Turkish Forum English

Category: Middle East & Africa

  • Kurdish nationalism undermine the rights of Turkmens, Arabs and Chaldo Assyrians

    Kurdish nationalism undermine the rights of Turkmens, Arabs and Chaldo Assyrians

    By Mofak Salman

    After the toppling, the Saddam Hussein, hundreds of Kurdish militias poured into Turkmen city of Kirkuk. The Kurdish militias ransacked the municipality buildings in Kirkuk, government offices, and military buildings. The land deeds for the Turkmen have been taken from the Registry Office intentionally and this makes it difficult for the Turkmen to establish the original inhabitants of the province, large hotels and a historical military barracks in the city (at that time used as a museum), which was built in the Ottoman era, were set alight by Kurdish rebels, along with Turkmen shops and houses, including the land registry office.

    The invasion of Kirkuk in 2003 by the Kurdish militia was a mirror images of the repeated events from 1991during the uprising against Saddam Hussein after Operation Desert Storm. In addition, thousands of internally displaced Kurds and Turkmens were returned to Kirkuk and other Arabized regions to reclaim their homes and lands, which have been occupied by Arabs from central and southern Iraq. These returnees were forcibly expelled from their homes by the government of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and 1990s.

    The majority of the returning Kurds were not originally from Kirkuk but they have been brought to Kirkuk with the help of the two Kurdish parties in order to change the demography the city and to win the referendum that was planned to be carried out by 31st December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk
    can formally join the Kurdish administered region, an outcome that Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk staunchly opposed this. However, the unresolved issue is the future of Kirkuk an oil rich city in northern Iraq, which is a home to a substantial number of Turkmens, Kurds, and Arabs, which makes it a powder keg.

    However, the Turkmens, Arabs, and Chaldo Assyrians had high expectations of the interim administration established after April 9, 2003. The Turkmen expected to see democracy, fairness, an end to discrimination, the right to self- determination and an end to violence. Unfortunately, the opposite has occurred regarding the human rights situation in Iraq, in particular concerning the Iraqi Turkmen.

    The Turkmen have been undergoing campaigns by the Kurds in Turkmeneli in an often more brutal fashion than carried out on Kurds by Saddam Hussein. The Kirkuk city holds strategic as well as symbolic value for the Iraqi people in general and for the Turkmen especially! The ocean of oil beneath its surface could be used to drive the economy of an independent Kurdistan, the ultimate goal for many Kurds. The Kurdish militias hope are to make the city of Kirkuk and its vast oil reserves part of an autonomous Kurdistan whereas the Turkmens, Chaldo Assyrians, and Arabs are fiercely and staunchly opposing the inclusion of Kirkuk in an autonomous region, because its strategic importance, the fight over the control of the province proved to
    be one of the focal points of the conflict in northern Iraq. Kurdish control over Kirkuk could fuel Kurdish nationalism in the region and undermine the rights of Turkmens, Arabs and Chaldo Assyrians residents in Kirkuk.

    Kirkuk itself has become almost synonymous with the abusive Kurdization campaign, which illustrates the persistency of the designs that the Kurds have on Kirkuk. The fate of the city of Kirkuk has been one of the thorniest issues of Iraq’s constitutional process. Under Article 140 of the document ratified by Iraqis on 15th Oct. 2005, a referendum on the status of Kirkuk was to be implemented in the province no later than 31st Dec. 2007. This was to happen only after the Iraqi government takes measures to repatriate former Arabs residents, resettle Turkmens and Kurds or compensate them, implement the normalization and carry out the census in Kirkuk.

    After the toppling of Saddam Hussein regime, the Kurds intensified their Kurdization campaign in the city of Kirkuk. The Kurdish officials worked at the administration of the Kirkuk Municipality confiscated real estate and lands belonging to the town administration and have granted them to ethnic Kurds who newly arrived in Kirkuk and who were not originally from the town. However, throughout Kirkuk and across hundreds of remote farming villages, the Kurdish political parties did the job themselves. The PUK had openly provided $5,000 to each repatriated Kurdish family. Tens of thousands” of Kurds have resettled in the city and surrounding villages after the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, many with the help of the both Kurdish parties.

    The Iraqi Kurds have attempted by various methods to eliminate Turkmen identity especially from Kirkuk City in order to dilute them into Kurdish society. The economic, political, and cultural aspects for the Turkmen have been completely changed when the Kurds brought over 600,000 Kurds to city of Kirkuk. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by both Kurdish parties in order to change the demography of Kirkuk and the Kurdish parties have encouraged and offered financial support to all Kurdish families that were brought from outside Kirkuk. The demographic structure of Kirkuk have changed seriously and distorted as Kurds, backed by armed Peshmerga forces, migrated into the city in large groups claiming to be original residents.

    To prove the veracity of assertion that non Iraqi Kurds have been brought in and installed in Kirkuk as Kurds who were supposedly expelled by the Ba’ath regime is the scandal which was discovered and denounced by the Swedish Migration Minister, Mr. Tobias Billstrom in February 2007. It was discovered that the Iraqi Ambassador to Sweden, a Kurd, and named Ahmed Bamarni had been issuing Iraqi passports to non Iraqi Kurds from Syria, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon.

    It was mentioned by the Swedish authorities that the Iraqi embassy in Sweden alone had issued twenty-six thousands passports to non-Iraqis and that all of these passport holders were supposed to be born in Kirkuk.

    Consequently, thousands of internally, displaced Kurds and Turkmen returned to Kirkuk and other Arabized regions to reclaim their homes and lands, which had been occupied by Arabs from central and southern Iraq. These returnees were forcibly expelled from their homes by the government of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and 1990s. Mr. Barzani declared that 250,000 Kurds, including Turkmen were expelled from Kirkuk while in actual fact and according to the Ration Card Data Base (considered by the United Nations to be a reliable source for information on the Iraqi population); some 12,000 inhabitants were expelled from Kirkuk under the previous regime, one third being Turkmen.

    On the 10th April 2003, Kirkuk had 810,000 inhabitants and today, four years after the occupation of Kirkuk by the Kurdish militia and the massive influx of Kurds to Kirkuk, the population of Kirkuk is over 1.5 million inhabitants and all newcomers are Kurds. The majority of the returning Kurds were not originally from Kirkuk but they have been brought to Kirkuk with the help of the two Kurdish parties in order to change the demography of the city and to win the referendum by December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk can formally join the Kurdish administered region.

    The Kurds militia insisted that the constitution requires to carry out a referendum by December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk can formally join the Kurdish administration region and the Arabs and Turkmens in Kirkuk are staunchly oppose it since the demography of the city has changed dramatically. Since hundreds of thousands of Kurds have moved to the city in the recent years in what Turkmen and Arabs sees as a systematic campaign to change the demographic structure of the city to guarantee a favorable outcome in the upcoming referendum. In addition, how a referendum can be carried out when the country is under occupation, the lack of the security, stability and when the specific groups forced the legislation on the Iraqis.

    James Baker & Lee Hamilton [ ] called for a major delay on a constitutional referendum planned for Kirkuk’s at the end of the year 2007, when the report was stated that the Kurds have altered the city’s demographic makeup by bringing in more than 100,000 of their relatives, holding a census could lead to regional conflict. The risks of further violence sparked by a referendum are great and would be potentially
    explosive, a referendum in Kirkuk city could lead to violent clashes among the ethnic groups and even a civil war across Iraq, that could eventually lead to a disintegration of Iraq and also there is a great possibility the
    intervention and involvement of Iran, Syria and Turkey in Iraq. The Turkish Republic — which has always attributed high importance to independence and liberty throughout its history -has been conscious of the need to preserve and maintain its capability of protecting its sovereign rights, its territorial integrity, stability in the region and its national and international interests and any clashed in Kirkuk would provoke Turkish government.

    The Iraqi Study Group Report on the Kirkuk issue that was submitted by James Baker and Lee Hamilton considered by the Turkmen as a realistic, constructive, well-structured and comprehensive in covered all aspects that related to Iraqi issues and provided new hope for the future of Iraq. It was the upmost important that the reference on Kirkuk status should be delayed as was quoted in the Page Number 45, Recommendation 30 on the Iraq Study Group Report, James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton.[ ] Also see
    page 19 of The Iraq Study Group Report, James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton.

    The New Iraqi Constitution was written under foreign military occupation and mostly the non -Iraqis and the article 140 imposed that written and imposed by the Kurds and which was added at the last minute to the New Constitution.

    Article 140: The article 140, dealt with very important and sensitive issues, not only for the Turkmen of Iraq but for all Iraqis, except perhaps for the Kurdish minority, as it was written by the Kurds and their foreign
    consultants to suit the Kurds special agenda and self interest, to facilitate for them the kidnapping of Kirkuk, its annexation to the Kurdish Autonomous Region, legalizing for them by the same means grabbing control
    of huge oil wealth of this historical Iraqi Turkmen city and the Turkmens capital city and main cultural centre for at least 900 years.

    One of the anomalies of this article 140 of the New Permanent Iraqi Constitution is that it imposed a fixed time limit for its implementation, stating that it must be completed before 31st December 2007. Furthermore
    this article 140 deals with the normalization process of the situation in Kirkuk governate, a process which consists of three major steps, each one with it is time limit:-

    1- The return to Kirkuk of all its forcefully displayed inhabitants by the Ba’ath Regime during the Arabisation processes of the province by the regime and the recuperation of their confiscated lands and properties to be
    completed before 31st March 2007.
    2- A new population census for the original population of the province to be held before 31st August 2007.
    3- A referendum for the future of Kirkuk to be attached to the Kurdish Autonomous Region or not, to be voted before 31st December 2007.

    This article with its imposed time limits, a supposedly New Permanent Constitution is unheard of: it is a Kurdish innovation in the Iraqi Constitution. Kirkuk itself had become almost synonymous with the abusive
    Kurdization campaign, which illustrates the persistency of the designs that the Kurds have on Kirkuk. The fate of the city of Kirkuk has been one of the thorniest issues of Iraq’s constitutional process. Under Article 140 of the document that was ratified by Iraqis on 15th Oct.2005, a referendum on the status of Kirkuk will be implemented in the province no later than Dec. 31, 2007. This will happen only after the Iraqi government takes measures to repatriate former Arab residents and resettle Turkmen and Kurds or compensate them, carry out the normalization and census. The 140th article expired on the 31st Dec.2007, and according to the Iraqi constitution that was established after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, article 140 should not be modified or extended since it was imposed a fixed time limit for its implementation, stating that it must be completed before 31st December 2007, therefore at the end of the 2007 it was automatically expired and had lost its constitutional validity since the article was not fully implemented before the end of the 2007.
    Also the Iraqi constitution clearly stated that any extension or amendment on the article needs an approval of 2/3 of the Iraqi parliament’s members and also the approval of the public in form of a referendum.
    But unfortunately the UN representative in Erbil Mr. Staffan de Mistura recommended extending the expiry date of article 140 for a further six months, this happened when he was invited to the Kurdish parliament. Mr. Staffan de Mistura’s suggestion among the Turkmen was considered unwise and biased, since he failed to pay any attention to the Iraqi constitutional.

    In fact, he bent to the pressure that was applied on him by the both Kurdish parties in northern Iraq, but Prime Minister of Iraq Mr. Nuri al-Maliki did not support the initiative because he stated that any extension of the work to rule 140 after the time limit was unconstitutional.

    The Turkmen public thought it was more beneficial for the UN to open an office in Kirkuk city instead of opening an office Erbil city in north of Iraq, listening to the suggestions, demands and complains of the ethnic groups in Kirkuk and rather than issuing an irrational statement.

    In addition, the article is an Iraqi internal matter and the UN representative was not entitled and had no full authority and constitutional right to change, extent and even to modify any article within the Iraqi constitution. Iraq is sovereign country and it was not under the UN mandate therefore a UN employee working in Iraq had not an authority to suggest, recommend and an extension for any article within the Iraqi constitution without prior consulting his main office and also without obtaining the approval and consent of the people in Kirkuk.

    The Turkmens totally refused the recommendation of Mr. Stephan de Mistura and was totally opposed by the Turkmen, thus the Iraqi Turkmen Front leader Mr. S. Ergerj met with the Mr. Stephan de Mistura regarding the his statements about the postponing the referendum and the ITF leader had expressed his deepest concern about the extension of the Article 140 and also Turkmen political parties condemned the action that was taken by the U.N personal in Erbil Mr. Stephan de Mistura.

    In the middle of July 2008. Iraq’s parliament reached an agreement on the Provincial Council Election Law, particularly with regard to Paragraph 24 of the law, which deals with the election mechanism in the Kirkuk Governorate. The postponement of the elections and adaptation of the division of Kirkuk to the three constituencies that include the proportion of 32 % for Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen and 4% for Assyrians.

    Turkmen, Arab and Assyrians proposed equal distribution of provincial council seats in the Kirkuk region – which is outside the Kurdish territory. This was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani and his deputy, Adel Abdul
    Mahdi. Before the voting, the Kurds rejected secret ballot whereas the opposition had requested a secret ballot and the members of the Iraqi parliament voted open and secret voting. The majority of members have
    decided for secret voting and the deputy parliamentary speaker Khalid al-Attiyah, a Shiite, said the secret ballot was unconstitutional and accused the lawmakers of “arm-twisting.” On the 22nd of July 2008, decision was made by 127 Iraqi members of parliament they voted in favour of the Provincial Council Election Law, particularly with regard to Paragraph 24 of the law, which deals with the election mechanism in the Kirkuk Governorate. The distribution of power that include the proportion of 32 % for Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen and 4% for Assyrians.

    The security of the town shall be controlled by the central government rather than the current military forces that are stationed in the town. The security forces that are linked to the political parties have to leave. The
    bill was approved by 127 out of 140 deputies that attended the meeting and 10 of those members decided not to vote. Two of them decided to vote against and one MP submitted a blank ballot paper but the Iraq’s parliament still passed the law. The Kurds, along with the two deputy parliamentary speakers, walked out of the chamber after lawmakers decided to hold a secret ballot on a power-sharing item in the law for the disputed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk. This was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani and his deputy, Adel Abdul Mahdi. Nevertheless, the Kurdish Brotherhood List at the Kirkuk Governorate Council held an extraordinary meeting on the 31/7/2008. The 24 members of the 41-member of the Kirkuk Governorate Council presented a request to the Kurdistan Region Government and the Iraqi parliament to make the governorate part of
    Kurdistan Region as they believe that Article 140 of the Constitution has not been implemented and that Article 24 of the Provincial Council Election Draft Law does not meet their ambitions.

    Whereas the Turkmen and Arabs regarded this extraordinary session as illegal. Also the Turkmen leadership has requested to replace the Kurdish police in Kirkuk with army forces from central and southern Iraq, the
    postponement of the elections and adaptation of the division of Kirkuk to the three constituencies include the proportion of 32 % for both Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen and 4% for Assyrians In the meantime, on the 31/7/2008, a statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry was released regarding the issue of Kirkuk, which stated that the Turkish Foreign Ministry were concerned and were deeply alarmed about the demand by some members of the governorate of Kirkuk, regarding a Kurdish list to join the Northern Department. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign affairs said in a statement: ‘We in Turkey express our deep concern on what we see and what happened in the governorate of Kirkuk where some members agreed to join the Council in Kirkuk to the
    north of Iraq and Turkey’s position on Kirkuk would not have ever changed in the present and future and the Arab and Turkmen called this moves by the Kurd as a provocation.’

    Mofak Salman

    Turkmeneli Party Representative for Both Ireland and United Kingdom msalman@eircom.net

    [1] Turkmen: The Iraqi Turkmen live in an area that they call “Turkmenia” in Latin or Turkmeneli” which means, “Land of the Turkmen. It was referred to as “Turcomania” by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Turkmen are a Turkic group that has a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e.
    12% of the Iraqi population.

    [2] Turkmeneli is a diagonal strip of land stretching from the Syrian and Turkish border areas from
    around Telafer in the north of Iraq, reaching down to the town of Mendeli on the Iranian border in
    Central Iraq. The Turkmen of Iraq settled in Turkmeneli in three successive and constant migrations
    from Central Asia, this increased their numbers and enabled them to establish six states in Iraq.

  • Kurdistan Is a Model for Iraq

    Kurdistan Is a Model for Iraq

    Our path to a secular, federal democracy is inspired by the U.S.
    By: Masoud Barzani
    Source: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

    Iraq’s Kurds have consistently been America’s closest allies in Iraq. Our Peshmerga forces fought alongside the U.S. military to liberate the country, suffering more casualties than any other U.S. ally. And while some Iraqi politicians have challenged the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, Iraq’s Kurdish leaders have endorsed the pact as essential for U.S. combat troops to continue fighting terrorists in Iraq. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is committed to a federal, democratic Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors.

    We have benefited enormously from the service and sacrifices of America’s armed forces and their families, and we are deeply grateful. We are also proud to have shared in such sacrifices; my brother was among those severely wounded during the liberation of Iraq.

    Last year, following a U.S. request, we deployed Kurdish troops to Baghdad. These troops played a decisive role in the success of the surge. Last month I once again visited Baghdad to meet with the leadership of the federal government. We stressed our commitment to developing an Iraqi state that abides by its constitution and that is based upon a federal model with clearly delineated powers for its regions.

    In spite of all this, some commentators now suggest that the Kurds are causing problems by insisting on territorial demands and proceeding with the development of Kurdistan’s oil resources. These allegations are troubling. We are proceeding entirely in accord with the Iraqi constitution, implementing provisions that were brokered by the U.S.

    In the constitutional negotiations that took place in the summer of 2005, two issues were critical to us: first, that the Kurdistan Region has the right to develop the oil on its territory, and second, that there be a fair process to determine the administrative borders of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region — thus resolving once and for all the issue of “disputed” territories.

    Unfortunately, ever since the discovery of oil in Iraq in the 1920s, successive Iraqi governments have sought to keep oil out of Kurdish hands, blocking exploration and development of fields in Kurdistan. Saddam Hussein’s government went even further, using Iraqi oil revenues to finance the military campaigns that destroyed more than 4,500 Kurdish villages and to pay for the poison gas used to kill thousands of Kurdish civilians.

    The Kurdish leadership agreed to a U.S.-sponsored compromise in 2005 in which the central government would have the authority to manage existing oil fields, but new fields would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the regions. Since then, the KRG has taken the lead with Baghdad in negotiations on a hydrocarbon law that is faithful to Iraq’s constitution and is conducive to modernizing Iraq’s oil infrastructure and substantially increasing its oil production.

    We have awarded contracts for foreign oil companies (including some American ones) to explore our territory. In so doing, Kurdistan is not threatening the unity of Iraq. It is simply implementing the constitution.

    The “disputed territories” have a tragic history. Since the 1950s, Iraqi regimes encouraged Arabs to settle in Kirkuk and other predominantly Kurdish and Turkmen areas. Saddam Hussein accelerated this process by engaging in ethnic cleansing, expelling or killing Kurds and Turkmen, or by requiring nationality corrections (in which non-Arabs are forced to declare themselves to be Arabs) and by moving Arabs into Kurdish homes.

    The dispute between Baghdad and the Kurds over Kirkuk has lasted more than 80 years and has often been violent. All sides have now agreed to a formula to resolve the problem, to bring justice to Kirkuk, and to correct the crimes against Kurds committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Iraq’s constitution requires that a referendum be held in disputed territories to determine if their populations want to join the Kurdistan Region. Conducting a plebiscite is not easy, but it is preferable to another 80 years of conflict.
    If the pro-Kurdistan side should lose the referendum in Kirkuk, I promise that Kurdistan will respect that result. And if they win, I promise that we will do everything in our power to ensure outsized representation of Kirkuk’s Turkmen, Arabs and Christians both on the local level and in the parliament and government of the Kurdistan Region.

     

    Regional stability cannot come from resolving internal disputes alone. That is why expanding and deepening our ties with Turkey is my top priority.

     

    My meeting last month in Baghdad with the Turkish special envoy to Iraq was a historic and positive development. There should be further direct contacts between the KRG and Turkey, as well as multilateral contacts that involve the U.S. We are eager to work with Turkey to seek increased peace and prosperity in the region.

     

    I am proud that the Kurdistan Region is both a model and gateway for the rest of Iraq. Our difficult path to a secular, federal democracy is very much inspired by the U.S. And so we look forward to working with the Obama-Biden administration to support and defend our hard-fought successes in Iraq, and to remain proud of what the Kurdistan region is today: a thriving civil society in the heart of the Middle East. When we insist on strict compliance with our country’s constitution, we are only following America’s great example.

    Mr. Barzani is the president of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
  • Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    According to reports Hollywood guru Ari Emanuel’s brother Congressman Rahm Emanuel has accepted the post of Chief of Staff in President-elect Barack Obama Administration. George Soros affiliated Rahm Emanuel volunteered at an Israeli Defence Forces base during the Persian Gulf war. His father, Benjamin Emanuel, is an Israeli pediatrician who was active in the pre-independence Israeli underground, Irgun, the hard-line militant terrorist group which fought for Jewish independence until 1948. According to The Jerusalem Post, “Dr. Benjamin Emanuel was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,” he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

    “Rahm Emanuel is no Reason for Hope or Celebration”

    –Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine

    Transcript

    Why I support the REAL News
    (a short message from a supporter)

    HOWARD ZINN, HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR: I like the idea of The Real News, because we are
    in desperate need of independent sources of information and analysis.

    Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: The question of the prosecution of George Bush is one of the issues that will face Barack Obama as he becomes the next president of the United States. Many people think the lack of impeachment procedures set a dangerous precedent about the unitary presidency and the abuse of power. Will Barack Obama address any of this? To analyze this question we are joined now by David Swanson, who’s the founder of After Downing Street and Washington director of democrats.com. He joins us from Virginia. Welcome, David.

    DAVID SWANSON, CO-FOUNDER, AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG: Good to be here.

    JAY: So, David, with democrats.com and After Downing Street, you guys campaigned quite heavily in favor of Barack Obama. On the other hand, he doesn’t have the most—what can I say?—courageous record in terms of voting on the FISA bill and standing on these questions in relationship to impeachment. Talk a little bit: your response to his election, and then what will be a litmus test for you, whether he’s actually taking on some of the abuses of the last eight years.

    SWANSON: Well, here I sit in Virginia, which up through 1964 always voted for a Democrat for president because the Democrats were more racist, and from that point to this always voted for a Republican because the Republicans were more racist. And we’ve been through a campaign where the Republican candidate and running mate ran a racist campaign, and Virginia has voted for Obama—for not only a Democrat, not only the less racist party, but a black man. And so I’m absolutely thrilled. This works wonders for Virginia politics, as well as for national politics. And it would have been an absolute disaster for the peace movement, for any sort of justice movement, to have McCain and Palin in there. Barack Obama is not about to solve all the country’s or the world’s problems left to his own devices, but there is the possibility of public pressure influencing him—he is a politician that responds to public pressure. And so there is hope, there is a role for US citizens.

    JAY: Well, one of his first major decisions was his chief of staff. He’s offered the job to Rahm Emanuel. What do you know about Emanuel? And what does it tell you about the direction of the Obama administration?

    SWANSON: Well, of course, he already picked as a running mate a senator, Joe Biden, who had led the charge for the invasion of Iraq in the Senate back in 2003, so that was not encouraging either. Rahm Emanuel has been the amazing, early bad news following the last two elections. In January 2007, Rahm Emanuel told The Washington Post, effectively, look, we’re going to let this war go on two years so that we can run against it again—which has cost nearly 2,000 US servicemen and -women their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And then, following this election, we get the news that Emanuel is being offered the job of chief of staff, which, presumably, he’s going to accept. This is a disaster. You know, it’s good to have someone who knows Congress as your chief of staff; it’s not necessarily good to have someone like Emanuel.

    JAY: David, what was the quote? Because that’s kind of an outrageous thing he would have said, to allow a war to continue for pragmatic political purposes. What was the quote to The Post?

    SWANSON: Well, there was a story in The Washington Post in January 2007, and it quoted Emanuel in some cases, and it paraphrased him in others. On Iraq it was a paraphrase, but it was to the effect of don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for any solution on Iraq. They see it as Bush’s war. They want the Republican Party to fall apart, and they want to be there in two years to pick up the pieces. And so this was telegraphing to the country that the Democrats were going to do what in fact Emanuel orchestrated—and they did for two years—and that was: pretend to try to end the occupation of Iraq, pretend that legislation was needed, and blame the Republican filibuster power and the president’s veto power for their failure to do what they could have accomplished simply by ceasing to fund the occupation.

    JAY: So the pro-Emanuel argument that we’ve been hearing is that he’s a fighter. It’s actually throwing down the gauntlet by Obama. Even though he’s talking about bipartisanship, he’s got himself a pit bull to fight the Republicans. Is this a sign, perhaps, of an ability to fight on behalf of Obama?

    SWANSON: Well, it comes down to a question of what you’re going to fight for, right? I mean, Josh Lyman, the fictional character based on Emanuel, had some principles he wanted to fight for. I don’t know what those are with Emanuel. If you look at the Reuters story about this today, there’s a quote from a Republican who’s very, very pleased because he thinks Emanuel’s job is going to be cracking the heads of Democrats to move them from the left to the center, which is what his job has been for the past two years. So it wouldn’t surprise me if that were his job. And that’s my worry. Emanuel is a guy who two years ago recruited pro-war candidates to run against antiwar Democrats in primaries. This is the guy who directed all of the money from Washington to pro-war candidates. This is not encouraging to me.

    JAY: For people that wanted fundamental change, real change, it doesn’t sound like that’s what it’s going to be. But the potential of a war within the Democratic Party between the progressive and conservative sections must be very real. In picking Emanuel, Obama’s clearly picked the side he’s coming down on.

    SWANSON: These centrists, the right-wing side of this debate, is far and away superior to Bush and Cheney or McCain and Palin, there’s absolutely no question. But it’s not a transformational candidacy; it’s not a major change and change we can believe in; it’s absolutely not. When you’re talking about keeping on the same secretary of war—or defense, as we misleadingly call it—that Bush had, that McCain also was proposing to keep on, in Gates, that you’re talking about bringing Colin Powell into your administration, a man who went to the United Nations and blatantly lied us into an aggressive war, this is not what people voted for. And so this honeymoon has been very, very short-lived: it was a matter of hours before Emanuel was offered this job.

    JAY: Now, you’ve been very involved originally in an attempt to have an impeachment of Bush, and you’ve been supporting efforts to prosecute George Bush. At the core of that is the issue of defense of constitutional rights and abuse of power. What would you be looking for, both in terms of an appointment of attorney general and pieces of legislation from this administration that might undo some of what was done in the last eight years?

    SWANSON: Well, we were talking offline about making Michael Ratner attorney general. I certainly would applaud that and do anything to make it happen. I don’t expect it to happen. This is a candidate, in Obama, who said months ago that he was unaware of any crimes having been committed by Bush and Cheney, but he would immediately have his attorney general look into the question. So we should hold him to that. He has committed to revising the Patriot Act to restore some rights. He’s committed to no longer using signing statements to rewrite laws as he signs them into law. You know, these are encouraging things. We should push for them to happen. But my concern is that if we have eight years of a president blatantly violating the law, rewriting laws with signing statements, and then the only change is that the next president ceases to do it, where is the deterrence down the road to future presidents? What tells them they can’t do what Bush and Cheney did? Which is why I continue to push for impeachment, which can happen even after you’re out of office, and for prosecution, which is very, very low on Obama’s list, but which can happen at the state or local level, which can happen in foreign countries, which can happen internationally. We need that accountability, not just better policies. But I’m very happy that we will be seeing some better policies in the immediate future.

    JAY: Thank you very much, David, for joining us.

    SWANSON: Thank you.

    JAY: And thank you all for joining us. And remember, again, there’s a donate button. And I know I keep nagging about this, but if you don’t support us, we won’t be here. Thank you very much.

    DISCLAIMER:

    Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

    David Swanson’s Bio

    He is the creator of ImpeachCheney.org, the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition; a board member of Progressive Democrats of America; of the Backbone campaign; and of Voters for Peace. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign.

  • Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen 

    Senator Barack Obama’s election as the next President of the U.S. has caused trepidation in many Turkish circles. How would his administration’s foreign policy toward Turkey be? Would Turkey’s relations with the U.S. improve or worsen?  Indeed, there are perils on the horizon, but better times cannot be ruled out. The imponderables suggest that a “wait and see” stance is prudent. 

    Harsh Reality 

    On the potential downside, the Armenian question weighs heavily in U.S.-Turkey relations. Turks are understandably concerned that the Obama administration would recognize the so-called Armenian genocide. As most U.S. politicians who have been at the receiving end of generous campaign contributions from the Armenian lobby, Obama, as U.S. senator, supported Armenian genocide claims. He made this clear during Senate confirmation hearings of U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Armenia Richard Hoagland two years ago, and again early this year when he called for passage of Armenian genocide resolutions H.Res.106 & S.Res.106 in the Congress. He was influenced and counseled on this subject by none other than Samantha Power, an ardent proponent of Armenian “genocide.”

    Samantha Power holds the dubious distinction of being a non-Armenian and a virulent Turk-hater at the same time. The loose-mouthed lady of supposed scholarly reputation disgraced herself last March when she called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.” She had to resign as adviser to Senator Obama. Not surprisingly, Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) strongly endorsed (probably in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status) Senator Obama’s candidacy.

    The Armenian issue became more ominous for Turkey when Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. As a U.S. senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden gave support to all Armenian genocide claims since they first came to the U.S. Senate floor in 1990. Biden urged President Bush to use the word “genocide” in his proclamations, and was an enthusiastic sponsor of the Senate Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106) in 2006. In early 2008, Senator Biden renewed his call for Congressional recognition of the resolution, and in July of this year he reiterated his commitment to have Armenian “genocide” officially recognized by both the American and Turkish governments.

    Also looming on the horizon is a Democrat-controlled Congress, with Nancy Pelosi as the House Speaker and John Kerry (unless appointed as the Secretary of State) at the helm of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The combination of Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress augers a vexatious turn of events for Turkey as far as the Armenian issue. Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora will find that the confluence of events in their favor had never been better.

    Of course, there will also be geostrategic issues to consider, and the Obama administration may have second thoughts about recognizing a trumped-up allegation that would further sour an already-fragile relationship between the U.S. and Turkey – caused mainly by Iraq war. According to a June 2008 poll, only 12 percent of Turkish people have a favorable view of the U.S. – a historic low. With Turkey’s proximity to Russia, the Middle East and Central Asia, and its strategic location as an energy corridor, it would seem myopic from U.S. national security point of view to further alienate Turkey.

    In fact, just before the elections the Obama-Biden camp issued a foreign policy statement in which reference was made to strategic value of Turkey for U.S. interests. This suggests that Obama and Biden, as President and vice-President, might moderate their positions on Armenian “genocide.”

    A most likely scenario is that the Obama administration would spurn the Armenian lobby’s efforts to recognize Armenian “genocide” while remaining passive to Congressional initiatives to pass such a resolution. This would give the administration a diplomatic “cover” – a poor one at that – to disassociate itself from the genocide controversy.

    Disservice to History

    Such turn of events would still be regrettable. Surprisingly, Turks are generally content if official declarations from foreign sources relating to 1915 events do not use the word “genocide.” Hence the sigh of relief when, on April 24 every year, the U.S. presidents issue a declaration commemorating the 1915 events without referring to “genocide.” Such declarations do disservice to history, however, and are nearly as condemnatory of Turks as the use of the word “genocide.” Turks should demand fairness and disclosure of full facts.

    President Bush’s declarations, for example, have referred to “mass killings of as many as 1.5 million Armenians,” grossly exaggerating the number of Armenian victims. His declarations ignore the cause of the tragic events (Armenian rebellion) and the massacre of a half a million Moslems at the hands of armed Armenian gangs. Senator John McCain, while refraining from using the word “genocide,’ has taken a similar position on the Armenian issue. Such declarations imply that the sufferings and death of Moslems at the hand of Armenian gangs were somehow inconsequential.

    Before issuing commemorative declarations on the 1915 events, it would behoove President-elect Obama – and the members of the Congress for that matter – to listen to such eminent scholars as Bernard Lewis, Turkkaya Ataov, Justin McCarthy and Eric Feigl – to name a few – and hear the other side of a controversial issue. A one-sided condemnation of historical events, no matter how-oft-recited by propaganda, and no matter how-well-wrapped in campaign contributions, does not serve history. Nor does it serve the cause of human rights. History cannot be re-created by legislative or executive fiat.

    Equally important, it is long overdue for the Turkish government, and Turks in general, to be more proactive and aggressive in disseminating historical truth on the Armenian issue. If foreign politicians such as Obama and Biden, among others, have been misinformed on the subject, the Turkish government and Turks bear a good deal of responsibility. By default, the matter has been left pretty much to Armenia and the Armenian lobby to exploit. The dire consequences have been much too evident. Historians on the Armenian side do not even wish to debate with their Turkish counterparts.

    Iraq War and Cyprus

    The occupation of Iraq, spearheaded by neocon philosophy, has generated enormous tension between the U.S. and Turkey. The war has not only created violence and turmoil in a neighboring country, it also destroyed much of the bilateral trade (oil included) between Iraq and Turkey and seriously threatened the territorial integrity of Iraq. In this connection, Turks do not recall kindly the proposal made by Senator Biden in 2006 that Iraq be partitioned into three autonomous regions under a loose federation. His proposal was met with much disappointment in Turkey.

    Turks also view with much suspicion President Bush’s cozy relation with Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, with Masoud Barzani, a tribal leader, being a frequent guest at the White House and treated like a head of state. Ironically, the relatively “peaceful” Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq is where the PKK terrorists have recently gained strength. Within the past few years PKK attacks against the Turkish territory have become more frequent and more daring. These events have raised doubts in Turkey about the sincerity of President Bush to fight terrorism when terrorists do their dirty deed under the banner of PKK.

    Many in Turkish circles wonder whether the Bush administration is harboring clandestine intentions involving an independent Kurdistan at the expense of the territorial integrity of Turkey. Some have gone so far as suggesting that eventually the U.S. may have to make a choice between the Kurds and Turks.

    Such suspicions, if unchecked, could tear apart the long-held partnership between the U.S. and Turkey. Turkey’s membership in NATO could also be put on ice.

    There are signs that the Obama administration would reverse this ominous trend. First, unlike Bush, who favors an open-ended withdrawal, Obama favors a quick (but orderly) withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, the pre-election foreign policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, noting that the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq had helped revive the PKK threat against Turkey, identified close relationship with Turkey as being in U.S. national interest. It was also noted that the Obama administration would lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity. These are very hopeful signs.

    On Cyprus, Turks are somewhat apprehensive about the Obama administration’s stance. The concern arises from Biden’s close ties to the Greek and Greek-Cypriot lobbies, his support ,

    as U.S. senator, of the 1974 U.S. weapons embargo against Turkey, and Obama referring to Turkish troop presence on the island as “occupation.” The pre-election policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, however, also calls for a negotiated settlement on Cyprus based on the principle of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, giving hope for an unbiased approach.

    In a broader context, Obama’s multilateralism and emphasis on diplomacy, as opposed to Bush’s unilateralism and saber rattling, would help regional stability and bolster U.S.-Turkey relations.

    In summary, the Obama administration holds both perils and hopes for Turkey, and for U.S.-Turkey relationship. The imponderables abound, and a prudent stance is “wait and see.” But both countries should look forward to a closer partnership in a renewed spirit without the mistakes of the last eight years.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • Abduction Turkmen News Reader by Kurdish forces in Erbil

    Abduction Turkmen News Reader by Kurdish forces in Erbil

    By Mofak Salman

    On 5th of November 2008, Mr Timor Beyatli left the city of Kerkuk and drove to Erbil airport to catch his flight to Istanbul (Turkey) where he had been invited to participate in a conference about Media and Journalism. Before boarding the airplane he made a call to his family in Turkey informing them that he was on his way to Istanbul and that he would contact them upon his arrival at Istanbul airport. Unfortunately, when the plane landed in Istanbul Mr. Timor Beyatli was not among the passengers because he had been abducted just before he got on the plane (on the 8.15  pm flight) at Erbil airport by the Kurdish security forces (known as the Asayish [3]) which belong to the Kurdish leader of the KDP party Massoud Barzani. Mr. Timor Beyatli was transferred from Erbil airport to a prison in the city of Erbil for further investigation. 

    On the 25th November 2007, Mr. Hassan Turan, a Turkmen member of the governing council of Kerkuk, was arrested by the Kurdish Asayish at Erbil airport in northern Iraq following his return from participation in the international conference that was held in Istanbul (Turkey) under the name of Kudus and International Conjunction.

    On Saturday 27th October 2007, Mr. Qasim Sari Kahya, a Turkmen writer, journalist and Secretary Editor for the Fraternity Club of Kardeslik in Baghdad, was abducted along with another three Turkmen citizens near the Kerkuk General Hospital by the Kurdish security forces known as Asayish. Several hours later, three of the detainees were released, but Mr. Qasim was kept for further interrogation. 

    On 8th of July 2007, Mr. Lokman Nejam Ahmed, a Turkmen (born on 1st July 1968 in the district of Telkeef which is linked to the city of city of Mosul) was arrested on the Iraqi/Turkish border Ibrahim Alkhalil by the Kurdish secret police (Asayish) while he was travelling from the city of Mosul to Turkey with a group of Turkmens from the city of Erbil. Because of the public, political and journalistic outrage and due to the media appeal. Mr. Tamur Beyatli was released on 7th November 2008. He was released without charges and his case has not been submitted to the court.

     

    Thus, the Turkmens request to all the human right organisations, government officials, intellectuals, and Iraqi and Turkish government for immediate intervention to put pressure on the Kurdish police who are terrorising the Turkmen people in Turkmeneli.

    Turkmen of Iraq also call upon the Iraqi Journalists Union and all Iraqi and international organizations defending the rights of journalists, to move immediately to the authorities of the Iraqi government at the highest levels for the protection of the Turkmen, Arabs and Assyrian from the Kurdish oppression that are carried by Kurdish parties in North of Iraq. 

    Mofak Salman

    Turkmeneli Party Representative for Both Ireland and United Kingdom

    msalman@eircom.net

    [1] Turkmen: The Iraqi Turkmen live in an area that they call “Turkmenia” in Latin or Turkmeneli” which means, “Land of the Turkmen. It was referred to as “Turcomania” by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Turkmen are a Turkic group that has a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e. 12% of the Iraqi population.

    [2] Turkmeneli is a diagonal strip of land stretching from the Syrian and Turkish border areas from
    around Telafer in the north of Iraq, reaching down to the town of Mendeli on the Iranian border in Central Iraq. The Turkmen of Iraq settled in Turkmeneli in three successive and constant migrations from Central Asia, this increased their numbers and enabled them to establish six states in Iraq.

    [3] Asayish is an unrecognized and illegitimate force that is utilized by both Kurdish parties to terrorize innocent civilian people. They are used to kidnap and kill people who defy the Kurdish aspiration for establishing a Kurdish state.

  • FM: Greece determined to expand ties with Iran

    FM: Greece determined to expand ties with Iran

    Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis said here Friday in a meeting with IRI Ambassador to Athens

    that her country is determined to expand comprehensive ties with Iran.

    According to IRNA correspondent in Athens, Bakoyannis added in her meeting with Mahdi Honardoust, “I am pleased with the results of the recent visit of the secretary General of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Tehran and in near future the secretary general of Greek’s International Economic Affairs Office, too, would visit Iran to survey possibilities for broader economic cooperation with Tehran, articularly at energy field.”

    Pointing out the two centuries’ old relations, she reiterated, “As I have promised to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Manouchehr Mottaki, I myself, too, would visit Tehran at my earliest convenience”
    The Greek foreign minster meanwhile referring to the warm and friendly feelings of the Greek nation towards the Iranians, said, “It would be my great pleasure to meet in person with the Iranian nation and officials, who are highly respected by our nation.”

    She further emphasized, “Greece has always had a positive approach and a feeling of proximity towards the Iranian history and culture.” Honardoust, too, during the meeting considered the amicable feelings of the two nations towards one another and the regular visits of the two countries’ officials as positive factors at the service of broadening the range of bilateral cooperation, particularly in the fields of tourism and energy.

    Our country’s ambassador to Athens added, “The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready for cooperation with Greece in the fields of mutual interest, as well as cooperation at important regional and international scenes.”

    The Iranian diplomat said, “Increasing the two countries’ trade volume and the diplomatic relations aimed at comprehensive development of the two countries’ relations and are obvious signs for both countries’ determination for boosting bilateral ties.”

    Honardoust meanwhile referred to the existing potentials for transfer of energy from Iran to Europe through Greece, arguing, “Iran and Greece can in order to define a new framework for cooperation, upgrade the ceiling of their relations to the highest possible level.” -IRNA

    Source: www.mathaba.net, 08.11.2008