homepage
our aims
our position
our projects
our history
our friends
internship program
the way we work
the way we think
events
internet links
MINUTES
PETRA, LESVOS MEETING, 15-17 December 2000
The Role of Rural Women in Regional Development
Olive Harvest
Session on 15th December 2000, 16.00
Winpeace Turkish members present:
Aldogan Yazgülü - Gönül Dinçer - Feriha Efran - Basak Ekim - Nilgün Lermioglu - Nur Madin - Nilüfer Narli - Safak Ozsoy - Ceylan Ohrun - Müjgan Suver - Beggüm Yavuz - Sule Bucak - Zulal Külic - Zeynep Oral
Observers from Turkey present:
Jennifer Sertel - Anna Shumaha
Observers from Aivalik present, representing rural women from Turkey:
Nebahat Dinler - Ilknur Kacak - Ayse Sevin Kirikoglu
 
Winpeace Greek members present:
Ifigenia Georgiadou - Kaiti Dima - Antigoni Dimitriadi - Irini Lagani - Sou Laiou-Antoniou - Anna Panagopoulou - Margarita Papandreeou - Natassa Pentagioti - Amalia Skepers - Efi Strousa - Dina Vardamaratou - Eleni Varlami
Observers from Greece present:
Paraskevi Andreadaki - Maria Mavrikou - Ellen Slusarczyk
  

The Meeting opened with an announcement by Zeynep Oral informing the group that the book by Soula Bossi (on Greek & Turkish food) has been published in Turkish, thus realizing a part of our book project.
The topic that was first discussed regarded the Oil Harvest planned for the year 2001. Various proposals were made and ideas thrown on the table.
Ceylan Ohrun suggested that another meeting like that at Petra could be organized to take place in Turkey, near Ayvalik, but of a much more open character bringing rural women from Greece and Turkey (40 women from one side and 40 from the other) to work together in one place in a common enterprise, which could eventually become a tourist attraction. The idea was proposed in an elaborate form, suggesting that tours to these villages could sell for about $350, offering as well an extended tour on extra charge or package tours with options attached. She volunteered to prepare together with Sue Laiou Antoniou a program and budget for this event, and proposed to plan it for next November in 2001.
Margarita Papandreou questioned the concept of such a project .
Ceylan supported the idea saying that our sessions should not continue to be close but open so that Winpeace together with other groups working on peace between Greece and Turkey could be introduced more widely to the public. Such an activity could also be centered around promoting local markets and women’s handicrafts. 
Jennifer Sertel pointed out that the period is not right anyway for picking olives and that such a broadened initiative would have problems organizing.
Zulal Kulic suggested instead that it could be conceived as a common manifestation of Oil Harvest between Greece and Turkey with the scope of bringing together women from Greece and Turkey. 
Efi Strousa proposed that the idea could be presented as a stimulus to the communities to initiate a closer contact without going into the actual organization of the event.
Dina Vardamaratou observed that it is politically correct to present women’s role in respect to this practice.
Ceylan Orhun said that the invitation for such a project could be addressed to women’s organizations specialized in relative subjects.
Margarita Papandreou sums up the discussion on this subject specifying that the planning of such an event should take into consideration an aspect that concerns women more generally, as for instance, organizing a Women’s Nature Life Festival, and proposes to have a written proposal prepared by Sue and Ceylan, specifying the organizations to be involved and the budget.
Zeynep Oral is skeptical about the time needed for such a project.
Reserved feelings about this proposal are also expressed by Margarita Papandreou, pointing out the problem of distribution of labor in the preparation of such an event. She accepts that the achievement of building peace and trust amongst us should be expanded more widely, but stresses the need to continue our work on a good basis. The basis can be improved with more work on conflict resolution.  Other questions of immediate resolution should be also discussed in this meeting in view of our next standard meeting in Turkey, for which she asks to start thinking about its theme.
Zulal Kulic suggests that we should consider Sule’s proposal which has to do with a chance given to us to be more widely heard on the occasion of the next International Meeting on Women’s International Relations, which is going to take place in Istanbul in late March or April. Our next Meeting in Turkey could take place within the frame of this planned meeting.
With regard to the Agrotourism projects, she suggests that the women involved in it, Ceylan and Sue, should be responsible for them together with those who volunteer to take it up as their project, as the question of fund-raising for its realization can be a time-and-energy consuming effort.
Ceylan Orhun specifies that this agrotourism project has been already submitted to EU, about two years ago, with a budget of ECU 20.000-25.000, but there has been no reply.
Sule Bucak gives more information about the one-day Women’s International Relations meeting in Istanbul which is organized in coordination with Kadar.
Ifigenia Georgiadou comes back to the subject of the Oil Harvest expressing the view that it should be kept as a project because it encourages the participation of rural women in our peace scopes.
Sule Bucak points out that there is a problem with Turkish olive oil producers because of the EU market regulations and proposes to organize a discussion around this subject.
Ayse Sevin Kirikoglu (from the rural women) dismisses such a proposal on the basis of not being serious.
Sule Bucak says that, on the contrary, such an idea could find support from a big oil producer in Turkey.
Ceylan Orhun says that we could try to explore the question of support to rural women through European Community programs and private sponsorship.
Margarita Papandreou draws the attention to the fact that there already exist many environmental organizations who undertake to promote similar projects and this could be competitive in relation to our efforts to raise money. This direction could also lead us away from our field and from our purpose. We should direct our attention again to questions that have to do with violence against women or with ways of supporting women in public offices as well as for presenting alternative ways of making peace policy. We should try to see how the mass media could go to the hands of women, as it can be an important tool for working against violence.  She gives the example of the recent KEDE initiative to realize the flight against the Iraq embargo and she explains the way this difficult task was realized, succeeding to highlight  the actual suffering in this area. Many other similar problems could be faced which exist in the broader area of that region and which could represent fields of WINPEACE activity. She emphasizes the fact that our own achievement of building trust between us could be an example to others and that from now on we should try and do things that are not covered by other organizations: for instance, scholarships for women to be trained for questions such as human rights violation, etc.. Our activities should be consistent with our goals.
Zulal Kulic sums up the discussion about the Oil Harvest saying that it is a project connected with Agrotourism and that it could take its own way. However, other questions of importance for our peace scopes should be promoted, such as the discussion on how to put into practice the 5% reduction on arms, which was one of our major topics and had been initially proposed by Margarita Papandreou.
Margarita Papandreou suggests that «disarmament» could be the Winpeace topic of discussion after the session of the Women’s International Relations Conference in Istanbul.
Nur Madin takes the word to express her appreciation of the KEDE initiative for Iraq and suggests that we could think of a common Greek and Turkish Winpeace action to be taken against the Iraq situation, as it is a concrete case of human rights violation.
Sule Bucak supports the idea about a discussion on disarmament and mentions the name of Hela Dyne as an expert and suitable person to brief us on disarmament.
Gonul Dincer agrees that it is a crucial subject, which necessitates a careful preparation and gathering of technical information. She suggests that a campaign for gradual short-cuts on armaments is a better way to go about. The campaign could be made in different ways. One way is through e-mail communications. Preliminary meetings on this issue should be planned on both sides before coming out publicly, and she declares that personally she would be most interested to take part in this discussion. She also stresses the fact that access to the sources of information on armament is very difficult, as separate funds exist beyond the official State Budget.
Sule Bucak agrees that the discussion could be planned for the day following the one-day Women’s International Relations Conference which is organized in coordination with KADAR and to which Margarita Papandreou is invited to participate as a speaker.
Nilufer Narli says that an interesting area to be covered by Winpeace action is to investigate ways of encouraging women to diplomacy.
Zulal Kulic gives an overview of our discussion so far, saying that it seems that two main ways of parallel action could be followed: one has to do with small group projects and the methods for their realization can be flexible. On the other hand, work on questions such as disarmament should be given priority timewise because of their actuality.
Ceylan Orhun expresses a critical view on actions on our part that cannot be inter-active on the level of women’s grass-roots organizations when juxtaposed with the women’s international relations think-tank. We should decide which one we want to stand by.
Zulal Kulic explains that discussing the question of what is a feminist approach and perspective with regard to International Relations can give us significant input to our knowledge.
Sule Bucak suggests that the Women’s International Relations conference could be combined with a campaign «stop the violence against women».
Gonul Dincer says that it is better not to mix the two subjects.
Margarita Papandreou says that both are subjects of importance and that one could be discussed in our meeting in Turkey and the other in Greece. She also underlines the significance of a discussion on disarmament during this specific period especially in view of the new Bush policy.
Gonul Dincer puts the question of discussing the method of organization and says that the arguments that we will bring up require the grouping of members from either side to work on it specifically.
Nilgun Lermioglu stresses the fact that facing disarmament leads us into a sector that men have dealt with exclusively and our need for expertise knowledge is absolutely required, and she thinks that Nilufer Narli, being an expert on the subject, could be of great help.
Gonul Dincer suggests that women parliamentarians should be invited to participate in the discussion.
Ceylan Orhun disagrees, saying that we should not be too optimistic about women parliamentarians.
Zulal Kulic takes up the question of organizing the discussion and suggests that the Greek Winpeace members responsible for the preparation should be appointed.
Nilufer Narli points out the great difficulties in obtaining detailed information on the armament policy of Turkey and says that she cannot undertake this task.
Margarita Papandreou agrees about the obscurity surrounding all relevant information (giving the example of an Oxford Research Group which had come against conflicting facts in relation to the State arms & nuclear weapons information), but she considers this situation as a more general one that should be brought to the public’s attention and thinks that this fact could be an issue for our Meeting. The organizational aspect of the disarmament discussion will be discussed with the Greek women of Winpeace. She expresses the view that 3 people from either side could be appointed to prepare the discussion.
 

The next issue for discussion at our Meeting was the organization of our next Conflict Resolution Seminar.
Safak Ozsoy suggests Louise Diamond from Washington DC as a suitable trainer.
Gonul Dincer says that in our next Conflict Resolution Seminar crucial questions between Greece and Turkey should be tackled.
Margarita Papandreou says that it seems that we are putting too many things, three activities in one year, and that they meet with limited human resources on our part. She also agrees that Conflict Resolution Seminars should now take another line and touch live issues
Zeynep Oral also agrees and says that we should try to be more realistic, taking also into consideration that certain spontaneous events, such as the recent Trade Fair and the Brussels Meeting, could crop up again.
Irini Lagani asks whether the Youth Camps will continue.
Nur Madin replies that they intend to continue them.
Basak Ekim suggests to include youth in the conflict resolution seminars.
Zeynep Oral does not agree, saying that even for adults like us it has been difficult. For youngsters it would be putting too much pressure on them.
Natasa Pentagioti explains that some of the young people are not ready for serious subjects. However, for this year they intend to apply a plan of changing roles (Greeks will act Turks and Turks will act Greeks). She says that they have three cities in mind for this year’s youth camps, but they are still discussing the time and place. It is agreed that Irini Lagani and Nur Mardin will be involved. She also explains that the organization will be done by themselves with some help from the universities they are connected with.
Nur Madin asks about the University group and it is agreed that Jennifer Sertel and Nur will undertake the schoolchildren part. The participation from the Greek side will be Bessie, Irini Lagani and Sophia Arditi, who is a social worker, working at the Athens College and wants to become a member of Winpeace.
Ceylan Orhun suggests also the participation of Eleni Varlami who is unanimously approved.
Ifigenia Georgiadou asks for the names to be appointed from the Greek side, who will participate in the preparation of the various projects. She also suggests that each Winpeace meeting should have a special theme. Disarmament has been now agreed upon as the topic of our next meeting. Another topic she suggests for another meeting is the analysis of the general political situation between the two countries.
 

Recapitulation of the common projects: 
-Next Meeting to take place on March or early April in Istanbul in connection with the Women’s International Relations Conference. During the same period, two days will be devoted to our Winpeace Meeting, which will have as a special subject «disarmament» with a special speaker invited. The scope of this Meeting will be the campaign on Disarmament. Sule Bucak will be responsible. Organizational method: 3 women from Greece and 3 from Turkey (Gonul Dincer is one of them) will do the research on facts, arguments, etc. beforehand. The Greek side will inform its members and until 15th January 2001will appoint those responsible.
For the Olive Harvest, Sue Laiou-Antoniou and Ceylan Orhun will be responsible for its organization in October-November 2001. They will undertake to prepare a paper giving shape to this idea and providing a plan and its practical requirements.
For the Youth Camps, it is decided tha Irini Lagani, Nur Mardin, Ceylan Orhun and Eleni Varlami are responsible for the preparation of the University Students Camp as well as discussing amongst them whether a Youth Camp for high-school children should be also realized.
The Conflict Resolution Seminar will be organized in 2002 
Nilgun Lermioglu addresses Margarita Papandreou with the question on what Greek Winpeace members can do about the Turkish EU candidates.
Margarita Papandreou replies that we are not yet prepared for this issue.
Safak Ozsoy points out that as Turkey’s accession to the EU is approaching, the accession partnership discussion puts the Cyprus question as a condition. She proposes that Winpeace plans a project in relation to the access of Turkey in the European Community. She says that two people on either side could be appointed who will work together for lobbying in favour.
Margarita Papandreou: «Maybe you can introduce us to your generals...». She puts forth the idea that, on the contrary, what could be faced and discussed by Winpeace is the distortion of facts that is being made because of the mishandling of news and information by the media.
Nilufer Narli proposes a project for discussion on the subject of The Rise of Ultra-Nationalism and suggests that this could be tackled with the help of experts, such as Dr. Sirikos, who has written a book on the subject. She promises to send us a copy of this publication to which she has contributed with two articles.
Ifigenia Georgiadou brings forth a list of ideas for fund-raising: organization of excursions in Greece and Turkey by Winpeace - a web-page / painting exhibitions / film showings / sell Christmas cards / Theatre tickets
Dina Vardamaratou speaks about the funding of Selan’s documentary and about the e-mail gazette, which could be improved. Ellen and Selen to collaborate on it.
Margarita Papandreou concludes by saying that she feels unhappy, this time, about the representation of Greece and that in future we must keep a 15-15 core group relationship. She expresses her thanks to the observers and she invites them to come up with their comments and impressions on what we have been doing.
Ayse Sevin Kirikoglu speaks about a terrible situation that exists in Ayvalik at the level of local administration. On the contrary, amongst the Ayvalik Turkish community, there is a big group with strong pro-Greek-Turkish feelings and, for this reason, Winpeace action could be useful.
Ellen Slusarczyk explains that her motivation for joining Winpeace was connected with her academic and professional interests. Her experience from this meeting has fully rewarded her and she now knows that she made the right choice. She mostly appreciated the spirit of co-operation between the two sides.
Amalia Skepers says that she feels disappointed about not giving priority to the Conflict Resolution Seminar, which she considers as most important.
Ellen Slusarczyk remarks that conflict-management can be incorporated within the dynamics of each meeting. 
Anna Shumaha congratulated the Winpeace members and expressed her great appreciation of this initiative.
Maria Mavrikou said that she feels very happy to have come across the Winpeace action and she declared to all that she is at the disposal of Winpeace for any help to be given within her capacity.
Paraskevi Andreadaki  said that she feels very happy to have joined us and that she wishes to participate in the Winpeace action and programs.

Notes: by Efi Strousa