Category: Authors

Ottoman Fruit Syrups (Şerbet)

Şerbet made from fresh fruit were an indispensable beverage in Ottoman palace cuisine as well as among the common people and were traditionally served to guests. Despite being on the brink of oblivion today, they still find a place on the table wherever authentic Ottoman cuisine is served. In villages in eastern Turkey, it is still true today that, after a dowry is agreed on, the groom’s family comes to the bride’s house and out comes a long-spouted brass or copper ewer, called an ibrik, filled with gül şerbeti, or rose sherbet. The woman who has “drunk şerbet” has accepted the groom’s suit. Due to the Islamic ban on alcohol, for example, beverages in the Islamic world tended to consist of fruit juices and syrups. Fruit juice is of course consumed all over the world, but the fresh fruit syrups known as ‘şerbet’ appeared and were consumed in quantity among the Muslim communities of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and Central Asia. English travelers and envoys made the acquaintance of şerbet in the Ottoman period and borrowed the word directly into their own languages, thereby universalizing it. The renowned food historian Alan Davidson reports that ‘şerbet’ entered the Italian language as ‘sorbetto’ during the period of Ottoman-Byzantine-Venetian relations.

April 20, 2012
IT WILL NOT HAPPEN TO ME! GUESSWHAT? IT WILL!!!

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN TO ME! GUESS WHAT? IT WILL!!

*****

PART TWO:

OUR FUTURE

Chapter Seven

Arthur H. Vandenberg Senator – Republican, Michigan

Because I was born and raised in the United States this book is written from the perspective of this country. However, the problems today do not only apply to the United States, but the whole planet earth. Therefore my solutions apply to every nation.

Thomas Edison invented electricity and Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone towards the end of the 19^th century. Those two inventions have led us to leap frog over centuries of advancement in just a few decades. Our health and standard of living has blossomed as each decade ends and we begin a new one. We have progressed in every area, but one. Our Politicians! They are still the same as they were in George Washington’s time.

The first and foremost idea to our self-help resurrection is to promote a better standard of choosing our representatives. Without leadership for the “Common Good” we are doomed as a free capitalistic society.

In the US Capital, in the Senate Reception Room, there were busts of the Famous Five. On March 12, 1959 the Senate chose five men whose careers helped shape this nation. They were Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C Calhoun, Robert M Lafollette Sr. and Robert A Taft

Then on September 14, 2004 the Senate added two more distinguished names. Senator Robert F Wagner – D NY and Arthur H Vandenberg R- MI were the two senators singled out as superb leaders when our nation needed them most. Both men were 1930’s and 1940’ vintage.

Senator Wagner’s achievements are mind boggling on the domestic front. Almost every piece of legislation had his fingerprints all over it.

Senator Vandenberg had a more interesting career in my humble opinion. He came to the Senate in 1928 and he was a strict isolationist and conservative. In the beginning he started out voting against some of FDR’s programs. He was becoming a swing vote. He was voting on the issues and not the party line.

When he ran for reelection in 1934 he had the distinction of losing his home district, but winning the state by over 52,000 votes.

He served on the Foreign Relation committees and as time went on he backed FDR on foreign policies and so did his fellow republicans. His great achievement came with what is called “the speech heard around the world” in the US Senate.

Harry Truman had yet to become President. FDR’s death and victory was still months into our future. This led to “the victors belong the spoils” and he sensed mayhem on the foreign fronts.

So on January 10, 1945 he gave the speech in the US Senate that was “heard around the world”. It let the whole world know that as far as foreign policy was concerned the Republican Party, currently the minority party, would back the President of the United States of America. The President, duly elected by the entire nation, was the only individual that could gather and collect the necessary information from any source that he deemed significant in making decisions.

Here is part of his speech:

“I wholeheartedly agree with President Roosevelt when he says: “We must not let such differences divide us and blind us to our more important common and continuing interests in winning the war and building the peace.

On the other hand, I hold the deep belief that honest candor, devoid of prejudice or ire, is our greatest hope and our greatest necessity; above all others, is called at long last to exercise this honest candor not only with its allies but also with its own faithful people.”

That speech, dear reader, let everyone know that when the President of the United States spoke on international affairs he had the backing of the whole nation. No more failed peace treaties of WW I, or international organizations like the League of Nations.

All the momentous decisions that were made after WW II were due in part because the president knew that he had the support of congress and foreign entities knew he had a “big stick” that he could use.

Senator Vandenberg died in office in 1951, but his example lived on for a few more years.

Majority leader of the US Senate, Lyndon Johnson, would do the same in his support for President Eisenhower. He would be known as one of the great majority leaders, but sadly a flop as President.

Our political system is now decaying because we lack the leadership that Senator Vandenberg displayed.

This applies to every nation that holds free elections when the end comes. This will be the true test of free capitalism.

When the governments provide all, the incentive to excel is left in the bedroom. We could slip back into a new computer form of the dark ages or worse yet “1984”.

We must choose carefully who we elect because that process is breaking down with the use of television “sound bites” instead of substance. We are making progress with the “debates”, but the media still carries the sword.

Possible Solutions

At the end of each chapter, I will offer a possible solution to our problems. Upon contemplating my ideas, a bell might go off in your brain with better ideas. One idea can lead to another and the final pieces of the puzzle can make it look like a mature model.

As long as there are free elections it does not matter what country one resides in, because in the long run we will all have to work together just as FDR and Senator Vandenberg expressed.

So lets us begin:

Each community should form an election counsel made up of concerned citizens of every stripe or persuasion.

Their mandate is to interview potential candidates for local offices and determine whether they will represent the entire community fairly if elected. Their own political views should not be known. They should be concerned with whether the person is running because he needs a job, or is trying to make a living off the public. It is not an endorsement of a political party, but of a Candidate, if elected, which will govern for the common good of all. The perfect situation would be when there would be a primary and 3 of the 4 candidates had received the seal of approval.

Ideally this counsel should be able to act favorably of all candidates running for the same office.

What we are looking for are persons that have a strong moral background, who are ethically honest, and who consider it an honor and privilege to serve their community.

Depending upon the size of the community there should be at least 11 persons on the counsel. This should insure that unbiased selections are made.

Then for county and larger areas, the committee should be made up of 3 or more persons from the communities in that area.

Next: Bilingualism and education.

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN TO ME! GUESS WHAT? IT WILL!!

*****

April 19, 2012
Who should be listening to the warning bells of April 24?

Turkey has been able to maintain a firm stance regarding the Armenian matters that have at times occupied the global agenda in recent years. This year it appears it will be able to brush off the whole April 24 syndrome. But another side to the issue presents us with a different reality; a process guided by different strategies has begun for the Armenians, who appear, from the outside, to be the losing side. (more…)

April 19, 2012
Turkey Inches Closer to Nuclear Cooperation with China

Turkey Inches Closer to Nuclear Cooperation with China

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 77

April 18, 2012

By: Saban Kardas

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accompanied by members of his cabinet, paid an official visit to China on April 8-11. The first by a Turkish PM in 27 years, the trip was remarkable in many ways and underlined the parties’ continued determination to deepen their cooperation, despite political differences on some regional issues.

The most spectacular part of the trip was Erdogan’s stopover in Urumchi, the capital of China’s Xinjiang autonomous region (Anadolu Ajansi, April 9). Since Erdogan’s vocal criticism of China over its brutal crackdown of the Uyghur demonstrations in the summer of 2009, Sino-Turkish relations have been transformed significantly. Turkey ceased to advocate the Uyghur issue in public forums, while the Chinese officials also allowed increasing interactions between Xinjiang and Turkey. In particular, China enables such interactions in order to give the message to Turkish public opinion that it respects the rights of the Uyghur people. Overall, the parties are careful to turn the Uyghur factor into an element of cooperation rather than a factor of tension in the bilateral relationship.

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to Turkey earlier this year underscored this mutual understanding to focus on areas of common interest (EDM, March 1). During his trip to Beijing and Shanghai, Erdogan held fruitful discussions with Chinese leaders to further cooperation in the economic and political realm, while also signing several agreements to enhance cultural exchanges. Granted, the relationship remains driven by economic interests.

In previous conversations, the parties indicated their determination to improve economic ties. Especially the Turkish side is keen to have a serious discussion on this issue, as Ankara currently incurs a major foreign trade deficit to Beijing. As the parties aim to increase the current bilateral trade volume from $25 billion to $100 billion by 2020, it will be important for Turkey to manage this process in a healthy manner so that its domestic market is not flooded with Chinese consumer goods (haberturk.com, April 10).

The two countries rank as the fastest growing economies in the world, further raising expectations that the parties should cooperate in the economic realm. In order to compensate for the liability caused by the trade imbalance, Turkey hopes to see a greater volume of Chinese investments flowing into its economy. During its trip to Shanghai, the Turkish delegation met with executives of Chinese investment companies to discuss the details of furthering economic cooperation (Anadolu Ajansi, April 11).

Erdogan went to great lengths to explain the “success” of the Turkish economy in the midst of the global financial crisis and how Ankara introduced structural reforms to turn the country into a safe destination for investments. He also underlined Turkey’s proximity and access to the European markets as an additional incentive to lure Chinese investments. Reportedly, the cabinet ministers and businessmen accompanying Erdogan signed several agreements with their Chinese counterparts, especially investments in Turkey’s energy sector and infrastructure projects. The government has reportedly received positive news about Chinese interest in its major infrastructure projects. Especially, Turkey wants to see greater Chinese investment – both in terms of financing and undertaking construction work – as it seeks to construct a high-speed train railway throughout the country (Aksam, April 13).

Indeed, the two countries also have been recognized as leading players in the worldwide construction sector. While China owns the largest number of international contracting firms, Turkey comes in second on the same list (Sabah, April 6). With the growing visibility of China in this field, concerns have been raised about competition between the two countries. Given China’s advantages, especially in terms of credit opportunities, Turkey is careful to avoid competition and instead works to woo China into cooperation.

A tangible outcome of the trip was the signing of a declaration on cooperation in peaceful nuclear technology (Anadolu Ajansi, April 9). This agreement follows Turkey’s earlier cooperation efforts with Russia, Japan and South Korea in this field. Such an agreement usually is a segue into negotiations on the construction of a nuclear power plant. So far, Turkey granted a tender for its first-ever nuclear power plant to be built in the Mediterranean coastal town of Mersin-Akkuyu to Russia. The second plant is planned to be constructed in the Black Sea province of Sinop. Earlier, the talks Turkey launched with South Korea pertaining to the second plant failed, partly because Seoul was reluctant to give the state guarantees for the investments. As Turkey initiated negotiations with Japan on the same project, the Fukushima disaster again led to the interruption, with the Japanese side giving unclear signals as to their willingness to resume the talks.

Following Erdogan’s trip, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz announced that Turkey would soon hold talks with Japan, South Korea and China on the construction of the country’s second nuclear power plant (Anadolu Ajansi, April 13). Ankara’s approach in nuclear talks is significant in many ways. On the one hand, it seems that Turkey might be hoping to benefit from competition between the three Asian powers and receive a better deal for the second plant. In his remarks, Yildiz clearly underlined that Ankara would pick up the best offer between the three countries. On the other hand, this development also indicates Turkey’s anxiousness to conclude a deal, after having invested political capital in the idea of constructing a second plant. Given its soaring energy needs in recent years, which are met largely by imported hydrocarbons, Turkey has attached a major value to nuclear power plants in its energy strategy.

However, this rather hasty and pragmatic approach also raises questions. The first plant was contracted to Russia, although Moscow has a mixed international reputation. Now, the pursuit of an agreement with China, which has not established itself as a major international player in this field, makes one wonder about the coherence, sustainability and reliability of Turkey’s nuclear energy plans. Occasionally, the government comes under criticism over the safety of the plants to be constructed with this strategy (www.turkey.setimes.com, November 11, 2011). In an obvious attempt to allay such questions, Yildiz also maintained that the plants will be built in line with robust standards, set by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the EU. Even if this will be the case, it remains to be seen if Turkey can genuinely develop peaceful nuclear technology by building partnerships with different players.

https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-inches-closer-to-nuclear-cooperation-with-china/

April 18, 2012
Two Faces of Turkey: Veneer of Gentility Masking Ruthlessness

When Turkey’s Foreign Minister met secretly with a group of Armenians in Washington last month, he wooed them with his sly smile and sugar-coated words. This was the fake facade of traditional Turkish diplomacy.

Last week, Turkey’s UN Ambassador in New York revealed the nasty and aggressive face of his government. Upon learning that a symposium on the Armenian Genocide was going to be held at the UN on April 12, Turkey’s Permanent Representative filed a protest with the Secretary General’s office, trying to disrupt the event.

Organized by the Association for Trauma Outreach & Prevention (ATOP), the event was titled: “Toward Preventing Genocide, Nations Acknowledging their Dark History: Psychosocial, Economic and Cultural Perspectives.” Following screening of Dr. J. Michael Hagopian’s documentary, “The River Ran Red,” the attendees heard addresses from filmmaker Carla Garapedian, Dr. Dennis Papazian, Prof. Ervin Staub, and Garen Nazarian, Armenia’s UN Ambassador.

Encouraged by Turkey’s 2007 success in obstructing a reference to the Armenian Genocide in a UN exhibit on Rwanda, the Turkish Ambassador tried to force the UN to cancel last week’s Armenian Genocide symposium. Fortunately, Armenia’s UN Mission, official sponsor of the event, stood its ground and the symposium took place as planned, albeit with some minor disturbances.

At the start of the event, two Turkish diplomats entered the meeting room without an invitation, and repeatedly attempted to disrupt the proceedings. They kept on shouting, accusing the speakers of defaming Turkey, and refused to comply with the organizer’s request to submit all comments and questions in writing. As the commotion continued, UN security officers were called in, and the two undiplomatic Turkish diplomats left the hall, inanely shouting: “we are the security, we own the security, and we pay for the security!”

In his introductory remarks, Amb. Nazarian observed that “97 years ago, a state-devised plan unleashed a crime whose magnitude and consequences were unparalleled not only in the history of the Armenian nation but also in the history of the world. The plan of extermination of the Armenians was implemented by the Ottoman Empire’s state machine through all its structures and carried out with exact instructions.”

Prof. Papazian’s remarks were titled: “Sovereignty, Nationalism, Racism vs. Humanism and Intellectual Freedom: The Causes and Cures of Genocide.” He expressed his discontent “that the Armenian Genocide is not recognized by the present day Turkish government as a crime committed by its predecessor government under the dictatorship of the Committee for Union and Progress”; “that the people of Turkey are denied free access to accurate sources because of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code which makes it a crime to insult Turkishness”; and “that such [Ottoman] collections as the confiscated properties archives and the military archives are not open to inspection by objective scholars.”

Prof. Staub spoke about “Overcoming Evil: Preventing Genocide and Creating Peaceful Societies.” He stated that “acknowledgement by perpetrators, bystanders, and the world in general of a group’s suffering has great value for both healing and reconciliation.” However, “perpetrators rarely, and only with great difficulty, acknowledge their acts and show regret,” because of “their profound devaluation of the victims, their ideology, and their unacknowledged shame.”

Carla Garapedian explored the “Economic Consequences of Acknowledging the Genocide.” She related that J. Michael Hagopian had recorded the testimonies of genocide survivors so that their voices would be heard someday at an international tribunal deciding what restitution Turkey would have to pay to heirs of the victims.

Not counting the value of the properties, lands and other assets confiscated from Armenian victims of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government, Garapedian assessed as $15 billion the restitution value of the 1.5 million Armenians who had perished. Her estimate is based on Germany’s $60 billion restitution payment for the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust since 1952. Garapedian concluded by suggesting that no state should profit from violating the law and unjustly enrich itself, asserting that a criminal state should not be allowed to keep the fruits of its crime.

This week, Dr. Ani Kalayjian, President of ATOP, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon complaining about the “disruptive, unprofessional, and arrogant behavior” of the two Turkish diplomats. She wondered how the UN could bring peace to the world, when it cannot establish order at an event held at its own headquarters!

April 18, 2012
Cyprus – a litmus test for Turkey

Famagusta Gazette 9 April 2012

By Robert Ellis

Sweden’s Minister for International Cooperation Development, Gunilla Carlsson, has confirmed in a joint article together with Turkey’s Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Bagis, Sweden’s full support for Turkey’s bid for EU membership.

This comes as no surprise, as four years ago Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, declared that “the AKP government is made up of profound European reformers”.

What was also predictable was Ms. Carlsson’s statement at the round table meeting with Mr. Bagis that it was unacceptable to stall Turkey’s accession negotiations because of bilateral issues that had nothing to do with the EU itself. This was evidently a reference to the unresolved Cyprus dispute.

When Sweden was term president of the EU in the second half of 2009, the draft of the General Affairs Council conclusions in November noted that “bilateral issues” should not hold up the accession process but needed to be resolved by the parties concerned “bearing in mind the overall EU interests”.

In effect, this relegated the Cyprus issue to the level of the border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia, but because of opposition from other EU member states the paragraph was dropped from the Council’s conclusions.

This attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet is reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s reference to the Sudetenland conflict in 1938 as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”.

What is notable is that Ms. Carlsson spoke of a struggle to embrace deeply owned common values, as this is precisely the issue that is at stake in Cyprus. In effect, Cyprus can be considered a litmus test as to whether it is possible for two ethnic communities to coexist inside the same national framework, and, on a larger scale, whether Turkey can fit into the European Union.

Prime Minister Erdogan has accused the European Union of being “a Christian club” but President Gül on his first official visit to Cyprus in September 2007 stated “There are two realities on Cyprus, two democracies, two states, two languages, two religions”, which are the same arguments advanced by opponents of Turkey’s EU membership.

Turkey’s invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus in 1974 cemented the division of the two communities but also opened a shameful chapter of Turkish history.

The European Commission of Human Rights in its 1976 report documented the conduct of the invasion forces and the Committee on Missing Persons is working to establish the fate of 502 Turkish Cypriots and 1,493 Greek Cypriots missing after the intercommunal fighting in 1963-4 and the Turkish invasion.

The US Helsinki Commission in its 2009 report on the destruction of cultural property in northern Cyprus documented that 500 Orthodox churches or chapels have been pillaged, demolished or vandalized and 15,000 paintings have disappeared.

Furthermore, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has in its 2012 report recommended that Turkey be designated a “country of particular concern” notwithstanding its importance as a strategic partner.

The USCIRF delegation found three main issues in northern Cyprus, including the inability of Orthodox Christians to hold services at their places of worship and the disrepair of churches and cemeteries as well as the preservation of religious heritage.

Egemen Bagis is surely disingenuous when he at the meeting with the Swedish minister criticized the EU for blocking most of Turkey’s accession talks. As he remarked, “They want us to do our homework without actually telling us what our homework is.”

Even to Mr Bagis, the solution must be apparent. In 2006 the EU Council froze negotiations on eight chapters because Turkey refused to honour its commitment according to the Additional Protocol and extend the customs union to the Republic of Cyprus. Consequently, a solution to the conflict would remove the main stumbling block to Turkey’s accession process and serve to heal the wounds of the past.

By virtue of its strategic position, and now because of the gas deposits in its Exclusive Economic Zone, Cyprus is a key player in the eastern Mediterranean, and therefore it was short-sighted of Turkey not to invite Cyprus to the Syria meeting in Istanbul on 1 April.

Once again, the European Parliament has called on Turkey to begin withdrawing its forces from Cyprus, to transfer Famagusta to the UN and for the port of Famagusta to be opened under EU supervision, but this call will no doubt fall on deaf ears. Turkey’s threat to boycott Cyprus’ EU Presidency is also counter-productive.

As the European Parliament concluded in its resolution on Turkey’s 2011 Progress Report, the interdependence between the European Union and Turkey can only produce positive results if it is framed in a context of mutual commitment.

(Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.)

via Cyprus – a litmus test for Turkey | EuropeNews.

April 14, 2012