21 January 2004

1. "Turkish Army will Test Media's Confidence", the General Staff, for the first time, invited journalists from the Turkish daily "Yeni Safak," to the press conference on the use of the Incirlik Airbase and other important issues on the agenda.

2. "Turkey: "Women Without Money Cannot Become Candidates", the General Board of Directors of the Association to Support and Educate Women Candidates (KADER), said women were not able to apply to become candidates in local elections because high sums of money are required during the application process.

3. "Middle East Undergoing Dramatic Realignment", as a new year begins and the U.S. occupation of Iraq enters its tenth month, the Middle East is undergoing a series of changes that is altering the strategic calculus of the entire region.

4. "Kurds turn against US after losing control over oil-rich land", Kurdish community claims it had more autonomy under Saddam.

5. "Kurdistan diary: Day One", the BBC's Alastair Leithead has begun a week-long trip through Iraq into the Kurdish north of the country to look at the key issues as the coalition moves towards handing over power. This is the first instalment of his daily diary.

6. "Kurds, unity, autonomy", Kofi Annan now gets a chance to play the "vital role" in Iraq that the U.S. has promised.

7. "Movie on Armenians Rekindles Flame Over Turkish Past", Turks are among the world's proudest and most patriotic people, and many feel an especially deep admiration for their army, without which the nation might never have emerged from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire more than 80 years ago. But are they ready to see a film in which Ottoman Turkish soldiers shoot defenseless civilians and burn women alive? That question has set off a bitter debate here.

8. "Balkanende: Cyprus problem could make Turkish EU membership difficult", Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said that the unsolved Cyprus problem could negatively affect Turkish membership to the EU, especially if a solution is postponed to the second half of 2004.

1. - Bianet.org - "Turkish Army will Test Media's Confidence":

ANKARA / 20 January 2004

The General Staff, for the first time, invited journalists from the Turkish daily "Yeni Safak," to the press conference on the use of the Incirlik Airbase and other important issues on the agenda.

"This is an exception. We can say that we have accepted Yeni Safak as an intern. We will test their attitude," said the Secretary-General of the General Staff, Major-General Sabri Demireren, in response to a question.

Basbug: No invitation to insensitive media

The General Staff invited the Ankara representatives of accredited media organizations and defense reporters to its meeting on January 16 at the General Staff's military quarters.

The Incirlik Airbase, PKK, Iraq and Cyprus were among the topics discussed at the briefing. Deputy chief of staff General Ilker Basbug, in response to a question about the accreditation of media organizations, said the Turkish Armed Forces wanted unlimited press freedom, but expected the media to use this right with responsibility.

Basbug answered the question as follows:

* We view this issue with the basic principles of the Republic and universal values.

* We do not invite those media organizations that are not sensitive enough about these issues, to our activities.

* View this completely as institutional and personal. We have the right to review our list when we feel the need.

Demireren: We accepted Yeni Safak as an intern

According to the daily "Yeni Safak," the attitude of Secretary-General of the General Staff, Major-General Sabri Demireren was a little different:

"This is an exception. We can say we have accepted Yeni Safak as an intern. We will test their attitude and decide if we will invite them next time or not."

Yeni Safak writer Kursat Bumin's article had the headline: "Most Unfortunate for a Newspaper: Being accepted as an Intern." In his article, Bumin described the General Staff's "style" as "scandal in terms of democracy," and criticized media organizations for remaining silent.

2. - Bianet.org - "Turkey: "Women Without Money Cannot Become Candidates":

ISTANBUL / 20 January 2004

The General Board of Directors of the Association to Support and Educate Women Candidates (KADER), said women were not able to apply to become candidates in local elections because high sums of money are required during the application process.

KADER called on the political parties to comply with the "Agreement to Prevent All Kinds of Discrimination Against Women," Turkey has signed. KADER said women should be supported through special rules.

KADER called on the political parties to "allocate one thirds of their municipality candidature to women; and to place women higher up on the candidate lists of municipal elections."

KADER wants political parties to place at least one woman among the first three names on the list, two women among the first five and three women among the first seven. The association also called on political parties not to ask for money from women candidate candidates.

"Women do not apply for candidacy-they can't"

In a written statement, KADER said:

* Many women who come to KADER say they are required to pay a high amount of money to apply for candidacy in local elections. They cannot apply for candidacy because they do not have the money.

* A high number of women, who are ready to serve the people, are not able to do so because they do not have the money. And those who have some money do not want to give it to political parties because they know their names will not be placed high enough on the list to be elected.

* This situation is blocking democracy. Asking for thousands of dollars from women for candidacy applications and then saying "women will not become candidates," casts a shadow on local elections.

Women in local administrations is one percent

* In Turkey women and men do not start the candidacy race under equal circumstances. We live in a country where 84 percent of ownership belongs to men, where women get 20-50 percent less in salaries compared to men no matter if they are CEOs or factory workers.

* We do not think it is fair for political parties that get millions of dollars in aid from the state, to ask for high sums of money from women who apply for candidacy. We are protesting this.

* Women only have a percent of representation in local administrations. Turkey is among the last on the list worldwide for women representation. The local elections of March 28 will be an important opportunity to change this situation and end discrimination against women in local politics.

3. - KurdishMedia - "Middle East Undergoing Dramatic Realignment":

21 January 2004 / by Brian Maher

As a new year begins and the U.S. occupation of Iraq enters its tenth month, the Middle East is undergoing a series of changes that is altering the strategic calculus of the entire region. The U.S. military presence in the heart of the Middle East has had a substantial impact on the region, as regimes have adjusted their policies to adapt to new strategic realities. As Nadim Shehadi of Oxford University avers, "The U.S. has succeeded in triggering a dynamic for change," adding that "there is no way that things will remain as they are." Libya has agreed to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs and shed its pariah status, in addition to improving relations with Israel. Syria is trying to make nice with Israel and Turkey. Iran is opening itself to snap inspections by the IAEA and seeking rapprochement with Egypt after25 years of discord. It is also working behind the scenes with Washington over Iraq, in a largely unnoticed development that benefits both sides. The region hasn’t faced so much change in decades

First there’s Libya. It is not likely that Libya’s change of heart on its strategic weapons programs occurred without clear recognition of a potential U.S. threat. While negotiations had been ongoing for three years, Libya’s announcement to abandon its WMD programs and open its cupboards to international inspection in such close proximity to Saddam’s capture is difficult to ignore. In fact, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi confessed to the British that he was afraid of possible U.S. action. The U.S. seizure of uranium enrichment components aboard a German freighter bound for Libya in October sent a clear signal that the game was up, and may have convinced Gadhafi pursuing a nuclear program was no longer worth the candle.

Of course, in addition to impetus from U.S. actions, Gadhafi wanted to end U.S. sanctions and bring back U.S. oil companies. Internal factors also may have played a role in his cooperation with the U.S.. Although at one time Gadhafi exported Islamic fundamentalism to destabilize regional governments, it is he who is now the target of Islamic radicals in his own country, many affiliated with al-Qaeda, who see his regime as corrupt and anti-Islamic. By aligning with Washington, Gadhafi may hope to enlist U.S. cooperation in his fight against these groups, in addition to reaping the other obvious benefits.

The fallout from Tripoli’s decision may have larger consequences for the region. Libya’s relations with Israel are also on the upswing and Israel recently announced it was negotiating to establish diplomatic ties with Tripoli, which seemed quite unlikely a short time ago. Tripoli will only likely agree to this if U.S. sanctions against Libya are fully lifted, but it would be a major step. This is important because it would isolate Syria and put further pressure on Damascus to settle with Israel on Jerusalem’s terms, which is Israel’s real objective in openly courting Libya. Libya in itself is not especially important to Israel but Syria is. Damascus is also adjusting to new realities.

The U.S. military presence in Iraq has also had a serious impact on Damascus. With Libya out of the WMD game and Iran opening itself up for snap inspection of its nuclear facilities, the sclerotic Ba’athist regime in Syria sticks out like a sore thumb. President Assad has as much as admitted to possessing chemical weapons and possibly some biological to counter its Israeli nemesis. But surrounded by Israel, Turkey and the U.S. military, an isolated, weak Damascus with little bargaining power will ultimately have to reach some sort of accommodation with Washington, especially as the U.S. gains more ground against the insurgency. This will likely eventuate in the scrapping of its WMD programs and a significant reduction, if not complete official abandonment, of Damascus’ support for militant groups, at some point. In recognition of its straitened position, Damascus has taken steps to improve relations with Israel and Turkey in order to relieve some of the pressure.

It has invited Likud members of the Knesset to Damascus in order to advance the cause of Israeli-Syrian peace and President Assad has recently visited Turkey to foster relations with Istanbul. Syrian overtures will not bear fruit in Jerusalem since Israel will not take Damascus’ peace offerings seriously until it addresses its relationship with Hezbollah, which Damascus has relied on as a proxy against Israel. All in all, Damascus’ real audience is in Washington. Its chief objective in talking peace with Israel is to ease the pressure from the U.S., and Jerusalem realizes that. One can expect Damascus to reach out to other regional actors like Egypt and Iran in an attempt to strengthen its bargaining power. The Turkish front offers more tangible results.

Both Syria and Turkey, especially, share an interest in checking Kurdish ambitions in northern Iraq due to concerns about their own Kurdish populations. Istanbul is quite concerned about the problem, especially given the Kurds’ increasing restiveness in northern Iraq. Damascus hopes that joining forces with Istanbul over the Kurdish issue will lead to strengthened ties and, more importantly, provide a buffer against pressure from Washington. Ironically, Damascus wasn’t always so sensitive to Istanbul’s concerns about the Kurds and it supported the PKK, a Kurdish insurgency group operating in Turkey. In fact, Istanbul threatened to invade Syria in 1998 if it didn’t expel Abdullah Ocalan, a Kurdish leader. But that was then and this is now.

Washington’s relationship with Tehran has also undergone something of a transformation since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, although the dynamic is quite different from that of Libya or Syria. Iran is not Syria, and the U.S. cannot pressure Tehran the same way it can Damascus. Despite Iran’s inclusion in the "axis of evil" and the fact that considerable sources of tension still exist, such as Iran’s harboring of al-Qaeda suspects or the favorable U.S. treatment of the "People’s Mujahadeen," a militant group hostile to Tehran, developments in postwar Iraq have led to an alignment of the two countries’ interests. Iran’s influence with Iraq’s Shi’a population is the chief card that Tehran wields and Washington has had to accommodate that reality.

As the Sunni insurgency grew in its sophistication and scope, Washington needed to maintain stability in Iraq. This required the cooperation of the Shi’a majority, some 60 percent of the country’s population, which greatly feared the prospects of a Ba’athist resurrection. It also wanted to dominate the post-war government. Washington could not afford to lose the Shi’a population so it promised them control of the new government. Both Washington and Tehran, therefore, have an interest in promoting the interests of Iraqi Shi’a. It is highly unlikely that Tehran would have backed the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi Governing Council if it didn’t advance its interests. A non-threatening Iraq dominated by Shi’a is precisely what Iran has been seeking and Washington handed it to Tehran on a platter.

A Shi’a-dominated Iraq would provide Tehran with a historic opportunity to eliminate the threat along its western border and give it a greatly expanded influence in Middle Eastern affairs, allowing Iran to become the dominant regional power in the future. That is Tehran’s objective. That is not to say that tensions don’t exist between Iraqi Shi’a and Iran, but Tehran has sufficient influence among them to ensure that its interests are served. This temporary confluence of interests between Washington and Tehran will not last, however. Washington certainly does not welcome the prospects of a Middle East with undue Iranian influence -- nor does Saudi Arabia, which fears a dominant Iran -- but the administration’s foremost concern is securing Iraq, and it sees an alignment with Tehran as a practical necessity. Temporary alignments to satisfy an immediate problem are certainly nothing new, and are often quite necessary.

The entire region is undergoing a series of realignments. Even in South Asia, Pakistan and India are discussing peace. Washington stands to benefit from most of these developments. It is gaining greater control over the Middle East’s WMD programs and ensuring that its regimes take Washington’s interests into strong consideration. They do not want to find themselves in open opposition to American interests. The U.S. must still battle the insurgency in Iraq and manage multiple interests in the region, however, including its delicate relationship with Tehran. This will require the adroit application of its military, political, diplomatic and economic power. Times of change are also times of instability and can be highly unpredictable -- especially in the Middle East.

4. - The Independent - "Kurds turn against US after losing control over oil-rich land":

Kurdish community claims it had more autonomy under Saddam

21 January 2004 / by Patrick Cockburn

Iraqi Kurds, the one Iraqi community that has broadly supported the American occupation, are expressing growing anger at the failure of the United States and its allies to give them full control of their own affairs and allow the Kurds to expel Arabs placed in Kurdistan by Saddam Hussein.

Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, told The Independent in an interview that the Kurds had been offered less autonomy "than we had agreed in 1974 with the regime of Saddam Hussein".

The Kurds, the main Iraqi victors of the war last year, want, in effect, to keep the mini-state in northern Iraq they ruled after Saddam withdrew his army in1991 . They also want the US and the Iraqi Governing Council to recognise the Kurdish identity of the oil-rich province of Kirkuk and other districts from which Kurds were forced to flee by the deposed dictator and his predecessors.

Mr Barzani, a neatly dressed, rather intense man who fought for decades against the old regime, was in Baghdad to seek to persuade the US-appointed governing council, of which he is a member, to recognise the federal autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Sitting in a gloomy house in Saddam’s old palace complex, Mr Barzani said it was important for the Kurdish right to home rule to be enshrined in the Iraqi Basic Law that is now being drawn up.

But he is caustic about the governing council. "Their main priority seems to be travelling abroad," he said, and added that many members of the council were formerly part of the Iraqi opposition who had committed themselves again and again over the years to a federal solution for the Iraqi Kurds and should not now abandon their old promises.

But Mr Barzani confirmed that "we all believe the Kurdish issue should be resolved within Iraq itself". The Kurds of Iraq know that if they did opt for independence that would precipitate a Turkish invasion, probably aided by Syria and Iran. All three countries have large Kurdish minorities. He said: "They should be grateful to us because it is only the Kurdish issue which brings them together."

The Iraqi Kurds were extraordinarily fortunate during the brief war to overthrow Saddam last year. Before the war, Washington intended to invade Iraq from the north using Turkish bases and accompanied by a Turkish army. The Kurds were told by the US to keep quiet, though they protested furiously. In the event, the Turkish parliament rejected the US demand. The Americans were compelled to rely on the Kurds to create a northern front against Saddam. As the regime in Baghdad collapsed, Kurdish forces swept into the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. The Kurds saw that as a first step towards reversing ethnic cleansing which pre-dates Saddam’s regime.

"Kurds have been very patient, but it is impossible to wait another 10or 15 years. This would lead to major problems," Mr Barzani said.

He said that the Kurdish leaders could have acted opportunistically by sending back Kurdish refugees and expelling Arabs in the immediate aftermath of liberation. Instead they waited. He said: "We are not happy with the process. We are disappointed. Some Arabs who left have now returned. We are not against Arabs who have always lived there but those who came because of Arabisation must go back."

There are the seeds here for a savage ethnic conflict. The Arabs and Turkomans in Kirkuk are frightened. Many of the Arab settlers have been there for more than a generation and it is not clear where they would go. The last year has seen a number of small-scale but bloody clashes.

Mr Barzani emphasised that the Kurds were giving up control over defence, foreign and fiscal policy to central government. At the moment, that is not great sacrifice as there is no Iraqi army, the Foreign Minister is the very able Kurdish leader Hoshyar Zebari and fiscal policy is not a topic on which most Kurds feel strongly. The Kurdish position is, for the moment, very strong since the Kurds are well organised and their peshmerga fighters are the largest Iraqi military force in the country. But they fear that their current superiority may not last and their gains over the past year will be chipped away as the face of the country changes.

The US cannot afford to alienate the Kurds, but the Kurds also need to keep their alliance with America. It is US air power that allowed the Iraqi Kurds to achieve de facto independence after1991 . And it is the US that keeps Turkey out of northern Iraq.

The problem for the Kurds is that the best guarantee for their autonomy is to play a central role in a new Iraqi government. But Kurdish control of Kirkuk and the reversal of Arabisation may lead to constant friction between Kurdish and Iraqi Arab leaders in future.

5. - BBC - "Kurdistan diary: Day One":

20 January 2004 / by Alastair Leithead

The BBC's Alastair Leithead has begun a week-long trip through Iraq into the Kurdish north of the country to look at the key issues as the coalition moves towards handing over power. This is the first instalment of his daily diary.

Only a couple of hours out of Baghdad there's a geological fault that the Kurds say marks the end of Iraq and the start of Kurdistan.

The foothills of the Jabal Harim mountains that cross the main road north are an impressive sight looming out of the morning mist.

But the small Iraqi checkpoint, with its cheery and welcoming soldiers who waved as they ushered us past, is many miles from the current border with the area administered by the Kurdish authorities.

Iraq's Kurds have enjoyed a huge level of independence from Baghdad for more than 10 years, thanks to the American and British fighter pilots patrolling the no-fly zone which have protected them from Saddam Hussein.

Not only are they now refusing to give up their autonomy, they want a lot more.

Our first destination - just another hour up the road, is Kirkuk - a city which would be the jewel in the crown for an autonomous Kurdistan, and one the divided leaders who now seem to speak with one voice would love to control. Not least because it contains more than a third of Iraq's oil reserves.

Whose territory?

It's a city where the Kurds say they are the majority amid the Arabs, Turkomans and Assyrians who make up this ethnically diverse part of Iraq. They may well be right.

The Kurds stake a historic claim to it as being their city, but what they dub Saddam Hussein's "Arabisation" has shaken the region to its core and left a legacy that could again bring Iraq to its knees.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been displaced over the years in northern Iraq in large-scale ethnic cleansing which included the use of chemical weapons. They were driven from their homes to make way for Arabs paid to move north.

Now the Kurds want their homes back.

Tented cities filled with Kurds who have returned to Kirkuk since the fall of Saddam Hussein are scattered around the outskirts of the city. They are waiting and hoping to return to their homes - to the place they were born.

They are not alone. The Turkomans also want their houses back, but many of the Arab settlers don't want to move.

They have documents proving the land is theirs - a new judicial process should be unveiled by the Iraqi Governing Council later this week to settle land claims. It will be a long process and one that will not be satisfactory for all.

How Kirkuk fits into a federal Iraq - and the proposed autonomous region of Kurdistan - is a major stumbling block in the move towards the US-led coalition handing over power to a sovereign Iraq.

The Kurdish flags fly in Kirkuk and the city feels very different to the rest of the country - certainly far less tense than Baghdad - and we are not even in Kurdistan yet.

6. - The New York Times - "Kurds, unity, autonomy":

Kofi Annan now gets a chance to play the "vital role" in Iraq that the U.S. has promised.

20 January 2004 / by William Safire

Iraqi, U.S. and British representatives planned to troop into his New York office Monday with a request: Inform the Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani, that the world body supports a reasonable timetable for Iraqi elections, not a premature election that would amount to a coup by Iraq's Shiite majority.

As the United Nations thus demonstrates its nation-building usefulness, the United States will face its own delicate task: to persuade the Kurds in the north not to demand so much autonomy that it may endanger the nation's unity.

Here is what we owe the Iraqi Kurds, targets of genocide, as demonstrated in Saddam Hussein's poison-gas massacre of 5,000 innocents in Halabja:

(1.) We abandoned Kurds to the shah in the '70s, after Mullah Mustafa Barzani placed his trust in America. We double-crossed them again after the Persian Gulf War, when their forces rose at our instigation and were decimated by Saddam's gunships. Despite this double duplicity, Kurds fought on our side with little equipment and great valor against Saddam for more than a decade.

(2.) After we protected this non-Arab people in a no-flight zone, Kurds overcame tribal differences to establish a working free-enterprise democracy in Iraq's north, now a model of freedom for the rest of the country.

(3.) Despite casualties elsewhere in the post-victory war, not a single U.S. soldier has been killed (knock wood) in the area called Iraqi Kurdistan and patrolled by the pesh merga, its battle-hardened Kurdish militia. (In a blunder, however, Kurdish leaders suspicious of Turkey blocked the contribution of 10,000 Turkish troops to help us put down the Baathist insurgency.)

The Kurds owe their American ally plenty, too: U.S. and British air forces, from bases in cooperative Turkey, secured the Iraqi Kurds from Saddam's predations for a decade. And last year we freed all Iraqis from that dictator forever.

Now Americans and Kurds need each other's understanding. The United States is committed to helping to build a unified Iraq, with no path to secession and with representation based on geography, not ethnicity. The Kurds, a 20 percent minority in Iraq, are committed only to autonomy within a federal Iraq: They refrain from declaring independence but require constitutional and security guarantees that they will not be tyrannized again.

"We cannot afford another Halabja," says Barham Salih, the articulate Kurd who would make Iraq's most effective U.N. representative. "Surely Americans grasp the value of states' rights, and remember how all states had to ratify your Constitution."

Though Arab Iraqis are happy to let the Kurds continue to run their local affairs in what used to be the no-flight zone, many find trouble arising in other Kurdish lands seized by Saddam, who drove Kurds from their homes and moved in his supporters to "Arabize" the area.

The key is the city of Kirkuk, which Iraqi Kurds consider their capital. But Arab colonists and indigenous Turkmen dispute that hotly, as does Turkey, worried about a rich Kurdistan attracting Turkish Kurds. Kirkuk sits atop an ocean of oil holding 40 percent of Iraq's huge reserves.

Determined to reverse Saddam's ethnic cleansing, Salih insists that "Kirkuk is not about oil." (I think of Sen. Dale Bumpers' line during impeachment: "When you hear somebody say, 'This is not about sex' -- it's about sex.")

Our Paul Bremer recently told Kurdish leaders brusquely to forget the past U.S. autonomy policy and get with the unity program; they suggested he stick that in his ear.

He has since modified his demeanor, and Washington is reviewing our policy reversal. Mollified Kurds then met constructively with Iraqi Arabs, and Salih meets on Thursday with "our friends to the north [Turkey]."

The solution should include relocation funds for Arabs displaced by returning Kurds; a referendum to decide status within a Kurdish or other Iraqi "governorate"; legal protections in Kirkuk for Turkmen, Christians and other minorities; and the pesh merga's place in Iraq's national military command.

"The oil is part of the national treasure," says Salih, in autonomy's concession to unity. "We just want to make sure that Iraq's oil wealth is never again used against Kurds."

7. - The New York Times - "Movie on Armenians Rekindles Flame Over Turkish Past":

ISTANBUL / 20 January 2004 / By Stephen Kinzer

Turks are among the world's proudest and most patriotic people, and many feel an especially deep admiration for their army, without which the nation might never have emerged from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire more than 80 years ago. But are they ready to see a film in which Ottoman Turkish soldiers shoot defenseless civilians and burn women alive? That question has set off a bitter debate here.

The film is "Ararat," a 2002 release by the Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan in which the expulsion of Armenians from what is now eastern Turkey in 1915 is depicted in scenes of horrific brutality. Although the film would certainly shock and outrage many Turks, the government has approved it for screening.

"Those who want to see the film can go," said the minister of culture and tourism, Erkan Mumcu. He said showing it would "prove that Turkey is a democratic country."

This was a remarkable step in a country where open discussion of the 1915 massacres has long been taboo. Turkey is loosening many restrictions on free speech as part of a reform project aimed in part at persuading the European Union to look favorably on its application for membership.

After Mr. Mumcu's decision to allow "Ararat" to be shown, however, an extreme nationalist group earlier this month threatened to attack any movie house where it was shown. That led the distributor to "indefinitely postpone" plans to release the film in Turkey.

"Would you want to watch a movie in a theater that could be stoned or where there could be violence?" asked the distributor, Sabahattin Cetin. The group that made the disruptive threats is the youth wing of the Nationalist Action Party, which was part of the government until it was voted out of power in the November 2002 election. "I dare them to show it," the group's president, Alisan Satilmis, said in a television interview.

Devlet Bahceli, the Nationalist Action leader, who until 2002 was Turkey's deputy prime minister, said he agreed with his youth group. "It would be in our interest to investigate why a film that is against the Turkish nation has been imported into Turkey," he said.

This view appears out of step with the intensifying desire of many Turks for broader democratic freedoms. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government are arguably more committed to full democracy than any government in Turkish history. Nationalist forces fear that Mr. Erdogan is preparing to make a historic deal to end the long dispute over Cyprus, and they may be forcing a confrontation over "Ararat" in an effort to portray him as unpatriotic.

Even some Turkish commentators who pride themselves on their nationalist convictions have urged that "Ararat" be shown here.

"Every Turk should see this film," one of them, Omer Lutfi Mete, wrote in the mass-circulation daily Sabah. "Otherwise how can we respond to their accusations?"

Another Turkish commentator, Etyen Mahcupyan, who is of Armenian descent, said the Nationalist Action Party, known here as M.H.P., was using this controversy to regain its lost visibility.

" `Ararat' was a very good opportunity for them," Mr. Mahcupyan said. "They are on TV again, waving the nationalist flag. Trying to prevent the film from being shown is mainly a tactic of M.H.P., but we also know that they are in coalition with other forces, like the nationalist left and the deep bureaucracy. Their timing was good because they sensed that the government was not strong enough to resist on this issue."

Turkish and Armenian historians have given widely differing accounts of what happened in 1915. They agree that Armenians were chased from their ancestral homeland in eastern Anatolia, and that hundreds of thousands perished. Armenians say this action was planned and organized by the Ottoman government. Some Turks, however, insist that Armenians, backed by czarist Russia, were rebelling against Ottoman rule, and that what they call "the events" of 1915 were tragic but must be seen against the background of World War I and the crumbling Ottoman Empire.

A few years after the massacre of Armenians, Turkish rebels led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk overthrew the Ottoman government and in 1923 established the present-day Republic of Turkey. Generations of Turkish leaders have refused to condemn Ottoman officials like Talat Pasha, who was instrumental in organizing the expulsion of Armenians.

Mr. Egoyan showed "Ararat" at the Cannes International Film Festival in 2002, and it has attracted considerable attention since. The film, whose cast includes Christopher Plummer, Eric Bogosian and Charles Aznavour, has been shown in more than two dozen countries and won several awards. Reviews were mixed, but many critics praised it for raising difficult issues.

" `Ararat' clearly comes from Mr. Egoyan's heart, and it conveys a message he urgently wants to be heard: that the world should acknowledge and be shamed that a great crime was committed against his people," Roger Ebert wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times. "The message I receive from the movie, however, is a different one: that it is difficult to know the truth of historical events, and that all reports depend on the point of view of the witness and the state of mind of those who listen to the witness."

Mr. Egoyan said in an interview that he had ancestors who were killed in eastern Anatolia during the trauma that shattered their community in the second decade of the 20th century. He compared his film to Steven Spielberg's Holocaust drama, "Schindler's List," which he said relied on "historical contrivances, some very troubling, that were used to dramatic effect but were not accurate ways of transcribing what actually occurred."

"Films are by nature a very dubious way of presenting history," Mr. Egoyan said. "I'm very uneasy with what occurs when you combine notions of atrocity and glamour. Every decision to light a character in a certain way, to add a certain sound effect, to put in musical cue, makes a film interpretive. There's no way that any dramatic reconstruction is not going to be in some way a retelling. That's the nature of storytelling.

"But the very event this film refers to is something that is not accepted as a historical reality by the state of Turkey, despite the fact that every serious scholar of genocide has affirmed it. Many people there will see this whole thing as a fabrication. That's the fundamentally absurd aspect of the situation we're in."

One of the few Turkish intellectuals who have seen "Ararat" is the columnist and journalism professor Haluk Sahin, who saw it during a visit to Boston a year ago. He said he found it "confusing and confused, incoherent, overly artistic but cold, not free of hatred and devoid of compassion." But he said it was significant that the Turkish government favored showing it here.

"This is perhaps the first time a government of Turkey is trying to release a controversial anti-Turkish film while others are trying to stop it," Mr. Sahin said. "It's a real role reversal. In the old days the government would have a film banned, and sometimes the companies would be able to have it freed through appeals to courts, and people would flock to see it. Now the minister of culture is saying Turkey is mature enough to tolerate a film of this sort regardless of its anti-Turkish content, while the ultranationalists are issuing threats against its showing. Nothing like this has ever happened before."

This is not the first time Turks have felt slandered by a popular film. In the late 1970's many were outraged by "Midnight Express," the story of a young American drug smuggler who was jailed in Turkey. The script, by Oliver Stone, portrayed Turks as irredeemably brutal.

In agreeing to allow "Ararat" to be shown here, Mr. Mumcu, the culture minister, recalled the controversy over "Midnight Express." He said Turks drew attention to that film by their emotional attacks on it.

"We will not let Turkey experience another `Midnight Express,' " he said. "Strong reaction to this movie would only help keep the subject on the agenda."

8. - Cihan News Agency - "Balkanende: Cyprus problem could make Turkish EU membership difficult":

AMSTERDAM / 21 January 2004

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said that the unsolved Cyprus problem could negatively affect Turkish membership to the EU, especially if a solution is postponed to the second half of 2004.

Balkanende will become EU term President on July 1, 2004. Pointing out that the European Commission will publish a report at the end of the year he added, "I'm aware that membership is very important for Turkey."

In an interview with the Turkish Zaman daily newspaper, he said that without a solution to the Cyprus problem, Turkey would face difficulties in forwarding its case with the EU.

He praised the performance and efforts of the current AK Party government in achieving better standards in human rights, recalling the problems Turkey has faced in the past in this regard. He also added that Turkey still had some way to travel in order to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria.

"There are certain laws that could be reviewed, but implementation and effects on everyday life are important. Religious liberty exists but there there are still some practical problems in implementation. Changing the law is not enough."
CDA against timetable for full accession talks with Turkey

Meanwhile, deputy chairman and foreign affairs specialist of the ruling Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA), M. J. M. Verhagen gave a special interview to Cihan's Amsterdam correspondent in which he said that the CDA was against giving a clear timetable to Turkey for full accession talks.

Verhagen commented firstly on the shooting of a Dutch teacher by a Turkish boy and said, "I think this event showed that Dutch and Turkish people should cooperate to make Holland a safer country."

A 17 year-old Turkish student, M.D., shot dead his 49-year-old biology teacher, Hans van Wieren -- who was also vice-principal of the Terra College in The Hague, Holland -- on Jan. 14. M.D. had been suspended from the school and had come to discuss his punishment when the crime was committed. The student, accompanied by a friend, shot his teacher in the school canteen in front of other teachers and students and then ran away.

Verhagen said, "It is important not to stir up ethnic trouble in Dutch society when reacting to the event. I have stated my ideas during integration meetings. We need to work together and work hard in the coming years to avoid repetitions."

Verhagen said that the Dutch government should enter into close contact with Turkish society in Holland but added, "The CDA has stated that the EU should not give a clear timetable to Turkey for full accession talks. We also opposed the ten countries that will become full members of the European Union on May 1, 2004 and we also oppose Bulgarian and Romanian EU membership for 2007. We look at the criteria set by the EU for full membership and if countries fulfill the criteria, we can then talk."

Verhagen said that according to the EU, Turkey should fulfill political criteria, respect human rights and minority rights and that the army should be under democratic control. He said that these criteria were also the essence of the Copenhagen criteria set for Turkey and if these problems were solved and the Cyprus problem were not solved, the Cyprus problem would be a problem for Turkey. Verhagen said that all members of the European Commission had said that Turkey should cooperate to solve the Cyprus problem; so the Cyprus problem was an important issue. He said that the EU would not tolerate an armed clash within the EU on the Cyprus problem between Turkey and Greece and that the EU did not want war and instability.