Turkish Forum

Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • Tackling the Turkish taboo

    Tackling the Turkish taboo

    robert ellisLast December, about 200 Turkish academics and journalists challenged a longstanding Turkish taboo when they launched a petition on the internet apologising for “the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915”. To date 30,000 have signed the petition.

    The reaction was twofold. The Turkish president, Abdullah Gül, who had earlier attended a World Cup qualifying match between Turkey and Armenia in Yerevan, said that being able to discuss every opinion was the policy of the state. The prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on the other hand, said there was no need to apologise because Turkey had not committed a crime.

    In a further move, Canan Aritman, the Izmir deputy for the opposition Republican People’s party, accused the president’s mother of being Armenian, and when Gül explained that both sides of his family were Muslim and Turkish, she demanded a DNA test. A defamation lawsuit followed which resulted in the president being awarded a symbolic 1 Turkish lira (50p).

    Inevitably, after a complaint that the website campaign had violated article 301 of the Turkish penal code for “public denigration of the Turkish nation”, the Ankara public prosecutor’s office investigated the matter. The conclusion, surprisingly, was that there was no need for a criminal prosecution on the grounds that opposing opinions are also protected under freedom of thought in democratic societies. However, the high criminal court annulled this ruling and the issue is still pending.

    In recent years, a number of high-profile cases in Turkey have illustrated the fact that public discussion of the events of 1915 is still fraught with risk. Three years ago, the Nobel prize winner Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted for stating in an interview with a Swiss daily that “30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it”. The charge was dropped on a technicality but it transpired that an ultranationalist gang was trying to raise 2m lira to get someone to kill him.

    Another Turkish novelist, Elif Şafak, was also prosecuted under article 301 because a character in her novel The Bastard of Istanbul had raised the issue of the Armenian genocide, but the charge was ultimately dropped because of insufficient evidence. And two years ago, Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian editor, was murdered outside his office in Istanbul by a young Turkish nationalist.

    Even on an academic level this topic is controversial. Four years ago, scholars who organised a conference at Bosphorus University on the Armenian issue during the Ottoman empire were accused by the government’s spokesman and minister of justice, Cemil Çiçek, of “stabbing the Turkish nation in the back”. The conference was postponed, but after an international outcry it was finally reconvened at Bilgi University four months later.

    More fuel was added to the fire last November when the defence minister, Vecdi Gönül, on the 70th anniversary of the death of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, said: “If there were Greeks in the Aegean and Armenians in most places in Turkey today, would it be the same nation state?”

    But a fortnight ago the chief of the Turkish general staff, İlker Başbuğ, in a keynote speech reminded his audience that Atatürk had said it was the people of Turkey, without ethnic and religious distinction, who had founded the Republic of Turkey. If he had spoken of the Turkish people, that would be an ethnic definition.

    Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pledged to recognise the Armenian genocide to garner the substantial Armenian-American vote during their presidential campaigns, but now geopolitical reality has set in. On Obama’s visit to Turkey at the beginning of this month, the US president maintained that his views on the incidents of 1915 had not changed and in his statement last Friday on Armenian Remembrance Day he reiterated that stance.

    However, without using the dreaded g-word, Obama instead spoke of “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century” and “Meds Yeghern” – the Armenian for the “Great Catastrophe”. His goal was still “a full, frank and just acknowledgement of the facts” and he strongly supported efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through their painful history in an honest, open and constructive manner.

    While trying to manoeuvre between a rock and a hard place, Obama was met with criticism from both sides. The chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America expressed his “sharp disappointment” and Erdogan called Obama’s remarks “an unacceptable interpretation of history”.

    Nine months after Dink was murdered, his son Arant Dink and another Turkish-Armenian journalist received suspended sentences of one year’s imprisonment for using the term genocide. The Turkish court in its judgment stated: “Talk about genocide, both in Turkey and other countries, unfavourably affects national security and the national interest.”

    After the first world war, the treaty of Sèvres in 1920 was the instrument by which the victorious allies dismembered Ottoman Turkey and divided the spoils among themselves. It was only after the Turkish war of independence and a heroic struggle under the leadership of Atatürk that the treaty of Lausanne (1923) established the borders of modern Turkey.

    The Armenian diaspora is also responsible for Turkey’s fears of partition. In December 2007, journalist Harut Sasunian, a prominent member of the Armenian community in the US, said the ultimate objective of Armenians was to get recognition of their genocide claims and to obtain territory and compensation from Turkey.

    According to the prominent Turkish historian Taner Akcam, “Turkey needs to stop treating the discussion of history as a category of crime”. Perhaps the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia and the agreement on a “roadmap” to normalise ties will one day lead to that.

    Published on : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/29/armenian-genocide-turkey

  • Armenian Patriarch of Turkey: Religious or Political Leader?

    Armenian Patriarch of Turkey: Religious or Political Leader?

    sassun-2

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    A year ago, the 53-year-old Patriarch of Turkey, Mesrob Mutafyan, was unexpectedly diagnosed with a debilitating and apparently incurable illness. His official duties were assumed on a temporary basis by Archbishop Aram Ateshian, 55, and Archbishop Shahan Svajian, 83.

    There have been many puzzling questions as to the cause of the Patriarch’s illness. His doctors have announced that he is suffering from an unspecified neurological disorder and loss of memory.

    Members of the Istanbul Armenian community have expressed conflicting opinions as to the advisability of replacing the Patriarch. Electing a replacement is problematic, as Patriarchs usually serve for life. However, such an important seat cannot remain vacant for long. Patriarch Mutafyan was elected to his post in 1998.

    There are only about 10 Armenian clergymen worldwide who qualify to stand as candidates in a new patriarchal election, since Turkish law disqualifies those not born in that country. Two of the 10 clergymen reside in Istanbul, while the rest are in Armenia, the United States and Germany.

    Since Archbishop Atesyan has already taken on many of the patriarchal duties, he may emerge as the front-runner in a future election for that post. It is therefore important for the Armenian public to be informed about his background, actions and statements.

    In previous patriarchal elections, the Turkish government has indicated to the local Armenian community its preferred candidate. An early indication of such a preference would be the number of times a particular clergyman is invited to Ankara for “consultation.”

    To gain insight into Abp. Atesyan’s positions on Armenian-Turkish issues, here are several excerpts from his lengthy interview with Spiegel online, the electronic version of the prominent German Der Spiegel magazine. The interview was conducted shortly after the Armenian clergyman, along with the Jewish Rabbi, the Patriarchal Vicar of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Islamic Mufti of Istanbul met with Pres. Obama in Istanbul last month. The Greek Patriarch met separately with the U.S. President.

    Abp. Atesyan told Spiegel that he “spoke with Pres. Obama about the events of 1915 and told him that both peoples suffered.” He also the President: “We, the Armenians in Turkey, are like the children of a divorce. In Turkish, we call our homeland ‘Anavatan’ — that means ‘motherland’ — and in Armenian we call it ‘Hayrenik,’ which means ‘fatherland.’ We have lived with our mother for the past 80 years. Now we want our parents to finally reconcile.”

    Commenting on Pres. Obama’s April 24 statement, Abp. Atesyan said: “The Turkish government is unhappy that the US president used the term ‘Meds Yeghern,’ the ‘Great Catastrophe.’ That is the common Armenian name for the events of 1915 and basically means the same thing. But there is also some disappointment among Armenians. Many wished that he would specifically use the G-word. But of course he did not. The US needs Turkey, it is one of its most important strategic partners.”

    Abp. Atesyan proceeded to explain that “Armenians have been living on Anatolian soil for the past 2,000 years, and for the last thousand we have shared this land with the Turks. Our people were like brothers — until the tragic events of 1915. Now there is hope once again, but we should not gamble it away. Therefore the next step is diplomatic rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, followed by the opening of common borders.” Interestingly, he dismissed the much talked about possible formation of a “historical commission,” by asserting that “a closer examination of our history will not be attempted for the time being.”

    When asked about the Armenian Diaspora’s demands for genocide recognition, Abp. Atesyan responded very cautiously: “I do not want to judge them. I do not want to judge anyone. I am a member of the clergy, it’s not my responsibility to conduct historical research or raise questions of guilt. The only thing I want to say to my Turkish and Armenian counterparts is: We know that something very terrible happened to my people in 1915. We also know that Turks and Muslims suffered. And we know that today there is a chance for our people to engage with each other.”

    Abp. Atesyan then commented on recent developments in Turkey: “Yes, there is certainly a change of mentality in Turkey. Ten years ago, no one would have had the courage to ask questions about the events of 1915. This fear has receded; today one can write about the issue or discuss it on television. In comparison to the 1990s, human rights in this country have made a big leap forward. This also affects our ability to practice our religion. We are now in a position to freely renovate our churches. Until recently, we had to ask permission from the government for each new nail…. It is an unwritten law in this country that a Christian can never be a government minister or a military officer. But I believe that this could change in the future.”

    The problem in giving such interviews is that Armenian clergymen in Turkey have to be extremely careful about what they say publicly, given that country’s draconian laws restricting freedom of speech. One wrong word can land them in jail or worse! In his case, Abp. Atesyan has an even more compelling reason for minding his words. He could either ingratiate himself to the Turkish authorities or have them veto his patriarchal candidacy.

    The wisest course for an Armenian clergyman in Turkey is to deal exclusively with religious issues and not discuss politics, thus avoiding the possibility of being used as a propaganda tool for the Turkish government.
  • Turkey’s new FM meets senior Azarbaijani official as first work

    Turkey’s new FM meets senior Azarbaijani official as first work

    The official’s visit to Turkey comes before Azerbaijan and Armenia summit.

    azimov-davutogluNew Foreign Minister of Turkey Ahmet Davutoglu received Azerbaijan’s deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov as his first guest.

    Azarbaijan’s ambassador to Turkey, Zakir Hasimov, accompanied Azimov during the visit.

    A statement was not released after the meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Azerbaijan’s deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, but press members were allowed to take pictures.

    Before leaving his post to Davutoglu, Ali Babacan said the political consultation period among 6 countries, including Turkey and Armania, would start in a couple of weeks.

    Azimov who is responsible for Nagarno-Karabagh and energy issues among other things, evaluated regional developments during the meeting with Davutoglu.

    Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliev and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan will meet in Prag over Nagorno-Karabakh in a land occupied by Armenian soldiers during the energy summit that will be held on may 7-8.

    Azimov’s visit to Turkey comes before this summit.

    Source:  www.worldbulletin.net, 04 May 2009

  • Letter to Madame Pelosi

    Letter to Madame Pelosi

    Letter addressed by a group of retired Turkish ambassadors to Madame Nancy Pelosi, Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America

    {{{isim}}}

    Doğum 26 Mart 1940
    Baltimore, ABD
    Görev süresi 4 Ocak 2007 –
    Partisi Demokratik P

    Once again, extremist factions within the American-Armenian communities have launched their yearly campaigns asking the US Congress the adoption of a resolution recognizing their claims of “Armenian Genocide”.

    We, a Group of Retired Turkish Ambassadors, whose friends and colleagues have been brutally murdered by Armenian terrorists, categorically object to such political initiatives based on false and untenable premises.

    The arguments set forth in the draft resolution are inaccurate, unfounded and are no more than tendentious assertions. If adopted, it will constitute a monumental symbol of one-sidedness, and an affront to the dignity of the Turkish people whose forefathers are accused of a detestable crime they had not committed. The silence of the draft Resolution on the losses and sufferings of the Turkish people during the same period is another regrettable aspect.

    The “FINDINGS” in Section 2 of the draft resolution calls for a detailed rebuttal which we are ready to provide in an appropriate setting in the Congress. Here we shall draw Your attention to a few points of overriding importance:

    – The “post-World War I Turkish Government” was not a government legimately representing its people, but merely a remnant of the Ottoman Government under the captivity of British troops. It had no authority beyond the city of Istanbul under occupation. The so-called “court martials” formed in 1919 by that government were no more than the tools of the occupation forces. Their judges, who had even refused to hear the witnesses of the defendants, were appointed by the political opponents of the “Young Turks”. Even the British lawyers considered these courts to be a “farce” and an offence to the credibility of the British and Ottoman Governments.

    – According to international law, the crime of genocide cannot be ascertained by parliamentary sub-committees or other political organs, but only by competent and impartial courts.

    – Documents in the US archives (derived mainly from missionaries who had relied on Armenian sources) have been dismissed by the British Attorney General in 1920 as “personal impressions and opinions” unsuitable for use in legal proceedings. At the time the British had the possibility of obtaining any document they wanted in Turkey.

    – US Ambassador Morghentau never visited Eastern Anatolia. When writing his “story”, he relied on the words of his two Armenian assistant-interpreters. His efforts to convince the United States to declare war against the Ottoman State was well known, as were his personal political ambitions. Most of the subsequent American ambassadors, including Admiral Bristol, as well as the American Observer Mission have contradicted his allegations. The reports of Captain Emory Niles and Mr. Arthur Sutherlands on the atrocities carried out by Armenian gangs and volunteers attached to occupation forces can be found in the American archives albeit in a mutilated form (U.S. 867.00/1005).

    – The three Ministers mentioned by name were tried in absentia not for the “massacre” of the Armenians, but for having dragged the State into World War I on the side of Germany. Two of them were subsequently assasinated by Armenian terrorists, as were 31 innocent Turkish diplomats who had not yet been born at the time of these events. All members of the Ottoman Parliament and high level officials detained by the British Government and deported to the Island of Malta were later released for “lack of evidence” of war crimes.

    – It has been clearly established that the presumed words of Hitler were the invention of a journalist, and were not recorded in any archive.

    – Personal merits or stance of Mr.Lemkin cannot change the internationally recognized fact that only a competent court can rule whether or not the crime of genocide has been committed..

    – Neither the United Nations, nor the Genocide Convention have ever recognized or made mention of “an Armenian Genocide”, as suggested in the draft resolution. The special UN Working Group refused to endorse the “Whitaker Report” containing this allegation on the gounds that it was not the Group’s task to pass judgement on history.

    – Statements such as the “first genocide of the 20th Century” are thoughtless assertions against the Turkish nation, are morally unjust and ethically wrong, given the facts of history. In the Balkans alone, the 19th and 20th centuries witnessed the death of millions of Turks and Muslims as a result of massacre, disease and hunger. Only a part of them succeeded to reach Turkey in a pitiful state. No missionary or relief organization helped them; their sufferings were not reported in the West, they remained as the forgotten sons and daughters of history.

    The collusion and cooperation of the elements of the Armenian population with the invading Russian, French and British forces, and the destruction and massacres they have committed against civilian populations is a fact attested to not only by official Ottoman records, but also by several American, British and Russian sources. Secretary of State R.Lansing is unequivocal when he reports to President Wilson: “The betrayal of the Armenians against the State is the cause of their relocation”. Official records set forth that an Armenian Delegation wanted to participate in the Peace Conference as “the representatives of the Armenians who were de facto participants in the war on the Allied side against the Ottoman State”. The memorandum they submitted on Febuary 28, 1919 to the Conference confirms their “betrayal”, alongside the extreme territorial claims advanced by them. As Secretary Lansing has admitted, the relocation of the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia was prompted by real security concerns.

    It is acknowledged, however, that under the conditions of war, the relocation process could not be managed as it should have been. During the relocation, unwarranted deaths and suffering was witnessed mainly due to disease, bandits and tribal attacks (in particular of those who had found refuge in Anatolia after their expulsion from their homelands by Armenians); but this tragic destiny was shared also by Turks and other Muslim populations. More than 2.5 million of them perished in the same war; according to some estimates 518,000 Turks and some Jews were killed by Armenian para-military troops and gangs. It was these very organizations that had spearheaded the uprisings, fought against the Ottoman armies, massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. and destroyed entire settlements and communities. Their objective was to prepare ethnically clean territories for a future Armenian state in areas where they never held a majority There is extensive documentation that these groups were armed and organized by Russia and France, and received financial help from missionary organizations.

    It is common knowledge that relocation of populations during wars and national emergencies is not a measure that has been resorted to solely by the Ottoman State. The exchange of Greek and Turkish populations (as seen fit, inter alia, by Winston Churchill) was agreed to at the Lausanne Peace Conference. During the Second World War, as a precautionary measure, the United States had interned 300,000 of its own citizens of Japanese origin for several years under dire conditions for fear of their collaboration with an enemy thousand of kilometers away in another corner of the globe. US Courts later recognized this measure as legitimate. At the end of this war, six million German inhabitants of Central Europe were deported to Germany by a decision taken at the Potsdam and Yalta conferences. The insufficient organization, logistics and in particular poor protection provided by the victorious Allied armies were the main causes of the death of at least 1,000,000 Germans. If the Ottoman armies fighting on five fronts could not provide sufficient protection to relocated groups, or could not prevent losses caused by natural causes and diseases, this was not due to an intent to destroy these groups but resulted from the insufficiency of their means and resources under war conditions.

    In fact, immediately after the War, Allied Governments were unable to put forth a single genuine document proving the Ottoman Government’s intent to annihilate their Armenian subjects. However, there is abundant documentation to the contrary. The Ottoman Ministry of Interior had given strict instructions for the protection of these people, monitored their progress, warned or punished those officials who had failed their duties and diverted considerable sums for logistics from the war budget. We are not aware of another example of a government that permitted its subjects to receive foreign humanitarian assistance while acting at the same time with the intent of killing them. By permitting the continuation of the activities of the American missionaries and the distribution of relief material to relocated Armenians without hindrance, both the Ottoman and Nationalist governments had showed that they did not harbour such intent. Besides clearly attesting to this fact, report No.192 of the “Near East Relief” approved by the joint session of the Senate’ House of Representatives on 22 May 1922, provides invaluable information regarding the numbers of those assisted (obviously alive) and the emigration movements, thus confuting the exaggerated numbers presented as corresponding to the victims of the relocation.

    How could this be designated as genocide if the State took all measures possible under the conditions of war to ensure the protection of the relocated population?

    The malicious exaggeration that 1,500,000 Armenians died has no basis in fact. According to Ottoman census figures, the total Armenian population at that time in Turkey was 1,294,000. It is estimated that about 900,000 of them living in Eastern Anatolia were to be subjected to relocation; meaning their transfer and resettlement within the territory of the same state. Ottoman documents also show that 220,000 of the relocated subjects later returned to their homes. Even if credit is given to American documents only, the report of the American Consul in Aleppo informing his government of the safe arrival and resettlement of 500,000 Armenians in his consular area appears to challenge these exaggerated figures, which presume a death toll higher than the total Armenian population of Anatolia. The registers of several Western Governments recorded large numbers of Armenian immigrants and refugees. Russian records and report No.192 of the “Near East Relief” show that no less than 350,000 Armenians followed the retreating Russian forces or preferred to emigrate instead of returning to their homes at the end of the War. The 132000 children mentioned in the draft resolution as being adopted by American families should be added to these figures. A simple calculation made by demographers is sufficient to prove the unrealistic exaggeration of these figures: If the present global Armenian population is accepted as the descendants of the purportedly such a limited number of Armenians to have survived the relocation, this would mean a population explosion unheard in the history of mankind. By the same rate of growth, the present day population of Turkey would have reached three hundred million, almost equal to the population of the United States, instead of the present 72 million.

    Prominent scholars (Turkish, American or others), refute these exaggerations as the remnants of war propaganda (as later acknowledged by British historian Arnold Toynbee) or as the products of ethnic and religious bias. The same bias also explains the lack of any reference to Turkish-Muslim deaths.

    Of course, the number of casualties is important. However, in order to qualify such unfortunate events as “genocide”, it is not the numbers, but credible, documented proof about the existence of the intent to destroy a people as such that needs to be established. At the end of the same war, Allied governments who were in possession of all official records and archives could not produce any credible document or evidence proving this element of intent. They consequently released all the ministers and parliamentarians who were detained or interned in Malta for prosecution of war crimes.

    As the Republican generations of our nation, we may not relish delving into the sad pages of our history. However, this does not mean that we are not prepared to face the truth. We acknowledge also the human suffering in the histories of other nations including those of the colonial period . We object, however, to the misuse of these events for revanchisme and narrow political or other interests. In our country, speaking for or against a version of the events of 1915 is not prohibited by law in contrast to the practices of some other countries. The Turkish Government has formally proposed the formation of a commission composed of Turkish and Armenian scholars and the opening for their examination of all state archives, including the archives of the Armenian organizations that had spearheaded the uprisings. The refusal so far to accept joint and impartial research is the irrefutable evidence of the lack of good-will behind the genocide accusations. We have therefore to conclude that not us, but those who refuse objective research, are afraid of facing the truths of their own history. We will wait patiently for a positive answer, because it is only through dialogue that reconciliation can ever be attained between the Turkish and Armenian nations.

    We hope that the Honorable members of the Congress will recognize the risks of the formalization by legislative fiat of such contested allegations by political decisions, parliamentary or otherwise. To attempt to codify history in a political context is bound to have serious implications well beyond the subject matter of that Resolution. “Genocide” is a legal concept defined in the 1948 UN Convention and only a due and impartial legal process carried out by a competent court can certify its existence and issue an indictment to this effect. We would expect that the Congress of the United States, itself an edifice of law, to refrain from acting as a self-appointed tribunal.

    We believe that the final objective of any survey of the events of the late 19th and early 20th centuries should be to promote peace and mutual understanding between the Turks and Armenians. These two peoples lived together for almost ten centuries in friendship and cordiality. We should therefore ask : What other interests are served besides the self-serving interests of the “Armenian Genocide” industry, were the Congress to adopt such a resolution? Will it help the on-going delicate process of normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia or the resolution of the the issue in contention? Will it serve the interests of Armenia, or of the United States? And finally, what impact it would have on Turkish-American relations which are no less important today than they were in the past?

    Some in the Republic of Armenia or elsewhere may consider such allegations as politically useful, even a convenient cover for the occupation of a fifth of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the displacement of more than one million people from their homes. Even recent history shows that such illusions can only serve to fuel feelings of injustice and pave the way to enmities and new conflicts. Victimized and offended peoples would legitimately consider any cooperation with the aggressors and offenders as immoral. The feelings of the Turkish people, which consider Azerbaijan as a sister nation, cannot be much different.

    Turkey was among the first to recognize (for the second time in modern history) the independence of Armenia, lending a helping hand for the development of relations based on legally binding bilateral and multilateral treaties. The responsibility of the present unsatisfactory state of relations falls upon the extremists supported by Diaspora organizations which do not seem to care about the indefinite postponement of the normalisation of relations between Turkey and Armenia. These elements prevent the Armenian State from following the path of reason, moderation and reconciliation.. No reasonable observer can overlook the benefits which a land-locked Armenia with scarce natural resources, reduced to the position of a forward military base of the Russian Federation stands to gain from regional cooperation in the Caucasus. The harm done to the true interests of the Armenian people struggling with poverty is obvious.

    The Honorable members of Congress should therefore take into consideration that the adoption of this Resolution will undoubtedly pose new barriers to the Turkish and Armenian governments in their search for common understanding and solutions concerning these issues.

    The adoption of this draft resolution will inevitably create serious complications affecting Turkish-American relations as well. How one can imagine that the Turkish people could overlook the injustice done by the highest political authority of its long-time ally if the Congress fails to take the slightest trouble to consider arguments other than those raised by ethnic Armenian activists? For some governments and political bodies to act under the impulse of local political interests may be attractive; however, we believe such motives should not overshadow their even more important responsibility in regards to international moral, legal, strategic and political implications of their actions. With regard to the extreme Armenian claims, the Turkish people will assess the actions and policies of our friends and foes on the basis of what stand they take on our views and arguments.. Provoking sentiments of injustice and discrimination can only benefit the radical ideologies

    It is unthinkable that the Turkish people tolerate and forget about the injustice done, if the US Congress adopts this draft Resolution. That is bound to have a serious debilitating effect on Turkish-American relations which can reach the desirable level only with the support of the peoples. The many possibilities of cooperation between Turkey and the USA in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans, in Afghanistan,Iraq, in the field of energy, in the joint struggle against terrorism and other transnational challenges are likely to suffer as a result. The goodwill already generated by the planned visit of President Barrack Obama to Turkey may be lost.

    We certainly would not relish the happening of such negative developments in the relations of the two allies who had fought against common foes side by side in the distant corners of the globe. What we are asking now from the Honorable members of the US Congress is to be fair and refuse to adopt this draft resolution based on the distortion of history and on an ideology of hatred and revanchism. It is only through justice, fairness and truth that Turkish-American friendship and cooperation can endure and the real interests of the Armenian nation can be served.

    Ali Hikmet Alp
    ahalpi @ gmail.com

  • New Progress is Turkish-Azerbaijani Union

    New Progress is Turkish-Azerbaijani Union

     

    Turkey feels influence of cold relation’s results with Azerbaijan. Turkish people should act to prevent non-relationship status like immature relational position of Middle Asian countries. Some assertions about Armenian border problem were about silent events among Caucasus states. Importants of them;

     

    – Different actions of Azerbaijan which could be created by Russia,

    – Azerbaijan didn’t recognize North Cyprus Turkish Republic,

    – Will Turkey stipulate Karabakh, ASALA and Kars Treaty points in new seazon with Armenia?

     

    We know Ahmet Davutoğlu’s doctrinaire position about foreign policy of Turkish government. Now he is new Foreign Affairs Minister of Turkey. But in that time, old formulation of Turkish foreign policy which is formulated as minimum problem and maximum cooperation with neighbors, shares us a neccessity to create new dimensions as dominant policies. Otherwise our initiatives will die before they are born. Example, hanging on New Ottoman mind can not improve without knowing issues of near abroad. There is an obligation to understand which balances are standing on Tbilisi government. And if Turkey learned explanation of Meds Yeghern as last country in the world, there is a vision of small Turkey.

     

    New evolutions of Turkey can not be responsibilities of only Turkish academians and politicians. Turkish media should explore value of East. The world is not covering only London and Paris; Baku, Bishkek, Moscow and New Delhi are other important geographical points.

     

    On this way, Turkey should analise Mackinder’s Heartland theory (who commands Eurasia, he commands all the world) and Stratfor’s “Turkey-Azerbaijan Union” opinion.(It must depend on only Turkish directives) If Turkey don’t know sensitives of other regional states, it will depend on mercies of great powers.

     

    As Turkey we should skillfully play Caucasus chess now. It means that effective situation on Caucasus region of Turkey. Common interests of one nation-two states can create unification above common national and moral values. After the Cold War, Russia had an advantage to use old heritage of Tsarist and Soviet Russian period as to create hegemony on Caucasus and Middle Asia. But it is a rotten activity as a mind of saving post Soviet lines. This state uses imperialistic ideas to create buffer regions because of geostrategically Russia has a dangerous situation as territorial integrity. There are some vital importances of Turkey to create union with other Turkish states:

     

    – Some religious groups which are called as radical Islamic groups by Russia and the USA, should be defined by Turkey as normal social organisations. It is important the thought of Turkey because of strong religious heritage of this geography. Also Turkey should support cultural, educational and scientific activities of these groups.

     

    – There must be useful activations which are referenced by historical background.

     

    – There should be strong works how to create unifications like other international organisations. Example, we see possible circumstances to create Turkish union like Arap League in the table of Bruce Russett.

     

    – Turkish educational stations, universities, trade activities and investors should be supported and given new directions by Turkish state. If Turkey had supported 90. anniversary of Baku’s independence, there would have been friendly commands about Armenian border problem from Azerbaijan.

     

    – Related to Armenia which is a gangrene region, Turkey should compose commisions about near history to finish accusations by Armenia. Turkish academians should investigate Tashnak archives in California and create contr-propagandas in different languages all around the world.

     

    Turkish foreign affairs evolutions are gaining with seeing last results of other states’ activations. We have some duties to create brain storm for having a strong progress.

     

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU

    Baku Qafqaz University

    International Relations

  • Levon Ter-Petrossian’s – Mayday, Mayday

    Levon Ter-Petrossian’s – Mayday, Mayday

    ltp-at-matedaran1May Day is a pagan ritual which marks the end of the colder winter half of the year in the Northern hemisphere, and it has traditionally been an occasion for popular and often raucous celebrations – ‘regardless of the locally prevalent political establishment’. But not for Levon Ter-Petrossian, his Mayday was more akin to the Mayday associated with the emergency code word used internationally as a distress signal by ships and airplanes in radio communications; derived from the French venez m’aider, meaning ‘Come Help Me’; the Mayday used to signal a life-threatening emergency by groups such as police forces, pilots, fire-fighters, and transportation organizations – and LTP.

    Yesterday, LTP’s Armenian national Congress (ANC) liner was visibly in distress, suffering relentless buffeting from an Armenian regime which terrorized and killed itself into office; which runs a state-imposed lawless society, holds democratic opposition supporters in prisons, and bullies and beats correspondents who try to tell the story. LTP has finally been trumped by the ‘Flying Ace’ which Kocharian has for years kept tucked up his sleeve and which Sargsyan now flaunts with his international partners-in-crime; the ace of capitulation – on Karabakh and on Genocide.

    Nevertheless, the regime had prepared well for a potentially massive turnout, which might have been the case. But, according to Levon Zurabyan, vehicles bringing LTP supporters to the meeting from outlying regions were turned back in traditional regime style by security services at the city limits brandishing automatic weapons. In contrast, outgoing vehicles were encouraged to take their Mayday holidaymakers to tend their plots of land in the countryside.

    So LTP had fewer passengers than for previous voyages, with the business class notable in its absence. They are distancing themselves from LTP and jumping off his democracy liner, now looking for a Sargsyan lifeboat, in the hope that after regime cronies have finished pillaging the multi-billion dollar [economic rescue] Genocide /Karabakh ‘Sell-Out’ package, the leftovers will help to rescue their small and medium business enterprises. The three thousand or so economy class passengers left on board were seeking cover in whatever sheltered place they could find, realizing they were doomed to go down with the ship and its captain. Riot police were on display in abundance as usual, with bus loads of reserves waiting in the surrounding streets, to make sure nobody jumps ship.

    The Turkish press was eager to quote the international AFP, which rushed to report on how LTP announced to his 3,500 supporters that he and his Armenian National Congress are “in favor of the soonest settlement of Armenian-Turkish relations and is ready to support all positive steps.” On this occasion, the Armenian press came to rescue, with Onnik Krikorian, one of Armenia’s last ‘independent’ photo-journalists, using his Global Voice to report the truth of the matter and including the following:

    “In a damning indictment of Armenia’s rapprochement with Turkey, opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian accused President Serzh Sarkisian on Friday of scuttling U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide and gaining nothing in return …… We are left to conclude without the slightest exaggeration, that for the sake of prolonging his rule, Serzh Sarkisian has literally ‘Sold Out’ the Genocide. “His next step will undoubtedly be a ‘Sell-Out’ of Karabakh, after which he will become the first Armenian to win the Nobel Prize.”

    Unfortunately there is now little hope for an LTP rescue effort, a multi-billion dollar carrot, backed by the power of the international propaganda machine, has succeeded with its ‘Weed Revolution’ for Armenia.

    The international community has happily fallen for the Kocharian / Sargsyan ‘Flying Ace’, hailing marvellous Sargsyan achievements with Turkish and Azerbaijani relations. The European Union started the bidding and gambled the virtues of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. But realizing that Sargsyan was not fooled by the bluff, it instructed PACE to throw in the hand, and they joined Sargsyan as co-conspirators.

    America then upped the anti with a billion plus dollar cash WB/IMF bet, a calculated bid to draw the ‘Flying Ace’ and knowing it had a win-win situation. Upping the stakes would either call the Sargsyan bluff, with the US collecting the pot, or US losses would be recouped by Obama reneging on his promise to recognise the Armenian Genocide on the 24th April.

    Moscow put in its half billion dollar bid in typically shrewd Russian style, reminding the Armenian party that in the event of losses, they would be covered by previous Russian / Armenian agreements. Turkey and Azerbaijan stayed in the bidding with promissory notes, watching the major players jockey for position. Then the US threw in its billion dollar hand and Obama reneged on his Genocide promise as planned.

    The players have been at the table for months on end, each ready to back out in return for resolving its problems in the Caucasus. The EU and the US were happy to cut and run to leave the three former Soviet players to finish the game, each hoping that Turkey, which has been picking up strong cards along the way, will not come up with a hand to trump them all.

    Armenia still has a better-than-even chance of raking in the entire multi-billion dollar pot; all it has to do is to call the Turkish Azerbaijani bluffs and pick the right time to throw down its Karabakh card. The Republic will then be endowed with an internationally installed bandit regime, which for many generations to come will dictate life in Armenia – and all for the sake of a treacherous Armenian capitulation on Karabakh, which unfortunately included an even more shameful ‘Sell-Out’ of the Armenian Genocide.

    In typical style, whilst Diaspora Armenians have been lobbying overseas, Armenians in the Republic have been subserviently watching on as this process moves into its final stage. The fifty or so thousand Karabakhis are up in arms, determined to defend their rights in the light of this Kocharian / Sargsyan ‘Sell-Out’. But there is little hope that they will be able to stop the capitulation roller-coaster, when Armenia’s regime unilaterally withdraws its troops from five of the surrounding territories, egged on by Bryza and his Minsk associates and rubber stamped by the EU.

    The tale goes that when the Azerbaijani Defense Minister asked his President if he was prepared to take Karabakh by force, Aliyev answered – “Are you crazy, there are fifty thousand of them”. The Defense Minister answered but we are a country of eight million and our army is several times larger in number than the entire Karabakh population and we have spent billions of dollars on the latest military equipment. Aliyev replied: “But two Karabakhis took over Armenia single-handed and now they own the Republic. Imagine what fifty thousand of them will do to us!”

    After the Sargsyan ‘Sell-Out’, Turkey and the rest of the international community will be pleased that that anecdote is now the reality. Unfortunately, it is the reality with which Armenia now has to live – and Armenia, you can blame absolutely nobody for it – except yourselves.