Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

Who is Rahm Emanuel?

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

“Rahm Emanuel is no Reason for Hope or Celebration”

–Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine

Transcript

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

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

Who is Rahm Emanuel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWANSON: Thank you.

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

DISCLAIMER:

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

David Swanson’s Bio

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

November 12, 2008
CAUCASUS UPDATE, November 10, 2008

Note from the Editor-in-Chief, Nasimi Aghayev

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States last week was welcomed around the world as an end to the unpopular Bush presidency and the chance to rebuild America ’s standing in the world. Expectations are, of course, going to be disappointed, both domestically and internationally. For all the significance of a US president with a Kenyan heritage and a Muslim middle name, President Obama will still have to face tough and unpopular decisions in the world.

On November 5, the day after election day, Moscow announced that it would deploy a number of short-range missiles in Kaliningrad , the Russian exclave between Lithuania and Poland , as a means to ‘neutralise – if necessary – the planned US missile defence system in eastern Europe. The decision was announced by President Dimitri Medvedev in his first state of the nation address, and was a clear warning that the Kremlin will not be appeased by a mere change of occupant in the White House.

Is it viable to expect a significant shift in policy towards Russia and the Caucasus once Obama is inaugurated? It is unlikely. Much has been made of John McCain’s hard-line policy approach to dealing with Moscow , and Obama’s relative inexperience in the area, and it is true that domestic opinion in the region tended to favour McCain, especially in states nervous about Russian adventurism such as Georgia and Ukraine . But in reality the room for maneuver will not allow a radical departure from the Bush administration, for both a general reason and a number of specific ones. The exception might seem to be Nagorno-Karabakh.

The general reason is that, for all the talk after the Georgian war of a new (albeit ‘19^th-century’) geopolitical order in Eurasia, the relationship with Russia is not the incoming administration’s top priority. The economy is a far more pressing concern. And even within the sphere of foreign affairs, negotiations with European and Chinese leaders on the world financial crisis will take up a lot more time than Russia and the Caucasus . Much will of course depend on President Obama’s personnel selection, in particular the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, but for a while at least we are likely to see policy towards Eurasia as a secondary concern.

The specific reasons vary, but boil down to the fact that there is only so much that the US can do without breaking its prior commitments or undertaking a major volte-face on its whole foreign policy front which Mr Obama has neither the experience nor the desire (despite his commitment to multilateralism) to countenance. Firstly, the missile defence shield. By November 7, Mr. Obama had spoken to Lech Kaczynski, the Polish President, affirming his commitment to the project, which includes interceptor missiles based in Poland . A telephone call whilst President-elect, of course, does not equate to a policy whilst President. But it is nonetheless difficult to imagine Mr. Obama withdrawing from the missile shield project during his tenure, although it may be modified to make it less unpalatable to the Kremlin.

Secondly, Georgia . Mr Obama criticized Russia ’s invasion of the country in August and called Russia ’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia “deeply troubling”. He has warned Moscow that a failure to abide by the ceasefire will lead to difficulties in its attempts to gain membership to the World Trade Organisation, as well as dialogue frameworks such as the NATO-Russia Council. So far, so orthodox. He has expressed support for Georgia and Ukraine in their NATO aspirations, and declared in September that Tbilisi was ready for a Membership Action Plan, although it will be interesting to see how far he is willing to push it. He may be less willing to antagonize European leaders by insisting on this explosive issue than President Bush (or indeed Mr. McCain), especially if he has been cooperating closely with them over the financial crisis.

Thirdly, Nagorno-Karabakh. The clearest sign of a presumed change here could be Mr. Obama’s relationship with the huge Armenian diaspora in the United States : during his election campaign he welcomed their support and promised to find a resolution to the Karabakh conflict that is based upon “principles of democracy and self determination”. He has also expressed strong support for formally recognizing the so-called “Armenian genocide” of 1915, a notoriously controversial issue, and has stated that he will seek an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades of Armenia (imposed on Armenia by the latter after the Armenian forces occupied the territories of Azerbaijan in 1992-1993). Vice President-elect Joe Biden is also known for his strong support of Yerevan . However,it is now to be watched how far Obama as a president will be able to go to keep his promises in this regard.

On the ground, Turkey ’s recent moves to thaw relations with Armenia will be looked on favorably by the Obama White House, which must try and keep the momentum going. However, if Obama’s administration chooses to lean on Armenia , it could prove detrimental to the détente process currently taking place in the Caucasus ( Turkey has already warned Obama of breaking off the rapprochement process with Armenia in case if the US recognizes the “Armenian genocide”) and grant Russia a perfect opportunity to gather disaffected players to itself. In particular, in case of obvious US support for Armenia, Baku could find the warm relationship it has fostered with the Bush Administration cooling somewhat and find that its interests are better served by Moscow. Russia has already started taking important steps in that direction making use of the “lame-duck situation” in Washington . By holding a trilateral meeting of presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan last week in Moscow as a result of which a declaration on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process (first time since the cease-fire agreement of 1994) was signed by the presidents, Russia, frequently accused of wishing the continuation of frozen conflicts in the region, has intended to send a signal of its “good will” in the Caucasus, thus aiming on the one hand to rectify its damaged image after its invasion of Georgia, and on the other hand to have an upper hand in case of an ultimate settlement of the conflict. It is noteworthy that the only international mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – the OSCE Minsk Group (including beyond Russia , US and France as well), paralyzed after the Georgia war, was totally excluded from the above-mentioned meeting. Russia ’s attempts to pose itself as a mediator being capable to produce “tangible results” (e.g. the above-said declaration) cannot but cause great suspicions and concerns in Washington .

If Moscow exploits the opportunity further and begins to push for a resolution which emphasizes territorial integrity above all others (as unlikely as this may be), and if President Obama keeps his above-mentioned promises, we could begin to see a serious alteration of the Baku-Washington relationship which could potentially introduce significant changes to the present geopolitical order in the region. So if the new administration wants to avoid heightened tensions, it must try to balance regional interests and avoid alienating key players as the Bush Administration has repeatedly done. President Obama must attempt to find a solution to the problem that satisfies Turkey , accommodates Azerbaijan and Armenia , and circumscribes Russia .

We should not expect a new era under Obama. The Russian bear is not about to abandon its suspicion of the American eagle just because of a new face, and the feeling is mutual. The Georgian conflict was a significant rupture in relations and has created a potential for the emergence of a new geopolitical situation in the region. Despite his pre-electoral calls for a Russia policy based on “cooperation instead of confrontation”, Obama will have to continue the US support for the pro-American government in Tbilisi , no matter how much Saakashvili might have bothered him. It is obvious that if Georgia is gone, it will not last much till the region will be gone as well.

In the Caucasus , as elsewhere, it looks as if President Obama will have to start lowering expectations.

www.cria-online.org

November 11, 2008
Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

By Ferruh Demirmen

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

Harsh Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disservice to History

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

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

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

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

Iraq War and Cyprus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

November 11, 2008
Obama Seeks Your Input, Visions & Job Applications

Turkish (Türkçe) Note: Aşağıdaki mesaj, Obama Hükumeti’nin internet üzerinden iş başvuruları ve orjinal fikirler kabul etmesi ve bunun nasıl yapılacağıyla ilgilidir.

The Obama Administration is accepting ideas and job applications over the web. This could be a way for anyone (regardless of their background) who have raised concerns about an Obama presidency to make their voices heard.

Note to our American friends: The message below targets Turkish community specifically but it could nevertheless be applicable to any other platform.

Please see the article at this link:
/technology/7715264.stm
Pertinent excerpts follow (links in blue must be pasted into your web browser to work):

** Barack Obama is turning to the web as he prepares to become US president.

Via a website called Change.gov, the Obama campaign plans to provide a guide to the transition process. The site also solicits suggestions from US citizens about their vision for America, and lets them apply for a post with the new administration. … The site will also accept applications for “non-career” posts in the incoming administration [at this link: application ] . The site does not give details about posts for which it is seeking recruits, but it said some of the roles would require “Senate approval” suggesting they could be positions of some influence. The site also wants US citizens to tell their stories about what Obama’s campaign meant to them, and pass on their “vision” for what they would like to see happen in America [at this link: yourstory and yourvision ; with explanation at this link content/americanmoment ]. …

** Your Story/Your Vision
Obama’s campaign rhetoric on many issues touching upon Turkey and Turks initially followed traditionally anti-Turkish lobbies, and then later softened. The softening rhetoric is likely due to further insight and information gleaned from sources outside of those lobbies, including Turkish Americans. So we can make a difference, but only if we speak up.

Obama is providing a unique opportunity for all Turks in America, whether U.S. citizens or not, to speak to the incoming administration and express their hope and vision for the future. Obama has pledged to be everyone’s president and is soliciting your input, so please let your voices be heard and become a catalyst for change.

** Job Application
Turks in the U.S. are also encouraged to submit their interest in positions with Obama’s administration. Information about specific openings is not yet available. It is likely they will include positions for full- and/or part-time consultants with specific areas of expertise, knowledge and language skills. The website asks only for contact information and says applications will be emailed to those who express interest.

Turks possess language skills, knowledge and expertise that U.S. involvement in the Middle East requires, but has always lacked. This is another unique opportunity for Turks in the U.S. to get involved and make a difference. The website interest form indicates that applications from non-citizens with the right to work in the U.S. are also welcome.

Lobbying government can effectuate change, but a role in the incoming administration will provide an opportunity to be part of the group that decides what changes will occur. Please consider expressing an interest in working with the Obama administration, even if only as a consultant on specific issues.

If a large number of applications are submitted by Turkish Americans, it is likely that at least a few will find a seat at the decision-making table from which we have been missing for too long. This is your opportunity to sit in the corridors of government where decisions are made, please take advantage of it.

November 10, 2008
EU calls for ‘new deal for new world’ with Obama

BRUSSELS: The head of the European Union (EU)’s executive body, the European Commission, congratulated Barack Obama on his victory in the US presidential election and called on him to work with the EU to shape a “new deal for a new world”.

“This is a time for a renewed commitment between Europe and the US. I want to assure president elect Obama of the support of the European Commission and of my personal support in forging this renewed commitment to face together the many challenges ahead of us,” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said.

“We need a new deal for a new world. I sincerely hope that with the leadership of President Obama, the US will join forces with Europe to drive this new deal – for the benefit of our societies, for the benefit of the world,” he said in a statement.

Ahead of Tuesday’s election, politicians across Europe had expressed the hope that the successor to US President George W Bush – whether Obama or his rival, John McCain – would abandon Bush’s unilateral stance in favour of more cooperation with the EU.

The European Union seems to be in an extraordinary rush for a one world government, commonly reffered to as the New World Order. //11.08.08

Source: macedoniaonline.eu, 08.11.2008

November 10, 2008
Here comes One World Government Right on cue

UK’s Brown: Now is the time to build global society

By Online Sunday, November 9, 2008

LONDON (Reuters) – The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.

In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, Brown—who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions—will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.

“The alliance between Britain and the U.S.—and more broadly between Europe and the U.S.—can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order,” an excerpt from the speech says.

Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.

“Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed,” Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.

“…And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society.”

According to a summary of the speech released by his office, Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.

These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.

Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.

He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.

“My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society.”

(Reporting by Jodie Ginsberg; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Source: canadafreepress.com, November 9, 2008

November 10, 2008