Category: Lebanon

More Arab tourists visit Turkey after abolishing visa requirements

(DP-News-World Bulletin)

Abolishing visa requirements with some countries has driven an exceptional rise in the number of tourists to Turkey, particularly from Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Libya, recent data revealed.

According to data the Tourism Investors Association (TYD) shared with Cihan News Agency, the overall number of tourists from Arab countries to Turkey has risen by almost 50 percent in the first six months of this year over the same period of 2009, a direct result of recently improving relations with countries in the region.

Speaking about the increasing interest of Arab tourists in Turkey, TYD President Turgut Gur says people from Middle Eastern countries tend to prefer vacation hubs such as Istanbul and Antalya; however, the Black Sea region is gradually becoming more popular with these same Arab tourists.

“There has been a remarkable increase in the number of Arab tourists visiting Turkey particularly after the elimination of visa requirements with some countries in the region. One can assume that Arab tourists feel more comfortable in Turkey than in any European country or in the US due to certain cultural and religious similarities,” he suggested.

Along with the elimination of visa requirements, the government’s recent interactions with Israel, due to the ongoing Gaza blockade, and the spread of Turkish soap operas among the Arab population, via satellite TV, has created a positive image for Turkey in the region.

According to Gur the existing Arab tourist potential for Turkey could certainly increase even more if Turkey knows how to “take advantage of it.” “We need to improve our relationship with Arab tourists with such incentives as employing more Arabic-speaking people in tourism facilities,” he suggested. Gur had earlier said he expects the number of Arab tourists to reach 1 million this year.

Businesses attune themselves to Arab tourists’ preferences
Having seen the growing interest in and curiosity about Turkey, tour operators, hotel owners and business owners are looking to hire new employees who can speak Arabic as they want to provide better service and attract as many as Arab tourists as they can, Cuneyt Mengu, the owner of the Mercan tourism agency says. He remarked, “We see that businesses are trying to prepare themselves for this new trend in the Turkish tourism market.”

Some shops include product labels in Arabic, while restaurants are preparing menus to suit the tastes of Arab customers. In a unique example, following the recent flocking of Arab tourists to the region, the Trabzon Governor’s Office earlier started a program to train people who can speak Arabic to work at tourist facilities on the city’s Uzungol Plateau, famous for its scenic lake, as well as fresh fish and green scenery. Some Arab entrepreneurs are even considering buying land to build new hotels in the region, stated officials.

“Most Arab tourists that we have served in the past,” Mengu continues, “say they are happy to see people speaking Arabic in Turkey.” Noting that they are happy with the current interest from Arabs, Mengu says their company enjoyed a 15 percent increase in the number of Arab tourists in first six months over the same period of last year.

“We believe the market will see an increase in this number by the end of the year. I call on Turkish entrepreneurs to make good use of such potential,” he added.

Turkish Association of Travel Agents (TURSAB) President Basaran Ulusoy said that Turkey’s potential to attract Arab tourists should be capitalized upon since “these people stay for relatively longer and spend more than average.”

“Turkey is one of the safest and most attractive vacation destinations for the Arab world. Geographical proximity is one other advantage for us,” he said. According to Ulusoy Turkish travel agents have been successful in hosting Arab tourists by using effective advertising campaigns.

, 11/07/2010

July 11, 2010
Was the Obama Administration involved in the Planning of the Israeli Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla?

The Broader Military Agenda

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, June 6, 2010

The Israeli Naval Commando had prior knowledge of who was on the Turkish ship including where passengers were residing in terms of cabin layout. According to Swedish author Henning Mankell, who was on board the Marmara , “the Israeli forces attacked sleeping civilians.”

These were targeted assassinations. Specific individuals were targeted. Journalists were targeted with a view to confiscating their audio and video recording equipment and tapes.

“We were witnesses to premeditated murders,” said historian Mattias Gardell who was on the Mavi Marmara.

“…Asked about why activists on the Turkish ship had attacked the Israeli soldiers, Gardell stressed “it is not as if Israel is a police officer whom no human being has the legitimate right to defend him or herself against”:

“If you are attacked by commando troops you of course must have the right to defend yourself … Many people on this ship thought they were going to kill everyone. They were very frightened … It’s strange if people think one should not defend oneself. Should you just sit there and say: ‘Kill me’?” he said.” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Detailed Compiled Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Cold-Blooded Murder and Executions by Israeli Military, Global Research, June 1, 2010)

“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot,” (quoted by Press TV)

The Israeli Commando had an explicit order to kill.

What was the role of the United States?

The raids on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, bear the mark of previous Israeli operations directed against unarmed civilians. It is a well established modus operandi of Israeli military-intelligence operations, which is tacitly supported by the US administration.

The killing of civilians is intended to trigger a response by Palestinian resistance forces, which in turn justifies Israeli retaliation (on “humanitarian” grounds) as well as a process of military escalation. The logic of this process was contained in Ariel Sharon`s “Operation Justified Vengeance” initiated at the outset the Sharon government in 2001. This Operation was intent upon destroying the Palestinian Authority and transforming Gaza into an urban prison. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: Israeli Strike on Freedom Flotilla to Gaza is Part of a Broader Military Agenda, Global Research, June 1, 2010).

The Israeli attack of the Flotilla bears the fingerprints of a military intelligence operation coordinated by the IDF and Mossad, which is headed by Meir Dagan. It is worth recalling that as a young Coronel, Dagan worked closely with then defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on the Palestinian settlements of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut in 1982.

There are indications that the US was consulted at the highest levels regarding the nature of this military operation. Moreover, in the wake of the attacks, both the US and the UK have unequivocally reaffirmed their support to Israel.

There are longstanding and ongoing military and intelligence relations between the US and Israel including close working ties between various agencies of government: Pentagon, National Intelligence Council, State Department, Homeland Security and their respective Israeli counterparts.

These various agencies of government are involved in routine liaison and consultations, usually directly as well as through the US Embassy in Israel, involving frequent shuttles of officials between Washington and Tel Aviv as well as exchange of personnel. Moreover, the US as well as Canada have public security cooperation agreements with Israel pertaining to the policing of international borders, including maritime borders. (See Israel-USA Homeland Security Cooperation, See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement, Global Research, 2 April 2008)

The Role of Rahm Emmanuel

Several high level US-Israel meetings were held in the months prior to the May 31st attacks.

Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s White House chief of Staff was in Tel Aviv a week prior to the attacks. Confirmed by press reports, he had meetings behind closed doors with Prime Minister Netanyahu (May 26) as well as a private visit with President Shimon Peres on May 27.

May 26 meeting between Rahm Emmanuel and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

Official statements do not indicate whether other officials including cabinet ministers or IDF and Mossad officials were present at the Rahm Emmanuel-Netanyahu meeting. The Israeli press confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel had a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose Ministry was responsible for overseeing the Commando attack on the Flotilla. (Rahm Emanuel visits Israel to celebrate son’s bar mitzvah – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News, 23 May 2010). The White House also confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel was to meet other high-ranking Israeli officials, without providing further details. (Rahm Emanuel in Israel for Son’s Bar Mitzvah, May Meet With Officials)

“Our Man in the White House”

While born in the US, Rahm Emmanuel also holds Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli military during the First Gulf War (1991).

Rahm is also known for his connections to the pro-Israeli lobby in the US. The Israeli newspaper Maariv calls him “Our Man in the White House” (quoted in Irish Times, March 13, 2010). Rahm Emmanuel gave his support to Obama in the November 2008 presidential elections following Obama`s address to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC.

At the time of Rahm Emmanuel’s confirmation as White House chief of staff, there were reports in the Middle East media of Rahm Emanuel’s connections to Israeli intelligence.

The exact nature of Rahm Emmanuel’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus, however, is not the main issue. What we are dealing with is a broad process of bilateral coordination and decision-making between the two governments in the areas of foreign policy, intelligence and military planning, which has been ongoing for more than 50 years. In this regard, Israel, although exercising a certain degree of autonomy in military and strategic decisions, will not act unilaterally, without receiving the “green light” from Washington. Rahm Emmanuel`s meetings with the prime minister and Israeli officials are part of this ongoing process.

Rahm Emmanuel’s meetings in Tel Aviv on May 26 were a routine follow-up to visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu in March and by Minister of Defense Ehud Barak in late April. In these various bilateral US-Israel encounters at the White House, the state Department and the Pentagon, Rahm Emmanuel invariably plays a key role.

While the pro-Israeli lobby in the US influences party politics in America, Washington also influences the direction of Israeli politics. There have been reports to the effect that Rahm Emmanuel would “lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the Defense Minister Ehud Barak” against Netanyahu in the next Israeli election. (Ira Glunts, Could Rahm Emanuel Help Barak Unseat Netanyahu? Palestine Chronicle, June 2, 2010)

The April 27 meeting between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Barak pertained to “a range of important defense issues” directly or indirectly related to the status of the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation:

“As President Obama has affirmed, the United States commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations. The United States and our ally Israel share many of the same security challenges, from combating terrorism to confronting the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

For years, the United States and Israel have worked together to prepare our armed forces to meet these and other challenges, a recent major example being the Juniper Cobra joint exercise held last October. Our work together on missile-defense technology is ongoing, and the United States will continue to ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.” (Press Conference with Secretary Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Barak, April 2010 – Council on Foreign Relations April 27, 2010)

These consultations pertained to ongoing military preparations regarding Iran. Both Israel and the US have recently announced that a pre-emptive attack against Iran has been contemplated.

Washington views Israel as being “‘integrated into America’s military architecture,’ especially in the missile defense sphere.” (quoted in Emanuel to rabbis: US ‘screwed up’ Jerusalem Post, statement of Dennis Ross, who is in charge of the US administration’s Iran policy in the White House, May 16, 2010).

Targeting Iran

The attack on the Freedom Flotilla, might appear as a separate and distinct humanitiarian issue, unrelated to US-Israeli war plans. But from the standpoint of both Tel Aviv and Washington, it is part of the broader military agenda. It is intended to create conditions favoring an atmosphere of confrontation and escalation in the Middle East war theater;

“All the signs are that Israel has been stepping up its provocations to engineer a casus belli for a war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tel Aviv sees as unfinished business its inconclusive wars: the first in Lebanon in 2006, and the second in Gaza in 2008-09.” (Jean Shaoul Washington Comes to the Aid of Israel over Gaza Convoy Massacre, Global Research, June 4, 2010)

Following Israel’s illegal assault in international waters, Netanyahu stated emphatically “Israel will continue to exercise its right to self defence. We will not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza,” suggesting that the Gaza blockade was part of the pre-emptive war agenda directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon. (Israeli forces board Gaza aid ship the Rachel Corrie – Telegraph, June 5, 2010, emphasis added) .

Moreover, the raid on the Flotilla coincided with NATO-Israel war games directed against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, “three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.” (Israel Deploys Three Nuclear Cruise Missile-Armed Subs Along Iranian Coastline).

While Israeli naval deployments were underway in the Persian Gulf, Israel was also involved in war games in the Mediterranean. The war game codenamed “MINOAS 2010” was carried out at a Greek air base in Souda Bay, on the island of Crete. Earlier in February, The Israeli air force “practiced simulated strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities using airspace of two Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, which are close territorially with the Islamic republic and cooperate with Israel on this issue.” Ria Novosti,War Games: Israel gets ready to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites,, March 29, 2010)

Also, in the wake of the final resolution of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation directed against Israel’s nuclear weapons program, the White House has reaffirmed its endorsement of Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Washington’s statement issued one day before the raid on the flotilla points to unbending US support to “Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities”, which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:

“a senior political source in Jerusalem said Sunday that Israel received guarantees from U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. would maintain and improve Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities.

According to the source, “Obama gave [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu unequivocal guarantees that include a substantial upgrade in Israel-U.S. relations.”

Obama promised that no decision taken during the recent 189-nation conference to review and strengthen the 40-year-old Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty “would be allowed to harm Israel’s vital interests,” the sources said. Obama promised to bolster Israel’s strategic capabilities, Jerusalem officials say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper)

Robert Gates and Israel's Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, Press Conference, April 27, 2010

The Turkey-Israel Relationship in Jeopardy?

The actions of Israel against the Freedom Flotilla have important ramifications. Israel’s criminal actions in international waters has contributed to weakening the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.

The bilateral Israel-Turkey alliance in military, intelligence, joint military production is potentially in jeopardy. Ankara has already announced that three planned military exercises with Israel have been cancelled. “The government announced it was considering reducing its relations with Israel to a minimum.”

It should be understood that Israel and Turkey are partners and major actors in the US-NATO planned aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in the pipeline since mid-2005. The rift between Turkey and Israel has a direct bearing on NATO as a military alliance. Turkey is one of the more powerful NATO member states with regard to its conventional forces. The rift with Israel breaks a consensus within the Atlantic Alliance. It also undermines ongoing US-NATO-Israel pre-emptive war plans directed against Iran, which until recently were endorsed by the Turkish military.

From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance was directed against Syria, as well as Iran and Iraq. (For details see See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, 2006)

In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched “A Strategic Dialogue” involving a bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet, Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).

During the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which in practice is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

Starting in 2005, Israel has become a de facto member of NATO. The triple alliance was coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which included “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon).

The Issue of Territorial Waters

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is in large part motivated by the broader issue of control of Gaza’s territorial waters, which contain significant reserves of natural gas. What is at stake is the confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral de facto declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas. If the blockade were to be broken, Israel’s de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves would be jeopardy. (See Michel Chossudovsky,War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields, Global Research, January 8, 2009. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

, 6.6.2010

June 7, 2010
Turkey Exposed:

Cannot Pretend to be

Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

Publisher, The California Courier

Playing the skillful political games of their Ottoman predecessors, Turkey’s current masters present their country under various guises — as European and Middle Eastern, Islamic and secular, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli.

It now appears that the end is near for at least one of these Turkish charades. Israeli officials have finally awakened from their prolonged coma to discover that their erstwhile “strategic partner” is far more hostile than their Arab enemies.

For a long time, Turkish leaders have been calling the Israelis all sorts of unsavory names and accusing Israel of committing barbaric acts, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Strangely, Israel has shown little indignation, even in the face of persistent racist and anti-Semitic outbursts by large segments of the Turkish public.

The latest display of Turkish hostility was the exclusion of Israel from a multinational military exercise which was to start in Turkey on October 12. In protest, the United States, Italy and Holland pulled out of these maneuvers, causing their cancellation. In a move designed to further irritate the Israelis, Turkey announced that it would instead hold joint military exercises with Syria, Israel’s main adversary.

Turkey’s Prime Minster Rejeb Erdogan told the Anatolia Press Agency last week that he had banned Israel from the military drill in response to the wishes of the Turkish public. “Turkey does not take orders from anyone in regards to its internal affairs,” Erdogan boasted. Some Turkish officials indicated that the ban was instituted because the Israeli jets assigned to the exercise had participated in the Gaza bombings earlier this year.

This episode marks a major escalation of the long-standing Turkish bitterness towards Israel. For the first time, the Turkish military joined the civilian government in adopting an anti-Israeli position. Furthermore, Turkey went beyond mere verbal condemnation to taking concrete action. For years, the Israeli government was willing to swallow insults from Turkish officials, as long as its Air Force was permitted to make practice runs in the vast Turkish airspace, shared intelligence, and sold military hardware to Turkey.

Making matters worse, Israelis were deeply offended by the broadcast of a Turkish show on state TV last week, depicting graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children and committing other atrocities.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted by summoning the Turkish ambassador and accused Turkey of inciting hatred against Israelis. Lieberman stated that not even Israel’s enemies would air such a hostile TV series. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses.” Another Israeli official stated: “We need to stop accepting the Turkish dictates and humiliations. It is inconceivable that they should insult us at every opportunity, and we should continue to hold our tongues.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected any future mediating role for Turkey in talks with Syria. An unnamed “senior Israeli official” was quoted by Haaretz as stating that the strategic ties with Turkey may “have simply ended.” Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post quoted some Israeli defense officials as stating that “advanced weapons sales to Turkey would now be reviewed.”

There were also widespread calls last week for the Israeli public to boycott Turkish resorts. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that Israel’s largest labor union would no longer plan for thousands of its workers organized tours of Turkey, and would direct them to go instead to Greece and Bulgaria. Since January, there has been a 47% drop in the number of Israelis spending their vacations in Turkey, according to Time magazine. An Israeli coffee shop chain expressed its displeasure by announcing that it would no longer serve Turkish coffee to its customers. In an unprecedented move, several Israeli cabinet ministers declared that they would turn down the Turkish Embassy’s invitation to attend Turkey’s Independence Day celebrations later this month.

Many outraged Israelis advocated that, in retaliation, Israel acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Dan Margalit of “Israel Hayom” newspaper accused the Turks of not only committing Genocide, but also the “ongoing crime, which is expressed in energetic Turkish activity to deny the atrocity and to incite against any country and government and artist who wish to express their horror.”

Ephraim Inbar, head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, reminded the Turks that they are still in need of “Israeli influence in Washington to prevent the passage in Congress of a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians during World War I a genocide.”

In an unprecedented action, the “Im Tirtzu” Israeli student movement held a protest last week in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. The students displayed bloody pictures of victims of the Armenian Genocide, handed out books on the Genocide to passersby, and carried signs calling on Turkey to formally recognize the Genocide.

To atone for its past sin of siding with Turkish denialists, Israel must officially affirm the Armenian Genocide as well as actively lobby for its recognition by other states. Israel should also permit the erection of a monument at a prominent location to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide and reverse its long-standing ban on TV broadcast of documentaries on this subject. It is certainly in Israel’s own interest to side with the victims of genocide rather than with its perpetrators!

Instead of maintaining at all cost its unholy alliance with Turkey, Israel should earnestly pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians and live in peace with its Arab neighbors, thus obviating the need to curry favors with the Turkish denialist regime.

==================== SUBJECT RELATED E-MAIL’S RECEIVED=

From: Ismet Takim [ismettakim@yahoo.com]

Subject: {Pax Turcica} Our problems are just begining, l worned you all before, we play this game we will loose and guess who is happy???

READ

Turkey Exposed:

and any of you still have any questions about this? some of our readers here is also responsiable for this and you have no idea what we will face, you just sit and watch, pro Palestenian Turkey is comitting suicide,

Erdogan made the biggest mistake, and some of you who posts pro

Filistin BS, tags and articles here should be ashame of themselves

they have done a disservice and put our mainly my efforts back in

time, and we have to fix this now, l have to go to work again and undo some of this,

stupid stupid stupid bird brains bleeding hearts, stop your Anti Israel stands and get real, stop hurting Turkey,

======================================================

From: Metin Mangir [mangir.metin@gmail.com]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

While we are all focussed on the Armenian issue (because of our

proxomity to the diaspora) Obama invited (!) Erdogan to come to WDC on

Oct 29 (with two weeks notice), following the cancellation of the joint

military exercises with Israel, US, and the increasing row with Israel

upon showing of a TV program on TRT. (now that Turkey has good

relations with Syria, does it not need Israel to squeeze Syria?? which

was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

The choice of date and such short notice is VERY significant (and

insulting)! The big brother is calling the errant boy on the carpet?

By the way, in general the news about the Armenian protocols are

positive in Turkey (amazing!). Very few voices are opposing it. Also

it has lost its luster as the “milli birlik acilimi” and the return of

34 people from Irak upon Ocalan’s orders has taken the center stage.

If the borders open the real big winner will be Russia, more than

Armenia. Since (rightly) Azerbeycan will be pissed off at Turkey and

the West, and get closer to Russia (if it can dare to play with such

danger) and the West, US will loose the Caucases.

What I do not understand is

1) how come US is willing to let this happen? What has Russia forced

upon US following Georgia?

2) Davutoglu, who has written in three different places in his book

about the crucial importance of Azerbeycan for Turkey, is going along

with this protocols steps?

Metin

==========================================

From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

Metin,

I suspect one major thing behind Obama’s sudden invitation: Afghanistan.

He may ask for more troops from Turkey. Secondarily, Iraq. O. may discuss

strategy with E. on the mechanics of US pull out, the vacuum in Iraq, etc.

All have to do with US involvement in unpopular, unwanted wars that are

draining the US economy and social life.

Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and others are little more than dressing for

the salad.

This is one man’s opinion. 🙂

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

===================================================

Statement released by National Security Council that met today is below. Afghanistan issue has been discussed. Turkey will resume Kabul Area Commandership for the second time.

Afganistan‘da son dönemde meydana gelen gelişmeler, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri dahil, değerlendirilmiş, ülkemizin Afganistan‘ın istikrarına yönelik katkı ve girişimlerinin sürdürüleceği belirtilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin Kabil Bölge Komutanlığı görevini Kasım 2009 başında ikinci defa alacağı, yine önceki görevlerde olduğu gibi, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin terörle mücadele, uyuşturucu ile mücadele, mayın temizleme görevlerinde kullanılmayacağı teyit edilmiştir.

Fariz Huseynov [huseynovfa@gmail.com]

=======================================================================

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <vaslay@aol.com> wrote:

dear Ergun

you are not alone for this opinion

is isn’t funny while we are disgracing our man and women in uniform ( TSK)
Obama needs our soldiers not government

if you didn’t have one of the best army in the middle east

O. wouldn’t care less for you

regardas,

vedat aslay

——————-

Dear Metin

Excellent observation and analysis

I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

Yes Russia it seems that the big winner?

how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

The is a big game going on over the middle east and Central Asia.

The player are strong and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, TURKEY and even Israel is foot soldiers in this game

Obama will make sure that Erdogan is not out of step. If he is you know in military

SOL, SAG, SOL SAG, SOL, SOL P……. SOL
Don’t worry this game is a long game and we are just watching part I

Vedat Aslay vaslay@aol.com

========================================================

From: Yusif [yusif@azeris.com]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

That’s correct. Russia will be a winner big time.

First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

politically.

Second, they will realize the South Stream project, always viewed as

an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

southern Europe and Turkey itself.

Third, under the pretext of protection of South Stream, Russia will

completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

and through Armenian element will be able to exert pressure on Turkey

and possibly other Middle Eastern states in the future. It benefits

Russia to see islamization of Turkey. The practice of moderate Islam

in the form of Gulenist ideology actually may suit Russia’s interests.

In regards to US interests in the deal there are several factors.

First of all, US was hoping for Russia’s support on the issues of

nuclear threat from Iran. In general, apart from everything else, it

is not in Russia’s interest to see containment and any sort of

democratization of Iran. There is 25 mln Azeri minority in Iran which

if needed could be a decisive factor in the future partition of Iran

or a tool to bring down the current mullah regime. That’s one of the

reasons Stalin was willing to and finally withdrew from Iran in 1946

because he did not want a more sizeable Azeri minority within Soviet

borders.

Secondly, in my opinion, it’s not the US that is exerting pressure on

Turkey. I think it’s Turkey which is using its inadequate behavior

with Israel to pressure the United States. If we go back to 2003 we

would see that Turkey was bold enough to withstand pressure from US

during proposed invasion of Iraq from Turkey. To me personally, it

doesn’t make sense to see America give up Azerbaijan and Georgia and

the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

politically.

As far as Turkey’s position about Azerbaijan is concerned, I think

they might have striken a deal on withdrawal of Armenian troops from 5

occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

mission. In any case, allowing any peacekeeping missions in Karabakh

would be disastrous for Azerbaijan. If Russia’s troops are allowed to

be stationed on Azerbaijani soil in any form, this would be the end of

Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

Georgia is a good example.

Presence of US troops would mean almost the same. Experience with

Kosovo is a good example. That’s why Kaidanow is all around (http://

www.a1plus.am/en/official/2009/10/20/nalbandian-tina-kaidanow)

Presence of Turkish troops, if any, would mean nothing at all,

especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

conflict and interim status of NK last forever, therefore ending in

partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

I guess, the original plan of these regional players is:

1. to strike a deal, have Armenian troops withdrawn from 5 regions;

2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

4. re-arrange routes of energy resources from Azerbaijan and Central

Asia through Armenia and/or through occupied Karabakh, as many allege;

5. build confidence between people of the region

6. hold a referendum in NK. Holding a referendum in Karabakh would

mean complete loss.

Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

Armenians in Karabakh. That’s when the numbers will matter.

Yusif

================================================

Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]

The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

Case one: Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly. Check out these recent developments:

1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

4- Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan. If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia. Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out. We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package. Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

April 24 is not far away. We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines. (Prediction: the latter. Why? Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out. Huge mistake!)

Case two: Israel

This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

My take on all this:

I am not against dialog or peace. I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

October 20, 2009
Is Turkey new light ray in darkness of Middle East?

Trend News Middle East Desk Commentator, Ulviyya Sadikhova

Perhaps, after the end of the Israel – Hamas war in the Gaza Strip in January, 2009, Turkey did not seek to solve the acute problems in the Middle East with such zeal, as it has shown in the last two months.

Ankara made its debut in the Middle East by nominating itself as the chief mediator in the resolution of the Syrian-Iraqi dispute, which erupted after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused the Syrian regime of sheltering organizers of two major terrorist attacks on Baghdad, which killed nearly 100 people.

Although Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davudoglu said his country does not mediate in the reconciliation of Damascus and Baghdad, since the very beginning of disagreements Davudoglu has met with Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and then with al-Maliki in Baghdad.

At a meeting of the League of Arab States in Cairo the Arab countries acknowledged Turkey’s success in preventing acute Syria-Iraq conflict.

In fact, Ankara needs to pacify the situation in the Middle East, which went out of control as a result of constant internal collisions. One can mention several reasons, but the most prominent are two: the fight against the separatists of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the immense progress in relations with Syria.

Regarding the PKK matter, the Iraqi government has never been the best assistant for Turkey. Firstly, views on cooperation with Turkey in the fighting against separatists, who are based in the north, have split up in Iraq. Despite President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd by origin, expressed his full support in the fight against PKK terrorists in Iraq, the issue of an independent Kurdistan is still questionable. Analysts also believe the Shiite parties in Iraq, including al-Maliki’s party, are unlikely to disregard the Kurdish political organizations on the eve of elections in January 2010. Therefore, Turkey will not benefit from the agreement with Iraq to cooperate against the PKK. Taking into account the internal weakness of Iraqi state power due to the struggle among of pro-Iranian Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni parties, new differences with Syria could offer a ground for further division of the country. Realizing this risk and the fear that the PKK will take advantage of the situation to strengthen fighting, Turkey demanded the Iraqi authorities to clarify accusations against Damascus and provide substantial evidence.

Besides, a slight warming has been observed recently between the Iraqi pro-Iranian bloc and Turkey. One of the most influential Iraqi Shiite leaders, Muqtada al-Sadr, visited Turkey in summer.

The cooperation with Syria in the fight against PKK terrorists is another issue. Though the PKK issue was about to cause the Syria -Turkey war ten years ago, now this is one of the pillars of relations between the two countries. Syria, where head of the Kurdistan Workers Party, Abdullah Ocalan, hid more than ten years ago, stated on its readiness to open its borders to the Syrian citizens of Kurdish origin, who are fighting against the Turkish government in mountainous areas, if the latter lay down their arms against Ankara.

It seems Syria could not offer better one, because Turkey virtually received a guarantee and the place, where it will be able to banish the terrorists and extremists, whereas the Kurdistan administration of Iraq and the Kurdish parties in Iraq do not give any guarantee to Ankara in suppressing the PKK.

It is interesting, since 2008, Turkey has focused on improving relations with Syria. Turkey started with the weak point – negotiations with Israel and the returning of the Golan Heights. Although a year later Turkey’s mediation failed, Syria and Israel were able to come together in only one – both were satisfied with Ankara’s role.

In addition, Turkey’s rapprochement with Syria is not accidental. Damascus – Iran’s main ally among the Arab countries – has a direct impact on the internal situation in Lebanon, where a pro-Iranian Party of Hezbollah operates. More likely, Turkey wants to participate in an internal crisis in Lebanon and the Palestinian split, as well as to find alternative routes to Iran through Syria, given the ambitions to assume the role of chief peacemaker in the Middle East.

Cooperation with Turkey is advantageous also for Syria, especially to improve relations with Sunni and pro-Western Arab countries.

Al-Assad’s surprising visit to Riyadh on Wednesday, following the Turkish president’s meeting with King Abdullah II in Jeddah, was the first signal that Damascus resumed dialogue with the Saudis, who will have a direct impact on the political crisis in Lebanon, shaken by grim struggle for power between the pro-Saudi majority of Saad al-Hariri and the pro-Syrian opposition Hezbollah. Analysts predicted that the formation of government in Lebanon will delay until Syria and Saudi Arabia come to an agreement. However, Syria and the Saudi kingdom have very different interests in Lebanon and now Turkey, which is one of the largest Sunni countries, interferes in the dialogue. Ankara wants to show Saudi Arabia that it could persuade Syria to take a more moderate position in Lebanon. Al-Assad’s visit to Riyadh, on the backdrop of the refusal of the Saudi king Abdullah II to visit Damascus, is a great chance for Syria to demonstrate its “humility” in the Middle East policy and select a diplomatic way to solve the Arabian interior problems.

Experts believe that attraction of Syria to the pro-Western Ankara is a hidden attempt to weaken Iran.

Ankara has never had open tensions with Tehran and even enshrined Iran the right to peaceful atom in the issue of nuclear program. However, speaking to the 64th UN General Assembly in New York, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan supported Russia’s plan and the United States to clear up the Middle East from nuclear weapons. Is Turkey decided to throw down a secret challenge to Iran? Although nuclear program exists in Israel and will soon appear in Saudi Arabia, it is still associated with the enrichment of uranium by Iran. Does Turkey strive for a new mediation in the nuclear program between Tehran and Western countries, what had Davudoglu hinted at during a visit to Iran?

To prove and to demonstrate the effectiveness of its diplomacy in the Middle East – that is what Turkey wants to demonstrate to the West. Still the old interests of the Middle East will define whether Turkey will achieve it easily and what else Ankara has to do.

Source: en.trend.az, 26.09.2009

September 26, 2009
Davutoglu Promotes Stability in Lebanon

Davutoglu Promotes Stability in Lebanon

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 149

August 4, 2009

By: Saban Kardas

On July 30-31, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Lebanon, where he met the country’s leading politicians, and visited the Turkish contingent serving as part of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the local Turkish-speaking communities. Davutoglu’s agenda highlighted the contours of his new diplomacy, which utilizes Turkish cultural identity and seeks to reconnect with the “external Turks.”

Before his departure for Lebanon, Davutoglu stated that the main purpose of his trip was to make a contribution to the stalled efforts to form a coalition government, by drawing on the close contacts Turkey enjoys with all political groups (Cihan, July 30).

Ankara has proven eager to facilitate talks on a coalition government between the two blocs led by the prime minister designate, Saad Hariri, and an opposing group including Hezbollah. In addition to the disagreements between the two groups over a power-sharing arrangement, the meddling of other regional states prevented the formation of a government since the elections in June. Ahead of Davutoglu’s visit, it was announced that the parties had agreed on a government arrangement including the distribution of seats and would work out the technical details and distribution of portfolios (Daily Star, July 30).

Davutoglu held talks with the Lebanese president, prime minister and other officials as well as the representatives of political parties. Afterwards he highlighted Lebanon’s key role in promoting regional stability, and Turkey’s deep interest in regional peace. He expressed his satisfaction with the “positive progress” achieved in coalition talks. “We support all efforts and plans that could bring peace to the region,” Davutoglu added (Anadolu Ajansi, July 31).

As part of its policy of creating a peaceful neighborhood, the Turkish government has become actively involved in the resolution of regional issues. In those endeavors, the “cultural identity” of the governing Justice and Development Party has been an important asset, helping it connect with regional leaders. Already during his tenure as the chief foreign advisor to the prime minister, Davutoglu visited the region in order to facilitate talks between various groups and governments, and established an extensive network of personal and professional contacts. In Lebanon, he can claim credit for being able to talk to all groups, including the pro-Western factions and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

More importantly, Davutoglu possesses an asset, perhaps unlike any previous Turkish foreign minister: he can connect with his counterparts and the people of the region by speaking their shared cultural language. One journalist accompanying him, Abdulhamit Bilici, noted: “At times [Davutoglu], when speaking to Lebanese leaders, explains a situation to them through using verses from the holy Quran as well as the Hadith. When necessary he recalls moments in Islamic history, in which his addressees are well versed” (Today’s Zaman, August 1).

However, it remains to be seen as to whether this will assist in Ankara’s efforts to resolve the perennial conflicts in the region, where many other mediation efforts have failed. The trip also revealed another element in Davutoglu’s recent diplomacy: in his trips abroad, Davutoglu has visited Ottoman-Turkish cultural sites, and met the Turkish-speaking communities in an effort to reconnect with the once-forgotten “external Turks.”

For instance, during his recent trip to Serbia and Montenegro, Davutoglu visited the Sandzak, a region populated by Bosnians, Serbians, Montenegrins and other groups, including Turks. Davutoglu was the first Turkish minister to visit the region after the Ottoman Empire lost it in 1912. He received a very warm welcome in the city of Novi Pazar, and sought to mediate a feud between two local Bosnian politicians who had not talked to each other for several years. Similarly, he attempted to bridge differences between two muftis (religious leaders), by attending Friday prayers in two different mosques (Milliyet, July 26).

In Lebanon, Davutoglu visited a centuries-old Mevlevi lodge, currently undergoing restoration at Ankara’s expense, and attended a performance by whirling dervishes. He also visited a Turkmen village near Tripoli which was practically unheard of in Turkey, where he was welcomed cheerfully by the villagers. In another village he attended the opening ceremony of a Turkish-built hospital with a capacity to serve as many as 20,000 patients annually (Radikal, August 1).

Such policies aimed at reaching out to those communities resonate well with Turkey’s policy of regaining political influence in areas once controlled by various Turkish states in Eurasia, as they can act as important bridges between Turkey and the host countries. However, in some cases, these communities are small and exert no sizeable influence in the national politics of the host nation. Therefore, these efforts play a largely symbolic role: they serve to identify with Turkey’s cultural hinterland, which is one of the pillars of Davutoglu’s foreign policy thinking.

The Turkish-speaking communities living beyond the borders of modern Turkey were practically forgotten. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Anatolian Turks rediscovered their brethren in Eurasia, which led to closer ties between Ankara and the new nations in the post-Soviet space. Davutoglu appears determined to fulfill a “historic responsibility” by reconnecting to these smaller communities. Toward this end, Ankara increased the funds of the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA), originally established in 1992 to coordinate Turkish aid programs in Eurasia, and expanded its geographical coverage. Turkey has initiated several projects to build schools, hospitals and other infrastructure serving the Turkish and host communities, which has served as an important diplomatic tool (www.tika.gov.tr).

While “external Turks” make a positive contribution to Turkey’s foreign policy, however, they might also become a liability depending on the development of relations between the host nations and the Turkish communities. Although President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Xinjiang during his China trip was greeted positively, it did not prevent the ensuing developments in the region, when China’s violent repression of ethnic violence damaged Ankara’s diplomatic and trade relations with Beijing (EDM, July 8, 15).

https://jamestown.org/program/davutoglu-promotes-stability-in-lebanon/

August 6, 2009
Turkish Government and Opposition Remain Divided over Foreign Policy

Turkish Government and Opposition Remain Divided over Foreign Policy

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 121

June 24, 2009

By: Saban Kardas

On June 23, the Turkish Parliament approved a motion that will authorize the government to renew the term of the Turkish peacekeeping force contributing to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), for one more year, effective from September 5. The parliamentary discussions preceding the vote demonstrate that differences remain between the governing AKP and the opposition parties in regards to their approaches to foreign policy.

Reflecting its growing involvement in Middle Eastern politics, Turkey played an active role during the 2006 summer war between Israel and Hezbollah. To pacify Lebanon following the Israeli military strikes, the U.N. Security Council enhanced the mandate of UNIFIL in August 2006 to undertake additional tasks, including monitoring the cessation of hostilities and helping the Lebanese armed forces to expand its authority in the south (www.unifil.unmissions.org).

European nations expressed an interest in fielding a peacekeeping force to prevent the destabilization of the entire region. Given the Turkish army’s experience in peacekeeping operations, and Turkey’s ties to both Israel and Arab nations, there emerged an expectation that Turkey could play a central role in this initiative. The participation of Turkey as a Muslim nation was seen as necessary in order to prevent the impression that the international force was seeking to impose a “Western” plan. It was even suggested that Turkey could lead the international force, on its own or jointly with France. Although Israel reportedly favored this idea, Hezbollah sources did not welcome it (Yeni Safak, June 25, 2006).

Moreover, Turkish public opinion was strongly opposed to the participation of Turkish soldiers in such a controversial mission. Since this international force was perceived as a measure to contain Hezbollah, there were concerns that the Turkish forces might be forced to engage in armed conflict with Hezbollah militants, which might have complicated Turkey’s friendly relations with Arab states. Given the growing anti-American sentiments within Turkish society, this force was portrayed as an occupation force acting on behalf of Israel (Yeni Asya, August 14, 2006). Despite this domestic opposition, the government preferred to cooperate with the international community. It conducted a careful risk analysis, and the then Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul consulted other regional actors and the major political factions in Lebanon to gauge their reactions to any military deployment (Zaman, August 15, 2006; Aksam, September 3, 2006).

As a compromise solution, Ankara agreed to contribute to the UNIFIL with non-combat units, and stressed that it would not participate in the demilitarization of Hezbollah. The Turkish Parliament approved the deployment in September 2006, following intense discussions. The opposition parties voted against the motion, but given its parliamentary majority, the AKP was able to obtain the necessary authorization (Turkiye, September 6, 2006). The Turkish contingent was deployed to Lebanon in October 2006 (Sabah, October 12, 2006), and the mandate of the force was renewed in 2007 and 2008. The Turkish armed forces have contributed patrol boats to the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force and a military engineering company to assist the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon (www.tsk.tr; www.unifil.unmissions.org).

As the mandate of the Turkish contingent expires in September, the government forwarded a motion to the parliament seeking an extension. Since the AKP’s recent foreign policy initiatives have encountered strong resistance from opposition parties, the fate of the motion was unclear. In another recent parliamentary debate, the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), supported by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), literally waged a “war of attrition” to prevent the passage of a bill concerning mine clearance on the Turkish-Syrian border. The bill eventually passed after these delays, only after the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan pressured the deputies from his party (EDM, May 21, 29, June 5).

No major discussions emerged over the governmental motion extending the mandate of the Turkish contingent, which might be related to its forces not encountering any serious issues thus far. The CHP continued to approach the UNIFIL from a skeptical perspective. The CHP speaker maintained that the UNIFIL’s mission is not limited to the provision of humanitarian services and ensuring regional stability alone. Rather, its purpose is to provide conditions for a future military operation to “eliminate Hezbollah and… act as a shield to protect Israel in the event of such an operation.” He also maintained that despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s rhetoric on mending fences with Turkey, he has not been sensitive to Turkey’s interests in the Middle East, most importantly regarding the PKK issue. The MHP speaker praised the achievements of the Turkish force, but restated his criticism of the policies pursued by other international actors toward the Middle East. The opposition parties failed to oppose the government’s motion, but demanded that it act more assertively to protect Turkish interests vis-à-vis international actors -in particular the United States. In his address to parliament, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu emphasized that Turkey’s contributions to Lebanon has to be discussed in the context of its new strategy of contributing to global and regional peace. Davutoglu maintained that, both through its soft power and military capabilities, “Turkey is playing an order instituting role” in its region (www.tbmm.gov.tr, June 23).

Nonetheless, the parliamentary discussions highlighted the underlying divisions between the AKP and the opposition parties, over their positions on how to harmonize Turkey’s regional policies with those of other global actors. The opposition maintains a deep-rooted skepticism toward the agendas of international actors in the Middle East. In contrast, the AKP considers Turkey’s cooperation with the international institutions and Western nations as complementary to its own regional policies. As the AKP strives to promote the country’s regional power status, it triggers suspicions among some circles in the West that view this new policy as a departure from Turkey’s Western orientation. However, on the domestic front, the AKP’s concern not to challenge the interests of international actors, exposes it to criticism for failing to adequately protect its national interests. How Davutoglu manages this “double-challenge,” might prove a major test of his skills as a geostrategist.

https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-government-and-opposition-remain-divided-over-foreign-policy/

June 24, 2009