Turkish Forum

Category: Regions

  • EU Schools’ initiative and change grant for Turkish Cypriot community

    EU Schools’ initiative and change grant for Turkish Cypriot community

    The second Call for Proposals under the EU “Schools’ Initiative for Innovation and Change” Grant Scheme will give grants of between EUR10.000 and EUR 50.000 to pre-primary, primary and secondary schools in the northern part of Cyprus. Overall, up to EUR 745.000 will be available. The grants are financed from the EUR 259 mln EU aid programme for the Turkish Cypriot community.

    The grant scheme will offer support to the modernisation of the Turkish Cypriot community’s education sector by funding a range of activities including, amongst others, training courses, study visits, upgrading of materials and equipment. The aim of such activities is to promote the development of modern teaching and learning methods, to raise the capacity of teachers, to improve the overall management of the educational system and to encourage networking between stakeholders.

    The grant scheme consists of two Strands: Strand A covers small-scale upgrading projects, whereas Strand B aims at long-term and capacity raising projects. Pre-primary, primary and secondary schools can jointly apply for activities under Strand A and B, if such partnership is considered as bringing an added value or higher cost-efficiency.

    The deadline for submission of proposals is 20 November 2008, 16:00 Central European Time (17:00 local time). A first round of training courses for interested schools will be organised in the beginning of October 2008. The exact time and location of the training sessions will be forwarded to all pre-, primary and secondary schools through local contact points.

    Source: www.financialmirror.com, September 23, 2008

  • TURKEY AND GEORGIA

    TURKEY AND GEORGIA

    Ambassador Ms. Fatma Dicle Kopuz, Director General for Policy Planning Department of the Turkish MFA and former Ambassador to Georgia, on Turkey’s position in Georgia:

    Turkey is situated in a volatile neighbourhood where there [are] many frozen conflicts, open disputes and potential crises. Turkey also is home to a substantial number of people from different parts of the Caucasus. The crisis in Georgia has the potential to spill-over to the region at large. From the outset of the crisis, Turkey has followed a calm approach and brought forward ideas for a realistic solution in the area. Turkey supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and looks forward to a settlement of the current conflict.

    Source: www.agendafin.com, Current issue 4 / 2008

  • Ambassador Brenton: UK expects Russia to reconsider Abkhazia, S. Ossetia recognition

    Ambassador Brenton: UK expects Russia to reconsider Abkhazia, S. Ossetia recognition

    Interfax’s Interview

    British Ambassador to Russia Tony Brenton has said he hopes Russia will reconsider its position on recognizing Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s independence and vowed that the United Kingdom would take part in a European Union mission of military monitors in the South Caucasus.

    “I do not know the exact numbers, but I do know that we are looking for twenty, thirty, or forty participants, and I am assuming that they will be on the ground as the European community gets its people onto the ground over the next few days,” Brenton said in an interview with Interfax.

    Times New Roman;”> “I hope that your readers will note that this will be a fantastic operation. The European community, the European Union from a standing start on the 8th of September has put together a big peacekeeping observer operation in the course of three weeks. That is a strong demonstration of the will of the European Union to contribute to getting the tensions down and to getting peace back in the region,” he said.

    Brenton described Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as “a big mistake, because the effect of it is that it makes it much more complicated for us to find a long-term solution to tensions between Georgia and Russia and between Georgia and Abkhazia and Georgia and South Ossetia.”

    “It is a pity that Russia said it is irreversible,” Brenton said.
    “I hope that, on reflection, Russia will think again, because the precedent we have for this is the president of Turkey recognizing North Cyprus, and it has landed Turkey for a period of thirty years with a small enclave unrecognized anywhere else in the world and placing on Turkey an economic and political burden. It would be very sad to see Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the same situation,” he said.

    Commenting on Russia’s proposal that an embargo should be imposed on weapon supplies to Georgia, Brenton said, “I do not think that Russia has formally made a proposal to that effect. I think that we would want to see Georgia having the capacity to defend itself in the future and having normal armed forces. I am sure we would not want to see, on the other hand, a sort of military buildup in the region which led to the problems of the 7th and 8th of August,” he said.

    Brenton urged the beginning of a discussion on launching a peace process “with nobody setting too many preconditions.”

    The immediate issue is the implementation of the 8th of September agreement [reached at negotiations between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy]. Once that agreement is fully implemented, then I hope the political tensions will begin to calm down and we will begin to be able to discuss the resumption of contacts of various sorts,” he said.

    “I know that the French presidency of the EU, for example, has made it clear that on the assumption that the 8th of September agreement is implemented, the European Union will then resume the negotiations on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia,” he said.

    “NATO has not yet reflected on what the conditions have to be for the resumption of NATO-Russia contacts,” he said.

    Source: www.interfax.com

  • Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital ; Yahudi Turklerin Hazar Devletinin Baskenti: Itil, the Khazar capital

    Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital ; Yahudi Turklerin Hazar Devletinin Baskenti: Itil, the Khazar capital

     

    The KHAZARS/ Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital

    September 22nd, 2008 · 1 Comment  

     

    By MANSUR MIROVALEV, Associated Press Writer Sat Sep 20, 2:13 PM ET
    MOSCOW – A Russian archaeologist says he has found the lost capital of theKhazars, a powerful nation that adopted Judaism as its official religion more than 1,000 years ago, only to disappear leaving little trace of its culture.
    Dmitry Vasilyev, a professor at Astrakhan State University, said his nine-year excavation near the Caspian Sea has finally unearthed the foundations of a triangular fortress of flamed brick, along with modest yurt-shaped dwellings, and he believes these are part of what was once Itil, the Khazar capital.
    By law Khazars could use flamed bricks only in the capital, Vasilyev said. The general location of the city on the Silk Road was confirmed in medieval chronicles by Arab, Jewish and European authors.
    “The discovery of the capital of Eastern Europe’s first feudal state is of great significance,” he told The Associated Press. “We should view it as part of Russian history.”
    Kevin Brook, the American author of “The Jews of Khazaria,” e-mailed Wednesday that he has followed the Itil dig over the years, and even though it has yielded no Jewish artifacts, “Now I’m as confident as the archaeological team is that they’ve truly found the long-lost city,
    The Khazars were a Turkic tribe that roamed the steppes from Northern China to the Black Sea. Between the 7th and 10th centuries they conquered huge swaths of what is now southern Russia and Ukraine, the Caucasus Mountains and Central Asia as far as the Aral Sea.
    Itil, about 800 miles south of Moscow, had a population of up to 60,000 and occupied 0.8 square miles of marshy plains southwest of the Russian Caspian Sea port of Astrakhan, Vasilyev said.
    It lay at a major junction of the Silk Road, the trade route between Europe and China, which “helped Khazars amass giant profits,” he said.
    The Khazar empire was once a regional superpower, and Vasilyev said his team has found “luxurious collections” of well-preserved ceramics that help identify cultural ties of the Khazar state with Europe, the Byzantine Empire and even Northern Africa. They also found armor, wooden kitchenware, glass lamps and cups, jewelry and vessels for transporting precious balms dating back to the eighth and ninth centuries, he said.
    But a scholar in Israel, while calling the excavations interesting, said the challenge was to find Khazar inscriptions.
    “If they found a few buildings, or remains of buildings, that’s interesting but does not make a big difference,” said Dr. Simon Kraiz, an expert on Eastern European Jewry at Haifa University. “If they found Khazar writings, that would be very important.”
    Vasilyev says no Jewish artifacts have been found at the site, and in general, most of what is known about the Khazars comes from chroniclers from other, sometimes competing cultures and empires.
    “We know a lot about them, and yet we know almost nothing: Jews wrote about them, and so did Russians, Georgians, and Armenians, to name a few,” said Kraiz. “But from the Khazars themselves we have nearly nothing.”
    The Khazars’ ruling dynasty and nobility converted to Judaism sometime in the 8th or 9th centuries. Vasilyev said the limited number of Jewish religious artifacts such as mezuzas and Stars of David found at other Khazar sites prove that ordinary Khazars preferred traditional beliefs such as shamanism, or newly introduced religions including Islam.
    Yevgeny Satanovsky, director of the Middle Eastern Institute in Moscow, said he believes the Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency — to remain independent of neighboring Muslim and Christian states. “They embraced Judaism because they wanted to remain neutral, like Switzerland these days,” he said.
    In particular, he said, the Khazars opposed the Arab advance into the Caucasus Mountains and were instrumental in containing a Muslim push toward eastern Europe. He compared their role in eastern Europe to that of the French knights who defeated Arab forces at the Battle of Tours in France in 732.
    The Khazars succeeded in holding off the Arabs, but a young, expanding Russian state vanquished the Khazar empire in the late 10th century. Medieval Russian epic poems mention Russian warriors fighting the “Jewish Giant.”
    “In many ways, Russia is a successor of the Khazar state,” Vasilyev said.

    He said his dig revealed traces of a large fire that was probably caused by the Russian conquest. He said Itil was rebuilt following the fall of the Khazar empire, when ethnic Khazars were slowly assimilated by Turkic-speaking tribes, Tatarsand Mongols, who inhabited the city until it was flooded by the rising Caspian Seaaround the 14th century.

    The study of the Khazar empire was discouraged in the Soviet Union. The dictator Josef Stalin, in particular, detested the idea that a Jewish empire had come before Russia’s own. He ordered references to Khazar history removed from textbooks because they “disproved his theory of Russian statehood,” Satanovsky said.

    Only now are Russian scholars free to explore Khazar culture. The Itil excavations have been sponsored by the Russian-Jewish Congress, a nonprofit organization that supports cultural projects in Russia.

    “Khazar studies are just beginning,” Satanovsky said.

     

  • Iraq Passes Provincial Elections Law

    Iraq Passes Provincial Elections Law

     

    ?
    _r=1&oref=slogin

    The struggle over Kirkuk, where Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Christians
    and other groups have all staked claims, has been among the central
    obstacles to unifying Iraq. Government officials in the Kurdish
    region in the north insist that Kirkuk rightfully belongs to them.
    Sunni Arab and Turkmen lawmakers have proposed a power-sharing
    agreement to govern the city.

    Under the new bill, passed unanimously by the 190 members of
    Parliament present, a committee made up of representatives from the
    major groups involved in the Kirkuk dispute will take up the question
    and present recommendations by March 31. The election in Kirkuk is to
    be postponed, and the current provincial council would remain in
    place until a separate election law for the province could be passed.

    Elections in the three provinces of the Kurdish region, an autonomous
    territory, will be held in 2009.

    Sa’adaldin Arkij, head of the Turkmen Front political party, called
    the passage of the election law “a historical victory for Iraqis.”

    “Today there was no winner and no loser, but Iraq won” he said.
    “Kirkuk is not an easy issue, and the agreement is a confirmation of
    Iraqis’ awareness and responsibility for unity in their country.”

    The new law eliminates an article that, in an earlier version, had
    provided 13 seats in six provinces for Iraqi Christians, Yazidis and
    other minorities — a move that Younadim Kanna, head of the Assyrian
    Democratic Movement and the only Christian member of Parliament said
    was “a very, very bad sign.”

  • Azerbaijani view of Gul’s visit to Yerevan

    Azerbaijani view of Gul’s visit to Yerevan

    Turkish Journal California Representative Isil Oz talked to Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) – Javid Huseynov to get some information about their feelings for Gul’s visit to Yerevan.

    September 6th 2008

    Isil Oz (Turkish Journal)

    Today a World Cup qualifying game between the Turkish and Armenian national football teams will take place in Yerevan. Armenian President Serge Sarkisian invited his Turkish counterpart to “watch the game together” in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal, July 9. After this article, President Abdullah Gul decided to go to Yerevan… Some have said Gul showed “the foresight and the courage” needed to act. Some have questioned why Gul should visit a country they refer to as Turkey’s enemy.

    What about Azerbaijani side?

    President Gul’s visit to Yerevan has come under a heavy criticism of Azerbaijani mainstream media, some officials and independent analysts. So I talked to Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) – Javid Huseynov to get some information about their feelings for Gul’s visit to Yerevan.

    “President Gul’s landmark visit to Yerevan today may open a new chapter in Turkey’s relations with its troublesome neighbor. Media and analysts in Turkey, Armenia and other countries attempt to provide a variety of analyses citing primarily positive sides of this symbolic gesture.

    In Azerbaijan, Mr. Gul’s Yerevan visit has come under substantial criticism of the media, various officials and independent analysts. Certainly, the government of Azerbaijan has its own views in this regard, which may have been conveyed to Prime Minister Erdogan upon his recent visit to Baku. Azerbaijani position in this regard is naturally shaped by the unresolved Karabagh conflict. Speaking from a moral standpoint, Mr. Gul accepted this invitation from a man who participated in Karabagh war atrocities, namely, gave orders during the brutal Khojaly massacre against Azeri Turks in 1992. In fact, Mr. Sarkissian, now President of Armenia, is also the author of the following words:

    “before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype].” (Thomas De Waal. “Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War”, NYU Press,2004

    From Azerbaijani perspective?

    A trip by President Gul would be seen similar to a hypothetical visit by a Turkish head of state to Bosnia upon an invitation from Radovan Karadzic or a hypothetical visit by Azerbaijani head of state to Turkey upon an invitation from Abdullah Ocalan. In legal terms, there is no difference between the actions of Karadzic in Bosnia, Ocalan in Turkey, and those of Sarkissian in Azerbaijan.

    However, let’s put aside Azerbaijani position as one-sided, and look at this visit from a position of an independent observer.

    First of all, Turkey severed its relations with Armenia in 1993, as a result of Armenian occupation of Karabagh and 7 surrounding districts, all internationally recognized parts of Azerbaijan. I shall remind that Karabagh war resulted in 30,000 civilian deaths, out of which 25,000 were Azeri Turks, an ethnic cleansing and exodus of close to 1 million Azeris from their homes. The Turkish condition for the restoration of those relations was simple – Armenia must respect international law, withdraw forces, allow refugees to return to their homes and start negotiations about the future of Karabagh region.

    There is nothing ambiguous in this Turkish condition, in fact, there are 4 UN Security Council resolutions from 1993, calling upon Armenian forces to withdraw from Azerbaijan proper and allow for the return of civilians. Yet Armenia up to date has not fulfilled this international demand. In fact, over the last 15 years, Armenia has actively dragged the peace process, while reinforcing and resettling the occupied territories, destroying any Azeri trace on them. Furthermore, Armenia established an unrecognized separatist regime of “Nagorno-Karabagh Republic”, and two recent Armenian presidents, Robert Kocharyan and Serge Sarkissian, are products of this regime. Armenian side claims the right of “self-determination of people Karabagh”, with a little deviation: this right is only for Armenian population. As a reminder, prior to Karabagh war, third of Karabagh’s population were Azeri Turks.

    The second condition of Turkey was for Armenia to cease its support for the international legal recognition of interethnic strife that took place in Eastern Anatolia in the course of World War I as Armenian genocide. As we know this effort is led by Armenian diaspora, which plays an important role in politics of Armenia. Yet in past decade, it became obvious that Armenian government would not be able to stop diaspora even if it officially refrained from supporting its efforts.

    The third and most important condition was for Armenia to recognize and respect the borders of neighboring countries, of course, primarily Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia is the only country in the world, which does not recognize the borders of Azerbaijan and occupies part of its territory. Being a signatory of 1921 Kars Treaty, Armenia also does not respect the borders of Turkey, in fact, in Armenian legislature, media and press, Eastern Anatolia is referred to as Western Armenia. Moreover, there are now occasional voices in Armenia wishing to raise the issue Armenian-settled Javakheti region of Georgia, opening a way for disrespecting the integrity of yet another neighboring country.

    Do you think that the recently elected president of Armenia will make changes in their policies?

    With the bloody and undemocratic election of Serge Sarkissian in March 2008, Armenia did not seem to change its decade-old position on any of the fundamental issues of concern for Turkey. Despite the fact that its confrontational policy against neighbors resulted in locked borders, isolation from important regional projects and slow economic development, Armenia has not stepped back from its position for an inch. Sarkissian insists on reopening relations without preconditions, i.e. Armenia and diaspora will continue doing what they were doing but Turkey should eventually open the border.

    What is the benefit for Turkey?

    Perhaps, Mr. Gul and Turkish diplomats can answer this question better. But even without their opinion, this visit by Abdullah Gul can be viewed as a reward for Armenia’s aggressive policy and essential failure of Turkish principles. It’s psychological victory for Armenia and a boost to Serge Sarkissian, with little or no return for Turkey.

    Recent war between Russia and Georgia, further limited Armenia’s choices, and perhaps, after some time with now three borders closed, Armenian government would be forced to rethink its unconstructive policy in the region. President Gul’s visit, however, offers a needless incentive rather than helping Armenia to come to terms with reality and obey international law.

    What’s your view of Turkey’s position regarding recent events in Caucasus?

    As we know, in the wake of Russia’s recent aggression against Georgia, Prime Minister Erdogan came up with the initiative of a new regional security arrangement, involving Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey and Russia. I can’t comment on this proposal in detail, as not much is known about it. But the timing of this proposal and parties involved in it do not offer a very bright perspective for this idea. First of all, Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is violated by Armenia without any desire to revert its policy. Georgia’s integrity is violated even more boldly by Russia against all letters of international law. Turkey is perceived as an enemy by Armenia and Armenians for four generations now. So I am not sure what kind of cooperation Mr. Erdogan is envisioning.

    But I also would like to comment on Turkey’s stance vis-à-vis events in Georgia. Perhaps, due to similar conditions in Kosovo and Northern Cyprus, Turkey could not be more vocal on the issue of violation of Georgia’s integrity. However, in my view, Turkish government should have responded with humanitarian aid and support to Georgia. For many years now, Georgia has courageously stood against Russian provocations to provide a path for delivering Azerbaijani hydrocarbons to Turkey. In other words, Georgia took all risks in its Western orientation and to the benefit of Turkey and its position as a new energy hub. Turkey should not have left Georgia without support at such crucial moment.

    What about the position that was taken by Turkish government?

    The action of Turkish government in this regard may raise questions about the reliability of Turkey as a regional ally for both Azerbaijan and Georgia. In other words, Turkey has demonstrated that in matters pertaining to the region of Caucasus, it cannot be an independent player, but only act in tandem with Russia or the United States. Combined with Gul’s visit to Yerevan, in my mind, these indicate the weakening of Turkey’s position in the region.

    Of course, Turkey has to uphold its own interests above all, yet it’s not quite visible what benefits would Turkey gain from Armenia while losing Azerbaijan and Georgia. Aside from ethnic affinities between Azeri and Anatolian Turks, the Turkish energy interests shall be considered as well.

    Couldn’t we think Turkey is searching for new opportunities?

    What sort of opportunities? Armenia’s purpose is to open the border, reinforce its stance vis-à-vis Azerbaijan. Armenia does not plan to step back from any of its positions, and it’s naïve to imagine that Armenian troops will leave Karabagh region and allow refugees to return to their homes or will stop supporting the historical blackmail of Turkey after border is opened.

    The public in Turkey as well as Turkish diaspora is being constantly brainwashed via various media outlets that opening of borders will bring benefits to Turkey too. If so – what are they? Armenia is economically dependent on border opening, Turkey is not. But opening of borders without compromise is a meaningless retraction from Turkish position, which will only strengthen and embolden the non-constructive position of Sarkissian’s regime vis-à-vis both Azerbaijan and Turkey.

    Do you think this visit will affect the fraternal relations Azeri and Anatolian Turks in the U.S.?

    I want to reiterate that from the position of diaspora, a visit by President Gul won’t affect the fraternal relations of Azeri and Anatolian Turks in the U.S. Our brotherhood is shaped not by political establishment but by centuries of common Turkic ethnic roots, language, identity, and culture, and no one is in power to change these. 

    Javid Huseynov, PhD is the current president of Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) established in 2006, and currently operating in California and Texas. AAC is a community organization of Azeri-Americans, working also closely with ATA-SC and its local chapters, American Jewish Committee (AJC) and other community grassroots organizations in California and nation-wide. AAC website is available at .

    In professional career, Dr. Huseynov is a senior software engineer and scientist, working in Orange County. Since 1995, he actively participated in grassroots activities of Azerbaijani and Turkish diaspora in the United States.