Category: EU Members

European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 17 Dec. 2004

  • Turkey’s new top general firm on secularism, nation-state, US ties, EU membership

    Turkey’s new top general firm on secularism, nation-state, US ties, EU membership

    General Ilker Basbug, new chief of the Turkish General Staff, says a pluralistic democracy requires the preservation of secularism. He considers Turkish-US relations “excellent” and calls for fair EU treatment of Ankara’s membership bid.

    By Ayhan Simsek for Southeast European Times — 01/09/08

    General Ilker Basbug became chief of the Turkish General Staff last week and gave a key speech to outline his views on secularism, the nation-state and globalisation.

    A months-long power struggle in Turkey between the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) government and secularists led by the military focused attention on the turnover of the military’s top position.

    Basbug, in a long-awaited address, expressed the military’s commitment to democracy and democratic principles but raised concern over the increasing Islamisation of society under the AKP.

    “Part of our society fears a new cultural identity and lifestyle in Turkey under the domination of religion emerging. These fears should be taken seriously,” Basbug said.

    Commander of the Turkish Land Forces in the past two years, he firmly advocates preservation of the secular, unitary character of the Turkish nation-state.

    “General Basbug took over the most difficult position at a most difficult time,” veteran liberal columnist Mehmet Ali Birand wrote in the daily Milliyet. Birand credits the general for possessing “outstanding qualifications” at such a time.

    According to Birand, Basbug is renowned for his deep knowledge of political-military issues and realism.

    During the handover ceremony, the scholarly Basbug cited philosopher Jurgen Habermas in emphasising the need to preserve the nation-state against the challenges of globalisation.

    Leading actors of globalisation try to strengthen their national structures to address the challenges of globalisation. We cannot ignore that this holds true for the United States and the European Union member-states as well, he stressed.

    Weighing the nationalism principle and Kurdish issue, Basbug signalled support for expanding cultural rights for Turkey’s ethnic Kurds but ruled out any move to confer “group rights”, which he said would undermine the nation-state structure.

    Like many top-ranking Turkish generals, Basbug has a NATO background. He served as chief of logistics and infrastructure at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, and as commander of the 1st Armoured Brigade in Istanbul.

    During his first address as the top Turkish commander last week, he described military relations with the United States as “excellent” and praised US help in countering the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Army. “Turkish-American relations are deeply rooted and built on common values,” he said.

    He had a message for the EU as well. Basbug called on Brussels to give Ankara the treatment enjoyed by other EU membership candidates.

    He pointed to the EU’s strategic needs and warned the 27-member bloc’s influence would end in the Balkans, falling short of the Caucasus and the Middle East, if it did not admit Turkey. Besides, he said, Turkey is the most powerful secular democracy in the region.

    This content was commissioned for SETimes.com

    Source: Southeast European Times, 01/09/08

  • Nobel Prize Funded from Baku

    Nobel Prize Funded from Baku

    I recently checked the Nobel Foundation Web Page and found nothing about our homeland, Azerbaijan, in connection to the world recognized Nobel Prize. Well, I complained. Here’s the letter I wrote and the result…

    “I recently saw the Nobel Foundation Web Page and the article about Alfred Nobel, benefactor of the Nobel Prize. The article is very well written except that it omits that Nobel acquired much of his wealth in Azerbaijan, specifically from oil fields in Baku at the turn of last century. This money is still being used to honor Nobel Laureates and their great contributions to modern society. Please contact me if I’m wrong, however I would really appreciate if additional material about the life of Nobel in Azerbaijan could be added to your Web Server.”

    The reply I received came from Hans Mehlin of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm who wrote, “You are correct. Especially Alfred’s brothers, [Robert and Ludwig] were involved in the oil business in Azerbaijan. We are planning to make extensive changes to the Server this summer. Plans are already being made to include this kind of information. Several relatives of the Nobel Family will be traveling to Azerbaijan this summer to visit places that relate to the Nobels. They will provide us with photos and text after the trip.”


    Adil Baguirov
    Northwestern Michigan University
    e-mail: (baguira@elmo.nmc.edu)
    April 30, 1996


    Editor: Azerbaijan International wrote about the relationship of the Nobel Prize to Azerbaijan (AI 2:3. Summer 1994). Alfred Nobel was the largest single shareholder in the Baku oil fields and factories owned by his brothers, Robert and Ludwig. When Alfred died in 1896, much of his legacy went to fund the Nobel Prize. Swedish historian, E. Bargengren, who had access to the Nobel family archives, insists that it was this “decision to allow withdrawal of Alfred’s money from Baku that became the decisive factor that enabled the Nobel Prizes to be established.” This year, 1996, commemorates 100 years since the Prize was established, although the first awards were designated in 1901.

    For the article and photos about Petrolea Park which surrounds the still existing beautiful stone structure of the Nobel Residence, visit our Web Site: ) Environmental Issue, Summer 1994.

    Source: www.azer.com

  • France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    Currently holding the EU Council Presidency, France, which assumes it as a duty to give human rights and democracy lessons to the world, is now being accused of genocide.

    Because of its role in the events that occurred between two tribes in 1994 and resulted in the death of 800 thousands of people, France is officially accused of genocide with a report declared by Rwandan government on August 5th 2008. In the report prepared by the Rwandan Investigatory Committee, it is mentioned that “The support of France had a political, military, diplomatic and logistical nature”.

    In the 500-pages report of the Commission, it is stated that France was aware of the genocide arrangements, took part in these arrangements, and played an active role in the murders. France is also being accused of providing intelligence, strategy and military support to the perpetrators of genocide, contributing to the determination of the list of people to be murdered, providing weapons, being directly involved in the killings. The commission suggests Rwandan government in its report that “Formal allegations against the French government should be submitted to the international institutions, legal action should be brought and 33 French political and military officials should be brought to trial”.

    The Investigatory Committee also makes heavy accusations against French soldiers who were on duty during the military operation carried out by France in June-August 1994 under the guise of “humanitarian assistance”. Rwandan Ministry of Justice tells in its statement on the issue that “French soldiers were also directly involved in the genocide, they killed Tutsis and those Hutus who had been blamed for hiding Tutsis, and they raped many Tutsi people who survived”. The Ministry of Justice emphasizes that “France’s great support for, decisiveness in and insistence on the murder policy in Rwanda prove that French military and political officials were accomplices in the execution and arrangement of Tutsi genocide in 1994”.

    Among the French officials who are being accused in the report are the President of the time Francois Mitterand, Prime Minister Eduard Balladur, Foreign Affairs Minister Alain Juppé, his former chief of staff Dominiques de Villepin, Elysee Secretary General Hubert Véedrine.

    As is known, the downing of the French airplane aboard which Rwandan and Burundian presidents were traveling in 1994, resulted in the incitement of massacres in Rwanda. It had been found out that the missiles used in the sabotage against the plane had come from the arsenal of the French army. All of the three French pilots had died in this sabotage.

    According to the United Nations, the genocide that resulted in the death of so many people in April-July 1994 had been “planned” for the annihilation of Tutsis by Hutus. In the statements made by the UN at different times, it was told that French companies had continued to supply weapons to this country even after the UN imposed arms embargo to Rwanda and that the UN had been warned about the massacres three months ago, but the initiatives for a resolution to be taken by the Security Council for tasking the UN troops in order to prevent any massacre had been hindered by France.

    Despite all these developments, French administration insistently continues to avoid making any explanation showing repentance. It is reported that in the course of the preparation of the report, France has been making efforts to prevent genocide allegations from getting official recognition by pressuring Rwandan government through a variety of means, Rwandans did not yield to pressures, and they opted for the truth to come to light.

    When the report was announced, France strictly rejected the accusations against its former political administrators and military officials and Romain Nadal, the Spokesman of the Foreign affairs Ministry, told that there were “unacceptable” accusations against French political and military leaders in the report prepared by the Committee; and this stance of France is accepted as an example of typical “French custom of denial”.

    Rwandan genocide is unfortunately neither the first nor the last damage to the humanity caused by France with its wars and intrigues. Despite all its denials, the dark past of France is full of serious crimes against humanity.

    This decision on genocide is not the first accusation against France in the international arena. In June 2006, French State and Railway Company “were convicted of playing a role in the transportation of the Jews to the concentration camps during the Second World War” and were ordered to pay compensation. The French Railway Company also had similar convictions previously.

    It has been already written in the pages of history that France subjected 1 million people in Algeria to genocide with its attacks directed at innocent civilians during the Second World War and that it attempted to annihilate Algerian people by torturing 25.000 people and with the extrajudicial killings of 3.025 persons. In the course of the investigations into what happened in Algeria, it was established that in the murky operations of certain Algerian terrorist groups, there was a forth individual, mostly a police officer or a military security officer who accompanied them and that these terrorist groups confirmed that the police, military security or SDCE (French Secret Services) and a subordinate secret service called GIC gave them information slips and thus indicated their targets; in short, it is known they carried out the filthy activities on behalf of the police and the republican army.

    In that period, the Algerian Muslims called Harkis, who were conscripted in the French army, were disappointed with the result of their attempts to take refuge in France after the independence of Algeria. Only for 42 thousand of them, they had provided homes. Upon the request of De Gaulle in 1962, they were housed behind barbed wire deep in the French forests in small uncomfortable barracks constructed hastily. This is an interesting example of what has happened to the collaborators of the French against the independence of their country.

    Turkey is also one of the countries that have been targeted by France for her obscure policies. During World War I, France had occupied Ottoman territory and massacred millions of innocent civilian people. As a result of “the friendship ties that had strengthened for centuries” between the Armenians and France, the Armenian gangs were provided with arms in the end of the 19th century and provoked to rebel against the Ottoman Empire. Part of the members of these Armenian gangs who did not succeed to pull away territory from Turkey at the end of World War I, fled to France.

    These Armenians, who went to Marseilles, were brought together in the Oddo camp which had extremely bad housing conditions. The Oddo camp was officially closed down in 1928, but actually in 1935. Not any Armenian could leave the camp without a working contract. The authorities treated these Armenians like stateless people, but when France fought with Germany they were sent as soldiers constituting another hypocrisy in history that the French have to account for.

    It is still fresh in our minds that – until it caused harm to the country with the Orly attack – France did not show any reaction for years against the terrorist organization ASALA, which came into existence in the 1970’s and was known for its attacks against Turkish targets especially diplomats, and that France felt sympathy for the Armenian terrorists and adopted a tolerating attitude.

    In the 1980’s, the Armenian terrorist organizations changed their tactics upon the reactions they received from the world’s public opinion and resorted to cooperation with the terrorist PKK. The PKK was known for its attacks against Turkey and became now affiliated with ASALA which killed diplomats. These facts were stated many times by the relevant experts and supported with evidence. In spite of this, France did not take any measure against these terrorist organizations that were hostile towards Turkey and refrained from cooperation. This was extremely meaningful….

    When talking about “France” and “terror”, one of the names that comes up in our minds is Mitterand and his wife who are also accused for the genocide in Rwanda. The Turkish public opinion knows these two very well. The support provided by France to the PKK has increased considerably due to the foreign policy understanding of Mitterand and maybe also a little bit due the effect of the “special protection” shown to the PKK by First Lady Daniella Mitterand as a result of her “personal friendship” with Head of the Paris Kurdish Institute Kemdal Nezan. Consequently, France has become one of the most important bases of this terrorist organization in Europe. And it appears that France still continues to welcome terrorist groups that have no other aim than being hostile to Turkey.

    However, the Armenian diaspora in France as well as the terrorist organizations, that are striving against the independence and/or territorial integrity of other countries, are collaborating with France without foreseeing what will happen to them by trying to understand what has happened to those who betrayed Algeria, Rwanda and the Ottoman State. In the future, as it has happened before, France shall push aside the traitors in accordance with its own interests or shall, instead of her own children, send the traitors to other wars to die.

    As a matter of fact, it is not a coincidence that France is pronounced whenever we talk about a massacre, war or genocide at any place of the world. While she has a history of colonization, she continued her aggressive, expansionist policies in the 21st century. She holds control of an important part of the world’s arms trade. Her national income is bolstered with the blood shed in other countries darkly shadowing world peace. Every year, more than 300 thousand people are being killed on the world with conventional weapons. Even more people are being wounded, violated in their rights, forcefully deported and left helpless. In 2005, 82% of all the arms transfer on the world was realized by five countries. One of these countries is France. Thus, France has an important portion in the world’s arms trade. A war that is staged at any place on the world is sustaining the French economy.

    In France there is still a longing for colonization and laws that praise the era of imperialism and slavery are still in force. Although these raise some doubts about the long-term foreign policy goals of France, at present they talk about a “French crisis” on the world. Certain historians say that the “regression process” of this country started with the Prussian-French War in 1870. Although France won in World War I on paper, this was actually the beginning of the end. World War II followed by the Cold War era caused polarization between the USA and the USSR as a result of which France regressed even more and in the international arena this country was not taken so seriously anymore.

    The time has come for France to refresh her memory and encounter her past not only because of its inhuman acts in Rwanda, but also in the territories of the Ottoman Empire, in Algeria and in the other colonies.

    France should accept the role that she has played in the genocides throughout her history and apologize for that. French politicians and military officials that are responsible for the genocide in Rwanda should face trial in the international court for war criminals.

    In spite of everything is there still freedom, equality, brotherhood?…

    The Organization for the Commemoration of the Genocide Victims

    (SKAO)

  • Romanian President Traian Basescu arrives in Istanbul

    Romanian President Traian Basescu arrives in Istanbul

    Romanian President Traian Basescu arrived on Thursday (Aug 21) in Istanbul on a working visit.
    The Romanian head of state is currently on a two-day tour to include visits to Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

    The main component of the ongoing working tour of the Romanian President to Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey is identifying joint Black Sea security solutions, as well as analyzing with the host counterparts the latest developments in Georgia and the repercussions they might have on other areas witnessing ‘frozen conflict,’ such as Nagorno Karabakh and Transdniester.
    Traian Basescu on Thursday morning paid a visit to the Georgian capital Tbilisi, where he held talks with his counterpart Mikhail Saakashvili.

  • Turkey bows to the dark side

    Turkey bows to the dark side

    From the Los Angeles Times
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit is a sign that the West can no longer take Turkey for granted as a staunch ally against Iran.

    By Soner Cagaptay

    August 19, 2008

    ISTANBUL, TURKEY — Praying in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque on Friday, I witnessed firsthand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s international publicity coup.

    Ahmadinejad’s visit produced little in terms of substantive policy; the signing of a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline deal was put off. But Ahmadinejad got something just as valuable: a chance to spin his own image, court popularity and bash the United States and Israel.

    I’ve long been fond of the Blue Mosque because it is where, many years ago, I attended my first Friday prayers. Last Friday, though, I felt uncomfortable in the prayer hall, where I found myself in front of God but next to Ahmadinejad, who turned the ritual into a political show.

    Departing from established practice of having visiting Muslim heads of state pray in a smaller mosque in Istanbul, the government allowed Ahmadinejad to pray in the Blue Mosque, Turkey’s symbol of tolerant Ottoman Islam. With permission from Turkish authorities, he also allowed Iranian television to videotape him during the entire prayer, in violation of Islamic tradition, which requires quiet and intimate communion between God and the faithful. There was so much commotion around Ahmadinejad that the imam had to chide the congregants. Then, as he left the mosque, Ahmadinejad got out of his car to encourage a crowd of about 300 to chant, “Death to Israel! Death to America!”

    Even without this behavior, any visit from a leader representing an authoritarian, anti-Western autocracy would have created controversy in Turkey just a few years ago. Not today. The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government not only opened the Blue Mosque to Ahmadinejad but accommodated his refusal to pay respects at the mausoleum of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern, secular Turkey — a major violation of protocol for an official visit.

    In 1996, when Iran’s president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, refused to go to Ataturk’s mausoleum, snubbing Turkey’s identity as a secular pro-Western state, it led to a public outcry and sharp criticism of Iran. Relations soured. When the Iranian ambassador suggested a few months later that Turkey should follow Sharia law, he was forced to leave the country.

    This time, though, the AKP government has taken a different stance, playing down the diplomatic insult. It moved the meeting from the capital, Ankara, to Istanbul and labeled it a “working” meeting rather than an official visit. Yet all sorts of AKP officials flocked to Istanbul to meet with the Iranian president.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan asked the Turkish public to ignore the snub and instead “focus on the big picture.” It is the “big picture,” though, that is most disconcerting. By extending an invitation to Ahmadinejad, the first such move by any NATO or European Union member country, Turkey has broken ranks with the West. The West can no longer take Turkey for granted as a staunch ally against Tehran.

    In the past, Turkey stood with the West, especially after the 1979 Islamist revolution in Iran. Also, Tehran gave refuge to the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which carried out terror attacks in Turkey from bases in Iran. Since the Iraq war began, however, Iran has shifted tactics to win Turkey’s heart. While the U.S. delayed taking action, Iran actually bombed PKK camps in northern Iraq.

    Meanwhile, since the AKP assumed power in Turkey in 2002, bilateral visits with Iran have boomed; Ahmadinejad’s trip crowns dozens of visits by high-level officials. Trade has boomed as well, increasing from $1.2 billion in 2002 to $8 billion today. And even though the two countries didn’t formalize the deal last week, plans are still going forward for a $3.5-billion Turkish investment in Iranian gas fields — this at a time when the West is adopting financial sanctions against Iran to cripple Tehran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb. If there were any doubts about a Turkish-Iranian rapprochement, they were laid to rest last week: During Ahmadinejad’s visit, the two countries agreed to make 2009 an “Iran-Turkey year of culture” — marked by regular cultural and political programs and exchanges — to bring the two countries closer.

    Ahmadinejad’s visit also speaks volumes about the future of Turkish-U.S. ties regarding Iran. According to a recent opinion poll in Turkey, when asked what the country should do in the event of a U.S. attack against Iran, only 4% of respondents said Turkey should support the U.S., while 33% wanted to back Iran and 63% chose neutrality.

    As I shared the canopy of the Blue Mosque’s divine dome with Ahmadinejad, I could not help but ponder how far Turkish foreign policy has shifted since 2002. Before, Turkey picked allies based on shared values — democracy, Western identity, secular politics and the principle of open society — that appeared to reflect the Turkish soul. Iran has not become a pro-Western, secular democracy since 1996, nor have Tehran’s mullahs accepted gender equality or the idea of a free society. Yet Ankara has had a change of heart toward Tehran. Years from now, Ahmadinejad’s visit to Istanbul will be remembered as the tipping point at which the West lost Turkey, and Turkey lost its soul.

    Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a visiting professor at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul.

  • Russian troops to pull out, amid EU sanctions threat

    Russian troops to pull out, amid EU sanctions threat

    PHILIPPA RUNNER

    Today @ 09:28 CET

    Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, has ordered troops to pull out of Georgia starting from noon local time on Monday (18 August), following calls by French and German EU leaders over the weekend.

    French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, secured the promised withdrawal in a telephone call to Moscow on Sunday, in which he threatened “serious consequences” unless Russia retreats to positions held before fighting broke out on 7 August.

    Georgia: Russian tanks entered on 7 August (Photo: prezydent.pl)

    “If this ceasefire clause [on pre-7 August positions] is not applied quickly and in its entirety, I will convoke an extraordinary council of the European Union to decide what consequences to draw,” he explained later in a statement in French daily Le Figaro.

    “I expect a very fast, very prompt withdrawal of Russian troops out of Georgia,” German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said at a press conference in Tbilisi on Sunday. “Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to – and it does want to,” she added, AP reports.

    On Monday morning, Russian troops remained dug-in just 35 kilometres from the Georgian capital, as well as holding the Georgian Black Sea ports of Poti and Senaki while roaming freely up and down the country’s main roads.

    Troops also deployed SS-21 earth-to-earth missiles in the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia, the New York Times says, with the rockets capable of striking Tbilisi.

    Russian soldiers and Russian-backed South Ossetian paramilitaries have spent the past few days destroying Georgian military bases and infrastructure, as well as looting homes and roughing up ethnic Georgian civilians.

    Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has said that Georgia can “forget” about its territorial integrity, indicating that troops might stay in South Ossetia and a second pro-Russian, rebel province – Abkhazia – for the long term.

    The UN refugee centre estimates the conflict has displaced 98,000 people in Georgia proper and a further 60,000 people in South Ossetia. Hundreds of civilians are also thought to have died.

    “We will have to determine if the Russian intervention against its Georgian neighbour was a brutal and excessive response,” Mr Sarkozy wrote in Le Figaro. “In which case…there will be inevitable consequences for its relations with the European Union.”

    EU’s eastern front

    EU foreign ministers meeting last week put off until 5 September a debate on whether to impose diplomatic sanctions, such as suspending talks on a new EU-Russia strategic treaty or a future visa-free travel deal.

    Former communist EU states, backed by the UK and Sweden, want a strong line on Russia, worrying that the Georgia incursion could be the start of a wider campaign to undermine pro-western countries in Russia’s old sphere of influence.

    A flash poll by the Pentor institute in Poland said that 49.8 percent of Polish people are scared of a potential Russian military attack in the next few years.

    Ukraine president, Viktor Yushchenko, has also offered the west the use of Ukrainian radar facilities in the hope of obtaining security guarantees in return, with an EU-Ukraine summit tabled for 9 September.

    The country’s Crimea peninsula has a large ethnic Russian population and well-organised separatist movements. Meanwhile, Russian generals dismissed as “nonsense” a recent Ukrainian law limiting the movements of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, which is stationed in the region until 2017.

    Sanctions unlikely

    But Germany and Luxembourg have already spoken out against isolating Russia – one of the EU’s biggest energy suppliers – as a result of the Georgia war.

    “I do not advise…any knee-jerk reaction such as suspending talks on a partnership and cooperation agreement [with the EU],” German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said in an interview with weekly Welt am Sonntag. “Our interest in this is as great as Russia itself. Talks in the NATO-Russian Council are essential too. Because we need open lines of communication.”

    Speaking in Moscow on Friday, Ms Merkel also took a softer line than in Tbilisi, saying “Some of Russia’s actions were not proportionate…[but] it is rare that all the blame is on one side. In fact, both sides are probably to blame. ”

    “We must stick to the partnership with Russia, even after these recent events which of course do not please us,” Luxembourg foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, said in an interview with Deutsche Welle.

    “There will be no consequences of this conflict,” a diplomat from a former communist state told EUobserver. “It’s almost as if Germany and Russia had a meeting and said ‘this is our territory and this is yours, you can do what you like there’.”