Turkish Forum

Author: fdemirmen

  • ATAA’s analysis of Turkish-Armenian protocols gives no comfort

    ATAA’s analysis of Turkish-Armenian protocols gives no comfort

    by Ferruh Demirmen


    After the signing of Turkish-Armenian normalization protocols in Zurich on October 10, the Washington-based ATAA (Assembly of Turkish American Associations) issued an analysis of the protocols to clarify the reasons for its earlier endorsement of the normalization process. The announcement was issued by President Gunay Evinch.

    Relying on the language in the protocols that refer to “territorial integrity,” “inviolability of frontiers,” “foreign sovereignty,” “refrain from the use of force,” and “recognition of the existing border,” the ATAA analysis draws the conclusion that, once the protocols take effect, Armenia would no longer have territorial claims against Turkey.

    It further infers that Armenia would withdraw from the occupied Azeri territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, account for its human violations in the territory, and allow the return of over one million Azeri refugees.

    Based on another clause that condemns terrorism, it is argued that ASALA-type terrorism and other acts of violence against Turks and Turkish interests would henceforth come to an end.

    ATAA believes that the establishment of historical commission as envisioned in the protocols would prevent US Congressional resolutions on genocide allegations.

    After making cross linkages between several clauses, the ATAA analysis further concludes, in a quasi-legal manner, that the opening of the common border between Turkey and Armenia should logically lead to the realization of goals embraced by the Turkish side noted above.

    But the ATAA’s analysis is far from convincing. The conclusions reached are not based on any concrete steps that the protocols call for Armenia to implement. Rather, the analysis relies on the goodwill of Armenia, on expectations that a well-intentioned Armenia would deliver.

    And herein lies the problem: counting on the sincerity and goodwill of Armenia. Considering Armenia’s past hostility toward Turkey, the instruments contained in its Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the Armenian officials’ public pronouncements, e.g., on the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and genocide allegations, prior to the signing of the protocols, it is naive to rely on the goodwill of Armenia.

    The fact that the Armenian side objected to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s prepared statement to be delivered after the signing of the protocols in Zurich, says much about the supposed goodwill of Armenia. Without naming the conflict, Davutoğlu was going to make only an indirect reference to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, expressing the hope that the signing of protocols would lead to the resolution of the conflict. The Armenian side demurred, arguing behind doors that the statement would unnecessarily draw linkage between the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and the normalization process.

    So much about good intentions!

    Judging from the language in the protocols, there are also serious reservations as to the usefulness of a historical commission to resolve, once and for all, the thorny issue of genocide allegations.(1)

    If Armenia is to be believed in its good intentions, the protocols would contain unambiguous clauses as to the steps Armenia would take, e.g., amend its Constitution, withdraw from Nagorno-Karabagh, in return for the opening of the border. The protocols contain no such quid pro quo.

    In contrast, the language in the protocols on the opening of the common border is clear and unmistakable: Once the protocols are ratified, the common border would be opened within two months.

    The open border, of course, would overwhelmingly benefit Armenia.

    For all it cares, Armenia can easily stonewall for years the implementation of steps it is expected to take, prevaricating on its acts, while in the meantime the Turkey-Armenia border remains open. It can maintain, for example, that it is not making (overt) territorial claims on Turkey while at the same time refusing to amend its Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, or change the design of its national flag.

    Or it can claim it is not actively pursuing “genocide” claims while winking at, and even secretly encouraging, genocide recognition efforts by the Armenian diaspora.

    Or it can make a cosmetic withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabagh, arguing that it has fulfilled its obligations as far as “promoting peace in the region.”

    And should Turkey contemplate re-closing the border because Armenia has not “delivered,” volleys of criticism from the American and European sympathizers of Armenia would surely follow.

    Further, should the Turkish Parliament refuse to ratify the protocols for lack of progress on the Nagorno-Karabagh issue, as Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has inexplicably suggested recently, Turkey would surely be singled out for having bad faith in the Turkish-Armenian normalization process.

    (Diplomatically, Erdoğan’s suggestion is a major faux pas, because there is no linkage in the protocols between the Nagorno-Karabagh issue and the normalization process. After giving repeated assurances to the Azeris on Nagorno-Karabagh, yet without any backing from the protocols, the PM has forced himself into a corner. Now he is expecting the Turkish Parliament to bail him out).

    In conclusion, ATAA’s analysis, no doubt reflecting an idealistic outlook, is based on presumptive logic, or wishful thinking, and cannot be supported. ATAA says the normalization protocols are based on the concept of “constructive ambiguity” by which each side interprets the language as it sees fit. This is an interesting approach, but offers no comfort for the Turkish side – or, for that matter, the Azeri side.

    ATAA should ponder: Would it ever sign a binding contract based pre-eminently on “constructive ambiguity,” wherein the only expressed certainty is for the advantage of the other side, but everything else is predicated on goodwill?

    Nations signing intergovernmental agreements should be held to the same standards of credibility and accountability as persons who conclude private or business transactions.

    ATAA issued its analysis on behalf of its Board of Directors. But ATAA also claimed in its announcement that it spoke on behalf of the Turkish-American community. A relevant question is: Has ATAA polled its members on the issue?

    It is worth noting that almost all opposition parties in Turkey, certainly the major ones, are opposed to the Turkish-Armenian normalization process in its present form. They remember what happened in Cyprus.

    (1) Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported: by Ferruh Demirmen, “Turkish Forum,” October 9, 2009.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

    Note to Turkish Forum readers: On October 10, the Azeri news outlet Trend News (http://en.trend.az)/ published on its website excerpts from my article cited above. The excerpted article, “Normalization of Ankara -Yerevan relations cannot be supported: Turkish expert,” was also published on the same day in Turkish Forum. The article contained a photo, purportedly depicting me. Turkish Forum readers are advised that the person depicted in that photo is not me. F. Demirmen.


  • Normalization of Ankara-Yerevan relations cannot be supported: Turkish expert

    Normalization of Ankara-Yerevan relations cannot be supported: Turkish expert

    FerruhDemirmenThe United States, New York, Oct.10 /Trend News K. Pashayeva /

    The process of normalizing the Ankara -Yerevan relations, developed on the incorrect basis, cannot be supported, Energy Expert Ferruh Demirmen told the Turkish Forum website.

    The protocols give no assurance or confidence that Armenia will take steps expected with normalization. The indications are that the Turkish government has forced itself into a predicament, possibly even a trap, of its own making, Demirmen said.

    Earlier Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Trend News in an exclusive interview that Turkey and Armenia will sign a deal to establish diplomatic ties on Oct. 10 or 11.

    Three major Turkish-American umbrella organizations, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), and the Federation of Turkish American Associations (FTAA) have supported the normalization process. They considered this step as a step towards regional peace and as a blow to the Armenian diaspora, making it ineffective in its lobbying efforts against Turkey, the Turkish Forum wrote.

    However Demirmen believes, the normalization process, in its present form, is ill-founded, ill-advised, and cannot be supported from the Turkish point of view. The arguments advanced for normalization, while sounding reasonable, and in principle commendable, represent to a large extent wishful thinking for the Turkish side, not backed by the two diplomatic protocols announced by Turkey and Armenia

    No caveat or pre-conditions are attached to normalization and the opening of the common border,” the expert said. Given that the opening of the border will overwhelmingly benefit Armenia, the protocols call for no concessions from Armenia, Demirmen added.

    Genocide allegations and the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are the chief thorny issues between the two countries; but for Turkey, Armenia’s hitherto hostile behavior is also a cause for deep resentment, the Turkish expert added.

    On the genocide issue, the protocols call for the establishment of a bilateral commission to study “the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including … an examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.” There is no mention to specifically address the genocide issue, whether it happened or not, Demirmen said.

    This work may continue for years, during which time the border will remain open. Because, the Armenians diaspora would continue to insist on recognizing the genocide, Demirmen wrote.

    There are also reports from Armenian sources that the Armenian government will insist that the historical commission should focus not on whether “genocide” occurred – because this is a given “fact” – but rather, how it occurred.

    In a recent interview with the Armenian Reporter in New York, Armenian President Serzh Sargisyan noted that Armenia and the diaspora are “one family,” and that recognition of “genocide” is a “long-awaited victory for justice.”

    A clear message, but not a helpful one for normalizing relations, Demirmen believes.

    The language in the protocols on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is even fuzzier. Other than a “commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes,” the protocols contain no concrete reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There is no mention of ending the illegal occupation of the Azeri territory by Armenia – notwithstanding the UN resolutions – of the innocent Azerbaijani civilians that fell victim to ethnic cleansing by Armenian forces, and of the plight of one million Azerbaijani refugees, Demirmen noted.

    The author also noted that on a recent visit to Moscow, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue never entered into negotiations with Turkey, and never will.

    In any case, while the Nagorno-Karabakh issue drags on in negotiations, the Turkey-Armenia border will remain open, the expert believes.

    Normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations without the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be a “sellout” by Turkey of brotherly Azerbaijan, and a betrayal of Azeri nation’s trust in Turkey.

    The chief fallout from a rift in Azerbaijani-Turkish relations will be energy projects – including Shah Deniz II gas supply for the Nabucco project. Throughput to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) crude pipeline may also be curtailed, the expert added.

    Source: en.trend.az, 10.10.2009

  • Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported

    Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    The Turkey-Armenia normalization process, due to take effect soon, in its present form carry imponderables that raise serious questions as to its merits for Turkey.

    Three major Turkish-American umbrella organizations, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), and the Federation of Turkish American Associations (FTAA), regrettably issued statements recently in support of the normalization process.

    In their endorsement, ATAA and TCA stressed, as has the Turkish government, the importance of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia in pursuit of regional peace, while FTAA, being more prophetic, argued that the process would be a blow to the Armenian diaspora, making it ineffective in its lobbying efforts against Turkey.

    There is, however, fierce opposition to the normalization process both in Turkey and Armenia.

    No pre-conditions

    The normalization process, in its present form, is ill-founded, ill-advised, and cannot be supported from the Turkish point of view. The arguments advanced for normalization, while sounding reasonable, and in principle commendable, represent to a large extent wishful thinking for the Turkish side, not backed by the two diplomatic protocols announced by Turkey and Armenia. The protocols, initialed on August 31 and due to be signed on October 10, form the blueprint for the normalization process.

    Reading through the protocols, the one thing that is striking is the generality of the language and the lack of concrete steps to be taken to resolve the outstanding issues between Turkey and Armenia. No caveat or pre-conditions are attached to normalization and the opening of the common border.

    Given that the opening of the border will overwhelmingly benefit Armenia, the protocols call for no concessions from Armenia.

    Genocide allegations and the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are the chief thorny issues between the two countries; but for Turkey, Armenia’s hitherto hostile behavior is also a cause for deep resentment.

    Genocide issue

    On the genocide issue, the protocols call for the establishment of a bilateral commission to study “the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including … an examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.” There is no mention to specifically address the genocide issue, whether it happened or not.

    Nor is there any commitment to open Armenian archives for examination. Turkish archives are already open.

    Likewise, the time frame for the completion of the commission’s work is left open. This work may continue for years, during which time the border will remain open.

    Swiss and other international experts will be joining Armenian and Turkish experts, and herein lies a potential trap for Turkey – considering how the West is already biased against the Turkish position. Switzerland is one country where denial of “Armenian genocide” is punishable by law. France is another one.

    Furthermore, assuming that the commission will reach a well-defined conclusion, there is no commitment on the part of Armenia that it would abide by this conclusion, or that it would try to dissuade the diaspora Armenians from continuing the genocide rhetoric.

    In its August 23, 1990 Declaration of Independence, Armenia stated that it will continue supporting international recognition of “the 1915 genocide,” and has done so ever since.

    It is probable that the Armenian diaspora will press for genocide recognition with undiminished fervor, with implicit if not explicit support of Armenia, regardless of the conclusions reached by the historical commission. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), the chief lobbying arm of the diaspora in America, is firmly against the Turkish-Armenian protocols. The Armenian-American community, in general, is also opposed.

    With the diaspora’s anti-Turkish lobbying efforts continuing in full force, Armenia can, as a last resort, “wash its hands off,” arguing that it has no “control” on the diaspora.

    There are also reports from Armenian sources that the Armenian government will insist that the historical commission should focus not on whether “genocide” occurred – because this is a given “fact” – but rather, how it occurred.

    In a recent interview with the Armenian Reporter in New York, Armenian President Serge Sargsian noted that Armenia and the diaspora are “one family,” and that  recognition of “genocide” is a “long-awaited victory for justice.”

    A clear message, but not a helpful one for normalizing relations.

    So, how is the establishment of the historical commission as foreseen in the protocols really make a difference as far as genocide allegations? A check of reality is in order here.

    Nagorno-Karabagh conflict

    The language in the protocols on the Nagorno-Karabagh issue is even fuzzier. Other than a “commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes,” the protocols contain no concrete reference to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. There is no mention of ending the illegal occupation of the Azeri territory by Armenia – notwithstanding the UN resolutions – of the innocent Azeri civilians that fell victim to ethnic cleansing by Armenian forces, and of the plight of one million Azeri refugees.

    On a recent visit to Moscow, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated that the Nagorno-Karabagh issue never entered into negotiations with Turkey, and never will.

    Still, as part of the normalization process, Armenia may implement a cosmetic withdrawal from the occupied territory, but this will fall well short of the UN demands, and will not in any way satisfy Azerbaijan. The Minsk Group has been ineffective to date.

    In any case, while the Nagorno-Karabagh issue drags on in negotiations, the Turkey-Armenia border will remain open.

    Occupation of Nagorno-Karabagh by Armenian forces was the reason Turkey closed the Turkey-Armenia border in 1993.

    Normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations without the solution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict will be a “sellout” by Turkey of brotherly Azerbaijan, and a betrayal of Azeri nation’s trust in Turkey.

    Other than trust, the chief fallout from a rift in Azeri-Turkish relations will be energy projects – including Shah Deniz II gas supply for the Nabucco project. Throughput to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) crude pipeline may also be curtailed, and the Kazakh oil reaching Baku (due to increase following recent agreement between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan) across the Caspian Sea, instead of the BTC outlet, will likely be exported from the Black Sea ports of Supsa (Georgia) or Novorossiysk (Russia).

    Economics aside, that will increase oil tanker traffic through the Bosporus.

    Should these eventualities materialize, Turkish politicians, or rather the AKP leaders, will have a lot in their hands to “explain.”

    Other issues

    Other thorny issues between Turkey and Armenia include refusal of Armenia to recognize the 1921 Kars Agreement (signed between Turkey and the three neighboring Soviet Republics defining the borders), reference to Mount Ararat as a national symbol in Armenia’s Constitution, inclusion of the Mount Ararat insignia on Armenia’s national flag, and reference to eastern Turkey as “Western Armenia” in the Armenian Declaration of Independence.

    Such stance on the part of Armenia is an antithesis of good intentions towards a neighbor. Yet, apart from a veiled reference to the Kars Agreement, the issue is largely ignored in the Turkish-Armenian protocols.

    How could a country like Turkey normalize relations with a neighbor when the latter signals territorial claims on its neighbor – and does not want to alter its mind-set?

    Could the U.S. have a normal diplomatic relation with Mexico if the latter claimed in its Constitution that the southwest U.S. is part of a larger Mexico?

    Lingering in the background, of course, is the nefarious ASALA terror that caused the death of more than 40 Turkish diplomats in various countries in the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

    Armenia cannot be directly blamed for ASALA’s terror, but the Armenian officials have not publically condemned the dastardly acts of ASALA.

    Memories are still fresh on Armenian president Andranik Makarian’s warm welcome extended to the ASALA terrorist Varadian Garabedian when the latter was released from French prison in 2001. The Yerevan mayor Rober Nazarian gave the terrorist assurance that he would be given food, shelter and a job in Yerevan. In fact, Garabedian received a hero’s welcome when he stepped into Armenian soil. He had been convicted in France of the 1983 bombing of the Turkish Airlines bureau at the Paris-Orly airport, killing 8 people and wounding 61.

    Call for judgment

    The notion of normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia is applaudable. Peace and political stability in the region require such normalization, and no reasonable person can oppose this process. Normalization, however, should be predicated on the ending of all hostile elements in the relations between the two countries.

    Other than closing the border in 1993, Turkey has not nurtured any adversarial notions towards Armenia. Countless Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, with their churches, hospitals, charities, etc. live peacefully in Turkey, enjoying the full rights of any Turkish citizen, including the right to vote, while at the same time the presence of some 70,000 illegal Armenian workers in Turkey is tolerated.

    No Armenian flags are publically burned or trampled upon on national holidays in Turkey, and children are not indoctrinated with anti-Armenian sentiments – in families, schools or mosques – from day one of reaching their consciousness.

    The despicable murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink – by unknown forces still under investigation – in January 2007 in Istanbul was widely condemned in Turkey, many Turks taking to the streets chanting “We are all Armenians,” or “We are all Hrant Dink.”

    Compare these realities with those in Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora, and what a stark, depressing contrast emerges! One would be hard put, for example, to find a single functioning mosque in Armenia.

    And no president of a Turkish-American organization was charged with and convicted of terror activities, like the ex-ANCA president Murat Topalian, who received, in 2001, a 3-year prison sentence in Ohio court for his involvement in a bomb attack against the Turkish House in New York in 1981.

    Notwithstanding some gross exaggerations, e.g., 1.5 million purported deaths, Armenians have a genuine sorrowful history to tell going back to World War I, and they want Turkey to account for the sad history. But Turks also have a painful, traumatic history, with 2.5 million Moslems (Turks and Kurds) contemporaneously perished in Anatolia, some half a million at the hands of renegade Armenian bands that joined the invading Russian and French forces, hitting the Ottoman forces from behind.

    Wartime tragedies are like the two sides of a coin, and if Armenia insists on accounting of history, it must also show empathy for the other side and face the excesses of its own history.

    That is why, it is essential that the historical commission that is envisioned in the protocols have access to all archival documents, Armenian and Turkish included, and the commission’s purview should be making a comprehensive review of the World War I events in their entirety.

    Turkey is prepared to face its history. Is Armenia prepared to face its own?

    Christian sympathies for the Armenian claims should not ignore or overlook tragedies visited on the Moslems.

    Wrap-up

    Wrapping up, reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia in principle is commendable, and in fact, long overdue. But such a process must first remove hostile attitudes that exist between the two countries. Because the animus, or an attitude of hostility, has been very largely on the Armenian side, Armenia must first change its attitude toward Turkey, e.g., by revising its Constitution.

    An expression of sorrow on the ASALA terror would be also helpful.

    The two Turkish-Armenian protocols, however, give no assurance or confidence that Armenia will take these steps. Based on ambiguous, noncommittal language in the protocols, one can only hope for a positive change on the Armenian side.

    But hope is not sufficient. There should be greater certitude in the protocols as to how Armenia will alter its conduct.

    The only certain clause in the protocols is the one that calls for the opening of the Turkey-Armenia border within 2 months after the protocols take force. There is little doubt that the land-locked Armenia, with most of its population living in poverty, will reap major economic gains from the free-trade opportunities afforded by a re-opened border.

    Once the border is opened, it will be virtually impossible to reverse the process regardless of how Armenia behaves. Closure of the border would draw harsh criticism from the U.S. and the EU.

    The Turkish-Armenian protocols, devoid of any pre-conditions, are being pushed by Turkey’s AKP government at the strong urging of the U.S., in particular President Obama in person. The EU is also pressuring Turkey. By signing these protocols, the government hopes to earn “brownie points” from the U.S. and the EU in an effort to further advance its Islamic political agenda.

    This is regrettable. While the issue is one of political convenience for the AKP government, it is essentially a matter of national dignity for Turkey.

    A fundamental question that the government must explain is, other than “brownie points,” what it will actually gain from the signing of the two protocols. If the purpose is to deflect the Obama administration from recognizing Armenian “genocide” – as President Obama said he would during the election campaign – it is a black mark for the Turkish foreign policy. It would be caving in to what is effectively a blackmail.

    When he visited Turkey in April, Obama inveighed that he had not changed his “thinking” on genocide allegations. The implication – a veiled threat – was not lost on Turks.

    Another key question is, if the protocols are ratified by the Turkish Parliament and they become binding, how the government will handle the Azeris’ certain displeasure. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly assured the Azeris that he will not disappoint them. Yet, the protocols give little hope of a diplomatic breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.

    Perhaps the government is hoping secretly that the Parliament will decline to ratify the protocols, letting the PM effectively “off the hook.” That eventuality, of course, will trigger another headache. Parliamentary ratification is a Constitutional requirement in Turkey. The Parliament, however, cannot make any alterations to the protocols. It can only ratify or reject them.

    The indications are that the Turkish government has forced itself into a predicament, possibly even a trap, of its own making.

    In this context, it is particularly disconcerting that, according to Nalbandian, the text of the Turkish-Armenian protocols was prepared entirely by the Armenian side, with Turkey suggesting only minor revisions. Why such passivity on the part of Turkish foreign ministry?

    There is a perception that the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s vision of “strategic depth” and “zero problems with neighbors” is turning the country into a weakling of a country lacking resolve and respectability. 

    It is also regrettable that ATAA, TCA and FTAA have lent support to the normalization process in its present form. Apparently they (at least ATAA and TCA) have chosen to toe the line with the official Turkish government policy. Living on a day-to-day basis with the realities of the Armenian propaganda perpetrated across America, these organizations should have known better. At the very least, they should have stayed neutral on the issue.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • Obama’s April 24 statement no comfort for Turks

    Obama’s April 24 statement no comfort for Turks

    by Ferruh Demirmen

    It is becoming almost an annual ritual for American presidents to issue commemorative declarations every year on April 24 to remember the Armenian “victims” of a tragic historic episode that took place almost 100 years ago. How many other foreign historic episodes nearly a century old do the American presidents commemorate every year? The answer: “zero.”

    And wherein lies the secret for such homage to Armenian people? Money, my friends, and lots of it in the form of campaign contributions.

    And the hapless Turks, ever watchful if the dreaded word “genocide” will be spelled out on such occasions, take a deep breath if that does not happen. They sit mostly on the sidelines, waiting for the events to unfold. Never mind that, the “g” word or no “g” word, they may be blamed for atrocities in history they did not commit.

    The Turk’s attitude is the poor man’s consolation for being spared a bigger affront.

    The litany

    Last year, referring to “human dignity” and “epic human tragedy,” President Bush issued a statement to “honor the memory of the victims of one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”

    Not a single word about the context, and the Moslem victims.

    It is a melodramatic soap opera that takes place every year, and this year it was no different.

    A few days ago President Obama, referring to “man’s inhumanity to man,” called the 1915 events “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.” He remembered the “1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.”

    So, Obama didn’t use the “g” word. Big deal! But he used the equivalent term in Armenian: “Medz Yeghern,” meaning Big Calamity. To the Turks, it is nearly as offensive as the “g” word. And Obama, a smart and perceptive man, should have known.

    Never believe the ANCA-type hypocrites who feigned disappointment in Obama’s choice of words because he didn’t use the “g” word. The Dashnakians must have relished Obama’s use of the term “Medz Yeghern.”

    It is the first time an American president pandered to the Freudian psyche of the Armenian lobby.

    The term “genocide” is a legal term, anyway, and notwithstanding the untoward motives of ANCA-swayed politicians, the UN and the International Court of Justice are the only legal entities empowered  to give credibility to that word.

    A matter of balance

    In all honesty, no one can blame Obama, or any other American president for that matter, to commemorate the tragic sufferings and deaths of Armenians during World War I. We must all condemn tragic events that befell humanity.

    But humanity also calls for a sense of balance, or justice. Where is the context, the faithfulness to historical truth, and remembrance of Turkish and Kurdish sufferings and casualties in such condemnations?

    Why is the number of Armenian casualties in these statements, which historical records show could not have exceeded half a million, boosted to 1.5 million?

    Why is there no mention of the betrayal of the Ottomans by the Armenian populace, who, by forming armed gangs, attacked the Ottoman civilians and Ottoman armies from behind during wartime when the country was under Russian, French and British occupation?

    More Moslems perished in the hands of terrorist Armenian gangs than the Armenians under Moslem backlash.

    Do the American presidents, or politicians of all stripes for that matter, have the right to be selective in condemning “man’s inhumanity to man?”

    Did the sufferings and deaths of Turks, Kurds, and even Jews in some cases, matter at all?

    As Obama-the-candidate was being indoctrinated by Dashnakians as to the events during World War I and learn diligently the words “Medz Yeghern,” he should have asked his hosts to teach him how to say “betrayal”or “treason” in Armenian. And cite that word in his April 24 statement.

    Those irresistible greenbacks

    President Obama is a clever man with a huge popularity at home and abroad. Unlike President Bush, who had a habit of bumbling through his unscripted speeches, Obama chooses his words carefully. His language in his April 24 statement is a testimony to the irresistible effectiveness of ANCA’s lobbying efforts. His perception of history was clouded by Armenian propaganda.

    The enthusiastic sponsorship that Obama received on ANCA’s website, through videos and webcasts, in apparent violation of ANCA’s tax-exempt status, is all too fresh in minds.  

    Obama didn’t stop with one-sided depiction of history. Adding insult to injury, he paid homage to Americans of Armenian descent for their contributions to the American society while ignoring Turkish Americans.

    Fair is fair. Does Obama think Turks are zombies of no redeemable value?

    Surely, the greenbacks, lots of them, must have done wonders for the Armenian propagandists in shaping Obama’s mind.

    Dubious diplomacy

    Will the Turks take notice of such indignity? We don’t know. But the higher-ups in the Turkish government in Ankara probably will not. They engaged in secret negotiations in Switzerland toward normalization of relations between Ankara and Yerevan, reporting the “progress” to the Obama administration but leaving the Turkish people – as well as the Azeri people – in the dark.

    Which begs the question: Did those high-flying Turkish diplomats in Switzerland think they were representing the Obama administration instead of the Turkish people?

    The Azeri have a very legitimate stake in the Turkish-Armenian talks because of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

    In the meanwhile the Azeri, being briefed about the Switzerland talks by the Russians, who in turn were briefed by the Armenians, became incensed at Turks’ audacity at conducting diplomacy behind their back. The Azeri showed their displeasure by starting energy-related talks with the Russian energy giant Gazprom. Turkey’s east-west Nabucco energy transit project, already suffering from a cold bout, has become shakier still. The Azeri gas is supposed to be the initial feed gas for the project. Ankara now has its hands full trying to placate a jittery Baku.

    The imponderables

    Setting all this aside, President Obama perhaps deserves credit for tempering his April 24 statement with some moderation. Even Vice President Joe Biden, the inveterate genocide hawk, softened his stance. Obama could have been harsher in his statement. The moderation, of course, stems from anticipation of a growing dialog between Turkey and Armenia that started in Switzerland. Whether that will materialize, is something else. Obama didn’t want to throw cold water on the process.

    But with his unmistakable pro-Armenian bias, most Turks will remain unimpressed with Obama’s stance.

    The outcome of the Turkish-Armenian talks so far is a “road map” of which details are kept under wraps. Apparently there are no pre-conditions to advance talks to the next level. But the road map has many roadblocks for both sides – as well, for the Azeri.

    In the meantime, the Turkish-American relations will become hostage to the outcome of diplomatic traffic between Ankara, Yerevan and Baku. With “Medz Yeghern” language in the background, it is not a reassuring thought. Turks are not comforted by Obama’s language.

    Separately, there is no guarantee that a Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi will not pass a pro-genocide resolution soon.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • Science gives way to religious dogma in Turkey

    Science gives way to religious dogma in Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    The recent censorship of the Darwin story in the “Science and Technology Journal,” published by The Scientific and Technological Research Council (Tübitak) of Turkey, caused consternation in the scientific community in Turkey and beyond. Tübitak is the leading government agency established to advance science and technology in Turkey.

    The censorship, first time of its kind in Tübitak’s 46-year history, was an event that would shame any respectful scientific organization.

    The making of a scandal

    The event started innocuously enough when the chief editor of the journal, Dr.  Çiğdem Atakuman, decided to commemorate Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday by running a 16-page cover story on the scientist’s life and his theory of evolution in its March edition. Unesco, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, had declared 2009 as the Year of Darwin.

    By established protocol in Tübitak, Atakuman had the authority to decide on the contents of the journal. But when Prof. Dr. Ömer Cebeci, a vice-president and member of the governing Science Board, found out about the Darwin article while it was at the press, the article and the photograph of Darwin on the cover page were peremptorily removed.

    A revised March edition, missing 16 pages and one week late, was issued, and Atakuman was verbally fired from her editorial position (“re-assigned”). The cover page was replaced with one dealing with global climate change.

    What Tübitak did not realize was that its actions were a recipe for a scandal.

    Condemnation

    The reaction from various quarters in Turkey and abroad was swift. Academics and students from various universities in Turkey gathered in front of the Tübitak building in Ankara to protest the censorship. Amid calls for the resignation of the Science Board, other academics, journalists, nongovernmental organizations and opposition politicians condemned Tübitak’s action. Turkish media gave wide coverage to the incident, and newspapers abroad weighed in.

    Tübitak was caught in a storm it had not expected.

    Voices of concern came from the Royal Society in London, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), EU politicians, and other foreign sources. Bloggers wasted no time on the Internet to chime in.

    Science versus dogma

    What lay at the core of these criticisms, and rightly so, was that science was being subjugated to the dictates of religious dogma. Darwin’s theory of evolution, while it forms one of the building stones of modern science, is incompatible with Islamic faith that man was created by God.

    Data suggest that only 25 percent of Turks believe in evolution, some, including the education minister Hüseyin Çelik, associating it with atheism. Turkish theologians generally reject the idea that man evolved from lower beings.

    There is, of course, a similar quandary with the Christian and Jewish faiths, but in the Turkish case Islamic teachings never stood in the way of evolutionary science. The academics and scientists managed to separate or reconcile evolution and Islamic faith, and the government did not interfere. They were free to practice and teach science including the theory of evolution.

    That was in keeping with the secular fabric of the republic as established by Kemal Atatürk.

    Tübitak itself featured Darwin many times in its journal in the past, and the event passed without any incident.

    Islamic wind

    The changeover in Tübitak’s stance on science, in particular the theory of evolution, is no accident. After the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in November 2002, the government has undertaken a relentless campaign to undermine secular education in Turkey. Elements of Islam have been injected into the educational system in various degrees, and religious schools have been promoted. Evolution has been relegated to second status in favor of creationism.

    The government has implemented its Islamic policy through laws, regulations and partisan appointments (in some cases in “acting capacity’). The result is a highly politicized educational system from bottom up, including the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).

    The shift in Tübitak is part of this politicization process. Beginning in January 2004, when the current president of the Science Board, Prof. Dr. Nüket Yetiş, was appointed in acting capacity, most members in senior administration resigned or were forced out. Amendments made to Tübitak’s charter in August 2008 gave the government substantial control over the institution.

    Also in August 2008 Yetiş, whose appointment had previously been vetoed by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, was appointed as the president of Tübitak by President Abdullah Gül. Yetiş reportedly has ties to Islamists.

    Of the 12 members of the Science Board, 10 received their appointments during the AKP government.

    So, at the core of the Darwin scandal was political pressure coming from the AKP.

    Damage control

    To remedy the embarrassment, Tübitak issued a statement denying censorship of the Darwin article and attributing the incident to “miscommunication.” It said there would be a special issue of the magazine later in 2009 covering Darwin.

    A press release issued by Atakuman in reply, giving a detailed account of the events, however, left no doubt that censorship had taken place. Atakuman noted that after the incident she was reprimanded by Cebeci, her boss, in his office for pursuing a “provocative” subject in a “sensitive environment” – meaning the AKP rule.

    Tübitak would be hard put to explain why the Darwin article was provocative.

    Stung by criticism, the government, despite its well-known opposition to evolution, claimed it had played no role in the incident. Surprisingly – and perhaps not surprisingly – YÖK, the council overseeing higher education, declined to comment.

    More fallout

    What is most disconcerting about the Darwin incident is that it may stunt independent thinking and hinder science in Turkey. Science can only advance if it is free of ideology and religious dogma. Darwin’s theory of evolution is an integral part of science, and it must be disseminated, argued and researched without outside interference. Tübitak should promote, not hinder, such efforts.

    It is no surprise that Prof. Dr. Tahsin Yeşildere, Head of the Association for University Lecturers, commented that “Turkish science is in the hands of anachronistic brains who hold it in contempt,” while Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, called the Darwin incident an example of “cultural corruption and . . . intellectual dishonesty.”

    Nor is it a surprise that some EU politicians expressed disquiet, pointing out that the incident was a blatant violation of freedom of thought and scientific independence. Le Monde commented that Islamic groups in Turkey were waging war against Darwin.

    Turkey’s prospect to join the EU, already shaky, will no doubt be affected.

    What is also ironic, and disturbing, is that the Darwin censorship has taken place in a country that had benefited from Atatürk’s vision. Atatürk observed, eloquently, that “Science is the true guide in life.”

    A disquieting thought

    It has been 84 years since America had its bizarre “Scopes Trial” (“Monkey Trial”) in a Tennessee court. The trial was portrayed by some as a titanic struggle between good and evil, when in fact it was about truth and ignorance, or about light and dark.

    Is it possible that Turkey may soon have its own “Scopes Trial”? That would be most unfortunate. But if the AKP, with its Islamic agenda, continues to meddle with science, it may come to that.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    By Ferruh Demirmen

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walkout from the Gaza panel in Davos last week created quite a stir on the international scene. The walkout strained the Israeli-Turkish relations, and the direction the Turkish foreign policy is headed became a subject of debate.

     

    The occasion was a panel discussion on the Gaza crisis where two of the four panelists were Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres. During his talk Erdogan blamed Israel for the Gaza violence, and Peres passionately defended his country’s policy. The tempers became inflamed when the moderator refused to allow Erdogan sufficient time to reply to Peres. This brought the panel discussion to a breaking point, and the PM walked off.

     

    The prevailing sentiment in Turkey is that Erdogan was justified in his action. Upon return from Davos, the PM was welcomed as a courageous leader by his supporters in Istanbul. The Arab world, in particular Hamas, lauded Erdogan’s action. There were alarm signals from the American Jewish lobby and the Israeli media, the former warning that Turkey’s image was damaged and making a sarcastic reference to PKK. In the rest of the world, the reaction was one of bemusement,

     

    The substance

     

    In substance, it is difficult to disagree with Erdogan on his criticism of Israel on the Gaza crisis. While the Jewish state deserved sympathy for the plight of its citizens that came under rocket attack from Hamas militants, its response was grossly disproportionate. Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip created a humanitarian crisis in an area that was already reeling under a military lockdown. Some 1300 Palestinians lost their lives, as opposed to 13 on the Israeli side. Gaza’s industry was destroyed, and even schools, mosques, hospitals and a UN compound came under attack.

     

    The notion that a vastly superior military firepower was turned on a nearly defenseless population under siege, with graphic images of Palestinian civilians suffering and dying, was too much to bear for the world at large, in particular the Islamic world. Erdogan verbalized these sentiments.

     

    What made the Israeli action particularly offensive was that the military campaign appeared to be planned months in advance, and that Israel was timing its military campaign according to presidential turnover at the White House. Israel’s banning of journalists from the war zone also exacerbated anti-Israeli sentiments.

     

    The style

     

    Putting substance aside, the manner in which Erdogan handled himself in Davos was both right and wrong. To make sense of conflicting reports of the incident, this writer viewed the official webcast of the panel discussion. It is clear from the webcast that Erdogan was justified in protesting to the moderator.

     

    A cardinal rule in panel discussions is that the participants are allowed equal time. In this case, Peres was allowed to speak considerably longer than Erdogan.

     

    It is also a standard practice in panel discussions to allow a second chance to the speakers to respond to each other. There was no such provision in the panel discussion. Erdogan wrestled to get additional time to respond to Peres, the last speaker, but when the moderator cut him off after two minutes, the PM became visibly agitated. Turning red-faced, he stormed out.

     

    Because the other two panelists had talked shorter than both Erdogan and Peres, the moderator could have allowed Erdogan more time to respond, thereby preventing a diplomatic crisis.

     

    On the other hand, the PM could have chosen to remain calm, letting the audience judge the unfairness of the situation. His parting remark to the moderator, “For me, Davos is finished,” was unnecessary, and his rhetoric aimed at Peres, “You are older than me. Your voice is coming strong, this has to do with a guilty conscience.” … ”You know well how to kill,” were quite inappropriate. He had lost his temper.

     

    In diplomacy, there is no substitute for composure.

     

    In Ankara, retired Turkish diplomats who criticized Erdogan’s behavior in Davos also drew the PM’s ire, who called them “monsieurs” – a thinly disguised pejorative term.

     

    Some commentators in Turkish media compared the PM’s action to the bluster of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev when he, in a fury, took his shoe off and banged it at the table at a United Nations conference in 1960. The comparison, however, was off the mark.

     

    The motive

     

    Erdogan’s action raised some basic questions. What was the PM trying to accomplish by becoming the spokesman for Hamas when the Arab world is almost indifferent to the plight of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip?

     

    And if the PM was sincere in his humanitarian concerns over the Gaza crisis, why did he not raise similar objections to the killing fields in Darfur, and, for that matter, next-door Iraq?

     

    Erdogan twice welcomed in Ankara Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir – a radical Islamist – who has been accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. These are questions only the PM can answer.

     

    But there is little doubt that Erdogan’s stance in Davos was driven at least in part by domestic politics. Local elections are scheduled for March, and by embracing the staunchly Islamic-oriented Hamas, the PM calculated that he could boost his popularity with his Islamist base at home. His popularity, in fact, did receive a boost, at least temporarily.

     

    The rallying welcome the PM received at the Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning just after leaving the panel discussion was obviously planned in advance.

     

    Israeli-Turkish relations

     

    The larger issue with the Davos incident is whether it heralded a major shift in Turkey’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel. In press releases, both sides tried to downplay the significance of the event, claiming that the relations between the countries remained fundamentally strong.

     

    There is considerable truth in that assessment, as the two countries have long had close bilateral ties, from tourism to commerce to defense. The two countries also have shared common strategic interests, a point verbalized by Peres during his talk at the Turkish Parliament in November 2007. Both countries will want to continue the alliance.

     

    The alliance, however, will face challenges. Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization, and unless the organization becomes more moderate, a serious rift in the Israeli-Turkish alliance will be inevitable. Turkey’s relationship with the US and the EU will also be affected.

     

    There is also the concern, raised by the American Jewish lobby, but also by the Turkish Jewish community, that Erdogan’s pro-Hamas stance may stoke anti-Semitism in Turkey. The PM tried to allay this concern by stating that his quarrel is with the Israeli administration, not Jewish people.

     

    The problem with this argument is that his constituents in the Islamic camp may not make such distinction.

     

    Any rise in anti-Semitism in Turkey would be very unfortunate. Since the Ottomans welcomed Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century, Turks and Jews have lived in peaceful coexistence. The secular republic established by Kemal Atatürk bestowed full citizenship rights on Jews, as it did on other religious and ethnic groups.

     

    Conclusion

     

    In summary, a badly administered panel discussion was at the root of a bizarre incident in Davos. Although there will be challenges, Turkey and Israel should put the bizarre incident behind and move on. The Jewish state should use the Davos incident as a wakeup call from a friend for resolution of the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Turkey’s part, it should weigh carefully its association with Hamas. A lasting peace in the Middle East is far too important to let an emotionally charged panel discussion to be a distraction. On Erdogan’s part, he should learn how to control his anger in conflict situations.

     

    ferruh@demirmen.com