June 24, 2009
The New York Times
By ASLI AYDINTASBAS
ISTANBUL — On hillsides across southeastern Turkey, you often see the national slogan — “Happy is one who can say I am a Turk” — in giant letters that can be read from miles away.
The slogan was coined in the 1920s by modern Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, as part of an effort to create a national identity out of the ashes of a bankrupt empire.
But that’s not why the message was written on the southeastern hills. The people who live there are not Turkish, but Kurdish.
And for the last four decades, the Turkish government has been telling them that there is only one acceptable identity in this country — that of a happy Turk.
Turkey’s long struggle with the Kurdish issue is a painful episode involving blunders, victories, and, along the way, plenty of abuse from all sides.
Since 1984, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has been waging a bloody guerrilla war for an independent Kurdish homeland. Ruthless and dogmatic, the PKK has wreaked havoc, killing civilians and soldiers in terror attacks across Turkey. (The death toll stands at about 30,000.)
Turkey’s fight with the PKK tainted our political system and clogged our minds for decades, and made Ankara even more resistant to Kurdish demands for political and cultural rights.
All that is changing.
Armed with new self-confidence and higher democratic standards, the Turkish government has quietly crafted a bold initiative to persuade the PKK to surrender in return for political representation and, eventually, an amnesty. The deal has the potential to put an end to one of the deadliest conflicts in this region.
After thousands of casualties and decades of guerrilla warfare, there is now an awareness at the highest levels of the Turkish body politic that the Kurdish issue is not simply a terror problem — that a solution has to include reforms that go to the heart of Kurdish identity.
Accordingly, Ankara recently lifted an archaic ban on the Kurdish language and started aid programs for underdeveloped Kurdish regions. State-owned television has launched a Kurdish-language network, and the Higher Education Board is working to open institutes for Kurdish studies. It has become de rigueur for politicians to do a public mea culpa over the past.
The next steps are still a little hazy. There is talk of changing the Constitution — particularly the definition of citizenship, which is currently defined as Turkishness — and there is a consensus in the government to return the original Kurdish names to towns and villages.
But the hearts-and-minds campaign is only one side of the coin. The real challenge is dealing with the PKK. Senior government officials privately admit there have been discussions with PKK leaders based in northern Iraq through Iraqi Kurds and other intermediaries to convince them to surrender in return for an eventual amnesty.
Remarkably, the initiative has not been vetoed by the Turkish military. It has received support from the media and even a tacit nod from Turkey’s main opposition party. Still, officials in Ankara have yet to make a public case for the strategy, which so far has been only quietly whispered in the corridors of power.
Yet what happens within Turkey is only one part of the equation. Turkey’s efforts can only go so far if not matched by support from Iraqi Kurds, who control the areas from which the PKK operates, and from Washington, the ultimate guarantor of the region.
Having been in the business of terrorism for too long, the PKK will not easily accept any deal offered by Ankara. Its leadership is fractured and cut off from the reality of the modern world. It will need to be pressured militarily and logistically.
Iraqi Kurds could help by repatriating the thousands of pro-PKK Turkish Kurds who have been living for years in the Mahmur refugee camp across the border in Iraq, and by moving ahead with a planned pan-Kurdish conference.
In turn, if Turkey can channel the PKK into a legitimate political force, it can once again become the protector of Kurds in northern Iraq, as it was for a decade after the Gulf War. That would free Washington from worrying about the security of the Kurds once U.S. forces withdraw.
And if President Obama put his weight behind Turkey’s initiative, it could become the first real overseas success story of his administration.
This could be the year we leave one of the bloodiest Middle East conflicts behind. But the window of opportunity is short.
Asli Aydintasbas is a columnist for the Turkish daily Aksam.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Today's Zaman Interview with Former New York Times Istanbul Bureau Chief Stephen Kinzer
Stephen Kinzer, former chief of The New York Times bureau in İstanbul from 1996 to 2006, has said Turkey has started to handle its domestic and regional problems in a more democratic and peaceful way as the world has been evolving in the same direction, and in this world, there is no longer any military control of politics.
“The role of the military in Turkey has changed a lot. And it has to change more because in relation to what the world wants, armies do not participate in politics,” said Kinzer in İstanbul, where he was conducting research for his next book dealing with US relations with Iran, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Kinzer pointed out that the new US administration under President Barack Obama will support civilian democracy in Turkey in a stronger way.
“I certainly think that there will be no covert encouragement for the military to continue to play a role. For example, after the March 2003 vote about the Iraq war, one American official [former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz] went on television and said, ‘I was disappointed that the military didn't step up and play a role.' This was terrible. It's almost like encouraging a coup. You won't hear that anymore,” said Kinzer, who after completing his assignment to Turkey published “Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds.”
According to Kinzer Turkey can become a regional power, and this can benefit the United States as well.
“When [Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet] Davutoğlu goes to Pakistan, for example, he is able to talk to every faction. There are no doors closed to Turkey. But there are doors closed to America,” he said and added that “Turkey can talk to people we can't talk to. The strategic identity for Turkey that Davutoğlu sees fits in very well with Obama's foreign policy ideas.”
Kinzer expanded on the topic and more for Sunday's Zaman.
You reported from Turkey at the end of the 1990s, and you've been observing the country since then. What have you found striking in those years?
The 1990s were something like a lost decade for Turkey. There were weak coalition governments that were not able to implement coherent policies; violence in the Southeast was at a very high level; Turkey was fighting most of its neighbors; and the country just seemed adrift. Now a lot of it has changed.
What are those changes?
First of all, you have a strong government with broad popular support. Second, since 1999, when the EU accession project took on momentum, Turkey has had a framework for reform. The new government, at least in its early years, was much more committed to reforms. We used to hear from the so-called secular parties that “we must move ever closer to Europe and we must democratize.” But they did not do it. Certainly after 1999, you really saw democratization and modernization in this country. This country is now probably more democratic than it has ever been. It's also a great step forward that the “Cumhurbaşkanı” [president] would stand up and say, “The Kurdish problem is our number one problem.” You would not have heard that in the 1990s. We have gone from a time when a Kurdish kid in Diyarbakır could not even ask for “çay” [tea] in the Kurdish language to a time when you have a Kurdish TV station, and the university in Mardin is going to have a department of Kurdish language and literature. The other big change I see is Turkey's role in the world.
How do you think Turkey's role in the world is changing?
Ever since the days of Atatürk [Gazi Mustafa Kemal, the founder of modern Turkey], Turkey looked mostly inward. There were some reasons for that. In the Kemalist period, Turkey was so primitive, had no roads, no schools and no hospitals. So there was so much work to do inside Turkey that they couldn't think about the world. And secondly, Gazi always wanted to calm the fears that they were going to try to build a new Ottoman Empire. That was important for that time. But now the whole [Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet] Davutoğlu project has something very important for Turkey.
What does it have?
Turkey is now looking at the possibility of becoming a regional power, and over the long run, even a global power. That's why it's opening up embassies in Latin America and Africa. But I see it going more or less in concentric circles. You want to have zero problems with neighbors, and then you can have a more regional influence, and it could go from there. I like the Turkish approach of promoting the idea of diplomacy, compromise, resolving problems with negotiations: “Let's try to get Israel and Syria together. Let's try to get America and Iran together. Let's try to get Russia and Georgia together.” Turkey has a unique ability to talk to different sides in conflicts. The strategic identity for Turkey that Davutoğlu sees fits in very well with Obama's foreign policy ideas. So Turkey's relationships with Europe and America have crossed over. If you went back to the beginning of this decade, the EU had just blessed Turkey and given it a chance to begin the accession process. Right after that George Bush was elected; as Europe was embracing Turkey, the US was bombing places. That made Europe the ideal partner. Now they've changed positions. Europe is not so friendly to Turkey, and I can see why Turks don't want to be so positive toward Europe. Meanwhile, America has emerged as a far different kind of player in the world that wants to resolve problems through diplomacy. It means the beginning of a new, close phase of cooperation between Turkey and the United States.
Do you think Turkey's diverse relations with a range of countries in the world would be all fine with the Obama administration?
Yes, I do. I don't think it was fine with the Americans all the time. We didn't like it when Turkey was talking to Iran. But Turkey didn't care and said, “We're going to talk to Iran anyway.” Now we like the idea that Turkey talks to Iran. That's why Davutoğlu's project and Obama's policies are very much in line. They can help each other.
Do you think relations could have been disastrous if the Republicans were in power in the United States?
Yes. For example, during the presidential campaign, John McCain was talking about the circumstances under which he would bomb Iran. Anybody who bombs Iran is doing something bad for Turkey. Look what happened with Iraq.
Now such threats come from Israel…
The relationship between Israel and the United States may also be changing.
In what way?
The relationship between the United States and Israel is developing. And I still feel that it is unlikely that Israel would take some hugely dramatic and radical step in the Middle East, like bombing Iran with the realization that America was 100 percent against it. If America says that “we don't like it but after all Israel is its own country,” that's kind of a signal, then, maybe Israel will do it. But if the United States makes it very clear that “we do not want you to do it,” which is what we are saying to Israel, then, it is hard for Israel to do it.
You referred to Davutoğlu's foreign policy project of zero problems with neighbors. It has not been entirely achieved yet. What is your view of the most important unachieved problems in that regard?
Armenia, Cyprus and the Kurds. We were waiting for a big breakthrough on the Armenian issue, but it didn't happen. Obviously, there was a push back from Azerbaijan. However, Davutoğlu has told journalists that Turkey has not given up on this. That has a deadline every year because of the genocide resolution in Washington. We cannot get to next April 24 and still not have this resolved. The problem is how to bring Azerbaijan into the equation. This is an obstacle in Davutoğlu's achieving his diplomacy, compromise, negotiation policy in the world. When he goes out and tells Israel, for example, “You don't want to bomb Hamas. You want to talk to Hamas. You want to negotiate,” naturally they say, “What about you?” I love this phrase “Yurtta Sulh Cihanda Sulh” [Peace at Home, peace in the World]. But America and Turkey each have one half. America has peace at home. When we have conflicts in America, they are always peaceful. Turkey should learn from that. But we are warlike in the world. We need to learn from Turkey. Turkey has peace in the world. So each of us has half.
Why do you think the Kurdish issue is one of the most difficult to address?
Because it requires such a change in mindset with everything we've been told up to now. The policy still in the minds of most Turks has been “we must kill every terrorist.” We have to get past that. Kurds are brother citizens of the Turkish Republic. Every citizen has rights. They should be applied equally to all. There is also this existential fear in the Turkish soul that comes from the “Sèvres Syndrome.” One thing you see all through Turkish history is that Turkey does not stay isolated from the currents in the world. Even under Sultan Selim III, the French Revolution had an impact here. Then in the 19th century, the democratization in Europe had an impact here. This ideology of positivism in Europe really affected Mustafa Kemal and also had a negative effect in the 1930s. Europe embraced racist nationalism and the suppression of minorities. That also had an influence in Turkey. Then, after World War II, the United Nations was founded; countries were supposed to be more democratic. That's when we had the first election, multi-party system and [late Prime Minister Adnan] Menderes came in. In the 1980s and the early 1990s, the Cold War was ending, and countries were opening up to the market economy. There was Turgut Özal. Now the world is getting to a point where we want to resolve domestic conflicts democratically and peacefully. Turkey cannot remain apart from this.
You also said that Turkey is trying to become a global power and opening embassies in far-off places such as Latin America and Africa. There are also a lot of Turkish schools in those areas. What do you think of these?
I guess you can argue that there is going to be an Islamic component to this project, and this might be the best Islamic component you could have. Again, this requires an evolution in Turkey. But Turkey is playing a stabilizing role. As for Turkey really having an influence in Africa or in Latin America, we are a long way from that yet. Let's work on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, etc. Once Turkey establishes itself in the region, then we can think about bigger projects. But if you look 50 years ahead, if Turkey can succeed, it's reasonable. However, the upper limit is Turkey resolving the problems in the neighborhood. You've got to get those. As long as the Kurdish conflict is not solved, and Armenia and Cyprus are not solved, the amount that Turkey can do in the world is limited.
Are you following the Ergenekon investigation?
How can you not? When it started, it was positive for many Turks. Some corners of the carpet are being turned up and the dirt underneath is being brought to light. But it seemed to run a bit out of control. I am wondering if it is being used politically by some people. It is good as long as it is kept within the limits that evidence proves and it doesn't just become a witch hunt against people with different ideas.
What did you think when you heard about the document published recently by Taraf daily allegedly detailing a smear campaign organized by the military against the ruling party and the Gülen movement?
I found it very troubling. I don't think we know the whole story yet. So there are three possibilities. Either it is a project of the General Staff or it is a project of someone in the army who is not connected to the General Staff or it is a fake. There is now journalism that brings it to light - - it's good.
Considering the fact that the military used to be so untouchable in the past -- as you know very well from the 1990s when you were here…
Yes. The role of the military in Turkey has changed a lot. And it has to change more because in relation to what the world wants, armies do not participate in politics.
The United States has been supporting the Turkish military…
That was true in the past.
What has changed now?
Support for civilian democracy is going to be ever stronger under the Obama administration. We will not subordinate our desire for democracy to our desire for security.
Do you think we will see some concrete steps concerning US relations with the Turkish military…
I certainly think that there will be no covert encouragement to the military to continue to play a role. For example, after the March 2003 vote about the Iraq war, one American official [former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz] went on television and said, “I was disappointed that the military didn't step up and play a role.” This was terrible. It's almost like encouraging a coup. You won't hear that anymore.
Interview published June 21st, 2009. Available online: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=178650&bolum=8
“The role of the military in Turkey has changed a lot. And it has to change more because in relation to what the world wants, armies do not participate in politics,” said Kinzer in İstanbul, where he was conducting research for his next book dealing with US relations with Iran, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Kinzer pointed out that the new US administration under President Barack Obama will support civilian democracy in Turkey in a stronger way.
“I certainly think that there will be no covert encouragement for the military to continue to play a role. For example, after the March 2003 vote about the Iraq war, one American official [former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz] went on television and said, ‘I was disappointed that the military didn't step up and play a role.' This was terrible. It's almost like encouraging a coup. You won't hear that anymore,” said Kinzer, who after completing his assignment to Turkey published “Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds.”
According to Kinzer Turkey can become a regional power, and this can benefit the United States as well.
“When [Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet] Davutoğlu goes to Pakistan, for example, he is able to talk to every faction. There are no doors closed to Turkey. But there are doors closed to America,” he said and added that “Turkey can talk to people we can't talk to. The strategic identity for Turkey that Davutoğlu sees fits in very well with Obama's foreign policy ideas.”
Kinzer expanded on the topic and more for Sunday's Zaman.
You reported from Turkey at the end of the 1990s, and you've been observing the country since then. What have you found striking in those years?
The 1990s were something like a lost decade for Turkey. There were weak coalition governments that were not able to implement coherent policies; violence in the Southeast was at a very high level; Turkey was fighting most of its neighbors; and the country just seemed adrift. Now a lot of it has changed.
What are those changes?
First of all, you have a strong government with broad popular support. Second, since 1999, when the EU accession project took on momentum, Turkey has had a framework for reform. The new government, at least in its early years, was much more committed to reforms. We used to hear from the so-called secular parties that “we must move ever closer to Europe and we must democratize.” But they did not do it. Certainly after 1999, you really saw democratization and modernization in this country. This country is now probably more democratic than it has ever been. It's also a great step forward that the “Cumhurbaşkanı” [president] would stand up and say, “The Kurdish problem is our number one problem.” You would not have heard that in the 1990s. We have gone from a time when a Kurdish kid in Diyarbakır could not even ask for “çay” [tea] in the Kurdish language to a time when you have a Kurdish TV station, and the university in Mardin is going to have a department of Kurdish language and literature. The other big change I see is Turkey's role in the world.
How do you think Turkey's role in the world is changing?
Ever since the days of Atatürk [Gazi Mustafa Kemal, the founder of modern Turkey], Turkey looked mostly inward. There were some reasons for that. In the Kemalist period, Turkey was so primitive, had no roads, no schools and no hospitals. So there was so much work to do inside Turkey that they couldn't think about the world. And secondly, Gazi always wanted to calm the fears that they were going to try to build a new Ottoman Empire. That was important for that time. But now the whole [Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet] Davutoğlu project has something very important for Turkey.
What does it have?
Turkey is now looking at the possibility of becoming a regional power, and over the long run, even a global power. That's why it's opening up embassies in Latin America and Africa. But I see it going more or less in concentric circles. You want to have zero problems with neighbors, and then you can have a more regional influence, and it could go from there. I like the Turkish approach of promoting the idea of diplomacy, compromise, resolving problems with negotiations: “Let's try to get Israel and Syria together. Let's try to get America and Iran together. Let's try to get Russia and Georgia together.” Turkey has a unique ability to talk to different sides in conflicts. The strategic identity for Turkey that Davutoğlu sees fits in very well with Obama's foreign policy ideas. So Turkey's relationships with Europe and America have crossed over. If you went back to the beginning of this decade, the EU had just blessed Turkey and given it a chance to begin the accession process. Right after that George Bush was elected; as Europe was embracing Turkey, the US was bombing places. That made Europe the ideal partner. Now they've changed positions. Europe is not so friendly to Turkey, and I can see why Turks don't want to be so positive toward Europe. Meanwhile, America has emerged as a far different kind of player in the world that wants to resolve problems through diplomacy. It means the beginning of a new, close phase of cooperation between Turkey and the United States.
Do you think Turkey's diverse relations with a range of countries in the world would be all fine with the Obama administration?
Yes, I do. I don't think it was fine with the Americans all the time. We didn't like it when Turkey was talking to Iran. But Turkey didn't care and said, “We're going to talk to Iran anyway.” Now we like the idea that Turkey talks to Iran. That's why Davutoğlu's project and Obama's policies are very much in line. They can help each other.
Do you think relations could have been disastrous if the Republicans were in power in the United States?
Yes. For example, during the presidential campaign, John McCain was talking about the circumstances under which he would bomb Iran. Anybody who bombs Iran is doing something bad for Turkey. Look what happened with Iraq.
Now such threats come from Israel…
The relationship between Israel and the United States may also be changing.
In what way?
The relationship between the United States and Israel is developing. And I still feel that it is unlikely that Israel would take some hugely dramatic and radical step in the Middle East, like bombing Iran with the realization that America was 100 percent against it. If America says that “we don't like it but after all Israel is its own country,” that's kind of a signal, then, maybe Israel will do it. But if the United States makes it very clear that “we do not want you to do it,” which is what we are saying to Israel, then, it is hard for Israel to do it.
You referred to Davutoğlu's foreign policy project of zero problems with neighbors. It has not been entirely achieved yet. What is your view of the most important unachieved problems in that regard?
Armenia, Cyprus and the Kurds. We were waiting for a big breakthrough on the Armenian issue, but it didn't happen. Obviously, there was a push back from Azerbaijan. However, Davutoğlu has told journalists that Turkey has not given up on this. That has a deadline every year because of the genocide resolution in Washington. We cannot get to next April 24 and still not have this resolved. The problem is how to bring Azerbaijan into the equation. This is an obstacle in Davutoğlu's achieving his diplomacy, compromise, negotiation policy in the world. When he goes out and tells Israel, for example, “You don't want to bomb Hamas. You want to talk to Hamas. You want to negotiate,” naturally they say, “What about you?” I love this phrase “Yurtta Sulh Cihanda Sulh” [Peace at Home, peace in the World]. But America and Turkey each have one half. America has peace at home. When we have conflicts in America, they are always peaceful. Turkey should learn from that. But we are warlike in the world. We need to learn from Turkey. Turkey has peace in the world. So each of us has half.
Why do you think the Kurdish issue is one of the most difficult to address?
Because it requires such a change in mindset with everything we've been told up to now. The policy still in the minds of most Turks has been “we must kill every terrorist.” We have to get past that. Kurds are brother citizens of the Turkish Republic. Every citizen has rights. They should be applied equally to all. There is also this existential fear in the Turkish soul that comes from the “Sèvres Syndrome.” One thing you see all through Turkish history is that Turkey does not stay isolated from the currents in the world. Even under Sultan Selim III, the French Revolution had an impact here. Then in the 19th century, the democratization in Europe had an impact here. This ideology of positivism in Europe really affected Mustafa Kemal and also had a negative effect in the 1930s. Europe embraced racist nationalism and the suppression of minorities. That also had an influence in Turkey. Then, after World War II, the United Nations was founded; countries were supposed to be more democratic. That's when we had the first election, multi-party system and [late Prime Minister Adnan] Menderes came in. In the 1980s and the early 1990s, the Cold War was ending, and countries were opening up to the market economy. There was Turgut Özal. Now the world is getting to a point where we want to resolve domestic conflicts democratically and peacefully. Turkey cannot remain apart from this.
You also said that Turkey is trying to become a global power and opening embassies in far-off places such as Latin America and Africa. There are also a lot of Turkish schools in those areas. What do you think of these?
I guess you can argue that there is going to be an Islamic component to this project, and this might be the best Islamic component you could have. Again, this requires an evolution in Turkey. But Turkey is playing a stabilizing role. As for Turkey really having an influence in Africa or in Latin America, we are a long way from that yet. Let's work on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, etc. Once Turkey establishes itself in the region, then we can think about bigger projects. But if you look 50 years ahead, if Turkey can succeed, it's reasonable. However, the upper limit is Turkey resolving the problems in the neighborhood. You've got to get those. As long as the Kurdish conflict is not solved, and Armenia and Cyprus are not solved, the amount that Turkey can do in the world is limited.
Are you following the Ergenekon investigation?
How can you not? When it started, it was positive for many Turks. Some corners of the carpet are being turned up and the dirt underneath is being brought to light. But it seemed to run a bit out of control. I am wondering if it is being used politically by some people. It is good as long as it is kept within the limits that evidence proves and it doesn't just become a witch hunt against people with different ideas.
What did you think when you heard about the document published recently by Taraf daily allegedly detailing a smear campaign organized by the military against the ruling party and the Gülen movement?
I found it very troubling. I don't think we know the whole story yet. So there are three possibilities. Either it is a project of the General Staff or it is a project of someone in the army who is not connected to the General Staff or it is a fake. There is now journalism that brings it to light - - it's good.
Considering the fact that the military used to be so untouchable in the past -- as you know very well from the 1990s when you were here…
Yes. The role of the military in Turkey has changed a lot. And it has to change more because in relation to what the world wants, armies do not participate in politics.
The United States has been supporting the Turkish military…
That was true in the past.
What has changed now?
Support for civilian democracy is going to be ever stronger under the Obama administration. We will not subordinate our desire for democracy to our desire for security.
Do you think we will see some concrete steps concerning US relations with the Turkish military…
I certainly think that there will be no covert encouragement to the military to continue to play a role. For example, after the March 2003 vote about the Iraq war, one American official [former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz] went on television and said, “I was disappointed that the military didn't step up and play a role.” This was terrible. It's almost like encouraging a coup. You won't hear that anymore.
Interview published June 21st, 2009. Available online: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=178650&bolum=8
Monday, June 8, 2009
Lies, Damn Lies and Armenian Deaths
Huffington Post
June 5, 2009
On April 24, 2009--Armenian Remembrance Day-- President Barack Obama issued a statement "remember[ing] the 1.5 million Armenian [deaths] in the final days of the Ottoman Empire." The President stumbled.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.
Immediately after the war, when events and memories were fresh, Armenians had no incentive to concoct high casualty figures or genocidal motivations for their deaths. Their objective was statehood. Armenians were encouraged by the self-determination concept in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, (while conveniently forgetting that they were a minority in Eastern Anatolia where they hoped to found a new nation). Armenian leaders pointed to their military contribution to defeating the Ottomans and population figures that would sustain an Armenian nation.
Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: "The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente...." Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: "We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory."
When their quest for statehood shipwrecked on the Treaty of Lausanne and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1921, Armenians revised their soundtrack to endorse a contrived genocide thesis. It seeks a "pound of flesh" from the Republic of Turkey in the form of recognition, reparations, and boundary changes. To make their case more convincing, Armenians hiked the number of deaths. They also altered their story line from having died as belligerents against the Turks to having perished like unarmed helpless lambs.
Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000.
After statehood was lost, Armenians turned to their genocide playbook which exploited Christian bigotries and contempt for Ottoman Muslims. They remembered earlier successful anti-Ottoman propaganda. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the war, Henry Morganthau, was openly racist and devoted to propaganda. On November 26, 1917, Morgenthau confessed in a letter to President Wilson that he intended to write a book vilifying Turks and Germans to, "win a victory for the war policy of the government." In his biography, "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," Morgenthau betrays his racist hatred toward Turks ("humanity and civilization never for a moment enters their mind") and unconditional admiration for Armenians ("They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally.").
British Prime Minister Gladstone's histrionic figure of 60,000 Bulgarian Christians slaughtered in 1876 captured the imagination of the west. The true figure later provided by a British Ambassador was 3,500--including Turks who were first slain by the Christians.
From 280,000-750,000, Armenians initially raised their death count to 800,000 to test the credibility waters. It passed muster with uninformed politicians easily influenced by campaign contributions and voting clout. Armenians then jumped the number to 1.5 million, and then 1.8 million by Armenian historian Kevork Aslan. For the last decades, an Armenian majority seems to have settled on the 1.5 million death plateau--which still exceeds their contemporary estimates by 200 to 500 percent. They are now testing the waters at 2.5-3 million killed as their chances for a congressional genocide resolution recede. It speaks volumes that champions of the inflated death figures have no explanation for why Armenians on the scene would have erred. Think of the absurdity of discarding the current death count of Afghan civilians in the United States-Afghan war in favor of a number deduced in the year 2109!
Armenians have a genuine tale of woe. It largely overlaps with the tale of tragedy and suffering that can be told by Ottoman Muslims during the war years: 2.4 million deaths in Anatolia, ethnic cleansing, starvation, malnutrition, untreated epidemics, and traumatic privations of war under a decrepit and collapsing Empire.
Unskewed historical truth is the antechamber of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That is why the Government of Turkey has proposed an international commission of impartial and independent experts with access to all relevant archives to determine the number and characterization of World War I deaths. Armenians are balking because they are skeptical of their own figures and accusations.
*Bruce Fein is a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.
June 5, 2009
On April 24, 2009--Armenian Remembrance Day-- President Barack Obama issued a statement "remember[ing] the 1.5 million Armenian [deaths] in the final days of the Ottoman Empire." The President stumbled.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.
Immediately after the war, when events and memories were fresh, Armenians had no incentive to concoct high casualty figures or genocidal motivations for their deaths. Their objective was statehood. Armenians were encouraged by the self-determination concept in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, (while conveniently forgetting that they were a minority in Eastern Anatolia where they hoped to found a new nation). Armenian leaders pointed to their military contribution to defeating the Ottomans and population figures that would sustain an Armenian nation.
Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: "The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente...." Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: "We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory."
When their quest for statehood shipwrecked on the Treaty of Lausanne and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1921, Armenians revised their soundtrack to endorse a contrived genocide thesis. It seeks a "pound of flesh" from the Republic of Turkey in the form of recognition, reparations, and boundary changes. To make their case more convincing, Armenians hiked the number of deaths. They also altered their story line from having died as belligerents against the Turks to having perished like unarmed helpless lambs.
Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000.
After statehood was lost, Armenians turned to their genocide playbook which exploited Christian bigotries and contempt for Ottoman Muslims. They remembered earlier successful anti-Ottoman propaganda. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the war, Henry Morganthau, was openly racist and devoted to propaganda. On November 26, 1917, Morgenthau confessed in a letter to President Wilson that he intended to write a book vilifying Turks and Germans to, "win a victory for the war policy of the government." In his biography, "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," Morgenthau betrays his racist hatred toward Turks ("humanity and civilization never for a moment enters their mind") and unconditional admiration for Armenians ("They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally.").
British Prime Minister Gladstone's histrionic figure of 60,000 Bulgarian Christians slaughtered in 1876 captured the imagination of the west. The true figure later provided by a British Ambassador was 3,500--including Turks who were first slain by the Christians.
From 280,000-750,000, Armenians initially raised their death count to 800,000 to test the credibility waters. It passed muster with uninformed politicians easily influenced by campaign contributions and voting clout. Armenians then jumped the number to 1.5 million, and then 1.8 million by Armenian historian Kevork Aslan. For the last decades, an Armenian majority seems to have settled on the 1.5 million death plateau--which still exceeds their contemporary estimates by 200 to 500 percent. They are now testing the waters at 2.5-3 million killed as their chances for a congressional genocide resolution recede. It speaks volumes that champions of the inflated death figures have no explanation for why Armenians on the scene would have erred. Think of the absurdity of discarding the current death count of Afghan civilians in the United States-Afghan war in favor of a number deduced in the year 2109!
Armenians have a genuine tale of woe. It largely overlaps with the tale of tragedy and suffering that can be told by Ottoman Muslims during the war years: 2.4 million deaths in Anatolia, ethnic cleansing, starvation, malnutrition, untreated epidemics, and traumatic privations of war under a decrepit and collapsing Empire.
Unskewed historical truth is the antechamber of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That is why the Government of Turkey has proposed an international commission of impartial and independent experts with access to all relevant archives to determine the number and characterization of World War I deaths. Armenians are balking because they are skeptical of their own figures and accusations.
*Bruce Fein is a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama Boosts US Image, Approval Doubles in Turkey
Reuters
June 4, 2009
By Michelle Nichols
NEW YORK, June 4 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama has boosted his country's image abroad by six points since his election in November with a 22-nation poll on Thursday showing 42 percent of people expressing a favorable view of America.
As Obama prepares to speak to the Muslim world in Cairo in a bid to repair tattered U.S. relations, the Ipsos/Reuters survey showed a 25 point jump in favorable views of America in Turkey, the only majority Muslim nation polled, to 49 percent.
The poll was taken between April 14 and May 7, shortly after Obama visited Istanbul and met with religious leaders as part of a bid to unite moderates of faiths against extremism.
"This suggests that any sort of strategy to engage with the Muslim world puts a premium on him as the messenger and going there and talking to them," said Clifford Young of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, the international market research and polling company that carried out the online poll of 22,000 people.
"There's this very positive Obama effect and he is contributing significantly to increasing the U.S. credibility around the world," he said.
In India, where the Muslim population is a minority but still one of the largest in the world at 140 million or double the number of Turkish Muslims, the positive view of America rose one point to 73 percent, while in China, where there are about 20 million Muslims, it rose eight points to 42 percent.
Obama, whose father was Muslim and who lived as a boy in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, hopes to mend a U.S. image damaged by former President George W. Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the treatment of U.S. military detainees.
He visited Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and met with King Abdullah. On Thursday the first black U.S. president will speak to the Muslim world when he gives an address in Egypt.
"HONEYMOON EFFECT"
An Ipsos poll of 7,000 people in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan in March found that an average 48 percent had a favorable view of Obama, while 33 percent had a positive view of the United States.
Obama's Middle East trip and planned Cairo speech drew condemnation from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who said in a taped message that the U.S. leader had planted seeds for "revenge and hatred" towards America in the Muslim world.
"A six percent improvement in six months at the global level -- that's fairly significant," Young said. "Obama's especially having an effect in those countries that had the most doubt about the United States."
"We're seeing a honeymoon effect," Young said. "That doesn't necessarily mean it has to decline, it means it has to be reinforced with concrete actions on the ground."
Along with Turkey, six other countries posted double digit rises in favorable views toward America -- France, 13 points to 39 percent, Belgium, 12 points to 36 percent, Germany, 11 points to 31 percent, The Netherlands, 11 points to 27 percent, Canada, 10 points to 44 percent, and Spain, 10 points to 43 percent.
Only three of the 22 countries polled did not record any increase in the positive image of America -- Russia remained unchanged at 18 percent, the lowest ranking, while in Poland it dropped four points to 48 percent, and the Czech Republic fell one point to 35 percent.
Ipsos polled people in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, South Korea, China, Japan, Australia, India, Russia, Czech Republic, Poland, Turkey, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, and Britain.
The 22 countries polled make up 75 percent of the world's gross domestic product.Respondents in the online poll were recruited and screened, the survey said. The results are then balanced by age, gender, city population and education levels. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percent
June 4, 2009
By Michelle Nichols
NEW YORK, June 4 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama has boosted his country's image abroad by six points since his election in November with a 22-nation poll on Thursday showing 42 percent of people expressing a favorable view of America.
As Obama prepares to speak to the Muslim world in Cairo in a bid to repair tattered U.S. relations, the Ipsos/Reuters survey showed a 25 point jump in favorable views of America in Turkey, the only majority Muslim nation polled, to 49 percent.
The poll was taken between April 14 and May 7, shortly after Obama visited Istanbul and met with religious leaders as part of a bid to unite moderates of faiths against extremism.
"This suggests that any sort of strategy to engage with the Muslim world puts a premium on him as the messenger and going there and talking to them," said Clifford Young of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, the international market research and polling company that carried out the online poll of 22,000 people.
"There's this very positive Obama effect and he is contributing significantly to increasing the U.S. credibility around the world," he said.
In India, where the Muslim population is a minority but still one of the largest in the world at 140 million or double the number of Turkish Muslims, the positive view of America rose one point to 73 percent, while in China, where there are about 20 million Muslims, it rose eight points to 42 percent.
Obama, whose father was Muslim and who lived as a boy in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, hopes to mend a U.S. image damaged by former President George W. Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the treatment of U.S. military detainees.
He visited Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and met with King Abdullah. On Thursday the first black U.S. president will speak to the Muslim world when he gives an address in Egypt.
"HONEYMOON EFFECT"
An Ipsos poll of 7,000 people in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan in March found that an average 48 percent had a favorable view of Obama, while 33 percent had a positive view of the United States.
Obama's Middle East trip and planned Cairo speech drew condemnation from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who said in a taped message that the U.S. leader had planted seeds for "revenge and hatred" towards America in the Muslim world.
"A six percent improvement in six months at the global level -- that's fairly significant," Young said. "Obama's especially having an effect in those countries that had the most doubt about the United States."
"We're seeing a honeymoon effect," Young said. "That doesn't necessarily mean it has to decline, it means it has to be reinforced with concrete actions on the ground."
Along with Turkey, six other countries posted double digit rises in favorable views toward America -- France, 13 points to 39 percent, Belgium, 12 points to 36 percent, Germany, 11 points to 31 percent, The Netherlands, 11 points to 27 percent, Canada, 10 points to 44 percent, and Spain, 10 points to 43 percent.
Only three of the 22 countries polled did not record any increase in the positive image of America -- Russia remained unchanged at 18 percent, the lowest ranking, while in Poland it dropped four points to 48 percent, and the Czech Republic fell one point to 35 percent.
Ipsos polled people in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, South Korea, China, Japan, Australia, India, Russia, Czech Republic, Poland, Turkey, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, and Britain.
The 22 countries polled make up 75 percent of the world's gross domestic product.Respondents in the online poll were recruited and screened, the survey said. The results are then balanced by age, gender, city population and education levels. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percent
Turkish-American Group Blocks Pro-Genocide Bill
Today’s Zaman
June 3, 2009
The Turkish-American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF) has announced that a bill called the Justice for Genocide Victims Bill, which was introduced by California Assembly member Paul Krekorian, has been blocked by California Appropriations Committee Chairman Kevin de Leon.
The bill, known as Assembly Bill 961 (AB 961), was introduced in early 2009 by Assembly member Krekorian, a Democrat elected to the California state legislature in 2006. Krekorian tried to persuade the assembly by saying that AB 961 would prevent California from awarding contracts to companies that have profited from genocide. However, TALDF insistently objected to the bill and presented to the assembly two separate written statements explaining why they oppose the bill.
“The United States as a whole maintains a single foreign policy as authorized by the Constitution. The individual states may not intrude upon or compromise this policy. The framers of the Constitution recognized that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run, security and national interests are made by the union and not in a foreign policy Tower of Babel. The intent of AB 961 to create a foreign policy for California makes it unconstitutional,” said one of the statements introduced to the Committee on Business and Professions and the Committee on Judiciary of the California State Assembly.
TALDF has expressed pleasure at the fact that the rejection of AB 961 has actually sent a message to all of the states that no individual state, according to the Constitution, should deal with foreign policy.
TALDF, founded last year, assists Turkish-Americans with their constitutional citizenship rights.
Meanwhile, the English-language Asbarez newspaper reported recently that Senate Bill 234 (SB 234), authored by California Senator Mark Wyland (R-northern San Diego County) is now on its way to the full Senate floor for consideration. Known as the Genocide Awareness Act, the bill instructs the California State Curriculum Commission to consider the inclusion of an oral history component in its already mandated genocide education curriculum.
Asbarez noted that Turkish Coalition of America board member Bruce Fein traveled from Washington, D.C., in an effort to undermine SB 234 as well as AB 961.
June 3, 2009
The Turkish-American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF) has announced that a bill called the Justice for Genocide Victims Bill, which was introduced by California Assembly member Paul Krekorian, has been blocked by California Appropriations Committee Chairman Kevin de Leon.
The bill, known as Assembly Bill 961 (AB 961), was introduced in early 2009 by Assembly member Krekorian, a Democrat elected to the California state legislature in 2006. Krekorian tried to persuade the assembly by saying that AB 961 would prevent California from awarding contracts to companies that have profited from genocide. However, TALDF insistently objected to the bill and presented to the assembly two separate written statements explaining why they oppose the bill.
“The United States as a whole maintains a single foreign policy as authorized by the Constitution. The individual states may not intrude upon or compromise this policy. The framers of the Constitution recognized that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run, security and national interests are made by the union and not in a foreign policy Tower of Babel. The intent of AB 961 to create a foreign policy for California makes it unconstitutional,” said one of the statements introduced to the Committee on Business and Professions and the Committee on Judiciary of the California State Assembly.
TALDF has expressed pleasure at the fact that the rejection of AB 961 has actually sent a message to all of the states that no individual state, according to the Constitution, should deal with foreign policy.
TALDF, founded last year, assists Turkish-Americans with their constitutional citizenship rights.
Meanwhile, the English-language Asbarez newspaper reported recently that Senate Bill 234 (SB 234), authored by California Senator Mark Wyland (R-northern San Diego County) is now on its way to the full Senate floor for consideration. Known as the Genocide Awareness Act, the bill instructs the California State Curriculum Commission to consider the inclusion of an oral history component in its already mandated genocide education curriculum.
Asbarez noted that Turkish Coalition of America board member Bruce Fein traveled from Washington, D.C., in an effort to undermine SB 234 as well as AB 961.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Duty to Travel to Turkey this Summer
Star Community Newspapers
May 22, 2009
By Jim Kilpatrick
Rebecca Duty, 27, teacher at Coppell Middle School-West, has received a grant from World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth and is now a World Affairs Fellow and will spend the summer in Turkey on a study tour.
She will be in Turkey 11 or 12 days.
Duty was at Region 10 in Richardson when she learned she had been selected to make the tour.
She said, when her name was announced she just clapping and didn't realize it was her, who had been chosen.
“I was overwhelmed when I learned I had been chosen,” Duty said. “I couldn’t believe it.”
Duty is an eighth-grade girls coach and teaches seventh-grade Texas history. She graduated from the University of North Texas.
Duty will represent the council, the city of Coppell, the Coppell ISD and Texas in Turkey.
“I think the trip to Turkey is going to be amazing,” Duty said. This will be her first trip overseas.
Her selection was based on her application, recommendation and narrative, according to Jennifer Bowden, director of education at the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth.
The study-tour itinerary is a comprehensive event, both culturally and academically. Duty will be touring schools and meeting with officials of the Ministry of Education while in Turkey.
Duty’s project in Turkey will compare the cotton growing industry in Turkey with Texas’s industry and how it affects the world market.
When she returns from the summer expedition, she, along with all of the other fellows will present a follow-up workshop sometime in October. She will also focus on how the children in Turkey express themselves and compare that to how her students express themselves.
She will be blogging with her students in Texas while touring Turkey so her students will get the opportunity to be with heronline.
“She will be able to bring back adventures and experiences to share with the kids,” said Vern Edin, principal at CMS-West.
This is Duty’s fifth year of teaching and her second year in Coppell ISD.
“The World Affairs Council is excited about these opportunities that we have been able to provide to our teachers,” Bowden said. “We are looking forward to working with her.”
The grant comes in three parts:
*1.Turkey in Transition began with a full day workshop April 25 at the Region 10 Education Service Center and included geography, history, economics, foreign policy, culture, society, religion, and classroom resources. The workshop concluded with lesson plan development for classroom use written by the workshop participants.
*2. A study tour of Turkey with four North Texas educators visiting and studying in Turkey from July 13-July 23 at a cost of $600 per teacher plus domestic airfare. All tour expenses are paid by the Turkish Cultural Foundation.
*3. Finally a presentation called Portrait of Turkey, a mini-series for students and teachers from September 2009 to May 2010.
Bowden said that understanding international issues is essential for competing in a global economy and the challenge for today’s educators is preparing students for our increasingly interdependent world.
“In Dallas/Fort Worth and across America, students consistently display a shocking lack of basic knowledge about the world outside our own country,” Bowden said. “According to a National Geographic survey, more than half of young American adults cannot locate major countries like France, the United Kingdom, or Japan on a world map.”
The vast majority do not know where critical areas such as Iraq, Israel or Afghanistan are located, she added.
The Council received a grant from the Turkish Cultural Foundation to increase teacher’s knowledge about Turkey.
May 22, 2009
By Jim Kilpatrick
Rebecca Duty, 27, teacher at Coppell Middle School-West, has received a grant from World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth and is now a World Affairs Fellow and will spend the summer in Turkey on a study tour.
She will be in Turkey 11 or 12 days.
Duty was at Region 10 in Richardson when she learned she had been selected to make the tour.
She said, when her name was announced she just clapping and didn't realize it was her, who had been chosen.
“I was overwhelmed when I learned I had been chosen,” Duty said. “I couldn’t believe it.”
Duty is an eighth-grade girls coach and teaches seventh-grade Texas history. She graduated from the University of North Texas.
Duty will represent the council, the city of Coppell, the Coppell ISD and Texas in Turkey.
“I think the trip to Turkey is going to be amazing,” Duty said. This will be her first trip overseas.
Her selection was based on her application, recommendation and narrative, according to Jennifer Bowden, director of education at the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth.
The study-tour itinerary is a comprehensive event, both culturally and academically. Duty will be touring schools and meeting with officials of the Ministry of Education while in Turkey.
Duty’s project in Turkey will compare the cotton growing industry in Turkey with Texas’s industry and how it affects the world market.
When she returns from the summer expedition, she, along with all of the other fellows will present a follow-up workshop sometime in October. She will also focus on how the children in Turkey express themselves and compare that to how her students express themselves.
She will be blogging with her students in Texas while touring Turkey so her students will get the opportunity to be with heronline.
“She will be able to bring back adventures and experiences to share with the kids,” said Vern Edin, principal at CMS-West.
This is Duty’s fifth year of teaching and her second year in Coppell ISD.
“The World Affairs Council is excited about these opportunities that we have been able to provide to our teachers,” Bowden said. “We are looking forward to working with her.”
The grant comes in three parts:
*1.Turkey in Transition began with a full day workshop April 25 at the Region 10 Education Service Center and included geography, history, economics, foreign policy, culture, society, religion, and classroom resources. The workshop concluded with lesson plan development for classroom use written by the workshop participants.
*2. A study tour of Turkey with four North Texas educators visiting and studying in Turkey from July 13-July 23 at a cost of $600 per teacher plus domestic airfare. All tour expenses are paid by the Turkish Cultural Foundation.
*3. Finally a presentation called Portrait of Turkey, a mini-series for students and teachers from September 2009 to May 2010.
Bowden said that understanding international issues is essential for competing in a global economy and the challenge for today’s educators is preparing students for our increasingly interdependent world.
“In Dallas/Fort Worth and across America, students consistently display a shocking lack of basic knowledge about the world outside our own country,” Bowden said. “According to a National Geographic survey, more than half of young American adults cannot locate major countries like France, the United Kingdom, or Japan on a world map.”
The vast majority do not know where critical areas such as Iraq, Israel or Afghanistan are located, she added.
The Council received a grant from the Turkish Cultural Foundation to increase teacher’s knowledge about Turkey.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Recommendations for the Armenian Diaspora
Huffington Post
By Bruce Fein
Resident Scholar, Turkish Coalition of America
The ongoing high-level efforts between Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations, including establishing diplomatic relations and opening the land border between the two countries, have received President Obama's imprimatur during his recent visit to Turkey.
While the negotiated resolution of any conflict is a desirable goal, the Turkish government would be wise to weigh the public's expectations of this dialogue with existing realities, which will affect the immediate and long-term outcome of bilateral developments between the two countries and Turkey's relations with the United States and Azerbaijan.
First, there is a dichotomy of interests among the Armenian stakeholders in this dialogue. The interests of the Armenian Diaspora, even different Diaspora organizations, the American political establishment and Armenia are divergent. The increasingly boisterous voices in the Armenian Diaspora which object to the Armenian government's engagement with Turkey; the dismissal of the bilateral process by U.S. lawmakers who carry the Armenian lobby's torch in Congress; as well as the full blown campaign by all Armenian advocacy and lobby groups in furthering their legislative, educational, political and public affairs agenda in the U.S.and elsewhere, are proof of this divergence.
On the other hand, the Turkish community abroad, particularly in the U.S., has by and large voiced support of the Turkish government's dual approach that manifests itself in engaging in diplomatic efforts to normalize relations with Armenia on the one hand, and in committing to accept the findings of an impartial international commission that will address the contested period of Armenian-Ottoman history and the "genocide" question, on the other.
However, supporting the process does not mean turning a blind eye to competing Turkish interests and other realities. There are wide-spread concerns among Turks and others that Turkey will lose much and gain little from the entente it labors upon with Armenia. Without a doubt, the most significant loss Turkey may endure from this process, particularly from opening its land border with Armenia, could be estranging its natural strategic ally, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has shown significant reaction to Turkey's perceived "de-linking" of the continuing Armenian occupation from its negotiations with Armenia.
Those in support of normalizing relations with Armenia frequently allude to the potential spillover effect this will have on a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict and also stem the "genocide" campaigns by the Armenian Diaspora. However, others argue that the economic effect of a closed land border with Turkey is the only incentive for Armenia to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Azerbaijan on lifting its occupation. Some Azeri analysts argue that removing this sanction may deprive Armenia of any incentive for peace and leave Azerbaijan with no option but a new war.
The Turkish-Armenian dialogue is known to have been advocated by successive U.S. administrations as a way to "pacify" the Armenian lobby and to weaken the incessant congressional efforts for U.S. recognition of the "Armenian genocide," a development that would most certainly damage U.S.-Turkey relations.
However, pursuing this advice without addressing the underpinnings of the global Armenian campaign against Turkey will most certainly result in great disappointment for Turkey.
The "Armenian Genocide" narrative is an existential narrative for the Armenian Diaspora. It has become the glue that bonds the community across social, economic and political lines. Perpetuating this narrative and activating the community around legislative, educational, philanthropic and political endeavors has become the lifeline for Armenian Diaspora organizations, including the Armenian Church. Hatred against modern day Turks and Turkey has become an identity strengthening tool, particularly employed toward young Armenians, and examples of this hateful behavior against ordinary Turks abound.
It is in this area where Turkish analysis about the Armenian Diaspora's state of mind, its wide-reaching agenda and impact seems to be most deficient. The benefits that Turkey expects from rapprochement with Armenia can not be achieved as long as the Armenian Diaspora's realities are ignored. Unless Armenia and other interested parties can engage the Armenian Diaspora in this process and help bring about fundamental changes in the community, the "genocide" issue will remain at the center of their agenda. Consequently, Turkey's outreach to Armenia will have no effect on the Armenian Diaspora and its international agenda against Turkey, including its lobbying of the U.S. Congress and the Administration.
Bringing about change in the attitudes of the Armenian Diaspora needs to focus on:
* Stopping hate: It is clear to everyone who follows the Armenian Diaspora that the pursuit of genocide recognition has turned into a campaign of hate against Turkey and modern day Turks. This hatred has been manifested in worldwide terrorism and the murder of 40 Turkish diplomats; the continuing adoration of these killers, as well as ongoing harassment and intimidation of Turkish Americans. More troubling, is the fact that hate against Turkey seems to grow among many young Armenian adults who hold more severely hateful perceptions of Turks.
* Defending academic freedom and stopping intimidation and harassment of scholars: The Armenian Diaspora has successfully created an aura of intimidation in academia through their consistent vilification of scholars, who do not agree with the Armenian narrative of history. By slandering any scholar who deviates from the Armenian narrative as a "genocide denier" and attempting to deny such scholars access to academic and public platforms, the Armenian lobby is effectively stifling more research and debate on this history.
* Exposing Armenian "buy-out" of scholars: Armenian foundations and wealthy Armenian Americans are pouring money into American universities to support scholars, including Turkish ones, whose positions corroborate the Armenian narrative. The existence of "Armenian Genocide" study centers at leading U.S. universities rests on the largesse of such Armenian donations. Research in this area has effectively been turned into an Armenian funded cottage industry.
* Advocating the opening of Armenian Archives: Opening all Armenian archives to independent scholarly review will unearth the complete narrative of Ottoman-Armenian history, including the Armenian independence movement and revolt.
* Stopping foul play: Armenian Diaspora groups must be held accountable to stick to the same rules that apply to all advocacy groups. Many of them have not. The best example of such foul play is the Armenian National Committee of America, which is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible violations of its legal status and other U.S. laws governing lobbying.* Exposing the futility of political lobbying: The Armenian Diaspora lobbyists have invested much stock and capital in lobbying efforts to legislate history. Turkey must unequivocally state that it is an Armenian Diaspora illusion that such third country political pressures can force Turkey to accept their narrative and issue an "apology," opening the way for other demands by the Armenian Diaspora such as reparations or territorial claims.
* Looking forward: The Armenian community can gain tremendously by looking forward and reaching out to Turkey as their heritage country. Turkey and Turkish civil society should extend a hand of friendship toward the Armenian Diaspora. Turks, by and large, hold no animosity toward Armenians and will embrace Diaspora Armenians warmly. The rich Armenian culture continues to be part of Turkey's culture, its music, art, architecture, folklore and cuisine. These common bonds can be revived and the Armenian Diaspora, not Armenia, can herald this revival.
* Ending Armenia's isolation: The Armenian Diaspora has played a significant role for Armenia. However, the Armenian Diaspora's efforts cannot replace the economic and political benefits of normalizing Armenia's relations with its neighbors, particularly Azerbaijan, and integrating the country into the economic and strategic regional framework. The Armenian Diaspora in the United States, in particular, should be the advocate of moving Armenia away from Russia and Iran and closer to Turkey and the U.S.
* Believing in dialogue: The current Turkish government has long extended a hand of friendship and reconciliation toward the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in its invitation to form an international historical commission. Turkey's invitation and willingness to support such a comprehensive effort and to accept its findings may not remain valid forever. The Armenian Diaspora should unclench its fist and take this hand, as it is the only way for peace and reconciliation.
By Bruce Fein
Resident Scholar, Turkish Coalition of America
The ongoing high-level efforts between Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations, including establishing diplomatic relations and opening the land border between the two countries, have received President Obama's imprimatur during his recent visit to Turkey.
While the negotiated resolution of any conflict is a desirable goal, the Turkish government would be wise to weigh the public's expectations of this dialogue with existing realities, which will affect the immediate and long-term outcome of bilateral developments between the two countries and Turkey's relations with the United States and Azerbaijan.
First, there is a dichotomy of interests among the Armenian stakeholders in this dialogue. The interests of the Armenian Diaspora, even different Diaspora organizations, the American political establishment and Armenia are divergent. The increasingly boisterous voices in the Armenian Diaspora which object to the Armenian government's engagement with Turkey; the dismissal of the bilateral process by U.S. lawmakers who carry the Armenian lobby's torch in Congress; as well as the full blown campaign by all Armenian advocacy and lobby groups in furthering their legislative, educational, political and public affairs agenda in the U.S.and elsewhere, are proof of this divergence.
On the other hand, the Turkish community abroad, particularly in the U.S., has by and large voiced support of the Turkish government's dual approach that manifests itself in engaging in diplomatic efforts to normalize relations with Armenia on the one hand, and in committing to accept the findings of an impartial international commission that will address the contested period of Armenian-Ottoman history and the "genocide" question, on the other.
However, supporting the process does not mean turning a blind eye to competing Turkish interests and other realities. There are wide-spread concerns among Turks and others that Turkey will lose much and gain little from the entente it labors upon with Armenia. Without a doubt, the most significant loss Turkey may endure from this process, particularly from opening its land border with Armenia, could be estranging its natural strategic ally, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has shown significant reaction to Turkey's perceived "de-linking" of the continuing Armenian occupation from its negotiations with Armenia.
Those in support of normalizing relations with Armenia frequently allude to the potential spillover effect this will have on a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict and also stem the "genocide" campaigns by the Armenian Diaspora. However, others argue that the economic effect of a closed land border with Turkey is the only incentive for Armenia to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Azerbaijan on lifting its occupation. Some Azeri analysts argue that removing this sanction may deprive Armenia of any incentive for peace and leave Azerbaijan with no option but a new war.
The Turkish-Armenian dialogue is known to have been advocated by successive U.S. administrations as a way to "pacify" the Armenian lobby and to weaken the incessant congressional efforts for U.S. recognition of the "Armenian genocide," a development that would most certainly damage U.S.-Turkey relations.
However, pursuing this advice without addressing the underpinnings of the global Armenian campaign against Turkey will most certainly result in great disappointment for Turkey.
The "Armenian Genocide" narrative is an existential narrative for the Armenian Diaspora. It has become the glue that bonds the community across social, economic and political lines. Perpetuating this narrative and activating the community around legislative, educational, philanthropic and political endeavors has become the lifeline for Armenian Diaspora organizations, including the Armenian Church. Hatred against modern day Turks and Turkey has become an identity strengthening tool, particularly employed toward young Armenians, and examples of this hateful behavior against ordinary Turks abound.
It is in this area where Turkish analysis about the Armenian Diaspora's state of mind, its wide-reaching agenda and impact seems to be most deficient. The benefits that Turkey expects from rapprochement with Armenia can not be achieved as long as the Armenian Diaspora's realities are ignored. Unless Armenia and other interested parties can engage the Armenian Diaspora in this process and help bring about fundamental changes in the community, the "genocide" issue will remain at the center of their agenda. Consequently, Turkey's outreach to Armenia will have no effect on the Armenian Diaspora and its international agenda against Turkey, including its lobbying of the U.S. Congress and the Administration.
Bringing about change in the attitudes of the Armenian Diaspora needs to focus on:
* Stopping hate: It is clear to everyone who follows the Armenian Diaspora that the pursuit of genocide recognition has turned into a campaign of hate against Turkey and modern day Turks. This hatred has been manifested in worldwide terrorism and the murder of 40 Turkish diplomats; the continuing adoration of these killers, as well as ongoing harassment and intimidation of Turkish Americans. More troubling, is the fact that hate against Turkey seems to grow among many young Armenian adults who hold more severely hateful perceptions of Turks.
* Defending academic freedom and stopping intimidation and harassment of scholars: The Armenian Diaspora has successfully created an aura of intimidation in academia through their consistent vilification of scholars, who do not agree with the Armenian narrative of history. By slandering any scholar who deviates from the Armenian narrative as a "genocide denier" and attempting to deny such scholars access to academic and public platforms, the Armenian lobby is effectively stifling more research and debate on this history.
* Exposing Armenian "buy-out" of scholars: Armenian foundations and wealthy Armenian Americans are pouring money into American universities to support scholars, including Turkish ones, whose positions corroborate the Armenian narrative. The existence of "Armenian Genocide" study centers at leading U.S. universities rests on the largesse of such Armenian donations. Research in this area has effectively been turned into an Armenian funded cottage industry.
* Advocating the opening of Armenian Archives: Opening all Armenian archives to independent scholarly review will unearth the complete narrative of Ottoman-Armenian history, including the Armenian independence movement and revolt.
* Stopping foul play: Armenian Diaspora groups must be held accountable to stick to the same rules that apply to all advocacy groups. Many of them have not. The best example of such foul play is the Armenian National Committee of America, which is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible violations of its legal status and other U.S. laws governing lobbying.* Exposing the futility of political lobbying: The Armenian Diaspora lobbyists have invested much stock and capital in lobbying efforts to legislate history. Turkey must unequivocally state that it is an Armenian Diaspora illusion that such third country political pressures can force Turkey to accept their narrative and issue an "apology," opening the way for other demands by the Armenian Diaspora such as reparations or territorial claims.
* Looking forward: The Armenian community can gain tremendously by looking forward and reaching out to Turkey as their heritage country. Turkey and Turkish civil society should extend a hand of friendship toward the Armenian Diaspora. Turks, by and large, hold no animosity toward Armenians and will embrace Diaspora Armenians warmly. The rich Armenian culture continues to be part of Turkey's culture, its music, art, architecture, folklore and cuisine. These common bonds can be revived and the Armenian Diaspora, not Armenia, can herald this revival.
* Ending Armenia's isolation: The Armenian Diaspora has played a significant role for Armenia. However, the Armenian Diaspora's efforts cannot replace the economic and political benefits of normalizing Armenia's relations with its neighbors, particularly Azerbaijan, and integrating the country into the economic and strategic regional framework. The Armenian Diaspora in the United States, in particular, should be the advocate of moving Armenia away from Russia and Iran and closer to Turkey and the U.S.
* Believing in dialogue: The current Turkish government has long extended a hand of friendship and reconciliation toward the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in its invitation to form an international historical commission. Turkey's invitation and willingness to support such a comprehensive effort and to accept its findings may not remain valid forever. The Armenian Diaspora should unclench its fist and take this hand, as it is the only way for peace and reconciliation.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Obama Avoids 'Genocide' Term, Sparking More Debate
The Hill
By Bridget Johnson
President Obama avoided using the word "genocide" when addressing "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century" on Armenians' remembrance day for those killed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915."
Just as the terrible events of 1915 remind us of the dark prospect of man’s inhumanity to man, reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of reconciliation," Obama said in a statement issued by the White House on Friday afternoon. "I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
Obama said the rapprochement announced Thursday between Turkey and Armenia was key to the two countries moving forward. Turkey and Armenia agreed in principle to opening a long-shut border crossing and normalizing relations, but have not said whether they would reach any agreement on genocide recognition.
"I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open and constructive," Obama said. "To that end, there has been courageous and important dialogue among Armenians and Turks, and within Turkey itself."
Obama said he stood with the diaspora "and with Armenians everywhere with a sense of friendship, solidarity and deep respect."
Before the statement had even been issued, Turkish President Abdullah Gul hinted that he knew Obama would avoid the contentious term, telling reporters Friday that Obama had left his early-April Turkey visit "now better informed."
Obama had promised early in his presidential campaign that he would call the mass killings genocide if elected. "The facts are undeniable," Obama said in a Jan. 19, 2008, statement. "An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
Obama avoided use of the word genocide when asked about his campaign promise during a press conference in Turkey.
“We applaud President Obama for deferring to historians to settle the longstanding debate over the events of 1915-1918," Lincoln McCurdy, president of the Turkish Coalition of America, said in a statement. "This tragic period in history led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians alike."President Obama has sent a clear message to America and the world that his administration will not sacrifice long-term strategic allies for short-term political gains,” McCurdy said.
Armenian-American organizations saw Friday's statement differently.
“Today’s statement does not reflect the change the president promised,” Armenian Assembly of America Executive Director Bryan Ardouny said in a statement. “His failure to affirm the proud chapter in U.S. history, the American response to the first genocide of the 20th century, has needlessly delayed the cause of genocide affirmation and diminishes U.S. credibility with regard to genocide prevention.
"Empty promises are no change at all," Ardouny said.
Armenian National Committee of America Chairman Ken Hachikian had similarly harsh words for the president's decision.
"I join with all Armenian Americans in voicing our sharp disappointment with President Obama's failure to honor his solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide," Hachikian said in a statement.
"In falling short of his repeated and crystal-clear promises, which reflected a thorough knowledge of the facts, the practical implications, and the profound moral dimension of Armenian Genocide recognition, the president chose, as a matter of policy, to allow our nation's stand against genocide to remain a hostage to Turkey's threats."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), sponsor of legislation that would recognize the killings as genocide, said he would press forward with his bill, which is still in committee. "Although the president today acknowledged the deaths of a million and a half Armenians during the Armenian Genocide, I am deeply disappointed by his decision not to use the word 'genocide' in his statement," Schiff said in a statement. "Nonetheless, our work will go on undaunted. We will not become complicit in Ankara's campaign of denial."
Armenian and Turkish demonstrators faced off Friday outside the Turkish embassy in Washington, with Turkish demonstrators beginning a 24-hour candlelight vigil Thursday evening on the embassy's Massachusetts Avenue sidewalk.
Gunay Edinch, president-elect of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, told The Hill that the Turks and Azeris were demonstrating "for victims of Armenian terrorism and the 1.1 million Muslims and Jews killed in the 1880-1919 Armenian independence movement."
Edinch said Armenian demonstrators began showing up after the release of Obama's statement. Before 4 p.m., three busloads of Armenians had arrived to join the handful of people demonstrating for Armenia and Greece, he said.
"We expected that the president would not use the word 'genocide' because that is a criminal accusation which carries very important legal and international relations implications," Edinch said, adding that he would have liked to see Obama also recognize the deaths for which the Turkish associations were holding their vigil.
"We would have liked a more well-rounded statement for both communities," Edinch said. "Could that have been done on the 24th of April? Maybe not ... maybe another date."
By Bridget Johnson
President Obama avoided using the word "genocide" when addressing "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century" on Armenians' remembrance day for those killed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915."
Just as the terrible events of 1915 remind us of the dark prospect of man’s inhumanity to man, reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of reconciliation," Obama said in a statement issued by the White House on Friday afternoon. "I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
Obama said the rapprochement announced Thursday between Turkey and Armenia was key to the two countries moving forward. Turkey and Armenia agreed in principle to opening a long-shut border crossing and normalizing relations, but have not said whether they would reach any agreement on genocide recognition.
"I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open and constructive," Obama said. "To that end, there has been courageous and important dialogue among Armenians and Turks, and within Turkey itself."
Obama said he stood with the diaspora "and with Armenians everywhere with a sense of friendship, solidarity and deep respect."
Before the statement had even been issued, Turkish President Abdullah Gul hinted that he knew Obama would avoid the contentious term, telling reporters Friday that Obama had left his early-April Turkey visit "now better informed."
Obama had promised early in his presidential campaign that he would call the mass killings genocide if elected. "The facts are undeniable," Obama said in a Jan. 19, 2008, statement. "An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
Obama avoided use of the word genocide when asked about his campaign promise during a press conference in Turkey.
“We applaud President Obama for deferring to historians to settle the longstanding debate over the events of 1915-1918," Lincoln McCurdy, president of the Turkish Coalition of America, said in a statement. "This tragic period in history led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians alike."President Obama has sent a clear message to America and the world that his administration will not sacrifice long-term strategic allies for short-term political gains,” McCurdy said.
Armenian-American organizations saw Friday's statement differently.
“Today’s statement does not reflect the change the president promised,” Armenian Assembly of America Executive Director Bryan Ardouny said in a statement. “His failure to affirm the proud chapter in U.S. history, the American response to the first genocide of the 20th century, has needlessly delayed the cause of genocide affirmation and diminishes U.S. credibility with regard to genocide prevention.
"Empty promises are no change at all," Ardouny said.
Armenian National Committee of America Chairman Ken Hachikian had similarly harsh words for the president's decision.
"I join with all Armenian Americans in voicing our sharp disappointment with President Obama's failure to honor his solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide," Hachikian said in a statement.
"In falling short of his repeated and crystal-clear promises, which reflected a thorough knowledge of the facts, the practical implications, and the profound moral dimension of Armenian Genocide recognition, the president chose, as a matter of policy, to allow our nation's stand against genocide to remain a hostage to Turkey's threats."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), sponsor of legislation that would recognize the killings as genocide, said he would press forward with his bill, which is still in committee. "Although the president today acknowledged the deaths of a million and a half Armenians during the Armenian Genocide, I am deeply disappointed by his decision not to use the word 'genocide' in his statement," Schiff said in a statement. "Nonetheless, our work will go on undaunted. We will not become complicit in Ankara's campaign of denial."
Armenian and Turkish demonstrators faced off Friday outside the Turkish embassy in Washington, with Turkish demonstrators beginning a 24-hour candlelight vigil Thursday evening on the embassy's Massachusetts Avenue sidewalk.
Gunay Edinch, president-elect of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, told The Hill that the Turks and Azeris were demonstrating "for victims of Armenian terrorism and the 1.1 million Muslims and Jews killed in the 1880-1919 Armenian independence movement."
Edinch said Armenian demonstrators began showing up after the release of Obama's statement. Before 4 p.m., three busloads of Armenians had arrived to join the handful of people demonstrating for Armenia and Greece, he said.
"We expected that the president would not use the word 'genocide' because that is a criminal accusation which carries very important legal and international relations implications," Edinch said, adding that he would have liked to see Obama also recognize the deaths for which the Turkish associations were holding their vigil.
"We would have liked a more well-rounded statement for both communities," Edinch said. "Could that have been done on the 24th of April? Maybe not ... maybe another date."
On Anniversary for Armenians, Obama Avoids the Word Genocide
The Washintgon Post
By Michael A. Fletcher
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama said the "Armenian Genocide" is not "an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
But as president, he has avoided using the word "genocide" to describe the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians in Turkey during the fall of the Ottoman Empire. During his recent visit to Turkey, he refrained from using the term "genocide," and instead referred to the "terrible events of 1915." And he avoided using the explosive term again today in an official statement marking the 94th anniversary of the massacres.
"Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire," Obama said. He went on to say, "History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight," also without invoking the word "genocide."
Obama defended the change in rhetoric, saying it does not reflect any shift in his views, but rather his desire not to cool warming relations between Turkey and Armenia. "My view of that history has not changed," Obama said. "My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts. The best way to advance that goal right now is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past as part of their efforts to move forward."
Earlier this week, Turkey and Armenia announced that they had agreed in principle to normalize relations, a possible breakthrough in a bitter dispute over century-old massacres. U.S. officials said the Obama administration had been quietly working to push the agreement forward, with the American president meeting privately with leaders of the two countries during his trip to Istanbul earlier this month, and Obama acknowledged the progress in his statement. Just yesterday, Vice President Biden called Armenian President Sargsian to applaud the progress and reiterate the administration's support for the process.
While President Ronald Reagan issued a statement recognizing genocide, Obama has followed the path of other presidents who promised to describe the killings as a genocide, only to abandon that pledge once elected.
The issue is sensitive for both Turks and Armenians. Turkey's position is that the number of killings have been overstated and that the Armenians who died were victims of a civil war.
"History is replete with examples of false narratives born from bigotries that advance a political agenda rather than the truth," read a letter sent to Obama by a coalition of 53 Turkish-American organizations. "The Armenian claim of passive victimhood stands on such shaky historical footing."
Armenians, meanwhile, say the killings were planned by Turks and they have long sought formal recognition of what they see as a genocide.
A resolution recognizing the killings as genocide is pending in Congress. Still, most American leaders have deferred to strategic interests, since Turkey is a key majority-Muslim ally.
"Political considerations -- whether Turkish threats, prospects for Turkey-Armenia dialogue, or in any other form -- should never stand in the way of America's willingness to condemn the Armenian Genocide, or any genocide, and to stand up for the truth," said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America.
By contrast, Turkish American leaders were happy with Obama's statement.
"We applaud President Obama for deferring to historians to settle the long-standing debate over the events of 1915-1918. This tragic period in history led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians alike," said Lincoln McCurdy, president of the Turkish Coalition of America. "President Obama has sent a clear message to America and the world that his administration will not sacrifice long-term strategic allies for short-term political gains."
By Michael A. Fletcher
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama said the "Armenian Genocide" is not "an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
But as president, he has avoided using the word "genocide" to describe the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians in Turkey during the fall of the Ottoman Empire. During his recent visit to Turkey, he refrained from using the term "genocide," and instead referred to the "terrible events of 1915." And he avoided using the explosive term again today in an official statement marking the 94th anniversary of the massacres.
"Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire," Obama said. He went on to say, "History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight," also without invoking the word "genocide."
Obama defended the change in rhetoric, saying it does not reflect any shift in his views, but rather his desire not to cool warming relations between Turkey and Armenia. "My view of that history has not changed," Obama said. "My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts. The best way to advance that goal right now is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past as part of their efforts to move forward."
Earlier this week, Turkey and Armenia announced that they had agreed in principle to normalize relations, a possible breakthrough in a bitter dispute over century-old massacres. U.S. officials said the Obama administration had been quietly working to push the agreement forward, with the American president meeting privately with leaders of the two countries during his trip to Istanbul earlier this month, and Obama acknowledged the progress in his statement. Just yesterday, Vice President Biden called Armenian President Sargsian to applaud the progress and reiterate the administration's support for the process.
While President Ronald Reagan issued a statement recognizing genocide, Obama has followed the path of other presidents who promised to describe the killings as a genocide, only to abandon that pledge once elected.
The issue is sensitive for both Turks and Armenians. Turkey's position is that the number of killings have been overstated and that the Armenians who died were victims of a civil war.
"History is replete with examples of false narratives born from bigotries that advance a political agenda rather than the truth," read a letter sent to Obama by a coalition of 53 Turkish-American organizations. "The Armenian claim of passive victimhood stands on such shaky historical footing."
Armenians, meanwhile, say the killings were planned by Turks and they have long sought formal recognition of what they see as a genocide.
A resolution recognizing the killings as genocide is pending in Congress. Still, most American leaders have deferred to strategic interests, since Turkey is a key majority-Muslim ally.
"Political considerations -- whether Turkish threats, prospects for Turkey-Armenia dialogue, or in any other form -- should never stand in the way of America's willingness to condemn the Armenian Genocide, or any genocide, and to stand up for the truth," said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America.
By contrast, Turkish American leaders were happy with Obama's statement.
"We applaud President Obama for deferring to historians to settle the long-standing debate over the events of 1915-1918. This tragic period in history led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians alike," said Lincoln McCurdy, president of the Turkish Coalition of America. "President Obama has sent a clear message to America and the world that his administration will not sacrifice long-term strategic allies for short-term political gains."
Monday, April 13, 2009
Turkish Businessmen Abroad Urge Effective Cooperation with Homeland
April 13, 2009
Hurriyet Daily News
ISTANBUL - More 2,000 Turkish businessmen working abroad came together in Istanbul on Friday urging for more effective cooperation between the state and the Turkish entrepreneurs active all over the world.
The two-day, World Conference of Turkish Entrepreneurs, organized by the Council of Foreign Economic Relations, or DEIK, began Friday with inauguration speeches by prominent businessmen and representatives of the government.
While there are 12 Turkish firms among Europe’s 500 biggest enterprises and 24 among the 100 enterprises of the Islamic world, there are no Turkish firms among the world’s biggest 500 enterprises, said Nazim Ekren, deputy prime minister responsible for the economy.
“We want to increase the number of Turkish firms which will rank among the biggest 500 firms in the world,” he said. The government will pursue production and growth friendly monetary and fiscal policies, according to Ekren. He reiterated the government’s aim to make Istanbul a regional and global finance center. Rifat Hisarciklioglu called on Turkish businessmen working abroad however to cooperate more among themselves and not see each other only as rivals. He also asked the gathering to think big saying “there is not just Germany, there is Europe; there is not just Europe but the world.”
Hisarciklioglu encouraged the younger generations to learn not just English but other languages like Russian or Chinese, and also asked Turkish businessmen abroad to participate in local politics. “There are elections for European Parliament in June. You should run for these elections. You should make your weight felt in Europe,” he said. The representatives of the Turkish business community abroad have in their turned asked to have more coordinated policies between the state and the business world.
“I don’t know what the policies of my government are in Central Asia,” said Zeki Pilge a businessmen active in Kazakhistan.
Concerned about the absence of a communication network among the business community abroad, Vural Oger, a German member of the European Parliament, underlined the need to develop strategies to use the potential of the Turkish diaspora abroad.
Tuzmen: “There are talks about Turkey being a super power” State Minister Kursat Tuzmen claimed that there is talk in the international community that Turkey will be a super power in the new world order and therefore, the world’s attention turned to the nation.
Hurriyet Daily News
ISTANBUL - More 2,000 Turkish businessmen working abroad came together in Istanbul on Friday urging for more effective cooperation between the state and the Turkish entrepreneurs active all over the world.
The two-day, World Conference of Turkish Entrepreneurs, organized by the Council of Foreign Economic Relations, or DEIK, began Friday with inauguration speeches by prominent businessmen and representatives of the government.
While there are 12 Turkish firms among Europe’s 500 biggest enterprises and 24 among the 100 enterprises of the Islamic world, there are no Turkish firms among the world’s biggest 500 enterprises, said Nazim Ekren, deputy prime minister responsible for the economy.
“We want to increase the number of Turkish firms which will rank among the biggest 500 firms in the world,” he said. The government will pursue production and growth friendly monetary and fiscal policies, according to Ekren. He reiterated the government’s aim to make Istanbul a regional and global finance center. Rifat Hisarciklioglu called on Turkish businessmen working abroad however to cooperate more among themselves and not see each other only as rivals. He also asked the gathering to think big saying “there is not just Germany, there is Europe; there is not just Europe but the world.”
Hisarciklioglu encouraged the younger generations to learn not just English but other languages like Russian or Chinese, and also asked Turkish businessmen abroad to participate in local politics. “There are elections for European Parliament in June. You should run for these elections. You should make your weight felt in Europe,” he said. The representatives of the Turkish business community abroad have in their turned asked to have more coordinated policies between the state and the business world.
“I don’t know what the policies of my government are in Central Asia,” said Zeki Pilge a businessmen active in Kazakhistan.
Concerned about the absence of a communication network among the business community abroad, Vural Oger, a German member of the European Parliament, underlined the need to develop strategies to use the potential of the Turkish diaspora abroad.
Tuzmen: “There are talks about Turkey being a super power” State Minister Kursat Tuzmen claimed that there is talk in the international community that Turkey will be a super power in the new world order and therefore, the world’s attention turned to the nation.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama Avoids Saying 'Genocide' While in Turkey
Los Angeles Times
By Christi Parsons and Laura King
The president reiterates that his views on the Armenian genocide in Ottoman times have not changed, but doesn't use the term as he focuses on helping normalize Turkey's ties with Armenia.
Reporting from Istanbul, Turkey, and Ankara, Turkey -- President Obama, steering a delicate course on an explosive issue, said Monday his views on the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century have not changed since he declared it a "genocide" last year, but he avoided using that term in front of his Turkish hosts.
Instead, Obama emphasized the need to improve relations between Turkey and Armenia, and pointed to hopes for a breakthrough to ease long-standing tensions.
"If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, I think the whole world will encourage them," Obama told reporters in Ankara, the Turkish capital.
By refraining from calling the deaths of as many as 1.5 million Armenians beginning in 1915 a genocide, Obama for the moment avoided offending a country whose help U.S. officials need in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At the same time, he avoided infuriating his Armenian American supporters.
But Obama also contributed to the suspense surrounding a likely presidential proclamation expected in time for April 24, the annual Armenian remembrance day.
U.S. presidents usually issue statements deploring the mass killings without calling them genocide. Armenian American organizations are urging Obama to make good on his campaign pledge.
"We fully expect President Obama to honor his commitment and reaffirm the Armenian genocide," the Armenian Assembly, a U.S. Armenian advocacy group, said in a statement.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul emphasized that Turkey was willing to open its archives to historians investigating the subject and allow a joint commission to draw conclusions.
"It is not a political but an historic issue," he said. "That's why we should let historians discuss the matter." Obama administration officials said delicate talks are continuing between Turkey and Armenia over normalizing relations. Late in the evening at Istanbul's Dolmabahce Palace, the president met with the foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia to urge a quick agreement.
Obama's remarks Monday, issued as he stood beside Gul, appeared carefully calibrated. Though he didn't utter the word "genocide" or press Gul to address the issue, he pointedly reaffirmed previous remarks on the subject.
In 2008, Obama said "the Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.
"The facts are undeniable."
Three years ago, Obama criticized the Bush administration for firing John Evans, then-ambassador to Armenia, after Evans used the term "genocide" to describe the slaughter.
After a private meeting with Gul in Ankara, Obama said at the news conference that he hadn't changed his views.
"My views are on the record and I have not changed views," Obama said. "What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of long-standing issues, including this one."
Turkey and Armenia have no diplomatic ties. Gul last year became the first modern Turkish leader to visit Armenia, attending a World Cup qualifying match between the teams of the two countries. Other events in recent years, though, have brought wrenching reminders of the two neighbors' historic enmity.
In January 2007, a prominent Armenian editor, Hrant Dink, was gunned down outside his newspaper's office in central Istanbul, a killing that shocked the country. The assailant was a 17-year-old Turkish nationalist.
Before the assassination, nationalistic websites had expressed outrage over Dink's repeated calls for Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide and ensure that its Armenian minority did not face persecution.
U.S. Armenian groups expressed disappointment over Obama's comments in Ankara, but did not criticize the president. Obama "missed a valuable opportunity to honor his public pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide," said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America.
The Turkish Coalition of America said it was "encouraged" by Obama's remarks concerning Turkish-Armenian relations, but didn't comment on the genocide issue.
In Istanbul, Ilter Turan, a professor of political science at Bilgi University, said he thought Obama had handled the Armenian issue deftly.
"He expressed the view that problems arising from the past can be resolved, and in a clear way," he said.
By Christi Parsons and Laura King
The president reiterates that his views on the Armenian genocide in Ottoman times have not changed, but doesn't use the term as he focuses on helping normalize Turkey's ties with Armenia.
Reporting from Istanbul, Turkey, and Ankara, Turkey -- President Obama, steering a delicate course on an explosive issue, said Monday his views on the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century have not changed since he declared it a "genocide" last year, but he avoided using that term in front of his Turkish hosts.
Instead, Obama emphasized the need to improve relations between Turkey and Armenia, and pointed to hopes for a breakthrough to ease long-standing tensions.
"If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, I think the whole world will encourage them," Obama told reporters in Ankara, the Turkish capital.
By refraining from calling the deaths of as many as 1.5 million Armenians beginning in 1915 a genocide, Obama for the moment avoided offending a country whose help U.S. officials need in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At the same time, he avoided infuriating his Armenian American supporters.
But Obama also contributed to the suspense surrounding a likely presidential proclamation expected in time for April 24, the annual Armenian remembrance day.
U.S. presidents usually issue statements deploring the mass killings without calling them genocide. Armenian American organizations are urging Obama to make good on his campaign pledge.
"We fully expect President Obama to honor his commitment and reaffirm the Armenian genocide," the Armenian Assembly, a U.S. Armenian advocacy group, said in a statement.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul emphasized that Turkey was willing to open its archives to historians investigating the subject and allow a joint commission to draw conclusions.
"It is not a political but an historic issue," he said. "That's why we should let historians discuss the matter." Obama administration officials said delicate talks are continuing between Turkey and Armenia over normalizing relations. Late in the evening at Istanbul's Dolmabahce Palace, the president met with the foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia to urge a quick agreement.
Obama's remarks Monday, issued as he stood beside Gul, appeared carefully calibrated. Though he didn't utter the word "genocide" or press Gul to address the issue, he pointedly reaffirmed previous remarks on the subject.
In 2008, Obama said "the Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.
"The facts are undeniable."
Three years ago, Obama criticized the Bush administration for firing John Evans, then-ambassador to Armenia, after Evans used the term "genocide" to describe the slaughter.
After a private meeting with Gul in Ankara, Obama said at the news conference that he hadn't changed his views.
"My views are on the record and I have not changed views," Obama said. "What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of long-standing issues, including this one."
Turkey and Armenia have no diplomatic ties. Gul last year became the first modern Turkish leader to visit Armenia, attending a World Cup qualifying match between the teams of the two countries. Other events in recent years, though, have brought wrenching reminders of the two neighbors' historic enmity.
In January 2007, a prominent Armenian editor, Hrant Dink, was gunned down outside his newspaper's office in central Istanbul, a killing that shocked the country. The assailant was a 17-year-old Turkish nationalist.
Before the assassination, nationalistic websites had expressed outrage over Dink's repeated calls for Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide and ensure that its Armenian minority did not face persecution.
U.S. Armenian groups expressed disappointment over Obama's comments in Ankara, but did not criticize the president. Obama "missed a valuable opportunity to honor his public pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide," said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America.
The Turkish Coalition of America said it was "encouraged" by Obama's remarks concerning Turkish-Armenian relations, but didn't comment on the genocide issue.
In Istanbul, Ilter Turan, a professor of political science at Bilgi University, said he thought Obama had handled the Armenian issue deftly.
"He expressed the view that problems arising from the past can be resolved, and in a clear way," he said.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Turkish Coalition of America Commends President Obama for Statements in Turkey
Washington, DC – Following President Obama’s speech in Turkey, Lincoln McCurdy, President of the Turkish Coalition of America, made the following statement:
“President Obama’s trip to Turkey, this early in his administration, is a clear sign that the strategic relationship between the two nations has never been more cherished by both sides. Additionally, the inclusion of Turkey in the President’s trip to other European nations signals that Turkey will continue to be a bridge between the East and the West.
“TCA is encouraged by President Obama’s statements in Ankara today and view his message of dialogue between civilizations as a welcomed beginning to this new administration. Both the historical legacy of Turkey’s secular democracy as envisioned by Ataturk, as well as the today’s growth in education and scientific ties between the US and Turkey were critical aspects of the President’s message to the people of both nations.
“TCA extends its thanks to President Obama for highlighting the importance of Turkish Americans in helping to bring together our cultures. TCA encourages all Turkish Americans to engage in citizens’ diplomacy to further the growing commercial, cultural and political ties between Turkey and the United States.”
LINK
“President Obama’s trip to Turkey, this early in his administration, is a clear sign that the strategic relationship between the two nations has never been more cherished by both sides. Additionally, the inclusion of Turkey in the President’s trip to other European nations signals that Turkey will continue to be a bridge between the East and the West.
“TCA is encouraged by President Obama’s statements in Ankara today and view his message of dialogue between civilizations as a welcomed beginning to this new administration. Both the historical legacy of Turkey’s secular democracy as envisioned by Ataturk, as well as the today’s growth in education and scientific ties between the US and Turkey were critical aspects of the President’s message to the people of both nations.
“TCA extends its thanks to President Obama for highlighting the importance of Turkish Americans in helping to bring together our cultures. TCA encourages all Turkish Americans to engage in citizens’ diplomacy to further the growing commercial, cultural and political ties between Turkey and the United States.”
LINK
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Department of Justice Responds to CREW Ethics Complaint Against ANCA
This letter was sent to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) by the Department of Justice.
For a PDF of this document please click here.
Prof. Bernard Lewis on the Armenian Allegations
Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, addresses the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the illegitimacy of the Armenian allegations of genocide during WWI in March of 2002.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Armenian genocide debate: Blood libel?
McClatchy
March 25, 2009
The perennial dispute over an Armenian genocide recognition is now taking place in multiple arenas.
President Barack Obama is weighing whether to antagonize Turkey by issuing a genocide commemorative statement; or, in the alternative, he could antagonize Armenian-American voters by breaking his apparent campaign pledge and avoiding use of the term.
Meanwhile, in U.S. District Court this week, the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund is battling it out with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Led by attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman, the Turkish American group has filed a defamation suit on behalf of author Guenter Lewy. An 85-year-old emeritus professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Lewy says the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report libeled him when it wrote, in part:
“Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide….”
The wrangling this week, before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is procedural. Some of the questions, in part, appear to deal with what kind of media the Intelligence Report is and whether the District of Columbia is the right place for this legal action. Stated the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"The 'act' complained of – publication of an allegedly libelous article – occurred in Alabama and Georgia. SPLC publishes the Intelligence Report in Alabama and Georgia."Beyond the Southern Poverty Law Center lawsuit, Fein said the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund is preparing for a potential defamation lawsuit against one-time Ohio congressional candidate David Krikorian. Krikorian evidently declared that his GOP opponent, Rep. Jean Schmdt "has taken $30,000 in blood money to deny the genocide." Stated Krikorian:
"Both sets of my grandparents are survivors of this first Holocaust of the 20th century...most of their family members at the time were murdered...The only deniers of this great tragedy which led to the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazi Germany are the Turkish government and certain members of the United States Congress like Jean Schmidt."
In preparation for the upcoming defamation suit, Fein has already filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission; in an interview, he said this complaint was designed to flesh out the facts that will be the underpinning of the defamation suit."We want to try to send a signal to Armenian-Americans that the time for bullying has come to an end," Fein said.
March 25, 2009
The perennial dispute over an Armenian genocide recognition is now taking place in multiple arenas.
President Barack Obama is weighing whether to antagonize Turkey by issuing a genocide commemorative statement; or, in the alternative, he could antagonize Armenian-American voters by breaking his apparent campaign pledge and avoiding use of the term.
Meanwhile, in U.S. District Court this week, the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund is battling it out with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Led by attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman, the Turkish American group has filed a defamation suit on behalf of author Guenter Lewy. An 85-year-old emeritus professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Lewy says the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report libeled him when it wrote, in part:
“Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide….”
The wrangling this week, before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is procedural. Some of the questions, in part, appear to deal with what kind of media the Intelligence Report is and whether the District of Columbia is the right place for this legal action. Stated the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"The 'act' complained of – publication of an allegedly libelous article – occurred in Alabama and Georgia. SPLC publishes the Intelligence Report in Alabama and Georgia."Beyond the Southern Poverty Law Center lawsuit, Fein said the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund is preparing for a potential defamation lawsuit against one-time Ohio congressional candidate David Krikorian. Krikorian evidently declared that his GOP opponent, Rep. Jean Schmdt "has taken $30,000 in blood money to deny the genocide." Stated Krikorian:
"Both sets of my grandparents are survivors of this first Holocaust of the 20th century...most of their family members at the time were murdered...The only deniers of this great tragedy which led to the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazi Germany are the Turkish government and certain members of the United States Congress like Jean Schmidt."
In preparation for the upcoming defamation suit, Fein has already filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission; in an interview, he said this complaint was designed to flesh out the facts that will be the underpinning of the defamation suit."We want to try to send a signal to Armenian-Americans that the time for bullying has come to an end," Fein said.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bruce Fein in the Fresno Bee "Question of Law"
As the world anticipates President Obama's upcoming trip to Turkey, the focus of his visit has turned to the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the House. Rep. Adam Schiff is spearheading a drive to adjudicate whether tragic events in the fog of World War I amounted to an Armenian genocide. Just this week, he reiterated hopes the resolution will be more successful under the new administration.
Schiff's resolution is not only a legislative frolic, it is factually misconceived. Many reputable and independent Middle East historians and scholars dispute the genocide characterization, though without minimizing the tragic nature of the mass civilian casualties suffered in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Genocide, like torture or murder, is a question of law to be decided by independent and impartial judges. It should not be a political football exploited by members of Congress to appease special foreign interest constituencies who make handsome campaign contributions.
Rep. Schiff would do history, justice and his constituents a service and relieve himself of a most unnecessary labor by adding his voice to theirs, and ask for the opening of Armenian archives for independent examination, as the Turkish government has done for the Ottoman archives.
Bruce Fein, Resident scholar, Turkish Coalition of America, Washington, D.C.
LINK
Schiff's resolution is not only a legislative frolic, it is factually misconceived. Many reputable and independent Middle East historians and scholars dispute the genocide characterization, though without minimizing the tragic nature of the mass civilian casualties suffered in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Genocide, like torture or murder, is a question of law to be decided by independent and impartial judges. It should not be a political football exploited by members of Congress to appease special foreign interest constituencies who make handsome campaign contributions.
Rep. Schiff would do history, justice and his constituents a service and relieve himself of a most unnecessary labor by adding his voice to theirs, and ask for the opening of Armenian archives for independent examination, as the Turkish government has done for the Ottoman archives.
Bruce Fein, Resident scholar, Turkish Coalition of America, Washington, D.C.
LINK
Monday, March 16, 2009
US President Obama to address Parliament
Hurriyet Daily News
ANKARA - The Turkish Parliament will convene a special session on April 6 and 7 to coincide with a landmark visit by U.S. President Barack Obama, who is expected on a Monday, when the legislative body usually does not meet.
The office of the Parliament Speaker has taken the initiative to plan this extraordinary parliamentary session and is talking with the deputies of all parties to pave the way for the U.S. president to address the Turkish legislature.
Visiting presidents in Turkey traditionally address Parliament. Among former U.S. presidents, Bill Clinton made a speech there in November 1999, but his successor, George W. Bush, who came to Turkey to participate in a NATO summit, was unable to do so because of other obligations. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was the most recent foreign head of state to address the Turkish legislature, during his November 2008 visit.
Baring any last-minute changes, Obama will address the General Assembly on April 6. The U.S. president is also expected to attend an Istanbul summit of the U.N.-sponsored Alliance of Civilizations. Daily Milliyet reported Friday that Obama would meet with Fener Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartolomeos on April 7 before returning home.
While visiting Ankara last weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington did not consider Turkey a "moderate Islamic country," an expression often used by the Bush administration.
In a televised interview with private channel CNNTürk, Matthew Bryza, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, reiterated Friday that Turkey should not be described as an Islamic country. Commenting on the presidential visit, Bryza said Obama was coming to Turkey for talks on bilateral ties, adding that Turkey’s passing through a long process of modernization and reforms made it an important country for the entire region.
ANKARA - The Turkish Parliament will convene a special session on April 6 and 7 to coincide with a landmark visit by U.S. President Barack Obama, who is expected on a Monday, when the legislative body usually does not meet.
The office of the Parliament Speaker has taken the initiative to plan this extraordinary parliamentary session and is talking with the deputies of all parties to pave the way for the U.S. president to address the Turkish legislature.
Visiting presidents in Turkey traditionally address Parliament. Among former U.S. presidents, Bill Clinton made a speech there in November 1999, but his successor, George W. Bush, who came to Turkey to participate in a NATO summit, was unable to do so because of other obligations. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was the most recent foreign head of state to address the Turkish legislature, during his November 2008 visit.
Baring any last-minute changes, Obama will address the General Assembly on April 6. The U.S. president is also expected to attend an Istanbul summit of the U.N.-sponsored Alliance of Civilizations. Daily Milliyet reported Friday that Obama would meet with Fener Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartolomeos on April 7 before returning home.
While visiting Ankara last weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington did not consider Turkey a "moderate Islamic country," an expression often used by the Bush administration.
In a televised interview with private channel CNNTürk, Matthew Bryza, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, reiterated Friday that Turkey should not be described as an Islamic country. Commenting on the presidential visit, Bryza said Obama was coming to Turkey for talks on bilateral ties, adding that Turkey’s passing through a long process of modernization and reforms made it an important country for the entire region.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
TCA, University of Utah announce new Turkish program
Today’s Zaman
The Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) and the University of Utah have announced a new academic program, "The Origins of Modern Ethnic Cleansing: Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Emergence of Nation States in the Balkans and Caucasus." The program has been established with the financial support of the TCA.
In the program, scholarship will be conducted on historical fluctuations at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century in the region, the results of which are still felt today. The program will be directed by Hakan Yavuz, an assistant professor at the department of political science at the University of Utah.
In a statement released yesterday by the TCA, Yavuz said the period had an impact on the formation of the identity of modern Turkey and it will be explored in conferences and research. He also added that the focus will be on the significant land loss suffered as a result of the wars the Ottoman Empire waged in the Balkans and the Caucasus before the foundation of the Turkish Republic. This loss impacted all the lands of the former empire, influencing the formation of the new republic, the ethnic cleansing of Muslim populations and other traumatic incidents that were a result of forced migration.
The statement also noted that TCA President Lincoln McCurdy believes the program is important because it will train new researchers who will influence regional studies in and around Turkey.
The advisory board for the program includes Dr. Şükrü Elekdağ, former member of the Turkish Parliament; Rifat Hisarcıklıoğlu, head of the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB); Professor Norman Stone, historian and professor of international relations at Bilkent University; and Alev Alatlı, journalist and author.
The Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) and the University of Utah have announced a new academic program, "The Origins of Modern Ethnic Cleansing: Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Emergence of Nation States in the Balkans and Caucasus." The program has been established with the financial support of the TCA.
In the program, scholarship will be conducted on historical fluctuations at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century in the region, the results of which are still felt today. The program will be directed by Hakan Yavuz, an assistant professor at the department of political science at the University of Utah.
In a statement released yesterday by the TCA, Yavuz said the period had an impact on the formation of the identity of modern Turkey and it will be explored in conferences and research. He also added that the focus will be on the significant land loss suffered as a result of the wars the Ottoman Empire waged in the Balkans and the Caucasus before the foundation of the Turkish Republic. This loss impacted all the lands of the former empire, influencing the formation of the new republic, the ethnic cleansing of Muslim populations and other traumatic incidents that were a result of forced migration.
The statement also noted that TCA President Lincoln McCurdy believes the program is important because it will train new researchers who will influence regional studies in and around Turkey.
The advisory board for the program includes Dr. Şükrü Elekdağ, former member of the Turkish Parliament; Rifat Hisarcıklıoğlu, head of the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB); Professor Norman Stone, historian and professor of international relations at Bilkent University; and Alev Alatlı, journalist and author.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rep. Frank Pallone and the "Armenian Genocide Resolution"
New Jersey Star Ledger, NJVoices.com
March 2, 2009
Recently, a letter seeking cosponsors for a renewed drive to secure the adoption of an "Armenian Genocide Resolution" was circulated on Capitol Hill. The lead authors of the proposed legislation included four members of congress from districts with sizable Armenian constituents. They included Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ).
March 2, 2009
Recently, a letter seeking cosponsors for a renewed drive to secure the adoption of an "Armenian Genocide Resolution" was circulated on Capitol Hill. The lead authors of the proposed legislation included four members of congress from districts with sizable Armenian constituents. They included Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ).
Rep. Pallone has turned his office in the U.S. Congress, home also to tens of thousands of New Jerseyans of Turkish descent, into an anti-Turkey nerve center.
Incidentally, one of the Armenian groups that showers Pallone with praise and support, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), this week has been accused by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an ethics watchdog, for violating campaign finance and lobbying laws.
Among other things, CREW argues that ANCA is closely related with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), which is part of the ruling coalition government in the Republic of Armenia, but fails to disclose this. A few years ago the then ANCA chairman, Mourad Topalian, was convicted on charges relating to Armenian terrorist attacks against Turkish diplomatic mission in the United States back in the 1970's and early '80s and served three years in federal prison.
None of this seems to bother Pallone. To roaring cheers at an ANCA rally in Times Square back in 2005, he pronounced that the United States should not only recognize an "Armenian Genocide" but that it should pressure modern Turkey to pay reparations for the near century-old alleged crime. This alone should lay to rest the claims that the perennial Armenian resolutions are pursued for emotional reasons by its lead proponents and the Armenian lobby.
\
\
In fact, a congressional recognition is but a first step in the Armenian lobby's irredentist agenda against Turkey and, if Pallone will have it his way, it will be advanced by U.S. Congressional fiat.
The so-called "Armenian Genocide Resolution" is a textbook example of ethnic lobby pandering at the expense of America's national interests. Once enough members sign on, with the all too well-known time and attention that lawmakers will be giving to sift through its history lesson, this "non-binding" resolution will gather such international storm that it required presidential interventions in the past to prevent a diplomatic fall-out with Turkey.
The latest resolution will certainly be no different and pose a significant stumbling block to President Obama's efforts to improve international cooperation on the many challenges he faces and foster better U.S. standing abroad. In his zeal to please his supporters, Pallone has and continues to undermine U.S. foreign policy, under either Democratic or Republican administrations, toward a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Southern Caucasus and toward Turkey.
To add insult to injury, Pallone frequently admonishes opponents of this resolution by pointing to a "moral obligation" of the Congress to "pronounce" that the now-defunct Ottoman Empire, committed "genocide" against Armenians nearly 100 years ago. In doing so, he chooses to ignore the many well-regarded Ottoman historians who dispute the genocide claim.
Moreover, if Congress owes such moral obligation to America and the world, it ought to compile a list of all the crimes that appall us, beginning here at home, and start writing commemorative resolutions for all.
In fact, selective morality is no morality at all and Armenian resolutions persist year after year, not on moral grounds but on the efforts of an organized lobby that has turned hating Turkey into an existential cause and that keeps greasing the wheels of Washington.
Singling out Turkey and its history for political expediency and as payback for domestic election support is far from moral. Doing so at a time when Turkey's Prime Minister has invited Armenians and all interested parties to form an international commission of historians and experts to establish the facts and pave the way for reconciliation-- a proposal rejected by frontrunners of the "Armenian Genocide Resolution" in Congress and the Armenian lobby-- and when Turkey and Armenia are actively negotiating ways to overcome their differences, is outright hypocritical.
The U.S. faces a devastating economic crisis and two wars abroad. Members of Congress should be held accountable for spending time and resources on addressing a nearly century-old event with no foreseeable policy benefits for the United States, but the potential of a great public relations and foreign policy disaster involving our ally Turkey.
In reality, this will remain behind closed doors in Washington until too much damage has already been done. Members of Congress, like Pallone, will not answer to anyone unless the larger American public demands an answer. It is high time to demand an answer.
Lincoln McCurdy is the President of the Turkish Coalition of America.
Friday, February 27, 2009
U.S. Top Diplomat Likely to Visit Turkey Next Month
Hurriyet Daily News
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to visit Turkey next month, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
After the meeting between Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and U.S. Middle Envoy George Mitchell in Ankara, sources told the Anatolian Agency that Clinton also has plans to visit Turkey in March.
Clinton will visit countries in the region after attending an international conference hosted by Egypt for the Gaza reconstruction on March 2.
Although the date of the top U.S. diplomat is yet to be determined, Clinton is expected to visit Turkey on March 7, sources told hurriyet.com.tr.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to visit Turkey next month, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
After the meeting between Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and U.S. Middle Envoy George Mitchell in Ankara, sources told the Anatolian Agency that Clinton also has plans to visit Turkey in March.
Clinton will visit countries in the region after attending an international conference hosted by Egypt for the Gaza reconstruction on March 2.
Although the date of the top U.S. diplomat is yet to be determined, Clinton is expected to visit Turkey on March 7, sources told hurriyet.com.tr.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
First Lady of Mexico thanks the Turkish Coalition of America for Charitable Donations to the Mexican Red Cross
Washington, DC – At the launch for the Mexican Red Cross's 2009 fundraising drive today First Lady Margarita Zavala Calderón thanked the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) and its President, Lincoln McCurdy for the donation of ambulances to serve the people of Tabasco, Mexico. The ceremony, held at the President's residence, was symbolic of the close ties between Mexico, Turkey and the United States. The President of the Mexican Red Cross also thanked TCA at the ceremony which was attended by the wives of Mexican cabinet members, as well as over 100 others.
“Bringing together Turkish Americans, Hispanic Americans and the citizens of Mexico builds bridges and friendships that will last long into the future,” said Lincoln McCurdy, President of TCA. “While it is true that shared adversity was the catalyst for this donation, the result has been a shared understanding and a desire to work together in the future.”
Mexico endured one of its worst national disasters in November of 2007 when the state of Tabasco was hit by a hurricane, causing massive flooding and the destruction of tens of thousands of homes and schools, as well as the state’s crops. The flooding left over a million people homeless, an estimated one-third of the victims were children. In hopes of a more immediate recovery in future cases of need, two ambulances have been donated to the Mexican Red Cross by TCA as a gesture of friendship.
Turkish Americans know firsthand the critical role international assistance plays in saving lives and rebuilding after witnessing the kindness of the international community when Turkey was struck by major earthquakes in August of 1999. Nations across the globe, the United States and the American people in particular, showed great support and sympathy to Turkey during its most dire days.
Mexico and its people also contributed life saving aid and rescue resources which helped alleviate the suffering of those impacted by this earthquake. This gift from Turkish Americans to the people of Tabasco, Mexico is a way of showing solidarity to victims of natural disasters.
“The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute is proud to support the efforts of the TCA to generate friendships and mutual understanding with the people of Mexico and Hispanic Americans,” said William Gil, Vice President of Programs for the CHCI. “Programs like this are essential to bringing together cultures, peoples and nations throughout the world.”
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) is one of the leading Hispanic non-profit and non-partisan 501(c) (3) organizations in the US. As the premier national Hispanic educational organization, CHCI seeks to accomplish its mission by offering educational and leadership development programs, services and activities that promote the growth of participants as effective professionals and strong leaders. In the spirit of building coalitions, CHCI seeks to establish partnerships with other Hispanic and non-Hispanic organizations.
TCA dedicated the two ambulances to Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-27th/TX) and Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-16th/TX). The dedication was designed to recognize the efforts by Congressman Ortiz and Congressman Reyes, who are deans of the Hispanic Caucus and members of the Turkish Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, to bring together the people of Mexico, Turkey and the United States.
Friday, February 20, 2009
U.S. Supports Greater Regional Role For Turkey
Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty
By Abbas Djavadi
U.S. President Barack Obama recently called his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul along with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to affirm the new U.S. administration's support for Turkey's "leading role" in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Caucasus.
Indeed, Iraq and Afghanistan are the two areas where Turkey could help the United States and the West, as it did in the past during the Korean crisis in the 1950s and the conflict in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. As the United States prepares to withdraw from Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan, Turkey could play a welcome role by stepping in to contribute to Iraq's further stabilization.
After a relatively long period of hesitation, over the past few months Ankara has started to improve relations with the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, which is led by President Mas'ud Barzani. Turkey's biggest concern has long been that the emergence of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, just across the Turkish border, would encourage the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has found a safe haven in northern Iraq from which to launch terrorist attacks inside Turkey.
Tens of thousands of civilians, Turkish troops, and PKK rebels have been killed in the last three decades in what Ankara calls a terrorist campaign by the PKK to dismember Turkey and declare an independent Kurdistan. Successive Turkish governments have maintained that the Kurdish government in northern Iraq has failed to make good on its commitment to crack down on the PKK. Barzani, for his part, believes that Turkey should seek a political solution to the problem with its Kurdish minority through reforms, instead of relying on military force.
Many experts believe that if the ongoing gradual improvement in political stability in Iraq is reversed and ethnic-sectarian conflicts flare up anew, the Kurds in the north might declare independence. That would have serious implications not only for Iraq itself, but also for neighboring Turkey and the whole Middle East. Kurdish regional Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani has also warned of turmoil in Iraq if U.S. troops are withdrawn before all problems between Baghdad and the Kurds are resolved.
Force For Stability
This is the last thing the Obama administration needs. By seeking to improve relations with the Kurdish administration in northern Iraq and become increasingly involved in Iraq's economic development, Turkey could help Washington to ensure that the situation in Iraq continues to normalize and stabilize as the U.S. troop withdrawal proceeds. Turkish leaders have said repeatedly that they are ready to do so, provided both the Iraqi Kurdish administration and the United States demonstrate a clearer commitment to cracking down on the PKK presence on Iraqi soil.
Furthermore, Turkey could play a major role in removing thousands of tons of U.S. equipment and supplies from Iraq in the next year or two. Ankara has provided the United States access to the Habur Gate in southeastern Turkey for transporting construction materials, food, fuel, and other nonmilitary items into Iraq. The United States would need Turkey's help in using the same route to withdraw its troops smoothly.
In 2002, Turkey was among the first countries to participate in a multinational peacekeeping force for Afghanistan. Seven years later, the new administration in Washington is intensifying its efforts to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a first step, on February 17 President Obama ordered the dispatch of an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The United States is also pressuring other NATO members to share the burden of the Afghan mission.
In this context, Turkey is best placed to provide both training and equipment for the Afghan National Army and police force, as well as to participate in the economic development that is essential to neutralizing terrorist and insurgent groups' efforts to destabilize the country.
And now, following Kyrgyzstan's announcement of the closure of the U.S. air base at Manas near Bishkek, the base at Incirlik in Turkey could become a major hub for the United States as it sets about building up its presence in Afghanistan.
Turkey's Fine Line
Recently, Erdogan's Justice and Development (AK) party has shifted Turkey's foreign policy away from its previous primarily Western and NATO orientation to a more centrist one focused on improving relations with Muslim countries in the Middle East, as well as the Caucasus and Russia. While this may have led to some disappointment in the West, it is appreciated in Arab countries, and in Moscow and Tehran. It has also strengthened Ankara's potential for playing a major role in the region.
Last year, Turkey mediated indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria. But while Erdogan's fiery exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres on January 29 in Davos about the Israeli offensive in Gaza won him votes in Turkey and sympathy on the "Arab Street," it strained the traditionally good relations between Turkey and Israel. It also led many Israelis to question how unbiased Turkey is as a possible mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since the recent parliamentary elections in Israel that are expected to produce a new, rightist coalition, hopes for an Israeli-Syrian peace deal have diminished. Both Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party rule out meaningful talks with the Palestinians in which Turkey might be of assistance.
Obama has reportedly told Prime Minister Erdogan that Washington also supports Turkey's efforts to improve relations with neighboring Armenia. Turkish press reports add that, asked about Ankara's concerns relating to possible U.S. recognition of the Armenian killings in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as "genocide," Obama said that he "understands Turkey's sensitivities." To be sure, this is not likely to become a serious obstacle to improved U.S.-Turkish relations as long as more pressing issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan need to be dealt with.
By Abbas Djavadi
U.S. President Barack Obama recently called his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul along with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to affirm the new U.S. administration's support for Turkey's "leading role" in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Caucasus.
Indeed, Iraq and Afghanistan are the two areas where Turkey could help the United States and the West, as it did in the past during the Korean crisis in the 1950s and the conflict in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. As the United States prepares to withdraw from Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan, Turkey could play a welcome role by stepping in to contribute to Iraq's further stabilization.
After a relatively long period of hesitation, over the past few months Ankara has started to improve relations with the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, which is led by President Mas'ud Barzani. Turkey's biggest concern has long been that the emergence of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, just across the Turkish border, would encourage the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has found a safe haven in northern Iraq from which to launch terrorist attacks inside Turkey.
Tens of thousands of civilians, Turkish troops, and PKK rebels have been killed in the last three decades in what Ankara calls a terrorist campaign by the PKK to dismember Turkey and declare an independent Kurdistan. Successive Turkish governments have maintained that the Kurdish government in northern Iraq has failed to make good on its commitment to crack down on the PKK. Barzani, for his part, believes that Turkey should seek a political solution to the problem with its Kurdish minority through reforms, instead of relying on military force.
Many experts believe that if the ongoing gradual improvement in political stability in Iraq is reversed and ethnic-sectarian conflicts flare up anew, the Kurds in the north might declare independence. That would have serious implications not only for Iraq itself, but also for neighboring Turkey and the whole Middle East. Kurdish regional Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani has also warned of turmoil in Iraq if U.S. troops are withdrawn before all problems between Baghdad and the Kurds are resolved.
Force For Stability
This is the last thing the Obama administration needs. By seeking to improve relations with the Kurdish administration in northern Iraq and become increasingly involved in Iraq's economic development, Turkey could help Washington to ensure that the situation in Iraq continues to normalize and stabilize as the U.S. troop withdrawal proceeds. Turkish leaders have said repeatedly that they are ready to do so, provided both the Iraqi Kurdish administration and the United States demonstrate a clearer commitment to cracking down on the PKK presence on Iraqi soil.
Furthermore, Turkey could play a major role in removing thousands of tons of U.S. equipment and supplies from Iraq in the next year or two. Ankara has provided the United States access to the Habur Gate in southeastern Turkey for transporting construction materials, food, fuel, and other nonmilitary items into Iraq. The United States would need Turkey's help in using the same route to withdraw its troops smoothly.
In 2002, Turkey was among the first countries to participate in a multinational peacekeeping force for Afghanistan. Seven years later, the new administration in Washington is intensifying its efforts to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a first step, on February 17 President Obama ordered the dispatch of an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The United States is also pressuring other NATO members to share the burden of the Afghan mission.
In this context, Turkey is best placed to provide both training and equipment for the Afghan National Army and police force, as well as to participate in the economic development that is essential to neutralizing terrorist and insurgent groups' efforts to destabilize the country.
And now, following Kyrgyzstan's announcement of the closure of the U.S. air base at Manas near Bishkek, the base at Incirlik in Turkey could become a major hub for the United States as it sets about building up its presence in Afghanistan.
Turkey's Fine Line
Recently, Erdogan's Justice and Development (AK) party has shifted Turkey's foreign policy away from its previous primarily Western and NATO orientation to a more centrist one focused on improving relations with Muslim countries in the Middle East, as well as the Caucasus and Russia. While this may have led to some disappointment in the West, it is appreciated in Arab countries, and in Moscow and Tehran. It has also strengthened Ankara's potential for playing a major role in the region.
Last year, Turkey mediated indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria. But while Erdogan's fiery exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres on January 29 in Davos about the Israeli offensive in Gaza won him votes in Turkey and sympathy on the "Arab Street," it strained the traditionally good relations between Turkey and Israel. It also led many Israelis to question how unbiased Turkey is as a possible mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since the recent parliamentary elections in Israel that are expected to produce a new, rightist coalition, hopes for an Israeli-Syrian peace deal have diminished. Both Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party rule out meaningful talks with the Palestinians in which Turkey might be of assistance.
Obama has reportedly told Prime Minister Erdogan that Washington also supports Turkey's efforts to improve relations with neighboring Armenia. Turkish press reports add that, asked about Ankara's concerns relating to possible U.S. recognition of the Armenian killings in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as "genocide," Obama said that he "understands Turkey's sensitivities." To be sure, this is not likely to become a serious obstacle to improved U.S.-Turkish relations as long as more pressing issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan need to be dealt with.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Turkey Steps up Talks with Armenia as April Looms
Turkish Weekly
By YONCA POYRAZ DOÄžAN, TZISTANBUL
Increased and open diplomatic traffic between Turkey and Armenia has signaled that there are more efforts under way for normalizing relations between the two countries, particularly considering the fact that April 24, the day the White House traditionally issues a statement on "Armenian Remembrance Day" is approaching and, maybe even more importantly, the Armenian diaspora has already started pressuring American politicians to bring a "genocide resolution" to the floor of the US Congress.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan's meetings with his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, are no longer held in secret. The two have met six times on separate occasions since the soccer match held between the national teams of the two countries on Sept. 6, 2008, in Armenia.
After that historical event came Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian's visit to Ä°stanbul to attend a ministerial gathering of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) on Nov. 24. Babacan and Nalbandian later met unofficially in Helsinki, Zurich and, most recently, Munich.
"If Turkey and Armenia increase their meetings, it will be difficult for third parties to interfere with the process," said Sedat Laciner, head of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), referring to the possibility of US recognition of the Armenian "genocide" allegations due to campaign promises made by President Barack Obama to Armenian-American voters.
Laciner added that Turkey was working toward a solution to its problems with Armenia and that this is why it is trying to prevent efforts in the United States that may block this process of reconciliation.
"The ultimate goals are the starting of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border with Armenia," he told Sunday's Zaman.
It is not so important whether or not US President Barack Obama utters the word "genocide" in his statement on April 24 -- the day when Armenians commemorate the killings of Anatolian Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire during World War I, which Armenians claim constituted genocide. Rather, it is the climate that will be created afterward that may be concerning, Laciner said, adding, "Dialogue between Armenia and Turkey could break off.
"There is also worry of a possible explosion of nationalist sentiment in Turkey, as predicted by Today's Zaman columnist Omer Taspinar, if a House resolution is adopted.
Taspınar wrote in a Jan. 26 article that "In case the Armenian genocide recognition resolution goes forward and Congress votes in favor of it before March 29, things will go from bad to worse," considering the political calendar in Turkey, where local elections will be held on March 29.
President Obama issued several statements during his election campaign reiterating his intention to recognize the alleged Armenian genocide. But some argue that running for office and running the government are different things. Ä°lter Türkmen, a retired Turkish ambassador and former foreign minister, said the Obama administration would be hesitant to scratch old wounds in the history of Turks and Armenians.
"The United States supports the improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia," he said.
However, the matter has gotten more complicated as observers note a mounting sense of frustration in the US Congress related to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, particularly following his walkout at the recent Davos summit after an angry exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres over Israel's deadly operation in Gaza last month. "The level of resentment is particularly high among the pro-Israel lobby. Some argue that Turkey has lost all its key supporters in Washington and that the Armenian lobby has now a unique window of opportunity to push its agenda," wrote Taspinar, who is based in Washington.
Supporting this idea, former Turkish Ambassador to the US Faruk Logoglu told Sunday's Zaman that the Jewish lobby in the United States was one of Turkey's biggest trump cards. Still, he said, Turkey should not be anxiously looking to make gestures prior to April 24. Instead, it should spread its efforts to normalize relations with Armenia over a period of time.
"We should get Washington's backing first and then move forward with the issue," he said, adding that, in the meantime, not only Ankara, but also Yerevan should communicate to the US administration that normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia carries high importance for both sides and that dialogue is continuing toward a solution.
Logoglu also said it is important for Ankara that Azerbaijan's consent has been obtained and that Russia has been informed about the process.
After all, Turkey closed its border with Armenia because of its occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh in southwestern Azerbaijan in the early 1990s. In a show of solidarity with Azerbaijan, Turkey also severed its diplomatic ties with Yerevan.
Before his landmark meeting with Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan in Davos late last month, Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan had talks with Azerbaijani President Ä°lham Aliyev. Indeed, Aliyev had held talks with Sarksyan earlier in Davos concerning the two-decade-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has uprooted hundreds of thousands of people from both Armenia and Azerbaijan. "We will never leave Azerbaijan alone concerning Nagorno-Karabakh. That is to say that our issues are in a way connected with Azerbaijan," Erdogan said at Davos.
"Efforts may soon yield positive results"
Suat Kiniklioglu, member of Parliament and deputy chairman of external affairs for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), told Sunday's Zaman he is hopeful that a statement by the Turkish side most likely at the beginning of April may pave the way for further rapprochement with Armenia.
"I am not directly involved in the negotiations, but I hear that there are only minor issues left to be settled between the sides. Both Turkey and Armenia are serious in that regard," he said.
Asked if Armenia can be expected to take a step toward the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, he said, "It is possible because Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to negotiate over the issue."
Although last week Yerevan rejected a news report suggesting that Armenia and Azerbaijan had reached a preliminary agreement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Turkey's support, there are signs that a solution may emerge soon.
Nalbandian has announced many times that negotiations over the resolution of the conflict are being held in the context of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States.
Goran Lennmarker, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly special representative on Nagorno-Karabakh, arrived in Baku on Feb. 12. The Trend news agency reported that the purpose of his visit was to get familiarized with the current situation of the negotiation process so a report could be drafted prior to the winter session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on Feb. 19 and 20 in Vienna.
Lenmarker also said he has additional information regarding the transfer of six regions to Azerbaijan and the establishment of a temporary government in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Meanwhile, a delegation from the Turkish Parliament is expected to go to the United States again in March. Kınıklıoğlu said they will further explain to US officials that the Armenian diaspora "does not care about the problems of Armenia" and are even "disturbed" about the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. In that context, the Turkish Coalition of America recently sent a letter to President Obama drawing his attention to the work of more than 30 scholars who have refrained from applying the genocide label to the events of 1915 or whose work exposes parts of the traditional "
By YONCA POYRAZ DOÄžAN, TZISTANBUL
Increased and open diplomatic traffic between Turkey and Armenia has signaled that there are more efforts under way for normalizing relations between the two countries, particularly considering the fact that April 24, the day the White House traditionally issues a statement on "Armenian Remembrance Day" is approaching and, maybe even more importantly, the Armenian diaspora has already started pressuring American politicians to bring a "genocide resolution" to the floor of the US Congress.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan's meetings with his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, are no longer held in secret. The two have met six times on separate occasions since the soccer match held between the national teams of the two countries on Sept. 6, 2008, in Armenia.
After that historical event came Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian's visit to Ä°stanbul to attend a ministerial gathering of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) on Nov. 24. Babacan and Nalbandian later met unofficially in Helsinki, Zurich and, most recently, Munich.
"If Turkey and Armenia increase their meetings, it will be difficult for third parties to interfere with the process," said Sedat Laciner, head of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), referring to the possibility of US recognition of the Armenian "genocide" allegations due to campaign promises made by President Barack Obama to Armenian-American voters.
Laciner added that Turkey was working toward a solution to its problems with Armenia and that this is why it is trying to prevent efforts in the United States that may block this process of reconciliation.
"The ultimate goals are the starting of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border with Armenia," he told Sunday's Zaman.
It is not so important whether or not US President Barack Obama utters the word "genocide" in his statement on April 24 -- the day when Armenians commemorate the killings of Anatolian Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire during World War I, which Armenians claim constituted genocide. Rather, it is the climate that will be created afterward that may be concerning, Laciner said, adding, "Dialogue between Armenia and Turkey could break off.
"There is also worry of a possible explosion of nationalist sentiment in Turkey, as predicted by Today's Zaman columnist Omer Taspinar, if a House resolution is adopted.
Taspınar wrote in a Jan. 26 article that "In case the Armenian genocide recognition resolution goes forward and Congress votes in favor of it before March 29, things will go from bad to worse," considering the political calendar in Turkey, where local elections will be held on March 29.
President Obama issued several statements during his election campaign reiterating his intention to recognize the alleged Armenian genocide. But some argue that running for office and running the government are different things. Ä°lter Türkmen, a retired Turkish ambassador and former foreign minister, said the Obama administration would be hesitant to scratch old wounds in the history of Turks and Armenians.
"The United States supports the improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia," he said.
However, the matter has gotten more complicated as observers note a mounting sense of frustration in the US Congress related to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, particularly following his walkout at the recent Davos summit after an angry exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres over Israel's deadly operation in Gaza last month. "The level of resentment is particularly high among the pro-Israel lobby. Some argue that Turkey has lost all its key supporters in Washington and that the Armenian lobby has now a unique window of opportunity to push its agenda," wrote Taspinar, who is based in Washington.
Supporting this idea, former Turkish Ambassador to the US Faruk Logoglu told Sunday's Zaman that the Jewish lobby in the United States was one of Turkey's biggest trump cards. Still, he said, Turkey should not be anxiously looking to make gestures prior to April 24. Instead, it should spread its efforts to normalize relations with Armenia over a period of time.
"We should get Washington's backing first and then move forward with the issue," he said, adding that, in the meantime, not only Ankara, but also Yerevan should communicate to the US administration that normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia carries high importance for both sides and that dialogue is continuing toward a solution.
Logoglu also said it is important for Ankara that Azerbaijan's consent has been obtained and that Russia has been informed about the process.
After all, Turkey closed its border with Armenia because of its occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh in southwestern Azerbaijan in the early 1990s. In a show of solidarity with Azerbaijan, Turkey also severed its diplomatic ties with Yerevan.
Before his landmark meeting with Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan in Davos late last month, Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan had talks with Azerbaijani President Ä°lham Aliyev. Indeed, Aliyev had held talks with Sarksyan earlier in Davos concerning the two-decade-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has uprooted hundreds of thousands of people from both Armenia and Azerbaijan. "We will never leave Azerbaijan alone concerning Nagorno-Karabakh. That is to say that our issues are in a way connected with Azerbaijan," Erdogan said at Davos.
"Efforts may soon yield positive results"
Suat Kiniklioglu, member of Parliament and deputy chairman of external affairs for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), told Sunday's Zaman he is hopeful that a statement by the Turkish side most likely at the beginning of April may pave the way for further rapprochement with Armenia.
"I am not directly involved in the negotiations, but I hear that there are only minor issues left to be settled between the sides. Both Turkey and Armenia are serious in that regard," he said.
Asked if Armenia can be expected to take a step toward the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, he said, "It is possible because Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to negotiate over the issue."
Although last week Yerevan rejected a news report suggesting that Armenia and Azerbaijan had reached a preliminary agreement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Turkey's support, there are signs that a solution may emerge soon.
Nalbandian has announced many times that negotiations over the resolution of the conflict are being held in the context of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States.
Goran Lennmarker, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly special representative on Nagorno-Karabakh, arrived in Baku on Feb. 12. The Trend news agency reported that the purpose of his visit was to get familiarized with the current situation of the negotiation process so a report could be drafted prior to the winter session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on Feb. 19 and 20 in Vienna.
Lenmarker also said he has additional information regarding the transfer of six regions to Azerbaijan and the establishment of a temporary government in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Meanwhile, a delegation from the Turkish Parliament is expected to go to the United States again in March. Kınıklıoğlu said they will further explain to US officials that the Armenian diaspora "does not care about the problems of Armenia" and are even "disturbed" about the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. In that context, the Turkish Coalition of America recently sent a letter to President Obama drawing his attention to the work of more than 30 scholars who have refrained from applying the genocide label to the events of 1915 or whose work exposes parts of the traditional "
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Obama seeks warmer Turkey-Iraq relations
Press TV
US President Barack Obama has thrown his weight behind the growing Turkey-Iraq relations, the White House has confirmed in a statement.
Obama pledged his support while speaking with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the phone on Monday.
According to the White House, several other issues, including the importance of cooperation in Middle East peace efforts, and the US review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy were also discussed during the telephone conversations.
"In both calls, the leaders discussed a number of current issues, including US support for the growing Turkish-Iraqi relationship, the importance of cooperation in Middle East peace efforts, and the US review on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy," the White House said.
Obama further emphasized the importance of US-Turkish relations.
"The president emphasized his desire to strengthen US-Turkish relations and to work together effectively in NATO," the statement added.
Obama's decision came as US-Turkey ties face challenges stemming from the security situation in Iraq.
Turkey has been pressuring the US government to launch massive strikes against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) rebels in the northern mountainous region of Iraq.
The Bush administration had disagreed on the issue, saying that such attacks would threaten the relative stability of the region.
The PKK has been fighting for autonomy in southeastern Turkey since 1984, conducting attacks in the countryside from bases in northern Iraq. The violence has killed tens of thousands of people.
The Kurdish insurgents have escalated attacks since Turkey began raiding their bases in northern Iraq earlier this year. The militant group is listed as a terrorist organization by much of the international community, including the US and the EU.
US President Barack Obama has thrown his weight behind the growing Turkey-Iraq relations, the White House has confirmed in a statement.
Obama pledged his support while speaking with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the phone on Monday.
According to the White House, several other issues, including the importance of cooperation in Middle East peace efforts, and the US review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy were also discussed during the telephone conversations.
"In both calls, the leaders discussed a number of current issues, including US support for the growing Turkish-Iraqi relationship, the importance of cooperation in Middle East peace efforts, and the US review on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy," the White House said.
Obama further emphasized the importance of US-Turkish relations.
"The president emphasized his desire to strengthen US-Turkish relations and to work together effectively in NATO," the statement added.
Obama's decision came as US-Turkey ties face challenges stemming from the security situation in Iraq.
Turkey has been pressuring the US government to launch massive strikes against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) rebels in the northern mountainous region of Iraq.
The Bush administration had disagreed on the issue, saying that such attacks would threaten the relative stability of the region.
The PKK has been fighting for autonomy in southeastern Turkey since 1984, conducting attacks in the countryside from bases in northern Iraq. The violence has killed tens of thousands of people.
The Kurdish insurgents have escalated attacks since Turkey began raiding their bases in northern Iraq earlier this year. The militant group is listed as a terrorist organization by much of the international community, including the US and the EU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
