The sound of religious footsteps under the bubble of nationalism

ETYEN MAHCUPYAN- Zaman Gazetesi

When nationalism began to permeate the Ottoman Empire, it found itself facing an extremely accommodating base. This was because the Ottoman “millet” system had created protected, public arenas that could be kept closed to the outside and within which religiously “different” communities could maintain their autonomies. Thus nationalism was naturally quickly embraced, particularly in cases where sectarian differences also meant ethnic differences. Two of the large ethnic communities in the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks and the Armenians, never hesitated to embrace nationalism as a basic part of modernization.

As for Ottoman Muslims, rather than immediately occupying the highest spot amongst the hierarchies of the different communities, they went through a long period of indecisiveness, torn between Ottoman-ness, Islamic-ness and Turkish nationalism. As Turkish nationalism began to move step by step toward being the predominant ideology, the elites who defended this stance also came under the influence of the science-based positivism, which was so popular among French intellectuals of the period. In this way, we saw the rise of the idea of Turkishness following 1910, witnessing also the racist nuances added to this ideology through some of its scientific approaches. In short, within the Muslim community of the Ottoman Empire, nationalism first functioned as an ideology which helped “find” and then “reject” the self. To this end, the Kemalist movement first declared Ottoman Muslims were “Turks” in order to create the people of the Republic, and then, in an authoritarian and positivist interpretation of this ideology, turned these same people into “secular” citizens.

This settling in of ideologies, which took place over what was essentially an historically short period of time, deeply affected the Muslims of Turkey. The religiously devout, who gained confidence when facing the West due to the Turkification of their “Muslimness,” were left obliged to turn over their identities to the state as the republic came into being. Following 1980 in particular, there was a “Turkish-Islam synthesis” which aimed to solve the hesitant relationship that existed between the Turkish society and Turkish state. According to proponents of this synthesis, it was only when Islam united as a whole with Turkishness that a historically strong identity would be formed, and that this was the identity necessary to take authority and control over Turkey’s future.

The “socialization” of nationalism had its natural reflection in the political arena. There were many nationalistic parties formed, among them notably the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Grand Unity Party (BBP), and some of these parties still participate in elections. But in the years following 1990, a period emerged which no one had expected: that Turkish Muslims would begin to individualize, would begin to become integrated with modern life according to their own preferences and demands. Just as the level of variety and of varying religious stances expanded within this trend, the political perceptions of the Islamic factions changed in Turkey. Thus the birth of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the ease with which it has found and nurtured support across the country is due to the sociological changes in the background that we have talked about here. Lest this be misunderstood, it is important to clarify that the factor which has worked to alter the mentality of the Islamic factions in Turkey has not been the AK Party itself, but that to the contrary, the mentality which created the AK Party is in itself this very change.

It is not at all surprising that those who today try to block Erdogan’s presidency and single party administration are again embracing nationalism. Because the process that the devoutly religious have gone through in the past 10 years, with the re-separation of the Muslim and Turkish identities, has in a sense brought us back to end of the 19th century. Those who talk about the recent rise in nationalism are actually trying to hide the fact that in Turkey, nationalism has been lost as a candidate to whom the future can be tied. Due to that fact that current polls on the subject are being carried out in an atmosphere which makes it hard for people to say “I am not a nationalist,” there are figures showing hints of a spreading nationalism. But the fact is, under this bubble of nationalism, you can hear the footsteps of modern religious devotees, searching for ever more individuality and freedom.

UN Highlights Human Trafficking

The UN has launched a campaign to highlight human trafficking, an issue it says has reached epidemic proportions over the past decade.

Modern-day slavery affects millions of people around the world, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said.

Its initiative aims to raise awareness of trafficking both among potential victims and those who buy services or products that rely on slave labor.

The move comes as the UK marks 200 years since its abolition of slavery.

The campaign, entitled The Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking, brings together a raft of UN agencies and NGOs.

At the launch in London, UNODC Executive Director Antonio Costa said that the types of exploitation varied from place to place.

(Read More)

Armenian Prime Minister Dead

The sudden death of Prime Minister Andranik Markarian on March 25 from heart failure has sparked considerable political unease in Armenia, with residents expressing concern over what implications it could have for parliamentary elections just a month and a half away.

"We have lost a statesman, a colleague, a friend who headed the government for nearly seven years in the 15-and-a-half year history of our independence, and those seven years have been the best years of our state," President Robert Kocharian told cabinet members on March 26, local media outlets reported.

As dictated by the Constitution, the Armenian government resigned on March 26, to be reformed under a new premier. A new prime minister will be appointed within 10 days and a new government will be set up within 20 days. President Kocharian has asked ministers to continue their work until then and directed that Markarian’s funeral be held on March 28, which has been designated as an official day of mourning.

(Read more)

Controversy over cross grows amid church’s reopening

In advance of the opening of the newly restored Armenian Akhtamar Church on Lake Van, a new controversy has emerged in Ankara over whether or not the church's steeple should have a metal cross placed on it.

Akhtamar Church has undergone restoration that was undertaken at the behest of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Minister of Culture and Tourism Atilla Koc. The church will be reopened to the public at a special ceremony on March 29.

Meanwhile, Patriarch Mesrob II, the spiritual leader of the Armenian Orthodox community in Turkey, has sent a written request to the Culture and Tourism Ministry asking that a cross, prepared by the Armenian Patriarchate itself, be placed on the steeple of the Akhtamar Church. The sentiments in the letter from Partriarch Mesrob are echoed in a similar letter sent by a group of Armenian intellectuals and artists to the ministry.

With no answer yet forthcoming regarding what is to be done about the cross, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism has reportedly sent letters to the Foreign Ministry to obtain further views on the matter. Whether or not the cross will be placed atop Akhtamar Church in advance of the March 29 opening appears to depend on the views on this matter expressed by authorities at the Foreign Ministry.

While the Ministry of Culture and Tourism intends for the 1,100-year-old church on Lake Van's Akhtamar Island to be opened to the public as a "museum," the Armenian community is pressing for the church to be available for religious services. On the subject of the placement of the metal cross atop the church, Patriarch Mesrob references past photographs of the historical church as the reason why the ministry should allow the cross to be placed there.

"A cross can be clearly seen on the steeple of the church in all old photographs of it." The official name of the church also arises in the content of Mesrob's letter, with the patriarch referring to the church as " Lake Van's Agtamar Island Surp Hac Armenian Church."

Within this framework, the Armenian patriarch also suggests that annual September Sacred Cross Festival be called the Agtamar Festival, noting that this would have the additional advantage of drawing local and foreign tourists to the area, with choral groups from Istanbul and folkloric dancers from Van adding to the content of the festival.

The patriarch's letter also focuses on the possible religious services that might take place at Akhtamar Church during the Sacred Cross Festival, explaining, "There could be a religious service in the church's old nave, followed by choral groups and folklore groups."

Patriarch Mesrob's letter ends by noting that he is "praying to dear Allah for the continued success" of the ministry's restoration efforts. In a separate letter on the subject, a group of Armenian intellectuals and artists request that Akhtamar Church, which they refer to as "Ahdamar Church," be turned over permanently to the Armenian community in Turkey. They also note that a cross similar to the one found on the church must be placed there again, and that even if the church is not to be opened for religious services, the cross must still be placed there as a part of restoration efforts.

Oskanian defiant

Representing Armenia at the March 29 opening of the restored Van Lake Akhtamar Church will be Armenia's Deputy Minister of Culture and Youth Affairs Gagik Gurijian.

Speaking Thursday at a press conference, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said that Turkey was attempting to influence the international community by holding a public opening of Akhtamar Church. Oskanian also reiterated that in order for relations between the two countries to normalize, Turkey needed to open its borders with Armenia. Akhtamar Church was built by architect Kesis Manuel on the orders of Armenian King Gakik I between AD 915-921. The church has a central dome with four leaf-like wings coming out in a cross shape. It is made of red "tufa" brick.

Is nationalism rising in Turkey?

IHSAN YILMAZ, Zaman Gazetesi

For the last week we have discussed whether nationalism is rising in the country. While some of our intelligentsia are agreed that it is indeed increasing, others have disagreed.
To decide if nationalism is rising in the country or not, one first of all needs to define its meaning. Nationalism has been widely translated to Turkish as “milliyetçilik,” but that is not its precise meaning. The word “millet” (nation) has more religious connotations than it is understood in the West. Islam had been part of the grammar of this society for more than 1,000 years, even as far as the non-Muslims were concerned. The Ottomans had an Islamic legally pluralist system called the millet system, whereby every religious community had regulated their own affairs in the a law realm of private, had their own courts, operated their own schools and so on. Ottoman Muslims, although from very diverse ethnic backgrounds, were nonetheless considered a single millet.

Even after the Ottoman state collapsed, İsmet İnönü successfully argued at the Lausanne Treaty debates that Turks and Kurds were of the same millet. That is why we have many Turkish milliyetçi (nationalist) who are of Kurdish background. One prominent example is the ethnically Kurdish former Health Minister, Osman Durmus of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). This nationalism is not exclusively based on race. It is also a little more than patriotism, as it has certain religious, cultural and ethnic elements. Said Nursi calls this “positive nationalism,” while in his view negative nationalists focus only race, disregarding religious, cultural and historical ties. As far as this type of nationalism (milliyetçilik) is concerned the overwhelming majority of Turks has always been nationalist in this sense and its level cannot be seen as rising.

Today’s fashionable, more secular-type nationalism of “ulusalcilik” exactly matches the term nationalism as used in the sense of the phrase coined by Nursi, “negative nationalism.” I am not sure even this type of nationalism is on the rise either, as it seems that it is not a real grassroots movement, but rather a socially engineered top-down artificial nationalism. This artificial nationalism has no cultural or historical roots in Turkish society and its protagonists are either retired military officers, or else ultra-leftists unhappy with the EU process and the democratization of society. Even though the voice and visibility of these people and their so-called civil society institutions have increased for all sorts of reasons, we cannot say that even ulusalcilik is on the rise, as it is socially artificial.

So what is on the rise? Suspicion of the West, anti-Bushism, anti-EUism. And the reason is the West’s foreign policy. Turks from all walks of life have been rightly suspicious of their allies’ activities in the Middle East, mainly in northern Iraq, and cannot not see why Kurdistan Workers’ Part (PKK) terrorists who cross the border every summer and bomb civilians, including children, are still allowed to reside in northern Iraq and feel heartache in the face of the arrogant and ambiguous attitude of the EU, which has seemingly been enslaved by the Greek Cypriots. Turks are also suspicious that Western governments would not mind a military coup in Turkey, so long as its interests are not prejudiced.

If our Western friends are worried about rising “nationalism” then they should revisit their foreign policy.

Interview with Former Ambassador John Evans

Listen to an interview with John Evans, prior to the Annual ANCA San Francisco Chapter Banquet, held in his honor, on Saturday where he discusses his decision to use the term "Armenian Genocide"

http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Armenian_Genocide_-1173572602.mp3

Hats, headscarves and Turkey’s image

IHSAN YILMAZ, Zaman Gazetesi

A few days ago, a daily published an interview with the seasoned British Turkophile, Andrew Mango, with a joyous headline “a headscarved first lady would not harm Turkey’s image.”
Almost every Turk is worried, if not obsessed, about the image of Turkey, especially in the West. After the AK Party came to power, this issue has been tediously raised by laicist circles vis-à-vis the headscarves of politicians’ wives. Dailies publish so-called modern pictures of the Syrian or Jordanian leaders’ wives, emphasizing how they are so modern, unlike our politicians’ wives.

As far as the laicist circles, including their friends in the Turkish media, are concerned, ignorance is bliss. They have, of course, never pondered the meaning of modernity, what differences exist between modernity, modernization, contemporariness and so on. They have never heard of multiple modernities. They only talk through their hats about these issues. Thus they view and envy dictators’ wives as modern just because they do not wear headscarves. Diversity, individual freedoms, human rights, democracy and acceptance of the other are all secondary issues compared to appearance and visibility in the Turkish laicist “modernity.”

Speaking about appearance and visibility, we must also look at what other type of headgear could be harming Turkey’s image. Two types of hat come to my mind. One is Demirel’s infamous hat and the other is military hat. And, these two hats are somewhat related to each other. Demirel has long been accused of running away and disappearing with his hat when soldiers showed their hats and staged a coup. Simmering tensions surrounding the visibility of military hats in the civil and political spheres have been an everyday reality of life in Turkey.

Nowadays, we are discussing the new memorandum from the military. Apparently, some soldiers prepared a report about the Turkish media outlets and “media elite,” dividing them mainly into two groups, supporters and opponents. Life is not composed of only black and white, unlike how some of our soldiers would see it. Life is more colorful, sophisticated and complicated, and that is why democracy, freedoms and being able to agree to disagree is a vital need for modern life. And that is precisely why the military should be out of politics. People who are so concerned about Turkey’s image in the West should also worry about the harm done to our image because of what kept happening to Demirel’s hat and because of the visibility of soldiers’ hats in public life. A headscarved lady can and does get respect in Western societies, despite difficulties, but a Turkey with so many appearing and disappearing hats in public is seen as a banana republic, with which one does business but never respects.

Western societies are not monolithic. There is not a monolithic British or English society. They are not all intellectuals or all racist hooligans. Their perceptions of Turkey depend on their backgrounds, education, intellect, ideology, etc. As diaspora Turks experience daily, while there are many Westerners in whose eyes Turks are and will always be the other regardless of what we wear, headscarf or miniskirt, there are also many modern-minded and tolerant folk who see and respect the person behind the appearance. Even though there is no absolute remedy to bigotry and stereotyping, presenting a reality -- and not just a “Potemkin village” image -- of a Turkey where democracy, rule of law, differences and diversity are cherished is essential.

Erdogan challenges Armenian Diaspora at Joint Forum in Baku

Truth cannot be built on lies, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday in Baku, as he called on the Armenian diaspora to prove their allegations of genocide by the Ottoman Empire with documents.

Erdogan's remarks came as he was delivering a keynote speech at the First Forum of the World Azerbaijani and Turkish Diasporas Organizations, in order to counter the intensifying attacks from the Armenian diaspora, which has been striving for international recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide. The congress also intended to prompt Turks and Azeris abroad to take action.

Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat also participated in the forum, which was hosted by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev -- a clear sign of Baku's support for easing international isolation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC).

In his speech, Erdogan called the Nagorno Karabakh dispute "a bleeding wound for the Turkish people," and referred to a December 2006 referendum in the region by Armenia. Ankara has already announced that it will not recognize the outcome of the referendum backing independence in the Nagorno Karabakh region, saying the referendum was held while "ignoring international law."

(Read More)

AK Party cannot be controlled from Çankaya

BULENT KORUCU- Zaman gazetesi

There are two important things influencing the decision of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan about what to do for the presidential elections.

The first thing is possible statements likely to disturb the equilibrium in domestic policies as well as the stability in politics and economics and the stance of dynamic forces.

Our subject today is the second thing affecting Erdoğan’s decision -- the state of equilibrium within the party and the future of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Would Erdoğan want to maintain his influence over AK Party even after he takes office as the president? He definitely would. Can he be successful in doing so? The answer is “no” if we rely on historical evidence. I can hear you recite lines from Mehmet Akif Ersoy, the deceased Turkish poet, who said that history repeats itself. This is what the near past has shown us: when elected president, Turgut Özal handed control of the Motherland Party (ANAP) over to Yıldırım Akbulut, whom Özal thought could be influential within the party and whom Özal later promoted first to the position of interior minister and later to that of parliament speaker. But Akbulut afterward expressed fierce opposition to Özal, although fabricated stories refuted such claims. In a state of panic, Özal clung to Mesut Yılmaz and promoted him to the position of ANAP’s leader after Özal interfered in a general party congress. But he received the last blow from Yılmaz -- even his photographs at the central building of ANAP were removed. He would have attempted to resume his political career along with his brother Yusuf Özal by joining the New Party if he had lived. But he died ahead of his time.

Some made a big mistake when they said: “ANAP was founded at a time that followed a military intervention, and it neither survived the tremor of March 12, 1971, nor was it exposed to the storm of Sept. 12, 1981. The True Path Party, or DYP, a party that Süleyman Demirel founded, is not like any other parties.” Contrary to prior expectations, Tansu Çiller, who joined DYP just a couple of years ago, was promoted as a lay figure to the position of DYP leader, whereas it was the experienced İsmet Sezgin whom Demirel favored at the first party congress. Demirel then would express his disappointment to Necmettin Cevheri, an old friend of his, in words that said, “Necmettin, take this knife from my back.” Although Demirel was formerly comfortable with the course of events, he took his revenge for being stabbed in the back on Feb. 28, 1997. He did not grant the leadership to Çiller and split up the party. A new party was founded under the title of Democratic Turkey Party, or DTP, and because it was assumed that the only difference between DTP and DYP would be one letter, Demirel was relied on to help DTP. But in the end it turned out to be a fiasco.

It is not possible to account for these historical facts by only saying, “The king is dead, then long live the new king.” The idea that is becoming dominant is this: “The leader took office as president, and he already saved his next seven years, however, we will be the ones to account publicly for what we have done. Then we want to have all the instruments to play our song.” All the tools that the party leader has available to himself as someone who wants to set his seal on the party are so strong as to obliterate heartfelt feelings of loyalty to the former party leader. Even though the lists of deputies are prepared altogether at the last minute, it will be the new party leader to have the final say on the allocation of seats after the election. There is this situation where one has to share with five other deputies a room of three square meters at the Parliament. Or there is also the situation where one can have one’s own office at the central building of one’s own party, or at buildings where group or commission meetings are held, and one can always be in the spotlight, accompanied by principal clerks, etc. The president is not entitled at all to any legal or actual rights to put anyone in one of these situations. Therefore, Erdoğan will soon lose his efficiency within the party, just as Özal and Demirel, two charismatic characters, did. Erdoğan is making a mistake if he thinks that he can control his party from his presidential house. The illusion that İstanbul could have been controlled from Ankara should not be forgotten.

Also, there is a need to have a closer analysis of what happened on March 1, 2003, when the government’s proposal to deploy Turkish troops abroad and to allow foreign troops to position in Turkey received disapproval from the parliament. The AK Party leader Erdoğan, who won a crashing victory in the elections, and who gained reception from most senior officials across several famous capitals, could not succeed in earning his 1 March Proposal approval from the Turkish parliament.

There is a high likelihood that possible candidates will run for the leadership of AK Party at the first regular party congress, even if they cannot express their enthusiasm for this position during the election campaign, since Erdoğan still is in control. The factor of Necmettin Erbakan should not also be ignored, because he is waiting to take his revenge on Erdoğan, though he split up his party and pushed it below the election threshold. Those who have not yet taken off their shirt of Milli Görüş, or the National Viewpoint, a movement led by Erbakan, or who keep their shirt of Milli Görüş on the hook in case it may be necessary, can be more easily manipulated in a party that does not include Erdoğan. I guess the prime minister is far more concerned with the state of equilibrium within his party. And he will rest his decision primarily on this.

FDA Warns Not to Drink Jermuk Water

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to drink certain brands of mineral water imported from Armenia due to the risk of exposure to arsenic, a toxic substance and known cause of cancer in humans. Symptoms of acute arsenic exposure usually occur within several hours of consumption. The most likely effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. Over the period of a few days to weeks, the kidneys, liver, skin, and cardiovascular and nervous systems could be affected. Extended exposure could lead to cancer and death.

(Read more)

Turkey Bans Access to YouTube

Access to the popular video-sharing website YouTube has been suspended in Turkey following a court order.
The ban was imposed after prosecutors told the court that clips insulting former Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had appeared on the site.
According to Turkish media, there has been a "virtual war" between Greek and Turkish users of the site, with both sides posting insulting videos.
The clip prompting the ban reportedly dubbed Ataturk and Turks homosexuals.

(Read more)

Shadow over US-Turkish relations

DOGU ERGIL- Zaman Gazetesi

Next week the US Congress will debate the issue of the Ottoman treatment of the empire’s Armenian subjects during World War I. This is not going to be a scientific issue, since the Congress is not a scientific institution. It is not going to be a legal issue, either, because the US Congress has no right to pass judgment on what transpired 92 years ago in an alien land. The congressional resolution that will likely accuse the last Ottoman government of genocide or ethnic cleansing is nonbinding, yet it has relevance on two fronts. Such a resolution will morally weigh heavy on Turkey, which is presently under the spell of a nationalistic surge. The winds of nationalism will affect the impending presidential and general elections and may work against moderates and more internationalist-oriented political parties.

Secondly, since the US invasion of Iraq and the founding of a Kurdish autonomous administration there, the Turkish public and establishment (especially the powerful military) have gone into a frenzy under the impression that this initiative will eventually divide Turkey by example. Turkey has three times the Kurdish population of Iraq. Already blamed of having betrayed the strategic partnership between the two countries, the US will be further accused of festering the Armenian problem to no avail except for initiating a sinister plan to divide Turkey. Bizarre as such a statement might seem, this is a wide spread belief in Turkey. So it is most likely that the Armenian resolution will damage current US-Turkish relations at a time when both the Turkish establishment and the public feel besieged at the international arena.

No doubt, a vote that will be held at the US Congress next month will label the predicaments of the Armenians in the last decade of the Ottoman state as “genocide.” This is the name of the worst crime against humanity. Just like the annihilation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas by European invaders/settlers in the name of bringing “civilization” to these savage peoples. That is why the concept of “discovery” was disavowed by the scions of the original people of the Americas. Instead they replaced it with “encounter,” whereby the invaders wiped out the local civilization to replace it with their “superior” one. Not many people try to rally support to pass political judgment from their parliaments for these grand atrocities to accuse the Americans and the Spaniards of today for what the forbearers have done to millions. But then this is the character of politics more than anything else, it feeds on the feelings and interests of the electors and the elected of the day. The Armenian-American community in the US is 1.4 million strong, and it has powerful friends in the establishment, including the new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi among others.

What could the accusation that republican Turkey was an accessory to a crime that transpired before its existence mean? The already high anti-American feelings in Turkey will reach record highs for sure. Secondly, because it is an election year, the incumbent government, which is most likely to be the winner of the next election as well, will bend under public pressure to distance itself from the US. The outcome will be Turkey’s reluctance to support the US in its strategic plans concerning Iraq and Iran. It is no wonder that Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said the other day, “Turkey will not allow its soil to be used as a launching ground against Iran.” Commentators hint that this may be the beginning of a process that may be followed by denying (or at least restricting) the use of the strategic air base Incirlik in southern Turkey to the Americans, which has played a critical role in all NATO and American operations in the Middle East and Asia (e.g. Afghanistan).

To pass judgment on historical facts that are blurred with today’s political concerns may feel exiting for politicians, especially for the newly elected, who may think that they are morally righteous. But what do they know about the most basic facts of the volatile region where they are caught up presently? Can they distinguish between a Sunni and Shiite Arab and know why they are at odds and the Arabs in general with the Kurds? Their quest to repair the grief of the Armenians is going to inflict a similar wound on the Turkish psyche, which will grow callous to the ultimate need to open up the country to Western standards of democracy and cultural freedoms, which would sooner or later allow a rapprochement in history’s interpretation of what happened between Armenians and Turks. So what seems like a moral initiative by American politicians will be counterproductive. Their role must be to encourage dialogue and reconciliation, not the punishment of one side of the misdeeds of their ancestors four generations ago in return for the spiritual consolation of the other that will have no real consequences in promoting more understanding and empathy. And it is these qualities that are really missing in the shadow boxing between the Turks and the Armenians.

Washington Post article underscores contradictions in US vote on Armenian claims

A recent article in the Washington Post newspaper has called on Turkey not to take seriously the US Congressional vote on the non-binding resolution on the so-called Armenian genocide bill.

Post writer Jackson Diehl asserts that Turkey's behavior regarding the controversial bill should be "like one of the Western democracies," and that Turkey should simply "shrug its shoulders" and move on with regards to the bill. Diehl also notes in his article that no one much will place importance on the non-binding Armenian bill, pointing to another non-binding resolution passed by the House of Representatives against the Iraq war as an example.

Dielh also uses his article to point to the estimated 70-80 ethnic Armenian voters who live in US Congressman Adam Schiff's district, a fact he asserts helped shaped Schiff's heavy involvement in the writing of the bill. Diehl also recalls that many other ethnically Armenian voters live in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district; Pelosi has reiterated her support for the bill many times.

At one point in his article, Diehl touches on what he portrays as the lack of knowledge on the part of most House of Representatives members to even decide on such a long past subject as the alleged Armenian genocide. Says Diehl, "Just think, 435 House of Representative members, most of whom don't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, will decide on whether or not to approve of Adam Schiff's version of events which occured 92 years ago in the northeast region of Turkey."

Imagine…

ANDREW FINKEL, Zaman Gazetesi

Is Turkey about to get its second Nobel Prize winner? There was a very earnest recommendation made at a formal evening I attended in London this week hosted at the headquarters of Amnesty International UK but sponsored by many of the country’s other human rights organizations, including Index on Censorship, Open Democracy and English Pen. “A Turkish patriot” is how one speaker described the hoped for recipient. “A Martin Luther King,” said another. “A symbol that there is a way out of the current impasse,” said a third. The award would have to be made posthumously since Hrant Dink is dead.
The gathering I attended was a tribute to the murdered journalist at the end of what is, by Armenian custom, a period of mourning. That same custom holds that the soul of the deceased lingers for 40 days on earth and that it is incumbent on friends and family to wish it Godspeed as it finally departs. Of course Hrant Dink was a determined iconoclast, and I have a feeling that his spirit will hover far longer than the statutory 40 days.
Interesting about Wednesday night’s tribute was not just how many people managed to brave a blustery wet London night to attend (there were similar events in Istanbul and cities throughout the world) but the spirit in which it was conducted. I had been warned by a colleague that there was a feud going on over who “owned” Hrant Dink’s memory -- the assumption being that there would be an effort to appropriate the grief and outrage over his death to push for different political agenda including that of genocide recognition. However, there was no unseemly squabbling over his memory. Ronald Suny, an extraordinarily well-respected American political scientist of Armenian ancestry, made a point of stressing how Hrant’s greatest ambition was to see Turkey as a modern, fully democratic country and how this had often brought him into conflict with those in the diaspora motivated by the need if not for revenge then at least satisfaction.
The mood of the evening was that if Hrant Dink’s life symbolized anything, it was that there had to be a reconciliation between Turk and Armenian other than through silence and between Turkey and Armenia.
This is how I interpreted, at any rate, the tens of thousands who marched in his funeral cortege saying that “we are Armenians,” “we are all Hrants.” This is not everyone’s stated view. I read recently of an accusation (Feb. 26) by the head of the Turkish Historical Society, Yusuf Halaçoğlu that large segments of the crowds were organized subversives. They would not succeed in their aims, he said, because the march had the reverse effect of what they intended. Public opinion has hardened against them and “it is impossible to make anyone accept the genocide.”
It is odd in the extreme that a gathering organized by civil libertarians in London avoided turning Hrant Dink’s death into a parody of the genocide issue where the head of an august body like the Turkish Historical Society failed. I am shocked that a man of Professor Halaçoğlu’s education could be so insensitive. No doubt in the unlikelihood of Hrant Dink being given a Nobel Peace Prize, this too would be interpreted as an attempt by Scandinavian subversives to divide Turkey.
My own reading of these remarks, of those of some editors-in-chief of newspapers, of some hard-line nationalist politicians and even ministers, is that they are afraid. Just as others fear a wave of ultranationalism in Turkey, others fear that some people in society have slipped under the ropes used to corral them in. They fear they might lose the power of control.
I don’t want to exaggerate. What happened in 1915 is still a highly emotive issue in Turkey. But just for a moment, imagine a world in which Turkey, upon being told that the US Congress (or the Icelandic Althingi or the Japanese Diet), was thinking about recognizing a genocide did not 1) spend millions on expensive lobbyists; 2) boycott McDonald’s except on grounds other than health; 3) otherwise threaten to hold its breath until turning blue. Instead as a nation Turkey would shrug its shoulders, raise its eyebrows in exasperated fashion and say ,”Oh yes, once upon a time we used to think it was important to have an official history, to tell people what to think, but that was before we decided it was much less trouble to let them do so for themselves.”

SUPPORT THE ARMENIAN PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM IN HOLY FIRE CEREMONY

In response to a worldwide plea issued by the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Archbishop Oshagan issued an appeal in yesterday’s Crossroads E-Newsletter, encouraging everyone to immediately register their support of the Patriarchate on the ongoing dispute surrounding the Holy Fire Ceremony in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
The Holy Fire Ceremony is a religious ceremony that takes place on the Saturday of Holy Week, within the Tomb of Jesus Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Jacobite-Syrians, all participate in this miraculous Holy Saturday ceremony where the Holy Fire descends from Heaven and lights up the lamp within the Tomb of Christ. The ceremony is conducted according to precise and clear rules and arrangements, which have been in existence for hundreds of years. According to the centuries-old practice, the Greek Patriarch and Armenian Patriarch (or representative) enter the Holy Tomb together, kneel down in front of the Tomb together, and witness the miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire together. They then transfer the Holy Fire to members of the Eastern Churches through two windows located in the wall of the Angel’s Chapel.
During Easter of 2002, the newly elected Greek Patriarch, Irineos I (now deposed), incited a conflict inside the Holy Tomb with the Armenian Patriarch’s representative, by demanding a deviation for the status quo arrangements. Since that time the conflict has continued.
The Armenian Patriarchate has made petitions and requests to the Israeli government for a decision on the matter. After five years only promises have been given without any decisions. The Patriarchate is asking all Armenians to petition the Israeli government to act with a sense of duty and responsibility, and to uphold the centuries-old rights of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Fax or Email your messages today.

To read the Patriarchate’s appeal, names and addresses of officials to contact, and a sample letter, visit

www.armenianchurch.net/news/photos/holyfire.pdf

PM Erdogan to oversee re-opening of restored Armenian church on Van Lake

Hurriyet gazetesi

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in what many are viewing as a surprise response to Armenian diaspora efforts to get the so-called Armenian genocide bill accepted in the US Congress, has announced plans to personally open up the Armenian Sacred Cross Church on Van Lake's Akdaman Island.

The church, which has been carefully restored in a Ministry of Culture and Tourism project, will be re-opened on March 29, a date which some speculate has been chosen to proceed the April date when the Armenian bill is to be debated in the US Congress. Erdogan is reportedly planning to attend the opening ceremony for the Sacred Cross Church with a crowded delegation of ruling AKP cabinet and MP members. High ranking members of the Armenian diaspora are reportedly also to be invited to the opening, including Armenia's own Minister of Culture and Tourism, Hasmik Poghosyan.

Meanwhile, debate as to whether or not a cross is to be put on the top of the Sacred Cross Church's steeple rages on. Atilla Koc, the Minister of Culture and Tourism, has noted "If it turns out the original had one, then this one will too." The church, which sits on the Akdaman Island in Van Lake, was originally built by Vaspurakan King Gagik I between the years of 915-921 AD.