Category: Authors

  • Screening of  THE ARMENIAN REVOLT 1894-1920 at the US Congress, a resounding success!

    Screening of THE ARMENIAN REVOLT 1894-1920 at the US Congress, a resounding success!

    Just look at the media coverage… link after link…

    It seems the media took notice of the swift and dominating Turkish response by ATAA to Armenian falsification and defamation attempts spearheaded by a racist and dishonest politician.

    Go ahead, read them all…

    Enjoy!

    http://today.az/news/regions/71571.html

    https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/abd-kongresinde-ermeni-iddialari-belgeseli

    http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?hn=156484

    They have been screaming for a hundred years; we have started talking only recently…

    They got nothing by lies, cries, fakes, violence, begging, hype, and hysteria… We have thousands of years of history and experience of many multi-continent empires established by Turks…

    Stay tuned!

  • Long Lost Relatives Meet Again

    Long Lost Relatives Meet Again

    It is a widely held opinion by anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists, historians, and other scholars and intellectuals that the natives of all Americas (South, Central, and North) had probably come by a land bridge over the Bering Straits many thousands of years ago when sea around series of island had frozen—numbers range from 7,000 to 70,000 years ago depending on who is interpreting the research findings and data. (It must also be noted that some scholars caution not to leave the sea route out, pointing to the natives of Australia and many South Pacific islands, but same scholars are quick to add that sea route could not have been a major contributor to populating of the Americas.)

    Thus, it is safe to assume that most natives of Americas had come from Siberia and Central Asia, areas where hunting and gathering may be challenging at best, if not also scarce to support large populations. Those areas are home to many groups of Turkic nations, tribes, and groups, including but not limited to Kirghiz, Uzbek, Turkmen, Kazakh, Uyghur, Tuva, Hakas, Altay, and Yakut–all of whom also represent the source of Turkish identity in Anatolia today. This connection may help explain many similarities between the Turkics of Asia and Europe on one hand and the natives of Americas on the other: genetically (birth mark that appears at the end of the spine at birth and disappears after a short while that is known among the natives of Arizona natives and Kazakhs of Asia;) linguistically (many common words in Turkic and Native languages like odam=adam=man, ikki=iki=two, etc. 😉 culturally (profound respect to elders, tepee=yurt;) and other aspects.

    While we will let the scholars do the research and interpretation on this matter, let us turn our attention to re-discovery of long lost relationships. Here is a press release by the Turkish Coalition of America which may shed some more light on this topic. To learn more about TCA’s work with native Americans including the Hopi Tribe, and other communities, please visit www.tc-america.org.

    TCA Promotes Trade Relationship Between Turkey and Hopi Tribe

    July 24, 2010 – Los Angeles, CA – On Tuesday, July 20th the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) facilitated a meeting between the visiting Turkish Trade Minister, Zafer Caglayan, and representatives of the Hopi Tribe, including Ali Cayir, the first Hopi Tribe Representative to Turkey.

    During the meeting, Cayir described the benefits of working with the tribes in the United States, which operate as sovereign nations with their own governments that can deal on an equal footing with Turkey in negotiating trade and investment relationships. The Hopi Tribe, whose reservation is in Arizona, hopes to promote increased solar power projects, continued coal extraction, and the development of a major consumer center for the reservation’s residents.

    “When TCA began connecting the Hopi and Turkish peoples, we were working to develop completely new relationships. The meeting between the Hopi Tribe and Minister Caglayan represents a giant step forward in tying together the native peoples of the U.S. and Turkey through trade and investment. This is an unprecedented development. TCA is proud to have helped launch this extraordinary relationship,” said TCA President G. Lincoln McCurdy.

    Minister Caglayan, meeting with the Tribe for the first time, spoke of the affinity and possible kinship of the Turkish and Native American peoples, based on ancestral migration thousands of years ago, and expressed interest in visiting the Hopi reservation upon his return to the United States in October 2010.

    Also in attendance were several commercial representatives of Turkish business interests, who engaged in a discussion of investment and construction opportunities on the reservation. The parties walked away with a plan for the Hopi Tribe to conduct initial feasibility studies and cost-benefit analyses that would justify potential Turkish involvement on the reservation.

    Samuel Shingoitewa, Jr., advisor to the Tribe’s chairman, closed the meeting by reiterating the Tribe’s desire to work with Turkey, and expressed his desire for the Hopi Tribe to aggressively expand its relationships with other nations over the next four years.

    For years, TCA has promoted the development of relationships between the Turkish peoples and the many ethnic and cultural groups in the United States, including a program to provide scholarships for Native American, African American, Hispanic American and Armenian American students for study abroad in Turkey or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

  • Sponsor of Flotilla Tied to Elite of Turkey

    Sponsor of Flotilla Tied to Elite of Turkey

    TURKEY1 1279233960140 articleLarge

    Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

    Nursema, 10, a daughter of Ali Haydar Bengi, who was among the nine Turks killed during an Israeli raid on a flotilla trying to run the Gaza blockade.

    ISTANBUL — The Turkish charity that led the flotilla involved in a deadly Israeli raid has extensive connections with Turkey’s political elite, and the group’s efforts to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza received support at the top levels of the governing party, Turkish diplomats and government officials said.

    Related

    Enlarge This Image

    TURKEY1 articleInline

    Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

    An anti-Israel slogan in Istanbul reflects the rift in Israeli-Turkish relations after the raid. Turkey warns that relations could be irreparably damaged.

    The charity, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, often called I.H.H., has come under attack in Israel and the West for offering financial support to groups accused of terrorism. But in Turkey the group has helped Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan shore up support from conservative Muslims ahead of critical elections next year and improve Turkey’s standing and influence in the Arab world.

    According to a senior Turkish official close to the government, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the issue, as many as 10 Parliament members from Mr. Erdogan’s governing Justice and Development Party were considering boarding the Mavi Marmara, the ship where the deadly raid occurred, but were warned off at the last minute by senior Foreign Ministry officials concerned that their presence might escalate tensions too much.

    When leaders of the charity returned home after nine Turks died in the Israeli raid, they were warmly embraced by top Turkish officials, said Huseyin Oruc, deputy director of the charity, who was aboard the flotilla.

    “When we flew back to Turkey, I was afraid we would be in trouble for what happened, but the first thing we saw when the plane’s door opened in Istanbul was Bulent Arinc, the deputy prime minister, in tears,” he said in an interview. “We have good coordination with Mr. Erdogan,” he added. “But I am not sure he is happy with us now.”

    The raid has caused a rupture between Turkey and Israel, and heightened alarm in the United States and Europe that Turkey, a large Muslim country and a major NATO member, is shifting allegiance toward the Arab world. Turkey has warned that its cooperative ties to Israel could be irreparably damaged unless the Israelis apologize and accept an international investigation, steps Israel has so far refused to take.

    The charity’s mission, political analysts said, has advanced Mr. Erdogan’s aim of shifting Turkey’s focus to the Muslim east when its prospects for joining the European Union are dim.

    The government “could have stopped the ship if it wanted to, but the mission to Gaza served both the I.H.H. and the government by making both heroes at home and in the Arab world,” said Ercan Citlioglu, a terrorism expert at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul.

    Turkish officials said that the charity operated independently and that its leadership had refused to drop plans to break Israel’s naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite requests from the government. The officials said they had no legal authority to stop the work of a private charity.

    Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s minister for European affairs, said in an interview that the charity and the Justice and Development Party, called the AK Party, had no substantive ties, even if people in politics often became involved in charitable groups. “The I.H.H. has nothing to do with the AK Party, and we have no hidden agenda,” Mr. Bagis said.

    But critics say such statements belie the close connections between the party and the charity, as well as the extent to which Turkish officials were closely attuned to the details of the flotilla’s mission before its departure.

    “How can such a large country as Turkey, with interests in four continents, and with an export- and investment-driven economy requiring extra caution all around the globe, be dragged to the brink of war by a nongovernmental organization?” asked Semih Idiz, a columnist for the Hurriyet Daily News in Turkey, in a June 7 editorial. The answer, he added, is that the charity is a “GNGO” — a “governmental-nongovernmental-organization.”

    Many of the 21 people listed on the charity’s board have or had close links to the AK Party. In January, Murat Mercan, chairman of Parliament’s foreign affairs committee and a senior party official, joined an overland aid convoy to Gaza organized by the charity that tried to force its way through the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza.

    A trustee of the charity, Ali Yandir, is a senior manager at the Istanbul City Municipality Transportation Corporation. The corporation sold the Mavi Marmara, with a capacity for 1,090 passengers, to the charity for about $1.2 million. In 2004, Mr. Yandir was an AK Party candidate for the mayor’s office in Istanbul’s Esenler District.

    The charity’s board includes Zeyid Aslan, an AK Party member of Parliament and the acting head of the Turkey-Palestine Interparliamentary Friendship Group; Ahmet Faruk Unsal, an AK Party member of Parliament from 2002 to 2007; and Mehmet Emin Sen, a former AK Party mayor in the central Anatolian township of Mihalgazi.

    Those ties partly reflect the common agenda of the party and the charity. Both are involved in relief work among the poor and are bound by a common Islamic ideology. Many of the 60,000 people the charity claims as members come from the religious merchant class that helped Mr. Erdogan sweep to power.

    The Humanitarian Relief Foundation was founded in the early 1990s, first as a charity for the poor in Istanbul, and later for Bosnian war victims. It works in more than 100 countries and sent 33 tons of aid to Haiti after its January earthquake. The charity has one branch in the West Bank and another in Gaza, where Turkish families help pay for the care and education of 9,000 orphans.

    On Monday, Germany banned the charity’s offices there, citing its support for Hamas, which Germany considers a terrorist organization. Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said the charity abused donors’ good intentions “to support a terrorist organization with money supposedly donated for charitable purposes.” The newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung said that from 2007 the charity collected $8.5 million and transferred money to six smaller organizations, two belonging directly to Hamas and four with close ties to it.

    The charity called the ban a “disgrace” and “misanthropic” and said it would challenge it in court.

    A June 21 letter signed by 87 United States senators urged the White House to investigate whether the charity should be designated a foreign terrorist organization. Israel has accused the charity of bolstering Hamas. It also says the group has links to Al Qaeda and has bought weapons, accusations the charity denies.

    A senior Turkish government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called such allegations false and said they would not persuade politicians who supported the group’s causes to shun it.

    “We are not trying to disengage ourselves from I.H.H. because of the current allegations on their terror links — we are simply not related with them,” the official said. “We consider Israeli efforts to link I.H.H. with terror in light of fake intelligence reports and hence hold AK Party government responsible for the killing of nine innocent people as extremely cheap and improper tactics.”

    This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

    Correction: July 23, 2010

    An article last Friday about the connections between Turkey’s political elite and I.H.H., the Turkish charity that organized the Gaza-bound aid flotilla stopped by a deadly Israeli raid on May 31, contained several errors.

    Because of an editing error, the article misstated the effect of a ban on I.H.H. in Germany, where a charity that operates under the same name and was founded by the same people became legally separate in 1997. The ban applied only to the German charity, not the Turkish one.

    The article also misstated the price paid by the Turkish charity for the lead flotilla vessel, the Mavi Marmara. It was $1.2 million, not $1.8 million.

    And the article referred incorrectly to the relationship between Istanbul Fast Ferries, the municipal agency that sold the Mavi Marmara to the Turkish charity, and the Istanbul City Municipality Transportation Corporation, another city agency. While both are controlled by Turkey’s ruling AK party, the transportation corporation is responsible for land transit; it does not oversee the ferry agency.

    A version of this article appeared in print on July 16, 2010, on page A4 of the New York edition.

  • AMERICA CAN RELY ON TURKEY, BUT NOT ON ANTI-TURKISH LOBBIES IN AMERICA

    AMERICA CAN RELY ON TURKEY, BUT NOT ON ANTI-TURKISH LOBBIES IN AMERICA

    What follows below is a yet another typical, toxic and vituperative anti-Turkish propaganda, this time from the notorious Turk-hater Congressman Sarbanes, the son of equally notorious Turk-hater Greek-American Senator Sarbanes—of originator of US-arms-embargo-on Turkey- in-1970s fame. Sarbanes spewed this disinformation and falsifications to mark the 36th anniversary of the Turkish rescue and peace operation on Cyprus on July 20, 1974 to protect the lives and liberty of the island’s Turkish Cypriots. First Sarbanes’ words, then my rebuttal. Enjoy!

    ***

    CAN AMERICA RELY ON TURKEY ?

    by Rep. John Sarbanes, Huffington Post, July 20, 2010

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/can-america-rely-on-turke_b_652739

    Turkey has been getting a lot of attention recently. American foreign policymakers, among others, are beginning to realize that the United States cannot count on its ally Turkey in a pinch. But American surprise and dismay at Turkey ‘s increasing petulance on the world stage and among its NATO peers reflects just how naive the U.S. has been in its interpretation of Turkish behavior over many decades. Turkey ‘s unreliability as a NATO ally and its incompatibility with Western democratic values is well understood by those who have long suffered Turkish aggression in the Eastern Mediterranean .

    Turkey ‘s failure to genuinely uphold the shared values of NATO makes it a weak link in the alliance. By design, NATO originated as a defensive political and military alliance for those countries engaged in the hostilities of WWII. Turkey , the largest NATO member not to have fought in WWII, was enlisted to reinforce defenses against the Soviet Union . Yet, in the summer of 1974, NATO member Turkey invaded and occupied more than one third of the island Republic of Cyprus . Coming at the height of the Cold War, and at a time of delicate relations between Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and the NATO alliance, Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus risked war with NATO member Greece and a resultant rupturing of the NATO alliance.

    Adding insult to injury, the weapons used by the Turkish military to invade Cyprus were those of its NATO benefactors, principally the United States . In 1975, the Congress imposed an arms embargo on Turkey for its offensive use of American weapons. Rather than fulfill its NATO obligations, or follow its legal obligations as demanded by Congress , Turkey retaliated by closing all American military installations on Turkish soil, and by severely restricting American access at two NATO bases. At that time, military installations in Turkey were deemed essential surveillance posts in the Cold War fight against the Soviet Union . Turkey refused to reopen these facilities until the U.S. lifted the arms embargo, signaling that its relationship with the United States was never more than a transactional one, rather than one rooted in a shared commitment to the rule of law, individual liberties, democracy, and collective Western security.

    July 20th marks 36 years that the Turkish military has occupied Cyprus . In that time, neither the Republic of Cyprus nor its people have directed any aggression towards Turkey . In stark contrast, Turkey maintains an active colonization program where it is illegally resettling some 180,000 Anatolian Turks into the homes and possessions of the 200,000 Greek Cypriots it evicted from the occupied territories. The Turkish military is also systematically eradicating the Hellenic and Christian heritage from the occupied territories. All but five of the 500 Greek Orthodox Churches in the occupied territories have been looted, desecrated, or destroyed. To no avail, the international community, including the United States , the European Union, the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice have all called on Turkey to honor its international obligations and cease and desist from these hostilities against the people of Cyprus .

    The Republic of Cyprus is a full-fledged member of the European Union. Turkey seeks that status as well, but as a NATO member illegally occupying European Union soil, Turkey puts NATO and the EU at loggerheads. The result is that the EU and NATO are unable to cooperate in the consolidation of their economic and strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean .

    Turkey ‘s ongoing occupation of Cyprus is compelling evidence that it has little interest in meeting the standards of individual liberties, human rights and religious tolerance shared by America and other democratic nations. Lacking the ties that bind, Turkey is apparently quite willing to jeopardize relations with its long-time allies. Witness its 2003 denial of the deployment of US forces along the Northern Iraq border and its recent vote in the U.N. against Iran sanctions.

    The United States and its allies must call upon Turkey to abide by international law and meet its responsibilities as a dependable NATO partner. And on this, the 36th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Cyprus , the United States should demand an immediate withdrawal of the 45,000 Turkish soldiers now occupying northern Cyprus . Until that occurs, policymakers in the White House and in the Congress must press the issue in every conversation with their Turkish counterparts. In this way, the United States can work towards establishing a strong, enduring, and values-based alliance with Turkey that will serve to bring justice to the people of Cyprus , strengthen NATO, and reinforce collective Western security.

    ***

    TURKISH INTERVENTION BROUGHT PEACE TO THE ISLAND – Part 1 of 8

    The Cyprus question is one of the longest-running ethnic conflicts in the world dating back to the mid-1950’s. It is the result of the Greek Cypriot armed campaign to annex the island to mainland Greece – an irredentist ambition known by the Greek term enosis –against the will of Turkish Cypriots, one of the two ethnic peoples of Cyprus for over four centuries, and against the internationally established legal status of the state of Cyprus.

    CYPRUS WAS BORN OUT OF A COMPROMISE, THEN RENEGGED ON IT – Part 2 of 8

    The independent Republic of Cyprus was born as a compromise solution in 1960. The Republic of Cyprus was a partnership state based on the political equality of the co-founding Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot peoples. It had a Greek Cypriot president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, each with veto powers to ensure political equality at the executive level. The legislature reflected the demographic balance between the two communities, on the one hand (with a 70/30 per cent ratio), and their political equality and effective participation in the legislative process, on the other. The judiciary was composed of one judge from each side, with a “neutral” judge from a third country as its president. This partnership Republic was guaranteed by the three “Guarantor” powers – Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom – under a special international treaty, the Treaty of Guarantee.

    DELICATE INTERNAL BALANCE WAS DESTROYED BY GREEK ULTR-NATIONALISTS, NOT TURKS – Part 3 of 8

    The “state of affairs” thus created by the Zurich and London Agreements of 1960 was based on an internal balance between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities, as well as an external balance between Turkey and Greece as the respective “motherlands” of the two ethnic peoples of the
    island. This seemingly perfect system of checks and balances, however, faced a serious challenge within three years of its inception, when the Greek Cypriot side attempted to amend the Constitution by removing all provisions that gave the Turkish Cypriots a meaningful say in the affairs of the State. Failing that, they launched an all-out armed attack on the Turkish Cypriots throughout the island, killing and wounding thousands, driving one-quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population out of their homes and properties in 103 villages and causing widespread destruction.

    GREEKS TURNED CYPRUS INTO A SLAUGHTERHOUSE VICTIMIZING TURKISH CYPRIOTS – Part 4 of 8

    The ferocity of this onslaught was described by former Undersecretary of the US State Department, George Ball, in his memories titled “The Past Has Another Pattern” by observing that Makarios, the then Greek Cypriot leader, had “turn(ed) this beautiful island into his private abattoir.” He further stated that “Makarios’ central interest was to block off any Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriotes could go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots.”

    THE TURKISH RESCUE OPERATION SAVED THE TURKISH CYPRIOTS FROM ANNIHILATION – Part 5 of 8

    The Turkish rescue operation undoubtedly saved the Turkish Cypriot community from mass-extermination; prevented the annexation of Cyprus to Greece, and thus saved the independence of the island. Turkey’s legitimate and timely action has kept the peace on the island since 1974. Today, the Constitution of the Republic is dead and the “Cyprus” government has been completely usurped and monopolized by the Greek Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots and successive Turkish Governments have worked for the achievement of a settlement and have either initiated or accepted all major United Nations documents aimed at such just and lasting solution.

    THE “ANNAN PEACE PLAN”: ACCEPTED BY TURKS, REJECTED BY GREEKS – Part 6 of 8

    The latest and most elaborate document in this respect was the “Annan Plan” named after former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who was the architect of the plan. The Annan Plan was put to separate and simultaneous referenda of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots on April 24, 2004. It was overwhelmingly accepted by the Turkish Cypriot people by a 65% majority; but was rejected by the Greek Cypriot people, at the behest of their leadership, by even a greater margin of 76%.

    EU AND USA FAILED TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES TO TURKISH CYPRIOTS – Part 7 of 8

    Although the United States, the European Union and other members of the international community have joined in the call for the lifting of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, little has been done to put words into action in this regard. What is at stake is not only the long-overdue and well deserved restoration of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots through their integration with the international community, but also the credibility of those who have made promises and took decisions to end this
    isolation. Concrete and meaningful steps in that direction will not only put an end to this untenable situation but will also help the unification efforts on the island by motivating the Greek Cypriot side to come to a just and lasting settlement.

    NO BLOOD SPILLED FOR 36 YEARS, THANKS TO TURKISH INTERVENTION – Part 8 of 8

    Despite the absence of an international solution to unify the island of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots have been enjoying peace and tranquility and have developed strong democratic institutions, world class universities, tourism facilities and able entrepreneurs. In fact, Turkish Cyprus can be a model for other nations in that region on how to cope with hardship within the framework of democracy and respect for human rights. A beautiful country with its unspoiled nature and famous for its warm Turkish hospitality, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a place worth visiting year around. For more information on travel and other issues related to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, please visit www.trncinfo.com.

    ***
    For more information please visit: www.tc-america.org. and www.ataa.org

  • Slow Progress in Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Slow Progress in Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Slow Progress in Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 139

    July 20, 2010

    By Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s prospective participation in a six-day NATO exercise in Armenia in September, and the informal Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting in Astana, reignited the debate on the stalled Turkish-Armenian normalization process. The Armenia 2010 exercise will focus on post-earthquake civil emergency drills.

    A senior columnist in the daily newspaper, Radikal, Murat Yetkin, first publicized Turkey’s agreement to participate in the exercise and, if the need arose, the Turkish border would be opened to vehicles in order to supply the disaster-hit areas in the scenario. Local administrative sources were examining the condition of the transportation infrastructure, which corresponded with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, visiting the region, promoted speculation that it might lead to the “border opening” (Radikal, July 14).

    According to a subsequent story in Hurriyet, Turkish diplomatic sources confirmed Ankara’s participation, involving three or four personnel, and added that they were also making the necessary preparations to temporarily re-open the Turkish-Armenian border. Such an opening of the border would involve the transfer of NATO equipment into Armenia, through the Dogukapi border crossing in the Turkish city of Kars, where the governor’s office concluded the roads and railways were in good condition, also adding that the crossing could stay open for a month (Hurriyet, July 15).

    Turkish media speculated that such cooperation might help to reduce political tension, and this incident may serve as a model to test the ground for the long-delayed opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. However, Armenian diplomatic sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, signaled that they were not planning to request Turkey’s assistance in this matter. They dismissed the Turkish statement as “a public relations stunt aimed at burnishing Turkey’s image” (Radio Free Europe, July 16).

    This harsh reaction underscored the extent of the divisions between Turkey and Armenia. After taking various groundbreaking steps in 2009, which culminated in the signing of the protocols in October, Turkey and Armenia failed to sustain the initial momentum. For its part, the Turkish government had to put the rapprochement process on the backburner, faced with resistance from the nationalist domestic opposition and the concerns raised by Azerbaijan. Nonetheless, Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, maintained on many occasions that Turkey remained committed to the spirit of normalization and would seize every opportunity to continue with the process. For Davutoglu, relations with Armenia remain a major challenge to his “zero problems with neighbors” policy. He maintains that the normalization process, though slow, still continues and if Armenia takes constructive steps, it could prove successful.

    However, as Turkish leaders previously emphasized on various occasions, without any concrete progress in the Azeri-Armenian dispute, Turkey will not undertake further steps towards the normalization of its diplomatic relations with Armenia, including the re-opening of the border. Therefore, Turkey has urged the Minsk group to refocus on the Karabakh dispute on the one hand, and work to facilitate the resolution of this conflict on the other.

    Responding to a question submitted by a Member of Parliament from the Nationalist Action Party during a parliamentary debate, Davutoglu defended the government’s policy, arguing that the Turkish-Armenian process also stimulated efforts to resolve the Azeri-Armenian dispute.

    Davutoglu also noted that the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan pertaining to the return of the occupied Azeri regions were underway. He indicated that negotiations have reached the level of discussing the details for the deployment of an international peacekeeping force in zones from which Armenian forces are withdrawn, though he denied rumors that Turkey also submitted a proposal to supply such peacekeeping units (Anadolu Ajansi, July 16).

    Moreover, addressing the Karabakh dispute has been of great concern internationally, especially considering the fluctuating tensions in the region due to deadly armed exchanges between Azeri and Armenian forces along the ceasefire line.

    Ahead of the informal meeting of the foreign ministers of the OSCE in Astana, expectations were raised that Azerbaijan and Armenia might achieve some progress. Prior to his departure for Astana, Azeri Foreign Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, said that he was expecting that an Armenian withdrawal from the Kalbajar and Lachin regions, currently under Armenian occupation, would be tabled during the discussions in Astana. Since these issues were previously agreed upon through Russian mediation, he asked the Armenian side to abide by earlier promises. Nonetheless, he complained that Armenia was raising fresh issues, and deviating from the earlier consensus (www.azernews.az, July 16).

    Baku argues that only after its demand for the immediate return of occupied territories is met, can it reciprocate on other demands by Armenia, such as the status of the Lachin corridor connecting Karabakh to Armenia. This position has also been supported by Turkey for some time, so that it could reenergize its own normalization process with Armenia. The meeting between Mammadyarov and his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, in Astana as well as the efforts by the Minsk group co-chairs, however, failed to meet such expectations. The Minsk group released a statement stressing that “the efforts made so far by the parties to the conflict, were insufficient to overcome existing differences” and expressed “regret over recent developments that have exacerbated tensions in the region (www.azernews.az, July 17).

    Following his meeting with Davutoglu, Mammadyarov held a press conference concerning his meeting with Nalbandian. He criticized his Armenian counterpart, arguing that the Armenian side made a last minute move and stepped back from a deal, despite the fact that they had come close to reaching an agreement. He expressed disappointment with the Armenian side, saying they were not interested in any progress (Dogan Haber Ajansi, July 17).

    Davutoglu also regretted the failure to reach an agreement. In an apparent show of solidarity with his Azeri counterpart, he referred to the speculation about re-opening the border. He ruled out this possibility for the time being, adding that no one should have such expectations (Cihan Haber Ajansi, July 17). Last week’s developments underscored, once again, the complicated manner in which Turkish-Armenian normalization is mired in the Azeri-Armenian dispute.

    https://jamestown.org/program/slow-progress-in-turkish-armenian-normalization/

  • Sassounian’s column of July 22, 2010

    Sassounian’s column of July 22, 2010

    Turkey has no Right to Interfere
    In Armenian Patriarch’s Election
    sassounian31
    Although the Treaty of Lausanne is supposed to protect the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey – Armenians, Greeks, and Jews – these rights are routinely violated by the Turkish government.
    Armenians in Turkey, fearing the government’s wrath, rarely dare to object to the repeated violations of their civil rights. Worse still, Istanbul Armenians sometimes invite Turkish officials to intervene in their community’s affairs in order to settle their internal and personal disputes.
    The latest example of such blatant interference was the selection of Archbishop Aram Ateshyan, as Deputy Patriarch, after doctors had diagnosed the current Patriarch of Turkey, Mesrob Mutafian, as suffering from incurable dementia.
    Six months ago, after a two-year delay during which the Patriarchal seat was practically vacant due to Patriarch Mesrob’s incapacity, the Patriarchate’s Religious Council wrote to the Turkish government seeking permission to elect a coadjutor (co-Patriarch). The Council then set up an Election Committee in order to organize such an election once Ankara gave its permission.
    To complicate matters, the Election Committee, exceeding its authority, sent its own letter to Turkish officials, asking for permission to elect a new Patriarch rather than a co-Patriarch.
    Both initiatives made the serious error of inviting the interference of the Turkish government into the Armenian community’s internal religious affairs. Furthermore, both requests contradicted the Patriarchate’s almost 600-year tradition and practice of not having a co-Patriarch, unlike the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, the Catholicosate of Cilicia, and the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The request to elect a new Patriarch was also improper, since a new Patriarch can not be elected, while the existing Patriarch is still alive, as Patriarchs are elected for life.
    Taking advantage of the dissension within the Armenian community, the Turkish government finally responded on June 29, allowing the election of a Deputy Patriarch, but not a co-Patriarch or a new Patriarch. By so doing, Turkish officials violated the Armenian community’s religious rights, ironically, at the community’s own request!
    In authorizing a Deputy Patriarch to represent the Patriarchate, the Turkish government has in effect weakened the status of that historic institution. Since Patriarch Mesrob is mentally but not physically incapacitated, he may live for many years, while the Patriarchate is led by a mere Deputy Patriarch. Such an eventuality would serve Turkey’s interests which has always sought to assimilate the Armenians by bureaucratic obstructions, and depriving it of a freely elected and capable religious leader.
    Within 48 hours of the government’s edict, Archbishop Ateshyan, who de facto ran the Patriarchate as Chairman of the 26-member Religious Council, convened a meeting which unanimously elected him Deputy Patriarch. No other clergymen were given a chance to submit their candidacies for that post.
    While Armenians worldwide remained silent, with the exception of Primate of Germany, Archbishop Karekin Bekciyan, a few courageous Armenians in Istanbul dared to raise their voices in protest. The Election Committee, which the Turkish government disbanded, filed a lawsuit against Ankara’s decision, demanding the election of a new Patriarch, not just a Deputy.
    Where do we go from here? Armenian religious and lay leaders outside Turkey should protest the undue interference of the Turkish authorities in the internal affairs of the Armenian Church in violation of the Lausanne Treaty.
    More importantly, Armenians in Turkey should come together and declare that the office of the Deputy Patriarch is a temporary arrangement, not a long-term solution. Without asking for Ankara’s permission, the Armenian community should organize a new election to elect a co-Patriarch, who would then become Patriarch after the demise of the presently incapacitated Patriarch Mutafian.
    Whether the Armenian community decides to elect a new Patriarch or a co-Patriarch is its own business, and not that of Turkish officials. It is important that the Istanbul Armenian community coalesces around a common position and avoids further dissension. If the local Armenian community becomes united and enjoys the backing of Armenians and others around the world, the Turkish government, which prides itself as a secular and democratic regime, would be more reluctant to politically interfere in the Armenian minority’s religious affairs.