Turkish Forum English

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

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

November 11, 2008
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.

November 11, 2008
Mountain megalomaniacs

Norman Stone

Published 06 November 2008

Between Russia and the Middle East, the Caucasus is one of the world’s most diverse regions – and as recent fighting in South Ossetia and Abkhazia showed, still boiling with ethnic tensions. Norman Stone reviews a history which makes sense of this complexity

The surrender of the Circassian leader Sheikh Shamil to the tsarist forces in 1859

The Ghost of Freedom: a History of the Caucasus

Charles King

OUP, 219pp, £17.99

A Georgian professor came to my (Turkish) university a few years ago and said: “People who live in mountains are stupid.” You probably hear such things often enough in the Caucasus, but it is not the sort of remark that you expect professors to pass. However, there is maybe something in it, a point made by the crazy loyalism of the Jacobite Highlanders of the Forty-Five, or for that matter of the Navarrese Carlists: brave and romantic, certainly, with their own codes of honour, but not very bright.

A French sociologist, André Siegfried, developed this theme a century ago, because he had noticed that voting patterns depended on altitude; in the valleys, people got on with normal lives, but, the further up you went, the less this was true. The diet was very poor, the economy was sheep-stealing or smuggling, resentment simmered against the valley settlers, and religion of a wild sort reigned. The Caucasus also fits Siegfried’s pattern, with the difference that, the further uphill you went, the more weird languages you hit on. In Charles King’s words, “the north-east harbours the Nakh languages . . . as well as a mixed bag of disparate languages that includes Avar, Dargin and Lezgin”.

He has missed out the Tats, who are mountain Jews, and he has mercifully missed out a great deal else, because the whole region is a kaleidoscope, and the ancient history is very complicated, with an Iberia and an Albania in shadowy existence; the Ossetians, of whom the world recently heard so much, are apparently what is left of the Alans, one of the barbarian tribes that swept through the later Roman Empire (and ended up in North Africa).

Charles King’s great virtue is that he is a very proficient simplifier and misser-out; he writes well, and can read the languages that matter (for some reason, quite a number of the important sources are in German; Germans were especially interested in the Caucasus, and in 1918 even had plans to shift U-boats overland to the Caspian). All the important themes are here, with some interesting additions.

King concentrates on the modern history of the Caucasus, roughly from 1700, when Russia began to take over the overlordship from Persia and the Ottoman Empire. In 1801, she annexed much of Georgia. This was relatively easy, since it is a very divided country (and the language – so difficult that even Robert Conquest, writing his biography of Stalin, found it impossible – itself sub-divides). It was also Christian, the nobility on the whole glad to come to terms with the tsar, and it could easily be reached from the sea, whereas other parts of the Caucasus, given the very mountainous and forested terrain, were much more difficult. The various Muslim natives of the northern Caucasus were then generally known as “Circassians” (the present-day Chechens are related) and they put up an extraordinary resistance to Russian penetration.

Cossacks came in, as the 19th century went ahead, and a line of forts was established; but a ferocious tribal-religious resistance grew up, under a legendary figure, Sheikh Shamil. Combining mystical-religious inspiration with an extraordinary astuteness as to guerrilla tactics, Shamil kept the Russians pinned down for a whole generation. (King’s bibliography is very solid and useful, but he might have mentioned a classic book about this, Sabres of Paradise, by Lesley Blanch, who went on to write The Wilder Shores of Love about the erotic Orient.)

In the event, the Russians “solved” the problem of the Circassians by mass-deportation. About 1,250,000 of them were forced out, and King is very good at describing their fate, as a third of the deportees died of disease or starvation or massacre, and the rest scattered over the Near and Middle East. Settling in eastern Anatolia, they encountered the Armenians, and bitter conflict resulted. A generation later much the same fate occurred to the Armenians of eastern Turkey. King quite rightly makes the parallel.

Shamil was at long last captured, but the Russians treated him well, and part of his family faded into the tsarist aristocracy. This is incidentally a dimension of matters that King could have explored: the relations of Russia and Islam. He has a good chapter about the image of the Caucasus in Russian literature (Lermontov and Tolstoy especially) but both Pushkin and Dostoyevsky were fascinated by Islam, and the Russians, whether tsarist or communist (and even nowadays) were quite adept at dealing with Muslims. The Tatars have turned into rather a plus: Nureyev and Baryshnikov, whose names mean “light” and “peace” in Turkish, being a case in point.

In fact, as the 19th century went ahead, the Caucasus was opened up, and many of the Muslims became loyal subjects of the tsar. Tiflis, the Georgian capital (why must we use these wretched “Tbilisis” and “Vilniuses” for places so well marked on the historic map?), was the seat of a viceroyalty that stretched from Kars in eastern Anatolia to the Caspian, and the railways, or the military roads, snaked ahead. Oil was struck on the Caspian side, and Baku, the capital of today’s Azerbaijan, grew up as a boom town, much of the architecture rather distinguished in late- Victorian style. One of the great mansions has been spectacularly restored as a historical museum.

To this day, the solid architecture of Kars, now in eastern Turkey, is impressive, and though the town went through a very bad period, when the Cold War was going on, it is doing much better now, as the oil pipeline to Baku pumps away, and the old railway links are restored. Even now, despite the gruesome climate, the inhabitants of Kars are notably sharper and better-educated than those of Trabzon or Erzurum, which remained under Ottoman rule. According to Orhan Pamuk’s novel on the town, Snow, its theatre was very good, but if you needed Islamic female costumes you had to send off to Erzurum, which was (and is: the calls to prayer are frequent and deafening) very provincial-pious. In its way, Kars shows in miniature that pre-1914 period which is the great might-have-been of Russian history: 1914 aborted a period of growing prosperity even, if you like, a bourgeois revolution. The revolution of 1917 finished all of that.

There was a pathetic episode, as the three nations of Transcaucasia – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – established a shadowy independence, even though the peoples of each were (and to some extent still are) intermingled. Baku and Tiflis had large Armenian populations, and Yerevan, the territory of today’s Armenia, was roughly half Muslim, whether Azeri or Kurdish. “Ethnic cleansing” then went ahead, the Armenians especially becoming megalomaniac, and even, as a first act on independence at Christmas 1918, invading Georgia. To this day, much of the Armenian diaspora seems never to have forgiven the west for failing to support their cause: hence these strange and persistent demands for the tragedy to be recognised as genocide. Perhaps it was, but as King shows, Armenians were not the only victims – not by any means – and it is rather to the credit of the Circassians’ (and others’) descendants that they are not demanding similar recognition of genocide from Congress or the Assemblée Nationale or Cardiff City Council or the Edinburgh City Fathers etc.

Sovietisation of the Caucasus then happened, and it was the communists’ turn to find out just how difficult the national question was going to be: eventually, it destroyed them. Communism had a very strong appeal to begin with when it came to the national question: who, looking at the Caucasus (as with Yugoslavia) would not be desperate for anything that would stop the rise of vicious tinpot nationalism? Many stout communists, beginning with Stalin himself, came from the Caucasus, and Stalin in the end had recourse to deportation (of the Chechens and many, many other peoples) as the only solution. That created the counter-hatreds that have made post-Soviet life so difficult. The Armenians repeated their fantasy of 1918 and invaded a neighbour – Azerbaijan – in pursuit of a fantasy. They victoriously set their standards afluttering over Karabakh, with much swelling of diaspora bosoms. The effort, and the isolation it brought them, caused nothing but economic trouble to what was already a poor, land-locked little place, and the original population, three million, is now, from emigration, below two: independence, in other words, having done more damage than ever the Turks did. The Georgians had an 18th-century ruler who described himself as “The Most High King, by the Will of Our Lord King of Kings of the Abkhaz, Kartvelians, Kakhetians and Armenians and Master of All the East and the West”: more megalomania with a contemporary ring, in other words. Charles King has written a very instructive and interesting book about it all.

Norman Stone’s most recent book is “World War One: a Short History”, now available as a Penguin paperback (£7.99)

Source: www.newstatesman.com, 06 November 2008

November 9, 2008
TURKISH JUDGE PUBLICLY CRITICIZES DENIAL OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Scores of highly sympathetic articles about the Armenian Genocide have appeared in the Turkish press in recent months, despite Turkey’s repressive laws that make it a crime to discuss this taboo subject.

One such article appeared in the October 30 issue of the liberal newspaper Taraf. It was authored by a very unlikely writer — Judge Faruk Ozsu from Odemish, near Izmir. This is probably the first time that a sitting Turkish judge publicly expresses such daring thoughts in violation of article 301 of the penal code. He criticizes and mocks the Turkish government’s distorted version of the Armenian Genocide that has been fed to the public for decades.

Judge Ozsu asserts that Turkish denialists contradict themselves by first denying that anything happened in 1915 and then stating that those killings were committed “in defense of the homeland.”

Referring to the three Turks, recently sentenced by a Swiss Court for denying the Armenian Genocide, Judge Ozsu writes that contrary to widespread Turkish misrepresentation Switzerland did not restrict freedom of expression, but in fact upheld human dignity. Moreover, he ridicules all those who claim that “from the point of view of freedom of expression, Turkey is more advanced that Switzerland” — a statement he characterizes as a hilarious comedy! In his judgment, those toeing the official Turkish line on the Armenian Genocide are “blind patriots” who accuse of treason anyone expressing the slightest human sensibility on this subject.

Judge Ozsu describes himself as “a simple man who has not lost his conscience, despite his nationalistic education.” He explains that since Switzerland has acknowledged 1915 as genocide, everyone in that country is obliged to obey the law of the land. He goes on to quote Elie Wiesel as saying that the denial of genocide is the continuation of genocide. That is why, the Judge writes, “it is mandatory that denial be deemed a crime.”

The Honorable Judge further contends that the denial of genocide is unrelated to the scholarly investigation of facts. He condemns French historian Gilles Weinstein and Turkish Professor Baskin Oran for claiming that “there are no documents proving that the killings were committed according to a government plan, therefore it is not possible to qualify these events as genocide.” In the Judge’s view, those making such comments are simply trying to save their necks from “the claws of article 301.”

In a direct reference to Dogu Perincek who was convicted by the Swiss Supreme Court last year for denying the Armenian Genocide, Judge Ozsu made the following observations:

– “Perincek’s association bears the name of Talaat Pasha who is viewed as a ‘Turkish Hitler.’”

– “Those who declare that the Armenian Genocide is ‘an imperialist lie,’ show no respect for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but exclaim: ‘Long live the Ittihadists; we were right [to kill the Armenians] and we can do the same thing now,’ then the only person who will pay attention to them is a Swiss judge.”

– “Disputing the genocide, making racist statements, and praising the commission of a crime is now a legal issue in Switzerland, and not an attempt to seek the truth through scientific inquiry.”

To be sure, the Judge takes a dim view of his country’s educational system which keeps Turks in a state of ignorance about 1915, while people outside Turkey, who have not had a “Turkish education,” view things differently. Explaining that the term genocide was coined by a Polish-Jewish attorney named Raphael Lemkin in 1933, in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide, and before the Holocaust had taken place, which means that “the Genocide Convention signed by Turkey was inspired by the Armenian Genocide.”

The Judge is particularly irate at the Turkish government’s insensitivity toward the mass killings of Armenians. He states: “The official Turkish position is that during the war Armenians from certain regions were temporarily sent to the Southern region and during that period about 300,000 Armenians perished due to different circumstances. Any Turk who has not been through ‘Turkish education’ and has kept his conscience intact, upon hearing the 300,000 figure, would say, ‘Oh My God’ and will start thinking about that number.”

Consequently, the Judge suggests that the first thing Turks should do is “to state that we feel terrible regarding these events…. Those who died at that time were not our enemies, but our citizens. Some of those who died were children. No one can speak of children as enemies.”

Judge Ozsu concludes: “The Swiss Court’s verdict is neither against democracy nor freedom of expression. Switzerland simply does not allow the events leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people to be characterized by racist and insensitive words that insult people’s dignity. Switzerland simply does not allow that the victim be victimized for a second time!”

Given the Turkish government’s well-established record of punishing all factual references to the Armenian Genocide, we fear that this righteous judge may be dismissed from his job and even get imprisoned for simply telling the truth!

, Publisher, The California Courier

November 8, 2008
OBAMA PRESIDENCY: A NEW ERA IN TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS?

OBAMA PRESIDENCY: A NEW ERA IN TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS?

By Saban Kardas

Friday, November 7, 2008

Many Turks joined the worldwide rejoicing over the Democrats’ victory and Barack Obama’s election as the next president of the United States. The Turkish public is sympathetic to Obama’s call for change as they find parallels in his story to Turkey’s experience with the reformist wave brought about by the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) landslide electoral victory in 2002.

President Abdullah Gul, in a letter to President-elect Obama, reflected this positive mood in Turkey: “Your message of change and hope is one that meets the expectations of our day. It is a message that Turkey embraces” (www.cankaya.gov.tr, November 5). Similarly, by emphasizing Obama’s background, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan presented Obama’s victory as evidence of the American political system’s democratic credentials (www.cnnturk.com, November 5). Obama’s vision on pressing issues of American politics aside, his promises of reorienting America’s role in the world instilled hope for a new direction in American foreign policy, hence reinvigorating the Turkish American relations in the wake of the Bush administration.

Growing anti-Americanism in Turkey, caused by the current administration’s unpopular policies, has been one of the factors adversely affecting Turkish-American relations. Several studies have found that the Turkish people harbored unfavorable views about the United States and preferred the Democrat Obama over Republican John McCain (Pew Global Attitudes Survey, June 12; www.pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/260.pdf). Given the positive image of Obama among the Turkish people, analysts expect him to take important steps toward saving the United States’ image in Turkey and helping to revitalize the relationship (Turkish Daily News, November 6).

When the candidates’ views on specific issues of concern to Turkey were compared, however, many within the Turkish policy community tended to favor McCain. Given his refusal to pledge to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide against the Armenians (in contrast to Obama’s commitment to support Armenian claims) and his familiarity with and appreciation of Turkey’s strategic importance to U.S. interests, McCain had appeared to be the more favorable choice (Today’s Zaman, February 21). Similarly, the widespread belief that Obama’s position on certain issues might damage Turkey’s interests led many Turkish-Americans to support McCain despite their overall preference for Obama (Newsweek, November 1).

In his campaign Obama partly overcame some of Turkey’s concerns, and grew more sensitive to the strategic value of Turkish-American relations. His new draft agenda for partnership with Europe had a section entitled “Restoring the Strategic Partnership with Turkey.” Having emphasized the negative legacy of the Bush administration, Obama has promised to “lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guarantees Turkey’s territorial integrity,… [and supports Turkey’s] efforts to join the European Union.” Obama appeared to satisfy Turkey’s concerns on the issues of Cyprus and nuclear proliferation in Iran (www.barackobama.com/pdf/fact_sheet_europe_final.pdf).

The specifics of Obama’s foreign policy have not yet materialized; hence, they are full of uncertainties for Turkey. Obama’s broad goals, such as supporting global peacemaking efforts, buttressing regional allies, and refocusing on energy security in regions surrounding Turkey, are definitely welcome to Turkey and partly explain the Turkish leaders’ warm congratulations. Moving away from militarization of U.S. policies in favor of diplomacy, for instance, resonates well with Turkey’s new role as a regional peacemaker. Now that Turkey will be on the UN Security Council, cooperation between the two countries in this area will be increasingly important. Erdogan therefore expressed his hope that Barack Obama would contribute to international peace, particularly in the Middle East. Erdogan reiterated his belief that the two countries would maintain strategic relations. Erdogan is due to visit the United States on November 15 and reportedly plans to meet Obama during that trip (Taraf, November 6). The Turkish business community, which has started to feel the effects of the global financial crisis, is also positive about Obama’s election. They believe Obama is better placed to solve the financial crisis (Dunya, November 6).

Nonetheless, it remains to be seen how the Obama-Biden ticket’s previously announced plans about such issues as the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and possible partition of the country and its controversial statements about Cyprus will affect Turkish-American relations (see “Yeni Amerikan Baskani Obama ve Turk Amerikan Iliskileri,” ASAM Bakis, No.8, November 2008; www.asam.org.tr/temp/temp1181.pdf). Obama’s persistent and unequivocal commitment to the Armenian interpretation of the events of 1915 and the Karabakh conflict remain the main roadblock to improving Turkish-American relations under the new administration (www.obama.com). Just days before the election the Obama-Biden campaign reaffirmed its pledge to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide (ANCA, Press Release, www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1620). Many Turkish foreign affairs experts believe that mismanagement of the “G” word issue might not only strain relations but also negatively affect ongoing efforts for reconciliation between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey (www.cnnturk.com, November 5).

Erdogan was optimistic about avoiding such a head-on collision. He hopes that the promises made on the Armenian theme by Obama the candidate will remain election rhetoric for Obama the President. He believes that Obama will tone down these arguments when he assumes office, because there is a dimension of Turkish-American relations dictated by strategic reality that will not be altered by a change in the White House (Star, November 5). The Turkish leader had demonstrated a similar optimism about the moderating effect of holding office with regard to Obama’s reported reference to Turkey as an “occupier” in Cyprus. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan maintained, however, that this was part of campaign politics and once elected Obama would adjust his position (Zaman, October 20).

As the AKP leaders’ own experience in power has shown, political office comes with certain responsibilities and definitely has a transformative impact on political leaders. The party believes that “common sense” might well prevail and that Obama will step back from some of his election rhetoric, which might help avoid tension in bilateral relations. What the AKP’s own experience also shows, however, is that reformists’ return to former practices can entail certain costs. If Obama goes down a similar path, following the dictates of “strategic reality,” he will fail to meet worldwide expectations for drastic changes in American foreign policy, including in Turkish-American relations.

November 7, 2008
Turkish-Armenian feud a factor in race

By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer

A centuries-old dispute between Armenians and Turks is playing a part in the race for the congressional seat that represents most of Pasadena.

In recent weeks, Republican challenger Charles Hahn picked up thousands of dollars at a fundraiser thrown by a Turkish-American businessman who runs a Web site denying the World War I-era Armenian genocide took place.

“I want to bring all sides of the issue to the party: Armenians, Turkish-Americans, the Turkish and Armenian governments,” said Hahn. “We need to all work together in solving the problem.”

The fundraiser was put together by Ergun Kirlikovali of Turkish Forum, an Orange County businessman who runs several Web sites, including “www.falsegenocide.com.”

The ideology represents a sharp contrast to bills sponsored by incumbent Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena. Over the past two years, Schiff has sponsored legislation that would put the U.S. government on record as officially recognizing that the genocide took place.

Schiff, who has been strongly supported by his Armenian-American constituents, brought the fundraiser to the attention to the local Armenian-language media because he considers the Kirlikovali’s views troubling.

“This is a pretty narrow special interests group that is devoted to eradicating the memory of genocide,” said Schiff. “This is a way of sending a message and pushing back against that idea.”

Schiff’s legislation has been controversial. The American-allied Turkish government has steadfastly claimed that the deaths of Armenians in the break-up of the Ottoman Empire during World War I were part of a civil war with casualties on both sides. Armenians and most historians have characterized it as a concerted government effort to eliminate Armenians from a new Turkish nation.

Hahn raised about $5,700 from the fundraiser and from other contributions from Kirlikovali. All of the people contributing at the fundraiser listed addresses outside Schiff’s district, with two listing addresses in Maryland and New York.

Hahn also received $2,300 from the national Turkish Coalition USA Political Action Committee, which opposed Schiff’s legislation. The total contributions make up more than 10 percent of his total fundraising.

Schiff’s bill failed in the 2007 congressional session, but was reintroduced this year and approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. If it does not pass in the general session this year Schiff plans to reintroduce it again next year.

Hahn said he does not deny that the Armenian genocide took place, but says he would not have supported Schiff’s legislation. He said he would like to introduce legislation that would be approved by Armenian and Turkish-American groups alike, though he would not say what specifically the legislation would say or accomplish.

He said the fundraiser’s attendance was not exclusively members of the Turkish-American community.

Kirlikovali said the main reason he and others at the fundraiser are supporting Hahn is because they dislike Schiff’s legislation. However, he is also a registered Republican and agrees with Hahn’s tax policies, he said.

“I find Schiff’s stand racist and dishonest,” said Kirlikovali. “I’d like to support someone who can defeat him.”

He said he does not deny that Armenians were killed in great numbers during World War I but said that Turks were killed in greater numbers.

“I lost most of my grandparents’ family on both sides,” said Kirlikovali. “It is the same for other Turks … just because we sit quietly and grieve instead of making noise about it does not mean we haven’t suffered.”

He added that Schiff had introduced the legislation without regard for Turkish-American relations just to “appease some radicals in a California city,” a likely reference to Glendale, which has a large population of Armenians.

dan.abendschein@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 4451

November 7, 2008