Turkish Forum

Category: America

  • Engaging Syria? U.S. Constraints and Opportunities

    Engaging Syria? U.S. Constraints and Opportunities

    Middle East Report N°83
    11 February 2009

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Candidate Obama pledged that his Middle East policy would include re-engagement with Syria; President Obama will find that the past is not easily overcome. The reasons behind his vow remain pertinent. Syria holds important cards in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine, is Iran’s most important Arab ally and has substantial influence over Hamas and Hizbollah. There are indications of potential common ground on which to build, from resuming Israeli-Syrian negotiations, to consolidating progress in Iraq to blunting the rise of jihadi militancy and sectarianism. But significant obstacles to healthy, mutually beneficial relations remain, along with a legacy of estrangement and distrust. They dictate the need for a prudent approach that seeks first to rebuild ties and restore confidence. It will be critical to reassure Damascus that the U.S. is interested in improving relations and resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, not in regime change. It is also equally critical not to compromise on core principles such as Lebanon’s sovereignty or the integrity of the international tribunal investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

    President Bush’s policy was premised on the belief that isolation and pressure would lead to substantial changes in Syrian behaviour. It failed on both counts. The policy crumbled, and the sought-after behavioural changes never truly materialised. Awareness of this outcome, coupled with Senator Obama’s own conviction that engagement – far from being a sign of weakness – was the mark of diplomatic strength, formed the backdrop to his campaign pledge and is likely to inform his presidential policy. The question no longer is whether to engage Syria but how.

    That is where the hard part begins, for engagement is easier said than done. Although the open hostility witnessed under the Bush administration was an anomaly in U.S.-Syrian relations, the ordinary state of affairs hardly has been the reverse. Even prior to the Bush presidency, whether under President Clinton or his predecessors, the relationship had been problematic, marked by disagreement as much as dialogue. From Washington’s perspective, Syria continued to support militant Palestinian and Lebanese groups; from Damascus’s, the U.S. continued to harbour a regional agenda inconsistent with its own aspirations and interests. In short, while breaking with the Bush legacy is part of the solution, simply reverting to what preceded it is not.

    Nor, even if it were advisable, would it be possible to rewind the tape. The last eight years have left their imprint in several, at times indelible ways. The legacy is threefold. First is the web of legal or administrative measures aimed at Syria. These include an array of binding UN Security Council resolutions related to Damascus’s role in Lebanon, the establishment of the international tribunal regarding the Hariri assassination and an assortment of U.S. economic sanctions. They undoubtedly will continue to shape U.S.-Syrian relations; for the most part, their relaxation will occur, if at all, as a by-product of improved relations rather than as a means of achieving them.

    Secondly, U.S. policy has deepened estrangement between the two countries. As Washington recalled its ambassador, downgraded its representation in Damascus and shunned routine encounters with Syrian representatives, Damascus responded by boycotting what remained of the U.S. embassy. Syria has undergone significant change since the U.S. last had sustained interaction. It will take time for policy-makers to come to terms with transformations in the regime’s governance style, power structure, threat perceptions, regional positioning and socio-economic constraints. A policy shift will be all the more difficult to undertake as these years coincided with a hardening of public and congressional attitudes toward Syria that inevitably will influence the new team. Most of the president’s advisers, although in favour of a policy of engagement, bore witness to Syrian action in Iraq and Lebanon, are sceptical about the nature of the regime, question prospects for a genuine shift in its regional posture and sense that Damascus is more likely to move when ignored than when courted.

    A third constraint stems from changes in the regional landscape. The Iraq invasion fuelled sectarian tensions and boosted Iran’s influence; neglect and mismanagement of the Arab-Israeli conflict bolstered Palestinian and other rejectionists; Lebanon’s polarisation and the 2006 war enhanced Hizbollah’s influence; attempts to isolate Syria strengthened its ties to Iran; jihadi militancy is on the rise; and the Arab world is as divided as ever. The net result will be to complicate any putative Syrian strategic repositioning.

    But there are promising signs, too. For several reasons – most having little or nothing to do with the U.S. – Damascus appears to be softening its posture on Iraq and Lebanon, undertaking at least some effort to control its border with the former while establishing diplomatic relations with the latter. Talks with Israel, although halted due to the war in Gaza and the elections in Israel, might well resume with U.S. participation. Relations with Turkey have become a central element of Syrian foreign policy, offsetting Iran’s exclusive influence and providing Ankara with real leverage. Signs of unease already can be detected in Syrian-Iranian relations; with patience and deft management, they might be substantially transformed.

    How the two sides first engage one another will be critical; mistakes, miscalculations or mismatched expectations could do significant damage. In this, the second of three companion reports, Crisis Group examines in greater depth the last eight years’ legacy, drawing lessons for the new administration’s Syria policy. It concludes that, in order to pave the way for a more fruitful relationship, the U.S. early on should take the following steps:

    • Clearly articulate a set of guiding core principles, including:

    ­– support for and participation in renewed peace negotiations on all tracks;

    – consistent with past Israeli-Syrian negotiations, any final agreement should entail full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, firm security arrangements and the establishment of normal, peaceful bilateral relations;

    – no arrangement or compromise over the international tribunal or Lebanon’s sovereignty;

    – respect for such international norms should not be read as a desire to destabilise or change Syria’s regime; and

    – open acknowledgment of positive Syrian measures.

    • Set in place effective channels of communication, by:

    – nominating an ambassador;

    – requesting that Syria treat U.S. diplomats respectfully and doing likewise with Syrian diplomats posted in the U.S.;

    – establishing a privileged, personal and direct channel between President Obama and President Assad, possible through Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell; and

    – conducting a relatively early visit by a high-level U.S. military official in order to establish U.S.-Syrian-Iraqi security cooperation.

    • Carefully rethink sanctions in line with clear policy objectives, streamline licensing procedures and loosen restrictions on humanitarian or public safety grounds, such as for medical items or civil aviation-related goods to help replace an ageing and dangerous national fleet.

    The initial briefing in this series described lessons from the French experience at re-engagement with Syria. The third and final report will consider evolutions on the Syrian side and propose broader policy recommendations for Washington and Damascus.

    Damascus/Washington/Brussels, 11 February 2009

  • The Honorable Barack H. Obama President of the United States

    The Honorable Barack H. Obama President of the United States

    From: Pulat Tacar
    Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:26 AM
    To: [email protected]

    Subject: Bir Amerikalinin Obama’ya mektubu…


    Dear Friends,

    The following letter (in English and Turkish) has been written
    to Mr. Obama, by an American, about the facts of Turkey..

    This letter is, in my opinion, the most realistic assessment about
    Turkish affairs, written by a westerner, so far I have ever read…

    Hope this letter reaches Mr. Obama and he finds time to read it.

    It seems, to understand Turkish affairs, one should live in Turkey
    for sometimes, let’s say some nine years!!!…

    Best regards,
    *****

    Cem Ryan, Ph.D. Istanbul, Turkey

    [email protected]


    20 January 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 write this letter to you, Mr. President, with my highest and warmest regards, best wishes, and my hope for a better, more just world. I have fond memories of this particular day, 20 January, your day of inauguration as president. Forty-eight years ago—six months before you were born—I, along with my fellow West Point cadets, marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to salute the newly sworn president, John F. Kennedy. Next to graduating from West Point, it was the highlight of my life. January 20, 1961—it had snowed heavily the night before and the day dawned windy with arctic temperatures. It was perfect, a memory crystal buried deep. How young we were, so enthusiastic about confronting a dangerous world with our young president. But while euphoria is grand, it is also dangerous, Mr. President. It didn’t take long for reality to take hold. And so time goes. I have now lived in Istanbul, Turkey for nine years. Over these years a “reality” has set in regarding our beloved country, America. And so I write to you today, Mr. President, to warn you about conditions in Turkey. “The world,” wrote Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, “is an arena of trials.” And the Bush policy of making Turkey a “moderate Islamic republic” has been, and continues to be, an arena of disasters. Mr. President, time is of the essence to correct this. And you need to know more about Turkey to do so.

    Accordingly, I have enclosed two books: one a biography, Ataturk, by Andrew Mango, the other, a copy of The Great Speech by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (Nutuk in Turkish). The latter epic work flowed from the pen of Ataturk, a 36-hour speech delivered over six days in October 1927. Therein, he recounts the Turkish War of Independence and the founding of the Turkish Republic. It is an astounding document.

    “I have tried to show, in these accounts, how a great people, whose national course was considered as finished, reconquered its independence; how it created a national and modern state founded on the latest results of science. The result we have today is the fruit of teachings which arose from centuries of suffering,and the price of streams of blood which have drenched every foot of the ground of our beloved homeland. This holy treasure I lay in the hands of the youth of Turkey. Turkish youth! Your primary duty is ever to preserve and defend the national independence of the Turkish Republic. “(Ataturk, The Great Speech, 715)

    By reading this book, Mr. President, you will immediately understand the enormous genius of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. You will see how the forces of religious fundamentalism didn’t magically vanish after Ataturk ended the sultanate and abolished the caliphate. Instead, they continued to subvert his revolutionary reforms from the very beginning. This is the nature of religious fundamentalism here in Turkey. It never stops. It is vital that you understand this, Mr. President. Turkey has always been a target for these dark-minded forces. And now these ignorant minds run the country. Reading the words of Mustafa Kemal will also help you marshal your own significant resources and talents, for you seem to be blessed with a capacious mind much like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s. Decisive, informed leadership is needed today by the president of the United States. These were defining characteristics of Ataturk, along with his great personal integrity. May you learn well from him, Mr. President, a man who fought a war against religious terrorists for his entire life.

    Now the democratic, secular, social state of the Republic of Turkey, governed under the rule of law, is under siege, both from without and within. I know this, Mr. President, I live here, and what I know is not sanitized by political niceties and outright propaganda. The undoing of this nation, created in Ataturk’s mind as a young army officer, has been long underway. But now the day is here. The black-minded ignorance of religious fundamentalism becomes more apparent every minute. Alcohol bans, women shoved under politically symbolic headscarves at the behest of duplicitous politicians, a compliant, subverted media. Here, so-called “liberals” work in compliance with outside forces (your CIA, for example, Mr. President). And the corruption of the religious ruling party is stunning and stinks to the high heavens from theft, rampant bribery, and election fraud. Currently, a scam called Ergenekon purges the left-wing opposition rivals (all adherents of the enlightened principles of Ataturk). To further contaminate his work, a smattering of outright criminals is added to the list of detainees. All this and more has brought democratic Turkey near its knees. And Mustafa Kemal Ataturk never knelt for anyone, ever. As a child he even refused to play leapfrog.

    European Union members, who never read him, wonder why so much fuss is made about Ataturk. Of similar traitorous stripe as the “entente liberals” of Ataturk’s day who conspired with the British occupiers for a mandate over Turkey, today’s “liberal” Turks (libos) fall over themselves subverting secular Turkey and the principles of Ataturk, in the name of democracy. The ruling party works its religious agenda demeaning the integrity of women at every turn, debasing the liberation of women by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And the United States of America, our country Mr. President, directly aids and abets these subversive forces. This is shameful.

    Mr. President, most Americans remain ignorant about Turkey and, amazingly, even more so about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Without knowing this man one knows nothing about this country. The enclosed books are my attempt to prevent you learning about Turkey solely by reading sterile briefing books, self-serving CIA studies, State Department policy papers, memoranda from your national security advisors, and, most particularly, reports from the western press. Most of the Turkish press, and, in particular, the current Turkish government are similarly ever-willing purveyors of self-interested propaganda. Beware, Mr. President, for you will receive regurgitations of superficial, stale, and even incorrect information, like the Bushian nonsense that Turkey is a “moderate Islamic nation.” Via the headscarf issue—the “ocular proof” of piety for western consumption—this ill-conceived initiative, without any Koranic justification, has created a gigantic, violent, societal schism in Turkey. Mr. President, is America a moderate Christian nation? I mean, should Americans wear visible crucifixes? Please reconsider this nonsensical policy, Mr. President. (Again, read The Great Speech to see how religious subversions beset Ataturk at every turn.)

    “One will be able to imagine how necessary the carrying through of these measures was, in order to prove that our nation as a whole was no primitive nation, filled with superstitions and prejudices. Could a civilized nation tolerate a mass of people who let themselves be led by the nose by a herd of seyhs, Dedes,Seyyits, celebis, Babas, and Emirs, who entrusted their destiny and their lives to palm readers, magicians, dice-throwers and amulet sellers? Ought one to preserve in the Turkish State, in the Turkish Republic, elements and institutions such as those which had for centuries given the nation the appearance of being other than it really was?” (Ataturk, The Great Speech, 714)

    Mr. President, even worse than misinformation, you will be regaled with assertions and protestations that the current religious-rooted government is representative and similar to the majority of Turkish people. Mr. President, it is extremely dangerous for you, and for the United States, to be deceived in this manner. Indeed this must sound strange to you, Mr. President, but it is true. There is a great muffling happening in Turkey today. So I caution you, to become truly aware of the situation in Turkey, you must first meet Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in depth. You must come to enlightenment about Turkey on your own recognizance, Mr. President, and not rely on the misinformed, the flatterers, and the deceivers, of whom there are legion.

    While you may think you are different, Mr. President, be forewarned that, despite your access to the bright minds of the CIA, the State Department, and your White House staff, you will not get a true idea of the essence of Turkey, the nation. You may learn about this Turkish government, but that’s not learning about the Turkish nation. And you will certainly not learn anything from members of the present Turkish government about the nation’s soul.
    The essence of the modern Turkish soul reposes in the materials I have sent, in a word, Ataturk. His accomplishments—military, political, social, educational, creative—represent a quest for justice for the collective life of his people, and in no small regard, for the world. “Peace at home, peace in the world,” he famously said. He possessed, as I suspect you do as well, Mr. President, what Reinhold Niebuhr called the “sublime madness in the soul,” saved from excessiveness by unusually astute powers of reason. So armed, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk battled against the powers of darkness and spiritual corruption in high places. So armed, he rescued his people from the debris of the Ottoman Empire. Today, his thoughts and deeds define the existential principles of the Turkish nation. But, Mr. President, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is now under attack from outside Turkey and within.

    Nevertheless, his principles still inspire tens of millions of proudly secular Turks who long for the truly democratic nation he established. Believe me Mr. President, the “secular elite” described by the disgracefully biased and ill-informed writings of Sabrina Tavernise of The New York Times as “an immensely powerful coterie of generals and judges” is nonsense. Millions of us—yes, Mr. President, I too am a citizen of Turkey—took to the streets in the spring of 2007 against the policies of the U.S.-backed Erdogan government. And matters have become even more dire since. Mr. President, perhaps you don’t know what’s going on with this government.

    In the name of democracy, the ruling party, the AKP (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, Justice and Development Party) has made a shambles of Turkey’s founding principles. In the name of democracy there is vast bribing of the AKP electorate, predominantly poor and uneducated, with coal and appliances. Higher court deliberations on suits against the ruling party are regularly attacked by the ruling party, particularly by the prime minister, and literal targets (complete with crosshairs) are made of individual judges in the religious press.
    In the name of democracy and social justice and legal egalitarianism, an enormous purge of hundreds of alleged opponents of the ruling party is taking place in a “fishing expedition” called Ergenekon. A literal witch hunt, so-called suspect members of a military-coup conspiracy ring are held without benefit of writs of habeas corpus; they have been held in jail—some for over 18 months—without being charged and later prejudicially tried in jail. Writers, journalists, university presidents, labor union leaders, lawyers, retired army officers, leftists all, are caught up in this disgrace of a dragnet. (As mentioned earlier, some ordinary criminals are mixed in for pollution purposes.) Mr. President, I write to you on their behalf, the educated, western-thinking intelligentia, now imprisoned in a Turkish gulag called Silivri, the largest prison in Turkey, and in Europe. And that’s where they are tried! In the prison! So you, Mr. President, as an attorney, undoubtedly instantly understand the extremely prejudicial nature of this trumped-up case.

    Mass arrests typically happen immediately after the ruling party suffers a legal or corruption setback. For example, consider its trial in early 2008 where the AKP was found guilty of being the center of anti-secular activity in Turkey. A second roundup occurred as a result of a German charitable foundation called Deniz Feneri, “lighthouse” in English. Organized by Turks in both Germany and Turkey, Deniz Feneri stole 41 million euros from pious Turks in Germany and transferred 17 million of it to Turkey, some to media companies friendly to the ruling party. The AKP manager, Zahid Akman, of the Turkish government’s televison and radio system (RTuK), was identified by the court as the bagman. He remains in his position, dutifully protecting the nation’s morals by blurring televised images of smoking and the consumption of alcohol. The German prosecutor stated that links of the Deniz Feneri embezzlement were traced to the office of the prime ministery.

    The movement of Turkey toward sharia continues. Vast areas of the nation have been made alcohol-free. Swimsuit advertisements are banned in Istanbul. The Ataturk Cultural Center, located in prime space in downtown Istanbul, has been closed. No details are given regarding its status. Consequently, the Istanbul symphony, opera, and ballet, all state sponsored, have been sent packing. They are rumored to perform occasionally, somewhere. So much for cultural enlightenment. Oddly enough, Istanbul has been selected to be the European Capital of Culture in 2010; this is known as political lip service.

    Mr. President, for too long a time America has attempted to efface the Turkish soul, to reshape this country, to include it in the American hegemony. All this subversion has been to, in effect, lobotomize the Turkish brain, ridding it of the noble thoughts of Ataturk, making it a congenial dolt, bowing and scraping to America’s wishes. Internally, this has been the primary responsibility of the ruling party. And it has done its job very well, almost bringing the once proud nation of Ataturk to its knees. Once, after a waiter dropped a heavily laden tray at a state dinner, Mustafa Kemal turned to his foreign guests and said, “As you can see I have taught my people to do everything but serve.” How ironic, how angering to the followers of Ataturk is the current servile, US-installed government. Consider this, Mr. President. Banned from running from office, without any legal credentials whatsoever, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was welcomed to the White House by George W. Bush as de facto head of the Turkish government. How outrageous! No wonder Erdogan, habitually a dour, scowling man, beamed broadly whenever he visited Bush. 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. It has long been at its destructive work, this imperialism. You know this personally, Mr. President. Why your very roots—one foot in Hawaii, the other in Kenya, your days of youth in Indonesia—all these highly personal experiences have surely informed your persona. Surely they speak to you of the same issue that so afflicts Turkey. Imperialism. Internal subversion. Corruption.

    When Mustafa Kemal Ataturk rescued Turkey from the ruins of the Ottoman five hundred year reign, he established a new way for the Turkish people to live their lives. It was the way of enlightenment, the western way. I hope that you can now begin to see how the west, for its own ill-reasoned self-interest, has encouraged the sabotaging of the enlightened principles of Ataturk. Most importantly, I hope that this whets your reading appetite to learn more about this incomparable man.

    Mr. President, I am confident that you will adopt your policies, both within America, and without, in the spirit of those stirring words you wrote in Dreams from My Father about a different kind of politics:
    “That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived.”

    The majority of Turkish people want the very same thing. And if the United States can get out of their way, they can have it.

    Sincerely yours,

    James (Cem) Ryan

    Enclosures:
    Ataturk. Andrew Mango. John Murray Publishers, London, 2004.
    The Great Speech (Nutuk). Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Ataturk Research Center, Ankara, 2005.
    Posted by Cem Ryan, Ph.D. Istanbul, Turkey godotawaits@gmail.com

    for turkısh versıon please go to turkısh pages

    Türkçe www.turkishnews.com/tr/content

    0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    James (Cem) Ryan

    [email protected]

    James (Cem)Ryan is a writer living in Istanbul, Turkey. A graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, he holds a Ph.D. in literature. His historical novel, Natural Affinities, about New York City during World War I, was published in 2004 by (www.trafford.com/robots/03-1783.html).

    5 Articles

    Sunday, February 1, 2009
    Erdogan Does Davos
    (1 comments) By his courageous stand ErdoGan has unified a badly divided nation. We shall soon see the degree to which he is an equally passionate advocate for human rights in his own country.

    Sunday, January 25, 2009
    Letter to President Obama: Turkey in an Arena of Trials
    I have now lived in Istanbul, Turkey for nine years. Over these years a “reality” has set in regarding our beloved country, America. I write to you today, Mr. President, to warn you about conditions in Turkey. “The world,” wrote Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, “is an arena of trials.” And the Bush policy of making Turkey a “moderate Islamic republic” has been an arena of disasters. Mr. President.

    Monday, January 12, 2009
    THE ISRAELI-AMERICAN KILLING MACHINE
    (3 comments) The tentacles of God’s bloody instruction have been embraced as a political policy by the ancient Israelites, the papacy in Rome, the new world colonizing countries, the early government of the United States, and the current governments of the United States and its favorite strategic partner-in-crime, Israel. It reaches back four thousand years. It has been a disgraceful, bloor-ridden legacy.

    Wednesday, December 24, 2008
    Forget Armenia, Turks Should Condemn American Indian Genocide
    (2 comments) It is high time that Turkey takes the offensive on the matter of genocide. In this day of widespread destruction, it is high time to remind America, Americans, and their government, that they are up to their ancestral elbows in the blood of the American Indians. The Turkish government must condemn the American Indian Genocide, or itself be condemned.

    Sunday, April 13, 2008
    Turkey!s “Undemocratic” Constitution
    The furor regarding the case accepted by Turkey’s highest court that could result in the banishment of the AKP ruling party makes me laugh out loud. Never forget that in the name of democracy, the institution that brought the Bush regime to power was none other than the Supreme Court of the United States. A judicial coup? Don’t make me laugh harder. No one said a word about that.

  • CLINTON SIGNALS A SMART RETREAT FROM DEMOCRATISATION

    CLINTON SIGNALS A SMART RETREAT FROM DEMOCRATISATION

    By Gideon Rachman

    Published: February 5 2009 20:39 | Financial Times

    Taking questions from staff at the state department this week, Hillary Clinton highlighted the hard-headed approach she hopes to take to the US’s relations with the rest of the world, write Daniel Dombey and Demetri Sevastopulo. “When we talk about the three pillars of American foreign policy – defence, diplomacy, development – they’re not just words to the president and me,” the new secretary of state (below) declared, repeating a formula she has spelled out several times in the days since she took office.

    Singularly absent from her outline of the struts of US foreign policy is a fourth “D” – democracy promotion – a goal that served as one of the guiding themes of the Bush administration.

    The Obama administration has gone out of its way to signal a pragmatic, non-ideological approach. It is a modus operandi that stresses continuity with policy under George W. Bush in terms of the tools it uses while setting out arguably more “realistic” goals.

    “This team is very deliberate and what you’ll see is them taking a long look at what they’ve inherited to see what of that works,” says a US official. “They have learnt the lesson from the beginning of the Bush administration, which threw everything out that had to do with [former president Bill] Clinton.”

    Mrs Clinton’s “three D’s” mantra uses a vocabulary of the possible rather than charting grand objectives. It suggests that the US will continue to assert its military might while emphasising the kind of diplomatic outreach many US allies called for during Mr Bush’s presidency. The secretary of state also wants to use US aid to put pressure on countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and to win control of assistance currently dispensed by the US military so that it can be more easily put to the service of political goals.

    In a phrase Mrs Clinton has borrowed from Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor, and Richard Armitage, a former Bush administration state department official, she labels such an alliance of “hard” and “soft” power as “smart power”. Her stance is bolstered by similar positions struck by President Barack Obama and Robert Gates, defence secretary – a veteran champion of “realism” in the long-running Washington debate with liberal interventionist “idealists”.

    Not for nothing did Mr Obama promise to work with authoritarian states in his inaugural address. While Mr Bush used his second inauguration to set out “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world”, Mr Obama told undemocratic states that “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” – an offer he later explicitly addressed to Iran.

    Indeed, just days before taking office, the then president-elect took care to avoid Mr Bush’s emphasis on free elections. “Elections aren’t democracy, as we understand it,” Mr Obama told The Washington Post, stressing priorities such as freedom from arbitrary arrest and fighting corruption. “They are one facet of a liberal order.”

    Mr Obama’s emphasis on stabilising Afghanistan to reduce the threat of terrorism rather than on establishing a US-style “Jeffersonian democracy” follows this train of thought, as did his pre-election suggestion to General David Petraeus, then the commander of forces in Iraq, that the US should be content with a “messy, sloppy status quo” in that country.

    Ahead of Mr Obama’s expected approval of the deployment of 12,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan, Mr Gates has also suggested that the US scale back its ambitions, cautioning that any attempt to create “some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there” would inevitably fail.

    Yet while the goals set out by the Obama administration may differ from – or sometimes be more pragmatic than – those endorsed by the Bush administration – the tools it employs are often the same. Last week Mr Gates signalled that the US would continue to launch missile strikes against suspected terrorists inside Pakistan. Less than three days after Mr Obama moved into the White House, the CIA carried out such a strike, an attack that almost certainly was approved by the new president.

    Other instruments established by Mr Bush and set to continue include the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear programme, which Mrs Clinton has labelled “essential”, and similar discussions on Iran. “Where continuity is appropriate, we are committed to doing that,” Mrs Clinton said, also instructing Todd Stern, her climate change envoy, to take part in both “United Nations negotiations and processes involving a smaller set of countries” – an apparent reference to Mr Bush’s controversial “major emitters” grouping.

    “From Iran to the plans for an early meeting with [Russian president Dmitry] Medvedev to recent statements on Afghanistan, there is a strong realist strain appearing, although whether that will hold sway at the end of the day remains to be seen,” says Cliff Kupchan, a Washington-based analyst and former Clinton administration official.

    While the debate between realists and idealists that rocked the Bush administration continues, Mr Kupchan observes that now “the portions of meat and vegetables are different”.

    Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

  • The Foreign Policy Team of Obama

    The Foreign Policy Team of Obama

    Shifting horizons

    By Gideon Rachman

    Published: February 5 2009 20:39 | Financial Times

    February 6, 2009 10:32am 

    European policymakers will this weekend be able to have their first close look at the foreign policy team of President Barack Obama. The American delegation to the annual Munich security conference will be led by Joe Biden, US vice-president, and will include General James Jones, Mr Obama’s new national security adviser.

    But for those searching for clues to the new administration’s approach to the rest of the world, there is a treasure trove of evidence that has been little examined – the writings of the people who will shape foreign policy.

    Several are prolific authors. Many are moving across Washington, from venerable think-tanks such as the Brookings Institution on Massachusetts Avenue, into offices in the state department or at the White House. Others are arriving from universities including Harvard, Princeton and Stanford.

    It would be naive to assume that ideas floated in journal articles will be translated directly into US foreign policy. The real world is too messy for that. But the writings of the appointees and those likely to serve alongside them at least illustrate the intellectual climate and help identify some of their underlying assumptions.

    Out goes the “war on terror”, which the new brood sees as an ideological rather than a military struggle. In comes a need to reappraise both America’s power and its vulnerabilities. Back are a belief in the importance of the United Nations, of diplomacy in general – with a new stress on broad-based regional initiatives – and of relations with allies in western Europe.

    Since the “war on terror” was the organising principle of the foreign policy of George W. Bush, it is not surprising that the Obama team is urging a re-think. The early decision to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay reflected a belief that the struggle with terrorism is as much about ideas and principles as it is about military force. Daniel Benjamin, a Brookings scholar who is expected to take up a senior state department position dealing with counter­terrorism, has argued that terrorism is never likely to be definitely vanquished. Rather it is a threat that needs to “managed and reduced”.

    Daniel Benjamin

    Brookings scholar expected to take up a state department counter-­terrorism position

    In the same vein, Philip Gordon – also of Brookings and expected to take up the post of assistant secretary of state for Europe – argues that “the battle against Islamist terrorism will be won when the ideology that underpins it loses its appeal”.

    This rethinking of the war on terror reflects a broader reassessment, both of American power and of US national security. Rather than putting military power at the centre of US foreign policy, the Obama team wants to rehabilitate America’s “soft power” – diplomacy, persuasion, cultural influence, development aid and the power of example. Indeed, the man who coined the phrase “soft power” – Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor – is tipped to be US ambassador to Japan or China.

    Philip Gordon

    Brookings scholar expected to take up the post of assistant secretary of state for Europe

    Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton academic, is expected to be appointed head of policy planning at the state department – a job once held by George Kennan, architect of the policy of containment of the Soviet Union. Ms Slaughter is keen to get away from the militarised and Manichean world view of the Bush years. In a recent article, she suggests that the US “need not see itself as locked in a global struggle with other great powers; rather it should view itself as a central player in an integrated world”. In her view, American power is as much to do with a dense web of cultural and economic connections with the rest of the world as it is to do with the number of aircraft carriers possessed by the navy.

    Anne-Marie Slaughter

    Academic tipped as head of policy planning at the state department

    But while the thinkers around Mr Obama have played down traditional threats to national security, they are keen that the administration should take a new generation of threats much more seriously. Kurt Campbell, expected to become assistant secretary of state for Asia, argues that “unchecked climate change will come to represent perhaps the single greatest risk to our national security”. Susan Rice, the new ambassador to the UN, thinks extreme poverty leads to state failure and, therefore: “We ignore or obscure the implications of global poverty for global security at our peril.”

    Kurt Campbell

    Likely assistant secretary of state for Asia; sees climate change as a security threat

    Some of Mr Obama’s early statements suggest that the Bush administration’s occasionally Messianic view of “democracy promotion” as a central priority of US foreign policy, may now be quietly shelved (see below). But this is one area in which there is likely to be considerable debate and disagreement within the Obama camp. Some of the new president’s appointees can sound just as ardent about democracy promotion as any neo-conservative.

    Susan Rice

    The new ambassador to the UN; thinks extreme poverty leads to state failure

    Michael McFaul, a Stanford academic who is expected to be in charge of the Russia desk at the National Security Council, for example argued in Policy Review in 2002: “The US must once again become a revisionist power … The ultimate purpose of American power is the creation of an international community of democratic states that encompasses every region of the planet.”

    Although the idea of creating a League of Democracies as an alternative source of legitimacy to the UN became closely associated with John McCain’s Republican presidential campaign, it is also a notion with which some Obama advisers have played around. Ivo Daalder, who is likely to become US ambassador to Nato, has proposed the formation of a “Global Nato” – an idea that might raise a few eyebrows among fellow ambassadors in Brussels. Mr Daalder’s argument is that because the alliance now takes on global missions, most obviously in Afghanistan, it should “open its membership to any democratic state in the world that is willing and able to contribute to the fulfilment of Nato’s new responsibilities”.

    Ivo Daalder

    Expected to be the US ambassador to Nato; has proposed the formation of a ‘Global Nato’

    Although Mr Obama opposed the Iraq war, members of his foreign policy team are not against the expansive use of American power. Samantha Power, who is expected to take a top position in the National Security Council, came to Mr Obama’s attention when he read her book, A Problem from Hell, which criticised American passivity in the face of genocide, from Cambodia to Rwanda. She is a firm believer in the use of US power to achieve humanitarian aims and stop future genocides.

    A belief in liberal interventionism and the promotion of democracy is not at odds with the neo-conservative world view. Where the Obama camp often departs decisively from the Bush years is in the belief in the importance of the UN. Ms Power’s second book, Chasing the Flame, was an admiring biography of a UN official killed in a terrorist attack in Iraq. The book’s belief in the world body as a force for good is a departure from the hostility and scepticism of the Bush years.

    Samantha Power

    Author of A Problem from Hell, tipped for a top position at National Security Council

    At the NSC, Ms Power is expected to be given a portfolio dealing with global governance. Her counterpart at the state department will probably be Carlos Pascual of the Brookings Institution, another firm supporter of the UN. He has argued for beefing up its peacekeeping capabilities.

    Many of these arguments are in the realm of grand theory. But Mr Obama’s people have also written extensively about the knotty diplomatic problems that they are already confronting. Richard Holbrooke, who has been appointed special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has made it clear that he favours a broad regional approach to the problem. In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, he argued that Afghanistan should be seen as part of an “arc of crisis” stretching from Turkey through Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

    Richard Holbrooke

    Special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan; favours a broad regional approach

    The Obama team’s preference for a regional approach may also be demonstrated in the Middle East, where the Israeli-Palestinian question is likely to be tackled as part of a package of linked problems including countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

    The voluminous writings of team Obama give some indication of how the appointees will approach things. But there are also cultural nuances that are not captured in journal articles or conference speeches. While many of the Bush team hailed from the south and the Midwest, many Obama appointees have cultural ties to Europe.

    Several – including Ms Rice and Mr McFaul – studied at Oxford as Rhodes scholars. Mr Daalder was born in the Netherlands and Ms Power in Ireland. Mr Gordon was the official translator of French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s biography; Ms Slaughter has a Belgian mother. The pièce de résistance: Gen Jones, the new national security adviser, speaks fluent French, having gone to high school in France. Old Europe is likely to receive a cordial welcome in Mr Obama’s Washington.

  • Russia rattles sabres in Obama’s direction

    Russia rattles sabres in Obama’s direction

    By Quentin Peel

    Published: February 6 2009 17:20 | Last updated: February 6 2009 17:20

    Russia may face a grim economic downturn but one would scarcely think so to judge by the sound of sabre-rattling emerging from the Kremlin. Unless, of course, it is intended as a domestic distraction from the gathering gloom.

    The double-act of Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin has come up with a series of security initiatives that seem designed to provoke, or at least irritate, the new administration in Washington. Without even waiting to hear how President Barack Obama intends to conduct his relations with Moscow – something that Joe Biden, his vice-president, may well address on Saturday at the annual Munich Security Conference – the Russian leaders have thrown down the gauntlet.

    First, they leaked details of naval and air bases to be established on the shores of the Black Sea in the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia, whose independence is recognised by Moscow alone. Then they signed an air defence treaty with the former Soviet republic of Belarus, apparently paving the way for an anti-missile defence system to counter one planned by the previous US administration across the border in Poland. Moscow appears to have persuaded the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan to oust the US from its air base at Manas, outside Bishkek, in exchange for $2bn (€1.6bn, £1.4bn) in loans, and $150m in financial aid.

    Russia and the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – the so-called Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) – have agreed to form a “rapid reaction force” which is intended to be just as good as the equivalent force operated by the Nato alliance, according to President Medvedev.

    Outside analysts are sceptical whether any of these moves amounts to a particularly effective military gesture but they are certainly intended to suggest that Russia is not rushing to embrace the new US administration.

    The air defence deal with Belarus is on a par with Mr Medvedev’s announcement, on the day Mr Obama was elected, that Russian Iskander missiles would be sited in the Kaliningrad enclave to counter the US missile defence system. It appears to negate a subsequent conciliatory gesture from Moscow, saying those missiles would not be deployed if the US also held back.

    As for the Abkhaz naval base, it may be intended as an insurance policy for the day when, or if, Russia is forced to vacate the existing base for its Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol in the Crimea, which is leased from Ukraine until 2017. Oksana Antonenko, senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, believes all the actions are part of a pattern, intended to provoke a US reaction, and give Russia more bargaining chips in negotiating a new relationship with Washington. “In Russia there has never been any euphoria about Obama as there has been in the rest of Europe,” she says. “Russia is still very mistrustful of the US, and Putin profoundly so.

    “But there is an overwhelming view in Moscow now that the Americans are in decline and will be forced to negotiate with Russia from a position of weakness. They seem to expect all the concessions to come from Obama. It is very unrealistic.”

    The response from Washington has been muted. Russia is simply not a high priority for the new president. Western analysts believe Russia’s production of Iskander missiles is not enough to base any significant numbers in Belarus as well as on its southern borders. As for the rapid reaction force, it is regarded with wry amusement in Brussels. None of Russia’s would-be allies wants to be used as a pawn in some muscle-flexing contest with Washington. Even Abkhazia is unhappy about becoming a vast military base for its neighbour.

    So perhaps the entire operation is for domestic purposes. That way it might at least make sense.

    Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

  • TURKISH FORUM’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

    TURKISH FORUM’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

    TURKISH FORUM”S LETTER OF FACTS TO PRESIDENT BARRACK HUSEYIN OBAMA

    PO. Box 1104 Marblehead MA 01945 USA

    6 February 2009 cc:H.E James Jeffry Ambassador

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

    Dear Mr. President:

    Please accept our congratulations and best wishes, Mr. President, for a very fruitful and rewarding term at the White House.  We sincerely hope that your presidency will bring the much needed change in the world political scene, away from polarizations and conflict, and towards compassion and peace.  I am sure you will agree, that the great leader and founding father of Republic of Turkey in 1923, ATATURK’s immortal words may best guide us all into the anxious future:  “Peace at Home, Peace in the World.”

    We urge you to be fair in your dealings with all, but especially with Turkey, given the increased pressure the Armenian lobby has been applying on you recently.  In this day and age of global village with internet and satellites, I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. President, that the old motto  “all politics is local” is no longer valid.  We sincerely hope that you will not offend and estrange Turkey on 24 April 2009 by using the term genocide to describe the human tragedy that affected all the people of Anatolia during WWI (Turks, Armenians, and others alike,) not just the Armenians.

    Mr. President, you are the leader of the free world now with tremendous responsibility.  You are no longer a candidate without any accountability.   Whatever you promised Armenians when you were a candidate cannot be allowed to hold the great American interests hostage to nagging Armenian squabbling.   An erroneous choice of words on your behalf can have lasting destructive effects on  the United States-Turkey relations for many decades to come.   I hope and trust that you realize the gravity of this situation.  No internal politics is worth losing the confidence and support of one of the greatest allies of America in the last 50+ years.

    The Turkish-Armenian conflict is one of inter-communal warfare fought by Muslim and Christian irregular forces against a backdrop of a world war.  This issue cannot be explained without acknowledging the Armenian propaganda, agitation, terrorism, raids, rebellions, treason, territorial demands, and Turkish suffering and losses caused by all of these factors, in that order, from 1890 to 1921,  where 1915 is a stop in that tragic journey.

    We urge you, Mr. President, to be on the side of dialog and peace; not polarization and conflict.  Please support more research, study, and debate on such complex historical events by impartial historians, not legislation of history by politicians.  Principles of fairness prevent the settlement of this matter by partisan groups with vested interests. We support, therefore, Turkey’s 2005 offer to Armenia to establish a Joint Historical Commission which is, so far, rejected by Armenia.

    As Turkish Forum, we look forward to meeting the challenges of a new chapter between the United States and Turkey and pledge to you our full support to improve and advance this relationship to the benefit of both of our nations.

    Truthfully Yours,

    Dr. Kaya Buyukataman, CEO
    President & Founder Turkish Forum

    Cc: Mr. M. Kaska, Chairman BOT
    Mr. Taner Ertunc, VP Turkish forum
    Dr. Robert B. McKay Advisor to President
    Mr. Sukru S. Aya Advisor to President
    Mr. Ergun Kirlikovali, Advisor to President
    BOD, Advisory Board, File, Members of Turkish Forum

    Attachments:  

    1- (File / Folder) Compiled 6-parts of “Documents discovered “as follows  

    a- Book: “WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE” Boston 1918 Auth: Arthur G. Pastermacian, Formerly terrorist in raiding Ottoman Bank, Elected representative of ERZURUM. Armenian revolution Lieder, USA ambassador for the Armenian Republic: Book outlines Armenian Massacres before the Relocation and prior to WWI, with references to General Dro, and Adranik administrated murders. Founding of free Armenian State under Ottoman protection. Armenian massacres to Ottomans Turks after the relocation.

    b- “THE ARMENIAN QUESTION Before the Peace Conference” Submitted By The Armenian Delegation Feb 26th 1929 (Clarification of all facts of treason, revolutions, braveries and asking in return more than half of Anatolia, (Free of non Christian people). [Question: Why are they asking Turkish lands if 1.5 million Armenian killed during relocation, who is going to occupy these lands“]. Also outlines previous formation of Free Armenian State by Ottomans, Their siding with Russia, and genocides committed by Armenian armed forces on Muslim population, after the formation Free Armenia by Ottomans.

    c- “ARMENIA and the Settlement ” Booklet for the minutes of Conference held in London on June 19th 1919 by prominent pro-Armenian Dignitaries, confessing anti-Turkism and support of British politicians. .. Booklet outlines how brave were Armenians in killing unarmed Muslim population, and how well they served Christian world.

    d- “NEAR EAST RELIEF REPORT” Joint resolution of the U.S. Senate & Congress, accepted unanimously on April 22nd, 1922. The contents of these official documents believe the arguments and reasons enlisted in HS-106. Though many other references were made in HS-106, “this one was overlooked or by-passed. WHY?” Resolution states that 1410 000. Armenians were alive and living in the lands of (with majority being in) Armenia, Syria, and Turkey, and they need 72 Million Dollars financial aid. (Question: if 1.5 million Armenian killed during relocation, where these people did came from). The 72 Million dollars were released by U. S. and distributed among Armenian population, no other race were given any financial aid or any help by U.S. officials send to above lands for that purpose.

    e- Documents: Adjustment of Payments due to United States by Turkey, Sept 1937. (No indemnity claims by USA is possible) Us requested originally 5 Million dollars and they settled 1 400 000 Dollars at The end. This was to cover all claims made by all U.S. citizens (MOSTLY ARMENIANS) from Turkish Government. “CASE CLOSED AND CANNOT BE OPENED AGAIN”.

    f- Order of the Court Case, European Court of Justice Dec. 17th 2003. Court unanimously rejected an application for < paying of indemnities and refusals of Turkey’s acceptance into E.U. unless she accepts the “genocide allegation” based on a decision of the European Parliament back in 1987>. Court resolved that 1987 resolution are political declarations that CAN CHANGE IN TIME. Cannot therefore have binding legal consequences for other institutions. Details are also posted in Turkish Forum web pages.

    2- (Book) “The Genocide of Truth” (Jan. 2008) Istanbul Commerce Univ. Pub. No.25 ISBN 978-975-6576-24-9 This 702 pages book does contain large number documents from reliable and non Turkish sources including National Archives of various countries, Author: S. S. Aya

    Note: Other documents compiled by non-Turkish or Turkish sources are also available through TURKISH FORUM if requested. Please place above documents to National Archives for all to see. < THE GENOCIDE OF TRUTH>.