Category: Regions

  • Turkish Migration to the United States: From Ottoman Times to the Present

    Turkish Migration to the United States: From Ottoman Times to the Present

    From: A DENIZ BALGAMIS <balgamis@facstaff.wisc.edu>
    List Editor: Mark Stein <stein@MUHLENBERG.EDU>
    Editor’s Subject: H-TURK: New book [D Balgamis]
    Author’s Subject: H-TURK: New book [D Balgamis]
    Date Written: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:21:01 -0400
    Date Posted: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:21:01 -0400

     
    Dear Colleagues,

    The Center for Turkish Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
    announces the publication of a new book titled “Turkish Migration to the
    United States: From Ottoman Times to the Present” edited by A. Deniz
    Balgamis and Kemal H. Karpat.

    You may order the book from the University of Wisconsin Press website
    at

    CONTENTS

    Introduction
    Kemal H. Karpat

    PART I SOURCES AND APPROACHES TO OTTOMAN/
    TURKISH MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

    The History of Turkish Migrations: A Research Agenda
    Rudolph J. Vecoli

    Forging New Links in the Early Turkish Migration Chain: The U.S.
    Census and early Twentieth Century Ships’ Manifests
    John J. Grabowski

    PART II HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND CASE STUDIES

    The Emigration from the Ottoman Empire to America
    Nedim İpek and K. Tuncer Çağlayan

    Reflections of the First Muslim Immigration to America in Ottoman
    Documents
    Mehmet Uğur Ekinci

    From Anatolia to the New World: The First Anatolian Immigrants to
    America
    Rıfat N. Bali

    Conflict and Cooperation: Diverse Ottoman Ethnic Groups in Peabody,
    Massachusetts
    Işıl Acehan

    “Home Away from Home: Early Turkish Migration to the United States
    Reflected in the Lives and Times of Bayram Mehmet and Hazım Vasfi”
    Emrah Şahin

    PART III RECENT IMMIGRATION

    New Migration, Old Trends: Turkish Immigrants and Segmented
    Assimilation in the United States
    Mustafa Saatçi

    A Profile of Immigrant Women from Turkey in the United States,
    1900-2000
    Ayşem R. Şenyürekli

    Migration from Giresun to the United States: The Role of Regional
    Identity
    Lisa DiCarlo

    Turkish Immigrants in the United States: Men, Women and Children
    Müzeyyen Güler

    The Turks Finally Establish a Community in the United States
    Kemal H. Karpat

    Turkish Islam (with Introduction by Kemal H. Karpat)
    Lloyd A. Fallers

    Contributors

    Bibliography

    Index

    ————-
    Deniz Balgamis, Ph.D.
    University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Turkey seeks fence-mending meeting with Armenia, Azerbaijan

    Turkey seeks fence-mending meeting with Armenia, Azerbaijan

     

     

     

     

     

    ANKARA, (AFP) – Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan Wednesday said he was trying to organize a meeting with counterparts from Armenia and Azerbaijan to discuss decades-old disputes plaguing ties between them.

    The idea, Babacan said, emerged during a historic visit to Yereven by President Abdullah Gul on Saturday, which raised hopes that Turkey and Armenia could overcome traditional enmity and establish diplomatic relations.

    “We have many reasons to be hopeful, the most important of which is the presence of a strong political will to improve ties,” the minister said in an interview with NTV television.

    Babacan and Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian are already scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York later this month.

    Babacan said he suggested that their Azeri counterpart also join the meeting and Nalbandian agreed.

    “We will now seek Azerbaijan’s consent… The problems between Turkey and Armenia and not independent from the problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia,” he said.

    The issue would be discussed when Gul visits Baku later Wednesday, he said.

    Turkey has refused to establish diplomatic ties with eastern neighbor Armenia because of Yerevan’s campaign for the recognition of the mass killings of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World War I as genocide.

    In 1993, Turkey dealt a heavy economic blow to its impoverished neighbor by shutting the border in a show of solidarity with its close ally Azerbaijan, then at war with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh — an Armenian-majority region in Azerbaijan which declared independence.

    Babacan said Gul’s visit to Armenia, the first by a Turkish head of state, had raised hopes that the two sides could mend fences.

    “In our talks in Yereven we decided to speed up the process (of reconciliation)… We are entering a period in which we will have frequent contacts,” he told NTV.

    Gul traveled to Yereven for several hours to watch a World Cup qualifying football match between Turkey and Armenia following an invitation by his counterpart Serzh Sarkisian.

  • NAVAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH OSSETIAN CRISIS

    NAVAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH OSSETIAN CRISIS

    By John C. K. Daly

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008

     

    Last month’s confrontation between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia had a maritime dimension that continues to expand. Russia deployed elements of its Black Sea fleet to Georgia’s coast during its military operations and subsequently sank several Georgian naval vessels in Poti. During the clash Russia dispatched 10 vessels from Sevastopol to the Georgian coast.

    Following the conflict, the United States determined to send humanitarian relief to Georgia but found its efforts constrained by the 1936 Montreux Convention. Now Moscow, clearly irritated by Washington’s intrusion into what it regards as its southern maritime frontier, has announced that it is deploying significant naval forces next month to the Caribbean for joint naval exercises with Venezuela. Kremlin spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told reporters, “Before the end of the year, as part of a long-distance expedition, we plan a visit to Venezuela by a Russian navy flotilla” (Izvestia, September 8).

    The Caribbean deployment is not insignificant, as it includes the guided missile cruiser Peter Velikii, the largest surface vessel constructed by the Russian Federation since the collapse of the USSR, along with the anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko (El Universal, September 8). Venezuelan Rear Admiral Salbatore Cammarata Bastidas said, “This is of great importance because it is the first time it is being done [in the Americas].” For Caracas, next month’s deployment is a timely riposte to the American administration’s announcement earlier this year that it was reactivating its Fourth Fleet, last deployed in southern hemisphere waters during World War Two.

    In the aftermath of the South Ossetian confrontation, when the U.S. decided to dispatch humanitarian aid by sea to Georgia, it found its initial efforts constrained by the 1936 Montreux Convention, whose 29 articles limit the number of foreign warships that non-Black Sea powers can send through the Turkish Straits to no more than nine vessels with a total of 45,000 aggregate tons. Moreover, they could remain there for no longer than three weeks. The United States had initially considered dispatching the hospital ships USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, both converted oil tankers, but as each displaced 69,360 tons, they fell outside the Montreux convention limits. While Washington chafed under the restrictions, there was little it could do.

    Last month NATO dispatched four ships from its Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 to the Black Sea for an exercise scheduled last October. The flotilla included Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski, and the USS Taylor. On August 22 the USS McFaul guided-missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian aid passed the Bosporus headed for Georgia with supplies such as blankets, hygiene kits and baby food, to be followed two days later by the USCGC Dallas cutter passing the Dardanelles. The USS Mount Whitney was also dispatched into the Black Sea with humanitarian aid, which it offloaded in Poti (Stars and Stripes, September 2).

    Before the Montreux Convention was negotiated, both Turkey and Russia had suffered from foreign naval intervention through the Turkish Straits during and after World War One. The Gallipoli campaign was preceded by a joint Anglo-French maritime effort in March 1915 to force the Dardanelles, and the Royal Navy subsequently occupied Constantinople after the war and dispatched vessels into the Black Sea to assist anti-Bolshevik forces.

    The Montreux Convention was intended to replace the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which had demilitarized the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Given their recent experience, both the Soviet Union and the Turkish Republic were interested in limiting foreign warships in the Black Sea; and for Ankara, the Montreux Convention was the first international agreement that fully acknowledged its sovereignty and position as successor to the “sick man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire. Britain, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Japan, Turkey, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia ratified the Montreux Convention, which formally recognized Turkish sovereignty over the Turkish Straits. Given that Britain at the time was the predominant naval power in the Mediterranean, the United States was so uninterested in the diplomatic conference that produced the convention that it did not even send an observer to the negotiations.

    The Russian media is now reporting that Washington is negotiating with Georgia and Turkey to establish a naval base at one of Georgia’s Black sea ports in Batumi or Poti, but Ankara is reportedly carefully assessing its position in order to avoid further political tension with Moscow (Gruziya Online, September 7). In a replay of a dispute earlier this year, Russia has temporarily blocked the shipment of Turkish produce into Russia, citing sanitary concerns; and the dispute, which has cost Turkey an estimated $500 million in lost trade, has triggered speculation in the Turkish media that Russia is trying to punish Turkey for allowing U.S. warships to transit the Bosporus (Hurriyet, September 8).

    For those with a sense of history, a factor behind the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was Washington’s deployment of Atlas IRBMs in Italy and Turkey, which, in the wake of the confrontation, Washington quietly agreed to remove, as the development of ballistic missile submarines, the final component of Washington’s nuclear triad, obviated the need for forward basing of nuclear missiles off Russia’s southern shore. Forty years later, Turkey, sea power, and the Caribbean as subplots in rising U.S.-Russian tensions seem as interconnected as ever.

  • Turkish Cypriot leader optimistic about reunification

    Turkish Cypriot leader optimistic about reunification

    ELITSA VUCHEVA

    Today @ 17:27 CET

    EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat on Wednesday (10 September) expressed optimism about the in-depth talks on the reunification of Cyprus formally due to start tomorrow, saying he hoped that a solution for the divided island can be found at the latest by June next year.

    “All the elements of the Cyprus problem are known, so it is possible to solve [it] by the end of this year,” says Mr Talat (Photo: European Commission)

     

    “My vision was to finish the negotiations by the end of this year and I believe it is possible,” Mr Talat said at a conference organised by the Brussels-based European Policy Centre think-tank.

    “All the elements of the Cyprus problem are known, so it is possible to solve [it]” by the end of 2008, or at the latest, “before the election of the European Parliament, meaning June 2009.”

    “Hopefully, we will do it,” he added.

    Cyprus – an EU member since 2004 – has been independent since 1960 and divided since a Turkish invasion of the island’s northern part in 1974, triggered by a Greek-inspired coup.

    Currently Northern Cyprus – or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – is only recognised internationally by Turkey.

    The Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders last week launched formal talks on reunifying their island, and good personal relations between them have prompted high expectations regarding the outcome.

    In-depth UN-mediated negotiations on power-sharing are to start tomorrow, but although Mr Talat has on several occasions expressed hopes that a deal could be reached by the end of the year, his Greek Cypriot counterpart has refused to commit to a timeframe.

    The EU’s role

    Mr Talat said the EU could also contribute to these talks and play a role for their positive outcome, as “ending this problem would contribute to the very meaning of the EU and European integration.”

    “We need technical assistance from the EU … to prepare a durable settlement within the European system,” he underlined.

    “Of course we cannot ask for political assistance, since the EU does not have – as the United Nations – a huge accumulated knowledge regarding the Cyprus problem.”

    “[Additionally], Greek Cypriots are members of the EU and Turkish Cypriots are out, so the EU cannot be impartial. This is a matter of fact. [But] we need technical assistance from the EU,” Mr Talat said.

    Turkish Cypriots are also hoping the EU can “encourage Greek Cypriots towards a solution, because there are actually very few incentives for [them] to solve the problem.”

    After they joined the EU, “they lost their incentives,” unlike Turkish Cypriots, who need the solution “deadlily,” the Turkish Cypriot leader pointed out.

    Negotiations on the table need to be ‘off the air’

    From the Turkish Cypriot point of view, any kind of agreement – possibly setting out a substantially decentralised state – should reflect the fact that “Cyprus is the home of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots” and highlight the “political equality” between them as a “crucial” point.

    It should also include safeguards that “neither side can claim jurisdiction over the other” and be put to separate but simultaneous referendums in the two parts of the island.

    For his part, Demetris Christofias, the Greek Cypriot leader, would prefer to have a more centralised federation, worried that substantial autonomy for the north could leave the door open to partition.

    But Mr Talat expressed confidence that through negotiations, they “will be able to succeed in really bridging the different views and solving the problems.”

    He also appealed to his Greek Cypriot counterpart to be more moderate in his comments to the media, insisting that what is still a matter of negotiations should be discussed privately.

    “Exchange of views or negotiations through media is an impossible task … I know that leftists speak too much, so they may not be able to stop talking,” he said jokingly referring to Mr Christofias – currently the only communist president of an EU member state.

    “But please, try. Don’t put your views through the media,” he added.

  • TURKEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ARMENIANS – BIR BUYUKELCIDEN ORHAN PAMUK MISALI BIR DIPLOMASI

    TURKEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ARMENIANS – BIR BUYUKELCIDEN ORHAN PAMUK MISALI BIR DIPLOMASI

    TURKEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ARMENIANS
    Volkan Vural, who was the Turkish Ambassador to the USSR during the years of collapse of the latter announced during an interview by Turkish “Taraf” newspaper’s correspondent that Turkey should apologize to Armenians for the incidents of the past.

    He mentioned that Turkish President’s visit to Yerevan at the invitation of the Armenian President contains big political risk to both the leaders of the two countries.

    Vural said that ex-President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian fell a victim to the initiatives in improving relations with Turkey.

    According to Volkan Vural, none of the historical commissions can solve the Armenian Question. It can only throw light on some incidents facilitating the process.

    “Though Turkey is hardly to recognize the Armenian Genocide, anyway, it should apologize to Armenians and other ethnic minorities – Greeks, Assyrians and Kurds for eviction and massacres. It should let their descendants return to the residences of their ancestors and grant them citizenship of Turkey”, he said.

    To the question about the issue of return of the Armenian properties and riches, the Turkish diplomat answered, “Those are questions under discussion. Return of properties and material compensation is a difficult task. Anyway, there may be a symbolic compensation. At the same time, Turkey should apologize to Armenians and other ethnic minorities for causing them pain. It is a necessity for a country like Turkey”.

  • ERMENI GOZU ILE : Georgia’s Adventurous President Saakashvili

    ERMENI GOZU ILE : Georgia’s Adventurous President Saakashvili

     

    By Appo Jabarian
    Executive Publisher/Managing Editor
    USA ARMENIAN LIFE Magazine
     
    appojabarian@gmail.com

     

    Much controversy was created with former Soviet Republic of Georgia’s surprise military attacks on Russian peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

     

    The ill-devised attack, authorized by Georgia‘s adventurous President Saakashvili, has effectively triggered an irreversible process that may cost him his career and Georgia‘s territorial integrity.

     

    The 8.8.08 attack broke centuries-old tradition of friendship and alliance with the Russian Uncle to the north, instigating a strong popular backlash in Russian public and governmental circles. Except for Pres. Saakashvili, no Georgian official has ever actively worked to weaken his country’s ties with Russia and actively sought to “integrate” it with the oil interests of the West.

     

    In turn, he earned the status of being a strong U.S. ally in the Caucasus. But the inexperienced Georgian grossly miscalculated the extent of the Russian response, on the one hand, and the lame-duck posture adopted by his neo-con masters in the West, on the other.

     

    On Aug 29, F. William Engdahl, the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press), and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca), and a contributing writer of Online Journal wrote: “An examination shows 41-year-old Mikheil Saakashvili to be a ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied to not only the US NATO establishment, but also to the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The famous ‘Rose Revolution of November 2003 that forced the aging Edouard Shevardnadze from power and swept the then 36-year-old US university graduate into power was run and financed by the US State Department, the Soros Foundations, and agencies tied to the Pentagon and US intelligence community.”

     

    On September 1, in an article titled “The ‘Stupidest Guy on the Planet’ Has Lots of Company,” John Taylor of www.antiwar.com, wrote: “Saakashvili acted with such remarkable stupidity and miscalculation that a 38-inch yardstick is needed to measure his foolishness against other famously bad decisions … Did Saakashvili really think the Russians would stand idly by and let him pound their forces in South Ossetia? That the U.S., Israel, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would come to his aid? Or that Georgia‘s army could hold off the Russians?”

     

    Unmasking the real face of certain NGO’s, Engdahl added: “But there is more. The NGOs were coordinated by the US Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, who had just arrived in Tbilisi fresh from success in orchestrating the CIA-backed toppling of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, using the same NGOs. Miles, who is believed to be an undercover intelligence specialist, supervised the Saakashvili coup. It involved US billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Washington-based Freedom House whose chairman was former CIA chief James Woolsey, and generous financing from the US Congress-financed National Endowment for Democracy, an agency created by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to °do privately what the CIA used to do,° namely coups against regimes the US government finds unfriendly.”

     

    Further bringing Saakashvili’s real persona to light, Engdahl reported: “Since coming to power in 2004 with US aid, Saakashvili has led a policy of large-scale arrests, imprisonment, torture and deepened corruption. Saakashvili has presided over the creation of a de facto one-party state, with a dummy opposition occupying a tiny portion of seats in the parliament, and this public servant is building a Ceaucescu-style palace for himself on the outskirts of Tbilisi. According to the magazine, Civil Georgia (Mar. 22, 2004), until 2005, the salaries of Saakashvili and many of his ministers were reportedly paid by the NGO network of New York-based currency speculator Soros — along with the United Nations Development Program.”

     

    Taylor added: “On an official visit to Israel, Saakashvili proclaimed that the Georgians were ‘the Jews of our time’ and compared Russian President Putin’s anti-Georgian policies to the anti-Semitic decrees of the 18th-century Russian Empress Catherine the Great. He also asserted that his model when refounding the Georgian state was Israel‘s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. And Saakashvili did not hesitate to take his case directly to Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in New York: ‘We need to establish relations with the U.S. Jewish community because you understand better than many in this country the international repercussions with the rest of the world.… I want your help in having better relations with the United States….’”

     

    One wonders if the world Jewry can fathom Saakashvili’s adventurous politics as a “Jew of our time.” By masquerading as a “Jew” of the Caucasus, Saakashvili has certainly brought liabilities to the Jewish quest for healthy relations with Russia and other countries. That’s why the Israeli military specialists and advisers in Georgia “were reluctant to upset the Russians. They need President Putin’s support at the UN to get stronger anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.”

     

    Engdahl ominously noted that “With Russia openly backing and training the indigenous military in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to maintain Russian presence in the region, especially since the US-backed pro-NATO Saakashvili regime took power in 2004, the Caucasus is rapidly coming to resemble Spain in the Civil War from 1936-1939, where the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and others poured money and weapons and volunteers into Spain in a devastating war that was a precursor to the Second World War.”

     

    By his misguided military move against Russia, Saakashvili has de facto triggered a counter-“Rose Revolution” process. The process which already yielded Russia‘s trashing of Georgia‘s army may soon bring reversal of fortunes both for him and his masters in Washington and elsewhere.

     

    As for Saakashvili’s Azeri counter-part Pres. Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan, it is yet to be seen if the junior Aliev has learned from his colleague’s experience to tone down his belligerent rhetoric against Armenia.

     

    One hopes that Aliev’s advisors in Baku are hard at work to convince their boss not to join the club of the “Stupidest Guys” of the Caucasus. After all, like Georgia, Azerbaijan has much to worry about its shaky and unstable ethnic makeup. Nearly 60% of its inhabitants come from restive non-Azeri ethnic groups such Daghestanis, Alans, Lezgis and many others.