Category: Main Issues

  • The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration

    The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration

    usdos logo sealPhilip H. Gordon
    Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

    Sabanci Lecture, The Brookings Institution

    Thank you, Strobe. It’s a great pleasure to be back at Brookings to deliver the sixth annual Sakip Sabanci Lecture. This is a homecoming of sorts for me and it’s great to see so many good friends here today. I’ve worked with Strobe both in the U.S. government, during the Clinton administration, and outside of it, during my tenure at Brookings. Throughout that time, he has been a constant source of wise counsel and clear-headed leadership. And though the Obama Administration has done its best to deplete the ranks of his staff, I am happy to see that Brookings under his direction is still thriving. Thank you for inviting me here today.

    I’m especially pleased to be giving the Sabanci Lecture – an event I am proud to say I played a part in conceiving six years ago, to help foster a dialogue in Washington with and about Turkey. I’m happy to see you have maintained the tradition of including Sabanci University students and faculty by video link – something which makes this lecture a unique event – and I look forward to hearing from colleagues in Istanbul today. I extend my best regards to Guler Sabanci who will be participating in the discussion from that end.

    The growth and success of Sabanci University in Istanbul and this lecture in Washington are both testament to the vision of the man for whom they are named: Sakip Sabanci. A successful businessman and great philanthropist, his contributions to the intellectual, cultural, and economic life of his country were major forces behind Turkey’s continued development and modernization. The Sabanci Lecture was established to highlight Turkey’s increasing importance in world affairs and to promote Turkey’s reform and integration into Europe – causes which Sakip Sabanci championed. I think the past several years have only confirmed the importance of this forum and of these issues, and that is precisely what I want to talk about today.

    The topic that I wish to address is the relationship between the United States and Turkey – a dynamic and multi-faceted relationship that is beneficial to both our countries. This could hardly be a more important or timely subject and this is a particularly appropriate moment to reflect on it. Almost a year ago, President Obama traveled to Turkey during his first overseas trip. He went to deliver a message of partnership, saying “Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.” Turkey and the United States have been partners for decades and that partnership is as important today as it has ever been. When Secretary Clinton went on her first trip to Europe, she too made a point of going to Turkey and she spoke of Turkey as a critical partner. The reasons why the President and the Secretary traveled to Turkey early in this administration’s term are the reasons why I want to talk about Turkey today – because we believe that an engaged, active, and cooperative relationship with Turkey is an important interest of the United States. As the President put it when he met Prime Minister Erdogan at the White House in December, “given Turkey’s history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role … in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.”

    Few countries play such a crucial role in such a diverse set of important areas. How many countries have borders with as diverse an array of countries as Turkey – Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. With its combination of strategic, economic, and cultural links, Turkey’s influence touches such vital concerns of both our countries as the stability of the Middle East and relations with the broader Islamic world, relations with the Caucasus and Black Sea region, the transit of energy from the Caspian Basin to Europe, the security and development of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the maintenance of strong ties to Europe and the Trans-Atlantic alliance. The geography that I have just mentioned spans some of the most sensitive and significant parts of the globe and in every one of these areas U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for progress.

    This is also a timely moment to be addressing the U.S.-Turkish relationship because the dynamic nature of Turkey is attracting the world’s attention in new ways. Domestically, debates about civil-military relations, and about the role of religion in society, have generated enormous interest abroad, and are followed closely in the United States. Economically, the last decade has seen Turkey display one of the highest rates of economic growth in the world – making Turkey one of the 20 largest global economies. In foreign affairs, Turkey has pursued an active foreign policy that has seen it interacting more intensively than ever with countries all across its neighborhood and beyond. Whenever and wherever I travel, which is a lot these days, one of the sentences I hear most often is “Ahmet Davutoglu was just here.”

    Let us be frank: the dynamism we see in Turkey has raised questions in the minds of some observers about where Turkey is heading, and that too is a reason why this is a timely topic. It is worth addressing these questions squarely. Though phrased in different ways, the questions all eventually boil down to a single concern: Is Turkey turning away from the West? We do not see it that way. Turkey is an integral part of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and has been for decades. Throughout that time it has always maintained strong relations with its neighbors to the west as well as its neighbors to the east. It is also reaching out in new ways. Turkey has always had multiple identities. But what binds the United States and Turkey together are shared interests, shared values, and a commitment to partnership. We believe that Turkey is and wants to remain anchored in the Euro-Atlantic community.

    However, the fact that some have questioned the strength of our ties does highlight an important issue. The relationship, which was much easier to justify when we faced a shared Soviet threat, requires hard work and attention – on both sides. Today, the global challenges we face are more varied and diffuse than they were during the Cold War. In this new environment, those of us who believe in the relationship have to make a special effort to explain the enduring value of the partnership between the United States and Turkey. Indeed, that enduring value is something I want to underscore today. On nearly every vital issue we face, the United States benefits from having Turkey as an engaged and supportive partner. The reverse is also true: on nearly every issue that is critical to Turkey’s future, the United States plays an enormously important role as a trusted friend and ally.

    The United States and Turkey may no longer be fighting the Cold War or containing Iraq, but we are working closely together in a number of important ways. In Afghanistan, the United States and Turkey are working together to offer a better life to the Afghan people by giving them the training and tools they need to build security and grow their economy. The United States and Turkey are working together closely on an action plan for joint assistance to the Afghan people. So far we have worked together with Turkey to develop key economic sectors in Wardak, and soon we plan to begin cooperative projects on infrastructure and health care in Kabul. Turkey is a major contributor of forces and expertise to the NATO mission in Afghanistan and its soldiers support the Afghan security forces’ effort to secure the capital region of the country.

    In Iraq, the Turkish government’s commitment to high-level strategic cooperation with the government in Baghdad, as well as the improvement in its relations with Iraqi Kurds, have been positive contributions to Iraq’s stabilization. The Iraqis just completed national elections with very robust turnout. Now the negotiations on forming a government are about to begin. It is important that all those with a stake in Iraq’s path to stability allow the Iraqis to make their own decisions and encourage their Iraqi leaders to support a process that will lead to formation of an effective government. Iraq is now Turkey’s second largest export market after Germany and the two countries’ growing economic and commercial relationship is yet another reason it is in Turkey’s interest to build a mutually beneficial relationship with Iraq. The United States and Turkey are also cooperating closely on counter-terrorism, both to fight international terrorist groups like al-Qa’ida and to battle the PKK terrorist organization in the region.

    In addition, Turkey is in the process of negotiating its accession to the European Union. While we recognize the decision is not ours, the United States continues to strongly support Turkish accession and urges Turkey to continue the democratic and political reforms necessary to complete the membership process. Further progress on promoting human rights and religious freedom, including important steps like reopening the Halki Seminary, will move Turkey’s EU prospects forward. These reforms do more than further Turkey’s EU accession bid – they also make Turkey an even more democratic and modern nation. The EU has its own part to play. It can help ensure that Turkey’s progress continues by making clear that the door to the EU will be open to a Turkey that fulfills the requirements for EU membership. We remain convinced that a Turkey that meets EU membership criteria would be good for the EU, and that Turkey’s effort to meet those criteria is good for Turkey.

    Turkey is already playing a crucial role as a transit hub for energy to the rest of Europe – heating homes, lighting offices, and powering industry across the continent. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which came online in 2006, delivers one million barrels per day of petroleum and in 2007 the South Caucasus pipeline began bringing natural gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey. What these various projects and a variety of proposed future initiatives show is that Turkey will be an integral part of meeting Europe’s energy needs and providing for Europe’s energy security.

    While Turkey plays an active role on the world’s stage as a European power, it has also been equally active in reaching out to its immediate neighbors. We are supportive of the Turkish government’s concept of pursuing a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbors. This is a lofty and admirable goal. Bringing it to fruition, as everyone recognizes, will require difficult compromises and brave leadership.

    Turkey’s work with Armenia to normalize relations demonstrates both the promise and the difficulty of this enterprise. It holds out the prospect of positive transformative change in the region. The steps taken so far by both countries have shown vision and courage. Last October, in the presence of Secretary Clinton, the foreign ministers of France, Russia, and Switzerland, and the EU High Representative, the Turkish and Armenian Foreign Ministers signed protocols on normalizing and developing their relations. We believe that the implementation of these protocols – leading to diplomatic ties and open borders – would be a historic development that would benefit both countries and contribute to security and economic prosperity throughout the region. We appreciate the effort that has been made so far and urge both countries to ratify the protocols without preconditions and as soon as possible, a point President Obama made on the phone to President Gul just two weeks ago. Let us not squander the historic progress already made. Ratification will bring valuable benefits to both Turkey and Armenia. All who are invested in the process must do their part to ensure that it moves forward.

    Let me address in this context the resolution recently considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As President Obama has said, our interest remains a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts related to the events of 1915. But the best way to do that, we believe, is for the Armenian and Turkish people themselves to address this history as part of their efforts to build a future of shared peace and prosperity. As both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have indicated, further Congressional action could impede progress on the normalization of relations and for that reason we oppose this resolution.

    Another regional issue where Turkey can play a productive role is Cyprus. The United States continues to encourage the negotiations between the two communities under the auspices of the UN Secretary General. Turkey and Greece can also play constructive roles in helping the Cypriot parties toward a lasting solution to their differences. We welcome as well the positive dynamic in the relationship between the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers – something that Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, who was just on this stage, spoke about when he was in Washington last week. We commend both Cypriot leaders for their efforts and urge them to seize this window of opportunity to pursue negotiations leading to a settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation. Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent and very constructive comments to the Cypriot press endorsing such a solution were very welcome and should help bring this outcome about.

    These are all issues where Turkish leadership can be constructively applied to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous neighborhood. But it is important to remember that while the concept of “zero problems” with neighbors is a good one, it should not be pursued uncritically or at any price. As one of the world’s leading states, Turkey has international responsibilities that extend beyond its immediate neighborhood. With respect to Iran, while the international community has sought to present a single, coordinated message to Iran’s government, Turkey has at times sounded a different note. We know Turkey shares our concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and is supportive of international efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. But we also believe it to be vitally important that we avoid actions that could potentially undermine or complicate our shared goal of a peaceful diplomatic resolution of this issue. We do not believe that Turkey’s decision to abstain in the IAEA last November helped this goal and we hope that Turkey will join the broad group of nations in the UN Security Council who are seeking to hold Iran to its IAEA and Security Council obligations.

    Nor should improved relations with Turkey’s Middle Eastern neighbors come at the expense of its historic allies such as Israel. We are hopeful that Turkey and Israel will work to reinforce these ties, even as Turkey develops its relationships with other states of the region. Turkey has long had good, even special, ties with Israel, and this has given Turkey an important opportunity to support peace in the Middle East – a cause that we all support.

    We in the United States also pay close attention to developments within Turkey. Obviously, decisions about Turkey’s political future can and must be made only by Turks within the context of Turkey’s democratic system. But as a friend we care about the ongoing development of successful, open democracy in Turkey. The process of reform and modernization that is so vital to Turkey’s future remains an important priority. Turkey’s leaders recognize this and have taken bold steps to foster a more cohesive country. The Democratization Project, which aims to protect the rights of Kurds and other minority groups, is a major step in Turkish history. We applaud this initiative and encourage Turkey to continue to move forward. The success of this effort would go a long way in securing Turkish democracy, promoting reconciliation in Turkish society, as well as advancing Turkey’s case for EU accession.

    But Turkey must also be careful to ensure that its hard-won successes in building a secular state and strong democratic system are sustained into the future. Media freedom is one of the bedrocks of a democratic society and no actions should be taken that appear to undermine the ability of the press to do its vital job. The rule of law is another essential element of true democracy and for that reason it is important that investigations or court proceedings, especially on politically sensitive cases, must be open and fully respect Turkish law. The ability of political parties to function freely is crucial as well – in a democracy, political parties should not fear being closed down. The citizens of Turkey deserve nothing less. The development of democratic politics is one of modern Turkey’s greatest achievements and dealing with difficult issues such as these in an exemplary manner will demonstrate to its people and to the world the strength and vitality of Turkish democracy.

    Let me end where I began: by describing what it is that I believe binds the United States and Turkey together. When you consider all of the things I have talked about today – from Afghanistan to the Middle East to the European Union to energy security – it becomes clear that the alliance between the United States and Turkey is founded on a firm base of diverse and deep shared interests. And when one considers so many of the pressing challenges in the world today, it becomes equally clear that U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for immense progress.

    But our relationship is based on much more than a calculation of interest – it is rooted in shared values and a shared vision. The United States and Turkey have made a choice to establish a partnership, and with that partnership comes important responsibilities on both sides. As two large countries with broad and diverse interests, we will not always see eye-to-eye on every issue but we must never forget the larger outlook that we share. A vision of a democratic Turkey, with a vibrant economy, integrated into Europe, and with good relations with its neighbors, is a vision that has motivated generations of Turkish leaders. It is a vision we share too, and we want to help Turkey achieve it.

    Thank you.

    , March 17, 2010


  • Uncomfortable Truth ; Mr Erdogan’s unfortunate threats

    Uncomfortable Truth ; Mr Erdogan’s unfortunate threats

    Re: Uncomfotable Truth – 18/03/2010 as below.
    Dear Editor,
    Mr Erdogan’s unfortunate threats are truly regrettable especially as he does not represent the views of most Turkish People. His threats were quickly denied by his own Foreign Secretary Mr Davutoglu, indicating that this is not part of an Turkish Foreign Policy agenda. You are right in finding his intervention as demagogic and disreputable but he is still the same Prime Minister whose reputation and achievements have been held up as an example of a leader of a moderate Islamic government by most commentators in EU and US until very recently!
    Regarding the Armenian genocide claims, this is far from being an accepted fact and an ‘uncomfortable truth’ for Turkey. The claims have been strongly disputed by hundreds of archives (English, French and Russian) and many non Turkish and Turkish scholars. By the way the Armenian Government refuses to open its own archives. The real truth is that there were awful killings and deaths on both sides due to war, starvation and extreme cold and that in fact more Turks than Armenians had died tragically during this period. Unfortunately the powerful Armenian Diaspora continues to distort history and many people are blind to the obvious facts. Only last year Lord Avebury, along with Armenian activists were trying to lobby the Turkish Parliament by impressing on them the notorious and discredited ‘Blue Book’ and had to be stopped ( details are available).
    We hope that we are all interested in the real truth and that it must prevail.
    Yours faithfully,

    Betula Nelson
    Media Relations
    The Ataturk Society of the UK

    From The Times
    March 18, 2010

    Uncomfortable Truth

    Turkish threats to expel Armenian migrants to make a political point are shameful

    • 9 Comments
    Recommend? (16)

    Deportations have powerful symbolism in modern European history. The notion that the government of a would-be member state of the EU might propose the forced collective expulsion from its territory of a specified nationality ought to be unthinkable. Yet that course was casually threatened yesterday by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, against 100,000 Armenian migrants.

    Its purported justification was the recent passage of non-binding resolutions in the US Congress and the Swedish parliament. These motions describe as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during and after the First World War. Turkey takes strong issue with the claim of genocide. The history and politics of TurkishArmenian relations are convoluted, but the ethics of Mr Erdogan’s remarks are not. His intervention is demagogic and disreputable.

    The US and Swedish votes were carried by narrow margins and were opposed by their respective governments. The historical events that they recall began with the massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The very word “genocide” is a post-1945 coinage, intended to define the peculiar barbarity of Nazism. Only gradually did the Armenian massacres come to be recognised as the first authentic case of genocide in the 20th century. But so they were. On conservative historical estimates, around a million Armenians were killed in a xenophobic purge that continued till 1923. It was a crime without precedent in modern history.

    Historical truth matters. It is extraordinary that the Government of modern Turkey should resist it. No one alive today was responsible for these barbarities. They were committed by an imperial power that has long since passed into history along with Wilhelmine Germany, to which it was allied in the First World War. While running for the presidency, Barack Obama declared his intention of being a leader who would speak the truth about the Armenian genocide. In practice, while his views are a matter of record, Mr Obama has been conciliatory in relations with Turkey.

    Mr Erdogan has little cause for complaint about the symbolic diplomacy of resolutions on historical events. He has no justification whatever for threats against Armenian migrants. Turkey is home to thousands of illegal immigrants from Armenia. Few would dispute that sovereign nations have the right to determine barriers to entry on the part of non-citizens, but these are migrants who have sought refuge from disaster. Forming an impoverished population that does necessary but low-wage work, they include many whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed in the Armenian earthquake of 1988. Mr Erdogan estimated yesterday that of 170,000 Armenians in Turkey, only 70,000 held Turkish citizenship. He threatened directly to tell the rest to leave.

    Turkey is a member state of Nato and a strategically important power within the Western alliance. It borders Iraq, in whose stability the Western democracies have an intense interest. But the Government in Ankara cannot exploit that status in order to advance its own diplomatic goals at the expense of liberal values. To object to a proper historical accounting of awesome crimes is a demeaning and destructive stance. But then to retaliate against the most vulnerable people within Turkey’s borders is unconscionable.

  • Advice to Prime Minister Erdogan:

    Advice to Prime Minister Erdogan:

    Continue Denying the Armenian Genocide

    Mr. Erdogan, please keep up the good work. Armenians need your kind assistance to pursue their cause until justice is done.

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    sassounian32

    It is a well-known fact that Turkish leaders are exceptional diplomats. However, as soon as they hear the words Armenian Genocide, Greece, Cyprus or Kurdistan, these diplomats lose their “cool” and resort to emotional outbursts and undiplomatic actions that harm their own interests.

    Realizing that this is the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Turkish officials have been nervously preparing themselves for the upcoming tsunami of commemorations that would remind the international community of the crimes against humanity committed by Ottoman Turks.

    The first unexpected shot was fired on February 26 by the Parliament of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Spain, when it unanimously recognized the Armenian Genocide. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu immediately contacted his Spanish counterpart and Catalonian officials venting his anger and demanding an apology!

    Two days later, an expose of the Armenian Genocide was aired by CBS’s 60 Minutes, showing bones of Armenian victims still protruding from Syrian desert sands, almost a century later! The Turks were livid, accusing Armenians of unduly influencing the CBS network and questioning, as usual, the authenticity of the bones and the sand!

    Four days later, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Turkey lost despite:

    n      Pressuring the Obama administration to oppose the resolution;

    n      Hiring multi-million dollar lobbying firms;

    n      Sending teams of Turkish parliamentarians to Washington;

    n      E-mail campaigns by Turkish and Azeri Americans; and

    n      Threatening to boycott U.S. defense contractors if they did not oppose the resolution.

    Immediately after losing that vote, Turkey recalled its Ambassador from Washington, indicating that he may be kept in Ankara until after April 24. State Minister Zafer Caglayan postponed his U.S. visit, intended to develop economic ties, “until the United States corrects its mistake.” A scheduled trip by the executive board of the Turkish Industrialists’ & Businessmen’s Association to Washington on March 16 and 17 was also canceled, and anti-American protests were held in Turkish cities. More importantly, Prime Minister Erdogan indicated that he might cancel his planned participation in the global summit on nuclear security to be held in Washington next month.

    Before Turkish passions had cooled down, Sweden’s Parliament dealt a second devastating blow to Ankara on March 11, by reaffirming the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, by a vote of 131-130. Once again, Turkey recalled its Ambassador, and Prime Minister Erdogan canceled his upcoming trip to Stockholm which was to be accompanied by a large trade delegation. And, anti-Swedish demonstrations were held in several Turkish cities.

    These overly dramatic reactions prompted Turkish and foreign commentators to have a field day, speculating that if more countries recognize the Armenian Genocide, Turkey won’t have ambassadors left anywhere in the world, and Turkish officials won’t be visiting other countries, having to cancel their overseas trips. Furthermore, Turkey would be left without any imported goods and a weakened military, having canceled all purchases from the outside world. Turkey’s isolation is a just retribution for its denialist policy. By trying to punish others, Turkey is simply punishing itself.

    Vahe Magarian of Cincinnati, Ohio, sent a pointed letter to the New York Times last week, suggesting that Turkey’s recalled Ambassadors, “rather than flying home, should be made to march home on foot. Forced marches were the preferred means of travel during the dying days of the Ottoman Empire.”

    Prominent Turkish commentator Can Dundar wrote in Haber1 an article titled: “Are we going to recall all our Ambassadors?” He stated that, at this rate, by the time the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide rolls around in 2015, there won’t be a single country left not accusing Turkey of genocide. Isn’t it about time that we search out what dirty work our fathers did 95 years ago? Shouldn’t we ask what did we do wrong, Dundar implored.

    The main reason why Turkish officials panic every time the Armenian Genocide is acknowledged by yet another country is their fear of being asked to pay compensation for Armenian losses and return the occupied lands. Prime Minister Erdogan and his colleagues don’t seem to understand that Genocide recognition by itself does not lead to legal claims. How many inches of land have Armenians managed to liberate from Turkey as a result of such recognition by more than 20 countries? If Turkish leaders would only understand that parliamentary resolutions have no legal effect, maybe they would not get so excited over them!

    Nevertheless, there should be no doubt that Armenians still demand the return of their ancestral lands located in Eastern Turkey. Such claims have to be pursued in various courts, unless an unexpected cataclysmic event occurs first, causing the collapse or dismemberment of the Turkish State.

    In the meantime, we advise Mr. Erdogan to continue denying the Genocide at every opportunity, in order to encourage Armenians to persist in their efforts to expose Ankara’s lies. Were it not for Turkish officials’ vehement denials, there would not have been a worldwide outcry to reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide by airing TV documentaries and adopting genocide resolutions.

    Mr. Erdogan, please keep up the good work. Armenians need your kind assistance to pursue their cause until justice is done.

  • Armenian Genocide in Bulgarian Parliament

    Armenian Genocide in Bulgarian Parliament

    20:05 / 03/19/2010

    The draft resolution on Armenian Genocide was
    introduced into Bulgarian Parliament. NEWS.am posts unofficial
    translation of the motion to be considered next week.

    The genocide against Armenian people is one of the most portentous
    crimes against humanity in the modern history. In order to realize the
    full depth of the massacres perpetrated against Armenian people by
    Turkish authorities in the beginning of the 20th century, it should be
    taken into account that in essence, it is an ill-veiled, but
    goal-directed policy aiming at the extermination of Armenian ethnos
    within the bounds of its historical residence-from Ararat to Anatolia.
    Turkish Government intended to place numerous Muslim refugees from
    Balkans there.

    In this respect, the seemingly unrelated acts of violence against
    Armenians from 1915-1917 were a carefully thought up plan by Turkish
    authorities meant to displacement of Armenians with escort convoy, the
    committed slaughter and torture both by regular troops and desperados,
    including pogroms, raping, robbery, dispossession of land and property
    of the peaceful Armenian population. This is a system of physical,
    economic and moral destruction of Armenian ethnos killing over one and
    a half million Armenians within several months.

    Based on the mentioned facts, National Assembly of the Republic of
    Bulgaria, admitting the cogency of the facts proving the committed
    extermination of 1.500.000 Armenians by Ottoman Empire authorities in
    1915-17, considering the violence against Armenians during the World
    War I is recognized by the European Parliament and a number of EU
    members-Belgium, Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Poland,
    Slovakia, France as genocide, condemning the genocide of the Armenian
    population,

    Declares:

    1. Expresses its dissent with official position of Turkish Government,
    directed towards the negation of the purposive violence against
    Armenian nation committed in 1915-1917.

    2. Urges the Republic of Turkey to review its stance on the historic
    reality during the World War I

    3. Term the forcible displacement-

    the extermination of the Armenian
    people under Ottoman Empire as Genocide

    4. Announces the necessity of mandatory unbiased reporting of the
    historical events indicated in the documents, publications, public
    addresses of all state institutions, political organizations, mass
    media of the Republic of Bulgaria.

    5. Admits that protection of monuments of Bulgarian and Armenian
    architectural-religious heritage on the territory of Turkey should be
    considered as part of a broader policy of preservation of cultural
    heritage of European civilization.

    6. Demands that in the course of the talks on Turkey’s membership to
    EU, the stance of Bulgarian Government be conditioned by the
    recognition of Armenian Genocide by Turkey.

    L.A.

  • U.S. vows bid to halt Armenian genocide measure

    U.S. vows bid to halt Armenian genocide measure

    By Susan Cornwell and Arshad Mohammed Susan Cornwell And Arshad Mohammed Fri Mar 5, 6:06 pm ET Reuters

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Friday sought to limit fallout from a resolution branding the World War One-era massacre of Armenians by Turkish forces as “genocide,” and vowed to stop it from going further in Congress.

    Turkey was infuriated and recalled its ambassador after a House of Representatives committee on Thursday approved the nonbinding measure condemning killings that took place nearly 100 years ago, in the last days of the Ottoman Empire.

    A Democratic leadership aide told Reuters there were no plans “at this point” to schedule a vote of the full House on the measure, and a State Department official said this was the administration’s understanding as well.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, facing questions about the issue while traveling in Latin America, declared Congress should drop the matter now.

    “The Obama administration strongly opposes the resolution that was passed by only one vote in the House committee and will work very hard to make sure it does not go to the House floor,” she said in Guatemala City.

    The resolution squeaked through the House Foreign Affairs Committee 23-22 on Thursday despite a last-minute appeal against it from the Obama administration, which feared damage to ties with Turkey. The NATO ally is crucial to U.S. interests in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

    The issue puts President Barack Obama between Turkey, a secular Muslim democracy that looks toward the West, and Armenian-Americans, an important constituency in some states like California and New Jersey, ahead of the November congressional elections.

    Similar resolutions have been introduced in past sessions of Congress, but never passed both the House and the Senate. In 2007, the same House committee passed such a resolution but it never came up on the floor after then-President George W. Bush weighed in strongly against it.

    DAMAGED TIES

    After the committee’s vote on Thursday, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan warned of possible damage to ties with the United States.

    On Friday, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said chances of Turkey’s parliament ratifying peace protocols with Christian Armenia were jeopardized by the vote on the 1915 massacres.

    One U.S. analyst said the normalization accords were mired even before the U.S. resolution upset Turkey.

    “The protocols were already in trouble and … what happened yesterday makes much life much more difficult,” said Henri Barkey, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former State Department official.

    Muslim Turkey accepts that many Christian Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks but denies that up to 1.5 million died and that it amounted to genocide — a term employed by many Western historians and some foreign parliaments.

    The U.S. envoy in Ankara, James Jeffrey, distanced the Obama administration from the resolution after being invited for talks by Turkish officials. “We believe that Congress should not make a decision on the issue,” he said.

    There was also anger in Baku, Azerbaijan, a close Muslim and Turkic-speaking ally of Turkey. Its parliament warned that the U.S. resolution could “reduce to zero all previous efforts” to resolve a long-standing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Kenneth Hachikian, chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, said supporters would gather next week to do a “whip count” of House backers of the genocide resolution.

    The resolution has 137 co-sponsors in the House, which is one measure of support and not close to the majority of 217 needed to pass. Advocates need to show they have enough votes to pass the measure for it to be brought to the House floor, Democratic congressional aides said.

    The resolution urges Obama to use the term “genocide” when he delivers his annual message on the Armenian massacres in April. He avoided using the term last year although as a presidential candidate he said the killings were genocide.

    Ronald Reagan was the only U.S. president to publicly call the killings genocide.

    (Additional reporting by Andrew Quinn, editing by Matt Spetalnick and Vicki Allen)

  • President Gül wins 2010 Chatham House prize

    President Gül wins 2010 Chatham House prize

    LONDON – Anatolia News Agency

    AbdullahGul
    Turkish President Abdullah Gül. DHA photo

    The U.K.’s leading think tank, Chatham House, has awarded Turkish President Abdullah Gül with the 2010 Chatham House prize due to “his national, regional and international qualifications,” the organization’s president said Friday.

    “President Gül is recognized for being a significant figure for reconciliation and moderation within Turkey and internationally, and a driving force behind many of the positive steps that Turkey has taken in recent years,” Chatham House said in statement on its Web site.

    The think tank drew attention to Gül’s efforts to deepen Turkey’s traditional ties with the Middle East, mediate between rival groups in Iraq and bring together the Afghan and Pakistani leaderships to try to resolve disputes during 2009.

    “He has also made significant efforts to reunify the divided island of Cyprus and has played a leading role, along with his Armenian counterpart, in initiating a process of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia,” the statement said.

    www.hurriyetdailynews.com, March 19, 2010