Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkey Facilitates Talks with Iran, Following Bickering over Venues

    Turkey Facilitates Talks with Iran, Following Bickering over Venues

    Turkey Facilitates Talks with Iran, Following Bickering over Venues

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 74
    April 13, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    A new round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries (United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China and Germany) engaged in diplomatic efforts with the Islamic Republic is scheduled to be held in Istanbul this weekend. As the meeting comes against the background of other disputes involving the parties, the diplomacy surrounding it has been and remains extremely delicate, also putting the host, Turkey, in a difficult position.

    Ankara’s involvement in the Iranian nuclear issue has been one of the most troublesome items in its foreign policy agenda complicating not only its relations with Tehran but also the West. As the US sought to mobilize a broad-based coalition to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, on the grounds that it might have military objectives, Turkey stood against coercive approaches and argued for the utilization of diplomatic channels to address this issue. When the US pushed for a new round of sanctions in 2010, Turkey again raised similar objections and, in a joint initiative with Brazil, brokered a swap deal, resulting in the Tehran Declaration of 2010 (EDM, June 1, 2010).

    Though Turkey also vetoed the UN Security Council resolution authorizing sanctions, it eventually agreed to implement them, noting that they reflect the will of the international community. Turkey, however, underlined that it would not abide by the unilateral sanctions introduced by the US and its European allies.

    While the United States has continued to implement the sanctions to increase gradually pressure on Tehran, attempts to restart the dialogue between the two sides have been underway. Both parties expressed appreciation for Turkey’s readiness to facilitate this dialogue, which led to the talks held in January 2011 in Istanbul (EDM, January 25, 2011). The talks failed to produce any significant outcome. The efforts to resume the talks have been stalled, with Western powers asking Iran to come to the table with concrete proposals.

    Turkey continued to offer its mediation services in the middle of other diplomatic initiatives it has undertaken. These other Turkish initiatives include reaching out to Tehran and the West in regards to the Syrian crisis, and the situation in Iraq. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s meeting with US President Barack Obama in Seoul on the occasion of the nuclear summit and his subsequent visit to Tehran enabled first-hand discussions with both parties. Again, while Ankara strongly reiterated its commitment to Iran’s right to develop and use peaceful nuclear technology, it also underlined that all military activities should be under international inspection (Anadolu Ajansi, April 5).

    Expectations were raised that Turkey’s go-between role might be paying off and negotiations could soon be held in Istanbul on April 13-14. However, the controversial statements coming from some high-ranking Iranian officials clouded the air. Despite Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salihi’s depiction of a meeting in Istanbul as the best alternative, other officials called for holding the meeting in “friendly” countries such as Syria, Iraq or Lebanon. They criticized Turkey’s pro-Western policy in Syria and other regional problems, questioning Ankara’s neutrality (www.dunyabulteni.com, April 3).

    Having invested diplomatic credibility in this initiative, such statements were shocking for Turkish leaders. Erdogan reacted harshly, calling Iranian officials to act sincerely (Zaman, April 6). The escalating tensions could only be mitigated with direct communication between foreign ministers, and finally the Iranian side confirmed the meeting in Istanbul (www.presstv.ir, April 8).

    These verbal exchanges and Erdogan’s questioning of Iranian sincerity underscored the transformation of the bilateral relationship and Turkey’s involvement in the Iranian nuclear dispute since 2010. First, Turkey’s approach to the talks has changed. While in 2010 Turkey was actively mediating on the issue, it has retreated from that position. Already in the January 2011 meeting, Turkey underlined that it seeks to facilitate the talks, by providing a venue. However, at that time, Turkey still believed the Tehran Declaration provided a constructive framework to discuss further diplomatic initiatives, and emphasized readiness to assist the parties if they decided to address the issue along the lines contained in that declaration. Since then, however, Turkey seems to also have backtracked from that position as well, and the content of the talks have yet to be set by the parties.

    Moreover, Turkey’s relationship to both sides has been transformed to a great extent. Compared to 2010, while Turkey now enjoys more cooperative relations with the US, Ankara’s ties to Tehran have been severed over other developments in the intervening period. In 2010, Turkey was seen as largely uncritical of Tehran’s position, which even led to charges that it was pro-Iranian or providing shelter for Tehran. By the January 2011 meeting, the change in Ankara’s position was well underway. Turkey increasingly called on Iran to be more transparent and reassure the international community that its nuclear program had peaceful purposes. Turkey also moved in the direction of seeking a greater degree of protection against potential threats that might be posed by the Iranian nuclear program. Especially, Turkey’s decision to support NATO’s missile shield program and its agreement with the US for the installation of early warning radars on its soil in late 2011 were important indicators of this transformation.

    The changes in Turkey’s policy seem to have altered Tehran’s perceptions, which no longer views Ankara as a “neutral” actor. This was perhaps partly the reason why Iranian officials raised vocal objections to Istanbul as the venue for the talks. However, Iran is being negatively affected by the sanctions, which must have forced it to adopt a more conciliatory position to avoid completely losing Turkey in this dispute, hence Teheran’s agreement to hold talks in Istanbul.

    As the talks are fast approaching, there are conflicting signals about the prospects of achieving some progress. Earlier, Western officials underlined that in the talks they would seek to get Iran to suspend high-level enrichment and close down an underground nuclear facility near Qom. The Iranian officials rebuffed immediately any preconditions (www.presstv.ir, April 9). The head of Iran’s Supreme National Council, Saeed Jalili, stated that they would come to the table with a constructive approach and propose new initiatives (www.presstv.ir, April 11). Given Iran’s earlier track record, it remains to be seen if this is a sincere constructive approach or yet another delaying tactic. But in any case, it will be up to the parties to reach a common ground, not Turkey, whose sole involvement now is to facilitate this dialogue.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-facilitates-talks-with-iran-following-bickering-over-venues/
  • US will not attack Iran

    US will not attack Iran

    Глен

     

     

     

     

     

    Azerbaijan is not subject to  “Arab spring”

     

    Gulnara İnandzh,

     

    Director of Information and Analytical Center Ethnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az), editor of turkishnews.com website. Mete62@inbox.ru

     

    Israel and the US policy’s consequences in the region is mainly danger for the statehood of Azerbaijan. Despite official Baku has repeatedly declared its position towards Iran, interested international powers are still trying to cause tension in the relations between Baku and Tehran. US Jamestown Foundation president Glen Howard comments on the subject in his interview.    

     

     

    – What specific line does the US support in relation to Azerbaijan amid the serious geopolitical processes occurred in the Mideast, I mean “Arab spring”?

     

    – I do not think theUSorAzerbaijanplay any role in “Arab spring”. TheUSdoesn’t support any particular line. We don’t also support what is happening againstSyria. It does not any affect onCaucasus. It more affects onRussia.Russiais subject to Arab spring more rather than theSouthern Caucasus. Because you have theUSAmbassador who is very active in democracy promotion. He has been chased by Russian NTV TV Channel. And this is the sign thatRussiafeels more trouble with regard to Arab spring rather thanSouthern Caucasus.

     

    – What does Washington expects from Azerbaijan in its Iran policy?

     

    – TheUShas already stated that it doesn’t support attack onIran.  TheUSeven has warnedIsraelnot to attackIran. I believe thatIsraeldue to good relations with theUSwill follow the advice of President Mr. Barak Obama. I do not thinkIsraelwill attackIran. All these are rumors designed to make people scared and afraid. All these are a part of geopolitical plan by the outside powers intending to destroy stability in theSouthern Caucasus.

     

    – How would you comment on the rumors that Israel will use Azerbaijani lands in order to attack Iran? 

     

    – I hope you understand the military importance of it. This is not a military base to attackIran. Contrary, ifIsraelattacksIran, thenIsraelmilitary air forces will usePersian Gulffor it. But if it happens,Israeljets will not have enough fuel to go back and they will be obliged to useAzerbaijanlands only for the purpose of getting fuel. This doesn’t mean attack onIran, this is just air route forIsraeljets to go back.

     

    – As you see there are attempts to confront Iran and Azerbaijan. How do you think, what will be Washington’s answer if Iran acts aggressively against Azerbaijan? For example, overflying a border.   

     

     

    – Aggressive?. I thinkAzerbaijanis also ready for such aggressive reply.Iranwill not use military againstAzerbaijan,Iranwill use other methods. I believe thatIrandoesn’t want to apply military force againstAzerbaijanand even is not ready for it. Why doesIranneed it? Today whenIranhas an attack danger from the Persian gulf,Tehrandoesn’t need another problem in another border.

     

    – In the US today we hear offers about dialogue with Iran more than war. How do you think, why such dialogue offers are not voiced louder?

     

    – Because sometimesIsraelwarns the world thatIran’ nuclear program is dangerous. When official Tel-Aviv openly informs thatIran’s nuclear program is dangerous, we have to be anxious and it causes warlike atmosphere. This is useful for many sides includingIsrael. On the other side, war threats are also for threateningIran.Iranalso uses some words to threatenIsrael. So, sometimesIranmust be reminded thatIsraelhas strategic relations withAzerbaijan. This is natural and understandable.

     

    – Can we say that Israel puts pressure on the situation?

     

    -Israelputs pressure on the situation?Israelis an independent country and may have good relations with any country of the world. Therefore ifIsraelhas military relations withAzerbaijanit is good. Because,Azerbaijanis a good partner in military field.Azerbaijandoesn’t have to get the weapon only fromRussia.Azerbaijanmay buy weapons from any country of the world in order to protect its country.

    Nowadays discussions are held between theUSandIraninIstanbul. It doesn’t mean that there will be conflict between theUSandIran. If there are diplomatic relations between theUSandIran, how can we speak of warlike atmosphere? IfIranthinks that it has war danger from theUS, then why do they conduct new talks and dialogue with theUSinIstanbul?

     

     

    Source –  www. newbakupost.az

  • Turkey’s Foreign Minister In Search of ‘Soft’ Armenians

    Turkey’s Foreign Minister In Search of ‘Soft’ Armenians

    sassounian33

     

     

     

     

    Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s ‘man on the run,’ has added to his extremely busy schedule the new task of travelling around the globe trying to recruit ‘sensible’ Armenians.

     

     

    Davutoglu has embarked on such a desperate initiative after the failure of all Turkish attempts to divide and conquer the Armenians and weaken their resolve to pursue their just cause. The Turkish Foreign Minister openly acknowledged that his urgent efforts are prompted by the looming 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide that hangs like a Damoclean Sword over his country.

     

     

    After the collapse of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) and Turkey’s futile attempts to seek ‘friendly’ Armenians around the world, Ankara gave up on the Diaspora altogether and turned its attention to a ‘softer target’ — the Government of Armenia.

     

     

    Initially, Turkey registered some success when the Armenia-Turkey Protocols were signed by both countries, under the guise of opening their mutual border. However, this latest attempt to drive a wedge between ‘soft’ Armenian officials and ‘hard-line’ Diasporans also failed, when the much-touted Protocols were not ratified.

     

     

    Realizing that Turkey had to deal with the Diaspora, not just Armenia to resolve genocide related issues, Davutoglu once again turned his attention to Armenian communities worldwide. During a March 24, 2010 CNN-Turk interview, he announced that Turkish authorities would initiate a dialog with ‘sensible’ Diaspora Armenians.

     

     

    To pursue this stratagem, in April 2010 Davutoglu met in Washington with Turkey’s ambassadors to the United States and Canada, and Consul Generals in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and Toronto. He instructed them to contact Armenians who are open to dialog, and to avoid ‘hard-line groups,’ according to the Turkish ‘Today’s Zaman’ newspaper.

     

     

    A few weeks later, ‘Hurriyet’ reported that the Foreign Ministry issued a 10-point action plan, instructing Turkish diplomats worldwide to:

     

    1. Invite and involve local Armenians in Turkish events;
    2. Participate in Armenian community activities;
    3. Contact Armenians who are materially benefiting from making genocide claims as well as recent immigrants from Turkey; and invite to Turkey those who harbor anti-Turkish sentiments;
    4. Establish good relations with Armenian diplomats and attend their official events;
    5. Accept speaking opportunities at local community and university events to explain Turkey’s position on Armenian genocide claims;
    6. Establish contacts with local academics to explain to them Turkey’s position;
    7. Develop contacts with diplomats of countries neighboring Turkey and familiarize them with Turkey’s position on Armenian genocide claims;
    8. Advocate the creation of ‘a joint commission of historians’;
    9. Promote normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations;
    10. Emphasize that the peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict would benefit Armenian-Turkish relations.

     

    In December 2011, Turkey announced a revised concept of ‘Diaspora’ to include all descendants of ‘Anatolia,’ regardless of their religion or sect. Davutoglu instructed all Turkish diplomats to hold ‘face-to-face’ meetings with such individuals in order to discuss their ‘joint history’ and “the suffering of all Ottoman people during the incidents of the World War I era.”

     

     

    Dissatisfied with the efforts of his diplomats, Davutoglu decided to take matters into his own hands. Last month, he spent several hours in Washington meeting privately with several Armenians and non-Armenians from the Los Angeles area to discuss ‘Armenian-Turkish reconciliation.’ The Turkish Foreign Minister also invited the attendees to come to Ankara and bring along other ‘prominent’ Armenians. Since then, Davutoglu has held similar meetings elsewhere.

     

     

    Meanwhile, another Turkish-initiated group on ‘Armenian-Turkish reconciliation’ will be launched on April 12 in Washington. The host group ‘HasNa’ is set to meet at the offices of Arnold & Porter, a lobbying firm hired by the Turkish government. The attendees will include some Armenians and Turks, U.S. government officials, members of the media, non-governmental organizations, academics, and others.

     

     

    Armenians who choose to get involved in Turkish recruitment schemes could well be seeking fame or fortune, or are well-intentioned, but naive do-gooders. However, regardless of the reasons for their involvement in such questionable practices, they should be mindful of the consequences of their actions:

     

    1. Dialog for the sake of dialog could do more damage than good to the Armenian Cause. The Turkish government would exploit such efforts to create the false impression that Armenians and Turks are in the process of reconciling, thereby derailing the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by other countries.
    2. Unless a specific positive outcome is agreed upon in advance, there is a good chance that the Armenian participants would end up holding an empty bag.
    3. Only Armenian officials and credible leaders with diplomatic expertise should be negotiating with shrewd and skilled Turkish diplomats. Otherwise, Turkish officials will cleverly cut a deal with those who are bound to be less demanding and more accommodating.
  • Supporters of Syria Take Significant Steps, but No Endgame in Sight

    Supporters of Syria Take Significant Steps, but No Endgame in Sight

    Supporters of Syria Take Significant Steps, but No Endgame in Sight

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 67
    April 4, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    On April 1, Turkey hosted the second meeting of the Friends of Syria group, which produced mixed results as to the future of the Syrian uprisings. While the meeting lent some legitimacy to the opposition organized around the Syrian National Council (SNC) and warned President Bashar al-Assad not to miss a final chance for a political solution, it fell short of authorizing decisive actions that would coerce him to end the violent military campaign against the uprising and, more importantly, step down from power (Anadolu Ajansi, April 1).

    Given its proximity and the close relationship it had forged with Damascus in the preceding years, Ankara has been actively involved in the resolution of the Syrian crisis since the beginning of the uprising. After the failure of its final efforts to reach out to Assad diplomatically in the summer of 2011, Turkey’s position changed drastically. Since then, Turkey, in coordination with the Arab League and its Western partners, has been at the forefront of the international initiatives to solve the crisis by removing Assad from power. It has extended shelter to both the Syrian refugees and the opposition groups and strived to push the UN Security Council to authorize stronger action to address the impending humanitarian catastrophe. The inability to involve the UN Security Council in the crisis due to the Russian and Chinese vetoes prompted Turkey to explore alternative avenues (EDM, February 7).

    Although at one point the Turkish government came under growing international pressure to lead a military intervention into Syria, it resisted such calls and instead continued to explore other means to first alleviate the suffering of civilians and later to ensure Syrian regime change. In an effort to generate broader international momentum around these objectives, Turkey was instrumental in the formation of the Friends of Syria group, bringing together likeminded states, which held its first meeting in Tunis a month ago. However, as it facilitated this coalition acting in close concert with the Washington, Ankara also risked fundamental disagreements with the supporters of the Syrian regime, especially Tehran, which added one more element to the already complicated bilateral relations.

    In the weeks preceding the meeting, Turkey also worked hard to ensure that it would produce substantial outcomes. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, attending the nuclear summit in South Korea, discussed this issue with US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, hoping to change Moscow’s position by sending the message that Assad’s days are numbered and those who stand behind him will be doomed to lose (Hurriyet, March 28). On his way back home, Erdogan visited Iran and met with Iranian leaders, including the religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (www.haberturk.com, March 29). Erdogan’s appeal to his Iranian counterparts was hardly successful, as they gave no indications of a change in their position. Turkey also maintained its coordination with the Arab League, but the internal divisions among the Arab countries increasingly became apparent. While the Gulf states largely supported the Syrian opposition, Iraq has cautioned against overbearing action against Damascus and expressed its discomfort with Turkey’s activism by not inviting it to the Arab League meeting only days before the Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul (Haberturk, March 29).

    The game changer ahead of the Friends’ meeting was the six-point plan prepared by the UN/ Arab League joint special envoy Kofi Annan. After his diplomatic tour, Annan submitted his plan to the UN Security Council. The Annan plan foresees a cessation of violence, delivery of humanitarian assistance, withdrawal of heavy weaponry out of civilian areas, and political dialogue, but falls short of meeting the opposition’s demand for outlining a program for the transfer of power. Following a Security Council presidential statement giving full support to the plan on March 21, the Syrian regime also agreed to accept it on March 27 (www.aljazeera.com, March 28). Though Annan emphasized that the implementation will be the key, Assad’s move right before the Istanbul conference apparently sought to open some cracks in the coalition and thwart a harsh response.

    This development put Turkey in a difficult position, as it still operated under the assumption that changing the regime would be needed to solve the crisis. Erdogan raised concerns about Assad’s sincerity, arguing that he had failed to keep his earlier reform promises (Vatan, March 28). More importantly, Turkey questioned the six-point plan because it lacked a clear time table and enforcement mechanism in case of noncompliance (Sabah, March 31).

    Turkey also took a major step in advance of the Friends conference by convening the Syrian opposition groups in Istanbul, which sought to consolidate the opposition under one structure. By then, the disunity of the opposition groups had prevented a more decisive international support to the SNC. Although they achieved major progress in the way of eliminating differences of opinion, outlining a plan of action for national unity and consolidating their leadership structure, the withdrawal of the Syrian Kurds indicated the remaining divisions (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 28).

    The Istanbul conference produced mixed results. The participation of over 70 countries and several international organizations, despite the absence of Russia and China, was in itself a major success. In a lukewarm development, the participants recognized the SNC as a legitimate, though not the sole, representative of the Syrian people, and decided to treat it as an interlocutor in the conflict. Though the lack of a clear decision to arm the opposition or establish humanitarian corridors also fell short of the SNC’s expectations, the references to supporting the Syrian people’s legitimate right to defend themselves might open such a loophole. The participants still agreed to establish a fund, to be provided largely by the Gulf countries as well as some Western nations, to extend financial assistance to the Free Syrian Army and supply it with some communications equipment. Also important was a decision to establish a working group to monitor the arms embargo as well as to document violations of human rights, which might increase pressure on Assad and his backers. Though the meeting supported Annan’s plan, it also called on him to set a timeline for its implementation. Although Turkey and the Friends group assume that Assad’s end is inevitable, their progress in compelling Assad and his supporters to change their behavior has been far from impressive. It might be too early to tell the endgame in Syria.

    https://jamestown.org/program/supporters-of-syria-take-significant-steps-but-no-endgame-in-sight/
  • Turks and Azeris Alarmed that Tuvalu May Recognize Republic of Artsakh

    Turks and Azeris Alarmed that Tuvalu May Recognize Republic of Artsakh

    sassounian32

     

     

     

     

     

     

    March 16, 2012 was like any other day at the United Nations, when the representatives of Armenia and Tuvalu signed a joint declaration establishing diplomatic relations. Tuvalu is a tiny state in the South Pacific, much smaller than Manhattan, with a population barely over 10,000! Who would have thought that such a routine announcement would alarm Turkey and Azerbaijan?

     

     

     

    This news item would have been ignored by the world media were it not for the “acute” eyes of Ugur Ergan, the “astute” reporter of the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper. He brought Tuvalu out of its obscurity for a short while, making it the most talked about country in Turkish and Azerbaijani circles. Ergan quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Armenia had established diplomatic relations and offered tons of money to Tuvalu, so that it would be the first country to recognize Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh) as an independent state!

     

     

     

    Ergan further disclosed that Ankara is “disturbed” by Tuvalu’s possible recognition of Artsakh, suspecting that Armenia would do what Turkish officials have done for decades — buying political favors in return for lucrative gifts. They attribute to others what they routinely practice themselves. As the Holy Bible states, they see the splinter in someone else’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in their own eye!

     

     

     

    Even more alarmed were Azerbaijan’s officials who assumed that Tuvalu would shortly recognize Artsakh. Aydin Mirzazade, a Parliamentarian from the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, in an interview with reporter I. Isabalayeva, ridiculed Tuvalu’s readiness “to recognize any state, even a non-existent country, for a small amount of money.” Mirzazade understands well the practice of buying favors. It has been widely reported that Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister put his country’s immense petrodollars to “good use” last year by providing generous financial inducements to poor nations in exchange for their votes for a UN Security Council seat.

     

     

     

    Azerbaijan was following its elder brother’s, Turkey’s, footsteps at vote buying at the UN. Gareth Jenkins reported in the Eurasian Daily Monitor that the Turkish government had enticed to Istanbul the leaders of Tuvalu, Tonga, Nauru, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Fiji, Micronesia, and Samoa to secure their votes for Turkey’s membership in the UN Security Council. Those who have never heard of these Pacific islands should not feel embarrassed. Turkey’s former Deputy Prime Minister Abdullatif Shener had the honesty to confess: “I had never heard of the names of some of them before, but they all have a vote at the UN.” Turkey’s scheme succeeded. It gained a seat on the UN Security Council in 2008 by offering tens of millions of dollars to dozens of little-known countries in far-flung corners of the world.

     

     

     

    Yilmaz Ozdil, a more forthright commentator for Hurriyet, boldly countered Ergan’s report, confirming that Turkey was the first to offer “bribes” to Tuvalu and many others. Ozdil disclosed that, to obtain a seat on the UN Security Council, Turkey provided as kickbacks:

     

     

     

    — medicines to Angola, Ethiopia, Gambia, Sudan, and the Comoros;

     

    — trade center to Zimbabwe;

     

    — stables to Mauritania;

     

    — drinking water network to Niger;

     

    — water wells to Ethiopia;

     

    — school kits to Ghana;

     

    — field hospital to Sudan;

     

    — cattle-breeding technology to Mozambique and Mauritania;

     

    — electric grid to Benin;

     

    — smelting house to Gambia;

     

    — training schools to Eritrea, Togo, Lesotho, and Uganda;

     

    — police training to Guinea;

     

    — vaccines to Mali;

     

    — humanitarian assistance to Tanzania and Chad;

     

    — school to Congo;

     

    — sewer system to Liberia and Sierra Leone;

     

    — VIP minibus to Palau;

     

    — computers to Antigua;

     

    — wined and dined visiting Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, stuffed his pocket with gifts, and placed a private jet at his disposal to fly to Izmir;

     

    — donated soccer balls and pumps to Tuvalu.

     

     

     

    Another Turkish commentator, Deniz Zeyrek, wrote a hilarious column in the newspaper Radikal, headlined: “Tuvalu: give our soccer balls back.” To buy votes at the UN, Zeyrek reported that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu asked the visiting Tuvalu Prime Minister if his country needed anything. Tuvalu officials made a surprising request — that their children liked to play soccer, but had no balls. Turkey immediately dispatched to Tuvalu hundreds of soccer balls along with pumps. Tuvalu then complied with Turkey’s demand, supporting its bid to join the UN Security Council.

     

     

    Zeyrek concluded his article with the following sarcastic question: “Will Turkey now ask for its balls back, if Tuvalu recognizes Karabagh’s independence?”

  • Why Does Pres. Obama Torture Himself And Armenians Every April 24?

    Why Does Pres. Obama Torture Himself And Armenians Every April 24?

     

     sassounian3
    For some unknown reason, the President of the most powerful nation on earth feels compelled to put himself through a strange and unnecessary ritual every April 24. Weeks in advance of that date, Pres. Barack Obama orders his White House staff to scour the dictionary to come up with series of words other than genocide to describe the Armenian Genocide.
     
    For the fourth year in a row, the President’s resourceful aides have not disappointed him. For this year’s “Armenian Remembrance Day,” they have come up with a dozen words that describe the Armenian Genocide without using that specific term. When they ran out of substitute English words for genocide, the President’s hardworking wordsmiths turned to an Armenian term, “Meds Yeghern,” without providing its English translation (Great Calamity), so no one other than Armenians would understand what Pres. Obama is speaking about!
    Here are some of the words that the President’s men offered this year: ‘Atrocities,’ ‘brutally massacred,’ ‘marched to their deaths,’ ‘unspeakable suffering,’ ‘perished,’ ‘dark chapters of history,’ ‘what occurred in 1915,’ ‘facts of the past,’ ‘lives that were taken,’ ‘senselessly suffered and died,’ and finally, ‘the darkness of the Meds Yeghern.’ Anything but genocide!
    Engaging in verbal gymnastics on genocide is unacceptable and unbecoming of the office of the President of the United States. Could such deplorable efforts be explained as a feeble attempt by Obama to minimize his broken promises? As Presidential candidate, he repeatedly and solemnly pledged that he would recognize the Armenian Genocide. But when he became President, he hid behind insulting statements issued in his name year after year!
     
    In his last four annual statements, Pres. Obama avoided carrying out his campaign promises by claiming: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915. My view of that history has not changed.” But, he never bothered to tell the American public what exactly were his views in the past, what his views are today, and what happened in 1915! He cleverly downplays the significance of the Armenian Genocide by calling it “my own view of what happened in 1915.” Yet, on January 19, 2008, then presidential candidate Obama, seeking the Armenian community’s campaign contributions and votes, had no qualms to call these events by their proper name. Back then, he confidently stated that “the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view,” and promised that “as President,” he would “recognize the Armenian Genocide.”
     
    Sadly, Pres. Obama is not the only member of his administration who has not kept his campaign pledge on this issue. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two of the highest officials of the country, had made similar promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide when they were Senators and presidential candidates. While Vice President Biden has remained eerily silent, Mrs. Clinton has gone from being a proponent of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to its leading opponent. After becoming Secretary of State, she actively lobbied to defeat a proposed congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide!
    After four years of this senseless charade by the White House, the Armenian American community has two good reasons for asking Pres. Obama not to make any more statements on the Armenian Genocide.
     
    First, by breaking his word for four years in a row and playing verbal games with genocide, Obama has lost the moral standing to speak on this highly emotional and painful topic! How can the President of the United States lecture anyone around the world about human rights, democracy, and justice, when he himself has so crudely violated the trust of his own people and lost all credibility? He should stop torturing himself, his staff, and Armenians worldwide by not issuing insulting “Remembrance Day” statements. It makes no sense for Pres. Obama to issue an annual statement that Armenians don’t want, don’t like, and are offended by it!
    Second, another U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, has already acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in a Presidential Proclamation in 1981. The Armenian Genocide was also recognized by the House of Representative in 1975 and 1984, by the Justice Department in an official filing with the World Court in 1951, and by 42 U.S. states. Therefore, the Armenian community has no need to beg Pres. Obama or any other political candidate to recognize that which is already and repeatedly recognized. 
    Genocide is too sacred to be a subject of crass political trading. Those who acknowledge the undeniable fact of the Armenian Genocide do so, not as a favor to the victims, but to restore their own credibility and moral integrity!