Turkish Forum English

Category: Main Issues

  • A threatening silence

    A threatening silence

    Guest Column | A threatening silence

    By NICOLE SADANIANTZ · April 22, 2013, 9:26 pm

    I am half-Armenian by heritage. My father emigrated from Istanbul to the United States at the age of 17. But I was on the fence about writing this letter. I don’t like to disturb the peace. Politics overwhelms me. Then I searched through The Daily Pennsylvanian’s online archives for “Armenian genocide.” The most recent article related to the subject was from February 15, 2001. Apparently it’s been 12 years since this issue was covered by our newspaper. I decided it was due time to put it back on the table.

    April 24 commemorates the day in 1915 when over 200 Armenian intellectuals and leaders were arrested, imprisoned and promptly executed. This was the culminating and revealing moment of the discrimination that had built through the latter part of the 19th century into the 20th century. But it would be only the beginning for the 1.5 million Armenians who would die over the next eight years. Mass deportations, forced marches through the desert, starvation, torture and the conscription of young boys into the army … The Ottoman government, namely the Young Turks, concealed the horrors under the chaos of World War I.

    But there are reports and photographs from British and American ambassadors testifying to the truth of the experience. There are government documents suggesting that the massacres were systematically planned. And there are the words of Hitler that have, paradoxically, come to serve as evidence of the genocide: “After all,” he asked, “who remembers the Armenians?”

    His question begs the question, “Why should we remember the Armenians?” Why do we need to talk about events that occurred now nearly 100 years ago? What would the purpose be? I’ll admit it’s a question I have frequently asked myself. I have no interest in casting a shadow upon the Turkish people of today. I have no interest in vengeance. So why bother?

    Because Hitler did follow through with his plans for genocide. Because my father and his family emigrated to escape the oppressive environment in Turkey. Because contemporary Turkish writers including Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk have been persecuted for attempting to raise awareness of the genocide. Because innocent souls have been dying in Darfur since 2003. Because our nation has witnessed brutal acts of violence over the past year, from Aurora to Newtown to Boston.

    Because no death is trivial. No death should be invisible.

    I can understand the Turkish desire to deny or justify the annihilation in order to protect the honor of great-grandfathers. No one wants to admit that his or her family was involved in controversial acts. No one wants to feel guilt and shame running through his or her own veins. And I can understand our president’s desire to not explicitly name these acts “genocide.” He fears the decay of crucial alliances in precarious times.

    But what about the honor of Armenian great-grandfathers? What about the memory of Armenian great-grandmothers? The children who should have become great-grandparents. The great minds. The great artists. We are still in mourning. We hear their cries and feel their thirst. And our grief cannot find closure until these traumas and deaths are recognized for what they were.

    There is a way forward, a way that will prevent genocide from occurring again. This I believe. I believe that I do not want Turks, 19-year-olds like myself, to feel guilt and shame running through their veins. What happened 98 years ago is not their fault, and it should not be their burden. I believe that we should gather. I believe that we should lay out the cards for all to see. I believe that we should talk. I believe that we should work together to find peace, person-to-person. Then, perhaps, our governments will follow suit.

    It’s an unfortunate legacy we’ve inherited. But no good can come of it so long as we continue to hide, continue to push this conversation aside. So as we meet each other today, I ask that we do so in peace and in earnest. I ask that we consider the tragedies that surround us and vow to not condone them with silence … To not condemn them to silence.

    Nicole Sadaniantz is a College sophomore. Her email address is sanic@sas.upenn.edu.

    via The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Guest Column | A threatening silence.

  • Victims of Armenian Genocide to be commemorated in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir

    Victims of Armenian Genocide to be commemorated in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir

    Taksim’de Ermeni Soykırımı Anma merasimi düzenleyecek kadar ileri demokrasimizde tek ezilen kaldı; o da Türkler!

    716025

    16:35, 20 April, 2013

    YEREVAN, APRIL 20, ARMENPRESS: Victims of the Armenian Genocide will be commemorated in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, reports Armenpress, referring to marksist.org.

    Turkish news web site called on Turkish activists, journalists, academicians and artists to gather on April 24 and participate in the commemoration ceremony at Taksim Square. “These lands have seen a lot of pain during last 100 years. Anatolia, which was a mosaic of different nations, lost its entire colors only for becoming homogenous nation. First of all non-Muslim nations were expelled, losing everything they had. Those who managed to stay were merged, and if not were destroyed. Nevertheless, the most horrible happened to the most ancient owners of these lands, Armenian, in 1915. On April 24, 1915 Armenian nation was massacred. In order to commemorate this tragedy we call on our compatriots to pay tribute to their memory,” it is noted in the message.

  • EU lawmaker urges pushing for Cyprus’ reunification to profit from Turkey’s economic potential

    EU lawmaker urges pushing for Cyprus’ reunification to profit from Turkey’s economic potential

    By Associated Press, Published: April 17

    BRUSSELS — A prominent European lawmaker scolded Cyprus’ bailout creditors Wednesday for failing to insist on the ethnically split country’s reunification. Such a move, he argues, would boost growth through stronger business ties with neighboring Turkey.

    Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a lawmaker with the Green party, said a sustainable economic recovery for the eastern Mediterranean island could only be achieved through closer ties with the region’s biggest and most dynamic economy, Turkey.

    Cyprus faces years of economic hardship after a protracted banking crisis that has seen it become the fifth European Union country that uses the euro to seek rescue loans from international creditors. The country’s economy is estimated to contract a whopping 13 percent over the next two years. By contrast, the International Monetary Fund predicts Turkey will grow 3.4 percent this year and 3.7 percent next.

    Cyprus was split into an internationally recognized Greek-speaking south and a breakaway Turkish-speaking north in 1974 when Turkey invaded after a coup by supporters of union with Greece. Turkish Cypriots declared an independent northern state in 1983 that is only recognized by Turkey, which maintains 35,000 troops there.

    The last U.N.-brokered attempt to reunify the island, which began in 2008, has stalled. Cyprus came closest to a peace deal in 2004, when a U.N.-drafted agreement was approved by two thirds of Turkish Cypriots. But the agreement was rejected by three quarters of Greek Cypriots, who considered it weighted against them.

    Some analysts suggest that Cyprus should swiftly seek a reunification deal with the northern part as that would boost its economy. A political agreement with Turkey could also make it easier for Cyprus deliver to its newly found offshore gas reserves to European markets.

    “Turkish investors will only invest in Cyprus when there’s a reunification,” said Cohn-Bendit, who is also co-chairman of the European Greens’ parliamentary caucus. “The business model must come through reunification. A reunification within the European Union.”

    He said Turkey, whose long-running talks for possible EU membership have made little progress in years, would have a much greater incentive to work with a reunified Cyprus. The country joined the EU in 2004 and the monetary union four years later, but only the Greek-dominated south of the island enjoys the benefits of membership.

    Fast-growing Turkey, with a population of almost 75 million, boasts an annual output of about $800 billion, while Cyprus’ totals about 18 billion euros ($24 billion), according to the IMF.

    Cyprus lies only about 100 kilometers (62 miles) south of Turkey, but almost 1,000 kilometers away from Athens, the capital of its biggest EU trading partner, Greece.

    Last month, Cyprus clinched a bailout deal under which it will receive 10 billion euros ($13 billion) in rescue loans. In return, the country is imposing extensive losses on deposits over 100,000 euros at its two biggest banks, the Bank of Cyprus and Laiki. It has also set up capital controls to avoid a bank run, the first time such measures have been introduced since the launch of the euro in 1999.

    via EU lawmaker urges pushing for Cyprus’ reunification to profit from Turkey’s economic potential – The Washington Post.

  • Turkey looks to new leadership for Cyprus breakthrough

    Turkey looks to new leadership for Cyprus breakthrough

    BY STANISLAVA GAYDAZHIEVA | APRIL 10, 2013 – 5:04PM

    Turkish minister EU affairs

    Turkey’s Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Bağış, believes that a breakthrough between Greek and Turkish Cypriots can become a reality under the mandate of the newly elected president, Nicos Anastasiades.

    “For the first time, we have an elected president on the south of the island who campaigned for a “yes” vote during the Annan plan”, pointed out Bağış at an event organised by the European Policy Centre on Turkey’s struggle with terrorism.

    He welcomed Anastasiades’ election and said that it “might give a new window of opportunity to see a solution, a breakthrough, between the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots.”

    Bağış further said that the Cyprus dispute was not a prerequisite for membership of Cyprus to the European Union (EU) and should, therefore, “not become a prerequisite for membership of Turkey.”

    The Turkish minister of EU affairs also stated that Turkey would support and approve any solution the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots agreed on, as long as the solution was based on “political equality” in the island. He said that the authorities in Ankara were willing to open Turkey’s airports, sea ports and airspace to Greek Cypriots, if the Council decision from 2004, calling for direct trade with Northern Cyprus, was implemented.

    Bağış said that if Cyprus had accepted the Annan plan, the United States of Cyprus would probably be one of the largest economically growing countries and the most prosperous EU nation at the moment. In his view, the lack of progress on finding a solution to the dispute and current economic situation in Greece were the main reasons that no investments were made in the south of the island and only some investments in the northern part.

    Turkey’s chief negotiator expressed hope that Anastasiades will “reach out to his Turkish Cypriot neighbours and pave the way for a solution.”

    via Turkey looks to new leadership for Cyprus breakthrough | New Europe.

  • Concerning “Turkey and Armenia at Loggerheads”[1]: Why Turkey should not do what David.L.Ellis recommends

    Concerning “Turkey and Armenia at Loggerheads”[1]: Why Turkey should not do what David.L.Ellis recommends

    Ali Hikmet ALP, Retired Ambassador:

    Former Permanent Representative of Turkey to OSCE and the Minsk Group,former ambassador to China; former foreign policy adviser to the prime minister:

     

     

    Several Western scholars continue to publish articles (rather pro-Armenian) about Turkish-Armenian relations, without scantiest attention to abundant documentation proving the falsity of the Armenian Diaspora’s one sided views and simple common sense. The failure of the initiative of the two governments to start a breakthrough in the present stalemate served as a new occasion for such attempts. Both governments knew well that the so called “Protocols” were political documents intentionally drafted in not-so-clear terms, to lessen underlying harmful political consequences and risks. That failure is course lamentable, but views expressed by some “scholars”, including the one written by David L.Phillips, Director of an Institute in the Columbia University, deserves a special attention as a good example of superficiality and wishful thinking.

    Here are a few reasons why his views do not carry any depth and objectivity:

    • The negative role of the Armenian constitutional court and the passive stand of the Armenian Government: Anybody familiar with international law and relations, in particular if he or she is not fully engaged ideologically or emotionally to a certain view, cannot fail to see that the responsibility of the failure of the so-called  “Protocols initiative” is not on the Turkish side, severely criticized by a majority of its own public opinion. Armenian Government had signed the so-called “Protocols” unwillingly, has brought them (knowing well the eventual outcome) to Constitutional Court, which attached several conditions contradicting the basic purpose of the operation, built on a painful step by step political solutions. Once the highest legal authority of Armenia declares them unlawful (on the basis of the preamble of the constitutional law), the only logical conclusion one can draw is that Armenian government cannot fulfill its obligations, including among others, a meaning full examination by a commission of historians the 1915 events and  initiation of a partial withdrawal from the occupied territories. Members of the Court knew well that the genocide thesis, being legally invalid unless the verdict is issued by a legitimate and impartial court according to international law, would be further worn out by the evidences and arguments presented by historians. In others words, the dominant Armenian position, “Accept first the guilt, then we may speak about what to do”, would be further eroded.  One of the main reasons for Turkey to ratify the protocols (and to restore relations) being thus undermined, nobody could anymore expect their approval in the Turkish Parliament.
    • Armenian motives: It became obvious that even the recognition of “genocide” will not satisfy the majority on the Armenian side, which seeks compensation, reparations and even transfer of population. For the Turkish side such demands are not legally and politically possible, since the Turkish Government of that period had recognized for the displaced Armenians the right to return and to recover their property in two years period. Several of them (already immigrants to the USA, Europe and Russia) came in, sold their properties and left Turkey. The remaining property under the custody of the Government has been transferred to the ownership of the locals, mainly Kurdish population living in the area (Note that similar legislation is in force in the USA and Canada). An agreement was concluded between Turkey and the USA concerning the reparations to US citizens for the lost property. Turkey made the payments and the USA government certified that it has no more claims against Turkey.
    • Azerbaijan factor: Mr.Phillips cannot be unaware of the special ties between Turkey and Azerbaijan. The conditionality of the Karabagh issue and other occupied territories for the full restoration of relations, although not expressed openly for political reasons, was one of the implied issues. Care was taken not to write them down in a manner liable to hurt the well known sensitivities. In fact, by accepting such wordings (something like the start of the withdrawal from Azerbaijan territories outside of Karabagh) the Turkish government showed a remarkable flexibility in order to facilitate an agreement. Prof.Phillips should know that positions of Turkey and Azerbaijan on this issue are legitimate, even the UN has recognized the illegality of the occupation.
    • Effect of the normalization of relations on Armenia: It is presumed that normalization of formal relations between Turkey and Armenia will help a shift of Armenia towards the West. Such views are not supported by realities: Armenia is a military bastion of Russia, which has all the means (political, military and economic) to prevent the shift. Armenia’s alliance with Russia and basing facilities it offers are of vital importance for the Russian hegemony in the Caucasus and for its military influence in the Middle East. More than one million Armenians live in Russia; all important industries are in the hands of Russia or Russian companies (a price paid by Kotcharian government in Exchange of Russian support against Azerbaijan and Turkey). Armenia and its Diaspora, with their totally unrealistic, but easily exploitable belief of a “Turkish threat”, have volunteered for such an alliance.
    • Stakes for Turkey and the Azerbaijan factor: Absence since 1992 of any concrete and sustainable progress on the issue of occupied territories is the main problem but it is not the only one.  The inflexible Armenian positions towards Turkey and Azerbaijan also on other issues pose additional hurdles on the road towards normalization. With the “Protocols” affair it became once again evident that Turkish moves and concessions without tangible quid pro from Armenian side will carry serious political risks for the government. Turkey cannot harm its relations with Azerbaijan for the sake of dubious improvements in its relations with Armenia.  Even if the deep cultural affinity and kinship between the Turks and Azerbaijanis are set aside, any move from the Turkish side harming seriously Azeri interests (and the change of position on the occupied territories would be the most salient one) cannot make sense in terms of political-strategic implications and economic benefits. Even the average Turkish citizen realizes the absurdity for Turkey to take the risk of undermining its very important economic interests with Azerbaijan, in exchange of meager potential benefits of normalization with Armenia. The undergoing gas and oil projects are best examples, while they do not tell the whole story.
    • Present state of relations with Armenia: One should remember that Turkey was among the first to recognize the independent statehood of Armenia. In Armenia’s weakest periods before the Karabagh conflict, Turkey aided its neighbor also materially. However Armenia, still a safe haven for terrorists who killed dozens of Turkish diplomats, consistently followed anti-Turkish policies. The response of the Turkish governments has been much milder than one would expect, despite the absence of any signal that unilateral concessions from Turkey will serve to soften Armenian policies and claims. In the Western media,it is often said that Turkey imposes embargo on the trade with Armenia. This is wrong: Exports and imports are not prohibited, Turkish products are sold in Armenia (According to Wikipedia the volume of trade between Turkey and Armenia was $210 mil. In 2010). Even the illegal Armenian workers (estimated betwen40-60.000) in Turkey are tolerated. The problem for Armenia is not the trade embargo but cost increases resulting from transportation through Georgia. From Turkish perspective, there is not anything wrong with an indirect support to Georgian economy. Claims or expectation (supported by some in the bordering Turkish ‘vilayets’) that opening of the border will provide substantial economic benefits for Turkey cannot be correct. Armenian purchasing power is very low and it does not have much to sell to Turkey. The following World Bank figures give an idea about the size of the potential comparative benefits: In 2010. Per capita income in Armenia was about $3.000 for a population of 2.600.000, while for Azerbaijan it is $10.600 for a population over 9 million. Turkish enterprises are well established in Azerbaijan, but for them Armenia is a hostile territory.
    • For Armenia the problem is more than closed land border: By occupying Karabagh and adjoining Azerbaijan territories and refusing anything less than annexation Armenia kept itself out of the Caucasian economic and political integration. For this mistake and lost opportunities nobody but itself is to be blamed. Oil and gas export routes which pass now through Georgia could have more easily and economically pass through Armenia, providing a non-negligible income. Although it receives substantial foreign aid from the USA, EU and its Diaspora, aid cannot replace the domestic productivity, particularly for a land-locked country without rich natural resources. The so-called “Turkish threat” is non-existent. Can anyone show a credible reason why Turkey would want to destroy Armenia? That “threat” is no more than a pretext for rapprochement and military alliance with Russia, in order to get Russian support to keep under occupation the territory of a neighbor, regardless of additional burdens for its political standing and economy. Turkey is in no way responsible for the ultra nationalistic Armenian policies and has no obligation, politically and morally, to make one-sided concessions unless Armenia behaves as a normal state and neighbor. It can get the support of the Christian countries for allegations of genocide but this and similar policies cannot have much beneficial effect on the living standards of its people.

     

    We do not believe that on issues of moral responsibility Turkey needs the advice of Prof. Phillips, but he may try to be helpful to his own government, for example concerning the Middle East.

     

    Ali Hikmet Alp, Former ambassador of Turkey to OSCE

    https://www.zoominfo.com/people/Ali/Alp

     


    [1] Title of an article by David L.Phillips, Director of Institute, Columbia University, posted in the Turkish Forum English on 27 March 2013.

  • Turkey wants end to Canada’s genocide stance

    Turkey wants end to Canada’s genocide stance

    Turkey’s ambassador to Canada says the Harper government’s decision to brand the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide may be hindering a potentially lucrative trading relationship.

    hi-852-turkey-genocide-france

    Turks demonstrate outside the French Embassy in Ankara in January 2012. Relations between Turkey and France turned cold when a bill was passed making illegal to deny the Armenian genocide. The bill was later ruled unconstitutional. (Burhan Ozbilici/Canadian Press)

    Ambassador Tuncay Babali made clear in a wide ranging interview with The Canadian Press that Canada’s position on the First World War-era slaughter of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians still carries a sting for his country.

    ‘[Genocide is] a serious allegation. It needs to be substantiated, legally, historically.’

    —Turkish Ambassador Tuncay Babali

    But that doesn’t mean Turkey doesn’t want to press on with forging a deeper economic relationship with Canada, ideally a free trade agreement to complement the current Canada-EU free trade talks once they are completed, he said.

    “I’m a true believer in the potential of our two nations. Canada has a lot to offer Turkey and Turkey in return has a lot to offer Canada,” said Babali, noting that Canada’s internal Foreign Policy Plan has identified Turkey as a key country of focus.

    “It cannot be business as usual while accusing a nation of genocide. It’s a serious allegation. It needs to be substantiated, legally, historically.”

    Babali said he suspects Canada is not engaging as quickly as Turkey would like because the genocide issue is still hanging over relations.

    “There is a pacing issue here,” he said. “We want results. We want action. We want concrete steps forward. Talking about positive things is OK, but it takes two to tango.”

    The $2.5 billion in two-way trade between countries “is far from the potential” of what Turkey predicts would result from deeper economic ties: $10 billion to $15 billion within five years, he said.

    He said Turkey would like to open free trade talks with Canada.

    Mending fences

    But on the genocide question, Babali said Turkey would like to see a gesture from Canada that the government is “trying to leave this behind us.”

    Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird cancelled a planned trip to Turkey in November. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

    A significant gesture would be a “high level” visit by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird to Turkey. Baird cancelled a planned trip in November, Babali said, because of an important cabinet meeting in Ottawa.

    Babali was also encourged by Baird’s plans to travel to the West Bank on the weekend to discuss future Canadian aid contributions to the Palestinian Authority.

    He suggested Canada can do more in the Middle East peace process, even though Turkey is well aware of Ottawa’s strong support of Israel.

    “I think aid is important. To keep the channels open. You have to hear both sides. Canada has leverage that can play in those issues as well. It should be used in a stronger way.”

    Babali praised the efforts of Baird for mending fences with Turkey, including the personal friendship he has forged with his counterpart, Ahmet Davutolu, who visited Canada this past September.

    “If there is a political will from the Canadian side to move forward and improve our relations further, to live up to the promise and potential, we need concrete steps,” he said

    Ankara angered

    Canada’s Parliament voted in 2004 to recognize the events of 1915 to 1923 as a genocide carried out by Ottoman Turks during the Armenian uprising.

    The Harper government formally adopted that position after winning power, a decision that angered Ankara and sparked the temporary withdrawal of its ambassador from Ottawa.

    Turkey has lobbied hard internationally to block the genocide designation, although many other countries have used the term.

    In 2010, when the U.S. Congress abandoned a plan to declare the killings a genocide, Davutolu said ties could have been harmed between the two countries had “common sense” not prevailed.

    Last year, when France passed a law that would make it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide, Turkey responded by suspending military, economic and political ties. The French bill was later ruled unconstitutional.

    Ottawa last year unveiled a monument in honour of fallen Turkish diplomat Col. Atilla Altikat, who was assassinated in 1982. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

    Last summer, Canada took steps to heal the rift with Turkey. It unveiled a cone-shaped metal-and-wood monument dedicated to Col. Atilla Altikat, the country’s military attache gunned down in Ottawa, allegedly by Armenian terrorists, 30 years earlier.

    That appeared to go a long way toward bridging the gap between the two countries, both NATO allies.

    Babali reiterated what Davutolu said during his visit — that Turkey would like to strike a joint commission with Armenians to discuss the historical facts surrounding the issue.

    During the visit, Baird did not back away from his government’s earlier position, but said he appreciated the sensitivities at play.

    Babali said Turkey wants deeper economic ties with Canada, and it appears the country is open for business despite any bitterness over the Armenia policy.

    In the next 10 years, Turkey will launch 150 infrastructure projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars, many in the transportation sector. Babali cited Bombardier Inc. and SNC-Lavalin as potential investors.

    He also said there are also opportunities for Canadian companies in his country’s developing nuclear energy program and in shale gas exploration.

    via Turkey wants end to Canada’s genocide stance – World – CBC News.