Turkish Forum

Category: Middle East & Africa

  • AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA

    AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA

    MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN IS TRYING TO FIND A SUITABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE ALLEGED – ARTIFICIAL GENOCIDE CLAIMS OF ARMENIAN LOBI.. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING VALUABLE ANALYSIS ABOUT U.S.  FOREIGN POLICY.. A VERY VALUABLE AND AN EYE OPENER COLUMN.  AS TURKISH FORUM  WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND OUR MEMBERS TO READ AND SHARE…

    PS: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION? AND HOW HE REACHED TO? .. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING  POSTING AFTERD THE MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN

    TRUTHS HAVE REACHED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND DECISION

    From: Harut Sassounian [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sassounian’s column of March 5, 2009

    U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through

    Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey

    Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end Americaʼs military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.

    As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkeyʼs leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.

    Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.

    Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Todayʼs Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!

    This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.

    One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?

    One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.

    It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.

    The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.

    One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.

    Due to Turkeyʼs persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?

    The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!

    ——————– YORUM SS AYA TARAFINDAN —————-

    Harut Sassounian’s Weekly Commentary

    U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through READER’S REPLY COMMENTS!

    Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life Magazine

    Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end America’s military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.

    “…salivating? What level of literary newsman ship is this, insulting from the first line!

    As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkey’s leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.

    Benefit of gold (!) over one million dead innocent Arabs plus PKK terror just next door, by aggressors who came 10.000 miles away for looting oil of the neighboring country, bringing calamities of all types instead of democracy and progress! Sir, is your logic normal?

    Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.

    That was a dirty agreement between two adventurous leaders, which was “shot dead by accident” thanks God!

    Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Today’s Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!

    “fleece USA (?) ! Is Armenia going to send troops to Afganistan or give bases to USA as she did to Russia?

    This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.

    Sir, a man of your standing and education should not be swept out of logic just by cause of nationalism! Would USA permit Turkey to “station 65.000 soldiers in Texas, use Houston, New Orleans as landing-transit harbor and go to war with Mexico using USA soil, passing an army and armor of about 100.000 and destroy neighborly relations?” Any answers?

    One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?

    The “genocide lie, is a dirty fly in the menu on the table, which has to be served and shared”! Did it ever occur to you how much economic loss and military cost did Turkey suffer because of this unfortunate “oil banditry”?

    One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.

    It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.

    Sir, you are trying to guide USA, the country that sheltered you, into adventures and risks, just because of your “Great Armenian ego”! This error was done by your grand fathers a century ago, and it was the innocent

    well-doing Turkish Armenians that paid the bill, when all humpabets ran away leaving their compatriots in misery!

    The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.

    One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.

    “Turkish blackmail ? Or Turkish surrender and tail waging? The diaspora Armenians have not done any good for the Armenians in Armenia, or Turkey or elsewhere. Empty words of rich, secure persons, do not solve hunger!

    Due to Turkey’s persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?

    The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!

    Human Rights? Of Turkey or Iraq or USA or Armenia?

    Sir, keep the scenarios and observations for your own self. Turks are not dogs and have no tails to wag, like few typical brainwashed fanatic writers, continuously fomenting nothing but GRUDGE and TROUBLE, which is the only product they are talented to market worldwide! For more historical facts advise Altan and read as suggested.

    March 9, 09

    Sukru S. Aya – Istanbul

  • George Mitchell Visits Ankara

    George Mitchell Visits Ankara

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 40
    March 2, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    On February 25 and 26 George Mitchell, President Barack Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, visited the Turkish capital of Ankara on his second tour of the region to discuss the future of peace initiatives in the area. Mitchell’s visit is to be followed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on March 2. Mitchell held meetings with Turkish officials, including President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, and discussed Turkey’s contributions to the peace process, as well as bilateral issues between Turkey and the United States.

    Although Mitchell had been expected to go to Turkey during his first visit to the region, he was unable to do so, according to the American Embassy in Ankara, because of technical reasons and scheduling issues. Turkish sources critical of the governing Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) Middle East policies maintained that the postponement might have been a rebuke by Washington for Turkey’s pro-Hamas policies during the Gaza conflict and its aftermath, especially Erdogan’s confrontation with Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos. Foreign Ministry officials denied those speculations, saying that the visit would take place in the future (Milliyet, January 31).

    The trip and the surrounding circumstances offer signs of a thawing of relations between Turkey and the United States. Statements from American diplomats with regard to Mitchell’s visit to Ankara emphasized Washington’s appreciation of Turkey’s prior diplomatic efforts. U.S. Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey told reporters that Turkey had played a key role in many crisis spots in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Jeffrey also emphasized that Washington supported these initiatives and was willing to seek coordination with Ankara (Anadolu Ajansi, February 25).

    Following his meetings in Ankara, Mitchell told reporters that Washington viewed Turkey as a key partner for Obama’s peace efforts in the Middle East. “As an important democratic nation with strong relations with Israel, [Turkey] has a unique role to play and can have significant influence on our efforts to promote a comprehensive peace in the Middle East…. It is important for us now to look forward and to work together to build a secure, prosperous future for all of the people of this region.” Mitchell also reaffirmed Washington’s support for Ankara’s efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace and two-state solution (Anadolu Ajansi, February 26; Today’s Zaman, February 27).

    Foreign Minister Babacan had a telephone conversation with Clinton ahead of the Gaza donors’ conference. They reportedly had a warm conversation, and Clinton expressed her support for Turkey’s leading role in the region. The two politicians will meet during the conference in Egypt; and Clinton may visit Ankara following the conference, but an exact date for the trip has yet to be confirmed (Hurriyet Daily News, February 26).

    The Turkish media’s coverage of recent developments appears to support the government’s arguments that the new administration in Washington may not be troubled by the recent course of Turkish diplomacy in the Middle East. Following Turkey’s harsh criticism of Israeli policies and its departure from transatlantic consensus on controversial issues, Western observers have been debating whether Turkey was “lost” to the West and, if so, who lost it. One line of criticism maintains that the AKP government’s growing orientation toward the Middle East and its independent foreign policy are a result of its roots in Islamist politics. Therefore they argue that through its pro-Hamas attitude, Turkey has lost its neutrality and can no longer play a mediating role in Israel’s problems with its neighbors.

    Other observers instead refer to the misguided U.S. policies during the Bush administration, which alienated Ankara along with many other allies, as the major reason for the occasional divergence of positions. Moreover, they point to a determination on the part of Ankara to pursue a more autonomous foreign policy that better reflects Turkish national interests. Regarding Turkey’s policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict, they maintain that Israel’s excessive use of force mobilized social groups across the political spectrum, and Ankara’s criticism of Israel cannot be reduced to the AKP’s parochial ideological orientation.

    The AKP government too has been seeking to present its policies in the Middle East as driven by the country’s national interests and reflective of a broader consensus in society. The declared American approval of Turkey’s role in the Middle East seemingly supports the AKP’s previous arguments about the correctness of its stance. It still remains unclear, however, how far Washington will go along with Turkey’s leadership role in the region.

    A major driving theme of the Turkish government’s policy during the Israeli offensive in Gaza was its argument that Hamas should be part of any attempt to find a solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Erdogan repeatedly stressed that he would be a major advocate of the Palestinians in international forums (EDM, January 5). During Mitchell’s discussions in Ankara, he was again told by Erdogan that exclusion of Hamas from U.S. initiatives would not be realistic. Erdogan noted that since Hamas came to power, Turkey had encouraged it to follow more peaceful policies and claimed that Hamas had made some progress in that regard. Erdogan asked the United States to approach all parties from an equal distance and respect Hamas as an elected government (Cihan Haber Ajansi, February 26).

    By sending signals that it is ready to coordinate with Turkey’s diplomatic initiatives, Obama’s foreign policy team is showing that it is prepared to cooperate with regional allies and will take their interests into account. Whether it will also take their opinions into account, however, is quite another issue. The extent to which Washington is willing to negotiate with Hamas as a shareholder in the Middle East peace process and reconstruction of Gaza may also provide a real test of how far it appreciates Ankara’s new foreign policy orientation.

    https://jamestown.org/program/george-mitchell-visits-ankara-ahead-of-gaza-reconstruction-summit-mends-fences-with-turkey/

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Geopolitical Diary: The Turkish and Iranian Balance of Power
    February 27, 2009Turkish President Abdullah Gul announced on Thursday that he will make a one-day trip to Iran on March 10 to attend the Economic Cooperation Organization summit. While the summit aims to improve economic and commercial relations among the member states, the leaders will also discuss bilateral relations and regional issues. Of the two items on Gul’s agenda, his bilateral meetings with the Iranians hold far more interest for STRATFOR than anything that the summit will generate.

    Both Turkey and Iran are on the rise. Until relatively recent times, both have been contained by various forces, most notably Iraq and the Soviet Union. Between the end of the Cold War and American defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, however, many restrictions on the power of both states evaporated. Both Turkey and Iran are looking for wider roles in their region. Both have grand imperial pasts. Both have ambitions. And both are somewhat oddballs in the world of geopolitics.

    Most nations are oriented around a piece of flat, core territory where the nationality was not just born, but has entrenched itself. For France, Germany and Poland, that core is their respective portions of the Northern European Plain. The core territory of the United States is the coastal Atlantic strip east of the Appalachians. Argentina is centered on the bountiful flatlands around Buenos Aires. The defining territory of China comprises the fertile regions between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers.

    Such flatness is critical to the development of a nation because the lack of internal geographic barriers allows the dominant culture to assimilate or eliminate groups that would dilute or challenge its power. Additionally, plains regions tend to boast river systems that allow thriving agricultural, transportation and trade opportunities that mountainous regions lack. Very few states count mountains as their core simply because mountains are difficult to pacify. It is very easy for dissident or minority groups to root themselves in such regions, and the writ of the state is often weak. Consequently, most mountainous states are defined not by success but by failure. Lebanon, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Laos come to mind.

    Turkey and Iran are different. Their core lands are mountainous regions — the Anatolian Peninsula for Asia Minor and the Zagros Mountains of Persia. Even though the Turks are not original descendants of their their Anatolian power base, they were able to secure their central lands when they swept in as conquerors a millennium ago and have since destroyed or assimilated most of the natives. The Persians ruled through a dizzyingly complex system of interconnected elites that succeeded in instilling a common Persian culture that extended somewhat beyond mere ethnicity, all while keeping the base of power in the Persians’ hands.

    But that is where the similarities end. As these two states both return to prominence, it is almost inevitable that Turkey that will fare better than Iran, simply because the Turks enjoy the advantage of geography. Anatolia is a plateau surrounded by water on three sides and enjoys the blessing of the Golden Horn, which transforms the well-positioned city of Istanbul into one of the world’s best — and certainly most strategically located — ports. Turkey straddles Europe and Asia, the Balkans and the Islamic world, the former Soviet Union and the Mediterranean Basin. The result is a culture not only incredibly aware of international events, but one steeped in trade whether via its land connections or —by virtue of being a peninsula — maritime trade. Unsurprisingly, for a good chunk of the past 2,000 years, Anatolia — whether under the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines or most recently under the Turks themselves — has been at or nea r the center of human development.

    By comparison, Iran got shortchanged. Although Iran has water on two sides, it has a minimal maritime tradition. Its plateau is a salt desert. The Caspian Sea is landlocked and boasts no major population centers aside from Baku — the capital of another country with a hostile ethnic group. The Persian Gulf coast of Iran is not only lightly populated, but it is easy for powers on the gulf’s southern coast to block Iranian water access to the wider world. While Anatolia has a number of regions that are well watered — even though it does not have many rivers — Persia is predominately an arid region.

    The Turks also enjoy demographic advantages. Only one-fifth of Turkey’s population is non-Turkish, while roughly half of Iran is non-Persian. Iran requires a large army simply to maintain rule at home, while Turkey has the relative freedom to expend resources on power projection tools such as an air force and navy. The difference shines through in their respective economies as well. Despite having nearly identical populations in terms of size, Iran’s economy is only two-fifths the size of Turkey’s. Even in the battle of ideologies, Turkey retains the advantage. The Arab majority in the region prefer Turkey — a fellow Sunni power — to take the lead in managing regional affairs, whereas Shiite Persian Iran is the historical rival of the Arab world.

    Iran may be junior to Turkey in a geopolitical contest, but Iran is still a power that Turkey has to take into consideration. In a major historical reversal, the Iranians have regained influence over Iraq with the rise of a Shia-dominated government that they had lost to the Turks in the mid-1550s, bringing the two powers closer into contact. When two expansionary powers interact closely — as Turkey and Iran are now — they can be either driven to conflict or come to an understanding regarding their respective spheres of influence. In the present day, there are probably more causes for cooperation than conflict between Ankara and Tehran. Iran’s westward expansion gives Turkey and Iran good reasons to cooperate in order to contain Iraq’s Kurdish population in the north. Moreover, Turkey’s bid to become a major energy transit state would improve significantly through a better relationship with Iran.

    Given this dynamic, Gul’s upcoming trip to Iran is likely to be the first of many. The Turks and the Persians have much to sort out on the bilateral level as each seeks to expand their geopolitical influence.

    Tell Stratfor What You Think

    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    © Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.

  • Iran owes BOTAS $750 million

    Iran owes BOTAS $750 million

    ANKARA, Turkey, Feb. 27 (UPI) — Iran must pay Turkey $750 million stemming from a case won by Turkish state-owned pipeline operator BOTAS in international court.

    BOTAS won its case before the International Chamber of Commerce Commission on Arbitration on Feb. 17. The arbitration court found Iran must pay $750 million for refusing Turkish demands to lower gas prices under provisions requested in a 2003 contract, Turkish daily Today’s Zaman reports Friday, citing anonymous sources.

    The ruling said Iran is obligated to compensate Turkey for the losses from the higher gas prices since the initial 2003 request.

    Turkey had requested a lower price because of lower-than-expected gas volumes, disruptions in transports and low-quality product.

    Turkish officials said the ruling, however, will not impact the relationship between the two countries in the energy sector.

    The details of the court decision had not yet been released to the public.

    https://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/02/27/Iran_owes_BOTAS_750_million/UPI-64261235752184/

  • Clinton’s Travel to the Middle East and Europe

    Clinton’s Travel to the Middle East and Europe

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Travel to the Middle East and Europe
    Robert Wood

    Acting Department Spokesman, Office of the Spokesman

    Bureau of Public Affairs

    Washington, DC

    February 26, 2009

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Belgium, Switzerla nd, and Turkey from March 1-7, 2009.

    Secretary Clinton will attend and participate in the donor’s conference for Gaza recovery hosted by Egypt on March 2. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell and other high-level representatives will be in attendance in Sharm el-Sheikh with the Secretary during the conference. The Secretary also will meet with senior Egyptian officials.

    After the conference, Secretary Clinton will travel to Israel and the Palestinian Territories and meet with senior officials.

    In Brussels, Secretary Clinton will attend an informal meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers on March 5, where she will consult with Allies and seek consensus on the approach to the upcoming NATO Summit. The Secretary also will attend a meeting with foreign ministers from all NATO and EU countries, as well as Switzerland, to further boost transatlantic relations.

    Also in Brussels, Secretary Clinton will meet separately with EU officials.

    In Geneva, Secretary Clinton will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss a number of issues of mutual interest, including possibilities for a follow-on agreement to START, and deepening our cooperation in areas such as Afghanistan.

    While in Ankara Secretary Clinton will meet with key Turkish officials.

  • The unconstructive role

    The unconstructive role

    NYTurkishtimes published.
    Evaluation of the Turkmen policy of Turkey

    S O İ T M

    Iraqi Turkmen Human Rights Research Foundation

    There are several important factors which influence the development of the Turkmen political structure negatively, such as; the long history of isolation, exposure to the fierce assimilation policies and remaining in between two stronger nationalist communities; the Arabs and Kurds.

    However, disregarding the Turkmen communal interests and the absence of co-operation and solidarity between Turkmen political groups can be considered as the most destructive factors to the Turkmen political system since the establishment of the Safe Haven area, particularly after, the occupation of Iraq.

    Today, the political authority of the Iraqi Turkmen is feeble and has no power of influence.

    Being the most powerful and receiver of sizeable external support, the Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF) holds the primary responsibility for the retardation of the Turkmen political system. [1]

    ITF:

    * Is one of the most important obstacles in front of reforming the Turkmen political system. It refuses calls for any type of reform. The Turkmen Council which is administered by the same source is a poppet organization representing only one political view
    * Is dominated by several families
    * Suffers from destructive internal disagreements
    * Could not gain and/or lost the support of most of the Iraqi Turkmen population and the support of the Iraqi Turkmen intellectuals and politicians.
    * Is marginalized inside and outside Iraq
    * Deliberately and ignorantly introduced the fundamentalist – secular discrimination into the Turkmen politics
    * Its’ employment policy in the administration has:
    o Openly diverted the power of the ITF, frequently, against the Turkmen national interests
    o Made the Turkmen of Iraq fail to get political and logistic support from several important national, regional and international powers

    The continuation of this state of affairs is certainly going to further deteriorate the Turkmen political structure and expose the Turkmen population to further disappointments while several serious challenges are approaching in the upcoming periods.

    The important characteristics of the ITF system, which renders it ineffectual and inhibit its development, are:

    * Several organs elect themselves, for example, the Turkmen council elects the delegation of the Turkmen Congress which elects the Turkmen council. As a result, the Turkmen council elects itself.
    * The Turkmen council elects the nine members of the ITF’s executive board which elects the president of ITF. The president has absolute executive control and dominates the decision making mechanism.[2]
    * The Turkmen council which was instituted as the highest Turkmen authority, remained ineffective.
    * Some important offices were headed by members of the same family, in some other offices there are several members from one family.
    * Dramatic variations between the expenditure of the offices.
    * The expenses are greatly inflated which makes great corruptions certainly possible.
    * Even simple disloyalty to the ITF will result in marginalizing or dismissing the person and his relatives who work in the ITF

    The source of finance of the ITF is Turkmeneli Foundation; its headquarters is in Ankara. When the present president of ITF was elected in 2005 (in fact was appointed!) one of his relatives was appointed as the head of the Turkmeneli Foundation.

    Certifying authorities of finance expenditures from the Turkmeneli Foundation are as follows: First, the owner of the ITF should agree to any type of spending, [1] then the president of the ITF and then the president of the Turkmeneli Foundation.

    Continued accusation of the Turkmeneli Foundation and the Iraqi Turkmen Front for corruptions and maladministration are resulted also from the followings:

    The inflated spending during the unplanned and ill-programmed annual summer meetings of the ITF for the Diaspora Turkmen organizations in Ankara.

    * The huge spending during the protest meeting in Ankara in spring 2007
    * The spending during the Iraqi elections of 2005.
    * The great differences between the budgets of the offices of the ITF.

    No doubt that the freedom of expression, speech and press is considered a blessing in a democracy. This is built on the assumption that projects can be improved and developed, issues can be treated and problems can be solved if discussed.

    Due to several factors, the Turkmen community, almost completely, does not publish self-criticism; furthermore, those who do it, meet great resistance. This can be considered as one of the major factors which had deteriorated the Turkmen political structure and inhibited the developments. Today, the Turkmen political structure is powerless and vulnerable.

    Nowadays while the provincial elections are approaching, the Turkmen intellectual, writers and politicians are all silent about the clearly expectable defeat in the elections.

    The failure of the ITF had been proved during the Iraqi general elections of 2005. The ninety thousand votes which ITF got in the election of January 2005 was decreased to seventy thousands in the election of December 2005. Worth noting that ITF:

    Claims that it is the only legal representative of the Turkmen of Iraq

    * Was the only Turkmen list in the aforementioned elections
    * Estimates the number of the Iraqi Turkmen around 3 millions.

    The Turkmen population which suffers from several threatening challenges and weaknesses of its’ national power centers, has been obliged to accept the defeat. Disregarding the huge threats to the Turkmen national rights, the ITF political system remained unchanged.

    Today, the Turkmen of Iraq prepare to participate in the upcoming elections by the same defeated ITF:

    The absence of Turkmen public support to the ITF can be clearly detected by a simple poll in the streets of Kerkuk

    * In the other Turkmen regions, the ITF suffer from even bigger problems

    In this state of affairs, the expected number of Turkmen representatives in the Iraqi parliament and in the city councils will be:

    * Severely decreased
    * Disproportional with the size of the Turkmen in Iraq.
    * Insufficient to defend the Iraqi Turkmen and not able to deal with the huge violation of the Turkmen rights

    Therefore, the authorities of, particularly the owner, [1] of the ITF will hold the historical responsibilities of the defeats and losses from which the Turkmen of Iraq suffer since the early 1990s.

    Wealthy cultural heritage, high percentage of educated people, the large population size and the strategic geopolitical region can be considered as the important factors which made the Turkmen of Iraq resist several decades of suppression and preserve their language and culture. Consequently, presence of powerful Turkmen political structure will help to balance the national conflicts inside Iraq and support the national and regional stability.

    The revival of the Turkmen Council and freeing it from subordination, is one of the options to rescue the Turkmen political system. The Turkmen intellectuals, particularly those who played important roles in defending the Turkmen rights during the most dangerous Baath period, should be allowed to participate in the Turkmen political processes and compete for the membership of the Turkmen council. [3] The sectarian and regional discriminations in Turkmen policy should be abandoned. The Turkmen council should be opened to all the Turkmen political and civil society organizations. The Turkmen Shi’a parties, which have important numbers of parliamentarians, should be included in the Turkmen council. The Turkmen television should be handed to the professionals and sufficiently staffed. The political parties should enlarge the basic substructures and number of members. The support of the national and regional powers should be ensured.

    To remove the impression of political loyalty and to increase the number and efficacy of the Turkmen civil society organizations, the funds should be established to enable them to realize their projects. The Turkmen institutions should be established and/or improved, for example, media, culture, sport, music and literature.

    _______________________

    Reference

    * The Iraqi Turkmen front was founded by the Turkish army in 1995.
    * In April 2008 and due to the despotic administration of the president of ITF, seven of the nine members of the executive board published a press release and ousted the president. Ankara refused to accept the ousting operation and demanded the change to be done through the 5th Turkmen Congress. Two Turkmen sent from Ankara and with continuous remote control, the fifth Turkmen Congress was organized, like a staged theater play. During the Congress, four of the seven members of the executive board, who expelled the ITF president and were presidents of four political parties under the ITF umbrella, were expelled out of the ITF. The other three, who were the heads of ITF offices in different regions, were silenced. The president remained unchanged.

    1. The largest numbers of well known Turkmen politicians, writers, high-ranking officials, academics, high-ranking retired officers, legislators could not have opportunity to participate in the Turkmen political processes.