|
Category: Authors
-
Sassounian’s column of Dec. 30, 2010
-
Turkish Tea “Çay”
Tea is the most popular drink in Turkey. A typical Turk drinks approximately around 10 glasses of black tea pro day.
While both Chinese and Indians claim that they first discovered the use and drink of Tea thousands of years ago, Turks evolved their own way of making and drinking the black tea (Çay in Turkish), which became a way of life for our culture. Wherever you go in Turkey, tea or coffee will be offered as a sign of friendship and hospitality, anywhere and any time, before or after any meal. The production of tea in Turkey mainly started in the early years of the Republic along the eastern Black Sea Region. Many of the tea plantations are centered around the town of Rize, and from the Georgian border to Trabzon, Arakli, Rize, Karadere and Fatsa (near Ordu), reaching in some places 30 kilometers inland and reaching the height of around 1000 m. In 1947 the first tea factory was built in Rize and in 1965 the production of dried tea reached to the level of domestic consumption. The tasks of buying, processing and selling tea was conducted by the Tekel (Monopoly of State) General Directorate until then, in 1971 was transferred to the Tea Corporation, and in 1984 the Monopoly on tea was lifted and this facility was also provided to the private sector. Turkish tea is full-flavored and too strong to be served in large cups thus it’s always offered in little tulip-shaped glasses which you have to hold by the rim to save your fingertips from burning because it’s served boiling hot. You can add sugar in it but no milk, and you can have it either lighter (weaker) or darker (stronger) depending on your taste because Turkish tea is made by pouring some very strong tea into the glass, then cutting it with water to the desired strength. Serious tea-drinker Turks usually go to a coffee & tea house where they serve it with a samovar (Semaver in Turkish) so they can refill their glasses themselves as much as they want. -
E-MAIL CAMPAIGN FOR ENGLAND – UNITED KINGDOM
OH, EALING COUNCILLORS! HOW COULD YOU?
To: Honorable Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Ealing Council
c/o Labour Group Members’ Room, Ealing Town Hall, New Broadway,
London, W5 2BY, England, email: [email protected] <Copy: All councilors, as listed below –
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Re: Decision of Ealing Council to officially recognize the long discredited political claim of Armenian ‘genocide’ as settled history
Dear Honorable Councillor Julian Bell,
It is difficult and painful for me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, to hear of Ealing Council’s unfortunate resolution, based on an Armenian’s misrepresentations—i.e. Councillor Iskendarian—where Armenian war crimes, Armenian hate crimes, and their Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims, are curiously missing. If one excludes half the story, well, even the American civil war can be made to look like a genocide.
I realize that this was not a unanimous decision and that some prudent members considered the motion tabled by an Armenian (Cllr Iskanderian) one sided, without input from responsible opposing views and hence, judged it ill-advised and divisive. I am also aware of at least one councillor saying “…I have never come across a motion in my nine years on the council that so blatantly sought to pitch one community against another – especially on a subject which is highly sensitive and where no member of the council is really able to make a proper and considered judgment…” I truly appreciate those members who thought that way, but I wish they took the trouble to stay on and vote no so that this blatant and malicious fraud could be thwarted.
Those terrible “War Years” of 1912-1922 (known in Turkish as “Seferberlik Yillari”) brought five consecutive wars—Tripoli (North Africa,) Balkan Wars (twice,) World War I, and the Turkish Independence War, in that order— along with wide spread death and destruction on to ALL Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left untouched, mine included. Those nameless, faceless Turkish victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.
Genocide claims are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; more than half a million of them at the hands of Armenian ultra-nationalists; and dishonest because genocide charges blatantly dismiss the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict.
Historians reject the genocide label: This may explain why more than 69 North American scholars categorically rejected Armenian characterizations of genocide, noting that the non-partisan and reliable evidence unearthed so far points to “…inter-communal warfare fought by Christian and Muslims irregulars…” A majority of European historians who specialize on this topic also reject or criticize this label.
The Malta Trials refuted Armenian claims 90 years ago: If you had heard about the Malta Trials by the Crown Courts in 1919-1921, that never got off the ground due to lack of evidence to support the outrageous Armenian claims, you would not have signed that deceptive edict. ( For your information, the British exiled 144 Ottoman leaders to Malta as war crimes suspects, while scouring the Ottoman, British and American archives for proof and came up empty handed. This paper might explain more: The Armenian Issue: Why The “Genocide” Label Doesn’t Fit )
Britain does not recognize Armenian claims as genocide: You would do well to, at least, heed the advice and policy of Her Majesty’s Government when this same issue was raised in the same biased manner, again with total disregard for the other side of the story.
Here is a journey down the history, a collection of brief educational glimpses into the past:
1894
“…The aim of the Armenian revolutionaries is to foment outbreaks, firstly to induce the Ottomans to react to their violence and secondly to encourage the foreign powers to intervene…” Source: Letter of the British Ambassador Currie to the Foreign Office, on March the 28th of 1894, British Blue Book, N°6, p 57
1896
” …The Dashnaks and Hunchaks have terrorized their own countrymen, they have stirred up the Muslim people with their thefts and insanities, and have paralyzed all efforts made to carry out reforms; all the events that have taken place in Anatolia are the responsibility of the crimes committed by the Armenian revolutionary committees…” Source: Williams, The British vice-consul, writing from Van. (March 4, 1896, British Blue Book, Nr. 8 1896, p.108
1915
“…Concerning the Armenian revolutionaries’ tactics, one cannot expect to think up something more diabolic. Killing Moslems in order to punish innocents, robbing in the middle of the night villages that have just paid, the same day, their taxes. (…) The Armenian revolutionaries prefer robbing their own coreligionists rather than fighting against their enemy ; it’s in order to make their compatriots murder that the Armenian anarchists in Constantinople do bomb attacks…” Source: Sir Mark Sykes, “The Caliph’s Last Heritage”, London, 1915, p 409-418
1922
“…I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government to compile all available documents on the present treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish Government in a ‘Blue Book,’ which was duly published and distributed as war-propaganda!…” Source: Arnold Joseph Toynbee, “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey: a Study in the Contact of Civilizations,” Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1922, p. 50.
1923
“…In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies…” Source: George M. Lamsa, a missionary known for his research on Christianity, “The Secret of the Near East,” The Ideal Press, Philadelphia (1923), page 133
1928
“…A circular was prepared by the War ministry asking the officers to report on the misdeeds of the enemy. According to this circular, exactness was not an essential condition: probability was enough. (…) The most popular lies in England and in America were those concerning atrocities. No war can do without it. One considers that to libel the enemy is a patriotic duty…” Arthur Ponsoby (British Deputy from 1910 till 1918, his book published in 1928 describes propaganda methods used during First World war), Falsehood in War-Time, New York, 1971, p 20-22
1928
“Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the ‘seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population…It is at least time that Americans ceased to be deceived by propaganda…” Source: John Dewey, American professor, The Turkish Tragedy, The New Republic, November 12, 1928
1936
“…Those who in England are loudest in their sympathy with the aspirations of a(n Armenian) people ‘rightly struggling to be free’ can hardly have realized the atrocious methods of terrorism and blackmail by which a handful of desperados, as careful of their own safety as they are reckless of the lives of others, have too successfully coerced their unwilling compatriots into complicity with an utterly hopeless conspiracy…” Source: Lord Warkworth, after paying a visit to Van. ( William Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism.)
1964
“…(The Dashnaks)’ aim was by crimes and assassinations to invite Turkish reprisals and massacres, and thus create an international scandal that would attract the intervention of the other powers…” Source: David Thompson, “Europe Since Napoleon” (Alfred A. Knopf, 1964, 2nd. Ed.)
1976
“… The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today…” Source: Dr. Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist with global exposure, 1976
1999
“…The British Government had condemned the massacres at the time. But in the absence of unequivocal evidence that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at that time, British governments have not recognized those events as indications of genocide… Nor do we believe it is the business of governments of today to review events of over 80 years ago, with a view to pronouncing on them. The events of 1915-16 remain a painful issue in relation to two states with which we enjoy excellent relations…” Source: Foreign Office spokesman, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, AP News, April14, 1999
2001
“…The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, a convention which was drafted in response to the Holocaust and is not retrospective in application. The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-16 is still the subject of genuine debate amongst historians.” Source: Baroness Scotland of Asthal, expressing the position of the British Government’s on the alleged Armenian genocide in a written response to a question at the House of Lords, February 7, 2001
2001
“…The British government of that time and those that followed considered the massacres of 1915-1916 as a horrifying tragedy. We understand the strong feelings for this problem, given the human losses of both parties. But we do not believe that proofs put forward give evidence that those events must be classified as “genocide” as defined by the 1948 Convention of the United Nations on genocide. (…) The events of 1915-1916 constitute a big tragedy, during which the two parties underwent very heavy losses…” Source: Official Statement by the Embassy of Great Britain in Ankara, July 23, 2001.
…
The Armenian claims of genocide were never brought to court and, therefore, a court verdict a la Nuremberg does not exist. By voting yes on a controversial claim that totally ignores Armenian revolts, terrorism, treason, territorial demands and their Turkish victims during WWI, you are lending credence to unsubstantiated, exaggerated, falsified, and fabricated accusations.
Do you really believe a political body is the place to resolve historical conflicts?
Do you think academia with its research capability and/or legal realm with its “due process” expertise would be better equipped to handle such controversies ?
Do you agree that taking one side in a complex historical conflict is offensive, and unfair to the other side?
Do you see now how grave a mistake it is to honor one side of the story with an official stamp of approval, while totally ignoring the other? Would you like such “lynching” done to your country?
In a democracy, history is made by political institutions but written by historians. The Blois Appeal of 2008 in France, signed by several hundreds of historians, from Europe, North America, and elsewhere, says: “… History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions… ”
Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims of Armenian revolutionaries and the treasonous Armenian volunteers of Russian, French and Greek armies are documented in Ottoman archives, Russian archives , American archives (and also Niles & Sutherland,) French archives (Paul Bernard, Six mois en Cilicie, Aix-en-Provence: éditions du Feu, 1929,) and even in Armenian sources
(Haig Shiroyan, an Ottoman Armenian wrote in his Memories: “…The Russian victorious armies, reinforced by Armenian volunteers, had slaughtered every Turk they could find, destroyed every house they penetrated…” Smiling Through the Tears, New York, 1954, p. 186).The alleged “Armenian genocide” was popularized by Armenian terrorism of 1973-1991. The ARF controlled one of the two principal Armenian terrorist groups:
a) “Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide/Armenian Revolutionary Army”
(Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects, Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991, pp. 61-62; br>
Gaïdz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2002, pp. 28-37 and 106-109; br>Yves Ternon, La Cause arménienne, Paris: Le Seuil, 1983, pp. 218-224.)
Scotland Yard banned Hrair Maroukian, the leader of ARF from 1972 to 1994, from entering British soil in Autumn 1984, because British police considered him as the real chief of JCAG/ARA (Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of their People”. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Westport-New York-London, Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 111.)
The JCAG/ARA killed around thirty innocent victims and bombed the offices of Turkish Airlines in London airport, on May 24, 1978 and even the offices of British airways in Madrid airport, on January 20, 1980.
The ARF continues to glorify its terrorists, including Hampig Sassounian, jailed since 1982 for the assassination of the Turkish general consul in Los Angeles, Kemal Arikan.
Vicken Hovsepian, sentenced in 1984 by an US court to six years of prison for an attempt of bombing is a member of ARF the leader of the party in USA.
b) Another Armenian terrorist group, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), was actively supported by the Union of Armenian students of UK, who published a pro-ASALA newspaper in London, from 1978 to 1988: Kaytzer.
ASALA killed around forty innocent victims (including at least eight Turkish diplomats), and wounded many more;
ASALA terrorist Zaven Bedrosian was sentenced to eight years of prison by a British court in August 1983, for illegal possession of explosives and weapons, and conspiracy. Mr. Bedrosian admitted during his trial that he wanted to take the Turkish ambassador in London hostage with the hope of exchanging him with the ASALA murderer Levon Ekmekjian, one of the two perpetrators of attack in Ankara airport, in August 1982 (nine tourists were killed, more than 70 wounded.)
ASALA claimed his solidarity with Irish Republican Army (IRA) against “British fascism” (sic).
Ara Toranian, former spokesman of ASALA from 1976 to 1983, who shows no remorse for his violent past, is currently co-chairman of Coordination Council of France’s Armenian Associations.
I hope that you will realize what a grave mistake you have made by taking the words of Armenian propagandists, falsifiers, crooks and terrorists at face value.
…
In summary, if I could manage to raise a grain of doubt in your mind that the Armenian narrative may not be the whole story and that there might be another side, equally ghastly and genuine, where Armenians are the victimizers not the victims, then I consider my mission is accomplished. Thank you for reading.
Respectfully Yours,
-
Davutoglu Outlines the Contours of the New Turkish Foreign Policy
Davutoglu Outlines the Contours of the New Turkish Foreign Policy
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 4
January 6, 2011
By Saban Kardas
The Turkish foreign ministry is currently holding its third ambassadors’ conference, entitled “Visionary Diplomacy: Global and Regional Order from Turkey’s Perspective,” which brings together diplomats serving in Turkish missions worldwide. These conferences, held since July 2008, have been a major component of Ahmet Davutoglu’s agenda for restructuring Turkish foreign policy. Especially since Davutoglu’s appointment as the foreign minister in May 2009, he has embarked on a comprehensive project to reform the functioning of the ministry. The work is underway to create new rules and practices on not only the training, selection and the promotion of Turkish diplomats, but also the inner organizational structure of the ministry. Moreover, there are plans to open new embassies in various countries in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Davutoglu uses this transformation as an opportunity to promote younger and talented diplomats and enable them to serve in key posts.
The weeklong conference provides a venue for Turkish diplomats to evaluate the past year’s activities and set goals for the New Year. In addition to various functions held in Ankara, the second part of the gathering takes place in an Anatolian province. By adding this component, Davutoglu hopes to bridge the gap between the diplomats, often viewed as existing in their ivory towers, and ordinary people. This year, diplomats will continue the conference in the Erzurum province to mingle with townsmen and provide a firsthand explanation of the new Turkish foreign policy. Moreover, it is becoming a tradition to invite foreign statesmen to the conference. This year, Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou, will take part in the activities in Erzurum, while the Pakistani and Afghan Foreign Ministers, Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Zalmai Rassoul respectively, attended the first part in Ankara (Aksam, January 3).
Davutoglu’s opening address on January 3 was perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the conference (www.mfa.gov.tr, January 3). Davutoglu provided a balance sheet of the new Turkish foreign policy, finding Turkey’s performance satisfactory, and placing Turkey among ten countries in terms of their contributions to global peace and security.
Davutoglu also reiterated Turkey’s position on the controversial subjects on Turkish foreign policy agenda, ranging from relations with its neighbors to the Cyprus dispute. Emphasizing that Turkey would continue to pursue EU membership, Davutoglu placed the main responsibility for the stalemate in the accession process on the EU. Davutoglu criticized the EU’s inability to open new negotiation chapters, and the political obstacles placed before Turkey, especially the EU’s “unjustified” demands on the Cyprus issue.
Davutoglu commented widely on Turkey’s growing profile in the Balkans, South Caucasus and the Middle East. Reiterating the familiar argument that these regions have been beset with crises, the Turkish foreign minister underscored Turkey’s constructive efforts towards the resolution of local disputes. Davutoglu especially took pride in visa liberalization and free-trade deals and high level strategic cooperation councils Turkey has initiated with regional countries, including Syria, Iraq, Greece and Russia. Rebuffing charges that Turkey is pursuing imperial or what some call “neo-Ottoman” policies, Davutoglu stressed that Turkey respects the sovereignty of nation-states and has no desire to reign over other nations (www.mfa.gov.tr, January 3).
Moreover, in this context, Davutoglu offered a vocal defense of the new activism in Turkish foreign policy, which is occasionally criticized by domestic and foreign observers on the basis that many of Davutoglu’s ambitious projects are unrealistic or driven by an ideological agenda. Those critics usually point to Turkey’s emerging ties especially with Middle Eastern countries as an “indication” of a “shift of axis” in Ankara’s foreign policy away from the West. Davutoglu highlighted Turkey’s continued commitment to its relations with the West, reiterating his earlier argument that the new activism is largely a consequence of Ankara’s concern to redefine its place in the global balance of power in line with its growing power potential. “We want the world to know that we no longer find the clothes designed for us and the roles assigned to us sufficient. If they call it a shift of axis, then so be it,” Davutoglu maintained (www.mfa.gov.tr, January 3).
A large part of Davutoglu’s speech, thus, reflected this self-confidence and was devoted to his views on the structure of the international system and Turkey’s place in it. Davutoglu offered an elaborate critique of the current international order, arguing that it harbors many inequalities and injustice, hence its need of revision. For some time, Davutoglu has argued that historically, following every major war, victorious powers established international orders which provided for peace and stability. Since the Cold War ended without a decisive victory, the redefinition of the new international order still remains a task to be accomplished.
Davutoglu believes Turkey has a role to play in this process and will contribute to the emergence of the new global economic, political and cultural norms. To do so, Turkey has to give up its traditionally passive or “reactive” policies and instead pursue a proactive foreign policy agenda. If Turkey rises to this challenge, it will influence the rewriting of the rules of the international order, commensurate with its new power profile. In that context, Davutoglu emphasized boldly in his address that as Turkey assumes such a role in the remaking of the global order, it could further distinguish itself from other powers by emphasizing moral and ethical concerns. By highlighting Turkey’s engagement with Africa and under developed countries, Davutoglu contended that Turkey has increasingly become a “wise country” in the international community (www.mfa.gov.tr, January 3).
As an indication of Turkey’s “global responsibility,” Davutoglu and other Turkish leaders have frequently referred to Turkey’s non-permanent membership in the UN Security Council during the last two years, as well as in many international and European institutions. Davutoglu seems determined to set a new target for Ankara: going beyond membership in the existing international organizations and working towards the redefinition of the global economic and financial institutions, or the very basis of the international order. This is a daunting task in itself and it remains to be seen how far Davutoglu will progress in accomplishing it in 2011.
https://jamestown.org/program/davutoglu-outlines-the-contours-of-the-new-turkish-foreign-policy/
-
Turkey’s bid for global actorhood: Davutoğlu’s new foreign policy lexicon
Turkey’s bid for global actorhood: Davutoğlu’s new foreign policy lexicon
by Şaban Kardaş06 January 2011, ThursdayToday’s ZamanThe Turkish Foreign Ministry just held the third annual gathering of its ambassadors serving worldwide. This year’s meeting, organized under the theme “Visionary Diplomacy: Global and Regional Order from Turkey’s Perspective,” was kicked off with a conference in Ankara on Jan. 3. The most remarkable part of the conference was Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s opening address, in which he offered a first-hand evaluation of his vision of Turkey’s place in the world. The activism of late observed in Turkey’s foreign relations is largely attributed to Davutoğlu, an academic by profession who emerged as the architect of Turkish foreign policy under the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AK Party) since its coming to power in 2002. Although Davutoğlu already played the lead role in the redefinition of Ankara’s external relations during his tenure as chief advisor to the prime minister on foreign policy issues between 2002 and 2009, his imprint on the making of Turkish foreign policy became particularly visible following his appointment as foreign minister in May 2009. Since then, Davutoğlu has embarked on a comprehensive project to restructure the Turkish diplomatic service so that it can live up to the requirements of the diplomatic activism he has been advocating.
In his address at the conference, as well as in the interviews he gave to the Turkish press in the last few days of 2010, Davutoğlu outlined a proactive foreign policy vision, underscoring Turkey’s determination to be reckoned with as a major player in regional and global affairs. Moreover, he offered a defense of Ankara’s new foreign policy direction, and countered the arguments of those circles in the West and inside the country who maintain that Turkey has been “shifting its axis.” Davutoğlu’s presentation at the conference, though reiterating many of his earlier arguments, conveyed them in a systematic manner, providing a good reference for those seeking to understand the new Turkish foreign policy lexicon.
Turkey’s place in the international order
Perhaps one of the most conspicuous aspects of Davutoğlu’s discourse is a deliberate effort to initiate a debate on the structure of the international order and situate Turkey’s international positioning within this broader context. As a matter of fact, on many occasions, the critique of the international order has been taken up by President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Turkish leaders increasingly question the legitimacy of the current international system, on economic, political and, more importantly, moral grounds. They have expressed their unease with the injustice and inequality taking place in the international order based on the post-World War II geopolitical reality, in an effort to make a case that it is in need of redefinition. They have been calling for the reform of international organizations, including the United Nations and global financial institutions, and arguing that the West and the United States should share power and responsibility with other actors.
In a related move, Davutoğlu assigns Turkey a leading role in the redefinition of the global order. Indeed, this is where Davutoğlu offers an added rationale for foreign policy activism. In his view, Turkey cannot remain complacent in a world that is in flux. Turkey can no longer be a reactive actor that takes for granted the established international order created by major powers. On the contrary, at a time during which debate on the basic institutions and principles of the international system is under way, Turkey should be “among the countries that will lay the foundations of this order.” In his usual way of using metaphors to make his point, Davutoğlu wants Turkey to become one of the “city planners” that pursues a dynamic foreign policy agenda and takes an active role in the formulation of a new institutional architecture for world politics.
More importantly, Davutoğlu’s vision for Turkey’s role in the international arena has strong moral and idealistic undertones. He sees Turkey actively contributing to the emerging global culture, helping bridge civilizational differences. Similarly, he believes Turkey can make a unique contribution in the redefinition of the world order, as it can act as a “wise country,” i.e., one that can foresee potential crises and develop preventive measures and one whose opinion is taken seriously by other countries. As a wise country of humanity, Davutoğlu wants Turkey to conduct its foreign policy on the basis of respected universal principles, stand up for its values, and act as the voice of human conscience. In this regard, for instance, Turkey increasingly focuses on the issue of underdevelopment and socioeconomic injustice. In addition to many initiatives Turkey has undertaken in Africa, it will also host the UN summit on the Least Developed Countries later this year.
This new lexicon with global references, being developed by Davutoğlu, departs from the parameters of conventional Turkish foreign policy. While its foreign policy priorities were geared largely towards the territorial defense of the country and the protection of Turkey’s interests in various bilateral disputes with neighbors, Turkey has moved past this mentality. In the post-Cold War era, Turkey has been increasingly engaged in the diplomatic affairs of its surrounding regions. A large part of Davutoğlu’s vision and proactive agenda builds on this legacy. However, Davutoğlu seeks to move beyond this regional focus and to assert a role for Turkey on the global level. He does not hide dissatisfaction with Turkey’s current standing in global politics, arguing that “we have to make it known that we find the roles assigned to us and the dresses designed for us unsatisfactory.”
A current mismatch of objectives
Such an ambitious discourse critical of the global order has been voiced in world history by many rising powers that are unsatisfied with the existing status quo. Such calls are usually precipitated by power shifts in the global system, which transform the existing balance of power. Davutoğlu’s vision definitely has a material basis to build on. Given the country’s expanding economic power, wealth and geopolitical clout, Turkey’s relative material power is on the rise.
Thus, many Turks want their country to play a larger role than in the past. Nonetheless, realizing Turkey’s objective of reconfiguring the global order is likely to face many challenges; not the least, the question of having sufficient resources and a suitable political environment to sustain multifaceted global commitments. Similarly, there is an obvious mismatch between the objectives Davutoğlu set for Turkey and the country’s current reality. For instance, despite his vision of advocating the cause of less developed countries, Turkey itself still ranks 83rd in the United Nations’ human development index.
When confronted with those questions, Davutoğlu maintains, “We have a right to it, we have experience to do it and we are capable of doing it.” Moreover, for Davutoğlu, global leadership is a matter of perception, as much as having the necessary material resources. He believes that if Turks can overcome “the inferiority complex” and move beyond a “torn identity,” as argued by Samuel Huntington, they will emerge self-confident and better able to take part in global processes. True it may be, however, power and material capabilities will remain an essential variable in international relations. 2011 will be a major test for Davutoğlu’s ability to blend Turkey’s resources and historical experience to make a rightful bid for global actorhood.
*Şaban Kardaş is an assistant professor of international relations at TOBB — Economy and Technology University and the assistant editor of Insight Turkey.
*.html -
Le Monde Provides Platform To Former Spokesman Of An Armenian Terrorist Organization
ergun kirlikovali
Dear Readers, Friends , and Fair-Minded, Truth-Promoting, Peace-Lovers,
As long as there are Armenian falsifiers and Turk-haters around the world, with or without their white robes and matching conical hats, bent on demonizing all things Turkish at all opportunities real or imagined, our work seems to remain incomplete.
We need to be alert and react instantly to all kinds of attempts to defame and misrepresent our proud heritage. We need to remain in constant vigilance and continue to educate the public about our thousands of year old culture, history, and heritage.
This time, the unprovoked, unjustified, and unfair attack came from France’s Le Monde newspaper. Le Monde editors, incredibly, are providing access to the former speaker of a notorious Armenian terrorist organization, ASALA. The blood of Turkish (and Fench) citizens have not dried on the hands of these Armenian terrorists who loved to grin to the TV cameras with their ugly faces, flashing victory signs after every bombing, assassination, and other such premeditated murder and planned carnage.
What’s more, Le Monde editors seem to lack the decency to at least give the appearance of seeking responsible opposing views in order to balance this terrorist’s sick and hateful message and to present a more objective and fair coverage of a historical controversy.
Therefore, I ask you to please sign the protest letter below with your name, city, country, and day-phone, and email it to these addresses :
Fax: (00 33) 1 57 28 21 21
Street address : Le Monde, 80, boulevard Auguste-Blanqui, 75 507 Paris Cedex 13 France
***************
Madam/Sir,
In a shocking move, Le Monde allowed, one more time, Ara Toranian to publish an opinion in its pages. The promotion, without any warning, of the views of the former spokesman of a terrorist group (ASALA) is simply unacceptable in a respectable and democratic newspaper.
France was, with Turkey, the country of the world where Armenian terrorists, especially ASALA, killed and wounded the greatest number of persons. Mr. Toranian’s newspaper, Hay Baykar, glorified the murder of Turkish diplomats, justified the bombing of the Marmara travel agency (which bomb also killed a French secretary) and slammed the verdict sentencing the perpetrators of Orly attack (8 deaths, 90 wounded, including around 60 seriously).
In the U.S.A., ASALA attempted to assassinate a UCLA history professor, Prof. Stanford Jay Shaw, and his family in 1977 by planting a bomb in his HOME !
ASALA’s inspiration, Gourgen Yanikian, murdered in an ambush the general consul in Los Angeles Mehmet Baydar and his deputy Bahadır Demir, in 1973. Mr. Toranian’s newspaper presented the terrorist Yanikian as a hero.
Another Armenian terrorist group, JCAG/ARA assassinated Mehmet Baydar’s successor, Kemal Arıkan, in 1982.
The same attacked by bombs the cultural night celebrating the Turkish culture (including dance) in California and New York.
Both ASALA and JCAG/ARA assaulted even moderate Armenians, like the Dashnak and the Hunchak murderers did in the Ottoman Empire since 1890s and the USA since 1930’s.
Mr. Toranian’s opinion was seen as an insult to the silent memory of the many victims of terrorism, whatever their nationality or ethnicity may be.
Please accept our expressions of profound disappointment, outrage, and sadness,
[Signatory : Please provide full name, city, state, country, and day-phone]
************
If you wish to quote some more striking facts or figures, please read this interview:
https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/12/3194-turkish-armenian-conflict-what-now.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+ArmenianGenocideResourceCenter+(Armenian+Genocide+Resource+Center)
