Category: Non-EU Countries

Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

Open letter (slightly revised) rebutting Armenian claims submitted by Ferruh Demirmen to Swiss Interior Department on ECHR’s decision on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

February 24, 2014

An Open Letter to:
Madame la Conseillère fédérale
Simonetta Sommaruga
Cheffe du Département fédéral de justice et police (DFJP)
Palais fédéral ouest
CH-3003 Berne, SWITZERLAND

Dear Madame Sommaruga,

This open letter is being submitted by a concerned citizen as a rebuttal of an open letter sent to you by a group called “concerned genocide scholars” regarding the December 17, 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

In their February 16, 2014 letter, the “scholars” take issue with ECHR’s position that genocide is a precisely defined legal concept that is not easy to prove, and that the historical record on the 1915 events is a matter of debate. The “scholars” argue that the 1915 events constitute “genocide,” and request that you re-examine the Court’s judgment. This letter will endeavor to establish that the arguments advanced by the “scholars” are incomplete and specious.

The “scholars” assert that Ottoman “mass killings” of Armenians conform to the definition of Article 2 of the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). But such assertion is based only on a partial reading of the Convention. That Convention, in fact, is the Achilles’ heel of the “Armenian genocide” thesis. For Article 2, while describing genocide as, in part, killing or causing serious harm to the members of a group, makes two additional provisos: (1) there must be intent, (2) the targeted victims should belong to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The “scholars” conveniently ignore these two provisos.

Ottoman government archives contain incontestable evidence that the relocation of Armenians in 1915 was not related in any way to nationality, religion, etc., but to military exigency in time of war, which was being fought on multiple fronts. Rebellious armed Armenian groups were aiding and abetting the enemy and sabotaging the Ottoman army from behind, and the government had to intervene. In other words, Armenians were subjected to relocation not because of their religion or ethnicity, but because they posed grave security threat in time of war. Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders because they did not pose a security threat. The central government orders to local authorities made it clear that the security of Armenian convoys during relocation should be ensured, and that all necessary precautions should be taken to meet their needs during and after relocation.

There was no intent to harm the Armenians; but war conditions including lawlessness, chaos, disease, and famine, gave rise to tragic events on both sides.

The fact that Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders belies accusations that the 1915 events were religion or ethnicity-related.

Russian archives also reveal that religion and ethnicity were not causal factors behind the relocation orders, that relocation was conceived as a measure of self-defense by the Ottoman government, and that the tragic events were inter-communal in nature.

Considering the above facts, and viewed in its fuller context, Article 2 of the 1948 Convention negates the genocide argument advanced by the “scholars.” The “scholars” cannot pick and choose a portion of Article 2 and ignore the rest.

Equally important, the 1948 Convention contains a stipulation, in Article 6, that those charged with the crime of genocide should be tried by a competent tribunal in the state where the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the contracting parties. In other words, to establish the crime of genocide, a court verdict is a sine qua non. The judgments by the Nuremberg Tribunal post-World War II, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) more recently on the Rwanda and Srebrenica events are examples to such verdicts.

There exists no court verdict, however, on alleged “Armenian genocide.” The Malta Tribunal, convened by the victorious British after World War I to prosecute 144 high-ranking Ottoman officials on charges of killing Armenians, yielded not a single conviction. Among those detained for trial were cabinet ministers, the Grand Vizier and Army Commanders. The Armenian Patriarchate at Istanbul was the principal source of information against the accused, but the evidence was too flimsy for formal prosecution. Even the search of the U.S. State Department files in Washington failed to produce incriminating evidence. After two years of investigation, all Malta detainees were released and returned to Turkish soil.

It is interesting that in referring to the opinions of France, the United Kingdom and Russia in their 1915 joint declaration, the “scholars” do not mention the Malta Tribunal. The Malta Tribunal drew its jurisdictional authority from these three powers, and its findings were binding on the three powers.

So, Article 6 of the 1948 Convention also negates the genocide assertions of the “scholars.” What Article 6 establishes, in principle, is that neither parliaments nor a group of academics can pass judgment on an alleged genocide crime. A verdict by a duly authorized court of law is a must. The “scholars” ignore this very fundamental precept contained in the 1948 Convention.

In conclusion, the 1948 Convention, which is the fundamental international covenant bearing on genocide determination, completely vitiates the genocide thesis when viewed in its entirety. The “scholars do not have the luxury to use only a portion of the covenant to establish their case.

The “scholars” note that in 1997 the “International Association of Genocide Scholars” passed a resolution recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide. That may be so, but a large number of scholars hold the opposite view. In 1985, for example, 69 U.S. historians and researchers passed a unanimous resolution, addressed to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and published in New York Times and The Washington Post, refuting Armenian allegations. These were academicians specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies. Many of these academicians were subsequently harassed or intimidated by the pro-genocide camp.

The conclusion is inescapable, as ECHR observed, that there is no consensus among historians and scholars on the 1915 events. And that is not taking into account the views of Turkish researchers and historians.

In their letter the “scholars” indirectly draw an analogy between Holocaust and the 1915 events. Such analogy is not only grotesque, but more bluntly, obscene. Jews of Nazi Germany did not rise in armed rebellion against the state, did not embark on a rampage of violence against the local population, did not join the ranks of an invading army, did not sabotage the German army behind the front lines, and in general did not engage in perfidious acts. Their only “crime” was not being of the “Aryan race.” Race was the motive behind the killings.

The Nazis did not court-martial those implicated with wrongdoing against the Jews, as did the Ottomans prosecute those accused of mistreating Armenians during relocation. Nor did the Nazis deliberately spare Jews as “good citizens” in some parts of the Reich, or award meritorious awards to Jews, as did the Ottomans to Armenians. The Ottomans, having long embraced Armenians in high-ranking positions in the government, including generals and cabinet ministers, did not spread racist, scurrilous lies about the Armenian minority. And the Armenians certainly did not perish in gas chambers.

To broaden their horizon on the 1915 events, the “scholars” should perhaps read, if they have not already, the admissions of Boghos Nubar Pasha at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, and the manifesto issued by Johannes Kachaznuni at the Dashnak convention in Bucharest in March 1923. It would be like hearing the truth from the horse’s mouth. More than half of a million Muslims lost their lives at the hands of Armenian guerillas who fought a losing battle relying on false promises of imperial Western powers and the Tsarist Russia. Even the Russian officers on the scene were troubled by the severity of violence inflicted by the Armenian guerillas on Muslims.

And the terror inflicted was not confined to Muslims. As stated by Albert J. Amateau, a rabbi born in Turkey and later emigrated to America, in a testimony sworn before a notary public in California in 1989, Armenian atrocities also extended to Jews, and even to Armenian families who refused to cooperate with the armed guerillas.

In their letter the “scholars” attempt to link the tragic murder of Hrant Dink to genocide controversy, and claim that Turkey has “one of the worst” records on human rights “over the past decades.” This is a slanderous attack aimed at Turkey, and it is deplorable. Dink was murdered by a deranged fanatic, and the facts behind the assassination are still unknown. More than 100,000 Turkish people took to the streets in Istanbul to protest Dink’s murder. Mention of human rights by the “scholars” is particularly ironic, considering that their list of signatories is headed by none other than Taner Akçam, an ex-convict and a prison escapee who advocated violence and was imprisoned for terrorist activities in Turkey. Akçam is now a protégée and beneficiary of the Armenian lobby.

And speaking of human rights, it is curious that the “scholars” failed to mention the ASALA/JCAG terror that took more than 40 innocent lives, most of them Turkish diplomats, during 1973-1991. Not only did the committees funded by Armenian organizations pay for the legal defense of the majority of terrorists, but several prominent Armenians and pro-Armenian “scholars” testified in the trials of the terrorists. One terrorist, after his release from the French prison, was welcome as a hero in Armenia. So much about concern for “human rights”!

Incidentally, how many Armenians took to the streets to protest the killing of Turkish diplomats and their families by the ASALA/JCAG terror?

It is a known fact that Turkey and Armenia cannot agree on legal characterization of the 1915 events. That being the case, one wonders why the “scholars” have not urged Armenia to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Established in 1945, ICJ is the primary judicial arm of the U.N. to settle legal disputes submitted by states. A court case undertaken by ICJ would require all historical archives to be open, due process to apply, and the evidentiary material scrutinized for probity. The only reasonable explanation for the stance of the Armenian side is that it finds a judicial process too risky for its taste.

The Armenian side, instead, has over the years relied on propaganda in public arena, where bias and prejudice play a large role, and financial resources can be deployed aplenty.

It is refreshing that the “scholars” make a concession in their letter: They agree with the notion of freedom of expression articulated by ECHR. It is impossible not to be sarcastic about their newly-found concern for this basic human right. Over the years these “scholars” attended conferences where presence of academics opposing their genocide thesis was not welcome. Did the “scholars” express any freedom of expression concern when, in 1995, a French court fined historian Prof. Bernard Lewis because he did not subscribe to the genocide thesis, or when, in 2007, Dr. Doğu Perinçek was convicted by a Swiss court for the same reason? And what was the reaction of the “scholars” when the French Senate passed a bill in 2011 (later overturned) that criminalizes denial of “Armenian genocide”?

One additional comment in this context is noteworthy. The “scholars” use the word “denialist” to refer to those who reject their genocide assertions. “Denialist” is a pejorative term, and its use is a breach of academic decorum. It is also a sign of arrogance. How would the “scholars” like if their colleagues in the opposing camp call them “distortionists” or “fabricators”?

To wrap up, characterization of the 1915 events as “genocide” is incompatible with the definition of this term as prescribed in the 1948 U.N. Convention. “Genocide” is a legal construct, and should not be used to further political aims. The suffering on the Armenian side in the 1915 events cannot be denied; but the suffering on the Turkish side also deserves recognition. After a century, it is time for the two sides to reconcile their differences without further recrimination, and move on. We don’t need new generations poisoned with “genocide” controversy.

It is hoped that the Swiss government will accept the judgment of ECHR as final.

Respectfully yours,

(hard copy signed)

Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
(address)

Appendix
SIGNATORIES TO MAY 19, 1985 STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS PUBLISHED IN NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST:

RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ
Professor of History, California State University at Long Beach
SARAH MOMENT ATIS
Professor of Turkish Language & Literature, University of Wisconsin at Madison
KARL BARBIR
Associate Professor of History, Siena College, New York
ILHAN BASGOZ
Director of the Turkish Studies, Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
DANIEL G. BATES
Professor of Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York
ULKU BATES
Professor of Art History, Hunter College, City University of New York
GUSTAV BAYERLE
Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI
Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages, University of California at Los Angeles
KATHLEEN BURRILL
Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
RODERIC DAVISON
Professor of History, George Washington University
WALTER DENNY
Associate Professor of Art History & Near Eastern Studies, University of Massachusetts
DR. ALAN DUBEN
Anthropologist & Researcher, New York City
ELLEN ERVIN
Assistant Professor of Turkish Researches, New York University
CAESAR FARAH
Professor of Islamic & Middle Eastern History, University of Minnesota
CARTER FINDLEY
Associate Professor of History, Ohio State University
MICHAEL FINEFROCK
Professor of History, College of Charleston, South Carolina
ALAN FISHER
Professor of History, Michigan State University
CORNELL FLEISCHER
Assistant Professor of History, Washington University (Missouri)
TIMOTHY CHILDS
Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
SHAFIGA DAULET
Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut
JUSTIN MCCARTHY
Associate Professor of History, University of Louisville, Kentucky
JON MANDAVILLE
Professor of the History of the Middle East, Portland State University, Oregon
RHOADS MURPHEY
Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History, Columbia University
PIERRE OBERLING
Professor of History, Hunter College, City University of New York
ROBERT OLSON
Associate Professor of History, University of Kentucky
DONALD QUATAERT
Associate Professor of History, University of Houston
WILLIAM GRISWOLD
Professor of History, Colorado State University
WILLIAM HICKMAN
Associate Professor of Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
JOHN HYMES
Professor of History, Glenville State College, West Virginia
RALPH JAECKEL
Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish, University of California at Los Angeles
JAMES KELLY
Associate Professor of Turkish, University of Utah
PETER GOLDEN
Professor of History, Rutgers University, New Jersey
TOM GOODRICH
Professor of History, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
ANDREW COULD
Ph.D. in Ottoman History, Flagstaff, Arizona
MICHAEL MEEKER
Professor of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego
THOMAS NAFF
Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania
WILLIAM OCHSENWALD
Associate Professor of History, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
WILLIAM PEACHY
Assistant Professor of the Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures, Ohio State University
HOWARD REED
Professor of History, University of Connecticut
TIBOR HALASI-KUN
Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
J. C. HUREWITZ
Professor of Government, Emeritus, Former Director, Middle East Institute (1971-1984) , Columbia University
HALIL INALCIK
Member of the of Arts & Sciences, Professor of Ottoman History, University of Chicago
RONALD JENNINGS
Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies, University of Illinois
KERIM KEY
Adjunct Professor, Southeastern University, Washington, D.C.
DANKWART RUSTOW
Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York
STANFORD SHAW
Professor of History, University of California at Los Angeles
METIN KUNT
Professor of Ottoman History, New York University
AVIGDOR LEVY
Professor of History, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
DR. HEATH W. LOWRY
Institute of Turkish Studies Inc. Washington, D.C.
JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR.
Professor of History, University of California at Berkeley
ROBERT STAAB
Assistant Director of the Middle East Center, University of Utah
JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON
Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan
FRANK TACHAU
Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
DAVID THOMAS
Associate Professor of History, Rhode Island College
WARREN S. WALKER
Home Professor of English & Director of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative, Texas Tech University
WALTER WEIKER
Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University, New Jersey
MADELINE ZILFI
Associate Professor of History, University of Maryland
ELAINE SMITH
Ph.D. in Turkish History, Retired Foreign Service Officer, Washington, DC
EZEL KURAL SHAW
Associate Professor of History, California State University, Northridge
FREDERICK LATIMER
Associate Professor of History (Retired), University of Utah
BERNARD LEWIS
Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History, Princeton University
GRACE M. SMITH
Visiting Lecturer in Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
DR. SVAT SOUCEK
Turcologist, Oriental Division, New York Public Library
JUNE STARR
Associate Professor of Anthropology, SUNY Stony Brook
DR. PHILIP STODDARD
Executive Director, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
METIN TAMKOC
Professor of International Law and Regulations, Texas Tech University
MARGARET L. VENZKE
Assistant Professor of History, Dickinson College, Pennsylvania
DONALD WEBSTER
Professor of Turkish History, Retired, Beloit College, Wisconsin
JOHN WOODS
Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago

March 8, 2014
Lawrence revelations: admit institutional racism, Met chief told

Hogan-Howe said the publication of the Ellison report marked one of the worst days in his police career. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Anti-terror head moved as black police leader says force has not improved since the 1999 Macpherson inquiry

According to Guardian the crisis engulfing the Metropolitan police following fresh revelations about the Stephen Lawrence case intensified on Friday night as the leader of its black officers’ association called on the commissioner, SirBernard Hogan-Howe, to admit that the force was still institutionally racist.

Janet Hills, chair of the Met’s black police association, told the Guardian that the report by Mark Ellison QC into alleged police wrongdoing in the Lawrence case was the latest example of the force failing the communities it serves.

Her comments came as the repercussions from Ellison’s report, commissioned by the home secretary, led the Met to move its head of counter-terrorism, Commander Richard Walton, out of his post after he was caught up in allegations that a police “spy” was placed close to the Lawrence family.

The first public inquiry into the Lawrence case by Sir William Macpherson in 1999 resulted in the force being branded “institutionally racist” for its failings that led the teenager’s killers to escape justice.

Years later the Met said the label no longer applied because it had improved so much, but the leader of the Met’s own ethnic minority officers disagreed.

Hills said: “We believe the Met is still institutionally racist.” She said this was shown by issues such as higher rates of stop and search against black people, and “the representation of ethnic minorities within the organisation, where ethnic minorities are still stuck in the junior ranks”. She added: “For me, it lies in the fact there has been no change, no progression.”

In his first public comments, Hogan-Howe accepted that the Ellison report was “devastating” and the London mayor Boris Johnson, who has responsibility for policing in the capital, described as “sickening” Ellison’s conclusion that a detective in the Lawrence murder investigation may have been corrupt.

Hills said: “The Ellison report’s revelations came because of continuing pressure from the Lawrence family. It’s only because the Lawrence family are fighting for justice that all this is coming out, and there will be more to come.”

Hills said Hogan-Howe should publicly accept that, 15 years on from Macpherson, Britain’s biggest police force – serving a city where 40% and rising are from ethnic minorities – was still “institutionally racist”. She said: “It would be good to hear him acknowledge that … For community trust and confidence he needs to take ownership.”

Johnson defended the Met’s record on race and said confidence was rising in the force Hogan-Howe leads: “He is right to continue and accelerate the work of recruiting a police force that resembles the community it serves.

There has been good progress in recent years in recruiting from ethnic minorities, but there is still some way to go. I know Sir Bernard is determined to get there, and I am sure that we can.”

Ellison’s revelations that the Met had a “spy in the Lawrence camp” during the Macpherson inquiry led the force to announce it would “temporarily” move Walton from his post as head of counter-terrorism, one of the most sensitive jobs in British policing. He has also been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

In August 1998, Walton, then an acting detective inspector, was helping to prepare the Met’s submission to the Macpherson inquiry. He secretly met an undercover officer – described by Ellison as being “positioned close to the Lawrence family campaign” to exchange “fascinating and valuable” information about the grieving family. Some of that information passed from the undercover officer included details on Doreen and Neville Lawrence’s marriage.

Neville Lawrence last night called the revelations “disgusting”, telling the Daily Mail: “It’s unbelievable. They have mocked everything we have done, telling us to our faces that they are listening and things will change, and all the time laughing behind our backs.

“I think they are actually worse than criminals because these officers get paid with taxpayers’ money for what they do.”

Ellison found Walton’s conflicting accounts of the meeting “unconvincing, and somewhat troubling”.

He offered a different version of the purpose of this meeting last month after Ellison told him that he was facing criticism in the report.

Walton was moved to a non-operational role. It comes as the Met faces withering criticism from the home secretary down over the new revelations about its behaviour during the Lawrence case.

Hogan-Howe said the publication of the Ellison report marked one of the worst days of his police career.

He vowed to reform the force, and told London’s Evening Standard: “I cannot rewrite history and the events of the past but I do have a responsibility to ensure the trust and the confidence of the people of London in the Met now and in the future.”

Theresa May branded the Lawrence revelations, some 21 years after the murder, as “profoundly shocking and disturbing”, adding that “policing stands damaged today”. She said the full truth had yet to emerge.

Lord Condon, Met commissioner at the time of the “spy” in the Lawrence camp, denied any knowledge of the deployment, telling the House of Lords: “At no stage did I ever authorise, or encourage, or know about any action by any undercover officer in relation to Mr and Mrs Lawrence or their friends or supporters or the Macpherson inquiry hearings. Had I known I would have stopped this action immediately as inappropriate.”The fallout after the Ellison report is also reaching the courts. Two campaigners are to appeal against their convictions, alleging that an undercover police officer took part in their protest and set fire to a branch of Debenhams, causing damage totalling more than £300,000.The officer, a leading member of the covert unit at the heart of the undercover controversy, was revealed this week to have also been a key figure in thesecret operation to spy on the family of Stephen Lawrence.

The announcement of the appeal comes as scores of convictions involving undercover officers over the past decades are to be re-examined to see if campaigners in a range of political groups have been wrongly convicted.

Ellison, the QC who produced Thursday’s report into the undercover infiltration of the Lawrence campaign, also found that the unit, the special demonstration squad (SDS), had concealed crucial evidence from courts.

Now he has been asked by the home secretary, Theresa May, to identify specific cases in which unjust convictions have been caused by the SDS, which infiltrated political groups between 1968 and 2008.

March 8, 2014
“10,000,000 dollars is not enough”

A new recording of a phone call between Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and his son Bilal has been leaked last night.

In the alleged recording, Erdoğan and his son are discussing the amount of the bribe to be taken from a businessman named Sıtkı Ayan. Erdoğan finds the offered 10 million dollars insufficient, and instructs his son not to accept unless Ayan provides the amount he promised.

Sıtkı Ayan is the owner of SOM Petrol, a London-based corporation that owns oil and gas wells in various countries and turns over billions of dollars every year. Turang Transit Transportation, also owned by Mr. Ayan, was awarded the government contract to build a $11.5 billion pipeline to transport natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan to Europe. The investment was subsidised by the government, and the corporation was held exempt from VAT and various other taxes and duties.

According to the whistleblowers who leaked the call, Mr. Ayan pays regular bribes to Prime Minister Erdoğan, just like the “other businessmen”.

Transcript:

Bilal Erdoğan: Mr. Sıtkı came yesterday, saying he couldn’t do the transfer properly, that he currently has about 10 or so (million dollars), that he can give it whenever we want…
Tayyip Erdoğan: No no, don’t you take it.
Bilal Erdoğan: No I won’t, but I don’t know what we’ll do now.
Tayyip Erdoğan: No, don’t take it. If he’s going to bring what he promised, then let him bring it. If not, then no need. Others can bring it, so why can’t he, huh? What do they think is? But they are falling now, they’ll fall on our laps, don’t you worry.
Bilal Erdoğan: OK, daddy.

Click here to listen to the recording (in Turkish):

Alternative link: watch?v=4GZBw369nEM

February 27, 2014
London Fashion Week And Serap Pollard Collection AW14

This year Serap’s collection was shown London Fashion Week Season AW14. The show was sponsored by the Turkish Ministry of Culture & Tourism. Her latest collection at the London Fashion Season AW14 Show will utilize Turkish fabrics and traditional techniques, Serap Pollard believes that Turkey is very rich in traditional values as a result of a deep and rich history, therefore, she is very attentive to use the traditional values of Turkey in her designs. In similarity to her previous projects, Serap Pollard will be using fabrics which originate from the depths of Turkey’s history as it appeals to have rich traditional values within the culture. Although sustainable or organic clothes lack of colour and model, the designs of Serap Pollard are very successful at combining traditional lines with the world trends. Use of ecological products in her designs has received great attention in Europe. Serap Pollard works towards promoting sustainability and helping people in the world’s most marginalized communities escape poverty by actively supporting Fair Trade producer groups in Turkey. She is one of the few designers who produces sustainable fashion. Sustainable fashion is a way of producing clothing in an Eco-friendly way. The goal being to reduce the negative impact it has on the environment and maximize the garments lifespan, avoiding the typical short term garment trend of just wearing a piece of clothing for one season. Serap Pollard’s show is sponsored by the Turkish Ministry of Culture & Tourism. The distinguished designer commented: “I’m thrilled to be working with the Turkish Ministry as official sponsors on my forthcoming London Fashion Week Season AW14 Collection Show.”

https://www.facebook.com/SerapPollardLondon

www.serappollard.com

https://www.facebook.com/GoToTurkeyUK

Serap Pollard was born in Turkey. After graduating from Faculty of Fine Art of Marmara University in 2000, Serap Pollard moved to London and has been living there ever since. In 2000, she studied at London College of Fashion, University of the Arts, and Central Saint Martin’s College, adding to her already impressive resume. In 2012 she completed her Masters degree at University of the Arts London after working for 10+ years in London with well-established companies (Laura Ashley etc.) and designer brands in which she continuously attended International and National Fashion Fairs and then she launched her brand under the name of SERAP POLLARD LONDON in 2011. One key indication that a brand has become a lifestyle is when it successfully extends beyond its original product category. Serap’s style evolves into a refined pureness of female elegance, but is still very comfortable and wearable. Every detail, high quality of standard, tradition, and craftsmanship is being cared for. Serap Pollard thinks that Turkey is very rich in traditional values, as a result of her deep and rich history, she is very attentive to use the traditional values of Turkey in her designs. Serap Pollard London works towards promoting sustainability and helping people in the world’s most marginalized communities escape poverty by actively supporting Fair Trade producer groups in Turkey. The brand provides training to artisans and their organisations so they can improve their skills, and strengthen their businesses and social impact. Serap Pollard London also allows time for production by hand and often invests in local community projects too. Although sustainable or organic clothes lack of colour and style, the designs of Serap Pollard are very successful at combining traditional lines with the world trends. Use of ecological products in her designs has received attention in Europe. Serap Pollard is one of the few designers who produces sustainable fashion. Sustainable fashion is a way of producing clothing in an Eco-friendly way. The goal being to reduce the negative impacts it has on the environment and maximise the garments lifespan, avoiding the typical short term garment trend of just wearing a piece of clothing for one season. Pollard is not only a nature lover, but also aims to contribute to the country economy. Another way of making eco-friendly clothes is “zero waste”. 15% of the fabric is wasted while producing a shirt. Pollard has leveled down this percentage by using appropriate patterns. Thus, from an agriculture labourer to factory owner, from customer to the nature, every aspect in the life cycle of shirt reap the benefit of this approach.

AW15 Collection/ 15th February 2014 (KUTNU) Acculturation

We live in a multi-cultural world. Transportation, communication, globalisation, improving international relations, and movements of manpower increasingly bring people of different cultures closer together. Cultures influence each other thanks to this. I have prepared this collection with the conscious of we live in a global village where acculturation is inevitable. The starting point for this were the photos of two little girls. Two photos which were taken in different times and different places. The only common point of two girls, who look with different emotions, is the innocence. One of the photos were taken in Gaziantep, a kid with black big eyes and wearing clothes of traditional kutnu fabric; which I call “ diamond”. The other one is a Princess Louise (1848-1939) portrait. The second “diamond” gives me inspiration with her innocent appearance and yellow ringlet hairs. Likewise in my previous projects, I used a traditional and historical value of Turkey in my new project: Kutnu fabric. Kutnu Fabric which is a hand woven fabric of Gaziantep in Turkey, and silk chiffon have been used as major materials in my designs. It is very suitable to the Serap Pollard London brand and style, as it is sustainable and ethical. I lived in Turkey until 2000 and have been living in London for the last 14 years. I like travelling. I like searching and learning about new cultures as well as following the interaction between cultures. I too am a part of Global Village.

PROJECTS • “Under The Baobab” 2012 Londra Olimpics

Pollard has made great impression by the project titled “Under the Baobab” which was materialized with an inspiration from Turkish history. Pollard collaborated with various fashion designers from the world in this project. It was the giant Olympic Tree, made of traditional Turkish fabrics, aroused great interest. Pollard, for this project, says “..a project with the objects of wood and fabric made me very excited. When we looked back to Turkish history, the foundation symbol of Ottoman Empire was a tree. This project with traditional Turkish fabrics has brought the Turkish history to today`s modern-day.”

Mr Turkey and Serap Pollard

• SELALMAZ / KASTAMONU

Serap Pollard says that she began this project with the aim of “adding value to the value” and set out on a fashion journey from London to Kastamonu. She adds that she preferred clothes which are more longer lasted, recyclable and away from fashion for this project. She weaved the Selalmaz Fabric of Kastamonu with the Eco-friendly Bamboo yarn and adapted this fabric to silk fabrics by using digital printing technique. The traditional weavings has been showcased in Europe.

The Turkish designer aimed to make the Selalmaz fabric, a traditional value of Turkey, gain its well-deserved place. Providing a business opportunity to Kastamonu tradesmen and avoiding the extinction of Selalmaz fabric were among her aims too. Pollard has completed her MA in Sustainable Fashion in London University with this project.

• TOP MODEL UK Designs of the Turkish Designer Serap Pollard were used in Top Model UK. Pollard signed her name to Top Model UK 2013 by using the garments made of ecological fabrics as well as ecological products

• TOP MODEL WORLDWIDE

Pollard made an indelible impression in local, national and international media organs by dressing models from 46 different countries in Top Model Worldwide 2013. Fashion authorities are already in agreement for her upward moving success graphic. This accomplishment has a broad repercussion in Turkey as well. Pollard has been officially appreciated by various Turkish Ministries for her contributions to the recognition of Turkey`s traditional values.

• IZNIK CINISI

The patterns of Iznik Tile, main theme of 2014 Spring/Summer collection, attracted great attention in the UK as well as the US where the editorial photo-shoots were performed.

The Turkish designer says that she made a 3-months-research in Turkey, patterns designs were made in Turkey and the prepared fabrics were became clothes in London. The promotion shooting of the collection was realized during London Fashion Week.

American Modelling Agency and its staff were used for editorial shootings in Hollywood and Beverly hills.

The American models, one more beautiful than the other, wore the garments which carry the blue colour and patterns of Iznik tile. The name of Pollard`s collection is “Tiled-UP” and used the traditional blue tonnes of the word-famous Bursa Iznik Tile, Turkish blue, dodger blue and midnight blue were widely used in the collection. Serap Pollard states that it is very exciting to introduce Turkey in American Fashion word and adds “it is very extraordinary experience to tell the subjects, patterns and colours which you know best to the people you listen”.

February 16, 2014
Britain’s visa rules are a mess

According Mary Dejevsky at the Chatham House, entry rules to the UK are a mess.

Mary Dejevsky is a columnist for The Independent, February 2014

The World Today, Volume 70, Number 1

Simple for the wealthy, a source of anger and resentment for the rest

At least all those non-EU citizens wanting to live and work in the European Union now know where Malta stands. If they have a spare €650,000, plus more for dependents, they will be able to treat the whole family to Maltese passports. In so doing, they will effectively buy full access to all 28 EU countries – and the right to visit many others visa-free.

However Malta’s move is viewed – and Brussels is not happy, but currently has no mechanism to prevent it – there is virtue in clarity.

According to Chatham House for a brief period, a limited number of rich people will be able to obtain citizenship of an EU country by contributing to a Maltese development fund. Such paid-for provisions are not unheard of: Britain and others already offer a path to citizenship for £1 million-plus investors.

But Malta’s scheme, as originally concieved, differs in having no residence requirement. It really is offering a passport of convenience.

Some might reasonably object that the fuss about Maltese passports ignores the ease with which members of the global elite – aside from those expressly blacklisted – are already able to cross borders. It is the rest, including the new middle classes of the emerging economies, for whom visa restrictions are burdensome. And frustrated applicants reserve some of their most bitter complaints for Britain.

The point was made pithily a few years ago by the Russian liberal politician, Grigory Yavlinsky, when he spoke at Chatham House. After making a plea for Britain to relax visa restrictions on Russians, he remarked with heavy sarcasm that there were some Russians, including those with dubious pasts, for whom entry to the UK was no problem.

To judge by my inbox, the ill-feeling generated by the British visa system has only increased. Many complaints are about delays, costs and carelessness with crucial documents. But recurrent themes are the supercilious attitude of officials and a perception that the rules are applied both inflexibly – formulaic box-ticking – and arbitrarily.

In recent months, I have learnt of several individuals from former Soviet states whose applications to visit relatives for a short stay have been turned down, even though they have visited regularly over several years. I have also attended conferences where featured speakers have received their visas late or not at all.

Unfavourable comparisons are made with other EU countries in the Schengen zone – the 22 EU members which have abolished passport controls at their common borders – or even with the United States.

Part of the explanation may be the ambivalence and sheer muddled thinking that often seems to prevail at the very top. On the one hand, the British Government has an electoral mandate for a sharp reduction in immigration. Yet its toughest talk concerns prospective new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria – about whom it can actually do nothing.

On the other hand, it is keen to attract ever more overseas (non-EU) students, while refusing them the right to stay after graduation.

Looking enviously across at France, it also wants many more tourists, especially those, such as high-spending Chinese, of whom France attracted six times more than Britain last year.

To this end, the Chancellor, George Osborne, recently proposed simplifying the visa rules for Chinese business people and tour groups if they were also applying for a visa from one of the Schengen countries. France has since gone one better by providing a 48-hour service. The race for the Chinese yuan is on.

However, Britain’s efforts to be competitive have only introduced more inconsistencies. Membership of Schengen has been rejected by successive UK governments on the grounds that it would mean contracting out border security to other EU countries. Yet, as is now tacitly acknowledged, nonmembership puts Britain at a disadvantage in the tourism stakes. So it has come close to accepting the Schengen visa process in practice, but only for well-heeled Chinese.

One consequence could be resentment on the part of others, including those from the Commonwealth and the former Soviet Union. Individual visitors – relatives, artists, performers or academics – already feel they receive short shrift. Positive discrimination for Chinese business people and shoppers could only make matters worse.

UK visas are a particularly sore point among Russians, with the British authorities stressing security concerns, and Moscow insisting that any liberalization be reciprocal. It would be facetious to suggest that the new arrangements for Chinese could be extended to others – by requiring, say, sponsoring organizations, to include generous shopping vouchers with their invitations.

But should the way to a British visa really lie through Harrods? There must be a more equitable, less mercenary, way.

Mary Dejevsky is a columnist for The Independent

February 8, 2014
GCHQ chief to step down by year’s end following Snowden leaks

Iain Lobban the director of GCHQ (Reuters/UK Parliament via REUTERS TV)

The head of GCHQ, Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, will step down by year’s end, the Foreign Office said. Officials denied his departure was linked to public outrage over mass surveillance revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Iain Lobban, 53, has served as GCHQ’s director since June 2008. His departure was officially described as a long-considered move, but comes just a few weeks after he was summoned to answer MPs’ questions about surveillance operations in an unprecedented televised open session of the UK parliament’s intelligence and security committee, along with the heads of MI5 and MI6.

“Iain Lobban is doing an outstanding job as director of GCHQ,” a spokesperson said. “Today is simply about starting the process of ensuring we have a suitable successor in place before he moves on, planned at the end of the year.”

Officials dismissed suggestions his decision was influenced by revelations made by Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, whose leaks revealed details of a massive global surveillance network run by the NSA and other members of the so-called Five Eyes alliance – the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Despite accounting for the bulk of Britain’s three intelligence agencies’ combined budget of £2 billion, GCHQ had previously attracted far less public attention than MI5 or MI6.

It was damaging media revelations regarding wide-scale collaboration between GCHQ and the NSA that resulted in Lobban being called to appear before the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee alongside the heads of MI5 and MI6 in November.

At the hearing, Lobban accused Snowden’s disclosures of seriously damaging Britain’s counter-terrorism efforts, saying extremists had discussed changing their communication methods following the revelations.

Critics, however, have accused GCHQ of working hand-in-hand with the NSA in massively intruding on the private communications of millions of citizens.

In June, the Guardian reported the NSA had secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world’s phone calls and internet traffic, and, by 2010, was able to boast the “biggest internet access” of any member of the Five Eyes alliance.

According to media reports, the NSA and GCHQ had a particularly close relationship, sharing troves of data in what Snowden called “the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.”

Around 850,000 NSA employees and contractors with top secret clearance had access to the GCHQ databases, allowing them to view and analyze information garnered from such subtly titled programs as ‘Mastering the Internet (MTI)’ and ‘Global Telecoms Exploitation (GTE).’

Lobban, who first joined GCHQ in 1983, insisted in November that GCHQ did not spend its time “listening to the telephone calls or reading the e-mails of the majority” of British citizens.

Sir Iain’s counterpart at the NSA, General Keith Alexander, alongside his deputy, John Inglis, are also stepping down later this year.

There is also an ongoing campaign pushing for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to resign for lying under oath by telling Congress the NSA did “not wittingly” collect data on hundreds of millions of Americans.

RT, 29.01.2014

January 30, 2014