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.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
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.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
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.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
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."
Sunday, March 4, 2007
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.”
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.”
Friday, March 2, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
