Turkey, Armenia in talks on ties

31 May 2006
NTV-MSNBC

Turkey is intending to pursue efforts to normalize relations with Armenia, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

Turkey has announced its officials have been meeting with Armenian counterparts to discuss the normalisation of relations between the two countries, a spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Minister revealed Wednesday.

While not going into details of the talks, Foreign Ministry spokesman Namik Tan, said that three rounds of discussions have so far been held. “A negotiation process has started between the two countries to seek a common ground,” Tan said.

Armenian MFA Does Not Deny or Confirm Reports on Armenia-Turkey Secret Talks
31.05.2006 16:36 GMT+04:00
PanARMENIAN.Net The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Armenia does not deny or confirm reports on secret meetings between diplomats of Armenia and Turkey, acting Spokesperson of the Armenian MFA Vladimir Karapetyan told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter. «Armenian and Turkish diplomats contact at various levels,» he said.According to Turkish sources, after the letter sent by Turkish PM Erdogan to Armenian President Kocharian «three secret meetings» were held between diplomats of those countries. «The latest round of talks, was held under the auspices of the European Troika in Vienna in closed regime,» the New Anatolian agency reports. here.

The two countries do not have formal diplomatic ties, with one of the main stumbling blocks being Armenian claims that the Ottoman empire carried out a systematic slaughter of its Armenian citizens during the years of the First World War. Turkey strongly denied the claims and points to massacres of Turkish civilians in areas of the east of the country by Armenian forces that Allied themselves to invading Tzarist troops during the war. However, Turkish does acknowledge that some 300,000 Armenians dies during the unrest in the region, mainly when being relocated away from the scenes of fighting.

Tan said that the talks were initiated after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wrote to his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharian calling for the two countries to conduct a joint historical investigation the alleged massacres.

“Turkey is intending to pursue efforts to normalize relations with Armenia”, said Tan during a regular press briefing. “The success of Turkeys efforts to normalise relations depends on a more flexible approach from Yerevan as well as to the overcoming of bilateral and regional problems.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Diplomat's Son Says He Never Thought He'd Be One Himself

May 31st, 2006
Embassy
COLUMN
By Brian Adeba

Arman Akopian, the new Minister Counsellor and Chargé d'Affaires at the Embassy of Armenia, grew up the son of a diplomat, but he never thought he would one day become one himself.

At a young age, Mr. Akopian embarked on an academic career in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic studies at Yerevan State University in Armenia. At that time, Armenia was part of the Soviet Union and Mr. Akopian says opportunities for a career in diplomacy were limited. But that changed when the Soviet Union collapsed and Armenia became independent in 1991.

But still, Mr. Akopian says he didn't give any thought to following in his father's footsteps in the Foreign Service, and continued teaching at the university. Then he was invited to join the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a desk officer in the Middle East Department. In 1992, he was posted to Egypt as Second Secretary in the political, economical and cultural affairs section of the Armenian mission in Cairo.

"It took me two months to get used to it," says Mr. Akopian, 42. After his Egypt posting ended in 1995, Mr. Akopian was promoted to the position of Second Secretary in the Middle East Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Later he became First Secretary and a member of Armenia's foreign policy planning group.

Towards the late 1990s, Mr. Akopian became Director of the Middle East Department. In 1999 he was posted to New York as Counsellor at Armenia's Permanent Mission to the United Nations. In 2002, he became Director of the Department of Arms Control and International Security at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Akopian arrived in Ottawa two weeks ago. He replaces Ambassador Ara Papian, who left for Armenia early this year. But even though he became a diplomat, Mr. Akopian continues to teach at the university whenever he is working in Yerevan. He admits that he is still deeply attached to academia and relishes every chance he gets to teach.

"Teaching young people is refreshing, it keeps you away from being bureaucratic," he says. Mr. Akopian says he chose to come to Canada because of interactions with Canadians in multilateral forums like NATO and the UN.

"I already had a very good knowledge about Canada even before coming here," he says, adding that he hopes to add to the cordial relations between Armenia and Canada. Mr. Akopian is married and has two daughters. In his free time he likes fencing, studying and playing classical guitar and reading. In addition he also likes studying languages and spending time with his family. Mr. Akopian speaks Armenian, English, French, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin and is the author of two books on modern Hebrew and classical Syriac, an eastern Aramaic language.

brian@embassymag.ca

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIAN TEAM MAKES ITS FIRST PLACE FIRMER

30 May, 2006
A1 Plus

The Armenian chess team celebrated its next victory in the 8th round of the World Olympiad beating the team of Cuba 3:1. Vladimir Hakobyan and Gabriel Sargsyan among the Armenian Grand Masters celebrated their victory, and Levon Aronyan and Karen Asryan tied their meetings. After these meetings Armenia firmed its first place by 24 additional points as the Russian team tied with the Czech team 2:2.

At present the Russian and the Ukrainian teams are in the second place with 22 points. The Ukrainian team beat the Sweden team 3:1. By the way, Armenian Grand Master Gabriel Sargsyan gained 7 points from the 8 meetings he held, thus showing the best result in the current Olympiad. Vladimir Hakobyan also displays excellent participation, and he has already gained 6 points from the previous 7 rounds. Armenia will meet the Ukrainian team in the 9th round. This will be the most important meeting. Provided they win, Armenian chess players will have a good opportunity to occupy the first place. The Russian team will meet the French one in this round.

Armenian women team beat the Indian team 2:1 due to Lilit Mkrtchyan and Elina Danielyan. Siranoush Andreasyan lost the meeting this time. At present the team is in the 9th place with 15.5 points. The leader is the Russian team with its 19 points. The next rival of the Armenian women team will be the German team.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

What did you for Darfur?

JUNE 2006 Issue
Akron Jewish News
By Jennifer Chestnut

In 15 years when your kids are working on school history projects and ask what you did for the situation in Darfur, what will you tell them? This question bubbles in my mind and has since Sunday, April 30.

In our house, as with most families with two working parents and two small kids, Sunday is dedicated to housework, tag-team early morning childcare, a little outside time and, if we’re lucky, getting everyone to nap at the same time. But on April 30 we dedicated it to something else. We—yes, all four of us, including 4-year old Seth is 4 and 9-month old Martha—loaded in the minivan and headed for Washington, D.C. to attend the Save Darfur Rally to Stop Genocide.

The rally was moving, powerful, energizing, depressing, embarrassing and rewarding. By now you may have read the reports about the day’s speakers. They all made the event powerful and energizing, along with the 15,000 people in attendance. But it was depressing to realize the magnitude of what’s really going on in the Darfur region of Sudan. It was depressing to see the photos of the abysmal situation and of Sudanese people in attendance that have family there right now. It also shamed me to realize how little I did for the atrocities and genocides that have happened “on my watch.” What did we do about Rwanda? Not the US, but us, me, you; did you do anything? I didn’t. I was a thinking college student able to do something. But I did nothing.

It’s easier for me now. I work at a college and have the student manpower and the environment to do a little more than normal. But we owe it to ourselves, to the people of Sudan, to the memories of those who were killed in previous genocides that we may feel connected to (the Holocaust, Armenia, Rwanda,etc.) to do something. If nothing else, just learn more about the situation and talk about it with friends so they too are more aware.

Maybe we did nothing more than make ourselves feel better by attending the Save Darfur rally. I hope not. I hope that we were counted among the tens of thousands, so the Bush administration knows that the world is watching. I hope that you take three minutes to do something, too.

Chestnut is the director of Hillel at Kent State University.



Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Azerbaijan 'flattened' sacred Armenian site

30 May 2006
Belfast Telegraph
By Stephen Castle

Fears that Azerbaijan has systematically destroyed hundreds of 500-year-old Christian artefacts have exploded into a diplomatic row, after Euro MPs were barred from inspecting an ancient Armenian burial site.

The predominantly Muslim country's government has been accused of "flagrant vandalism" similar to the Taliban's demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan.

The claims centre on the fate of rare "khachkars", stone crosses carved with intricate floral designs, at the burial ground of Djulfa in the Nakhichevan region of Azerbaijan, an enclave separated from the rest of the country by Armenia.

The works - some of the most important examples of Armenian heritage - are said to have been smashed with sledgehammers last December as the site was concreted over.

The Azerbaijan government, which denies the claims, is now at the centre of a row with MEPs, some of whom it accused of a "biased and hysterical approach". Its ambassador to the EU also says the European Parliament has ignored damage to Muslim sites in Armenia. Azerbaijan has refused to allow a delegation of Euro MPs permission to visit the 1,500-year-old Djulfa cemetery during their trip to the region last month.

Most of original 10,000 khachkars, most of which date from the 15th and 16th century, were destroyed by the early 20th century, leaving probably fewer than 3,000 by the late 1970s.

According to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos), the Azerbaijan government removed 800 khachkars in 1998. Though the destruction was halted following protests from Unesco, it resumed four years later. By January 2003 "the 1,500-year-old cemetery had completely been flattened," Icomos says.

Witnesses, quoted in the Armenian press, say the final round of vandalism was unleashed in December last year by Azerbaijani soldiers wielding sledgehammers.

The president of Icomos, Michael Petzet, said: "Now that all traces of this highly important historic site seem to have been extinguished all we can do is mourn the loss and protest against this totally senseless destruction."

Some MEPs believe that, boosted by its oil revenues, Azerbaijan is adopting an increasingly assertive stance in the region. Charles Tannock, Conservative foreign affairs spokesman in the European parliament, argued: "This is very similar to the Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban. They have concreted the area over and turned it into a military camp. If they have nothing to hide then we should be allowed to inspect the terrain."

When MEPs passed a critical resolution in February, Azerbaijan's Foreign Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, made a formal protest. Then, when the parliament's delegation for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, asked to combine a mission to Armenia with a visit to the Djulfa archaeological site, their request was refused.

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly hopes to visit the site and its secretary general has offered to set up an expert group to examine cultural sites in Azerbaijan and Armenia. MEPs insist that the authorities in Azerbaijan should open their doors if they have nothing to hide.

Hannes Swoboda, an Austrian socialist MEP and member of the committee barred from examining the site, said he hopes a visit can be arranged in the autumn. He added: "If they do not allow us to go, we have a clear hint that something bad has happened. If something is hidden we want to ask why. It can only be because some of the allegations are true."

And he warned: "One of the major elements of any country that wants to come close to Europe is that the cultural heritage of neighbours is respected."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIA TOPS THE LIST IN THE CHESS OLYMPIAD

29 May, 2006
A1 Plus

The Armenian national chess team [...] in the World Chess Olympiad in Turin [...] has {a} good chance of becoming champion for the first time.

[...]{The}Armenian Grand Masters beat the {the second place} team of the Netherlands 3:1 [...]. [...].

[...] Netherlands had beaten the main rivals of Armenia, the team of Russia which in its turn beat Belarus in this round 3:1.

[...]{Next Armenia}will play [...]{against} [...] Cuba [...].

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIAN TEAM’S BEST PARTICIPATION IN THE OLYMPIAD

25 May, 2006
A1 Plus

Armenian Chess team displayed its best participation in the 4th round of the World Olympiad held in Turin and beat the Nigerian team 4:0.

Our chess players Levon Aronyan, Vladimir Hakobyan, Smbat Lputyan and Gabriel Sargsyan celebrated their victory. After the meeting with the Nigerian team Armenia tops the fixture table with 13.5 points alongside with the Russian team having the same index. Armenia occupies the 2nd place with its additional indexes.

By the way, Armenian chess players will meet the Russian representatives in the 5th round. This will be the central and the vital meeting of the Olympiad where the winner will have an opportunity to become a champion though there is much time left by the end of the Olympiad. It is noteworthy that only Armenian, Russian and Dutch teams celebrated the same number of victories in the past four rounds.

Armenian women team also celebrated its victory in the 4th round beating Ecuador 2:1. The decisive point for our team was provided by Siranoush Andreasyan whereas Lilit Mkrtchyan and Elina Danielyan tied their meetings. So far Armenian women team is in the 11th place and will meet the Greek team in the next round.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Ukraine and Armenia agreed on military cooperation

25 May 2006
ForUm

In the course of the visit of Ukrainian delegation in Armenia, the head of the delegation the Commander-in-Chief of Ukrainian Armed Forces Colonel-General Serhiy Kyrychenko placed a wreath on the Memorial to the victims of Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Ukrainian and Armenian military officials inked the protocol on bilateral military cooperation. “The document provides for putting bilateral military-technical cooperation into practise and the joint participation in the peacekeeping operations,” said First Deputy Defence Minister of Armenia Colonel-General Mikael Arutyunyan.

According to his words, the Ukraine-Armenia Cooperation Plan-2006 has been already made. “Armenia is ready to share its experience in the military sphere and also implements some of the Ukrainian tips and experience into the reformation of the Armed Forces,” stressed Arutyunyan.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

NKR Head: Montenegro Referendum Important Precedent

25.05.2006
PanARMENIAN.Net

Nagorno Karabakh has all grounds for expecting international recognition of independence, NKR President Arkady Ghoukassian said. In his words, the latest referendum in Montenegro is a very important precedent {See Serb leader accepts Montenegro outcome }. «If the international community is ready to recognize Montenegro and Kosovo independence, then I think it will be very difficult for them to explain, why then why do not they recognize NK?» Ghoukassian said.

In the NKR President's opinion, Karabakh has more grounds for expecting recognition of independence, including geographic and legal ones.

«If we recall that the people of Nagorno Karabakh have survived in the war imposed by Azerbaijan and has its statehood now, I believe we have all grounds for expecting international recognition of independence. I see no alternative to that. NKR is independent and will be such irrespective of Azerbaijan's desires,» Ghoukassian said.

The NKR President is sure that the International community will recognize Karabakh sooner or later. «The sooner it does it, the more the chances for peace to be sustained in the region,» reports Novosti-Armenia.
! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Lawmakers question removal of US envoy over genocide remarks

Wed May 24
AFP
by Jocelyne Zablit

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers are questioning the apparent dismissal of the US ambassador to Armenia over a statement he made in which he recognized the 1915 massacre of Armenians as genocide.

Sixty members of Congress on Monday sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to express concern about ambassador John Evans's early departure from Yerevan in coming weeks.

The White House on Tuesday nominated Richard Hoagland, the current ambassador to Tajikistan, to replace Evans. His nomination requires confirmation by the Senate.

The lawmakers said in their letter to Rice that recent information indicates Evans was sacked for declaring in February 2005 that "the Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century". He made the statement in meetings with Armenian-American communities.

Evans later corrected his remarks, as Washington does not officially recognize as genocide the massacre of up to 1.5 million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.

"I am seriously concerned at the early departure of Ambassador Evans," Congressman Ed Markey, a Democrat, said Wednesday in a statement. "I hope that this sudden action by the State Department is not related to comments made by Ambassador Evans about the Armenian genocide."

The State Department had no immediate comment but a spokesman underlined that all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.

The 60 congressmen who signed the letter to Rice defended his use of the word "genocide", saying it was a proper interpretation of the "cataclysmic events of 1915".

"By employing the proper term last year, the ambassador was only building on previous statements by our leaders in government, as well as the repeated declarations of numerous world-renowned scholars," the letter states, referring to comments made by then-president Ronald Reagan in 1981 in which he specifically used the world genocide in describing massacres.

"In effect, Ambassador Evans did nothing more than succinctly repeat the conclusions enunciated by those before him," the lawmakers said.

They also questioned whether Turkey had played a part in Evans's departure from Armenia.

"Were the United States to allow the views or beliefs of a third country to interfere with our diplomatic postings to the Republic of Armenia, it would establish a dangerous precedent and be injurious to the long-standing relationship built on trust and friendship between the two countries," the letter said.

Evans, a career diplomat, was appointed ambassador to Armenia in August 2004. Ambassadors typically serve overseas for an average of three years.

The US administration has consistently stopped short of calling the World War I massacres of Armenians a genocide. However several other countries, including France, Canada and Switzerland, recognize them as such.

Turkey has lobbied hard against the "genocide" label, arguing that 300,000 Armenians and as many Turks were killed in civil strife in the final years of the Ottoman Empire when the Armenians rose up for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided with invading Russian troops.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Anne Derse Stops Short of Destruction of Armenian Cemetery in Nakhichevan

May 23, 2006
PanARMENIAN.Net

U.S. Ambassador Designate to Azerbaijan Anne Derse responded to concerns raised by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) regarding Azerbaijan's destruction of the over millennia old Djulfa Armenian cemetery in Nakhichevan, but refrained from pledging any concrete commitment to investigate the matter, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

Submitting a written response to questions by Sen. Boxer relayed during her May 12th Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, Derse noted that the Department of State is "urging the relevant Azerbaijani authorities to investigate the allegations of desecration of cultural monuments in Nakhichevan and take appropriate measures to prevent any desecration of cultural monuments. Armenia and Azerbaijan are both members of UNESCO (and OSCE), and Azerbaijan has raised these issues in those organizations. We have encouraged Armenia and Azerbaijan to work with UNESCO to investigate this incident. If I am confirmed, and if such issues arise during my tenure, I will communicate our concerns to the Government of Azerbaijan and pursue appropriate activities in support of U.S. interests."

Are diplomats paid to come up with creative evasive responses? What a farce!

Sen. Boxer had specifically asked if the Ambassador Designate would "visit the cemetery site and commit [herself] to investigating the demolition of this unique cemetery."

"We want to thank Senator Boxer for raising Azerbaijan's desecration of the Djulfa cemetery with Ambassador Designate Derse," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "We were deeply troubled by the silence of the U.S. Embassy on this issue during the tenure of her predecessor, Reno Harnish, and remain hopeful that, despite her evasive response, Anne Derse will prove a more vocal and effective advocate for the core American values of tolerance and respect for cultural heritage. She can start off on the right foot by personally visiting Djulfa during her first month in office."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Serb leader accepts Montenegro outcome

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006
International Herald Tribune
Reuters, The Associated Press

BELGRADE The president of Serbia, Boris Tadic, on Tuesday became the first Serbian official to fully acknowledge the outcome of Montenegro's referendum on independence, saying that he recognized the results of the vote on Sunday, which will separate the tiny Adriatic republic from its union with Serbia.

"I supported the preservation of a joint state, but as a democratic president of a democratic republic, I recognize the expression of the free will of the Montenegrin citizens," Tadic said. He went on to call for future close cooperation between Serbia and Montenegro.

Official preliminary results on Tuesday confirmed a victory for the independence bloc, effectively ending a union with Serbia that dated back in various forms to 1918.

"As Serbia's president, I accept the official preliminary results of the Montenegro referendum," Tadic said. He appealed for a fast resolution of questions raised about the tally by the pro- Serbia bloc in Montenegro, to "remove all doubt" and make the results final.

The pro-union faction in Montenegro - which had campaigned to keep together the Balkan neighbors sharing the same language, Orthodox Christianity and culture - has demanded a recount, citing unspecified irregularities.

Representatives of the European Union, the United States and foreign monitoring groups have all said the vote was free and fair. Montenegro's election authorities reiterated Tuesday that 55.5 percent of voters in the republic had chosen independence.

The Serbian prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica, stopped short of recognizing the result of the referendum, but said his government was "ready to acknowledge the results once they become final" and declared as such by Montenegro's election authorities.

"A referendum is an important event and the smallest doubt about its regularity has to be removed," said Kostunica, who had urged Montenegro to remain allied with Serbia.

Serbia and Montenegro was the last remaining shred of Yugoslavia, which began its breakup in the early 1990s. Serbia, with 10 times more people than Montenegro, footed the lion's share of the bill for a union that shared only a diplomatic corps, a Defense Ministry and numerous official cars. Serbia itself now becomes a sovereign state, Tadic stressed and urged his people to "work to build a better future."

"Montenegro will have a reliable friend in Serbia, both politically and economically," he said, adding that "there will never be any walls or barriers" between the two Balkan neighbors.

Tadic and Kostunica spoke after meeting in Belgrade with an EU envoy, Miroslav Lajcak, who oversaw the plebiscite in Montenegro, then flew to Belgrade to ensure that Serbian officials fully recognized the vote.

Lajcak also met with Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic, who at first offered Montenegro only "preliminary congratulations." But his office later issued a statement wishing Montenegro all the best on its road to independence.

The U.S. ambassador to Belgrade, Michael Polt, congratulated the Montenegrins "on the peaceful, democratic" vote and urged Montenegro and Serbia "to work together to resolve the practical issues" of their separation.

The next steps in making Serbia and Montenegro sovereign states include formal declarations of independence, dissolving the central administration that has run their foreign and defense affairs, and dividing common assets.

Serbia inherits membership in international organizations, while Montenegro must apply as a new member. Both aspire to join the EU, but will now pursue the path separately.

Montenegro's departure means Serbia can now turn to more pressing issues such as negotiations on the potential independence of its southern Kosovo Province - which could be a far more painful blow.

Belgrade must also consider its own EU aspirations, now in limbo because it has failed to hand over the Bosnian Serb war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic to the tribunal in The Hague.

"Perhaps this is for the best," said a Serbian cabinet minister, Velimir Ilic. "Serbia has spent long enough worrying about others and spending money on others. The time has come for Serbia to work for itself." $@

BELGRADE The president of Serbia, Boris Tadic, on Tuesday became the first Serbian official to fully acknowledge the outcome of Montenegro's referendum on independence, saying that he recognized the results of the vote on Sunday, which will separate the tiny Adriatic republic from its union with Serbia.

"I supported the preservation of a joint state, but as a democratic president of a democratic republic, I recognize the expression of the free will of the Montenegrin citizens," Tadic said. He went on to call for future close cooperation between Serbia and Montenegro.

Official preliminary results on Tuesday confirmed a victory for the independence bloc, effectively ending a union with Serbia that dated back in various forms to 1918.

"As Serbia's president, I accept the official preliminary results of the Montenegro referendum," Tadic said. He appealed for a fast resolution of questions raised about the tally by the pro- Serbia bloc in Montenegro, to "remove all doubt" and make the results final.

The pro-union faction in Montenegro - which had campaigned to keep together the Balkan neighbors sharing the same language, Orthodox Christianity and culture - has demanded a recount, citing unspecified irregularities.

Representatives of the European Union, the United States and foreign monitoring groups have all said the vote was free and fair. Montenegro's election authorities reiterated Tuesday that 55.5 percent of voters in the republic had chosen independence.

The Serbian prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica, stopped short of recognizing the result of the referendum, but said his government was "ready to acknowledge the results once they become final" and declared as such by Montenegro's election authorities.

"A referendum is an important event and the smallest doubt about its regularity has to be removed," said Kostunica, who had urged Montenegro to remain allied with Serbia.

Serbia and Montenegro was the last remaining shred of Yugoslavia, which began its breakup in the early 1990s. Serbia, with 10 times more people than Montenegro, footed the lion's share of the bill for a union that shared only a diplomatic corps, a Defense Ministry and numerous official cars. Serbia itself now becomes a sovereign state, Tadic stressed and urged his people to "work to build a better future."

"Montenegro will have a reliable friend in Serbia, both politically and economically," he said, adding that "there will never be any walls or barriers" between the two Balkan neighbors.

Tadic and Kostunica spoke after meeting in Belgrade with an EU envoy, Miroslav Lajcak, who oversaw the plebiscite in Montenegro, then flew to Belgrade to ensure that Serbian officials fully recognized the vote.

Lajcak also met with Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic, who at first offered Montenegro only "preliminary congratulations." But his office later issued a statement wishing Montenegro all the best on its road to independence.

The U.S. ambassador to Belgrade, Michael Polt, congratulated the Montenegrins "on the peaceful, democratic" vote and urged Montenegro and Serbia "to work together to resolve the practical issues" of their separation.

The next steps in making Serbia and Montenegro sovereign states include formal declarations of independence, dissolving the central administration that has run their foreign and defense affairs, and dividing common assets.

Serbia inherits membership in international organizations, while Montenegro must apply as a new member. Both aspire to join the EU, but will now pursue the path separately.

Montenegro's departure means Serbia can now turn to more pressing issues such as negotiations on the potential independence of its southern Kosovo Province - which could be a far more painful blow.

Belgrade must also consider its own EU aspirations, now in limbo because it has failed to hand over the Bosnian Serb war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic to the tribunal in The Hague.

"Perhaps this is for the best," said a Serbian cabinet minister, Velimir Ilic. "Serbia has spent long enough worrying about others and spending money on others. The time has come for Serbia to work for itself."


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CONNECTED FIRST OF ALL WITH IDEOLOGY: RUSSIAN HISTORIAN

May 23, 2006
ArmInfo

The attempts of a number of Turkish historians to justify the Genocide of Armenians with the pro-Russian sentiments of Armenians are absolutely baseless like the statements that "the Armenians and Turks had normal relations before Russia's coming to the Caucasus." Head of the 19th Century Section, State Historical Museum, Victor Bezotosny told ArmInfo.

He stressed that for centuries the Turkish state government machine repeatedly organized ethnic purges accompanied with pogroms of the Christian nations in the Ottoman Empire: Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Armenians. The history of Russian-Turkish wars shows that every time after war Russia [...] undertook the protection of Christian peoples in the Ottoman Empire, the historian said. After the Russian-Turkish war of 1887-1878, Russia insisted on its military presence in Western Armenia as a guarantor of security of western Armenians before the Sultan would carry out reforms. West-European super powers headed by great Britain were against these plans for the fear of the future expansion of the Russian Empire. And Alexander II yielded to Europe for the results of the Crimea war were fresh in the memory of the Russian public.

Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey as well as the annihilation of Jews in Germany under Hitler were connected with domestic political matters and first of all with ideology, he said. He underlined that historical documents leave no doubts that Genocide was committed against the Armenian people in Ottoman Turkey.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Nomination Richard E. Hoagland as the New US Ambassador to Armenia

23 May, 2006
The White House

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate two individuals to serve in his Administration:

The President intends to nominate Richard E. Hoagland, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Armenia. Ambassador Hoagland, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as United States Ambassador to the Republic of Tajikistan. Prior to this, he served as Director of the Office of Caucasus and Central Asian Affairs at the Department of State. Earlier in his career, he served as Director of the Office of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs. Ambassador Hoagland received his bachelor's degree from Taylor University and two master's degrees from the University of Virginia.

[...]

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Search Team Recover Second ’Black Box’ From Armenian Airliner

24.05.2006
MosNews

A Russian search team has recovered the second ’black box’ flight recorder from an Armenian airliner that crashed into the Black Sea on 3 May, killing 113 people. Investigators hope it will help explain the cause of the tragedy.

The first black box, which recorded conversations between the plane’s pilot and crew was recovered on Monday. A special intergovernmental investigation committee will be set up to decipher the flight data from the plane, an air safety official told RIA Novosti.

The second flight recorder had been thought to be lying 3-5 meters (10-16 feet) away from the first one, was actually located 16 meters (about 40 feet) from the first recorder and was buried deeper in silt, Svetlana Kryshtanovskaya, a Russian Transport ministry representative said.

The airliner, operated by Armenia’s Airliner A320, crashed while flying from the Armenian capital, Yerevan, in stormy weather 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) from Russia’s Adler airport, which services the popular resort of Sochi.

Most of the passengers were Armenian, but there were also 26 Russian nationals. Among those on board were eight crew and six children. Armavia, the airline which owned the plane, says that it was in good condition and that the crew were experienced. The Airbus was manufactured in 1995 and underwent checks last month, BBC reports.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

A step up from the chain gang

May 22, 2006
The Toronto Star
BY AVET DEMOURIAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Crafts created by Armenian inmates Prisoners proud of handiwork

YEREVAN, Armenia—Men in black turtlenecks bend over the workshop tables, intently carving key chains, model ships, even an elaborate walnut backgammon set.

These and other handicrafts will go for sale at the Prison Arts kiosk at a weekend market in the centre of Yerevan, the capital. It's part of a new program to occupy the time of Armenia's prison inmates.

The program is the brainchild of Justice Minister David Arutyunian and the director of the ministry's prison reform program, Nikolai Arustamian. The inmate "is occupied, he creates and gets satisfaction from this," Arutyunian says. "For many, the financial aspect is secondary."

The prisoners weave wall hangings and craft watches, religious medallions, slippers and leather cases for mobile phones and keys. Each piece gets a label in Armenian and English identifying the craftsman and describing what materials were used.

The label does not indicate the sentence being served by the artisan or the crime — but the inmates eagerly volunteer that information.

"I've been `inside' since I was 16," says 34-year-old Fyodor Matriashin, serving his sixth sentence for robbery. "I began making wooden boxes when I first arrived, but I used to give them away. Now I'm paid for them."

Each of Armenia's 13 prisons, home to some 3,000 inmates, had some sort of manufacturing department when the country was part of the Soviet Union, but production shut down and most of the equipment was carted away after the federation broke apart at the end of 1991.

An advocacy group, the Assistance to the Prisoner Fund, started prisoners making clothes and now is trying to revive the manufacture of ceramics and bricks at Erebuni prison, a facility in Yerevan for repeat offenders.

But it is the crafts workshops that seem to give prisoners the greatest satisfaction.

"Just about everyone in the prison uses my cigarette holders," says Abel Pogosian, a 32-year-old serving his fifth sentence for assault. "Now maybe someone on the outside will like them, too."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Azerbaijan: A New Muslim Ally for the U.S.?

May 22, 2006
FrontPageMagazine.com
By Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr.

Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev’s three-day visit to Washington in late April to discuss economic and regional security issues marked an important step forward in U.S.-Azerbaijan bilateral relations. “My trip to Washington covered all aspects of our relationship,” the 44-year old Aliyev said. Seeking to solidify his country’s ties to the region, an enthusiastic U.S. President George W. Bush noted, “Azerbaijan is a modern Muslim country that is able to provide for its citizens and understands that democracy is the wave of the future.”

President Ilham Aliyev, who succeeded his father Haidar as head of state after his death in 2003, has quickly become a critical U.S. ally, as other nations in the region such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have slowly distanced themselves from Washington. Located between Russia and Iran with a population of 7.8 million people, Azerbaijan has been an important strategic partner in the war on terror, sending troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. The country has also allowed the use of its territory by the U.S. military, cooperating with the Pentagon to modernize a former Soviet-era airfield and granting permission for U.S. military over flights. Plans were recently announced for the U.S. to modernize one radar station near the Iranian border at Lerik and another near the border with Georgia at Agstafa. Joint work has also commenced on two radar stations on the Russia-Azerbaijani border and Iran-Azerbaijani border to monitor Caspian Sea traffic.

Although bilateral cooperation has accelerated recently, U.S.-Azerbaijan relations are not entirely rosy. Promised political reforms have progressed slowly in Baku, the country’s capital, with the U.S. openly criticizing the presidential elections in 2003 and parliamentary polls last year as “seriously flawed.” President Aliyev’s election was marred by allegations of corruption and brutal crackdowns on his political opposition, drawing some international observers to compare the leader to Belarus strongman President Alexander Lukashenko.

A pending criminal case in New York federal court against an Azerbaijani oil company in which Aliyev served as vice president has also raised questions regarding the president’s past. Moreover, president Aliyev’s recent bellicose statements concerning his country’s deadly conflict with neighbor Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory that left 30,000 civilians dead, has raised red flags in Washington

Domestic problems aside, the energy resources of Azerbaijan have propelled bilateral relations forward. Washington remains determined to reduce its energy reliance on less-friendly governments in the Middle East, Africa and South America. The 1,000 mile long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which bypasses both Russia and Iran from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, is testimony to the rising importance of the country’s energy sector and its ability to play an integral role in U.S. energy security.

According to Azerbaijani government sources, the country’s oil reserves range from 7 to 13 billion barrels. Daily oil exports reached 319,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2004 and are expected to reach 1.1 million bpd by 2008. Natural gas reserves are also substantial, estimated at 30 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). Flush with cash, foreign investors are flocking to the country hoping to secure lucrative exploration and development contracts, with investment increasing an astounding 30 percent, or US$4.4 billion, in 2004 alone.

Beyond democratization and energy, the complex issue of Iran drives the current U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship. As a Shia Muslim nation, Azerbaijan shares close ethnic and religious ties with its southern neighbor. As a result, Baku strongly opposes the use of force against Iran in the current nuclear crisis, “Our position has not changed -- the problems should be resolved by diplomatic means,” president Aliyev said during his visit to Washington.

Baku’s developing relationship with Tehran is an ongoing concern for Washington. During 2005, president Aliyev and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met three times, providing a glimpse of how close the two countries have become. “Relations between the two friendly and fraternal countries are rapidly developing,” Aliyev noted in a December meeting with Ahmadinejad in Nakhchivan, an Azerbaijani enclave.

Earlier this month, the two leaders met in Baku, with president Ahmadinejad expressing both his desire to increase energy cooperation with Azerbaijan and his growing dissatisfaction with U.S. efforts aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. To ensure Azerbaijani neutrality and counter U.S. influence, Iran reportedly offered to serve as an export conduit for Azerbaijani oil and gas.

Tehran’s early efforts seem to be paying off. Public opinion polls in Azerbaijan show a growing tide of anti-Americanism. “All recent surveys conducted in Azerbaijan show the rise of anti-American moods in Azerbaijan society,” noted Arif Yunusov, head of the Conflict Prevention Department at the Baku-based Institute for Peace and Democracy.

Azerbaijan’s increased contact with Iran could place the country in a difficult position, as the U.N. Security Council considers punitive measures such as economic sanctions or even military action. In essence, Baku’s position of non-interference on the Iran nuclear issue gives Washington little room for geopolitical maneuvering. The country’s strategic importance during any military conflict with Iran should not be underestimated. Azerbaijan shares a 370 mile border with Iran, and successfully sealing it would be an important first step to stem the transport of necessary supplies and weapons to Iran. “One concern is to keep Azerbaijan on board regardless of the administration’s policy toward Iran, because Iran is a neighboring state,” noted Dr. Martha Britt Olcott, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Azerbaijan offers the U.S. a number of attractive strategic options during a perilous time in world history. The Bush administration remains committed to maintaining a significant economic, political and military presence in the region to offset possible Iranian aggression. However, Washington must be careful when making regional alliances to address emerging threats, otherwise, ambitious leaders like president Aliyev could initiate a dangerous game of political gamesmanship resulting in regional chaos, rather than stability.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Restraint and moderation, anyone?

22 May 2006
The new Anatolian
Nazlan Ertan
nazlanertan@thenewanatolian.com

Last week was a difficult one, both at home and abroad. On the international front, Turkey struggled with the Armenian genocide revisionism bill, which, if it had passed, would have made denial of the 1915 Armenian "genocide" a criminal offense in France.

On the domestic front, the tentative "national consensus," on the decline since November, suffered a serious setback at Kocatepe Mosque, where Cabinet members were booed as they attended the funeral of a Council of State judge assassinated by a gunman.

Armenian knot

When French Socialists wanted to introduce a new bill on the Armenian genocide allegations, officials and civil groups alike in Turkey were duly alarmed and got mobilized. Unlike the first such bill, passed in 2001, which had no practical effect as it was limited to a simple "recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide" by France, the new law would enable anyone who denied the allegations to be fined or imprisoned.

Given the highly organized nature of the Armenian lobby, the easy passage of the first bill and, finally, the Turkish incapacity to lobby effectively and moderately, there was very little doubt that the second law would pass and erupt into a full-fledged crisis between Turkey and France.

Then, both the Turkish government and civil groups did something that surprised us all. Keeping public threats and insults to a minimum (again something that contrasted deeply with the Turkish policy during the first bill), the Turks started a steady flow of "persuasion tours" to France, ranging from Parliament officials to government figures to university academics. French intellectuals were mobilized in the name of freedom of expression. And, of course, the economic stick was also shown to France.

The first signal that these efforts were going somewhere came when a commission of the French Parliament voted against the bill. A week later, France shelved the critical vote. In the very lively debate that the Turkish audience could watch live on news channel NTV, the speech of French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy was a notable act of balance:

"France is a loyal friend of Armenia -- it was one of the first countries to recognize its independence and since then, supported the young republic with all its efforts. But France is also a friend of Turkey, to which it was an inspiration during the foundation of the republic. Since then, Turkey and France have enjoyed strong, consistent ties. In the face of his double friendship… France must continue to pursue a policy of peace and reconciliation."

Was the decision a partial victory? Perhaps. As pointed out, the law may always reappear on the agenda of the French National Assembly although certain French sources, more optimistic than their Turkish counterparts, think that the law, now buried, will not see the light of day again.

But that would also depend on whether or not Turkey takes necessary steps on its past and its relations with neighboring Armenia.
[...]

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Man drives through fair, injures eight

May 22, 2006
The Oakland Press
By DIANA DILLABER MURRAY

SOUTHFIELD - Police have apprehended the Troy man who allegedly drove his van into a throng of adults and children enjoying a school carnival in Sunday's brisk spring weather.

Eight people, mostly children, were injured when the van plowed into area where the colorful, inflatable carnival rides such as a moonwalk were being operated at about 2:45 p.m. at the Alex & Marie Manoogian charter school carnival at 22001 Northwestern Hwy. There were no fatalities.

School employees tried to stop the white male driver, estimated by witnesses to be 35 to 55 years old, as he drove into the fairgoers.

He fled the scene. But he was arrested late Sunday night by Troy officers at the request of Southfield police who developed information to tell them where the man was, said Lt. Steven Lasota, in a statement.

Southfield officers took custody of the driver from Troy police and impounded the van. The man, whose identity was not released, will be arraigned at 46th District Court today, said Lasota.
[...]

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Turkey Infringes Common Norms of International Law

22.05.2006
PanARMENIAN.Net

Presently the Armenian government does not set any preconceptions for establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey while for the latter the final resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh problem is the principal precondition for the establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of the border with Armenia, RA Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakossian stated in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net. In his words, Turkey not only infringes the common norms of the international law but also violates the acting Kars Agreement of 1921 that determines the borders. “Although the Kars Agreement confirmed the principal clauses of the Moscow Agreement of 1921 that violates the vital interests of Armenia and the Armenian people, as a matter of fact, this is the only diplomatic act regulating bilateral relations not denounced by any of the parties so far,” the Armenian diplomat reminded.

At the same time he remarked that according to one of the preconditions set by the EU during the talks with Ankara, Turkey should enjoy good relations with all the neighbors including Armenia. “Taking into account the constant pressure exerted by the United States, the Turkish government got into difficulties. Today it’s trying to draw a veil over the situation pleading a considerable commodity turnover available between the two states, air and overland transportation as well as the possibility of every Armenian citizen to receive visa and cross the Turkish border. It’s true, but all this happens either by air or via the territory of a third state, in complete blockade and absence of diplomatic relations. On the other hand, Turkey doesn’t wish to sacrifice relations with Azerbaijan, since the Azeri authorities consider that opening of the border with Turkey will give a boost to the Armenian economy and consequently toughen Armenia’s position on Karabakh,” Kirakossian emphasized.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Robert Fisk: You're talking nonsense, Mr Ambassador

20 May 2006
The Indepedent
By Robert Fisk

All the while, new diplomatic archives are opening to reveal the smell of death - Armenian death

A letter from the Turkish Ambassador to the Court of Saint James arrived for me a few days ago, one of those missives that send a shudder through the human soul. "You allege that an 'Armenian genocide' took place in Eastern Anatolia in 1915," His Excellency Mr Akin Alptuna told me. "I believe you have some misconceptions about those events ..."

Oh indeedy doody, I have. I am under the totally mistaken conception that one and a half million Armenians were cruelly and deliberately done to death by their Turkish Ottoman masters in 1915, that the men were shot and knifed while their womenfolk were raped and eviscerated and cremated and starved on death marches and their children butchered. I have met a few of the survivors - liars to a man and woman, if the Turkish ambassador to Britain is to be believed - and I have seen the photographs taken of the victims by a brave German photographer called Armen Wegner whose pictures must now, I suppose, be consigned to the waste bins. So must the archives of all those diplomats who courageously catalogued the mass murders inflicted upon Turkey's Christian population on the orders of the gang of nationalists who ran the Ottoman government in 1915.

If this is the extent of the unabashed downright revision of history an educated Ambassador will go to, what hope is left? Do people not see that a once thriving ethnic Armenian community in Turkey is no more? It is for these kind of people that a law against denying the Armenian Genocide should be put in place. Shame on you, your Excellency the Turkish Ambassador, Mr Akin Alptuna.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Brussels shies away from Turkey-Armenia genocide dispute

19.05.2006
EUobserver
By Teresa Küchler

The French parliament on Thursday suspended a vote on a law that would criminalise denial of the alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians in the early 1900s, with Brussels shying away from seeing the event as a political criterium for Turkish EU entry.

In 2001, French lawmakers passed a bill which accuses the Ottoman Turks of committing genocide against the Armenians between 1915 and 1923, with Armenians asserting the campaign cost 1.5 million lives.

As a consequence, French MPs were on Thursday (18 May) set to vote on a law similar to already existing legislation against holocaust-denial, which could see an individual facing a sentence of up to five years in prison and a €45,000 fine.

The president of the French parliament, Jean-Louis Debré, however interrupted the session in the middle of a heated debate, saying there was "no time" to deal with the initiative put forward by the socialist opposition party.

The announcement caused uproar in the visitor's grandstand, where dozens of members of the French 400,000-strong Armenian minority clapped their hands for over five minutes, while shouting "The vote, the vote!"

For its part, Ankara denies the genocide charges, recognising only 500,000 Armenian deaths during the Ottoman war, and rejects the genocide tag saying both sides suffered severe losses in the war.

Addressing the plenary in Paris, French foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy following his party's line, stressed the "serious political consequences" an adoption of the law would mean.

"The Armenian cause is righteous and it should be defended and respected. But the national representation must keep France's interests in mind, and the methods it uses to defend its principles," Mr Douste-Blazy told deputies.

Ankara has announced that Turks could boycott French products and French firms could lose lucrative contracts if the legislation is passed, just as the country did in 2001 when the alleged genocide was officially recognised by French law.

Political criteria in EU talks?
The topic has come up several times in the discussion on a future possible EU membership of Turkey, which started accession negotiations last autumn.

A number of European parliament reports urging Turkey to admit to the genocide have been adopted by MEPs since as far back as 1987.

In September last year MEPs backed a resolution on the matter to be forwarded to the European Commission, which monitors Turkey's readiness for EU accession, urging the latter to include the genocide in Ankara's EU membership negotiations with Brussels.

"The proposal that the recognition of the alleged Armenian genocide as a political criteria has arisen from time to time throughout the accession process with Turkey," a commission official told EUobserver.

Brussels has however so far taken a hesitant approach to include conditions on historical events as political criteria for EU accession, because of the European continent's motley war and border history.

The official said that during the bloc's last enlargement round, several eastern European member states had- and in some cases still have- ongoing disputes about "who did what to whom during the war", and that therefore it was important to Brussels to stay out of such disputes.

As for Armenia, the official said "We do not take a stance on the Armenian case, we leave it to historians to study what happened."

Once Turkey joins EU then the whole EU will be tainted by Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide. does EU want that?

The official said a number of EU countries were sceptical to a commission defining historical events, explaining that to add such a criteria to the current demands would need unanimity among member states.

Of course Britain's roll is crucial. When will Britain recognize the Armenian Genocide occurred? May be after Turkey will?

He pointed out however that the commission has underlined the importance of "good neighbourly relations".

Of course if Turkey makes the opening of the border tied to the condition of Armenia dropping the pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, then we do not have a "good Neighbourly relationship" do we?

The so-called "accession partnership" text, adopted by EU member states in January this year, suggests that candidate states "address any sources of frictions at their borders".

"That is the closest we get to addressing the matter," the commission official said.

Some MEPs have followed along the same line of argument, pointing out that it would be insensitive and unfair to demand political criteria for Turkey other than those used for the last round of enlargement.

"The recognition of the Armenian genocide should not be political criteria for EU accession of Turkey," leftist German MEP Feleknas Uca told Euobserver, adding that compliance with the so-called Copenhagen Criteria should continue to be the sole measure of EU-accession for Turkey.

The only power Armenians worldwide have is their democratic rights, that puts the use of crude power by blackmail that Turkey uses to stop the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to shame.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

51st Eurovision Song Contest semi-finals held in Athens Thursday

05/19/2006
ANA
By Orestis Panagiotou

First-time contestant Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Finland, FYROM, Ireland, Lithuania, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, and Ukraine are the 10 countries that qualified in the early hours of Friday for the 51st Eurovision song contest Final on Saturday night, following viewer voting late Thursday among the 23 contestants at the spectacular semi-final held in the indoor basketball venue at Athens' OAKA main Olympic complex.

The 23 countries taking part in Thursday night's semi-final were: Armenia (which is taking part for the first time in the history of the competition), Bulgaria, Slovenia, Andora, Belarus, Albania, Belgium, Ireland, Cyprus, Monaco, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, The Netherlands, Lithuania, Portugal, Sweden, Estonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iceland.

The ten best semi-finalists elected late Thursday night will now compete in Saturday's final with the 14 top songs of last year's Eurovision song contest: Switzerland, Moldova, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Malta, Denmark, Romania, Croatia (which was the first runner up and took the slot following the withdrawal of Serbia-Montenegro), the four major countries which traditionally participate in the competition -- Spain, Germany, France and the United Kingdom -- and 2006 host country Greece, which won the Eurovision song contest in 2005 with "My Number One" performed by Elena Paparizou.

Thursday night's qualifiers were Armenia, with "Without your Love" performed by Andre; Bosnia-Herzegovina, with "Lejla" performed by Hari Mata Hari and his band; Finland, with "Hard Rock Hallelujah" performed by the heavy metal band Lordi; FYROM, with "Ninanajna" performed by Elena Rusteska; Ireland, with the ballad "Every song is a cry for love" performed by Brian Kennedy; Lithuania, with "We are the Winners (of Eurovision)" performed by LT United; Russia, with "Never let you go" performed by Dima; Sweden, with "Invicible" performed by Carola; Turkey, with "Superstar" performed by Sibel Tuzun; and Ukraine, with "Show me your Love" performed by Tina Karol.

The event was hosted by Greece's Eurovision 2004 third-place winner and pop heartthrob Sakis Rouvas ("Shake It") and Greek-American model, reporter and actress Maria Menounos, who will also host the Final on Saturday night.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

TO RECOGNIZE GENOCIDE MEANS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT

18/05/06
Panorama.am

Discussions on the initiative of World Armenian Congress (WAC) to apply to international judicial bodies on the Armenian genocide continued today in closed-door session of WAC experts. Prominent scientists from Armenia, Russia, USA, Germany, Israel and Austria were among the commission.

At the moment, the experts work on a document which is a result of 50 scientists’ work from 17 countries. It considers different approaches for bringing to responsibility for the Armenian genocide within the framework of international judicial bodies.

According to Mihran Dabah, Director of the Institute of Diaspora and Genocide at a German University, Armenians have considerable success in recognition of the genocide. “We have reached a phase when not only we continue work in different countries for the recognition of the Armenian genocide but also the mere fact of denying it has become punishable, for example in France.” According to the expert, before applying to any international court it is advisable to know what the consequences will be. “For me the most important thing is to stop “hystorification” of the issue which would give Turkey time. Another problem is that the countries to which we apply for recognition of genocide may say they are waiting for the court ruling.” Mihran Dabah says “to recognize genocide means to take responsibility for it.”

The reason for taking the case to the international juridical bodies is to get Turkey to abide by its decisions. The countries who will find this step as an excuse to delay their decision to recognize the Armenian Genocide, should understand the difference. Turkey claims now that it is ready for discussions on the subject with Armenia and abide by the decisions of the United Nations. Why not the World Armenian Community as opposed to just Armenia, call Turkey's bluff but under Armenian conditions by selecting the venue where the decisions will be taken?

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

French MPs shelve 'genocide' vote

May 18, 2006
BBC NEWS

The French parliament has postponed debate on a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 was "genocide".

Turkish officials and businesses had lobbied French MPs to shelve the bill, which relates to a thorny issue still plaguing Turkish-Armenian relations.

Turkey rejects Armenia's claim that the Ottoman Turks killed 1.5m Armenians.

The French Socialist opposition wanted a new law to impose fines in line with those for Holocaust deniers.

Anyone denying that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis in World War II can be fined up to 45,000 euros (£30,600) and be jailed for five years in France.

Armenia says up to 1.5 million Armenians were deported and died at the hands of the Ottoman rulers in World War I. Turkey says a few hundred thousand died in a war which also left many Turks dead.

Diplomatic impact

Ahead of the debate, Turkish MPs had been lobbying their French counterparts, warning of irreparable damage if the bill passed into law.

It was set to be a free vote for French MPs, but President Jacques Chirac said that passing the bill would be a mistake. Turkey is a leading economic and trade partner... We cannot accept this bill

Philippe Douste-Blazy
French Foreign Minister

Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy agreed, telling the National Assembly: "The Armenian cause is just and should be defended and respected. But the bill you have submitted today would, if passed, be considered as an unfriendly gesture by a large majority of Turks, whether you want this or not."

This means that the world needs to convince Turkey or Turkey's nationalists should reform themselves before being able to pass the bill. Neither will happen easily. Armenians worldwide need to take the case to international juridical bodies to reach recognition of the Genocide by Turkey and Turkey’s effective responsibility.

As the session ran out of time for a vote to take place, there were reportedly angry scenes as MPs and Armenian groups in the public gallery shouted: "Vote! Vote!"

There are some 400,000 people of Armenian descent in France, and the Socialists have been accused of trying to win their favour ahead of next year's presidential election.

Some European Union countries have passed bills recognising the killings as genocide and the European Parliament has backed a non-binding resolution saying Turkey must recognise it as such before it can join the EU.

The French bill will now be shelved until October at the earliest.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Laws against Genocide Denial: Potential Consequences for Human Rights

May 18, 2006
Hye Tert
by Roger W. Smith

Today the French National Assembly was set to debate a bill to criminalize the denial of the Armenian Genocide, but has now postponed the debate to November. The Turkish ambassador to France was temporarily recalled in protest of this bill. What are the implications of the French law for Turkish-Armenian relations and freedom of speech?

The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, of which I am currently the chair, deals with genocide in a comparative manner, including its causes, methods, aftermath and denial. Our research, based on archival sources both in and outside Turkey, confirms that over a million Armenians perished in an Ottoman state-sponsored campaign between 1915 and 1923 as victims of genocide.

Kemal Ataturk, the founder the new Turkish Republic, also publicly disapproved of the wrongs committed against the Armenians, calling them “a shameful act,” but the true story of other founding fathers of modern Turkey, many of whom had been intimately involved in the Armenian Genocide as perpetrators, was suppressed. This was despite the fact that the Ottoman government itself found the leaders of the Young Turk party guilty in absentia of crimes against the Armenians. Ever since then, successive Turkish governments have denied what they euphemistically called “the events of 1915.”

In this respect, I wrote to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan on May 5, 2005, regarding his proposal for a joint group, consisting of historians and other experts, to study “the events of 1915.” I found this proposal insincere, given the Turkish state’s numerous attempts to stifle open discussion of the Armenian Genocide, including prosecuting over seventy scholars, writers, journalists and publishers on the grounds that they were denigrating Turkey. In that letter, I made the following points.

. …the two sides must listen to and hear each other. As part of this process, a common body of knowledge needs to be created, so that established facts can help alleviate the polarization of opinions. This, in turn, will lead to the “peaceful and friendly environment in which tolerance and mutual respect shall prevail.” [Note, quote taken from P.M. Erdogan’s proposal.]

I then urged that his government take some simple steps to allow for a free and open discussion within Turkish society, such as those listed below.

1) Facilitate critical scholars educating society about the events of 1915 from different points of view and not only from the government's perspective.

2) Allow the broadcast of a series of lectures on this issue by renowned Armenian, Turkish and/or third party scholars, who do not necessarily reflect the government's official position, through Turkish television networks, without any censorship, and with the accessibility to the public for questions.

3) Allow Turkish academics and intellectuals, whose point of view challenges the official version of what happened in 1915, to express their ideas through public lectures, publications, and translations of Ottoman archival materials, without fear of persecution by the state.

I also asked the government to make it unequivocally and publicly clear that Article 305 of the Penal Code should not criminalize ideas which deviate from those of the state’s defined position, such as the Armenian Genocide issue, and that individuals who say that the Armenians suffered a genocide will not be persecuted by the state.

The proposed new legislation is intended to give force to the law passed in 2001 officially recognizing the Genocide by providing penalties for those engaged in its denial. One should question how this law, if adopted, would facilitate dialogue between the Armenians and Turks, which is a stated objective of the 2001 law, or between the French and the Turks? Does not this law inadvertently provide new opportunities for the reactionary elements of Turkish state and society to radicalize the masses against the French and the Armenians? By using the French law, which limits freedom of speech as an example, would the Turkish state not justify laws that promote its policy of denial and therefore make it even harder to deviate from the official government position on history? If so, how does that help Turkish civil society in gaining any awareness on this issue? Does this law advance the language of reconciliation or the language of conflict? Can such laws bring a solution to the problem, or do they become part of the problem themselves? Does using the penal code in France for any limitation on the discussion of historical events endanger the prime function of scholars, writers and journalists—to analyze, question, and debate issues? Would it not create a slippery slope that would allow the state to sanction and impose dogmas as to how society should think? Finally, is this not the very method of limiting freedom of speech that countries like Turkey use, as the state attempts to control history in order to control society?

Of course, we do need laws to protect against such problems as racism and neo-Nazism, and there are legal limits to freedom of speech, such as libel, fraud, defamation. Therefore, those who argue that freedom of speech is not absolute are absolutely right. Some observers have argued that you can not have a law criminalizing Holocaust denial and not allow a similar law for denying the Armenian Genocide, which is officially recognized as genocide in France.

The Holocaust denial policy grew out of two things: many European countries were complicit in the death of the Jews, and punishing denial of the Holocaust is seen as a form of atonement; and there was a fear that neo-Nazi and other fascist groups would try to vindicate themselves by eliminating the Holocaust, while maintaining racism. Thus, the idea was that suppression of fascism was in part a matter of suppressing denial of the Holocaust.

On the level of principle, one could argue either for or against treating all denial of genocide as equal. But there is the historical context of the Holocaust denial laws that is different from Armenia, Rwanda, etc. At the same time, if only the Holocaust cannot be legally denied, then some will take this to mean that only the Holocaust was a genocide; others will feel that the suffering of their people is being slighted. But if we open this up and list all genocides and criminalize denial of all of them, then our minds would be enormously constrained by the State. Freedom of inquiry, expression, thought would be limited in ways that are totally unnecessary and unintended. Accordingly, are laws such as this a mistake and contrary to freedom of speech? Some might argue that governments should eliminate all cases of prosecution of denial, rather than extend the net.

We know Turkey already requires its students to write essays denying the Armenian Genocide and uses its penal code to stifle human rights. As recently as three days ago, an opposition deputy in the Turkish Grand National Assembly presented a bill stipulating prison terms of up to three years for those who claim that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians in 1915. (This bill is not very different from the current Turkish Penal Code article (301) that criminalizes “denigrating Turkishness,” which is what claiming there was a genocide of the Armenians apparently does.) If the bill passes, what would happen to Turkish intellectuals like Taner Akçam, Murat Belge, Halil Berktay, Hrant Dink, Fatma Müge Göçek, Orhan Pamuk, Ragip Zarakolu, and others, who openly challenge the Turkish state’s definition of the Armenian Genocide? Who then would dare attempt to educate Turkish civil society? How then would Turkey ever have a chance to become democratic? How then are the Armenian and Turkish people going to have any kind of dialogue on this issue? If one supports such a law in France limiting freedom of speech, then should one not also support such a law in Turkey?

We must do all we can to overcome denial of genocide, by raising awareness, employing scholarship, applying reason, and means other than state sanction, to defend truth, justice and human rights. We must demand that Turkey reform its penal code. The French, German and other governments of Europe who were bystanders or even participants in the crime should provide resources in order to bring the parties together, and give incentives to solve the problem, not widen the divide. Denial should be against the law only if it is in the context of a hate or racist argument.

One wonders if these developments can contribute to the peaceful solution of the problem. Rather than employ the language of conflict, which exacerbates the problem, the parties should be more dispassionate and rational, in order to be open to developing other means and tools that will help with establishing dialogue, and hopefully lead to normalization of relations.

France, for its part, has an option, as well. Instead of criminalizing Armenian Genocide denial, which serves to stifle freedom of speech, it could use its positive influence to support efforts within Turkey for democratization there.

Freedom of speech and debate on the issue of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is the best hope for eliminating government control of this history. By allowing such debate, Turkey can become open, democratic and pluralistic. There is no guarantee that Turkey will follow suit, but France, with its legacy of “freedom, equality and brotherhood ,” and as one of the world’s leaders in democracy and human rights, must show the way by not itself imposing laws that penalize freedom of speech on the Armenian Genocide or any historical event.

Roger W. Smith is Professor Emeritus of Government, College of William and Mary and Chairman, International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Was it genocide?

May. 14, 2006 20:57 Updated May. 15, 2006 19:22
Jerusalem Post
By GUENTER LEWY

Armenians call the calamitous events of 1915-16 in the Ottoman Empire the first genocide of the 20th century. Most Turks refer to the episode as a wartime relocation made necessary by the treasonous conduct of their Armenian minority.

It is not only the Armenians but the overwhelming body of scholars call the Armenian massacres a Genocide. On the other hand the history of the period was hidden from Turks or worst, it recently has been revised.

The debate over what actually happened has been going on for almost 100 years; it crops up periodically in various parts of the world when members of the Armenian Diaspora push for recognition of the Armenian genocide by their respective parliaments, and the Turkish government warn of retaliation.

The court in Turkey has condemned the responsible to death in 1919 and in 1926 Kemal Ataturk in an interview has admitted the deliberate killings.

On September 29, 2005 the European Parliament in Strasbourg adopted a resolution demanding that, as a condition of admission to the European Union, Turkey acknowledge the killing of its Armenians during World War I as an instance of genocide.

It is wrong to trivialize this decision by the European Parliament as the result of political lobbying by Armenians. Turks had equal say and there are many more Turks in Europe than Armenians not considering Turkey's diplomatic war chest.

According to the Genocide Convention of 1948, intent is a necessary condition of genocide, and most other definitions of this crime of crimes similarly insist upon the centrality of malicious intent. Hence the crucial question in this controversy is not the huge loss of life in and by itself but rather whether the Young Turk regime intentionally sought the deaths we know to have occurred.

This is a premeditative crime determined on long ago. It was a long-considered, deliberate policy to destroy and wipe out of existence the Armenians in Turkey. It was systematically carried out . Guenter Lewy's questioning of whether intention was present in the Armenian genocide is a crude attempt to trivialize a crime which ranks amongst the most horrific in history.

Both sides agree that several hundred thousand men, women and children were forced from their homes, and that during a harrowing trek over mountains and through deserts, uncounted multitudes died of starvation and disease, or were murdered.


To the victims it makes no difference whether they met their deaths as a result of a carefully planned scheme of annihilation, in consequence of a panicky reaction to a misjudged threat, or for any other reason. It does, however, make a difference for the accuracy of the historical record, not to mention the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

Guenter Lewy's research is funded by Turkey. Turkish pride is getting in the way recognizing the Genocide. Even though by denying the Genocide they are defending a previous and pre-Ataturk regime, they are still persisting. Ataturk's revolution cut ties to previous regime, but that does not include a disavowal of prior acts. Ataturk himself admitted the deliberate killing of Armenians in an interview in 1926 to a Swiss reporter.

ARMENIANS and their supporters concede the absence of Turkish documentary evidence to prove the responsibility of the Ottoman government for the massacres, but cite the reports of foreign diplomats and missionaries on the scene. Given the large number of deaths and the observed complicity of local officials in the murders, it is not surprising that many of these witnesses concluded the high death toll was an intended outcome of the deportation process.


Still, well-informed as many foreign observers were about the events unfolding before their eyes, their insight into the mind-set and real intentions of the government in Istanbul was necessarily limited. Indeed, to this day the inner workings of the Young Turk regime, and especially the role of the triumvirate of Enver, Talaat and Djemal, are understood only very inadequately.

The three leaders were convicted in a Turkish court in 1919 to death because of what they did. The problem is that the Turkish government was taken over since by Turkish nationalists supported by a powerful army.

Most Turks, too, misread the historical record. Quasi-official historians speak of "so-called massacres," or blame the deaths on starvation and disease that are said to have afflicted a far larger numbers of Turks.

And yet there exists an important difference between lives lost as a result of natural causes such as famine and epidemics - blows of fortune that afflicted Muslims and Christians alike - and deaths due to deliberate killing.

It is undeniable that thousands of Armenians died at the hands of their corrupt escorts and the Kurdish tribesmen who occupied their route southward to Ottoman Syria.

CURRENTLY both sides in this controversy make their case by simplifying a complex historical reality and ignoring crucial evidence that would yield a more nuanced picture. Both parties also use heavy-handed tactics to advance their cause and silence a full debate of the issues.

The Turkish government has applied diplomatic pressure and threats and has harassed dissenting Turkish authors; Armenians accuse all those who do not call the massacres a case of genocide of seeking to appease the Turkish government.

In 1994 Armenians in France took the well-known Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis to court and charged him with causing "grievous prejudice to truthful memory" because he denied the accusation of genocide. The court found against Lewis and imposed a token fine.

It is doubtful that contested historical questions are the legitimate province of courts of law or parliaments. Armenians should recognize that distinguished scholars of Ottoman history have questioned the appropriateness of the genocide label for the tragic events of this period, and should cease calling all those who question the Armenian version of these occurrences "denialists" on a par with deniers of the Holocaust. Turks must acknowledge the misdeeds of some of their compatriots during World War I.

The tragic events of the period have a history. There is a consistent pattern. Of course according to Gunter Lewy, all of the scholars misread history except of a few funded by Turkey including Bernard lewis, Justine McCarthy and Guenter Lewy. The fact of the matter is that the government in Turkey was taken over by the Turkish nationalists who were responsible for the Genocide in the first place. They are supported by a strong Turkish army the second largest in NATO. It is like after Germany had been defeated the Nazis had infiltrated the government and had the support of a strong German army. Would they have ever accepted the Jewish holocaust? Of course not. You would have seen an army of scholars denying the holocaust. This is the case in Turkey and it will stay that way until it gets changed.

With so much that is unknown, both sides should step back from the sterile was-it-genocide-or-not debate and instead seek a common pool of reliable historical knowledge.

The writer is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts and author most recently of The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Step toward closure?

17/05/06
Globe and mail
Insider Edition

By YONET TEZEL
chargé d'affaires, Turkish Embassy

Ottawa -- It might surprise many Canadians to know that, for centuries, the Turkish-Armenian relationship was predominantly about friendship, tolerance and peaceful co-existence. It is unfortunate that, all too often, only the incriminating version of the tragic events of 1915 are taken to represent this relationship.

It should not be inconceivable for both nations to come to terms with what happened during the First World War and renew their friendship. That is why Turkey has made a serious effort to engage the Armenian side in a dialogue about that tragic phase and has proposed establishing a group of Turkish, Armenian and other historians and experts to study the events, not only in the archives of Turkey and Armenia, but in all relevant archives. Their findings would then be presented to the international community.

There are other signs that Turkey should demonstrate but unfortunately is not showing. Why did Turkey enact the Penal Code Article 301 under which the discussion on the Armenian Genocide is considered a crime in Turkey? Why is Turkey's PM Mr. Tayyip Erdogan honouring Talaat Pasha, one of the responsible leaders for the Genocide, every year? Why has Turkey blocked its border with Armenia under condition that the latter drops its pursuit of the Genocide recognition? This proposed study is but a cynical maneuver to buy time in order to get into the EU. Turkey show that you care and extend your friendly hand without precondition, if you are such a friend.

Despite Turkey's offer, however, some accuse the Turks of being "denialists" and try to discredit any non-Turkish scholars, should they dare question the validity of Armenian claims.

It is disappointing that Patricia Marchak (The Bonds of History -- letter, May 12), in stating that she has already done research on this subject for a book she wrote, brushes aside this honest effort to get to the bottom of the claims of genocide by conducting a joint study of the primary sources.

Genocide is a very serious accusation. The language of knowledge, not conviction, should prevail. It could be the first step toward real closure for both peoples.

Canada-Turkey Spat Won't Affect NATO Operation

May 17th, 2006
Embassy
By Brian Adeba

Last week's diplomatic storm over Stephen Harper's use of the term 'genocide' will not affect Canada's relations with the Turkish head of NATO's Afghan mission, but it does signal a policy shift.

The Turkish-Canadian spat over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments recognizing the Armenian genocide two weeks ago will not spill over into Afghanistan where a senior Turkish diplomat presently occupies the position of NATO's top Civilian Representative to Afghanistan, according to the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa.

Despite Ankara's withdrawal last week from NATO military exercises in the Canadian province of Alberta, Turkey's leading NATO role in Afghanistan with Canada will not be affected, says Yonet Tezel, Counsellor at the Turkish Embassy.

"Our contribution is still going on and it is above our relations with Canada," says Mr. Tezel.

NATO is scheduled to take over military operations from the U.S. in Afghanistan in the summer.
Mr. Tezel also says Turkey is not likely to pull out its most senior diplomat, Hikmet Cetin, who is NATO's Civilian Representative to Afghanistan.

With 825 troops, Turkey has the third largest contingent in Afghanistan, after Germany and Canada. Its role is considered important because it is also the only Muslim country with troops in Afghanistan.

In what may signal a decrease in tensions between Canada and Turkey, Mr. Yonet also says Turkish Ambassador Aydemir Erman is expected to return to Canada this week. Turkey called its envoy to Canada back to Ankara for consultations on May 6 in protest of Mr. Harper's comments.

Mr. Harper became the first Canadian prime minister to utter the word 'genocide' in recognizing the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in 1915. The statement also marks a major shift in Canadian foreign policy towards Turkey, which also temporarily withdrew its ambassador to France as a result of an impeding vote in the French parliament that would make it a crime to deny the that genocide was committed in Armenia.

But while it withdrew its envoy from Paris, the Turkish government also sent a delegation to meet French legislators on the issue. It did not do the same thing in Canada. Mr. Tezel says the circumstances are totally different, hence the type of reaction to the French situation.

"The situation is philosophically and intellectually unacceptable," Mr. Tezel says of France's decision to make it a crime to deny that genocide was committed in Armenia.

Kim Nossal, Professor and Head of Political Studies at Queen's University in Kingston, says Mr. Harper's decision acknowledging that genocide was committed against Armenians was likely made to send a message that the Tory government is different from the former minority government.

"[Mr. Harper] wanted to signal that his government is different from the Liberal government, which actually talked a lot about human rights, but did nothing," says Mr. Nossal.

"It was a clear and conscious set of reasoning on this," he says.

"All you have to do is think about the Liberals and Darfur and you can ask 'Where were you then?'"

brian@embassymag.ca

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Missteps hobble Turkey-EU waltz

May 17, 2006 edition
The Christian Science monitor
By Peter Ford and Yigal Schleifer

A French proposal to ban any suggestion that Armenians did not suffer genocide is just one of the sour notes.

PARIS AND ISTANBUL, TURKEY – Barely six months after the European Union ended years of indecision by starting talks aimed at allowing Turkey to join the club, doubts about the wisdom of that move are coming to the fore on both sides of the table.
A series of well-publicized court cases, including one Tuesday, against Turkish writers has made Europeans wonder anew whether Ankara really shares their understanding of freedom of speech. Many Turks, meanwhile, see a double standard over head scarf bans and a proposed French law that would ban any suggestion that the Armenians did not suffer genocide in 1915.

The dubious mood clouding the "talks about talks" that Turkish and EU officials have been holding since the beginning of the year indicates just how long and bumpy the process of turning Turkey into a full-fledged European nation will be, say observers on both sides of the Bosphorus.

"There is a sense that the political will in Ankara is not as strong as it was, if there's any left at all, to invest in this process with Europe," says one EU diplomat in the Turkish capital, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue. "The commitment ... that they are still professing is less convincing because it is not being reflected by their actions on the ground."

Especially worrying to the Europeans is the way prosecutors have used a controversial article of Turkey's revised penal code against writers accused of insulting state institutions or Turkish identity. A number of these cases, such as the one against author Orhan Pamuk, have been dropped after sharp EU criticism. But Tuesday, the trial began of an Armenian-Turkish newspaper editor who is charged with "attempting to influence the judiciary" against the penal code. The editor, Hrant Dink, was met with shouts of "traitor" as he entered the courtroom.

Rights activists also fear that a planned anti-terror bill, which would allow the imprisonment of journalists found guilty of "propagating terrorism," might be used against anyone expressing support for Kurdish separatists. A recent upsurge in violence in the majority-Kurdish southeast of Turkey, meanwhile, could lead the military to reassert itself in domestic affairs.

The EU last month urged the Turkish authorities "to make sure that the security forces show the necessary restraint" in the wake of street clashes that left 16 people dead and 36 children in jail, some facing 24 years in prison.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has brushed aside charges of "reform fatigue," insisting recently that "our reform efforts aimed at raising standards and practices in all areas of life to the highest contemporary standards will resolutely continue."

But the approach of elections next year, coupled with a drop in public support for EU membership to 50 percent from 80 percent two years ago, means that leaders of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) "don't want to take risks," says Mensur Akgun with the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, a think tank in Istanbul.

The government "is focusing on elections and on the mood in the country, and that mood is very inward-looking," says the European diplomat. "Instead of showing the way and leadership, the government is listening much more to these ghosts that have been haunting Turkey for decades."

"There is a rising nationalism in the country," adds Mr. Akgun, and the AKP "has a constituency that is rather conservative in a nationalist sense, and they have to reciprocate to their feelings."

That nationalism has been fed by two rebuffs from the EU.

Ankara is galled that the Turkish-populated half of the divided Mediterranean island of Cyprus remains under economic embargo even though Turkish Cypriots accepted a UN plan to reunite the two sides.

Late last year, religious Turks were upset when a European Court of Human Rights ruling upheld Turkey's head scarf ban in public universities.

Turks have also been angered by a vote next Thursday in the French Parliament on a bill that would criminalize any statement casting doubt on the Armenians' claim that they suffered genocide at Turkish hands in 1915. The bill would impose jail sentences and a fine on historians, journalists, or others who challenge Armenians' version of events, in the same way French law punished revisionists who deny the Holocaust.

The bill is unlikely to pass, but it reflects longstanding mistrust of Turkey in Europe. That mistrust is fed by freedom-of-expression cases being brought against writers, says Joost Lagendijk, who heads the European Parliament delegation to the joint EU-Turkey parliamentary committee.

"The mood in Europe is that nothing has happened in Turkey since October except setbacks," warns Mr. Lagendijk.

Quietly, Turkish and EU civil servants have been reviewing the 35 "chapters" of Turkish legislation that will have to be brought into line with EU law, and have agreed on negotiating points for 19 of them, officials say. Substantive negotiations on education and science are due to begin next month.

Nobody expects Turkey to join the EU until 2015, even if things go well. That, says Lagendijk, is a good thing, since EU citizens are displaying doubts about the union's future and purpose.

"We have some time ourselves to solve our own problems before we have to deal with Turkey," he says. "In the meantime, the negotiations will continue behind the scenes."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.