Obama: Better Newspapers Without Government Than Government Without

OBAMA: BETTER NEWSPAPERS WITHOUT GOVERNMENT THAN GOVERNMENT WITHOUT NEWSPAPERS

PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2009 15:06 GMT+04:00

U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement on World Press Freedom
Day marked on May 3.

The statement says:

"World Press Freedom Day is annually observed on May 3 to remind
us all of the vital importance of this core freedom. It is a day in
which we celebrate the indispensable role played by journalists in
exposing abuses of power, while we sound the alarm about the growing
number of journalists silenced by death or jail as they attempt to
bring daily news to the public.

Although World Press Freedom Day has only been celebrated since 1993,
its roots run deep in the international community. In 1948, as people
across the globe emerged from the horrors of the Second World War,
nations saw fit to enshrine in the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights the fundamental principle that everyone "has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Even as the world recognizes the central and indisputable importance
of press freedom, journalists find themselves in frequent peril. Since
this day was first celebrated some sixteen years ago, 692 journalists
have been killed. Only a third of those deaths were linked to the
dangers of covering war; the majority of victims were local reporters
covering topics such as crime, corruption, and national security in
their home countries. Adding to this tragic figure are the hundreds
more each year who face intimidation, censorship, and arbitrary arrest
– guilty of nothing more than a passion for truth and a tenacious
belief that a free society depends on an informed citizenry. In every
corner of the globe, there are journalists in jail or being actively
harassed: from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe, Burma to Uzbekistan, Cuba to
Eritrea. Emblematic examples of this distressing reality are figures
like J.S. Tissainayagam in Sri Lanka, or Shi Tao and Hu Jia in China.

We are also especially concerned about the citizens from our own
country currently under detention abroad: individuals such as Roxana
Saberi in Iran, and Euna Lee and Laura Ling in North Korea.

Today, I lend my voice of support and admiration to all those brave
men and women of the press who labor to expose truth and enhance
accountability around the world. In so doing, I recall the words of
Thomas Jefferson: "The basis of our governments being the opinion
of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right;
and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

BAKU: Opposition MPs protest agreements with Iran

AssA-Irada, Azerbaijan
April 28 2009

OPPOSITION MPS PROTEST AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN

Pro-opposition members of the Milli Majlis (Azerbaijani parliament)
have protested the ratification of the documents signed between the
governments of Azerbaijan and Iran. During the discussions regarding
the agreements on removal of double taxation and development of
economic and trade relations between the two countries, MP Nasib
Nasibli from the Musavat Party called on his counterparts to abstain
in the vote due to the continuation of anti-Turk campaign and
violation of Azerbaijanis rights in Iran.

He said that some problems existed between Iran and Azerbaijan. Those
fighting for the rights of Azerbaijanis are taken into custody. By
abstaining during the voting on this agreement we would symbolically
express our protest against Iran, Nasibli said. Chairman of the Whole
Azerbaijan Popular Front Party Gudrat Hasanguliyev called on
parliament to vote against the agreement. He said that Iran was
expanding relations with arch-foe Armenia, noting that the two
countries have recently signed an agreement on the establishment of a
railway link. Presently, Iran is not pursuing the policy of friendship
against Azerbaijan. Therefore, we should vote against this agreement,
Hasanguliyev said. First Vice-Speaker Ziyafat Asgarov said that such
statements by parliament members did not serve for the development of
relations between Iran and Azerbaijan. He said that the agreements
passed to the parliament met both countries interests. Currently,
relations between Azerbaijan and Iran are developing. We have good
neighborhood relations, Asgarov said. Following the discussions the
agreements were ratified.

Rep. Pallone will hold observance ceremony – continue to advocate

US Fed News
April 29, 2009 Wednesday 3:14 PM EST

REP. ARMENIAN CAUCUS WILL HOLD OBSERVANCE CEREMONY – CONTINUE TO
ADVOCATE FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION

WASHINGTON, April 21 — Rep. Frank G. Pallone, D-N.J. (6th CD), issued
the following news release:

The long-sought effort to gain official recognition of the Armenian
Genocide will continue this week when the Congressional Caucus on
Armenian Issues holds a memorial observance on Wednesday, in advance
of the April 24 anniversary of the mass killing that took the lives of
an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. and
U.S. Rep. Mark Steven Kirk announced on Tuesday. Pallone and Kirk, who
serve as co-chairmen of the caucus, said the Armenian Genocide
Observance, marking the 94th anniversary of the attempted annihilation
of an entire people, is not just about history, it is another
opportunity to press the United States government to officially accept
the fact that the genocide occurred.

The observance ceremony will include congressional and community
speakers paying tribute to the 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and
children who were systematically annihilated by the Ottoman Empire in
1915. Genocide scholar Henry Theriault will be among the speakers
addressing the history of the Armenian Genocide, the threat of
genocide denial, and the future of genocide prevention and
intervention.

The Armenian Genocide Observance will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m., Wednesday, April 22, 2009, in The Cannon House Caucus Room in
Washington, D.C. April 24, 2009 is the 94th Anniversary of the start
of the Armenian Genocide. Pallone, along with former Congressman John
Porter, founded the Armenian caucus in 1995 to address Armenia’s
economic isolation and to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the
genocide.

The caucus has also been advocating for recognition of the genocide as
a means of honoring its victims, a way to require Turkey to come to
terms with its own history and to prevent a shroud of denial from
covering up one of the most horrific tragedies in world history.

President Barack Obama has expressed optimism that the two countries
will normalize relations, which would include lifting the blockade
against travel and trade imposed in 1993 by Turkey along the border
with Armenia. By coming to terms with the past and reconciling any
current conflicts, Turkey and Armenia will help bring more stability
to a volatile and strategic region of the world, Pallone and Kirk
said.

For more information please contact: Sarabjit Jagirdar, Email:-
[email protected]

Expert: Building New Relationship With Armenia Means Changing Relati

EXPERT: BUILDING NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH ARMENIA MEANS CHANGING RELATIONS WITH ALL SOUTH CAUCASUS

ARKA
Apr 30, 2009

YEREVAN, April 30. /ARKA/. Turkey changes its relations with all of
the South Caucasus while building a new relationship with Armenia,
Director of Caucasus Institute Alexander Iskandaryan said.

In this respect, Armenia is becoming a key country for Turkey, he said.

Normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations is supported by the USA
and Europe, with Russia being at least not against, Iskandaryan said
Wednesday at "Caucasus-2008" international conference.

According to Iskandaryan, Turkey has taken into account the possible
reaction of Azerbaijan while starting the process of normalization
of its relations with Armenia.

Armenia-Turkey dialogue became one of the two most important events
in the South Caucasus in 2008. The other event was the war in the
South Ossetia.

"These two events are somehow interconnected," Iskandaryan said.

Both the five-day war and Armenian-Turkish dialogue were not completely
unexpected, he said.

According to Iskandaryan, after Mikhail Saakashvili’s coming to power
Russian-Georgian relations became "disgusting". As to Armenian-Turkish
dialogue, the countries were taking steps even before 2008, he said.

According to the expert, the South Ossetian war showed that building-up
armaments and inviting foreign military instructors cannot help solve
the problems. The war also demonstrated th at the NATO will not come
to help, he said.

After the August 2008 events Georgia stopped being something special
to the West on the one hand, and Russia stopped considering Georgia
in the context of its relations with the South Caucasus on the other
hand, Iskandaryan said.

Georgia became something separate and specific that exists in another
paradigm, Iskandaryan said. According to him, the existing South
Caucasian situation speeded up the process of Armenia-Turkey dialogue.

The expert said that Eastern Partnership European policy opens up
certain opportunities. He called the partnership BUMAGA (first letters
of member countries – Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia,
and Azerbaijan) ("bumaga" is also the Russian word for "paper").

"It is BUMAGA where nothing has been written yet, and we can make
notes there ourselves," Iskandaryan said.

Despite Delaying Its Membership Bid, EU Is Piggybacking On Turkey’s

DESPITE DELAYING ITS MEMBERSHIP BID, EU IS PIGGYBACKING ON TURKEY’S INFLUENCE IN CAUCASUS

PanARMENIAN.Net
01.05.2009 14:59 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Under pressure from Brussels, Europe’s ‘wild east’
is coming in from the cold – but plenty of obstacles still remain

The EU’s invitation to Belarus to attend a special summit in Prague
next week is the latest sign a spring thaw may be taking hold along
the ragged, fraught frontiers of Europe’s "wild east". The so-called
frozen conflicts that have disfigured the region since the end of
the cold war are beginning to melt at the edges. Under pressure from
Brussels, the ice is starting to shift.

Most significant in strategic and economic terms is the burgeoning
rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, which last week unveiled
a joint road map to normalise relations after almost a century of
hostility. The plan includes re-opening the border closed by Turkey
in 1993 in protest at Armenian support for separatists contesting
Azerbaijan’s control of the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Despite effectively placing its membership bid on hold, the EU is happy
to piggyback on Turkey’s considerable influence in the Caucasus and
the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions for its own purposes. These
include the advancing of common trade, development, security and
human rights agendas and most importantly, perhaps, the securing of
non-Russian controlled energy supply routes from central Asia.

The kiss-and-make-up scenario now developing between Ankara and Yerevan
has thus been warmly welcomed in Brussels, and in the US. Prospectively
it makes it easier to draw relatively isolated Armenia, which has
long lived in Moscow’s shadow, closer towards the western fold. And
that in turn dovetails nicely with developing western ties other
post-Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine.

A parallel thaw is underway between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have
begun talks on de-icing Nagorno-Karabakh. Oil-producing Azerbaijan,
on the shores of the Caspian, is a crucial player in terms of future
European energy supply and transit. It pays to keep it happy. Once
again the EU, along with Turkey, has been active in promoting the
nascent peace process. And the EU’s Prague summit will host the next
encounter of the two countries’ presidents, The Guardian reported.

Turkish Riot Police Savagely Attacked Peaceful Demonstrators In Ista

TURKISH RIOT POLICE SAVAGELY ATTACKED PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS IN ISTANBUL

PanARMENIAN.Net
01.05.2009 15:31 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On May 1, Turkish riot police savagely attacked
peaceful demonstrators, including representatives of Revolutionary
Movement and PKK Parties, with clubs and fired pepper spray and water
cannon to prevent them taking part in a May Day rally heading to
Taksim Square, the central meeting place in Istanbul. 5 were injured,
and 10 detained, according to preliminary data.

Last week Istanbul Governor Muammer Guler expressed his determination
to enforce the ban on May Day demonstrations at Taksim Square, which
was enacted after the military coup in 1980 by the then-ruling junta
and has been continued by consecutive governments ever since. This has
a particularly symbolic meaning because on May Day 1977 right-wing
provocateurs, presumably helped by state forces, opened fire on a
left-wing protest in Taksim, resulting in the deaths of 40 people.

BAKU: Sarkozy To Visit Azerbaijan For First Time

FRENCH PRESIDENT TO VISIT AZERBAIJAN FOR FIRST TIME

State Telegraph Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan
April 28, 2009 Tuesday

President of France Nicolas Sarkozy will make a tour of the South
Caucasus and Kazakhstan.

During a two-day visit, Sarkozy will make a trip to Azerbaijan,
Armenia and Kazakhstan on June 25-26. French President will pay a
short-term visit to Georgia as well. It is Sarkozy`s third visit to
Georgia over the past ten months.

Despite good relations between France and Azerbaijan, it is going to
be the French President`s first visit to Azerbaijan.

Christianity’s Lost History

CHRISTIANITY’S LOST HISTORY
by J. Peter Pham

PBS
s/april-29-2009/christianitys-lost-history/2834/
A pril 29

Nowadays, any serious discussion of the shifting demographics of
Christianity inevitably leads to Philip Jenkins, the Edwin Erle Sparks
Professor of the Humanities in History and Religious Studies at Penn
State University.

With the monumental trilogy he completed two years ago–The Next
Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (2002, revised
2007), The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the
Global South (2006), and God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam, and
Europe’s Religious Crisis (2007)–Jenkins transformed perceptions of
Christianity in the world today with the convincing case he made that
not only has the center of gravity in the Christian world "shifted
inexorably southward, to Africa and Latin America," but much of
conventional wisdom about religion in Europe (and, ultimately, North
America) needs to be reconsidered. In the course of developing his
argument about the present and future, Jenkins also hinted that the
dynamics driving the changes were not entirely new, and the church’s
past contained more than its share of surprises.

Thus, like its predecessors, Jenkins’s most recent book, The Lost
History of Christianity (HarperOne, 2008) challenges what most of its
readers thought they knew, in this case, about the faith’s historical
itinerary. The volume’s subtitle, "The Thousand-Year Golden Age of
the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How It Died,"
points to its author’s aim of recovering for today’s globalized world
a more inclusive vision than the tendency of "thinking of Christianity
as traditionally based in Europe and North America." In contrast to
that limited perspective, Jenkins argues:

The particular shape of Christianity with which we are familiar
is a radical departure from what was for well over a millennium the
historical norm: another, earlier global Christianity once existed. For
most of its history, Christianity was a tricontinental religion, with
powerful representation in Europe, Africa, and Asia, and this was
true into the fourteenth century. Christianity became predominantly
European not because this continent had any obvious affinity for
that faith, but by default: Europe was the continent where it was
not destroyed. Matters could have easily developed differently.

While Christianity was born in the Levant, today its history is largely
thought of in terms the two great centers, both in Europe, around which
the ecclesiastical politics within the Roman Empire coalesced–Rome
and Constantinople. What gets forgotten is that there were other great
centers beyond the frontiers of the oikoumene and that much of what
is now referred to as "the Islamic world" was once Christian.

To illustrate his point, Jenkins focuses on the figure of Timothy I
(727-823) who, in 780, was enthroned as patriarch, or catholicos,
of the Church of the East, then based in the ancient Mesopotamian
city of Seleucia, less than two dozen miles southeast of modern
Baghdad. According to Jenkins, "in terms of his prestige, and the
geographical extent of his authority, Timothy was arguably the
most significant Christian spiritual leader of his day, much more
influential than the Western pope, in Rome, and on par with the
Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople," since "perhaps a quarter
of the world’s Christians looked to Timothy as both spiritual and
political head."

World Map, Heinrich Bunting, 1581.

While the medieval English church, for example, had only two
metropolitans, the archbishops of Canterbury and York, Timothy
presided over no fewer than 19 metropolitans and 85 other diocesan
bishops. During his more than four-decade-long patriarchate,
Timothy created no fewer than five new metropolitan sees, including
one at Rai, near modern-day Tehran, and erected a diocese in Yemen
alongside the four on the Arabian Peninsula that he had inherited
from his predecessor. In a letter quoted by Jenkins, the patriarch
boasted about how, after the conversion of the Turkish great king who
ruled over much of central Asia, the khagan, "the Holy Spirit has
anointed a metropolitan for the Turks." This outward expansion was
not unprecedented: missionaries from the Church of the East, whose
adherents had been branded heretical Nestorians by the Council of
Ephesus (431) and were largely driven out the Roman Empire, had roamed
as far as China and Tibet and succeeded in establishing bishoprics
in those parts by around 600.

As Jenkins points out, the Nestorians, along with the Egyptian
(Coptic) and Syrian (Jacobite) Christians, who were anathematized
as Monophysites by Rome and Constantinople following the Council of
Chalcedon (451), not only constituted "the Christian mainstream in
large portions of the world" but also "possessed a vibrant lineal
and cultural connection to the earliest Jesus movement of Syria and
Palestine," being rooted in the Semitic languages of the Middle East
with faithful who still thought and spoke in Syriac. Even after the
Arab conquests, these believers retained such vibrant culture that
"in terms of the number and splendor of its churches and monasteries,
its vast scholarship and dazzling spirituality, Iraq," for example,
"was through the late Middle Ages at least as much a cultural and
spiritual heartland of Christianity as was France or Germany,
or indeed Ireland." Nor were these Eastern Christians turned
inward. Rather, together with Jewish sages, they dominated the
cultural and intellectual life of what was to become the "Muslim
world." Jenkins notes:

It was Christians–Nestorians, Jacobite, Orthodox, and others–who
preserved and translated the cultural inheritance of the ancient
world–the science, philosophy, and medicine–and who transmitted
it to centers like Baghdad and Damascus. Much of what we call
Arab scholarship was in reality Syriac, Persian, and Coptic, and
it was not necessarily Muslim. Syriac-speaking Christian scholars
brought the works of Aristotle to the Muslim world: Timothy himself
translated Aristotle’s Topics from Syriac into Arabic, at the behest
of the caliph. Syriac Christians even make the first reference to the
efficient Indian numbering system that we know today as "Arabic," and
long before this technique gained currency among Muslim thinkers…Such
were the Christian roots of the Arabic golden age.

While the Arab Muslim conquests of the seventh century subjected
the Christians of the Middle East to incredible pressures, the
ancient communities nonetheless not only survived, as underscored
by the remarkable renaissance of the Church of the East during the
patriarchate of Timothy I, but even managed to thrive. "Only around
1300," writes Jenkins, "did the axe fall, and quite suddenly." The
factors for this tragic turn of events, he argues, were global:

The aftereffects of the Mongol invasions certainly played their
part, by terrifying Muslims and others with the prospect of a direct
threat to their social and religious power. Climatic factors were
also critical, as the world entered a period of rapid cooling,
precipitating bad harvests and shrinking trade routes: a frightened
and impoverished world looks for scapegoats.

Thus "Muslim regimes and mobs now delivered near-fatal blows to
weakened Christian churches." According to Jenkins, the number of
Christians in Asia fell, between 1200 and 1500, from 21 million to 3.4
million. During the same years, the proportion of the world’s total
Christian population living in Africa and Asia combined fell from 34
percent to just 6 percent, and the remnant that survived virtually
disappeared in the massacres of Armenians, Assyrians, Syrians, and
other ancient Christian communities during the 19th and 20th centuries,
which led the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin argue for a new
category of crime to which he subsequently gave the name "genocide."

Had the author been satisfied with merely rendering accessible to
a broader audience this fascinating, but little known, story, The
Lost History of Christianity would nonetheless already constitute
an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of the Middle East and
Africa. For Jenkins, however, the historical narrative he assembled is
but the foundation on which to pose several questions of considerable
contemporary relevance.

Shifting focus from Mesopotamia to Africa, Jenkins considers the
very different fates of the church in Egypt and elsewhere in North
Africa. In the sixth century, there were more than 500 bishops,
successors of church fathers such as Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine
of Hippo, ministering in what today are Libya, Algeria, and Tunisia;
barely two centuries later not one was left, their churches having
vanished in the face of the Muslim invasion.

In contrast, in Egypt, which was conquered by the armies of ‘Amr
ibn al-‘As in 640, not only did the Coptic church survive, but it
continues, even today, to be the faith of at least 10 percent of
the population. After discounting a number of explanations, Jenkins
concludes that the key factor is "how deep a church planted its
roots in a particular community, and how far the religion became
part of the air that ordinary people breathed." Whereas the Latin
church of North Africa was essentially a colonial faith, appealing
mainly to urban elites, the Coptic clergy translated their doctrine
and practices into the idioms readily grasped by ordinary people,
both city dwellers and rural peasants. Thus, despite persecutions,
the Copts survived and their patriarchate spread Christianity up
the Nile, deep into Africa to Nubia in present-day northern Sudan,
which remained a Christian kingdom into the 15th century, and to
Ethiopia (which also had contact with Syriac Christians), where
the local church remains in communion with the see of Alexandria to
this day. The lesson Jenkins draws here–although some might well
be discomfited by the terms with which he articulates it–is that
"for churches as for businesses, failure often results from a lack
of diversification, from attaching one’s fortunes too closely to one
particular set of circumstances, political or social."

Jenkins also uses the chronicle of the long endurance of ancient
Christian communities in areas which came under Muslim rule to inquire
just how far churches, which he asserts must adapt when faced with
"a powerful and hostile hegemonic culture," can take accommodation:

Historically, Christians faced the issue of whether to speak
and think in the language of their anti-Christian rulers. If they
refused to accommodate, they were accepting utter marginality…Yet
accepting the dominant language and culture accelerated the already
strong tendency to assimilate to the ruling culture, even if the
process took generations. Although a comparable linguistic gulf
does not separate modern Western churches from the secular world,
Christians still face the dilemma of speaking the languages of power,
of presenting their ideas in the conceptual framework of modern physics
and biology, of social and behavioral science. To take one example,
when churches view sin as dysfunction, an issue for therapy rather
than prayer, Christians are indeed able to participate in national
discourse, but they do not necessarily have anything to offer that is
distinctive…Too little adaption means irrelevance; too much leads
to assimilation and, often, disappearance.

Since so much of the story that Jenkins reconstructs is centered
in historical Mesopotamia, it is fitting that he draws his account
together with several vignettes from contemporary Iraq. As recently
as the 1970s, Christians made up five or six percent of that country’s
population. That number is now barely one percent, and it is declining
rapidly. Even as late as the onset of the first Gulf War, Christians
made up as much as one-fifth of Iraq’s teachers and other professional
groups. The devastation of the economy under international sanctions,
however, pushed many to leave, and the Islamist militants unleashed
in the wake of the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime quickly turn
on those still left in the country.

Jenkins relates the tale of one of the most active priests in Mosul,
Father Ragheed Ganni of the Chaldean Catholic Church, a body that,
although in communion with Rome, actually traces its origins to the
Nestorians of the Church of the East. Father Ragheed was known for the
many messages he sent out abroad about of his desperate co-religious:
"Priests celebrate mass amidst bombed out ruins; mothers worry as
they see their children face danger to attend catechism…the elderly
come to entrust their fleeing families to God’s protection." On
Trinity Sunday 2007, the priest and three subdeacons were kidnapped
and killed, their bodies booby-trapped to make recovery even more
difficult. Less than a year later, just days before the beginning of
Holy Week 2008, the slain Father Ragheed’s own bishop, Archbishop Mar
Paulos Faraj Rahhos, was kidnapped and then murdered by Islamists who
demanded that his parishioners pay the jizya, the Islamic poll tax on
non-Muslims. Not surprisingly, since the United States-led invasion
in 2003, two-thirds of Iraq’s remaining Christians have fled abroad.

But Jenkins manages to preserve a small sliver of optimism, pointing
out that while thousands of Christians from the Middle East have
gone into exile, the story of their churches continues outside the
region. In recent years, ancient Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) orders
have founded monasteries in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Timothy’s
distant successor Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East,
Mar Dinkha IV, makes his home in Chicago, from where he oversees new
sees in North America, Europe, and Australia which have taken the
place of the historic bishoprics in places like Basra, Kirkuk, and
Tikrit (the hometown of Saddam Hussein), which no one conceives of
as the Christian strongholds they once were. Jenkins observes that,
in the West, "members of these ancient communities are annoyed to be
asked just when they converted to Christianity," having to explain
patiently that "their Christian heritage goes back a good deal further
than that of their new host countries."

Jenkins’s well-crafted new volume, filled as one has come to expect
from the author with a good number of provocative insights, is not only
a welcome addition to the literature on Christianity as a truly global
religion, to which he has already made substantial contributions,
but also an invitation to retrieve a forgotten chapter of history
that has not inconsiderable relevance to current events. Recovering
the memory of that "lost world," with all its experience and wisdom,
might lead to a better appreciation in our own age of the changing
realities of a faith that is both ever ancient and ever new.

J. Peter Pham, director of the Nelson Institute for International and
Public Affairs at James Madison University in Virginia, is the author
of numerous works on religion, international affairs, and African
politics. An ordained priest of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy,
he also serves on the advisory board of Save Iraqi Christians. He
last wrote for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly on the Anglican Communion.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episode

Tackling The Turkish Taboo

TACKLING THE TURKISH TABOO
Robert Ellis

guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 29 April 2009 19.30 BST

Public discussion of the Armenian genocide is still risky, but signs
that Ankara is softening its stance are encouraging

Last December, about 200 Turkish academics and journalists challenged
a longstanding Turkish taboo when they launched a petition on the
internet apologising for "the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman
Armenians were subjected to in 1915". To date 30,000 have signed
the petition.

The reaction was twofold. The Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, who
had earlier attended a World Cup qualifying match between Turkey and
Armenia in Yerevan, said that being able to discuss every opinion was
the policy of the state. The prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
on the other hand, said there was no need to apologise because Turkey
had not committed a crime.

In a further move, Canan Aritman, the Izmir deputy for the opposition
Republican People’s party, accused the president’s mother of being
Armenian, and when Gul explained that both sides of his family were
Muslim and Turkish, she demanded a DNA test. A defamation lawsuit
followed which resulted in the president being awarded a symbolic 1
Turkish lira (50p).

Inevitably, after a complaint that the website campaign had violated
article 301 of the Turkish penal code for "public denigration of the
Turkish nation", the Ankara public prosecutor’s office investigated
the20 matter. The conclusion, surprisingly, was that there was
no need for a criminal prosecution on the grounds that opposing
opinions are also protected under freedom of thought in democratic
societies. However, the high criminal court annulled this ruling and
the issue is still pending.

In recent years, a number of high-profile cases in Turkey have
illustrated the fact that public discussion of the events of 1915 is
still fraught with risk. Three years ago, the Nobel prize winner Orhan
Pamuk was prosecuted for stating in an interview with a Swiss daily
that "30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands
and nobody but me dares to talk about it". The charge was dropped on
a technicality but it transpired that an ultranationalist gang was
trying to raise 2m lira to get someone to kill him.

Another Turkish novelist, Elif Å~^afak, was also prosecuted under
article 301 because a character in her novel The Bastard of Istanbul
had raised the issue of the Armenian genocide, but the charge was
ultimately dropped because of insufficient evidence. And two years
ago, Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian editor, was murdered outside his
office in Istanbul by a young Turkish nationalist.

Even on an academic level this topic is controversial. Four years
ago, scholars who organised a conference at Bosphorus University
on the Armenian issue during the Ottoman empire were accused by
the government’s spokesman and m inister of justice, Cemil Cicek,
of "stabbing the Turkish nation in the back". The conference was
postponed, but after an international outcry it was finally reconvened
at Bilgi University four months later.

More fuel was added to the fire last November when the defence
minister, Vecdi Gönul, on the 70th anniversary of the death of the
founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, said: "If there were
Greeks in the Aegean and Armenians in most places in Turkey today,
would it be the same nation state?"

But a fortnight ago the chief of the Turkish general staff, Ä°lker
BaÅ~_bug, in a keynote speech reminded his audience that Ataturk
had said it was the people of Turkey, without ethnic and religious
distinction, who had founded the Republic of Turkey. If he had spoken
of the Turkish people, that would be an ethnic definition.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pledged to recognise the Armenian
genocide to garner the substantial Armenian-American vote during
their presidential campaigns, but now geopolitical reality has set
in. On Obama’s visit to Turkey at the beginning of this month, the
US president maintained that his views on the incidents of 1915 had
not changed and in his statement last Friday on Armenian Remembrance
Day he reiterated that stance.

However, without using the dreaded g-word, Obama instead spoke of
"one of the great atrocities of the 20th century" and " Meds Yeghern"
– the Armenian for the "Great Catastrophe". His goal was still "a
full, frank and just acknowledgement of the facts" and he strongly
supported efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through
their painful history in an honest, open and constructive manner.

While trying to manoeuvre between a rock and a hard place, Obama
was met with criticism from both sides. The chairman of the Armenian
National Committee of America expressed his "sharp disappointment"
and Erdogan called Obama’s remarks "an unacceptable interpretation
of history".

Nine months after Dink was murdered, his son Arant Dink and another
Turkish-Armenian journalist received suspended sentences of one
year’s imprisonment for using the term genocide. The Turkish court in
its judgment stated: "Talk about genocide, both in Turkey and other
countries, unfavourably affects national security and the national
interest."

After the first world war, the treaty of Sèvres in 1920 was the
instrument by which the victorious allies dismembered Ottoman Turkey
and divided the spoils among themselves. It was only after the Turkish
war of independence and a heroic struggle under the leadership of
Ataturk that the treaty of Lausanne (1923) established the borders
of modern Turkey.

The Armenian diaspora is also responsible for Turkey’s fears of
partition.

In December 2007, journalist Harut Sasunian, a prominent member of
the Armenian community in the US, said the ultimate objective of
Armenians was to get recognition of their genocide claims and to
obtain territory and compensation from Turkey.

According to the prominent Turkish historian Taner Akcam, "Turkey
needs to stop treating the discussion of history as a category of
crime". Perhaps the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia and the
agreement on a "roadmap" to normalise ties will one day lead to that.

ANKARA: Armenian Reaction Mixed To Obama’s Statement On Massacres

ARMENIAN REACTION MIXED TO OBAMA’S STATEMENT ON MASSACRES

Journal of Turkish Weekly
April 28 2009

VAN — Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian has said that
Armenians expected U.S. President Barack Obama to refer to the mass
killings of ethnic Armenians nearly 100 years ago as "genocide."

Nalbandian told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that "both the terms genocide
and Mets Yeghern" — an Armenian term that means "great catastrophe"
— are acceptable and the statement was "a step forward."

While Armenian-American advocacy groups were more critical, the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation party’s Armen Rustamian said Yerevan
is "at least indirectly" responsible for Obama’s language because of
improved Turkish-Armenian relations.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry called Obama’s statement "unbalanced"
and "unacceptable."

In a statement issued on April 24 to mark the 94th anniversary of the
1915-19 massacres of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, Obama disappointed
many Armenians by not using the word "genocide."

In the past he has referred to the events as genocide "supported by
an overwhelming body of historical evidence."