Category: Regions

Is Turkey’s EU membership dream vanishing?

By Ibon Villelabeitia – Analysis

ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey risks seeing its dream of European Union membership vanish unless it urgently pushes reforms, but to rebuild trust between the two sides EU members must send a clear message that Ankara’s bid is not doomed.

An EU enlargement progress report last week said Turkey had a long way to go, while Croatia, which began accession talks at the same time as Ankara, was at the doors of entering the bloc.

The report, which raps Turkey for slow progress on issues ranging from human rights to intellectual property protection to curbing the power of the military, has raised fresh doubts over whether this large and predominantly Muslim country of 70 million will ever become a full EU member.

“The million dollar question is whether Turkey will ever join the European Union,” said Amanda Akcakoca, an analyst at the European Policy Center in Brussels.

“Trust is starting to ebb away between the EU and Turkey. Turkey has a lot of homework to do but it is important for the EU to send a symbolic message to Turkey,” Akcakoca said.

Turkey began accession negotiations in 2005, but the pace of reforms has since slowed and talks are moving at snail’s pace.

Analysts say political distractions at home and little appetite for enlargement among EU member states after the bloc’s costly expansion into central and eastern Europe have pushed the EU agenda to the backburner of Turkey’s ruling AK Party.

“We have reached a stalemate and it is difficult to see how Turkey and the EU will get out of it and gain momentum,” said Wolfango Piccoli, an analyst for Eurasia Group.

“The longer it takes the tougher it will be for Turkey to enter the EU. There is a danger that slow progress will fuel a growing estrangement which will be difficult to repair.”

Turkey has always had a rocky relationship with the EU, clashing frequently over free speech, minority rights and the divided island of Cyprus.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Turkey had won praise for its efforts to stamp out police mistreatment in the past, but a rise in complaints of torture mentioned in the report has prompted fears that progress on key reforms may be stalling.

“There is a danger that in this stalemate we might see some progress slipping back,” said Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, director of the Ankara office of the German Marshall Fund think-tank.

“It could start at low level and the government could say: ‘Ok, mistreatment of prisoners and torture is getting bad, but we have more pressing issues now’,” he said.

The EU wants Turkey to make progress on judicial reform, minority rights and to open its ports to traffic from Cyprus.

The ruling AK Party, which secured Turkey’s decades-long quest to officially launch EU membership negotiations, has repeatedly pledged to revive its EU drive.

But few observers have any faith Turkey’s bid will regain momentum in the near future, with municipal elections in March and a slowing economy dominating the government’s agenda.

“We risk being in 2009 with nothing on the menu,” a European Commission source, who declined to be named, said.

This stand-still would come from a combination of lack of reforms in Turkey and the opposition of some EU states’ to Turkey’s full membership. France, Cyprus and Germany are all blocking one or several areas — so-called chapters of talks.

Analysts have said it will be decades, rather than years, before Turkey joins the EU.

Turkish officials complain of double standards, and have cited the example of Croatia, a Roman Catholic country of 4.4 million which has leapfrogged Turkey on the EU path.

At stake are broader security and energy repercussions for both Europe and Turkey, analysts say.

Turkey, a NATO member, is a key transit route of Central Asian gas for the West. Europe needs a stable Turkey and the EU membership is an anchor for financial and political stability.

(Additional reporting by Ingrid Melander in Brussels)

November 11, 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.

ferruh@demirmen.com

November 11, 2008
TURKEY DEVELOPS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AZERBAIJAN

TURKEY DEVELOPS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AZERBAIJAN

By Saban Kardas

Monday, November 10, 2008

On November 5 and 6, after his reelection last month, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev visited Turkey, where he discussed the developments in the Caucasus, relations with Armenia, and deepening cooperation between the two countries.

On November 5 he attended a dinner given by his host President Abdullah Gul and attended by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other ministers (Anadolu Ajansi, November 6). On the second day of his visit Aliyev addressed a session of the Turkish Parliament (www.cnnturk.com, November 6). The two presidents emphasized the close friendship between their countries and the importance of Turkey-Azerbaijan cooperation for peace and stability in the Caucasus. The leaders repeated the oft-heard motto of “one nation, two states” and made references to historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Aliyev remarked that no other countries had such close relations as those between Turkey and Azerbaijan, and this must be seen as a great asset. Aliyev also thanked Turkey for supporting Azerbaijan in difficult times.

The main item on Aliyev’s agenda was the situation in the Caucasus. Having commended Turkey’s constructive efforts to solve problems in the region, Aliyev repeated Azerbaijan’s support for the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform (CSCP), initiated by Turkey (EDM, September 2). On the issue of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, Aliyev made a firm statement of the Azerbaijani position that the current situation of the Karabakh conflict remains the main obstacle to peace in the Caucasus. He criticized Armenia’s occupation of 20 percent of Azeri lands and its policy of ethnic cleansing. He reiterated that a solution to the problem rests on the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and Armenia’s compliance with the resolutions of international organizations including the United Nations (ANKA, November 6).

Aliyev’s visit comes in the wake of a meeting between Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian in Moscow on November 2, sponsored by Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev. Despite their pledge in a joint declaration to pursue a political settlement, the two leaders failed to specify any concrete steps with regard to confidence-building measures, which fell short of the Kremlin’s expectations (EDM, November 4). Nonetheless, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) welcomed this declaration and viewed it as a successful example of multiple parties working toward a common goal. Some Turkish observers interpreted Russia’s growing involvement in the resolution of the Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute as a loss of leverage for Ankara and criticized Turkey’s reactionary policy (www.asam.org.tr, ASAM Daily Brief, November 6).

A press release by the MFA emphasized that Turkey’s past efforts—such as the proposal for the CSCP and the trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia sponsored by Turkey—had paved the way for the Moscow talks (Press Release: 189, www.mfa.gov, November 5). In his meeting with Aliyev, Gul received first hand information about the Azeri-Armenian talks in Moscow. Gul praised the declaration as the beginning of a new era for bringing peace to the region (Anadolu Ajansi, November 5). It is a common practice for the leaders of Turkey and Azerbaijan to inform each other about any meetings with Armenia not involving the other party (Star, September 11).

The Turkish daily Zaman ran a story that maintained that Gul had proposed another trilateral summit in Istanbul, which would bring together Gul, Aliyev, and Sarkisian. Having received a positive response from Aliyev, Gul was reportedly going to extend an invitation to the Armenian side. Speaking to Zaman, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov also confirmed that such a proposal had been made (Zaman, November 7). The Turkish MFA spokesperson, however, issued a statement refuting the idea that it had proposed hosting a trilateral meeting (www.cnnturk.com, November 7). Zaman nonetheless insisted on its story and criticized the confusing information over the proposal coming out of the MFA (Zaman, November 8). The Turkish officials’ stance might have been a result of an attempt to achieve reconciliation with Armenia through secret diplomacy and their preference for keeping such a proposal confidential before all the details are worked out.

Another major issue on the agenda during Aliyev’s visit was the growing volume of trade and economic cooperation between the two countries, in particular in the energy sector. Azerbaijan and Turkey have developed a partnership in energy transportation, which has led to the flourishing of economic ties in other fields. Turkish entrepreneurs have had a vibrant presence in Azerbaijan. The growing Azerbaijani wealth created by oil revenues, however, has altered the direction of investments. Recently, Azeri companies started investing in Turkey, especially in privatization projects. The CEO of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (Socar) announced the company’s plans for new investments of up to 10 billion dollars in Turkey (Yeni Safak, January 10). SOCAR and the Palmali Group recently bought 50 percent of Tekfen Insaat, one of Turkey’s largest construction firms, for $520 million (Ihlas News Agency, September 8). Aliyev emphasized that such investments reflected the growing self-confidence of the Azeri economy and gave indications that they would continue in the future. Aliyev also emphasized the high value his administration attaches to integrating Azerbaijan with the rest of the world. He noted, however, the importance of achieving full independence in the economy, which was a prerequisite for political independence (Cihan News Agency, November 6).

President Gul is due to visit Baku on November 14 to attend the forthcoming fourth international summit on energy, which will bring together several heads of state from the region as well as representatives from the European Union and the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza (Zaman, November 7; Azeri Press Agency, November 7). In the wake of the conflict in Georgia, discussions on the secure flow of energy from the region, as well as alternative pipelines carrying oil and gas, will be on the agenda of the summit.

November 11, 2008
Abduction Turkmen News Reader by Kurdish forces in Erbil

By Mofak Salman

On 5th of November 2008, Mr Timor Beyatli left the city of Kerkuk and drove to Erbil airport to catch his flight to Istanbul (Turkey) where he had been invited to participate in a conference about Media and Journalism. Before boarding the airplane he made a call to his family in Turkey informing them that he was on his way to Istanbul and that he would contact them upon his arrival at Istanbul airport. Unfortunately, when the plane landed in Istanbul Mr. Timor Beyatli was not among the passengers because he had been abducted just before he got on the plane (on the 8.15 pm flight) at Erbil airport by the Kurdish security forces (known as the Asayish [3]) which belong to the Kurdish leader of the KDP party Massoud Barzani. Mr. Timor Beyatli was transferred from Erbil airport to a prison in the city of Erbil for further investigation.

On the 25th November 2007, Mr. Hassan Turan, a Turkmen member of the governing council of Kerkuk, was arrested by the Kurdish Asayish at Erbil airport in northern Iraq following his return from participation in the international conference that was held in Istanbul (Turkey) under the name of Kudus and International Conjunction.

On Saturday 27th October 2007, Mr. Qasim Sari Kahya, a Turkmen writer, journalist and Secretary Editor for the Fraternity Club of Kardeslik in Baghdad, was abducted along with another three Turkmen citizens near the Kerkuk General Hospital by the Kurdish security forces known as Asayish. Several hours later, three of the detainees were released, but Mr. Qasim was kept for further interrogation.

On 8th of July 2007, Mr. Lokman Nejam Ahmed, a Turkmen (born on 1st July 1968 in the district of Telkeef which is linked to the city of city of Mosul) was arrested on the Iraqi/Turkish border Ibrahim Alkhalil by the Kurdish secret police (Asayish) while he was travelling from the city of Mosul to Turkey with a group of Turkmens from the city of Erbil. Because of the public, political and journalistic outrage and due to the media appeal. Mr. Tamur Beyatli was released on 7^th November 2008. He was released without charges and his case has not been submitted to the court.

Thus, the Turkmens request to all the human right organisations, government officials, intellectuals, and Iraqi and Turkish government for immediate intervention to put pressure on the Kurdish police who are terrorising the Turkmen people in Turkmeneli.

Turkmen of Iraq also call upon the Iraqi Journalists Union and all Iraqi and international organizations defending the rights of journalists, to move immediately to the authorities of the Iraqi government at the highest levels for the protection of the Turkmen, Arabs and Assyrian from the Kurdish oppression that are carried by Kurdish parties in North of Iraq.

Mofak Salman

Turkmeneli Party Representative for Both Ireland and United Kingdom

msalman@eircom.net

[1] Turkmen: The Iraqi Turkmen live in an area that they call “Turkmenia” in Latin or Turkmeneli” which means, “Land of the Turkmen. It was referred to as “Turcomania” by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Turkmen are a Turkic group that has a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e. 12% of the Iraqi population.

[2] Turkmeneli is a diagonal strip of land stretching from the Syrian and Turkish border areas from
around Telafer in the north of Iraq, reaching down to the town of Mendeli on the Iranian border in Central Iraq. The Turkmen of Iraq settled in Turkmeneli in three successive and constant migrations from Central Asia, this increased their numbers and enabled them to establish six states in Iraq.

[3] Asayish is an unrecognized and illegitimate force that is utilized by both Kurdish parties to terrorize innocent civilian people. They are used to kidnap and kill people who defy the Kurdish aspiration for establishing a Kurdish state.

November 10, 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