NKR Foreign Minister Meets Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk

NKR FOREIGN MINISTER MEETS AMBASSADOR ANDRZEJ KASPRZYK

ArmRadio.am
21.08.2006 12:55

August 21 at the NKR Permanent Representation in the Republic of
Armenia NKR Foreign Minister Georgy Petrosyan met with the Personal
Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Ambassador Andrzej
Kasprzyk at the latter’s request.

The parties discussed issues of mutual interest, particularly those
related to the fires at the contact line of the Armed Forces of
Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan, "Arminfo" was told at the NKR
Permanent Representation.

BAKU: Azerbaijan’s Position In CE Remains Firm – Azeri Rep At CE

AZERBAIJAN’S POSITION IN CE REMAINS FIRM – AZERI REP AT CE
Author: A.Ismayilova

TREND, Azerbaijan
Aug. 17, 2006

Trend ‘s exclusive interview with Azerbaijani representative at the
Council of Europe, Agshin Mehdiyev

Question: How do you estimate the current level of relationships
between Azerbaijan and the Council of Europe? What is the country’s
position at the CE?

Answer: The relationships between the Azerbaijani government and the
CE Committee of Ministers are on progress. Periodically there evolve
questions, but are solved smoothly.

As to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),
here it is dealt with episodes, when any reporter, a group of MPs,
voices his dissatisfaction with definite events. For instance,
the well-known co-rapporteurs Andreas Gross and Andreas Herkel hold
tendentious position in respect to Azerbaijan. For instance, they
provoked the issue on consideration of the mandate of Azerbaijani
delegation at the PACE. However, the Assembly did not support them.

Together with the parliamentary delegation we try to resist such
attempts and thus far we have succeeded.

Question: How could you explain the tendentious position by some
individuals and groups?

Answer: Firstly, we should not forget that the attitude towards
Azerbaijan is not unilateral. We have too many friends, but also
too many enemies. Azerbaijan is a country with rich history and
natural resources. It should be not ignored that this is the Muslim
country and it is not accepted unilaterally at the Christian European
circles. Perhaps, the Armenian lobby is permanently and purposefully
working against Azerbaijan.

Question: How do you estimate the influence of the Armenian lobby on
the Council of Europe at present?

Answer: It is not so weak. They [Armenians] are frank provocateurs.

We have started the propaganda activities only 10-20 years ago,
whilst for many years Armenians have been conducting anti-Turk,
anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Muslim propaganda, introducing themselves
as miserable.

Nevertheless, Azerbaijan’s influence is also rising. In the pretext
of our successes, developing with the other countries, including the
European and Christian world, the Armenian lobby will exist no longer.

Question: Could we expect any ‘surprise’ from Armenia in the autumn
session of the PACE?

Answer: I don’t think so. To my mind there will be no issue linked
with Azerbaijan.

Question: Does the Azerbaijan delegation plan to raise an issue on
fire in the Armenian-occupied territory of Azerbaijan?

Answer: Certainly, Azerbaijani delegate can put forward this issue
in one of the meetings of the committee and demand for appointment
of a rapporteur. It is possible in this order.

Question: Could the CE send its experts to the territory following
a report by an international organization, the OCSE?

Answer: That is a right question: This is a serious problem,
because there is a particular coordination among the international
organizations. One can frequently observe the cases when their
positions contradict each other.

However, the CE is a serious and independent organization and it holds
a very principle standpoint on some issues, and that distinguishes it
from others. Now we have to hold a position based on arguments and
facts. Sometimes, the questions are put forward, while no concrete
arguments are presented for this respect.

Question: Do the CE representatives plan to pay visit to Azerbaijan
in the nearest future?

Answer: A new PACE rapporteur on Azerbaijan, Tony Lloyd, plans to
visit Azerbaijan this autumn. No visit is on schedule prior to the
session. A mission of the CE Congress of Local Authorities will visit
Azerbaijan after the session and municipal elections so as to carry
out monitoring of pre-election situation in Azerbaijan. Terry Davis,
the General Secretary of the PACE, is expected to Azerbaijan. It is
necessary to work over it.

Question: Does the CE plans to carry out monitoring at the municipal
elections?

Answer: There were sounded ideas that the Congress of Regional and
Local Authorities was probable to dispatch its observers.

Question: When does the PACE Ad Hoc Committee on Nagorno-Karabakh
plan to meet and what issues will be on agenda?

Answer: No concrete date is named for the time being. Perhaps, prior
or after the autumn session. I think sooner or later the agenda of
the Committee of Ministers will include an issue on concrete results
of Paris process, state of negotiations and the necessity for the
issue is evolving.

Question: What will be Azerbaijan’s benefits?

Answer: Those who are currently involved in the conflict resolution,
I mean the OSCE Minsk Group and others, will feel that there are
people who take interests in their work. I’d avoid from using acute
phrases. The CE will prove its estimation. Especially, it is dealt
with the organization that unites 46 European countries.

Of course, I can’t say that the CE has always protected Azerbaijan’s
interests. However, there are some positive milestones, although I
still consider it insufficient. In this case they defend justice.

They should preserve their image as a supporter of justice.

Question: Could it affect the OSCE Minsk Group’s activities?

Answer: We have always considered as many international organizations
are involved in the process as better. But we have never said that
these organizations should replace the OSCE Minsk Group. And there
is no issue on replacement in the OSCE Minsk Group on agenda.

Necessity Mother Of Invention In Gas-Fuelled Armenia

NECESSITY MOTHER OF INVENTION IN GAS-FUELLED ARMENIA
By Hasmik Mkrtchian

Reuters, UK
Aug. 16, 2006

YEREVAN (Reuters) – Ex-Soviet state Armenia is blazing a trail in
the global quest to move to cleaner fuels — not by choice but out
of necessity.

The tiny country of 3 million people in the Caucasus mountains has
a strong claim to be a world leader in running vehicles on natural
gas: a fuel that produces fewer harmful greenhouse gases than petrol
or diesel.

The transport ministry estimates that between 20 and 30 percent of
vehicles in Armenia run on gas. That compares to just over 3 percent
in the Netherlands, a front-runner in gas-powered transport, according
to the World LP Gas Association.

Stop one of the creaking, Russian-made taxis plying their trade in
Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, and odds are it will have a gas canister
strapped into the boot. Battered buses have rows of red canisters
fastened onto their roof-racks.

In countries like the Netherlands, switching from petrol to gas is
seen as a green option.

In landlocked Armenia, it is not concerns over climate change or
global warming that are driving growth in gas-powered vehicles.

Instead, it is harsh necessity — and an unresolved war with
Azerbaijan, its neighbor to the east.

"In our taxi firm, we have 30 cars and all of them run on gas," said
45-year-old Seryozha Harutunian, driver of a gas-powered Volga sedan.

"And there are gas refueling stations on every corner in Yerevan,"
he said.

Richer countries offer tax incentives to make gas for use in vehicles
— known as autogas — more attractive to motorists than traditional
fuels. But they have had only limited success.

"They are niche markets," said Yvon Sellier, director of business
practices with the World LP Gas Association, a Geneva-based lobby
group. "(Gas is a) small proportion of the fuel consumed by vehicles."

NECESSITY MOTHER OF INVENTION

Crude oil and oil products used to be brought into Armenia by
rail direct from Azerbaijan’s oil fields and refineries. Since a
territorial conflict between the two neighbors in the early 1990s,
the border has been closed.

Now, oil and oil products — Armenian officials do not say where they
come from — have to be shipped in through Armenia’s other neighbor
Georgia, a long and tortuous journey through the Caucasus mountains.

That creates an extra cost on top of the already high price for fuel
on world markets.

In Georgia, a liter of the cheapest grade petrol costs consumers 82
U.S. cents. In Armenia, the same fuel costs 91 cents — a significant
difference in a country where the average monthly wage is about $140.

Natural gas, meanwhile, is pumped to Armenia by pipeline from Russia.

Russian gas monopoly Gazprom supplies the fuel at $110 per thousand
cubic meters, a hefty discount on the price Gazprom customers in
Europe pay. Armenia is one of several ex-Soviet states that enjoy
favorable rates for Russian gas.

"Petrol is getting more expensive," said Transport and Communications
Minister Andranik Manukian. "Gas … has not gone up by that much so
it is preferable to use it."

"They are niche markets," said Yvon Sellier, director of business
practices with the World LP Gas Association, a Geneva-based lobby
group. "(Gas is a) small proportion of the fuel consumed by vehicles."

NECESSITY MOTHER OF INVENTION

Crude oil and oil products used to be brought into Armenia by
rail direct from Azerbaijan’s oil fields and refineries. Since a
territorial conflict between the two neighbors in the early 1990s,
the border has been closed.

Now, oil and oil products — Armenian officials do not say where they
come from — have to be shipped in through Armenia’s other neighbor
Georgia, a long and tortuous journey through the Caucasus mountains.

That creates an extra cost on top of the already high price for fuel
on world markets.

In Georgia, a liter of the cheapest grade petrol costs consumers 82
U.S. cents. In Armenia, the same fuel costs 91 cents — a significant
difference in a country where the average monthly wage is about $140.

Natural gas, meanwhile, is pumped to Armenia by pipeline from Russia.

Russian gas monopoly Gazprom supplies the fuel at $110 per thousand
cubic meters, a hefty discount on the price Gazprom customers in
Europe pay. Armenia is one of several ex-Soviet states that enjoy
favorable rates for Russian gas.

"Petrol is getting more expensive," said Transport and Communications
Minister Andranik Manukian. "Gas … has not gone up by that much so
it is preferable to use it."

Armenian President To Pay Working Visit To Sochi

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT TO PAY WORKING VISIT TO SOCHI

Noyan Tapan
Aug 15 2006

YEREVAN, AUGUST 15, NOYAN TAPAN. The Armenian President Robert
Kocharian is going on a working visit to Sochi on August 15 where
a regular summit of the Eurasian Economic Community’s (EurAsEC)
Interstate Council will be held on August 15-17. According to the
RA President’s press service, Armenia has the status of observer at
the EurAsEC.

BAKU: Azimov: Armenians Are Sure To Withdraw From Kalbajar And Lachi

AZIMOV: ARMENIANS ARE SURE TO WITHDRAW FROM KALBAJAR AND LACHIN REGIONS

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug. 15, 2006

"Armenians are sure to withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani regions
of Kalbajar and Lachin. This does not depends on their intention,"
Azerbaijani deputy foreign minister Araz Azimov told journalists,
APA reports.

Mr.Azimov said as both regions are Azerbaijani territory, no
speculation will be allowed.

"As concerns Lachin corridor, this can neither be a basis nor a
pretext to occupy any part of Lachin. We’ll never consent to this.

The road on Lachin is to serve both parties. In addition, other
states can also use this corridor in regional scale," the deputy
minister underlined.

The Turkey Effect

THE TURKEY EFFECT
E. G. Vallianatos

Hellenic News of America
Aug. 14, 2006

The collapse of Russia in the late 1980s and the failure of Western
Europe to graduate from American tutelage have left America the
only superpower in the world, an unprecedented political event in
world history.

America?s monopoly of world power is dangerous, however. The United
States is now the new Roman Empire, but without the Roman Empire?s
Greek experience. Military America is now fortress America, dismissing
international law and conventions while flirting with tyranny at
home. The American military giant has already embarked on global
conquest, starting with a war in Iraq for the control of Middle
East oil.

Second, this new military America is also dismissing the Greek legacy
of its Western culture. On November 4, 2004, George W. Bush, the
first uncrowned emperor of the United States, recognized a former
province of Yugoslavia as the Republic of Macedonia! Imagine the
country of the lover of the Greeks, Thomas Jefferson, buying the
lies of Bulgarians and Albanians trying to pass for Macedonians,
who could only be Greek. Or, more accurately, Bush giving a Greek
title to a former communist group of non-Greeks because they deploy
a few soldiers in Iraq.

Third, America?s military alliance in Europe, NATO, should have
expired the moment Russia?s communist empire expired. But it did not.

NATO, emboldened by America, brought into its orbit countries that used
to be part of the Soviet Union. Strangely, this European subsidiary
to American power that includes Greece is reviving the cold war with
Russia while treating Greece like a colony.

The main reason for the bad feelings between the NATO ?allies? and
Greece is the Turkey effect, the insulting decision of the United
States to including Turkey, Greece?s most bitter enemy, in NATO. The
United States, working under the poisonous climate of the cold war,
and not little self-interest, dismissed its cultural and political
debt to the Greeks for the illusion of drawing Turkey against Russia.

But Turkey only follows its own rules, pretending to be on the
same fence with the West while remaining an Islamic country with
deep historical hatred for the West. Turkey uses NATO merely for
upgrading its military. And because Turkey is convinced America is
still fighting its cold war against Russia, it is possible that NATO
encourages Turkey?s outrageous behavior towards Greece.

In 1955, Turkey used a pogrom against the Greeks of Istanbul,
destroying the property and livelihood of some 80,000 Greeks, in
effect, exterminating millennia of Greek civilization in Asia Minor,
the Greeks? Ionia. The British actively encouraged Turkey in that
barbarous onslaught on the Greeks because the British hated the
Cypriot Greeks who were resisting British colonialism in Cyprus.

America dismissed the whole Turkish atrocity outright, telling Greek
government officials to immediately shake hands with the Turks.

In 1974, with the blessings of England and those of America, Turkey
invaded and captured a third of the Greek island of Cyprus. The Turks
killed thousands of Greek Cypriots, forcing close to 200,000 to become
refugees in their own land.

The Turks also plunder Cypriot antiquities, converting churches to
stables and mosques, while vilifying Cyprus? 13-millennia-old culture
and history.

The United Nations issued several resolutions condemning the Turkish
invasion of Cyprus, urging Turkey out of Cyprus, but Turkey, knowing
that America and England share its strategic interests, has been
ignoring the United Nations.

Turkey also keeps violating Greek air space, provoking Greece to nearly
daily confrontation. On May 23, 2006, such unfriendly behavior turned
lethal. Greek and Turkish F-16 fighter jets ?collided? over the Greek
island of Karpathos in the Aegean, killing the Greek pilot.

Despite Turkey?s aggression toward Greece, which is preparing the
ground for war, the European Union, doing America?s favor, is courting
Turkey for a possible EU membership. And Greece, pretending to be
overly forgiving or generous towards Turkey or, more likely, forced
to a pro-Turkish attitude by EU or the US, has been an active booster
for Turkey?s membership to EU. Of course, the pro-Turkish policy
of EU and US, based on the delusion EU membership would neutralize
Turkey?s Islam, strikes another blow against the Greek foundations
of Western culture.

How could anyone expect more than 70 million Turkish Moslems, now
governed by an Islamic government, to become Europeans? They have no
legacy of European civilization. Thinking of Europe one immediately
comes up with a galaxy of Greeks: Homeros, Aischylos, Sokrates, Platon,
Hippokrates, Aristoteles, Aristarchos, Archimedes, Alexander the
Great, Ploutarchos, Galen, Ptolemy; and another galaxy of non-Greek
Europeans: Dante, Desiderius Erasmus, Philip Melanchthon, Galileo
Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Beethoven, Voltaire,
Friedrich Nietzsche, Emile Zola, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein,
Pablo Picasso, and Leo Tolstoy. But thinking of Turkey no name comes
to mind, except the violent legacy of a state that terrorized and
slaughtered the people of Southeastern Europe for about five centuries.

The Turks are still celebrating their capture, in 1453, of
Constantinople, the capital of the Greek medieval empire. Turkey is
the country that George Horton, the American consul general in the
Ottoman Empire during World War I, described as ?the blight of Asia.?

The Ottoman Empire became Turkey while Horton observed its genocidal
policies against its non-Moslem minorities. In early twentieth century,
in fact, the Turks sealed the doors between them and Europeans: They
killed 1.5 million Armenians; then they turned against the Greeks,
murdering 1 million of them and expelling from Asia Minor another
1.5 million.

So the Turks don?t fit in Europe: Turkish Islam and the
exterminationist strategies of Turkey against the ?infidel?

non-Moslems are antithetical to Western values. Even the few millions
of them living in Germany and other European countries, including
Greece, find it difficult, if not impossible, to become European.

They care less about the West. Turks in Greek Thrace look to Turkey for
culture and protection. Next to Turkish aggression in the Aegean, they
are the main trigger for a future Greco-Turkish war. Greece ought to
find an acceptable humanitarian method of repatriating them to Turkey.

Fortunately, the people of France and Holland put the Turkish project
of EU into deep freeze. They rejected the EU constitution primarily
because of the Turkey effect.

If the Turks really want to join Europe, they will have to reinvent
themselves, probably an impossible task. They never had a Renaissance,
Enlightenment or Scientific Revolution. Theoretically, they must water
down their Islam, opening their culture to democracy, secular ideas,
human rights, and the rule of law. They will have to start that process
by coming to terms with their history, admitting and apologizing for
their genocide against the Armenians and the Greeks. Second, they
must change their behavior towards EU, which they claim they want
to join. Congressman Donald M. Payne is right in suggesting that the
Turkish government is displaying near contempt for policies affecting
its European orientation.

Above all, Turkey must get out of Cyprus and cease provoking Greece.

Both NATO and EU must oversee the removal of all Turkish forces and
Turkish settlers from Cyprus. Failure in this crucial policy affecting
a full member of EU, Cyprus, would have deleterious consequences for
both alliances, including terminating any prospect for a European
association of Turkey. The recent, 2002-2004, misuse of the United
Nations by the United States and Britain to force the dissolution of
the Republic of Cyprus by legitimizing the 1974 atrocity of the Turkish
invasion of Cyprus should never be repeated or the ?international
system? will become meaningless. Fortunately, Greek Cypriots smelled
the rat in the UN?s Annan plan, rejecting it in April 2004.

EU has also to become real EU by protecting its homeland first. The
test of that solidarity ought to be in guaranteeing the integrity
of Greek borders and the independence of Cyprus. If the majority
of Cypriots decide Cyprus ought to become part of Greece, no one
ought to prevent or be able to prevent such a union. In that case,
Cypriot Turks should have the option of becoming Greek citizens or
repatriate to Turkey.

If this modest proposal could materialize, especially now that the
Middle East is in flames and Cyprus showed the world its hospitality
and essentiality in a hazardous region, the Turks might decide that
it would be in their interests to respect international treaties,
a crucial requirement in becoming part of a civilized world.

It would help, of course, if Turkey?s patron, the US, ceased to boost
its ego while distancing itself from Turkish policies. Start that
transition by speaking truth to Turkey about Turkey?s genocidal past,
standing by John M. Evans, American ambassador to Armenia who discussed
publicly the Turks? Armenian genocide. Yet the State Department fired
Evans this past May, showing that the US is still doing the bidding
of Turkey, a country unwilling to face its past.

Unless and until that changes, Turkey remains a dangerous country.

And as long as America trades its values for the extremely unlikely
prospect of Turkish alliance in its war against Islam, American
policies will remain a double-edged sword for EU, Greece, Cyprus,
and Armenia.

With this unsavory record, EU should test Turkish intentions and
policies for at least a generation before deciding if Turkey could
be trusted in Europe.

E. G. Vallianatos is the author, recently, of ?This Land is Their
Land: How Corporate Farms Threaten the World? (Common Courage Press)
and the forthcoming ?The Passion of the Greeks.?

l?newsid=5442&lang=US

http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.htm

Film: The Journey To Armenia

THE JOURNEY TO ARMENIA
by Lisa Nesselson

Variety
August 7, 2006 – August 13, 2006

(FRANCE)
A Diaphana release of an Agat Films & Cie. presentation of an Agat
Films & Cie., France 3 Cinema production with participation of
Paradise, Canal Plus, CineCinema, CNC. (International sales: Films
Distribution, Paris.) Produced by Robert Guediguian, Agat Films &
Cie. Co-producers, Martin Adoyan, Taguhi Karapetyan.

Directed by Robert Guediguian. Screenplay, Ariane Ascaride, Marie
Desplechin, Guediguian. Camera (color), Pierre Milon; editor,
Bernard Sasia; music, Arto Tuncboyacyyan; production designer, Karim
Hamzaoui; art director, Karim Hamzaoui; costume designer, Anne-Marie
Giacalone. Reviewed at MK2 Odeon, Paris, July 13, 2006. Original title:
Le Voyage en Armeinie. Running time: 117 MIN.

With: Ariane Ascaride, Gerard Meylan, Simon Abkarian, Serge Avedikian,
Chorik Grigorian, Roman Avinian, Kristina Hovakimian, Madeleine
Guediguian, Marcel Bluwal, Jalil Lespert, Jean-Pierre Darroussin.

Title expedition in "The Journey to Armenia" is a long haul, as a
no-nonsense French cardiologist from Marseilles searches for her
abruptly AWOL father in the shadow of his native Mount Ararat.

Watchable odyssey follows the familiar template of a successful,
secular urbanite reluctantly discovering her ethnic roots, with social
and historical relevance injected along the way. Guediguian completists
— a commodity in which Gaul abounds — and the Armenian diaspora
will bite, but leisurely venture has as many endings as the third
installment of "The Lord of the Rings."

Ariane Ascaride originated the story, assigning herself the relatively
unsympathetic role of Anna, the only daughter of a deceased Italian
mother and an Armenian father, Barsam (Marcel Bluwal). When Barsam,
who needs heart surgery, hightails it to his homeland without warning,
peeved Anna leaves hubby and daughter for a week to track him down,
finding (surprise!) herself along the way.

Matters perk up when it turns out Anna knows how to wield a gun as
well as a stethoscope. Pleasing score and scenery help pass the time,
but result remains conventional and just a sliver short of contrived.

Writers on Trial

New York Times, NY
Aug. 12, 2006

Writers on Trial

By MAUREEN FREELY
Published: August 13, 2006

Elif Shafak is a Turkish novelist who has spent much of her life in
Europe and the United States. She fills her books with characters who
defy all orthodoxy, and in her journalism she lives by the same code,
mixing feminism and nuanced political analysis with a deep interest
in Ottoman culture. She has been much criticized by literary purists
for using words of Arabic and Persian origin that the reformers of
the early republic worked so hard to expunge, and for drawing on Sufi
traditions that continue to inform popular culture 80 years after
those same reformers banned Turkey’s dervish sects. She has a
particular genius for depicting backstreet Istanbul, where the myriad
cultures of the Ottoman Empire are still in tangled evidence on every
family tree.

Skip to next paragraph

Presswire.com
Elif Shafak

Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Book News and Reviews
In her sixth and most recent novel, `The Bastard of Istanbul,’ which
is already a best seller in Turkey and will be published in the
United States by Viking next year, one character declares: `My father
is Barsam Tchakhmakhchian, my great-uncle is Dikran Stamboulian, his
father is Varvant Istanboluian, my name is Armanoush Tchakhmakhchian,
all my family tree has been Something Somethingian, and I am the
grandchild of genocide survivors who lost all their relatives in the
hands of Turkish butchers in 1915, but I myself have been brainwashed
to deny the genocide because I was raised by some Turk named
Mustapha!’ These are strong words in a country whose official
historians maintain that the Armenian genocide at the hands of Turks
is itself a fiction. In February 2005, when Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s
most famous novelist, said in passing to a Swiss journalist that `a
million Armenians had been killed in these lands, and I am the only
one who talks about it,’ he was branded a traitor and prosecuted for
`denigrating Turkishness.’ Shafak must have known that she was
risking the same, as she has frequently challenged Turkey’s treatment
of its minorities. In September, she spoke at a conference at Bilgi
University in Istanbul – the first Turkish conference ever to
challenge the official line on the Ottoman Armenians – and though she
went on to state her own position clearly and unequivocally in
several newspapers, the censors left her alone. But early last month,
Shafak learned that she was to be prosecuted for, among other things,
allowing a character of partly Armenian heritage in `The Bastard of
Istanbul’ to utter the forbidden G-word. Her trial is scheduled for
Sept. 21.

Since its inception in 1923, the Turkish Republic has policed its
writers fiercely. Its penal code, taken from Mussolini’s Italy, puts
serious curbs on freedom of expression, but Turkey’s leading writers
have never toed the line. The great modernist poet Nazim Hikmet spent
much of his adult life in prison and died in exile. The novelist
Yashar Kemal, for many decades Turkey’s most famous writer, has been
serially harassed and prosecuted. During the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, so
many writers, journalists and scholars were imprisoned for their
views that a prosecution became a badge of honor: if you had not yet
angered the state, then perhaps you hadn’t said anything of
importance.

But 18 months ago, the rules of the game looked set to change. The
European Union had at last set a date for talks on Turkish accession.
The long conflict with Kurdish separatists was apparently over, and
the Kurds had been accorded limited cultural rights. Encouraged by
the prospect of entry into the European Union, other previously
silent Muslim and non-Muslim minorities were beginning to make
themselves heard. It was finally possible to tap the rich
multicultural Ottoman legacies that nationalist ideology had so long
repressed. There was a new vogue for family memoirs. Some showed how
peacefully the empire’s diverse `nations’ had once coexisted. Others
– like Fethiye Cetin’s `My Grandmother,’ in which the author recounts
her discovery that her grandmother was in fact Armenian – explored
suppressed histories. In Europe, a new generation of bicultural Turks
were mixing Turkish and Ottoman traditions with European forms and
winning prestigious prizes. As Pamuk’s star rose in the West, many
other Turkish novelists – Shafak, Latife Tekin, Asli Erdogan and
Perihan Magden – had their works translated. All were writing
sophisticated fiction that refused to conform to national – or
nationalist – modes.

In so doing, they seemed to be reflecting the mood of the country as
a whole. An overwhelming majority wanted to join the European Union.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the pro-market, pro-Europe Islamist prime
minister, had committed himself to a new penal code that promised to
bring Turkey into line with European norms. The hope was that the
European Union process would force the ossified machinery of state to
modernize.

What few people predicted was that the new penal code would become
the vehicle for backlash by expanding curbs on freedom of expression.
Article 301 recommends sentences of up to three years for those
convicted of `denigrating Turkishness’ or insulting the judiciary or
other state organs, while other articles make it an offense to insult
the memory of Ataturk or `seek to alienate people from military
service.’ A recently revised antiterror law is so broadly written
that it will, human rights groups claim, make it a crime to espouse
any view that is shared by an outlawed group or even to publish a
statement by an illegal organization.

To date, there have been more than 60 cases brought against
novelists, publishers, journalists, scholars, politicians and
cartoonists. Hrant Dink, the editor of the Turkish-Armenian weekly
Agos, currently has two cases against him open. The publisher Fatih
Tas is on trial for publishing a book (by the political scientist
John Tirman of M.I.T.) that takes a critical look at the Turkish
Army. Two eminent professors faced charges for saying, in a
never-published government-commissioned report, that Turkey’s
treatment of its minorities fell short of European standards, while
the magazine Penguen and one of its cartoonists were prosecuted for
portraying the prime minister as a kitten and an elephant, among
other animals.

So far, no one has been sent to prison. Some defendants have been
acquitted; others, like Pamuk, have seen their cases dropped on
technicalities, while many have been given suspended sentences that
were then converted to fines. But to assume that writers have nothing
to fear is to underestimate the forces behind these prosecutions.

It is still not clear how Article 301 found its way into the new
penal code, but the Unity of Jurists, an ultranationalist lawyers
group, is behind most of the high-profile prosecutions. Its main
spokesman is a lawyer named Kemal Kerincsiz. His rabidly xenophobic
sound bites have turned him into a national celebrity, and his words
are echoed by the thugs who have taunted, assaulted and insulted
defendants and observers in the corridors of the courthouses,
denouncing them as traitors and `missionary children’ (a reference to
the foreign schools many of the defendants attended) and spouting
racist slogans that call to mind Berlin in 1935, while the riot
police look on.

In certain corners of the state apparatus there must be others who
believe, like Kerincsiz, that `the European Union means slavery and a
prisoner’s chains for Turkey.’ They must be rejoicing that the trials
have seriously damaged the case for Europe inside Turkey, while also
giving fodder to anti-

Turkish nationalists in Europe. Most of all, they must be pleased
that the European Union has now signaled that the 301 trials are
serious impediments to accession.

This is not a tug of war between East and West as the West likes to
understand it: while some of Turkey’s new ultranationalists are
Islamists, most are old-guard, die-hard secularists. The battle is
about democracy, with supporters of European Union membership hoping
for peaceful change and opponents hoping for a return to
authoritarian rule.

How best to help the writers caught in the middle? Because Kerincsiz
and his colleagues have successfully labeled foreign trial observers
as spies and agitators, many in Turkey believe that non-Turkish human
rights groups should keep their mouths shut. But if the
ultranationalists are allowed to continue their campaign
unchallenged, they stand a very good chance of winning. And if they
do, the oldest stable secular state in the Muslim world will cease to
democratize, and a brave new literature will die.

Maureen Freely is the author of five novels and the translator of
Orhan Pamuk’s `Snow,’ `Istanbul’ and `The Black Book.’ She teaches
creative writing at the University of Warwick.

Camp for Computer Courses Organized in Kapan With USAID Assistance

CAMP FOR COMPUTER COURSES ORGANIZED IN KAPAN WITH USAID ASSISTANCE

KAPAN, AUGUST 11, NOYAN TAPAN. The Kapan "Youth Scientific-Cultural"
public organization and "Center for Community Assistance of
Charentsavan" organizes five-day summer computer school-camp at the
Kapan office of the interneT accessibility and teaching program. The
"Competitive Private Sector in Armenia" program of the U.S. Agency for
International Development assisted organization of the event. During
the courses, 11 pupils of 8-9th grades from different schools of Kapan
who were chosen by a competition, have a possibility to deepen their
computer knowledge and to get acquainted with new programs. As Karen
Arzumanian, the Chairman of the "Youth Scientific-Cultural"
organization informed the Noyan Tapan correspondent, Peace Corps
volunteers, who have a great experience in the sphere of teaching
computer and information technologies, also assist implementation of
the program.

Plot Would Have Killed 100’s of Thousands. Really? Let’s Do The Math

OpEdNews
Aug. 11, 2006

Chertoff: Plot Would Have Killed 100’s of Thousands. Really? Let’s Do
The Math

by Linda Milazzo

"Had this plot been carried out, the loss of life to innocent
civilians would have been on an unprecedented scale." These are the
words of British Secretary of Home Security, Dr. John Reid, when
forecasting the catastrophic outcome had the airline terrorist plot
taken off.

"Unprecedented"? Compared to what??

"We cannot stress too highly the severity that this plot represented.
Put simpler, this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable
scale." This is how a uniformed high ranking Brit, featured on CNN,
described what he thought would be the carnage had the terrorist plot
carried out.

"Unimaginable"? Compared to….

– Darfur with 200,000 innocent civilians murdered since 2003, and
over 2 million current refugees?
– Rwanda with 800,000 innocent civilians slaughtered in 100 days?
– The Holocaust with 6 million innocent civilians exterminated?
– The Armenian Genocide with 1.5 million innocent civilians
massacred?

Far be it from me to undermine the tragedy of innocent deaths had
this alleged plot succeeded. I deplore terrorism. And murder. But
when assessing the current air-scare by Drama Queens George Bush and
Tony Blair, I’m shocked the Brits use the words "unprecedented" and
"unimaginable" to project civilian casualties had the terrorist plot
been born out.

Obviously, no life should be lost to the folly of deranged
fundamentalism. Not even one!!

Nonetheless, I’m dumbfounded by the catastrophic numbers forecast by
British and American officials. Michael Chertoff, United States’
Secretary of Homeland Security, said the presumed plot "had the
potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people."

Really? H-O-W????

Let’s do the math. Twenty four men were arrested in England for
planning to hijack ten commercial airliners. Had they hijacked
Boeing’s large 767-400ER, they would have had 304 passengers at their
mercy. Had they hijacked Airbus’ 330 and 340 series airliners, they
would have had up to 350 passengers at their mercy.

350 innocent civilians x 10 airliners = 3,500 innocent civilians

Add innocent civilian flight crews to each fully loaded plane and
these 24 supposed terrorists would have murdered somewhere around
3,600 people; 848 more victims than the 2,752 innocent civilians
believed to have perished on September 11th.

The fact is, had this sorely overstated plot been realized, its
ramifications would have been horrific. No one should suffer so
gruesome a fate.

My purpose here is not to undermine the horror of such an act. But to
diffuse the hyperbole of fear-mongers, and maintain an honest
perspective of the situation. The death of even one person resulting
from violence is unimaginable. But, come on, lay off the scare
tactics and propaganda.

Dissenters may counter that beyond this single plot lies the
potential for many more. This is true. But the propagandists aren’t
discussing future plots. They’re discussing this one, which they have
purposely misrepresented. They need to be challenged on their lies.
They need be admonished for their distortions, lest we be permanently
mired in propaganda and fear.

3,600 innocent deaths would have been reprehensible. But considering
the state of our inhumane world, they fail to meet the requirements
for the "unimaginable" and "unprecedented" scale.

More in line with "unimaginable" and "unprecedented" are the deaths
of over 100,000 innocent civilian Iraqis, countless innocent civilian
Afghanis, and the mounting deaths of innocent civilian Lebanese,
Palestinians and sub-Saharan Africans.

No need for hyperbole here. These numbers are honestly appalling. How
’bout foiling them??

Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles based writer, educator and activist.
Her writing has appeared in numerous newspapers, magazines and
domestic and international journals. She’s a member of CodePink Women
For Peace and Progressive Democrats of America. Over the past three
decades Linda has divided her time between the entertainment industry,
community projects and education. A political and social activist
since the Vietnam War, Linda attributes her
revitalized-fully-engaged-intense-head-on-non- stop-political activism
to the UNFORTUNATE EXISTENCE OF GEORGE W. BUSH and her disgust with
greed-ridden American imperialism, environmental atrocities, egregious
war, nuclear proliferation, lying leaders, and global tyranny!

linda_mi_060811_chertoff_3a_plot_would.htm

http://www.opednews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_