Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Good Bye Stocks – Hello Bonds

    Good Bye Stocks – Hello Bonds

    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 continuing to provide needed income is my primary goal for these unsettled times. I have been given the desire to study and observe global money progressions and trends for the last 50 years. I evaluate possible future trends in order to provide positive concepts for you to form your own conclusions. The main purpose of this letter is to warn you of possible financial sinkholes.

    Good Bye Stocks – Hello Bonds

    We are leaving the golden era of free enterprise due to unmitigated greed and chicanery. We can easily adjust if we accept the true meaning of what awaits us. If we fight to retain our old dreams and fantasies we will see ourselves being spoon fed by fat socialist bureaucrats for the “common good”.

    In this letter I will present some facts for your perusal and then you can make up your own mind in regards to your financial decisions. Those willing to change their offensive strategy can become winners in life’s never ending battles.

    The result of these recent price disturbances (all the bubbles bursting) is the falling value of the property that has been borrowed against. The value of the property’s income also falls. We have come from extreme over indebtedness and now find ourselves in a hole – we should stop digging.

    This is a hard lesson that our grandparents learned in the 1930’s, but sadly has been forgotten as satanic greed took over our souls. We now find ourselves caught between a recession and a depression. I call it a MESSYSESSION.

    All the corporations whose bubbles have burst must work down their inventories; since many are in the financial sector this will take time. Individuals must use their earnings to pay down debts to save their homes instead of spending money on frivolous purchases. The Rule of 72 has the deck stacked against them, unless the Usury Law is resumed. The lack of the Usury Law is quicksand for our economic recovery.

    The working down of inventories alone can be deflationary, however, the Federal Reserve has been pumping money into our supply pipeline at super speed. When an entity goes bankrupt, those debts do not go back into circulation, they go to money heaven. This is why the Fed has to keep the supply pool full and why this action should keep us out of a depression.

    Having to pay down all this debt slows down our economy and hurts our suppliers worldwide. This is why we have a world wide Messysession.

    Corporations that have borrowed from the Government will have a hard time maintaining their common stock dividends because their first priority is bond interest. Their second priority is preferred dividends. What is left over will then be distributed to common stock holders or used for debt reduction. Debt reduction means job security.

    Sooner or later the US Government will have to go on a massive borrowing campaign. This could weaken the dollar and send interest rates soaring along with the price of Gold – for a while.

    Some recessions are “V” shaped, which means stocks fall down hard and come back up quickly. Stocks tumble, but recover because there are people looking across the valley. If the recovery is like an elongated “U” or “L” one needs binoculars to see across the valley to a recovery. This could cause price to earnings ratios to shrivel, since analyst’s earnings estimates will be suspect at best. The economy can take a year or two to recover based upon how responsible Congress is. It will be years before our economy fully recovers from all the bubble bursting. What we need is a cheap new energy invention.

    The only period, since 1872, where stocks substantially outperformed bonds on a prolonged basis was the 1950s to 1960s. This was a golden era for stocks and it has taken many abuses to wind down.

    These are some of the many issues that President Obama faces on the home front. Now we shall look at some of his international problems.

    Europe is changing. It used to be that France and Germany were the major players, with Great Britain looking on. The United States has encouraged the expansion of the European Community to diminish the power of the two largest countries. Poland is emerging as an economic power and if Turkey is admitted, as they should be, they will bring new found political clout for the first time since the demise of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago. Their inclusion could bring stabilization to the chaotic Middle East situation. Turkey has freedom of religion, a vigorous economy (17th largest), and a solid government. Their influence is growing. They also have a strategic location to insure peace long term.

    Then, there is Russia, who can throw all kinds of money around, but when it comes to signing on the dotted line – they cannot be trusted. Turning off gas supplies in mid-winter and canceling major contracts with world-renowned companies are actions that are hard to forget. Obama has pledged to focus US military power on the war in Afghanistan. The bulk of supplies must come from the north. Russia does not want a ballistic missile defense system in central Europe. It wants a halt to NATO expansion and reduced American influence in the Caucus and central Asia. They also want a broad renegotiation on non-trivial treaties that are terrible for Russia in 2009. (Anyone want to be President?)

    We must come up with a way to renew confidence for the consumer. First and foremost is the renewal of our Usury laws that were dropped because disintermediation was wrecking the banking system in the 1970s. Creating lasting jobs will not happen by just building roads. These programs must be done so that they promote or improve future growth. It is difficult to do this on a national level because there are too many fingers in the pie. Programs done on a state level are easier to control. It is more realistic to meet regional needs.
    Lowering corporate taxes when a corporation moves into intercity areas would mean better roads, and businesses to support them. Raising taxes invites tax avoidance schemes that only benefit the issuer. It also removes money from the private sector. Today, pricing power has evaporated.

    There must be global reorganization of the securities laws, most importantly the Uptick rule. Countries that do not participate should be banned from trading within the member countries. Today hedge funds and institutions have spent millions of dollars on sophisticated trading programs. This makes for an uneven playing field and has driven the small investor to the sidelines, as witnessed by declining volume on the exchanges. The small investor becomes the ultimate bag-holder at the bottom of markets when they have no one to sell to.

    If a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is declining that means the average on corporate earnings will be declining also. This means fewer companies will be showing an increase in earnings and therefore there will be fewer securities that have an investment grade value. Since there are already too many mutual funds and they all cannot buy the same stocks, that game is over. I would sell your mutual funds while you can if you are over 55 years old. If they get too many orders for liquidation they have the option of delivering stock of the same value to you. That is an easy way to get rid of their losers. If you are under 55 and own a balanced fund where the income can be reinvested on a periodic basis you are in the catbird seat. Lower prices will mean more shares and 10 to 15 years from now when the market recovers you could be a wealthy person. Other low income on non paying funds should be sold. It could be 20 to 25 years just to breakeven and that is only if it is a survivor.

    First quarter earnings are going to be a disaster. I suspect this is when many will throw in the towel and give up.
    Gold should be considered a hedge – possible short term.

    Here are some moneymaking ideas. A successful portfolio can be 20% equities 50% fixed income and 30% cash.
    By equities I mean income-producing securities yielding over 5%. There are a few out there that are “stupid” cheap versus dirt-cheap. Then there are preferred stocks, many of which are 85% tax-free. Many are selling below their call price. This means if a company wants to improve its balance sheet, they can do that by calling your preferred from you by paying the call price. If they fail to pay a preferred dividend it becomes cumulative. To resume payments they must make up the back dividends first. One that falls into this category is: AMERCO Pfd A (NYSE) 20 (2-6-09) pays $2.125 which yields 9.41%. gives you a tax free yield of 8%. If they call the stock at $25 you will have a $5 gain which amounts to a 25% gain. You won’t be able to have this return with common stocks over the next several years.

    Tax free bonds were good when income tax rates were 55%-92%. The low tax rates today are beaten by preferred stock’s rates, such as the one I mentioned above. You have a ready market and real value. What you see is what you get. There was an issue on Long Island that defaulted in the depression. A default like that today would wreck havoc in the entire sector. For safety reasons, please avoid tax-free bonds.

    Since the US has to borrow around a trillion dollars or more, Government bonds could be an instant loss. For now, I would avoid these also. That leaves us with corporate bonds. Many corporate bonds have a better balance sheet than the United States. Buying bonds in the five year range is the safest place to be. As the bond gets closer to maturity the price fluctuations are at a minimum and easily salable. You are better off buying an individual bond than a fund. The fund will charge a yearly management fee as well as anything else they can get away with. Also, some funds simply dump bonds into a portfolio and walk away. There was a case where a fund dumped their holdings of an issue right at the very bottom, only to have the bonds called a few months later. Please remember that corporate bond holders have first lien on a corporation’s asset.

    I suspect that in a few months you will see a stampede out of many mutual funds and a proliferation of all types of bond funds trying to cash in on the new trend. Keep it simple- buy your own.

    I know I have thrown many ideas your way in this letter and I apologize, but I feel the times warrant such thinking. I will be available, free of charge, to anyone who would want to discuss any of these ideas at the addresses below.

    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
    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.

  • BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY VERSUS RENÉ RÉMOND

    BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY VERSUS RENÉ RÉMOND

    By: Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

    If you judge one’s credibility by the sheer press coverage s/he gets, then you would think Bernard-Henri Lévy is credible, but is he?

    After all, Armenian allegations of genocide get lots of press coverage for 90+ years and yet we know better than to take them at face value, don’t we?

    Bernard-Henri Lévy is an ardent supporter of the bogus Armenian genocide, so it would be a good idea to take a closer look at this man’s work.  Frankly, I don’t know who is using who.  Is Bernard-Henri Lévy using the Armenian genocide industry to get a wider market for his ethocidal works or are Armenian lobbyists using him to get more credibility for their bogus genocide claims?  Perhaps, both.

    Whatever the case is, one thing seems clear enough:  Bernard-Henri Lévy’s credibility in France is on decline, thanks to several books written by journalists or scholars who know him well.   See, for example, this summary of the revelations about Mr. Lévy’s forgeries  here:

    <a href=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1480855/Frances-fashionable-philosopher-under-fire.html

    > FRANCE’S FASHIONABLE PHILOSOPHER UNDER FIRE </a> written by Henry Samuel, Paris, for the Telegraph newspaper, England, published on  10 January 2005.

    I quote:

    “… France’s love affair with its highest-profile living philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lévy, appears to be at an end after the publication of a number of books attacking his writings and methodology.

    The latest critique, by the investigative journalist Philippe Cohen, brands Lévy intellectually “incoherent”. His book, BHL – a biography, published this week, coldly sets out to unmask the philosopher.

    It attacks France’s most media-friendly intellectual on all fronts, dissecting not just his work but the man himself.

    It reproaches him for impoverishing French intellectual debate by over-simplifying any complex issue for mass consumption and demonising the opposite point of view.

    It even suggests that the ideas set out in his work French Ideology accelerated the rise of France’s hard-Right National Front.

    But perhaps most damaging of all to his credentials, the book contends that Lévy has a loose relationship with the truth.

    In 2002, President Jacques Chirac sent the philosopher on a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan. Lévy inaugurated a plaque commemorating Ahmad Massoud, the former commander of the Northern Alliance. The plaque was signed “from your friends of 20 years, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Gilles Hertzog [his colleague]”. Mr Cohen claims that Lévy met Massoud only once, and that briefly, in 1998.

    Fabulously rich, intelligent and camera-friendly, the fashionable philosopher is never happier than when causing controversy. With his trademark floppy hair and open-neck white shirt, Lévy has been the darling of television chat shows for the past three decades.

    The son of a timber tycoon, he owns a grand apartment on the Left Bank. And with his third wife, the actress and singer Arielle Dombasle, he owns a palace in Marrakech.

    But over the past months, seven books have been released questioning his intellectual credentials.

    One, by Richard Labevière, a journalist with French radio, and Bruno Jeanmart, a philosopher at Grenoble University, is entitled The Absence of Thought in Bernard-Henri Lévy.

    In yesterday’s weekly L’Express magazine, the first to publish extracts of Cohen’s work, Lévy denied playing into the hands of the National Front and brushed off suggestions that he had sapped French intellectual debate and skirted the allegation that he was sometimes economical with the truth.

    “I have a war-like conception of seeking the truth,” he said. “History is very cunning, why shouldn’t men be too?”

    ***

    To throw more light upon the relationship between history and law, I am quoting Rene Remond’s  30 January 2009 dated treatment of the issue:

    ***

    HISTORY AND THE LAW

    By René Rémond

    The relationship between history and politics has for some time been tempestuous and troubled. This is not a new development: in politics we choose the long view when referencing past events, whether it be to disassociate ourselves from them or to seek arguments and reinforcement from them. Our willingness to be shaped by history is inevitably somewhat ambivalent, as history is both the mortar cementing the people.s unity and the seed of discord engendering its divergences and dissent. This is why the authorities . . cannot distance themselves from the recording of history or its transmission, and why they must consider themselves somewhat responsible for it. We are therefore not surprised that politicians are sometimes tempted to intervene in the fabrication and the instrumentalisation of history. Totalitarian regimes often openly rewrite history to their advantage, maintaining strict control over those who are tasked with the verification of historical truths. In fact nothing is more banal than the instrumentalisation and the agencing of the past. Qualifying it is sometimes controversial, and the historical significance of various events has ignited bitter ideological debates and political face-offs.

    For some time now in France there has been a major debate about the role of the legislator in defining history, which normally would neither interest nor be within the purview of the normal civilian, except that new information with multiple implications has recently been brought to our attention. It involves the philosophically significant problem of searching for the truth in history, as well as the role of the State, the responsibilities of the legislators and the historians. It is about the role of the Law and the availability of access to an objective cognizance of the past, the very idea and application of democracy.

    In listing all these challenges, are we not exaggerating slightly the scope of the affair? It will be up to the reader to decide, but in any case the question has not only been omnipresent in recent newspaper headlines, it has stirred the entire country and in particular elicited statements of position from both the President of France and his Prime Minister. The larger political parties have been obliged to examine its questions, a lawsuit was filed at the Conseil Constitutionnel (the Constitutional Council, the highest constitutional authority in France) and a judgment delivered in that case. Most importantly, the incident reveals the existence of a mechanism which could threaten the objectivity of the historical process and allow history to be manipulated for political reasons.

    THE PÉTRÉ-GRENOUILLEAU CASE

    Let us examine the elements of this case. On Saturday, June 10, 2005, the jury awarding the French Senate’s History Prize, which is given to distinguish a book which both satisfies strictly scientific criteria and also contributes significantly to the education of the French people – announced its choice after extensive deliberations: a book dealing with the African slave trade, published in the prestigious Gallimard series . Bibliothèque des histoires. (Library of History), by Olivier Pétré- Grenouilleau.  At the time the Prize was awarded, the Journal du Dimanche published an interview with the author in which he underlined the global nature of his research, expressing his interest in the phenomenon in its totality, i.e. not just in the .Atlantic. portion of the slave trade linked to the triangle of commerce originating in Western Europe. When asked about the qualification he would give to this historical fact, he said he considered the slave trade a crime against humanity but would not go so far as to call it genocide, since for him that would imply a systematic will to exterminate those of a different ethnicity. Moreover, the traders, whose motivations were mostly mercantile, certainly did not want their .merchandise,. their slaves, to die out and cease to provide revenue on their .investments.. This response, which seemed entirely reasonable, did not go down well with everyone, in particular those who are still haunted by memories of the slave trade tragedy.

    A collective of people from the Antilles, Guyana and La Réunion, citing legislation which authorised groups to bring class action suits against those denying these specific crimes, sued the author of the book. A ranking, historian whose work was recognised and supported by his peers, and who had done nothing to contravene the historian’s responsibility or that of a simple civilian of France . was thus dragged into court by plaintiffs who had no particular competence in his area of expertise, exposing him to possible criminal sanctions. Other historians suddenly realised the danger threatening research involving so called controversial subjects, and the genesis of the mechanism of public opinion being allowed to compromise the independence and the dissemination of their results. The complexity of this situation triggered a series of legislative initiatives, and an awareness of the consequences of this new mindset.

    INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMORY

    One of the causes of this entirely unexpected problem was the fact that the world will no longer let those who commit collective crimes go unpunished. The obvious precedent would be the Nuremberg trials, which we had hoped would be a one-time event, linked solely to the second World War and to the exceptionally heinous crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. Nuremberg left us a strong historical heritage, including concepts and definitions which have unfortunately again become current. International jurisdictions have been established to try war crimes committed in the enforced destruction of the Yugoslavian Federation and during the bloody massacres in Rwanda. The resulting initiative, whose far-reaching consequences constituted a caesura (a pause or break) in the history of the world, was the decision reached by the signatories of the Rome Treaty of 1999, which has been ratified by more than one hundred sovereign states, establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) with the authority over war crimes committed in both international and internal armed conflicts, reflecting the reality of contemporary armed conflict and crimes against humanity.

    The establishment of these new jurisdictions implied that political acts would now have to be justified by our sense of morality, our collective conscience, positing the development of human responsibility on a planetary scale. And there was another .break. which affected our relationship to the past: the introduction of the Convention on the imprescriptibility of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the dissolving of the statute of limitations on certain crimes, and directly contradicting the universal practice of not allowing the prosecution or even the mentioning of specific crimes. Our century decided to abolish this linking of time and memory for a specific category of crimes. To forget would be forbidden, a sin, and to remember would be both an ethical and legal duty. We created this duty.

    Remembering is not only desirable in the search for knowledge, it is now more than ever a moral imperative, and it is not being able to remember which becomes unacceptable. The responsibility is selective and it applies only to these crimes. It is justified by the respect we owe to the victims, and it is right that they survive in our memories. It is also in another sense a reparation, in that memory asks for forgiveness for that which could neither be prevented nor stopped. By recognising its faults, a people attains a certain stature. This attitude in our civil and political society is spiritually echoed by recent developments in the Catholic Church dealing with repentance. The final consideration affecting the responsibility of memory would be the enormity of the crimes, and the scope and nature of the actions committed.  In reminding us of them we are solemnly warned that these crimes could happen again and equally, that they must never happen again.

    THE INTRODUCTION OF LAWS ON MEMORY

    These dignified and laudable considerations have profoundly altered our relationship to the past, reflecting history.s changing position in society. They justify the intervention of politics into the equation. Now that remembering has become a civic responsibility, how can the legislator accept anything publically contradicting opinions that Justice or our collective conscience has previously adjudicated? This would evince a lack of respect for the victims and for their suffering, in effect condemning them a second time. This would allow doubt to enter the minds of those who did not or could not decide for themselves, contradicting the principles of civil education. Doesn.t political responsibility mean to take measures, to legislate?

    These, then, are the origins of the .memorial. laws dealing with the establishment of truth in history. They were strongest against the so-called revisionists, those who flatly deny the criminal activities of the Third Reich, using the defense of historical method to constitute their case. Of course, the Holocaust, the Shoah, is a historical fact, and there are seemingly only two explanations for the negationist position and the minds that have invented it: deliberate, contrarian bad faith (why?), or that idiosyncrasy beloved of the epistemologists, the total disruption of the critical functions of the mind, called Zoilism or hypercriticism. In 1990 the former Communist Minister Jean-Claude Gayssot submitted a bill making the denial of crimes against humanity a crime, punishable with sanctions, and it was generally well-received, the perception being that a crime of this magnitude demanded an exceptional response. Who would oppose this bill, wouldn.t that mean joining the negationists or supporting Jean-Marie Le Pen, who famously called the Holocaust a mere .detail of history.? A few historians whose vision extended beyond the sentiment showed concerns about the consequences of this bill: the late Pierre Vidal-Naquet (1), and Madeleine Rebérioux (2). Neither of them showed any sympathy for the negationists, and they asked judicious questions about the loi Gayssot. Unfortunately they were proved correct . the Law was meant to apply to one particular period of time, but instead has engendered a further series of memorial laws which are neither justified nor legitimate.

    RAISING THE STAKES

    After being lobbied by several Armenian associations, supported by senators and deputies representing large Armenian constituencies, in 2001 the Parliament adopted a law, which is unequalled and unique. It consists of one sentence:  “France publicly recognizes the Armenian genocide of 1915.”  Period.   Added was, “as of today, this is in effect, a law of the Republic.”  And what did it mean?  It meant that anyone who professed to have doubts about an ethnocide  (3)  or massacre whose existence is unquestioned would be in violation of the law and open to prosecution.

    Before that law went into effect, the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis (4) was sanctioned by a French court after an Armenian association sued him using the loi Gayssot (the Gayssot law) about denying crimes against humanity. Suddenly that law was being used to refer to the Armenian genocide. But there was a difference: the loi Gayssot technically referred to French men or women who were World War II victims or collaborators; it was not unusual that the representatives of France pass a law about them. However, in the Armenian massacre, the victims were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, not of France. And contextually, could we not in theory also prosecute the Spanish conquerors for the massacre of the American Indians? In addition, the period of time referenced by the loi Gayssot was 1945; the Armenian massacre took place in 1915. And the legislature was also being asked to decide something the specialists could not agree on: no one denies that the Turks left hundreds of thousands of Armenian men and women to die, in appalling conditions, but was it the execution of a decision which expressly ordered the extermination of each and every Armenian?

    This is the dilemma facing historical researchers. If we qualify an event, a crime, as genocide, we effectively banalise that concept as it applies to the Holocaust, diluting it, rendering it less specific and unique. In fact, the existence of the second .memorial. law set up a sort of competition between victims, as what the laws had in common was their citing of the persecutions suffered by the victims, risking that the memories of specific groups or.communities,. be used as substitutions for collective memory.

    The third of this family of .memorial. laws is known as the .Madame Taubira. law, bearing the name of the Senator from Guyana. It was adopted on May 21, 2001, and fortunately does not cite historical facts not involving France, since it condemns the slavery treaties and the slave trade in the colonies. But it does go back farther, the slave trade having been excoriated for over two hundred years and slavery itself having been abolished in 1848. Those who suffered have been dead for years and their surviving descendants are separated five or six generations from them. The law nonetheless gives them the right to defend the slaves. memory, to honor their descendants, and to prosecute anyone who dares to deny or minimize the fact of their existence. This was the reason for the Pétré-Grenouilleau case. So how far are we willing to go back in time? Back as far as the Crusades, or the Albigensian Crusade (5)? Perhaps the Reformists (the Protestants) should ask for reparations for the persecutions they suffered because of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Juxtaposing these particular memories would no doubt undermine the national memory and set the various traditions of thought against each other. Why legislate only on crimes? The loi Taubira implicitly targeted the whole colonial system, depicting it in negative terms. It is true that under the Ancien 3 As opposed to genocide, which has international implications, ethnocide or ethnic genocide, is the province of ethnologists, who have not yet determined an exact meaning for the word.

    Régime and over several centuries it was accompanied by slavery and the slave trade, but it was that same system which, beginning in the 19th century, ordered the French colonies to cut off the slave trade and to abolish slavery. Crossing the line judiciously drawn by the Constitution of the Fifth Republic between the legislative and executive branches of the government, which limits the former in defining the general principles of education, the loi Taubira decreed that .school curricula and programmes dealing with history or the humanities must situate the slave trade and slavery in their rightful places in history.. Beyond the fact that we don.t know exactly what is their rightful place . how many class hours, how many pages in the books should be devoted to them? . we need to ask how we can presume to legislate something which requires specific professional and scientific knowledge . is to open the door leading to confusion about roles and responsibilities.

    CONFISCATING HISTORY

    The loi Taubira shot colonialism down, the following loi rehabilitated it. The first law gave teachers quantitative instructions and obligations; the second told them how to .appreciate. them: .School curricula should recognise in particular the positive effects of the French presence overseas, notably in North Africa, and should also honor the courage and sacrifice of soldiers from these countries in the French Army.. That step, once taken, cannot be untaken if a legislator dictates his interpretation of history to the teacher, substituting himself for the real historian. If this law goes further than the one preceding it, the two laws are interdependent: the second law would not have been proposed if the first had not expressly targeted colonialism. It is perfect dualism: the two laws evoke, if disassociated, the two faces of this historical fact. They also call for consistent, concerted judgment. Asking for the repeal of the first loi Taubira would mean a political choice dictated by ideology; exonerating colonisation of its crimes, while asking for the repeal of the second law would give the impression that colonisation had had only negative effects on the countries involved. And to lobby for both laws to be repealed simultaneously would mean conclusions would be drawn and decisions would be made from a purely scientific position on the independence of history, which is technically supposed to illustrate the complexity of social reality and its innate ambivalence.

    The genealogy of these .memorial. laws, which as far as we know may continue to proliferate, has created an unexpected and worrisome situation for both research and education, and . I affirm this without hesitation . for civil rights and democratic process. Will the fear of legal action steer us away from delicate subjects? What researcher would take on a subject which potentially could expose him to a lawsuit? What research director would be willing to hire young investigators in sensitive or dangerous cases, as Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau did? Entire pages of history will remain blank, unless someone fills those blanks with State-proclaimed .truths.. The intrusion of politics into the definition of programmes and the establishment of historical truths would mean the outright confiscation of history by those in power, and a terrible loss to ordinary men and women.

    A group of historians, worried by this turn of events, took the initiative of addressing the major politicians directly, intending not only to plead for the rights of the historians to do their work freely, without pressure from the State, but also in the name of each French man and woman to know and understand history. Contrary to popular opinion, the historians did not claim to have a monopoly on the truth, merely the professional qualifications to speak about it, since by delegation they work for US. They do not .own. History, inasmuch as judges do not .own. the law, nor do doctors .own. our health. They answer to us. This is why some of them responded without question when they were asked to testify in the great trials dealing with the Occupation, with the single condition that they be asked only to verify facts, not to judge nor take part in the confusion between legal truth and historical truth. They were asked for their perspectives on the facts in evidence, sometimes also for explanations. They were not prohibited from juridically or morally qualifying these same facts, i.e. .is this genocide or not?. Does the historian overstep his bounds when he allows himself to morally disapprove of an act or a crime?

    THE ROLE OF THE POLITICIANS

    The politicians also want to have their say. They certainly have the right to publicly express their feelings in these situations, they may speak in our behalf — but they must follow two rules: unless they have personally investigated a case as any historian might, and developed their positions or convictions based upon purely historical considerations, their positions as representatives of the nation do not give them the right to decree what is true and what is not, nor to adjudicate conflicts of interpretation.

    This may seem obvious, but it is probably not a bad idea to set it down in black and white: in the debate on the .memorial. laws, we heard legislators abusing their positions, ignoring the fact that they only hold office because they are elected by the people, in fact conferring on themselves the rights to, the jurisdiction over historical truth, which confuses political legitimacy with that acquired through the scientific process. No senator, minister or deputy would dare to make pronouncements about the forces of nature, about hydraulics or the secrets of the genome. It is because of this definition of roles that there are now established institutions whose job it is to clarify the scope of the legislators. actions and those of the authorities. Why should it be any different for history?

    By opposing the principle of the .memorial. laws, the historians are reminding us to respect this separation of roles, reaffirming that history, our collective memory, belongs to us all. The list of the .memorial. laws shows us what the factors were in passing them, essentially electoral and political (not in itself a bad thing). They were clearly more influenced by emotion than by reason, they were without scientific foundation, confusing memory and history. They all begin in the same way, through lobbying by religious or ethnic constituencies, in the hope that their memories will be given consideration on the national stage, using history as both hostage and intermediary. The historians are taking a stand against this instrumentalisation which chips our collective memory into fragments.

    The second condition which the politicians need to accept when they are planning to speak about history concerns form: experience and the current controversy have shown us that they should not speak when their intent is to submit a law. Of course, politicians have every right to speak about history but not as part of the process that is specifically theirs: their votes. And by passing a law they are not .taking a position,. not the way the intellectuals did when they signed those long petitions. The law sets the rules, the standard, the limits. When it is amended with a clause allowing lobbyists to file lawsuits, it sets in motion an incredibly efficient and innately destructive mechanism. It was to neutralise this process that the historians advocated the abolition of the .memorial. laws, although they had certain qualms about extending the rule to the loi Gayssot because of its uniqueness. Of course it was also this same law which began the whole disastrous sequence of events.

    In any case, something needed to be done.

    The answer was a grand gesture worthy of all the hoopla. Both the French President and his Prime Minister proclaimed that the legislator does not have the power to dictate history. And the Constitutional Council downgraded the subparagraph of the last law which had intervened in the definition of school programmes while effectively disregarding constitutional law. The collective which had sued Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau withdrew its complaint, with interesting grounds: its process neither embodied public opinion nor included petitions from intellectuals. Was this a sign of the price we must pay for independent research, the establishment of a history which will be neither weapon nor pawn in the controversies which continue to divide us? History needs to belong to all of us.*

    – René Rémond*

    * P.S. Of course we have just learned that the Socialist minority in the Assemblée Nationale was planning to submit a law saying that those who deny the Armenian genocide may be prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison. Which then would align it with the Holocaust and give it the same weight as the loi Gayssot. Politicians are apparently incorrigible; emotion has again triumphed over reason.

    Translated by Sara Sugihara

    René Rémond* (1918-2007) was professor emeritus of contemporary history at Paris Institute of Political Studies, chairman of Nanterre university (1971-1976), of the Institute of Current History (1979-1990), of the National Association for Political Sciences (1981-2007), and of Liberté pour l’histoire (2005-2007). He was also member of the French Academy, and an administrator of the French public TV (1965-1972; 1982-1989). Among his numerous books: Histoire des États-Unis (“History of the United States”, 1959); Les Droites en France (“The Rigt wing in France”, 1964; new edition, 1982); Le Siècle dernier (“The Last Century”, 2003); and Quand l’État se mêle d’histoire (“When the States meddles with History”, 2006).

    ——————————————————————————–

    Études, June 2006

    ——————————————————————————–

    Notes:

    (1)   The eminent French historian who documented the systematic use of torture by the French during the Algerian war for independence in the 1950s and early 60s.

    (2)   The French Marxist historian and former president of the Human Rights League.

    (3)  Ethnic genocide, currently the prvonce of ethnologists with still unclear definition

    (4)  The Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.

    (5)  Albigensian or Cathar Crusade of 1181.

  • Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    By Ferruh Demirmen

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walkout from the Gaza panel in Davos last week created quite a stir on the international scene. The walkout strained the Israeli-Turkish relations, and the direction the Turkish foreign policy is headed became a subject of debate.

     

    The occasion was a panel discussion on the Gaza crisis where two of the four panelists were Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres. During his talk Erdogan blamed Israel for the Gaza violence, and Peres passionately defended his country’s policy. The tempers became inflamed when the moderator refused to allow Erdogan sufficient time to reply to Peres. This brought the panel discussion to a breaking point, and the PM walked off.

     

    The prevailing sentiment in Turkey is that Erdogan was justified in his action. Upon return from Davos, the PM was welcomed as a courageous leader by his supporters in Istanbul. The Arab world, in particular Hamas, lauded Erdogan’s action. There were alarm signals from the American Jewish lobby and the Israeli media, the former warning that Turkey’s image was damaged and making a sarcastic reference to PKK. In the rest of the world, the reaction was one of bemusement,

     

    The substance

     

    In substance, it is difficult to disagree with Erdogan on his criticism of Israel on the Gaza crisis. While the Jewish state deserved sympathy for the plight of its citizens that came under rocket attack from Hamas militants, its response was grossly disproportionate. Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip created a humanitarian crisis in an area that was already reeling under a military lockdown. Some 1300 Palestinians lost their lives, as opposed to 13 on the Israeli side. Gaza’s industry was destroyed, and even schools, mosques, hospitals and a UN compound came under attack.

     

    The notion that a vastly superior military firepower was turned on a nearly defenseless population under siege, with graphic images of Palestinian civilians suffering and dying, was too much to bear for the world at large, in particular the Islamic world. Erdogan verbalized these sentiments.

     

    What made the Israeli action particularly offensive was that the military campaign appeared to be planned months in advance, and that Israel was timing its military campaign according to presidential turnover at the White House. Israel’s banning of journalists from the war zone also exacerbated anti-Israeli sentiments.

     

    The style

     

    Putting substance aside, the manner in which Erdogan handled himself in Davos was both right and wrong. To make sense of conflicting reports of the incident, this writer viewed the official webcast of the panel discussion. It is clear from the webcast that Erdogan was justified in protesting to the moderator.

     

    A cardinal rule in panel discussions is that the participants are allowed equal time. In this case, Peres was allowed to speak considerably longer than Erdogan.

     

    It is also a standard practice in panel discussions to allow a second chance to the speakers to respond to each other. There was no such provision in the panel discussion. Erdogan wrestled to get additional time to respond to Peres, the last speaker, but when the moderator cut him off after two minutes, the PM became visibly agitated. Turning red-faced, he stormed out.

     

    Because the other two panelists had talked shorter than both Erdogan and Peres, the moderator could have allowed Erdogan more time to respond, thereby preventing a diplomatic crisis.

     

    On the other hand, the PM could have chosen to remain calm, letting the audience judge the unfairness of the situation. His parting remark to the moderator, “For me, Davos is finished,” was unnecessary, and his rhetoric aimed at Peres, “You are older than me. Your voice is coming strong, this has to do with a guilty conscience.” … ”You know well how to kill,” were quite inappropriate. He had lost his temper.

     

    In diplomacy, there is no substitute for composure.

     

    In Ankara, retired Turkish diplomats who criticized Erdogan’s behavior in Davos also drew the PM’s ire, who called them “monsieurs” – a thinly disguised pejorative term.

     

    Some commentators in Turkish media compared the PM’s action to the bluster of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev when he, in a fury, took his shoe off and banged it at the table at a United Nations conference in 1960. The comparison, however, was off the mark.

     

    The motive

     

    Erdogan’s action raised some basic questions. What was the PM trying to accomplish by becoming the spokesman for Hamas when the Arab world is almost indifferent to the plight of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip?

     

    And if the PM was sincere in his humanitarian concerns over the Gaza crisis, why did he not raise similar objections to the killing fields in Darfur, and, for that matter, next-door Iraq?

     

    Erdogan twice welcomed in Ankara Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir – a radical Islamist – who has been accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. These are questions only the PM can answer.

     

    But there is little doubt that Erdogan’s stance in Davos was driven at least in part by domestic politics. Local elections are scheduled for March, and by embracing the staunchly Islamic-oriented Hamas, the PM calculated that he could boost his popularity with his Islamist base at home. His popularity, in fact, did receive a boost, at least temporarily.

     

    The rallying welcome the PM received at the Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning just after leaving the panel discussion was obviously planned in advance.

     

    Israeli-Turkish relations

     

    The larger issue with the Davos incident is whether it heralded a major shift in Turkey’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel. In press releases, both sides tried to downplay the significance of the event, claiming that the relations between the countries remained fundamentally strong.

     

    There is considerable truth in that assessment, as the two countries have long had close bilateral ties, from tourism to commerce to defense. The two countries also have shared common strategic interests, a point verbalized by Peres during his talk at the Turkish Parliament in November 2007. Both countries will want to continue the alliance.

     

    The alliance, however, will face challenges. Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization, and unless the organization becomes more moderate, a serious rift in the Israeli-Turkish alliance will be inevitable. Turkey’s relationship with the US and the EU will also be affected.

     

    There is also the concern, raised by the American Jewish lobby, but also by the Turkish Jewish community, that Erdogan’s pro-Hamas stance may stoke anti-Semitism in Turkey. The PM tried to allay this concern by stating that his quarrel is with the Israeli administration, not Jewish people.

     

    The problem with this argument is that his constituents in the Islamic camp may not make such distinction.

     

    Any rise in anti-Semitism in Turkey would be very unfortunate. Since the Ottomans welcomed Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century, Turks and Jews have lived in peaceful coexistence. The secular republic established by Kemal Atatürk bestowed full citizenship rights on Jews, as it did on other religious and ethnic groups.

     

    Conclusion

     

    In summary, a badly administered panel discussion was at the root of a bizarre incident in Davos. Although there will be challenges, Turkey and Israel should put the bizarre incident behind and move on. The Jewish state should use the Davos incident as a wakeup call from a friend for resolution of the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Turkey’s part, it should weigh carefully its association with Hamas. A lasting peace in the Middle East is far too important to let an emotionally charged panel discussion to be a distraction. On Erdogan’s part, he should learn how to control his anger in conflict situations.

     

    ferruh@demirmen.com

     

  • Gul Meets with King Abdullah as Turkey Seeks Saudi Investments

    Gul Meets with King Abdullah as Turkey Seeks Saudi Investments

    Gul Meets with King Abdullah as Turkey Seeks Saudi Investments

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 24
    February 5, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas 

    From February 3 to 5 Turkish President Abdullah Gul is visiting Saudi Arabia as King Abdullah’s official guest. Gul is accompanied by several members of the Turkish cabinet as well as about 150 Turkish businessmen. Since the visit comes amid discussions on how to bring calm to the Middle East in the wake of Israel’s Gaza offensive, it provides an opportunity for the leaders of the two major regional countries to discuss developments in their neighborhood. The visit also marks the deepening bilateral ties between Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which have gained momentum since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002. In addition to bilateral and regional matters, Gul and his hosts discussed issues important to the Islamic world.

    Gul spoke at the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, which made him the first Muslim head-of-state to address the Saudi assembly. Regional peace and Gaza-related developments took up a major part of Gul’s speech. He praised King Abdullah’s work toward ensuring regional peace and stability and described Riyadh’s foreign policy as “constructive and responsible.” “We always maintain close political consultation about regional issues,” Gul added (www.ntvmsnbc.com, February 4).

    Gul complemented King Abdullah for his past efforts to resolve the Palestinian problem, and he gave his support to the Saudi peace plan, which called on Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for normalization of relations with its Arab neighbors. He also reiterated Turkey’s position that the solution of the conflict depends on ensuring reconciliation among Palestinian factions. As a successful example of mediation, Gul cited a meeting between Fatah and Hamas that was hosted by King Abdullah in Mecca in 2007. He asked the leaders of Arab and Muslim countries to work toward ensuring that Palestinians achieve a national unity government. In an Islamic internationalist tone, he presented the Palestinian problem as the responsibility of the Muslim nations: “The number one issue is the unity of the Palestinians, the unity of the Arab world, and the unity of the Muslim world, with all of us showing our responsibility and desire to act together when there are major issues” (Today’s Zaman, February 5).

    In his address to the Saudi assembly, Gul also touched upon another issue of common interest to Muslims worldwide. Gul expressed his concern about growing “Islamiphobia” in the West. Gul argued that the source of misperceptions and growing enmity toward Islam was the tendency in some circles to equate Islam with terrorism. Noting that terrorism may spring from any society and any religion, he described Islam as a religion of peace that urged its followers to respect others (Zaman, February 5).

    The visit also highlighted the flourishing Turkish-Saudi bilateral relationship. The Turkish president said that he felt at home on his the trip, calling Turkey and Saudi Arabia sister states and sister nations. Gul recalled that King Abdullah had gone to Turkey in 2006 and 2007 and that these two visits in such a short time had shown Riyadh’s “extraordinary attention and concern for Turkey.” Gul added that he had wanted to return the gesture by paying a visit without any delay to show the high esteem that Turkey attached to relations with Saudi Arabia (www.ntvmsnbc.com.tr, February 4). Diplomatic observers believe that Riyadh might be seeking to develop a strategic partnership with Turkey to counter the growing Iranian influence in the region (www.cnnturk.com, February 3).

    Bilateral economic cooperation was a major theme on Gul’s agenda. He emphasized that the two countries had already signed agreements covering tax exemption, investment protection, and transportation (ANKA, February 4) and expressed the hope that the two sides could extend this cooperation further. Turkish ministers and the businessmen accompanying Gul signed new agreements with their counterparts in such areas as educational exchange programs, cooperation in youth and sports, and maritime transportation (Hurriyet Daily News, February 4).

    Gul also spoke at a meeting of the Turkish-Saudi Business Council. Noting that structural reforms in Turkey had helped the country withstand the global crisis and created favorable conditions for foreign investors, Gul highlighted the strengths of the Turkish banking system. He invited Saudi businessmen to invest in Turkey. Given Saudi Arabia’s projected investments in infrastructure, Turkish businesses, especially contractors, view Saudi Arabia as a lucrative foreign market (Cihan Haber Ajansi, February 4).

    Despite the positive outlook for the economy and financial sector that Gul presented, Turkey urgently needs an injection of foreign capital to cushion the effects of the crisis. The government has been reluctant to sign a credit agreement with the IMF, because it would impose stringent conditions on government spending (EDM, January 29). There has been constant talk in Turkey about attracting petrodollars, or “Gulf capital” as the Turks like to call it, as a way to finance Turkey’s economic development. Turkish businessmen have hoped that Turkey might be able to attract Gulf capital leaving the Western banking system, especially after September 11. Lately, it has often been said that Gulf capital might make Istanbul a worldwide financial center, and end Turkey’s dependence on the IMF (Zaman, January 28, 2008). As a matter of fact, although the AKP government has been successful in boosting the volume of Arab investments in Turkey, it could not raise it to a level that would reduce Turkey’s dependence on money borrowed from Western financial institutions.

    Following Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walkout from a meeting in Davos, the Turkish media was full of speculative reports that Middle Eastern countries, impressed by Erdogan’s stance, were preparing to invest further in Turkey. Reportedly, financial institutions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates might offer Turkey almost a “blank check,” which might relieve the Turkish economy (Yenicag, January 31). It remains to be seen, however, whether Gul can use Turkey’s new image in the Middle East and his personal ties to King Abdullah to bring home good news about Saudi investment.

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    United States: Treasury Calls Anti-Iranian Kurdish Group A Terrorist Organization
    February 4, 2009The U.S. Treasury has labeled the anti-Iranian Kurdish group Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK) a terrorist organization and will freeze any assets the PJAK has under U.S. jurisdiction, Reuters reported Feb. 4. PJAK is a front for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been fighting against Turkey’s government for 25 years. PJAK members fight

  • Will the AKP’s Foreign and Economic Policies Help in Local Elections?

    Will the AKP’s Foreign and Economic Policies Help in Local Elections?

    Will the AKP’s Foreign and Economic Policies Help in Local Elections?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 21
    February 2, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Following his controversial remarks about Israel’s policies in Gaza made at the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in Davos, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has refocused his attention on domestic politics. The municipal elections on March 29 are expected to be a major test of the policies of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). As the elections approach, the government is gearing its economic and foreign policies toward boosting the electoral performance of AKP candidates.

    In November Erdogan challenged his opponents, saying that if his party came in second in the elections, he would step down from the AKP chairmanship (Zaman, November 25). An earlier EDM analysis maintained that the March elections would be dominated by national political issues and the AKP might exploit its position as the incumbent to improve the chances of its candidates against their rivals (EDM, December 3).

    AKP representatives are capitalizing on Turkey’s new international profile to mobilize popular support. Deputy Speaker of Parliament Nevzat Pakdil told AKP party supporters that the coming elections were not just about voting for mayors or city council members but that the Turkish people would be asked to “approve Prime Minister Erdogan’s noble stance in Davos, which put Turkey on the map worldwide” (www.cnnturk.com, February 1).

    Indeed, most Turks view Erdogan’s walking out of the Davos meeting in protest over Israeli policies as a staunch defense of Turkey’s image and the rights of Palestinians in international forums (EDM, January 30). Erdogan’s team was successful in couching his policy in terms of conducting an independent foreign policy, and the Davos incident prompted the Turkish public to “rally ’round the flag.” Since the Turkish people historically have the impression of being treated as inferiors in international diplomacy, people from across the political spectrum expressed their support for Erdogan, welcoming him almost like a new national hero. Likewise, most party leaders affirmed Erdogan’s reaction, though expressing some reservations about his style.

    While Erdogan’s popularity has been boosted at home following the Davos incident, some critics charge that the government’s policies in the Middle East in general and Erdogan’s attitude in Davos in particular might be driven by populist concerns to secure victory in the elections. They also raise concerns that such short-sighted policies might undermine the country’s long-term interests (BirGun, Cumhuriyet, January 31).

    Analysts believe that that Davos incident will improve the AKP’s showing in the municipal elections. A survey conducted by the Metropoll polling company to measure the impact of the Davos incident revealed interesting results. As of January 31 Erdogan’s Davos position was supported by 78.3 percent of the respondents and Turkey’s Middle East policy by 82 percent. Compared with the results of Metropoll’s previous poll on January 24, the share of “those who approved the Prime Minister’s political style” increased from 55 to 74 percent. Moreover, when asked “what party would you vote for if there were an election this Sunday,” 49.3 percent said that they would vote for the AKP, in contrast to only 38.9 percent on January 24 (www.aktifhaber.com, January 31).

    The immediate impact of the Davos incident might have inflated the AKP’s support. Some analysts, including Tarhan Erdem of Konda polling company, believe that by the time of the elections the impact of Davos might have evaporated. Others, however, expect at least a 5 percent increase in the AKP’s vote in local elections. Observers point out in particular that through his Davos stance, Erdogan would probably undermine the performance of the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and the Felicity Party (SP). The AKP is likely to prevent its nationalist and conservative voters from switching to the MHP and the SP, respectively, while attracting supporters from these two parties’ (www.haber3.com, January 31).

    After his abrupt return from Davos, Erdogan spent the weekend in Istanbul in a bid to throw his weight behind his party’s candidate for mayor of Istanbul, Kadir Topbas. He attended the opening ceremonies of several billion dollars worth of infrastructure investments in Istanbul, as well as AKP gatherings. He opened new lines extending Istanbul’s subway network and attended celebrations for the introduction of new ferries to Istanbul’s transportation fleet (Cihan Haber Ajansi, January 31; www.ntvmsnbc.com.tr, February 1).

    Speaking to large crowds, Erdogan touted the government’s successes in foreign policy, economy management, and tough bargaining with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He accused the opposition, especially the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), of populism and empty talk. He presented his own party as the only one that could “talk the talk and walk the walk,” noting improvements in the economic indicators.

    Although Erdogan promised that the AKP would not resort to populism, several of its policies and their timing raise questions about how sincere he was on that score. Providing free coal to low-income families has been a constant source of accusations that the AKP uses state money to solicit votes. Erdogan has responded to such criticism by claiming that the government was fulfilling the “social state’” requirement laid down in the constitution (Cihan Haber Ajansi, February 1).

    Erdogan also announced a price cut for natural gas by 17 percent for residences and 18 percent for industry effective on February 1 (www.cnnturk.com, February 1). In response to the falling energy prices on global markets, the government had been under pressure to reduce gas prices domestically. Although preparatory work on a formula to cut prices had been in progress for some time, the announcement of such a decision during the election campaign is significant.

    In a similar move, the Agricultural Minister announced that between January and March, the ministry would pay farmers half of the 5.026 billion lire ($3.023 billion) allocated for agricultural subsidies (www.dunyagazetesi.com.tr, January 31).

    It is perhaps unfair to charge the government with basing its economic and foreign policies on the short-term interest of winning the local elections; but undoubtedly the AKP skillfully capitalizes on its position as incumbent to the advantage of its own candidates, which raises the question: How level is the playing field for the opposition parties?

    https://jamestown.org/program/will-the-akps-foreign-and-economic-policies-help-in-local-elections/