"insulting Turkish identity"

[Hovik]

Turkish novelist faces jail for 'insulting national character'

Turkish novelist faces jail for 'insulting national character'
By Benjamin Harvey in Istanbul

Published: 01 September 2005
The Independent (UK)

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article309433.ece

One of Turkey's best-known novelists has been charged with insulting
the country's national character and could face a prison sentence.

Orhan Pamuk is scheduled to go on trial on 16 December and could
face up to three years in prison for comments on Turkey's killing of
Armenians and Kurds, his publisher, Tugrul Pasaoglu, said yesterday.

"Thirty thousand Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these
lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it," Pamuk said in an
interview with a Swiss newspaper in February.

The "one million" refers to Armenians killed by Ottoman Turks at about
the time of the First World War, which Armenians and several nations
recognise as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey vehemently
denies that genocide took place, saying the death toll is inflated and
Armenians were killed in a civil war as the Ottoman Empire collapsed,
eventually giving way to the Turkish Republic in 1923.

The "thirty thousand Kurds" mentioned by Pamuk refers to those
killed since 1984 as Turkey fought a vicious war against armed
Kurdish separatists.

Turkey, which has been trying to improve its human rights record as
it vies for membership of the EU, is extremely sensitive about both
the Armenian and Kurdish issues, and its new penal code makes it a
crime to denigrate Turkey's national identity.

Pamuk's books, which include the internationally acclaimed Snow and
My Name is Red, have been translated into more than 20 languages. His
publisher said yesterday:"We have to wait for the court. Then he
[Pamuk] will make his speech in the court."

[Gavur]

Fresh rows flare up in countdown to Turkey talks

Fresh rows flare up in countdown to Turkey talks
By Mark Beunderman

euobserver.com
02.09.2005 - 09:52 CET

| EUOBSERVER / NEWPORT - The atmosphere between Brussels and Ankara is
set to worsen following fresh rows over Cyprus and free speech, one
month before accession talks with Turkey are scheduled to start. The
Commission has drawn a "red line" on Cyprus.

While EU foreign ministers were yesterday (1 September) at a meeting
in Wales struggling to draft a counter-declaration to Turkey's
non-recognition of Cyprus, Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul
publicly took a defiant stance on the Cyprus issue.

Mr Gul stated to the press that Turkey, as a non-EU member state,
does not feel obliged to allow Cypriot planes and ships to enter
its territory - something the EU says is against the spirit of the
customs agreement that Ankara signed with the enlarged EU on 29 July.

"Expectations from full members and expectations from candidate
countries are quite different", the Turkish minister said according
to the FT. "Everybody knows what the customs union means", he added.

Enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn today (2 September) just before
meeting Mr Gul in Newport rebuffed the Turkish stance, stating that the
"full implementation" of the customs agreement represents a "red line
for the European Union".

"This is not a matter of negotiation but of commitment by Turkey",
he added.

"This issue is of extremely serious concern".

EU foreign ministers yesterday tried to reach agreement on a
"counter-declaration" to Ankara's unilateral declaration of 29 July,
which says that it does not recognize the sovereignty of Cyprus
despite extending its EU customs agreement to all new EU member states,
including Cyprus.

The UK presidency has striven to achieve general consensus on the EU
counter-declaration at the Wales meeting.

But Mr Straw told journalists that there was "broad, but not unanimous
agreement" on the text.

Diplomats indicated that there are substantial differences between
member states over the toughness of the EU's "counter-declaration".

Wrangling over words The text is set to contain a paragraph reiterating
the status of Cyprus as a state under international law.

But member states such as France, Austria, Greece and Cyprus itself
want reassurance that Ankara will over time take concrete steps
towards recognition.

"They want the declaration to have a dynamic character and call for
progress by Turkey", one council diplomat said.

The counter declaration has now been referred back to member states'
ambassadors in Brussels.

In spite of the difficulties surrounding the Cyprus issue, Mr Straw
stated that he is "reasonably confident" that the agreed deadline
for opening the accession talks with Turkey, on 3 October, will be met.

Free speech row On top of the Cyprus problem, a fresh row over freedom
of speech emerged yesterday which looks set to dampen the atmosphere
between Ankara and Brussels still further.

The widely-read author Orhan Pamuk was charged by the Turkish public
prosecutor with "denigrating" the nation through his comments about
Turkish history, made to a Swiss paper a few months ago.

Although the Turkish public prosecutor is independent from the
government, the case has already become an issue interfering with
Turkey's EU membership bid.

A spokeswoman for Commissioner Rehn told the EUobserver that the case
of Mr Pamuk raises "serious concerns" about the actual "implementation
on the ground" of political reforms by Turkey.

She added that the EU executive is also concerned about the
"interpretation of certain provisions in the penal code by judges
and prosecutors" in Turkey.

Turkey had to adapt a new penal code in order to bring its laws in
line with EU human rights standards.

Denis MacShane, the UK's former Europe minister, said "It is a
sickening blow to all pro-Turks in Britain and Europe ...to hear
the news that the Turkish authorities seek to persecute this great
European writer", the Independent reports.

[Gavur]

Free speech an issue in Turkey`s EU bid

NEWPORT, Wales (UPI) -- Turkey`s charges against a well-known novelist have become another obstacle to its membership in the European Union.

Turkish membership is one of the major items on the table as the EU foreign ministers meet in Wales.

Orhan Pamuk is in hiding after being charged with 'denigrating national identity' by saying that Turks are reluctant to admit the massacre of about 1 million Armenians during World War I.

Former Europe Minister Dennis McShane, a Labor member of the British parliament, said he remains a strong supporter of Turkey, The Australian reported.

'But if the authorities persist with this attack on a great European writer, then many of us who are strong supporters of Turkey will be forced to change our minds.'

Turkey`s refusal, so far, to recognize Cyprus is also a problem, since Cyrpus is an EU member.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International

[Gavur]

EP to Watch Orhan Pamuk’s Trial

By Anadolu News Agency (aa)
Published: Thursday, September 08, 2005
zaman.com


The European Parliament (EP) is to form a committee to monitor the legal process launched against Turkish Novelist Orhan Pamuk.

The presidential board did not oppose the proposal brought by the European wing of the Joint Parliamentary Commission, the consultative organ operating between the EP and the Turkish Parliament. The committee that will consist of European parliamentarians will follow the court hearings and report its assessments to the parliament.

Sisli Prosecutor’s Office filed a suit against Pamuk for “openly denigrating the Turkish identity” in an interview Pamuk gave to a Swiss newspaper in 2004 regarding the so-called Armenia genocide. The prosecutor has demanded a three year of jail sentence for Pamuk.

[Gavur]

Commentaries, Editorials And Analysis

A Turkish author´s view of the role of the Turkish army in EU-bound Turkey

Istanbul Radikal newspaper (05/09/05) publishes the following interview with author and Yeni Safak columnist Kursat Bumin by Nese Duzel under the title: The Army is not a Part of the Nation:

It is impossible to understand Turkey's social and political fabric without clarifying the status of the army. In Turkey the armed forces exert a political influence that is not seen in developed countries. Indeed, as we progress toward membership in the EU our most fundamental political discourse is over the army's role in politics and the administration of the country, even if we refuse to admit it. Recently Chief of the General Staff Gen Hilmi Ozkok underscored the special status of the TAF [Turkish Armed Forces] in this country by saying that the Turkish army is "a part of the nation." He said that "although it is a universal rule that armies must be subordinate to civilian administrations, the Turkish army has a non-standard status." Kursat Bumin, a political philosopher and a writer, evaluated the relationship the army has with the nation and the state in Turkey in a recent series of articles. In these articles he shows how the words picked and the messages adopted can define relationships within society and what consequences they may have. He explains how the military terminology that a large portion of our society and media accept without questions signal the "special circumstances" of our society. We discussed the relationship between the army and the nation as well as the causes and effects of the terminology used with Bumin, author of the books "Civilian Society and the State," and "The State and the Child."

Following are Mr Bumin´s replies to Nese Duzel´s questions:

Question: Turkey is once again discussing the army and generals' comments. Land Forces Commander Gen Yasar Buyukanit told reporters that "there are attempts to turn Turkey into Palestine." Why do you think he made such a comparison? Which part of us resembles Palestine?

Answer: There is no close or remote similarity between Turkey and Palestine either historically or today. I cannot see any relationship between the two. The commander himself probably failed to see any relationship because he could follow up this sentence with a second one.

Question: There were also interpretations of the absence of the Land Forces Commander from among the protocol members standing under the arbor at the 30 August reception. Why do we draw conclusions from every action of the generals? Is Turkey, a nation of 70 million people, still a country whose destiny may change by whether a general stands a few steps this way or that way?

Answer: Obviously it is not, but this country's interest in generals is not solely in their presence or absence under the arbor. This interest extends as far as the wives of retired force commanders. Tears shed by the wives of outgoing and incoming commanders at ceremonies marking command transfers are featured on the front pages of newspapers. Such reports are not newsworthy, and I do not think that readers are interested in them, but in this country the TAF has defined a role and status for itself. The media accept this role and status that the TAF has defined for itself, and this is why conclusions are drawn from every action of the generals. The truth is that in European countries people do not even notice where a general stands or sits at a reception.

Question: You wrote a series of articles in response to and opposing Chief of the General Staff Gen Ozkok's comment that "the army is a part of the nation." Why do you disagree with the view that the army is a part of the nation?

Answer: Describing the army with comments such as "the TAF is an inseparable part of the nation" is highly problematic and very dangerous. Institutionally the army is a part of the state--it is an instrument of the state. However the TAF does not like to define itself as an instrument of the state. It keeps going over to the side of the nation and saying that it is "an inseparable part of the nation."

Question: What, in your opinion, are the political and social consequences of seeing the army as an inseparable part of the nation?

Answer: That is a description that spoils everything. Many things change when you define yourself this way. Saying that they are "an inseparable part of the nation" legitimizes all the military declarations, interventions, memoranda, and coups. That argument makes everything done by the army to appear as if it was act performed by the nation, and consequently legitimizes everything. That implies that everything done by the army was done by the nation. When a group acts on behalf of the nation the need to comply with laws vanishes. For example the preamble of the 1961 Constitution begins with the phrase: "The 27 May [revolution] that the Turkish nation staged against a government that had lost its legitimacy."

Question: What does that mean?

Answer: It means that 27 May was staged not by the TAF but the nation. The same applies to 12 September. The truth is that the army is a part of the state, not the nation. If the army stages its intervention against the political administration as an instrument of the state then this would be called a coup. The issue of being "an inseparable part of the nation" is the most fundamental problem in the definition and status of the army and military-civilian relations in Turkey. The police has also tried to use this ideological definition occasionally but it has not worked. They also put up posters saying that they too are an "inseparable part of the nation" but those have not had much effect. Because everyone has a certain idea about the police, they are told: "No, you are an institution of the state; therefore you must comply with the laws."

Question: The TAF is said to have a different and special status compared to other armies. Do you agree with that view?

Answer: No. The army played an important role and had a special status in the founding of the republic but now the republic is more than 80 years old. Eighty years is a long time for a republic to mature. Moreover a different society evolved over those 80 years. In any event Turkey must use the concept of "society" rather than "nation." The concepts of "nation, citizen, national" are historically the concepts of the turbulent periods when republics and nation-states were formed. During the French Revolution era the words "madame" and "monsieur" were banned. Everyone addressed each other as "Citizen Pierre" or "Citizen Pascal." The concepts of "nation, citizen, and national" contain within them national emotions and military and political overtones. The concept of nation immediately implies a homogeneous union and a national will. "Society," on the other hand, is a civilian concept and is comprised of many individuals. You cannot do anything that is on behalf of the society's will. In contrast many things can be done and legitimized "on behalf of the nation" or by saying "I am a part of the nation."

Question: Our army feels itself responsible for the republic and the country because of its role in its founding. It is also not very willing to transfer this responsibility to the civilians. What is the role of the civilian administrators when the army is responsible for the country?

Answer: The result is the history of the Turkish Republic thus far. Politics becomes insincere and devoid of seriousness, and a faulse way of life takes form. Nobody can speak what he really thinks. The politicians cannot bow fully [to the army's wishes] because they have their constituencies but they also try not to confront the soldiers. That relationship turns the politician into a spin artist. Even he does not believe half of what he is saying. Political thought cannot develop in a country like this.

Question: The army is an institution that attaches importance to defense by its very nature. It is very natural that this institution should view all issues from a perspective of defense. What type of social structure is created when every problem is viewed from a perspective of defense?

Answer: Ultimately this creates a country that cannot solve its problems, that cannot generate any ideas to solve its problems, and that cannot develop in secularism and democracy.

Question: All armies in the world have to divide people as friends and foes by virtue of their responsibilities. In our country the army has assumed a political responsibility. Does this not lead to the use of concepts of "friend" and "foe" in domestic politics?

Answer: Of course it does.

Question: In such circumstances is it not likely that those who disagree with the army would be described as "internal enemies"?

Answer: It is. They are already saying that some people are internal enemies. Former 1st Army Commander Hursit Tolon gave such a speech on his retirement and said that he is leaving an army that is full of hatred against some intellectuals. It is time for this military language, this ideological message, and this terminology to come to an end in Turkey. People must know what institution should stand where in democracies and Turkey's intellectual life must be translated into a civilian language. As of now this country does not have a civilian language; it has a military language. There is a republic and citizen as defined by the army. Anyone who fits their definition is described as a "good citizen," anyone who does not is described as a "bad or harmful citizen." What they call "national will" is actually the will of the "good citizens."

Question: Can there be such a thing as an "internal enemy"?

Answer: This is entirely the language of totalitarian systems. In democracies those who criticize the existing system are called "dissidents." In authoritarian and totalitarian countries dissidents are labelled "enemies of the regime" or "internal enemies." The best example of this was the Soviet Union. People who did not agree with the dominant ideology there were labelled "enemies of the regime." The terminology used in Turkey is similar. Anyone who does not agree with the dominant ideology is labelled an "internal enemy." For example, today liberals are considered "internal enemies" in this country. Countries where such terminologies exist and where such concepts are used are authoritarian or totalitarian. There can be no "enemies of the regime" or "internal enemies" in democracies. There can only be "dissidents" in democracies.

Question: We know that several civilian parties support the special status of the army and that they want the status quo to remain. From a standpoint of political science how do you explain the desire of a civilian politician to turn over his responsibility to the army with his own will?

Answer: First, this is not politics; it is the suicide of politics. Beyond the politicians, Turkey needs to undergo some extensive therapy as a whole. Dominant ideological concepts such as "the place of the army" and "national issues" must be debated extensively.

Question: What do you think about relations between the media and the army?

Answer: The media must stop being interested in the army. The [Turkish] media's interest in the army is a very pathological interest. If we look at newspaper archives, and if we look only at their 30 August issues, we can put together an anthology of arbor events. You can find in all of them stories about who came to the arbor, who came out of it, who sat how far away, and so forth. The media also have a habit of engaging in provocation by obtaining unnecessary statements from military officers and placing them in headlines in reports related to the army. This suggests that the media do not have a mature attitude in their relationship with the army. Turkey's media are unable to view military issues from a distance; they view them very emotionally. Reporters are too excited about meeting with commanders and interviewing them. Moreover the media are not too offended by the influence of the military on politics. They are not perturbed by the role of the soldiers in politics. It is from this standpoint that society needs to undergo some therapy.

Question: How will this happen?

Answer: It is time to have an in-depth discussion about the army's ties and relationship with politics and civilians and its responsibilities. Turkey has a highly militarist state of mind and, as a consequence, the army is assigned a role that goes beyond defending the country. The truth is that we have to view the army with a cool head as an instrument that every country needs. The military must be brought out from its mystical status. Our civilians, in their turn, must not have their hearts in the barracks by saying: "We wish that there was no need for the army but every country has one. We will go and do what is incumbent on us when necessary." People must place their hearts in civilian life and values and must see the army as the institution that defends the country.

Question: How would other EU members react to our membership in the Union if we continue to accept the special status of the army as a political reality?

Answer: That is a somewhat complicated issue. Some formal improvements may be sufficient for the EU because the EU finds issues such as secularism very beneficial. It believes that the Kemalist ideology which has infiltrated all Turkish institutions is a guarantee of secularism. After all what is our army saying? It is saying that it is "the guardian of secularism." Europe is saying that "secularism is very good for Turkey." The EU obviously wants the army to be subject to the Ministry of National Defense and to stop issuing political statements. These would be enough for the West. However if these goals are realized it would not mean the army's influence in Turkey's politics would have come to an end.

Question: Opinion polls suggest that our people see the army as one of the most trustworthy institutions in the country. Could this be viewed as a factor that legitimizes the army's special status?

Answer: It could. The soldiers are also saying that "look, the people trust the army most." The truth is that such questions cannot be asked in democracies. You ask the people: "Whom do you trust most?" Then you list the army as one of the five possible answers. A country where such questions are asked is not in good shape from a standpoint of democracy.

Question: Recently [Hurriyet columnist and former foreign minister] Ilter Turkmen wrote an article that enumerated the military mistakes that led to the Treaty of Sevres [of 1918]. In a society that hates Sevres so much and that is so afraid of it military mistakes that led to it are not frequently discussed. To what do you attribute this?

Answer: This is the consequence of the perception that the army never makes mistakes. There is a concern that eroding the reputation of the army may lead to distrust. Indeed the military never makes mistakes in Turkey; it is only the administrators, the politicians, and the civilians who make mistakes. This is the image that has been projected in our recent past. It is always the civilians who are short-sighted in this country. In truth armies also make mistakes and are defeated but this never happens here; mistakes are never discussed. For example, our society remembers even Enver Pasha's Sarikamis disaster by marking its anniversary with a military ceremony as if it was the celebration of a military operation.

Question: It is evident that Sevres was the consequence of the mistakes of members of the Union and Progress Party. Do you think that our society has criticized the Union and Progress Party sufficiently?

Answer: No, it has not because this is an unknown history. Turkey is one of the least knowledgeable countries about its recent past. Our society knows its war of liberation only in the way it is taught. It does not know about the years of the Second Constitution [ 1908-1918] and what was said at that time. I do not know of any other people on earth whose collective memory has been disrupted like ours. It is this lack of memory that is the root cause of the failure of society to develop and to mature--it is the reason why our society has remained childish. The truth is that a person grows and matures with memory. The alphabet reform has played a great role in this. We cannot read the newspapers of the Second Constitution period. This is one of the greatest evils that could be perpetrated on a society.

Question: Is it not odd and contradictory to be afraid of Sevres but not to discuss the mistakes of the Union and Progress Party that led to Sevres?

Answer: It is not because Sevres is being used as an ideological tool. Sevres is a historical event that developed and ended in its own circumstances. It has nothing to do with today's Turkey; it is not comparable to anything in today's Turkey. However one can easily turn Sevres into something that causes fear. If you do not explain it Sevres can become something to fear. Society fears what it does not know; it does not fear what it understands. You recall how people were swept with fear when the Armenian issue began to be discussed a little in the media. You know, they keep telling us that they "created a brand new society" .

Question: Yes?

Answer: Creating a brand new society is not such a good thing. It is actually harmful because a brand new society is a society without memory. Creating a brand new nation is a totalitarian concept. A new set of furniture or a new refrigerator are nice, but a new society is not. This is a country that was left over from an empire. Its intellectual life and language should have advanced much more, but this is how far we could go because the republic has portrayed it as having been created from scratch. However, society now realizes that the official ideology does not meet its needs and that this ideology is a bland and shallow repetitive cliché. As a result of the emerging democracy and freedoms in the current EU process, society has begun to ask fundamental questions about its own identity, values, and past.

EG/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review

[Gavur]

Turkish sensitivity towards their history

BBC World Service - Turkish sensitivity towards their history

You can listen to the program feature on the Turkish sensitivity towards
their history by Dorian Jones is "hidden"
in the BBC World Service Outlook program until Thursday on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/outlook.shtml#Thurs

(broadband connection needed)

Otherwise there follows the main points from this program
(some of the spellings of Turkish names may be suspect as it is taken
from an audio report)

Thousands of Armenian orphan children were "saved" and brought up as
Turkish Muslims during the Armenian Genocide (these specific words are
used in the broadcast).
Fethiye Cetin's book (now in its fifth reprint) reveals her grandmother
was one such child prepared after extensive research into one of
Turkey's darkest chapters.
Armenians are routinely described in Turkey as enemies and spies and the
genocide is "hidden" from the population.
Fethiye decided to write the book after feeling pain reading about
conflicting statistics on the number of deaths: each victim in her view
was an individual human tragedy.

Prof Selim Deringi mentioned that there were intractable problems, and
the wounds from the past have not healed.
The opposite views (genocide of civilians v 5th column collaborators
with enemy in wartime conditions) show that there is not a state of
dialogue.
A Turkish conference on the genocide (the professor was one of the
organisers) was deferred after "intense government pressure".
European and other external pressure has resulted in the conference
being reorganised.

There is very strong opposition to any change to the official position
on this issue.
Shukri Elekdar believes that recognition of the genocide is a threat to
Turkey's future, particularly as he sees it as part of a wider policy to
seize Turkish territory
(this is demonstrated by Armenians referring to Eastern Turkey as
Western Armenia.
All Turkish political parties are united behind the government on this
despite the Armenian benefit from the support received from the USA.

Nevertheless, more and more people are delving into Turkey's past.
Berkiye Pars is editing her film on her grandparent's adopted child.
She wants Turks to have a chance to learn about their own past.
Many families have Armenian or Greek members - but they keep this a
secret, even denounce it though their own neighbours know this.

Yshim Fsoghlu is preparing a new film (Waiting for Clouds) on the
expulsion of 1 million Greeks as part of the population exchange.
This is another taboo in Turkey's many dark chapters in its past.
She too has been threatened with legal prosecution as has Orhan Pamuk
but feels that artists must challenge historical taboos.
People can be reactive with such material but they must think and feel

[Gavur]

"public denigration" of Turkish identity.

The Turkish identity
The New York Times

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2005

Next week, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will
address the United Nations on one of the issues threatening to slow
down negotiations to admit Turkey into the European Union -
recognizing Cyprus. But he should also address the question of Orhan
Pamuk, the pre-eminent Turkish novelist who has been charged with


In February, a Swiss newspaper quoted Pamuk on Turkey's long-standing
refusal to discuss the Armenian genocide and the deaths of 30,000
separatist Kurds more recently. Pamuk's remarks inflamed Turkish
nationalists, and he left the country. He faces the possibility of
three years in jail.

The charges against Pamuk violate the standards of free speech, one of
the prerequisites to Turkey's admission to the European Union. The
charges also cut to the heart of Pamuk's writing. The question of
Turkish identity informs his work. In "My Name Is Red," Pamuk never
lets the reader forget the ethnic and cultural diversity of Turkey's
past. Nor does he flinch, in "Istanbul," from reminding readers of the
"deliberately provoked" 1955 riots that destroyed several non-Muslim
neighborhoods in that city. Beneath the notion of a Turkish identity
lies a tension, still noticeable today, that has nourished Pamuk's
writing.

It has been about six months since Pamuk's comments were published, so
it is unclear why the charges are being brought just now. Whatever
the motive, they are a reminder that one of Turkey's biggest obstacles
in dealing with the West is the way it chooses to patrol its own
history.

[Gavur]

Turkey Must Relent

The Spectator, UK
September 10, 2005

The issue of how best to approach a friend who has badly let you
down is one more commonly dealt with at the back of this magazine,
by our agony aunt on etiquette, Mary Killen. But this week it is one
that needs to be addressed here. Over the past years this magazine
has been a staunch defender of Turkey and its right to join the
European Union, negotiations for which begin on 3 October. We have
praised its economy, its founder-membership of Nato, and condemned
the many Turkophobes within the EU most notably Frits Bolkestein,
the EU internal market commissioner, who last year fatuously claimed
that the liberation of Vienna from the Ottoman Turks in 1683 'would
have been in vain' were Turkey allowed to join the EU.

Our point is that while Turkey is far from a perfect democracy, and
still falls short of the standards we have come to expect of Western
European nations, it is essentially a benign country travelling in
the right direction.

Alone among nations with Muslim majorities, it holds proper elections
and, for the most part, maintains a legal system which Britons would
regard as fair. It has 70 million industrious citizens who are keen
to trade with us on equal terms. Moreover, as we have argued before,
admitting Turkey to the EU would make it perfectly clear that, contrary
to what some imams may say, the West has no desire to suppress Islam,
only the malignant regimes which co-exist with it in the Middle East.

It would be a tragedy, therefore, if Turkish membership of the
EU were to be jeopardised by Turkey's ugly treatment of its most
prominent novelist, Orhan Pamuk. Last week Mr Pamuk was charged under
Article 301/1 of the Turkish penal code, which makes it an offence to
insult the Republic of Turkey, punishable with between six months'
and three years' imprisonment increased by a third if the offence
was committed abroad.

Mr Pamuk's crime was to make reference, in an interview with Swiss
newspaper Tagesanzeiger in February, to Turkey's ethnic cleansing
of Armenians between 1915 and 1917 and to its ill-treatment of Kurds
since 1984. 'Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed
in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it, ' he said.

It goes without saying that jailing people for raising such issues is
unacceptable in a modern democracy. Orhan Pamuk is no traitor. On the
contrary, he is seen in the literary world as a great ambassador for
his homeland, whose work shows a deep love of his country and who has
been able to straddle the gap between East and West. He simply wishes
to be free to discuss a couple of dark episodes in Turkey's history.

To jail him for doing so would be akin to our own courts sending down
a novelist who dared to mention the Irish potato famine.

To give it some credit, the Turkish government does not entirely deny
that a large number of Armenians came to a sticky end around 1915.

The prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan, recently announced his desire to
establish a commission of historians to judge whether or not genocide
took place. Yet no properly functioning democracy seeks to legislate
in favour of one official version of history.

Rather it tolerates a free market in ideas, knowing full well that
it is lively debate which best ensures that the truth eventually
seeps out.

Orhan Pamuk's accusations of the scale of Turkish maltreatment of
Armenians and Kurds are supported by eyewitness accounts.

An American diplomat filed a report at the time speaking of Ottoman
soldiers, aided by Kurdish tribesmen, 'sweeping the countryside,
massacring men, women and children and burning their homes. Babies were
shot in their mothers' arms, small children were horribly mutilated,
women were stripped and beaten.' Pamuk's accusations are supported,
too, by Halil Berktay, a professor at Sabanci University, who puts
the numbers of dead at between 800,000 and one million.

But even if Pamuk's charges were nonsense, it would be no excuse
for jailing him. A confident nation has no need to suppress free
speech, knowing that anyone who makes false accusations against their
country's past for political reasons will rapidly be crushed beneath
the weight of counter-evidence. It is very irritating when some
left-wing firebrand pops up blaming the British empire for Aids,
using the tortuous argument that the buggery of black slaves by
their British masters induced Afro-Caribbeans to violent homophobia,
thereby suppressing condom-use in latterday Africa. But to bung them
behind bars? Apart from the abuse of the firebrand's human rights,
it would merely serve to suggest that Britain had never got over its
loss of empire.

Admittedly, Turkey's problem over Armenia and the Kurds is not
limited to the government: 80 per cent of respondents to a recent
opinion poll said they could do without EU membership if it meant
having to admit to past genocide. But if Turkey wants to join the EU,
and become a full member of the wider club of Western democracies,
it simply has to face up to its past, and to its present democratic
failings. Article 301/1 of its penal code must go.

[Gavur]

EU official accuses Turkey of provocation

EU official accuses Turkey of provocation

By JAN SLIVA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The official in charge of European Union expansion accused Turkey of provocation on Tuesday, saying it was no coincidence that the trial of a Turkish novelist would clash with a EU summit.

Olli Rehn, the EU commissioner overseeing expansion plans, said the prosecution of author Orhan Pamuk violated a human rights convention.

He also said it would take at least 10-15 years to finish negotiations with Turkey on its possible accession to the bloc, and warned Ankara that the pace of the talks will depend on how quickly it recognizes Cyprus.

"The Pamuk case raises serious questions about the interpretation of Turkey's new penal code. The Dec. 16 date can't be just a coincidence, it has to be a provocation," Rehn told the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee. Dec. 16 is also the date of an EU summit.

Rehn added that the case violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

Pamuk has been charged with insulting Turkey's national character and could face prison for his comments on Turkey's killing of Armenians and Kurds.

"Thirty-thousand Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it," Pamuk was quoted as saying in an interview with a Swiss newspaper magazine in February.

The "one million Armenians" refers to Armenians killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, which Armenians and several other nations recognize as the first genocide of the 20th century.

Turkey vehemently denies that a genocide took place, saying the death toll is inflated and Armenians were killed in a civil war as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, eventually giving way to the Turkish Republic in 1923.

Turkey, which has been trying to improve its human rights record as it vies for EU membership, is extremely sensitive about both the Armenian and Kurdish issues, and the new Turkish penal code makes it a crime to denigrate Turkey's national identity.

The code - adopted at the EU's insistence - was debated earlier this year and freedom of speech advocates said the clause on national identity was too vague and could lead to the imprisonment of artists, scholars and journalists.

Rehn said the European Commission will continue to closely monitor human rights issues in Turkey, but still expects the accession negotiations to start on Oct. 3 as scheduled, despite EU government grumbling over Turkey's refusal to recognize Cyprus.

In August, Turkey signed a customs protocol extending its existing customs arrangements with the 25-member EU to the 10 new members including Cyprus. But it accompanied its signature with a separate declaration saying this did not mean it was formally recognizing the divided Mediterranean island.

Rehn said formal recognition "was not a precondition" to start the Oct. 3 talks. "However, it is regrettable that Turkey had to issue a declaration accompanying the protocol," he said.

The European Court of Human Rights - based in Strasbourg, France - ordered Turkey on Tuesday to pay more than $85,932 to the relatives of two suspected members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party who were killed in a police raid in 1996.

An anti-terrorist squad shot Omer Bayram and Ridvan Altun in an operation which the court said violated three articles of the human rights convention.

[Gavur]

Schedule of the Istanbul Conference [Sept. 23-24-25,2005]

Ottoman Armenians during the Demise of the Empire:
Issues of Democracy and Scientific Responsibility

23 - 24 - 25 September 2005

Boًaziçi University
Garanti Cultural Center
Ayhan قahenk Conference Room

Organizing Committee


Murat Belge (Professor and Chair, Bilgi University Department of
Comparative Literature),

Halil Berktay (Associate Professor and Coordinator, Sabanc University
History Program),

Selim Deringil (Professor and Chair, Boًaziçi University History
Department),

Edhem Eldem (Professor, Boًaziçi University History Department),

اaًlar Keyder (Professor, Boًaziçi University Sociology Department),

Cemil Koçak (Associate Professor, Sabanc University History Program),

Nükhet Sirman (Professor, Boًaziçi University Sociology Department)

Akin Somel (Assistant Professor, Sabanc University History Program)


Advisory Committee

Fikret Adanr (Professor, Bochum Ruhr University, Germany)

Engin Akarl (Professor, Brown University, USA),

Taner Akçam (Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, USA),

Ayhan Aktar (Professor, Marmara University),

قeyla Benhabib (Professor, Yale University, USA),

ـstün Ergüder (Professor and Director, Sabanc University, فstanbul
Policy Center),

Fatma Müge Gِçek (Associate Professor, University of Michigan, USA)

Nilüfer Gِle (Professor, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales,
France),

Cemal Kafadar (Professor, Harvard University, USA),

Metin Kunt (Professor, Sabanc University),

قerif Mardin (Professor, Sabanc University),

Oktay ضzel (Assistant Professor, Bilkent University),

فlhan Tekeli (Professor, Middle East Technical University),

Mete Tunçay (Professor, Bilgi University),

Stefan Yerasimos (Professor, Paris VIII University, France)



23 September Friday



Registration 08:30 a.m.



Opening Statements 09:15


Selim Deringil (Boًaziçi University History Department Chair)


Session 1 09:30-10:40
A Collective View of the Issues



قerif Mardin
Session Chair



Halil Berktay
What Does the Official Narrative Comprise?

Selim Deringil
Archives and the Armenian Question: 'Grabbing the Document by the Throat'

Murat Belge
The Armenian Problem from the Standpoint of Democracy



Coffee Break 10:40-11:10



Session 2 11:10-13:00
Differences in Knowledge and Perception between Turkey and the World


ـstün Ergüder
Session Chair


Osman Kِker
Armenian Presence in the Ottoman State before the Deportation

Fikret Adanr
Massacre, Genocide and the Historical Profession

Fatma Müge Gِçek
What the World Knows but Turkey Does Not:

The Chicago-Salzburg Turkish-Armenian Workshop Process as an
Accumulation of Knowledge

Nazan Maksudyan
The 1915-1916 Events according to the Historians of the 20th century and
the world



Lunch 13:00-14:00



Session 3. 14:00-15:40
The 'Old Order' before the Balkan Wars



Hakan Erdem
Session Chair



Akin Somel
Armenian Schools and the Regime of Abdülhamid (1876-1908)

Oktay ضzel
Locals, Refugees and non-Muslims: some observations on the boundaries

of social harmony in the Black Sea Region during the late Ottoman period

Edhem Eldem
The Istanbul Armenian Incidents of 1895-96

Meltem Toksِz
Adana Armenians and the 1909 "Disturbance"



Coffee Break 15:40-16:10



Session 4. 16:10-18:00
The Point of Rupture: 1912-1915



Mete Tunçay
Session Chair



Stefan Yerasimos
Approaching
1915: Armenian Autonomy and the Zeytun and Van Incidents

Nesim قeker
The Armenian Question and 'Demographic Engineering'

Rober Kopta
The Unionist-Dashnak Negotiations and the 1914 Armenian Reform from
the pens of Krikor Zohrab, Vahan Papazyan and Karekin Pastrmacyan

Elif قafak
Zabel Yesayan and the list of 'marked Armenian intellectuals'



24 September 2005 Saturday


Registration 09:00

Session 5. 09:30-11:00
The Deportation and its Aftermath

Taha Parla
Session Chair

Fuat Dündar
The
Settlement Policy of the Union and Progress (1913-1918)

Taner Akçam
The Intent and Organization of Genocide, with both the survivors and the
destroyed, among the leaders of the Union and Progress in light of the
Ottoman documents

Cemil Koçak
How Do You Know of the Special Secret Organization (Tekilt- Mahsusa)?

Coffee Break 11:00-11:30



Session 6. 11:30-13:20
Tales of Tragedy and Escape



Ferhunde ضzbay
Session Chair



Sarkis Seropyan
Landscapes of conscience from within a Painful History

Fethiye اetin
>From Heranu to Seher, the tale of a 'liberation'

فrfan Palal
Fatma Ane, the Child of Deportation


Aykut Kansu
Thinking through the Tales of Those Who Survived the Deportation



Lunch 13:20-14:20



Session 7. 14:20-16:00
Witnesses and Memories



Aye ضncü
Session Chair



Hülya Adak
The Armenian Question in Memoirs

Ahmet Kuya
What Do the Unionists Say?

Gündüz Vassaf
Armenians in the Educational Calendar (Saatli Maarif Takvimi)

Cevdet Aykan
The Meaning of Memories and The Responsibility of Politics and the Times



Coffee Break 16:00-16:30



Session 8. 16:30-18:00
>From the Threshold of Confrontation to the Formation of Taboos

Selçuk Esenbel
Session Chair


Ayhan Aktar
The Armenian Question in the Ottoman Assembly, November-December 1918

Erol Kِroًlu
Examples of Remembrance and Forgetting in Turkish Literature:

the Different Breaking Points of Taciturnity

Baskn Oran
The
Roots of a Taboo: the Historical-Psychological Suffication of

Turkish Public Opinion on the Armenian Problem



25 September Sunday



Registratio 09:00



Session 9. 09:30-11:30
The States of Armenianhood



Nükhet Sirman
Session Chair



Hrant Dink
The New Sentences of Armenian Identity in Turkey and the World

Ferhat Kentel
Turkish and Republican Armenian Societies: Boundaries and Prejudice

Karin Karakal,
To Be an Armenian in Turkey: community, individual, citizen

Ferhat Kentel,

Günay Gِksu ضzdoًan,

Füsun ـstel

Melissa Bilal
An Identity Trapped In Between the Past and Present:

the Experience of Being an Armenian in Turkey

Aye Gül Altnay
Two Books and an Exhibit: The Rediscovery of Turkish Armenians



Coffee Break 11:30-12:00



Session 10. 12:00-13:40
Turkish Democracy and the Armenian Question



Murat Belge
Session Chair




Ali Bayramoًlu
Views and Approaches to the Armenian Question in Turkish Society

Etyen Mahcupyan
The Relationship between Historical Perception and Mentality as

Founding Principle of National Identity in Turkey

Ahmet فnsel
The Armenian Question and the Concept of the Enemy Within in Turkish
Politics

Murat Paker
Turkish Armenian Issue in the Context of a Psychoanalytic Evaluation of
Turkey's Dominant Political Culture

قahin Alpay
What Can Be Done to Reinstitute Turkish-Armenian Friendship?"



Lunch 13:40-14:40



Session 11. 14:30-16:00
Panel: Armenian Question and the Freedom of the Press



فsmet Berkan
Session Chair



Yavuz Baydar
(Sabah) newspaper


Kürat Bumin
(Yeni قafak)

Oral اallar
(Cumhuriyet)

Ahmet Hakan
(Hürriyet)

Fehmi Koru
(Yeni قafak)



Coffee Break 16:00-16:30



Session 12. 16:30-18:30
Panel: Today and the Future



Halil Berktay
Session Chair




A diplomat :
Temel فskit


A lawyer:
Turgut Tarhanl

A publisher:
Ragp Zarakolu

A politician:
Cem ضzdemir


A historian:
Mete Tunçay





Participants other than those on the Organizing and Advisory Committees



Hülya Adak
Sabanc University:
Assistant Professor (Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies)

قahin Alpay
Bahçeehir University:
Assistant Professor (Political Science); Zaman newspaper

Aye Gül Altnay
Sabanc University :
Assistant Professor (Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies)

Cevdet Aykan
Mediical doctor; former deputy of Tokat and Minister of Health

Ali Bayramoًlu
Yeni قafak newspaper

Yavuz Baydar
Sabah newspaper

فsmet Berkan
Radikal newspaper

Melissa Bilal
Chicago University Ph.D. student (ethnomusicology)

Kürat Bumin
Yeni قafak newspaper

Ahmet Hakan Cokun
Hürriyet newspaper

Oral اallar
Cumhuriyet newspaper

Fethiye اetin
lawyer, author of the book entitled Anneannem (My Grandmother)

Hrant Dink
Agos newspaper

Fuat Dündar
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris) : Ph.D. student

Hakan Erdem
Sabanc University: Assistant Professor (History)

Selçuk Esenbel
Boًaziçi University: Professor (History)

Ahmet فnsel
Galatasaray University: Professor (Economics)

Temel فskit
retired ambassador

Aykut Kansu
Bilgi University: Associate Professor (History)

Karin Karakal
Agos newspaper

Ferhat Kentel
Bilgi University: Assistant Professor (Sociology)

BRober Kopta
Boًaziçi University: Ph.D. student (Atatürk Institute)

Fehmi Koru
Yeni قafak newspaper

Osman Kِker
editor in chief, Birzamanlar Publications

Erol Kِroًlu
Sabanc University:
Assistant Professor (History of Literature, Cultural Studies)

Ahmet Kuya
Galatasaray University: Assistant Professor (History, Political Science)

Etyen Mahcupyan
Zaman newspaper

Nazan Maksudyan
Sabanc University: Ph.D. student (History)

Baskn Oran
Ankara University: Professor (Political Science)

Aye ضncü
Sabanc University: Professor (Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies)

Ferhunde ضzbay
Boًaziçi University: Professor (Sociology)

Cem ضzdemir
Deputy of the Green Party, Germany

Günay Gِksu ضzdoًan
Marmara University: Professor (Political Science and International Relations)

Murat Paker
Bilgi University: Assistant Professor (Psychology)

فrfan Palal
Ege University: Associate Professor (Neurophysiology)

Taha Parla
Boًaziçi University:
Professor (Political Science and International Relations)

Sarkis Seropyan
Agos newspaper

Elif قafak
writer, literary person; University of Arizona (USA) : Assistant Professor
(Near Eastern Studies)

Nesim قeker
Middle East Technical University: Assistant Professor (History)

Turgut Tarhanl
Bilgi University: Professor (Comparative Law)

Meltem Toksِz
Boًaziçi University: Assistant Professor (History)

Füsun ـstel
Marmara University: Professor (Public Administration)

Gündüz Vassaf
Associate Professor (Psychology); Radikal columnist

Ragp Zarakolu
editor in chief, Belge Publications