But things rapidly got worse for Dink in January 2007. Sentenced by a court for “insulting Turkishness,” he was vilified by mainstream newspapers and called in to a meeting at the Istanbul governor’s office to be warned that he had gone too far. “I am now a target,” he wrote. “My soul,” he wrote shortly after the meeting, “has the skittishness of a dove … a bit frightened, but free.”

The day those words were published, Dink was gunned down outside his newspaper’s office, shot in the head three times by Ogun Samast, then 17, who was later apprehended in Trabzon, a city on the Black Sea coast, where patriotism and machismo run high. Leaked pictures showed police and army officers apparently giving the young man a hero’s welcome: they posed, smiling, against the backdrop of a Turkish flag.

Samast’s trial in juvenile court ended last July with a 23-year prison sentence. But Dink’s family and supporters have pushed for a full investigation into the affair, leading to a separate trial for other alleged conspirators that began in 2007 at the same time of the Samast procedures. The police, Dink’s advocates argued, knew of the plot to kill him and did nothing to prevent it. He was deliberately targeted, they say, as part of a well-orchestrated plan to provoke violence. In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights concurred. The question of a larger conspiracy became a test of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government’s self-professed desire to finally purge nationalist elements within the police and bureaucracy who believe themselves beyond the reach of the law.

On Tuesday, an Istanbul court ruled that Yasin Hayal, a militant nationalist, was guilty of masterminding the murder and sentenced him to life. But it dropped charges against 19 suspects, including the accused instigator Erhan Tuncel, a member of a far-right nationalist party and allegedly a police informant. The court rejected claims that there was wider plot.

“This ruling means a tradition was left untouched. The state tradition of political murders,” said the Dink family’s lawyer Fethiye Cetin outside the courtroom. “The tradition of the state discriminating against some of its citizens and turning them into enemies.” Hundreds of supporters carrying Dink’s picture and chanting slogans accompanied her. “The murderers will be made accountable,” they chanted. “This case won’t end here.” (See photos of Istanbul’s streets.)

“The Turkish authorities have failed to address state officials’ alleged involvement in the killing of journalist and human-rights activist Hrant Dink,” said Amnesty International. “The security services knew of the murder plot and were in communication with those accused of the murder, yet nothing was done to stop it taking place.”

According to rights activists, the case file is riddled with contradictions, misplaced evidence, ATM-camera footage that mysteriously disappeared and dozens of other suspect details. Even more striking is that since the trial began in 2007, several individuals believed to be involved in Dink’s assassination have been arrested in connection with Ergenekon, an alleged ultra-nationalist network that sought to topple the government. Yet lawyers have been unable to question them about their connection to the Dink case. “This shows us that the boundaries between who is immune from prosecution or not are predrawn, and you can only go after someone when the state deems it appropriate, which is not the case for Hrant Dink’s murder,” said the Istanbul-based Human Rights Platform in a special report.

Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul promised last year to personally pursue the case — “a clean Turkey,” he said, “was a personal responsibility.” He ordered state auditors to look into the allegations, although little has come of that initative, and his reaction to Tuesday’s verdict remains to be seen. Dink’s family — his wife, son and daughter — will likely appeal the ruling.

By Pelin Turgut / Istanbul

http://www.time.com/

Armenians are almost approaching the end in their genocide claims. They have made the world accept their claims by working continuously like industrious ants for 100 years. While they were explaining their pain and what they had to live through, we did not even discuss among ourselves what had happened. We buried our heads in the sand and have reached these days. We could not reply in a persuasive manner. We lost the case.

We are not aware but the Armenians are exiling us. This time they are making us walk the “Deportation March.”

They have lined us up in front of the international public and making us walk. They are replicating in a different way what we had done 100 years ago. Whichever country’s Parliament we are passing by, we are stigmatized as “genocide criminal” with our heads bowed.

Every time we are stigmatized, we are angry and have a fit, then after a while, we are calm again and act as if nothing has happened. Maybe we want to forget. Whereas this “deportation walk” we chose to ignore continues and it will reach its most important stop in 2015. According to Armenians, they will have the last word on the 100th anniversary of the genocide.

The genocide claims that have been accepted in the Parliaments of 19 countries will most importantly be passed in the United States Congress. After that, the others will come easily.

Now, you will see, the fight with France will be forgotten after a while; we will focus on other issues.
At this point, it is impossible to stop the course of events by writing books and filming documentaries. From now on, we should either take such bold steps as to surprise the international public and make them doubt the Armenian allegations or dare being stigmatized with genocide and start planning its measures beginning now.

What I wonder the most now is whether Ankara has any medium or long-term preparations on the topic, or whether or not there is a working group. If there is one, I will both be surprised and pleased. If there is not, I would not be surprised. I would just say, “Our typical stance” and bow to fate. But if protests and loud voices start after the inevitable, then let alone the international public, even I would not believe them.

Armenians will expose us as genocide criminals to the whole world with our submitted postures and also make us continue with our “Deportation March.”

Employ the 70,000 illegal Armenians in Turkey

Instead of solving problems with wise methods, we generally try to knock down the walls blocking us. It has always happened that way and we cannot abandon this habit of ours.

Here is the latest example: In order to confront the Armenian genocide claims, we are making threats which we do not know, in general, how much of it we can enforce. We utter harsh words. Some of us suggest apprehending the Armenian citizens who are thought to be around 70,000 working illegally in our country and deport them. This way, they claim, Armenia would be punished and those expatriated would react to Yerevan.

I am suggesting just the opposite. I am saying, “Let’s take a positive step, not negative.” Because extraditing 70,000 desperate people would inflict an even bigger harm on our country and make them say, “See, Turks are this brutal.” I suggest we should protect those people. These people are here because they are in a life struggle; they are working away from home. If we really want to create a lobby, let us issue long-term multi-entry visas to these people. Let us issue working permits. Moreover, let’s give citizenship to those who demand it. Then, you will see what real lobbying can attain…

If we can use our heads to take some positive steps, then our job will be much easier.

December/27/2011

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/

Ֆրանսիայի սենատը հունվարի 10-ից մինչև փետրվարի 22-ը նստաշրջան է ունենալու ու քննարկվելու է Հայոց Ցեղասպանությունը հերքումը քրեական պատժի ենթարկող օրինագիծը։ Ու բնականաբար, կա դեսպանի կարիքը, ով պետք է փորձի անդրկուլիսյան աշխատանքներ վարել այն կասեցնելու համար։

On 24 April each year, the day of commemoration of the Armenian genocide, thousands of people gather at Tsitsernakapert to place a flower at the monument – and then walk down the other side of the hill where, on a clear day, there is a magnificent view of Mount Ararat, with its white glaciers as if hanging from heaven. It is a poignant sight, for Ararat is both the visible totem of the Armenians yet remains unreachable to them, since it lies on the other side of the border that divides Armenia from Turkey. The two countries’ 300-kilometre-long frontier, which runs only 40 kilometres from the centre of Yerevan, is closed: the last closed border of the cold war.

I went to Tsitsernakapert to visit Hayk Demoyan, the director of the genocide museum which is part of the cluster of monuments on the site. “This museum tells the history of not only the Armenian people, but also that of the Turkish people”, Demoyan tells me. He refers to the the diplomatic exchanges since 2008 that sought to normalise Armenian-Turkish relations, saying that he expected these to prompt “a flow of Turkish visitors”. It has proved a vain hope. “The international community, especially the Americans, did not exert enough sustained pressure on Turkey to open up the border”, Demoyan says. “Now the process is at a dead-end”.

From blockade to diplomacy

The complicated relationship between Armenia and Turkey is rooted in the events of the great war of 1914-18, when the Ottoman administration deported en masse its Armenian citizens from their towns and villages in Anatolia, the prelude to the anihilation of almost the entire Armenian population of the empire. The legacy of this bitter history was such that only in the early 1990s, amid the break-up of the Soviet Union and Armenia’s attempts to secure its independence, did a chance arise for Armenia and Turkey to move beyond deep antagonism and create normal relations.

At the time, Armenia’s new political leadership was trying to escape Moscow’s influence and prepared to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey without preconditions. But the escalation of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave inside the new state of Azerbaijan with a majority Armenian population, posed a major obstacle to this course. Turkey’s then leadership supported Azerbaijan in this conflict, refused to open diplomatic links, and (in 1993) joined Azerbaijan in imposing an economic blockade on land-locked Armenia in an effort to force it to end its backing for the Karabakh Armenians’ quest for self-determination.

A frozen conflict ensued, until the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008 overturned the region’s geopolitical map. Ankara saw a chance to address this anomaly of its Caucasus policy. On 8 September 2008, Turkey’s head of state Abdüllah Gül visited Yerevan during a football world-cup qualifying match between the two national teams, and this was followed by a series of diplomatic meetings where practical steps were discussed.

In fact, secret diplomatic talks had been held in Bern since 2007, mediated by the Swiss foreign ministry. The chain of diplomatic contacts culminated in the signing in Zurich on 10 October 2009 of two “protocols”, dedicated to establishing diplomatic relations and on opening the borders. The ceremony, hosted by Swiss foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, was attended by international dignitaries such as United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.

“What is ironic is the fact that during the cold war this border was not so hermeticaly closed as it is now. At the time, trains travelled regularly between Kars and Leninakan [now Gumri]“, says Tatul Hakobyan, a Yerevan-based author who is finishing a book on Armenia-Turkey relations. Hakobyan’s interpretation of the failure of dialogue is interesting: “The expectations of the various sides were based on wrong calculations. The Armenian side thought that it was possible to change the status quo on Armenian-Turkish relations without changing the status quo on the Karabakh issue. Turkey thought that dialogue with Armenia will lead to Armenian concessions on Karabakh. And the international community did not pay enough attention to details.”

The protocol-signing process in Zurich was fraught: the Turkish side wanted a public declaration linking the protocols with the Karabakh negotiations process, leading the Armenian delegation to boycott the ceremony, meaning that in the end there was no declaration. “In Zurich, the sides showed that they were not ready to compormise. Turkey wanted Armenian concessions on Karabakh, not just on the question of genocide and fixing the current border”, says Hakobyan.

The results of failure

When the process began, both presidents took risks in the hope of bringing peace and stability to their countries. For Armenia’s Serge Sarkissian, entering a dialogue with Turkey was a particularly bold step; he was already challenged by a powerful domestic opposition that contested the legitimacy of his election, and the diplomatic move so angered the Tashnaktsutyun party (which has a large diaspora base) that it left the government coalition in protest. The signing of the protocols also created a schism between Yerevan and Armenian communities abroad, which Sarkissian experienced directly when, during a foreign tour of diaspora communities, he was faced by demonstrations in Paris, Los Angeles and Beirut.

For Turkey’s diplomacy, the policy of rapprochement with Armenia was part of a wider effort to ease tensions in the Caucasus’s several conflict-zones, especially that of Karabakh. They believed that ameliorating Ankara’s relations with Armenia would facilitate negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Instead, they were confronted by a vehement reaction from Azerbaijan that accused Turkey of betraying Baku’s interests. Baku threatened to suspend relations with Ankara and to cancel future hydrocarbon deals. As a result, the Turkish leadership insisted that Armenia made concessions over Karabakh on the grounds that this would enable the protocols to be ratified by the Turkish parliament. Ankara was here not just seeking measures additional to those foreseen in the protocols, but reverting to its earlier position that Armenian-Turkish relations can only move forward if Armenia complies with Azerbaijani demands on the Karabakh conflict.

Thus, both Armenia and Turkey entered the process of negotiations without anticipating all the moves they might be expected to make, and were surprised along the way. Yerevan’s diplomats proceeded to sign the protocols without consulting diaspora communities, amid protests by diaspora communities against the president of Armenia for the first time since independence. Ankara similarly misjudged its capacity to resist opposition from Baku, and even a reversal of its policy has not allayed Azerbaijani suspicions.

The failure of the protocols is so great that it will have long-term consequences. “The failure of Armenian-Turkish negotiations will harden the Armenian position on Karabakh negotiations”, according to Ara Tadevosyan, the director of the Media Max news agency in Yerevan. Even worse, what started as personal initiatives and cautious trust has turned into mistrust. Today, the Armenian leadership feels deceived by its Turkish equivalent: it signed two protocols for which it had already paid a political price back home, only to be asked to make further concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh.

This perceived deception will harden Yerevan’s position in relation to Turkey, only three years before the centenary commemoration of the Armenian genocide in 2015. Turkey’s official reaction to the proposed outlawing of the denial of genocide in France shows that attitudes on its side are becoming even more intransigent. The hopes of 2009 look ever more distant.

30th December 2011

http://www.opendemocracy.net/vicken-cheterian/armenia-turkey-end-of-rapprochement

ISTANBUL // Cracks have appeared between Turkey’s ruling party and the movement of an Islamic preacher that has been an influential supporter of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister.

The movement led by Fethullah Gulen, a 70-year-old preacher who lives in the United States, has been a key supporter of the Erdogan government, which is led by pious Muslims and has roots in political Islam. Some critics say the Gulencis, as the supporters of Mr Gulen are called in Turkey, have gained vast influence over state institutions.

But several decisions by Mr Erdogan have put off the Gulencis, as differences of interests between themselves and Mr Erdogan, a seasoned politician and party leader who always has an eye on the next elections, become apparent.

Mustafa Akyol, a columnist and author of a recent book, Islam without Extremes – A Muslim Case for Liberty, said the views of the Gulen movement, which runs several non-governmental organisations, media and universities in Turkey, matter to the government.

“They have a few million supporters in Turkey, so they have voting power, and they have influence via NGOs and the media,” Mr Akyol said. “There are some differences of opinion that have become more visible,” Mr Akyol said.

Mr Gulen’s influence on Turkish politics is informal, given that Islamic groups are officially banned in Turkey’s secular republic. That is why signs of discord between his movement and the government are often expressed by innuendo and reflected in comments by media outlets close to the two sides, rather than in public statements by key players themselves. Officials at the Journalists and Writers Foundation, the Gulen movement’s flagship organisation in Turkey, were not available for an interview.

Tensions between the Gulencis and the government rose earlier this month when media close to Mr Gulen criticised Mr Erdogan’s decision to reduce sentences for football officials convicted of match-fixing charges. The move by Mr Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) was seen as a concession to millions of football fans ahead of a trial against nearly 100 officials and players from prominent clubs accused of having fixed matches with illegal payments.

When Mr Erdogan underwent gastrointestinal surgery on November 26 and withdrew from the public view for two weeks to rest, Mr Gulen remained silent and did not send a message to the prime minister to wish him a speedy recovery, Yeni Safak, a newspaper close to the AKP government, pointed out in a commentary last week.

Differences in other issues surfaced as well. Some members of the Erdogan government said they were concerned about lengthy periods of pretrial detention, including in cases against suspected members of a group accused of plotting to overthrow Mr Erdogan and to blacken Mr Gulen’s name. News reports said the Gulen movement was against changing detention rules that could result in the release of some suspects.

It is not the first time that the Gulencis and the Erdogan government have disagreed about policy issues. When Mr Erdogan took a tough line against Israel after Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish activists aboard the ship Mavi Marmara, which was carrying aid for the Gaza Strip last year, Mr Gulen said in a statement that Turkish authorities should have prevented the Mavi Marmara from setting sail in the first place.

Mr Akyol, the author, said the differences did not mean that the Gulen movement was about to end its support for the government, even though the movement thought that Mr Erdogan was too soft on the Turkish military, for example. “The Gulen movement sometimes accuses the government of selling the cause, of being not bold enough.” But in cases like the relation between the government and the military, Mr Erdogan was taking a pragmatic position because “he has to work with the generals”, Mr Akyol said.

Mr Gulen, who was born in Erzurum in eastern Anatolia, became a well-known preacher and Islamic intellectual in the 1980s and 1990s, when his anti-communism was applauded by Turkish officials.

His movement became known for the high value it places on education, opening schools around Turkey and in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Mr Gulen teaches that Muslims should play an active part in the modern world and embrace tolerance and technology as well as education.

But Mr Gulen ran into trouble in 1999, when a Turkish television channel broadcast one of his speeches in which he allegedly told his followers to patiently work their way through state institutions in Turkey to reach the highest levels of the republic.

A prosecutor charged him with trying to overthrow the secular republic. Mr Gulen denied the charges and avoided arrest by travelling to the United States. Turkey’s top court threw out the case against him in 2008, but he has not returned yet.

Not everyone in Turkey accepts the view that the Gulen movement is all about tolerance and education. Ayse Hur, a historian, wrote in a recent analysis that the Gulen movement was a religiously motivated “project of social engineering” with nationalist undertones. “It is a total fantasy to expect people with this mindset to solve Turkey’s chronic problems,” the professor wrote in the Taraf newspaper on December 11.

Other critics say the Gulencis have infiltrated state institutions such as the police. In March, Ahmet Sik, a journalist who was about to publish a book about the alleged influence of the movement over the security forces, was arrested on charges that the book was written under orders by militant government opponents as part of a propaganda campaign.

“Those who touch them will burn,” Mr Sik famously said about the Gulencis as he was arrested. He has been in detention since, and his trial started last month. His book was published recently and has become a bestseller in Turkey.

By Thomas Seibert

Արտակ Շաքարյանը նշեց, որ Ֆրանսիայի կողմից Հայոց ցեղասպանության ժխտումը քրեականացնող օրինագիծը Հայոց ցեղասպանության միջազգային ճանաչման գործում որակական նոր փոփոխություն էր: Անդրադառնալով օրինագիծը խոսքի ազատության սահմանափակում դիտարկող հայտարարություններին՝ թուրքագետն ասաց, որ հոլոքոստի վերաբերյալ նմանատիպ օրինագիծ կա, և ոչ ոք չի ասում, որ դա խոսքի ազատության սահմանափակում է:

«Դատապարտվելու են միայն քարոզող և հայերի հիշատակը նվաստացնող հայտարարություն անողները, այլ ոչ գիտական, հետազոտական բնույթ ունեցող հայտարարություն անողները»,- ասաց Արտակ Շաքարյանը` ՀՀ արտգործնախարարությանը մաղթելով եկող տարում լինել ուժեղ և ունակ` իրականացնելու համար հայանպաստ քաղաքականություն:

Tert.am

http://www.tert.am/am/news/2011/12/24/artakshaqaryan/

Աղբյուր` Panorama.am

http://www.panorama.am/am/politics/2011/12/24/shakaryan-hovhannisyan/

Անուշ Հովհաննիսյանը նշեց, որ Թուրքիայի համար անցնող տարին բնորոշվեց Ֆրանսիայի խորհրդարանում օրերս ընդունված օրինագծով: «Սա Թուրքիայի արտաքին քաղաքական կրախն էր, սակայն իհարկե սա դրական քայլ էր, բայց պետք է նկատի ունենալ, որ քաղաքականությունը նաև շահ է, և այս պահին Ֆրանսիայի ու Հայաստանի շահերը համընկան»,- նշեց Անուշ Հովհաննիսյանը: Ընդունված օրինագիծը Թուրքիայի չկատարած խոստումների պատասխանն է՝ նշեց թուրքագետը:

Ֆրանսիայի ընդունած օրինագծով, ըստ թուրքագետների, միայն պատիժ է նախատեսվում Հայոց ցեղասպանությունը հրապարակայնորեն հերքելու և քարոզելու դեպքում, այսինքն` խոսքի ազատության սահմանափակման մասին խոսք լինել չի կարող:

Արտակ Շաքարյանն անդրադառնալով Ֆրանսիայում ընդունված օրինագծին՝ նկատեց, որ այն հատուկ հայամետ դիրքորոշում չէր. Ֆրանսիայում հասունացել էր հակաթուրքական ալիքը, ուստի միանգամայն սպասելի էր օրինագծի ընդունումը:

Դինքը այս օրինագծի մասին ասել է՝ թող ընդունեն բանաձևը, եթե ընդունի Ֆրանսիան, կգնամ կկանգնեմ Ֆրանսիայի հրապարակում և կհայտարարեմ, որ ցեղասպանություն չի եղել, հիշեցրեց Ա. Շաքարյանը՝ նկատելով, որ նրա այս հայտարարության շարունակությունը չեն նշում, երբ Դինքը ասել էր` որ այս բանաձևի ընդունումից հետո նաև կգնա Անկարա, կկանգնի հրապարակում և կհայտարարի, որ ցեղասպանություն եղել է, ու կտեսնի՝ և Ֆրանսիայում, և Թուրքիայում ինչպես են իրեն բանտ նետում:

Ո՞վ կարող է Հայաստանի բանագնացը լինել հայ-թուրքական կարգավորման գործընթացում` Արման Կիրակոսյանից հետո, հարցրեցին Ա. Շաքարյանին: Նա նկատեց, որ չի տիրապետում ՀՀ ԱԳՆ-ի դիվանագետների կարողություններին, բայց կարծում է, որ ՀՀ ԱԳՆ Թուրքիայի բաժնի ղեկավար Արսեն Ավագյանը կարող է լավ տարբերակ լինել, քանի որ բավական խորքային պատկերացում ունի «ֆուտբոլային դիվանագիտությունից» և փալյուն տիրապետում է թուրքերենին:

12:47 Արտաքին քաղաքական | Շաբաթ 24.12.2011

http://www.1in.am/arm/armenia_foreignpolicy_50822.html

Ֆրանսիայի Ազգային ժողովը հինգշաբթի նիստի ժամանակ ընդունեց 1915 թ.-ին Օսմանյան կայսրությունում տեղի ունեցած Հայոց ցեղասպանության ժխտման համար քրեական պատիժ նախատեսող օրինագիծը:

Օրինագծի ընդունումը կարող է հանգեցնել Թուրքիայի կողմից դիվանագիտական և տնտեսական պատժամիջոցների, թեև օրենքի նախաձեռնողները պնդում են թե, այն ուղղված չէ որևէ մեկի դեմ:

«Քանի որ երկու երկրների միջև բավականին սերտ տնտեսական հարաբերություններ են, Թուրքիան իրեն այնպիսի ճոխություն չի կարող թույլ տալ, ինչպիսին Ֆրանսիայի հետ տնտեսական հարաբերությունների խզումն ու Renault-ի և Peugeot-ի նման խոշոր ներկայացուցչությունների փակումն է», – նշեց Շաքարյանը:

Ինչպես հաղորդում են Թուրքիայի լրատվական հեռուստաալիքները, Թուրքիան խորհրդատվությունների նպատակով հետ է կանչում Ֆրանսիայում գտնվող իր դեսպանին՝ ի պատասխան հինգշաբթի Ֆրանսիայի Ազգայի ժողովի կողմից ընդունված Հայոց ցեղասպանության ժխտման համար պատժի կիրառման մասին օրենքին:

Ֆրանսիայում Թուրքիայի դեսպան Թահսին Բուրջուօղլուն Հաբեր-Թյուրք հեռուստաալիքի եթերում տեղեկացրել է, որ ուրբաթ վերադառնում է հայրենիք:

Տեղական ԶԼՄ-ների տեղեկատվության համաձայն՝ Ֆրանսիայի դեսպանին հետ կանչելու հետ մեկտեղ Թուրքիան անորոշ ժամանակով կսառեցնի շփումները Ֆրանսիայի հետ քաղաքական մակարդակի վրա և պատժամիջոցներ կկիրառի ֆրանսիական ընկերությունների նկատմամբ:

Պատժամիջոցներ կիրառելու դեպքում Ֆրանսիան կարող է լուրջ վնասներ կրել թուրքական շուկայում և զրկվել նախագծերից, որոնք գնահատվում են 40-50 մլրդ դոլար:

Հայ թուրքագետն ավելացրեց, որ 2001 թ.-ին (երբ Ֆրանսիան պաշտոնապես ընդունեց Հայոց ցեղասպանությունը) Թուրքիան նույնպես մեծ աղմուկով հետ կանչեց իր դեսպանին Փարիզից, սակայն որոշ ժամանակ անց վերականգնեց դիվանագիտական հարաբերությունները:

Նրա խոսքերով՝ դեսպանին հետ կանչելը սպասված քայլ էր, քանի որ Թուրքիայի վարչապետ Ռեջեփ Թայիպ Էրդողանն այդ մասին արդեն հայտարարել էր: «Կարծում եմ՝ եթե ոչ այս, ապա հաջորդ տարի երկու երկրների հարաբերություններն անպայման կկարգավորվեն», – ընդգծեց Շաքարյանը:

Ֆրանսիացի խորհրդարանականների կողմից ընդունված օրինագիծը նախատեսում է մեկ տարվա ազատազրկում և 45 հազար եվրո տուգանք Օսմանյան կայսրությունում Հայոց ցեղասպանության ժխտման համար, որի ժամանակ սպանվել է շուրջ 1,5 մլն հայ:

Անկարայում ավանդաբար չափազանց ցավագին են վերաբերվում Հայոց ցեղասպանության վերաբերյալ մեղադրանքներին, որի փաստը ճանաչվել է բազմաթիվ պետությունների կողմից:

Թուրքիայի իշխանություններն ավելի վաղ զգուշացնում էին Ֆրանսիային, որ օրինագծի ընդունման դեպքում պատասխան միջոցներ կկիրառեն:

Հայոց ցեղասպանության փաստը ճանաչել են բազմաթիվ երկրներ։ Առաջինը 1965 թ.-ին ճանաչել է Ուրուգվայը, որի օրինակին են հետևել Ռուսաստանը, Ֆրանսիան, Իտալիան, Գերմանիան, Հոլանդիան, Բելգիան, Լեհաստանը, Լիտվան, Սլովակիան, Շվեդիան, Շվեյցարիան, Հունաստանը, Կիպրոսը, Լիբանանը, Կանադան, Վենեսուելան, Արգենտինան, ԱՄՆ-ի 42 նահանգները։ Հայոց ցեղասպանությունը ճանաչել են նաև Վատիկանը, Եվրախորհրդարանը, Եկեղեցիների համաշխարհային խորհուրդը։-0-

http://ar.newsarmenia.ru/arm1/20111222/42585347.html