Category: Authors

Turkey Seeks to Monopolize Investments In American Indian Tribal Lands

Publisher, The California Courier

In a few weeks, when high-priced Turkish lobbying firms file their mandatory reports with the Justice Department, important revelations will emerge about their behind the scenes role in pushing through Congress a bill which would give Turkish companies a monopoly for investments in American Indian tribal lands.

These reports would disclose the chain of contacts leading to the approval of Resolution 2362, the “Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011,” by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources by a vote of 27 to 15, on November 17.

One should not be surprised to learn that this innocent sounding resolution, meant to “facilitate economic development by Indian tribes and encourage investment by Turkish enterprises,” was gliding through Congress helped by the lavish flow of funds — the mother’s milk of politics — to some House members.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in helping Native Americans to attract foreign investments, except that Congress was being asked to give preferential treatment to a single country — Turkey! Strangely, majority of the Committee members were willing to go along with this unusual and illegal request, ignoring strong warnings from the Congressional Research Service that extending special privileges to only one country would violate provisions of major U.S. trade agreements — Most Favored Nation (MFN), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and World Trade Organization (WTO).

Moreover, there was no need whatsoever for Congress to approve a pilot program for any one country, when the same Committee was simultaneously considering a more inclusive bill — House Resolution 205 — which would provide to all countries an equal opportunity to trade with and invest in Indian tribal lands. In fact, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs testified that he had serious reservations about Resolution 2362. That is why he preferred to support Resolution 205 which would “foster the same goals…on a broader scale.” When Cong. John Sarbanes (Dem.-Maryland) tried to introduce an amendment to expand the scope of Resolution 2362 beyond Turkey, it was ruled out of order due to a technicality.

Before the vote, several Armenian-American and Greek-American organizations submitted to the House Committee letters in opposition to Resolution 2362, pointing out the impropriety and illegality of giving Turkey a monopolistic access to Indian tribal lands. These organizations raised five key objections to Congress extending special privileges to Turkey because that country:

1) Remains an unrepentant perpetrator of genocide against millions of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.

2) Continues to blockade Armenia, occupy Cyprus, confront Israel, attack Kurds, and undermine U.S. regional interests.

3) Threatens U.S. commercial interests in the Mediterranean region.

4) Is linked to American Turkish entities suspected of involvement in illegal activities.

5) Supports Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.

The possible aim of the proponents of Resolution 2362 is to pass this particular bill before the more inclusive Resolution 205 is approved, in order to give Turkey a head start and undeserved advantage over all other nations. Turkey could then strike exclusive trade deals with Indian tribes for up to 25 years, renewable for two additional terms of 25 years each, for a total of 75 years. This means that by the time companies from other countries have a chance to sign contracts with Indian tribes, Turkish firms would have snatched up the most lucrative deals, leaving the others empty-handed.

Immediately after the Committee’s adoption of Resolution 2362, Turkish Americans and the Turkish Embassy in Washington rushed to celebrate a premature victory. The Turkish Coalition of America issued a press releaseon November 17, expressing its joy that the Resolution was approved by the Committee, and would soon be adopted by the full House. That same night, the Turkish Embassy hosted a reception in Washington “to mark American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month and celebrate the successful passage of H.R. 2362 out of the House Natural Resources Committee.” Turkey’s illustrious Ambassador Namik Tan was personally tweeting pictures of American Indians in their native costumes as the festivities were taking place at the Embassy.

The Ambassador should be reminded that a victory celebration is premature because there are no guarantees that this defective bill would ever reach the House floor, let alone the Senate, since it grossly violates a number of U.S. trade agreements. Even if the bill receives Congressional approval, American civic organizations and many countries would file lawsuits to block this discriminatory piece of legislation.

November 22, 2011
Discussions on Achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDG) at Global-Local Approach Level and “Uzbek Model”: “Historical Experience, Contemporary Implementations and the Common Future”

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin EROL, Gazi University, Deputy Head of International Relations Department

The “Millennium Development Goals” (MDG) project which is being implemented under the leadership of the United Nations (UN) focusing
to solve the eight fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level, regarded as a courageous step for the future. The realization of the goals
will be a historical turning point in terms of the great philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” which is still regarded to be a utopia today without any
doubt. In other words, the UN has undertaken a mission issued by the leaders in the Millennium Summit 11 years ago and targeting a more prosperous, just and
peaceful world.

Well, how much is it possible to implement this project which is almost challenging the next millennium in the name of improving the welfare and quality of life of
the humanity? Especially, how will this issue be solved when materialistic perception of globalism that is being made dominate the world and subsequent
problem of evaluating moral-subjective values are considered? Will the UN be able to get over this paradox in an atmosphere in which quantity forestalls
quality and, with regard to this, “imposing” proposed solutions are put on the market as “standard” packages under
different names and an atmosphere in which all these “standard” packages cause more problems?

No doubt neither at present nor in the medium-term it is easy to answer these questions. Especially approaching to the issue in this way and seeking for
“yes-no” answers to the said questions will mean dynamiting the way to the solution. Anyhow, such an approach will go against both the spirit of social
sciences and the methodological understanding. Our goal here is, through this kind of questions, to bring up the matters that should have been asked and
raised in the first place and to ensure the development of possible solutions, may be by saying “the Emperor is bare.” For this reason, there is no need to
enter into philosophical discussions and very complex methods. Even putting the reality of the world and the statements in the published declaration will be enough
to depict a certain number of challenges in front of the process. Accordingly, although the MDG are launched as a project to find a common solution to the
problems of the humanity at the global level, in practice they are open to be attributed different meanings as long as a common road map cannot be introduced.

Especially after the post-Cold War era within a context where some local issues which could be solved locally are globalized over the concepts are brought into intervention tools,                                                                                                                     so it is inevitable for some nation-states to consider this type of UN based projects cautiously. Therefore, it seems that it wouldn’t be so easy for our world experiencing ebbs and                                                                                                                 flows between the globalization and nation-state process to realize the targets set in the MDG in terms of the implementing developments and practices
about “human rights-democracy- governance” understandings on national, regional and global basis. In other words, this cautious approach will endure unless the
mentality does not change and an objective viewpoint considering the local in many respects and in this context balancing the local-global with collaboration
is not put forth instead of top-down approaches and interventions. On the other hand, as it is partially mentioned above, this is not a problem that
cannot be overcome. The key to overcome it lies in listening the local, trying to grasp its realities, and taking its journey, experience, values and
sensibility into consideration. Hence, it is time to recognize the local as a solution partner rather than taking it only as the source and field of
problems. After all, the locals are global in total and today goals stated with regard to the MDG are predicated on the solution of the problem that grows out
of the locals within the pioneering powers of the globalization. Additionally, it should be accepted that the problems formed with regard to the MDG are not
belong just to the century or millennium we live and that their roots originates in centuries before.

As of today, it cannot be a coincidence that almost the whole of the problems which are on the spotlight of the world agenda and tried to be solved in the
context of the MDG are seen in the former colonial countries, too. As a matter of fact, the said problems’ moving away from their limited and local image,
spreading, deepening, gaining a global character and, at the end, turning into threats to and elements of instability for the future of the whole humanity
have their roots in the centuries before.

In such an environment how can geographical discoveries, colonialism and, as an inevitable outcome of these, imperialism together with the globalization be
kept out of all these? What can be said for materialism that tramples all moral values-beliefs by making material forestall meaning and what can be said for
distorted understanding of modernization that turns people into consumption slaves? Today how many of the problems emerging in the context of the MDG                                                                                                                                                        has followed a development process independent from these mentioned points?

We know that projects are represented as they are very much humanistic in the global manner. However, since they are kept limited to certain regions for
certain reasons and are launched as peculiar to these regions, they can face some challenges in practice. As a result, in resolution of such kind of
problems it is necessary first to have a clear and well-intentioned position and second to take steps accordingly. Then, what can be done at this point?

There is no need to go so far to find an answer to this question. To find an answer, it will be enough to look at successful approaches and practices that this
region contains within and implements in line with its realities and values, that have their roots in centuries before, that maintain their existence today,
and that take human as its base. In this context, two leading practices of civil society perception and solidarity in Uzbekistan are noteworthy. Focusing
on these practices shows that indeed they are successful models for a significant part of the problems drawn out of the MDG.

As a result of the historical practices and experiments, the civil approach understanding in Uzbekistan is based on the protecting the people from many
difficulties and threats and aiming social justice, equality and healthy social structure in such an unstable region like Central Asia. It is known that these
human based practices have the capacity to solve many interdependent social-individual problems with on time interventions. This nongovernmental
approach which is taking the family as the base and the woman and the children in the family as the focus and   imposing the necessity of all types of good education                                                                                                                                             is a successful practice within the power of the local completely. These practices are called “Makhalla System” and “Kamalat Youth Movement” and as mentioned above briefly                                                                                                                     they have got human based nongovernmental understanding, a deep history and tradition in the country.

The governing idea of the “Makhalla System” that has been implemented after the independence of Uzbekistan as one of the most concrete examples of participationary and direct
democracy is making the system, in which the basis of social structure is formed, the ground which prepares the youth for the future. With another words, “Makhalla is a big family”,                                                                                                        “Makhalla is the cradle of education” idea and together with “Economic development starts from the Makhalla” understanding constitutes the core of this model.

Constituting the first stage of the participatory administration, “Makhalla Foundations” started their activities in small Makhalla with 5000-7000 residents in which everyone knows each other.                                                                                         They have a spiritual, educational, informative and ability improving attitude. In this context, education, social assistance, environmental health and development; solution to social problems of                                                                                      the residents; help for the ill, aged and needy; employment and construction of social facilities for the youth; attachment of importance to women and their problems; and                                                                                                                             “Women Affairs Commission” working on a voluntary basis are outcomes of the “on-site and on time solution” perception of this model.

Moreower, “Kamalat Youth Movement”, formed in 2001, accepts young people aged between 14 and 28 as members and prepares them for the future with the necessary facilities.                                                                                                                     It is a civil society movement working actively on the issues such as unity of the youth, protection of their interests, improvement of their abilities, solutions to their problems, teaching them                                                                                                their social rights and guiding them in the way of entrepreneurship, and sport.

Therefore, as it is seen in this study primarily some problems emerged at the local-global basis from the aims put forth in the MDG and some concerns carried
by the local and ignored realities will be considered, firstly. Then, the importance and role of Uzbekistan will try to be emphasized in order to understand the
local very well and adaptation of successful practices of it into the global process. At this point, the contributions of “Uzbek Model” and its NGO understanding with “Mahalla System”                                                                                                        and “Kamalat Youth Movement” which are based on their historical depths, strong tradition, experience and human based dimensions can be considered as a
successful example and experience in terms of challenging with the fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level.

November 22, 2011
Turkey’s Involvement In Syria Raises the Stakes For Its Government

Turkey’s Involvement In Syria Raises the Stakes For Its Government

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 211

November 15, 2011

By: Saban Kardas

Turkey has accelerated its contact with the Syrian opposition, while maintaining its criticism of the regime’s ongoing violent crackdown on the uprising. This development is in parallel to the growing involvement of the Arab League in the Syrian uprising. A recent deal agreed between the Arab League and Damascus heightened expectations for ending the months-long bloodshed. However, in a move reminiscent of the Baath regime’s delaying tactics while Turkey was seeking to convince President Bashar al-Assad to heed protesters’ calls earlier this year, the Syrian security forces continued their violent campaign even after the deal was announced. This reckless behavior prompted the Arab League to suspend Syria from membership. Rather than backing down in the face of growing regional isolation, the Baath regime preferred to launch a verbal assault on fellow Arab nations, accusing them of pursuing a very dangerous course of action (www.aljazeera.com, November 14).

Pro-regime protestors have attacked several diplomatic representations, which included attacks on the Turkish embassy in Damascus by a crowd of 1,000, and on consulates in Aleppo and Latkia. In response, the Turkish government issued an official protest, evacuated the families of diplomats, asked its citizens not to travel to Syria, and summoned the Syrian charge d’affaires in Ankara (www.mfa.gov.tr, November 13). While the Syrian Foreign Minister, Waled al-Moallem, issued an apology for the attacks, this did not prevent his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu from arguing that Turkey would adopt a “decisive attitude” against these attacks and continue to support “the Syrian people’s rightful struggle” (Today’s Zaman, November 14).

These developments lend support to the arguments of the Syrian opposition. The opposition for a long time broke ranks with the Damascus regime, making clear that they would not settle for political reforms alone and their struggle would continue until Assad relinquishes power (EDM, June 7). In the intervening period, the opposition has been working hard to gain international recognition, and generate larger international momentum behind the military option – similar to the Libyan case.

In the aftermath of these recent events, Davutoglu met with the Syrian National Council, a group seeking to form a united front against the Syrian regime, which reportedly asked for permission to open an office in Turkey (Anadolu Ajansi, November 13). Previously, Turkey had hosted several meetings of the opposition groups, and Davutoglu had also received representatives from the Syrian opposition (Sabah, October 18). Moreover, Turkey has provided shelter to refugees fleeing the crackdown in tents inside Turkish border. At the same time, Ankara has imposed an arms embargo on Damascus and expressed its readiness to impose further sanctions.

With these courageous steps and Turkish leaders’ constant calls on the Syrian regime to listen to the people’s voice, Turkey has emerged at the forefront of international efforts for pro-democratic regime change in the country. Normally, Turkey’s pursuit of such a policy might have jeopardized its ties to other authoritarian Arab nations in the region, but given the increasing number of deaths in Syria, even monarchies in the region have asked Assad to leave power. Thus, the recent toughening of the Arab League’s position eases Turkey’s restraint in this unfolding crisis, as it provides a regional endorsement for its actions. Turkey is also acting in close coordination with the Arab League.

However, there is a strong body of opinion in Turkey critical of the government’s increasingly vocal confrontation with Syria. For many analysts, this new state of affairs in relations with Syria marks an obvious weakness in the government’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy, under which Turkey had sought to forge closer relations with Damascus and other capitals in surrounding regions. The fact that Turkey is on the brink of going to war against a leader with whom Turkish leaders had established a close friendship is seen as an indication of the failure of Turkey’s Middle Eastern policy.

Another line of criticism argues that the government is going too far in its stance on the Syrian regime and its decision to support the opposition. They question the prudence of extending shelter to the opposition groups of a neighboring country, which contradicts Turkey’s established state traditions, and argue that if Assad succeeds in surviving this challenge, Ankara will be left with no options to maintain normal relations with Damascus. Yet another criticism presents the Syrian uprising as being orchestrated by Western powers to change the political map of the region. In that view, Turkey’s assertive policy is also part of the same plan and is imposed upon it by Western powers. This somewhat conspiratorial thinking is at times raised even by members of the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party (Cihan, November 10).

While defending the government’s policy during a parliamentary hearing on his ministry’s budget, Davutoglu rebuked such allegations of “subcontracting.” Davutoglu defended Turkey’s position by saying that “in foreign policy, we make the plans, set the principles and develop the discourse. Sometimes when this is just and right, it might be in harmony with the United States. Sometimes with Iran … sometimes with Russia … sometimes with the EU. Thus, just because the United Sates is also taking a stance, shall we turn a blind eye to Syria?” Davutoglu justifies Turkey’s policy on humanitarian grounds and rejects any suggestion that Turkey’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy has failed. In this view, Turkey’s solidarity essentially lies with the Syrian people, and in an environment where the regime oppresses unarmed civilians Turkey cannot remain impassive (www.haberturk.com, November 14).

Granted, this new policy raises several security challenges. Since Iran, Russia and China still support Damascus, Turkey risks severing its ties with Iran over this issue (EDM, October 11). Moreover, Assad signaled several times that if Damascus is cornered, there will be extreme repercussions in the region, creating security challenges for all the regional actors. For Turkey, such threats usually bring to mind the issue of Damascus resorting to the “PKK card,” meaning it could use its leverage over some groups within the PKK to accelerate attacks on Turkish civilian and military targets. While President Abdullah Gul and other Turkish officials have warned Syria not to inflame the PKK (Star, November 9), there is no guarantee that Damascus will not choose this option when needed, nor is it clear what instruments Turkey will use to deter Damascus from following that path.

https://jamestown.org/program/turkeys-involvement-in-syria-raises-the-stakes-for-its-government/

November 17, 2011
Federal Appeals Court Issues Futile Order on Insurance Lawsuit

Before the Genocide, thousands of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire bought life insurance from American and European companies, so that after their death, their heirs would receive a lump sum payment.

Regrettably, many of these companies refused to keep their end of the bargain when Armenian policyholders perished along with their entire families during the course of the Genocide. In most cases, no next of kin was left behind to file an insurance claim on behalf of the victims. A few families who did file a claim were turned down due to the lack of proper paperwork. Clearly, these companies broke their contractual obligations and enriched themselves by keeping the funds owed to the heirs of insured genocide victims.

Almost a century later, the State of California stepped in to restore justice to the wronged policyholders. Considering the tragic and unnatural circumstance of these deaths, the State approved two successive extensions to the statute of limitations in 2000 and 2011, to allow the heirs of genocide victims additional time to file claims against delinquent insurance companies.

Recognizing the negative publicity that such a lawsuit would generate, the New York Life and AXA Insurance companies quickly reached out of court settlements and paid a total of $37.5 million to the heirs of Armenian policyholders and charitable organizations. In contrast, German insurance companies Victoria and ERGO, backed by the Turkish government, decided to continue ducking their legal and moral responsibilities towards their ill-fated Armenian policyholders and refused to settle their long overdue claims. The German firms demanded that the lawsuit filed against them in 2003 be dismissed because the California statute included a reference to the Armenian Genocide, which allegedly conflicts with the foreign policy of the federal government on this issue.

A highly unusual series of court decisions ensued after Federal Judge Christina Snyder’s rejection in 2007 of the German insurance companies’ motion to dismiss. In 2009, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court initially sided with the German companies, but then reversed itself in 2010, finding no legal problems with the California statute. Earlier this year, the German companies appealed once again, this time to a larger panel of 11 federal judges. That hearing, granted on November 7, is to be held in San Francisco during the week of December 12.

Rehearing this case for the third time is unnecessary because the California statute does not violate federal government’s stand on the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, there is no federal policy that bans states from recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Not a single complaint was lodged by any federal official, while more than 40 states adopted resolutions acknowledging the Genocide. In fact the California statute is in line with the federal government’s clear record on this issue. One should not forget that the U.S. House of Representatives adopted two resolutions in 1975 and 1984 recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation on this subject in 1981. In addition, the U.S. Justice Department recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document filed with the World Court in 1951, citing the Armenian mass killings as one of the “outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

Even though this latest appeal has absolutely no legal merit, the consequences of a negative court decision would not only harm the interests of life insurance claimants, but more importantly, the collective interests of the Armenian people, should the federal appeals court find California’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide to be in conflict with the federal government’s foreign policy. Such a ruling would negate several decades of Armenian-American political activism by reversing all the resolutions on the Armenian Genocide adopted by more than 40 American states.

The federal appeals court should rule in favor of the Armenian plaintiffs. The court could also uphold the California statute by separating the insurance aspect of the case, which is a prerogative of the states, from the unrelated issue of State vs. Federal powers on Genocide recognition. Should the judges rule against the California statute, however, the Armenian-American community would have no choice but to appeal that verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is one issue here that is crystal clear: the federal court should force the German insurance companies to make good on their contractual obligations to all policyholders, particularly those who are genocide victims!

November 15, 2011
US-Turkish Security Cooperation Deepens

US-Turkish Security Cooperation Deepens

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 206

November 8, 2011

By: Saban Kardas

The US-Turkish bilateral relationship is entering a new period of cooperation. While part of the positive mood characterizing the relationship is attributable to the US-Turkish coordinated action in the context of the Arab Spring, the recent changes in Turkey’s threat perceptions have also played a role. Overall, although the rejuvenation of the partnership might be welcome news, the manner in which it has come about reflects an underlying weakness in US-Turkish ties, i.e., it is still characterized by a security-dominant discourse.

After many years of confrontation during the Bush Presidency, epitomized by Turkey’s resistance to US plans prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkish leaders welcomed the election of President Barack Obama (EDM, November 7, 2008). Although Obama’s call for a fresh approach to US foreign policy in the Middle East excited the Turks, both parties were often involved in disagreements and clashed over many issues. Turkey’s deteriorating relationship with Israel caused discomfort on the part of US policy makers, and the US policy of pursuing punitive measures against the Iranian nuclear program angered the Turkish government. The resulting frictions were not limited to the Middle East, as Turkey and the United States diverged on other issues, such as Turkey’s stalled rapprochement with Armenia or Turkey’s posturing in NATO.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, both parties increasingly coordinate their policies. Ankara and Washington have given up their initial silence and increasingly supported the popular uprisings in the region. On Egypt, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan maintained close dialogue with Obama, as he adopted a pro-democracy position and called for the end of Mubarak’s rule. Despite Erdogan’s initial criticism of NATO’s military intervention in Libya, Turkey later joined the coalition and became an ardent supporter of the opposition that eventually toppled Gaddafi. On Syria, Turkey, in line with the Western world, has advocated regime change, moving in the direction of imposing sanctions on the Baath regime (EDM, July 20, August 10).

The changing threat perceptions have also drawn the two countries together. For the US, the planned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan make Turkey an indispensable partner in the region. As the entire region experiences a period of turmoil, with its constructive policies toward these war-torn countries, Ankara emerges as an element of stability that can help fill the security vacuum and safeguard some US interests. Turkey’s constructive attitude in Iraq has been known for some time, as it had helped contain the deepening of civil conflict and extended assistance to facilitate US withdrawal from the country. In the context of Afghanistan, Turkey has also actively worked to mobilize the regional and international actors for the reconstruction of this country, a goal the United States deeply appreciates. In this context, Turkey hosted the latest round of the trilateral summit in Istanbul in the first week of November, which brought together the Afghan and Pakistani presidents under the Turkish President’s watch (Anadolu Ajansi, November 3).

For Turkey, the primary motivation for reinvigorating the relationship is its immediate security concerns, which have been heightened in recent months. In response to the acceleration of the PKK’s terrorist campaign, Turkey’s military shortcomings in counter-terrorism increasingly underscore its ongoing dependence on the US for its defense procurement needs. Moreover, as the Middle East has been more volatile – characterized by a heightened risk environment – Turkey obviously needs a more solid anchor. These new conditions apparently resulted in Ankara reevaluating its ties with Washington, and abandoning its confrontational rhetoric, which resulted in a series of recent decisions.

Indeed, Turkey-US security cooperation has remarkably increased recently. The most visible indication for this policy shift came with Ankara’s decision to host the NATO early warning radars on its soil (EDM, September 20). Later, the United States committed to Turkey’s fight against the PKK, by agreeing to the basing of US unmanned Predator drones at Incirlik base to supply Turkey with actionable intelligence. Moreover, an interagency delegation led by US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow, to discuss how to improve the joint struggle against the PKK was another major development (Anadolu Ajansi, October 28).

Furthermore, Washington finally decided to sell three Super Cobra helicopters to Turkey, which Turkey had requested for some time in order to use against the PKK (www.ntvmsnbc.com, October 30). The fact that the sale is unlikely to encounter opposition from the Senate, despite many lawmakers’ discomfort with Turkey’s harsh policy on Israel, has underscored how largely the administration’s views on Turkey is shared in the US policy community.

It was against this background that Turkey’s Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz, while attending the American-Turkish Council’s annual conference in Washington, argued that Turkey and the US are rediscovering each other and are going through a unique period (Anadolu Ajansi, November 2).

Despite this positive mood, however, the reinvigoration of the US-Turkish partnership in many ways resembles the dynamics of bilateral relations in the Cold War and early post-Cold War era, when security-related considerations formed the basis of the alliance. Various efforts to bolster the volume of economic ties and foster closer societal dialogue still continue but the prevalence of security issues is undeniable. It remains to be seen how sustainable this new cooperative phase is, especially if one factors in the possible change of administration following the US presidential elections. Even the current administration continues to accentuate the need for Turkey to mend ties with Israel, which currently remains uncertain and an element of instability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Nor is it clear if the efforts to pass a resolution in the US Congress on the genocide allegations might spoil the relations again, as the centennial of the 1915 events is approaching. But, at any rate, currently the United States acknowledges Turkey’s quest for a more autonomous foreign policy course in the Middle East, which it views as beneficial to US interests. Turkey, for its part, is aware of the US interests in the region and refrains from engaging unduly confrontation, as was the case in the Iranian nuclear issue.

https://jamestown.org/program/us-turkish-security-cooperation-deepens/

November 12, 2011
Sassounian’s column of Nov. 10, 2011

Genocide Denier Condoleezza Rice

Unworthy to Teach at Stanford

In her newly published 750-page book, “A Memoir of My Years in Washington: No Higher Honor,” former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proudly describes her efforts to defeat Armenian Genocide resolutions on two separate occasions. With great relish, she brags about her success in undermining the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress in 1991 and 2007.

A close scrutiny of Rice’s arguments exposes her flawed judgment and ethical lapses. In her memoir, she relates that her first experience “with this problem” was in 1991, when she worked in the White House as acting special assistant to Pres. George H. W. Bush. Her task was “to mobilize an effort to defeat the resolution in the House of Representatives.” Gloating over her triumph, she depicts herself as battling “the powerful Armenian American lobby” that “has for years pressured Congress to pass a resolution branding the Ottoman Empire’s mass killings of Armenians starting in 1915 as genocide.” In reality, she had no need to counter what had already been acknowledged by the House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984, and by Pres. Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Rice proceeds to maintain that “there are many historical interpretations of what happened,” which is totally untrue, as there are no historical disputes on the Armenian Genocide — a universally acknowledged fact. Furthermore, Prof. Rice does not seem to realize that when she describes the Armenian “killings” as “clearly a brutal, ethnically motivated massacre,” she in fact is recognizing them as genocide, as defined under Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention.

In her memoir, Rice attempts to justify her obstructionist maneuvers by explaining that the Turks “were outraged at the prospect of being branded for an event that had taken place almost a century before — under the Ottomans!” Instead of behaving as the spineless official of a banana republic, Rice should have sternly admonished the Turks that the United States would not distort historical facts to appease the paranoid leaders of an autocratic state!

Boasting about how well she “had succeeded” in her “assigned task,” Rice callously describes her appalling efforts in “fighting off the dreaded Armenian genocide resolution.” She makes a half-hearted attempt to minimize her ethical transgression by stating that no one denies “the awful events or the tragic deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Armenians,” which even Turkish officials acknowledge. If she was aware that no one was denying the mass murder of Armenians, why was Rice so fervently determined to kill the resolution? She then parrots the nonsensical Turkish propaganda that this issue should be left to “historians — not politicians — to decide how best to label what had occurred.” Rice should have known that reputable historians the world over have already declared that the Armenian killings constituted genocide.

As Secretary of State in 2007, Rice once again battled against the adoption of an Armenian Genocide resolution. She reports that she “begged” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to prevent the House from voting on the resolution, but the Speaker rejected her request. Rice and Defense Secretary Bob Gates then delivered a press statement against the resolution, standing in front of the White House. She also got eight former secretaries of state to sign a joint letter opposing the resolution.

Rice proudly states in her memoir that she managed to block the vote on the resolution, in keeping with her promise to the Turks. Once again, instead of defending the noble values and high principles on which America was founded, the secretary of state of the most powerful nation on earth caved in to the diktats of a third world bully!

Concluding her narrative, Rice makes false accusation against Armenia’s leaders, claiming that “the democratically elected Armenian government had little interest in the resolution. In fact, it was engaged in an effort to improve relations with Turkey, and it didn’t need it either.” Rice is contradicting the U.S. government’s public announcement that the 2003 Armenian presidential elections did not meet international standards. Furthermore, the then Pres. Kocharian did not oppose the genocide resolution and was not seeking to improve Armenia’s relations with Turkey. In fact, a State Dept. official reported that during his meeting with Kocharian in Yerevan, the Armenian President was “in a foul mood” because the White House had just blocked the genocide resolution.

Rice is now a professor at Stanford University. Ironically, another Armenian Genocide denier, former Secretary of State George Shultz, is also at Stanford. Faculty members, students, alumni and donors should advise Stanford University officials that genocide deniers are not welcome at one of America’s most distinguished institutions of higher learning.

Readers are urged to fax Prof. Rice at 1-650-721-3390 , expressing displeasure at her appalling efforts against U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

November 8, 2011