Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkey Balances Its Ties With West and Islamic World in Libya Operation

    Turkey Balances Its Ties With West and Islamic World in Libya Operation

    Turkey Balances Its Ties With West and Islamic World in Libya Operation

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 62

    March 30, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s position on the unfolding events in Libya has caused a great deal of confusion for observers of Turkish foreign policy. Despite its objections to the use of military force to solve the impending civil war, Turkey has eventually changed course, by agreeing to the transfer of the military operations to NATO command and taking part in non-combat military missions.

    When the violence first broke out, Turkey was apparently caught unprepared to deal with a crisis that involved various issues. While the Turkish government had declared its support for the pro-democratic movements in the Middle East, it failed to offer unequivocal support to Libyan revolutionaries. Turkish construction firms’ multi-billion dollar investments and the presence of thousands of Turkish workers in the country constrained Turkey’s options. Consequently, Turkey gave timid responses to Gaddafi’s brutal use of force, which drew international criticism. Turkish leaders expressed vehement opposition to international sanctions or use of military force to stop Gaddafi’s aggression. Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, went as far as criticizing the motivations of the Western powers, arguing that they were after Libya’s natural resources (EDM, March 4).

    Although Turkey successfully evacuated its citizens from Libya, it maintained the same rhetoric critical of the Western policy. One Turkish diplomat visiting Washington to explain Turkey’s position argued that Turkey had to tread cautiously considering the uncertainty over the future of Libya in a post-Gaddafi scenario (Anadolu Ajansi, March 3). However, the gains achieved by the rebel forces cast doubts over Turkey’s policy. Some commentators increasingly argued that by failing to side with the Libyan rebellion, Turkey might risk becoming the loser in the future determination of Libya’s political structure (Haberturk, March 13).

    Another criticism of Turkey’s policy was raised on moral grounds, given that Turkey apparently offered no viable solution to halt Gaddafi’s atrocities other than to constantly counsel him to step down from power. This challenge became urgent, as the heavily armored Gaddafi forces repelled the rebel forces back to Benghazi. As international concern grew over Gaddafi’s use of force against civilians in the recaptured towns, the debate on the military option was reignited. Following UN Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing a no fly zone, the Western powers led by the United States and France accelerated consultations for military operations.

    Turkey still insisted that military intervention should be avoided and a negotiated settlement might be possible. Ankara even proposed observing a ceasefire, when Gaddafi announced that he would impose a unilateral ceasefire. Nonetheless, Turkey underlined that it would back an arms embargo, provision of humanitarian assistance and the no-fly zone, in line with the UN Security Council resolution (IHA, March 18).

    However, the continuation of Libyan forces’ attacks and Gaddafi’s threats to enter Benghazi prompted the Western powers, joined by some Arab leaders, to act swiftly. France, leading the interventionist camp, gathered likeminded powers in Paris, to which Turkey was not invited (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19). When French aircraft started bombing Libyan military targets, Turkey continued its vocal criticism, calling for an immediate halt to operations, so that the destruction of Libyan infrastructure and killing of civilians could be prevented. Also angered by France’s sidelining of Turkey, Erdogan argued that by acting recklessly against Libya, Sarkozy was only interested in his political career, not the wellbeing of the Libyan people (Zaman, March 22).

    The lack of consensus within the pro-intervention camp as to how to handle the operations and what command and control roles NATO should play again brought Turkey to the forefront. Erdogan listed some conditions that needed to be met if NATO was to be given such a role. When the NATO Council met in Brussels, Ankara raised objections to the use of NATO beyond the enforcement of an arms embargo. It took President Barack Obama to telephone Erdogan before Ankara dropped its objections to the transfer of the operation to NATO (Anadolu Ajansi, March 23).

    On March 25, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, announced that Turkey’s concerns and demands had been met. Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament also authorized a motion that permitted the Turkish military to participate in the international force in Libya and allowed the government to undertake a multi-dimensional contribution. According to the deal, it was reported that the NATO base in Turkey’s Aegean town of Izmir might be one of the operational centers for the NATO mission in Libya. Also, though not providing combat forces, Turkey would continue to contribute five warships and a submarine to operations for use solely for humanitarian purposes (Hurriyet, March 25).

    Pro-government media sources heralded this development as a major achievement for Turkish diplomacy. Also, Western powers’ decision to invite Turkey to the London conference on March 29, unlike the Paris summit, was viewed as a victory over France. Erdogan said that by transferring operations to NATO’s command Paris would be sidelined. Also, Turkish sources later explained that they insisted on a broad-based participation in the London Conference so that the operations would not be perceived as exclusively Western (www.haber7.com, March 25).

    Attending the London Conference on Tuesday, where an agreement to continue operations was reached, Davutoglu reiterated Turkey’s position. Turkey would not participate in combat operations or airstrikes but it would take a role in the provision of humanitarian assistance and the enforcement of an arms embargo (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 29). Earlier, Erdogan announced that Turkey would also take control of Benghazi airport to ensure the delivery of aid. Erdogan called for an end to military operations and asked for an immediate ceasefire. Arguing that Turkey maintained communication with not only the Gaddafi regime but also the rebel forces, he added that Ankara could mediate a ceasefire (Anadolu Ajansi, March 28).

    As Erdogan emphasized repeatedly in his justification of Turkish policy, he is against placing the country in a position where it would be forced to take military action against another Muslim nation. Here, he constantly refers to the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, where miscalculated US interventions resulted in the destruction of the country and killing of innocent civilians, and Turkey’s decoupling from US policy gained him popularity at home and abroad. Turkey’s removal of its objections to NATO’s involvement also shows that it still values its partnership with the West and can prioritize Alliance unity. Ankara took seriously the intervention by President Obama and as in other crises with NATO it did not abandon its ally altogether.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-balances-its-ties-with-west-and-islamic-world-in-libya-operation/

     

  • CEM RYAN INTERVIEW: KANAL B, ISTANBUL, TURKEY

    CEM RYAN INTERVIEW: KANAL B, ISTANBUL, TURKEY

    CEM RYAN INTERVIEW

    28 MARCH 2011

    771

    http://www.kanalb.com.tr/arsivliste.php?Program=85&L=KanalBProgramlar%2Fbilmek%2B28032011bilmekgerek

  • Armenian Attorneys Respond To Court Appeal of German Companies

    Armenian Attorneys Respond To Court Appeal of German Companies

     

    sassounian34
     

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

     

    Attorneys for Armenian heirs of life insurance policyholders filed a powerful response last month to the petition of German companies seeking a rehearing by a federal appeals court. The majority of a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the Armenians’ right to pursue their demand for unpaid claims, reversing an earlier ruling by the majority of the same panel of judges.

     

    The response of the Armenian lawyers dealt a devastating blow not only to the German insurance companies, but also to the Republic of Turkey which had shamelessly filed a “friend of the court” petition in support of the German defendants. It is ironic that instead of Germany, the Turkish government is the one objecting to the lawsuit against the German firms!

     

    The Armenian claimants asked the Court of Appeals to deny the German petition for a rehearing. The German defendants had based their appeal on the contention that the California State statute extending the deadline for filing claims against insurance companies was unconstitutional because the law’s endorsement of the Armenian Genocide contradicts the federal government’s foreign policy.

     

    The Armenian attorneys contested the German defendants’ claim by asserting that “there have been no negative foreign policy repercussions from statutes and/or enactments promulgated” by more than 40 U.S. states on the Armenian Genocide. The attorneys further stated that while several U.S. Presidents have objected to congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, there have been many other statements by the federal executive and legislative branches in favor of such recognition. The attorneys specifically mentioned the two congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984, as well as Pres. Reagan’s reference to the Armenian Genocide in his Presidential Proclamation of 1981.

     

    The attorneys asserted that previous U.S. Administrations maintained a “deafening silence” while more than 40 U.S. states recognized the Armenian Genocide, without constituting any threat to U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, even if past Administrations were opposed to congressional resolutions on the Genocide issue, there would be no reason to object to local and state resolutions, as they would have no impact on U.S. foreign policy.

     

    The Armenian attorneys cited previous court decisions asserting that State statutes could be challenged on the basis of the foreign affairs doctrine only if they conflicted with “an expressed unmistakable executive treaty, Congressional enactment or executive policy.” The attorneys reasoned that the courts had ruled a similar California statute on the Holocaust to be invalid because the federal government had created a Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, obviating the need for separate Holocaust-related lawsuits. No federal commission has been established to regulate lawsuits related to the Armenian Genocide. Another key difference in the two cases is that the Armenian plaintiffs are not seeking restitution, but only the recovery of insurance benefits owed to them.

     

    The Armenian attorneys also made the convincing argument that even if previous Administrations have had contradictory stands on the Armenian Genocide, “there is no evidence of an express federal policy banning the term ‘Armenian Genocide’ in legislative enactments by the States.”

     

    The Armenian lawyers proceeded to slam the “friend of the court” petition filed by the Republic of Turkey, which claimed that the California statute conflicted with federal foreign policy on the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian attorneys asserted that “Turkey does not create or dictate United States foreign policy; only the United States government can do that.” Turkey’s allegation that “the current Administration opposes recognition of the Armenian Genocide are flatly contradicted by President Barack Obama’s own statements. As Senator and presidential candidate, he spoke forcefully on the Armenian Genocide. As President, he reasserted: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.”

     

    Finally, the Armenian legal team pointed out that this case also safeguards the right of the State of California to regulate insurance companies operating within its borders. Thus, overturning the California statute on Armenian insurance policyholders would “impair California’s interest in providing individuals with access to its courts to resolve disputes concerning insurance policies held by them and issued by companies doing business in the State.”

     

    Based on these powerful arguments — and the “friend of the court” briefs filed by several major law firms and organizations to be discussed in a future column — it is hoped that the federal Court of Appeals will rule against the German insurance companies’ petition for a rehearing. Should the German firms lose the appeal, they have the final recourse of petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.

     

    It is critical for Armenians to win these appeals in order to protect not only the interests of the heirs of insurance policyholders, but also to prevent Turkish denialists from exploiting this lawsuit to invalidate decades of efforts in support of Genocide recognition in the United States.

     

  • Lale “Tulip”

    Lale “Tulip”

    Everybody thinks that tulips come from Holland. Actually, Tulips are native to Central Asia and Turkiye. In the 16th Century they were brought to Holland from Turkiye, and quickly became widely popular.

    The Tulip period or Tulip era is a period in Ottoman history from 1718 to the rebellion of Patrona Halil in 1730. This was a relatively peaceful period, during which the Ottoman Empire can be said to have begun to orient itself towards Europe.

    The name of the period derives from the tulip craze among the Ottoman court society. Cultivating this culturally ambiguous emblem had become a celebrated practice. The tulip period illustrated the conflicts brought by early modern consumer culture and was a shared material symbolism. During this period the elite and high-class society of the Ottoman Period had established an immense fondness for the tulip, which were utilized in various occasions. Tulips defined nobility and privilege, both in terms of goods and leisure time.

    The tulips begin to bloom around the end of March or beginning of April, depending on the weather. They bloom for several weeks and may delight the eye and the spirit for nearly a month.200790 143682605698771 102386316495067 262303 1630699 n

  • Altunköprü the ancient name of Türkmen Township

    Altunköprü the ancient name of Türkmen Township

    By Mofak Salman Kerkuklu

    altunkopru01

    Altunköprü is a small Türkmen [1] sub district located 40km north of Kerkuk and the city lies to the north-west of Kerkuk. It is a 50km away from Erbil. [2] Altunköprü means ‘Golden Bridge’ in the Turkish language.

    The history of the city of Altunköprü dates back to 228Bc. The indigenous inhabitants of Altunköprü are Türkmens, but in the mid of fifties and also in the recent years a large number of Kurds and Arabs migrated to this town seeking work as economical migrants especially after the Kurdish rebels in 1975 were quelled by the Iraqi Ba’ath regime.


    Altunköprü     is a Türkmen authentic and it is one of the many Türkmen ancient sub district. [3] [4] Altunköprü is approximately located between Erbil and Kerkuk. It is situated on the bank of Azab Alsfel (Little Zab) River.

    Download Full Document
     

    1 The Iraqi Türkmen live in an area that they call “Türkmenia” in Latin or “Türkmeneli” which means, “Land of the Türkmen”. It was referred to as “Turcomania” by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Türkmen are Turkic groups that have a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e. 12% of the Iraqi population.

    2 Turkmenelinden Notlar, Year 1 Issue 2 June 1999, Altunköprü Katliami Page. 2.

    3 The Turkmen and Kerkuk, by Yucel Guclu, ISBN 978-1-4257-1853-4, Page 26.

    4 The Turkmen and Kerkuk, by Yucel Guclu, ISBN 978-1-4257-1853-4, Page 58

    Download Full Document


    Download Full Document

  • Nevruz

    Nevruz

    The day accepted as the New Year’s Day by the Turks living in Central Asia, Anatolian Turks and Iranians is called Nevruz. It is a combination of the Persian words Nev (New) and Ruz (Day). It corresponds to March 21st  according to the Western calendar and March 9th according to the Moslem one, when the day and the night are of equal length and ıs known by such names as “Nevruz-i Sultani,” “Sultan Nevruz,” “Sultan Navriz” and “Mart Dokuzu” (Ninth of March).

    Although it is has been claimed that Nevruz was a Persian conception, it also appears in the Twelve Animal Turkish Calendars, and had been known to the Turks and celebrated by them for a very long time.

    The principle view of Nevruz is that it is a celebration of 197925 141981122535586 102386316495067 252797 5043671 nindependence. In other words that it marks the day of departure from Ergenekon. Hence, Nevruz has been accepted as the beginning of the new year by Turks and has still been celebrating with festivals.

    Among the Turkish communites of Central Asia, the Azeris, Kazakhs, Khirghiz, Türkmens, Uzbeks and Uyghur Turks, the Anatolian Turks and the Balkan Turks have kept the Nevruz traditon alive up to the present day.