Turkish Forum

Category: Turkey

  • Erdoğan is on a lonely path to ruin. Will he take Turkey down with him?

    Erdoğan is on a lonely path to ruin. Will he take Turkey down with him?

    The Observer

    Simon Tisdall

    At odds with the US, Europe, his Arab neighbours and potentially Russia, too, the president is also increasingly unpopular at home
    Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addresses his supporters at a ceremony marking the third anniversary of the attempted coup. Photograph: Murad Sezer/Reuters

    For a reputed “strongman”, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seems unusually nervous these days. A bombastic speech last week marking the third anniversary of a failed military putsch could not conceal his insecurity. He says he is using his sweeping powers as executive president to build a “new Turkey”. But it appears the old one is tiring of him fast.

    “The 15th of July was an attempt to subject our nation to slavery,” Erdoğan declared. “But as much as we will never stop protecting our freedom and our future, those who lay traps for us will never cease their efforts.” It was a typical pitch, blending nationalism with scare stories of secret foes, foreign and domestic.

    Erdoğan remains convinced his enemies are out to get him – and in the manner of all dictators, conflates his personal prospects with those of the state. The latest villains in this self-centred drama are the country’s American and European allies who, as he tells it, seek to subjugate both him and the proudly rising Turkish nation. But freedom is a fungible concept in Erdoğan’s Turkey. Tens of thousands of supposed plotters have been jailed pending trial since 2016. More than 100,000 public sector workers have been suspended or sacked. Another purge preceded the coup anniversary, with more than 200 military personnel and civilians accused of treason.

    Particular concern is focused on Turkey’s justice system. Britain’s Law Society, citing the “widespread and systematic persecution of members of the legal profession”, has reported Turkey to the UN human rights council. Journalists have suffered similar intimidation. Most Turkish media now tamely toe the government line.

    Erdoğan has good cause to worry – but the real reason may be simpler: he has made a dreadful hash of things. During 16 consecutive years in power, Turkey’s modern caliph has driven the economy into chronic debt, played regional power-broker with chaotic results, and scapegoated the Kurds for his failures. Now the bill is coming due.

    Turkey remains in recession following last year’s calamitous currency crisis, amid fears a new financial crunch is imminent. Unemployment and inflation are high and business is slack. Erdoğan’s sacking last week of the central bank governor was seen as a sign he will persist with his discredited strategy of spurring growth with borrowed money.

    For the first time in years, his political grip is threatened. Erdoğan’s ruling AKP suffered local election losses in five of the six largest cities in March. He was humiliated again last month in Istanbul’s re-run mayoral election. And his monopoly on power makes it harder to shift responsibility to others.

    External affairs is another disaster area. Scoring a spectacular double last week, Erdoğan fell out with both the US and the EU in the space of a few days. In Washington’s case, the row was over Nato member Turkey’s decision to buy a Russian ground-to-air missile system. Some analysts suggest Erdoğan wanted to demonstrate Turkey’s independence. Others put it down to paranoia. He reportedly still suspects Washington of tacitly supporting the coup and protecting its US-based alleged leader, Fethullah Gülen.

    Whatever his motives, the missile purchase led the US to cancel a sale of F-35 jets and threaten more sanctions. The cost to the Turkish defence industry, which would have made some aircraft components, is put at $9bn. Bigger still, potentially, is the cost to Nato. The foreign ministry in Ankara warned on Wednesday of “irreparable damage”.

    Erdoğan’s always tense relations with the EU, strained by the Syrian refugee crisis, underwent a simultaneous rupture. After Ankara ignored Cypriot warnings not to drill for oil and gas in eastern Mediterranean waters that Nicosia claims as its own, EU foreign ministers imposed yet more sanctions.

    The notoriously combative Erdoğan has fallen out with many regional neighbours over the years, including Syria, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Greece. To break with the US and Europe in the same week is some achievement, even by his choleric standards. Yet Erdoğan supporters claim it’s part of a deliberate plan to boost Turkey’s independent standing in the world.

    On this analysis, Erdoğan’s cosying up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin puts the US on notice that Turkey has strategic alternatives. It could help the economy, which needs Russian trade and tourism. And it suits Ankara’s policy in Syria where, despite being on opposite sides, Turkey has collaborated with Russia and Iran.

    But this apparent tilt towards Moscow may yet prove another big miscalculation. Erdoğan says he wants to stay friends with the US and be part of Nato – but has sowed grave doubts about his dependability. Meanwhile, Russian and Syrian regime forces have begun an offensive against rebels and Islamists in Idlib, Aleppo and Hama provinces, in north-west Syria. The offensive contravenes a ceasefire agreed with Erdoğan last September that set up a demilitarised zone inside Syria overseen by Turkey. Its forces were attacked in two separate incidents in May. Fighting in Idlib has since intensified amid renewed civilian atrocities.

    Russia and Syria aim to finally bring the civil war to an end by storming the last rebel areas. Erdoğan’s aim is to extend Turkish-controlled “safe areas” eastwards along the Turkey-Syria border in order to hold Kurdish “terrorists” at bay – and prevent another refugee exodus. These aims look increasingly incompatible.

    At odds with the US, Europe, his Arab neighbours and potentially Russia, too, and increasingly unpopular at home, no-mates Erdoğan is treading a lonely, destructive path towards a strategic and political dead end. The looming question is whether he will take Turkey down with him.

  • The Global Map of All Nuclear Explosions Conducted From 1945 to 2019

    The Global Map of All Nuclear Explosions Conducted From 1945 to 2019

    There have been over 2 thousand nuclear explosion sites registered worldwide ever since the first nuclear missile had been tested on July 16, 1945 at the White Sands Missile Range in the New Mexico desert, United States. Despite several attempts of establishing a worldwide ban on nuclear testing on a global scale due to the devastating environmental and health effects these cause, several countries continue carrying out nuclear testing, with one of the largest tests in North Korea having been executed as recently as 2017. This series of 3D maps will help you visualize every known nuclear explosion since 1945 in the form of colored points of light illuminating the surrounding location and provides a brief outline of nuclear explosions in each distinct area. These maps were created by Peter Artwood,

    The Global Map of All Nuclear Explosions Conducted From 1945 to 2019

          The map above shows all the nuclear explosions carried out since 1945 on a global scale. Each point of color in the map signifies an explosion and is color-coordinated with a specific country that conducted it. On a global scale, the only continents where no nuclear explosions had occurred were South America and Antarctica.

    The USSR

      Source: Peter Artwood The Soviet Union was one of the two leading countries that conducted nuclear experiments, the second one being the United States. These experiments were conducted on 2 major sites: the Semipalatinsk Test Site in modern-day Kazakhstan and the Novaya Zemlya site in Russia. Official data reports mention a total of 715 tests and 13 test failures involving 969 devices being conducted in the USSR between 1949 and 1991. Above, you can see the map of the Semipalatinsk site, the first nuclear site in the USSR located in the Kazakh steppes that accepted 456 tests. With Kazakhstan having become independent in 1991, the venue was transformed into a site for scientific observations exploring the long-term environmental effects of nuclear exposure.

      Source: Peter Artwood As for the Novaya Zemlya venue located in the Arctic (see image below), 224 tests, only half the number compared to Semipalatinsk, occurred there. However, the site accepted the largest thermonuclear weapon in the world in 1961, the Tsar Bomba that had a yield of 50 megatons. For comparison, the Fat Man dropped on Hiroshima was over 2,000 times less powerful than the Tsar Bomba.

    The United States

      Source: Peter Artwood As part of the nuclear arms race, the United States had conducted 1.054 tests, including some that were carried out in the water and in space between 1945 and 1992. As mentioned previously, the first ever atomic weapon, the Trinity, was tested in the New Mexico desert as part of the Manhattan Project, but the largest nuclear testing venue in the United States is located in the Nevada desert, only 80 mi (130 km) away from Las Vegas. A total of 928 tests were conducted there between 1951 and 1992, making it the place on the planet that suffered the greatest number of nuclear explosions to date. Not all nuclear tests conducted by the US took place there, however, as some particularly large ones would just be too dangerous.

    Source: Peter Artwood So, instead, these were done on the Marshall Islands in the South Pacific, an area that would be called the Pacific Proving Ground. 106 nuclear tests were conducted across numerous island chains there, including the test of Castle Bravo, the largest American nuclear bomb that had a yield of 15 megatons in 1954.

    France

      Source: Peter Artwood The third country in the world that conducted the largest number of nuclear experiments between 1960 and 1996 was France, but it didn’t do it in Europe. Instead, the French used its colonies, such as French Polynesia in the South Pacific and Algeria in North Africa to test its 217 nuclear devices.

    The United Kingdom

      Source: Peter Artwood Like France, the United Kingdom conducted its nuclear tests beyond its borders, with a total of 24 tests having been conducted at the Nevada Test Site in collaboration with the United States, and another 21 carried out independently in Australia. The UK was the third country to develop nuclear weapons after the US and the USSR. The Australian tests were conducted in remote places like Maralinga in South Australia, Kiritimati in the Pacific and others between the years 1952 and 1957.

    India and Pakistan

      Source: Peter Artwood Areas adjacent to the border between India and Pakistan are considered some of the most dangerous and polluted nuclear sites, partly because both are quite densely populated. Both India and Pakistan have conducted 6 nuclear tests each during the 1990s, but these tests have affected the population and environment of both countries very significantly.

    China

      Source: Peter Artwood As for China, it carried out 45 tests in Northern China at the Lop Nur facility. These tests carried on between 1964 and 1996. About half of these tests were conducted underground, whereas the rest were atmospheric tests.

    North Korea

      Source: Peter Artwood

    Since the 1990’s, the majority of countries have seized to test nuclear weapons. One exception is North Korea: it conducted the first nuclear test in 2006, which was then followed up by 5 subsequent tests, all underground, at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site. The last and simultaneously largest test was done in 2017.

    The environmental and health effects of all these nuclear tests have affected the adjacent areas and local population adversely. We still don’t understand how these explosions will affect the Earth and humans in the long term, but spikes of health issues, sudden deaths, and devastating environmental damage are already apparent around all of these testing sites. If you’d like to see a different approach to visualizing the timeline of nuclear explosions, click the play button on the video below.

  • “Who Lost Turkey?”

    “Who Lost Turkey?”

    SevilKaplun <skaplun>  Posts by Graham E. Fuller:

    “Who Lost Turkey?”

    August 6, 2019by Graham E. Fuller • Blog • Tags: Eurasia, Iran, NATO, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, US foreign policy •

    “Who Lost Turkey?”

    Graham E. Fuller (grahamefuller.com

    5 August 2019

    Here we go again, another phase of witch-hunting over “Who lost —-(fill in the blanks) country.” It was once who lost China in 1949, then Cuba in 1959, then Iran in 1979, and others. The latest iteration is now “Who lost Turkey?”

    This question classically pops up whenever a country we thought was firmly locked into the “American camp” suddenly turns against us. Washington policy makers indeed seem to believe that, among rational nations, strategic allegiance with the US is in the natural order of things. Any defection from such an alliance is not supposed to happen, and if it ever does, “who is to blame?” How could Turkey, long a “trusted US and NATO ally,” ever develop good working ties with Russia, work in tandem with Iran, or engage with China’s new Eurasian vision?

    Ankara’s actions actually make a good bit more sense if we take a broader perspective as to what Turkey has been all about over the last two or three decades.

    In simplest terms, over time Turkey has increasingly struck out on its own path in full exercise of its sovereignty. During the Cold War, Turkey was deemed a “loyal” if prickly NATO ally. For Turkey the preeminent geopolitical fact was that it bordered on the Soviet Union; Russia after all had engaged in centuries of confrontation and war with the Turkish Ottoman Empire. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 new independent states—Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan— sprung up in this former Soviet space—right along Turkey’s eastern borders. Turkey suddenly no longer even bordered on Russia any more—a huge geopolitical shift.

    At the same time, with the end of the Cold War Turks were able to start thinking of their position in the world in quite new terms. Turkey no longer saw itself as America and NATO did—as primarily a strategic eastern outpost of a Western strategic, NATO-oriented terrain. For Ankara the very meaning and purpose of NATO fell into question.

    Indeed, I would argue—and in this I will be fiercely attacked by the US foreign policy establishment—that with the end of the Soviet communist empire, NATO quickly began to lose strategic relevance. (NATO of course remains fiercely defended by Washington since it has long represented the key instrument of the US foreign policy grip on Europe—often called “the Atlantic alliance.”) But with the end of communism and the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe’s identity is far less “Atlantic” than Washington would have it. Europe is now Europe, increasingly seeking greater freedom from the East-West squeeze of the US-Russian rivalry. Europe more than ever savors its own growing independence of vision, its own interpretation of its own strategic interests apart from being an instrument in the US geopolitical tool-bag. Indeed, Europe now slowly feels itself ever more part of a Eurasian space than an Atlantic one. Moscow is far closer than New York.

    No doubt, Trump’s crude and insulting policy style has hastened the recrudescence of this new, more independent European identity. But it would be exceptionally short-sighted to attribute this major geopolitical trend in Europe to Trump. With the end of the Cold War, the process of greater European independence was inevitable and was already starting to evolve long before Trump. But the Washington foreign policy establishment, often in denial about geopolitical global shifts, might now well ask “who lost Europe?”

    Along similar lines, Turkey too began to re-envision itself more in the historical geopolitical perspectives of the previous Turkish Ottoman Empire—an empire whose rule and influence extended politically or culturally in one way or another from Central Asian across the Middle East and into North Africa and up into the Balkans and even down into East Africa. Perhaps most importantly of all, however, the Ottoman Empire represented the very heart and seat of Sunni Islam. (This is one of the many issues over which Saudi Arabia—that cannot remotely even pretend to be a political, cultural, industrial, or even military rival to Turkey—still seethes.)

    One look at political and cultural maps of the world makes it clear how much Turkey indeed is fundamentally Eurasian; its interests in Europe represent only the western wing of Turkey’s cultural wing-span, but is not even most defining wing of the Turkish geopolitical and cultural entity. Turkish foreign policy under Erdogan may have been overly ambitious in too quickly projecting itself as the dominant Sunni power in the Middle East, but arguably it is. But for Ankara the uprising in Syria in 2012 was the turning point, when Erdogan began to fumble what had been a boldly independent vision of Turkish foreign policy. [See my book “Turkey and the Arab Spring” for a deeper analysis of Turkish identity and political culture.] But Erdogan’s Syrian adventure in 2012 actually represented a major aberration from his earlier pioneering “Good Neighbor” polices and Turkey’s public embrace of it own long-suppressed Islamic identity. Bad decisions on Syria caused Turkey to lose its once firm foreign policy bearings, and it’s still not over. But Ankara is already slowly trying to recover its former foreign policy vision—as a de facto Eurasian and Islamic force.

    And Ankara’s about-face in relations with Russia? Turkey is well familiar with Russia as a significant actor in the Middle East and Levant going back hundreds of years to Tsarist times. But as of 1991 Russia ceased being an expansionist empire on Turkey’s borders. And as the US worked to push NATO provocatively right up to Russia’s very doorstep, Russia increasingly shares with China the goal of stymying US failing efforts to maintain its old role of global hegemon. China itself of course has meanwhile creatively reimagined this Eurasian space with its visionary project of the One Belt One Road trans-Eurasian trade and transportation hub.

    Can anyone really imagine that under these dramatic new twenty-first century realities Turkey would not involve itself heavily in this process? Indeed, does NATO mean much of anything at all any more to Turkey (or even to many European states like France or Germany) except as a useful instrument for handling its relations with the US and Europe? Nominal Turkish membership in NATO does ironically provide Turkey with a useful counterweight that lends it greater clout in its dealings with Russia and China.

    In Ankara’s view then, it has little to lose, at least in terms of its own security, in severely downgrading—even if not abandoning—NATO ties through purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missile systems. As part of its dual east-west identity, it knows it would be foolish to cut all ties with the West —especially economically—just as it would be foolish to reorient itself totally to the West and turn its back on this powerful developing Eurasian project of the future.

    Finally, given the US foreign policy record in the Middle East—a record of serial mistakes, miscalculations, wars and disasters, still not yet over— it would be unreal for Turkey to still wish to identify itself with such US “leadership.” Furthermore, US policy towards Iran—a neighbor of huge importance to Turkey—has been irrational ever since the devastating fall of the Shah of Iran, America’s great ally, in 1979. Iran too is proud, stubborn and nationalistic in its dealings, but Turkey knows it is destined to work with Iran on a realistic basis on key regional issues—as occasional rivals as well as sharing common interests. Despite periodic tensions,Turkey and Iran—the only two historically rooted, advanced, truly independent cultural and state powers and societies in the region—have not been at war with each other for many centuries. Ankara certainly has no desire or incentive to follow the US lead in challenging Iran in what would become a very messy affair. Even less would Ankara want to align itself with the extremist, intolerant and xenophobic form of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Islam that has sought, with some worrisome success, to buy Sunni leadership for itself around the Muslim world to promote Wahhabism.

    Russia is well aware of the prickly nationalist nature of Ankara’s and Tehran’s leadership in these two heavy-weight quasi-democratic states. Moscow has so far skillfully managed its relations with both states rather effectively; Washington has managed neither set of relations effectively.

    After Erdogan’s brilliant decade of AKP leadership in his first decade, regrettably we have seen him lurch, starting sometime around 2013, towards a repressive and vindictive form of one-man rule; this has now made Turkey’s foreign (not to mention domestic) policies quite erratic and shaky. Yet for all the present ugliness and intolerance of the present state of the Turkish government, it still technically qualifies as a democracy, albeit a highly illiberal and repressive one. Real elections are held, and the results do matter. His skillful foreign minister over many years, Ahmet Davutoglu, who was the key intellectual and diplomatic architect of the new “Eurasian Turkey,” now seems to be reemerging on the political scene, this time as a political rival to Erdogan.

    So no one in Washington has “lost” Turkey, the process has been the product of myriad new geopolitical forces. Turks furthermore find it demeaning to be regarded by Washington as a property to be “kept” or “lost,” or to accept the assumption that Ankara’s default character should be as an American “ally.” Turkey will likely be nobody’s “ally”—Russia take note. Present Turkish risk-taking with its purchase of Russian missiles and its voicing of claims to energy reserves in the Mediterranean around Cyprus reflects a risky effort by Erdogan to shift attention away from domestic problems to foreign initiatives. And Turkey will be no friend to Israel.

    It would be a grievous mistake to assume that when a new Turkish leadership emerges, that it will revert to the old status of “ally” whose pliability the West had long relied upon. Any new leader at the outset may seek to mend a few fences here and there with the West, but will surely continue to pursue what Turkey sees as its expanded geopolitical destiny that includes deep engagement in Eurasia.

    Graham E. Fuller is a former senior CIA official, author of numerous books on the Muslim World; his first novel is “Breaking Faith: A novel of espionage and an American’s crisis of conscience in Pakistan”; his second novel is BEAR—a novel of eco-violence in the Canadian Northwest. (Amazon, Kindle) grahamefuller.com

  • ATAA 40th Year Anniversary Conference, Oct. 5 -Speakers: Prof. Emre Kongar, Dr. Yalcin Ayasli, Hon. Ed Whitfield

    ATAA 40th Year Anniversary Conference, Oct. 5 -Speakers: Prof. Emre Kongar, Dr. Yalcin Ayasli, Hon. Ed Whitfield

    Mazlum Kosma [mazkosma @hotmail.com]

    From: ATAA <assembly@assembly-of-turkish-american-association.ccsend.com> on behalf of ATAA <assembly@ataa.org>

    Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Turkish Independence Movement

    Gray Follow us on:
    6003 Tower Ct., Alexandria, VA 22304 | 202.483.9090 | 202.483.9092 fx | www.ataa.org
    Community Information Service September 13, 2019 | #1149
    PROGRAM | SPONSORSHIP & ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES | REGISTRATION
    The Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) will hold its 40th Year Anniversary Conference on October 5, 2019 at the Westin Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, VA.

    In celebration of the 100th anniversary of Atatürk’s historic landing in Samsun, the 40th Year Anniversary Conference will bring together ATAA members, Turkish Americans, community leaders, and scholars from across the nation and Turkey to highlight the importance of the May 19, 1919, which marked the beginning of the Turkish Independence War, and to plan ATAA’s future course for the next forty years to continue to serve the interests of Turkish Americans.

    The Conference will conclude with the 40th Year Anniversary Gala dinner and awards ceremony.

    Since its founding in 1979, the ATAA has made remarkable strides in representing the interest of Turkish Americans, Turkish culture and heritage in USA. Past 40 years, ATAA fought effectively against the efforts of hostile ethnic groups to distort our history and defame Turks and Turkey. ATAA has successfully empowered Turkish-American Community and member Turkish American associations through civic engagement and has supported strong U.S. – Turkey relations through education and advocacy. As the largest independent umbrella organization representing Turkish Americans and over 50 local member associations, the ATAA shall continue to further its mission based on Atatürk’s principles of secular democracy, rule of law and human rights.
    PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

    Atatürk: The War of Independence and the Creation of the New Turkey

    The Impact of Turkish National Movement on 20th Century Politics

    Independence War, Turks in the US, Politics Effecting Turks

    40 Years of ATAA’s Accomplishment
    Bright Future Turkish Language and Culture Project
    Turkish American Associations: Bringing Together the Community

    SPEAKERS & PANELISTS

    AMB. (RET.) DR. SUKRU ELEKDAG (video message)
    Former Turkish Ambassador to the United States

    PROF. EMRE KONGAR

    Professor of Sociology,
    Writer and Former Turkish Undersecretary of Culture

    DR. YALCIN AYASLI

    Founder and Chairman,
    Turkish Coalition of America

    HON. ED WHITFIELD

    US House of
    Representatives (1995-2016)

    PROF. JUSTIN A. MCCARTHY

    University of Louisville

    DR. ISIL ACEHAN

    Visiting Scholar

    George Mason University

    ASSOC. PROF. EMINE EVERED

    Michigan State University

    PROF. GEORGE GAWRYCH

    Baylor University

    PROF. PAUL KUBICEK

    Oakland University
    SPONSORED BY
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    The conference program is subject to change and will be

    updated continuously up to the conference. Please refer to

    the ATAA website for updates: www.ataa.org

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    ONLINE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION     For questions and more information, please contact ATAA office at 202.483.9090, events
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    BOOK YOUR HOTEL RESERVATION TODAY!
    DISCOUNTED RATES AVAILABLE

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    HOTEL INFORMATION

    Just minutes from Washington D.C., the Westin Crystal City boasts convenient access to the area via the adjacent Crystal City Metro Station. Nearby are popular museums and monuments, and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) is a mile away.

    Special Room Rates available until September 16!

    ATAA has negotiated discounted hotel rate available only to 40th Year Anniversary Conference attendees. Reservations must be made until September 16, to guarantee discounted conference rate of $119 per room per night. After that date, room blocks will be released and rooms and rates will be based on availability.

    For online room reservations, please click the button below:

    329e25b8-d384-4c3c-9736-fe5dfd2c8471.png?ver=1487283424000

    For reservations by phone, please call
    703-486-1111 and use code AT1428.

    dde4d646-6590-4aac-bd55-247686e4f32f.jpg?ver=1566976550000

    The Westin Crystal City

    1800 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202
    703-486-1111 | 800-937-8461
    ATAA, representing over 50 local chapters and 500,000 Turkish Americans throughout the United States, serves locally in Washington metropolitan area to empower the Turkish American community through civic engagement, and to support strong U.S.-Turkey relations through education and advocacy. Recognizing the importance of enhanced U.S.-Turkey relations to regional peace and security, ATAA works on creating a better understanding about the U.S. – Turkey partnership and the potential and challenges Turkey faces, with programs directed at decision makers, opinion leaders and the general public.
    © Entire contents copyright 2019 by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. All rights reserved.

    This article may be reprinted without the permission of ATAA and free of charge under the conditions that the entirety of the article is printed without alteration to text, art or graphics, the title of the reprinted or republished version attributes the article to ATAA, and the ATAA website link is included in the reprinted or republished version.
    S.gif
    Assembly of Turkish American Associations, 6003 Tower Ct., Alexandria, VA 22304
    Sent by assembly
    		S.gif
  • US court denies parole request for murderer of Turkish envoy

    US court denies parole request for murderer of Turkish envoy

    Betula Nelson (betneluk @yahoo.co.uk)

    • August 01 2019 14:19:07
    ANKARA

    A U.S. court has denied a parole request of a Lebanese-Armenian convict who murdered a Turkish diplomat in the 1980s.

    The California Board of Parole Hearings on June 29 denied Hampig ‘Harry’ Sassounian’s request for release on parole from San Quentin State Prison, where his is serving a life sentence for the 1982 murder of Los Angeles Consul General Kemal Arıkan.

    The board’s decision came on the grounds that Sassounian “constitutes a security risk,” according to lawyer Günay Evinç, the co-chairman of the Turkish American National Steering Committee (TASC).

    TASC had previously launched a petition campaign, urging the denial of Sassounian’s request for conditional release.

    Over 1,000 letters were sent to the board concerning the petition. The letters played a role in the court’s decision, according to Evinç.

    On Jan. 28, 1982, Sassounian assassinated Arıkan as the consul general sat in his car at an intersection on Los Angeles, waiting at a traffic signal.

    Sassounian belonged to the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), which operated from the beginning of the 1970s until the 1990s and targeted Turkish diplomats in the United States and European countries.

    Four similar parole requests were denied in 2006, 2010, 2013 and 2015. Nevertheless, in 2016, his request for conditional release was granted by a court in Los Angeles. Later, the decision was overturned by Jerry Brown, the governor of California.

    The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) terrorist group killed 31 Turkish diplomats across the world between 1973 and 1986. The assassinations took place in the United States, Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Lebanon, Greece, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, Portugal, Iran and the United Kingdom.

  • Atatürk’s Prophesies: Why Douglas MacArthur Believed in them too?

    Atatürk’s Prophesies: Why Douglas MacArthur Believed in them too?

    • By Ataturk Society of America
    • On October 23, 2003

    Prof. E.  Mahmut Esat Ozan, Turkish Forum Advisory Board (Uçmaya çıkali 10 sene oldu )

    bir soguk savas propagandasi olarak ataturk macarthur gorusmesi 619116 5

    It was on November 24, 1935 that Mustafa Kemal, the first president of the young Turkish Republic, was given the name of ATATÜRK by the Grand National Assembly. He had led his people through war into self-government and finally into an entirely new way of life. He had been their teacher, adviser, as well as the father of the entire nation, since the word “Ata” in Turkish means just that.

    That same year a young American General, called Douglas MacArthur, came from thousands of miles away to pay homage to his idol, the great Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who had started to use his official name of Atatürk a short time earlier.

    General MacArthur visited Atatürk and had long conversations with him concerning the gathering clouds of war in Europe. In one of these conversations, Atatürk said: “The Versailles peace settlement will not end the reasons that started the World War. It has deepened the gap between nations, for there were centuries that imposed peace and forced the stipulations upon those who were defeated. Versailles was settled under the influence of hatred and was an expression of revenge. It went beyond the meaning of an armistice. If you Americans had decided not to be involved in European events and had followed up President Wilson’s suggestions, this period would have been longer, but the result of the settlement would have been peace. Just as the period of settlement would have been longer, the hatred and revenge would have been lessened and lasting peace would have been possible.” [Editor’s note: The Americans were indeed involved with the War after 1916, but after the War the public opinion in the U.S. changed. The Senate did not ratify the Versailles Treaty. America minded its own business. The Wilson principles were distorted by the British and the French to suit their own purposes, which of course sawed the seeds of World War II] Atatürk continued to prophesy: “To my understanding, just as it happened yesterday, the future of Europe will be dependent upon Germany. That nation is dynamic and disciplined. If Germany unites, it will seek to shake off the yoke of the Versailles Treaty. Germany, Russia, and England will have a strong army to conquer Europe. The next war will come from 1940 to 1945. France has lost the spirit of creating a powerful army, and therefore, England will not depend upon France to protect herself. France will no longer be a buffer state. “Italy will improve, somewhat, under Mussolini. He will first try to avoid war, if he can. But I fear that he will try to play the role of Caesar and it will prove to the World that Italy cannot produce a powerful army yet.”

    “America will not be able to avoid war and Germany will be defeated only through her interference. If authorities in Europe do not get together on the basis of controversies of political contacts and try to placate their own hatreds and interests, it will be tragic.”

    “The Troubles of England, France, and Germany will not come first or be of primary importance. Something new from the East of Europe has come up that will take primary place of importance. This new threat will spend whatever is available in its resources for international revolution. This power will utilize new political methods to achieve these goals. These methods are not known by Americans and Europeans and this power will try to make use of our small mistakes and the mistakes of Western nations.”

    “The victorious power after the war between 1940 and 1945 will not be England, France, or Germany, but Bolshevism. Being closest to Russia and having had many wars with her in the past, Turkey is watching Russia closely and sees the whole danger developing. Russia knows how to influence and awaken the minds of Eastern countries, and how to give them ideas of nationalism. Russia has encouraged hatred towards the West. Bolshevism is getting to be a power and a great threat to Europe and Asia.”

    After listening with great awe, General MacArthur replied to Atatürk, “I agree with you all the way. The political authorities of Western countries do not see the danger coming up. That bothers me too. By this we are pulled toward a war which would be fruitful to an entirely strange enemy. While Europe is busy in Europe, I am sure that enemy will spread to Asia too, the reason being Japan will try to fulfill her ambition to be the only great Asiatic power, while we are preoccupied in Europe. America cannot stay out of it. Whether we like it or not, Russia will try to enlarge her influence in Asia. If our political leaders will have understanding, they will not let Russia become our ally. That will cost considerable loss of land. Russia will get a big slice of Asia. Instead we should have her land, O.K.,… otherwise we will be helping a new danger. Any war we go into therefore, with Russia on our side, will not put an end to the European situation nor the Asiatic troubles (Perhaps MacArthur thought that Russia would receive war reparations in Asia rather than in the European continent.)

    General MacArthur also touched on other matters relating to a possible gain of communism in China and Manchuria. He also reiterated that the future of the World would be decided in Asia and not in Europe.

    When the conversation ended, Atatürk smiled and said, “Our points of view are almost the same, but let us hope we see it all incorrectly and that the leaders of the other nations will come up with a better result for the whole World.”

    As we all know by now, Atatürk’s hope has not been realized. The savior of Turkey, the great Atatürk died, just before his predictions came true one after the other.

    M. Study Slater, the author of the book THE GOLDEN LINK [M. Study Slater, The Exposition Press, Inc. NY (1962)] from whose pages these prophesies were gleaned, says, “If we look at General MacArthur, the experience, and the last twenty or thirty years and the influence of Atatürk upon him will afford us a better opinion of why he insisted upon certain points and his decisive attitude during the Korean War.” We might add to that statement another reason why General MacArthur was so very laudatory about the courage of the Turkish Brigade fighting side by side, with the American GI’s there.”

    In a relatively short period of time, the dreaded predictions of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and of General Douglas MacArthur, began to take form. The author continues: Benito Mussolini threatened the Mediterranean, and the poor imitation of Caesar started to strut in Ethiopia and Albania. In Germany, Adolf Hitler, a former Austrian wallpaper hanger, was successfully organizing juvenile and adult delinquents into a Third Reich, while Japan swept into Pacific Islands and Southern Asia. Joseph Stalin gathered hungry peasants into a large army and sent an octopus-like network of espionage agents into every country of the world to convert the self-martyred into communism. Mustafa Kemal assigned his friend Ismet Inonu and Fevzi Cakmak to help in building Turkey’s defenses along the Asian border and the Caucasus steppes.

    Within Turkey Atatürk did not tolerate the Mullahs’ constant threats to revolt against the newly established secular republic. Most were imp-risoned, some executed, such as the fanatical religious reactionaries who butchered Lieutenant Kubilay in the city of Menemen near Izmir.

    Atatürk also chased back to the Soviet Union, the Kurds and the Armenians, who were undeniably Communism’s riot-inciting agents in Turkey. The European and American media of the time, quite reminiscent of our contemporary bleeding-heats, such as the Amnesty International and the Helsinki Watch Human Rights ‘brokers’ as I call them, thundered accusations at the terrible Turks for ‘persecuting’ these poor defenseless people. “Defenseless!” screamed Atatürk, “Their persecuted defenseless hypocrisy is just what makes them dangerous. Have the Americans forgotten their own revolution?”

    Mustafa Kemal Atatürk realized that his immortality was assured through the love of his people and his historic role in new democratic Turkey. However, consciousness of this fact did not at all change the conduct of his life. His first asset was his belief in society, and though he fought directly for the nation, he always indirectly fought for human kind, of which he was an excellent example.

    No Comments to “Atatürk’s Prophesies: Why Douglas MacArthur Believed in them too?”

     

    AZMI GURAN PROF EMERRITUS

    a.gee (a.gee@hispeed.ch)

    		 Member since 11/30/15
    AW: [Turkish Forum – E Turkiyeyiz Biz] ATATÜRK VE ABD GENEL KURMAY BASKANI D. MacARTHUR … ATA’NIN hayret verici siyasi kehanetleri – Turkish Forum (show original) 3:11 PM (5 hours ago)

     

    Ben bu yaziya 8.9.’19 tarihinde asagidaki cevapla vermistim:

     

    Bu yazyii ilk defa 1964 te Lord Kinross’sun Ataturk. The Rebirth of a Nation kitabinda s. 527 da okudum.  Lord Kinross referans olarak Cumhuriyet’in  8 kanunsani 1951 tarihli gazetesinde bulundugunu yaziyor. Gazete müdüriyatina yazdim. O zaman, daha bugün bilinen kopya makinalari icat edilmedigi icin, bana gazetede cikan makalenin resmini cekip gönderdiler. O resim hala bende duruyor. Yazi 1951 de Caucasus adli ingilizce mecmuada cikmis. Caucasus sonra piyasadan cekilmis, kaybolmus veya kapanmis. Bunun üzerine ’80 lerde Library of Congress’e yazdim, bana yazinin kopyasini gönderdiler.

    John F. Kennedy suikastindan sonra The Death of a President kitabini yazan amerikali tarihci William Manchaster American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964 adli kitabini yazdi, icinde Gen. MacArthur’un Istanbul ziyaretini yazmadigi gibi, Atatürk’ten bahsedilmiyordu bile.

    Norfalk’ta bulunan MacArthur Memorial Center’e yazip bu konusmanin metnini istedim, verdikleri cevapta böyle bir metnin kendilerinde bulunmadigi, yazinin Türkiye’den ciktigi cevabi verildi.

    Fakat US State Department Records’da Gen. MacArthur’un 29 eylül 1932 ziyareti tafsilatiyla yazili.

    Gen. MacArthur’un Dolmabahce’yi ziyaret ettigi ve Atatürk’le görüstügü hakikattir. Hatta, o günün resimlerle tesbiti mevcut oldugu gibi,  bu görüsmede zamanin Washington Türkiye sefiri Mehmet Münir Ertegün’ün büyük payi ve tesviki olmustur.

    Benim süphem Caucasus mecmuasinda bu yazi, 1951 gibi, neden bu kadar gec nesredildi. Atatürk 1938 de öldü, WW II 1945 te bitti. Hangi sebepten solayi Caucasus yaziyi bu kadar gec yazdi. Bunun cevabini bulamadim.

    George S. Harris.  Studies in Atatürk’s Turkey. Chapter VI. Cementing Turkish-American Relations: The Ambassadorship of Mehmet Münir Ertegün (1934-1944) yazisinda bu görüsmeden bahsediyor.

     

    Ben tarihci degilim, meslegim elektrik mühedisligi. Bütün yüksek tahsilimi WW II akabinde Almanya ve ’60 larda ABD de bitirdim ve o zamandan beri, askerlik devresi haricinde, bu iki kit’a üzerinde yasiyorum. Bütün malumatim, bilhassa amerikan arsivlerindendir, cünkü amerikan arsivlerinde hic bir muharririn, bizde yakin zamanda oldugu gibi, Ismet Inönü’yüde katarak, Atatürk’ü asagilayan, ona hakaret eden, adi, cirkin yazilara raslamadim.

    Hürmetlerimle

     

    Dr. Azmi Güran

    Ph.D.  Prof.Eng.

     

    Asagidaki link’te gösterilen Cumhuriyet gazetesinde cikan haberi bana gazete idaresi gönderdi ve bende duruyor

    Caucasus mecmuasinin, her ne kadar ingilizce nesredilmis olmasina ragmen, yazildigi gibi Almanya’da basildigini dogrudur.

    WW I ve WW II arasindaki gecen zaman tahlil edildiginde, Almanya haricinde, hic bir Avrupa devletlerinin silahlanmaya niyetli olmadigi görülür, cünkü WW I, 1914 senesine kadar yapilan harplerin en korkuncu harbi olmustur. Ilk defa motörlü vasitalar, alev makinalari, tayyare, tank ve ve bilhassa korkuncu zehirli gaz kullanildi. 1938 senesinde Avrupa gelecek büyük harbini kokusunu hissediyor, fekat gecirdigi felaketten dolayi, düsünmek bile istemiyordu.

    Atatürk öyle gelisigüzel insan degildi.  Prof. Celal Sengül onu tek bir kelime ile cok güzel izah etmistir: Akilli adamdi Atatürk. Her zeki adam akilli olamaz ama, her akilli adam zeki olur. Iste Atatürk böyle insandi. Adam 10 sene önce Osmanli devletinin sonunu görmüstü. 1932 senesinde, daha Hitler iktidara gelmeden, nasil oluyorda WW II dan bahsediyor. Dogru ise, Atatürk’ün kahin görüsüne hayret etmemek lazim.

     

     

     

    Von: eturkiy…@googlegroups.com <eturkiy…@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Temel Ersoy
    Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. September 2019 10:15
    An: eTurkiy…@googlegroups.com
    Betreff: Re: [Turkish Forum – E Turkiyeyiz Biz] ATATÜRK VE ABD GENEL KURMAY BASKANI D. MacARTHUR … ATA’NIN hayret verici siyasi kehanetleri – Turkish Forum

     

    https://www.birgun.net/haber/bir-soguk-savas-propagandasi-olarak-ataturk-macarthur-gorusmesi-266958

     

    On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:05 AM Turkish Forum – Dunya Turkleri Birligi <Turkishf…@turkishforum.com.tr> wrote:

    https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/2019/09/11/ataturk-ve-abd-genel-kurmay-baskani-d-mcarthur-atanin-ha-yret-verici-siyasi-kehanetleri/

    —image001 1