"insulting Turkish identity"

[Gavur]

Court Decides: Armenian Conference Should Have Been Held

By Anadolu News Agency (aa)
Published: Friday, October 14, 2005
zaman.com


The judiciary has reached a verdict on the controversial Armenian Conference held at Bilgi University on September 25.

Istanbul Regional Administrative Court has reversed the suspension of execution decision reached previously by the Istanbul 4th Administrative Court concerning the “Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy Conference”. Objections from Bogazici and Sabanci Universities submitted to Istanbul 4th Administrative Court concerning its suspension of execution decision were turned down by the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court and the parties were notified on 29 September 2005. The Regional Court read, “Demands for suspension of execution were rejected unanimously without being examined.”




Istanbul

[Gavur]

Hrant cannot go anywhere:

Mehmet Ali Birand

Most of you do not know about Hrant Dink.

Those who do know him may identify him with his Turkish, rather than Armenian, looks and statements.

I have been interested in the Armenian problem most of my life. I am one of those who are very aware of how sensitive and hard an issue this is for both sides and how both people try to find every potential hidden message in statements made. Dink is one of those few Armenian Turks who walk in this minefield. Neither side is pleased by his efforts. However, this only makes him more determined and courageous.

Dink never sold out Turkey or Armenia. He only tried to be a messenger of common sense.

To tell you the truth, I am amazed he made it this far. The only reason why he lasted was because he never had a hidden agenda and had no bad intentions.

However, eventually they hit him too.

It appears they were following him for a while.

He was found guilty by those who have failed to keep up with the world and those who failed to understand the reforms.

He is an emotional person and that is why he could not help but say, “If I am found guilty, I will leave this country.”

No Hrant. It is not that easy. Where are you going? We have a lot more to accomplish together.

Do not give up that easy. It is not like you.

[Gavur]

Hrant Dink: I Will Alarm the Whole World

14.10.2005 10:54 GMT-08:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
Editor-in-Chief of Agos newspaper Hrant Dink sentenced to 6 months of conditional imprisonment appealed to the Turkish Supreme Court.

Last week Hrant Dink stated, “If the stigma attached to me is not removed I will be forced to abandon this country like my ancestors did.
But I will not leave silently like them. I will alarm the whole world.” Hrant Dink informed that he received a great number of supporting phone calls and letters from intellectuals and even political figures.

To remind, last week the Istanbul court sentenced Hrant Dink to 6 months of conditional imprisonment for demonstrating disregard towards Turks. In his article Dink called upon Armenians not to poison their blood with hatred towards Turks but think about Armenia’s future. However the court thought that Dink meant “the poisonous blood of Turks.” “I have never outraged any nation. An Armenian will never do such a thing. We do not offend but are searching for our right like I am doing now. I am searching for my right and the right of my ancestors”, Dink said.

Term genocide was mentioned for several times in his article and this fact, in Dink’s opinion has become the reason of his sentence. “However I am not punished and not sent to prison, since it will stir up an international scandal”, he said adding that the court examination had the purpose of making him silent.

In case Dink fails to justify himself in the Supreme Court he is going to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. A similar court session is expected as regards writer Orhan Pamuk for statements on the Armenian Genocide. The well-known writer could receive Nobel Prize in Literature, RFE/RL reported.

[Gavur]

Accepting the Past Will Set Us Free

Talin Suciyan reflects on the groundbreaking Armenian conference and the
liberating effect that the open discussion of this history will have for
Turkey and for the Armenian diaspora.

BIA News Center
10/10/2005

By Talin Suciyan ([email protected])

BIA (Istanbul) - Are we able to admit the fact that after the departure
of Armenians this country became barren; ideologically, artistically,
politically and by every means socially? Can this society admit that we
need to be able to express this issue, and that the Armenian Diaspora
needs to hear it?

The recent "Ottoman Armenians During The Last Period Of The Empire:
Scientific Responsibility And Democracy" conference was realized as a
result of great efforts, and was an event of extraordinary properties,
meanings and references. Under our current conditions we are in, the
importance of this event can be approached from many different angles,
and people have been writing about if from every perspective.

I would like to take this chance to reflect on these two days, in which
many different disciplines complemented each other, while shedding light
on some old questions and presenting new ones. With the vast amount of
information and comments presented on this one particular period in
history, this conference shook its audience and lifted a huge dead
weight that was bearing on the shoulders of this issue.

The questions at the beginning of this article are asked in response to
Elif Safak's paper and they are very important ones related to this
moment. Can we leave aside the never-ending polemics and claims--" it is
genocide or not"-and "they massacred us, the numbers of victims are such
and such," and look at our present situation, where Safak directs her
attention?

Safak, in her paper, presents an extraordinary mix of her authorial and
academic identities. Her presentation on the life and works of feminist
Armenian writer Zabel Yesayan was prepared with the scrutiny of an
academic and the elegance of a writer of literature. She concluded it
with a quotation from a novel. Safak relays to us the answer of a
question which is asked of the hero of the novel: What would an Armenian
survivor of the events of 1915 like to hear from the Turks ?

He replied " I would like to hear that after we left, their country
became barren". Safak, directing this sentence to us, continued: "Yes,
after you left, our country became barren ideologically, artistically,
politically and every means socially, we have the need to say this, as
the Diaspora has the greater need to hear it ". In the end she presented
an approach that passed beyond the Armenian Diaspora's, which dictates
'You have to recognize the genocide first; then we start talking' or the
official Turkish thesis, which claims 'Genocide didn't happen, in fact
they massacred us'.

Safak continued; saying that today the people of Turkey, having lost
their Armenian neighbors (except roughly 60 thousand people living)
should acknowledge that as a result of this loss, we became lonely and
barren. Today we should start mourning for this loss: "The mourning of
their absence, and that which made us barren".

Feelings

Like Melisa Bilal said, can we integrate feelings into our social and
intellectual systems without the confines of nationalism? Can we recall
the feeling of times that we lived together? As she said, can people who
are living in this country really understand that Armenians in Turkey
were made homeless and that they are lost? Not all were necessarily made
homeless by means of deportation, but as Bilal defines it, "they were
uprooted from their language, religion, history at the very place they
had been living, [and entered a] state of homelessness by means of
estrangement. " And indeed like Hrant Dink said, having been uprooted
and scattered around the world, as Bilal says, when they are constantly
searching for a surname with an 'ian-yan' suffix at the back credits of
every film, in reality they are searching for a piece of themselves.
Today, are the people of Turkey capable of understanding all of feelings?

Weight

Can we rethink the phrases that entered in to our language, particularly
those which carry the traces of negative historical weights? As in the
example Fethiye Cetin provided, why is it that while lifting a heavy
load, we say "It is heavy as an infidel's corpse." Are we able to ask
ourselves the question, "Why is the corpse of an infidel is that heavy?"

Paranoia and Trauma

As Erol Koroglu said in his presentation 'Examples of forgetting and
remembering in Turkish literature: The breaking points of silence',
Armenian-ness is an identity that is constantly kept at the threshold,
at at the same time we have the incapability of not being able to
describe it as different as well as familiar. This gives way to an idea
that makes Armenians traitors and enemies. Can we think over this idea
and accept it as a social paranoia? Hrant Dink is right to say that the
antidote to this paranoia is the democratization of Turkey. This process
not only would cure the paranoia in Turks, it would also help heal the
trauma that the Armenians live with.

Amnesia

Elif Safak directs our attention to writer Zabel Yesayan. When she
escaped the events of 1915 and settled in Baku, she started to write her
memoirs. This demonstrates her importance in preventing a social amnesia.

In contrast, Etyen Mahcupyan emphasized how the State, by its constant
repetition to Turkish people that they are a people whose memory is very
short and that Turkey is a country that should always look to the future
and not to the past, constantly creates space for communal amnesia . In
response to the victim's attitude of 'not letting it to be forgotten and
talking about it' the perpetrators covers themselves to an extent that
they reache a point where even talking about events becomes frightful.
At this point, can the victim, with the comfort to speak, help the
perpetrator?

Empathy

As Aysegul Altinay says, Fethiye Cetin's book "My Grandmother", Takuhi
Tovmasyan's book "Be Your Meals Cheerful" and Osman Koker's "Armenians
In Turkey 100 Years Ago" books, follow a therapeutic approach which can
lead people to create an environment where empathy can grow, opening the
way to cry and laugh together. Following this approach, can we multiply
these examples so that we can exercise more empathy in this direction?

Defence and getting tired of being right

Halil Berktay describes the mood of Turkish foreign policy: defence by
means of digging a trench so deep that it became a synonym for being
stuck at the bottom of the trench, and therefore foreign policy became
enslaved by the trench. Temel Iskit, a former diplomat with a career of
40 years, agreed with Berktay's characterization.

Iskit states that Turkish foreign policy was mortgaged by the Armenian
Question, because the " power policy" that Turkey was following required
an absolute obligation to be right. He added, "During 41 years of
service I got tired of always being 'right'."

"We won't do it"

Cemil Kocak presented an interesting story on Ruseni Bey and his place
in the Special Organization (Teskilat-i Mahsusa). Ruseni Bey coined a
definition of nationalism that stated "Societies grow/get nurtured by
eating one another." Against this outrageously nationalistic statement,
is it too difficult to say 'No, we won't do it'? As Halil Berktay points
out, isn't it about time that spanner needs to be thrown in the
clockwork of these spine-chilling historical repetitions-- a repetition
that starts with "Every Armenian is a Tashnak Guerilla" and continues as
"Every Kurd is a PKK member"?

Purification

Berktay also told of an unfinished novel written by Omer Seyfettin
between 1912-13, named "Primo Turkish Child II". Can we wake the hero of
this novel from his dream? In the dream, he sees a crescent moon and a
star in the sky, meanwhile he feels a wetness on his feet. This wetness
is the blood of Turkish enemies-and as he walks in their blood, he
notices the reflection of the moon and the star on the surface .

Departing from this point, Berktay continued to say that the red colour
of Turkish flag does not symbolize the blood of Turkish martyrs (as we
are always told), but actually comes from the blood of our enemies. We
can purify ourselves of this history of hatred and violence. We can get
out of pools of blood and set out to a new journey, in which the moon
and the stars won't spare their light to illuminate our road, and with
the knowledge that at the end of a clear starry night, the coming day
will be sunny and hopeful.

Liberty

"This meeting will liberate us," said former Health Minister Cevdet
Aykan, who compiled the memoirs of old people he knew. As Cem Ozdemir
stated, the realization of this conference will relax Europe as well as
Turkey . Turkey's initiation of this talk on the "Armenian issue"--which
Europe saw as a burden to Turkey's process of democratisation--will
lighten this load for Europe as well as Turkey.

It is time to acknowledge these loads, to recognize them, and to be
liberated from them. We will feel relaxed by means of liberation from
them. We passed the threshold and we are on that road now. We will
continue to move forward slowly but surely.

Mourning

As I was talking with historian Christoph Neumann, he draw my attention
to the point that during the conference there had rarely been talk of
mourning--only once or twice. He said, "Why is there no talk of
mourning?" ...meaning not the mourning of events 90 years ago, but the
mourning of our state in the present, the mourning of our loneliness.
Maybe by acknowledging our present loneliness slowly, we can go back
from the present to the past and try to see more clearly how we were
made so lonely in the first place?

Despite all the insistences of amnesia, contrary to our state of
defensiveness due to unresolved traumas, we would be able to find the
path to empathy. By acknowledging the lost and deported ones, we could
start to sympathize with their sensitivities. And by getting rid of our
paranoia and trauma from historical burdens in our language and
consciousness, could we not turn back even just for a moment to our true
feelings, and mourn?

To Pass the threshold, pass beyond the 'genocide'

Has any threshold been passed? Surely the answer is yes. This conference
has been the embodiment of that very crucial move. The conference has
led us pass the threshold of Turkey's democratization progress, the
threshold of scientific freedom in universities, the threshold of
freedom of expression, the disappearing threshold of being unable to
speak, the threshold of endless arguments about 'who massacred who' and
'is it or is it not a genocide'--and even past the thresholds of
hardened, polarized and immobile identities.

Today we reached a different point, because during these past two days
whoever witnessed this historical event tried to understand amnesia,
empathy, trauma, paranoia and what actually happened. While they
examined and scrutinized all these issues with the help of many
different disciplines, we mourned for our present day a little, we
became purified a little, and we became little more liberated. We
listened, we thought and we learned--and then we learned more, thought
more, and listened more.

Now, it is time for this experience to leave the confines of the
building where the conference was held and spread, so even more people
can rethink what they had already known and learn to listen more.
Because this conference has liberated us, it provides hope that there
will be many others. It is this very hope that will make our roads
intersect.
__________________________________
(Translation: Arman Sucuyan)

[Gavur]

Swedish boy arrested for denigrating Turkish flag

18 October 2005-TURKEY /ANTALYA
Cihan News Agency-National

A Swedish tourist was arrested on Tuesday in the southern resort of Alanya for degrading Turkish flag .
Alanya court ordered the arrest of Adam Karl Johannes (18) on charges of degrading Turkish flag on Tuesday in the resort of Alanya. The same court released Erik Martin Schöld (18) who will be tried.

Two adolescents, who got drunk on Monday evening, pulled down a Turkish flag from a mast in the resort of Alanya. Two boys were taken to police station when the residents called police.

During their interrogation, two tourists defended themselves saying they were drunken during incident. They denied any mal-intention.

However, Alanya court ordered arrest of Adam Karl Johannes and released his friend Erik Martin Schöld.

[Gavur]

"LOVE ME, OR LEAVE ME?": THE STRANGE CASE OF ORHAN PAMUK

Murat Belge

Open Democracy, UK
Oct 18 2005

Orhan Pamuk, the renowned Turkish writer, was charged last month for
"publicly humiliating" Turkey and is currently awaiting trial. Fellow
countryman Murat Belge explains how this son of Istanbul has become
a scapegoat for a paranoid press, and, as the EU beckons, looks at
the wider implications on Turkish national identity.

Orhan Pamuk, one of Turkey's most respected and critically acclaimed
authors, will appear on trial on 16 December. He is charged with
publicly denigrating Turkish identity, following an interview in
February with the Swiss journal Tages-Anzeiger, where he made a
statement about the one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds killed
in Turkey. According to Article 301 of the new Turkish Penal Code,
this crime is punishable by six months to three years of prison.

When this interview was translated and published in Turkey, and the
Turkish media helped create a clamour against the speaker of these
blasphemies, Turkish prosecutors probably felt that their career
demanded them to intervene. The prosecutor for the city of Istanbul,
after questioning Pamuk, decided not to start a case. The prosecutor
of Şişli, however, had a different view and prepared his file. This
is the court that Pamuk is now summoned to.

Though this trial is a new "event" in Orhan Pamuk's life, it is not
the first time he has been harassed by the Turkish media. In this
period when everything in Turkey has to fall in line according to its
position vis a vis "entry to the European Union", Pamuk has gradually
been pulled into the inner circles of this fight.

Origins of the "anti-Pamuk sentiment"

In this age of "mass culture," Orhan Pamuk belongs to that rare breed
of good authors whose books sell at the rate of "best-sellers". When
sales of his book The New Life scored above 100,000 in the mid-1990s,
a columnist in a mainstream (nationalist) paper published an article
entitled "They are lying!" in which he accused Orhan Pamuk and his
publishing house of fabricating these figures as a publicity stunt
and an advertisement for the book.

The writer was sued and eventually sentenced to pay a fine for this
libel; but, in the meantime he also quoted passages from an article
by an aged historian, who cited examples from Pamuk's works in which
he apparently said critical and/or ironic things about the founder
of the Turkish republic, Kemal Ataturk. For certain people among the
Turkish establishment this is enough to brand anyone as a "traitor".

Many others, including certain novelists, attacked Pamuk, not only
on this account but many others as well. Some claimed that he did not
know Turkish, others said he was a very bad novelist, but all of them
agreed that he would do anything to ensure a commercial success for
his latest work.

The literary world of Turkey has been divided since into those who
hate and those who do not hate Orhan Pamuk (the range of emotion in
the second grouping varies greatly though there is greater harmony
in the first). The number of fans and admirers begins to rise steeply
as we move from the writers' to that of the readers' circle.

More articles by Murat Belge on openDemocracy:

"Between Turkey and Europe: why friendship is welcome" (December 2004)

"Bombs on Istanbul" (November 2003)

"The Turkish refusal" (May 2003)

"Turkey - normal at last?" (November 2002)

"Inside the fundamentalist mind" (October 2001)

For these articles and more see openDemocracy's debate on the "Future
of Turkey"

But it is not a question of literary taste only. As mentioned, the case
of Orhan Pamuk has been drawn into the struggle about the European
Union. This is mainly because everything is eventually drawn there,
but there are certain reasons that make it more understandable that
Pamuk should be part of it.

>>From the point of view of the nationalists in Turkey the world is
now divided into "us" and "them" and it is obvious that a man like
Orhan Pamuk stands closer to "them" than to "us". Pamuk is not a
"political writer"; but he is aware of the role expected from an
intellectual and is willing to play it. Consequently, he has taken
a human and democratic attitude in the many problems Turkey is
facing. Including the Kurdish one. This is not an attitude approved
by the nationalist front in the country and he has been attacked by
a motley chorus on every occasion when he voiced a critical comment
on the current policies.

This has led the nationalists and also those members of the "Orhan
Pamuk Haters' Club" among the literati to the conclusion that Pamuk
adopts these critical postures because he wants to reach the Nobel
Prize in literature. This syndrome of the "Nobel Prize" is peculiar to
Turkey through the nationalist front: convinced that all the world is
united in a series of conspiracies against Turkey, they contend that
such a prize can be given to a Turkish writer only if he assumes the
outside world that he is and will remain a traitor to Turkey.

This year, Pamuk's candidacy to the prize was reported in the Turkish
media (accuracy uncertain), but it went to Harold Pinter. Pinter
is well-known in Britain as well as the rest of the world as
a consistently oppositional writer. But it is unlikely that his
controversial position is interpreted in his country as the revelation
of his desire to get the Nobel Prize. Such an assertion was not heard
about other critical writers in other countries - for instance no
one thought of Sartre's endeavours for the Nobel when he condemned
French presence in Algeria and on other occasions. But in Turkey,
or among the nationalists in Turkey, the Nobel is conceived as yet
another instrument to wrong Turks. Yaşar Kemal, another Turkish
writer who was a candidate has also often been accused of cherishing
similar aspirations.

It is difficult to understand the logic of this argument since
writers are usually people who have their own opinions and who are
accustomed to express these opinions, without an overdue attention
to the distribution of "prizes" in the world. There is no reason to
make Turkish writers an exception in this respect.

Anti-Pamuk sentiment has flared up and subsided on various occasions,
usually following his statements published abroad, since that first
challenge about being a liar (concerning number of sales) brought the
literary enemies of Orhan Pamuk to the same camp as the nationalists.

One could almost say that this was turning into a regular pattern.

However, the latest statement about the "million Armenians" and
"30,000 Kurds" caused a reaction which went well beyond the borders
of that pattern.

With the help of support of the media (mainstream included) the
reaction turned into mass hysteria, with groups organising noisy
demonstrations to rant and rail against Pamuk and the governor of a
certain town even began to search for his books in bookstores to burn
them. Pamuk was actually threatened with death during the hate rallies
organised by the far right. He was abroad as the hullabaloo started
and understandably felt obliged to delay his return for a few months.

It was in this context that the prosecutor, not of Istanbul but of
Şişli, decided to open a case and start a trial against Orhan Pamuk.

The media, on the other hand, as usual, tried to re-establish some
balance after the first volleys and to extinguish at least some of
the fires they had started.

Pamuk's statement

What was so offensive in Orhan Pamuk's statement? A response claiming
to give a full account of that would take us away from our present
issue and so let's suffice with a brief summary.

The question of the Armenian massacre, although ninety years have
passed by, is the hottest issue in Turkey at the moment. In fact, it
has grown more flagrant than it used to be before the 1970s, because
generations have grown up without having the least information about
it, unless they were told about Armenian atrocities against Turks.

The assassinations conducted by Asala from the 1970s onwards
contributed to this feeling of victimisation and being the object of
an international campaign of slander. This quite widespread "innocence"
has been the strongest ally of those nationalists who actually approve
of what was done but for strategic-political reasons believe that it
has to be denied completely.

In the prevailing political atmosphere in Turkey, any question that
pops up, especially any topic that shows Turks in a not very favourable
light, is used as new fuel in the anti-EU campaign. The question of
the Armenian massacre is very handy in this context.

Therefore Pamuk's statement and the utterance of the figure "million"
acted as the desired spark to explode this barrel of gunpowder.

The second part of the statement, about "30,000 Kurds killed",
would normally not have been as explosive as the first. It has become
customary in Turkey to refer to Abdulla Ocalan, the imprisoned leader
of the largest Kurdish armed group, the PKK, as "The Murderer of
35,000 people" and as people prefer more exaggerated numbers, this
has been climbing towards 45,000. If that is the case, obviously the
proportion of the Kurds in the total is much greater. Apparently,
anger was aroused because in this formulation by Pamuk the Turkish
casualties were not given the necessary respect.

But Pamuk's assertion angered two groups of people independently
from the clamour caused by these figures. He added a phrase about
being the only one to reveal such facts, which was not quite correct,
as so many people have been talking about these topics. He also told
his interviewer, getting annoyed at his style of asking questions,
that he sounded like a Turkish journalist. This irritated many in the
Turkish media and probably provoked their strong reaction which in
turn vented itself in urging the readers to a strong protest for Pamuk.

Turkey, its "traitors", and the rest of the world

Such tension has to be shortlived since people cannot sustain it
without losing their health. So now there is relative calm. Since the
initial furore Pamuk has recently appeared on a TV channel (for the
first time since the incident) and has made some appeasing remarks
which have found friendly echoes from the press. But the situation
remains interesting as well as precarious.

The interesting point is the relationship of Turkish society with
the subject of success ("international success" in particular). The
majority of citizens are usually quite happy with some cup in
football or other athletic fields (as in many other countries); but
the intelligentsia feel the need for artistic or scientific, that is,
some intellectual prowess. There is not evidence of an overpowering
Turkish presence in such areas.

In the past, the Turkish political system and the political elites
who supplied the cadres to run that system were not happy with the
handful of intellectuals who attained some international degree of
renown. Nazim Hikmet, the best known and widely respected Turkish man
of letters, was seen as a traitor in the country. Few intellectuals
could escape prison for over sixty years and some had to meet worse
fates (like Sabahattin Ali killed as he tried to escape from the
country).

Within the relatively democratised climate of the present time, Hikmet
(and others) are honoured within Turkey as well. But what will happen
with the living representatives of Turkish intellectual life?

Orhan Pamuk is now the obvious "success story" - translated into
fairly odd languages and receiving important awards all over the
world as well as being mentioned in the context of the Nobel Prize.

At the same time, he is the writer and speaker of words which,
according to our nationalist ideology, should make him the object of
national hatred. The fascist movement of the day has duplicated the old
American slogan of "Love it or leave it"; in the case of Orhan Pamuk
the alternatives may be more drastic: are we to accept and love him,
or to reject and hate him?

For the ordinary citizen, who is naturally inclined to like his work
anyway, it is more difficult to give up that feeling of success which
Pamuk can always bring to his country. For the nationalist front,
however, that success is undesirable because it is conferred as the
prize of defaming the Turkish nation.

This front, at the present phase of its struggle, is not in need
of "success stories". The particularly elitist and "patrician"
Turkish establishment, now threatened by democracy as the inevitable
consequence of the partnership in the EU, is trying to fight off this
danger by instigating nationalist hysteria in the street. Therefore it
needs a "wounded national pride", "lethal international conspiracies
against the country", or "evil plans to 'divide the country.'"

As any event is used and abused to contribute to this paranoia,
there can be no guarantee against Orhan Pamuk once more being branded
as the scapegoat. There are those who, even if they belong to the
nationalist camp in broad terms, are in favour of entry into EU,
and for those either such campaigns in the street, or the kind of
trial coming from above, are detrimental to the Turkish cause. For
the hard core, however, anything that will help Europe to reject
Turkey, such as Turkish justice condemning Orhan Pamuk, is highly
desirable as a valuable step on the road leading away from Europe,
into God knows where.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-Literature/orhan_pamuk_2935.jsp

[Gavur]

It is better to speak out rather than hide Armenian genocide, says Turkish author

20.10.2005 12:38

YEREVAN (YERKIR) - Speaking to the Spanish newspaper ABC, prominent Turkish author said the reforms carried out in 1920’s and 30’s by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic, were not democratic, Noyan Tapan reported, citing Turkish media reports.

Orhan Pamuk added that the reforms were carried out with the help of the military and nationalists and not the people.

Speaking of the Armenian genocide, he indicated that it would be better to voice an unpleasant than hide it. “The republic founded by Ataturk preferred to conceal (the Armenian genocide) rather than face its history to move forward.

[Hovik]

Gavur jan, any idea when he actually made this statement?

[Gavur]

Orhan Pamuk: Ataturk's Westernization project squeezes Ankara like a corset

Friday, October 21, 2005 04:58

Orhan Pamuk: Ataturk's Westernization project squeezes Ankara like a corset



Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, in an interview with Spanish newspaper ABC, analyzed the turban question in Turkey, touching on what the Koran actually mentions in terms of women covering their heads, and how this has been interpreted in Turkey. Pamuk told ABC that there is tension in Turkey between the secular government and those wishing to exhibit their religiosity in state owned arenas. The author also said that he thought politics were being carried out using women, and that it was men who were doing this:

"Islamic politicians are experts at manipulating this problem, and at making themselves appear to be the victims."

Pamuk also noted that the turban question was in itself much more complex than what was reflected in the western media.

"Ataturk's reforms not completely democratic"

Speaking about Ataturk's legacy in Turkey, Pamuk expressed the view that Ataturk's Western oriented reforms were not completely democractic, and that they were carried out with the help of the army and nationalism, not by popular support. Pamuk noted that advancement along these lines for Turkey was impossible. Said Pamuk:

"(The current situation) nourishes Islamic rooted fundamentalism, and we can see this everywhere, in every election. For this reason, despite the fact that I have no real problem with Ataturk's program of Westernization, Ataturk's military is not really suitable to our needs today, and that national, strong, Jacobean project is squeezing the government like a corset. What we need is a much more tolerant liberalism in our government."

Touching on the Armenian question, Pamuk had this to say:

"Trying to hide something which is not pleasant is worse than accepting it and speaking about it. Ataturk's republic, in order to move ahead faster, followed the path of forgetting the past, rather than dealing with it."

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/3399731.asp?gid=74

[Gavur]

Dutch Watching Trial Of Turkish Author Pamuk With Concern

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
October 20, 2005, Thursday
06:22:21 Central European Time

Amsterdam

The Dutch government is watching closely the pending trial of Turkish
author Orhan Pamuk over his remarks regarding the mass killing of
Armenians and Kurds in his country almost a century ago, a senior
official in the Foreign Ministry said Thursday.

Atzo Nikolai, state secretary responsible for European Affairs in
the Dutch Foreign Ministry, noted that the trial comes at a time when
Turkey was embarking on talks with the European Union on accession.

"The E.U. must undertake all it can to prevent Pamuk and others like
him in Turkey being muzzled," Nikolai said in an article published
in the Volkskrant newspaper.

At the beginning of the year Pamuk said in an interview with the
Swiss Tages Anzeiger newspaper that no one in Turkey was allowed to
talk about the killing of a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds during
World War I.

He has been charged with insulting Turkey.

Nikolai applauded Turkey's moves towards a more open society, but
said the Pamuk issue and others like it "make clear that the reform
process is a long way from being rounded off" in Ankara.

"The Turkish government has always said that the reforms should not
be viewed exclusively as a means to become a member of the E.U. but
also as a goal in themselves.

"If that is the case, then they will be sensitive to pressure from
the E.U. to amend the law on which the charge against Pamuk is based,"
Nikolai said.

He noted that European Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn had expressed
himself in strong language on the issue and had demonstratively
visited Pamuk recently in Istanbul.

"I will also be talking personally to Pamuk during his visit to the
Netherlands," Nikolai said.

Dutch public opinion is running strongly against accepting Turkey
as a full E.U. member. The resounding Dutch "No" to the European
constitution in a referendum on June 1 was attributed in large part
to concern over Turkey's accession.