Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • ERDOGAN AND BERLUSCONI WORK TOGETHER TO DEEPEN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

    ERDOGAN AND BERLUSCONI WORK TOGETHER TO DEEPEN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

    ERDOGAN AND BERLUSCONI WORK TOGETHER TO DEEPEN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

    By Saban Kardas

    Friday, November 14, 2008

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan hosted his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi, in the Aegean city of Izmir on November 12. The visit cemented the personal relations between the two leaders and provided a platform for discussing projects to expand bilateral political, economic, and cultural cooperation.  

    Following the model of high-level meetings Italy holds with major European countries, Erdogan and Berlusconi also co-chaired an intergovernmental summit bringing together ministers from the two sides. The gathering brought together ministers of foreign affairs, defense, transport, economy, energy, and the interior from both sides, who discussed, in addition to bilateral relations, joint strategic projects in the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Middle East.

    A statement from the Italian Embassy in Ankara emphasized that by initiating this process with Turkey, Italy made it clear that it considered relations with Turkey as “strategic” (Anatolian Agency, November 11). Similarly, a press brief from the office of the Turkish prime minister emphasized the strategic aspect of the relationship and added that such meetings would be held annually (www.cnnturk.com, November 11).

    The current state of Turkish-European relations was the major item on the agenda. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has not achieved any major progress toward EU membership since beginning the process in 2005. What led to the current stalemate in the accession process has been a matter of contention. The AKP government has come under criticism from pro-reform circles as well as EU institutions for slowing down the membership process, while Erdogan has repeatedly put the blame on the EU’s attitude toward Turkey (EDM, November 6).

    Maintaining Italy’s traditional pro-Turkey position, Berlusconi repeated his unconditional support for Erdogan and Turkey during the summit, saying that they had overcome many difficulties “shoulder to shoulder” (www.haberturk.com, November 13). Berlusconi noted that although some EU countries continued to oppose Turkey’s membership, he would continue to emphasize Turkey’s strategic importance and convince the EU that it needed to admit Turkey as a member. Berlusconi criticized the slow pace of Turkey-EU accession negotiations. He called on the upcoming Czech and Swedish presidencies of the EU to accelerate the process and open four negotiating chapters in one year. These remarks definitely pleased Erdogan (Anadolu Ajansi, November 12).

    In an interview with the Turkish daily Hurriyet, Erdogan noted that “Italy is Turkey’s greatest advocate in the EU.” Berlusconi further dismissed the claim that secularism was under threat in Turkey, and he argued that Erdogan had been a great reformer. (Hurriyet, November 12). These emotional remarks were no surprise, given the close friendship that has been cultivated between Erdogan and Berlusconi over the last six years.

    It remains to be seen, however, to what extent Italy can use “Turkey’s strategic importance” to exert leverage on its European partners and deliver on those promises. For Berlusconi, Turkey’s progress on political reforms was satisfactory (Hurriyet, November 12). Only the previous week, however, the European Commission’s progress report criticized Turkey in many areas (EDM, November 6). Chairman of the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Committee Joost Lagendijk said that Turkey’s strategic importance was no guarantee for membership and placing too much emphasis on this thesis undermined domestic reform processes (Anatolian Agency, November 6).

    Nor is it clear whether Berlusconi commands support at home for his Turkish policy. When the news about Berlusconi’s warm remarks on Turkey arrived at a session of the Italian Parliament, representatives from his coalition partner, Lega Nord, were reportedly outraged. They repeated their party’s opposition to Turkey’s membership on geographical, cultural, and religious grounds, and underlined that admitting Turkey would be a grave strategic mistake and undermine European unity (www.tgrthaber.com, Dogan Haber Ajansi, November 13).

    Italy, nonetheless, prefers to approach Turkey from a strategic perspective. In that context, Berlusconi constantly refers to the strategic role Turkey plays as a bridge between European markets and hydrocarbon reserves, a factor that led Italy to invest in pipelines passing through Turkey (Hurriyet, November 13).

    Berlusconi also detailed Italy’s position on expanding membership of the G-8 forum of industrialized countries. He emphasized the need to bring in more countries to make it an inclusive organization, moving first to G-14 and then to G-20. Given Turkey’s constructive role in international diplomacy, Berlusconi vowed to seek ways to include Turkey in the activities of the G-8, when Italy assumes the presidency of the organization next year (www.cnnturk.com, November 12). Both leaders are scheduled to attend the G-20 Summit in Washington, D.C., on November 15 (Today’s Zaman, November 14).

    During the press briefing following their summit, Erdogan and Berlusconi stressed determination to work together for a more peaceful world. Erdogan highlighted the destruction that miscalculated American policies had brought onto the region, particularly to the Iraqi people. He remarked, “If we really want global peace, all world leaders have to work in solidarity…and the G-20 has an important role to play.” In response to a question about whether the two countries would provide additional troops to expand the international mission in Afghanistan, they both declined to rule out the possibility and said that the new U.S. administration would have to clarify its position first and they will be ready to discuss the issue in NATO (ANKA, November 12).

    The joint declaration released after the summit reiterated Italy’s support for Turkey’s EU process and emphasized two countries’ willingness to expand cooperation in other areas. The declaration also noted that the foreign ministers had signed an agreement for the establishment of an Italian university in Istanbul (www.bbm.gov.tr, November 12).

     

  • The Kurdish Parties Harbouring PKK Terrorist Organisations

    The Kurdish Parties Harbouring PKK Terrorist Organisations

    By Mofak Salman

    The PKK terrorist group, which has Marxist-Leninist roots, was formed in the late 1970s and launched an armed struggle against the Turkish government in 1984, calling for an independent Kurdish state within Turkey. Since then, more than 37,000 people have died. During the conflict, which reached a peak in the mid-1990s, hundreds of villages were attacked and destroyed by the PKK terrorist organisation in the largely Kurdish south-east and east of Turkey, and hundreds of thousands of innocent people fled to cities in other parts of the country.

    After the fall of the Ba’ath regime in 2003, with the help of the KDP and PUK, the PKK terrorist organisation utilised northern of Iraq as a safe haven area and it was here that they built their training camps, hospital, and party offices.

    The Kurdish militias that are led by both Barzani and Talabani supported the PKK terrorist organisation with arms, logistical support, and transportation. The injured PKK terrorists who fought the Turkish army were transported and treated in Erbil hospitals, which were under control the KDP militia. They were provided with passports, identity cards and given the right to vote during the Iraqi election, and have since opened several party offices in Kirkuk, Erbil and Duhok.

    Instead of the PKK terrorist members being arrested by the US forces in conjunction with Kurdish police in north of Iraq but unfortunately they were provided with radio station by the Kurdish parties in North of Iraq.

    Although the PKK have been recognised as a terrorist organisation by the European, USA and other countries. They have been armed and supported by the both Kurdish parties in north of Iraq and the PKK terrorist members have been allowed to base in the Candil mountains of northern Iraq; and the Iraqi Kurdish parties have been unwilling, to take action against PKK terrorist bases in north of Iraqi and both Kurdish parties and Us forces have been allowing the PKK terrorist members to carry out attack on Turkey territory

  • Kurdish nationalism undermine the rights of Turkmens, Arabs and Chaldo Assyrians

    Kurdish nationalism undermine the rights of Turkmens, Arabs and Chaldo Assyrians

    By Mofak Salman

    After the toppling, the Saddam Hussein, hundreds of Kurdish militias poured into Turkmen city of Kirkuk. The Kurdish militias ransacked the municipality buildings in Kirkuk, government offices, and military buildings. The land deeds for the Turkmen have been taken from the Registry Office intentionally and this makes it difficult for the Turkmen to establish the original inhabitants of the province, large hotels and a historical military barracks in the city (at that time used as a museum), which was built in the Ottoman era, were set alight by Kurdish rebels, along with Turkmen shops and houses, including the land registry office.

    The invasion of Kirkuk in 2003 by the Kurdish militia was a mirror images of the repeated events from 1991during the uprising against Saddam Hussein after Operation Desert Storm. In addition, thousands of internally displaced Kurds and Turkmens were returned to Kirkuk and other Arabized regions to reclaim their homes and lands, which have been occupied by Arabs from central and southern Iraq. These returnees were forcibly expelled from their homes by the government of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and 1990s.

    The majority of the returning Kurds were not originally from Kirkuk but they have been brought to Kirkuk with the help of the two Kurdish parties in order to change the demography the city and to win the referendum that was planned to be carried out by 31st December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk
    can formally join the Kurdish administered region, an outcome that Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk staunchly opposed this. However, the unresolved issue is the future of Kirkuk an oil rich city in northern Iraq, which is a home to a substantial number of Turkmens, Kurds, and Arabs, which makes it a powder keg.

    However, the Turkmens, Arabs, and Chaldo Assyrians had high expectations of the interim administration established after April 9, 2003. The Turkmen expected to see democracy, fairness, an end to discrimination, the right to self- determination and an end to violence. Unfortunately, the opposite has occurred regarding the human rights situation in Iraq, in particular concerning the Iraqi Turkmen.

    The Turkmen have been undergoing campaigns by the Kurds in Turkmeneli in an often more brutal fashion than carried out on Kurds by Saddam Hussein. The Kirkuk city holds strategic as well as symbolic value for the Iraqi people in general and for the Turkmen especially! The ocean of oil beneath its surface could be used to drive the economy of an independent Kurdistan, the ultimate goal for many Kurds. The Kurdish militias hope are to make the city of Kirkuk and its vast oil reserves part of an autonomous Kurdistan whereas the Turkmens, Chaldo Assyrians, and Arabs are fiercely and staunchly opposing the inclusion of Kirkuk in an autonomous region, because its strategic importance, the fight over the control of the province proved to
    be one of the focal points of the conflict in northern Iraq. Kurdish control over Kirkuk could fuel Kurdish nationalism in the region and undermine the rights of Turkmens, Arabs and Chaldo Assyrians residents in Kirkuk.

    Kirkuk itself has become almost synonymous with the abusive Kurdization campaign, which illustrates the persistency of the designs that the Kurds have on Kirkuk. The fate of the city of Kirkuk has been one of the thorniest issues of Iraq’s constitutional process. Under Article 140 of the document ratified by Iraqis on 15th Oct. 2005, a referendum on the status of Kirkuk was to be implemented in the province no later than 31st Dec. 2007. This was to happen only after the Iraqi government takes measures to repatriate former Arabs residents, resettle Turkmens and Kurds or compensate them, implement the normalization and carry out the census in Kirkuk.

    After the toppling of Saddam Hussein regime, the Kurds intensified their Kurdization campaign in the city of Kirkuk. The Kurdish officials worked at the administration of the Kirkuk Municipality confiscated real estate and lands belonging to the town administration and have granted them to ethnic Kurds who newly arrived in Kirkuk and who were not originally from the town. However, throughout Kirkuk and across hundreds of remote farming villages, the Kurdish political parties did the job themselves. The PUK had openly provided $5,000 to each repatriated Kurdish family. Tens of thousands” of Kurds have resettled in the city and surrounding villages after the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, many with the help of the both Kurdish parties.

    The Iraqi Kurds have attempted by various methods to eliminate Turkmen identity especially from Kirkuk City in order to dilute them into Kurdish society. The economic, political, and cultural aspects for the Turkmen have been completely changed when the Kurds brought over 600,000 Kurds to city of Kirkuk. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by both Kurdish parties in order to change the demography of Kirkuk and the Kurdish parties have encouraged and offered financial support to all Kurdish families that were brought from outside Kirkuk. The demographic structure of Kirkuk have changed seriously and distorted as Kurds, backed by armed Peshmerga forces, migrated into the city in large groups claiming to be original residents.

    To prove the veracity of assertion that non Iraqi Kurds have been brought in and installed in Kirkuk as Kurds who were supposedly expelled by the Ba’ath regime is the scandal which was discovered and denounced by the Swedish Migration Minister, Mr. Tobias Billstrom in February 2007. It was discovered that the Iraqi Ambassador to Sweden, a Kurd, and named Ahmed Bamarni had been issuing Iraqi passports to non Iraqi Kurds from Syria, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon.

    It was mentioned by the Swedish authorities that the Iraqi embassy in Sweden alone had issued twenty-six thousands passports to non-Iraqis and that all of these passport holders were supposed to be born in Kirkuk.

    Consequently, thousands of internally, displaced Kurds and Turkmen returned to Kirkuk and other Arabized regions to reclaim their homes and lands, which had been occupied by Arabs from central and southern Iraq. These returnees were forcibly expelled from their homes by the government of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and 1990s. Mr. Barzani declared that 250,000 Kurds, including Turkmen were expelled from Kirkuk while in actual fact and according to the Ration Card Data Base (considered by the United Nations to be a reliable source for information on the Iraqi population); some 12,000 inhabitants were expelled from Kirkuk under the previous regime, one third being Turkmen.

    On the 10th April 2003, Kirkuk had 810,000 inhabitants and today, four years after the occupation of Kirkuk by the Kurdish militia and the massive influx of Kurds to Kirkuk, the population of Kirkuk is over 1.5 million inhabitants and all newcomers are Kurds. The majority of the returning Kurds were not originally from Kirkuk but they have been brought to Kirkuk with the help of the two Kurdish parties in order to change the demography of the city and to win the referendum by December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk can formally join the Kurdish administered region.

    The Kurds militia insisted that the constitution requires to carry out a referendum by December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk can formally join the Kurdish administration region and the Arabs and Turkmens in Kirkuk are staunchly oppose it since the demography of the city has changed dramatically. Since hundreds of thousands of Kurds have moved to the city in the recent years in what Turkmen and Arabs sees as a systematic campaign to change the demographic structure of the city to guarantee a favorable outcome in the upcoming referendum. In addition, how a referendum can be carried out when the country is under occupation, the lack of the security, stability and when the specific groups forced the legislation on the Iraqis.

    James Baker & Lee Hamilton [ ] called for a major delay on a constitutional referendum planned for Kirkuk’s at the end of the year 2007, when the report was stated that the Kurds have altered the city’s demographic makeup by bringing in more than 100,000 of their relatives, holding a census could lead to regional conflict. The risks of further violence sparked by a referendum are great and would be potentially
    explosive, a referendum in Kirkuk city could lead to violent clashes among the ethnic groups and even a civil war across Iraq, that could eventually lead to a disintegration of Iraq and also there is a great possibility the
    intervention and involvement of Iran, Syria and Turkey in Iraq. The Turkish Republic — which has always attributed high importance to independence and liberty throughout its history -has been conscious of the need to preserve and maintain its capability of protecting its sovereign rights, its territorial integrity, stability in the region and its national and international interests and any clashed in Kirkuk would provoke Turkish government.

    The Iraqi Study Group Report on the Kirkuk issue that was submitted by James Baker and Lee Hamilton considered by the Turkmen as a realistic, constructive, well-structured and comprehensive in covered all aspects that related to Iraqi issues and provided new hope for the future of Iraq. It was the upmost important that the reference on Kirkuk status should be delayed as was quoted in the Page Number 45, Recommendation 30 on the Iraq Study Group Report, James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton.[ ] Also see
    page 19 of The Iraq Study Group Report, James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton.

    The New Iraqi Constitution was written under foreign military occupation and mostly the non -Iraqis and the article 140 imposed that written and imposed by the Kurds and which was added at the last minute to the New Constitution.

    Article 140: The article 140, dealt with very important and sensitive issues, not only for the Turkmen of Iraq but for all Iraqis, except perhaps for the Kurdish minority, as it was written by the Kurds and their foreign
    consultants to suit the Kurds special agenda and self interest, to facilitate for them the kidnapping of Kirkuk, its annexation to the Kurdish Autonomous Region, legalizing for them by the same means grabbing control
    of huge oil wealth of this historical Iraqi Turkmen city and the Turkmens capital city and main cultural centre for at least 900 years.

    One of the anomalies of this article 140 of the New Permanent Iraqi Constitution is that it imposed a fixed time limit for its implementation, stating that it must be completed before 31st December 2007. Furthermore
    this article 140 deals with the normalization process of the situation in Kirkuk governate, a process which consists of three major steps, each one with it is time limit:-

    1- The return to Kirkuk of all its forcefully displayed inhabitants by the Ba’ath Regime during the Arabisation processes of the province by the regime and the recuperation of their confiscated lands and properties to be
    completed before 31st March 2007.
    2- A new population census for the original population of the province to be held before 31st August 2007.
    3- A referendum for the future of Kirkuk to be attached to the Kurdish Autonomous Region or not, to be voted before 31st December 2007.

    This article with its imposed time limits, a supposedly New Permanent Constitution is unheard of: it is a Kurdish innovation in the Iraqi Constitution. Kirkuk itself had become almost synonymous with the abusive
    Kurdization campaign, which illustrates the persistency of the designs that the Kurds have on Kirkuk. The fate of the city of Kirkuk has been one of the thorniest issues of Iraq’s constitutional process. Under Article 140 of the document that was ratified by Iraqis on 15th Oct.2005, a referendum on the status of Kirkuk will be implemented in the province no later than Dec. 31, 2007. This will happen only after the Iraqi government takes measures to repatriate former Arab residents and resettle Turkmen and Kurds or compensate them, carry out the normalization and census. The 140th article expired on the 31st Dec.2007, and according to the Iraqi constitution that was established after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, article 140 should not be modified or extended since it was imposed a fixed time limit for its implementation, stating that it must be completed before 31st December 2007, therefore at the end of the 2007 it was automatically expired and had lost its constitutional validity since the article was not fully implemented before the end of the 2007.
    Also the Iraqi constitution clearly stated that any extension or amendment on the article needs an approval of 2/3 of the Iraqi parliament’s members and also the approval of the public in form of a referendum.
    But unfortunately the UN representative in Erbil Mr. Staffan de Mistura recommended extending the expiry date of article 140 for a further six months, this happened when he was invited to the Kurdish parliament. Mr. Staffan de Mistura’s suggestion among the Turkmen was considered unwise and biased, since he failed to pay any attention to the Iraqi constitutional.

    In fact, he bent to the pressure that was applied on him by the both Kurdish parties in northern Iraq, but Prime Minister of Iraq Mr. Nuri al-Maliki did not support the initiative because he stated that any extension of the work to rule 140 after the time limit was unconstitutional.

    The Turkmen public thought it was more beneficial for the UN to open an office in Kirkuk city instead of opening an office Erbil city in north of Iraq, listening to the suggestions, demands and complains of the ethnic groups in Kirkuk and rather than issuing an irrational statement.

    In addition, the article is an Iraqi internal matter and the UN representative was not entitled and had no full authority and constitutional right to change, extent and even to modify any article within the Iraqi constitution. Iraq is sovereign country and it was not under the UN mandate therefore a UN employee working in Iraq had not an authority to suggest, recommend and an extension for any article within the Iraqi constitution without prior consulting his main office and also without obtaining the approval and consent of the people in Kirkuk.

    The Turkmens totally refused the recommendation of Mr. Stephan de Mistura and was totally opposed by the Turkmen, thus the Iraqi Turkmen Front leader Mr. S. Ergerj met with the Mr. Stephan de Mistura regarding the his statements about the postponing the referendum and the ITF leader had expressed his deepest concern about the extension of the Article 140 and also Turkmen political parties condemned the action that was taken by the U.N personal in Erbil Mr. Stephan de Mistura.

    In the middle of July 2008. Iraq’s parliament reached an agreement on the Provincial Council Election Law, particularly with regard to Paragraph 24 of the law, which deals with the election mechanism in the Kirkuk Governorate. The postponement of the elections and adaptation of the division of Kirkuk to the three constituencies that include the proportion of 32 % for Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen and 4% for Assyrians.

    Turkmen, Arab and Assyrians proposed equal distribution of provincial council seats in the Kirkuk region – which is outside the Kurdish territory. This was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani and his deputy, Adel Abdul
    Mahdi. Before the voting, the Kurds rejected secret ballot whereas the opposition had requested a secret ballot and the members of the Iraqi parliament voted open and secret voting. The majority of members have
    decided for secret voting and the deputy parliamentary speaker Khalid al-Attiyah, a Shiite, said the secret ballot was unconstitutional and accused the lawmakers of “arm-twisting.” On the 22nd of July 2008, decision was made by 127 Iraqi members of parliament they voted in favour of the Provincial Council Election Law, particularly with regard to Paragraph 24 of the law, which deals with the election mechanism in the Kirkuk Governorate. The distribution of power that include the proportion of 32 % for Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen and 4% for Assyrians.

    The security of the town shall be controlled by the central government rather than the current military forces that are stationed in the town. The security forces that are linked to the political parties have to leave. The
    bill was approved by 127 out of 140 deputies that attended the meeting and 10 of those members decided not to vote. Two of them decided to vote against and one MP submitted a blank ballot paper but the Iraq’s parliament still passed the law. The Kurds, along with the two deputy parliamentary speakers, walked out of the chamber after lawmakers decided to hold a secret ballot on a power-sharing item in the law for the disputed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk. This was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani and his deputy, Adel Abdul Mahdi. Nevertheless, the Kurdish Brotherhood List at the Kirkuk Governorate Council held an extraordinary meeting on the 31/7/2008. The 24 members of the 41-member of the Kirkuk Governorate Council presented a request to the Kurdistan Region Government and the Iraqi parliament to make the governorate part of
    Kurdistan Region as they believe that Article 140 of the Constitution has not been implemented and that Article 24 of the Provincial Council Election Draft Law does not meet their ambitions.

    Whereas the Turkmen and Arabs regarded this extraordinary session as illegal. Also the Turkmen leadership has requested to replace the Kurdish police in Kirkuk with army forces from central and southern Iraq, the
    postponement of the elections and adaptation of the division of Kirkuk to the three constituencies include the proportion of 32 % for both Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen and 4% for Assyrians In the meantime, on the 31/7/2008, a statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry was released regarding the issue of Kirkuk, which stated that the Turkish Foreign Ministry were concerned and were deeply alarmed about the demand by some members of the governorate of Kirkuk, regarding a Kurdish list to join the Northern Department. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign affairs said in a statement: ‘We in Turkey express our deep concern on what we see and what happened in the governorate of Kirkuk where some members agreed to join the Council in Kirkuk to the
    north of Iraq and Turkey’s position on Kirkuk would not have ever changed in the present and future and the Arab and Turkmen called this moves by the Kurd as a provocation.’

    Mofak Salman

    Turkmeneli Party Representative for Both Ireland and United Kingdom msalman@eircom.net

    [1] Turkmen: The Iraqi Turkmen live in an area that they call “Turkmenia” in Latin or Turkmeneli” which means, “Land of the Turkmen. It was referred to as “Turcomania” by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Turkmen are a Turkic group that has a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e.
    12% of the Iraqi population.

    [2] Turkmeneli is a diagonal strip of land stretching from the Syrian and Turkish border areas from
    around Telafer in the north of Iraq, reaching down to the town of Mendeli on the Iranian border in
    Central Iraq. The Turkmen of Iraq settled in Turkmeneli in three successive and constant migrations
    from Central Asia, this increased their numbers and enabled them to establish six states in Iraq.

  • Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen 

    Senator Barack Obama’s election as the next President of the U.S. has caused trepidation in many Turkish circles. How would his administration’s foreign policy toward Turkey be? Would Turkey’s relations with the U.S. improve or worsen?  Indeed, there are perils on the horizon, but better times cannot be ruled out. The imponderables suggest that a “wait and see” stance is prudent. 

    Harsh Reality 

    On the potential downside, the Armenian question weighs heavily in U.S.-Turkey relations. Turks are understandably concerned that the Obama administration would recognize the so-called Armenian genocide. As most U.S. politicians who have been at the receiving end of generous campaign contributions from the Armenian lobby, Obama, as U.S. senator, supported Armenian genocide claims. He made this clear during Senate confirmation hearings of U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Armenia Richard Hoagland two years ago, and again early this year when he called for passage of Armenian genocide resolutions H.Res.106 & S.Res.106 in the Congress. He was influenced and counseled on this subject by none other than Samantha Power, an ardent proponent of Armenian “genocide.”

    Samantha Power holds the dubious distinction of being a non-Armenian and a virulent Turk-hater at the same time. The loose-mouthed lady of supposed scholarly reputation disgraced herself last March when she called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.” She had to resign as adviser to Senator Obama. Not surprisingly, Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) strongly endorsed (probably in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status) Senator Obama’s candidacy.

    The Armenian issue became more ominous for Turkey when Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. As a U.S. senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden gave support to all Armenian genocide claims since they first came to the U.S. Senate floor in 1990. Biden urged President Bush to use the word “genocide” in his proclamations, and was an enthusiastic sponsor of the Senate Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106) in 2006. In early 2008, Senator Biden renewed his call for Congressional recognition of the resolution, and in July of this year he reiterated his commitment to have Armenian “genocide” officially recognized by both the American and Turkish governments.

    Also looming on the horizon is a Democrat-controlled Congress, with Nancy Pelosi as the House Speaker and John Kerry (unless appointed as the Secretary of State) at the helm of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The combination of Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress augers a vexatious turn of events for Turkey as far as the Armenian issue. Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora will find that the confluence of events in their favor had never been better.

    Of course, there will also be geostrategic issues to consider, and the Obama administration may have second thoughts about recognizing a trumped-up allegation that would further sour an already-fragile relationship between the U.S. and Turkey – caused mainly by Iraq war. According to a June 2008 poll, only 12 percent of Turkish people have a favorable view of the U.S. – a historic low. With Turkey’s proximity to Russia, the Middle East and Central Asia, and its strategic location as an energy corridor, it would seem myopic from U.S. national security point of view to further alienate Turkey.

    In fact, just before the elections the Obama-Biden camp issued a foreign policy statement in which reference was made to strategic value of Turkey for U.S. interests. This suggests that Obama and Biden, as President and vice-President, might moderate their positions on Armenian “genocide.”

    A most likely scenario is that the Obama administration would spurn the Armenian lobby’s efforts to recognize Armenian “genocide” while remaining passive to Congressional initiatives to pass such a resolution. This would give the administration a diplomatic “cover” – a poor one at that – to disassociate itself from the genocide controversy.

    Disservice to History

    Such turn of events would still be regrettable. Surprisingly, Turks are generally content if official declarations from foreign sources relating to 1915 events do not use the word “genocide.” Hence the sigh of relief when, on April 24 every year, the U.S. presidents issue a declaration commemorating the 1915 events without referring to “genocide.” Such declarations do disservice to history, however, and are nearly as condemnatory of Turks as the use of the word “genocide.” Turks should demand fairness and disclosure of full facts.

    President Bush’s declarations, for example, have referred to “mass killings of as many as 1.5 million Armenians,” grossly exaggerating the number of Armenian victims. His declarations ignore the cause of the tragic events (Armenian rebellion) and the massacre of a half a million Moslems at the hands of armed Armenian gangs. Senator John McCain, while refraining from using the word “genocide,’ has taken a similar position on the Armenian issue. Such declarations imply that the sufferings and death of Moslems at the hand of Armenian gangs were somehow inconsequential.

    Before issuing commemorative declarations on the 1915 events, it would behoove President-elect Obama – and the members of the Congress for that matter – to listen to such eminent scholars as Bernard Lewis, Turkkaya Ataov, Justin McCarthy and Eric Feigl – to name a few – and hear the other side of a controversial issue. A one-sided condemnation of historical events, no matter how-oft-recited by propaganda, and no matter how-well-wrapped in campaign contributions, does not serve history. Nor does it serve the cause of human rights. History cannot be re-created by legislative or executive fiat.

    Equally important, it is long overdue for the Turkish government, and Turks in general, to be more proactive and aggressive in disseminating historical truth on the Armenian issue. If foreign politicians such as Obama and Biden, among others, have been misinformed on the subject, the Turkish government and Turks bear a good deal of responsibility. By default, the matter has been left pretty much to Armenia and the Armenian lobby to exploit. The dire consequences have been much too evident. Historians on the Armenian side do not even wish to debate with their Turkish counterparts.

    Iraq War and Cyprus

    The occupation of Iraq, spearheaded by neocon philosophy, has generated enormous tension between the U.S. and Turkey. The war has not only created violence and turmoil in a neighboring country, it also destroyed much of the bilateral trade (oil included) between Iraq and Turkey and seriously threatened the territorial integrity of Iraq. In this connection, Turks do not recall kindly the proposal made by Senator Biden in 2006 that Iraq be partitioned into three autonomous regions under a loose federation. His proposal was met with much disappointment in Turkey.

    Turks also view with much suspicion President Bush’s cozy relation with Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, with Masoud Barzani, a tribal leader, being a frequent guest at the White House and treated like a head of state. Ironically, the relatively “peaceful” Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq is where the PKK terrorists have recently gained strength. Within the past few years PKK attacks against the Turkish territory have become more frequent and more daring. These events have raised doubts in Turkey about the sincerity of President Bush to fight terrorism when terrorists do their dirty deed under the banner of PKK.

    Many in Turkish circles wonder whether the Bush administration is harboring clandestine intentions involving an independent Kurdistan at the expense of the territorial integrity of Turkey. Some have gone so far as suggesting that eventually the U.S. may have to make a choice between the Kurds and Turks.

    Such suspicions, if unchecked, could tear apart the long-held partnership between the U.S. and Turkey. Turkey’s membership in NATO could also be put on ice.

    There are signs that the Obama administration would reverse this ominous trend. First, unlike Bush, who favors an open-ended withdrawal, Obama favors a quick (but orderly) withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, the pre-election foreign policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, noting that the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq had helped revive the PKK threat against Turkey, identified close relationship with Turkey as being in U.S. national interest. It was also noted that the Obama administration would lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity. These are very hopeful signs.

    On Cyprus, Turks are somewhat apprehensive about the Obama administration’s stance. The concern arises from Biden’s close ties to the Greek and Greek-Cypriot lobbies, his support ,

    as U.S. senator, of the 1974 U.S. weapons embargo against Turkey, and Obama referring to Turkish troop presence on the island as “occupation.” The pre-election policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, however, also calls for a negotiated settlement on Cyprus based on the principle of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, giving hope for an unbiased approach.

    In a broader context, Obama’s multilateralism and emphasis on diplomacy, as opposed to Bush’s unilateralism and saber rattling, would help regional stability and bolster U.S.-Turkey relations.

    In summary, the Obama administration holds both perils and hopes for Turkey, and for U.S.-Turkey relationship. The imponderables abound, and a prudent stance is “wait and see.” But both countries should look forward to a closer partnership in a renewed spirit without the mistakes of the last eight years.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • Poor Richard’s Report – What is Really Going On

    Poor Richard’s Report – What is Really Going On

    We have elected a new president of the United States. Barack Obama is the first person of another color (African American) to hold that office. He made a lot of promises and received 53% of the popular vote, the largest for any Democrat since LBJ in 1964. However, I believe that 90% of the public will back him for at least the next 3 to 6 months.

                We all realize that the problems we face are herculean, but this is a man who came out of nowhere two years ago and had Hillary Clinton voting for him for President of the United States. He defeated a qualified candidate, John McCain, in a fairly clean campaign. Studying the campaign I have come to a conclusion. He is a magician. We are going to need his magic touch for the next two years. So we are all praying for Obama – the Magician.

                Here are some of the problems he will face. Iran, which is Shiite, will be watched very carefully by Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni. They have the oil. Iraq was politicizing over our troop withdrawal for local consumption. This was putting President Bush between a rock and a hard place. Now that they realize that the Magician is in: they are running scared. They need our support. Aren’t you glad you don’t have this problem? Don’t forget the A-bomb and Israel.

                Europe is another soft spot. NATO is weak and Russia knows it. The bear is back. They play dirty. They supply Euro land with natural gas. They threaten to turn off or diminish the natural gas supply if they don’t get their way. Especially Germany, the backbone of the European community, and Chancellor Merkel is being blackmailed by them. They love the magician right now.

                Russia is trying to bluff its way on the world stage, but economically they are a short sale. Business will stay away from them because they are undependable. Ask British Petroleum. Any country that threatens to turn off a heat supply to another country in the middle of winter cannot be trusted.

              Then there is China, which is imploding. They are competing with Russia and India for the vast energy fields located in the Former Soviet Union. The Chinese are a very polite people and have a high regard for honor. The Magician better listen carefully.

                The price of oil is dropping and soon will go down below $50.  Partly because of the pending global recession, partly because when the price rises too high, everyone on earth hunts for a better solution.  Just drive in the country and look at all the wood piled up for heat. Utilities are spending money on solar power, wind farms, and atomic energy.

             Then there is Brazil, a friendly nation to the south of us. They have discovered one of the largest oil fields off their coast line, and it is light sweet crude.  They were selling concessions for geographical blocks, in which oil companies accept the risk in return for the rights over any oil and gas they may discover. The hit rate was 100% for the first 15. Now the government realizes the potential and has stopped issuing concessions. The conservative estimate is that it contains over 100bn barrels of oil. That should start coming on stream between 2010- 2012. Those estimates are considered to be conservative too.

     I wonder what we will find off our coasts.

                Take all these situations, jumble them in the Magician’s hat and see what he pulls out. Don’t sell Obama short just yet. Remember he whipped Hillary and she is still smiling.

                Our domestic problems are immense. Will he have the same problem that Bush had in controlling his party? We have a very serious problem on our hands. The depression happened because of too much easy credit and financial leaders who had the wrong idea of what to do. FDR’s programs were a bust. Thanks to the Japanese, they created full employment and a pent up demand. The tight credit of the 1930’s was dropped into the bucket December 8, 1941 and our economy rebounded that very day.

                Today we face a similar problem, but with a big difference. We have Dr Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He received his doctorate degree from M.I.T. on the great depression and how to avoid another one. It is considered the bible among financial theologians.

                Some states are facing huge deficits and instead of cutting programs and urging belt tightening as a true leader would, they plan to raise taxes which just takes money away from the consumer who would spend it. This will hurt and slow any recovery in that particular area.

                As some of you know I started being a stock broker in 1960. I was the youngest broker by 15 years and I found it very difficult getting started because “I had not been through the crash.”  So I learned all about it from first hand reports from the floor of exchanges and pillars of the business to men who lost their homes or stood in line for a welfare check.

                This stock market will bottom out only when the sellers stop selling. As real estate prices come down and people are force to sell to save their homes – sellers will abound.

                One buys a home to live in it long term. Land speculation can be disastrous and real estate is illiquid.  There is no stock exchange for houses and land.   Land and homes should be bought for long term investments – not for a short term flip. Those days are over.

                I would like to explain how our credit implosion happened. It took decades. In their greed to show higher earnings, financial institutions of all types started lowering their standards for loans.  10% down payment looks easy in a rising market. If the asset goes up 10% you have doubled your money. If it goes down 10% you are wiped out. That is how this mess started, and once in high gear our leaders were afraid to pull the plug hoping the next guy would have the problem. It is not just sub-prime loans; it is most hedge funds, derivative transactions (what I call funny money) credit cards and their usury rates, and automobile loans to name a few. Get the picture?

                Now throw in the stock exchanges with rules to help the big guy and wound the individual investor. The role of the specialist on the floor of the New York Stock exchange is now history.  His function was to maintain a fair and orderly market. The computer has replaced the specialist with quicksilver speed. To protect the market place against bear stock raids the Uptick Rule was instituted in the 1930’s, June 2007 it was rescinded. That is exactly when the high volatility came into the market.  I am not of the Democratic party persuasion, but dear reader, if any of you have opportunity to communicate with the President- elect staff, he should replace the members of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) now. If President Bush means his “seamless transition” then he should submit Obama’s choices now.

              This market is a long way off from bottoming. This is a credit crisis, and it has to be worked down. Thieves have to be convicted, brokerage firms and certain types of investments abandoned and the mechanics of the market place improved or reformed for the common good.

                I was taught many, many years ago never to trust the government when it came to investments. They don’t have your best interest at heart– only theirs.

                We might see a tricky maneuver when it comes to your IRA. Most IRA’s are down substantially from their August 1st valuations. Now the government might offer you your August 1,2008 valuation and you can dump it in our social security system. That is called spreading the wealth around.  They are going to use a carrot to entice you to give up your independence. Magic-poof!! If they really want to fix the system, they should rescind the Congress retirement package and put them back on Social Security. Right now they can retire at full pay after serving only one term!

                When stock markets top out it’s done stock by stock. Only when 50% or more stocks are down do people realize that they are in trouble.  The same is true when the market bottoms. Individual stocks bounce around like a rubber ball. A good way to find these gems is when stocks have a really bad day – see if there are any up a half point or more. That tells you that some investors are afraid it is going to go back up so, out of fear of missing the upturn, they are buying back in.

                I spotted one of these beauties. It is a Canadian company trading in US funds and Canadian funds. The current ratio is a strong 2.13-1 and no funny money.  It is selling around 4 times earnings and yielding over 24% paying monthly. (Even if they cut the dividend by ½ it would still yield 12%).  It is in the waste management field and its business is diversified in oil recovery, metal and mining recovery and the automotive industry plus others. Its business is all over Canada plus the western United States. It has over $400,000,000 in sales. I can’t figure out why it is down so much, but maybe one of you can.  You may check it out for your self at www.newalta.com.

                If you plan do to business with me sometime in the future, due to Homeland Security, it is best to get the paperwork done ahead of time so you don’t miss markets. This is a way of making sure honest and friendly funds enter our market place.

              In the meantime, stay liquid, calm and cool.

    Cheerio!!!

    Richard C De Graff 
    256 Ashford Road
    Eastford Ct 06242     
    860-522-7171 Main Office  
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    860-208-0256 Cell
    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. I do not receive any remuneration or fees for writing this letter. I do it for the love and truth and the sheer joy of expressing my opinion. 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. The opinions expressed in this letter are mine and  not necessarily those of Coburn & Meredith.

     

    This phone operates from 8am to 8pm only.

  • TURKEY DEVELOPS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AZERBAIJAN

    TURKEY DEVELOPS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AZERBAIJAN

    TURKEY DEVELOPS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AZERBAIJAN

    By Saban Kardas

    Monday, November 10, 2008

     

    On November 5 and 6, after his reelection last month, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev visited Turkey, where he discussed the developments in the Caucasus, relations with Armenia, and deepening cooperation between the two countries.

    On November 5 he attended a dinner given by his host President Abdullah Gul and attended by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other ministers (Anadolu Ajansi, November 6). On the second day of his visit Aliyev addressed a session of the Turkish Parliament (www.cnnturk.com, November 6). The two presidents emphasized the close friendship between their countries and the importance of Turkey-Azerbaijan cooperation for peace and stability in the Caucasus. The leaders repeated the oft-heard motto of “one nation, two states” and made references to historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Aliyev remarked that no other countries had such close relations as those between Turkey and Azerbaijan, and this must be seen as a great asset. Aliyev also thanked Turkey for supporting Azerbaijan in difficult times.

    The main item on Aliyev’s agenda was the situation in the Caucasus. Having commended Turkey’s constructive efforts to solve problems in the region, Aliyev repeated Azerbaijan’s support for the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform (CSCP), initiated by Turkey (EDM, September 2). On the issue of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, Aliyev made a firm statement of the Azerbaijani position that the current situation of the Karabakh conflict remains the main obstacle to peace in the Caucasus. He criticized Armenia’s occupation of 20 percent of Azeri lands and its policy of ethnic cleansing. He reiterated that a solution to the problem rests on the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and Armenia’s compliance with the resolutions of international organizations including the United Nations (ANKA, November 6).

    Aliyev’s visit comes in the wake of a meeting between Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian in Moscow on November 2, sponsored by Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev. Despite their pledge in a joint declaration to pursue a political settlement, the two leaders failed to specify any concrete steps with regard to confidence-building measures, which fell short of the Kremlin’s expectations (EDM, November 4). Nonetheless, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) welcomed this declaration and viewed it as a successful example of multiple parties working toward a common goal. Some Turkish observers interpreted Russia’s growing involvement in the resolution of the Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute as a loss of leverage for Ankara and criticized Turkey’s reactionary policy (www.asam.org.tr, ASAM Daily Brief, November 6).

    A press release by the MFA emphasized that Turkey’s past efforts—such as the proposal for the CSCP and the trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia sponsored by Turkey—had paved the way for the Moscow talks (Press Release: 189, www.mfa.gov, November 5). In his meeting with Aliyev, Gul received first hand information about the Azeri-Armenian talks in Moscow. Gul praised the declaration as the beginning of a new era for bringing peace to the region (Anadolu Ajansi, November 5). It is a common practice for the leaders of Turkey and Azerbaijan to inform each other about any meetings with Armenia not involving the other party (Star, September 11).

    The Turkish daily Zaman ran a story that maintained that Gul had proposed another trilateral summit in Istanbul, which would bring together Gul, Aliyev, and Sarkisian. Having received a positive response from Aliyev, Gul was reportedly going to extend an invitation to the Armenian side. Speaking to Zaman, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov also confirmed that such a proposal had been made (Zaman, November 7). The Turkish MFA spokesperson, however, issued a statement refuting the idea that it had proposed hosting a trilateral meeting (www.cnnturk.com, November 7). Zaman nonetheless insisted on its story and criticized the confusing information over the proposal coming out of the MFA (Zaman, November 8). The Turkish officials’ stance might have been a result of an attempt to achieve reconciliation with Armenia through secret diplomacy and their preference for keeping such a proposal confidential before all the details are worked out.

    Another major issue on the agenda during Aliyev’s visit was the growing volume of trade and economic cooperation between the two countries, in particular in the energy sector. Azerbaijan and Turkey have developed a partnership in energy transportation, which has led to the flourishing of economic ties in other fields. Turkish entrepreneurs have had a vibrant presence in Azerbaijan. The growing Azerbaijani wealth created by oil revenues, however, has altered the direction of investments. Recently, Azeri companies started investing in Turkey, especially in privatization projects. The CEO of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (Socar) announced the company’s plans for new investments of up to 10 billion dollars in Turkey (Yeni Safak, January 10). SOCAR and the Palmali Group recently bought 50 percent of Tekfen Insaat, one of Turkey’s largest construction firms, for $520 million (Ihlas News Agency, September 8). Aliyev emphasized that such investments reflected the growing self-confidence of the Azeri economy and gave indications that they would continue in the future. Aliyev also emphasized the high value his administration attaches to integrating Azerbaijan with the rest of the world. He noted, however, the importance of achieving full independence in the economy, which was a prerequisite for political independence (Cihan News Agency, November 6).

    President Gul is due to visit Baku on November 14 to attend the forthcoming fourth international summit on energy, which will bring together several heads of state from the region as well as representatives from the European Union and the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza (Zaman, November 7; Azeri Press Agency, November 7). In the wake of the conflict in Georgia, discussions on the secure flow of energy from the region, as well as alternative pipelines carrying oil and gas, will be on the agenda of the summit.