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.