Category: USA

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

  • KEVORKIAN TO HOLD FIRST TOWN HALL MEETING

    KEVORKIAN TO HOLD FIRST TOWN HALL MEETING

    Livingston Daily
    July 31 2008
    MI

    Congressional candidate Jack Kevorkian, who gained fame in the 1990s
    after being convicted of second-degree murder for his role in an
    assisted suicide, will hold his first town hall meeting Friday.

    Kevorkian is running as an independent in the 9th Congressional
    District against U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Township, and
    Democrat Gary Peters, a former state senator and lottery commissioner.

    At the meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. at the Birmingham Community
    House, 380 South Bates in Birmingham, Kevorkian will discuss his
    philosophy on foreign and domestic affairs, the economy and what he
    plans to do if elected.

    Kevorkian, who served more than eight years in prison before his
    release last June, admitted to participating in more than 130 assisted
    suicides during the 1990s.

  • Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer works to define cultural domination on states’ foreign or domestic affairs in “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. With some examples, Shaffer is explaining this event us. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”1Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making. Some Muslim countries have Anti-American people as behavioral. But these states make alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see incongruent actings between states policies and people behaviors.
    Iran – Playing Politics with Islamic Style

    Samuel Huntigton’s thesis bases on idea that culture has main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees Huntigton’s thesis. Shaffer says that culture is main mechanism for diplomatic relations. Shaffer interprets culture as specific culture of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about Islam effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act. They looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals. They understood Islam effection as strong as nuclear weapons. But this is not a physical thing, this is an ideology. And they speeches to newspapers, politic journals a subject that has a title as “Do Muslim countries act differently than Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand, Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also, human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human. The state action is like people’s actions. State is big form of human and human is small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.

     

    Shaffer’s Caspian perspective has common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islam effection after from the Soviet Union. And now they have Islamic perspective on their state affairs. But Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asia area as Islamic effection zones. But it is not totally like that. Today these countries are secular except Iran.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is important in this area according to Shaffer’s idea. After the collapsing of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime to other neighbor states. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory, Iran plays for exporting their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Shaffer is true for this event. Iran wanted to export their regime to other states. But American or Western scholars’ view point is different. They are looking as totally Islamic system to Iran. They say about Iran that they are working for Islamic fundamentalism. But Iran’s Islamic mind is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or others, we can see normal, laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an influence circumstance but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.”
    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. And most telling of these policy preferences are Iran’s support for Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.2FinalCulture may be material interest of regime survivability. Islam is more likely to affect policy under conditions that see greater domestic and personnel influences on foreign policies.Mehmet Fatih OZTARSU
    Qafqaz University Law Faculty
    International Relations

    By these events, Iran’s state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran is a multiethnic state. Shaffer Gives information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Azerbaijani groups. The majority of the residents of Iran’s northwestern provinces which border the country of Azerbaijan and they are Azerbaijani. But Iran’s relations bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows their ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is good example for Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. This is an example for cultural combines. (Brenda Shaffer)

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these happenings, Azerbaijan supported Chechnya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basis role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their helping system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. It bases on security alliance.

     

    Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany or Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asked question : “What does the Koran have to say a foreign policy question?”

    If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction. (Shaffer)

    The USA wants an enemy for their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world’s countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy for regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islam. 3

    The USA’s fans defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA is patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know workings of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

    ———————————————————————
    1 Dogu Bati Journal – 26
    2 Karabagh conflict begin in the late 1980. And Armenia attacked to legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.
    3 Politic Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies.

     

  • MCCAIN ATTACK ON OBAMA GENOCIDE POLICY

    MCCAIN ATTACK ON OBAMA GENOCIDE POLICY

    MCCAIN ATTACK ON OBAMA GENOCIDE POLICY

    armradio.am
    24.07.2008 11:29

    Armenian Americans – a community of one a half million citizens that
    has experienced the horrors of genocide and continues to endure the
    pain of its denial -defended Senator Barack Obama against Senator
    John McCain’s unfounded and starkly hypocritical charges that the
    presumptive Democratic nominee is not serious about preventing future
    genocides.

    Senator McCain’s presidential campaign issued a press statement
    attacking Senator Obama as lacking sincerity in his calls of
    “never again,” even as the Illinois Senator personally traveled
    to Israel’s Yad Vashem memorial to honor the millions slaughtered
    in the Holocaust. Senator Obama has been a consistently strong and
    effective leader on issues of genocide, leading Congressional efforts
    to stop the Genocide in Darfur, and fighting vigorously against the
    Bush Administration’s complicity – enthusiastically backed by John
    McCain – in the Turkish government’s denial of the Armenian Genocide.

    “Armenian Americans, a community with a long and painful experience of
    genocide, know that John McCain lacks the standing to lecture anyone –
    especially a genocide-prevention leader of the stature of Barack Obama
    – regarding America’s compelling national interest and moral obligation
    in opposing all genocides, past or present,” said Armenians for Obama
    Chairman Areen Ibranossian. “Barack Obama has led the fight=2 0against
    the Darfur Genocide, and publicly taken on the Bush White House’s
    obstruction of recognition of the Armenian Genocide, while John McCain
    has done little more than to meekly accept the gag-rule imposed by the
    Turkish government on the discussion of this crime against humanity.”

    “John McCain, who has outsourced U.S. genocide policy to the
    Turkish government, really hit bottom by launching such an obviously
    hypocritical attack against Barack Obama, who is so far out in front of
    him in fighting for real U.S. leadership to end the cycle of genocide,”
    added Ibranossian.

    On January 19th, 2008 Senator Barack Obama issued a forceful and
    passionate statement on the topic of genocide, which reads, in part:
    “Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common
    security and common humanity.

    Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics
    – displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter – that were used by
    the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915. I
    have visited Darfurian refugee camps, pushed for the deployment of
    a robust multinational force for Darfur, and urged divestment from
    companies doing business in Sudan. America deserves a leader who
    speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully
    to all genocides. I intend to be that President.”

    Armenians for Obama is a nationwide voter registration, education
    and mobilization effort dedicated to electing Ba rack Obama
    President. Based in Los Angeles, and with chapters and affiliates
    in all 50 States, Armenians for Obama will harness the energy and
    enthusiasm for Barack Obama’s candidacy to ensure record high Armenian
    American turnout in critical battleground states

  • The Crisis in Turkey / Buyukelci Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    The Crisis in Turkey / Buyukelci Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    As the closure case against the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) is moving towards a verdict in the Constitutional Court, the Turkish political agenda has become even more complicated with the arrest of a number of prominent individuals allegedly associated with a coup plot against the government. Although the JDP was able to win a decisive victory in the July 2007 elections following a serious dispute over the election of a new president, Turkish society has become even more polarized during the past year and tension is rising in an alarming manner. The gravity and implications of the crisis had been examined by Bulent Aliriza, the Director of the CSIS Turkey Project. Mark Parris, former Ambassador to Turkey in 1997-2000, who is currently a Visiting Fellows at Brookings Institution, then provided a commentary.

    —————————–

    Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    ABD’ nin Ankara eski Büyükelçisi Mark Parris’ in Türkiye ile ilgili bir değerlendirmesi özet olarak Türk medyasında yer almıştı. Bugün, Cumhuriyet Gazetesinde yayımlanan ve bu konuda daha detaylı bilgi içeren Ergin YIldızoğlu’ nun köşe yazısını aşağıda gönderiyorum. Yabancı dili ingilizce olanlar, arzu ederlerse, aşağıdaki linkten M.Parris’ in konuşmasını kendi sesinden dinleyebilirler. Saygılar,
    Bedii Nezih Oz

    ERGİN YILDIZOĞLU

    Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    ABD’nin eski Ankara Büyükelçisi Mark Parris’in, Türkiye’deki siyasi krizle ilgili yorumları geçen hafta medyaya yansıdı. İlgiler daha çok, Parris’in Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin kararına ilişkin adeta bir tarih veren öngörüsü üzerinde odaklandı. Ama Türkiye’den döndükten sonra Stratejik ve Uluslararası Çalışmalar Merkezi’nde (CSIS) yaptığı ilginç konuşmanın içeriği, sanırım, yeterince irdelenmedi. Haberin üzerinden yaklaşık bir hafta geçmiş olmasına karşın konuşmada ilgimi çeken noktaları sizlerle paylaşmak istiyorum.

    Mark Parris Türkiye’ye, bir ABD – AB ortak kuruluşu olan Atlantik Konseyi’nden bir heyetin parçası olarak gelmiş. Türkiye’de olup bitenleri anlamak, büyük olasılıkla etkilemek amacıyla gelen bu heyetin diğer üyeleriyle birlikte Türkiye’de yaygın temaslarda bulunmuş. Parris, dönüşünde CSIS’de yaptığı ve basında aktarılan toplantıdaki (kuruluşun web sitesinden dinlemek olanaklı) yaklaşık 20 dakikalık sunuşunda ve izleyen “Soru-Cevap” bölümünde, özellikle üç noktaya yaptığı vurgunun çok önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum: AKP’ye yönelik eleştiriler, “3. Güç” dediği bir yapılanmaya ilişkin saptamalar, Türkiye’de siyasetin içinde askerin rolünün artacağına ilişkin beklenti.

    AKP başarılı olamadı

    Parris’in AKP’ye, ikinci dönemi bağlamında yönelttiği eleştiriler oldukça kapsamlı. Bunlardan en önemlileri şöyle: AB sürecini canlandıramadı, anayasayı değiştiremedi, varlığından kaygı duyulan İslamcı gündemin/projenin (“agenda” sözcüğünü kullanıyor) keskin yanlarını törpüleyemedi, tüm ülkenin başbakanı olamadı. Nihayet yolsuzluk sorunu AKP grubunu da etkisi altına aldı.

    AB sürecinin aksamasının tek sorumlusunun AKP olmadığını, AB’nin değişen tutumunun süreci fiilen öldürdüğünü göz önüne alırsak, Parris’in, aslında AKP’nin kendisinden istenenleri veremediğinden yakındığını düşünebiliriz. Bence daha önemli eleştiriler AKP’nin toplumda birleştirici olamadığına, dolayısıyla bölücü olduğuna, yolsuzluklara bulaştığına ilişkin saptamalarda yatıyor. Böylece Parris, diplomatik bir dille, AKP’nin meşruiyeti üzerine bir soru işareti koyuyor. Dahası, sermaye sınıfı ve Batı yanlısı liberal seçkinlerle AKP arasındaki ilişkinin bozulmasına yaptığı gönderme, AKP’nin Batı yanlısı tutumunun, liberal demokrat olma iddialarının hakikiliğine ilişkin kaygıların bir yansıması olarak görülebilir. Bu saptamalara karşılık konuşmasında sık sık Tayyip Bey’i övmesini, “Yeri doldurulamaz” demesini “Hatalarından öğrenmiyor” saptamasıyla birlikte okuyunca, aklıma efsanevi Kızılderili Şefi Jeronimo’nun “Beyaz adam çatal dillidir” sözleri geldi, ister istemez.

    ‘3. Güç’e dikkat

    Bence, konuşmada çok az yer verilmekle birlikte, Parris’in karşı karşıya olan güçleri sıralarken bir “3. Güç”ten söz etmesi çok önemli. Parris, bugünkü kriz içinde, Tayyip Bey’den yana tutum alan bu “3. Güç”ün sivil güvenlik güçleri, istihbarat örgütleri içinde çok etkin olduğunu ve kendi savcılarına sahip olduğunu söylüyor. Diğer bir deyişle Parris, devlet içinde, şiddet organlarında ve yasama içinde, kaynağı belirsiz (“biz bile bilmiyoruz” demeye getiriyor) karanlık bir güç var diyor. Bu gücün “cemaat” olduğu artık herkesin malumudur. Öyleyse Parris, bu güce işaret ederken “cemaat”in etkisiyle, devletin elindeki şiddet tekelinin parçalanmaya başladığını da söylemiş oluyor. Böylece, Parris, devlet içinde bir “tırmanan darbe” (devleti ele geçirme) olgusuna dikkat çekmiş olmuyor mu?

    Askerin siyasi rolü artacak

    Bence, Parris’in, askerin siyasi etkisi artacak öngörüsü, AKP’yi destekleyerek akıllarınca “militarizme karşı” mücadele ettiklerini hayal eden şaşkın liberallerin üzerinde şok etkisi yapmalıdır. Tabii duyduklarını anlayacak kadar akılları kaldıysa. Parris son dönemde en “aklıselim” yorumların ordu üst kademesinden geldiğine inanıyor. Parris’e göre, önümüzdeki dönemde, “asker-siyasetçi” olarak nitelediği bir kategorinin sivil siyaset içindeki rolü özellikle, Özkök gibi emekli komutanların aracılığıyla artacak. Yine Parris’e göre ordu üst kademesinin, asker siyasetçilerin, sivil siyaset içindeki etkisinin artmasıysa, AKP’yi geriletmeye çalışanlara karşı mücadele eden güçleri daha da güçlendirecek, onlar için bir nevi koruyucu etken olacak. Bu da “başkalarını” düş kırıklığına uğratacak gibi görünüyor.

    Tam bu noktada Parris’in; “Taraflar bir çıkış yolu bulamazlarsa uçuruma birlikte yuvarlanacaklar”, “Ancak görünürde bir taviz verme ya da anlaşma eğilimi yok”. “Birileri bu sorunu çözmeli” yorumu üzerinde düşünmeye başlayabiliriz. Düşünürken benim aklıma, İngiltere dış politikasının önemli düşünce kuruluşu Chatam House’dan Fadi Hakura’nın, bir saptaması geldi “Erdoğan ve AKP’ye ne olursa olsun, Türkiye, ideologların geçmiş dönemdeki kavgalarının biriken küllerinden doğacak yeni bir tarz siyasetin eşiğinde” (17/07/08). Hımm.

    erginy@tr.net

  • U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION TO HOLD HEARING ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN AZERBAIJAN

    U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION TO HOLD HEARING ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN AZERBAIJAN

    234 Ford House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515-6460
    Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Chairman
    Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Co-Chairman
    For Immediate Release
    www.csce.gov
    Media Contact: Lale Mamaux
    202.225.1901
    July 24, 2008

    (Washington, D.C.) Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) and Co-Chairman Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), will hold a hearing entitled, “Human Rights and Democratization in Azerbaijan.” The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 29 at 3:00 p.m. in room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

    Azerbaijan has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and plays a pivotal role in diversifying sources of energy. A moderate Muslim country, Azerbaijan enjoys good relations with the United States. On human rights, however, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe have numerous concerns, including freedom of the media, political prisoners and the conduct of elections.

    With an upcoming presidential contest in October, Azerbaijan has an opportunity to hold an election that meets OSCE commitments, as well as implement other reforms. The hearing will examine the state of human rights and democratization in Azerbaijan and discuss how U.S. – Azerbaijan cooperation could help promote advances.

    WITNESSES

    The Honorable David Kramer, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

    His Excellency Yashar Aliyev, Ambassador, Republic of Azerbaijan

    Mr. Chris Walker, Director of Studies, Freedom House

    **Additional witnesses may be added

    The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency that monitors progress in the implementation of the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords. The Commission consists of nine members from the United States Senate, nine from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce.

  • Kurds ask for US bases to be built near Iran border

    Kurds ask for US bases to be built near Iran border

    As part of a long-term security agreement with Iraq, US forces could be stationed in Kurdistan. [sic.]

    The Iraqi government and the head of northern Iraq’s regional Kurdish administration, Massoud Barzani, have suggested to military officials that US forces be permanently based in Kurdistan. [sic.]

    Mr Barzani has said a permanent US military presence in the Kurdistan region would defend Iraq from internal and external risks.

    On hearing the request, US Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said it would be appropriate to redeploy US troops there in the future.

    Mr Obama is known to believe troops stationed in the Kurdistan [sic.] area are not in any great danger.

    There are currently no US airbases in Kurdistan, [sic.] although there are two Air Force facilities in neighbouring provinces.

    The US military has denied any intention of building a US air base, but Kurdish sources have said if the US military decides to establish a permanent presence it will be closer to the Iraqi-Iranian border.

    Source: BirminghamStar.com, 22nd July, 2008