Category: America

  • Turkey’s media surprised by Basbug’s assessment of U.S.

    Turkey’s media surprised by Basbug’s assessment of U.S.

    Turkish journalists said the military signaled one expected and one surprise act in this new era after the remarks delivered by Turkey’s newly appointed chief of General Staff, Gen. Ilker Basbug.

    Basbug was expected to stress the principle of secularism as the basis of the Turkish Republic, while in a surprise statement he described the “cooperation” with the United States in the fight against terrorism as “excellent”, Murat Yetkin from Radikal daily said on Saturday.

    “Our cooperation with the U.S. army is on a perfect level. It is one of our most important duties to preserve this cooperation since Turkey-United States relations have gained further importance,” Basbug said on Thursday when officially hold the top post of the Turkish army.

    He warned on threats to secularism and stressed the importance of fight against terrorism

    No previous chief of general staff has depicted relations between Turkey and United States in this way, Yetkin added.

    Semih Idiz, Milliyet daily’s coloumnist also said that Basbug remarks regarding U.S were surprising since they were mentioned in a time when the anti-Americanism is high in Turkish society.

    While Fikret Bila, Milliyet daily’s columnist, citing his interview with the leader of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party, Deniz Baykal, said Basbug had made some important and positive statements, but that these assessments would have no influence.

    Source : Hurriyet

  • Russia-Georgia Conflict Puts Turkey in Vulnerable Position

    Russia-Georgia Conflict Puts Turkey in Vulnerable Position

    The Russia-Georgia conflict has put Turkey in a tight spot. Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia which also shares a Black Sea coast with Turkey? As Dorian Jones reports from Istanbul, ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the north.

    By Dorian Jones
    Istanbul

    The U.S. Navy coast guard cutter Dallas passes through Bosporus Strait, Istanbul, Turkey, 24 Aug 2008

    Turkey has been playing the role of mediator between various parties in the region: the United States and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan. But as more U.S. warships pass through the narrow Turkish-controlled strait into the Black Sea to deliver aid to Georgia, a time for choosing sides may have arrived.

    Last weekend, U.S. warships used the Turkish straits to deliver aid to Georgia. A Russian official condemned the move and warned Turkey it was obliged to enforce the rules of an agreement that gives a 21 day limit on any warship from a country that does not border the Black Sea.

    The Turkish government is responsible for policing the 32-kilometer Bosporus, the only route for ships traveling to the Black Sea, under the Montreux agreement of 1936. The Bosporus provides sole access for ships to Georgia’s Black Sea ports.

    International relations expert Soli Ozel of Istanbul’s Bilgi University said this has put Turkey in a precarious position.

    “Turkey is a NATO member and is also a neighbor of Georgia’s and great supporter of Georgia both economically and militarily,” he said. “And Turkey controls the passage from and to the Black Sea. Therefore whatever happens next Turkey is going to find itself impacted by the developments.”

    Also at stake is Turkey’s trade relations with Russia. Turkey’s trades more goods with Russia than any other country, mostly because of Turkey’s dependence on Russian gas.

    “We have very good economic relations with Russia,” said Ozel. “Our trade is over $10 billion and we are overly dependent on Russian gas at 64 percent and 40 percent for Russia oil.”

    Turkey has been trying to boost trade with Moscow as it struggles with a current account deficit that’s growing as energy costs soar.

    But Russia has introduced new custom regulations which, according to the Turkish trade minister Kursad Tuzmen, could cost Turkey as much as $3 billion. Tuzmen attacked the regulations as political, saying Moscow may be punishing it for allowing the U.S. ships to pass through the Bosporus.

    Tuzman said that on September 1 Turkey will impose curbs on Russian exports and withdraw support for its membership of the World Trade Organization.

    But a Turkish diplomatic source said that Ankara is determined not to be drawn into the conflict. Much of the Turkish media is also calling for a neutral stance.

    With the Turkish prime minister visiting Moscow and Tbilisi, Ankara is now working hard to secure peace. Soli Ozel doesn’t believe such efforts have much chance of success, but still thinks they are important.

    “For the moment I see it as an empty shell and as a good will gesture. If anything comes out of it will be good, and if nothing comes out of it no one will blame Turkey,” said Ozel. “It is better than what the Europeans can and would do anyway.”

    This weekend Georgia’s foreign minister, Eka Tkeshelashvili, is due to visit Turkey, while his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, is expected next week. While few people give little chance of any breakthrough, experts say the real motive behind such efforts is for Turkey to balance its relations between Russia and the West. But with another U.S. warship headed to the Black Sea this weekend, those efforts are predicted to get increasingly difficult.

    Source : Voice of America

  • TURKEY’S DELICATE ACT OF BALANCING IN THE BLACK SEA

    TURKEY’S DELICATE ACT OF BALANCING IN THE BLACK SEA

    EURASIA DAILY MONITOR, THE JAMESTWON FOUNDATION
    August 27, 2008, Volume 5, Issue 164
    Saban KardasThe aftershocks of the conflict in Georgia continue to dominate regional politics, highlighting the difficulties Turkey encounters in conducting its foreign policy in dangerous neighborhoods.

    The latest U.S. move to utilize military vessels to provide humanitarian aid to the war-torn areas of Georgia demonstrated starkly how Turkey has been forced to engage in a delicate act of balancing to preserve its interests. By maintaining strict adherence to the 1936 Montreux Convention regulating the rules of transit through Turkish straits, Turkey had a powerful legal backing for its cautious policy of balancing the demands of its long-term ally, the United States, and its increasingly assertive neighbor, Russia. Turkish policy experts, however, believe that an escalation of tensions, forcing Turkey to choose sides, is quite likely. Moreover, Turkey should be prepared to discuss the revision of Montreux, which it has jealously guarded.

    The U.S. State Department announced on August 20 that the United States obtained Turkey’s approval for the passage of two U.S. Navy destroyers and one Coast Guard cutter to the Black Sea, which would transport humanitarian aid, subject to Montreux regulations. The week preceding this announcement was full of speculation concerning U.S. demands from Turkey for the passage of larger ships, to which Turkey responded negatively because their tonnage well exceeded the limitations set by Montreux. Despite denials by both parties of any pending negotiations, it was later understood that the American side dropped its original plan for sending two large military hospital ships and agreed for smaller ships in compliance with Montreux terms. Moreover, although Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said the United States wanted to use military cargo ships (Zaman, August 21), the shipment was eventually made by destroyers. The episode led many to draw parallels with the notorious March 1, 2003, decision of the Turkish Parliament, indicating a crisis between the two allies. News reports claimed that U.S. pressed for requests in violation of Montreux provisions, and that American officials criticized Turkey’s “irresponsible” resistance to such simple demands. In Turkey, opposition parties called on the government not to bow to these pressures nor deviate from Montreux Convention (Referans, August 20).

    The ability to reach a compromise without escalating this situation was a significant reflection of the maturity of both parties. It was, nonetheless, unclear whether the United States fully complied with the Montreux, which requires an eight-day advance notification from non-littoral countries before sending their warships through the Straits. Since U.S. and Turkish officials denied such a request until August 19, the State Department’s announcement of ‘Turkey’s approval’ on August 20 seemed dubious (Radikal, August 21). As a matter of fact, Montreux does not require the same condition for humanitarian aid, which is, however, subject to different tonnage limitations. Given that the supplies are carried with military vessels, the controversy still remains. The Deputy Chair of Republican People’s Party, Onur Oymen, who is a retired senior diplomat, initiated a parliamentary inquiry asking Foreign Minister Ali Babacan to clarify exactly what provisions of the Montreux applied to these ships (ANKA, August 22). The Prime Minister Erdogan slammed the opposition and the media for their ignorance but did not address these criticisms (Anatolian Agency, August 23).

    The U.S.S. destroyer McFaul eventually arrived at Batumi port on August 24, carrying the first shipment of humanitarian relief supplies. The implications of this development for Turkey remain a matter of contention. Russian diplomats in Ankara seem to be pleased with Turkey’s sensitivity in enforcing compliance with Montreux and are keen on preserving the status quo (Murat Yetkin, Radikal, August 26). However, they question the authenticity of U.S. claims for providing humanitarian aid, and believe that it will increase tensions and undermine the stability. If the intention was genuine, the U.S. should not have insisted on carrying aid by military ships; civilian vessels or other transportation means would have served the same purpose (Radikal, August 23). The same argument is shared by many Turkish analysts who increasingly view American policy as a mere show of strength in the Black Sea as part of a growing confrontation, or a new ‘Cold War’ of sorts (for instance: Fikret Bila, Milliyet, August 24; also see reference to Onur Oymen).

    Further increasing Turkish observers’ skepticism, coincidentally, Spanish, German and Polish warships also transited the Straits around the same time. The Turkish Foreign Ministry clarified the situation by announcing that they were part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 and their activities were scheduled for transit through the Straits in October 2007. They will be visiting ports in NATO members Bulgaria and Romania (August 22, www.mfa.gov.tr). Nonetheless, many see the two developments intertwined and believe that the escalation between the United States and Russia already started. Moscow’s decision to recognize the independence of the two breakaway regions of Georgia and Medvedev’s announcement of severing ties with NATO are viewed as reactions to U.S. policies (Zaman, August 26). Strategist Sinan Ogan drew attention to increased risks generated by the presence of NATO warships in the Black Sea: an accidental exchange between U.S. and Russian ships may spark a fight between the two powers, destabilizing the whole region. Fearing that the U.S. expression of support through this move may lead Georgia to act more belligerently, and underlining that Turkey is the only neutral country bordering the Black Sea, he calls on Ankara to maintain its neutral position and avoid confrontation with Russia (Zaman, August 27). Sharing similar concerns, the opposition RPP invited the PM to report to Parliament as to who assumed the political responsibility for the risks involved in this decision (ANKA, August 23).

    Although the United States did not express any intention of pressing for a revision to the terms of Montreux, Turkish analysts increasingly see such a forthcoming possibility. Veteran commentators maintain their commitment to preserving the Montreux in its current form, both as the best guarantee of Turkey’s sovereignty over the Straits and as a geopolitical asset (Hasan Celal Guzel, Radikal, August 26). Nonetheless, Turkish analysts sense a persistent U.S. determination to revise the Montreux regime (Oktay Eksi, Hurriyet, August 22). A senior expert from Ankara-based think-tank ASAM, Hasan Kanbolat sparked a discussion on the subject. He argues that given drastic changes in naval technology, U.S. strategy to establish a presence in the Black Sea, and Romania and Bulgaria’s decision to join NATO, Ankara should be prepared to receive such demands from the United States to amend the Montreux in the foreseeable future (www.avsam.org.tr, August 20). Mensur Akgun, however, believes that such a demand is more likely to come from Black Sea littoral states, other than Russia. As these countries increasingly have adopted pro-Western policies and drifted away from Russia, they tend to view the Montreux regime as the major barrier before their security (Referans, August 23). As signatories to the convention, they may initiate such a process. Overall, despite many of its shortcomings, especially regarding the rules concerning commercial vessels, Turkey so far has avoided opening an international debate on Montreux because it is viewed as the optimal arrangement to protect its interests. Turkey remains committed to resisting any changes being made to any of the loopholes, as it has demonstrated in this episode.

    Given its flourishing economic relations with Russia and its dependence on Russian gas, Turkey so far has avoided taking any steps in this crisis that will sever its relations with Russia and provoke further Russian aggression in the region. Accordingly, it acted with caution and followed a restrained policy vis-à-vis American demands, acting in concert with European powers. To its credit, the United States also showed restraint in its demands on Turkey and respected Ankara’s sensibilities to the Montreux Convention. As veteran analyst Sami Kohen argues, however, “the new developments in the Georgia crisis will probably challenge Turkish diplomacy and make balancing increasingly difficult” (Milliyet, August 21).

  • TORONTO OLAYLARI UZERINE: PLEASE, TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL!

    TORONTO OLAYLARI UZERINE: PLEASE, TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL!

    PLEASE, TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL! 

    To: mcollins@embassymag.ca 

    Dear Michelle Collins,  

    Please allow me to formulate my op-ed under the following headings in order to provide you with a thoughtful rebuttal to your article ” Turkey Decries Toronto School Board Genocide Course”  (Embassy, Canada, August 27th, 2008.)  

    GREEK-ARMENIAN COLLUSION AGAINST TURKEY:    

    The accounts of Turkish-Armenian history provided by a Greek-Canadian (Liberal MP, Jim Karygiannis) and an Armenian-Canadian (ANC Exec. Dir., Aris Babikian) in your article are so typically distorted, that they can hardly be considered as much more than “settling of an old score” via “political lynching”.  It is quite in keeping with the Greek-Armenian collusion during the ill-fated invasion and destruction of Izmir by Greek army (1919) which, in turn, ignited the Turkish Independence War (1919-1922.)  This anti-Turkish Greek-Armenian complicity was re-established in 1974 after the failed attempt by the Greek-Cypriots to ethnically cleanse Cyprus of its Turkish-Cypriot population  which triggered a military intervention by one of the three guarantors, Turkey.   What we see in Toronto today is just another link in that anti-Turkish Greek-Armenian-collusion chain.   

    GENOCIDE CHARGES UNFOUNDED:   

    Babikian’s version of history is so “Diaspora” that one can easily write a 500-page book on it, effortlessly.  I don’t have time to write it, so I’ll try to make my response as manageable as possible. While some amongst us may be forgiven for taking the ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value, merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for us, Turks, most of whom are themselves the descendants of Turkish survivors of the yet mostly untold, readily dismissed out of bias, or ignored massacres of Turks during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, the  World War I of 1914-18, and the Turkish Independence War of 1919-1922.  Collectively termed, “seferberlik” (meaning “the mobilization” in Turkish,) those endless  war years of 1912-1922 rained death and destruction on Turkish people.  The Ottoman Empire was under vicious attacks from all corners and Armenians shamelessly sided with the invading enemy armies when not violently revolting.   Those countless, nameless, faceless Turkish victims, doing nothing more than defending their home like any citizen anywhere in the world would do, are killed again today with those politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.  

    GENOCIDE CLAIMS IGNORE “THE SIX T’S” OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT: 

    Allegations of Armenian genocide are racist and dishonest history. They are racist because they imply that Turkish or Muslim dead are not important, only Armenian or Christian dead are.  This racist approach ignores the immense Turkish suffering: about 3 million dead during the WWI; around half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists.  By ignoring the suffering of one side completely, any war, including the American civil war, may be made to look like a genocide.  And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they deliberately  dismiss “The Six T’s” of the Turkish-Armenian conflict:  

    1)  Tumult (as in many violent Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1920)  

    2)  Terrorism (by Armenian nationalists and militias from 1882-1920 perpetrated on non-combatant Muslim civilians, mostly Muslim women and children, and elderly men)  

    3)  Treason (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies and killing their Muslim neighbors and other fellow citizens, including the Ottoman-Jews)

    4)  Territorial demands (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority) 

    5)  Turkish suffering and losses (i.e. those caused only by the Armenian nationalists) 

    6)  Tereset (Temporary Resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

    Armenians, thus, effectively put an end to their millennium of relatively peaceful and harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia with Muslims by killing their Muslim/Turkish neighbors and openly joining the invading enemy.  Western diplomats and Christian missionaries were behind all of the “6 T’s”  listed above. 

    TURKISH VIEWS CENSORED ACROSS THE EDITORIAL BOARDS DUE TO A “CONSENSUS OF BIAS”

    Excluding responsible opposing views in covering any controversial issue  is a form of censorship which violates the notion of freedom of speech.  Decent people everywhere have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given a fair chance to hear all sides of a controversy such as the Turkish-Armenian conflict.  “Partisan accounts” of history should not be taught  children as “settled history” .  We must all strive to “teach the children well.”  Fairness, honesty, and truth are all that I ask. 

    HERE IS THE BIG PICTURE:

    Millennium:  Turks and Armenians—and other Muslims and Christians— enjoyed a reasonably harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia for a millennium (that’s a thousand years!) under that “crescent” that the Greek-Armenian conspiracy loves to demonize. 

    THE LOYAL NATION: 

    Turks liked and trusted the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire so much that Turks called the Armenians “Millet-i Sadika” (the loyal nation.)  Armenians enjoyed high standards of living in the Ottoman Empire mostly engaging in trade, construction, arts, and more, while Muslims did most of the heavy lifting of the empire such as agriculture, soldiery, administration.  (It is interesting to note that some Armenian propagandists use this as a proof of inequity, however, when the Armenians were given the right to soldiery after 1908, the Armenians invented ways to get out of that civic duty (see the letter by Armenians sent to the Lausanne Conference in 1923 asking for the right to be free from soldiery to be bestowed upon the Armenian community.)

    PROSPERITY & STABILITY: 

    The above picture, i.e. with all its shortcomings and/or defects, was still the nearest thing to perfection, given the state of humanity through the middle ages around the world, especially in Europe with wars, conquests, colonization, slavery, mass killings, mass deportations, crusaders, inquisitions,  holocausts, pogroms, and more.   Compared to all this mayhem in Europe in the last millennium, the Ottoman Empire with its unique “ millet system”,  was so peaceful and orderly that it could be considered the USA or Canada of Europe at the time.  Armenians were one of the major beneficiaries of this centuries-long stability. 

    ARMENIAN REBELLIONS, TERRORISM, TREASON, TERRITORIAL DEMANDS: 

    All that started changing for the  Turkish-Armenian relations after 1878 Berlin Peace Conference.  Russia started claiming special protector’s right over the Ottoman-Armenian community with an keen eye towards capturing Istanbul and the straits (Bosporus & Dardanelles) to extend the Russian imperial reach into warm waters of the Mediterranean. Britain and France were not exactly innocent bystanders as they were eyeing other parts of the Ottoman Empire for themselves.  The U.S. Protestant missionaries, headquartered in Boston, with their many educational and medical facilities dotting Anatolia used as convenient cover for their missionary activities, focused their attention on the Armenian community once they realized that proselytization of Muslims, Jews, or Greeks were nearly impossible.  The Boston missionaries started dividing and polarizing not only  the communities of the Ottoman Empire but also the Ottoman-Armenian community itself.  The missionary sermons were incendiary, pitting Armenians against Turks, Muslims against Christians, and even Protestants against the Gregorians and Catholic.    Thus, these religious men abused the traditional hospitality of Turks by organizing a hate-filled resistance among the Armenians against the Turkish rule, causing untold miseries on all sides…  These men of god, thus, caused much spilling of innocent blood  in the name of god.  In that sense, the Protestant missionaries may well be considered the guiltiest party of them all, followed by Tsarist Russia, Imperial Britain, Colonialist France, and Western media (The New York Times, for example, topping the list in biased coverage by publishing 145 anti-Turkish articles in 1915 alone with an incredible “ZERO” Turkish rebuttals allowed!)

    ARMENIANS REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATIONS LAUNCHED A BLOODY CAMPAIGN:

    The  Armenians started creating revolutionary organizations: “Ermenakan” in Van, Turkey (1882), “Hunchack” in Geneva, Switzerland (1887),  Dashnaksutiun in Tbilisi, Georgia (1890) and many others of many sizes and locations.  Almost without exception, they were all bent on armed resistance against the Turkish rule.  The Armenians used propaganda, agitation, terror, rebellions, and supreme treason, in that order, from 1882 to 1915, when finally some of the Armenians (not all) were sent on a Tereset (Temporary Resettlement).  Tereset was a justified military measure because the Armenian bands would conduct violent raids on the unprotected Muslim villages, frustrate the Ottoman military supply lines, and even harass the rear of the Ottoman Army during a time of war.   No country (including the U.S. and Canada) would tolerate this kind of wide open rebellion, pandemic treason, and omnipresent terror to be put into action by any community, large or small, at a time of war the least of all. 

    ARMENIAN NATIONALISTS USE CIVILIANS AS “HUMAN SHIELDS” AFTER DEVASTATING ATTACKS ON MUSLIMS:

    The Armenian bands would launch their bomb and gun attacks during the night and then hide in  ordinary homes during the day, turning Armenian women and children to little more than human shields for their murderous and treasonous acts.  Those who cry out today “Why did the Turks force some helpless Armenian women and  children to move?” should re-phrase their questions and first ask the nationalist Armenian leaders “Why did you use the non-combatant Armenian women and children as your cover before and human shields after your dastardly acts of terror against the Muslims?” 

    DO DIASPORA STORIES PROVE GENOCIDE?

    What most coverage in the media describe are personal tragedies experienced by Armenians.  Note that corresponding personal tragedies on the Turkish side, such as mine, are neither reported nor investigated, nor even wondered at all, in the Western media.   While it is not this writer’s intention to minimize the Armenian suffering, it must be questioned as to how it can be considered as “separate” from the Muslim suffering in the same area, same era, and under same conditions, when there was a terrible world war was going on that engulfed the Christian and Muslim communities producing an irregular warfare.  How is my Turkish grandparents’ suffering caused by Ottoman-Christians any less than Armenians’ suffering caused by Armenian rebellions, terrorism, treason, territorial demands, and Tereset?  How is Turkish suffering any less painful than Armenian suffering?    How are Turkish dead belittled and ignored while Armenian dead are exaggerated and glorified?   I am sure Armenians lived through some or most of those personal horror stories s often told in the media (though definitely not all of them.)   But they pale in comparison to what we, Turks, had to endure at hands of the likes of those Armenian terrorists, rebels, traitors, backstabbers, and murderers.   My personal family story is much more tragic than most Armenians’, if anyone cares to know about it, please read the following essay of mine as it is too painful to write it here again:  TURKISH LAST NAMES : HONEST STORY TELLERS  : 

    PERSONAL TRAGEDIES BY THEMSELVES DO NOT MAKE IT A GENOCIDE:

    Not all killings, not all sufferings fall automatically under the classification “genocide”.  The U.N. 1948 definition is crystal clear:  there must be an intention to destroy all or part of a community.  Without intention, a murder is just that, a murder, and penal code can amply deal with that.  The Armenians or their sympathizers have never proven Turkish intent to annihilate Armenians.  In fact, History shows that just the contrary is true:

    a)  a millennium of peaceful co-habitation between Turks and Armenians;

    b) endowment of Ottoman-Armenians with a “ loyal nation” status;

    c) highest posts for Armenians in all walks of Ottoman life (the parliament, politics, diplomacy, military, trade, business, art…);

    d)  all of the above followed by, unfortunately, an intense period of organized Armenian terror, rebellions, treason, and territorial demands, and more…

    e)  triggering a temporary military, wartime safety measure of moving only those Armenians who posed a serious threat to Ottoman Empire’s war effort;

    f) Note that Armenians of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne, Aleppo and other places were not moved, as they were not considered a threat;

    g) Armenians in the armed services, doctors, and most inner city people were also kept out of the Tereset (Temporary resettlement) order; 

    h) detailed steps were described in countless official orders—too many to be dismissed casually—on how to move the community safely and orderly and claim the properties back on their return (contrary to common misperception, many did return!)

    There is more, much more, but I already wrote most of them at www.turkla.com.   I don’t want to re-write them here.  You are welcome to check it out yourself.

    ETHOCIDE:

    Frustrated by the persistently biased coverage of the Turkish-Armenian civil war during WWI and the ensuing censorship of Turkish views in American media, I have coined a new term back in 2003—my humble gift to the English language and a thoughtful and long overdue supplement to Rafael Lemkin’s definition of genocide: “ethocide”.

    A brief definition of ethocide is “extermination of ethics by systematic and malicious mass-deception in exchange for political, economical, social, religious, and other favors and benefits.”

    The civil war that had been raging up to 1915 and the Tereset it inevitably resulted in was no genocide, but what the Armenians and their sympathizers did in misrepresenting it ever since is clearly ethocide.

    I urge . therefore, an end to the ethocidal coverage of the Turkish-Armenian conflict in the Western media and academia.  

    LAST WORD: 

    It was a wartime tragedy, engineered, provoked, and waged by Armenians, with support from Russia, England, France, the U.S., and Western media; but not genocide.

    Please, teach the children well!

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

    3.Son of Turkish survivors from both maternal and paternal sides

    ###

     

  • Rizelli Cafe brings Istanbul to Brookline

    Rizelli Cafe brings Istanbul to Brookline

    Inquisitive foodies have been wondering what happened to Huseyin Akgun, chef/owner of the popular Istanbul Cafe. In 2003, the restaurant moved from its original Beacon Hill location to larger digs in Brighton. But when that venture closed two years later, Akgun’s whereabouts were unknown.Last summer, Akgun quietly opened Rizelli Cafe in Brookline Village. The menu isn’t as extensive as its predecessor and too many menu items are unavailable. But one bite of mucver or Adana kebab and you’ll break into a smile – yes, Akgun’s cooking is as good as ever.

    Read the full story…

  • The Montreux Convention and energy — outdated or essential?

    The Montreux Convention and energy — outdated or essential?

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 (UPI) — The five-day military conflict between Russia and Georgia over the disputed enclave of South Ossetia has thrown into the spotlight a nearly forgotten 72-year-old treaty governing the passage of both merchantmen and warships between the Mediterranean and Black seas through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, collectively known as the Turkish Straits.

    The 1936 Montreux Convention roiled relations between Washington, which wanted to send humanitarian aid on massive vessels through the Turkish Straits, and Ankara, which has steadfastly insisted on the terms of the treaty being respected. The incident is a reminder, if any is needed, that despite Turkey and the United States being close allies and NATO compatriots, the two nations’ strategic interests do not always run in tandem. While America and its NATO allies attempt to cram as many warships as legally allowed up the Turkish Straits, thoughtful analysts should remember that the passage is also a conduit for massive tankers of up to 200,000 tons or more. In 2006, tankers carrying more than 140 million tons of Azeri, Kazakh and Russian oil used the Turkish Straits. Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance with the Kremlin over South Ossetia could have a direct impact on these oil shipments, something that hawks both inside the Beltway and the Kremlin should consider.

    The Turkish Straits consist of two waterways connected by the landlocked Sea of Marmara. The 17-mile-long Bosporus, which debouches into the Black Sea, bisects Istanbul with its 11 million inhabitants, and its sinuous passage is only a half-mile wide at its narrowest point at Kandilli and has a convoluted morphological structure that requires ships to change course at least 12 times, including four separate bends that require turns greater than 45 degrees. At its southern end the Bosporus empties into the Sea of Marmara, which in turn connects to the 38-mile-long Dardanelles. Under good conditions merchant vessels currently canpass the 200 miles of the Turkish Straits in about 16 hours.

    Under Montreux, Turkish sovereignty is recognized over the entire channel, but while the agreement guarantees merchantmen unhindered passage, the passage of warships of non-Black Sea nations is tightly regulated, which has led to the current friction between Washington and Ankara. Disputes over the waterway date back to the dawn of European history. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey recount the struggles of the Trojan War, which is assumed to have occurred in the 13th or 12th century B.C.; modern archaeology has placed Troy at the entrance to the Dardanelles.

    The Turkish Straits now carry 50,000 vessels annually, making the passage the world’s second-busiest maritime strait, whose volume of traffic is exceeded only by the Straits of Malacca, and the only channel transiting a major city. The development of the former Soviet Caspian states’ energy riches has led to an explosion of tanker traffic through the Turkish Straits; in 1996, 4,248 tankers passed the Bosporus; a decade later 10,154 tankers made the voyage, a development that Ankara, worried about a possible environmental catastrophe, views with growing concern as the Turkish Straits have become a tanker superhighway. The tankers transport Russian, Kazakh and, until the 2006 opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Azeri crude to increasingly ravenous foreign markets.

    Under the terms of Montreux, Turkey cannot even charge tankers transit fees or require them to take on pilots to traverse the treacherous waterway.

    Montreux is quite explicit on the passage of foreign warships through the Turkish Straits, however, limiting non-riverain Black Sea forces to a maximum of 45,000 tons of naval vessels, with no single warship exceeding 30,000 tons.

    Washington originally proposed to send to Georgia two U.S. Navy hospital ships, the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, but both are converted oil tankers displacing 69,360 tons apiece, and the Turks demurred.

    Four ships belonging to the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 — Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski and the USS Taylor — last week passed into the Black Sea to Romania’s Constanza and Bulgaria’s Varna ports to participate in a NATO maritime exercise scheduled in October 2007 to conduct joint operations with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. The Bulgarian navy currently has one Koni-class, one Wielingen-class and three Riga-class frigates, one Tarantul and two Pauk-class corvettes, three Osa-class missile boats and a Romeo-class submarine, while Romania has three frigates, four light frigates, three Molniya-class corvettes, three torpedo boats, one minelayer, four minesweepers and 16 auxiliary ships. In contrast, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has 40 warships; its flagship is the guided missile cruiser Moskva. According to the Russian General Staff, these soon will be joined by an additional eight NATO warships, even as the Moskva dropped anchor in Abkhazian waters.

    The Pentagon finally got its chance to fly the flag when on Aug. 22 the USS McFaul (DDG-74, 8,915 tons) guided-missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian aid passed the Bosporus headed for Georgia with supplies such as blankets, hygiene kits and baby food, to be followed two days later by the USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716, 3,250 tons) cutter passing the Dardanelles, which eventually will be joined by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20, 18,400 tons), now loading supplies in Italy.

    The Kremlin is not pleased by the foreign show of naval force; Russian General Staff Deputy Chief Anatoly Nogovitsyn observed of the NATO exercise, “From the Russian point of view … the usefulness of this operation is extremely dubious,” later labeling the deployment “devilish.”

    The Turkish press is now full of speculation that Washington will pressure Turkey to revise Montreux, but is it really in America’s and its allies’ interests to be provocatively flying the flag in waters through which pass a number of tankers fueling European and Asian needs? As Turkey is allowed under Montreux to shut the Turkish Straits completely in the event of conflict, it is a question to which hawks in Europe and Washington ought to give more consideration.