Category: Authors

The Turkish government has recently embarked on an aggressive campaign, pressuring a large number of European and American museums to return antiquities that were taken out of the country during Ottoman times.

While it is understandable that nations would want to recover ancient relics that were part of their patrimony, in the Turkish case there are certain anomalies that merit closer scrutiny.

If these valuable relics were taken out of Turkey in recent times without proper authorization, one could argue that the Turkish government is perhaps entitled to them, even though they emanate from ancient civilizations that predate the conquest of that part of the world by Ottoman Turks.

It is ironic that the country claiming these antiquities is one of the history’s biggest looters and pilferers of other nations’ cultural heritage such as churches, monasteries, monuments, and schools belonging to Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. One must have clean hands before having the audacity of accusing others of theft.

Most shocking of all, the Turkish government is preparing a lawsuit against the British Museum in the European Court of Human Rights based on Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which states: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”

According to an article by Ceylan Yeginsu in the International Business Times (IBT), using human rights laws to recover antiquities is a novel concept never before used by any country. It is incredible that one of the biggest violators of human rights in the world is getting ready to sue the British Museum ostensibly for violating the rights of Turkish citizens.

Turkey is planning to file this lawsuit on January 30 to reclaim the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, “one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.” The British Museum, however, argues that it had not misappropriated this ancient relic. Olivia Rickman, press and PR manager of the Museum, told IBT that the sculptures from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in the Museum’s collection were acquired in 1846, 1857 and 1859. Rickman further states that “these pieces were acquired during the course of two British initiatives, both with firmans [legal permits issued by the Ottoman authorities] that granted permission for the excavation of the site and removal of the material from the site (1857 and 1859) and Bodrum Castle (1846) to the British Museum.”

IBT quoted Charlotte Woodhead, an expert in cultural heritage law at the University of Warwick in England, stating that she was not aware of human rights legislation ever being used before to reclaim such objects. “If a claim is brought before the European Court of Human Rights, it will be interesting to see on what basis it is argued and also to see what the outcome is,” Woodhead stated.

Turkey has also used an Ottoman law banning the export of artifacts in order to claim ownership of ancient artifacts from major museums around the globe, such as the Louvre in Paris, the Getty in Los Angeles, New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and Harvard’s Dumbarton Oaks. If Turkey can claim Ottoman-era assets, then it must be held responsible for Ottoman-era liabilities such as plunder, territorial conquest, and genocide!

By filing such questionable lawsuits, Turkey’s real intent is to intimidate foreign museums into returning the claimed artifacts. If the museums do not cave in to Turkish pressure and refuse to turn over these items, it would be interesting to see if the Turkish government would still go ahead with its threatened lawsuits. The big risk for Turkey is that if the courts reject its claims, no museum would ever agree to return any of the demanded antiquities.

However, should a foreign museum wish to return an ancient relic to Turkey, it should make it conditional on the Turkish government officially identifying the true origin of the object, such as Hittite, Roman, Greek, Armenian or Assyrian. This is necessitated by the fact that Turkey has omitted all references to the origin of ancient Armenian churches and monuments from inscriptions presently affixed to the entrance of these sites.

Turkish efforts to reclaim antiquities from the world’s great museums provide a unique opportunity for Armenians to publicize the Turkey’s misuse and outright destruction of thousands of Armenian churches, monasteries, schools, cemeteries and castles.

Armenians should petition the European Court of Human Rights, objecting to the return of any artifacts to Turkey, unless its government makes a legally binding pledge to preserve and identify all remaining Armenian monuments on its territory. The next step would be to demand that Turkey return the more than 2,000 churches to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul.

Most political observers predict a contentious hearing in the Armed Services Committee and later in the full Senate on the confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, Pres. Obama’s nominee as the next Secretary of Defense.

During his 12 years in the Senate, Hagel, a Republican, managed to offend a slew of constituencies, including conservative Senators of his own political party, as well as Jewish Americans, Armenian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and gays.

In order to appease his critics and secure Senate’s confirmation, Sen. Hagel has been busy in recent days issuing retractions and apologies to various groups.

Upon learning of Hagel’s nomination, Jewish-American organizations harshly criticized him for being soft on Iran and hard on Israel, and for stating that “the Jewish lobby” in the United States “intimidates a lot of people.”

Sen. Hagel responded by telling The Lincoln Journal Star on January 7 that his record demonstrates “unequivocal, total support for Israel” and endorsement of tough economic sanctions against Iran. There is “not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli, not one [Senate] vote that matters hurt Israel,” Hagel told the newspaper.

The nominee also backed down from his opposition to ambassadorial nominee James Hormel in 1998 whom he had called “openly, aggressively gay.” He issued an apology last week to gay rights groups, stating that his earlier comments were “insensitive.”

However, the nominee for Defense Secretary remains unapologetic regarding his highly insensitive remarks on the Armenian Genocide.

During a press conference in Yerevan on June 2, 2005, Sen. Hagel expressed his opposition to a pending congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide: “Historians and others should deal with it. But, I don’t think that the United States Government should become involved in the issue based on a resolution or any other way. What happened in 1915, happened in 1915. As one United States Senator, I think the better way to deal with this is to leave it open to historians and others to decide what happened and why.” This happens to be the exact position of the denialist Turkish regime on the Armenian Genocide.

Sen. Hagel went on to tell Armenian journalists: “The fact is that this region needs to move forward. We need to find a lasting peace between Turkey and Armenia and the other nations of this region. I am not sure that by going back and dealing with that in some way that causes one side or the other to be put in difficult spot, helps move the peace process forward.” These comments were simply intended to cover-up the Turkish crime of genocide.

Sen. Hagel’s pronouncements against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide are highlighted by his expressions of admiration for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, who continued the genocide initiated by the predecessor regime. It is not surprising that the Ataturk Society of America presented Sen. Hagel, the Ataturk Society’s Leadership Award on May 19, 2005, two weeks before going to Armenia and endorsing the Turkish government’s views on the Armenian Genocide.

Hurriyet newspaper quoted Sen. Hagel as making the following highly laudatory statement about the Father of modern Turkey in a 2008 speech: “Ataturk is one of the most valuable leaders of the 21^st century. Children in the United States know nothing about this great leader. They should teach about him in schools and write about him in history books. Ataturk played a leading role in shaping today’s world.”

Armenian-Americans and human rights activists, who are deeply concerned about Hagel’s nomination, were quoted in an article by Adam Kredo in Washington Free Beacon titled, “Chuck Hagel has an Armenian Problem.” Here are some of their statements:

— “We remain troubled by former Senator Hagel’s acceptance of Ankara’s gag-rule on American honesty about the Armenian Genocide,” ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian stated.

— “We expect a rigorous confirmation process which will also serve as an opportunity for Senator Hagel to forthrightly acknowledge the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide,” stated Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director of the Armenian Assembly of America.

— “On the eve of the Holocaust, Hitler mockingly asked, ‘Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ Not Chuck Hagel, apparently,” stated Rafael Medoff, Director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

— “What Chuck Hagel said in his press conference in Armenia in 2005 regarding the genocide of Armenians by Turks is shameful,” said Walter Reich, former director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “In his forthcoming confirmation hearings, senators should confront him with what he said and should expect him to address it.”

— Hagel’s opposition to U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide “betrays a shocking lack of moral leadership,” stated Thane Rosenbaum, Fordham University Law Professor.

Unless Sen. Hagel apologizes for his “insensitive” remarks on the Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Americans should urge the Senate to block his confirmation.

While political leaders often exaggerate their achievements and brag about the superiority of their nation, such claims become absurd if they are far removed from reality and border on chauvinism and narcissism.

When leaders harbor an exaggerated sense of self-importance, they could be easily manipulated by others who exploit their insatiable appetite for flattery. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is one of several high-ranking Turkish officials who may be suffering from such a character flaw.

The Turkish media provided extensive coverage to a Los Angeles Times article reporting that “Pres. Obama has logged more phone calls to Erdogan than to any world leader except British Prime Minister David Cameron.” When the two met at the United Nations in New York, Pres. Obama gave Erdogan “more face time than any other world leader,” lasting almost two hours. The US President reportedly praised the Turkish Prime Minister for showing “great leadership.” The L.A. Times specifically noted that Obama even “resorted to flattery” by subsequently phoning Erdogan “to rave about a Turkish basketball tournament.”

The Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman, published a follow up article further highlighting the close relationship between the two leaders: “Erdogan and Obama’s phone chats reveal Turkey’s ascent.” The article included a photo where the American and Turkish leaders are shaking hands while brimming with wide smiles.

Although Prime Minister Erdogan does not look kindly upon anyone who writes unflattering words about him and frequently sues journalists daring to criticize his policies, prominent Turkish commentator Semih Idiz risked imprisonment by writing an article last week in Al-Monitor, titled: “Is Erdogan Aiming to Be a Latter-Day Sultan?” Idiz underlines the Prime Minister’s “authoritarian tendencies and lack of tolerance to any criticism, especially from a free press.”

The Turkish journalist writes in great detail about Erdogan’s plans to run for President in August 2014, but not before drafting a new constitution that would transform the current head of state’s ceremonial post into “an executive presidency” that would not be “encumbered by a system of checks and balances.” If elected President, Erdogan would have “the power to dissolve the Parliament, rule by decree and appoint government ministers, senior bureaucrats and jurists without parliamentary approval.”

It is not a mere accident that Erdogan recently told Turkish journalists that the American presidential system, with checks and balances that limit the power of the president, is not suitable for Turkey: “The US president cannot appoint an ambassador, he cannot even solely decide on the sale of a helicopter…. That’s why we should create a Turkish-style presidential system.”

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who used be a serious scholar, appears to be emulating his conceited Prime Minister. Last week, in his opening remarks at the annual conference of Turkish Ambassadors held in Ankara, Davutoglu made a highly arrogant statement claiming that Turkey plays a critical role in world affairs: “Because the global powers know that now history flows through Ankara, parties that ignore Ankara cannot understand history. The one that risks relations with Ankara will take risks in all regional policies…. Those who want to understand history must be present in Ankara, Istanbul and every other place in Turkey, because from now on we will be more actively present in shaping the flow of history.”

These preposterous words are uttered by a Foreign Minister who had assumed his current post by pompously declaring that his country pursued a policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” The harsh reality is that Turkey now has almost no neighbors without problems! Indeed, Ankara has serious conflicts with neighboring Armenia, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, and Syria!

Not to be outdone by his senior colleagues, Turkey’s controversial European Union Affairs Minister, Egemen Bagis, greeted the New Year with a fresh list of outlandish statements: “Today there is no government in Europe which is more reformist than our government. While EU countries are struggling in crisis, our country is experiencing the most democratic, prosperous, modern and transparent period in its history. The ‘sick man’ of yesterday has gotten up and summoned the strength to prescribe medication for today’s Europe…and to share the EU’s burden rather than being a burden to it.”

Pres. Obama has discovered that he can get more out of Turkish leaders by honey than vinegar, capitalizing on their overwhelming desire for praise and flattery. The problem is that such lavish praise has turned Turkey into ‘a spoiled brat’ who has become a serious menace to the entire neighborhood!