Turkish Forum

Category: America

  • JOINING BATTLE FOR CRIMEA

    JOINING BATTLE FOR CRIMEA

    RUSSIA IS LOSING THE BATTLE OVER THE CRIMEA TO WASHINGTON AND BRUSSELS
    Author: Tatiana Ivzhenko
    [The European Union vies for clout with the Crimea.]

    Nezavisimaya Gazeta
    October 20, 2009

    The European Union joins the Russian-American backstage battle for
    the Crimea. Web site of the Ukrainian government posted a brief
    note to the effect that implementation of the EU’s Joint
    Initiative of the Commonwealth in the Crimea was going to begin
    right after election of the president. The program in question
    included investment projects in all economic and social spheres.
         Sources in the government claim that European countries’ plan
    of actions on the peninsula was already charted and that its
    endorsement was scheduled for spring 2010. Each EU participant
    will be put in charge of some particular sphere like economic
    development (Great Britain), environmental protection (Sweden),
    and civil society (the Netherlands). Finland, Germany, Hungary,
    Poland, Lithuania and, perhaps, Estonia are prepared to join the
    program too. Kiev counts on up to 12 million euros worth of
    investments in the Crimea in 2010 alone. Gunnar Wiegand who
    represents the European Commission in the project recently met
    with the government of Ukraine. He informed the Ukrainians that
    the European Union regarded the Crimea as an extremely important
    region, “one with a powerful potential for all of Europe”.
         As far as Senior Deputy Premier Alexander Turchinov was
    concerned, the new Crimean project meant rapid rapprochement with
    Europe and a wholly new level of relations with it.
         “The project is of paramount importance for the government of
    Ukraine and for Yulia Timoshenko… particularly at the onset of
    the presidential campaign,” Konstantin Bondarenko of the Gorshenin
    Institute of Management Issues confirmed. “It offers them an
    opportunity to show that the Crimea is part of Ukraine and, also
    importantly, that Ukraine is a country to invest in.” Bondarenko
    recalled that President Leonid Kuchma had approached the Russians
    with analogous ideas in 2002 – 2003 [with the idea of joint
    investments in development of the peninsula]. “Unfortunately, I
    cannot call the Russians particularly enthusiastic or energetic,”
    he said. “At the very least, I do not think much of the economic
    results of the Russians’ activeness. The impression is that they
    erroneously made an emphasis on politics but people cannot be
    expected to last long on slogans alone.”
         Vladimir Kazarin of the Sevastopol administration seconded
    this opinion. “It is clear now that Russia is losing the battle
    for influence with the Crimea. It was Russia and the United States
    vying for clout with the peninsula once, but no longer. The
    European Union is joining them too, these days, and Brussels makes
    an emphasis on investments rather than on politics.”
         Kazarin pointed out that the new player moved in just as
    Russia was losing ground. “We witness these days what would have
    been considered impossible barely a year ago,” he said. “We see
    pickets with anti-Russian slogans and posters in front of the
    Black Sea Fleet HQ. What counts is that these protest actions are
    organized by Black Sea Fleet’s ex-employees. I can only surmise
    that the Russian authorities are not informed, that they do not
    grasp long-term political consequences of the current underfunding
    of the Black Sea Fleet… when 8,000 employees including 1,000
    officers are to be laid off, when wage arrears mount along with
    debts to Sevastopol’s department of public works and to the
    pensions foundation. The situation is challenging indeed. Anyone
    capable of solving economic problems of Sevastopol and, broader,
    all of the Crimea will earn the locals’ gratitude,” Kazarin said.
         Neither did the United States withdraw from the battle for
    the peninsula. Establishment of a diplomatic mission or
    information bureau in Sevastopol was suggested this spring but
    protests from the population and the local authorities persuaded
    Washington to table the idea then. It is on the agenda again,
    these days. It is the US Consulate General that the Americans want
    to set up in the Crimea now. “The way I see it, problems were
    encountered because the Crimean authorities had deliberately gone
    too far in their efforts to make the whole matter political,”
    Vladimir Nalivaichenko of the Ukrainian Security Service said.
    “What can be so political about an American mission? We all see
    how the Russian Consulate General operates in the Crimea.
    Diplomats were the first to arrive, followed by Russian
    businesses, capitals, and so on.”
         Valery Chaly of the Razumkov Center did not think that the
    Americans could really count on unproblematic existence in the
    Crimea. The population was thoroughly suspicions of all and any
    Washington’s initiatives concerning the peninsula, he said. Not so
    the EU’s initiatives which the locals never associated with
    politics.
         Political scientists meanwhile comment that Russia does not
    even try to counter these Western moves. Crimean pro-Russian
    organizations complain of the lack of support. The Russian
    Community of the Crimea, Russian Bloc, Russian Crimea, Tavria
    Alliance, Faith, Crimean Civil Activists, and Crimean Russian
    Youth Center set up a coordinating council. This body will chart a
    common strategy and coordinate joint efforts aimed at “promotion
    of the Russians’ legitimate rights and interests.”
         One of the activists explained that interests of the Russians
    were vulnerable and needed promotion because “the Ukrainian
    authorities and their Western patrons are determined to drive the
    Black Sea Fleet out of the Crimea while everyone is distracted by
    the crisis.” The activist commented that the news of the EU’s
    initiatives was released in the midst of fresh scandals involving
    the Black Sea Fleet. Ukrainian media outlets reported movement of
    the fleet’s units and forces – allegedly to training grounds – the
    Ukrainian authorities had never been notified of in advance. Local
    nationalists appealed to the authorities to confiscate military
    hardware of the Black Sea Fleet for violation of the terms of
    presence specified by Ukrainian-Russian agreements.
         Ukrainian experts point out that Moscow deliberately refuses
    to acknowledge the latest scandals involving the fleet and the
    Ukrainian organizations that volunteer to promote interests of
    Russia. Political scientists agree that political actions are
    pointless when there is an economic crisis to grapple with.
    Economic projects, ones that offer jobs, salaries, and security
    are the only thing capable of swaying public opinion. Economic
    projects are precisely what the European Union might beat the
    United States and Russia with.

  • Letter to President Obama: The ISLAMIC Republic of Turkey

    Letter to President Obama: The ISLAMIC Republic of Turkey

    20 October 2009

    The Honorable Barack H. Obama
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500
    USA

    Dear Mr. President:

    I wrote to you on 20 January 2009, the day of your inauguration as president, about the dire conditions prevailing in the Republic of Turkey. (1) Today I stand by every word that I then wrote. Even more so, since conditions are now much worse. I suggest you reread this letter before you again meet with any Turkish politician. Accordingly, I have listed below the access internet addresses.

    The problem, as we both know, is the nature of the increasingly hard-line Islamic ruling party, the AKP. On 29 October 2009 you will have another opportunity to meet with its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is a date of terrifying irony. Eighty-six years ago, to the day, Turkey was proclaimed a republic. Thus centuries of backwardness by the sharia Ottoman Empire, the nightmare of dark-mindedness, the suppression of women, the illiteracy and ignorance of the population, all these civil transgressions were finally consigned to the garbage dump of history. Hope had arrived at last. The rescue mission of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been successful and would proceed. (Note: Incredibly, Erdoğan and his minions label these grand achievements as “traumatic.”) A few hours before the republic was proclaimed, Mustafa Kemal remarked to a French journalist, “Can one name a single nation that has not turned toward the West in its quest for civilization?”

    Now, eighty-six years later, one can finally answer Mustafa Kemal. Thanks to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the USA, your CIA, the European Union, and plenty of dollars filling the gaping pockets of politicians, hack journalists, outright traitors and, as Mustafa Kemal would say, selected “ignoramuses” there IS one such nation: Mustafa Kemal’s Turkey, today’s Turkey. Indeed, today’s Turkey has turned its back on the West. But its quest? The inept government seems incapable of answering that question. Beyond personal corruption, fantastic plundering, fabulous enrichment, suppression of women, extrajudicial imprisonments, destruction of the natural environment, and general lawlessness, no plan has emerged during its seven-year term in office. The 15 October 2009 article, “How Turkey Was Lost”, in the Jerusalem Post says it all.(2)

    And you have helped too, Mr President. Were you surprised by Erdoğan’s antics in Davos? By his attempt to storm your Secret Service barricade outside the hotel in New York City? By his sudden ranting about Israel? Mr President, you shouldn’t be, for this is the quality of the man. You proceed with the likes of him and his people at your, and our, peril. In my earlier letter to you I wrote: “Do not be deceived Mr. President, this government neither serves you, nor the Turkish people. In the name of so-called democracy, it serves itself.” Nothing more need be said.

    Today, on all counts, Turkey and the people of Turkey have failed. They have failed Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. They have failed themselves. Else how could they so submissively tolerate a government formed by the likes of Erdoğan and his AKP. Mr President, on 29 October 2009, you will see the personification of this profound, tragic failure in the normally scowling face of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, painfully contorted into his “White House smile!”

    Mr President, quite simply, Turkey has become an Islamic fascist state. Cameras and listening devices abound. People are identified for arrest by the government-controlled press. Even I, Mr President, have been fingered by newspaper hack widely known to be a mouthpiece for the president of the republic.(3)  Mr President, this lawless government has trashed the constitution. Jails are loaded with patriots—journalists, scientists, physicians, writers, retired military officers, businessmen—all opposed to the destruction of the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Mr President, There is no significant difference between the doings of this government and what went on in Germany in the early Thirties, or in Pinochet’s Chile in the Seventies. None!

    Lawless politicians! Lawless judges! Lawless prosecutors! Lawless police! Lawless! Lawless! Lawless…

    On 29 October 2009, the 86th anniversary of the founding of Republic of Turkey, you, Mr President, will meet with the Turkish prime minister. Perhaps this will be the day you both announce the birthday of the Islamic Republic of Turkey. Given what has happened to Turkey at the hands of the United States since Atatürk died, nothing would surprise me. And nothing would please Erdoğan more. And you, Mr President, should know.

    Sincerely yours,

    James (Cem) Ryan, Ph.D.

    Istanbul, Turkey

    (1) Letter to President Obama (20 January 2009):

    (2) “How Turkey was lost”, Caroline Glick, 15 Oct. 2009.The Jerusalem Post

    (3) “İki ‘garip’ Amerikalı”, (Two Weird Americans), Yeni Şafak, 29 April 2009

    “By complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence”

    —Mustafa Kemal

    FOR REASONS UNKNOWN

     

     

  • Turkey Exposed:

    Turkey Exposed:

    Cannot Pretend to be

    Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

    SASSUN-2

    Publisher, The California Courier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From: Ismet Takim [[email protected]]

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

    READ

    Turkey Exposed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From: Metin Mangir [[email protected]]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?


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

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

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

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

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

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

    was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What I do not understand is

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

    upon US following Georgia?

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

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

    with this protocols steps?

    Metin

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

    From: Ergun [[email protected]]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

    Metin,

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

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

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

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

    draining the US economy and social life.

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

    the salad.

    This is one man’s opinion.  🙂

    Ergun  KIRLIKOVALI

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

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

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

    Fariz Huseynov [[email protected]]

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

    On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

    dear Ergun

    you are not alone for this opinion

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

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

    O. wouldn’t care less for you

    regardas,

    vedat aslay

    ——————-

    Dear Metin

    Excellent observation and analysis

    I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

    Yes Russia it seems that  the big winner?

    how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

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

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

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

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

    Vedat Aslay [email protected]

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

    From: Yusif [[email protected]]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

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

    First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

    other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

    anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

    politically.

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

    an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

    southern Europe and Turkey itself.

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

    completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

    henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

    to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

    Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    borders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

    politically.

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

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

    occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

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

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

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

    Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

    Georgia is a good example.

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

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

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

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

    especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

    established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

    recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

    Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

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

    partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

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

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

    2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

    3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

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

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

    5. build confidence between people of the region

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

    mean complete loss.

    Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

    which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

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

    Yusif

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

    Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”
    https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

    From: Ergun [[email protected]]

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

    Case one:  Azerbaijan.

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

    1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

    2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

    3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

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

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

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

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

    Case two: Israel

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

    TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

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

    Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

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

    My take on all this:

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

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

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI


  • Obama, Gul Discuss Turkish-Armenian Ties

    Obama, Gul Discuss Turkish-Armenian Ties

    8807E0DA BBA3 40A7 9A17 6F4B96B6DAD4 w393 sTurkey — President Abdullah Gul (R) with his US counterpart Barack Obama at a press conference in Ankara, 06Apr2009
    19.10.2009

    U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed his strong support for the normalization of Armenia’s relations with Turkey in a weekend phone call with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul.

    The White House said Obama and Gul discussed on Saturday a range of issues of mutual interest, including the landmark Turkish-Armenian agreements signed in Zurich on October 10.

    “The two Presidents discussed the historic progress that is being made on normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, and the importance of maintaining the momentum in this important effort,” it said in a statement. No further details were reported.

    The U.S. support for the process was underscored by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presence at the signing ceremony in the Swiss city that was nearly disrupted by a last-minute dispute between the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers. Obama was quick to praise Clinton for helping to work out a compromise arrangement that salvaged the deal.

    Obama made a point of phoning President Serzh Sarkisian earlier this month during the latter’s tense visit to the United States aimed at explaining his conciliatory line on Turkey to the influential Armenian-American community. He praised Sarkisian’s “courageous leadership” and encouraged the Armenian leader to stay the course.

    Both Clinton and other top U.S. officials said that the two states should establish diplomatic relations and open the Turkish-Armenian border “without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe.” However, there were further indications on Monday that Ankara will not rush to ratify the agreements if the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unresolved in the coming months.

    Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that his government will continue to unequivocally support Azerbaijan in the bitter dispute with Armenia. “Azeri soil is as sacred for us as our own and liberating this soil from occupation is one of our primary national issues,” Davutoglu told reporters in Ankara.

    “Even if the skies fall down, Turkey’s position will not change… Our policy on ending the occupation… will continue until the problem is resolved,” he said, according to AFP.

    Gul also sought to reassure Baku, which believes that an open border with Turkey would only strengthen the Armenians economically and thereby discourage them from seeking a solution to the Karabakh conflict. “The fact that a country is occupying the territory of another country is unacceptable,” he told the French magazine “L’Express” in an interview published on Monday.

    The statements came amid Azerbaijan’s growing frustration with the Turkish government’s policy of rapprochement with its arch-foe. President Ilham Aliyev on Friday threatened to stop selling natural gas to Turkey at low prices and said Baku will consider routes other than Turkey to ship the gas to Europe. Also, media reports said Turkish flags were removed from a Baku cemetery, where Turkish soldiers who fought for Azerbaijan in the early 20th century are buried.

    In his interview with “L’Express” cited by “Hurriyet Daily News,” Gul also indicated that Ankara would accept any verdict by a Turkish-Armenian “subcommission” of historians which the two governments plan to form as part of their accord. The panel is expected to look into the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

    “Let a committee of historians, even experts of the subject from third countries, work on this issue. We will recognize its conclusions,” said the Turkish president.

    The Armenian government insists that the subcommission would not be tasked with determining whether the massacres constituted a genocide. But its critics in Armenia and its worldwide Diaspora counter that the Turkish government would exploit the very existence of such a body to deter more countries, notably the U.S, from adopting Armenian genocide resolutions.

    Gul chided Diaspora critics for maintaining that Turkey must recognize the genocide before it can make peace with the Armenians. “The Armenians living in France are far from Armenia,” he said. “If they want to lend their support to the Armenians of Armenia, they must support the process.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1855759.html
  • Houston/TEXAS: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol

    Houston/TEXAS: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol
    Written by Administrator
    Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:00

    Turkey closed its Armenian Border and suspended the relations between Turkey and Armenia as a consequence of the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, in 1992.  Recently a protocol between the Turkish and the Armenian governments has been signed, which may lead to the opening of Borders and normalizations of relations between the two nations, if approved by both nations’ parliaments.

    To the best of our knowledge, the protocol agreed by the two sides does not have any provisions that indicate that Armenia has promised to meet any of the conditions Turkey has put forth for opening of the Armenian Border and normalization of the relations between the two nations. Quite the contrary, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has recently stated that normalization of the relations between the two states should have no preconditions, and that Turkey and Armenia have a mutual understanding to that end.

    TurkishPAC firmly opposes normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations without preconditions. It believes that normalization should depend on Armenia’s agreeing to certain conditions. In particular, Armenia should:

    • Comply with the UN resolution to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, which it illegally occupies,
    • Drop false “genocide” claims against Turkey that go back almost 100 years and agree to the establishment of a joint committee of historians, as proposed by Turkey, to study and judge the 1915 events. As Turkey has declared it would do so, Armenia should declare that it would consider the findings of such a committee binding.
    • Withdraw its support to the Armenian Diaspora on the latter’s campaign to disseminate “genocide” propaganda, and,
    • Remove indirect reference to a Greater Armenia in its Constitution by amending Article 13 of Chapter 1 that describes its national coat of arms.

    With regard to items 3 and 4, note should also be made that in its Declaration of Independence in 1990, Armenia declared its support to false “genocide” claims against Turkey and has referred to Eastern Anatolia as “Western Armenia,” and as such, considers this area as part of Armenia. That is not a friendly posture toward a neighbor.

    TurkishPAC continues to view with apprehension the Turkish Government’s signing a protocol with Armenia, which will lead to opening the border and normalization of the relations between the two countries without any preconditions.

    TurkishPAC Board of Directors
  • Iraq Oil Scandal Threatens Former U.S. Diplomat Galbraith

    Iraq Oil Scandal Threatens Former U.S. Diplomat Galbraith

    57F2B0A1 62B7 4601 993D 10C42562F032 w393 sPeter Galbraith says his business activities took place only when he was working in the private sector.
    October 15, 2009
    By Charles Recknagel
    There is little love lost between the top UN envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and Peter Galbraith, his recently dismissed deputy.

    Galbraith was dismissed from the UN mission earlier this month after accusing the senior Norwegian diplomat of concealing information about the extent of fraud in the contested Afghan presidential election.

    Eide later responded with an angry defense of his reputation as an honest broker. He acknowledged there had been “significant” fraud but said that Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador, had no way to substantiate claims that as much as 30 percent of the vote count was influenced by fraud.

    Now, in an ironic twist to the story, Galbraith, too, has suddenly found himself at the center of alleged scandal that could damage his own reputation.

    That scandal is taking place in Norway, where Galbraith, the son of famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, lives in Bergen with his Norwegian wife.

    Norway’s largest financial newspaper, the “Dagens Naeringsliv,” reported last week that Galbraith acquired a 5 percent share in an oil field in the Iraqi Kurdish region at a time when he was a leading voice in the U.S. debate over the structure of post-Saddam Iraq.

    At the time, the former diplomat urged in meetings with U.S. officials and in articles in the “New York Review of Books” that the Kurds should be given maximum autonomy.

    And he helped draft Iraq’s 2005 constitution by advising Kurdish leaders on legal language they should seek to insert into it — including keeping future oil development in their region under their own control.

    The U.S. daily “The Boston Globe,” which picked up the story on October 15, reports that in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Galbraith worked as an adviser to then-U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

    Galbraith then left government service and in late 2003 and early 2004 worked as a paid consultant to Kurdish politicians. Later, in 2005, he advised them again on an unpaid basis.

    Conflict Of Interest?

    Galbraith’s dual role in Iraq appears to have broken no laws. But it does raise ethical questions, according to some analysts.

    “The dual role is problematic particularly in terms of the American policy debate that unfolded from around 2005 to 2007, in which Galbraith was the leading voice in shaping the so-called alternative to the Bush administration policy,” says Reider Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo and the editor of the Iraq-focused website historiae.org.

    “At the core of that alternative was the idea of some sort of radical decentralization for Iraq,” Visser says. “But when it now emerges that additionally he had an ownership interest, or a business interest, in an oil field whose political and economic status was directly governed by his policy recommendations, then I think we can speak of a conflict of interest.”

    Galbraith says in “The Boston Globe” that he sees no conflict of interest because he was working as a private citizen at the time.

    “The business interest, including my investment into Kurdistan, was consistent with my political views,” he told the paper. “These were all things that I was promoting, and in fact, have brought considerable benefit to the people of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan oil industry, and also to shareholders.”

    Rumors of Galbraith having financial dealings in Iraq have swirled around for years. But the Norwegian newspaper’s detailed account stems not from an investigation into Galbraith but into a Norwegian oil company, DNO.

    The investigation, as often happens in such cases, advanced in unanticipated ways, with one discovery leading surprisingly to another.

    The newspaper began by looking into a large, unexplained fine leveled on DNO by the Oslo Stock Exchange on June 18. DNO is the only Norwegian oil company active in northern Iraq and one of the first foreign companies to receive a drilling license from the Kurdistan regional government (KRG).

    The minutes of the stock exchange meeting showed only that the fine was to punish DNO for selling 5 percent of its shares to a publicly undisclosed buyer. “Dagens Naeringsliv” filed a Freedom of Information request with the stock exchange and learned that the undisclosed buyer of the shares was the KRG itself.

    When “Dagens Naeringsliv” published that news, the KRG reacted vehemently to being publicly named. It threatened to suspend DNO’s activities in Kurdistan and evict the company without compensation. It also set some conditions for continued cooperation with DNO, including one that was completely unexpected: for the company to clear up all conflicts with “third-party interests.”

    Again the newspaper’s interest was piqued. This time, the challenge was to find out the identity of the “third party,” which apparently had previously been part of an agreement with DNO and the KGR but which now was in a conflict so important it needed to be solved immediately.

    Unexpected Connections

    In the search, the paper learned of an arbitration case in London which started sometime after March of last year and pits DNO against two companies: one called Porcupine, the other belonging to a Yemeni businessman. Tracking down Porcupine led to Delaware, where it turned out the company’s incorporation document was signed by Peter Galbraith.

    The financial news editor of “Dagens Naeringsliv,” Terje Erikstad, says the discovery of Galbraith’s name was completely unanticipated.

    “We started out the investigation looking at the fine levied against a mid-sized Norwegian oil company, DNO,” Erikstad says. “It is often in the news because it was a pioneer in northern Iraq and its shares on the Oslo stock exchange go up and down with developments there. We were not looking for Galbraith’s name at all, so finding it on [Porcupine’s] founding documents in Delaware was quite a surprise for us.”

    Porcupine was established in Delaware on June 30, 2004 — one day after DNO signed a contract with KRG to begin drilling for oil in northern Iraq.

    Later, the relations between the partners — KRG, DNO, and the third party –soured for as yet unknown reasons. The contract between DNO and the KRG was renegotiated last year and the third party was dropped out of the agreement. That, in turn, appears to have sparked the arbitration case in which the third party — Porcupine and the Yemeni businessman — is asking compensation.

    The Norwegian newspaper reports that the compensation sought is equivalent to 10 percent of the total reserves and output of the Tawke field, where the DNO operates. The paper published a document from 2006 that lists the partners in the Tawke field and shows Porcupine as having a 5 percent interest in it.

    The paper estimates that the total amount of compensation being sought jointly by Porcupine and the Yemeni businessman is some $525 million. A ruling is expected in the first half of next year.

    DNO has the capacity currently to export roughly 43,000 barrels per day from Iraqi Kurdistan, worth approximately $30 million annually. However, exports are currently blocked as the KRG and Baghdad continue to dispute the same kind of issues Galbraith once tried to resolve.

    The current dispute is whether Baghdad, which handles the sale of all exported oil, should pay any of DNO’s operating costs when DNO is working under a contract awarded by the KRG but not recognized by the Baghdad government.

    Baghdad insists instead that the KRG pay the company out of the 17 percent of Iraqi oil revenues that the Kurdish region receives under Iraq’s current revenue-sharing agreement.

    A final Iraqi oil law to resolve such conflicts between Baghdad and the KRG has been under discussion ever since the signing of Iraq’s 2005 constitution, with no conclusion in sight.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/Iraq_Oil_Scandal_Threatens_Former_US_Diplomat_Galbraith/1852916.html