Category: Main Issues

Call to the Parliament and the Government by Canadians of Turkish Descent Across the Country

Monday, April 12, 2010

A s Turkish Canadians of varied political views, social status and religious identity, we call on the Parliament
and the Government to resist being drawn into re-writing history and passing a legal verdict by labelling
the tragic events of 1915 as “genocide” to characterize much disputed history.
As the Ottoman Empire collapsed during the First World War, the humanitarian cost of this process were incurred by all ethnic groups,
including Turks and Armenians. For over 800 years Turks and Armenians lived peacefully together. The ensuing Great European Power
rivalry, a rise of fervent nationalism, violent uprisings, forced relocations, failure of governance, inter-communal reprisals, epidemics
and hunger regrettably changed this relationship. In 1915, as the Ottoman Empire was trying to defend itself against major military
campaigns by European powers in the west and south during the First World War, signifi cant numbers of Armenians living in Eastern
Anatolia took up arms, revolted and joined the invading Russian forces coming from the north. In their nationalistic fervour to create
a territory where Armenians could become the majority, they committed atrocities on local residents, killing people of other ethnic
backgrounds. This led to an inter-communal war and bloodshed among the peoples of the region, which prompted the Ottoman
government’s decision to relocate the Armenians to a southern region of the Empire. During this displacement, Armenians suffered
immensely. Both sides’ affl ictions were confi ned to the war zone. The history of the era is far too complex for non-specialists and
political bodies to pass judgment at the expense of insulting a nation and the heritage shared by over 50,000 Canadians.
The memory of so much loss of life needs to be respected. We acknowledge this time in history and need to ensure it never happens
again. We also need to establish a reliable factual account of the events of 1915. Given the diverging evidence and massive
losses on both sides, presenting this tragedy simply as “genocide” by one party against another is deeply problematic on a legal,
factual and moral level, while violating Canadian fairness, the principle that we cherish dearly. As applicable to any serious crime,
genocide needs to be ascertained by due process before a verdict can be pronounced. This era was a tragic period in which too
many innocent Turks, Armenians, and others lost their lives. We have to understand and respect the memory of all those who
perished and draw the right lessons from history. However, this cannot be achieved by lending exclusive support to one side. It is
equally wrong and unfair to present the legitimate and scholarly challenges brought against the Armenian claims as “denials.”
We believe Canadian politicians are sincere and well intentioned in their sympathy towards victims of human suffering, abroad
and at home. However, taking the step of branding a nation or people as guilty of the crime of genocide, based on the ethnic
narrative of one side alone, is not just. Genocide is not a generic term to describe a grave human atrocity; it is a clearly defi ned
crime by international and Canadian law. It has to be investigated by historians, archivists and forensic scientists. Only then, can
it be properly addressed in an International Court of Justice prior to being used by our Canadian government.
We therefore call on all Canadians, especially those of Armenian descent, to join us in supporting Turkey and Armenia to improve
their relations and objectively investigate the Ottoman-Armenian tragedy of 1915 through an international historical commission.
We believe that Canada’s support of the recently signed protocols between Turkey and Armenia, which provide for the establishment
of a historical commission to study the tragic events of 1915, will increase chances of peace between these two nations as
well as between Canadians of Turkish and Armenian descents. Canada’s promotion of this constructive process for a much needed
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia will help all of us here in Canada to build a future together within the Canadian mosaic.
In this appeal, we ask the Parliament and the Government to join in this positive initiative and support the
normalization process between Turkey and Armenia. At the same time, we ask the Members of the Parliament
to encourage Armenian Canadians and Turkish Canadians to join in a peaceful co-existence and remembrance
of both their losses. Most earnestly, we ask you to refrain from passing one-sided judgements by using the term
genocide on the disputed tragedy of 1915.

April 13, 2010
The Blooming Friendship Between Azerbaijan And Israel

Israeli President Shimon Peres (left) and his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, in Baku on June 28, 2009

Last updated (GMT/UTC): 09.03.2010 15:24

By Anna Zamejc

When 13 years ago the late Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev received Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Baku, it was considered a bold and politically risky decision. No red carpets were rolled out, and the meeting was purposely kept low-key.

Today, however, no such precautions are needed, as visits of Israeli leaders to Azerbaijan are no longer matters of domestic controversy. However, the peculiar relationship of the two countries continues to elude easy characterizations. Some external observers see it as a typical marriage of convenience, while others tend to take it as an alarming threat.

Although Azerbaijan is a predominantly Shi’ite Muslim country and a majority of ethnic Azeris live in neighboring Iran (a ferocious enemy of Israel), Baku routinely shares intelligence with the Jewish state, buys its arms, and considers it trustworthy in security matters, completely contradicting stereotypes about a “clash of civilizations.”

Further, the informal alliance seems to undermine the geopolitical game that the strongest actors — Russia and Iran — are determined to play in the region.

Given how advanced bilateral relations are and how strong the mutual trust appears, it might sound surprising that 18 years of diplomatic contacts have not produced a single official treaty between Israel and Azerbaijan. Moreover, Azerbaijani authorities remain vague to this day about the widely anticipated potential opening of an embassy in Israel.

Why? The answer can be found in Iran.

Thorn In The Side

“Today, everyone understands why Iran wants to block the Azerbaijani-Israeli rapprochement by any means,” Baku-born former Knesset member Yosef Shagal, a major champion of Israeli-Azerbaijani ties, said in an interview with RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service. “It is one of the most important strategic priorities of the Islamic republic. Tehran is perfectly aware of the following: the stronger the connection between Baku and Jerusalem, the more weakened Iran will be.”

Iran, which aspires to be a regional leader, would like to see Azerbaijan play by its rules. But Azerbaijan, whose secular system is a thorn in the side of the Islamic regime, not only refuses to conform to Tehran’s dictates but has also crossed a red line by befriending the sworn enemy of Iran’s president.

Azerbaijan has always felt threatened and continues to feel threatened [by Iran] from an ideological, economic, and political point of view.

“Very characteristic in this regard is the reaction of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to the official visit of Israeli President Shimon Peres to Azerbaijan in…2009. In hysterical tones, the Iranian leader demanded that the leadership of Azerbaijan immediately cancel the visit of ‘the head of the Zionist entity’ and ‘the main enemy of Muslims,’” Shagal recalls, adding that all Tehran’s efforts proved counterproductive as Peres was received in Azerbaijan with the highest honors.

“It is worth noting the dignity and tact with which Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev recommended that his Iranian counterpart refrain from giving advice to a leader of a sovereign state on to whom to show hospitality and to whom to refuse it,” he added.

Although Iran may not be in a position to keep Israel and Azerbaijan completely apart, it has been successful in one respect: Despite numerous calls from the Jewish state, Azerbaijan has still not opened an embassy in Israel because of pressure from Tehran.

This creates a sort of diplomatic asymmetry as it has been 16 years since Israel established its embassy in Azerbaijan. However, Baku has thus far been reluctant to reciprocate. The advanced contacts with Israel have already put a grave chill on Baku’s relations with Tehran, and provoking Iran with an embassy in Israel could prove too costly for Azerbaijan, even triggering a backlash from other Muslim states.

“Repeated efforts by Baku to find out how its southern neighbor would react to opening an Azerbaijani Embassy in Israel have always encountered Iranian ultimatums,” Shagal says, stressing that it would not only be Iranian-Azerbaijani relations that would suffer a massive blow, but Baku would eventually have to pay the price in the area that is of vital importance for the Caucasus republic: Nagorno-Karabakh.

“If Azerbaijan opens an embassy in Israel, then Iran will declare on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) a refusal to support Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia, and would also disavow all the efforts of Azerbaijan and its supporters in the OIC for the restoration of its territorial integrity and the return of Nagorno-Karabakh,” Shagal says.

Influence Stability

Alexander Murinson, an independent researcher and academic writer who follows developments in Israeli-Azerbaijani relations, is also afraid that Baku could face difficulties once it decides to open the embassy.

“Iran can cause trouble for authorities in Azerbaijan and influence the stability of the country. So obviously that’s another way of Iran trying to influence the diplomatic relationship between Israel and Azerbaijan,” Murinson says.

“Azerbaijan has always felt threatened and continues to feel threatened [by Iran] from an ideological, economic, and political point of view. Iran obviously has a religious network in Azerbaijan that could undermine the secular nature of the current regime in Azerbaijan,” Murinson adds.

Despite those dangers, the IzRus portal reported last month, quoting Israel’s ambassador to Azerbaijan, Michael Lavon-Lotem, that Baku will soon open an embassy in Tel Aviv. Murinson warns that this might be mere posturing, like a similar announcement in 2006. But he believes that this time it could be for real.

“That development has been expected for many years, because the relationship is thriving both in terms of economic trade ties and also in the military field,” Murinson says. “It might be an indication that some agreement has been reached on very deep strategic cooperation between the two parties that may not have been publicized.”

A potential embassy would certainly be a culmination of Israel’s long-term efforts to persuade Baku to formalize relations and could boost Israel’s position abroad.

“For Israel, which is now faced by tremendous diplomatic pressure around the globe for many reasons, when a Muslim country, especially a Shi’ite country, makes this kind of announcement, it indicates for Israel that it has a friend in the region. In such an environment, Azerbaijan making this diplomatic move [would] create a very important, positive dynamic for the state of Israel,” Murinson says.

What’s In It For Baku?

Aran Amnon, an expert on the Middle East who lectures at City University in London, adds that Israel might be now particularly interested in strengthening ties with Baku as the threat of Iranian nuclear capacity takes center stage in Israeli foreign policy.

“Israel has an interest in trying to improve its standing with as many countries as possible, especially those who may be directly affected by Iran and might by persuaded to be supportive of Israeli efforts,” Amnon says.

But in international relations, every nation acts on its own interests. The gains seem obvious for Israel, but why should Baku be willing to take the risk? Murinson links the potential switch to the new dynamics that were created by Turkish-Armenian rapprochement and the deteriorating relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In fact, Baku has a lot of other reasons for being interested in deepening ties with Israel. Israel is an important source of military equipment, and reportedly it was Israel who helped Baku rebuild its army after the heavy losses it suffered during the war over Nagorno-Karabakh. The military aspect of the relationship has been present ever since.

“During the visit of Simon Peres, a very important contract was signed which included construction of a plant in Azerbaijan that would produce unmanned aerial vehicles. By doing so, Azerbaijan would become an important producer of very advanced systems in the region — even Russia doesn’t have advanced unmanned aerial vehicles,” Murinson says, stressing that the lack of such systems proved problematic during the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war.

Israel plays an important role in Azerbaijani security arrangements. The electronic fence around Baku’s international airport was built by Israeli companies. Reportedly, Israeli firms are supplying equipment to ensure the safety of Azerbaijan’s energy infrastructure, and there were also rumors that Israelis provide security for Azerbaijan’s president on his foreign visits.

Last but not least, Azerbaijan is the home of an ancient Jewish community, which remains an important aspect in mutual contacts.

“We estimate that there are approximately 25,000 Jews living in Azerbaijan,” Mark Levin, the executive director of National Conference of the Soviet Jewry says. “Azeri Jews have lived side by side with their non-Jewish neighbors for centuries, and they are treated very well.”

https://www.rferl.org/a/The_Blooming_Friendship_Between_Azerbaijan_And_Israel/1978312.html

April 13, 2010

Roadmap to Nowhere or New Delay Tactic: Genocide Recognition in 2015?

Faced with deadlock in ratifying the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, the major powers are desperately looking for a face-saving way out of the current dilemma. France, Russia and the United States have invested far too much time and effort to walk away from the negotiated and signed, but not ratified, “deal of the century.”

At the time of writing this column, the President of Armenia and the Prime Minister of Turkey had been summoned to Washington by Pres. Obama for a last ditch effort to rescue the Protocols or at a minimum create an illusion of progress in the reconciliation process. The slightest gesture or even the promise of an improvement in Armenia-Turkey relations or the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict would give Pres. Obama the required fig leaf to cover up his broken promise on the Armenian Genocide.

It will soon be clear if White House pressure on Armenia and Turkey would result in any positive movement, such as limited opening of the Armenia-Turkey border, before ratifying the Protocols. Azerbaijan’s President was deliberately left out of the Washington Summit in order to prevent him from undermining U.S. mediating efforts. In the event of Turkish recalcitrance, Armenia’s President would have no choice but to withdraw his country’s signature from the Protocols, blaming Turkey for putting preconditions and demanding that Artsakh be handed to Azerbaijan.

In an attempt to break the deadlock, Thomas de Waal, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, issued a “Policy Brief” on April 9, just before the start of the Washington Summit. The report, “Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap,” suggests five “goodwill gestures” that Turkey needs to make in order to keep reconciliation with Armenia alive.

— An opening of the Armenia-Turkey border for noncommercial travelers;

— A limited opening of a zone next to the Armenia-Turkey border that contains the medieval Armenian city of Ani, now just inside Turkish territory. This would allow Armenian tourists to visit the ancient site.

— A Turkish initiative to fully open and digitize the Ottoman archives containing the official Ottoman records of the events of 1915 to 1921.

— A Turkish government initiative to invite diaspora Armenians to visit the ancient Armenian heritage sites of Anatolia.

— The opening of a Turkish Airlines route between Istanbul and Yerevan.

In return, de Waal suggests that Armenia pledge “to end the isolation of Nakhichevan once the Turkish-Armenian border opens.”

After offering the aforementioned simplistic ideas, de Waal turns to the Armenian Genocide recognition issue and tries to come up with a long-term solution to the perennial Armenian-American lobbying efforts which “hobble” the United States. He calls the confrontation in Congress on this issue between Armenians and Turks, “grubby political bargaining.”

According to de Waal, Pres. Obama’s broken promise on the Armenian Genocide and his use of “Meds Yeghern” (Great Calamity) as a substitute for Genocide is “a dignified formula.”

Here is what de Waal suggests:

“In order to move away from this annual agony, it makes sense to reframe the Armenian-Turkish issue within a longer perspective. The coming centenary of the Armenian holocaust in five years’ time in 2015 and the growing debate within Turkey on the ‘Armenian question’ gives impetus to this approach. In 2015 — whether the Turks like it or not — the world will mark the anniversary of the Armenian tragedy. The president could deliver a message on April 24, 2010, in which he notes that the centenary commemorations are now five years away and pledges that, if still in office, he will join in those events (perhaps even in Yerevan), but in which he also promises the Turks a little peace until then by affirming his faith in the internal debate in Turkey. Obama could say, ‘We hope to mark this tragic date with our Turkish friends, and not without them,’ and aspire to be a catalyst for Armenian–Turkish reconciliation.”

What de Waal is suggesting is simply a ploy to bury the Armenian Genocide issue for another 5 years, while creating a breathing space for the ratification of the defunct Protocols.

Before Pres. Obama could be trusted to keep any new promises, he needs to uphold the ones that he has already made and broken. Besides, what guarantees do we have that the President will be re-elected for a second term, and even if he is, that he will keep his pledge!

April 12, 2010

Turkish EU Minister on the Armenian Genocide Controversy

‘We Are Very Sensitive About This Issue’

Photo Gallery: 3 Photos

DPA

In a SPIEGEL interview, Ankara’s Minister for European Affairs Egemen Bagis discusses Turkey’s journey to the West and his country’s dispute with the United States over a resolution on the genocide of the Armenians recently passed by Congress.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Bagis, why does Turkey still need a minister for European Union affairs? Isn’t Europe a dead issue in your country?

Bagis: Absolutely not. My government is investing more energy in the reform process than any other government. In 2013 we will be ready for accession.SPIEGEL: But do Turks share your enthusiam? Three out of four Turks believe that the EU wants to divide your country and spread Christianity.

Bagis: I have other figures: If Turkey held a referendum today on accession, 60 percent would vote for it. On the other hand, only 40 percent of Turks believe that accession will definitely take place. In Europe it is the other way round: Forty percent want to take Turkey in, but 60 percent believe the country will join the EU one day.

SPIEGEL: In other words: There is skepticism on both sides.

Bagis: Let’s put it this way: Some countries like Malta apply for membership and are in the next day. Others need a little more time. I have no problem with the fact that some Europeans say they want negotiations with an open-ended outcome. Today everything has an open-ended outcome, even Catholic marriages.

SPIEGEL: Turkey has been seeking EU membership since 1959. Is it not humiliating to be held at bay for so long?

Bagis: No, because we also made mistakes. There have been three military coups since 1959, and many Turkish government’s didn’t have a clear vision or idea of Europe. It was the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that first made the necessary constitutional amendments between 2002 and 2004 so that we could finally start accession negotiations.

SPIEGEL: Only 17 percent of Germans support Turkish membership in the EU.

Bagis: Believe me, one day Europeans will have to appeal to the Turkish public to support EU membership. Europe has many problems. Tell me, for example, how the EU plans to solve its energy crisis without Turkish help? A large part of the future energy resources Europe needs will flow through Turkey. And tell me how you are going to solve your economic and demographic problems? The average age in Europe is 40, while in Turkey it is 28. Where are you going to get your work force from? Who is supposed to pay your pensions?

SPIEGEL: As long as declared opponents of Turkish accession like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France President Nicolas Sarkozy are in office, you won’t get very far with such arguments.

Bagis: I am very thankful that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has publicly stated that he wants accession talks to continue. With regards to President Sarkozy: He used this horrible, insulting phrase, “privileged partnership” …

SPIEGEL: … a term that was actually coined by Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union party.

Bagis: But Sarkozy repeated it often enough. My government has only one answer: We will only accept full membership — nothing more, nothing less. We want the same chances as every candidate country.

SPIEGEL: Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, said: “The Turks have only ever gone in one direction — towards the West.”

Bagis: And that is still true. But at the same time, we are also a bridge and have four strong pillars, one in each direction …

SPIEGEL: … of which you recently pulled out two by recalling your ambassadors to the United States and Sweden. The move was triggered by the decision of a Congressional committee to pass a resolution recognizing the death of more than a million Armenians in 1915-16 as genocide. A similar resolution was passed by Sweden’s parliament.

Bagis: With this decision, Sweden has become slave to a thesis that, unfortunately, is based on falsehoods. The voting in the US on the so-called genocide was a success for Turkey. The Congressman from California, who got support from the Armenian lobby, made a fool out of himself. He tried to scratch the back of every Representative in the corridors of Congress in order to get their vote. But then he only won by a single vote.

SPIEGEL: Still, a Congressional committee approved the resolution.

Bagis: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later declared that the resolution will not be passed by the entire House of Representatives. As you know, the French parliament passed a similar law on the so-called Armenian genocide in 2006. Afterwards there was a ban on French airforce flights over Turkey. We are very sensitive about this issue.

SPIEGEL: What options do you have if the Americans do, in the end, recognize the genocide officially? Would you want to close the Incirlik airbase? Leave NATO?

Bagis: I will leave that up to your readers’ imagination. But allow me to remind you of one thing: Seventy percent of the logistical support for the Iraq deployment comes through Incirlik.

SPIEGEL: Why is it so difficult for Turkey to recognize the genocide of the Armenians?

Bagis: It is up to the historians, not politicians, to judge what happened in the past. Politicians look into the future. We have offered to create a joint commission of historians together with the Republic of Armenia — so far without success. Besides, you should know that the Ottoman Empire was an ally of the German Reich. Nothing that happened back then happened without consultations with the Germans.

SPIEGEL: If you dont accept the word “genocide,” then how can you have a “Genocide Museum” in the city of Igdir in eastern Turkey, dedicated to the Turks who died in 1915?

Bagis: That’s very easy: Every action leads to a reaction. But I don’t want to rule out the possibility that, someday, this museum could be transformed into a “Museum of Coexistance” or a “Museum of Mutual Pain.” I do not want to deny that the Armenians went through very difficult times …

SPIEGEL: You call it “difficult times”? We are taking about 1.5 million Armenians who perished between 1915 and 1917.

Bagis: According to American historian Justin McCarthy, 600,000 Armenians died at the time — and at the same time, 2 million Kurds and Turks. There was a civil war in Turkey, right in the middle of World War I.

SPIEGEL: The interior minister at that time, Talat Pascha, told the then US ambassador, Henry Morgenthau, that the “physical extermination” of the Amernians was a necessary goal of the war.

Bagis: According to McCarthy, this quote isn’t entirely accurate. But I am not a historian. I wasn’t there, you weren’t there. Why don’t we leave this question to a mutual commission of historians comprised of Armenians and Turks?

SPIEGEL: There was a time when Turkey seemed further along the road toward confronting its past. In 1919, the three men mainly responsible for the Armenian genocide — Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Cemal Pasha — were all sentenced to death in absentia. Atatürk wanted nothing to do with them. Nevertheless, there are still three large, magnificent tombstones for these men in Istanbul.

Bagis: It is traditional in our culture to commemorate the dead. Like all of us, these men surely did some good and some bad things in their lives and for their country.

SPIEGEL: Is Turkey worried the Armenians will demand reparations?

Bagis: You know, there are an estimated 100,000 illegal Armenian immigrants in our country, who work here providing care for the elderly and children. For me, this shows that there is no hate between our people. On the contrary: We are attempting to achieve rapprochement, there is a peace process between our countries …

SPIEGEL: … which is stagnating at the moment.

Bagis: That is not our fault. We have attempted to bridge our differences; we want to open all archives. But when you see that the other side is blocking all your attempts, it makes you skeptical.

SPIEGEL: This issue represents one of the few on which the AKP government, the military and the secular elite are all on the same page. Doesn’t that bother you?

Bagis: No. My government focuses on solving problems. We want good neighborly relations, also with Armenia.

SPIEGEL: Turkey’s new foreign policy earned considerable praise, but the country’s domestic policies have been enigmatic for some people in the West. Isn’t your government overplaying its hand in its power struggle with the army? You are no longer arresting only potential putschists, but also critics of the government.

Bagis: The investigations in the so-called Ergenekon case, where men are suspected of having planned a putsch against the government, are an issue for the judiciary. In the latest progress report, the European Union assesses the investigation as an opportunity for Turkey to further democratize itself.SPIEGEL: Others see signs of continuing Islamization. Restaurants are losing their alcohol licenses, young people are being harassed for holding hands in public and Family Minister Aliye Kavaf has described homosexuality as a “disease.”

Bagis: I do not agree with her, I do not consider homosexuality to be a disease. But I am neither a historian nor a doctor. Besides, I really don’t think that Turkey has become more conservative. It just so happens that the conservatives are a lot more visible today than they were previously.

Interview conducted by Bernhard Zand and Daniel Steinvorth
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/turkish-eu-minister-on-the-armenian-genocide-controversy-we-are-very-sensitive-about-this-issue-a-683701.html

__._,_.___

April 12, 2010
The United Ireland Party officially supports Turkish membership of the EU

The United Ireland Party, FINE GAEL, has said it officially supports Turkish membership of the European Union notwithstanding opposition to the move expressed by one of its TDs this week.

The party’s spokesman on foreign affairs, Billy Timmins, yesterday said that views expressed by Lucinda Creighton rejecting Turkish accession to the union did not reflect party policy.

However, Ms Creighton said last night it was time to review party policy.

“Fine Gael policy is that we are in favour of Turkish accession as long as it meets certain requirements,” said Mr Timmins.

“A number are set out in the Ankara Protocol, including the use of ports in Cyprus. It has fulfilled some of them,” he said.

Mr Timmins pointed out that a motion supporting Turkish membership of the EU was approved by the Fine Gael ardfheis in 2004.

In a speech to a party meeting in her Dublin South East constituency earlier this week, Ms Creighton criticised comments by President Mary McAleese during her official visit to Turkey supporting its application for EU membership.

Ms Creighton described the argument for Turkish membership as “fundamentally flawed” and contended that Turkey was not wealthy enough to join the EU.

The union would have difficulty absorbing a country with a population of 72 million, she said, warning of a new wave of immigration to Ireland that would follow its accession.

Ms Creighton also asserted that, geographically, Turkey could not be considered part of Europe.

“By allowing Turkey accede to the European Union, the floodgates would be opened up to countries such as Morocco, who have as legitimate and credible a claim to EU membership as Turkey,” she said.

Fianna Fáil TD Michael Mulcahy also criticised Ms Creighton’s dismissal of Turkish aspiration to EU membership as “scaremongering”. He said Turkey had formalised commercial ties with the European Union.

“Deputy Creighton should remember that it has been long-standing Irish Government policy to support Turkish membership of the European Union, and her attempts to derail this worthwhile inclusion of Turkey by scaremongering on the issue of unemployment, is not appropriate.”

“Of course, there is a disparity in wealth between the European average and Turkey, but the Turkish economy is a very dynamic economy, set to grow by 10 per cent next year, and it is a sheer fallacy to believe that millions of Turkish people would descend on Ireland if Turkey was granted full membership of the European Union.

“There has not been a massive migration of workers from Bulgaria or Romania, both of whom have a much lower GDP per head than Ireland,” he said.

He also called on Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny to clarify if Ms Creighton’s views now represented the party’s official policy on the matter.

Contribution by Mr. Nizam Bulut

April 12, 2010

ARMENIAN REVOLT : VIDEO

A balanced view of the struggle between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians in the Eastern Anatolia during the late 19th century what is considered by some today, a genocide. This in-depth documentary is based on two years of research in the United States, Russia, Germany, Romania, England, and Bulgaria with historical footage and images from the national archives of the United States, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia and Germany with participation of an international team of experts

Director:

Marty Callaghan

Contact:

View company contact information for Armenian Revolt on IMDbPro.

Home

Armenian Revolt Documentary

By Jonathan Wilson Sun, 05/04/2008 – 11:26

The following is an analysis of excerpts and video scenes from the critically acclaimed Armenian Revolt Documentary, we highly recommend that you buy the DVD yourself and examine the arguments and discussions conducted in them to make up your own mind.

The Armenian Revolt DVD can be purchased for approximately $10.99 from the American Turkish Association of Houston! You may also view most of the documentary in low quality on YouTube at the bottom of this article.

In this part of the documentary of the Armenian Revolt, the background information of the Ottomans were discussed along with how Armenian society grew in the Ottoman Empire; this was an important introduction to put the Ottoman history into it’s proper context.

Contextual Background and Environment of the Ottoman Empire

Dr. Norman Stone a world renowned Ottoman historian on World War I, talked about what kind of a minority the Armenians were in the Ottoman Empire. Dr. Stone talked about the Armenians having ambassadors and even foreign ministers and other high ranking government officials in the Ottoman Empire. He also mentioned that the Armenians were known as the most loyal of Ottoman Christians, which made the Greek Christians envious of their loyalty and millet ranking

Dr. William Ochsenwald of Virginia Tech and author of “The Middle East: A History”, talked about how the religious freedoms and civil liberties granted by the Ottomans for centuries started to work against the Ottomans. The allowance of thousands of Christian missionaries to start schools, churches, and hospitals were dividing the people of the Ottoman Empire from each other. The side effect of this was the Armenian Nationalist Movement and the spread of an ideology for Armenians to rule their own nation, a Christian nation.

The documentary then introduces the Hunchaks (Hunchak Socialist Party) established in 1887 and the Dashnaks or Tashnaks (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) established in 1890, and how they were both created with an ideology to rebel against the Ottoman Empire.

Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu, president of the Turkish Historical Society, talks about how the ARF and Hunchaks were exactly like the terrorists of today, and he compares them to Al Qaeda since they both killed civilians and caused terror in the Middle East for political means.

The documentary then mentions British Ambassador Phillip Curry reported from Istanbul that the “aim of the Armenian revolutionaries is to stir disturbances, to get the Ottomans to react to violence, and thus get the foreign powers to intervene.”

Dr. Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, also talks about how the conflict became so intense that both sides forced all the neutral parties to pick a side, and thus the conflict became inevitable.

Dr. Sina Aksin of Ankara University, talks about the viscous cycle of revenge and violence that occurred as a result of Armenian revolts, which provoked local Muslims to seek revenge against the Armenians, not distinguishing between who is a rebel and who is an innocent Armenian. Thus more people had to choose sides and many innocent people died on both sides. Dr. Aksin tells us that for the Europeans however, the importance was the massacres of the Armenians, and the massacres of Muslims were ignored.

Dr. Mehmet Saray of Istanbul University, talks about how the local Muslims in the region felt betrayed by the Armenian revolutionist activities even though they had lived together for centuries in peace.

Russian Diplomat General Mayefski wrote:

the unarmed Armenian villagers were forced to help the rebels at the cost of their blood.

The documentary then talks about how the Armenians were left with no choice, since the Armenian revolutionaries killed Armenians who would not help the Revolutionary cause as well.

The idea is, if a stranger attacks you and steals your money, you would be very angry, but imagine if that stranger was once your best friend? The pain is doubled, and this is what the locals felt when the Armenians they were treating equally began to attack their neighboring villages and fellow Ottoman citizens.

The Provocation Ideology of the Revolutionaries

This part of the Documentary talks about how the ARF and Hunchaks planned to provoke violence by attacking Kurdish villages and other Muslim inhabitants, who were armed and when they found their fellow tribesmen and villagers killed, they were more than prepared to strike back viciously.

The Hunchaks and ARF leaders of whom many lived in Europe, immediately received the reports which were then delivered to European diplomats, consuls, and newspapers and other publications to promote anti-Turkism and the hope that these acts of violence would compel the Europeans to defeat the Ottomans.

They conducted this method of provocation because the rebels knew that the Armenian revolutionaries themselves cannot easily overthrow the Ottomans, even though they tried several times to assassinate government leaders and governors including Sultan Abdul Hamid II.

Cast

(Credited cast)

Professor Secil Karal Akgun	…	Herself
Aram Arkun	…	Himself
David Fromkin	…	Himself
Professor Justin McCarthy	…	Himself
Professor William Ochsenwald	…	Himself
Stanford Sahw	…	Himself
Norman Stone	…	Himself (as Professor Norman Stone)

April 11, 2010