Yakis : We Request Support Of Belgian MPs To Turkey’s EU Bid
Anadolu Agency
Feb 16 2005
BRUSSELS, (Anadolu Agency) – “We have asked Belgian parliamentarians
to convince deputies of other EU member states regarding Turkey`s
EU membership bid,” said Yasar Yakis, chairman of the Turkish
Parliamentary Commission for Adjustment to the EU.
Yakis and accompanying delegation are currently in Belgium for a
working visit. Yakis told reporters, “we have met senators, deputies
and members of the European Parliament. We have expressed our concerns
about progress report which was published about Turkey by European
Commission on October 6th.”
Meanwhile, Sukru Elekdag, a member of the commission and a Republican
People`s Party (CHP) deputy, told reporters that leaving entry
talks open-ended would cause indefiniteness. He added, “we will have
difficulty in explaining the policies of the government to people.
This condition will affect Turkey`s foreign policy as well.”
Noting, “we are very uneasy about the possibility of permanent ban on
free movement of Turkish labor force,” Elekdag said, “it is against
the philosophy of the Union.”
Upon a question, Elekdag and Yakis said that they wanted historians
to come together to research so-called Armenian genocide but Armenians
did not want to open their archives to researchers and discuss them.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
FEBRUARY 11, 2005
UCLA Armenian Graduate Students Association
Graduate Students Association
c/o Armenian Graduate Students Association
Kerckhoff Hall Room 316
308 Westwood Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Contact: Gevork Nazaryan
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
THIRD ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDENT COLLOQUIUM IN ARMENIAN STUDIES AT UCLA
The UCLA Armenian Graduate Students Association invites the public
to the third annual, international Graduate Student Colloquium in
Armenian Studies at UCLA on Friday, February 25, 2005. this day-long
academic event will begin at 9:15 AM and be held in the famous Royce
Hall, room 314.
This year the organizing committee has set out to continue the fine
tradition that began in 2003 with the launching of the first-ever
international colloquium in Armenian Studies developed specifically
for graduate students by graduate students. UCLA, a premier institution
for the growing field of Armenology and a leader in interdisciplinary
studies, is hosting this event to further foster the development of
Armenian Studies, facilitate interaction between graduate students and
faculty from various institutions, provide a medium for the exchange
of ideas, and contribute to the professional and academic advancement
of graduate students.
Studies from multiple fields will be presented, including history,
political science, law, linguistics, literature, architecture, and
art history. Topics to be presented are grouped within the following
sessions: Comparative Studies in Ancient and medieval Armenian Culture,
Modern Armenian History, Issues in Contemporary Armenian Politics, and
Modern Armenian Literature. . Presenters are graduate students coming
from universities and countries all around the world, including UCLA,
Cal State Northridge, Florida International University, University
of Chicago, University of Miami, Villanova University, University
of Michigan, Ca’ Foscari U. (Italy), Central European University
(Hungary), University of London (UK), and multiple institutes within
the Republic of Armenia. Also, these presenters will have post-event
publicity appearances on the television shows Student Reflections and
Grakan Eter, both of which will air on the Horizon channel on Saturday,
February 26th, 2005.
This year, the organizing committee was led by Talar Chahinian,
a graduate student in Comparative Literature. She was joined by a
number of graduate student veterans from the 2003 and 2004 GSCiAS,
as well as faculty advisor, Dr. Peter Cowe. Graduate students from
across many disciplines were responsible for the individual aspects of
developing the event. This ranged from financing to program scheduling,
facilities and refreshments to travel and accommodations, as well as
both academic and media public relations.
Armenian Studies at UCLA began in 1960. The discipline was augmented
in 1962 with the appointment of Dr. Richard G. Hovannisian, current
holder of the Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in Modern
Armenian History. In 1965, language and literature was established
on a permanent footing with the arrival of Dr. Avedis K. Sanjian,
who guided the expansion of this area over the next three decades.
The Narekatsi Chair, founded in 1969 through the efforts of National
Association for Armenian Studies and Research, has the distinction
of being the oldest endowed chair at UCLA. The first chair-holder
was Dr. Sanjian and in July 2000 Dr. S. Peter Cowe was appointed
as successor. Since 1997 regular instruction in East Armenian has
complemented teaching in West Armenian: currently Dr. Anahid Keshishian
is lecturer in the former and Dr. Hagop Kouloujian in the latter.
In 1998, Armenian Studies was officially recognized as an undergraduate
minor and currently proposals are underway to institute the major.
The Graduate Student Colloquium in Armenian Studies is yet another step
in the development of the rich tradition of Armenian Studies at UCLA.
Organized by graduate students, for graduate students, it provides
an opportunity for students to actively and significantly contribute
to the academic environment on campus.
The colloquium is made possible, in part, by the financial
contributions of a number of departments, programs, and centers at
UCLA including the departments of Near Eastern languages and Cultures,
Slavic Languages and Literatures and Art History, the Indo-European
Inter-departmental program, the Center of European and Eurasian
Studies, as well as Graduate Division of the UCLA administration.
The Society for Armenian Studies has also pledged its financial support
for the colloquium. Last, but by no means least, the committee also
received financial support from the campus fund, the Campus Programs
Committee.
The event is free of charge and open to the public.

Boston Globe, MA
Feb 16 2005
Developers abroad
Sluggish commercial property market in Boston sends local builders
overseas for major projects
By Susan Diesenhouse, Globe Correspondent | February 16, 2005
As the Greater Boston commercial property market slogs along, some
local developers are doing what New England investors have done for
centuries: seeking fortunes abroad. They’re focusing on countries
with strong growth prospects, welcoming governments, and the promise
of enormous returns.
ADVERTISEMENT
Paul Korian, managing member of AK Development LLC, and his team of US
and Latin American investors acquired, gutted, and renovated a hotel
in downtown Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, and hope to reap a return
of about 20 percent on the $42 million they spent on the project.
“In Boston, under normal circumstances, we couldn’t even buy a prized
property in a prime location for under market value,” Korian said.
Last June with construction completed, Marriott planted its flag on
the 229-suite hotel, which was purchased from the government of this
former Soviet republic in 1998.
Despite the uncertainties of an emerging economy, the Armenia Marriott
Hotel offers classic property advantages.
“It’s a real estate play; a hard asset,” said Korian.
Some of his partners have invested elsewhere in the Caucasus region
bordered by Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, where in 2003 they
also opened the Tbilisi Marriott Hotel.
In Yerevan, “There’s a lot of risk, but in 10 years we expect a lot
of reward,” he said of the property, whose value has risen 30 percent
since June.
In the last half of 2004, the occupancy rate averaged 50 percent for
double rooms priced from $110 to $180 a night. In the next 10 years,
with Marriott’s global marketing systems, occupancy should rise to
about 70 percent, Korian said.
Meanwhile, there are two other income streams. Above the hotel —
which has four restaurants, 14 meeting rooms, and a banquet hall —
23,000 square feet of offices are leasing for about $21 per square
foot, with 22 percent available. Behind it is another money maker,
a four-acre lot on which they plan to construct a 35-unit time-share
to rent for about $9,000 a week.
“We have the advantage of being early investors in an emerging market,”
Korian said.
But his risk/reward ratio pales in comparison to that faced by John
B. Hynes III, chief executive of Gale International and its joint
venture partner, Seoul-based POSCO E&C. They’re developing a South
Korean metropolis called New Songdo City. Within 20 years, they expect
to invest $25 billion to build 100 million square feet on 1,000 acres
near Incheon International Airport.
In May, after more than three years of preparation, construction is
scheduled to start on the $925 million first phase of the project:
2,300 residential units in eight buildings, the first 300,000 square
feet of a 1.2 million square foot convention center, and a 1,000-room
hotel.
Never a traveler, Hynes didn’t seek out such a far-flung project.
“But once I looked at the dynamics of the deal, I was hooked,” he
said. “Partly, it’s ego; the size of it. Then, it’s about managing
mixed use.”
The project will include housing, retail, offices, hotels, a hospital,
aquarium, museum, garages, utilities, roads, and parks.
“Where else could I possibly experience the thrill of designing and
building a new city from scratch?” he asked.
The South Korean government has invested $10 billion to build the
airport and bridges and improve the land and public transit. It also
will allow Gale to intensively develop the property, building about 12
million square feet per 100 acres compared to about 2 million square
feet they could build on 100 acres in suburban Boston.
With its fast-growing economy, South Korea also holds the promise of
an ample upside.
At $1 million an acre, said Hynes, “We feel our land price is 25
percent of what fair market value will be when the project matures.”
He added: “If we execute properly, we may realize the profit margin
that hooked us in the first place.”

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Feb 16 2005
World Bank Supports Internally Displaced Persons in Azerbaijan
WASHINGTON- The World Bank today approved a US$11.5 million
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) Economic Development Support
Project.
This project aims to improve living conditions, enhance economic
opportunities and prospects for social integration for IDPs.
Azerbaijan’s armed conflict with Armenia over the Upper Garabagh
region, which lasted from 1992 to 1994, left over 30,000 dead and
over 1 million people displaced. About 575, 000, or 15 percent of the
country’s population, became “internally displaced persons.” Many
IDPs live in conditions where infrastructure, housing and service
needs are substantial. Large numbers dwell in excessively poor
housing conditions in school dormitories and former hotels, or occupy
public buildings. Others live in informal settlements that often lack
the most basic services, such as water, electricity, schools and
health facilities. Economic opportunities are limited and
unemployment is high.
“The project will extend the Government’s efforts to improve the
living conditions of IDPs who, as communities, will identify what
investments are most needed,” said Ellen Hamilton, head of the World
Bank team designing the project.
The IDP Economic Development Support Project will consist of two main
components: micro-projects and micro-credits. The first component
will finance the preparation and implementation of up to
approximately 200 small-scale projects (average cost about US$50,000)
to rehabilitate, repair or reconstruct basic small infrastructure,
social infrastructure and temporary shelter facilities. Under the
second component, which is completely funded from the counterpart
funding resources, financing to Partner Lending Institutions will be
provided for the extension of micro-credits to IDPs.
By the time the project is completed, IDP communities will have
benefited from new improved basic small infrastructure (water supply
and sewage networks, electricity distribution networks, access roads
and drainage systems), social infrastructure (schools and community
centers), and temporary shelter facilities. IDPs will also have
benefited from access to micro-credit for income-generating
activities.
The IDP EDS Project has a maturity of 35 years, including a ten-year
grace period.
Azerbaijan joined the World Bank in 1992. Since then, commitments to
the country total approximately US$622 million for 25 operations.
Press Release via Baku Today

RIA Novosti, Russia
Feb 16 2005
IRAN AND RUSSIA DEVELOP NEW ECONOMIC PLANS
MOSCOW (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev)
A delegation of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry led by a
former prime minister, Yevgeny Primakov, is touring the Middle and
Near East, with Iran the key point on the program. The reason is
simple: Iran is the regional leader in terms of the volume and
quality of economic relations with Russia.
Iranian-Russian trade has hit the $2-billion mark, with Russian
exports accounting for 90%. Given that one aim of Russia’s economic
development policy is to free the country from its dependence of raw
material exports, trade with Iran provides an appropriate export
structure: Iran buys Russian planes, cars, and high technologies in
the energy sector, including in nuclear power. New projects are being
drafted, such as the construction of a railroad in Iran, gas
pipelines to Armenia and India, and the Tabas coal power station, as
well as the modernization of other power stations in Isfahan and
Ahwaz. Mr. Primakov’s objective is to identify priorities in the
voluminous plans outlined by the two sides.
Russians engaged in cooperation projects with Iran regard the country
as the regional leader in terms of literacy (81.4%), economic growth
and quality of life. Russia’s political culture believes it
inappropriate to impose forms of governance and life-style norms on
other countries and societies, even when this society is a unique
Shiite theocracy. Indeed, it compares favorably with many Islamic
monarchies in the Near East.
The political results of Iranian-Russian cooperation are obvious,
even if we choose not to mention that Iran has never given support to
Islamic extremists in Chechnya and the North Caucasus, and blocked
every anti-Russian resolution when it recently held the rotating
chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In point
of fact, Iran is still playing a key role in Russia’s gradual advance
to observer status and closer cooperation with the OIC, a role which
is no less important than that of the present OIC chairman, Malaysia.
In other words, Moscow will benefit from a strong and prosperous
Iran, without nuclear weapons but with a powerful economy. The form
of governance it chooses, secular or theocratic Shiite, is
unimportant. The Iranians can cope with their domestic affairs on
their own, as their near unanimity in overthrowing the shah and
installing in 1979 the present, unique regime shows. Naturally, no
monarchies or regimes last forever and Russia has no special reason
for supporting this particular regime in Iran. The only thing Russia
wants is to have its long-term investments in Iran’s development well
protected.
However, Russian interests in Iran should also be protected from
competition. In a sense, Mr. Primakov’s delegation, like any trade
delegation, is part of efforts to get an edge on Russia’s rivals, the
main one being the European Union. It accounts for nearly a quarter
of Iran’s trade (about 15 billion euros), with Germany and Italy
taking the lead. Iran’s trade with Japan, China, and South Korea
should not be ignored either ($6 billion, $5 billion and $4 billion,
respectively).
Russia’s hopes to catch up with these rivals on the Iranian market
are probably unrealistic. Besides, in its special relations with
Iran, Russia can hardly claim a greater role than India, which given
its improving relations with neighboring Pakistan is identifying
increasing economic opportunities in Iran. Indeed, a key
Russian-Iranian project to develop a transport corridor from the
Indian Ocean to Europe via the Caspian Sea is connected with India.
The route will be even more important than the Suez Canal, because
goods to Europe will be delivered cheaper and faster by the
North-South corridor through Indian and Iranian ports and Russia’s
Volga river port of Olya.
Therefore, Moscow can and must take a skeptical view on the zigzags
and vacillation in the attempts made by Iran and the United States to
find a common language. Tehran was a reliable ally for the US and
other countries in their operations against the Taliban and other
terrorists in Afghanistan, but their further rapprochement was
interrupted by the war in Iraq. This war has led to consequences
unexpected even by Iran itself.
The efforts of America and the other occupying powers in neighboring
Iraq have made the establishment of a theocratic state there ruled by
Shiites, who are friendly to Iran’s Shiites despite their
differences, entirely possible. It is worth noting that, as distinct
from the ancient Persian empire, Iraq’s existence as a single state
is a relatively recent experiment. Even its capital, Baghdad, was
built in the middle of the eighth century on the ruins of Ktesifon,
the historic capital of Persia, by Iranians who had overthrown Arab
rule as part of an Islamic caliphate. They installed the Abbasid
dynasty and made Baghdad their capital.
Although this is a lesson from the distant past, it is still
instructive today.

OSCE Commissioner launches inter-ethnic initiatives in Georgia
The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 16 2005
An OSCE project to strengthen inter-ethnic relations in Georgia
is being launched by State Minister for Civic Integration Zinaida
Bestaeva, the OSCE announced on Tuesday.
The new initiative ‘Management of Inter-ethnic Relations’ was
developed by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM)
and aims at deepening inter-ethnic relations throughout the country
and particularly in the region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, home to a large
ethnic Armenian community.
According to the OSCE at a series of seminars and workshops, regional
and national civil servants, community leaders and NGO representatives
will address the complex topic of minority integration, will gain
greater awareness of inter-ethnic issues and will develop positive
practical strategies.
A four-day seminar opening on February 14 marked the start of the
two-year project. Two experts from Kyrgyzstan are participating in
the seminar, which is implemented by the Tbilisi-based Foundation
for the Development of Human Resources.

The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 16 2005
President to students: build the private sector
Presenting cabinet at university, Saakashvili praises new Georgian
version of Windows, defends criticism of opponents
By Nino Kopaleishvili
The political ball is in the students’ playing field, stated President
Mikheil Saakashvili as he presented the new cabinet of ministers at
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University on Tuesday.
The government members, who are set to be approved by Parliament on
February 17, met with the university students to answer any questions.
The students were emboldened with the president’s words that in
case the ministers failed to gain the young people’s trust, he would
seriously reconsider the candidates.
“I want you to ask all the questions you have,” he told the university
audience on February 15, “Now all the power goes to you, to the
Georgian students and youth. Here is the ball, and here is the
playing field.”
In his speech Saakashvili called on the students to create an active
society and to become engaged in the private sector to support a
thriving economy in the country.
“Now is the time that those who are shrewd and smart to step forward,”
said the president, stressing that the new government and a new tax
code supports enterprises.
“All students should think about entering the private sector.
Certainly the best should come to the state offices but the best
should go to the private sector as well. This is very important
because private sector creates the economy,” he said.
Talking at the university the president also referred to the reforms
that are under way in the education sector. According to him the
government is ready to invest money to improve the level of education
in the country.
“The reform of education is mainly putting investments in the education
sphere. We will work on this as a fundament because without money
there is no high-quality education,” he said.
“In four years all Georgian schools should be computerized and
given access to the internet,” the president said, highlighting the
announcement on Tuesday that Microsoft is working with the Tbilisi
IT-company United Global Technology (UGT) to create an official
Georgian language version of the operating system.
“Today Microsoft made a presentation of the first Georgian language
[Microsoft software] and we should do everything toward this
direction,” said Saakashvili. As he stated, the project would cost
the government USD 40 million “We will allot this money by all means,”
he promised.
On Tuesday Saakashvili once more stressed his will to create an active
multi-ethnic society in Georgia that is ready to work hard for a better
future and does not demand too much care from the government. As he
explained, Georgian society remains occupied with an obsolete mentality
and considers that it is the government who should initiate activities.
“We [the people] should lay the groundwork to an active society,”
he said. “The population can take the reins of their fate into their
own hands.”
In his didactic speech at the university Saakashvili also talked about
the ethnic tolerance, and the multi-ethnic society that is struggling
for a better future in Georgia.
“We have Azeris who are proud of Georgia. We have Armenians who are
proud of Georgia, and I am sure we will have many more Abkhaz who
will be proud of the fact that they are in Georgia and they are a
part of the country,” said the president.
Saakashvili also commented on his harsh statement that last week in
Parliament that New Rights Opposition leader MP David Gamkrelidze was
“jerking around.” The president’s statement was severely criticized
in media, and Saakashvili defended himself saying that there is a
place for harsh expressions in a democratic state.
“I am sorry but democracy is not when only one person can speak and a
poor government tolerates it and never responds. We already had such
a government,” stated the president.
“Democracy is something where everyone can express his opinion, among
them the most radical opinions, but finally people will decide who
is right and who is not,” he added.
As for the question and answer portion, Georgian media covered little
of the interaction except for State Minister Kakha Bendukidze telling
one student that he expected a “more intelligent” question.

Turkish Daily News
Feb 16 2005
PM should visit the ‘Turks’ exhibition
Mehmet Ali Birand:
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
When the Europeans think about Turks, the first things that springs
to their minds are images of mistreatment, torture, violation of
rights or domestic and foreign military interventions. Most of the
news they see coming out of Turkey is full of negative information.
In cultural terms, they see us as almost non-existent.
At a time when we face such a mammoth image problem, as luck would
have it, a world-renowned artistic institution, London’s Royal
Academy of Arts, is holding an extremely popular exhibition entitled:
“Turks.”
The exhibition is an account of our past.
It is a step-by-step journey across the milestones of Turkish
history, and it is currently amongst the most talked about cultural
events in Europe.
People have started to take an interest in Turkey and Turkish
culture as a result of our dealings with the E.U. combined with the
lure of the prestigious Royal Academy it has caused a wave of
interest.
The exhibition was due to have been opened by Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoðan himself. The Turkish prime minister was supposed to
visit Britain for the day and the event would have been a significant
public relations victory for Turkey.
Some people in Ankara (I was told it was the Foreign Ministry, but
I don’t want to believe that) objected to this.
They told Erdoðan: “Sir, when you arrive, either the British prime
minister, or the foreign secretary at the very least, should be with
you during you visit the to the exhibition to demonstrate respect for
a visiting head-of-state. However, if they are not there, it would be
seen as most improper for you to visit the exhibition alone.”
Can you just imagine the mentality of such a recommendation? This
important exhibition is to be visited and our bureaucrats are only
thinking about official protocol rules. Instead of telling Erdoðan:
“You can meet the British prime minister or the foreign secretary
some other time, but this exhibition really can’t be missed,” they
prevented him from going at all. Meanwhile, the exhibition has turned
out to be a resounding success.
People are flocking from all over Europe to visit it. According to
figures given to me, around 10,000 people visit it a day. They plan
to take the exhibition to Paris and then New York afterwards.
Ankara just remains silent on the subject.
The Turkish Administration didn’t give a single cent to the
exhibition. Thank god the private sector was more mature and provided
funding to make sure it happened.
The exhibition will finish at the end of March.
What we would expect is Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan to make
the time to visit it before it closes. It would provide a tremendous
boost to promoting this country abroad. He should go to London on a
prearranged visit with every newspaper notified beforehand. It should
become a real occasion.
Just ignore the absence of Tony Blair.
Erdoðan must understand the boost to public awareness such a visit
would bring.
Why shouldn’t Pamuk say what he thinks?
Extreme nationalist media outlets have made novelist Orhan Pamuk
their new hate-figure.
He implied that Turks killed Armenians and Kurds and this has
caused a commotion.
Who is Pamuk?
He is an internationally renowned Turkish novelist. He was
celebrated in this country up until recently and is one of the first
individuals people remember when they talk about Turkey. He is not an
official state spokesman or a government representative. In other
words, his words carry no official weight. He is just talking about
his own opinions.
What the reason behind this attack?
Don’t people have the right to say what they think, no matter
whether they’re right or wrong? Will Turkey be sent to the
International Court, just because Orhan Pamuk made these allegations?
Will the United Nations use Pamuk as a witness and demand
compensation from Turkey?
No.
If you don’t agree with what Pamuk’ opinions, just say it. Why this
“lynching mentality?”
Gentlemen, this is the gap between us and the rest of the civilized
world (by which I mean the western world, especially the EU). We are
yet to fully embrace freedom of expression. We have adjusted most of
our laws in line with the Copenhagen criteria to be closer to Europe,
but now that I reflect on it, we as a people are still very far from
adopting an attitude compatible with theirs.
We need to get used to respecting differences of opinions, no
matter how irritating they are.
I don’t agree with what Pamuk said, but I defend his right to say
them.
What was done to him is a shame.
It is outdated.
–Boundary_(ID_J2mkWZ3QsQfr/FNWVmRt8Q)–

Kurdish Media, UK
Feb 16 2005
Ezidis: Ezidi children are forced to study Islam in Turkey
16/02/2005 Ezidis
The recent practice of Turkish state against Ezidis in
Viransehir-Urfa is evidencing the Turanist barbarism experience from
history.
As we learned through the press, Ezidi children are forced to study
Islam as a compulsory course in Oglakci village of Viransehir in Urfa
province. This fact is evidencing Turkish state’s assimilating policy
against other ethnic and religious groups in general and Ezidis in
particular. Although Turkish state has accepted “secularism
principle” in its constitution, it has been contradicting this
principle since the set up of this state and has been maintaining
Ottoman Empire’s politics of forcing everyone to be Muslim.
The existence of these practices is evidencing Turkish state’s
non-sincerity, ridiculousness, especially in a period of EU
membership discussions. Aziz Nesin – a Turkish intellectual, also
mentioned this fact. This practice and mentality should be exposed
and prevented through legal actions.
Under Ottoman Empire, Ezidis were accepted as “pagan”, therefore were
deprived of all their legal rights and exposed to massacres. Turkish
State is inheritor of such a barbaric heritage and hasn’t transformed
at all but has persistently accepted Ezidism as a religion and
therefore acted for killing, assimilating Ezidis. That is why; the
number of Ezidis is so few in North Kurdistan.
Turkish state is demanding many cultural rights for Turkish citizens
who are living in Europe including religion, mother language courses.
On the other hand, it is not allowing any rights for Kurds, Ezidi
Kurds, Alevi Kurds or any Christian groups living within borders of
Turkey. So, how can Turkish state integrate with the modern world?
Turkish state cannot even stand with freedom of nations within
neighbor countries and is trying to maintain the statuesque by making
threats. (Meaning freedom of Kurds in Iraq-NB) All these practices of
Turkish state evidences that it is not only a colonist but also an
actor of instability in the region.
Once more, we would like to thank to all our brothers-sisters from
Kurdistan who helped in pronouncing/publicizing this fact and
supported us by not leaving alone.
We strongly condemn this recent practice of successors of Ittihat and
Terakki who murdered millions of Armenians, Kurds and Ezidis from
Kurdistan. We declare that we will not give up our democratic fight
and call all sensitive-humanist people for collaboration.
On behalf of a group of Ezidi academicians:
Xemdar Sero
Eziz Hiseyni
Eli Hevdiyan
Xelef Dirêj
–Boundary_(ID_UvmVVSxr1Xf+DA0ZpPj/sQ)–

Belfast Telegraph, UK
Feb 16 2005
Is nothing sacred?
It’s the holiest of Christian sites – the place where Jesus was
buried. But the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has become a
battleground where priests fight and monks stone each other. Victoria
Clark reports on an ungodly turf war.
16 February 2005
Father Athanasius’s Texan drawl sounds as steady as ever down the
phone from Jerusalem but the tale he’s recounting is hair-raising:
“… I refused to close the door to our chapel and then the Greeks,
priests and deacons and acolytes attacked the Israeli police standing
by the door and I was pushed away and fell down, and someone was
kicking me, and more police arrived…”
My Catholic friar friend eventually explains that this latest
explosion of Christian-on-Christian violence in the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem occurred on 27 September last year, on
the Orthodox Feast of the True Cross. Although it happened four
months ago, the authors of the crime – Greek Orthodox churchmen –
have not yet been brought to book.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre – the sanctified home to the site of
Christ’s crucifixion, as well the tomb he vacated three days later –
is no stranger to violent bloodshed. Christian denominations have
been violently contesting each others’ rights to occupy every last
inch of this holiest of holy places since shortly after the the first
church was built on the site around AD330.
Soon it will be Easter, and the vast 12th-century Crusader church
will host more services, processions and ceremonies than at any other
time of the year. That means more friction and more occasions for
violence. “From Catholic Palm Sunday on 20 March to the Orthodox Holy
Fire ceremony on 23 April is a five-week danger period for us,”
Father Athanasius says. “I’m really scared someone’s going to get
killed.”
While I was in Jerusalem investigating the contribution the world’s
Christian powers have made to the world’s most intractable conflict,
I witnessed two major fights between churchmen and many minor ones.
The first, on Holy Saturday in 2002, involved the Greek Orthodox
patriarch, Irineos I, and an Armenian priest, who were supposed to be
co-operating in the ritual surrounding the Orthodox “miracle” of the
Holy Fire. Many Orthodox Christians believe that on the Saturday
before Easter every year God descends in the shape of a flame
spontaneously ignited inside the shrine of Christ’s tomb. On this
occasion, behind the closed doors of the shrine, the two churchmen
fell out over whether tradition demanded that they both “receive” the
Holy Fire at once, or whether the Greek patriarch must take
precedence.
Impatient, the Armenian improvised his own “holy fire” with the far
from miraculous aid of a cigarette lighter. In a space no bigger than
a couple of telephone boxes, an ungodly tussle ensued. The patriarch
blew out his companion’s candle and somehow lost a shoe. The Armenian
was badly bruised when two Greek monks and then two Israeli police
stormed the shrine.
The second incident, in July that year, landed 11 monks in hospital.
The argument was over whether or not an elderly Egyptian monk should
be permitted to sit under a eucalyptus tree on the Ethiopians’ roof
terrace. “This is an invasion,” a young Ethiopian monk named Solomon
insisted a month before the battle. “Today he sits here on his chair.
Tomorrow, another Copt will come with his chair and perhaps a table.
One day the Egyptians will claim that they have the right to be in
this courtyard, and they will take our monastery!”
The affair escalated from haughty stares at the snoozing Copt to a
battle in which stones and metal railings were deployed. The Copts,
whose monastery overlooks the Ethiopians’ roof terrace, came off
best.
The Israeli authorities responded to the first incident by deploying
a thousand police in the square of the Old City on the morning of the
Holy Fire ceremony of 2003. George Hintlian, a pillar of the city’s
Armenian community, a historian and an expert in matters concerning
the Christian holy places, was expecting another dust-up. He told me
that “we Armenians don’t want a fight, but we can have people ready
to take up strategic positions around the church”.
After the battle of the chair, the Israelis installed CCTV cameras in
the Ethiopians’ roof terrace. For all the Israelis’ patient shuttling
between the two communities in search of a resolution, one had not
been found by Christmas 2003. Two Israeli police were still escorting
the old Copt to his post under the Ethiopians’ tree every morning.
Jerusalem’s rulers, whether they were the Ottoman Turks for 500 years
until 1917, the British of the mandate period until 1948, or the
Israelis thereafter, have often mocked and marvelled at the bitter
feuds of the Christians in their favourite holy place, but all have
tried to limit the causes of friction.
No fewer than six different kinds of Christian enjoy grossly unequal
shares in the use and management of the church. Lording it as
representatives of the oldest and richest church of the Holy Land and
heirs to the glories of Byzantium are the Greek Orthodox, who control
about 40 per cent of the church’s territory and contents. At the
other end of the scale is the tiny community of Ethiopians who
inhabit a cluster of little huts on their rooftop terrace, directly
above the ground that they believe King Solomon gave to their Queen
of Sheba long before Jesus was even born. They can be heard to
complain that “in Western Europe, dogs and cats have a better life
than we have here”.
The Catholic Franciscan community that Father Athanasius belongs to
only won a foothold in the 14th century, after payment of a hefty
bribe, but it is now the second-greatest power. The wealth and
influence acquired as merchants in the Ottoman Empire have elevated
the Armenian Oriental Orthodox to third position, while the Egyptian
Copts make do with one tiny chapel. The Syrian Jacobites, who boast
what Father Athanasius calls the “badly beat-up Chapel of Joseph of
Arimathea”, are almost as underprivileged as the Ethiopians.
The shared shrine of the tomb and the ambulatory encircling it are
the flashpoints. Twice, the protrusion of a Coptic doormat an extra
two inches into the ambulatory has ignited violent argument.
On the occasion of the battle described by Father Athanasius, a
procession was taking place in a shared area of the church, near the
shrine. The 140th head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem,
Patriarch Irineos I, was magnificently robed and holding aloft a
cross containing a relic of the one on which Christ was crucified.
Behind came a small army of hymn-singing churchmen, and then a larger
crowd of Orthodox pilgrims. All was going well until the open door of
the Catholic Franciscans’ side-chapel caught the patriarch’s eye. He
instructed his retinue to see to its closure.
Father Athanasius happened to be standing by the offending door.
Politely, he refused to oblige. Then, about 40 Greek clergy resorted
to force. Ten Israeli police positioned in front of the chapel (they
are on routine duty in the church to prevent precisely such
confrontations) were attacked. In the 21-minute brawl, one of them
lost three teeth. Father Athanasius was knocked to the ground and
kicked. Twenty-five Israeli police were needed to calm passions, and
at least three Greek monks were arrested.
By chance, two video recordings of the procession and its unscripted
battle-scene exist, filmed by locals hoping to sell copies of the
ceremony to Orthodox pilgrims. The Franciscans have decided to
present this evidence to a higher authority; only the Israeli
government can resolve a dispute this serious. “But we are still
waiting for their response,” Father Athanasius says. “Yes, I know
they’ve got more important things to think about right now, but time
is short. I can’t tell you how embarrassing this is for all the Holy
Land churches. In fact, we only want it publicised because Easter is
coming. Something has to be done.’
In the four years I have known him, Father Athanasius has tended to
play down hostilities in the holy places. In the spring of 2000, he
assured me that the three great powers of the church had solved 90
per cent of their disagreements, and it was only the lesser powers
who were still disgracing their faith. “Things only tend to go wrong
these days when, let’s say, the Copts behave like kids reaching for
the candy jar,” he had joked. “You slap them down, but they creep
back and try again.”
We had chuckled over minor ruckuses, like the one about the Greek
Orthodox and Armenians and Catholics competing for the privilege of
repairing a manhole cover that happened to straddle the meeting point
of their three territories. He had told me how jealously the Greeks
guarded their right to clean the church’s lavatories.
But there is no trace of his Texan humour now. A tiny sign that the
Greek Orthodox are not feeling chastened by their autumn misdemeanour
scares him: Father Athanasius strongly suspects that, without
consultation, the Greeks have filled in the cracks in the shared slab
of stone on which Jesus was anointed before burial. “They say they
didn’t do it, that pilgrims did it, but what kind of pilgrim goes
around with a supply of cement and a palette knife?”
For the other side, I telephone a friend, a Greek Orthodox bishop.
Even if he can’t account for the workings of his patriarch’s mind
last September, Bishop Theophanis is a good guide to the prevailing
mood among the city’s Greek Orthodox clergy.
Speaking from his bungalow on the roof terrace of the Greek
patriarchate, next door to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he
offers no excuse. “Frankly,” he says, “it was an act of provocation
from our side.” But he cannot resist a dig at the Franciscans. “I
have to tell you that those Catholics can sometimes behave like
Crusaders here and they’re not good at respecting us Orthodox as the
first Christian church of the Holy Land – but still, Irineos was
silly and Athanasius behaved quite correctly.”
Bishop Theophanis warns against judging any church by its personnel:
“The Orthodox Church is much bigger than that. Man is always weak and
silly. The Catholics are great ones for confusing the man and the
institution…” When I protest that lives may be at stake now, that
patriarchs are notoriously difficult to remove and that Irineos is
only 64, Bishop Theophanis heaves a sad sigh: “If he lasts another 20
years, we can forget about a Greek Orthodox patriarchate in
Jerusalem.”
That a usually phlegmatic Texan is raising the alarm about Eastertide
violence, and a proud Greek is contemplating the collapse of the
city’s fifth-century patriarchate, is some indication of the
seriousness of the situation. While the Palestinian issue has hogged
the spotlight, few have focused on the sideshow in the Church of the
Sepulchre. But it is starting to matter a great deal to anyone who
thinks Christianity should retain a stake in the land where it was
born.
There is talk now of resuming the “road map” to peace. Sooner or
later, the burning question of Jerusalem’s status will have to be
raised and attention focused on every inch of that city, as well as
the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis are already seeking ways to
secure as much as possible of the city for themselves ahead of a
final settlement. And who could blame them for asking themselves why
the Greek Orthodox patriarchate continues to own so much prime
property, including the land on which their Knesset is built, and why
the Armenian Quarter accounts for one-sixth of the Old City, and why
the Catholic Franciscan holdings make up another large fraction…
If the guardians of the Christian holy places are turning on each
other more violently than ever, that’s probably because they feel
more threatened and vulnerable today than they have for a century.
‘Holy Fire: the battle for Christ’s tomb’ by Victoria Clark is
published on Friday (Macmillan, £20)
–Boundary_(ID_QWM7VvuUI6QecoswY6YdjA)–