about to take with her grandkids.

And now I was headed down a last stretch of road toward her trailer,
past Christmas tree farms and cabins with tin roofs that spewed thick
gray plumes of smoke. As the hill dipped down into valley, the smoke
became mist and the mist turned to rain. Through the windshield
splatters, I could see a tiny woman in a red turtleneck and jeans
standing at the side of the road. The closer I got, the bigger her
smile became. I didn’t know what Sue Gage looked like. She had my
father’s face to know me.

There was a time when I dreamed of nothing but such a moment. I’d sit
in bed at night and stare at the police composite of one of the
gunmen. He had slicked-back hair, high cheekbones, boot-shaped
sideburns and a neat mustache. I spent years lifting weights,
transforming my body in anticipation of something primal that would
surely come over me when I found him. I imagined how the perfect
hardness of his face would melt when he realized that the man
standing before him was the 15-year-old son.

Now something else awaited me – not a man, but a woman who provided a
gun and a half-baked plan. Two of her former boyfriends, all these
years later, had come clean to the Fresno police. They recalled a
minor league beauty with a cunning that made dangerous men do her
bidding. The woman standing in the weeds at the side of the road was
someone quite different – a grandmother with a bad liver and a mouth
full of bad teeth who feared that her past was about to find her.

Before I climbed out of the truck, I told myself the years in between
didn’t count, not to me or to my younger sister and brother. Sue
Gage’s greed, if that was all it was, had killed our father, sucked
the life from our mother and had broken our youth.

She moved closer for what I expected was a handshake. Then the smile
vanished. She turned cold. She stared at my hand, the one clutching a
notebook and pen.

“Are you here as a son or as a writer?” she asked.

It was a plain question posed in a flat twang. Maybe she thought it
deserved a plain answer. The answer was my life. I wanted to tell her
that the son had become a writer on account of murder, that he had
honed all the skills of journalistic investigation across a long
career for just this one moment. Son, murder, writer – we were all one.

Before I could answer, she looked me straight in the eye.

“If you’re looking to pin the blame,” she said, “you’ve come to the
right place.”

My father taught me that the seams on a baseball served a far greater
purpose than stitching leather over cork. If you gripped the seams
right, you could make a fastball jump. Years before suburban parents
began hiring personal trainers to transform their kids’ core muscles,
my dad preached the wonders of a fit belly button. He’d grab a bat
and demonstrate how the midsection was the secret to hitting a ball
like Willie Mays.

“When you swing, you’re throwing your back hip at the ball, right?
But what you’re really throwing is your belly button, Markie. Explode
with your belly button.”

Football season was no different. We didn’t play catch with one of
those pint-sized rubber balls. Dad insisted on an “Official NFL”
pigskin, so fat it kept slipping out of my hands. It didn’t matter
that I was too light to make the 80-pound minimum for Pee Wee
football. Dad had a friend mold a three-pound hunk of lead that fit
into my jock for weigh-ins. On the field, what I lacked in size, I
made up for with explosion.

My father wasn’t the most patient teacher. His irritations, I
figured, were those of a natural. If I had managed to hone some
rudimentary form of explosion, he had been born with it full flower.
How else could a 5-foot-9, 205-pound fullback from Fresno High earn a
scholarship to play the line at USC? Whether he was performing his
Air Force Fitness program in our living room or smacking golf balls
310 yards off the tee, he approached every challenge the same.

He’d gather all his power in one spot and a split second later erupt
in a great unloading. Only if you looked at his mouth, upper lip
curled tight under lower lip, could you see the quiet that held the
fury.

One of the riddles of my childhood was finding ways to amuse this
energy before it turned on me or my mother. Years later, my
grandfather would talk about my father’s powerful life force – hahvas
he called it in Turkish Armenian – as if it were some mythic gift and
curse. His energy was something my grandfather clearly didn’t share,
much less understand, and he apparently never found a way to fully
harness it.

“You know Grandpa didn’t have a damn head,” my grandmother told me.
“He should have guided that boy. He was too busy dreaming.”

My grandfather had survived the Armenian genocide in 1915 not by
out-braving the Turks or outlasting their death marches. Instead, he
dreamed away long months hiding in an attic in Istanbul, reading
Baudelaire and Maupassant. He was a young poet with the pen name of
Arax – the Armenian river – when he arrived in the San Joaquin Valley in
1920. It took him four years picking crops to save enough cash to buy
a small vineyard on the west side of Fresno. My father was born on
that farm in the summer of 1931 as the grapes were being laid down to
make raisins.

When pressed, my grandfather would tell two stories about his second
son that had the sound of allegory. Both took place on the farm after
Dad had dropped out of USC his first year. Why he left college is one
of those questions that become freighted with hindsight when a life
turns tragic. He was either homesick (Grandma’s version) or worn down
by family guilt for abandoning the farm (my mother’s version). This
much was certain: He had come home with something to prove.

One day, his tractor got stuck on a knoll and my grandfather warned
him not to touch it until he could summon help. When he returned a
few minutes later, he was amazed to see that my father had moved the
tractor several feet by himself, and he was now caught underneath. In
a panic, Dad summoned enough desperate strength to pull himself out.

Then there was the day he pruned a row of fig trees and insisted on
burning the cuttings. Grandpa told him the branches were too green
and the wind too unpredictable. As soon as the old man left, my
father poured gasoline all over the pile and lit a match. The fire
caught his clothing and he panicked and ran. He ended up with scars
from the third-degree burns on his hands and forearms.

“When he got it in his mind, he had to do it,” Grandpa explained. “He
had to conquer. He had to be hero.”

My mother, Flora, worried that his epic gestures might one day
consume us. In the mid-1960s, we lost our small chain of grocery
stores after Safeway discovered Fresno. Dad took our
savings – $25,000 – and plunked it down on a restaurant and cocktail
lounge just off Highway 99. It had a strange name: The Apartments. My
father merely personalized it. Ara’s Apartments.

Whenever Mom tore into him, her sarcasm dripped: “Big Ara. Ara’s
Apartments. Name in lights. Mentor to all the creeps and whores.”

Maybe to spite her, he ripped out the kitchen and turned it into the
hottest rock ‘n’ roll club between Los Angeles and San Francisco,
even hiring Chuck Berry for a couple of shows in the summer of 1971.
It’s enough to say that my mother’s fears came true. The bar got
rough, and the old clientele of lawyers, politicians and jocks
disappeared. Fresno had become a western hub for narcotics smuggling.
Crop dusters would finish spraying the cotton fields and make furtive
runs to Mexico. The Hells Angels moved the marijuana and pills from
farm to big city. Our police chief, who was married to the town’s
biggest madam, didn’t seem to notice. The smugglers were good about
spreading their wealth. Nowhere did they spend more freely than at my
dad’s bar.

When the phone rang that Sunday evening, I sensed some terrible news
came with it. Maybe it was me, the nail-biting son forever worrying
about a car accident in the fog. But I had seen signs of trouble in
recent months. I had watched my father lose his temper one too many
times trying to keep his employees and patrons in line.

He wasn’t supposed to work that night – the day after New Year’s
1972 – but a phone call had summoned him. I was going to come along,
but he found me in the shower and worried that my damp hair might
cause a cold. “It’s chilly out there. Stay inside,” he said. “I’ll be
back in an hour.” The hour passed. A female bartender was on the
line. My mother screamed from the kitchen. “Your father’s been shot.
Your father’s been shot.”

I bolted out the side door and ran through the fog to a friend’s
house down the block. I must have been howling because his brother
thought a dog had been hit by a car. Five bullets had struck my
father. He bled to death 90 minutes later at St. Agnes Hospital.

I was sitting in my office – the Los Angeles Times Bureau in fresno – on
a sunny November day in 2000 when the phone rang. Sgt. Daryl Green
from the Fresno Police Department introduced himself, then asked if I
might meet with him and a detective named Bob Schiotis.

“He’s been working on your father’s murder. I know it’s been a long
time, but I think we’ve solved it.”

“It’s been 28 years. My God, are you sure?”

“It’s quite a story. Better that we tell you in person. How about
meeting us in an hour at the old Peppermill.”

Before he hung up, he couldn’t resist: “You should know that these
guys were thieves. It looks like nothing more than a robbery gone
bad.”

Ever since that first night when my sister, brother and I crawled
into bed with our mother, I had held on to the notion that he had
been killed for a larger reason. Maybe it was nothing more than a
kid’s desire to turn his father into something grand – need I say
heroic. But it wasn’t just me. The detectives had assumed the same
thing back then. They traced the murder to one of two motives: to
make my father pay for an indiscretion or to silence him before he
could expose something illegal. The old detectives seemed certain
that the gunmen had been hired to do the job.

The bar had never been robbed before. That night, no money had been
taken from the till, and no demand for money was ever heard by the
young female bartender, Linda Lewis. When I tracked her down 17 years
later, Lewis related the same account she had given police right
after the shooting:

It was 6:30 p.m., and the bar was empty when two men walked in. They
looked to be from out of town, something in their fringed leather
jackets and gloves. They ordered two draft beers and headed to the
back room to play pool. Just across the way was my father’s office,
the door open. He was sitting at his desk working on the quarterly
taxes. They played a game of eight ball and walked out.

Ten minutes passed and the two men walked back in. The place was
still empty. Lewis asked if they wanted another beer. One of the men
gave her an odd look, and the other headed straight back to the
office and began shooting. My father fought back with everything he
had. It took both gunmen to bring him down.

“Every single penny was in that register,” Lewis told me. “I never
heard a word from those two about money. They were there to kill
him.”

As I drove to the restaurant to meet Green and his partner that
afternoon, I thought about all the relationships I had risked trying
to solve my father’s life. How I had pushed my grandparents, not
caring about their own grief, in my greed to understand all I could
about him. He was my coach, that I knew, and cared deeply about his
community. He outfitted an entire Little League on the poor side of
town and did the same with Pop Warner football. He angered my mother
by loaning hundreds of dollars to down-and-out patrons and bringing
them home to share our Christmas meals. But murder has a way of
changing what a town remembers about a man. Good as Ara was, people
reasoned, he must have been involved in something no good that got
him killed. I heard the whispers at school and church: Ara was
involved in the drug trade. Greed got him killed.

I spent seven years, from 1989 to 1996, writing a book that tried to
find the truth. Over and over, my hunt kept leading me toward
something big, a conspiracy to have my father killed. Perhaps sensing
the police were not to be trusted, my father in the winter of 1971
contacted a deputy district attorney and the state narcotic agent
bird-dogging several drug rings based in Fresno. He confided that his
bar manager and other patrons were smuggling narcotics from Mexico
and he was “dead set against it and wanted to cooperate.” A few days
later, he agreed to hold a fundraiser for a group of reformers trying
to clean up City Hall.

“He was very angry and went on and on about the drug trade and how
devastating it was to the kids,” Linda Mack, one of the reformers,
told me. “He said there were some very influential people in town
making money on narcotics. He said the Police Department was corrupt
and protecting the traffic. He said there were payoffs going on, and
he was going to do something about it.”

I had concluded that my father became a target for murder while
trying to expose drug operations financed by prominent businessmen
and protected by Police Chief Hank Morton and his top men. My dad
wasn’t involved in the trade but had heard and seen plenty from
behind the bar. His phone records showed that he placed a last call a
few days before Christmas to the state attorney general’s office in
Sacramento. Whom he talked to, I could never determine. Then the tule
fog set down, and two men with the look of another place came and
went like locusts, leaving behind two empty beer glasses and a cue
ball smudged with fingerprints. I had done my best to put a face on
the men who likely hired them and why, but my conjectures weren’t
enough to send anyone to court. And so I left it there, believing I
had cleared my father’s name.

Now came this phone call from the Fresno police, four years after I
had written “In My Father’s Name,” and I didn’t know what to believe.

“We got a call six weeks ago out of the blue,” Green explained. “Some
guy got popped by drug agents in Orange County. He says he wants to
talk about an old murder at a bar in Fresno. The killers were a
couple guys out of Detroit. Not hired guns, but thieves.”

Green’s voice wasn’t smug, but what he was telling me, at least with
regard to the murder, was that I had gotten it wrong.

As a journalist, I understood that all the context in the world
didn’t mean the murder was a hit. My father was talking big stuff,
telling a handful of people that his revelations would be felt “all
the way to Sacramento.” But his actions at the end may have made the
murder look more fishy than it really was. The fact that my father
confided to more than one person that he was afraid for his life was
chilling to know, but what relevance did it have? It certainly didn’t
preclude the possibility that two cowboys with no particular bone to
pick chose his bar from all the other possibilities and stepped
inside intending nothing more than an easy robbery. It was my father
who did something unexpected that sent the whole thing hurtling in
another direction.

Of course, robbery was a theory I had considered – and rejected – long
ago. For me to accept it now, I had to be convinced that the Police
Department’s heart was in the right spot. For one, this was the same
department whose century-long corruption I had detailed in my book.
Police Chief Ed Winchester, who joined the force in 1967, wasn’t
pleased with my account of a department that helped cover up the
murder.

As I pulled into the restaurant parking lot, I could see one of the
detectives reaching into his car for a folder. He had brought the
names, dates and motives from an informant in the clutches of the DEA
in Santa Ana. The fingerprints from criminal files in Michigan
matched the fingerprints lifted from the murder scene. The case was
all but closed.

“I hope you understand, but we can’t give you the names just yet,”
Det. Schiotis said.

He was 50 years old with a paunch and bushy mustache, but you could
still see the eager kid in him. A cop at the gym told me Schiotis was
a quiet bulldog with the reputation of never lying to a suspect or a
victim’s family. The toughest cases went to him, and he almost always
found a way to solve them. Confronted with another long shot, his
colleagues started to joke that the chances of solving it were
“slim-and-none, and Schiotis.”

I liked him from the first handshake, though I did wonder if he was
something of a religious zealot. He saw God’s hand guiding his
movements and told stories of uncanny breaks that helped him solve my
father’s case. He reached into the folder and took out two mug shots
with the names covered up. That’s when Green, wiry and hard-edged,
the boss of the unit, addressed me.

“These are the guys who took your father’s life.”

I didn’t have to look at the photos long. One mug shot matched almost
perfectly a composite drawn from the barmaid’s memory. I waited for
something to bubble up, an emotion from deep back, as I stared into
the faces my father had stared into. Nothing came.

“They’re heroin yahoos,” Green said. “Both were in prison in Detroit
and escaped. They came out to California in late 1971.” One gunman
had killed himself in 1982 by jumping off an 11-story building. The
other was locked up in a federal prison in the East for robbery.

“What makes you so sure of the motive?” I asked. “Detroit is a long
way to come out to do a holdup in Fresno.”

Green said the man in custody in Orange County grew up in Detroit. He
not only knew both robbers but had lured them to California. In early
1972, they told him about a heist that had turned deadly at a bar in
Fresno.

“They said they pulled a gun on the owner and what they thought was
going to happen didn’t happen,” Green said. “He fought them.”

“So they just happen to be in Fresno and find my father’s bar on
their own?” I asked.

Green believed someone had sent them – someone who knew there was a lot
of money in the safe. I asked if the informant was reliable enough to
take to court.

“Everything he’s told us checks out. He knew all the drug smugglers.
In fact, he was one of them. He said your dad never had a thing to do
with their business. He was a good guy.”

I didn’t need a drug smuggler coming clean under duress to tell me
what I already knew. Still, I felt my eyes tear up when he said it.

As we shook hands, Green told me the years of looking over my
shoulder were over. “It wasn’t a contract hit, Mark. It was just a
fight.”

A few weeks later, on the 29th anniversary of the murder, the police
chief stood before a bank of TV cameras and announced that the Ara
Arax case had been solved. I sat behind the reporters with my sister
and brother and watched with a strange detachment. Our father, to
hear it now, didn’t die a hero and didn’t die a villain. He was
killed for no other reason than his trajectory happened to cross the
roaming of two Midwest robbers hoping to taste the California sun.
Had he waited that foggy night for me to finish my shower and dry my
hair, their arc likely would have missed his. He would be alive
today, playing golf and watching my son play left field.

As the cameras cleared out, my sister, Michelle, wondered how the
police chief could call a press conference and put forward a motive
on the word of one man. Yes, the fingerprints matched and they surely
had the right shooters. But no one had talked to two other people
central to the crime: the getaway driver and a woman who fancied
herself as a young Ma Barker and disappeared from Fresno years
ago – Sue Gage.

And nothing the chief said went to the heart of the mystery: Why
hadn’t my father or the barmaid heard one word about robbery? Why
hadn’t a single penny been taken?

My cousin Michael Mamigonian, who cleaned the bar when he was in high
school, laughed at the notion of my dad resisting a robbery. “Money
didn’t mean a damn thing to Uncle Ara. If these guys came in with
guns and they’re holding him up, he would have given them all the
money and a couple bottles of whiskey as they were running out the
door.”

The “Arax story” led the local TV news that night and ran across the
top of the Fresno Bee the next morning. My father’s face, his ample
ears and double chin, smiled beneath a bold-lettered question: “1972
Murder Solved?” I had sat down to breakfast when our fifth grader,
Joseph, called from school.

“What’s up, buddy?” I asked.

He could barely spit it out.

“Grandpa,” he muttered.

By the time I got to the principal’s office, his eyes were swollen
red. The secretary said his outburst caught the teacher by surprise.
“He’s mourning a man he never knew,” she said. On the way home, he
ripped the tissue into shreds.

“Why did he have to die?”

I sensed this was coming, and I did what a father does. I turned it
into a lesson. I told him my father’s calling in life was to be a
coach and teacher, but he never finished college. He chose the wrong
business.

“It’s too bad he made the wrong choice or he’d be alive today,” he
said. “His bar was in a bad neighborhood.”

His reasoning was as good as any. The town, the bar, the time and
place – it was all about bad location.

We pulled into the driveway and I put my arm around his shoulder. I
told him that the murder and possible trial of the surviving
gunman – all the stuff in the news – was my life, not his.

“How did you get through it, Dad?”

This I didn’t see coming. What was I supposed to tell him? That a few
weeks after the murder, my uncle came to our house and jammed pieces
of wood into every sliding window and drilled a peep hole in the
front door? That the face in the composite followed me everywhere,
and I’d call detectives with the license plates of look-alikes I
encountered at the pizza parlor? That my mother caught me secretly
recording one detective and made me promise that I would stop asking
questions? That I learned years after she died of cancer that my
father had another reason for going to authorities. He was concerned
about me, his 9th-grade son who had begun a pathetic little
experiment with drugs?

If I answered my son’s question that day, it wasn’t the whole story.
I didn’t tell Joseph that I got through it by turning my life into a
mission. I became my do-gooder father’s do-gooder son. In high
school, I was the quarterback who rebelled and started an underground
weekly that skewered the jocks and debutantes. Spray can in hand, I
sneaked up on the home of the town’s biggest developer, a man who had
bought off various elected officials, and painted the words “Payola
Pig.”

As an adult, I toned down my act but never lost my father’s passion.
I had vowed not to let the murder color my views as a journalist and
wrote stories about guards brutalizing inmates inside California
prisons. The guards’ union couldn’t conceive how the son of a murder
victim could turn into a “champion for killers.” At a legislative
hearing on the prison abuses, union leader Don Novey angrily waved a
copy of my book. I was a conspiracy nut who had sullied the
reputation of one too many public servants. “When is it going to
end?” he pleaded.

In the spring of 2003, with the trial pending, my wife, Coby,
demanded to know the same: “Seven years writing that book, seven
years putting our lives on hold, and it still hasn’t gone away?”

I had moved dozens of files out of storage and back into my office at
home. Returning to my late-night habits, I added new names and dates
to a 7-foot-long timeline. Coby no longer trusted my judgment. She
was sure my obsession had gotten the better of me. If I was truly
considering her and the children, I would choose to let it go. I
didn’t see it that way, of course. My fixation on finding one clean
answer may have seemed selfish and self-righteous, but there was
really no choice in the matter. My father had been murdered, and I
had spent the better part of my life turning this way and that way
the question why – details I had gotten wrong, details missed, details
yet to come. I couldn’t very well stop now.

I had the names of four people I never had before – the two shooters,
the getaway driver and Sue Gage. I went to the courthouse and pulled
criminal files and began interviewing old barflies. To his credit,
Schiotis never once told me to keep my nose out of his case. The
district attorney’s office, in a move that miffed the detective,
decided to strike an immunity deal with the getaway driver and Gage
to shore up its case against the surviving gunman.

In the weeks leading up to the trial, Schiotis shared his own
findings and tried to answer all my questions. He was the one honest,
never-say-die cop I had been searching for. He, too, it turned out,
wasn’t convinced of the motive or whether others had helped set it
up. “I’m 70-30 that it’s a robbery,” he said, “but I won’t know for
sure until it’s over.”

Then, on the eve of the trial, he gave me this: The getaway driver’s
testimony was the most important, and the reason he decided to
cooperate was because he had read my book. He had been filled with
guilt for two years, looking for a way to unload his remorse.

“He came this close to calling you a few years ago and telling you
the truth,” Schiotis said. “When we knocked on his door, it all came
pouring out. He said he remembered you as a kid in your baseball
uniform at the bar. Your book helped solve the case.”

The detective saw a larger power at work, a force that connected past
to present. He told a story from the late 1960s, when he was a
teenager practicing baseball at Hamilton Junior High. He encountered
a father hitting ground balls to his young son. “It was you and your
dad. I’ll never forget it because he kept hitting them over and
over.”

I vaguely recalled that day, or a day just like it: Charge the ball,
Markie. Charge the ball.

“I hope you don’t take this wrong,” said Schiotis, “but I feel it’s
almost destiny that this case came to me and I was able to solve it.”

The trial that took place over six days last year told its own story.
It began, oddly enough, with a German shepherd named Otto. Without
him, I would never have had the chance to look Thomas Joseph
Ezerkis – one of my father’s killers – in the eye.

Otto was roaming the corridors of John Wayne Airport on June 8, 2000,
when he detected an unmistakable odor coming from a black tote bag
carried by Ronald Young, aka Detroit Ron. That Otto even picked out
Detroit Ron – one of 25,000 passengers coming and going that day – was
the first of many coincidences that broke open the case. Each
coincidence joined up with another until happenstance became fate.
Everything fit so neatly that I thought maybe Schiotis was right: The
case was God’s little puzzle.

At first, Detroit Ron refused to talk about the $300,000 in
drug-stained cash he was carrying. He may have looked like a has-been
from “Miami Vice” – gray goatee, shaved head, Hawaiian print shirt and
Docksiders – but he hadn’t survived five decades of drug smuggling by
snitching.

For months, he kept mum behind bars. Then his daughter died and her
children needed him. His encyclopedic memory became a way out of his
jam. If he was going to give up details on this new drug ring, he
might as well talk about that old murder in Fresno.

The death of Ara Arax – it, too, was happenstance.

The testimony from Detroit Ron and a host of other rogues would
unfold just as the prosecutor promised. No fishing expeditions. No
surprises. His only goal was to put Ezerkis, the surviving gunman,
away for life. If that meant leaving out tantalizing possibilities of
other conspirators and motives detailed in my book, so be it. I was
so grateful to be in a courtroom after all these years – close enough
that I could hear the defendant grunt – that it hardly mattered. And so
I took a seat with my family and quietly watched and listened. It
seemed like a birth of some sort. Here is what emerged:

Detroit Ron was serving a term for burglary at Jackson State Prison
in Michigan in 1971. In the cell above him was Thomas Ezerkis. They
had grown up together on the northwest side of Detroit. Ezerkis’ old
man was a legendary city cop. He had five children and was extra
tough on Tommy, the oldest son, who began injecting heroin at age 20.

In the prison yard, Ezerkis was all ears as Detroit Ron bragged about
his California exploits. He had gone to L.A. in the mid-’60s and
joined forces with a group of early drug smugglers, some of whom had
grown up in Fresno. The wide open farm town remained the base of
their operations.

Ezerkis took a mental note of everything Detroit Ron told him. Then,
in late 1971, he broke out of prison and headed to California to join
one of the smuggling crews. Before escaping, Ezerkis got the phone
number of Detroit Ron’s old girlfriend – a bombshell named Sue Gage who
organized all the Fresno-to-Mexico runs for one group.

Ezerkis arrived in mid-December with his crime partner, Charles
Silvani. They crashed at Gage’s house in North Hollywood. To raise
seed money for a load, they decided to pull a few robberies. Gage
loved planning the logistics of a crime, but she left the dirty work
to her lovers. Her most recent boyfriend was a sweet-talking,
no-honor thief from Fresno named Larry Frazier.

Gage and Frazier happened to be regulars at Ara’s Apartments. It was
Ara who taught Gage how to shoot pool with her left hand. When she
drank too much tequila one night and fired a .357 magnum at Ara’s
phone – “because I couldn’t get a dial tone” – Ara got upset but then
forgot about it.

Ara was sweet, but business was business. Gage had spent New Year’s
weekend at the Apartments before returning to L.A. Ara must have done
five grand, she told Frazier. The cash sat in a safe behind the bar.
How Gage knew this, she didn’t say, but she was certain that Ara
would be there at 6:30 p.m. that Sunday to open it up – with the right
persuasion.

Gage handed a stolen .32-caliber gun to Silvani. Frazier gave his
stolen .38 to Ezerkis. Frazier then hopped into a stolen 1968 Mercury
and drove Silvani and Ezerkis to Fresno. They arrived late that
afternoon, Jan. 2. Frazier showed the two Detroit men the bar and
told them he’d be waiting across the street in a second car at the
appointed hour.

At nightfall, they struck. It was misty outside, but Frazier could
see the pair running out of the bar and climbing into the Mercury.
Frazier gave the signal to follow him. He drove past the west side
cotton fields where he grew up, miles and miles until they reached
the California aqueduct. There, beside the water that flowed to Los
Angeles, Frazier learned the truth.

Silvani had confronted Ara in his office, but he never got a chance
to say, “This is a stick-up.” Ara exploded out of his chair and
charged at him like a bull. Silvani was forced to shoot, but Ara
wouldn’t go down. Ezerkis had to step up and fire the .38. Ara
wrested away the .32 and shot Silvani in the tricep. The gunmen fled
without any money.

“We were standing on the aqueduct,” Frazier recalled. “I was mad.
‘Goddamn it, why did you have to shoot Ara?’ They said Ara jumped up
and pulled a ‘Tom Mix’ on them.”

Frazier took this to mean that Ara had tried to pull a hero’s stunt
like those of the famous movie cowboy of the 1930s. Frazier said he
grabbed the .38 out of Ezerkis’ hand and threw it in the water. Then
they pushed the Mercury over the edge and watched it sink.

Of all the testimony, Frazier’s account of the killing struck me with
the most force. My father bursting out of his chair, the panic that
triggered a fury – it sounded like those old stories on the farm my
grandfather told. I had seen it so many times myself – at the golf
course swinging his driver, in the living room pounding out his
exercises, on the front grass teaching me baseball.

My father, hard as it was to accept, had been an accomplice in his
own murder. He had misread the gun in his face. All the noise he was
making about exposing drug rings and police corruption had put him in
a state of mind where a robbery became the very murder he feared. It
was the worst case of bad timing. In seven years at the bar, he had
never faced the barrel of a gun. And now, on the heels of contacting
state narcotics agents and the attorney general’s office, comes the
first gun. He is waiting for that gun. He is braced for that gun.
That gun shows up in the hands of a robber.

The crime eventually came full circle. A month after Dad’s murder,
trailing a string of robberies, Ezerkis found himself back at Jackson
State Prison, where he confessed the entire episode to Detroit Ron.

It took the jury less than three hours to find Ezerkis guilty. Jurors
later told me their only regret was seeing Sue Gage go free. At the
sentencing, we decided not to give any victim statements. What
chronicle of loss could we add that wasn’t already in the book?
Ezerkis, though, had something to say to us. He turned around and
gave us a full measure of his face.

“I know that losing a parent is a traumatic experience, especially
under the conditions that they lost their father. But on the same
breath, I gotta tell them that I didn’t do it. That’s all I gotta
say.”

The judge sentenced him to life. As we walked out, prosecutor Dennis
Peterson, a kind man who felt conflicted about the immunity deal with
Gage, patted me on the back. “That’s it,” he said. “It’s that
simple.”

The packet sat on my desk for months after the trial. It was the
testimony of the coroner who had taken the stand on a day I didn’t
make it to court. Truth be known, I didn’t have the stomach to
attend. I was afraid that one detail might stick – a line from the
coroner’s notes or maybe the sickened face of a juror viewing the
autopsy photographs – and screw up 31 years of healing. When I finally
opened the packet and began reading the testimony, it became clear
that neither side had bothered to connect the coroner’s dots. Had
they done so, it surely would have complicated the robbery theory.

Of the first three shots that hit my father, at least one was fired
from a longer range. This was almost certainly the first shot. Its
angle is consistent with my father sitting in his chair and Silvani
firing from a distance of 10 to 15 feet. He takes aim at my father’s
head. Dad deflects the bullet with his wrist and it grazes the top of
his skull, exiting in almost a perfect line out the back office wall.

This first shot, contrary to the prosecution’s theory, showed that
Silvani’s intent was deadly from the outset. He began firing before
my father ever made a single move. Dad’s last words to the doctors
said as much: “I was doing the books and two guys came in and just
started shooting.”

The fatal shot in the stomach likely came next. It was fired close up
at a considerable downward angle, indicating that my father was still
coming out of his chair like a lineman driving out of his stance. The
third shot also struck his abdomen, its slight downward angle
consistent with my father reaching a nearly upright position. Only
then did he come face to face with Silvani, back him into the main
bar area and take away his gun. My father fired once, but before he
could fire again, the gun jammed.

And then there were the other dots that the prosecution failed to
connect – all the employees and patrons who lurked in the background of
the story. How much coincidence was I supposed to accept? Gage
happened to be working with the same drug smugglers who were
troubling my father. One of her cohorts, Mike Garvey, was my dad’s
bar manager. It was Garvey whose alleged drug smuggling in late 1971
had so perturbed my father that he contacted state narcotics agents.
Garvey and Dad got into a dispute that December, and Dad fired him.
It was Garvey who talked to Dad on the phone just hours before the
murder. How did Gage know the precise time he was going to work – on a
day he seldom went in?

Why couldn’t robbery and murder be part of the same plan? If they
needed to silence my father, why not lure him to work on a slow
Sunday evening, rip off the money and then shoot him?.

I know it wasn’t the simple answer. And the simple answer was almost
always the right answer because it fit the small thinking of most
criminals. But even Frazier, the getaway driver, had thought it was a
hit after reading my book. When the detectives first interviewed him,
Frazier said he had been “set up” to believe it was a robbery. The
detectives told him he had to testify about what he knew back then,
not what he had read in a book years later. So he gave the details of
a botched robbery.

Inside a bird’s nest of a trailer in the Oregon mountains, it didn’t
take long for Sue Gage to turn on me. She kept talking into my
recorder about what a good man my father was. I kept pressing her
about her close connections to bar manager Mike Garvey and Fresno’s
drug smugglers.

This whole period was an aberration, she said. Her first husband died
in 1967 while serving in the Navy. She had a baby daughter and was
lonely, and a friend introduced her to the crowd at Dad’s bar. Before
she knew it, she was running between Fresno and Hollywood, living
with wanted men.

Then one day, with no warning, two guys from Detroit showed up.

“Detroit Ron sent them from prison without ever telling me. I let
them stay at my house in Hollywood. Very nice and polite guys. And
then Larry Frazier comes over and they start plotting. I figured they
were going to rip off drug dealers.”

She blamed herself for naively giving a gun to Silvani and maybe
innocently mentioning that she had spent New Year’s weekend at a busy
Ara’s Apartments. She said it was a week or two later, while
attending a party in L.A., that she learned my father had been
killed. A group of Fresno outlaws was discussing the murder, and
Frazier suddenly pulled her into a closet.

“He told me the two guys from Detroit killed Ara during a robbery. I
didn’t want to believe it. We swore to each other to never tell
another soul. And I would have never told. I would have went to my
grave.”

I wasn’t buying it.

“Frazier tells it differently,” I said. “He says you put the whole
thing together. You knew my father was going to be at the bar. You
knew the precise time.”

“That’s a lie,” she shouted. “Yes, I had a role, but my motivation
was to get rid of those guys, to send them on their merry way with a
gun.”

“You set it up, Sue.”

“Listen,” she said, pounding the tiny table wedged between her bed
and refrigerator. “I’m an old lady. I’ve had 26 years of being a good
citizen, and I’ll be damned if you’re going to implicate me in a
murder.”

“You’ve already implicated yourself.”

“I don’t think this is a good idea. I thought I was seeing Ara’s son.
But you’ve got too much reporter in you.”

“What did you expect? Your greed changed my life.”

Her hard face twisted into a cruel sneer. “Get over it,” she said.
“Get over it. Dead is dead. My daughter doesn’t even remember her
father’s funeral.”

That daughter had the benefit of an answer. Her daddy died in an
accident on a Navy ship.

“What right do you have to preach to me?” I shouted.

My right hand was poised just inches from her face. For the first
time in my adult life, for the slightest moment, I wished I was
someone else. Not a father. Not a husband. Not a reporter.

“Listen, lady, you’ve got a lot of gall. If my parents had raised a
different son, you and I wouldn’t be talking right now. Where do you
get off sounding callous?”

“Callous?” she said, backing down. “That I am. That I am. I haven’t
slept with a man in 10 years. I’m pretty shut off.”

Her voice had softened, and I bored in. I described my father’s talks
with drug agents, how the first shot was fired at his head before he
ever made a threatening move.

“What? No one ever told me that.”

“Does that sound like robbery?” I asked. “Why was no money taken?”

“Wait, wait, wait,” she said, looking confused. “There was no money
taken?”

She seemed on the verge of going in another direction. I thought she
might tell me that these guys returned from Fresno that night with
some payment, after all. But she stopped herself short. And then it
was as if she had entered a trance. There was no shaking her out of
it.

“No, it’s just an old song. Ara taught me how to play pool
left-handed. He wasn’t like the rest of those guys. It was a robbery.
I gave the gun not knowing. Maybe I’ll write a book myself and call
it ‘The Closet.’ Because it was in a closet when I first learned
about them killing your dad, and it’s in a closet where I’ve kept it
ever since.”

I got up and walked out the door. The rain had stopped, and she
followed me all the way to the truck.

“My biggest crime was to keep you in the dark. I could have fixed all
this when you were much younger. I could have come forward and fixed
it, but I wasn’t a snitch. I owed that to you. I’m sure you’ve had a
long and strange journey.”

Am I a son clinging to an end that wraps my father in glory? Is it
true, as a friend says, that as long as I keep open the question of
who killed him and why, I don’t have to bury him?

I am now seven years older than my father was the night he left us. I
have three children of my own, the oldest a daughter whose bedroom
floor is lined with college applications. Whether she understands it
or not, she has lived with the shadow of my father’s murder all her
life. She was 2 years old when we moved back to Fresno to begin my
search. How naive was my promise to keep the past separate from our
lives, as if it could be stored in boxes and file cabinets and
brought out at night, when my daughter and wife slept and I was free
to work on my puzzle. Yes, I did right by my father, but it came at a
price that I, alone, didn’t pay. The best of me was taken from my own
family.

Even today, as a 47-year-old man, the role of Ara’s boy, “Markie,”
still comes as easy to me as the role of husband or dad. But playing
that grief-stricken 15-year-old kid is no longer befitting. Dead is
dead. My mother would be happy to know that I have made a life apart
from the murder. I write and tend to my fruit and vegetable garden.
My sister and brother honor our parents in their own way. Michelle
teaches at a Fresno middle school and Donnie is the head football
coach at our high school alma mater.

They both wonder, for my sake, if I have put it away. Maybe I have.

Ezerkis now lives in one of the California prisons I write about, but
I don’t feel any need to confront him. Last winter, I picked up the
paper and read that the bar, now known as Los Compadres, had been
gutted by an arson fire. I didn’t bother to drive by for a look. A
while back, a dentist friend called to say that one of his patients
had new information about my father, but I have never dialed her
number. Schiotis says my questions are good ones, and he needs to
take a hard second look at Gage, Garvey and others. “It’s still open
as far as I’m concerned.” I like hearing those words, but I don’t
press him.

Some truths, I am reminded, can never be known. The truth of my
father’s murder is now less important to me than the truth of his
life. I no longer believe that robbery means he died for nothing.
What was in his heart at the end counts for something. His fervent
wish was for the town he loved to be a better place. He was willing
to risk a lot to see that happen. I no longer believe that all that I
am is a response to the murder. The older I grow, the more I think
that, simply, what I am, at the core, is what I would have become had
my father lived.

This past spring, my son Joseph made the move to the big diamond – 90
feet between the bases and 60 feet, 6 inches from pitcher to home
plate. Not an easy adjustment for a 13-year-old, much less one still
shy of puberty. In the batting cage, I sometimes let my irritations
show. All the years playing and coaching and learning from the best,
and I return to my father.

“Joe, you’re swinging too polite. Your power comes from the belly
button. Explode with the belly button, son. Explode.”

Netherlands Churches Urge Conditions on Turkey’s EU Membership

Christian Post, CA
Dec 11 2004

Netherlands Churches Urge Conditions on Turkey’s EU Membership

The Council of Churches in the Netherlands said Turkey must recognize
religious minorities within its borders before entering the European
Union (EU)

The Council of Churches in the Netherlands said Turkey must recognize
religious minorities within its borders before entering the European
Union (EU), news agencies reported Friday. In an open letter to the
Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende the council said the
fact that Turkey is a predominantly Muslim nation was no bar from
membership, but stressed the EU should insist it recognize Syrian,
Orthodox and other religious minorities.

“It is important that all religious minorities gain the right to
build and maintain buildings such as churches and monasteries, to set
up theological training, to speak and teach in their own language,
and to be free in carrying out diaconal and other church-related
activities,” the council, which comprises Protestant, Roman Catholic
and Orthodox churches. Currently, Turkey still does not formally
recognize the Syrian Orthodox minority living within its borders.

The council of churches also said in their letter that it would be a
“confidence-building sign” by the Turkish authorities if it publicly
admitted the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by its predecessor, the
Ottoman Empire. According to sources, books about the massacre are
banned in Turkey.

Turkey, which has waited 40 years to become a part of Europe, has
made EU membership its top priority. As the European Union decides
whether to open membership talks with Ankara, Turkey’s Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a devout Muslim, is reportedly keen to project
a positive image of the country’s treatment of minorities.

In a bid to showcase Turkey as a country that respects religion,
Erdogan inaugurated a church, a synagogue, and a mosque on Wednesday.
The inauguration was made possible only after Turkey changed laws
that restricted the opening of houses of worship other than mosques
to boost its chances of EU membership.

Most recently, the European Commission voiced support for Turkey’s
bid to join the EU and expressed hope for a “positive outcome” at a
summit next week, but warned that recognition of Cyprus is crucial to
Ankara’s hopes, AFP reported Friday.

Currently, Turkey recognizes only the Turkish Cypriot enclave in
north Cyprus, while the rest of the world views the Greek Cypriot
government in the south, which joined the EU in May, as the sole
legitimate representative of the whole island.

Major Feasts and Commemoration Days in the Armenian Church for 2005

CALENDAR
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 1) 517 163
Fax: (374 1) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
December 11, 2004

Major Feasts and Commemoration Days in the Armenian Church for 2005

January
6 Feast of the Nativity and Theophany of our Lord Jesus Christ
13 Naming Day of Jesus Christ
15 Feast of the Birth of Saint John the Forerunner (the Baptist)
22 Commemoration day of Saints Sargis the Captain, his son Martiros
and fourteen soldiers

February
1 Commemoration day of Saints Ghevondiants
3 Commemoration day of Saints Vardanants
6 Eve of the Great Fast of Lent (Great Barekendan)
14 Feast of the Presentation of Christ to the Temple

March
12 Feast of Saint Gregory the Illuminator’s Terrible Passion and
Committal to the Pit
19 Commemoration day of the Resurrection of Lazarus
20 Palm Sunday
27 Feast of the Glorious Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ
(Easter Sunday)

April
7 Feast of the Annunciation of the Holy Virgin Mary
24 Feast of the Appearance of the Holy Cross

May
5 Feast of the Ascension of Christ
15 Pentecost
28 Feast of Saint Gregory the Illuminator’s Emergence from the Pit
29 Feast of the Universal Cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin

June
11 Feast of the Discovery of the Relics of Saint Gregory the
Illuminator
16 Commemoration day of Holy Translators Sts. Sahak and Mesrop

July
3 Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ

August
14 Assumption of the Holy Mother of God

September
11 Exaltation of the Holy Cross
24 Commemoration day of St. Gevork (St. George)
25 Feast of the Holy Cross of Varak

October
8 Commemoration day of the Holy Translators
23 Discovery of the Holy Cross

November
5 Feast of the Holy Archangels
21 Feast of the Presentation of the Holy Mother of God

December
3 Commemoration day of Saints Thaddeus and Bartholomew, Apostles
and First Enlighteners of Armenia
17 Commemoration day of Saint James
26 Commemoration day of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress