Category: USA

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

U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

Armenian Genocide

U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

While President Bush and several of his predecessors have avoided characterizing the organized mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, it has recently come to light that 57 years ago the United States government officially recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court.

This half a century old reference to the Armenian Genocide was discovered by Prof. William A. Schabas who posted it on the website “PhD Studies in Human Rights,” on June 4, 2008. Prof. Schabas, a world renown expert on genocide and international law, is director of The Irish Center for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway.

This document, filed by the Government of the United States with ICJ, is included in the May 28, 1951 ICJ Report titled: “Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

The specific reference to the Armenian Genocide appears on page 25 of the ICJ Report: “The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

This is a very significant statement as it was made by the American government of that time with the sole intent of telling the truth, without taking into account any political or other considerations. Neither Armenians nor Turks had lobbied for or against the U.S. statement. In other words, it was simply made on the basis of historical facts.

How different is the situation today when the White House readily caves in to threats and pressures from the Turkish government to prevent the House of Representatives from passing a commemorative resolution on the Armenian Genocide!

Now that this critical filing by the United States government before the International Court of Justice has been discovered, it is no longer necessary to exert excessive efforts to try and reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress, particularly since the House of Representatives adopted Resolutions 247 and 148 in 1975 and 1984 respectively, to commemorate the Armenian Genocide.

Furthermore, there is no particular reason to insist that the next President of the United States acknowledge the Armenian Genocide since President Ronald Reagan, back on April 22, 1981, issued Presidential Proclamation Number 4838 which stated: “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it – and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples – the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.”

Of course, should an elected official issue a statement reaffirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide, such an acknowledgment would be most welcome by Armenians worldwide. On the other hand, should a public official either deny or refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Americans would have good reason not to support his or her election.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Pres. Reagan’s politics, most people acknowledge that he was a man of principle. His successors – Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – failed to display such moral leadership. During their presidential campaigns, they misled voters by pledging to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and broke their promises after the election. These three recent U.S. presidents went far beyond not keeping their word; they did everything in their power to prevent the adoption of congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide. The names of these infamous denialists should be etched in perpetuity on a special “Wall of Shame,” so future generations will not forget their reprehensible behavior.

On the basis of the official statement submitted by the Government of the United States to the World Court in 1951, combined with the two House resolutions adopted in 1975 and 1984, Pres. Reagan’s 1981 Proclamation, and resolutions adopted by more than forty U.S. states and hundreds of U.S. cities, Armenians should now classify the United States among the more than 20 countries that have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

All those who claim that the United States has not recognized the Armenian Genocide are misrepresenting the U.S. government’s clear record on this issue.

,

YUKARIDAKI GORUSE KARSI OLAYLAR: LUTFEN INCELEYIN .. TF

Issues to consider:

Is the statement quoted from the document the Armenians found inconsistent with the reservation the United States filed to the convention? I think it is.

Timing and sequence is important to put this document in context, when did the U.S. ratify/accede to the Convention and when did the U.S. file its reservations? If it was done after this document was filed with the ICJ, it could be that the U.S. came into possession of additional documents that resulted in a change of policy. Besides, we still have this document from the British archives about the position of the U.S. with respect to evidence re war crimes–

……………………………………………………………………..
British Archives: PRO—F.O. 371/6500/ E.6311
Foreign Office to Geddes
Telegram no 775, dated June 16, 1921

The British Foreign Office forwarded to Washington a list of the names and brief particulars of 45 Turkish deportees “who are being detained in Malta with a view of trial in connection with the alleged outrages perpetrated on Armenians and other native Christians.” And requested again Sir A. Geddes “to ascertain as early as possible whether the United States Government can furnish evidence against any of these persons.”

……………………………………………………………..

British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/6504/E.8515
R.C. Craigie, British Charge d’Affairs at Washington, to Lord Curzon,
Telegram No 722 of July 13, 1921
On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington replied as follows:

“I have the honor to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday in regard to the Turks who are at the present being detained in Malta with a view to trial. He was permitted to see a selection of reports from the United States consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed on the Armenians during the recent war. These reports, judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty’s government, being chosen from among several hundreds.

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question—those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha — and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. Having regard to this stipulation, and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty’s government.

I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter.”

United States of America

Reservations:

“(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.

(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.”

Understandings:

“(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such’ appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.

(2) That the term `mental harm’ in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.

(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state’s laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.

(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.

(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

      AZG Armenian Daily #112, 13/06/2008

            Armenia-Azerbaijan
            ANOTHER AZERBAIJANI PROVOCATION

            Azerbaijan’s statements that the four young citizens of Armenia, detained in Azerbaijan two months ago, were members of a intelligence saboteur group, are nonsense, says Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian. He assured that Armenia, following Azerbaijan’s example, might have declared saboteurs all the Az …

            Genocide
            ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE IN THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT.

            On June 11 the parliament of Sweden is to consider the question of recognizing the fact of the Armenian Genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey in 1915. The question was submitted to the parliamentary agenda by a group of Swedish historians. The message of the scientists says that Assyrians and Pontic …

            Armenian Genocide
            U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

            While President Bush and several of his predecessors have avoided characterizing the organized mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, it has recently come to light that 57 years ago the United States government officially recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document submitted to the Inter …

            SWEDISH PARLIAMENT REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THE 1915 GENOCIDE

            On June 12, 2008, the Swedish Parliament, with the votes 245 to 37 (1abstain, 66 absent), rejected a call for recognition of the 1915 genocide in the Ottoman Empire. On June 11, a long debate took place in the Swedish Parliament in regard to the Foreign Committee report on Human Rights, including fi …

            SWEDEN TURNS DOWN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

            On June 12only 37 of 245 members of the Parliament of Sweden voted for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. According to Vahagn Avetian, head of Armenica.org, the Parliaments of Sweden held very long debates on the issue the day before.

            Opposition
            TER-PETROSIAN IN PARIS

            Ex-candidate for the office of the President of the Republic of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian has left for a 5-day visit to France, Ter-Petrosian’s spokesman told Radio Liberty. The purposes of the visit are unknown.

            Local
            THE MUNICIPALITY REFUSED THE MASS DEMONSTRATION

            Yerevan Municipality refused the application submitted by Levon Ter-Petrosian’s partisans for holding a four-hour mass demonstration on June 20.

            Sport
            “CHESS GIANTS; YEREVAN 2008” RENAMED KAREN ASRIAN MEMORIAL TOURNAMENT

            Chess Federation of Armenia took a decision on June 11 to rename the “Chess Giants; Yerevan 2008” international tournament into Karen Asrian Memorial Tournament taking into consideration outstanding chess player, triple champion of Armenia, Olympic Champion Karen Asrian’s exceptional achievements an …

            Local
            HUNGER STRIKE IN “YEREVAN-CENTER” CRIMINAL EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT

            Gurgen Eghiazarian that is under pre-trial detention in “Yerevan-Center” Criminal Executive Establishment submitted an application to the head of the establishment for starting an indefinite hunger-strike, RA Justice Ministry Press Office reported.

June 24, 2008
Letter to Obama

June 23, 2008

Senator Barak Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Improving our relations with our allies and trying to engage in talks with our enemies is good but endorsing the so called Armenian Genocide has already created an enemy of the entire population of a strategic ally in that of Turkey, Azerbaijan and other allied Nations.

The genocide claim is biased and inaccurate. A diligent and impartial person would look at the correct evidence and find that the events do not describe genocide. We need to have the truth be told. The following would show only some of the reasons for the claim to be false.

1. Ruling on Serbia is one indication what genocide means.

On February 26, 2007 the International Court of Justice determined that Serbia is NOT guilty of genocide in Bosnia in spite of the trials and conviction for war crimes of a number of Bosnians and Serbs who were financed and equipped by Serbia and findings of clear links between Serbia and the Bosnian Serb military who committed the genocide in Srebrenica. The Court ruled that the crime of genocide required showing convincingly there was a specific plan or the specific intention to destroy the group or part of it.

2. Trials conducted by Allies after the War acquitted the Turks.

At the end of WWI the allies occupied the Ottoman Empire. At the insistence of the occupying Allies a number of the ruling Party members were tried between 1919 and 1920 by the Ottomans and convicted of crimes. Please read Not finding these trials legitimate or satisfactory the Allies imprisoned more than 100 Ottoman officials and sent them to Malta for trial. The Allied High Court then convened, similar to the Nuremberg tribunal, and had all the archives and government documents searched by experts for evidence that showed crimes proving genocide. After 2 years and 4 months they were unable to find any evidence even after requesting evidence from the United States and others who could also not find any. All the Turkish officials in Malta prisons were released. There was and is NOT any evidence that will hold up in a court of law that will point to an Armenian genocide. If truly interested anyone could read the documents in the British archives. These documents are listed in:

3. No new trials have ever been set by the UN Criminal court.

Consider these two facts stated above and consider the standing of the persons proposing this legislation as presuming guilt before trial or without trial. If there would have been any serious evidence of genocide the Armenians would have long ago gone to the Criminal Courts.

4. Seven US Secretaries of State announced their views.

Seven US Secretaries of State signed a declaration that passing a resolution in the House regarding the alleged Armenian Genocide would be a mistake and counter productive. These are highly regarded experienced statesmen and diplomats. Foreign policy cannot be conducted by antagonizing our allies. Respected historians will agree that genocide does not describe the events. William Langer, Guenter Lewy, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Edward Erickson, Andrew Mango et al have written extensively on this subject. Another source would be the report of the first Armenian Prime Minister Hovannes Katchaznouni to the Dashnak Party in 1923. This Armenian Prime Minister writes that Turkey acted in defense of its existence in ordering the relocation.

5. Falsification of genocide numbers shows dishonesty.

Another fallacy is the number of Armenians killed in that period. A dozen or more sources put the population of the Armenians in Anatolia at around 1,100,000 of which 300,000 fled with the Russians after the War, 150,000 joined the French Army and attacked Turkish cities in the south and then with many others migrated to other Countries. The falsifiers have 1,500,000 killed out of less than half a million Armenians accounted for. The Armenian population never exceeded about 15% of the population in the eastern provinces.

6. The order to relocate the Armenians in 1915 had the same purpose as the relocation of the Japanese in the US during WWII.

The forced relocation of the 120,000 Japanese-Americans in WWII to barbed wire camps was found to be legal by the U.S. Appeals Court on 18 April 1942 in the case of Korematsu vs US citing a lengthy reasoning. This in effect closed all matters relating to compensation, return of property and claims of hardship. Yet Reagan signed a presidential apology in 1988. What he saw was that the relocation started four months after Pearl Harbor at which time there was no eminent danger that the Japanese were going to invade mainland US, the Japanese-Americans were not arming themselves and ready to fight with the Japanese and they were not starting a round of sabotage and terror. They were innocent citizens of the US.

Let us compare this with the Armenians in Turkey. The year is 1915. Russians have entered Turkish territory from the East. English, French and Anzac’s landed in Galipoli aiming to advance to Istanbul. Allenby crossed the Suez and was advancing to the North with the assistance of the Arabs. Since 1890 the Armenian Hinchak and Dashnak organizations were actively engaged in armed revolt. Three prominent Armenians who were members of parliament defected and founded guerilla groups inside Turkey and started the ethnic cleansing of Turks with the help of Hinchak and Dashnak in regions where Turkish Army presence was minimal. The resulting destruction by the Armenians from 1890 to 1920 was the burning down of 22 villages, the killing of more than 400,000 Turkish civilians and the sabotaging of the Ottoman Armies where in one instant in Sarikamis resulted in the freezing to death of 80,000 troops while fighting the Russians.

On 11 April 1915 the minority Armenians of Van revolted and killed almost all of the Turkish population. A few weeks later they handed the city over to the Russians. In spite of a previous agreement between Armenians in Turkey and the Ottoman government that guaranteed that the Armenians would not fight against the Ottomans. As soon as the Russians further advanced into Turkey the Armenian guerillas revolted in Bitlis and Mus. At this time Enver Pasha decided to relocate the Armenians only in the war zones to the southern parts of the Empire. When finally the legislation was approved on 30 May 1915 it required protection of lives and property, resting during journey, distribution of food, designation of land for resettlement, the building of housing for those in need, the payment of assessed value of the property they vacated and for other items with a budget assigned for this purpose. Documents to this effect are available. They prove that the Armenian Genocide claim is false and a lie,

In his book “The Armenians”, Published by G. Toulmin, UK 1916, C.F. Dixon-Johnson wrote:

“Give a lie twenty-four hours’ start and it will take a hundred years to overtake it.”

7. We are hoping that you will be impartial and read the documentation before you start making enemies around the world..

We are praying for a peaceful world that is not filled with hatred and revenge.

Sincerely,

Demirtas Bayar
44 Alex Drive
White Plains, NY 10605

June 24, 2008
Boston Genocide Memorial Park Gets Green Light

WATERTOWN (Combined Sources)–Rep. Peter Koutoujian and the Armenian Heritage Foundation (AHF) announced Friday that plans to develop a park memorial recognizing victims of the Armenian genocide on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway have been formally approved by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Board.

The park proposal presented by the AHF will now proceed with final design and construction. The public process and approval is the result of an eight-year campaign to design a park to commemorate immigrant groups who migrated to the Boston area as well as acknowledge those ancestors who sought refuge from the Armenian Genocide.

The inclusion of the genocide memorial has been a source of heated debate for years, with city planners raising concerns about politicizing the greenway with a bevy of monuments and memorials to various historical causes.

But the agreement reached Friday will create a memorial sculpture that recognizes the contributions of all immigrant groups and makes special mention of the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

“For eight years, we have worked to make this moment a reality. This park would not have been possible without the support of the Armenian-American community, the residents of the North End, and the leadership of Governor Deval Patrick,” said James Kalustian of the Armenian Heritage Foundation. “Thanks to years of hard work and commitment from our community, this park and its significance was realized and fully supported by the Patrick Administration.”

“As a member of the Armenian-American community, I am truly honored to be a part of this historic endeavor,” said State Representative Peter Koutoujian, who was the original proponent of the park. “My grandparents came to America from Armenia in search of a better life. This park will serve as a beautiful dedication to their experience and the experiences of all immigrants who helped to make the city of Boston–and our nation great.”

The Armenian Heritage Park, a gift to the City of Boston and the Commonwealth from Massachusetts Armenian-Americans, is for all to enjoy. The Park is consistent with key themes of the Greenway: to acknowledge the history of Boston as a port of entry for immigrants worldwide, and to celebrate those who have migrated to Massachusetts shores and contributed to the richness of American life and culture.

The park, which is near Christopher Columbus Park in the North End, will include a labyrinth of grass and granite stone with a single jet of water at its center. It will also feature a 16-foot-diameter reflecting pool.

The proposed wording on the sculpture reads, in part: “Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have offered hope and refuge for immigrants seeking to begin new lives. . . . The sculpture is offered in honor of the one and one-half million victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923.”

“May it stand in remembrance of all genocides that have followed, and celebrate the diversity of the communities that have re-formed in the safety of these shores.”

The Armenian Heritage Park will be constructed at no expense to the taxpayer, and cared for and maintained in perpetuity.
——————————————————————————–

June 24, 2008
Fellow Pilot Cindy McCain

From:Fevziye Manizade [mailto:alifev@hotmail.com]
Subject: Fellow Pilot Cindy (McCain) for President.

Maybe she can talk her husband out of supporting General Aviation user fees.

This is an interesting article as not much was known about her. She was on Leno the other night and it was an interesting interview. It turns out that she is a character as she is or has been a race car driver and is also a pilot. She flies John around the country to his rallies. After hearing that about her and reading this I now have a lot of respect for her.

Election 2008: Cindy Hensley McCain has been disparaged as a trophy wife, a Barbie, an heiress with fancy purses, even the Paris Hilton of politics But there’s more to the picture than meets the eye.
Yes, Mrs. McCain is the perfectly coifed blonde standing dutifully behind the senator during his speeches. And yes, she wears stylish clothing and carries a Prada purse. And it’s true she doesn’t say much. But feminist critics who write her off as a ‘stand-by-your-man’ shrinking violet are selling her short. In many ways, Cindy McCain stacks up sturdier than Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama. And she’d make a more impressive first lady.
Mrs. McCain: More than meets the eye.

While Obama’s wife has been hating America , complaining about the war and undermining our troops serving in Afghanistan , McCain’s wife has been worrying about her sons who actually are fighting or planning to fight in the war on terror. One, in fact, was until a few months ago deployed in Iraq during some of the worst violence. You don’t hear the McCain’s talk about it, but their 19-year-old Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his second tour of duty. Their 21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from Annapolis and also could join the Marines as a second lieutenant. The couple made the decision not to draw attention to their sons out of respect for other families with sons and
daughters in harm’s way.
Cindy also says she doesn’t want to risk falling apart on the campaign trail talking about Jimmy who was so young when he enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of soldiers who are serving or have been killed.

The McCain’s want to make sure their boys get no special treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including a daughter they adopted from Bangladesh . During a visit to Mother Teresa’s orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying baby. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life. So she brought the child home to America for the surgery she desperately needed. The baby is now their
healthy, 16-year-old daughter, Bridget.

Though all seven McCain children including two Sen. McCain adopted from his first marriage are supportive of their father, they prefer their privacy to the glare of the campaign trail. Another daughter, Meghan, 23, helps him behind the scenes.

Cindy McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her country, which in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing novelty. She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama’s unpatriotic remarks that she only recently grew proud of America . ‘I am very proud of my country,’ Mrs. McCain asserted.
She also may be tougher than the other women in the race. While Hillary thinks she’s come under sniper fire on mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen violence. She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait during a trip with an international group that removes land mines from war-torn countries.

Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on the board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic surgeons to fix cleft palates and other birth defects. She also has helped organize relief missions to Micronesia .

During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs. McCain took a friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She was shocked, and saddened, by what she saw. ‘They opened the door to the OR, where the supplies were, and there were two cats and a whole bunch of rats climbing out of the sterile supplies,’ she recalled. ‘They had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it was a U.S. trust territory.’ As soon as she returned home, she arranged for medical equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to treat the island children.

Michelle Obama may contribute to CARE, which fights global poverty and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board.

While the Democrat women talk about helping the poor and needy, Cindy McCain actually rolls up her sleeves and does it. Who’s the out-of-touch elitist?

Fran

June 24, 2008
The Case against Turkey ’s Ruling Party

23 Haziran 2008, Pazartesi
THE AMERICAN

By Michael Rubin Friday, June 20, 2008

Sometime this summer, Turkey ’s Constitutional Court will decide whether Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) violated the “principles of a democratic and secular republic” that undergird the Turkish constitution and should be barred from politics. Across the Turkish political spectrum, most officials expect the Court to rule against the AKP, thus dissolving the party and banning Erdoğan and his closest aides for at least five years.

Although the prime minister, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, and influential AKP advisers have tried to depict this as the unjust outgrowth of a dispute over headscarves in public universities—and perhaps even a “judicial coup”—the case is legitimate.

Erdoğan’s supporters often point to his embrace of the European Union accession process as proof of his liberalism. But Erdoğan has used the EU accession process to unravel Turkey ’s system of checks and balances. He cares little for EU institutions. When the European Court of Human Rights upheld a ban on headscarves in public schools—the same ban that the Turkey’s own Constitutional Court later upheld—Erdoğanchastised the European justices for applying civil law to a religious matter, declaring, “It is wrong that those who have no connection to this field [of religion] make such a decision…without consulting religious scholars.”

Europe ’s encouragement of Turkish reforms has been important. In a mature democracy, the military should remain aloof from politics. Brussels should be applauded for pressuring Turkey to reform its National Security Council to give the powerful body a civilian majority with a civilian head. By failing to encourage the creation of an alternate check-and-balance mechanism to replace the military’s traditional role as guardian of the constitution, however, the EU committed diplomatic malpractice. Erdoğan seized the opportunity to run roughshod over Turkish secularism and democracy.

Indeed, despite its self-description as secular, liberal, and democratic, the AKP is quite the opposite. Babacan ordered Turkish officials to remove references to secularism from Turkey ’s position paper ahead of EU negotiations over education policy. Domestically, the AKP has placed religion above the law. Turkey has long regulated supplemental Koran schools, ensuring instructor qualifications and imposing minimum age requirements to prevent indoctrination. When Saudi mullahs fanned out across Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia to promote a radical version of Islam, they largely bypassed Turkey . No longer. Not only did the AKP loosen limits upon the religious schools, but it also eviscerated the penalties for violations, leading some illegal madrassas to begin advertising openly.

As he consolidates power, Erdoğan has become the Turkish Vladimir Putin. Upon taking office, Erdoğan sought to lower the mandatory retirement age for public servants from 65 to 61, which effectively allowed his party to appoint almost half of the nation’s prosecutors and judges. With patronage appointments, the prime minister transformed technocratic bodies such as the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), an entity empowered to seize private businesses and media outlets, into virtual party wings. The TMSF today is staffed almost entirely by appointees transferred from Saudi-based financial institutions.

Placement in key ministries and government departments used to depend on success in civil service exams. Erdoğan imposed a subjective interview process that enabled him to choose political loyalists. The practice spread to state-owned industries; Turkish Airlines, for example, began quizzing employees on the Koran. Women have suffered the most. As analyst Soner Çağaptay observes in Newsweek, “under the AKP, women are largely excluded from decision-making positions in government and the workforce, relegated to the confines of their homes.”
The AKP has even resorted to wiretapping the conversations of its political rivals. Late last month, Vakit, an Islamist paper close to the AKP, published a wiretap conversation between the opposition’s deputy leader and a governor. This episode, which the media have called “ Turkey ’s Watergate,” has sent chills through the secular elite.

The AKP has also sought to diminish the power of Turkey ’s independent judiciary. In May 2005, AKP co-founder and parliamentary speaker Bülent Arınç said that if the Constitutional Court continued to declare AKP legislation unconstitutional, the AKP might simply dissolve it. When the Danıştay, the country’s supreme administrative court, ruled against the previous government’s seizure of a bank and Erdoğan’s transfer of its European subsidiary to a political ally, the prime minister ignored the ruling.

Contrary to AKP claims, this summer’s Court decision will not mark the end of Turkish democracy, but rather its rebirth. Erdoğan, too, will begin a new chapter. Even if he is banned from politics, a quirk in Turkish election law would allow him to seek office as an independent. In other words, Erdoğan could conceivably wind up presiding over other AKP alumni as an independent prime minister.

Here, the issue is less ambition than immunity. When Erdoğan leaves parliament, he will face a multitude of corruption charges. While compiling his immense wealth, he has refused to give a full financial disclosure. As the clock runs out on his premiership, Erdoğan has dispensed with even the appearance of legality. He has used the AKP’s parliamentary majority to suppress investigation of a recent TMSF deal in which an opposition newspaper and television station were sold to an Erdoğan ally after the prime minister interceded illegally. On June 18, Habertürk’s Fatih Altaylı reported that the Austrian energy firm OMV has submitted an affidavit swearing that Erdoğan told OMV the way to unfreeze a $3 billion energy project would be to dump its longtime Turkish partner and work instead with his son-in-law. Perhaps it should not be a surprise, then, that Erdoğan has used what could be his last weeks as prime minister to appoint political loyalists to the Sayıştay, Turkey ’s supreme court of accounts and audits, which will soon investigate his conduct.
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

June 24, 2008
Pro Armenian Cong. Berman pushes Armenian propaganda

Pro Armenian Cong. Berman pushes Armenian propaganda at the House Foreign Relations Committee

Cong. Berman is speaking to get the Armenian votes in November.

He is militanly pro Armenian.

He recently has met with the convicted Armenian terrorist Mourat Topalian.

California Turks/ Azeris must find a way to unseat this biased and unfair representative in Nov. 2008.

House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Congressman Howard L. Berman (D-CA), chairman

Verbatim, as delivered

June 18, 2008

Opening Statement by Chairman Howard L. Berman at hearing, “The Caucasus: Frozen Conflicts and Closed Borders”

Between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea lie the countries of the Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Due to disputes that have festered over the course of many years, there are enough compelling questions involving these three countries and their neighbors to occupy us all day long. During the course of this hearing I’d like to focus on the frozen conflicts affecting economic and political integration in the region, and how U.S. foreign policy is responding to them.

I’d like to start with one of the most puzzling and problematic matters: the Turkish land blockade of Armenia, in place since 1993. It’s a punishing policy that holds the Armenian economy back and enormously increases the cost of much of Armenia’s trade with other nations.

The land blockade is also, quite possibly, illegal, as it seems to breach Turkey’s undertaking in the 1922 Treaty of Kars to keep its border-crossings with Armenia open. And it violates the spirit of the World Trade Organization, of which both Turkey and Armenia are members.

It’s baffling why Ankara would want to pursue this land blockade, which also harms the economy of eastern Turkey, and is therefore clearly contrary to its own interests. It’s no secret that many Turkish businessmen, especially in the east, have been lobbying for lifting the land blockade.

It also seems manifestly contrary to the strategic interests of Turkey, which purports to be a solid member of the Western alliance. Without an outlet to Turkey or Azerbaijan, Armenia is forced to rely on its connections to two of Turkey’s historical rivals, Russia and Iran – and given how antithetical the Iranian regime is to the secular, modern Turkish government, it seems odd that Ankara would want to undertake any actions that will enhance Tehran’s influence in Yerevan.

Furthermore, the land blockade has done absolutely nothing to persuade Armenia to alter its policies on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue – the ostensible cause of the land blockade in the first place. Nor is there any prospect that it will do so. Armenia has demonstrated its resolve to support the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey is more likely to win influence with the Armenian government if it pursues a policy of good-neighborliness than if it slams the border closed.

Why hasn’t the State Department – which opposes the land blockade – spoken out more forcefully on this matter? Certainly it’s in our interest to diminish Iran’s influence among its neighbors, not to enhance it. Ambassador Fried, I’m hoping you’ll lay out for us the steps our government has taken and is taking to convince our ally Turkey to end, once and for all, this counter-productive practice of closed borders.

And by no means is Turkey Armenia’s only problem in the region. I’m deeply concerned by the series of increasingly bellicose statements made over the past year about Nagorno-Karabakh by senior Azerbaijani officials, as well as the steady increase in Azerbaijan’s defense budget as that nation acquires more oil wealth. The serious breakdown earlier this year in the 14-year-old cease-fire has been widely blamed on Azerbaijani provocations. Mr. Ambassador, how do you see this situation, and what is the status of negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh?

Turning to Georgia, in recent weeks, we’ve seen increasingly aggressive Russian behavior toward the region of Abkhazia: Moscow has established official ties with the separatist government there, issued passports and citizenship to its residents, dispatched a Russian jet to down a Georgian reconnaissance craft, and deployed railway troops to the region under dubious pretenses.

It was dispiriting to hear the new Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, dismiss offers of foreign mediation of this conflict during his first official meeting in early June with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvilli. Although the United States and the European Union expressed support for the Georgian President’s peace initiatives during their recent summit in Slovenia, follow-up efforts by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and your deputy Matt Bryza to encourage peace talks have garnered little traction. Mr. Ambassador, what steps will this Administration take in the coming months to help prevent further escalation of this conflict? And do you support calls for the Russian-dominated CIS peacekeeping force to be replaced by a neutral EU contingent as one means of mitigating the conflict?

And finally, I’d like to address an issue with long-term implications for U.S. foreign policy throughout the region: the prospect of democratization and political development in the South Caucasus. Lately in the wake of elections in the region, there has been a worrying trend of large-scale protests and forceful police reaction. This explosive combination has the effect of silencing the opposition and strengthening ruling political regimes in a region that is still struggling to establish its democratic credentials.

Last fall, the Georgian government imposed a sweeping state of emergency following demonstrations by thousands of protesters over a government that appeared out of touch with the people. Armenia experienced violent clashes that left eight people dead following March presidential elections. And Azerbaijan could suffer a similar fate during its presidential elections in October, as the government is already cracking down on the media and opposition.

Mr. Ambassador, we would welcome your assessment of the democratic prospects of these countries, which are of such great strategic importance to the United States. Given unstable regimes and considerable political acrimony, what is the potential for fostering sustainable dialogue on a multi-party, parliamentary level? I would also be grateful if you could address the question of how the U.S. administration is holding these governments accountable for human rights abuses, while at the same time working to achieve lasting peace between them.

It’s a tall order; we don’t have all the time in the world to address all the matters we’d like to today, so I’m going to stop at this point and turn to my colleague and friend Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member of the committee, for any comments she may wish to make.

June 21, 2008