Category: Authors

Letter to President Obama: The ISLAMIC Republic of Turkey

20 October 2009

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
USA

Dear Mr. President:

I wrote to you on 20 January 2009, the day of your inauguration as president, about the dire conditions prevailing in the Republic of Turkey. (1) Today I stand by every word that I then wrote. Even more so, since conditions are now much worse. I suggest you reread this letter before you again meet with any Turkish politician. Accordingly, I have listed below the access internet addresses.

The problem, as we both know, is the nature of the increasingly hard-line Islamic ruling party, the AKP. On 29 October 2009 you will have another opportunity to meet with its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is a date of terrifying irony. Eighty-six years ago, to the day, Turkey was proclaimed a republic. Thus centuries of backwardness by the sharia Ottoman Empire, the nightmare of dark-mindedness, the suppression of women, the illiteracy and ignorance of the population, all these civil transgressions were finally consigned to the garbage dump of history. Hope had arrived at last. The rescue mission of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been successful and would proceed. (Note: Incredibly, Erdoğan and his minions label these grand achievements as “traumatic.”) A few hours before the republic was proclaimed, Mustafa Kemal remarked to a French journalist, “Can one name a single nation that has not turned toward the West in its quest for civilization?”

Now, eighty-six years later, one can finally answer Mustafa Kemal. Thanks to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the USA, your CIA, the European Union, and plenty of dollars filling the gaping pockets of politicians, hack journalists, outright traitors and, as Mustafa Kemal would say, selected “ignoramuses” there IS one such nation: Mustafa Kemal’s Turkey, today’s Turkey. Indeed, today’s Turkey has turned its back on the West. But its quest? The inept government seems incapable of answering that question. Beyond personal corruption, fantastic plundering, fabulous enrichment, suppression of women, extrajudicial imprisonments, destruction of the natural environment, and general lawlessness, no plan has emerged during its seven-year term in office. The 15 October 2009 article, “How Turkey Was Lost”, in the Jerusalem Post says it all.(2)

And you have helped too, Mr President. Were you surprised by Erdoğan’s antics in Davos? By his attempt to storm your Secret Service barricade outside the hotel in New York City? By his sudden ranting about Israel? Mr President, you shouldn’t be, for this is the quality of the man. You proceed with the likes of him and his people at your, and our, peril. In my earlier letter to you I wrote: “Do not be deceived Mr. President, this government neither serves you, nor the Turkish people. In the name of so-called democracy, it serves itself.” Nothing more need be said.

Today, on all counts, Turkey and the people of Turkey have failed. They have failed Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. They have failed themselves. Else how could they so submissively tolerate a government formed by the likes of Erdoğan and his AKP. Mr President, on 29 October 2009, you will see the personification of this profound, tragic failure in the normally scowling face of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, painfully contorted into his “White House smile!”

Mr President, quite simply, Turkey has become an Islamic fascist state. Cameras and listening devices abound. People are identified for arrest by the government-controlled press. Even I, Mr President, have been fingered by newspaper hack widely known to be a mouthpiece for the president of the republic.(3) Mr President, this lawless government has trashed the constitution. Jails are loaded with patriots—journalists, scientists, physicians, writers, retired military officers, businessmen—all opposed to the destruction of the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Mr President, There is no significant difference between the doings of this government and what went on in Germany in the early Thirties, or in Pinochet’s Chile in the Seventies. None!

Lawless politicians! Lawless judges! Lawless prosecutors! Lawless police! Lawless! Lawless! Lawless…

On 29 October 2009, the 86th anniversary of the founding of Republic of Turkey, you, Mr President, will meet with the Turkish prime minister. Perhaps this will be the day you both announce the birthday of the Islamic Republic of Turkey. Given what has happened to Turkey at the hands of the United States since Atatürk died, nothing would surprise me. And nothing would please Erdoğan more. And you, Mr President, should know.

Sincerely yours,

James (Cem) Ryan, Ph.D.

Istanbul, Turkey

(1) Letter to President Obama (20 January 2009):

(2) “How Turkey was lost”, Caroline Glick, 15 Oct. 2009.The Jerusalem Post

(3) “İki ‘garip’ Amerikalı”, (Two Weird Americans), Yeni Şafak, 29 April 2009

“By complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence”

—Mustafa Kemal

FOR REASONS UNKNOWN

October 20, 2009
Turkey Exposed:

Cannot Pretend to be

Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

Publisher, The California Courier

Playing the skillful political games of their Ottoman predecessors, Turkey’s current masters present their country under various guises — as European and Middle Eastern, Islamic and secular, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli.

It now appears that the end is near for at least one of these Turkish charades. Israeli officials have finally awakened from their prolonged coma to discover that their erstwhile “strategic partner” is far more hostile than their Arab enemies.

For a long time, Turkish leaders have been calling the Israelis all sorts of unsavory names and accusing Israel of committing barbaric acts, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Strangely, Israel has shown little indignation, even in the face of persistent racist and anti-Semitic outbursts by large segments of the Turkish public.

The latest display of Turkish hostility was the exclusion of Israel from a multinational military exercise which was to start in Turkey on October 12. In protest, the United States, Italy and Holland pulled out of these maneuvers, causing their cancellation. In a move designed to further irritate the Israelis, Turkey announced that it would instead hold joint military exercises with Syria, Israel’s main adversary.

Turkey’s Prime Minster Rejeb Erdogan told the Anatolia Press Agency last week that he had banned Israel from the military drill in response to the wishes of the Turkish public. “Turkey does not take orders from anyone in regards to its internal affairs,” Erdogan boasted. Some Turkish officials indicated that the ban was instituted because the Israeli jets assigned to the exercise had participated in the Gaza bombings earlier this year.

This episode marks a major escalation of the long-standing Turkish bitterness towards Israel. For the first time, the Turkish military joined the civilian government in adopting an anti-Israeli position. Furthermore, Turkey went beyond mere verbal condemnation to taking concrete action. For years, the Israeli government was willing to swallow insults from Turkish officials, as long as its Air Force was permitted to make practice runs in the vast Turkish airspace, shared intelligence, and sold military hardware to Turkey.

Making matters worse, Israelis were deeply offended by the broadcast of a Turkish show on state TV last week, depicting graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children and committing other atrocities.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted by summoning the Turkish ambassador and accused Turkey of inciting hatred against Israelis. Lieberman stated that not even Israel’s enemies would air such a hostile TV series. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses.” Another Israeli official stated: “We need to stop accepting the Turkish dictates and humiliations. It is inconceivable that they should insult us at every opportunity, and we should continue to hold our tongues.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected any future mediating role for Turkey in talks with Syria. An unnamed “senior Israeli official” was quoted by Haaretz as stating that the strategic ties with Turkey may “have simply ended.” Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post quoted some Israeli defense officials as stating that “advanced weapons sales to Turkey would now be reviewed.”

There were also widespread calls last week for the Israeli public to boycott Turkish resorts. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that Israel’s largest labor union would no longer plan for thousands of its workers organized tours of Turkey, and would direct them to go instead to Greece and Bulgaria. Since January, there has been a 47% drop in the number of Israelis spending their vacations in Turkey, according to Time magazine. An Israeli coffee shop chain expressed its displeasure by announcing that it would no longer serve Turkish coffee to its customers. In an unprecedented move, several Israeli cabinet ministers declared that they would turn down the Turkish Embassy’s invitation to attend Turkey’s Independence Day celebrations later this month.

Many outraged Israelis advocated that, in retaliation, Israel acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Dan Margalit of “Israel Hayom” newspaper accused the Turks of not only committing Genocide, but also the “ongoing crime, which is expressed in energetic Turkish activity to deny the atrocity and to incite against any country and government and artist who wish to express their horror.”

Ephraim Inbar, head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, reminded the Turks that they are still in need of “Israeli influence in Washington to prevent the passage in Congress of a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians during World War I a genocide.”

In an unprecedented action, the “Im Tirtzu” Israeli student movement held a protest last week in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. The students displayed bloody pictures of victims of the Armenian Genocide, handed out books on the Genocide to passersby, and carried signs calling on Turkey to formally recognize the Genocide.

To atone for its past sin of siding with Turkish denialists, Israel must officially affirm the Armenian Genocide as well as actively lobby for its recognition by other states. Israel should also permit the erection of a monument at a prominent location to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide and reverse its long-standing ban on TV broadcast of documentaries on this subject. It is certainly in Israel’s own interest to side with the victims of genocide rather than with its perpetrators!

Instead of maintaining at all cost its unholy alliance with Turkey, Israel should earnestly pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians and live in peace with its Arab neighbors, thus obviating the need to curry favors with the Turkish denialist regime.

==================== SUBJECT RELATED E-MAIL’S RECEIVED=

From: Ismet Takim [[email protected]]

Subject: {Pax Turcica} Our problems are just begining, l worned you all before, we play this game we will loose and guess who is happy???

READ

Turkey Exposed:

and any of you still have any questions about this? some of our readers here is also responsiable for this and you have no idea what we will face, you just sit and watch, pro Palestenian Turkey is comitting suicide,

Erdogan made the biggest mistake, and some of you who posts pro

Filistin BS, tags and articles here should be ashame of themselves

they have done a disservice and put our mainly my efforts back in

time, and we have to fix this now, l have to go to work again and undo some of this,

stupid stupid stupid bird brains bleeding hearts, stop your Anti Israel stands and get real, stop hurting Turkey,

======================================================

From: Metin Mangir [[email protected]]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

While we are all focussed on the Armenian issue (because of our

proxomity to the diaspora) Obama invited (!) Erdogan to come to WDC on

Oct 29 (with two weeks notice), following the cancellation of the joint

military exercises with Israel, US, and the increasing row with Israel

upon showing of a TV program on TRT. (now that Turkey has good

relations with Syria, does it not need Israel to squeeze Syria?? which

was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

The choice of date and such short notice is VERY significant (and

insulting)! The big brother is calling the errant boy on the carpet?

By the way, in general the news about the Armenian protocols are

positive in Turkey (amazing!). Very few voices are opposing it. Also

it has lost its luster as the “milli birlik acilimi” and the return of

34 people from Irak upon Ocalan’s orders has taken the center stage.

If the borders open the real big winner will be Russia, more than

Armenia. Since (rightly) Azerbeycan will be pissed off at Turkey and

the West, and get closer to Russia (if it can dare to play with such

danger) and the West, US will loose the Caucases.

What I do not understand is

1) how come US is willing to let this happen? What has Russia forced

upon US following Georgia?

2) Davutoglu, who has written in three different places in his book

about the crucial importance of Azerbeycan for Turkey, is going along

with this protocols steps?

Metin

==========================================

From: Ergun [[email protected]]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

Metin,

I suspect one major thing behind Obama’s sudden invitation: Afghanistan.

He may ask for more troops from Turkey. Secondarily, Iraq. O. may discuss

strategy with E. on the mechanics of US pull out, the vacuum in Iraq, etc.

All have to do with US involvement in unpopular, unwanted wars that are

draining the US economy and social life.

Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and others are little more than dressing for

the salad.

This is one man’s opinion. 🙂

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

===================================================

Statement released by National Security Council that met today is below. Afghanistan issue has been discussed. Turkey will resume Kabul Area Commandership for the second time.

Afganistan‘da son dönemde meydana gelen gelişmeler, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri dahil, değerlendirilmiş, ülkemizin Afganistan‘ın istikrarına yönelik katkı ve girişimlerinin sürdürüleceği belirtilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin Kabil Bölge Komutanlığı görevini Kasım 2009 başında ikinci defa alacağı, yine önceki görevlerde olduğu gibi, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin terörle mücadele, uyuşturucu ile mücadele, mayın temizleme görevlerinde kullanılmayacağı teyit edilmiştir.

Fariz Huseynov [[email protected]]

=======================================================================

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

dear Ergun

you are not alone for this opinion

is isn’t funny while we are disgracing our man and women in uniform ( TSK)
Obama needs our soldiers not government

if you didn’t have one of the best army in the middle east

O. wouldn’t care less for you

regardas,

vedat aslay

——————-

Dear Metin

Excellent observation and analysis

I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

Yes Russia it seems that the big winner?

how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

The is a big game going on over the middle east and Central Asia.

The player are strong and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, TURKEY and even Israel is foot soldiers in this game

Obama will make sure that Erdogan is not out of step. If he is you know in military

SOL, SAG, SOL SAG, SOL, SOL P……. SOL
Don’t worry this game is a long game and we are just watching part I

Vedat Aslay [email protected]

========================================================

From: Yusif [[email protected]]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

That’s correct. Russia will be a winner big time.

First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

politically.

Second, they will realize the South Stream project, always viewed as

an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

southern Europe and Turkey itself.

Third, under the pretext of protection of South Stream, Russia will

completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

and through Armenian element will be able to exert pressure on Turkey

and possibly other Middle Eastern states in the future. It benefits

Russia to see islamization of Turkey. The practice of moderate Islam

in the form of Gulenist ideology actually may suit Russia’s interests.

In regards to US interests in the deal there are several factors.

First of all, US was hoping for Russia’s support on the issues of

nuclear threat from Iran. In general, apart from everything else, it

is not in Russia’s interest to see containment and any sort of

democratization of Iran. There is 25 mln Azeri minority in Iran which

if needed could be a decisive factor in the future partition of Iran

or a tool to bring down the current mullah regime. That’s one of the

reasons Stalin was willing to and finally withdrew from Iran in 1946

because he did not want a more sizeable Azeri minority within Soviet

borders.

Secondly, in my opinion, it’s not the US that is exerting pressure on

Turkey. I think it’s Turkey which is using its inadequate behavior

with Israel to pressure the United States. If we go back to 2003 we

would see that Turkey was bold enough to withstand pressure from US

during proposed invasion of Iraq from Turkey. To me personally, it

doesn’t make sense to see America give up Azerbaijan and Georgia and

the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

politically.

As far as Turkey’s position about Azerbaijan is concerned, I think

they might have striken a deal on withdrawal of Armenian troops from 5

occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

mission. In any case, allowing any peacekeeping missions in Karabakh

would be disastrous for Azerbaijan. If Russia’s troops are allowed to

be stationed on Azerbaijani soil in any form, this would be the end of

Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

Georgia is a good example.

Presence of US troops would mean almost the same. Experience with

Kosovo is a good example. That’s why Kaidanow is all around (http://

www.a1plus.am/en/official/2009/10/20/nalbandian-tina-kaidanow)

Presence of Turkish troops, if any, would mean nothing at all,

especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

conflict and interim status of NK last forever, therefore ending in

partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

I guess, the original plan of these regional players is:

1. to strike a deal, have Armenian troops withdrawn from 5 regions;

2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

4. re-arrange routes of energy resources from Azerbaijan and Central

Asia through Armenia and/or through occupied Karabakh, as many allege;

5. build confidence between people of the region

6. hold a referendum in NK. Holding a referendum in Karabakh would

mean complete loss.

Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

Armenians in Karabakh. That’s when the numbers will matter.

Yusif

================================================

Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

From: Ergun [[email protected]]

The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

Case one: Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly. Check out these recent developments:

1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

4- Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan. If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia. Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out. We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package. Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

April 24 is not far away. We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines. (Prediction: the latter. Why? Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out. Huge mistake!)

Case two: Israel

This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

My take on all this:

I am not against dialog or peace. I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

October 20, 2009
Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

From: Ergun [[email protected]]

The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

Case one: Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly. Check out these recent developments:

1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

4- Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan. If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia. Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out. We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package. Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

April 24 is not far away. We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines. (Prediction: the latter. Why? Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out. Huge mistake!)

Case two: Israel

This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

My take on all this:

I am not against dialog or peace. I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

October 20, 2009
How Turkey was lost

Sunday, October 18, 2009

“Turkey is lost and we’d better make our peace with this devastating fact.” (Jerusalem Post)

Column One: How Turkey was lost

Oct. 15, 2009

Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST

Once the apotheosis of a pro-Western, dependable Muslim democracy, this week Turkey officially left the Western alliance and became a full member of the Iranian axis.

It isn’t that Ankara’s behavior changed fundamentally in recent days. There is nothing new in its massive hostility toward Israel and its effusive solicitousness toward the likes of Syria and Hamas. Since the Islamist AKP party first won control over the Turkish government in the 2002 elections, led by AKP chairman Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the Turks have incrementally and inexorably moved the formerly pro-Western Muslim democracy into the radical Islamist camp populated by the likes of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, al-Qaida and Hamas.

What made Turkey’s behavior this week different from its behavior in recent months and years is that its attacks were concentrated, unequivocal and undeniable for everyone outside of Israel’s scandalously imbecilic and flagellant media.

Until this week, both Israel and the US were quick to make excuses for Ankara. When in 2003 the AKP-dominated Turkish parliament prohibited US forces from invading Iraq through Kurdistan, the US blamed itself. Rather than get angry at Turkey, the Bush administration argued that its senior officials had played the diplomatic game poorly.

In February 2006, when Erdogan became the first international figure to host Hamas leaders on an official state visit after the jihadist group won the Palestinian elections, Jerusalem sought to explain away his diplomatic aggression. Israeli leaders claimed that Erdogan’s red carpet treatment for mass murderers who seek the physical destruction of Israel was not due to any inherent hostility on the part of the AKP regime toward Israel. Rather, it was argued that Ankara simply supported democracy and that the AKP, as a formerly outlawed Islamist party, felt an affinity toward Hamas as a Muslim underdog.

Jerusalem made similar excuses for Ankara when during the 2006 war with Hizbullah Turkey turned a blind eye to Iranian weapons convoys to Lebanon that traversed Turkey; when Turkey sided with Hamas against Israel during Operation Cast Lead, and called among other things for Israel to be expelled from the UN; and when Erdogan caused a diplomatic incident this past January by castigating President Shimon Peres during a joint appearance at the Davos conference. So, too, Turkey’s open support for Iran’s nuclear weapons program and its galloping trade with Teheran and Damascus, as well as its embrace of al-Qaida financiers have elicited nothing more than grumbles from Israel and America.

Initially, this week Israel sought to continue its policy of making excuses for Turkish aggression against it. On Sunday, after Turkey disinvited the IAF from the Anatolian Eagle joint air exercise with Turkey and NATO, senior officials like Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and opposition leader Tzipi Livni tried to make light of the incident, claiming that Turkey remains Israel’s strategic ally.

But Turkey wasted no time in making fools of them. On Monday, 11 Turkish government ministers descended on Syria to sign a pile of cooperation agreements with Iran’s Arab lackey. The Foreign Ministry didn’t even have a chance to write apologetic talking points explaining that brazen move before Syria announced it was entering a military alliance with Turkey and would be holding a joint military exercise with the Turkish military. Speechless in the wake of Turkey’s move to hold military maneuvers with its enemy just two days after it canceled joint training with Israel, Jerusalem could think of no mitigating explanation for the move.

Tuesday was characterized by escalating verbal assaults on the Jewish state. First Erdogan renewed his libelous allegations that Israel deliberately killed children in Gaza. Then he called on Turks to learn how to make money like Jews do.

Erdogan’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic blows were followed on Tuesday evening by Turkey’s government-controlled TRT1 television network’s launch of a new prime-time series portraying IDF soldiers as baby- and little girl-killers who force Palestinian women to deliver stillborn babies at roadblocks and line up groups of Palestinians against walls to execute them by firing squad.

The TRT1 broadcast forced Israel’s hand. Late on Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry announced it was launching an official protest with the Turkish Embassy. Unfortunately, it was unclear who would be coming to the Foreign Ministry to receive the demarche, since Turkey hasn’t had an ambassador in Israel for three weeks.

Turkey’s break with the West; its decisive rupture with Israel and its opposition to the US in Iraq and Iran was predictable. Militant Islam of the AKP variety has been enjoying growing popularity and support throughout Turkey for many years. The endemic corruption of Turkey’s traditional secular leaders increased the Islamists’ popularity. Given this domestic Turkish reality, it is possible that Erdogan and his fellow Islamists’ rise to power was simply a matter of time.

But even if the AKP’s rise to power was eminently predictable, its ability to consolidate its control over just about every organ of governance in Turkey as well as what was once a thriving free press, and change completely Turkey’s strategic posture in just seven years was far from inevitable. For these accomplishments the AKP owes a debt of gratitude to both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as to the EU.

The Bush administration ignored the warnings of secular Turkish leaders in the country’s media, military and diplomatic corps that Erdogan was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Rather than pay attention to his past attempts to undermine Turkey’s secular, pro-Western character and treat him with a modicum of suspicion, after the AKP electoral victory in 2002 the Bush administration upheld the AKP and Erdogan as paragons of Islamist moderation and proof positive that the US and the West have no problem with political Islam. Erdogan’s softly peddled but remorselessly consolidated Islamism was embraced by senior American officials intent on reducing democracy to a synonym for elections rather than acknowledging that democracy is only meaningful as a system of laws and practices that engender liberal egalitarianism.

In a very real sense, the Bush administration’s willingness to be taken in by Erdogan paved the way for its decision in 2005 to pressure Israel to allow Hamas to participate in the Palestinian elections and to coerce Egypt into allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in its parliamentary poll.

In Turkey itself, the administration’s enthusiastic embrace of the AKP meant that Erdogan encountered no Western opposition to his moves to end press freedom in Turkey; purge the Turkish military of its secular leaders and end its constitutional mandate to preserve Turkey’s secular character; intimidate and disenfranchise secular business leaders and diplomats; and stack the Turkish courts with Islamists. That is, in the name of its support for its water-downed definition of democracy, the US facilitated Erdogan’s subversion of all the Turkish institutions that enabled liberal norms to be maintained and kept Turkey in the Western alliance.

As for the Obama administration, since entering office in January it has abandoned US support for democracy activists throughout the world, in favor of a policy of pure appeasement of US adversaries at the expense of US allies. In keeping with this policy, President Barack Obama paid a preening visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed the Islamization of Turkish foreign policy that has moved the NATO member into the arms of Teheran’s mullahs. Taken together, the actions of the Bush and Obama White Houses have demoralized Westernized Turks, who now believe that their country is doomed to descend into the depths of Islamist extremism. As many see it, if they wish to remain in Turkey, their only recourse is to join the Islamist camp and add their voices to the rising chorus of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism sweeping the country.

Then there is the EU. For years Brussels has been stringing Turkey along, promising that if it enacts sufficient human rights reforms, the 80-million strong Muslim country will be permitted to join Europe. But far from inducing more liberal behavior on the part of Turkey, those supposedly enlightened reforms have paved the way for the Islamist ascendance in the country. By forcing Turkey to curb its military’s role as the guarantor of Turkish secularism, the EU took away the secularists’ last line of defense against the rising tide of the AKP. By forcing Turkey to treat its political prisoners humanely and cancel the death penalty, the EU eroded the secularists’ moral claim to leadership and weakened their ability to effectively combat both Kurdish and Islamist terror.

At the same time, by consistently refusing to permit Turkey to join the EU, despite Ankara’s moves to placate its political correctness, Brussels discredited still further Turkey’s secularists. When after all their self-defeating and self-abasing reforms, Europe still rejected them, the Turks needed to find a way to restore their wounded honor. The most natural means of doing so was for the Turks writ large to simply turn their backs on Europe and move toward their Muslim brethren.

For its part, as the lone Jewish state that belongs to no alliance, Israel had no ability to shape internal developments in Turkey. But still, Turkey’s decision to betray the West holds general lessons for Israel and for the free world as a whole. These lessons should be learned and applied moving forward not only to Turkey, but to a whole host of regimes and sub-national groups in the region and throughout the world.

In the first instance it is crucial for policy-makers to recognize that change is the only permanent feature of the human condition. A country’s presence in the Western camp today is no guarantee that it will remain there in the future. Whether a regime is democratic or authoritarian or somewhere in the middle, domestic conditions and trends play major roles in determining its strategic posture over time. This is just as true for Turkey as it is for the US, for Iran and for Sweden and Egypt.

The loss of Turkey shows that countries can and do change. The best way to influence that change is to remain true to one’s friends, even if those friends are imperfect. Only by strengthening those who share one’s country’s norms and interests – rather than its procedures and rhetoric – can governments exert constructive influence on internal changes in other states and societies.

Moreover, it is only by being willing to recognize what makes an ally an ally and an adversary an adversary that the West will adopt policies that leave it more secure in the long run. A military-controlled Turkish democracy that barred Islamists from political power was more desirable than a popularly elected AKP regime that has moved Turkey into the Iranian axis.

So, too, a corrupt Western-dependent regime in Afghanistan is more desirable than a Taliban-al-Qaida terror state. Likewise an unstable, weakened mullocracy in Iran challenged by a well-funded, liberal opposition is preferable to a strong, stable mullocracy that has successfully repressed its internationally isolated liberal rivals.

Turkey is lost and we’d better make our peace with this devastating fact. But if we learn its lessons, we can craft policies that check the dangers that Turkey projects and prepare for the day when Turkey may decide that it wishes to return to the Western fold.

[email protected]

Posted by Cem Ryan, Ph.D. at 1:05 AM

October 18, 2009
The Cypriot Stumbling Block

This analysis by Robert Ellis was first published at PoliGazette.

Like Ireland, Cyprus has been a victim of geography and both are today still divided. As the Arab geographer Muqaddasi wrote in 985: “The island of Qubrus is in the power of whichever nation is overlord in these seas”. And with its position 40 miles off the southern coast of Turkey and 70 miles from Syria it has been a strategic prize for centuries.

This outpost of Hellenic civilisation was conquered by the Crusaders in the twelfth century to secure their route to the Holy Land and later by Venice. When Famagusta fell to the Ottomans in 1571, the island’s fate was sealed. Therefore it is ironic that the British took over Cyprus with its mixed population in 1878 as a result of a deal with Turkey to protect the Ottoman Empire against the Russians, who have lurked in the background ever since.

The island’s Greek identity was emphasized in its support of the Greek revolt against Ottoman rule in 1821 and with the participation of both the Greek Cypriot majority and the Turkish Cypriot minority in a legislative council under British rule. When other Greek islands under Turkish occupation such as Crete and the Dodecanese were united with Greece, the same demand grew in Cyprus. As a result, a plebiscite held among Greek Cypriots in 1950 showed a 96.5 percent support for enosis (union with Greece).

As the British were only prepared to give the Cypriots limited self determination, a terrorist organisation EOKA was formed, which in 1955 launched a campaign to force Britain to withdraw. But the campaign was counter-productive, as this was met by the formation of the Turkish Cypriot paramilitary TMT with a demand for taksim (partition).

However, as Britain depended on the Middle East for 70 percent of its oil imports, it was not prepared to give up control of the island. As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden put it at the time: “No Cyprus, no certain facilities to protect our supply of oil. No oil, unemployment and hunger in Britain. It’s as simple as that.”

Consequently, Britain invited both Greece and Turkey to a conference in London to discuss questions concerning the Eastern Mediterranean. But as defence minister Selwyn Lloyd explained to the Cabinet before the conference: “Throughout the negotiations our aim would be to bring the Greeks up against the Turkish refusal to accept enosis and so condition them to accept a solution, which would leave sovereignty in our hands.”

Independence
The ruse was only partly successful, because under American pressure for guaranteed independence, a deal between was brokered between Greece and Turkey in 1959, which resulted in a power-sharing constitution and independence the following year. A Treaty of Establishment also provided for two permanent British bases, and a Treaty of Guarantee between the new Republic, Greece, Turkey and the UK, prohibited the union of Cyprus with any other state or partition.

Nevertheless, Greek Cypriot nationalists under the leadership of their new President, Archbishop Makarios, continued to strive for “Enosis and only enosis”. When Makarios three years later proposed a number of amendments to the Constitution, which reduced the status of the Turkish Cypriots to that of a minority, fighting broke out between the two communities. In March 1964 this resulted in a UN resolution to put in a peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, which has been in place for the last 45 years.

After an attack by the Greek Cypriot National Guard on Turkish Cypriot positions Turkey recciprocated with the bombing of Greek Cypriot villages and the situation was critical. Makarios, who had already joined the non-aligned movement, appealed to the Soviet Union for arms and support, and George Ball, the US Acting Secretary of State, told President Johnson they faced the most dangerous confrontation since the Cuban missile crisis.

With the additional risk of war between two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, Johnson addressed a severe warning to Turkey against military intervention. Consequently, Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, and Ball put forward a plan for the partition of Cyprus to solve what Johnson had called “one of the most complex problems on earth”.

Because of US preoccupation with the situation in Vietnam the plan was shelved but another outbreak of fighting in 1967 once again brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. By 1974 Makarios, “the Castro of the Mediterranean”, had succeeded in alienating the Greek junta, Turkey and the United States, who together brought about his downfall.

Partition
In July the same year the Greek junta instigated a coup to topple Makarios and five days later – when Britain failed to intervene – Turkey took matters in its own hands and invaded, dividing the island into two zones. The coup failed and Makarios was reinstated but a few months before he died in 1977 he came to the conclusion: “It is in the name of enosis Cyprus has been destroyed.”

Since 9/11 the strategic importance of the island has increased and a solution to the Cyprus question is the key to improved relations between EU and NATO. Turkey’s refusal to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, which became a member of the EU in 2004, is also a stumbling block to its own accession talks.

There have been numerous initiatives on the part of the UN to reunify Cyprus, latest the Annan Plan in 2004. This was, however, rejected by the Greek Cypriots, because it failed to provide for the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops and adequate restitution and compensation for the loss of Greek Cypriot property. There is also the fact that Turkey since the occupation has maintained a policy of colonisation and assimilation by mainland Turks.

In 1983 the Turkish Cypriots declared the northern part of the island to be an independent state, which has only been recognized by Turkey. This, or a confederation with the Greek Cypriot south, is the preferred Turkish solution but recently Turkey has struck an ominous note. In an echo of Germany’s “Heim ins Reich” (Back to the Reich) policy in 1938 Prime Minister Erdogan has indicated his patience is exhausted and Foreign Minister Davutoglu cannot say whether Turkey has reached its final borders as established by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty.

Given Turkey’s strategic importance, it would be unfortunate if Europe faced a new Sudetenland crisis, which would put an end to Turkey’s prospects of EU membership. And to do as Neville Chamberlain and dismiss the Cyprus issue as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” could be fatal.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in Denmark and from 2005-2008 was a frequent contributor to the Turkish Daily News.

October 17, 2009
ATAA’s analysis of Turkish-Armenian protocols gives no comfort

by Ferruh Demirmen

After the signing of Turkish-Armenian normalization protocols in Zurich on October 10, the Washington-based ATAA (Assembly of Turkish American Associations) issued an analysis of the protocols to clarify the reasons for its earlier endorsement of the normalization process. The announcement was issued by President Gunay Evinch.

Relying on the language in the protocols that refer to “territorial integrity,” “inviolability of frontiers,” “foreign sovereignty,” “refrain from the use of force,” and “recognition of the existing border,” the ATAA analysis draws the conclusion that, once the protocols take effect, Armenia would no longer have territorial claims against Turkey.

It further infers that Armenia would withdraw from the occupied Azeri territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, account for its human violations in the territory, and allow the return of over one million Azeri refugees.

Based on another clause that condemns terrorism, it is argued that ASALA-type terrorism and other acts of violence against Turks and Turkish interests would henceforth come to an end.

ATAA believes that the establishment of historical commission as envisioned in the protocols would prevent US Congressional resolutions on genocide allegations.

After making cross linkages between several clauses, the ATAA analysis further concludes, in a quasi-legal manner, that the opening of the common border between Turkey and Armenia should logically lead to the realization of goals embraced by the Turkish side noted above.

But the ATAA’s analysis is far from convincing. The conclusions reached are not based on any concrete steps that the protocols call for Armenia to implement. Rather, the analysis relies on the goodwill of Armenia, on expectations that a well-intentioned Armenia would deliver.

And herein lies the problem: counting on the sincerity and goodwill of Armenia. Considering Armenia’s past hostility toward Turkey, the instruments contained in its Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the Armenian officials’ public pronouncements, e.g., on the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and genocide allegations, prior to the signing of the protocols, it is naive to rely on the goodwill of Armenia.

The fact that the Armenian side objected to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s prepared statement to be delivered after the signing of the protocols in Zurich, says much about the supposed goodwill of Armenia. Without naming the conflict, Davutoğlu was going to make only an indirect reference to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, expressing the hope that the signing of protocols would lead to the resolution of the conflict. The Armenian side demurred, arguing behind doors that the statement would unnecessarily draw linkage between the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and the normalization process.

So much about good intentions!

Judging from the language in the protocols, there are also serious reservations as to the usefulness of a historical commission to resolve, once and for all, the thorny issue of genocide allegations.(1)

If Armenia is to be believed in its good intentions, the protocols would contain unambiguous clauses as to the steps Armenia would take, e.g., amend its Constitution, withdraw from Nagorno-Karabagh, in return for the opening of the border. The protocols contain no such quid pro quo.

In contrast, the language in the protocols on the opening of the common border is clear and unmistakable: Once the protocols are ratified, the common border would be opened within two months.

The open border, of course, would overwhelmingly benefit Armenia.

For all it cares, Armenia can easily stonewall for years the implementation of steps it is expected to take, prevaricating on its acts, while in the meantime the Turkey-Armenia border remains open. It can maintain, for example, that it is not making (overt) territorial claims on Turkey while at the same time refusing to amend its Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, or change the design of its national flag.

Or it can claim it is not actively pursuing “genocide” claims while winking at, and even secretly encouraging, genocide recognition efforts by the Armenian diaspora.

Or it can make a cosmetic withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabagh, arguing that it has fulfilled its obligations as far as “promoting peace in the region.”

And should Turkey contemplate re-closing the border because Armenia has not “delivered,” volleys of criticism from the American and European sympathizers of Armenia would surely follow.

Further, should the Turkish Parliament refuse to ratify the protocols for lack of progress on the Nagorno-Karabagh issue, as Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has inexplicably suggested recently, Turkey would surely be singled out for having bad faith in the Turkish-Armenian normalization process.

(Diplomatically, Erdoğan’s suggestion is a major faux pas, because there is no linkage in the protocols between the Nagorno-Karabagh issue and the normalization process. After giving repeated assurances to the Azeris on Nagorno-Karabagh, yet without any backing from the protocols, the PM has forced himself into a corner. Now he is expecting the Turkish Parliament to bail him out).

In conclusion, ATAA’s analysis, no doubt reflecting an idealistic outlook, is based on presumptive logic, or wishful thinking, and cannot be supported. ATAA says the normalization protocols are based on the concept of “constructive ambiguity” by which each side interprets the language as it sees fit. This is an interesting approach, but offers no comfort for the Turkish side – or, for that matter, the Azeri side.

ATAA should ponder: Would it ever sign a binding contract based pre-eminently on “constructive ambiguity,” wherein the only expressed certainty is for the advantage of the other side, but everything else is predicated on goodwill?

Nations signing intergovernmental agreements should be held to the same standards of credibility and accountability as persons who conclude private or business transactions.

ATAA issued its analysis on behalf of its Board of Directors. But ATAA also claimed in its announcement that it spoke on behalf of the Turkish-American community. A relevant question is: Has ATAA polled its members on the issue?

It is worth noting that almost all opposition parties in Turkey, certainly the major ones, are opposed to the Turkish-Armenian normalization process in its present form. They remember what happened in Cyprus.

(1) Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported: by Ferruh Demirmen, “Turkish Forum,” October 9, 2009.

[email protected]

Note to Turkish Forum readers: On October 10, the Azeri news outlet Trend News (http://en.trend.az)/ published on its website excerpts from my article cited above. The excerpted article, “Normalization of Ankara -Yerevan relations cannot be supported: Turkish expert,” was also published on the same day in Turkish Forum. The article contained a photo, purportedly depicting me. Turkish Forum readers are advised that the person depicted in that photo is not me. F. Demirmen.

October 16, 2009