Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkish Press Reacts to Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Turkish Press Reacts to Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Turkish Press Reacts to Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 163
    September 8, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
     
    On August 31 a joint statement issued by Turkey and Armenia announced that both had agreed to start talks on the establishment of diplomatic ties and the development of bilateral relations. The parties initialed two protocols to regulate these issues, and the consultations on these will be finalized within six weeks before being forwarded to their national parliaments for ratification (www.mfa.gov.tr, August 31). The announcement generated a heated debate on the future of Turkish-Armenian relations as well as its implications for Azerbaijan and the involvement of other international actors.

    The content of the protocols show that the parties built on the progress they had achieved by April, which was interrupted by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s intervention to allay the concerns of Azerbaijan. Following intense bilateral contacts, secret diplomacy and pressure from the United States and European countries, Turkey and Armenia announced a roadmap for normalization in April, the contents of which remained undisclosed. Due to mounting domestic opposition and protests from Azerbaijan, Erdogan reiterated unequivocally that the progress of Turkish-Armenian relations would be contingent upon Armenia’s constructive attitude in its dispute with Azerbaijan. To relieve Azeri concerns, Erdogan emphasized that Turkey would not proceed with normalization, without an end to the Armenian occupation of Karabakh (EDM, May 14). Although there were concerns that the normalization process might have come to a premature end, the parties maintained their secret dialogue facilitated by Switzerland (EDM, June 30).

    By reiterating their commitment to the peaceful resolution of regional disputes, the parties implicitly recognize the Karabakh issue, but the protocols make no mention of it, nor set it as a precondition for opening the Turkish-Armenian border. In taking this step despite this “missing element,” the Turkish government again raised concerns as to whether it might accelerate the rapprochement with Armenia by decoupling it from the Karabakh issue. Consequently, opposition both domestically and in Azerbaijan expressed discomfort with these developments. In response, Erdogan reconnected the two processes politically, by arguing that the ratification of the protocols would depend on the resolution of Karabakh issue, reflecting Ankara’s concern to keep Baku on board (Vatan, September 2).

    The leverage Azerbaijan exerts over Turkish foreign policy led to different interpretations from the Turkish press. The nationalist media continued to express their unconditional support for Azerbaijan’s position and criticized the government’s recent initiatives (Ortadogu, September 3)

    Many mainstream commentators, however, maintain that returning to the status quo ante might be difficult, and that instead of seeking to restore Karabakh through military means, Baku should focus on diplomatic measures to free the occupied Azeri territories, and in return grant greater autonomy to the area and open a corridor between Armenia and Karabakh (Milliyet, September 3). Although Erdogan might ideally prefer a maximalist position on the return of Karabakh, other actors within the Turkish government also seem to be ready to settle for such an arrangement recognizing the new reality in the region. In fact, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and President Abdullah Gul are interested in seeing the process through and opening the border by the end of the year (Radikal, September 2), despite Erdogan’s occasional nationalistic outbursts.

    Other commentators view the rapprochement as a partly American project and believe that both Turkey and Azerbaijan are urged, if not pressured, by the Obama administration to solve their problems with Armenia. They even suggest that the mediation services provided by Swiss diplomats might only represent a cover for American facilitation between the Turkish and Armenian delegations, which is partly shared by the opposition parties, mainly the Republican People’s Party (Milliyet, September 4; Hurriyet, September 2). The pro-government press, in contrast, challenges these arguments and maintains that searching for foreign actors behind such initiatives reflects a problematic attitude on the part of the Turkish opposition. It presents these recent developments as an achievement of the AKP government and treats them as affirmation of Turkey’s expanding role in regional diplomacy (Star, September 4).

    Explaining the normalization with reference to the involvement of outside actors inevitably raises questions about the motivations of “outsiders.” At this juncture, the role of energy issues is emphasized by the Turkish media. There is a perception that the process is promoted by the West as part of its energy policies. They speculate that Turkish-Armenian normalization is promoted in order that Armenia might emerge as an alternative route to Georgia for the future transportation of Caspian basin resources (Milliyet, September 3).

    Such analyses inevitably ignore the issue of the Russian position. There is already a process underway between Azerbaijan and Armenia toward the resolution of the Karabakh dispute, facilitated by Russia and supported by the United States. Although the Russian side claims that it is playing a constructive role, the Turkish media maintains some skepticism toward Moscow’s intentions. There are media reports maintaining that Russian intelligence found out about the secret talks between Ankara and Yerevan and passed this information to Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, which led him to distance himself from Turkey in April (Milliyet, September 3). If such reports are correct, they might indicate Russian efforts to sow seeds of distrust between Baku and Ankara, and undermine policies to integrate Yerevan into a Western orbit.

    It is unclear whether Aliyev was aware in advance of the signing of the recent protocols, but Ankara apparently made efforts to inform Baku. Indeed, it has been a growing concern for Ankara to comfort Baku about the secret talks with Yerevan, and regain Azeri confidence since the bitter episode in April. A few days before the recent announcement to sign the protocols, Erdogan spoke to Aliyev on the telephone and sent two special envoys to Baku to brief him on the progress in Turkish-Armenian talks (Zaman, August 28). Azerbaijan’s Ambassador in Ankara Zakir Hashimov said that Davutoglu reassured his Azeri counterpart that the border would not be opened before the resolution of the Karabakh issue (Hurriyet Daily News, September 6).

    In the days ahead, a new domestic and foreign policy challenge will confront the AKP government, as it seeks to refine the details of the normalization with Armenia. A breakthrough in Azeri-Armenian talks might untie the knot, but it remains to be seen whether the international and regional pressures on Baku and Yerevan will produce such an outcome.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-press-reacts-to-turkish-armenian-normalization/
  • Metro Views: Denying the ‘other’ Holocaust

    Metro Views: Denying the ‘other’ Holocaust

    moz screenshot

    By MARILYN HENRY

    Friends,   We locked horns Armenian falsifiers again, this time with at Jerusalem Post, Israel:

    Metro Views: Denying the ‘other’ Holocaust
    PLEASE POST your response using the talking points AT THE END (or your own words.)   Make a difference !   Ergun

    Ten years ago, I was in Armenia for Genocide Memorial Day. Armenians from their “galut” around the world had come to Yerevan to participate with local citizens in the solemn commemoration. I was with a group that came from the US, including Henry Morgenthau III. He was there because the government intended to honor his grandfather, the first Henry, who as the US ambassador to Constantinople in 1915 had raised the alarm about the Armenian genocide.

    In this photo provided by the Photlure photo agency in Armenia, a boy pauses in front of a wall-sized poster depicting the faces of 90 survivors of the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, in Yerevan, Armenia.
    Photo: AP [file]

    The Morgenthaus and I were Jews among the Armenians. After a week together, however, it was hard to remember that the Armenians weren’t Jews. We have much in common: lost families, lost homes, lost countries, lost languages, lives as minorities, a diaspora, fears of assimilation, factions in religious practice – and genocide, as well as foes who would deny that the genocide ever happened.

    BUT THIS also is where Jews and Armenians part. No civilized society will tolerate Holocaust denial. Nearly a century later, however, denial of the Armenian genocide persists, and it pops up in the most unexpected places.

    Most recently it was in the federal appeals court in California. In a ruling on August 20, two members of a three-judge appellate panel did not quite deny the Armenian genocide; it was more like “genocide squelching.” At issue was one of a handful of California laws that collectively extended the statutes of limitations so that Nazi victims, including slave laborers, as well as victims of the Armenian genocide, would have additional time to file various claims for redress from human rights abuses and other losses.

    The Armenians were seeking insurance payments from the period in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire during which they were deported and massacred by the Turks. This was akin to efforts within the Jewish community in the last decade to recover insurance payments for policies written during the Nazi era.

    Jewish insurance claims were handled by an international commission chaired by former US secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Armenians fended for themselves. Claims from the Ottoman/World War I era were handled by lawyers who dealt with individual insurance companies. The American insurer New York Life and the French company AXA reached settlements with the Armenians.

    The case in federal court in California pits Armenians against German insurance companies. (Let’s put aside for this discussion that German enterprises should be sensitive to any claim related to genocide, or that it was Hitler who blithely predicted that no one would remember the fate of the Armenians.) The German insurers resisted any discussion of claims, including the possibility of humanitarian settlements with payments to charitable institutions, said Brian Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney representing the Armenians.

    The German companies argued that US presidential foreign policy prohibits legislative recognition of an “Armenian genocide.” Although more than 40 American states have policies on the Armenian genocide, there is no federal policy recognizing it. Each time in recent years that a congressional resolution appeared likely to affirm that the genocide had occurred, the Bush and Clinton administrations argued against it, saying it would hurt American foreign policy by offending Turkey, a key ally. The Turks have never recognized the genocide; they refer to an Armenian revolt.

    In a very broad statement that went far beyond California’s laws on claims deadlines, the federal appellate panel concluded that “there is an express federal policy prohibiting legislative recognition of an ‘Armenian genocide.’”

    “By using the phrase ‘Armenian genocide,’ California has defied the president’s foreign policy preferences,” the panel ruled.

    It was not swayed by the fact that the federal government has not expressly prohibited states from using the phrase “Armenian genocide.” And the US government did not participate in this case, so its position on how states treat the genocide is entirely unclear.

    Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney, vowed to appeal to the full appellate court, saying the two judges’ ruling was “genocide-squelching.” “The court says the words ‘Armenian genocide’ when said by any state or local government violates the foreign powers of the US government and is unconstitutional,” he said. “Taken to its logical extreme, if these two judges are correct, no state or local government in the United States may use those words in any capacity.”

    THE COURT ignored the US record, including president Ronald Reagan’s 1981 proclamation explicitly referring to “the genocide of the Armenians,” said Rouben Adalian, director of the Armenian National Institute in Washington. “This decision has so many egregious mistakes it makes one wonder what else was going on. It is frightening to see how even judges could be so misled into dangerous and really shameful territory.”

    There is now concern that the ruling will be used as Turkish propaganda, and to expand the assault on teaching about the genocide in American public schools.

    In June, a federal judge in Boston rejected a lawsuit filed by several students, teachers and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations that challenged Massachusetts’ state curriculum. The education guidelines characterize the World War I-era deaths of Armenians as genocide. Mark Wolf, the chief judge of the US District Court in Massachusetts, said the sensitive questions on the historic tragedy should be debated in the legislature, not the courts.

    American Jews don’t face these horrific fights over atrocities and whether to teach them. New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Illinois have laws requiring the teaching of the Holocaust. Ten other states have regulations recommending Holocaust education. Twelve states also have Holocaust commissions or councils that support Holocaust education.

    But we surely remember our own battles against Holocaust denial. And as we are aggressive in protecting our history and in protesting contemporary atrocities such as in Darfur, so should we protest the denial of other atrocities of the past.

    0000000000000000000000

    Talking points you can use: ergun kirlikovali

    1) On August 20, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached an important verdict, that the State of California special-interest law passed in 2000, which was authored by an ethnically Armenian lawmaker in the California legislature, is unconstitutional, because it interfered with the power of the national government to conduct  foreign affairs. Both the Turkish government and the Turkish-American community had strenuously opposed the discriminatory 2000 state law,  but the arrogant  Armenian lobby would not listen. They will, now.

    2) How can factual Holocaust be the same as bogus genocide?  Did Jews establish Jewish armies behind German lines, kill noncombatant German citizens in order o establish a Jewish state on German soil during WWII?  Were Jews involved in terrorism, raids, rebellions, treason, territorial demands from Germany, or kill half a million Germans during WWII?  Ottoman-Armenians committed all those heinous war crimes and more during WWI.  Wouldn’t  equating the two be untrue and unethical?   And an insult to the silent memory of the Jewish victims of Holocaust?

    3) Nazi-Armenians passionately Helped Hitler during WWII:  Just google the words “Armenian Nazis”. You will see the 20,000 strong Armenian-Nazi  812nd battallion.  Armenian Nazi party operated radio stations in Armenia during the 1930s.  They were passionate killers of Jews during WWII -just like they were during WWI in Anatolia and the Caucasus.   The Armenian-Nazi  812nd battallion were later rewarded for their criminal anti-semitic acts by being transported all the way to Holland to help with”processing” of Jews there.  Perhaps even those “dark skinned” Nazis who arrested Anne Frank’s family were Armenians.

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Over 300,001 readers
    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have given the ability to evaluate study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. I evaluate situations first on a fundamental basis then try to confirm on a technical basis. In the past it has been fairly successful.

    This is a classic letter. Please read it. Cheerio !!!!
    From:
    This sender is DomainKeys verified
    “John Mauldin”
    Add sender to Contacts
    To:
    [email protected]
    This message was sent to [email protected].
    Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

    Thoughts from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter
    An Uncomfortable Choice
    by John Mauldin
    August 28, 2009

    In this issue:
    An Uncomfortable Choice
    What Were We Thinking?
    Frugality is the New Normal
    And Then We Face the Real Problem
    The Teenagers Are in Control
    Choose Wisely
    Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, New Orleans, Detroit, and More
    We have arrived at this particular economic moment in time by the choices we have made, which now leave us with choices in our future that will be neither easy, convenient, nor comfortable. Sometimes there are just no good choices, only less-bad ones. In this week’s letter we look at what some of those choices might be, and ponder their possible consequences. Are we headed for a double-dip recession? Read on.
    An Important Announcement
    But first, I want to make a very important announcement. There are not many times in a career when you can say that something new has been created in the financial services industry and that you have been a part of it. But now I can say that and, I must admit, with a little pride in helping to bring a new creation into the world.
    For years, Steve Blumenthal and I have shared a passion for bringing Absolute Return Strategies to all investors, not just the wealthy and institutional investors.
    I want to introduce you to a new mutual fund, one that is different than the typical long-only equity mutual fund. My friends and partners at CMG have created a mutual fund that is comprised of 9 different trading strategies, a “fund of trading strategies,” so to speak; and it’s one that I believe will be strategically suitable for the economic environment that I think we face. And, as a mutual fund, it is open to all investors.
    You can learn more about it by reading a report I have prepared, entitled “How to Deal with Volatility in Extraordinary Markets – Introducing the CMG Absolute Return Strategies Fund.” Simply click here.
    If you are an investment advisor or broker, you especially should read about this new fund and contact CMG directly for more information and reports. Full disclosure: as a consultant to the Advisor to the fund, my investment advisory firm does participate in the fees. And be sure and read all the disclosures and risk factors in the document.
    And now, let’s look at the choices we face.
    An Uncomfortable Choice
    As our family grew, we limited the choices our seven kids could make; but as they grew into teenagers, they were given more leeway. Not all of their choices were good. How many times did Dad say, “What were you thinking?” and get a mute reply or a mumbled “I don’t know.”
    Yet how else do you teach them that bad choices have bad consequences? You can lecture, you can be a role model; but in the end you have to let them make their own choices. And a lot of them make a lot of bad choices. After having raised six, with one more teenage son at home, I have come to the conclusion that you just breathe a sigh of relief if they grow up and have avoided fatal, life-altering choices. I am lucky. So far. Knock on a lot of wood.
    I have watched good kids from good families make bad choices, and kids with no seeming chance make good choices. But one thing I have observed. Very few teenagers make the hard choice without some outside encouragement or help in understanding the known consequences, from some source. They nearly always opt for the choice that involves the most fun and/or the least immediate pain, and then learn later that they now have to make yet another choice as a consequence of the original one. And thus they grow up. So quickly.
    But it’s not just teenagers. I am completely capable of making very bad choices as I approach the end of my sixth decade of human experiences and observations. In fact, I have made some rather distressing choices over time. Even in areas where I think I have some expertise I can make appallingly bad choices. Or maybe particularly in those areas, because I have delusions of actually knowing something. In my experience, it takes an expert with a powerful computer to truly foul things up.
    Of course, sometimes I get it right. Even I learn, with enough pain. And sometimes I just get lucky. (Although, as my less-than-sainted Dad repeatedly intoned, “The harder I work the luckier I get.”)
    Each morning is a new day, but it is a new day impacted by all the choices of the previous days and years. Tiffani and I have literally interviewed in depth well over a hundred millionaires, and talked anecdotally with hundreds over the years. I am struck by how their lives, and those of their families, come down to a few choices. Sometimes good choices and sometimes lucky choices. Often, difficult ones. But very few were the easy choice.
    What Were We Thinking?
    As a culture, the current mix of generations, especially in the US, has made some choices. Choices which, in hindsight, leave the adult in us asking, “What were we thinking?”
    In a way, we were like teenagers. We made the easy choice, not thinking of the consequences. We never absorbed the lessons of the Depression from our grandparents. We quickly forgot the sobering malaise of the ’70s as the bull market of the ’80s and ’90s gave us the illusion of wealth and an easy future. Even the crash of Black Friday seemed a mere bump on the path to success, passing so quickly. And as interest rates came down and money became easier, our propensity to acquire things took over.
    And then something really bad happened. Our homes started to rise in value and we learned through new methods of financial engineering that we could borrow against what seemed like their ever-rising value, to finance consumption today.
    We became Blimpie from the Popeye cartoons of our youth: “I will gladly repay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
    Not for us the lay-away programs of our parents, patiently paying something each week or month until the desired object could be taken home. Come to think of it, I am not sure if my kids (15 through 32) have ever even heard of a lay-away program, not with credit cards so easy to obtain. Next family brunch, I will explain this quaint concept. (Interestingly, I heard about a revival of the concept on CNBC radio, coming back from dropping Trey off at school this morning. Everything old is new again.)
    As a banking system, we made choices. We created all sorts of readily available credit, and packaged it in convenient, irresistible AAA-rated securities and sold them to a gullible world. We created liar loans, no-money-down loans, and no-documentation loans and expected them to act the same way that mortgages had in the past. What were the rating agencies thinking? Where were the adults supervising the sand box?
    (Oh, wait a minute. DThat’s the same group of regulators who now want more power and money.)
    It is not as if all this was done in some back alley by seedy-looking characters. This was done on TV and in books and advertisements. I remember the first time I saw an ad telling me to call this number to borrow up to 125% of the value of my home, and wondering how this could be a good idea.
    Turns out it can be a great idea for the salesmen, if they can package those loans into securities and sell them to foreigners, with everyone making large commissions on the way. The choice was to make a lot of money with no downside consequences to yourself. What teenager could say no?
    Greenspan keeping rates low aided and abetted that process. Starting two wars and pushing through a massive health-care package, along with no spending control from the Republican Party, ran up the fiscal deficits.
    Allowing credit default swaps to trade without an exchange or regulations. A culture that viscerally believed that the McMansions they were buying were an investment and not really debt. Yes, we were adolescents at the party to end all parties.
    Not to mention an investment industry that tells their clients that stocks earn 8% a year real returns (the report I mentioned at the beginning goes into detail about this). Even as stocks have gone nowhere for ten years, we largely believe (or at least hope) that the latest trend is just the beginning of the next bull market.
    It was not that there were no warnings. There were many, including from your humble analyst, who wrote about the coming train wreck that we are now trying to clean up. But those warnings were ignored.
    Actually, ignored is a nice way to put it. Derision. Scorn. Laughter. And worse, dismissal as a non-serious perpetual perma-bear. My corner of the investment-writing world takes a very thick skin.
    The good times had lasted so long, how could the trend not be correct? It is human nature to believe the current trend, especially a favorable one that helps us, will continue forever.
    And just like a teenager who doesn’t think about the consequences of the current fun, we paid no attention. We hadn’t experienced the hard lessons of our elders, who learned them in the depths of the Depression. This time it was different. We were smarter and wouldn’t make those mistakes. Didn’t we have the research of Bernanke and others, telling us what to avoid?
    In millions of different ways, we all partied on. It wasn’t exclusively a liberal or a conservative, a rich or apoor, a male or a female addiction. We all borrowed and spent. We did it as individuals, and we did it as cities and states and countries.
    We ran up unfunded pension deficits at many local and state funds, to the tune of several trillion dollars and rising. We have a massive, tens of trillions of dollars, bill coming due for Social Security and Medicare, starting in the next 5-7 years, that makes the current crisis pale in comparison. We now seemingly want to add to this by passing even more spending programs that will only make the hole deeper.
    Frugality is the New Normal
    I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The time for good choices was a decade ago. It would have been more difficult at the time, so that is not what we did. And now we wake up and are faced with a set of choices, none of them good.
    Reality is staring back in the mirror at the American consumer, and especially the Boomer generation. The psyche of the American consumer has been permanently seared. We are watching savings beginning to rise and consumer spending patterns change for the first time in generations. Even as the authorities try to prod consumers back into old habits, they are not responding. Borrowing and credit are actually falling. Banks, for whatever reason, now want borrowers to actually be able to pay them back. Go figure.
    Frugality is the new normal. We are resetting the underpinnings of a consumer-driven society to a new level. It will require a major overhaul of our economy. The normal drivers of growth – consumer spending, business investment, and exports – are all weak, and it is only because of massive government spending that the second quarter was not as bad as the two previous quarters and that the coming quarter will be positive.
    But what then? How long can we continue with 10%-plus GDP deficits? We have an economy that is in a Statistical Recovery, fueled by government largesse. In the real world, we are watching unemployment rise, and it is likely to do so through the middle of next year. Deflation is in the air. Capacity utilization is near all-time lows. Housing numbers are only bouncing because of the government program of large tax credits for first-time home buyers and lower home prices. It will be years before construction is significant.
    We will be faced with a choice this fall and early next year. If you take away the government spending, the potential for falling back into a recession is quite high, given the underlying weakness in the economy. A few hundred billion for increased and extended unemployment benefits will not be enough to stem the tide. There will be a groundswell for yet another stimulus package. Another 10% of GDP deficit is quite likely for next year.
    As I (and Woody Brock) have made very clear in these e-letters, deficits that are higher than nominal GDP cannot continue without dire consequences. Good friend Richard Russell writes today:
    “The US national debt is now over $11 trillion dollars. The interest on our national debt is now $340 billion. This is about at 3.04% rate of interest. In ten years the Obama administration admits that they will add $9 trillion to the national debt. That would take it to $20 trillion. Let’s say that by some miracle the interest on the national debt in 10 years will still be 3.09%. That would mean that the interest on the national debt would be $618 billion a year or over one billion a day. No nation can hold up in the face of those kinds of expenses. Either the dollar would collapse or interest rates would go through the roof.”
    That would be at least 30% of the national budget. How would your household do, paying that much as interest? How can you operate when interest payments are 30% or more of the budget? Do you borrow to pay the interest? And the Obama administration openly admits to deficits of over a trillion a year for the next ten years, under very rosy growth assumptions. Anyone outside of Washington and rosy-eyed economists think we will grow 4% next year? I am not seeing many hands go up.
    And Then We Face the Real Problem
    If we do not maintain high deficits, it is likely we fall back into recession. Yet if we do not control spending, we risk running up a debt that becomes very difficult to finance by conventional means. Monetizing the debt can only work for a few trillion here or there. At some point, the bond market will simply fall apart. And it could happen quickly. Think back to how fast things fell apart in the summer of 2007. When perception of the potential for inflation changes, it changes things fast.
    The problem is that we are now in a very deflationary world. Deleveraging, too much capacity, high and rising unemployment, falling real incomes, and more are all the classic pieces of the formula for deflation.
    Let’s look at what my friend Nouriel Roubini recently wrote. I think he hit the nail on the head:
    “A combination of higher official indebtedness and monetization has the potential to yield the worst of all worlds, pushing up long-term rates and generating increased inflation expectations before a convincing return to growth takes hold. An early return to higher long-term rates will crowd out private demand, as lending rates on mortgages and personal and corporate loans rise too. It is unlikely that actual inflation will emerge this year or even next, but inflation expectations as reflected in long-term interest rates could well be rising later in 2010. This would represent a serious threat to economic recovery, which is predicated on the idea that the actual borrowing rates that individuals and businesses pay will remain low for an extended period.
    “Yet the alternative – the early withdrawal of the stimulus drug that governments have been dispensing so freely – is even more serious. The present administration believes that deflation is a worse threat than inflation. They are right to think that. Trying to rebuild public finances at a deflationary moment – a time when unemployment is rising, and private demand is still contracting – could be catastrophic, turning recovery into renewed recession.”
    There are no good choices. Nouriel, optimist that he is (note sarcasm), suggests that there is a possibility that the government can manage expectations by showing a clear path to fiscal responsibility that can be believed. And thus the bond markets do not force rates higher, thereby thwarting recovery.
    And technically he is right. If there were adults supervising the party, it might be possible. But there are not. The teenagers are in control. Instead of fiscal discipline, we are hearing increased demands for more spending. Please note that the very rosy future-deficit assumptions assume the end of the Bush tax cuts at the close of 2010. But raising taxes back to the level of 2000 does not make the projected future budget deficits go away.
    I mean, seriously, does anyone think Pelosi or Reid are going to lead us to fiscal constraint? Obama talks a good game, but he has not offered a serious deficit-reduction proposal, other than further tax increases. And by serious, I mean we need cuts on the order of several hundred billion dollars. The Republicans lost their way and their power (deservedly, in my opinion). Just as at the high school prom, the very few adults are being ignored.
    It is the proverbial rock and the hard place. Cut the stimulus too soon and we slide back into a deeper recession. Let the budget spin out of control for a few years and we will see inflation return, with higher rates and a recession. Raise taxes by 1.5-2% of GDP in 2010 and we are shoved back into recession.
    There are no good choices. If we do the right thing and cut the deficit, it means very hard choices. Can we keep our commitments to two wars and our massive defense budget? Medicare and Social Security reform are not painless. Education? Research? The “stimulus”? But cutting the deficit by hundreds of billions while raising taxes by even more than is already in the works, is not the formula for sustainable recovery.
    Have we grown up? Are there adults in the room? Sadly, I don’t think there are enough. We are still a nation of teenagers. We will do whatever we can to avoid the pain today. We will kick the can down the road, hoping for a miracle. Will we grow up? Yes, but the lessons learned will be hard.
    There are no statistical signs of an impending recession. We are not going to get an inverted yield curve this time, which made it relatively easy for me to predict recessions in 2000 and 2006. We are in a deflationary, deleveraging world. A far different world than in the past.
    I see little room for us to avoid a double-dip recession. It would take the skill and speed of former Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett hitting a very small hole in the line to break us into the open. I see no running back in our national leadership with such ability. As I have outlined above, recession could be triggered again in any number of very different economic environments. It all depends on the choices we make. But the choices lead to the same consequences, at least in my opinion.
    As I wrote in August 2000 and August 2006, I write again in August 2009: there is a recession in our future. I was early both of those times and I am early now, maybe two years early, though I doubt it. And as I pointed out both of those last times, the stock market drops an average of over 40% during a recession. When I was on Kudlow in October of 2006, I was given a hard time about my recession call and prediction of a bear market. I think it was John Rutherford who dismissed my bearish vision. And he was right for the next three quarters, as the market proceeded to rise another 20%. I looked foolish to many, but I maintained my views.
    You have choices. You can buy and hold (buy and hope?) or you can develop a strategic alternative. The next bear market, as I wrote in 2003 and in Bull’s Eye Investing, will likely be the bottom. (It takes at least three of them to really take us to the bottom.) But the next one will change perceptions for a long time. Valuations will drop. Savings will rise even more. And a generation will grow up. The adults will return. Chastened. Scarred. Shaken. But we will Muddle Through. That is what we do. Even my teenagers.
    Choose wisely.
    Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, New Orleans, Detroit, and More
    Only a month ago my fall schedule looked surprisingly light. And then reality hit. I will be at the Schwab conference in San Diego on September 15. If you are going to be there, drop me a note. That is my only trip in September. But then it gets interesting. I celebrate my 60th birthday the first weekend of October, then fly to New Orleans to be at the annual New Orleans Conference, October 8-11. The speaker line-up is better than ever. I find this to be one of the best conferences I go to very year. I have been attending on and off for over 25 years. You should think about this one.
    Then I will spend the next weekend in Detroit, then probably go to New York, then Philadelphia for a CMG conference October 20, then down to Houston, over to Orlando, stop to change clothes and pack at home, and then fly off on a whirlwind trip to Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, speaking at a series of CFA conferences. Orlando in mid-November … and nothing else so far. Switzerland and London in January.
    I recently did an interview with King World News that was quite frankly one of the best interviews I have ever done. Eric King really got me going. It is in two parts. I give you the link to the first part, and the second is in their archives. There are also interviews with a very serious group of names. I am flattered to be included. Click here.
    It is time to hit the send button. I am resisting the temptation to launch into politics, so I need to quit before I do. Suffice it to say, we could see some big changes as we work through our teenage years, back to adulthood.
    Speaking of good choices, the wedding last weekend was fabulous. I am delighted with my new son-in-law. Life goes on, even as my kids struggle to get enough hours of work and money. Henry is at UPS, and work hours are way down and they have a new son. Chad finally got a new job, which may give him enough hours to survive, but not a lot of money. For those of you who think I live in an ivory tower, I do have a view into the lives of seven kids who are very real people, as well as those of lots of friends. I am very well aware of how tough it is out there, and realize how blessed I am.
    You have a great week. Tomorrow I get to go the Dallas Cowboys game in the new stadium in a suite, courtesy of a friend who got the seats from Jerry Jones himself. Not sure where, but it sounds cool. Sometimes life gives you lucky breaks.
    Your amazed to still be writing after all these years analyst,

    John Mauldin
    [email protected]
    Copyright 2009 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved

    Note: The generic Accredited Investor E-letters are not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for accredited investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and Altegris Investments at www.accreditedinvestor.ws or directly related websites and have been so registered for no less than 30 days. The Accredited Investor E-Letter is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited Investor E-Letter are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; and Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.
    Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

    You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print as long as the following is included:

    John Mauldin, Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore

    To subscribe to John Mauldin’s E-Letter please click here:
    http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/subscribe.asp

    To change your email address please click here:
    http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/change.asp

    If you would ALSO like changes applied to the Accredited Investor E- Letter, please include your old and new email address along with a note requesting the change for both e-letters and send your request to [email protected]

    To unsubscribe please refer to the bottom of the email.

    PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.

    John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.

    Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC may or may not have investments in any funds cited above. John Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.
    ________________________________________
    EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
    http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/unsubscribe.asp
    Or send an email To: [email protected]
    This email was sent to [email protected]
    ________________________________________

    Thoughts from the Frontline
    3204 Beverly Drive
    Dallas, Texas 75205

    Richard C De Graff
    256 Ashford Road
    RER Eastford Ct 06242
    860-522-7171 Main Office
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    [email protected]

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.

  • LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA

    LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA

    It is a letter from SSA to Obama, answering ANCA…

    ssaya

    ———————————————————————

    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    As soon as I read the rude, accusatory, and outright disrespectful letter written to you by Kenneth V. Hachikian, Chairman of ANCA-a shady group currently under investigation by federal agencies for alleged campaign finance and lobbying violations-I felt compelled to write to you.

    The letter,  quite short of accustomed courtesy and respect when addressing the White House, was urging you to reject the recent ruling of a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Movsesian v. Versicherung A.G. (No. 07-56722, August 20, 2009), which struck down a California special-interest law providing remedies to ethnic Armenians for alleged wrongs during an alleged genocide.

    Apparently, no one taught these Armenians about the separation of powers in America and that it is un-American for the executive branch to contravene the judicial branch (or legislative branch.)  Such a practice may be all right in Armenia, a land-locked, poverty-stricken, corrupt, aggressive, and violent Armenia, but it is frowned upon in America.

    The disrespectful Armenian letter writer also seemed ignorant of the federal supremacy law which basically says state laws cannot replace, void, or overrule federal laws.  The wily and tricky Armenian lobby thought they found the short-cut:  apply local political pressure to get a tailor-made state law to bypass all federal laws.  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saw to it that those Armenian falsifiers got a good lesson on American government.

    The insolent Armenian letter writer, in asking the White House to interfere with the decision of U.S. Court of Appeals or evaluate a California State Law interpretation as superior to Federal Laws and U.S. Constitution, in effect, was forcing the U.S. Government to violate written bilateral agreements with the sovereign Republic of Turkey.  Thus, the deceptive and tiny Armenian lobby was indirectly attempting  to manipulate American  foreign policy.  This is more than the  tail wagging the dog; this must be “tip of the tail” wagging the dog.

    The expression such as “Genocide era wrongs” is not based on any acceptable judicial decision, but on a set of “hearsay and forgeries” promoted deceptively by biased persons or organizations.

    Armenians also fail to understand that campaign pledges and responsibility of an office after election are two vastly different, and sometimes diametrically opposing things.  American interests always trump Armenian demands.

    That said, a responsible, truth-defending President, is expected to investigate deeper any pledges made during election campaigns and refrain from unrealistic, untrue, or  unethical pledges.

    The “Armenian Genocide” allegations are not supported by the verdict of any “competent tribunal” as set forth by the 1948 U.N. Convention.  Such terminology, therefore, is not more than a political statement based on hearsay, forgeries, falsifications, fabrications, distortions, and outright lies.  Not every killing or suffering is genocide.  Not every war crime or hate crime is genocide.  Not every photo, tall tale, documentary, film, book is genocide.  Genocide verdict can only be  given at a competent tribunal after due process where all sides are given a fair chance to tell its side of the story and cross examine the evidence and witnesses.  This was never done in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict. Armenians are trying to bypass legislation by applying political pressure.  But it will not work!

    On the contrary, the U.S. records in archives bear plenty evidence that the exact opposite is true, or that brutalities were mutual and mostly inflicted by the ancestors of the claimants.

    Armenian propaganda organizations such as ANCA  should be aware of the fact that the new Turkish Republic had agreed with U.S.A. on Dec. 24, 1923 to study all claims and compensate for the actual losses suffered by the U.S. Citizens, until that date.

    ANCA should also be aware that a joint Committee had been empowered with another agreement dated October 25, 1934 and all U.S. citizens or claimants had been given a deadline to submit their claims and evidences. The claims that had been submitted were meticulously verified.  A further agreement of “Adjustment of Payment” No.168 dated Sept.8, 1937 had been concluded with Turkey.  U.S.A. had confirmed with letter No.93, 1937 to the Republic of Turkey, that  “…when the agreed amount is paid, Turkey will be fully discharged of the obligations previously agreed…:

    Turkey had fulfilled the agreement; claimants had been accordingly paid and USA has no longer any lawful rights to request , 72 years later, additional indemnities for cases studied and settled in 1937!

    Accusing U.S. Governments for “complicity on genocide denial” is an insult to USA and Turkey, as long as the humiliation of  “genocide” stands as a word in the air, never decided by a competent tribunal.

    ANCA organization does not have the immunity to call other parties “criminal”, unless the “crime is proven and the judicial verdict is at hand”.   Declarations by some Parliaments or other legally irrelevant and/or unauthorized groups are political and have no judicial merit.  They may stroke Armenian egos, but are, otherwise, worthless gestures of bias and bigotry.

    Vague expressions and accusations such as “race extermination or over 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives” stands much short of truths and the U.S. state archives refute them openly because:

    a- “American Military Mission to Armenia” (General Harbord) Report 1920 and Annex Report Nat. Archives 184.021/175  does not mention any “race extermination” but refers to “refinements of cruelty by Armenians to Muslims”.

    b-  Joint US-Congress Resolution no. 192, April 22, 1922 relative to the activities of Near East Relief ending 31.12.1921, has unanimously resolved that a total of 1,414,000 Armenians were alive.  Moreover, (George Montgomery) a member of the US delegation at the Paris Conference had presented a detailed tabulation in 1919, with a total of 1,104,000 Armenians alive apart from those who had already immigrated to other countries.

    c- Reliable sources show that THE TOTAL ARMENIAN POPULATION in the Ottoman Empire was less than 1.3 MILLION ( or up to a maximum of 1.5 millions) and hence it would be ANCA’s liability to “defy and annul these official U.S. State Records”.

    ANCA is charging the Obama administration of “blocking legal redress of U.S. citizens” without minimal proof.  ANCA should be aware of the fact that the Obama administration is responsible for protecting the rights and interests of all true citizens, that is after they have been naturalized.  In other words, the Obama administration cannot be held responsible for the loss of life, property, or inheritance by those in other countries from where they immigrated to the U.S.. Such cases were settled by former USA Administrations at that time. This does not limit the “U.S. citizens from pursuing their personal claims individually in other countries” under their own liabilities. USA cannot disregard or deviate from her written obligations in international agreements under any ethnic pressure, such as by ANCA.

    If  ANCA lobby organization is disappointed because Obama treats American citizens of Armenian ethnicity equally with all other American citizens and cannot extend special privileges to ANCA, then I am afraid,  ANCA is giving priority to ANCA leaders’ private interests over the interests of American citizens over all.

    There is no place for any prejudice or antagonism in USA’s relations with other countries. It is hard to understand or justify why Armenian community is so fearful of “any type of investigation” (by historical commission or others) unless, of course, there are facts that Armenians do not wish to be brought into the light.

    Obama Administration has taken an oath to serve all American citizens, equally, and to protect their overall interests.  A U.S. president cannot support  unproven allegations or hearsay that may tarnish American values like justice, fairness, openness, honesty, equality, and compassion for all.   Obama administration, I hope, will never be part of “any prejudice or antagonism” against any ethnicity, nation, race, or faith.

    I welcome ANCA’s offer to discuss “these matters personally in greater detail” when Armenian falsifiers would support my desire to hear what “other American citizens” may have to say equally in a friendly, civilized, and fair conference !

    Sukru Server Aya

    Author of “Genocide of Lies”

    Istanbul

    Turkiye

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

    Subject: Letter FROM  ANCA to President Obama

    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    I am writing to urge you to take immediate steps to publicly reject the flawed ruling of a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Movsesian v. Versicherung A.G. (No. 07-56722, August 20, 2009), that struck down a California law providing remedies for Armenian Genocide-era wrongs, and argued that state level recognition of this crime contradicts “express federal policy” and is therefore unconstitutional.

    – The accusation tone of the letter is short of accustomed politeness, when addressing the White House!

    – The White House is asked to interfere with the decision of U.S. Court of Appeals or evaluate a California State Law interpretation as superior to Federal Laws and U.S. Constitution or force the U.S. Government to deflect from written bilateral agreements with the sovereign Republic of Turkey.

    – The expression such as “Genocide era wrongs” is not based on any acceptable judicial decision, other than being a “rumor” circulated by biased persons or organizations.

    You bear direct responsibility, Mr. President, by virtue of your failure to keep your repeated, crystal clear pledges to recognize the Armenian Genocide, for the Court’s judgment that it is the official policy of the Executive Branch of the United States government to actively oppose proper recognition of this crime and, upon this basis, to thus prohibit states from passing laws to help Armenian Genocide-era victims seek to reclaim lost or stolen property. The Court’s interpretation of your broken promise marks an unmistakable and historic low in our government’s long complicity in Turkey’s campaign of genocide denial.

    – A responsible-truth defending President, is expected to investigate deeper any pledges done during election campaigns and refrain from acting unconstitutional or unethical, just for a hasty pledge. The “Armenian Genocide” terminology is not supported by the verdict of any internationally recognized and authorized court, and legally stands no more than an allegation, hearsay, rumor and alike. The allegation of “crime” is not evidenced. On the contrary, the U.S. records in archives bear plenty evidence that the very opposite is true, or that brutalities were bilateral and mostly inflicted by the ancestors of the claimants.

    – Your organization should be aware of the fact that the new Turkish Republic agreed with U.S.A. on Dec. 24, 1923 to study and compensate the actual losses suffered by the U.S. Citizens, until that date. You should also be aware that a joint Committee was empowered with another agreement dated Oct.25, 1934 and all U.S. citizens or claimants have been given a date line to submit their claims and evidences. The claims that have been verified have been enlisted and a further agreement of “Adjustment of Payment” No.168 dated Sept.8, 1937 was concluded with Turkey. U.S.A. has confirmed with letter No.93, 1937 to the Republic of Turkey, that when the agreed amount is paid, Turkey will be “fully discharged of the obligations previously agreed”. Turkey has fulfilled the agreement, claimants have been accordingly paid and USA does not have any lawful rights to request (almost a century later) additional indemnities for cases studied and settled at that time!

    – Accusing U.S. Governments for “complicity on genocide denial” is an insult to USA and Turkey, as long as the humiliation of “genocide” stands as a word in the air, never argued or approved by an authorized tribunal. Your organization does not have the immunity to call other parties “criminal”, unless the “crime is proven and the judicial verdict is at hand”. Declarations by some Parliaments or other legally unauthorized groups are political and have no judicial merit!

    As you know, over 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives and, of course, many more were deprived of their property as a result of the Ottoman Turkish government’s systematic and deliberate campaign of race extermination. It is particularly tragic, given the thorough understanding that you have articulated regarding the moral, historical, and political meaning of this crime, that, it is under your leadership that the United States government is today not only engaged in complicity in genocide denial, but also, according to a judicial ruling, actively working to ensure that the remaining survivors and their families are denied avenues to seek to reclaim property lost during these massacres.

    – Vague expressions and accusations such as “race extermination or over 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives” stands much short of truths and the U.S. state archives because:

    a- “American Military Mission to Armenia” (General Harbord) Report 1920 and Annex Report Nat. Archives 184.021/175

    does not mention any “race extermination” but refers to “refinements of cruelty by Armenians to Muslims”.

    b- Joint US-Congress Resolution no. 192, April 22, 1922 relative to the activities of Near East Relief ending 31.12.1921, has unanimously resolved that a total of 1.414.000 Armenians were alive. Moreover, (George Montgomery) a member of the US delegation at the Paris Conference had presented a detailed tabulation in 1919, with a total of 1.104.000 Armenians alive apart from those who had already immigrated to other countries.

    c- Reliable sources show that the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was less than 1.3 million ( or max. 1.5 millions) and hence it would be your liability to “defy and annul these official U.S. State Records”.

    Your Administration’s policies, as understood and affirmed by the Court, in addition to blocking legal redress for U.S. citizens, have now opened the door—in unprecedented and profoundly dangerous ways—for interests aligned with the Turkish government to seek to roll back several generations of American civil society efforts to mark this tragedy, including through formal recognition by 42 U.S. states. As such, we once again urge you to publicly reject the Court’s interpretation of your Administration’s position and call upon you to honor your covenant with American voters to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide.

    – Your organization is charging the Administration of “blocking legal redress of U.S. citizens” without minimal proof.

    Your organization should be aware of the fact that the Administration is responsible to protect the rights and interests of all her citizens, but after they have been naturalized. In other words, the Administration is not responsible for the loss of properties or inheritance of her citizens in the past or in the countries from where they immigrated. Such cases were settled by USA Administration at that time. This does not limit the “U.S. citizens from pursuing their personal claims individually in other countries” under their own liabilities. USA cannot deviate from her written agreements under any pressure.

    In closing, I would like to stress to you, once again, how broadly and profoundly disappointing your failure to honor your many commitments on issues of special concern to Armenian American citizens has been for the ANCA, a grassroots organization that, based upon your track record and series of publicly stated commitments, enthusiastically endorsed your candidacy and successfully mobilized an unprecedented community drive to help secure your election. In the wake of your many broken campaign commitments, your silence in the face of this profoundly misguided judicial action would compound the Armenian American community’s sense of betrayal regarding your Administration’s behind the scenes efforts to block adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, your White House’s use of Turkey’s cynically-inspired “roadmap” to defer U.S. recognition, and your State Department’s shameless pressure on Armenia to accept the artificial “historical commission” that Ankara has long advanced to prevent the proper recognition of this crime.

    We remain ready, as we have shared with you on a number of past occasions, to meet with you to discuss these matters personally and in greater detail.

    [signed]
    Kenneth V. Hachikian
    Chairman

    – If your organization is disappointed because I treat American citizens of Armenian ethnicity equally with all other American citizens and cannot extend special treat for ANCA for my (secret vote) candidacy, I am afraid that your influence (if any) on your community has given priority to your personal interests and not to the interests of American citizens over all.

    There is no place for any prejudice or antagonism in USA’s relations with all other countries. It is hard to understand or justify why your community is afraid of “any type of investigation” (historical commission or others) unless there are facts that you do not wish to be brought into the light.

    My Administration has taken an oath to serve all American citizens equally and to protect their overall interests and cannot support unproven allegations or hearsays that may tarnish our commitment to “justice – openness – equality – compassion” for all parties. My administration will never be part of “any prejudice or antagonism” against any ethnicity, nation, race or faith!

    I welcome your offer to discuss “these matters personally in greater detail” when you would support my desire to hear what “other American citizens” may have to say equally in a friendly open– hearted meeting!

    (For the WHITE HOUSE !)

  • Turkey Seeks Closer Energy Partnership and LNG Contract with Qatar

    Turkey Seeks Closer Energy Partnership and LNG Contract with Qatar

    Turkey Seeks Closer Energy Partnership and LNG Contract with Qatar

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 158
    August 18, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, paid a two day visit to Turkey on August 17-18, as the guest of Turkish President Abdullah Gul. They both signed several agreements aimed at improving bilateral relations, including promoting closer cooperation on energy issues.

    On August 17, Gul and al-Thani met in Istanbul. The Turkish and Qatari delegations held working meetings during the day, discussing regional issues as well as bilateral cooperation. The first bilateral agreement signed involved a protocol concerning regulating labor issues between the two countries. The second agreement was inked between Turkish Radio and Television Corporation and Qatar’s State Television to enhance broadcasting cooperation. The parties also signed a memorandum of understanding on waiving visa requirements for their citizens (Cihan, August 17).

    During the press briefing, Gul emphasized that the high-level delegation accompanying al-Thani indicated the importance that Qatar attaches to Turkey. He noted that economic cooperation was the most important aspect of bilateral ties and highlighted Qatar’s help in facilitating Turkey’s relations with other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Gul also referred to Qatar’s constructive role in regional affairs and praised his counterpart’s efforts to mediate over regional problems. He reiterated that Turkey and Qatar held similar positions on many issues, and that they had worked together to promote regional peace. Al-Thani also highlighted their growing bilateral ties and expressed his determination to further develop this relationship. Moreover, he acknowledged Turkey’s role in regional policies, and his gratitude toward Ankara for its position on the Palestinian issue (www.tcbb.gov.tr, August 17).

    The annual trade volume between both countries remains low at $1.5 billion. However, Qatar is an important destination for Turkish contractors and its companies have undertaken multi-billion dollar projects there. Realizing the great potential created by Qatar’s infrastructure investments and its expanding economy, the Turkish private sector wants to further penetrate this market. The Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (ITO) recently announced that as part of their “Gulf Expansion” project, they will hold a major Turkish export fair in Qatar in September (Hurriyet Daily News, July 26). Turkey is also eager to attract investments from Qatar to boost its own economic development, as part of its broader attempt to turn the country into a major destination for Persian Gulf capital (EDM, February 5).

    Reflecting these interests, on the second day of his trip Gul and al-Thani attended a working breakfast of the Turkish-Qatar Business Council, hosted by Turkey’s Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB) and the Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEIK). Gul and the AKP government have proven instrumental in developing closer ties with Qatar and have promoted the flow of Qatari capital in Turkey, thanks partly to their personal ties. However, some of these business transactions were the subject of domestic political discussions. The joint-ventures between Qatari firms and businessmen close to the Turkish government continue to be a major source of criticism (Milliyet, May 1, 2008).

    The parties announced that they will set up a Turkey-Qatar Joint Energy Working Group. Gul said that they discussed the feasibility of gas pipelines, storage facilities and refineries, as well as meeting Turkey’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) needs. Gul invited Qatar to invest in the storage facilities in Turkey’s Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, which is the terminus of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the planned Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline. Ankara has actively promoted Ceyhan as a global energy terminal, and al-Thani responded to this offer with great enthusiasm (Vatan, August 18).

    Al-Thani also added that he hopes to see a “pipeline” running from Qatar to Turkey, and that the feasibility work on that project will continue. It was unclear, however, whether it would be a natural gas or crude pipeline, and what route it would follow.

    Prior to the visit, Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yildiz had publicized the “natural gas” dimension of the bilateral meeting. Yildiz said that talks were underway with Qatar concerning importing LNG. Yildiz noted that his contacts with Qatar are part of a broader Turkish effort to diversify its energy suppliers and supply routes. He said that if the parties could reach a consensus, Turkey might import around 4 billion cubic meters (bcm) of LNG annually from Qatar (Anadolu Ajansi, August 16). He also added that he hoped to sign a declaration on LNG imports during the visit of the Qatari delegation, yet following the meetings no official announcement was made to that effect.

    Qatar is believed to possess the third largest gas reserves in the world, behind Russia and Iran. It is also a leading supplier of LNG and Turkey wants to develop cooperation with Qatar in natural gas projects. In July Qatar was represented during the signing ceremony of the E.U.-backed Nabucco pipeline and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan maintained that Nabucco might tap into Qatar’s gas in the future (EDM, July 14).

    Ankara has attempted to import Qatari LNG for its domestic needs for some time. During Gul’s February 2008 and Erdogan’s April 2008 visits to Qatar, energy was an important item on their agendas. They raised the issue of LNG imports, and the negotiations on this have continued since (Hurriyet, February 5, 2008; ANKA, April 15, 2008).

    As a country heavily dependent on importing natural gas, Turkey meets its needs primarily through pipelines from Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan. It also has contracts with Algeria and Nigeria to import 4 bcm and 1.2 bcm of LNG annually, respectively. However, during the heavier winters, or when there are supply disruptions caused by the problems mainly encountered with Iran, Turkey is forced to buy LNG on spot markets. Since it lacks major natural gas storage facilities, such seasonal fluctuations result in the payment of higher sums for energy bills (Radikal, August 17). Therefore, Ankara is considering expanding the country’s storage capacity and importing larger amounts of LNG through long-term contracts, which might help it avoid such problems in the future.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-seeks-closer-energy-partnership-and-lng-contract-with-qatar/
  • Turks Growing More Confident over Turkey’s International Role

    Turks Growing More Confident over Turkey’s International Role

    Turks Growing More Confident over Turkey’s International Role

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 158
    August 17, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    An Ankara-based think-tank, Uluslararasi Stratejik Arastirmalar Kurumu (USAK), announced the findings of its 2009 public opinion poll on Turkish perceptions of foreign policy (www.usak.org.tr, August 14). The survey shows that the Turkish people prioritize national interests over global causes, and a visible increase in their self-confidence can be identified. Moreover, Turks continue to support E.U. accession, while the United States is still perceived as the major risk to Turkey’s security.

    The survey indicated popular support for the government’s foreign policy. 49 percent of the 1,100 respondents believe that “Turkish foreign policy is successful,” while 27 percent evaluate it as unsuccessful, and 20 percent find it fair. The level of support for Turkish foreign policy has increased by 7 percent since the last survey in 2005.

    These results might be attributed to the effect of the government’s recent foreign policy initiatives. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s pro-Palestinian policies earlier this year bolstered his popularity at home. Moreover, the government has used energy deals with the European Union and Russia as a public relations tool domestically to argue that the country has been emerging as a major energy hub and will become a global power. Such campaigns by the government might also have boosted its support.

    There is growing self-confidence among the Turkish public about the country’s international standing. In response to the question: “Do you believe many countries are contemplating dividing Turkey?” 54 percent said yes. This is a rather high figure and it largely reflects Turkish negative perceptions of foreign powers and fears of territorial dismemberment. Nonetheless, it represents a significant decline from 72 percent in 2005 and 64 percent in 2004. The resolution of Turkey’s problems with its neighbors, and the diminishing threat from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) might explain this trend toward a more confident and less skeptical perception of the outside world.

    The question: “What should be the priority of Turkish foreign policy?” produced revealing answers. A combination of military and economic security concerns proved most popular: prevention of terror attacks (13 percent), protection of Turkey’s economic interests (12 percent), preparing defense against foreign armies (10 percent), and boosting Turkish investments abroad (8 percent). These responses show that Turkish people still prioritize the advancement of “national interests” over the promotion of “global” issues. Dealing with environmental issues was at the bottom of the list. Likewise, the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad, assisting oppressed countries, or supporting Islamic causes received low levels of support (www.usak.org.tr, August 14).

    In another significant reflection of the nationalist tendencies within Turkish society, 72 percent of the respondents defined the “identity of Turkey in international affairs” as “Turkish.” 13 percent regarded Turkey as a European state, 6 percent as Muslim and 5 percent as Middle Eastern.

    On the question: “What country threatens Turkey the most?” the United States maintained its place at the top of the list (25 percent), followed by Israel (15 percent) and France (12 percent). Although the proportion of those who perceive the U.S. as the main threat has declined compared to 29 percent in 2005 and 28 percent in 2004, its place at the top of the list is revealing. Despite the rejuvenation of Turkish-American relations under the Obama administration, and their sympathy for him, the results suggest ongoing reservations toward American “policies,” and that more concrete measures might be needed to enhance these relations. Likewise, 32 of the respondents believe the United States is the country that poses the biggest threat to world peace.

    Interestingly, these results are corroborated by the conclusions of the recent Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Although the election of Obama improved the U.S. image around the world, in Turkey along with other Muslim nations, U.S. favorability ratings still remain low (PEW, July 23).

    Nonetheless, the United States climbed to fourth place on the friendly countries list, behind Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Turkmenistan. In 2005, the United States ranked twelfth on the same list. Moreover, on a related question, “what country would come to Turkey’s rescue, if it was confronted a major problem such as war, civil conflict or natural disaster?” most Turks expected the United States (25 percent) to assist, followed by Azerbaijan (10 percent). Although Turks feel threatened by the policies of the United States, they essentially view it as an indispensable partner capable of providing security at difficult times, unlike other “friendly” countries that are either distant or too weak to offer any meaningful help.

    One remarkable trend among the list of “threatening countries” concerns France. Whereas those who perceived France as a source of threat accounted for only 0.69 percent in 2003, that figure rose to 2.5 in 2004, and 12.9 percent in 2009. This negative attitude toward an E.U. member is indicative of Turkish people’s reactions to recent French policies. Apparently the French support for the Armenian theses, and Paris’s vocal opposition to Turkey’s E.U. accession are resented by not only the Turkish government, but also within the society (www.usak.org.tr, August 14).

    Similarly, attitudes toward the other outspoken critic of Turkey inside the EU, Germany, also support similar conclusions. Whereas, Germany was not perceived as threatening in 2005, 1.82 percent of the respondents in 2009 said Germany threatens Turkey. Conversely, on the list of friendly countries, only 0.64 percent sees Germany as a friend, which indicates a dramatic decline from 8.2 percent in 2004.

    Together, the negative reactions to France and Germany’s attempts to block Turkish accession suggest that Turks still value the E.U. membership process and the E.U. ideal. Indeed, in response to the question “where does Turkey’s future lie?” 56 percent chose the E.U., while those who preferred the Turkish or the Islamic world remained at 23.64 and 10 percent respectively. Nonetheless, Turks believe that their country’s rejection by the E.U. is due to religious and cultural differences and historical prejudices toward Turkey.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turks-growing-more-confident-over-turkeys-international-role/