Category: Authors

  • Turkish-Azeri Talks on Gas Prices Continue through “Soccer Diplomacy”

    Turkish-Azeri Talks on Gas Prices Continue through “Soccer Diplomacy”

    Turkish-Azeri Talks on Gas Prices Continue through “Soccer Diplomacy”

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 107
    June 4, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yildiz discussed energy issues with Azeri officials on the sidelines of a recent soccer game. Following his talks, Yildiz commented on the status of the Turkish-Azeri talks on pricing gas imports and Turkey’s position on the Nabucco project. The incident echoes what was referred to as the “soccer diplomacy” conducted last year between Turkey and Armenia.

    The Turkish and Azeri national soccer teams played a friendly game in Turkey’s central Anatolian city of Kayseri on June 2. There was huge public interest and over 30,000 spectators decorated the stadium with the Turkish and Azeri flags. They carried placards and chanted slogans reflecting the sense of solidarity between the two nations: “We are all Azeris,” “Karabakh belongs to Turks,” “We cannot be divided” (www.nethaber.com, www.tumspor.com, June 2).

    The sporting fixture also provided an additional venue to discuss contentious bilateral issues. The president of the Azerbaijani state petroleum company (SOCAR) Rovnag Abdullayev (also the head of the Azeri soccer federation), was in the audience. He watched the game alongside the head of the Turkish soccer federation and Yildiz. On the periphery of this event, Yildiz and Abdullayev continued their talks on pricing Turkey’s gas imports from Azerbaijan. Abdullayev flew back to Baku together with the Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan in the same private jet (Hurriyet, June 3).

    Yildiz told reporters that both sides shared their views as well as new proposals on pricing. He added that the Azeri side will respond after further evaluating the Turkish proposals. Although Yildiz found Azerbaijan’s request for further deliberation quite natural as part of the negotiation process, he also stressed his hope that it might be accelerated. “It will be in both countries’ interest to reach a solution as soon as possible. Over the next week, technical delegations will continue their work on the [mutual] proposals. My opinion is that without losing further time, an agreement on Shahdeniz-I and Shahdeniz-II should be reached. Our Azeri brothers said they would help us on this issue” (Anadolu Ajansi, June 3).

    Abdullayev offered reassurance that no difficult issues existed between the two countries, but he said that there was no reason to rush into the project. He added “a thirty-year agreement and other issues cannot be resolved in one or two days. The game provided an opportunity to discuss these, but commercial matters cannot be concluded in haste… We received Turkey’s proposals on oil and gas and we will study them” (Milliyet, June 4).

    Currently there are two major elements on the agenda of the Turkish-Azeri gas talks. Azerbaijan expects Turkey to revise gas import prices. Moreover, anxious to transport its gas to European markets, Baku wants Ankara to adopt a more cooperative position on the Nabucco project.

    Under the terms of an agreement in 2001, Turkey annually imports 6 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas from Azerbaijan’s Shahdeniz-I site at a price of $120 per thousand cubic meters, which is far below current global energy prices. Turkey also plans to purchase 8 bcm of gas from the Shahdeniz-II for its domestic consumption. Since the 2001 agreement ended in April 2008, Turkey has continued to import Azeri gas at the old price. In recent months, Baku has demanded the revision of the price to reflect the current market value, although Ankara has reportedly been unenthusiastic (EDM, May 1).

    During his trip to Azerbaijan in May, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised that a new and “fair” price will be found (EDM, May 14). Yildiz, who accompanied Erdogan to Baku, later said that “the price [offered] was as fair as possible… I cannot give a figure. But it is not as high as [the price for] the Russian gas. We are trying to agree on a price that is not completely disconnected from world markets and one that will satisfy both us and our Azeri brothers” (Hurriyet, May 16). However, the fact that a final decision has not been reached, shows that Turkey’s price offer did not necessarily satisfy the Azeri side, and they preferred to continue the talks until a “fair” price is agreed.

    During his contacts in Kayseri earlier the same day, Yildiz commented on the future of the Nabucco project. Turkey has been viewed as the main obstacle to the conclusion of the intergovernmental transit agreement for the Nabucco pipeline, yet recent remarks emerging from Ankara has raised hopes for ending the stalemate (EDM, May 15, June 1). Yildiz reiterated Erdogan’s earlier optimism for signing the intergovernmental agreement in June, but added that the continuation of the negotiations indicated that a consensus on the exact date had not been reached (www.ntvmsnbc.com, June 3).

    Yildiz was asked about the Nabucco Managing Director Reinhard Mitschek’s earlier comments that Turkey’s demand for “the 15 percent out-take is not on the table” (Reuters, May 29). In response, Yildiz insisted that Turkey’s demand was still under consideration. After noting that lively bargaining was occurring, he maintained that the Europeans appreciated Turkish concerns. “They are not completely indifferent to 15 percent. The real problem is about its modality… It might be possible to exclude it from the intergovernmental agreement, and then regulate it under another agreement” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, June 3).

    This is not the first time that European and Turkish officials have issued contradictory statements on the Turkish position on the 15 percent issue (EDM, April 20). Ankara appears determined to get the best deal out of the Nabucco negotiations, even at the risk of further stalling the project and perhaps undermining Azerbaijan’s interests. For its own part, Baku also shows that it does not want the “brotherhood” to eclipse the country’s commercial interests, and will continue negotiations until a “fair” deal is finally secured.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-azeri-talks-on-gas-prices-continue-through-soccer-diplomacy/
  • Arinc Demands the Resignation of Turkey’s Media Watchdog

    Arinc Demands the Resignation of Turkey’s Media Watchdog

    Arinc Demands the Resignation of Turkey’s Media Watchdog

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 110
    June 9, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey continues to debate the implications of an ongoing controversial fraud case in the German courts involving, among others, individuals close to the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP). After the Turkish courts launched this case, the Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc added a new dimension to the debate. Arinc has publicly called on the head of the top media watchdog, the Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTUK), Zahid Akman, who was implicated in the case, to resign from his post, which has reignited tension between the government and the opposition.
    German prosecutors initiated legal proceedings against a charity established by Turks living in Europe. Deniz Feneri e.V. (Lighthouse e.V.) allegedly channeled donations made in Germany to private corporations in Turkey owned by close allies of the AKP. When these reports first emerged, it triggered controversy, since media outlets in the Dogan Media Group questioned the involvement of AKP supporters and the government’s silence over allegations of corruption (EDM, September 11, 2008; February 20).

    The German court requested judicial assistance from the Turkish authorities concerning several individuals, including Akman, for their involvement in the case. The German investigation identified Akman “as the shareholder and executive of three companies in Germany. The German authorities also documented that Akman was the executive of a German-based cooperative, into which another investigation was launched because of fraudulent activities” (Hurriyet Daily News, June 8).

    The opposition and other critics of the AKP accused the government of stalling the investigation into the Turkish side of the Lighthouse case, by using various delaying tactics. They speculated that there might be evidence contained within the dossier sent by the German court establishing links between the Lighthouse case and officials close to Erdogan. If the money transferred to Turkey was used to finance the AKP’s activities, it might have serious political repercussions within the country. Since the Turkish constitution prohibits political parties from receiving funds from foreign countries or organizations, such links might result in another closure case being instigated against the governing AKP (Hurriyet, May 14; Hurriyet Daily News, June 3).

    Although Akman has been the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, and a court case was filed to overthrow him, he has remained defiant (ANKA, May 12). Finally, Arinc said that he had asked Akman to resign during a private meeting, in order to avoid any damage to the RTUK. He added that Akman had agreed (www.haberturk.com, May 21). Arinc is one of the leading figures within the AKP and is known for his strong stance against corruption. Since he was appointed as the deputy prime minister during the last cabinet reshuffle, he has stressed his commitment to pursuing an ethical approach to politics. As the state minister, Arinc also oversees the RTUK.

    Arinc’s statements were welcomed by other members of the AKP government as well as the speaker of the Turkish parliament Koksal Toptan (www.cnnturk.com 22 May). The cabinet speaker Cemil Cicek even implied that Akman could have been asked to resign by the prime minister -prior to Arinc’s request (www.haberturk.com, May 25).

    After one week of silence, Akman spoke to Haberturk in an effort to clear his name. He said he was not asked by Arinc to resign; Arinc only inquired as to “whether he was considering resigning.” Akman refused saying that stepping down would have been perceived as an acknowledgement of guilt. He maintained that the allegations are being used to weaken the RTUK’s reputation. He added that he will remain in his post until his tenure ends on July 14, and he will not seek any extension. Finally, he challenged those “who were seeking to undermine his reputation” and said that “at the right moment,” he will respond to these allegations (www.haberturk.com, May 30).

    Although Haberturk reported that Akman claimed he enjoyed the firm backing of the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his lawyer denied this (Anadolu Ajansi, May 29). In the meantime, as part of the Turkish investigation, an Ankara court issued precautionary measures against the properties of Akman and other individuals. Responding to a question on these developments, Erdogan said that he was not in a position to defend Akman. “He has continued to defend himself very well and will continue to do so,” Erdogan added (Anadolu Ajansi, June 6).

    On June 6 Arinc repeated his call for Akman’s resignation. He added that he had no authority to remove the RTUK chief because he is appointed by parliament -nor can he be removed by Erdogan. He also emphasized that no AKP member was implicated in the fraud case. Later, Erdogan reacted harshly to speculation that the money from Lighthouse was funneled to the AKP (Anadolu Ajansi, June 6 and June 9).

    The opposition parties, however, did not find the government’s arguments convincing. They believe that the government has failed to adequately address the issue. One CHP representative, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, known for previously publicizing corruption cases involving AKP members, asked Arinc to resign, arguing that it was shameful that a minister was unable to command a bureaucrat under his authority (Anadolu Ajansi, June 1). Moreover, the CHP leader Deniz Baykal, accused the government of failing to force Akman to resign, and argued that the government’s delay had provided an opportunity for Akman to conceal evidence (Taraf, June 8).

    Depending on the progress of the current case, tensions within Turkish politics might increase. The opposition parties will continue to press the government to take action against Akman and the corruption allegations, since such high profile cases allows them to weaken the AKP’s popularity. As Akman struggles to clear his name and leave office with an unblemished record, the AKP will have to protect its image as a corruption-free party -perhaps ultimately by sacrificing Akman.

    https://jamestown.org/program/arinc-demands-the-resignation-of-turkeys-media-watchdog/
  • INTOLERANCE TO REASONED, SCHOLARLY DEBATE

    INTOLERANCE TO REASONED, SCHOLARLY DEBATE

    June 3, 2009

    To: Sheldon Levy, President and Vice-Chancellor, pres@ryerson.ca

    Cc: Kanizehn Wadia, Executive Secretary to the President, kwadia@ryerson.ca
    Erin McGinn, Director, Office of the President, emcginn@ryerson.ca
    Carrie-Ann Bissonnette, Special Assistant, Events & Special Projects, c2bisson@ryerson.ca
    Alan Shepard, Provost and Vice President Academic – alan.shepard@ryerson.ca
    Dr. Heather Lane Vetere, Vice Provost, Students – hlvetere@ryerson.ca
    Terry Gillin, Dean of sociology, tgillin@ryerson.ca
    Mustafa Koc, Professor, Sociology Department, mkoc@soc.ryerson.ca
    Re: Intolerance at Canada’s Ryerson University to reasoned, scholarly debate

    Dear President Levy:
    I am responding to the apology you issued to the Armenian students for the scholarly seminar organized by the Turkish students at Ryerson University on February 18, 2009, featuring Professor Turkkaya Ataov, a researcher who authored of more than 80 books. I found your apology biased, unfair, and unscholarly. Here are my reasons and thoughts:

    BIAS IN THE TERM “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”

    If one cherishes values like fairness, objectivity, truth, and honesty, then one should really use the term “Turkish-Armenian conflict”. Reducing this complex human tragedy that affected all the people of the area down to “Do you accept or deny Armenian Genocide” simply shows one’s anti-Turkish bias. The question should be re-phrased “What is your stand on the Turkish-Armenian conflict?”

    Turks document it clearly that it was an inter communal warfare mostly fought by Turkish and Armenian irregulars, a civil war which is engineered, provoked, and waged by the Armenian revolutionaries, with active support from Russia, England, France, and other countries, as well as Western media and missionaries, all interested in the vast resources of the collapsing Ottoman Empire for different reasons and to varying degrees, against a backdrop of a raging world war.

    Armenians, on the other hand, ignoring Armenian agitation, raids, rebellions, terrorism, treason, territorial demands, and Turkish victims killed by Armenians, claim that it was a one way genocide, a claim never tested at a court of law but mostly based on hearsay and forgeries.

    GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS IGNORE “THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT”

    While some in unsuspecting public may be forgiven for taking the blatant and ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for someone like me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, whose story is hardly ever heard due to censorship induced by Armenian pressure groups.

    Those seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 brought three separate but consecutive wars on Ottoman soil (The Balkans, WWI, and the Independence Wars) and wide-spread death and destruction on to all Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left touched, mine certainly included. Those nameless, faceless Turkish victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide. Those wars were brought onto Turks, not vice-versa, fought on Turkish soil, not in England, France, or Russia, and Turks were only defending their home, not out for conquest.

    ALLEGATIONS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ARE RACIST AND DISHONEST HISTORY

    They are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; more than half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists.

    And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss

    THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT:

    1) TUMULT (as in numerous Armenian armed uprisings, 1878-1921)

    2) TERRORISM (by well-armed Armenian nationalists and militias victimizing Ottoman-Muslims, 1882-1922)

    3) TREASON (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies, 1914-1921)

    4) TERRITORIAL DEMANDS (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority, attempting to establish Greater Armenia, the would-be first apartheid of the 20th Century with a Christian minority ruling over a Muslim majority, 1878- present )

    5) TURKISH SUFFERING AND LOSSES (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists: 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic end at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries during WWI, documented by the Turkish Historical Society. This figure is not to be confused with about 2.5 million Muslim dead who lost their lives due to non-Armenian causes during WWI.)

    6) TERESET (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

    VERDICT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AMOUNTS TO LYNCHING

    Those who take the Armenian “allegations” of genocide at face value seem to also ignore the following:

    1- Genocide is a legal, technical term precisely defined by the U.N. 1948 convention (Like all proper laws, it is not retroactive to 1915.)

    2- Genocide verdict can only be given by a “competent court” after “due process” where both sides are properly represented and evidence mutually cross examined.

    3- For a genocide verdict, the accusers must prove “intent” at a competent court and after due process. This could never be done by the Armenians whose evidence mostly fall into five major categories: hearsay, mis-representations, exaggerations, forgeries, and “other”.

    4- Such a “competent court” was never convened in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict and a genocide verdict does not exist (save a Kangaroo court in occupied Istanbul in 1920 where partisanship, vendettas, and revenge motives left no room for due process.)

    5- Genocide claim is political, not historical or factual. It reflects bias against Turks. Therefore, the term genocide must be used with the qualifier “alleged”, for scholarly objectivity and truth.

    POLITICAL LYNCHING OF THE TURKS BY ARMENIANS TODAY

    Recognizing Armenian claim as genocide, therefore, will deeply insult Turkish-Canadians and Turks around the globe and poison the otherwise excellent relations currently enjoyed between the Canada and Turkey. It will, no doubt, please Armenians but disappoint, insult, and outrage Turkey, one of Canada’s closest allies and a partner in NATO. Turks stood shoulder to shoulder with Canadians in Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and more. Genocide charge, unproven and unjustified, is the worst insult that can be dished out to an entire nation and a democracy respecting human rights, not to mention a close friend, an staunch ally , and a reliable partner in a troubled part of the world.

    History is not a matter of ” gut feelings, thoughts, beliefs, conviction, consensus, political resolutions, or propaganda.” History is a matter of unbiased research, honest peer review, thoughtful debate, and meticulous scholarship. Even historians, by the U.N. definition, cannot decide on a genocide verdict, which is a special task reserved for a “competent court” with its legal expertise and due process.

    What we witness today amounts to lynching of the Turks by Armenians to satisfy the age old Armenian hate, bias, and bigotry. Values like fairness, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, objectivity, balance, honesty, and freedom of speech are stumped under the fanatic Armenian feet.

    Those who claim genocide verdict today, based on the much discredited Armenian evidence, are actually engaging in “conviction and execution without due process”. Last time I checked with the dictionary, that was the definition of “lynching”.

    Isn’t it about time to stop fighting the First World War after almost a century and give peace a real chance?

    Perhaps an even better question is, isn’t it time to allow the historians, researchers, and scholars to take over this debate?

    The capability to explore and discuss contentious issues in a rational, scholarly manner is one of the trademarks that makes a University community a stimulating and exciting place. Your apology to Armenian students, implying that the Turkish-Armenian controversy should be represented like settled history in line with untested, unproven Armenian allegations, deals a blow to academic freedom and freedom of speech, thus vibrancy of a university.

    After all, what good is a university if reasoned, scholarly debate is not allowed?

    Peace,

    ERGUN KIRLIKOVALI

    Son of Turkish Survivors from Both Maternal & Paternal Side

    www.turkla.com
    www.ethocide.com

    ***

  • The Kurdistan Regional Government Launches Oil Exports through Turkey

    The Kurdistan Regional Government Launches Oil Exports through Turkey

    The Kurdistan Regional Government Launches Oil Exports through Turkey

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 105
    June 2, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has started to export its oil to European markets, under partnerships with Turkish and other international energy companies. Following a new consensus on the distribution of revenues between the central administration in Baghdad and the KRG, oil from the Tawke and Taq Taq fields will be transported via the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan in the Mediterranean.

    A crucial aspect of the project has been the entry of international companies into the flourishing regional economy. The KRG has tried to attract foreign investment as a means to generate wealth and consolidate its authority within northern Iraq. Having successfully attracted foreign capital, the KRG signed independent contracts for the development of the oil fields, which caused a dispute with the central Iraqi government. In May, KRG officials announced that they received Baghdad’s approval to export oil through Iraqi pipelines (www.krg.org, May 10). Although it allowed these exports, “the central government still refuses to recognize the production-sharing agreements Kurdish authorities have signed with oil firms.” This situation created uncertainty regarding the payment of foreign investors’ revenues, but the statements from KRG officials indicate that this will not become a major issue (Today’s Zaman, June 2).

    A joint venture between the Turkish company Genel Enerji, a subsidiary of the Cukurova group, and the Canadian-Swiss Addax Petroleum will run the operations in the Taq Taq field in Erbil. Their joint investments are valued at over $350 million. The Norwegian DNO operates the Tawke field in Dohuk, where the Genel Elektrik also holds a 25 percent stake (Hurriyet Daily News, June 2). The investors designate Taq Taq as “a potentially world class oil field” (www.addaxpetroleum.com). KRG sources also claim that the oil from this region is high quality and expect the new production to “improve on the overall quality of the present Kirkuk oil mix.” Oil from the Tawke field will be directly transferred to the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik through an auxiliary pipeline. As a temporary measure, the crude from the Taq Taq will first be transported by road to the existing local pipeline networks – and from there it will connect to the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik export pipeline (www.krg.org, May 8).

    Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Company (SOMO) will market the exported oil from both fields and the revenues will be deposited in the federal account. Under the Taq Taq deal, Baghdad will receive 88 percent of the revenues, 17 percent of which will go to the KRG. Foreign investors will receive a 12 percent share. The Tawke deal reportedly has similar stipulations (www.krg.org, May 8; www.alarabiya.net, June 1).

    Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, KRG President Masoud Barzani, KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, as well as other dignitaries from the KRG and representatives of the investors participated in a ceremony held in Erbil to celebrate the export deal. Talabani described this development as a “historic step” and contended that it signified how the Iraqis can work together for the prosperity of the country. In a move to allay concerns over the legality of the contracts, Talabani said “these contracts are legal, constitutional and legitimate and they are in the interests of the Iraqi people” (www.alarabiya.net, June 1).

    Earlier, one KRG representative, Halid Salih, also emphasized that they were acting within the boundaries set by the Iraqi constitution. He noted that they entered into agreements with foreign companies according to the constitution, which granted greater autonomy to regional governments to explore oil following its revisions in 2005 (Cihan Haber Ajansi, June 1).

    Echoing similar sentiments, Nechirvan Barzani described this project as a gift of the KRG to the Iraqi people. He emphasized the KRG’s respect for the central administration, but stressed how hard they worked to secure a fair share of the region’s revenues. Barzani explained that:

        “Fortunately, we possess abundant natural resources … We must use these resources … for the benefit of all the people of Iraq… We signed contracts with international oil companies in order to bring capital, technology, know-how and experience to our region and to the entire country… We are proud to contribute to Iraq’s increased production and revenues. In reality, revenue-sharing will bind us together more than any political slogan” (www.krg.org, June 1).

    Oil exports will begin at an initial rate of around 100,000 barrels per day. 60,000 barrels will be pumped from the Tawke field, while the remaining 40,000 of the light crude will come from the Taq Taq field. Havrami said the crude exports from both fields are expected to reach 250,000 barrels per day within one year, 450,000 barrels per day by the end of 2010 and 1 million barrels per day by 2013. According to current price estimates, within four years, the annual revenues from exports might reach $20 billion (www.tempo24.com.tr, June 2).

    This agreement highlights the prospect for mutually beneficial economic cooperation, if internal political disagreements are set aside. Since the country urgently needs revenues to recover from the effects of a devastating war, the wealth brought by the oil exports might offer further incentives for political reconciliation, and help heal the feud between the KRG and the central administration. Nonetheless, it remains unclear how other political actors within the Iraqi political scene will react. Other than President Talabani, himself a Kurd, non-Kurdish members of the Shiite Arab dominated Iraqi central government did not attend the ceremony, which might indicate some enduring disagreement. Similarly, Iraq’s Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani also reportedly questioned the legality of the KRG’s deal.

    In any case, such joint projects have the potential to boost not only ties between the KRG and the central administration, but also Ankara’s relations with both the KRG and Baghdad. Economic collaboration serves as a major driving force to sustain the existing security cooperation partnership within the region (EDM, April 13).

    https://jamestown.org/program/the-kurdistan-regional-government-launches-oil-exports-through-turkey/
  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Over 300,000 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 been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients.

    AS I SEE IT

    O.K. Here is some straight talk about the economy and the stock market. The economy is bottoming out. Notice I said bottoming, not rebounding. Think of it this way: you own a swimming pool that has sprung a pretty good leak. By the time you have stopped the leak you have lost 5% of your water. The problem is you have been experiencing a dry spell and your reservoir (credit) is almost empty. You now have just a glass full of water to refill your pool, just one cup at a time, slowly.
    Now, has our Congress come to the rescue just in time? They have redefined the credit card industry, which makes it a little harder for the companies to gouge us. They left the interest rates the same. Before 1974 it was called USURY. That was and should be a very bad word. Who do they think they are conning? We are not that dumb. Both parties are on the take. They use a once honored term- Lobbyist. Today that stands for bribery. Everyone in Washington feels they can just keep on printing money. If we were on some form of a gold standard, where excessive debt meant a weaker dollar and less trade, they would think twice about padding their own boudoir.
    I am not a true economist and I must rely on sources that I know are competent. I have studied and learned from them for over 48 years.
    One thing is very clear. When a US Treasury bill has a negative yield; we are in deep trouble. The last time that happened was 1932. This means big money is scared and they are paying the government to hold on to their money. Today, May 29, 2009 the 2 year Treasury note is yielding 0.97%. Buying bonds today is an instant loss.
    When most bonds were issued, it was when business was booming and the revenues at that time supported the intended interest rate. Now with business at a snails pace the debt coverage of these bonds is in serious jeopardy. Debt coverage means how many times the liquid assets can cover the bond interest payments. The greater the coverage on the bond interest payments – the higher the rating. If a bond cannot pay it’s interest payment then the whole company is in default and they have to find some way to pay the bondholders. They have first crack at a corporation’s assets. What is left goes to the preferred shareholders and common stock holders get the crumbs. So buying a bond fund or any instrument that holds many bonds should be avoided. Even the managers are not sure which bond will go down next. You should only buy bonds, if you must, as individual issues. This makes insurance companies very suspect.
    General Motor’s bondholders are getting a royal shafting by being made to accept common stock or “funny money”. This is, in theory, to protect the pension funds, which still own the preferred and common stock. Balderdash! I believe this will end up in the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Don’t get me wrong; buying bonds at the appropriate time can reward an investor handsomely. Timing is everything.
    Now here is the really bad part. Don’t fret because at the end of this letter I have the answer for you. The stock market has not bottomed in my opinion. In March I called the bottom, and we have had a fantastic rally, but now I have second thoughts. I know we will test the lows by October of this year. Whether they hold, nobody knows. One can only guess. Right now my guess is no.
    Speculators and the media believe naively that we are ready to resume a rain-delayed ball game. Too bad we can’t refund our tickets.
    The problem is that the mechanic’s of the market place have not been corrected.
    You can see the speculators still playing the market – especially the big capitalization stocks – and are swimming in shark-infested waters. These sharks have no regard for ethics or laws or anyone’s skin but their own. At the present time the media is impressed by wealth, but not how it was earned. Financial morals are lower than the bottom of the ocean.
    What we have to do is trash the conservatives and liberals at the same time and elect middle of the roaders that work with both sides of the isles. We need some hard nose politicians that are not afraid to speak plainly and openly. The problems of today are here because we had weak-kneed bureaucrats that were either paid off or lacked the intestinal fortitude to right a wrong. When you are around money, unless the laws are strictly enforced, slimy eels mess up your boat badly.
    We now need global enforcement so that citizens of countries that do not comply are blackballed. The US was once known as the safest haven with the toughest laws in the whole wide world. Sadly, the keepers of the faith retired.
    So until we have a global regulatory agency that will protect investors, the stock markets for the most part are a crapshoot, or like picking a single number on a roulette wheel.
    Buying a bond is going to be an instant loss at best. We have to borrow trillions of dollars to finance this socialist experiment. Who wants to borrow the first trillion? China and Brazil want to trade in their own currency. When a central banker sells a government security he receives dollars. They then sell the dollar to pay for the gold. That is why you see gold go up when the dollar goes down.
    The whole world is in debt.
    My big fear is that in January Obama will try to get rid of Bernanke who is Chairman of the Federal Reserve. That is like changing horses in mid stream to borrow a quote from yesteryear. Right now the whole world is listening to him. He has made honest mistakes and corrected them quickly. In the past when a stock analyst made a mistake I would pay careful attention to him, because I knew he was trying very hard to make up for the previous mistake and had learned from his error. Then there were some that could turn a load of manure into gold bars. Caveat Emptor.
    In my last letter I recommended buying Spider Gold Trust (NYSE GLD $96.16) and today I am adding Central Fund of Canada (NYSE CEF $12.56) which hold gold and silver bars in one of Canada’s largest bank vaults.
    My reasoning is this: they keep increasing their benefits while decreasing ours and refuse to really fix the inequities. By going back on some form of the gold system this puts pressure on them to perform properly. If they spend too much it will weaken the dollar and send them out of office quicker than you can blink.

    In 1950 we held 68.2% of the worlds’ gold at Fort Knox. Today it is less than 28%. The whole world is awash in debt and dollars and sooner or later something has to give. To protect yourself, your family, and your job or business you should consider buying some gold stocks that own gold.
    If countries decide to go back on some form of the gold standard the price could increase two to tens times the current price or more. If the Government tries to confiscate it like they did in 1932 they went from $21 to $35. That is a pretty good percentage increase- so I would not worry about that now.
    Remember when things get really bad, they can only get better.
    Those needing income should look at preferred stock of sound companies selling below their call price. The sharks can not mess around with these with ease. Many are qualified preferred’s which means 85% is tax free. I prefer AMERCO $2.125 preferred list on the NYSE. The Symbol is AO-A. They own U-Haul Trailer Company. That is also traded on NASDAQ- UHAL-$36.85. A good way to keep track of the preferred is to watch for any sudden shift in UHAL.
    There are also lots of values north of our borders in Canada. The Canadians did not monkey around with their banking system so many of their companies are in fairly stable condition versus the United States.
    A word of caution; I was having my Saturday morning breakfast at the Woodstock Country Store when I met this gentleman who told me this amazing tale. In his business he has to buy nickel, about 400 pounds per year. This year he placed his order and found out the price had dropped 50%. I found out later that China had stopped buying.
    This example is just another reason why we should be moving to some form of a gold standard. It puts a ball and chain on our politicians, who cannot get a real job, and gives a solid standard of living for us and for our grandchildren.
    Buy some gold as a protection and a hedge. If you have any problems you can contact me personally at the numbers listed below.
    Thank you and Cheerio!!!

    Addendum

    Chairman Bernanke’s plan if we ever had a depression again was to go into a helicopter and spread dollar bills all over the country in every town, village and farm. This is what he wrote his thesis on while getting his doctorate at M.I.T.
    Nothing goes as planned. He has his depression, and he has the chance to implement his ideas, but there is always a catch. An election came and a populace president and his party were swept into office.
    Now everyone wants on the ‘gravy train’, which is actually more like a giant lemming lumbering towards the seaside cliff. States are now knocking on the door like hobos of the past for a needed handout. Except this time there will be no thank you, instead they will simply rush to get in line again for more.
    The mighty dollar is ready to be downgraded to compete with the Chinese Yuan and the Mexican Peso and the Italian Lira. Interest rates will catapult over night as computers change the price of our bonds in the twinkling of an eye.
    The idea of the good Doctor Bernanke was to distribute funds into private hands that would create jobs where needed, which is certainly not in Washington D.C. Washington should be responsible for creating rules and umpires to make sure the game is played honestly.
    The lesson we learned from the 1930’s was that our banks and credit system had to be sacrosanct. Once those standards were lowered the blood sucking vampires landed in Washington DC. They are called Lobbyists. What is your interest rate?

    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
    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com

    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.

  • ARMENIAN CRIME AMNESIA?

    ARMENIAN CRIME AMNESIA?

    [Note by Ergun KIRLIKOVALI, 29 May 2009: This article appeared in the October 16, 2007 issue of the Washington Times. Since then, nothing seems to have changed on the Armenian lobby’s front: same old resolutions infested with same old lies and deceptions. It is almost like time stands still in the Armenian psyche. ergun_s

    How one lives one’s life is one’s own business, true. But it seems to me, being consumed with hatred (for all things Turkish) is a terrible way for anyone (Armenian or others) to waste one’s own life.

    Solution? Simple.

    Armenians can apologize to Turks right now for destroying a millennium of Turkish-Armenian harmonious cohabitation in Anatolia with territorial demands, rebellions, terrorism, and treason hundred years ago and duping the unsuspecting international community with tall tales of a bogus genocide since then and Turks, in return, will forgive Armenians.

    Armenia can end the brutal military occupation of Karabakh and Western Azerbaijan and allow 1+ million Azeri refugees to return to their homes and Turkey, in return, will open her borders with Armenia.

    Fail to do these and expect to be confined to a life of hatred and vengeance in America and poverty, corruption and violence in Armenia.]

    ***

    Armenian crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Ottoman Turkish and Kurdish populations of eastern and southern Anatolia during World War I and its aftermath have been forgotten amidst congressional preoccupation with placating the vocal and richly financed Armenian lobby.

    Last Wednesday, the Armenians hectored members of the House International Relations Committee by a 27-21 vote into passing a counterfactual resolution convicting the Ottoman Empire and its successor state, the Republic of Turkey, of genocide. A historically supportable resolution would have condemned massacres against Armenians with the same vigor, as it should have condemned massacres by Armenians against the innocent Muslim populations of the crumbling Ottoman Empire.

    Capt. Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland, on an official 1919 U.S. mission to eastern Anatolia, reported:

    “In the entire region from Bitlis through Van to Bayezit, we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape, arson and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population. At first, we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are Armenian quarters … while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed.”

    Niles and Sutherland were fortified by American and German missionaries on the spot in Van. American Clarence Ussher reported that Armenians put the Turkish men “to death,” and, for days, “They burned and murdered.” A German missionary recalled that, “The memory of these entirely helpless Turkish women, defeated and at the mercy of the [Armenians] belongs to the saddest recollections from that time.”

    A March 23, 1920, letter of Col. Charles Furlong, an Army intelligence officer and U.S. Delegate to the Paris Peace Conference, to President Woodrow Wilson elaborated:

    “We hear much, both truth and gross exaggeration of Turkish massacres of Armenians, but little or nothing of the Armenian massacres of Turks. … The recent so-called Marash massacres [of Armenians] have not been substantiated. In fact, in the minds of many who are familiar with the situation, there is a grave question whether it was not the Turk who suffered at the hands of the Armenian and French armed contingents which were known to be occupying that city and vicinity. … Our opportunity to gain the esteem and respect of the Muslim world … will depend much on whether America hears Turkey’s untrammeled voice and evidence which she has never succeeded in placing before the Court of Nations.” The United States neglected Col. Furlong’s admonition in 1920, and again last Wednesday. Nothing seems to have changed from those days, when Christian lives were more precious than the lives of the “infidels.” Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville concluded that a staggering 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims died in World War I and the Turkish War of Independence. More than 1 million died in the Six Provinces in Eastern Anatolia, as Armenians with the help of Russia’s invading armies sought to reclaim their historical homeland.

    In contrast, best contemporaneous estimates place the number of Armenians who died in the war and its aftermath at between 150,000 and 600,000. The Armenian death count climbed to 1.5 million over the years on the back of political clout and propaganda.

    The committee voiced horror over the Armenian suffering, but said nothing about the suffering Armenians inflicted on the Muslim population. Nor did the committee deplore the 60 years of Armenian terrorism in the Ottoman capital Istanbul, including assassination of the Armenian patriarch and an attempted assassination of the sultan as he was leaving prayer. Armenian terror was exported to the U.S. mainland and Europe by fanatics who murdered over 70 Turkish diplomats, three of them in Los Angeles and one honorary consul general in Boston.

    Mourad Topalian, erstwhile head of the Armenian National Committee of America, a lead lobbying group behind the resolution and major campaign contributor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members, was sentenced to 36 months in prison for complicity in a conspiracy to bomb the Turkish mission at the United Nations. Yet Topalian has escaped a terrorist label by either Armenian-Americans or their echo chambers in Congress.

    The home of the late Professor Stanford Shaw of the University of California-Los Angeles was firebombed in retaliation for his academic courage in disputing the Armenian genocide claim. Like Benito Mussolini, Armenians believe truth is an assertion at the head of a figurative bayonet.

    In parts of Europe, disbelief in the Armenian genocide allegation is a crime on par with Holocaust denial. But the Holocaust was proven before the Nuremburg Tribunal with the trappings of due process. Armenians, in contrast, have forgone bringing their genocide allegation before the International Court of Justice because it is unsupported by historical facts.

    In contrast to open Ottoman archives, significant Armenian archives remain closed to conceal evidence of Armenian terrorism and massacres.

    If the resolution’s proponents had done their homework and put aside religious bigotry, they would have reached the same conclusion as author and Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University:

    “[T]he point that was being made was that the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale.” Brian Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America in a videotaped interview for a documentary on the Armenian Revolt clucked:

    “We don’t need to prove the genocide historically, because it has already been accepted politically.”

    Congress should reject that cynicism in defense of historical truth. ***

    Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and The Lichfield Group.