Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Health Reasons Force Erdogan to Cancel Athens Visit

    Health Reasons Force Erdogan to Cancel Athens Visit

    Health Reasons Force Erdogan to Cancel Athens Visit

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 119
    June 22, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    On June 20 Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cancelled a planned trip to Athens. Although his health condition was offered as the reason for the last-minute cancellation, it did not prevent speculation that Erdogan sought to use the pretext of his health concern to protest about recent Greek diplomatic initiatives against Turkey.

    Erdogan was scheduled to visit Athens to attend the opening the new Acropolis Museum. Prior to the opening ceremony, Erdogan was expected to meet Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis, and both were to address bilateral issues including the conditions of minorities, as well as recent developments regarding the Cyprus dispute (Cihan Haber Ajansi, June 19). On the morning of June 20, Erdogan attended some meetings in the Aegean town of Izmir. He was expected to fly to Athens later that afternoon and return to Turkey that night. It was later announced that Erdogan had telephoned Karamanlis and informed him of his cancellation. He told Karamanlis that he would like to visit Athens at the earliest opportunity. A statement from Erdogan’s office explained that due to sunstroke, which Erdogan experienced during his visit to Edirne on June 19, his doctors had recommended rest. On June 21 he also cancelled the rest of his program in Izmir and his trips inside Turkey, and returned to Istanbul to rest over the weekend (ANKA, June 20).

    Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc told reporters on June 21 that Erdogan was in good condition, and would resume his functions the following day. Arinc added that Erdogan had experienced temporary hypertension related to weariness, but this was not a serious problem. After resting in Istanbul, Erdogan was expected in Ankara on June 23, to attend an AKP party meeting and also have a working lunch with E.U. ambassadors (Anadolu Ajansi, June 21).

    However, the official statement did not satisfy some diplomatic observers who believe that political motives were behind Erdogan’s last-minute decision. They suggested two issues which might have influenced Erdogan’s decision: Karamanlis’ public complaints about the Turkish Air Force allegedly violating Greek airspace in the Aegean Sea and the E.U. Presidency’s latest conclusions which referred to Turkey as a country of origin and transit in illegal immigration, at Greece’s urging (Radikal, Hurriyet Daily News, June 21). The Greek media also speculated that Erdogan might have cancelled his trip to express his displeasure over these developments. They argued that Erdogan might have wanted to avoid confronting Karamanlis on the Aegean and illegal immigrants’ issues (Anadolu Ajansi, June 20).

    An interrelated set of disputed claims by Ankara and Athens in the Aegean Sea has proved a major long-standing bilateral source of tension between the two countries. Due to the ongoing controversy over the delimitation of national airspace, Flight Information Regions (FIR) and military over-flight rights, Turkish and Greek fighters engage each other in tactical military provocations (so-called “dog-fights”), which frequently heighten tensions between the two countries. Greece considers the flights of Turkish jets in the disputed zones as violations of its national airspace or transgressions of the FIR. During his contacts in Brussels in the context of the E.U. Summit, Karamanlis reiterated Athens’s complaints concerning Turkish jets’ “violations of Greek airspace,” and added that he “discussed this issue with Obama and would raise it during [his] meeting with Erdogan” (www.cnnturk.com, June 19).

    The Greek attempt to use the E.U. as leverage to pressure Turkey on a different issue also reportedly angered Ankara. Last week, the European Council discussed the challenge of illegal immigrants, and ways to improve cooperation with countries of origin and transit. The presidency conclusions issued at the end of the summit announced that, as part of its external policies, the E.U. will seek to sign readmission agreements with major countries of origin and transit. By the time such agreements are concluded, the E.U. will require the implementation of existing bilateral agreements (www.eu2009.cz, June 19). Greece reportedly threatened to veto the presidency conclusions, if the European Council did not specify Turkey, along with Libya, as a key country of origin and transit. Although Turkey was not mentioned in the draft document, following last-minute changes, the final communiqué made reference to it (www.abhaber.com, June 19).

    Athens claims that a great majority of illegal immigrants arriving in Greece transit Turkey and it expects Ankara to be more cooperative in the readmission of those immigrants. Ankara claims that since the final destination of those immigrants are E.U. countries, Turkey cannot be expected to bear the heavy financial burden of readmitting them, which would cost over 1.2 million Euros and demands fairer burden-sharing (Hurriyet, June 20).

    The declared justification for Erdogan’s cancellation of his trip is perhaps true; yet, the very fact that it resulted in such speculation indicates the level of tension between the two countries. Athens has long blocked the progress of Turkish-E.U. relations, and the two neighbors even came to the brink of war over the Aegean issues in the 1990’s. In the post-1999 period, when the Turkish-E.U. talks were revitalized following the Helsinki Summit, bilateral relations entered a new phase. The resulting normalization of the relationship produced concrete results; in addition to launching diplomatic talks to discuss a resolution to the bilateral issues, Athens removed its objections to Ankara’s entry into the European Union. During the rapid wave of domestic reforms following the AKP’s accession to power in 2002, which resulted in the launch of membership talks in 2005, Erdogan developed a close working relationship with his Greek counterpart and visited Athens twice in 2004. However, parallel to the stalling of Turkey’s E.U. accession process since 2005, Turkish-Greek relations also experienced a downturn, which largely resulted from Turkey’s inability to resolve its differences with Greek Cypriots. If he is serious about his claim to revive Turkey’s E.U. bid, Erdogan must talk to his Greek counterpart and reach a consensus on bilateral and E.U. related issues. In this context, he might soon visit Athens.

    https://jamestown.org/program/health-reasons-force-erdogan-to-cancel-athens-visit/
  • Contemporary Necessary : Frankfurt School

    Contemporary Necessary : Frankfurt School

    Frankfurt school had been established to create a new resist about old traditional sociological theories and its main minds base on Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and Habermas. We define foundation of Frankfurt school in near historical perspective. At this time European destruction on I.World War, different dimensions of Russian revaluation, fascist movements of Hitler and Mussolini in socialist regions of Europea influenced ideas of this school. frankfurt

    Frankfurt school had been established to create a new resist about old traditional sociological theories and its main minds base on Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and Habermas. We define foundation of Frankfurt school in near historical perspective. At this time European destruction on I.

    World War, different dimensions of Russian revaluation, fascist movements of Hitler and Mussolini in socialist regions of Europea influenced ideas of this school. In general founders had been affected by ideas of Marx. So we say that this school created a general table as Marxist methods to criticism. The project of the Frankfurt School was to develop a critical theory of contemporary society that would combine philosophy, social theory, economics and cultural criticism in a new type of interdisciplinary theory. Also there is a variety between main ideas and methods of Marx[1]. Frankfurt school adopted contributions of Marx to economical developments and his research and critique methods. So there is a new Critique Method of school.

     

    Frankfurt school believed that old principles should be transformed into new tools. On this way self image is important than common criticism. All theoretical points can be improve by firstly auto-criticism, hereby thinkers refused social and economical determinism which are existed on old Marxist theories, also disclaimed comdemnation individuals on common social body in Marx and Engel’s idea. Society needs to secret potentials of individuals according to school.

     

    Criticism will destroy all oppressive systems and people will be conscious against to ideologies. Capitalism is progressing quickly, so we don’t need old methods to understand contemporary circumstances. Modern capitalism is controlling people who are working in heavy conditions and it manipulating information and populer cultur to prevent disobediences. Frankfurt school is defining this as culture industry. Its first duty is to adapt people to capitalism. Culture industry creates some small daily relaxation materials in heavy working life. Industry abuses mass media organs to create artificial system and people know them as relaxation mechanisms. Theodor Adorno saw the culture industry as an arena in which critical tendencies or potentialities were eliminated. He argued that the culture industry, which produced and circulated cultural commodities through the mass media, manipulated the population. Popular culture was identified as a reason why people become passive; the easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture made people docile and content, no matter how terrible their economic circumstances. School refuses its functions because these mechanisms are working to create again people’s work desires to capitalist system. Thus capitalism need to establish secret masks to legitimate its artificial system, contemporary sociologies are these masks. Theories of sociology and functionalism transformed to serve this idea.[2] Common target should be defined by thinkers as to create new solutions, share paradoxes in society and how they are produced by dominant system. Works of Adorno and Horkheimer heavily influenced intellectual discourse on populer culture.

     

    It is possible to create rational society with using Hegel’s ideas. Hegel says that reality is rational and humanity has an intelligence potential. So school is criticising modern society which is controlled by the cruel world system. Rational society is a common body which we are joining this with transforming environmental conditions. It gives standart opportunities to criticise available societies but Habermas creates a different model about it. He refuses rationality, humanity uses a concrete way. His utopic idea is that everybody should join to public discussions. Ideas of Habermas don’t base on rational society term, it is an ideal society which shares potential abilities of people.

    He determined three common points of human in Knowledge and Human Interests[3];

     

    – The technical human interest, which entails empirical and analytical ways of knowing and represents the world in terms of objects, processes and laws which describe the transformation of objects and processes

     

    – The practical human interest, which entails historical and hermeneutic ways of knowing that represent the physical, social, and cultural worlds as “texts” which have to be interpreted in order for meaning to emerge

     

    – The emancipatory human interest, which entails a critical way of knowing where critical theorems are gleaned through collective reflection on social and cultural practices and then used to restructure future actions.

     

    Thinkers of Frankfurt school focused on cultural and modernism problems. Related to this, they resisted to concrete rationalities of capitalist society. On this way they defenced importancy of cultural reality as against to economical functions. First resist to positivism had been created by Horkheimer. He aimed at dialectic positivists because of they shared a seperatist movement between phenomenons and values.[4] According to Horkheimer, positivism is a poor philosophical branch because it can not modernize itself and as epistemologically it can not understand real results. Horkheimer criticised positivism systematically in his articles and created common outlook to positivism of school.

     

    Criticism of Horkheimer improved by Habermas. In his “Knowledge and Human Interests” he define positivism as a monopolistic system which keeps information. If positivism recognises its target, it can be itself an information. It is possible to create this with using cathegories and notions which are refused by itself. Positivism had been established to give directions to people, it worked and today it has no important function. Also thinkers followed a way to criticise positivist approach of Marx. It shares a criticism to Soviets. Decisions can not depend on worker class, it should be established by theorists. So today’s authoritarianism of Soviet Marxism is a result of positivism, not Marxism.[5]

    Frankfurt school is a revisionist movement because criticism action of classic Marxist ideas and economical determinism.

    [1] Marxist Internet Archive, The Franktfurt School, www.marxist.org

    [2] Rudolf J. Siebert. “The Critical Theory of Religion: The Frankfurt School

    [3] Knowledge, Jurgen Habermas : http://www.psychiatriapsychoterapia.pl

    [4] Jeremy J. Shapiro. “The Critical Theory of Frankfurt “, in: Times Literary Supplement

    [5] Necati Bozkurt, 20. yy Düşünce Akımları , Sarmal Yayınları

     

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU

    Caspian Weekly

  • Erdogan Avoids Confrontation with the Military over Alleged Plot

    Erdogan Avoids Confrontation with the Military over Alleged Plot

    Erdogan Avoids Confrontation with the Military over Alleged Plot

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 118
    June 19, 2009 02:58 PM
    By: Saban Kardas
    Since the publication of a document, allegedly prepared by Colonel, Dursun Cicek, outlining a plan to undermine the governing AKP and the Gulen movement last week, Turkish domestic politics has focused on the future of civil-military relations (EDM, June 15). Nonetheless, fears over a split between the government and the military did not transpire, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has avoided such a dangerous confrontation. Instead of pursuing punitive action against the military authorities, Erdogan has demonstrated restraint and instead referred the matter to the courts.

    On June 15, the chief military prosecutor said that the allegations were being investigated. Based on a preliminary study of evidence, the prosecutor reached an opinion that the document was not prepared by any unit within the headquarters of the General Staff. If the authenticity of the document could be established, all personnel involved will be brought to justice, the statement added (Anadolu Ajansi, June 16).

    The office of the General Staff also released a press statement that criticized “the written and verbal comments and declarations targeting the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), both openly and implicitly, on the assumption that the allegations are true.” It called on everyone to refrain from reaching any premature conclusion on the allegations before the legal inquiry has reached its judgment (www.tsk.tr, June 15).

    Pro-government and pro-Gulen media outlets labeled the action plan as a blatant attempt by the military to interfere with the jurisdiction of civil politics. They did not find the military authorities’ claims about the authenticity of the document credible, and questioned how the prosecutor might have formed an “opinion” on a document without having seen it. More importantly, in their view, despite the steps taken toward democratization, the existence of such a plan within the military was a grave development. They maintained that unless the government acts decisively against this threat, its democratization efforts will be damaged. They believe, if necessary, the government should ask for the resignation of the either the chief of the General Staff or his deputy who oversee the department that allegedly prepared the report (Yeni Safak, Zaman, June 16).

    The Chief of the General Staff General Ilker Basbug gave an interview to Hurriyet in which he responded to the growing criticism of the Turkish military. He reiterated that the military prosecutor was working on the case and his headquarters’ additional investigation had revealed that there was no concrete evidence linking the military to the document. When asked “was such an order [for the preparation of the document] issued by the military command?” Basbug responded “I even consider this question an insult. Such an order was never given.” He said he will take all measures necessary, if the alleged source of the document is proven, but added that he opposed referring the case to the civil courts (Hurriyet, June 16).

    In this context, curiously the AKP’s reaction was expected. When the allegations first emerged, Erdogan promised to defend democracy and take any necessary legal action. On June 16, he met Basbug to discuss these developments. Recently, both leaders had agreed to form a new consultation mechanism and hold weekly meetings every Thursday (Radikal, January 22). No statement was issued following this meeting, but during his address to the AKP’s parliamentary group later the same day, Erdogan insisted that the state institutions had acted in close coordination. He praised the handling of the case by the General Staff, saying that it acted “in a responsible and sensitive manner.” He called on the military and civil courts to conclude their investigations promptly (Anadolu Ajansi, June 16).

    The AKP filed a criminal complaint against the plan with the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office. The lawsuit defined those involved in alleged plots against the AKP and the government, as engaging in illegal activities. The AKP described such activities as unacceptable, and requested an immediate investigation (Cihan, June 16).

    The AKP’s lawsuit appears to be based on the assumption that the document is genuine, and consequently the discussions have focused on the forensic investigation into its authenticity. However, reports in the Turkish media demonstrate how deeply politically divisive the issue has become. Newspaper headlines on June 17 illustrated the extent of these divisions. Star, which is supportive of the government, insisted that the document was uncovered as part of the Ergenekon investigation and was true, while Haberturk, which is more critical of the government, questioned its authenticity.

    The Gendarmerie criminal investigation unit has allegedly completed its examination of the document, which hinges on whether the signature belongs to Colonel Cicek. Although the forensic report was not released, newspapers speculate over its possible content. Whereas Haberturk claimed that it is “99 percent certain” that the document was forged, Yeni Safak and Star maintained that according to a preliminary investigation there is “90 percent certainty” that the signature belonged to the Turkish colonel. Other papers alleged that he might have used different signatures, which could further complicate the investigation (Sabah, Aksam, June 19).

    The Zaman daily, close to the Gulen movement, questions this narrow focus on the authenticity of the document, and maintains that it cannot address public concern surrounding the accusations. Zaman was especially critical of efforts to transfer the investigation to the military courts. Citing similar instances in the past, Zaman claims that it might be used to promote a military cover up. It called for a more comprehensive parliamentary investigation into the allegations (Zaman, June 19).

    Nonetheless, Erdogan has refused to turn this case into an open confrontation with the military, and he remains committed to avoiding such conflict. Turkish domestic politics is increasingly conducted around controversial legal cases. Yet, in a political system as divided as Turkey’s, trust in the court system is lacking -and far from clarifying the allegations, the court might perpetuate existing divisions.

    https://jamestown.org/program/erdogan-avoids-confrontation-with-the-military-over-alleged-plot/
  • MANY SCHOLARS CHALLENGE THE ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE

    MANY SCHOLARS CHALLENGE THE ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE

    Part I

    I find it important to mirror this work here to help truth-seekers gain one more access the information which is denied them by aggressive Armenian falsifiers, their usually anti-Turkish sympathizers, and other thinly veiled Turk-haters. Hate-based-propaganda and intimidation should not be allowed to replace honest scholarship and reasoned debate.

    Nothing less than the freedom of speech of those who hold contra-genocide views are at stake. Tools most used to advance censorship of contra-genocide views are hearsay, forgeries, harassment, political resolutions, editorial freedom, and consensus, among others. The key to resolving this controversy is more knowledge as in more honest research, more truthful education, and more freedom to debate… not less.

    Those scholars who take Armenian claims at face value urgently need to ponder these simple questions:

    1) How can one study a country’s history without reseraching that country’s archives? Can one study China’s history without using Chinese archives? Or Russia’s past without using Russian documents? Or America’s history without researching American records? Or Ottoman Empire’s past without using Ottoman archives? Why were the Ottoman archives almost never used in Armenian arguments and claims? Are language barriers, bureaucratic hurdles, cost, or others convincing enough excuses in scholarly studies that span a over decades or even centuries? Or is it instant gratification that these (genocide) scholars who ignore Turkihs archives really seek, not the whole truth?

    2) How can one study a controversy by confining one’s views to one side? Can you argue that only one side of say, the abortion issue, is absolutely correct, flalwless, and worthy of knowing, and that the other side should be totally ignored and even censored? How about gun control? And immigration? taxes? Iraq War? Gay rights? and many other controversial issues? Can one be confined, or asked to confine, to only one side of the debate and categorically dismiss forever the other side? Can this ever be made into a policy as it is attempted in the Turkish-Armenian conflcit and controversy? Where does the freedom of speech come into play here? If I, as an individual who holds a contra-genocide view, am slandered, intimidated, harrassed and even threatened for my views by some “opinion thugs” and often censored by “consensus mobs”, then is not this a blatant attack and destrcution of my constitutional right to freedom of speech? Does consensus make it truthful? Does (political) might make right?

    3) Why do those genocide scholars who love to get on their high horses and preach good morals to others, fail to scream murder in the face of that terrible human tragedy in Azerbaijan that victimized a million Azeri women and children in Karabagh and western Azerbaijan? Is it because the perpetrator of this inhumanity is Armenia, their client state? And the Armenians, their paymasters?

    4) If the study of genocide is designed to teach humans how to recognize, avoid, and fight back against new genocides, then why do these genocide scholars not take their client, Armenian and Armenians, to task about the genocide in Khodjaly on 19 February 1992? Since a genocide verdict by a competent tribunal (as the 1948 UN Convention requires) does not exist, yet, for consistency, let me call it man’s inhumanity to man and pogrom. The question is why did all the genocide study fail to stop Armenia from committing one between 1992-1994? Can you see the heart wrenching irony here?

    Here is what honest scholars and historians say about the bogus Armenian genocide:

    ***

    “ Ottoman Armenian tragedy is a genuine historic controversy. Many reputable scholars challenge the conventional, one-sided anti-Turkish narrative and / or refrain from alleging the crime of genocide. These Are Their Words ( https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/06/2889-ottoman-armenian-tragedy-is.html )

    BACKGROUND – WAR AND IMPERIAL COLLAPSE

    The collapse of the Ottoman Empire dramatically rearranged the map of a vast region. What was once a sprawling, multi-ethnic empire splintered into more than two-dozen new nations, from the Balkans to the Caucasus to the Arabian peninsula. Across the surface of these lands unfolded a profound human tragedy. Nearly incessant war crippled the Ottoman economy. It left towns devoid of men to care for households or to tend crops. Military requisitions drained the countryside of livestock and many of the labor-saving implements of daily life. Disease ran rampant and famine struck many.

    VAST POPULATION MOVEMENTS

    As new states coalesced, large population masses streamed across the landscape, some fleeing the path of war, some seeking new lives among ethnic brethren or co-religionists, some having suffered expulsion, and some obeying negotiated population exchanges. Two such major movements were (a) the flight of Muslim refugees from newly-established Christian states in Balkans and the Caucasus into what would become modern Turkey during the period roughly between 1821 and 1922, and (b) the relocation of much of the Ottoman Armenian population from the war zone of eastern Anatolia into Ottoman domains in Syria, mainly in 1915-16.

    A GENUINE HISTORIC CONTROVERSY

    History records the enormous human suffering from both of these events: Perhaps 5.5 million Muslims, mostly Turks, died as refugees or were killed in the years immediately preceding and during World War I, as well as through the formative years of the Republic of Turkey. And certainly hundreds of thousands of Armenians died during the Armenian Revolt and the relocations consequently ordered by the Ottoman government. Scholars on the Ottoman Empire continue to examine the details and causes of these twin tragedies. What they have uncovered is not a singular tale of Christian woe, but rather a complex story that, if presented as evidence, would make it highly unlikely that a genocide charge could be sustained against the Ottoman government or its successor before a neutral arbiter. Thus, whether the tragic suffering of the Ottoman Armenians meets the definition of the crime of genocide as provided by the United Nations Genocide Convention (see appendix 1) remains a genuine historic controversy. Moreover, the notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history must be utterly rejected so that researchers will feel free to delve into the details of these contested events.

    QUESTIONS CONSIDERED

    Among the work of the scholars below, many of whom are Ottoman history experts, are considerations of the following questions:

    * Is the genocide label, which is so vigorously promoted by Armenian advocacy organizations appropriate?

    * Did the Ottoman government during World War I possess the requisite intent described by the U.N. Genocide Convention, to destroy the Armenians?

    * What was the Armenian Revolt (see appendix 2) and how did it impact the Ottoman government’s decision to relocate Armenian civilians from eastern Anatolia?

    * What was the ultimate toll upon the Armenian population? And how many deaths could be attributed to the various causes: inter-communal warfare, starvation, exposure, massacre, disease, etc.?

    * What was the ultimate toll upon the Ottoman Muslim population embroiled in these same events? And how many deaths can be attributed to the same causes?

    Their work establishes a better basis upon which to address historic grievances than the one-sided narrative most often provided in media accounts and by Armenian lobbyists and their advocates. In effect, these scholars provide the oft-ignored historical context, which is critical to any explanation of the shared past of the Turkish and Armenian peoples.

    At a minimum, the list below demonstrates that in fact, there exists no common agreement that the genocide label is appropriate and that, contrary to assertions made by Armenian lobby groups, the details of the historic narrative remain open to further study and interpretation.

    THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL AND ACADEMIC INTIMIDATION

    Sadly, this list likely under-represents the number of scholars who would challenge the conventional wisdom on the Armenian tragedy. Those who write from a contra-genocide perspective have had to do so under extraordinary risk. Merely because of something he wrote, the home Prof. Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A. was firebombed. Death threats have been received by Justin McCarthy and his family.

    The university press that published Guenter Lewy’s latest work was harassed by two Armenian scholars. (see appendix 3.)

    The University of Southern California in 2006 buckled to the vociferous protest of an Armenian pressure group and canceled a symposium by two former Turkish diplomats.

    Meanwhile, foreign nations such as France and Switzerland have rendered it against the law even to hold the contra-genocide viewpoint. Princeton University’s Bernard Lewis was famously fined by a French court in 1995 for such an “offense.”

    And, the Armenian terrorist organizations ASALA and JCAG carried out no fewer than 73 acts of terrorism in North America alone, killing 16 people. Around the world, Armenian terrorists killed at least 50 more people, mostly Turkish diplomat murdered in planned assassinations and injured over 500, all in the name of “genocide recognition.”

    In short, the chilling effect this has had on free discussion and open debate on the history of the late Ottoman Empire has been genuine and severe, lowering a curtain of fear over the consideration of this important era of world history.

    ADDITIONS AND SUBTRACTIONS

    Our aim is to evaluate as closely as possible each name on the list based on the published statements or writings of each scholar that are readily available. We welcome visitor suggestions for additions to the list. And likewise, if you believe that a particular name ought not be on the list, please let us know. Our goal is to continue to openly discuss and debate the details of history and the genocide allegation. For feedback, please contact info at tc-america.org.

    Whether the tragic suffering of the Ottoman Armenians meets the definition of the crime of genocide as provided by the United Nations Genocide Convention [web] remains a genuine historic controversy. The notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history does not reflect the truth and must be utterly rejected.

    The work of the following scholars demonstrates that there exists no common agreement that the genocide label is appropriate and that, contrary to assertions made by Armenian lobby groups, the historic narrative of this painful period in Ottoman-Armenian relations remains open to further study and interpretation. Furthermore, the work by the leading historians on the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East provides the oft-ignored historical context without which any explanation of the shared past of the Turkish and Armenian peoples is simply impossible.

    Our aim is to evaluate as closely as possible each name on the list based on the published statements or writings of each scholar that are readily available. Our goal is to continue to openly discuss and debate the details of history and the genocide allegation. For feedback, please contact info at tc-america.org

    ***

    SCHOLARS

    * Arend Jan Boekestijn
    * Mary Schaeffer Conroy
    * Youssef Courbage
    * Paul Dumont
    * Bertil Duner
    * Gwynne Dyer
    * Edward J. Erickson
    * Philippe Fargues
    * Michael M. Gunter
    * Paul Henze
    * Eberhard Jäckel
    * Firuz Kazemzadeh
    * Yitzchak Kerem
    * William L. Langer
    * Bernard Lewis
    * Guenter Lewy
    * Heath W. Lowry
    * Andrew Mango
    * Robert Mantran
    * Michael E. Meeker
    * Justin McCarthy
    * Hikmet Ozdemir
    * Stephen Pope
    * Michael Radu
    * Jeremy Salt
    * Stanford Shaw
    * Norman Stone
    * Hew Strachan
    * Elizabeth-Anne Wheal
    * Brian G. Williams
    * Gilles Veinstein
    * Malcolm Yapp
    * Thierry Zarcone
    * Robert F. Zeidner

    ***

    * AREND JAN BOEKESTIJN
    Lecturer in history of international relations, History Department at Utrecht University, Netherlands.

    Major Publications

    * Economic integration and the preservation of post-war consensus in the Benelux countries, (1993) * Other articles (not in English) Source: Excerpted from Turkey, the World and the Armenian Question (see appendix 4)

    “Citizens and politicians living in Western Europe tend to take the high moral ground on issues where they are not themselves directly involved. This is a strategy that runs the risk of applying double standards. It is all very nice to condemn the so-called Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the last century; but what about the national sins of one’s own country? In addition to the holocaust, Germany committed genocide against the Herero tribe in then Southwest Africa; France slaughtered 200.000 Muslims in Algeria during 1954-1962, and what about King Leopold’s Ghost in the Belgian Congo? The list is much longer. Turks do not have a monopoly on human deficit.”

    “A number of governments and national parliaments ask Turkey that it recognize Armenia’s claims of genocide. These governments include France, Belgium, Russia, Lebanon, Uruguay, Switzerland, Greece, and Canada. The European Parliament and a number of U.S. states have also recognized the slaughtering of Ottoman Armenians as stemming from a systematic policy of extermination. Turkey fears that the U.S. Congress may soon follow. Recently, the German Parliament adopted a resolution in which the word genocide was not used but still called on the Turks to confront their past.”

    “Did the Ottoman Turks really commit genocide? And, is the Turkish government handling this sensitive issue well?

    In article 2 of the present United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948); genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    The problem in identifying whether genocide was committed is the clause: in whole or in part. In part, implies that most wars involve an element of genocide. Genocide only has real meaning if a government intends to destroy an entire group of human beings. The Armenian side claims that the Ottoman government at the highest level had the intention to kill Armenians. So far, there is no such proof in the Ottoman Archives.”

    “Today, the German Holocaust of the Jewish population is widely compared to that of the Armenian massacre. However there are important differences between the two.

    First, Jews had done nothing wrong. They were just there and formed the basis of Hitler’s blatant racism. There is little doubt that the Turks overreacted to the Armenian challenge, but some Armenians did collaborate with the Russian enemy and some of them were involved in guerrilla like activities behind Ottoman defensive lines. This does not justify the Turkish position, but it is wrong to portray the Armenians as completely innocent.

    Second, in Hitler’s Germany, those in power knew what the Nazi’s were doing with the Jews. Most of them chose to support his policies. In Turkey, not all the members of the Turkish government were aware that some of them were using the deportations as an instrument of ethnic cleansing. When they discovered this, they tried to punish the perpetrators. Unfortunately, some of the perpetrators remained in power or acquired even higher positions.

    Third, there was no pre-planned genocide in Turkey, as in the case with the holocaust. No pre-1914 Ottoman government could have had foreknowledge of the outbreak of the First World War or the circumstances under which the deportations would be accomplished. Mainstream Ottoman politics included normal Armenian participation until war began. There is not only no evidence that the CUP government deliberately planned for genocide before 1914, it is also highly unlikely. It would suggest that it intended to carry out the mass murder of an ethnic group something for which there was no precedent in modern history. Moreover, if there had been plans and these were leaked out, intense international opposition possibly leading to an invasion of the Ottoman Empire by other European Powers would have been the result. Viewed in this light, it seems most implausible that the genocide of the Armenians was preplanned.

    Fourth, the historians who question the intention of the Turks to commit genocide are often excellent historians like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein with some documentary evidence on their side. They are not mendacious anti-Semitic crackpots who enunciate Holocaust denial.

    And lastly, the CUP never adopted an all-embracing secular, universalistic, quasi-messianic ideology in the style of Nazism and Communism. It remained rooted in traditional (although modernizing) nationalism and a vision of an Islamified Turkey. The events can be read as a botched, wartime panic, overreaction, with premeditation most unlikely and the scale of killings arguably exaggerated.

    Let us try to put these qualifications into perspective. Even if the Armenian massacre cannot be compared to the German Holocaust, even if not all members of the CUP government knew that some of their colleagues were bent on solving the Eastern question once and for all, the fact remains that between 600.000 and 900.000 Armenians died of murder, starvation, and exhaustion.”

    ***

    MARY SCHAEFFER CONROY
    Professor of Russian history at Colorado University, Denver (since 1995).

    Major Publications

    * Peter Arkad’evich Stolypin: Practical Politics in Late Tsarist Russia, Boulder: Westview Press, 1977.

    * Women Pharmacists in Late Imperial Russia. in Linda Edmondson, ed. , Women & Society in Russia & The Soviet Union, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 48-76.

    * In Health & In Sickness: Pharmacy, Pharmacists & the Pharmaceutical Industry in Late Imperial, Early Soviet Russia, Dist. Columbia University Press, 1994.

    * Emerging Democracy in Late Imperial Russia, Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 1998 (edition).

    * The Russian Pharmaceutical Industry in the Late Imperial-Early Soviet Period,” in Politics and Society Under the Bolsheviks, Kevin McDermott and John Morison, eds., Basingstoke: MacMillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999, pp. 13-36.

    * The Soviet Pharmaceutical Business during Its First Two Decades (1917–1937), New York: Peter Lang, 2006.

    * Medicines for the Soviet Masses during World War II, University Press of America, 2008.

    Relevant Publications

    * Review of Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict, The Social Science Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 481-483. Source: Review of Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict, The Social Science Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 481-483

    “Dadrian claims that Armenians were more oppressed than these groups because they were not allowed to bear arms and had no outside protectors. Furthermore, the Ottoman government allowed Kurds and Islamic migrants from the Balkans and the Caucasus to harass Armenians. His argument, however, is marred by inconsistency and ambiguity. He notes, for instance, the appointment of Armenians to central and local government posts in 1876, periodically refers to the Armenian diaspora, and admits that Armenian merchants, upper echelons of the Armenian clergy and ‘conservative’ Armenians preferred Ottoman rule to Russian (Russia ruled a slice of Armenia following the 1827-1828 Russo-Turkish War) because they believed this would better preserve Armenian identity.

    Indeed, Armenian deputies in the Ottoman Parliament spoke out against Russia. The author tells us nothing, however, about the conditions within the Ottoman Empire which produced the Armenian elites, nor does he elaborate on these issues. Similarly, Dadrian mentions Armenian revolutionaries, the Huntchaks and the Dashnaks, some of whom engaged in raids on the Ottoman Bank in the mid-1890s, and he concedes that their numbers were small and that the bulk of Armenians repudiated them. However, he does not develop the impact these revolutionaries may have had on Ottoman government policies, particularly the reluctance to let Armenians bear arms. Further, Dadrian does not identify the Huntchaks as Marxists nor the Dashnaks as extreme nationalists. In chapter 10, Dadrian informs us that several thousand Armenians fought for Turkey in World War I but, again, does not develop this theme.” P. 482.

    “Although Dadrian appears fluent in Turkish and cites certain Turkish sources — dissident Ittihadist reports, memoirs of a few Turkish leaders, and statements from a post-World War I war-crimes tribunal — almost no information on Turkish government policies regarding Armenians and nothing on the decision to annihilate them comes from Turkish archival sources. Dadrian relies mainly on British Foreign Office and German, Austrian, and French reports. When discussing how the Turks unleashed Kurds to attack Armenians in the mid-1890s, Dadrian even quotes a U.S. senator’s castigation of this event as supporting evidence. Similarly, he cites the Russian newspaper Golos moskvy (incorrectly transliterated ‘Kolos Moskoy’) as one of the sources for a ‘secret Turko-German plan for the massive deportation of the Armenians of eastern Turkey’ along with a Western historian’s ruminations on how important cultural homogeneity was to the Turks, as proof of the Armenian massacres of 1915. Dadrian’s excuse for not documenting Turkish policies with internal governmental sources is that the policies were secret. However, since much evidence exists in Russian archives about secret policies, one cannot but be skeptical about this explanation.

    A few typos and small factual errors, such as the implication that Russian-Ottoman relations were always adversarial in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, mar the book. However, the most egregious flaws in this book are its polemical tone, its sketchiness, and its failure to use Turkish archival sources. Therefore, while the book delivers intriguing insights into Ottoman-Kurdish relations and the views of individual Turkish statesmen regarding Armenians, and while it suggests convincing theories for Turkish massacres of Armenians, it does not convincingly document these theories. It is thus unsatisfying as a whole. This book is more a work of journalism than solid history and is not recommended.” P. 483.

    ***

    (To be Continued)

  • Turkey Considers Procuring American or Russian Attack Helicopters

    Turkey Considers Procuring American or Russian Attack Helicopters

    Turkey Considers Procuring American or Russian Attack Helicopters

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 116
    June 17, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    Undersecretary of Defense Industries Murad Bayar told reporters that he is optimistic about the purchase of Super Cobra helicopters from the U.S. Navy, amidst reports that a Turkish delegation is visiting Moscow to discuss the procurement of Russian MI-28 helicopters. In a stalled bid, the Turkish military has been eyeing additional strike helicopters as a stop-gap measure to meet its needs until its own national attack helicopter project becomes operational.

    Attack helicopters have been on Turkey’s defense procurement agenda since the 1990’s. In order to increase the army’s effectiveness in combating the PKK, Ankara designated attack helicopters as an urgent requirement, and developed multi-million dollar programs to meet the army’s needs. Following the purchase of several Cobra class platforms, the subsequent tenders Turkey opened were cancelled due to price disputes, licenses and technology transfers and the changing political climate. Consistent with Turkish military procurement policy after 2004, it initiated a national helicopter gunship program.

    However, due to the stringent regulations on local participation and technology transfers, American firms could not participate in tenders, and Turkey eventually awarded the contract for the production of its national attack/tactical-reconnaissance helicopters to the Italian AgustaWestland. Under the $3 billion project, the Turkish army will acquire 50 T129 helicopters, a modified version of the Italian Mangusta-A129. The deliveries were expected to start in 2013, but some sources claim that this date be pushed back to 2015 (EDM, June 27, 2008).

    Criticism surrounding Turkey’s military modernization program has continued unabated. According to its critics, Turkey’s handling of the helicopter project since the outset reveals poor planning and the lack of direction within the defense industry. Many ambitious weapons systems including main battle tanks, assault helicopters and UAV’s are to be produced domestically, but their design and prototypes will not be ready before 2012. Critics claim that “if the development of those projects was not followed closely, the Turkish defense industry might face a serious crisis in 2012 after falling short of meeting the real needs of the Turkish armed forces” (EDM, January 6).

    Meanwhile, the Turkish army reported deficiencies in combating the PKK caused by the delays in the helicopter program, especially after the escalation of the PKK’s terrorist campaign in recent years. The helicopters within the Turkish military inventory, mostly Cobra class, are aging and fall short of the army’s operational meets. This situation lends credibility to the critics’ arguments, since although an attack helicopter project was considered as urgent in the 1990’s, it remains unfinished -and it will take several years before the army will acquire the quantities it needs.

    Realizing that even under the most optimistic estimates national attack helicopters will not be delivered before 2013-2015, as a short term measure Turkey approached the United States in late 2007 to purchase up to 12 Cobra class helicopters already in use by the U.S. navy. U.S. sources said that they were in short supply. Since operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have overstretched U.S. military resources, Washington declined the Turkish requests (Turkish Daily News, March 28, 2008). Instead it offered Turkey AH-64 Apaches, but Ankara did not want them since having operated Cobras for almost two decades, the Turkish army lacked the infrastructure and personnel to operate Apaches. The Italian AgustaWestland offered its Mangusta-A129 helicopters, but the Turkish armed forces declined, arguing that the A129’s engine was insufficient to meet its needs (Aksam, March 28, 2008).

    The issue resurfaced several times, but the American side did not change their stance. Diplomatic observers maintained that although shortages were cited as the official justification, Washington refused to sell used Cobras to Turkey to punish Ankara’s inflexibility over the attack helicopter tender. It was also claimed that Turkey’s refusal to send additional troops to Afghanistan was behind Washington’s reluctance to sell the Cobras to Ankara (Today’s Zaman, April 14, 2008; Aksam, March 28, 2008).

    Turkey then reportedly turned to Russia in late 2008. Turkish and Russian media reports claimed that, after being turned down by the United States, Ankara planned to procure 32 MI-28 Night Hunters, an all-weather day-night attack helicopter, in a deal worth $1 billion. However, Russian defense officials denied these claims and said that Turkey did not officially submit such a request (Cihan Haber Ajansi, December 22, 2008).

    Nonetheless, Turkish interest in pursuing the Russian option has continued, reportedly negotiating the purchase of at least 12 MI-28 choppers (Taraf, June 10). Russian defense industry officials attending the IDEF 2009 arms fair in Istanbul in late April maintained that Turkey showed interest in buying Russian air defense systems and combat helicopters (RIA Novosti, April 27). According to recent reports, a delegation from the Turkish defense ministry traveled to Moscow in order to explore the possible acquisition of between 12 and 32 helicopters within the next two or three years (RIA Novosti, June 15).

    In response to a question about the visit of a Turkish delegation to Moscow, Bayar told reporters “I am very hopeful about the purchase of Cobra W class [AH-1W-Supercobra] helicopters… I believe we will acquire them. The U.S. navy is considering the acquisition of the Z series, and they will not need the Cobra W class.” He added that during his visit to the United States, the Turkish Chief of the General Staff General Ilker Basbug also raised this issue with his American counterparts (Radikal, June 14).

    Given the feasibility concerns, the Turkish government is likely to reach a decision after comparing the Russian and American platforms. In addition to technical and economic factors, political considerations will also play a key role in Ankara’s decision. Given the recent rapprochement between Turkey and the United States, it might indeed acquire the Cobras as a temporary measure. Turkish plans to make a greater contribution to Afghanistan following Basbug and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s contacts (EDM, June 16) might help remove the objections of the U.S. army to Turkey’s requests.

    Nonetheless, these developments demonstrate how Ankara treads carefully between Moscow and Washington to maximize its leverage. In line with its recent foreign policy orientation, Turkey also appears equally determined to keep its options open in its defense procurement policies.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-considers-procuring-american-or-russian-attack-helicopters/
  • P00R RICHARD’S REPORT

    P00R 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 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.

    How to make Wall Street Safer

    I am writing this in the hopes that some of you have contacts with influential members of Congress.
    These ideas are simple to implement and will have positive effects.
    These letters will be short and right to the point.

    Have all firms that do transactions in securities on exchanges in the United States be PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
    If the partners are putting up their own money they will think twice about doing a sub prime deal. It will not be how big is the commission, but how big the risk will be to their own pocketbook.
    Cheerio!!!

    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.

    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 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.

    How to make Wall Street Safer

    I am writing this in the hopes that some of you have contacts with influential members of Congress.
    These ideas are simple to implement and will have positive effects.
    These letters will be short and right to the point.

    Have all firms that do transactions in securities on exchanges in the United States be PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
    If the partners are putting up their own money they will think twice about doing a sub prime deal. It will not be how big is the commission, but how big the risk will be to their own pocketbook.
    Cheerio!!!

    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.