PART I. Chapter 4: Reaction to ARARAT within Turkey

‘I know many will not share my opinion. There might even be people who accuse me of treason. However, to judge Egoyan’s deep and impressive script by questioning if it is anti or pro-Turkish is meaningless. I wrote earlier that when Turkey watches this movie, she should ask herself whether or not the movie is racist. No, this movie is the antithesis of racism.’
?smet Berkan, Radikal ?stanbul daily[2]

When we examine Turkey’s reaction to Ararat, we immediately notice how uninformed she was about the issue. As the movie was being made, there were some occasional reports about the movie. The number of these news and opinions increased in the summer of 2001. However, after September 11, Armenian issue was ‘forgotten’. This state continued until the Armenian resolutions started to pass from various parliaments. In other words, in order to understand the seriousness of the situation, months had to pass.

We can divide reactions coming out of Turkey into two categories: those who panic and those who just discount its possible ramifications.

Those who say ‘Ararat is a disaster for Turkey’: According to this group, a second ‘Midnight Express’ is coming and Turkey should do something about it. If not, Turkey will suffer irreparable consequences. The biggest handicap of this group is that they do not put forward a serious suggestion for what to do. Some suggest that Turkey should make a movie that conveys her version of events, while others believe that this would not be useful. Suggestions from this group include, protesting the film, boycott the products of the producers and distributors of the movie, sending protest letters and etc. Feople included in this group are ErdaI Bilallar, Fatih Çekirge, Melih A??k, Murat Birsel and Zeynep Gürcanl?.[3]

Those who say ‘We have nothing to fear from Ararat’: Those who belong in this group have two divergent views. Those who share the first view believe that the possible repercussions of the film are exaggerated. They say that these type of movies are made for Germany, Japan and etc. and do not have that much influence on the public psyche. They say this is just a movie. They also object to interference in art. In other words, they have liberal beliefs, and object to any state campaigning against an Armenian or Turkish film.[4] For example, journalist-author Ertu?rul Özkök goes further to proposes that the premiere of the movie to be made in Turkey, next to the Mount Ararat. According to Özkök, the affects of movies are exaggerated:

‘Egoyan is a director I really like and l am wondering whether he will fall in to the trap of a depicting a crude genocide representation. in the past, many Armenian directors fell into this trap. For example Henri Verneuil made such a movie in the 1990s. Did you ever hear about it? It was called ‘Mayrig’. Today, when people talk about Henri Verneuil, no one remembers Mayrig. There are many films by Verneuil that you can remember. However, the movie he considered to be his life’s work, the movie that was based on his own family, is ignored. Why? The answer is easy. It was a bad movie. It was biased. It was merciless. All through the movie you could notice elements of bad propaganda...’[5]

Ertu?rul Özkök says that the affects of Ararat should not be exaggerated and he wonders if Egoyan will fall into the trap of a depicting a crude genocide representation. However, Egoyan has already made some statements that clear any doubt. The use of the phrase ‘Armenian holocaust’ in all the introductory statements of the movie, shows that there is no doubt about the stance of Egoyan. Additionally, in an interview with cinema magazine called Beyaz Perde, he says that genocide accusations have to be acknowledged by Turkey. [6] On other words, Egoyan’s aim is to force Turkey to accept the genocide crime, instead of portraying the pain and suffering both people experienced and to mend the relations between the nations. Interestingly, he does not hide his objectives.

Mehmet Barlas, Turkish columnist, who agrees with Özkök, re-addresses Turkey’s all foreign policy issues by using ‘Ararat’. He argues that Turkey’s policies, are made without consulting with the nation. He defends a line of thought that is very risky to some issues that Turkey considers as national objectives:

‘Ertu?rul Özkök’s article was a breath of fresh air among all these fanatical, obsessive and even semi-militarist commentaries. Özkök, in summary, was asking, what would happen if Atom Egoyan’s movie Ararat’s premiere was done in Turkey? Then and there, we can close a chapter and face the future all together...

As I was reading his article, I was jealous of Özkök... I can only assume that you also are sick and tired of whom in the world we have to get angry with and who we have to ignore... To be responsible for an unknown history and to be hostile to the world, because of it. To defend the ‘National issues’ that some people had chosen irrespective of us. To continually ignore the universal human values... Yes... ‘Why should we be afraid of Ararat?’ ”[7]

The questions raised by Mehmet Barlas cannot be ignored easily and in some ways they are even more radical than Taner Akçam.[8] There could be problems in national participation in foreign policy decisions like in any country some radical steps might have to be taken in order to re-interpret the Turkish history, but all these ‘deficiencies’ do not legitimize Barlas’s opinions. The point that both Ertu?rul Özkök and Mehmet Barlas has ignored is that the problem is constantly brought up by the radical Armenians and that they are the ones who avoid from dialog, and they use history for propaganda purposes. In other words, the radical Armenians are trying to portray the Turks as a race, which committed genocide. The issue is more to acquire financial and moral benefits than to use liberal and democratic principles in order to get to the bottom of disputed historical arguments. The benefits acquired by the Jews after the Holocaust, is seen by the nationalist Armenians as a nice prospect and they have tried to follow the same route. However, their efforts are to first form an attitude and then to construct a fictional history according to their stance.[9]

Serdar Turgut, columnist, is also one of the journalists who think that the movie has been exaggerated. Turgut, in a mocking way, concludes that the Government’s efforts in this way are based on a ‘narrow minded nationalist chauvinism’.[10]

The most extreme opinions in this group have been voiced by ?smet Berkan, columnist. Berkan, contrary to Özkök, had obtained a copy of the script and had even published some of it in Radikal, ?stanbul daily, has strangely praised the movie. According to Berkan, Ararat is more a movie of explorations than a movie of accusations. He acknowledges reading all the above-mentioned scenes and says:

“There is undoubtedly many scenes that might cause reactions from Turkey. However, these belong to a movie within a movie... Movie can be viewed as an insider’s view of the Armenian diaspora.”[11]

Berkan’s most surprising statement is that he does not consider Ararat as being an anti-Turkish movie. In a previous paragraph he says that the movie is not a pro-Turkish movie. Later he asks, “Is it an anti-Turkish movie? Let me immediately tell you. No.” In other words, Berkan tells us that the movie is neither anti nor pro-Turkish. He must have realized how extreme his words are, because he finishes his article with the following sentences:

“I know many will not share my opinion. There might even be people who accuse me of treason. However, to judge Egoyan‘s deep and impressive script by questioning if it is anti or pro-Turkish is meaningless. I wrote earlier that when Turkey watches this movie, she should ask herself whether or not the movie is racist. No, this movie is the antithesis of racism."[12]

It should be noted that the author finds the statements made by Mr. Berkan as ‘extreme’ and ‘beyond reason’. No Turkish citizen is authorized to accuse Mr. Berkan of treason. Additionally, to accuse your opposition of treason is not a healthy or correct approach, and nobody has accused him of being traitor. This must have surprised him (!). However, while many books that support the Armenian accusations have been published and translated into Turkish, the Armenians have not permitted the publication of a single book that supports the Turkish version overseas. This demonstrates the maturity of Turkey with respect to the Armenian problem. However, one wonders if he had known of Egoyan’s opinions and his objectives in making this film, would it have altered Berkan’s statements. While ?smet Berkan’s call for common sense is very important, out from time to time his writings seem more like an advertisement for the film, Ararat.

When we generally examine the opinions that do not consider Ararat as a danger to Turkey, we realize that they are usually reactions against some domestic issues rather than to the film itself. Those who defended the movie Salk?m Han?m’?n Taneleri see themselves as more liberal and now feel like they have to defend Ararat because of their previous statements. We think that these two issues are mutually exclusive.[13]

Some in this second group think that the movie might be a nuisance to Turkey, but think that the Turkish Government’s uncontrolled reaction will make the movie more successful. For example, Nedim Hazar from Zaman daily says that Egoyan’s movie Calendar was a preparation for Ararat, and that it had not attracted that much attention. He warns that extreme reactions from Turkey would attract more people to the film. The point Hazar repeatedly addresses is that Turkey’s responses are usually limited to sudden burst of reactions instead of productively fighting against Armenian propaganda.

“I don‘t know why we like to block or react, instead of producing. While we argue about what to produce or what we have produced, we cannot become as single minded and sensitive as others..."[14]

Another commentator Haluk ?ahin says that the best answer to Ararat would be to ignore it. [15] The real objective of Armenians is to create a panic among the Turks and force them to make mistakes, says ?ahin. He believes that Armenians are trying to make the Turks promote the movie. ?ahin believes that Turkey should not fall into this trap and she should answer Ararat in another domain. Another warning of Haluk ?ahin that should not be ignored is that Armenains should be expected to increase the intensity of their insult just before the premiere of Ararat. This would be done to attract more attention to the movie. According to ?ahin, Turkey’s reaction should have been to ignore the movie and to ensure that this incomprehensible movie was a box office flop. Another opinion of ?ahin is that a documentary can never attract as much attention as a Hollywood movie. Best answer to a Hollywood movie is another Hollywood movie, says ?ahin.

Reactions From the Turkish Art World

Reactions from the Turkish art world centered on making a movie that aired Turkish version of the events. They stated that Turkey should not succumb to dramatic responses and she should take Ararat’s abuses in Turkish stride. For example director of the film, Salk?m Han?m’?n Taneleri, Tomris Giritlio?lu, stated that she could make such a movie. Giritlio?lu said that the Turkish State should support such a venture and that the Turkish cinema had enough energy and talent act on this project. [16] Script writer Ömer Lütfi Mete also supports this view. However, he worries if the State provides supports, the movie would have less influence and it would be considered as a propaganda film on the international stage. Halit Refi? says that Ararat had the power to transform in a negative way how people look at Turks in a broad geography, from Canada to Europe. He also says “the 63 million dollar budget of the movie clearly shows the importance placed on the movie”.[17] In the context of these reactions, the best response seems to be to publish a joint statement by the Turkish cinema personalities, and to make them heard internationally, independent of the Turkish State.

Y?lmaz Erdo?an, actor and director of the movie Vizyontele, is one of the people within the art industry who think that discussions on Ararat are exaggerated:

“Now, they are making a movie called ‘Ararat’. We have become very agitated even before its completion. Let them make the movie, let’s show it here. If it is full of lies, there is nothing to worry. If it is telling the truth, again there is nothing to worry.”[18]

Erdo?an and those with similar opinions state that Ararat should receive the same amount of criticism that any movie does. There should be no extreme reactions. While, there is some accuracy in their opinions, the real problem lies with finding a balance. If we examine Erdo?an’s response we see a certain contradiction between his defense of Egoyan and his extreme reaction towards criticisms of his own movie. Erdo?an unconsciously feels like that any criticism of Egoyan is also directed at him. We can put this to ‘professional solidarity’.

Another opinion of the Turkish film industry is not to ban the movie under any conditions. They say that any such action would be ineffective and would damage Turkey’s standing overseas. They say, such a ban would also damage the freedom in artistic expression.[19] As the artists wanted the Turkish Government or any official institution did not take any measure against the film in Turkey, however no company has attempted to show the film in the country until now.

All of the opinions stated above should without doubt be taken seriously. However, as explained below, it is wrong to consider the problems as only a movie. The problem is an Armenian issue and usage of art as a political tool, and it’s solution lies within a broader context.[20] Another opinion, which was made by the famous director-author Zülfü Livaneli, should be noted here. His approach is a more consistent and broad. According to Livaneli, Ararat is a product of a larger campaign and Turkey’s inability to counter such moves opens the way for Armenian activities. He says that as long as Turkey continues to follow this attitude, she will have to face many Ararats in the future.[21]

Reactions of the State Bodies

When we examine the official responses, we do not see a different approach. While the preparations of the movie took place for a long time, state bodies seem to react only when the news appear in the local media.[22] This is maybe Turkey’s most important shortcoming. If the movie was discussed by experts and qualified professionals when the movie was first being made, we could have had more hope of responding the criticisms in more healthy and effective way.

When we examine the State agencies, we notice that a few teams have been working on a response to such movies. The most important of these agencies were Culture Ministry, Foreign Ministry, General Staff, National Security Council, Higher Education Board (YÖK) and Prime Ministry.

Culture Ministry

The Turkish Culture Ministry, in response to the news that appeared in the media, initiated a serious study about the possible effects of Ararat around autumn-winter of 2001. The conclusion of these studies made Culture Minister ?stemihan Talay to make a statement that declared the movie to be racist and instigating hate. According to Talay, it is clear that the film was not made for artistic purposes but solely for disparage Turkey.

‘What is meant by the solution is not an all-comprehensive solution to the Armenian- Turkish problem. Social and Political problems cannot be solved in one day. The author believes that the solution lies within a long-term, planned and persistent approach.

The Culture Ministry did not have any plans to make a movie defending the Turkish version of the events. Their responses were listed as: to intensify the promotion of Turkish Art overseas, to increase the number of artistic activities, to hold conferences in order to announce to the world the underlying objectives of Ararat. Another point Talay was depending on was that world will see how racist the movie is and immediately discount its story.[23]

Turkish Parliament

Due to the popularity of the issue, many political parties made announcements about the movie. Especially deputies coming from Van, Erzurum, A?r? (Ararat province) and etc., considering their electorate, have protested against the Armenian accusations and the movie. While some demanded to make a movie against Ararat, some other said that the best answer would be to increase the investment flowing to the regions. The demand of deputies of A?r? (Ararat) to establish a university next to Mount Ararat should be seen in this light. Justice and Development Party (AKP) recommended the restoration of the Armenian Church in Van.[24] AKP Deputy Group leader Hüseyin Çelik, said that this would be the best answer to any possible instigations on the part of Armenians. At the same time, Turkey would show that she does not hate Armenians, he maintained. The Church being an important symbol in the movie, makes the restoration of it a serious proposal that has to be considered.

One of the most active and interested groups that discussed Ararat was the Nationalist Action Party (MHP). They constantly tried to obtain information from various government bodies and tried to put the issue on the parliamentary agenda. A Foreign Ministry delegation briefed the MHP deputies on the issue on December 11, 2001. According to information leaked to the press, officials informed the deputies about the costs of making a movie in response to Ararat. It would cost 10 million dollars, they were told.[25]

Prime Ministry

The agency, which comes across, as the most significant body that dealt with Ararat and the Armenian issue, is the Armenian High Commission. It convened from time to time under the supervision of former Deputy Prime Minister Devlet Bahçeli. National Security Council is responsible for the managerial aspects of the commission.

Bahçeli’s special interest in the subject made the commission more affective. It is reported that the commission decided to finance a documentary named ?nsanl??a Son Mesaj’ (Last Message To Humanity) in February.[26] The movie is going to be made by the Atatürk Language Institute and it will be distributed overseas by the Foreign Ministry. The documentary will tell the story of Armenian massacres of Turks. The commentator will be a Turkish Armenian Art?n Penik. The Foreign Ministry will try to screen the movie in the U.S., the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Belgium. While the idea seems to be well placed, one wonders how effective a tool it can be against Ararat kind films. Additionally, we have to remind the reader that there are many similar Armenian documentaries in the west that are still being sold.

Foreign Ministry

It can be said that the Foreign Ministry’s activities are just like the Culture Ministry and that they will be concentrating on informing the western public. In this context, Ottawa, Paris, Washington and London Embassies have been busy in trying to campaign against Ararat. One wonders if they have the necessary personnel and opportunity to perform such a hard task. Turkey’s Ottawa Ambassador Erhan Ö?üt sent informative letters to all media agencies after news about the movie was published, but his efforts were not enough.

Another response discussed within the government circles was to take legal precautions. Foreign Ministry, keeping its past experiences in mind, has tried to be ready for any eventuality. The plan is to file lawsuits against the movie where it is being shown, for inciting hatred and racism.[27] As to be discussed below, most countries have taken legal measures against inciting hatred and racism and there is a possibility that this movie can be blocked in the respect. However, it is reported that the Foreign Ministry, is worried that there is a possibility of loosing the lawsuit and unintentionally promoting the movie. Experiencing such an outcome in Midnight Express in the past, it plans to hold back this plan until the last minute. Another point to consider in such a plan is that legal actions can only filed as personal compensation lawsuits and not as general court case. There are real people who are insulted in the movie and the director and the producers are responsibility. Additionally, complaints to individual Television Inspection Agencies can also be useful. By using the scenes that depict violence, the screening of the movie on television might be prevented. While Turkey is uneasy about using legal tools, even a few sentences mentioned in newspapers were enough to worry Egoyan and his associates. No matter how he tried to convey his indifference to such attempts at blocking his movie, his statements clearly show that he was worried.[28]

While other agencies apart from Culture and Foreign Ministries have held some discussions, the existence of any other action plan is not known.

Higher Education Board (YÖK)

YÖK’s studies were limited to scientific assessments and tried to objectively evaluate the issue. Because YÖK is the agency that the public opinion expects the most, they have shown a lot of sensitivity to support many scientific studies concerned about to Ararat and Armenian problem.

Public Opinion

The nation’s reaction is more important than the reactions of the government of the media. The nation’s attitude shifted back and forth from boredom and hate. They are very angry because Turkey cannot explain itself to the West seems and the West does not want to understand Turkey. Criticisms from the people published in the media, is a case in point. There is significant pressure on the media for a campaign against the movie, even before it started to be screened.

The people’s reactions also manifest itself on the Internet and in e-mails. Campaigns against the movie are continuing and daily attracted more participants.

The intense anger generated by the movie even before anyone saw it, can be both a useful and dangerous tool. This anger has to be channeled to proper areas in order to get productive results. However, uncontrolled and emotional reactions tied with anger might have irreparable consequences. It is obvious that the biggest responsibility here is on the government and the media.

Reactions of Turks in Europe and America

The third important group related to our issue is the 5 million Turks living overseas. The most intense reactions were expected from these Turks living overseas in Europe, North America and Australia, because they are the ones first to be affected by the negative consequences of Ararat. However, it is surprising to note that apart from some Turkish Association in Canada and the U.S., there seem to be no one who is aware of the seriousness of the situation.

Canadian Turks, whose numbers exceed 50,000, have closely followed every development about the movie, from day one. The head of Turkish Federations Association Seyhan Nuyan, initially invited the director and his team for lunch in order to inform them about the Turkish version of the events and to form an environment in which bilateral dialog can develop. While these attempts did not bring about significant developments, the most important concern of the association is the indifference shown by Turks in Turkey and all over the world. Canadian Turks expect the Turks to rally against the producers and the distributors of the movie. If we consider that in Germany, Australia and U.K., where the Turkish population is much larger than the Armenian community and in U.S.A., France and Canada, where Turks form a significant minority, Turks can do more about this issue.[29]

Reactions After the Premiere

As has been seen before the Cannes premiere of the film, Turkish public and elite was divided into two main groups, and some argued that the film was not a propaganda film and not against Turkey or the Turks. However when the film was shown first time in the Cannes Film Festival (France) on 20 May 2002, almost all agreed on that the film would be a destructive factor in the relations. Interestingly the most negative reactions came from the Turkish Armenians. Hrant Dink, director of the Agos, Armenian daily published in Istanbul, declared that the film is very dangerous for Turkish-Armenian relations and they never expected such a “horrible film” from a well-known Armenian director. Dink further continued:

“This film (Ararat) is very destructive and harmful for Turkish — Armenian relations. This film should not be shown in Turkey. This style used in the film Ararat cannot be our style in writing or in film sector. The words of those who made this film and the film itself contradict. They talk about peace, they talk about dialog, and they burn all the attempts. They destroy the dialog and peace. This cannot be accepted... We had defended that the should be shown in Turkey before the Cannes. However our attitude regarding the film is now just the reverse. A film which includes such terrible scenes should not expected support from us."[30]

Not only the Turkish Armenians but also the Turkish liberals changed their views after the Cannes. For instance Atilla Dorsay, Turkish film director who defended Ara rat and Egoyan before the showing, said that his ideas about the film dramatically changed:

“I expected a more serious film from Atom Egoyan, because he is my one of the close friends. However I could not find what I expected from the movie.

Actually the film made me shocked. When the director giving the events he uses wild and brutal scenes... Such scenes do not serve Turkish-Armenian friendship."[31]

It can be said that no one could defend Ararat film and Egoyan in Turkish media after the showing. The film itself with its brutal and bloody scenes lost an opportunity to question the historical events and it was perceived as a purely propaganda film. It is a matter of fact that Atom Egoyan could have make a more questioning and constructive film and he was considered as a chance to help to break the vicious circle in the relations with its art, yet he chose the simpler well-known way.[32]

[1] Asl?han Ayd?n, ‘Ararat Filmini Dünya Kamuoyu Mahkum Edecektir’, Zaman, 9 December 2001.
[2] Berkan, ‘Tart???lan…’.
[3] Melih A??k, ‘Ararat yolda’, Milliyet, 23 June 2001; Fatih Çekirge, Hollywood’da Yeni Bir Öfke Senaryosu’, Star, 29 November 2001; ‘5 December 2001; ‘Bu Film Ba??m?z? Çok A?r?tacak’, Sabah, 5 December 2001; Erdal Bilallar, ‘Walt Disney’in Parma??’, Sabah, 6 December 2001; Murat Birsel, ‘Midnight Express’ten Sonra Ararat’, Sabah, 19 August 2001; Zeynep Gürcanl?, ‘Ulusal Utanç ...‘, Star, I July 200!.
[4] The most used example in this respect is the movie ‘Salk?m Han?m?n Taneleri’, According to them, the director might have contrary beliefs, but they should be respected. Of course, connections between this film and Ararat are not clear.
[5] Ertu?rul Özkök, ‘Ararat Filminin Galas?n? A?r?’da Yapal?m’ (Let’s Make Ararat’s Premiere in A?r? Province), Hürriyet,
12 December 2001.
[6] ‘Atom Egoyan: Türkiye Soyk?nm? Tan?s?n’ (Turkey Must Recognize Genocide), Beyaz Perde, 7 November 2001.
[7] Mehmet Barlas, ‘Bravo Ertu?rul Özkök’e’ (Bravo, Ertu?rul Özkök), Yeni ?afak, 13 December 2001.
[8] While Taner Akçam sometimes contradicts himself, he basically says that Turks are mainly responsible for the Ar¬menian problem. Akçam frequently airs his opinions at meetings held by Armenians. For his opinions: Taner Ak. çam, Türk Ulusal Kim?i?i ve Ermeni Sorunu (Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Problem). (?stanbul: Su Ya¬y?nlar?, 2001); Diyalogdan Ba?ka Çözüm Varm?? (What can we do apart than Dialog?)’ (Istanbul: Su Yay?nlar?, 2001).
[9]For the attitude of Armenians and the reactions of the Jewish people: Sedat Laçiner, ‘Armenia’s Jewish Skepticism and Its Impact on Armenia-Israel Relations’, Armenian Studies, Vol.1, No.4. 2002.
[10] Serdar Turgut, ‘Yasaklay?n O Sözde Filmi (Ban That So-called Film!)’, Hürriyet, 10 December 2001.
[11] Ismet Berkan, ‘Tart???lan Ararat (The Ararat Argument)’, Radikal, 24 December 2001.
[12] ?smet Berkan, ‘Tart???lan ...‘
[13] For the article that links Salk?m Han?m’?n taneleri ans Ararat: ‘Sakl?m Han?m Ararat m?? (Is Salk?m Han?m Ararat?)’, Star, 2 December 2001.
[14] M. Nedim Hazar, ‘Uçüncü A (Third A)’, Zaman, 9 December 2001.
[15] Halluk ?ahin. ‘Ararat Filmine Ne Yapmal?? (What Should We Do With The Movie Of Ararat?)’, Radikal, 9 December2001.
[16] Murat Uçar. ‘Türk Tezini Anlatan Bir Filim Yap?lmal? (A Movie That Portray’s Our Version of Event Should be Made)’, Zaman, 9 December 2001.
[17] Halit Refi?: Filmin Çok Büyük Bir Bütçesi Var (The Movie Has A Very Large Budget)’, Zaman, 28 November 2001.
[18] Ahmet Tulgar, ‘Solcular Tutucu Oldu, Art?k Sadece ?lericiyim, Y?lmaz ile Mülakat (Leftists have become Conservati¬ves, Now, I’m Only A Proggresive, An Interview With Y?lmaz), Milliyet Pazar, 10 January 2002.
[19] ‘Atom Egoyan: Türkiye Soyk?r?m? Tan?s?n’ (Turkey Should Acknowledge The Genocide), Beyaz Perde, 7 November 2001.
[20] Zülfü Livaneli, ‘Bir Ba?kaym?? Benim Memleketim’, Sabah, 13 April 2001.
[21] Commentator Bilallar says that a ministry, which wanted some information about the movie from the Ottawa Embassy received a reply months later. Erdal Billalar, ‘Walt Disney’in Parma??’, Sabah, 6 December 2001
[22] Asl?han Ayd?n. ‘Ararat Filmini Dünya kamuoyu Mahkum Edecektir’ (The World Public Opinion Will Disregard The Movie By Itself), Zaman, 9 December 2001.
[23] ‘kilisenin Onar?m? En Güzel Cevap Olur (Restoration Of The Church Would Be The Best Answer)’, Hürriyet. 17 Ocak 2002.
[24] Düzgün Karata?, ‘Ararat ?çin Dev Proje’ (A Huge Project ror Ara rat), Star, 12 December 2001.
[25] ‘Ararat’a Son Mesaj (Last Message to Ararat)’, Yeni ?afak, 12 February 2001.
[26] ‘Turkey Plans to Sue Canadian Movie Director’, Armenian Reporter, 8 December 2001.
[27] Lusine Zeytunian, ‘Music for Memory, Egoyan Searches for the Sound of Ararat’, AIM (Armenian International Maga¬zine), January-February 2002, p.37.
[28] For Turkish diaspora: (Ed)?lhan Y?lmaz, ‘Londra’daki Türkiye ve Türk Diasporas?’ (Turkey in London and the Turkish Diaspora) iri Sedat Laçiner, Bir Ba?ka Aç?dan ?ngiltere (England From A Different Perspective), (Ankara: ASAM, 2001), p. 137-162; S. Ladbury. Turkish Cypriots in London, Economy, Society and culture, (London: SOAS, 1979); David Cox, Turks in Australia, (Canberra: 1975); A. Ashkenasssi, ‘The Turkish Minority in Germany and West Ber¬lin’, Immigrants and Minorities, vol. 9, No. 3, 1990, p.303-316. For a more detailed list: Sedat Laçiner, Turkey and the World, A Complete Bibliography of Turkey and Turks in English, (Istanbul: Kaknüs, 2001), p. 379-387, For the Armenian Diaspora see the special diaspora issue of the Armenian Studies journal (Vol. I, No. 3, 2001).
[29] ‘Ararat Ortal??? Kar??t?rd?’ (Ararat Caused Problems), Hürriyet, 21 May 2002.
[30] ‘Ararat Beni ?oke Etti’ (Ararat Shocked Me), Hürriyet, 21 May 2002.
[31] Sedat Laçiner, ‘Ararat as a Tool in Propaganda’, Turkish Daily News, August 2002.