Turkish Forum

Category: Regions

  • Ambassador ( R) Şükrü M. Elekdağ’ s letter to President Obama

    Ambassador ( R) Şükrü M. Elekdağ’ s letter to President Obama

    I am submitting herewith  Ambassador ( R) Şükrü M.  Elekdağ’ s letter to    President Obama for the information of Turkish Forum readers with my best regards.  Orhan Tan

    İstanbul, 9 April, 2015

    His Excellency

    Barack Obama

    President of the United States of America

    Washington D.C.

    USA

    Dear Mr. President,

    I would like first to applaud you for the exemplary leadership, seriousness of purpose and perseverance that you have displayed during the process of negotiations which led to the framework agreement with Iran. This is a diplomatic triumph of historic dimension. The final agreement, once achieved, promises to solidify the non-proliferation regime and significantly contribute to peace and stability in the Middle East and the world. The achievement of the framework agreement also gives hope that critical issues prevailing in the area may be solved with a constructive, unprejudiced and fair approach.

    Mr. President,

    May I suggest that you similarly approach your preparations for what seems to have become a traditional April 24th statement affecting Armenian-Turkish relations. This would almost assuredly be preferable to and have a far more constructive impact than your annual statements of the last seven years on this matter. These statements have in no way contributed to an authentic resolution of historical controversies, but have instead exacerbated Turkish-Armenian relations. Although your statements omitted the highly charged word “genocide”, you have employed the expression “metz yeghern” which is the exact translation of “genocide” in the Armenian language. As a matter of fact, your statement last year said “Today we commemorate Meds Yeghern and honor those who perished in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century” and thereby, in effect, reprised the expression “Armenian genocide” that you used frequently during your first election campaign.

    Mr. President,

    In addition to being a world statesman of the first rank, you are also justifiably regarded as a distinguished scholar of law, having graduated from the world renown Harvard Law School and having instructed law as a senior lecturer at a prominent university. In light of these qualifications, we are particularly perplexed by your characterizations of historically controversial events that took place a century ago in terms that are incompatible with the universal principles of law as well as provisions of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. national law.

    “Genocide” is an international crime codified in an international legal instrument, the “Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. This was adopted unanimity by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and subsequently became the supreme law of the U.S., as stipulated by Article VI of the Constitution pursuant to its ratification by the U.S. Senate. Article II of the Genocide Convention delineates the crime of “genocide” and prescribes the objective/material and subjective/mental elements which should be proven for the existence of the crime. To incriminate a person with the crime of “genocide” or for state responsibility to arise, together with the existence of these two elements of the crime, the fact that the crime has been committed with specific intent must be proven and a competent court must ascertain that the crime has been perpetrated. The Convention’s Article VI specifies that the competent judicial authority is the competent court of the state in the territory of which the alleged act was committed, or an international penal tribunal, the jurisdiction of which has been accepted by the parties. Article IX of the Convention provides that the states can take disputes on matters relating to “genocide” which arise between them to the International Court of Justice.

    Mr. President,

    Consequently, unless the existence of the material and mental elements of the crime as well as its execution with the specific intent have been proven, and unless the perpetration of the crime has been determined by a competent court, a charge of “genocide” leveled against a person or a state has no legal value and only constitutes a defamation.

    Until today no accused has ever been incriminated with the crime of “genocide” or with the “crime against humanity”, which is a crime as odious as “genocide”, without a decision of a competent international criminal court. Indeed, the Nuremberg International Penal Military Tribunal, after a long trial process, found guilty the leaders of the German Nazis accused of “crimes against humanity” and sentenced 22 of them to death. Furthermore, those incriminated of “genocide” for the events which occurred during the Rwanda and Yugoslavia conflicts have been tried and convicted by the Rwanda and Yugoslavia international penal tribunals. As is known, both tribunals are ad hoc courts which had been set up by decisions of the UN Security Council. Saddam Hussein, who was charged with crimes against humanity, was tried and convicted in an Iraqi Special Court which was established in line with the principle of due process of law.

    Mr. President,

    I am certain that you hold dear the concept of the presumption of innocence whose roots go back to Magna Carta. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly by unanimity, describes the principle of presumption of innocence as follows:

     “(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. 

    “(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.”

    This principle is set forth in the European Human Rights Convention, Article 6 paragraph

    “(3) “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.”

    The principle of presumption of innocence is also guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prescribes that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime” unless tried fairly and indicted by a court.

    Therefore, Mr. President, wouldn’t it be a gross injustice and a grave violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence to heap accusations on Turkey for disputed events of the past?

    Mr. President,

    As you would agree, the principle of legality, which is as old as the concept of law itself, is a basic concept in both international and national justice. According to this principle, an act is not recognized as a crime unless it is legally defined before the act was committed. “Genocide”, as a word, as a concept, and as a codified international crime, did not exist in 1915. After being defined for the first time by the U.N. General Assembly document 96 (I) on 11 December 1946, it was codified by the U.N. Genocide Convention on December 9, 1948.

    Consequently Mr. President, by leveling accusations of the crime of “genocide” (directly during your campaign speeches and indirectly in your 2014 remembrance day statement) haven’t you contravened the two dimensions of this principle expressed by the maxims: nullum crimen sine lege, and nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime without a law, and no punishment without a law?

    Mr. President,

    The judgments made in your statement appear to us to violate the spirit of the U.S. Constitution which espouses the principle of legality in its Article I, Section 9 by forbidding the passage of ex post facto criminal laws and bans retrospective criminal sanction. We also must note that President Thomas Jefferson, in his August 13, 1821, letter to Isaac McPherson, asserted that “ex post facto laws are against natural right”. This shows that an abhorrence of retroactive application of laws in criminal justice has a deep-rooted legal history in the U.S.

    Moreover, the principle of legality is equally prescribed by Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties under the heading, “Non Retroactivity of the Treaties”.

    Mr. President,

    In light of the foregoing irrefutable points, certain concerns and questions inescapably arise.

    What are we to infer from the statement you might make this year regarding the disputed events of 1915, if this statement includes the word “genocide” or, echoing your 2014 statement, employs the word’s exact Armenian translation “metz yeghern” and alleges the massacre of the 1.5 million Armenians?

    Wouldn’t such a statement flagrantly violate and flout universal principles of law, international law and the U.S. Constitution? And, to what possible worthy end?

    Wouldn’t it constitute for the Turkish people and their forebears a judgment without trial?

    Wouldn’t the Turkish people consider this gross injustice inflicted on them as the outcome of narrow domestic political calculus, heedless of basic fairness and shared U.S. – Turkish interests?

    Wouldn’t the imputation of historical guilt upon the people of Turkey and upon their forebears, who themselves suffered enormous losses and were exposed to unbearable pains during those tragic times, be at utter odds with your stated proposal before our Parliament to build a model partnership between the United States and Turkey?

    Mr. President,

    Historian Arthur Ponsonby penetratingly discusses the terrible and enduring effects of war propaganda that persist for generations in “Falsehood in Wartime”:

    “The injection of the poison of hatred into men’s minds by means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss of life. The defilement of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human body.”

    I think that Arthur Ponsonby’s cogent words are valid now and will remain valid in the future. What we need today, more than ever, is an international environment that we can hand over to our children and future generations – a world where peace, security, tolerance, friendship and good will reign, instead of prejudices, hatred and passions for revenge.

    For this reason, Mr. President, I must urge you to avoid being influenced by superficial stereotypes regarding the events of 1915 that are rooted in large part in the deliberate wartime propaganda efforts of the World War I Allies. I ask that you foster impartiality and avoid contributing to a deepening of the wounds suffered by the Turkish and Armenian nations in this enormous human tragedy.

    In this context, the best course for the U.S. should be, in line with an ethical and evenhanded approach, to encourage the parties to bring to light and to clarify the obscure and ambiguous aspects of the conflict between the Ottoman State and the Armenians.

    This, I respectfully submit, would best be accomplished by employing a common, scientifically disciplined research effort by Turks and Armenians regarding their mutual history and by completely opening their archives to examination by a Joint Historical Commission established for this purpose and composed of Turkish and Armenian scholars.

    In view of this, Mr. President, a truly constructive and historically valid commemoration of the events of 1915 would be for you to voice your support publicly for the formation of such a Joint Historical Commission and thus open the way of peace and reconciliation to the Turkish and Armenian peoples on the basis of goodwill and truth.

    I am submitting these views to your consideration trusting that you will examine them with objectivity and fairness.

    With my deepest respect,

    Dr. Şükrü M. Elekdağ

    Former Ambassador to the USA

    Former Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

    Former member of the Grand National Assembly of the Republic of Turkey

    Deputy from Istanbul

  • UN Cyprus envoy say sees no obstacle to new peace talks

    UN Cyprus envoy say sees no obstacle to new peace talks

    AA Photo

    A U.N. envoy for the divided island of Cyprus said April 7 he expected stalled peace talks to resume “within weeks,” following a six-month suspension in a row over offshore gas reserves.

    Norwegian diplomat Espen Barth Eide said he had met Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders earlier in the day and that they both agreed the “circumstances were now right” for the resumption of negotiations.

    “I see no obstacle to a very early resumption of talks once the election process in the north of Cyprus is done,” said Eide, who oversees the Cyprus peace process for the United Nations.

    Northern Cyprus will hold presidential elections on April 19.

    Girne (TRNC)
    Greek Cypriots suspended their participation in peace talks last October, furious at moves by Turkey to send research ships into areas Nicosia had unilaterally licensed for offshore oil and gas exploration.

    A maritime advisory for seismic research Turkey issued over the area expired on April 6, and companies licensed by Greek Cyprus have ceased drilling for gas after coming up empty.

    “The stated reason why talks could not happen are gone, at least for the foreseeable future,” said Eide, speaking to reporters at Nicosia airport, a protected compound in a “buffer zone” splitting the sides and headquarters to one of the world’s oldest U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide.

    Speaking on what was once an airport apron, with the bullet-riddled, padlocked airport terminal in the distance, Eide added: “This problem is perfectly solvable.”

    Turkey, and Turkish Cyprus, do not recognize Greek Cypriot sovereignty and say any natural resources should be equitably shared by both communities.

    The island was split in a Turkish military intervention in 1974 triggered by a Greek-inspired coup. The stated aim of the talks is to achieve the reunification of Cyprus.

    Eide is the latest in a small army of mediators who have attempted to make headway, but failed. Twenty-four have preceded him, and Eide said he hoped he would be the last.

    “I think I will be the last one, but for a good reason,” he said, referring to settlement prospects. “There is of course the alternative, that the international community gives up.”

    April/07/2015

     

  • CYPRUS: Anastasiades is looking for excuses to avoid talks

    CYPRUS: Anastasiades is looking for excuses to avoid talks

    UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide

    AS IT IS certain the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide will not be arriving in Cyprus tomorrow for the Holy Week church services, we can deduce that his visit might have something to do with fixing a date for the resumption of the talks. All the causes of the interruption – the Turkish NAVTEX, the incursions of the Barbaros in the Cypriot EEZ, the exploratory drilling by ENI-KOGAS – no longer exist and neither side can stay away from the negotiations.

    Turkish & Greek Cypriot Leaders Eroglu and Anastasiades

    Only President Anastasiades seemed to be unaware of the reason for the visit. Asked on Wednesday whether Eide would announce a resumption of the talks, he responded negatively and playfully claimed not to know the reason for the visit. He conceded that the envoy would have consultations to establish whether conditions for the resumption of the talks had been created, but expressed doubts about the existence of these conditions.

    As the Barbaros left Famagusta port on Monday and the NAVTEX expires tomorrow, both conditions set by Anastasiades for returning to the talks have been satisfied. Last Sunday, however, he appeared to have set a new condition, when he said: “Our participation in a procedure that would, in effect, accept the disputing of the national sovereignty of the Cyprus republic should be expected by nobody.”

    He repeated a milder variation of this condition on Wednesday saying the “sovereign rights of the Cyprus Republic should not be disregarded.”

    Was he being playful, setting new conditions in order to avoid going to the talks or was this just a rhetorical flourish? Then again, the president’s rhetorical flourishes have of late adopted the phraseology of those who are opposed to the talks and a settlement, although he has stopped short of endorsing their vacuous call for a new strategy. After attending the April 1 church service he again said he was waiting for the creation of the conditions for the resumption of negotiations and once these were created “there would certainly be the appropriate consultations with the political forces.”

    But what need is there for consultations with political forces that are openly opposed to the resumption of the talks and have been expressing fears that the president was being pressured into returning to the talks as if this were a bad thing? In the last few days all parties, except AKEL and DISY, have bluntly told Anastasiades not to return to the talks or at least to set such conditions that would be certain to prevent their resumption.

    On Friday, one newspaper, quoting unnamed government sources, said Anastasiades feared the possibility of Turkey sending the Barbaros into the Cypriot EEZ while talks were in progress, but neither the UN nor the US was prepared to give an assurance this would not happen.

    The truth is Anastasiades would welcome a return of the Barbaros to the EEZ once talks have resumed because this would give him a legitimate reason to walk out. What he really fears is that this time the talks would not be allowed to drag on indefinitely and that Eide, who has the full support of the international community, is determined to achieve a result within the next few months.

    This is why the idea of talks at a venue abroad, with the participation of Turkey and Greece, has been mentioned although there is no such plan at present.

    Despite his alleged commitment to settlement, Anastasiades is terrified of the prospect of being locked into a negotiation process which would have no escape route until a deal is reached. He is also aware this could be the last chance for a settlement – a point repeatedly made by the Norwegian envoy – and that delaying tactics, to which he had resorted so far, would not be an option.

    There might not be suffocating time-frames, but it is highly unlikely the process would be allowed to last much longer than a few months before an overall settlement is put on the table or, failing that, the UN winds up the whole process.

    In short, once the talks begin there will be no turning back and big decisions, one way or the other, will have to be taken. Anastasiades is fully aware of this which is why he has been setting new conditions and looking for excuses not to return to the talks. Like his predecessors he appears unwilling to sacrifice his presidency for a settlement, which is not a good sign, even if Eide secures the president’s grudging agreement to the resumption of the talks.

     

  • Turkish and Greek Cypriots mull mutual steps on drilling to restart talks

    Turkish and Greek Cypriots mull mutual steps on drilling to restart talks

    Hürriyet Daily News

    Barbaros

    Both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots are considering a halt to exploration activities for hydrocarbon reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean, in order to restart settlement talks for reunification of Cyprus.

    Turkey’s Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa seismic vessel has taken a break in its activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and anchored off the Gazimağusa harbor as a “good will sign,” Turkish Cypriot spokesperson Osman Ertuğ has said, describing it as a “good will gesture” ahead of a possible resumption of Cyprus peace talks.

    “Barbaros is waiting outside the Gazimağusa harbor as a good will gesture, despite a Turkish maritime Navigational Telex [Navtex] order that is valid until April 6,” Ertuğ told reporters on March 27.

    The move aims to support the efforts of U.N. Special Adviser on Cyprus Espen Barth Eide, Ertuğ said, adding that their hopes are fueled for the resumption of Cyprus talks.

    Espen Barth Eide
    In a recent visit to the island, Eide had signaled hope for restarting reunification talks between the two sides, telling the Turkish side that the Greek Cypriots “were obliged to give a break in drilling activities due to technical reasons, which would be an opportunity to get back to the table.”

    For his part, Ertuğ stated that if the Greek Cypriots are to demand that Turkey avoids collecting seismic data, then the Greek Cypriots should also end their unilateral drilling activities. “But if they show previously signed agreements as a reason to continue their collection, then we’ll continue our drilling too. Alternatively, let’s conduct those explorations together. At least, let’s not leave the reunification talks table,” he said.

     

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQw0vom2eYzkznUtcdusYtMxLxw2uix9V6kUXcj8HVBC e19KqON1gwHJE

    Osman Ertug

    Turkey’s reissuing of a new Navtex for seismic surveys of the Barbaros vessel is dependent on Greek Cyprus’s continuation of its unilateral drilling activities, Ertuğ added.

    He also claimed that the Greek Cypriots has abandoned negotiations not because of Turkey’s seismic surveys in the region, but because the talks were about to reach the “give and take” stage.

    “The Greek Cypriots are not ready for ‘give and take’ phase of the talks,” Ertuğ said.

    Greek Cypriot authorities said on Oct. 21 that the Barbaros had entered their exclusive economic zone and intended to stay in the area, according to a maritime advisory issued in early October.

    Nicosia is unhappy that Ankara is searching for oil and gas in the same area as the Cypriot government has already licensed exploratory drills, in an exclusive economic zone.

    In October 2014, Greek Cyprus suspended its participation in U.N.-led peace talks launched in February 2014, when the research vessel had entered the region that Greek Cyprus claims as its Exclusive Economic Zone.

    However, the Turkish side disputes Greek Cyprus’ rights to a swathe of sea to the island’s south and southeast that is rich in natural gas reserves, demanding an equal share of resources between the two governments of the divided island.

    March/28/2015

    Küfi Seydali

  • KIRLIKOVALI: 10 Reasons Why Obama Should NOT Travel to Armenia on April 24

    KIRLIKOVALI: 10 Reasons Why Obama Should NOT Travel to Armenia on April 24

     

    Sassounian: 10 Reasons Why Obama Should Travel to Armenia on April 24

    KIRLIKOVALI: 10 Reasons Why Obama Should NOT Travel to Armenia on April 24

     

    on March 24, 2015

     

     

    1. Obama would pay tribute to hundreds of thousands of compassionate American citizens for having raised over $117 million—today’s equivalent of over $2 billion—to aid destitute Armenians in the aftermath of the genocide.

    Please note that not a single cent of that enormous amount of aid went to destitute Muslims, mostly Turks, my family among them. This “American Aid” is a sad case of “selective morality” where help is given not to all those who needed it, but only to those who were co-religionists. This is how racists the outlook was in American those days.

     

    Initiated by Morgenthau and supported by President Woodrow Wilson, Near East Relief helped rescue and care for 132,000 Armenian orphans.

     

    Beware of numbers given by an Armenian propagandist. But even if we assume that the figure of 132,000 Armenian orphans is true, that does nothing for the more than a million Turkish orphans, my father among them, who were poor, destitute, sick, and without much hope. Morgenthau was too racist to ask for any part of that help to be given to those children who were of the “wrong ethnicity” and “wrong religion”. This massive aid is a shame in the history of racism in America.

     

    This massive charitable effort was the first international humanitarian outreach in U.S. history.

    First international humanitarian outreach in U.S. history? How about help given to the Philippines and  Cuba? These Armenian propagandists are too dependent on deception and misrepresentation. Even if it were  the first outreach, though, does it excuse the “selective morality” aspect of that help?

     

    1. By visiting Armenia on this occasion, Obama would be reaffirming the longstanding U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide

    But also destroying the US-Turkey relations just to honor a discredited political claim  and hurt US interests in order to uphold Armenia’s interests

     

    —a settled historical fact recognized as genocide by:

    Armenian diaspora, Armenia’s scholars, and their supporters

     

    – the U.S. government in a document submitted to the World Court in 1951;

     

     But other US records refute Armenian claims:

     

    1- George Montgomery, a member of the U.S. delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, had presented a detailed tabulation in 1919, showing a total of 1,104,000 Armenians alive, apart from those who had already immigrated to other countries.

     

    2- 29 March 1919 report of the Paris Conference subcommittee on atrocities, chaired by the U.S. secretary of State Lansing, lists Armenian losses as “…more than 200,000…” Even this number is exaggerated as they got their information from the Armenian church. The Turkish Historical Society documented the deaths of 53,000 Armenians using Ottoman police reports field on site, of which number only about 8,400 are reported as victims of massacres.

     

    3- Nielsen, Fred K., American-Turkish Claims Settlement Under the Agreement of December 24, 1923 and Supplemental Agreements between the United States and Turkey: On December 24, 1923 Opinion and report (1937).

     

     

     

    – the House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984;

     

    But other US Congress’ records refute Armenian claims :

     

    1- “American Military Mission to Armenia” (General Harbord) Report 1920 and the Annex Report Nat. Archives 184.021/175 which refers to “…refinements of cruelty by Armenians to Muslims…”.

     

    2- US Senate Resolution, Nov. 10, 1919 – Doc 151, p.8 : 1,293,000 Armenians alive and accounted for.

     

    3- Joint U.S. Congress Resolution No. 192, April 22, 1922 relative to the activities of Near East Relief ending 31 December 1921 which has unanimously resolved that a total of 1,414,000 Armenians were alive. This makes killing of 1.5 million Armenians an impossibility, since the total Armenian population was around 1.5 million at the time.

     

    – President Ronald Reagan in a Presidential Proclamation issued on April 22, 1981;

     

    Same president lashed out against Armenians terrorists because of JCAG killing a Turkish diplomat in Los Angels (Kemal Arikan in 1982) and distanced himself from Armenians

     

    – 43 out of 50 U.S. states;

     

    They were all one-time, resolutions with no legal impact that were passed with intense Armenian lobbying.  So, they can hardly be considered American support for Armenian case.

     

    – two dozen countries, including France, Italy, Russia, Canada, Holland, Vatican, Switzerland, Sweden, Argentina, Lebanon, Greece, Cyprus, Poland, and Venezuela;

     

    All non-binding resolutions passed because of intense Armenian nagging.  Please note that most relevant countries like the US, the UK, Sweden, Israel, Spain, and the UN did not agree with Armenian claims.  Armenian, after 100 years of lies, slanders, intimidation, and terrorism, could only manage have a handful of nations pass “one time, non-binding resolutions” .  Only 10% of the UN member nations have passed those meaningless, non-binding resolutions.  That is hardly a success or “sweeping support” for the baseless Armenian political claim of genocide. 

     

    – several international organizations, including the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities;

     

    Here is another Armenian deception.  UN- Sub-Commission only agreed to “receive” the Armenian claim; which in diplomatic parlance, means “I do not agree with you, but out of my kindness, I will have your claim in my files.”  It is a polite rejection of the Armenian claim.

     

    the European Parliament;

     

    Some in the political parties, as a gesture against Turkey, more than as support for the Armenian claim, did support the unfounded Armenian claim.  These political maneuvers mean nothing when it comes to judging history.  Politicians are not historians.

     

     

    and the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

     

    Genocide Scholars is an invention of the Armenian lobby, specifically the creation of  Zoprya Institute, notorious for its hate for all things Turkish.  Genocide Scholars are mostly not historians; they are mostly retired teachers, unemployed psychologists, sociologists who agree to promote “the official Armenian narrative” in exchange for favors (book deals, panesl, films, honorariums, etc.)  They deceive public with a perception created for them by the “Genocuide Industry” who employ them as key note speakers in staged events where Turkish views are censored.

     

    The Centennial could well be Obama’s last opportunity to regain the trust of the Armenian-American community by honoring his solemn pledge as Senator and presidential candidate to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

    1. Obama could lay the foundation for improved Armenian-Turkish relations based on truth and justice, in line with a pending resolution in the House of Representatives, and his previous April 24 statements, declaring that “a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all of our interests.” Obama’s visit would also encourage Turkish human rights activists to continue their arduous task of assisting the government of Turkey to reckon with the darkest pages of its past.
    2. The U.S. president could take advantage of this visit to urge Turkey to lift the blockade of Armenia, while taking a glimpse at the biblical Mount Ararat just across the closed border.
    3. In response to mounting attacks by Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh), Obama could stress Washington’s strong support for a peaceful settlement of this thorny conflict.
    4. Obama’s visit would help balance Armenia’s relations with the West, particularly after its membership in the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, and in view of Putin’s planned trip to Yerevan on April 24. Armenia has enjoyed close relations with Western Europe and the United States, and has participated in international peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and Lebanon. More recently, the appointment of former Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan as Armenia’s Ambassador to Washington underscores the importance Yerevan attaches to its relations with the United States.
    5. Since Obama, due to the Ukraine crisis, is not planning to travel to Moscow to take part in the World War II Victory Day celebrations on May 9, he would have the opportunity to meet with President Vladimir Putin in Yerevan, in a less conspicuous atmosphere.
    6. Obama’s visit to Armenia would be a significant gesture of goodwill toward the Armenian-American community. Last week, 16 major Armenian-American organizations sent a joint letter to the president urging him to participate in the Armenian Genocide Centennial events in Armenia.
    7. Obama would be making a historic first U.S. presidential trip to Armenia, preceded by several high-ranking American officials: Secretary of State James Baker III in 1992; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2001; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010 and 2012, when she laid a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, as all U.S. Ambassadors have done on every April 24, since the country’s independence in 1991.
     
  • CYPRUS MAIL: The spirit of Makarios in Anastasiades

    CYPRUS MAIL: The spirit of Makarios in Anastasiades

    Ioannis Kasoulides, a surprising emulation of Makarios

    By Loucas Charalambous

    I MUST admit I quite enjoy the foolish arguments used by our politicians and journalists when they attack the English, the Americans, the EU and officials of the UN. Given half an opportunity, they lash out against them, on the pretext that the above refuse to support our side, which is always in the right, and sit Turkey, which is always in the wrong, in the dock.

    They are accused of following a hypocritical policy of double standards. The nonsensical comments made by President Anastasiades on his Moscow trip combined with the US and British reaction gave this bunch the excuse to bombard us with their anti-American and anti-West sloganeering.

    This attitude explains how and why we are in the current mess. It is a sick mentality that is based on our political mythology of the last 50-plus years which maintains that for everything that has happened to this country the Turks and the West are to blame. We are completely blameless, the only ones without sin, but we are the envy of the whole world which has been constantly conspiring to destroy us.

    While we are listening to all this rubbish from the AKEL, DIKO and EDEK leaderships as well as from the rest of our political scoundrels who remain stuck in the Makarios political culture, we accept it. But when we hear this coming from the mouths of Anastasiades and Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides, two men from DISY, the party set up some 40 years ago with the aim of fighting this sick political culture, destroying the myths, speaking honestly to people, modernising our primitive political attitudes, we can only despair.

    Both told us that the behaviour of the Western countries was hypocritical and Pharisaic because they did not condemn Turkey for its ‘invasion’ of the Cypriot EEZ whereas they wanted to crush President Putin over the Ukraine. Both are outraged when they are told that the two cases are very different. But they are.

    Our politicians, including Anastasiades and Kasoulides, pretend they do not know the Cyprus problem. Turkey does not recognise the Republic and that is the problem. Turkey’s position – much as we do not like it – is generally accepted by foreign countries and is along the following lines: The Greek Cypriots destroyed the partnership state of 1960, Turkish Cypriots have not been participating in it since 1964, they have set up on their own and therefore the Greek Cypriots represent only half of Cyprus; Greek Cypriots were not committed to a settlement that would lead to the establishment of a new partnership state, in contrast to the Turkish Cypriot who proved they were. For as long as this situation continues we will look after the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and will not allow the Greek Cypriots to usurp them.

    This is the argument Turkey uses to justify its incursions into the Cypriot EEZ from which we want the Americans and the British to kick her out. It is also the reason we are told that the two cases are not the same. It is understandable that Turkey’s actions infuriate the Greek Cypriots who have been inculcated with the mythology about the “Turkish Cypriot rebellion”, the evil US, back-stabbing Britain, nasty NATO, the hypocritical EU and virtuous, principled Russia by our political demagogues.

    Anastasiades and Kasoulides, after all these years, are emulating Makarios who thought he could play games in the ring in which the two world superpowers were sparring, with result that they crushed us. After all these years and with the benefit of hindsight, we have learnt nothing from these criminal mistakes.

    Neither Anastasiades nor Kasoulides – not to mention the other political dwarfs – have understood what our problem is. They continue the demagoguery and the frivolous political games instead of concentrating on finding a solution to the problem and explaining to people why it is necessary and the risks of leaving it unsolved.

    Küfi Seydali

    Comment by John Mavro:

    ‘Neither Anastasiades nor Kasoulides – not to mention the other political dwarfs – have understood what our problem is.”

    We cannot agree with the above conclusion of another otherwise very good and accurate commentary by Loucas Charalambous.

    The fact is that the entire ”system” of these, as Loucas accurately describes them, ”political dwarfs” ALWAYS have understood what our problem is. And what the (lucrative for them) consequences of such ”problem” for these thieves and embezzlers are.

    The truth of the matter is that ever since that fateful time that the foolish Makarios and his peasant thugs that made up ”government” of the day decided that the carefully designed 1960 constitution of this forsaken ”country” was ”unworkable” and required ”improvisation” by putting forward the infamous, catastrophic ”13 points” to change it, the writing was on the wall. For the eventual partition of the island.

    Which totally suited these thieves.

    By removing the TCs from the equation and effectively tearing up the ”constitution”, all the carefully thought out checks, balances and controls, not just between the two communities, but the effective functioning of the state, were eliminated.

    Clearing the way for these mafiosos to do as they please. To steal, plunder, accommodate their friends and family, protect their fellow embezzlers and ensure they did so without the prospect of being caught, never mind brought to court and punished.

    Thus the ”president”, ”ministers”, CBC governor, Attorney General, Auditor General etc could do as they pleased. Since their TC deputies had been forced out and simply were not in position to exercise checks and controls, as the constitution provided, over these criminals.

    Whose DNA and ”values” were always aligned to their self enrichment by whatever means available. And nothing was easier than the plundering of state resources with impunity. Since the way for such unhindered criminal activity had been opened up the elimination of the TCs from ”government”.

    Given this lucrative state of affairs, as well as the fact that most of these imbeciles have built up their ”political careers” on the perpetuation of the never ending Cyprus ”problem”, to expect them to want a settlement is the same as turkeys voting for Christmas. It would be fatal for them.

    It is clearly obvious all these backward looking, unintelligent, self serving peasant thugs know EXACTLY what the problem is. Including our alleged ”president” and his disappointing foreign minister.

    Unfortunately for the rest of the thinking sensible individuals, the obvious way forward of a win-win solution is in direct conflict of the ”interests” of these mafiosos. Who do not want a solution – under any circumstances.

    So expect more of the same: no ”asphyxiating” time deadlines, no arbitration, ”Cypriot led” ”talks” and process, no international conference by the guarantor powers, unanimity of the ”national (circus) council”, new strategy, removal of Mr Eide as he is, as the other 30 or so UN Secretary General special representatives before him were (which must be the most amazing convergence of probability theory of all time) pro Turkey and Turkish interests, no to a new Ban plan and just about every other mindless and mind numbing thing their (very small) minds can think of.

    Just like realistically we cannot expect the Sicilian mafia to make a conscious decision to self destruct by changing its ways, we can be as certain that Anastasiades will see out his five years with the Cyprus ”problem” very much alive and intact.

    Though he will be the last ”president” of the banana republic to achieve this.

    Because by the time little Nicholas, with the support of the AKEL Marxists is voted in as ”president”, the de jure partition of the island will have become a certain reality.

    And all’s well that ends well.

    For the well known ”ruling elite” scum whose criminal priorities, self enrichment and thieving, love of money, limitless greed, lack of vision and xenophobia always took precedence over the interests of their own motherland.

    In a civilized country these thugs would have been convicted of treason and just about every crime imaginable, branded traitors and shot.

    In this dysfunctional mafia state they will continue to be elected into ”government” so that they may continue with this destruction.

    We are our own worst enemies, who never learn from our mistakes.

    And have the ”leaders” we deserve to prove this