Turkish Forum

Category: Main Issues

  • Ambassador Kamuran Gürün passed away

    Ambassador Kamuran Gürün passed away


    ERMENI SORUNUNDA SON DERECE DETAYLI ARASTIRMALARI YAPAN VE PEK COGUMUZUN KULLANDIGI BILGILERI DEVSIREN SAYIN KAMURAN GURUN’UN ONUNDE HURMETLE EGILIR VE MEKANININ CENNET OLMASINI YUCE TANRIDAN DILERIZ

    DR. KAYAALP BUYUKATAMAN

    BASKAN, TURKISH FORUM

    KAMURAN GURUN
    Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 07:25 AM Central Daylight Time
    By Gunduz Aktan

    Ambassador Gurun has sadly passed away. With his exemplary career and his abiding influence, undoubtedly he was one of the pillars to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his generation, and ours.

    He was my first ambassador at my first post abroad, namely, the Turkish delegation to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). He arrived in mid-1970 from Bucharest, his first ambassadorial post. He was then barely 50-years-of-age. We were taking over economic representation from the Ministry of Finance, which had snatched them from us in the heat of the May 27 coup. Naturally, our colleagues from that ministry had been somewhat restless. They were afraid that the new ambassador would seek revenge.

    None of their fears materialized. He was an ambassador of all and for all. He treated everybody equally. Indeed, they were better off than us as they were treated as our guests. His convictions were deeply conservative, yet he was open-minded and liberal towards his staff. The first thing he did was to liberalize working hours. People were free to-come-and-go. They were responsible only for the work they did.

    I served for two years as his assistant at the Council and Executive committee meetings. I used to prepare his file by collecting information sheets from those who were in charge of the committees, together with the documents of the agenda. He used to receive a-half-hour briefing, either from me or a much longer one from others, depending on importance.

    He used to read fast, indeed, there was a rumor that he understood diagonal reading. He quickly grasped the gist of the matter and he hated verbiage. Yet I remember no one whose sermon was interrupted in staff meetings. Instead, our own show of impatience had been the subject of rebuke. For him, one ought to realize one’s own mistakes.

    He was laconic. He used to speak in a low voice with an anxious countenance, yet he was outspoken. He addressed the council the same way as he conversed with individuals. Although his French was very good, he never tried to pronounce like the French. He used to tease those who were infatuated with public address.

    Turkey was the poorest OECD member. It was there mainly due to being a member of NATO, in other words, for geo-strategic reasons. Our contribution to debates and to the work of the organization was constrained by this situation. Soon he felt frustrated and wanted an important bilateral post — and Athens was being vacated.

    While there an unfortunate event occured. While he was with Greek friends on a yacht in the Adriatic Sea, the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus began, he was later blamed for the consequences. Furthermore, he was accused of asking for permission to burn classified correspondence in case of an outbreak of war between Turkey and Greece. Those who were weary with his renowned courage took advantage of the situation and depicted him as a coward.

    Back in Ankara the illustrious part of his career seemed at an end, yet destiny had something new for him. The Sept. 12 administration made him secretary-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As expected, he did not condescend to avenge anybody. He tried hard to save the ministry from possible damage from the personnel reform carried out by the then administration. He was all alone in this enterprise. The traditional title of secretary-general was abolished and replaced by under-secretary, formally undermining the privileged status of the ministry when compared to others. The corresponding level of minister counselor was also lowered from director-general to assistant director-general. Such was the interpretation of the day, the military apparently wanted to have a unique position in the State structure, shunning the rivalry of the ministry.

    Once again frustrated, he was seemingly dispatched as ambassador to our embassy in Bonn, West Germany. However, they committed another mistake by not asking for his prior agreement. He refused and left the government service.

    Nevertheless, along with his heavy work-load as secretary-general, he achieved the unachievable; he wrote a book on the Armenian question, prompted by the Armenian murders of Turkish diplomats. A long-awaited response by Turkey to the Armenian allegations, the book entitled “Armenian File” treated the subject fairly and humanely, while shattering the genocide myth.

    Upon retirement, he wrote columns in newspapers. As was his style, they were simple, curt and to the point. I guess he had few readers, but that would not have been his concern in the least. He was one of the few ambassadors who wrote history rather than patchy anecdotes about our strange career. In his magnum opus, a trilogy on Turkish foreign policy, he was scholarly, but never intellectual.

    Above all, he was a man of integrity and honesty; rare commodities of our time.

    Together with Mrs. Gencay Gurun, who was a former diplomat herself, they made a formidable couple representing a misrepresented country.

    July 20, 2004

    By Denis Ojalvo

    The protagonist of Turkish-Jewish ties in the post 1980 military intervention era, former Undersecretary of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Kamuran Gürün passed away.
    By Denis Ojalvo

    In July 1980, Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital. In August, the Turkish government suspended the activities of its General Consulate in that city.
    On the 12th of September 1980, the Turkish army took control of the state in order to prevent an imminent civil war which, was about to be triggered by the daily clashes of left and rightwing militants.
    The National Security Council (NSC) consisting of the top military establishment of Turkey, appointed Ambassador Ilter Türkmen as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador Kamuran Gürün as his undersecretary.

    In his book titled Tumultuous Years – memoirs of an Undersecretary published in 1995, Ambassador Gürün provides his readers with first hand and most authoritative information regarding the debut of Turkey’s ties with the American Jewish Establishment.

    Since the assassination of its diplomats by an Armenian avenger in Los Angeles in 1973, the Turkish foreign policy making has been under the mortgage of genocide allegations by the Armenian Diaspora who has been pressing for the recognition as such, of the mass deportations and killings of Armenians which took place in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire’s Eastern Anatolian provinces.

    On the 15th of July 1974, The Greek Cypriot national Guards led by Nikos Sampson, made a coup in order to annex the island to Greece. This prompted an intervention by the Turkish military on the 19th of July, which lasted until the 22nd. Having obtained no tangible result, The Turkish military made a second landing on the 14th of August and took control of the northern part of the island.

    The Greek Americans mobilized their lobbying skills in order to drive the Turkish forces out of the island. By the same token, the Armenians jumped in the wagon and together with the Greek Lobby formed one of the most formidable Anti-Turkish fronts thwarting all American congressional resolutions regarding Turkey.

    Turkey’s efforts to deal with this phenomenon by enlisting the support of the Jewish Lobby date back to 1974 when the Governor of Istanbul Mr. Vefa Poyraz, upon instructions received from the government, established contact with the notables of the Turkish Jewish community and asked them to take part in Turkey’s efforts to explain the reasons of Turkey’s intervention in Cyprus.

    In the mean time on the 17th and 18th of December 1974, the Greek Lobby managed to have both the Congress and Senate vote a resolution on an arms embargo on Turkey. This resolution was effective as per the 5th of February 1975.

    The Armenian Lobby took advantage of the conjuncture and managed to have the Congress and Senate pass joint Resolution No. 148 on the 9th of April, designing April 24, 1975, as “National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man”.

    Jak kamhi and Fred Burla, two Jewish industrialists took part in the task force sponsored by the Turkish Industrialists Union which visited the USA on 6-16 September 1975 for lobbying against the arms embargo.

    Below is a summary of Ambassador Gürün’s contacts with The Jewish Lobby and the involvement of Turkish Jews in Turkey’s lobbying efforts, as reported in his previously mentioned memoirs.

    When he took office as under-secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Gürün inherited an even bleaker situation owing to the fact that on top of Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus and Armenian Genocide allegations, he had to advocate the legitimacy of the newly established military regime in Turkey.

    Ambassador Gürün was seeking the support of the West against the raging Armenian terrorism which, in a span of 11 years from 1973 to 1984 claimed the lives of 41 Turkish diplomats and consular staff. In that scope, he thought that it was important to organize the Turkish Diaspora, especially the one in the USA, and establish a Turkish lobby which would explain to the world public opinion Turkey’s points of view on the afore mentioned subjects.

    Following the military intervention of September 12th 1980, Mordo Dinar, a Turkish lawyer and member of the Turkish Jewish community, contacted Ambassador Gürün in Ankara on his own initiative and proposed to organize meetings with the press and the audio-visual media. Ambassador Gürün contacted the Turkish Ambassador Adnan Bulak in Paris and asked him to cooperate with Mordo Dinar.

    Mordo Dinar who covered his own expenses, managed to block the broadcasting of certain French Television programs which, were unfavorable to Turkey. He was present during all meetings with the members of the Jewish Lobby, the following year in New York.

    According To Ambassador Gürün, Mordo Dinar and Jak Kamhi have been the first two persons with whom The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs cooperated in order to explain the Turkish point of view especially in France and the USA, in order to forestall the adverse currents regarding Turkey.

    Jak Kamhi was the person who found the lawyer who represented Turkey in the case of the Orly Massacre perpetrated by Armenian terrorists.

    Ambassador Gürün established that the center of the Anti-Turkish activities sponsored by the Armenians was the American Congress in Washington. And that the Armenians were trying to enlist the Jewish Lobby to back their efforts.

    It was again, Jak Kamhi who through the Turkish Jewish and the American Jewish Communities, prevented the Armenians from taking part in the Holocaust Museum and who fulfilled an important role in the establishment of a Task Force of non-governmental prominent figures.

    Few people know the unforgettable services rendered by these two friends of ours.

    Mordo Dinar and Jak Kamhi deserve a great “Thank You”.

    On the 12th of February 1982 a delegation of the Jewish Community in Turkey led by the Chief Rabbi David Asseo and whose participants were Jak Kamhi, Jak Veissid and Eliezer Kohen visited the Head of the State General Evren.

    Ambassador Gürün prepared a report for the NSC meeting which, had to take place on the 18th of March 1982. One of the topics on the agenda was whether to allow the Jews of Turkey to participate to international Jewish gatherings. It was judged that the Turkish Jews provided proof they could lobby on behalf of Turkey in those forums. The head of State, General Evren, opened the matter for discussion. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Ilter Turkmen opposed the granting of a permission to Turkish Jews to participate to the meetings of the World Jewish Congress on the grounds that this would harm the relations between Turkey and the Arabs.

    Ambassador Gürün paid a visit to General Evren on the 24th of March 1982, before traveling to the USA where he was to meet with Jewish organizations. It was agreed between the two that his contacts would be kept secret for the time being. In his meetings with Jewish Organizations, Ambassador Gürün emphasized Turkey’s will to cooperate with these against terrorism and informed them on the allegations of Genocide made by the Armenians and their efforts to hide behind Jewish organizations. The Jewish organizations asserted that they would not contest historic events, but that they were ready to back Turkey and cooperate against terrorism.

    Mordo Dinar had a meeting organized by the vice-president of the International Law Society, Mr. Seymour Rubin (a Jew) where columnists from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Foreign Policy as well as commentators of the TV chain CBS participated along with specialists of the Middle east Institute. That meeting provided Ambassador Gürün with the opportunity to answer many questions regarding Turkey and its foreign policy, including the Armenian issue.

    Following Ambassador Gürün’s journey which lasted until the 1st of May, on the 21st, took place a meeting of the NSC where General Evren asked whether it was appropriate to allow Turkish Jews to participate in World Jewry’s meetings. This time the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ilter Türkmen) did not oppose and General Evren gave the necessary instructions to the office of the Prime Minister who in its turn instructed the Governor of Istanbul accordingly on the 27th of May 1982.

    After the meeting, some participants asked the minister why he denied that permission during the previous meeting. The minister replied that he was opposed to contacts with the Jewish Lobby.

    Ambassador Gürün emphasized that the existential question Turks have to ask themselves is who would take advantage and who would be harmed by the weakening or dismemberment of Turkey? He points that in the setting of those days it would be difficult to assume that Russia, Bulgaria,Greece, Syria and Iraq would care. That Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan would be indifferent.

    The ones that would be nervous and unwilling to see Turkey weaken would be the USA and as strange as that may seem, Israel. Therefore, Ambassador Gürün suggested a NSC meeting to be convened in order to determine the interests of Turkey and fix the principal guidelines of its foreign policy.

    Ambassador Gürün pointed on two means for handling the Armenian Question, and the Kurdish Question when this one is likely to manifest itself. These are:

    1- To fulfill all of Turkey’s necessary obligations at the national level

    2- Given that Turkey is unable to achieve its goals all alone, to seek partners which share the same perspective and goals with Turkey at the conceptual and operational levels.
    He concluded that the only natural ally against the powerful Greek and Armenian Lobbies is the (American) Jewish Lobby.
    Under the given circumstances, taking advantage of the Jewish Lobby becomes a matter of national interest. Turkey cannot sit and watch, given the danger of dismemberment, just not to offend the Arabs. The interests of Turkey take precedence above any other thing.

    Ambassador Gürün pointed to the fact that the American Congress is abundant of Anti-Turkey propaganda and that if Turkey antagonized with the Jewish Lobby, not one decision favorable to Turkey would pass the Congress.

    He remarked that the Jewish Lobby was able to assert its will on the German Government, provide anxiety to the French, and fight with the Russian. In his opinion, what makes things move is not Israel but the Jewish Lobby. Turkey doesn’t need to contact this lobby officially to enlist its support. This could easily be done by Turkish Citizens (Turkish Jews). That is the reason why Ambassador Gürün has been in favor of allowing the representatives of the Turkish Jewish Community participate to the meetings of the World Jewish Congress.

    On the other hand, the Ministry reprimanded Turkish Americans for criticizing with an advertisement a plot against Israeli diplomats drawing parallels to plots perpetrated by Armenian terrorists against Turkish Diplomats. Ambassador Gürün thought that this reprimand by the Turkish Foreign Ministry was misplaced.

    On the 5th of May 1982, Ambassador Gürün submitted the NSC a report of 61 pages regarding his contacts abroad. He was received by the Head of State and told by the Secretary General of the NSC, General Necdet Urug, that all his oral and written suggestions were agreed with. His suggestions would be discussed in a meeting of the NSC to which would participate Ambassadors Sukru Elekdag of Washington, Coskun Kirca of New York and Adnan Bulak of Paris. The NSC meeting took place on the 21st of May 1982 and Ambassador Gürün read the “Reflections and remarks” part of his report. Ambassador Elekdag underlined the importance of the Jewish Lobby and stressed the necessity of establishing contacts with that lobby and the Israeli ambassador. Thus, Ambassador Gürün became aware of existing restrictive instructions on this subject. Ambassador Coskun Kirca mentioned Arab countries’ attitudes vis-à-vis Turkey at the United Nations and stressed the importance of the Jewish Lobby. In conclusion, the Head of State affirmed that it was in Turkey’s interest to take advantage of the Jewish Lobby.

    In his meeting with General Urug (Secretary General of the NSC), the latter told Ambassador Gürün that nobody until then thought about organizing a Task Force (consisting of non-governmental prominent figures) and lobbying organizations, and that if he could institutionalize this subject, he would have rendered the country a big service. General Urug requested Ambassador Gürün to commit himself to this task meticulously.

    Ambassador Gürün was received by the Head of State on the 8th of September 1982. In that meeting, he informed the latter of his divergences of opinion with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Ilter Türkmen, which caused communication problems.

    These were:

    1- That the Minister of Foreign Affairs opined that the Head of State should take part at the Islamic Conference without the presence of Ambassador Gürün.

    2- That the Minister of Foreign Affairs thought that Turkey’s relations with Israel should be suspended, whereas Ambassador Gürün was against such a measure.

    3- That the Minister of Foreign Affairs was against a cooperation with the Jewish Lobby, but that Ambassador Gürün was in favor of such relations.

    4- That since Ambassador Gürün’s points of view were met favorably (by the NSC), the Minister ceased discussing those points with him.
    In conclusion, we know that the points of view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Ilter Türkmen prevailed on those of Ambassador Gürün and that his endeavours did not come to fruition during his tenure as undersecretary of state.

    However, that policy would change with the accession of Prime Minister Turgut Özal to power on the 13th of December 1983.

    From 1984 onwards, the relations between Turkey and the Jewish Lobby were nurtured. The culmination of the mutual efforts to enhance cooperation between the parties was the celebration of the Quincentennial (in 1992) of the welcoming of Spanish Jews who were expulsed from their country, in Turkish lands.

    The Turkish Jewish Community contributed its share to those relations with the blessing of consecutive American governments since then.

    Those relations led to a strategic partnership between Turkey and Israel in 1996.

    Both the Turkish and Israeli governments should not spare their efforts for safeguarding that precious relationship which took so much toil to achieve.

    We respectfully bow in front of the memory of this outstanding diplomat with exceptional foresight, H.E. Ambassador Gürün, the protagonist of renewed Turkish-Jewish ties, and send our condolences to his loved ones.
    Denis Ojalvo

  • Turkish POW Treatment by the British

    Turkish POW Treatment by the British

    Katran Kazaninda Sterilize book cover

    CLAIM 1
    From the book “Katran KazanInda Sterilize” (“Sterilized in Tar
    Cauldron”) by Imge Publications, written by Ahmet Duru who revealed
    the diary of the sub-lieutenant Ahmet Altinay from Karaman…

    “In WWI, 150 thousand of our soldiers were captured by the British.
    And some of these soldiers were imprisoned in Seydibesir Useray-i
    Harbiye Camp  near the city of Alexandria in Egypt. The full name of
    the camp was “Seydibesir Kuveysna Osmanli Useray-i Harbiye (4) Kampi”.
    In this camp, the Ottoman soldiers of 16th Division’s 48th Regiment
    who were captured at the Palestine fronts in 1918 were interned. For
    two years until June 12th, 1920, they were subjected to any kind of
    torture, oppression, heavy insults and humiliation.

    The reason for this inhumane treatment was the Armenians. The war was
    over. Nevertheless, to release the soldiers besides the ones who died
    because of heavy conditions in the camp was not to the benefit of the
    British. Because the British were brainwashed by Armenians, being told
    that in a potential new war they could come up against these soldiers
    again. The solution was massacre…
    Our soldiers, forced by bayonets, were put in disinfection pools with
    the excuse of wiping out germs. But the chemical, krizol, was added a
    lot more than normal in the water. Even just when they put their feet,
    our soldiers got scalded. However, the British troops didn’t let them
    get out of the pool by threatening with rifles.

    Turkish POWs, 1917

    Our soldiers didn’t want to put their heads under the water that
    reached waist level. But then the British started shooting in the air.
    Our soldiers knelt and put their heads under water not to die.
    But the ones who got their heads out of the water couldn’t see any
    more. Because the eyes were burned…The resistance of our soldiers who
    saw what happened to the ones that got out was no use and our 15
    thousand men got blinded.

    This savagery was discussed in May 25th, 1921, in the Turkish Great
    National Assembly. The congressmen Mr. Faik and Mr. Seref proposed
    that 15 thousand sons of this country were blinded in Egypt by being
    put in the “krizol” pool; and wanted the Assembly to make an attempt
    for punishment of the British physicians, commanders and soldiers who
    were guilty of this act.

    Of course the newly founded government had a thousand other problems.
    Demanding an explanation for this act was easily forgotten.

    The British commanders of the camp, because of the wrong, mendacious
    translations and provocations of Armenian translators who knew
    Turkish, had become fierce Turk enemies.

    COUNTER CLAIM
    The British run PoW camps in Egypt were regularly inspected by the
    diplomatic representatives of neutral countries and by the
    International Committee of the Red Cross
    Sidi Bishr Camp (Seydibesir Useray-i Harbiye Camp) was visited on 6th
    January 1917 and the report on that visit can be read in chapter 7,
    here
    Bryn

    CLAIM 2
    The other claim made by Yücel Yanıkdağ in his unpublished PhD thesis
    Ill-fated Sons of the Nation: Ottoman Prisoners of War in Russia and
    Egypt, 1914-1922 makes the claim that the British authorities
    deliberately infected Turkish POWs with Pellagra. This particular
    story is also doing the rounds of the “British plot to kill Turks
    inspired by Armenian” circuit and has equal credibility.

    COUNTER CLAIM
    The nub of the Pellagra claim is that the British deliberately singled
    out the Turks for ill treatment by inadequate diet leading to the
    ex-POWs having the highest death rate from Pellagra amongst all the
    other prisoners. On the basis of the death rate, it was concluded that
    Pellagra was a deliberate policy. That Turkish POWs died in great
    numbers from Pellagra is well documented in British sources. However,
    this churlish complaint does not mention that Pellagra takes 5-6 years
    to manifest itself into a fatal condition. No Turkish POW spent that
    long in their incarceration leading to the conclusion that these men
    suffered from Pellagra prior to becoming a POW. It wasn’t until the
    mid 1920’s that it was discovered that Pellagra was due to dietary
    problems.

    CLAIM 3
    Cholera  at Berramke Barracks in Damascus  was deliberate to kill Turks.

    COUNTER CLAIM
    A search of the Australian archives – every single available file
    relating to POWs is very much available and they provide information
    with the good and the bad. Nothing is covered up. The worst case
    regarded the 12,000 Ottoman soldiers who surrendered at the Berramke
    Barracks in Damascus after its fall on 1 October 1918. These men were
    deserted by their own support teams and left to fend for themselves
    without any resources with neither food nor medicines. After a few
    days being held as POWs, cholera broke out amongst this group. Over a
    two week period many hundreds of men died through cholera, the worst
    day recording over 150 deaths. By dint of hard work, the POWs were put
    to work to provide a satisfactory sanitation and drinking water
    system. Some men had to be coerced into working towards the common
    good. The result – cholera was brought under control. The deaths from
    cholera did not only effect the Turks but also the Australian, Indian,
    French and British soldiers in the area with many of these troops also
    dying.

    So the cholera outbreak at Damascus was not a sinister British plot to
    kill Turks, it was a problem brought on by the neglect of the Turkish
    command for the health of their soldiers and citizens in Damascus. The
    ordinary soldier in both the Allied forces and the Turkish army paid a
    high price for this neglect.

  • Turkish Cypriots complain about Greek harassment

    Turkish Cypriots complain about Greek harassment

    bWednesday, August 5, 2009

    REETA PAAKKINEN

    KYRENIA – Hürriyet Daily News
    The Turkish Cypriot tourism sector is considering starting legal proceedings against Greek Cyprus for what they see as harassment of their business partners abroad. The issue reached the Italian parliament in June, when a local MP called the letters from Greek Cypriot representation an ‘intimidation campaign.’

    For harassment of their overseas business partners, the Turkish Cypriot Tourism and Travel Agencies Association, or KITSAB, and the Turkish Cypriot Hoteliers’ Association, or KITOB, are considering starting legal proceedings against the Greek Cypriot government.

    Presenting several letters from Greek Cypriot embassies in European Union countries and Lebanon to local travel companies marketing holidays in northern Cyprus, KITSAB and KITOB presidents said the Greek Cypriot approach contradicts the U.N.-mediated peace talks.

    In late June, the issue reached the Italian parliament. Marco Perduca of the Radical Party said the letter the Greek Cypriot Embassy in Rome sent to Italian tour operators amounted to an “intimidation campaign” in which the Italian government should support Italian entrepreneurs who bring tourists to northern Cyprus.

    Undermining tourism

    “This time we have had enough of the Greek Cypriot campaign to stop tourism to Turkish Cyprus. Germany, the U.K., Lebanon, Romania, Sweden. … Wherever we go, the Greek Cypriot government follows and calls for our business partners not to cooperate with us,” Özbek Dedekorkut, president of KITSAB, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.

    A letter from the Greek Cypriot Embassy in Rome to Italian tour operators, seen by the Daily News, conveyed the image that a holiday from Italy to northern Cyprus could lead one into legal trouble by stating, in Italian: “We remind that Tymbou [Ercan] Airport is in the occupied area. In addition, it is operating outside the IATA authority in a way that is outside the law. Arriving in Cyprus through that entry point can lead to fines according to the laws of Republic of Cyprus.”

    Another letter seen by the Daily News was from the Greek Cypriot Embassy in Beirut to a local tour operator in Jounieh, Lebanon, dated June 5. The letter presented the local travel agency the possibility of legal charges in case his company brings tourists to northern Cyprus.

    “It has come to the attention of this Embassy that your travel agency … is currently in the process of establishing a tourist holiday package involving destinations in the Turkish-occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus. As a consequence we hereby wish to inform you that some of your actions are violating both the legislation of the Republic of Cyprus – a member state of the European Union – and international law in such a way that it may be cause for taking legal action against you and your company. … We also advise you to refrain from launching a sea line with a destination in the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus.”

    The letter had an official reference number and was signed by Charge d’Affaires Kyriacos P. Kouros, who could not be reached when the Daily News contacted him about the authenticity of the letter.

    Harming Turkish business

    Although there is no legal basis for stopping people from traveling to northern Cyprus, travel companies abroad become unnecessarily concerned, he said. “Greek Cypriot representatives are trying to scare local businesses abroad, and this harms us. They do not have the right to threaten our business partners like this,” Dedekorkut said.

    “The Greek Cypriot campaign is affecting our marketing, especially in Europe,” said Mehmet Dolmacı, president of KITOB. “Greek Cypriots are making it clear they don’t want to cooperate or share tourism income here. Cyprus is not solely a Greek island – Turkish Cypriots also have the right to live here. Whatever we try to do, they try to stop it. This seems to be their biggest job – not to find a solution but to try to pressure us to leave Cyprus for better income elsewhere.”

    Contradictory

    Maintaining isolation is contradictory to peace talks, according to Maurizio Turco, a member of the Italian Parliament and a colleague of Marco Perduca in the Italian Radical Party. Turco said attempts to hamper the growth of tourism in northern Cyprus are in dire contrast with the ongoing talks. “The Greek Cypriot side is talking with Turkish Cypriots about a comprehensive settlement, yet at the same time their representations are trying to stop tourism to northern Cyprus. This is just not right,” Turco told the Daily News in late July in Kyrenia.

    “We should bring the issue to the world’s attention. [Turkish Cypriot president] Mehmet Ali Talat should also point this out to [Greek Cypriot president] Dimitris Christofias and make it clear this is not right,” Turco added.

    According to Turco, the letters the Greek Cypriot Embassy in Rome sent have been noted in the Italian parliament. “This issue should really be discussed on the EU level,” he said. “Member states should come together to discuss the isolation of northern Cyprus. But because of the veto Greek Cyprus has, this is difficult.”

    It was a mistake to accept Greek Cyprus in the EU after it turned down the Kofi Annan Peace proposal, said Turco, who earlier served in the European Parliament. “There should have been first a peace deal, and only then entry for the whole island into the EU.”

    Hürriyet
  • JOINT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

    JOINT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
    Washington, D.C., 205000

    August 4, 2009

    Dear President Obama,

    Last year’s war between Georgia and Russia punctuated the continued threat to peace and security in the South Caucasus arising from unresolved territorial conflicts that have spanned more than two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Recently, several Iranian officials openly threatened Azerbaijan for hosting Israeli President Shimon Peres in Baku. Similarly, four UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Armenian forces withdraw and cease the occupation of Azerbaijani lands since 1993 have achieved little for the displaced one million refugees and IDPs. All of this adds to the urgency of reaching a sustainable peace based on the fundamentals of international law and human rights, or, as you have stated earlier, “a lasting and durable settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.”

    With stronger support from the United States and increasing involvement of the Russian Federation, the peace process has produced some momentum at the latest meetings of the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia. U.S. Mediator Matt Bryza emphasized the productive position and leadership demonstrated by Azerbaijan during the negotiations, particularly Azerbaijan’s many concessions to Armenia and the Armenian people despite Armenia’s aggression in and military occupation of western Azerbaijan. A peaceful settlement, which involves respect for territorial integrity of the states in the region, repatriation of the displaced communities, opening of all borders and communications, security guarantees for both Azerbaijani and Armenian communities in occupied regions of Azerbaijan, and withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan, and nothing less, is necessary to achieve a lasting and durable settlement.

    The South Caucasus, a strategic global juncture, holds great promise for regional and global peace and prosperity. Yet the region’s potential has been disrupted and disable by two decades of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia’s own development has been paralyzed as a result of its self-imposed isolation from major regional projects. More than one million Armenians have left Armenia due to poor government, poor economics, and poor services. While the Azerbaijani residents of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and other Armenian-occupied regions of Azerbaijan have suffered ethnic cleansing, displacement, and destruction of personal and cultural property, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh continue to live in economic and political uncertainty. Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijan has been costly in many ways.

    A lasting and durable peace settlement would bring about a major positive change to the South Caucasus. The Azerbaijani-Georgian partnership has already shown what can be reached when the parties work towards regional cooperation. Should the Armenian leadership demonstrate productive pragmatism, it can help integrate the nation with the economic and democratic future of the region securing a peace and prosperity for its people. Such a future would include open communications and borders, including the Turkish-Armenian border, which was closed in response to Armenia’s invasion and occupation of the Azerbaijani region of Kelbajar, outside of NK region, in 1993. A lasting and durable peace would advance U.S. interests as it provides for lasting stability in a strategically important region where the United States requires solid friends. Significantly, as the value of the Caspian hydrocarbon resources increase for Europe’s energy security and the South Caucasus transport corridor serves as the key conduit for access to Afghanistan, a lasting and durable peace in this region becomes an even higher priority. In addition, helping Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a settlement would demonstrate the new Administration’s commitment to the new foreign policy of global engagement and provide a positive tangible result for U.S.-Russian cooperation.

    Therefore, on behalf of the Azerbaijani-American and Turkish-American communities, we support and encourage your Good Office to intensify U.S. efforts towards reaching a just peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan based on United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, and to seize this historic opportunity. While we recognize the significant pressures that bear from special interests opposed to peace for a variety of reasons, including nationalist and religious ones, who have previously succeeded to undermine peace efforts, we hope that America’s vision for the South Caucasus is informed by its national interests and its relationship with strategic partners in the region. Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    U.S. Azeris Network (USAN)
    Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA)
    Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC)
    Federation of Turkish American Associations (FTAA)
    U.S.-Azerbaijan Council (USAC)
    U.S. Turkic Network (USTN)
    Cultural Center of Caucasus Jews (CCCJ)
    Azerbaijan Turkey America Foundation (ATAF)
    Houston Baku Sister City Association (HBSCA)

    Cc: The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President of the United States of America
    The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Secretary of State

    www.USAzeris.org
    www.FTAA.org
    www.Azeris.org
    www.ATAA.org
    www.USTurkic.org
    www.HoustonBaku.com
    www.ATAF-Foundation.org

  • Are Armenia’s Policies Making Turkey Stronger?

    Are Armenia’s Policies Making Turkey Stronger?

    sassun-2

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    The Armenian Foreign Ministry, in all likelihood, has a comprehensive strategic plan regarding Armenia’s relations with its immediate neighbors (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Turkey), with major powers near and far (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, United States), and with other key states around the world.

    At the most basic level, Armenia’s leaders are expected to maximize their country’s national interests and counter all anti-Armenian efforts. Based on this simple criterion, I would like to make an assessment of several critical issues related to Turkey, Armenia’s most problematic neighbor.

    Turkey has not only committed genocide against the Armenian nation and continues to enjoy the fruits of that crime, it also spends millions of dollars every year to deny the facts of history and defame the Armenian people.

    Ever since its inception, the Turkish Republic has consistently pursued the anti-Armenian policies of its Ottoman predecessors. Turkey has blockaded Armenia since 1993 — an act of war — in order to force it to make territorial concessions on Artsakh (Karabagh). Shortly after Armenia’s independence, Turkish, on at least one occasion, amassed troops on the border, threatening to attack Armenia. Moreover, Turkey has trained and armed Azerbaijan’s military to enable it to invade Artsakh and exterminate its ethnic Armenian population.

    Turkey also carries out anti-Armenian activities through various diplomatic channels. Turkish delegates regularly join their Azeri colleagues in casting votes against Armenia and Artsakh in the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and the Conference of Islamic States.

    Finally, Turkey continues to hold hostage its Armenian population, depriving it of the most basic cultural, educational and religious rights.

    Under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon Armenian officials to carefully weigh whether the decisions they take regarding Turkey inadvertently contribute to their hostile neighbor’s political and economic strength.

    Here are a few examples of such decisions:

    Armenia should not accept any preconditions for negotiations with Turkey on the opening of the border and should not have agreed to make a joint announcement on the eve of April 24 which helped boost Turkey’s prestige and undermined efforts to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide by the United States and others.

    Armenia should not recognize Turkey’s present boundaries and should reject treaties signed by Soviet Armenia, in order not to preclude future Armenian territorial claims.

    Armenia should not agree to the Turkish demand of forming a joint historical commission to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide, in order to avoid the questioning of the veracity of the genocide and not to harm the chances of its acknowledgment by third parties.

    Armenia should not allow Turkey to stick its nose in the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations over Artsakh, in order not to help boost Turkey’s image as a credible mediator in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Syria.

    Armenia’s President should not attend the October 14 soccer match in Turkey, unless Turkish leaders first abide by their written agreement to open the border. Armenian officials should not help give credence to false Turkish claims that it is engaged in serious negotiations with Armenia.

    Armenia’s leaders should not support Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union in order not to increase the Turks’ political and economic strength. Given its huge population in comparison with most other EU countries, Turkey would be entitled to a large number of votes in the European Parliament, enabling it to pass anti-Armenian resolutions.

    Last Fall, when Turkey was desperately seeking votes to join the U.N. Security Council, Armenia and Armenians worldwide made almost no attempts to prevent its gaining such a critical seat for the first time in almost half a century. Turkey can now use that prestigious position to pass resolutions in the U.N. against Armenia and Artsakh.

    In 2006, in the aftermath of Israel’s attack on Lebanon, Armenia and Armenians did not prevent Turkey from contributing peacekeeping troops to UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). This made possible the stationing of the Turkish military for the first time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in an Arab country that hosts the largest Armenian community in the Middle East.

    Finally, Armenians should boycott Turkish products and should not go on vacation to Turkey in order not to contribute to the economy of a hostile state. Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan should be commended for ordering Armenian government officials not to spend their vacation in Turkey and for encouraging local travel agencies to prepare tour packages at competitive rates for Armenians to vacation in Artsakh.

    There already exists an overwhelming imbalance between the political, economic, and military strengths of Armenia and Turkey. By carefully considering the impact of their every decision, Armenia’s leaders should narrow, rather than increase, that imbalance!
  • Letter from Congressional Armenian Contingent to Obama Complaining About Turkey

    Letter from Congressional Armenian Contingent to Obama Complaining About Turkey

    July 30, 2009

    President Barack Obama

    The White House

    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    We write to you with our concerns about Turkish backpedaling on the
    agreed upon roadmap to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

    On April 22, 2009, just two days before the 94th commemoration of the
    Armenian Genocide, the Department of State released the following
    statement:

    The United States welcomes the statement made by Armenia and Turkey on
    normalization of their bilateral relations. It has long been and remains
    the position of the United States that normalization should take place
    without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe. We urge Armenia
    and Turkey to proceed according to the agreed framework and roadmap. We
    look forward to working with both governments in support of
    normalization, and thus promote peace, security and stability in the
    whole region.

    Two days later, instead of recognizing the Armenian Genocide, the
    Administration opted to focus on this new roadmap to Armenian-Turkish
    normalization. “I also strongly support the efforts by Turkey
    and Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations,” you wrote.
    “Under Swiss auspices, the two governments have agreed on a
    framework and roadmap for normalization. I commend this progress, and
    urge them to fulfill its promise.”

    While the Government of Armenia remains committed to this roadmap and
    has long offered to establish ties with Turkey without preconditions,
    Turkeyâ€TMs public statements and actions since April 24th stand in
    sharp contrast to this agreement and undermine U.S. policy that
    normalization take place without preconditions.

    On May 13, 2009, Prime Minister Erdogan publically conditioned
    normalization of relations with Yerevan on Azerbaijanâ€TMs approval
    of a future settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict that fully meets
    Bakuâ€TMs satisfaction. “I want to repeat once more that
    until the occupation ends, the border gates [with Armenia] will remain
    closed,” Erdogan told the Azeri Parliament.

    On June 17, 2009, EU South Caucasus Envoy Peter Semneby said Turkey had
    taken “tactical steps backwards” in the normalization
    process with Armenia.

    It would appear that Turkey, in an effort to block U.S. recognition of
    the Armenian Genocide, agreed to a roadmap it did not intend to uphold.
    Therefore, we urge your Administration to separate the issues of
    normalization and genocide recognition. We hope that renewed efforts
    and focused resources from the Administration can be utilized to nurture
    the Armenia-Turkey normalization process without preconditions and
    within a reasonable timeframe, and continue to remain strongly
    supportive of your stated campaign policy to officially recognize the
    Armenian Genocide.

    Sincerely,

    Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Joe Baca (D-CA), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Shelley
    Berkley (D-NV), Howard Berman (D-CA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Bruce
    Braley, (D-IA), John Campbell, (R-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Michael
    Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Jerry Costello
    (D-IL), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Peter DeFazio
    (D-OR), Steve Driehaus (D-OH), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Chaka Fattah (D-PA),
    Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Scott
    Garrett (R-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rush Holt
    (D-NJ), Michael Honda (D-CA), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Patrick Kennedy
    (D-RI), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), James Langevin (D-RI),
    Barbara Lee (D-CA), Sander Levin (D-MI), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Frank
    LoBiondo (R-NJ), Daniel Lungren (R-CA). Stephen Lynch (D-CA), Carolyn
    Maloney (D-NY), Edward Markey (D-MA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Thaddeus
    McCotter (R-MI), James McGovern (D-MA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Candice
    Miller (R-MI), Walt Minnick (D-ID), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Richard
    Neal (D-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), John Olver (D-MA) Payne, Donald (D-NJ),
    Gary Peters (D-MI), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Peter
    Roskam (R-IL), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Edward Royce (R-CA), Bobby Rush
    (D-IL) Paul Ryan (R-WI), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), John Sarbanes (D-MD)
    James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Chris Smith (R-NJ),
    Mark Souder (R-IN), Zack Space (D-OH), Jackie Speier (D-CA), John
    Tierney (D-MA), Dina Titus (D-NV), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Niki Tsongas
    (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Walz (D-MN) Henry Waxman (D-CA),
    Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).