Category: Authors

Turkey Seeks Closer Economic and Strategic Ties with China

Turkey Seeks Closer Economic and Strategic Ties with China

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 186

October 15, 2010

By: Saban Kardas

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabo’s official visit to Turkey on October 7-8, marked a new phase in Turkish-Chinese relations. During the joint press briefing with Wen’s Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, both leaders emphasized the importance they place on each other in their external relations and called their flourishing ties a “strategic partnership.” The parties signed eight agreements to develop further cooperation in various areas, including trade, transportation and combating terrorism (Anadolu Ajansi, October 9).

Erdogan preferred to highlight the agreement to switch from dollars to their own currencies in bilateral trade. Turkey also signed a similar agreement with Russia and Iran, its other major trading partners. Through such bilateral agreements, Turkey appears determined to underscore its willingness to pursue independent policies in the global economic and financial order, which has been structured around US primacy. As such, Ankara seeks to readjust to a post-American-led world order, as the existing global order is currently in flux. On many occasions, Turkish leaders have emphasized that the gravity of the global economy has been shifting towards Asia, and that Turkey, which had been traditionally integrated into the Western world, now needs to readjust its economic and political priorities.

It was therefore no surprise that Erdogan described the decision to use mutual currencies as a step to cement the strategic partnership between China, the economic giant which is likely to dominate the world economy in the years to come, and Turkey, an emerging economy which currently ranks 17th. China and Turkey have been the two major economies recovering rapidly from the global financial crisis, which may precipitate greater coordination between both powers in the context of the G-20 summit and other international platforms.

However, there remains a major trade imbalance in China’s favor, which Turkey must quickly address. While Turkey’s imports from China were around $12.7 billion, Turkey’s exports amounted to only $1.6 billion in 2009. Ankara’s strategy is to redress this imbalance through the promotion of Chinese investments in Turkey, increasing tourism from China, and gaining greater exposure for Turkish products in China. Through more intensive cultural exchanges within the next three years, Turkey hopes to accomplish the latter objectives (Today’s Zaman, October 9). However, given China’s track record in achieving a positive trade balance with its partners and its low production costs, it remains to be seen how far Turkey can penetrate Chinese markets.

Erdogan also referred to the prospects of joint projects in energy and nuclear power as yet another aspect of bilateral economic cooperation. Since Ankara signed an agreement with Moscow to construct the country’s first nuclear power plant, preparations have been underway for the construction of additional plants. While Turkey has been in talks with a South Korean company regarding the second plant (EDM, March 24), others, including Japanese companies, have recently approached Ankara on the same issue, raising expectations of growing competition in this sector. Given China’s recent drive to build numerous nuclear reactors, including some of the world’s most advanced, its experience in this field might make it a new entrant into the Turkish energy sector, though there is currently no concrete offer on the table. China has already won various large contracts to build major infrastructure projects, including modern railways in Turkey.

History also plays a role in these flourishing ties, as references to the idea of reviving the historic Silk Road abound. Earlier, Iran also expressed interest in a similar idea, in the context of the Economic Cooperation Organization (www.irna.com, September 24). The Turkish side has worked on various projects to improve the transportation infrastructure in order that goods could flow easily between China and Turkey as well as through Central Asia (www.trt.net.tr, October 9). Such projects, in Ankara’s view, will also serve as the best remedy to bring stability to volatile Central Asia.

However, historical factors also emerge as a source of friction in Sino-Turkish relations, as was demonstrated clearly during Wen’s visit. Following Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s historic visit to China in late June 2009, violent clashes in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region left many Turkic Muslim Uighurs dead in July 2009. Turkish leaders, which had come under pressure for ignoring the plight of Uighurs, moved to criticize Chinese policy in Xinjiang. Erdogan went as far as claiming that the killings amounted to “nearly genocide” (EDM, July 15, 2009). However, in the subsequent period, Sino-Turkish relations rapidly normalized, despite the efforts of the Uighur diaspora in Turkey to pressurize the government (EDM, August 19, 2009). Later, Turkey and China also started discussing cooperation in combating terrorism (Terrorism Monitor, October 1, 2009).

Since China has represented the Uighur resistance as subversive terrorist activities, possibly with ties to the global al-Qaeda network, such cooperation with Turkey has been deemed valuable. In this context, Wen emphasized during the joint press briefing that they discussed boosting bilateral cooperation in fighting terrorism and extremism. Such talks, ironically, took place while Uighur activists organized demonstrations outside to protest against Wen’s visit and Ankara’s policy towards China (Hurriyet, October 9).

Ankara’s position on Uighur demands, which might appear as backpedaling, mirrors Turkey’s earlier experience with the North Caucasus diaspora. In order to preserve the flourishing Turkish-Russian bilateral relationship, Ankara adopted a cooperative approach and restrained the activities of the Caucasian diaspora during the second Chechen war, a policy which continues to date (EDM, April 14). In the otherwise strong relationship with China, Uighur pleas for greater recognition are likely to remain a sore point. Yet, the Turkish government seems determined not to let the Xinjiang issue spoil growing economic and political ties with China.

An apparent indication of this determination came earlier this month, when a Turkish daily reported that in late September and early October, the Turkish and Chinese air forces held joint drills in Turkey’s Central Anatolian province of Konya (Taraf, October 2). Although Turkey refrained from using its more advanced F-16’s and flew only F-4’s upon US expression of concern over protecting sensitive technology, its decision to deepen military ties with China to such a level, the first such exercise China has conducted with a NATO member, reveals much about Turkey’s new strategic priorities.

https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-seeks-closer-economic-and-strategic-ties-with-china/

October 16, 2010
DEAD HEADS by Cem Ryan

DEAD HEADS: Headscarves, Turbans…Shrouds for the Living

It’s now all the chi-chi fashion rage! The prurient fashion designing male politicians of both sides are again trying to determine what Turkish women should wear on their heads. And where, and when, too. The secular left offers the Iranian model with a dash of hair showing. The so-called pious, ruling party, convicted by the Turkish constitutional court of being the center of the anti-secular movement in the nation, argues in the craven words of democracy and freedom. Whether

Üsküdar, Istanbul, November 2003

it’s abaya, chador, burqa, nigab, turban, hijab, it’s all part of a women’s democratic fashion choice. And the prime minister himself has proclaimed the covering of women as a “political symbol.” In fact, it’s a symbol of stupidity and backwardness. It’s a political dialogue, at the expense of the dignity of Turkish women, intended to put them and keep them in a “living” kefen (burial shroud). It is a lifelong headlock—social, political, intellectual, physiological, and psychological—a death grip until they meet their literal end in the grave.

“Be sure of it!” challenged the jealous Othello, for he must be certain of his wife’s infidelity. “Give me the ocular proof,” he demanded of the treacherous Iago, taking him by the throat. And in this manner Desdemona would be condemned by her own version of a headscarf, her handkerchief, the ocular proof of her infidelity. Except it was false, planted evidence. But she was a woman so she died anyway.

The headscarf issue that so besets and divides Turkey is also “ocular proof.” But of what? National piety, that’s what. It had allowed America to call Turkey a “moderate Islamic nation.” It satisfied the American need for symbolic gestures, like the upright purple fingers of Iraqi voters signified democratic progress. For without such signs how could America, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and their fellow Americans be sure of Turkey’s democratic moderate Islamic piety? And if you’re wondering how a backward-thinking political party like the AKP came to be the ruling party of the country of Atatürk, it’s because of AKP’s complete collaboration with America’s disastrous Middle East policy. And sadly, while President Obama earlier indicated differently, he too de facto continues the nonsensical Bush administration’s policy of Turkish moderate Islam. And the ruling party, the AKP, loves all of it, particularly the headscarf part. The prime minister also encourages women to open themselves to the idea of having at least three children. Ah such loving political concern by the prime minister for the most delicate areas of femininity.

It should come as no surprise to even a casual reader of the Koran that the Turkish headscarf issue has nothing to do with Islam. It is a tradition that was made-in-America, not Mecca, and certainly not in Turkey. The genuine tradition of wearing a headscarf arose from women field workers in rural areas for protection from extreme weather conditions. In other words, the headscarf came about from a physical necessity that had nothing to do with religion. This has been appropriated, more correctly, stolen, by religious-mongering politicians and converted into a bogus religious duty. In fact, it is an imperative that arises from imperialism and enslavement.

The historian Eric Hobsbawn explains this phenomenon in his book, The Invention of Tradition. (1) One example is especially relevant to today’s Turkey. Do you think that the Scottish kilt and its fabric-coded clans were part of some long cultural tradition in Scotland? Wrong! It was invented by the ruling power, England, to divide tribes into definable groups, thus to better control them. In like manner was the political turban invented by America for Turkish consumption by gullible women at the hands of scheming male politicians. Turkish women, wise up! It’s always the same old story with you! Don’t allow yourselves to be led by ignoramuses, no matter what political party they pretend to represent!

Consider this. Without the headscarf Turkish women look, for the most part, much the same as any western women. Don’t bother what’s in the head of Turkish women. For Turkish politicians, it’s what’s on it that counts. In their eyes, women are merely objects, with particular prurient focus on their hair. The admonition for women to cover their heads is made by men not by the Koran.

The American woman presented as some sort of authority by the Turkish Daily News article entitled “American seeking a democratic Turkey” (Feb. 2, 2008) said that, for her, the headscarf symbolizes that “I am a Muslim woman.” Covering is “mandatory” and an “obligation,” she said. This is nonsense. She was either misreading or not reading the Koran. Indeed, she was manufacturing her own tradition. One may wear whatever they want on their heads, whether a baseball cap or a lampshade. And one may justify doing so or not. But the justification for Turkish women to wear headscarves resides not in the Koran, but in their blind, thoughtless subservience to political men. One may make up one’s own rules about anything but there is no such rule in the Koran. “There must be some wisdom to it,” she insisted, demonstrating blind faith and little else. How sad a limitation for this woman who professes to be a “seeker.”

The Koran, a precisely worded text, contains no language requiring women to cover their heads. None whatsoever! It renders specific procedures about many things. For washing: “hands as far as the elbow… feet to the ankles.” In the desert? No water? Use “clean sand” (5.5). For apostates who preach against God: “have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides” (5:31). Regarding food: don’t eat “strangled animals” (5.3) and “kill no game while on pilgrimage” (5:95). Of course, it does admonish all people as “children of Adam” to cover their shameful parts, but this is mythological derivative material from the Bible and the fall of man (7:25). And for all its enormous specificity, it never mentions women’s hair. There is much information in this fact.

In reality, the Koran is protective of women. Women should “draw their veils close round them” so they will not be molested (33:57)—by men of course, the same kind of men who now seek to enslave Turkish women. They should “cover their bosoms,” not display “their adornments except such as normally revealed” and not “stamp their feet when walking” (24:30). But there is nothing therein about wearing a headscarf in order to be a “Muslim woman.” This is a manmade myth, a sham, that is also dangerously stigmatizing of those women who don’t cover. Are they any less Islamic? And why should women bear the full signifying burden anyway? The answer is simple. First, because of the Turkish government’s complicity with America’s political project in the Middle East. Second, because men, particularly pious political men, said so in order to keep women in a subservient role. What a bad, sick joke on women! What a bad, sick joke that women play on themselves!

Of course, women can wear anything they choose. But they should know why they do so. And if they choose to wear a headscarf, they do so, not for Allah or Jahweh or Jesus or Mary or Mohammed, and certainly not for the Koran. They do so for politicians. And that’s just stupid. They should take great care not to end up like Desdemona, torn apart by the jealous, deceitful hands of their own personal and political Othellos.

Cem Ryan, Istanbul

(1) Hobsbawm, Eric. The Invention of Tradition.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992. (2) Turkish Daily News. American seeking a democratic Turkey. 2 February 2008.

October 14, 2010
USC Symposium on Armenian Diaspora Unity

LOS ANGELES—The University of Southern California Institute of Armenian Studies is planning a symposium titled “The Armenian Diaspora: Elective Leadership & Worldwide Structure,” with the purpose of identifying strategies to promote Armenian unity. The daylong symposium will take place on Saturday, November 20, at USC’s Town and Gown.

Speakers at the conference are: Gov. George Deukmejian; former U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans; attorney Mark Geragos; California Courier publisher Harut Sassounian; journalist/author Mark Arax; Prof. R. Hrair Dekmejian, USC; Prof. Stephan H. Astourian, University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Gaidz Minassian, Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris; Archalus Tcheknavorian-Asenbauer, Senior Advisor, United Nations, Vienna; Prof. Levon Marashlian, Glendale Community College; and Prof. Andrew Demirdjian, California State University, Long Beach.

The presenters at the symposium will explore the possible establishment of a unity framework that could represent Armenians worldwide, except those in Armenia and Artsakh, who already have elected governments. Such a collective body of elected representatives could legitimately claim to represent Diaspora Armenians.

“Armenians are great believers in unity. Actually, they are obsessed with it. Yet, despite all the talk about unifying the Armenian people, writing fiery poems and singing patriotic songs about the benefits of unity, this most cherished dream remains elusive. Even in perilous times, Armenians have remained at odds and marched to the beat of different drummers,” says Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier.

A transnational organization could create for the first time an elected leadership with political and economic clout capable of promoting Armenian interests, preserving cultural values and defending Armenian rights.

The symposium is open to the public and will take place from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., on the USC Campus. Complimentary breakfast and lunch will be served, and refreshments will be provided throughout the day.

For reservations or further information, please contact the USC Institute of Armenian Studies: [email protected].

October 12, 2010
Sassounian’s column of October 14, 2010

Turkish Foreign Ministry Should Remove

Lies from its Website and Issue Apology

Turkish officials have been misrepresenting the facts of the Armenian Genocide for years. Even though this is saddening and even sickening, it is not surprising. Wrongdoers usually cover up their guilt and proclaim their innocence.

What is truly surprising is that the descendants of victims of the Armenian Genocide, having been accustomed to such Turkish distortions, no longer see the need to put up a vigorous fight against denialist “historians,” politicians, diplomats, and reporters.

Why is it that descendants of the Jewish Holocaust go to great lengths to counter denialist historians, neo-Nazis, and other revisionists, while Armenians seem to be oblivious to those who distort their own tragedy? Is it because they are simply tired of hearing the same old Turkish lies year after year or do they feel powerless to put an end to these distortions?

Earlier this year, the House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution on the Armenian Genocide by a slim 23-22 majority. Regardless of what excuses the 22 members came up with for voting against this resolution, the fact is that when the time came to stand up and acknowledge the truth, they did not have the moral fortitude to be counted among the righteous! Instead they chose to side with the liars, deniers, and mass murderers!

And what has been the Armenian reaction to the despicable behavior of these 22 members of Congress? No outrage was expressed by Armenians! Not a single Armenian official condemned these scoundrels in Congress. Where is the organized effort by Armenian-Americans to target for defeat the Congressmen who voted against the Armenian Genocide resolution and are running for reelection on November 2nd?

Imagine what would have happened if a single member of Congress had voted against a resolution on the Holocaust! Would Israel’s leaders and Jewish-Americans have remained silent? They would have rightly done everything in their power to ensure that such a member of Congress is not reelected!

The question is not whether the Armenian-American community is as influential or powerful as the Jewish-American community. Regardless of its actual political prowess, the Armenian community must mount a vigorous campaign to defeat its political opponents. Once word spreads in Congress that anyone who votes against the Armenian Genocide would be targeted for defeat, those immoral and spineless members of Congress would quickly conclude that denying the Genocide for a fistful of Turkish Liras is not in their own best interest!

Here is another blatant example of genocide denial that has gone unnoticed and unchallenged by Armenians and the international community. The Turkish Foreign Ministry’s website includes countless distorted statements on the Armenian Genocide. The website provides deceptive responses to innocently-worded questions, such as: “What happened in 1915? What is the total number of the Armenian deportees? Did all the Armenian deportees die? Is it a crime to describe the events of 1915 as ‘genocide’ in Turkey and are the ones whom (sic) argue this exposed to legal investigation?”

On its website, the Turkish Foreign Ministry goes to absurd lengths in a vain attempt to make Turkey look good by claiming that “Turkey is the only country where the events of 1915 can be discussed in a free manner!”

The website also makes the false claim that “there is no one in Turkey now who has been tried or prosecuted due to the reason that he/she described the events of 1915 as ‘genocide.’” The Turkish Foreign Ministry conveniently forgets that Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was tried and found guilty for using the word “genocide” in an interview. He met a worse fate than serving a jail term. He was shot and killed! Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk was also charged under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (“Insulting Turkishness”) for stating that one million Armenians were killed! After intense international pressure, however, the charges against Pamuk were dropped, and subsequently reinstated! Many other Turkish journalists and writers have been taken to court for writing about the Armenian Genocide.

There should be a concerted effort by Armenian officials, Diaspora Armenians, and the international community, demanding that the Turkish government immediately remove those insulting lies from the Foreign Ministry’s website and issue an apology to Armenians.

Until then, no Armenian official should have any contact or meetings with Turkish leaders. Just imagine if the German Foreign Ministry’s website stated that the Holocaust never happened! Would Israel’s leaders have carried on business as usual with Germany?

October 11, 2010
Damascus Repeats Call For Turkish Involvement In Talks With Israel

Damascus Repeats Call For Turkish Involvement In Talks With Israel
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 180

October 6, 2010 03:26 PM
By: Saban Kardas

Turkey and Syria held the second ministerial meeting of the High Level Strategic Cooperation Council in Syrian city of Latakia. The Turkish delegation, headed by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, was composed of twelve ministers including Taner Yildiz, Vecdi Gonul and Besir Atalay (the energy, defense and interior ministers respectively). The meetings reviewed the agreements and protocols, signed between the two countries. The conclusions will be followed up with a monitoring mechanism and more concrete decisions will be made during the next prime ministerial meeting in December (Cihan, October 3).

Much of the talks concerned economic cooperation. In line with their earlier demonstration of intent to move towards economic integration in the Middle East, comprising also Lebanon and Jordan (Sabah, June 10), the Turkish and Syrian delegations discussed the details of creating a free trade zone, easing customs procedures, building new transportation networks including fast trains between Turkish and Syrian cities, among other initiatives. Moreover, they also considered cooperation in agriculture, environment, health, energy and other fields (Anadolu Ajansi, October 3).

The bilateral energy partnership was a major item on the agenda. Yildiz announced that Turkish and Syrian national petroleum companies agreed to form a joint oil exploration company. Syria also allocated seven fields to Turkey without a tender, where exploration will start as soon as both sides resolve the remaining details of their joint enterprise. Yildiz announced that the work on the connection of the Arab natural gas pipeline with the Turkish grid, which might eventually supply Nabucco pipeline with gas from Egypt through Syria, might be concluded within one year (Anadolu Ajansi, October 4).

However, for Ankara, such initiatives in the Middle East have a broader meaning than strictly commercial concerns. During the joint press briefing, Davutoglu emphasized Turkish views on security in the Middle East. Davutoglu maintained that two competing “visions” prevailed in the Middle East: one seeking to destabilize the regional order by sowing the seeds of conflict and supporting terrorism, and the other seeking to maintain regional peace and stability through mutual cooperation. He referred to the high level strategic cooperation councils Turkey launched with Syria and other neighbors as instruments that will contribute to the second vision. He also underscored how Syria joined Turkey in its commitment to a peaceful neighborhood through dialogue and cooperation (Dogan Haber Ajansi, October 4).

In Davutoglu’s view, to the extent that regional countries could expand the scope of the second vision and build regional organizations, they will be able to narrow the scope of the first one, hence eradicate the sources of instability in the Middle East. If such regional cooperation succeeds, it will not only benefit the entire region, but bolster Turkey’s own security by creating a belt of stability around the country.

Perhaps, the most immediate area where this approach has manifested itself is Turkey’s fight against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Aware of the cross-border dimensions of the Kurdish problem and PKK terrorism, Ankara has been working to address this issue through both domestic reforms and regional diplomacy (EDM, September 29). Turkey wants to engage its Middle Eastern neighbors through various cooperation platforms in order to thwart any logistical, financial or manpower support the PKK might receive from the region. Especially in light of the Turkish government’s recent initiatives to solve the Kurdish issue, Syria, perhaps, has been the most cooperative neighbor, as the Syrian government has repeatedly expressed its support for Ankara’s Kurdish initiative as well as its right to fight against terrorism.

As an extension of these collegial ties, Atalay (playing a leading role in the Turkish government’s Kurdish initiative) and Gonul held important talks with their counterparts during the meetings in Latakia. The head of the Syrian delegation, Hasan Turkmani, President Bashar al-Assad’s aide, reiterated their willingness to deepen security cooperation with Turkey (Anadolu Ajansi, October 3). Last week, Turkmani, accompanied by some military officers, visited Ankara to discuss the Syrian contribution to Turkey’s fight against the PKK (Anadolu Ajansi, September 29).

For its part, Syria also hopes to gain strategic leverage from its closer ties with Turkey, beyond the immediate economic benefits. Syria increasingly considers Turkey as a reliable ally against Israel, though Turkey’s involvement in Syrian-Israeli relations has been confined largely to the role of a mediator. Turkey managed to facilitate indirect contacts between the Syrian and Israeli sides in the second half of 2008, which arguably came very close to reaching a settlement on the Golan Heights. This process, however, was interrupted by Israel’s offensive on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009.

Israel’s Palestine policy also opened a new era in Turkish-Israeli relations. Ankara and Tel Aviv were increasingly mired in a cycle of crises, which resulted in the replacement of the so-called Turkish-Israeli “strategic partnership” with a pattern of enmity. As a result, Israel lost its trust in Turkey and questioned the latter’s impartiality. Turkish leaders repeated on many occasions their readiness to resume indirect talks with Ankara’s support. Despite Damascus welcoming the Turkish proposal, the Israeli side continuously rejected it given its lack of trust in Turkey (EDM, July 23, 2009).

Recently, international efforts to revive the Syrian-Israeli dialogue have intensified. As France and the US, among others, have sought to convince Assad to agree to a new round of talks, Assad conveyed his willingness to see Turkey involved in this process (Zaman, September 17). Following the strategic council meeting in Latakia, the Syrian Foreign Minister, Velid el-Muallim, reiterated that Damascus views Ankara as an honest and reliable actor, while international efforts should focus on supporting Turkey’s mediator role (www.sana.sy, October 4).

Although constantly glorifying Turkey’s successful mediation in 2008, the Syrian side refuses to acknowledge that this was made possible by Israel’s view of Turkey as an impartial broker that could open a channel between Tel Aviv and Arab capitals. Syria’s insistence on Turkey’s “impartial mediation,” even after it is long foregone in Israel’s eyes, serves only to underscore that, after all, Ankara is valuable to Damascus not as a reliable mediator per se, but as a reliable ally.

https://jamestown.org/program/damascus-repeats-call-for-turkish-involvement-in-talks-with-israel/

October 6, 2010
Sassounian’s column of Oct. 7, 2010

Apology for Vilifying One Man,

Yet no Apology for Killing 1.5 Million

In 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an Alabama-based non-profit civil rights organization, published an article titled, “State of Denial: Turkey Spends Millions to Cover Up Armenian Genocide.” It was a hard-hitting exposé of the Turkish government’s elaborate and sinister efforts to pressure U.S. politicians and entice academics to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

According to the SPLC article, “Turkey exerts political leverage and spends millions of dollars in the United States to obfuscate the Armenian genocide…. Revisionist historians who conjure doubt about the Armenian genocide…are paid by the Turkish government.”

Going beyond such general statements, SPLC specifically referred to Guenter Lewy as “one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide….”

Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, had qualified the Armenian Genocide in his lectures and writings as a “bungling misrule” rather than a deliberately planned and executed mass murder. He had made similar claims in his controversial book published by the University of Utah Press in 2005: “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.”

Shortly after publication of SPLC’s article, an $8 million defamation lawsuit was filed against the civil rights group on behalf of Prof. Lewy by attorneys David Saltzman and Bruce Fein from the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF), which is “generously supported by the Turkish Coalition of America,” according to TALDF’s website.

Before a jury could judge the merits of the charges in court, however, SPLC agreed to settle the case by issuing “a retraction and apology” and promising to pay an undisclosed sum to Prof. Lewy. Had SPLC not settled the case, TALDF would have had a difficult task proving in court that Prof. Lewy was actually libeled. In order to win the lawsuit, TALDF had to prove that SPLC had made those accusations “with malicious intent” and “reckless disregard for the truth.” Furthermore, TALDF lawyers would have to show that the long-retired 87-year-old professor had suffered actual financial loss, such as getting fired from his job or having a contract canceled as a direct result of the article.

Some SPLC supporters have wondered why it chose to settle the lawsuit when its chances of losing in court were minimal. A knowledgeable source told this writer that SPLC may have settled the case in order to reduce its exposure to mounting attorney fees, combined with the likelihood that Prof. Lewy may have agreed to settle for far less than the $8 million he had originally demanded. With the lawsuit behind it, SPLC could once again dedicate itself to its actual mission of defending civil rights.

In its retraction, SPLC stated: “We now realize that we misunderstood Prof. Lewy’s scholarship, were wrong to assert that he was part of a network financed by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey. We hereby retract the assertion that Prof. Lewy was or is on the Government of Turkey’s payroll…. We deeply regret our errors and offer our sincerest apologies to Professor Lewy.”

In response to complaints from SPLC supporters opposing the settlement, however, Penny Weaver, a public affairs spokesman, stated: “Our settlement of this matter does not mean we are endorsing Mr. Lewy’s views or taking his side. But we are acknowledging that we mischaracterized his views and wrongly said that he was taking money from the Turkish government. It was an error, and we apologize for that.” The original article which precipitated the lawsuit is still posted on the SPLC’s website.

Needless to say, no one should be defamed because of his or her views on the Armenian Genocide, no matter how wrong or offensive they are. Unless one possesses evidence to the contrary, one cannot simply assume that those making distorted statements on the Armenian Genocide are motivated by greed or are paid agents of the Turkish government.

It is both commendable and ironic that lawyers for a Turkish interest group are eager to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit in the United States ostensibly to defend the civil rights of a client. In Turkey, however, anyone who dares to talk about the Armenian Genocide risks being charged for telling the truth and thrown into prison for years under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code which bans “insulting Turkishness!”

If TALDF were truly interested in protecting civil rights, it would allocate its considerable resources to abolish Article 301, which would considerably lessen financial support from generous donors and bring its operations to an end.

October 5, 2010