Tag: Ataturk

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic and itsfirst President, stands as a towering figure of the 20th Century. Among the great leadersof history, few have achieved so much in so short period, transformed the life of a nationas decisively, and given such profound inspiration to the world at large. The Greatest Leader of ALL Time: ATATURK Soldier, Diplomat, Statesman, Orator, Teacher, Scholar, Genius Proactive Ataturk Community

  • “ARMENIA GETS PREPARED TO USE 1909 ADANA INCIDENTS AGAINST TURKEY”

    “ARMENIA GETS PREPARED TO USE 1909 ADANA INCIDENTS AGAINST TURKEY”

    26 November 2009

    Historian Cezmi Yurtsever claimed that Turkish government’s ’Armenia opening’ initiative will be undermined by ’Adana incidents’ file.

    Historian Cezmi Yurtsever claimed that Armenians are getting prepared to use ’Adana incidents’ as a political card against Turkish government as a reply to Turkish governments calls for Armenia to return to occupied lands to Azerbaijan.

    Yurtsever said, “Armenians initiated preparations in 2009. They held panels and conferences titled „What happened in Adana in 1909“ about the civil war in Adana in 1909. This issue was brought to the agenda in Yerevan, Beirut Cilicia Church and Istanbul Sabanci University by the support of Armenian diaspora. In case Turkey brings the demand of withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan on the agenda of the negotiations towards normalization of relations, Armenia and Armenian diaspora will bring the issue of Adana incidents on the agenda and they will demand for compensation for the real estates of Armenian people that changed hand during the civil war in Adana in 1909.”

    Reminding that Armenian archpriest of Cilicia Church in Beirut, Aram Sarksyan brought this issue on the agenda, Yurtsever said, “Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan, U. S. Ambassador to Beirut, and leading Christian religious leaders voiced these claims of compensation. But Aram Sarksyan claimed that Turkey should pay compensations for the real estates of 30 thousand Armenians that perished during Adana incidents. On the other hand, Ottoman archives show that the Armenian population in the province was about 18 thousand. This proves that statementsof Armenian religious leader were nothing other than speculation.”

    TURKISH HISTORIAN EXHIBITS DOCUMENTS ON ADANA INCIDENTS

    Historian Cezmi Yurtsever exhibits historical document that he collected from Ottoman archives and from the archives of other countries about 1909 Adana incidents. Yurtsever said, “I am aiming to bring the attention of Turkish officials to theintention of Armenian officials to demand for compensation on Adana incidents. Exhibitation will be open between November 24 to 28 in front of Adana Metropolitan Municipality Abidin Dino Park.”

  • Slipping in Turkey

    Slipping in Turkey


    An Islamist government’s commitment to democratic principles is looking shaky.

    Monday, November 23, 2009
    WallStreet Journal

    RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN has been the protagonist of an epic liberalization of politics in Turkey. The victory of his mildly Islamist AK Party in a 2002 general election was itself a breakthrough; even more so was his government’s defeat of repeated attempts by the military and courts to remove it from power. Mr. Erdogan is pushing through historic reforms of Turkey’s treatment of its Kurdish minority and recently took a major step toward opening the country’s border with Armenia.
    Yet, as his tenure lengthens, it is becoming evident that Mr. Erdogan’s commitment to democratic principles and Western values is far from complete. As Turkey’s prospects of joining the European Union have dimmed, the government’s foreign policy has taken a nasty turn: Shrill denunciations of Israel have been accompanied by increasing coziness with the criminal rulers of Iran, Syria and Sudan. Mr. Erdogan recently declared that Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted for war crimes in Darfur, was welcome in Turkey because “a Muslim can never commit genocide.”

    Even more concerning is Mr. Erdogan’s treatment of the Turkish media. Frustrated by hostility toward his government by media conglomerates that formed part of Turkey’s traditional secular establishment, the prime minister and his allies have resorted to increasingly heavy-handed measures. Two years ago a forced sale of the country’s second-biggest newspaper placed it in the hands of a company headed by Mr. Erdogan’s son-in-law. Once critical, it is now predictably pro-government.

    Now the government is threatening to destroy Turkey’s largest media company, Dogan Yayin. The conglomerate, which controls seven newspapers, 28 magazines and three television channels — including Turkey’s version of CNN — has been hit with an escalating series of tax bills based on questionable audits of past filings. The latest one, delivered in September, now stands at some $3.3 billion — a sum greater than the value of Dogan Yayin and its parent company.

    Faced with sharp criticism by the European Union, Mr. Erdogan and his foreign minister have insisted that the tax bills are a “technical matter”; in one interview the prime minister compared them to the tax case brought against gangster Al Capone. The parallel was unintentionally revealing. Mr. Erdogan’s real problem is not with the company’s supposed tax evasion but with its tough reporting on his government — beginning with reports about an Islamic charity that may have illegally funneled money to his party.
    Turkish journalists say that a pall of fear has fallen across their business. Editors practice self-censorship. Many journalists are believed to be among the more than 100,000 people whose phones have been tapped by the government in recent years. Some, including the chief executive of Dogan Yayin, have been swept up in a murky investigation of alleged coup plotting.
    Mr. Erdogan and his party were once seen by many in Washington as a model for how pious Muslims could practice democratic politics. That image is rapidly darkening. If it is not to be extinguished, Mr. Erdogan must stop coddling Muslim dictators — and stop following their practice of silencing domestic opposition.

  • Fireworks for Turkish Republic Day

    Fireworks for Turkish Republic Day

    Istanbul has hosted a massive fireworks display to mark the 86th anniversary of the Turkish Republic.

     

    Click on the link to watch:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8333035.stm

  • INVITATION: Filmlerde Ataturk’u Yasamak.

    INVITATION: Filmlerde Ataturk’u Yasamak.

    ataturk-havalarHaving trouble seeing this email? Visit the Event Web Page
    You have been invited by MATA to Filmlerde Ataturk’u Yasamak.
    Will you be attending?    Yes No Maybe
    Filmlerde Ataturk’u YasamakFilm saati :12:00pm.
    Yemek Servisi: 1:00pm.
    Menu: Kofte, Patlican guvec, bulgur pilavi
    salata.
    Kadayif ve kabak tatlisi.
    Ucret: $10- kisi basi.
    Date:
    November 8th, 2009, 12pm
    Location:
    Severna Park
    Address:
    50 Arundel Beach Road, Severna Park
    MD 21146
    (map)
    Visit the Event Web Page
  • Armenia: the end of the debate?

    Armenia: the end of the debate?

    Gwynne Dyer

    By Gwynne Dyer

    Published October 21, 2009

    THE FIRST great massacre of the 20th century happened in eastern Anatolia 94 years ago. Armenians all over the world insist that their ancestors who died in those events were the victims of a deliberate genocide, and that there can be no reconciliation with the Turks until they admit their guilt. But now the Armenians back home have made a deal.

    On October 10, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed a accord in Zurich that reopens the border between the two countries, closed since 1993, and creates a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915. It is a triumph for reason and moderation, so the nationalists in both countries attacked it at once.

    The most anguished protests came from the Armenian diaspora: eight million people living mainly in the United States, France, Russia, Iran and Lebanon. There are only three million people living in Armenia itself, and remittances from the diaspora are twice as large as the country’s entire budget, so the views of overseas Armenians matter.

    Unfortunately, their views are quite different from those of the people who actually live in Armenia. For Armenians abroad, making the Turks admit that they planned and carried out a genocide is supremely important. Indeed, it has become a core part of their identity.

    For most of those who are still in Armenia, getting the Turkish border re-opened is a higher priority. Their poverty and isolation are so great that a quarter of the population has emigrated since the border was closed sixteen years ago, and trade with their relatively rich neighbour to the west would help to staunch the flow.

    Moreover, the agreement does not require Armenia to give back the Armenian-populated parts of Azerbaijan, its neighbour to the east. Armenia’s conquest of those lands in 1992-94 was why Turkey closed the border in the first place (many Turks see the Turkic-speaking Azeris as their “little brothers”), so in practical terms Armenian president Serge Sarkisian has got a very good deal.

    The communities of the diaspora, however, believe the Armenian government has sold them out on the genocide issue. Their remittances are crucial to Armenia, so President Serge Sarkisian has spent the past weeks travelling the world, trying to calm their fury. In the end, he will probably succeed, if only because they have nowhere else to go.

    But can any practical consideration justify abandoning the traditional Armenian demand that Turkey admit to a policy of genocide? Yes it can, because it is probably the wrong demand to be making.

    Long ago, when I was a budding historian, I got sidetracked for a while by the controversy over the massacres of 1915. I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year. What happened is quite clear.

    The British and the Russians planned to knock the Ottoman empire out of the war quickly by simultaneous invasions of eastern Anatolia, Russia from the north and Britain by landings on Turkey’s south coast. So they welcomed the approaches of Armenian nationalist groups and asked them to launch uprisings behind the Turkish lines to synchronise with the invasions. The usual half-promises about independence were made, and the Armenian groups fell for it.

    The British later switched their attack to the Dardanelles in an attempt to grab Istanbul, but they never warned their Armenian allies that the south-coast invasion was off. The Russians did invade, but the Turks managed to stop them. The Armenian revolutionaries launched their uprisings as promised, and the Turks took a terrible vengeance on the whole community.

    Istanbul ordered the Armenian minority to be removed from eastern Anatolia on the grounds that their presence behind the lines posed a danger to Turkish defences. Wealthy Armenians were allowed to travel south to Syria by train or ship, but for the impoverished masses it was columns marching over the mountains in the dead of winter. They faced rape and murder at the hands of their guards, there was little or no food, and many hundreds of thousands died.

    If genocide just means killing a lot of people, then this certainly was one. If genocide means a policy that aims to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group, then it wasn’t. Armenians who made it alive to Syria, then also part of the Ottoman empire, were not sent to death camps. Indeed, they became the ancestors of today’s huge Armenian diaspora. Armenians living elsewhere in the empire, notably in Istanbul, faced abuse but no mass killings.

    It was a dreadful crime, and only recently has the public debate in Turkey even begun to acknowledge it. It was not a genocide if your standard of comparison is what happened to the European Jews, but diaspora Armenians will find it very hard to give up their claim that it was. Nevertheless, the grown-ups are now in charge both in Armenia and in Turkey, and amazing progress is being made.

    n Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

    =======================================================

    Latest Articles :: Gallery :: Books :: Directory :: Contact

    Coming Soon – Selected Book Chapters

    Podcasts   Ideas1 Ideas2 Ideas3 TVO

    The Climate Wars

    © 2000-2009 all rights reserved

    .

    GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries.

    His first television series, the 7-part documentary ‘War’, was aired in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, ‘The Profession of Arms’, was nominated for an Academy Award.  His more recent television work includes the 1994 series ‘The Human Race’, and ‘Protection Force’, a three-part series on peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards.  His award-winning radio documentaries include ‘The Gorbachev Revolution’, a seven-part series based on Dyer’s experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1987-90, and ‘Millenium’, a six-hour series on the
    emerging global culture.

    Dyer’s major study “War”, first published in the 1980s, was completely revised and re-published in 2004. During this decade he has also written a trio of more contemporary books dealing with the politics and strategy of the post-9/11 world: ‘Ignorant Armies’ (2003), ‘Future: Tense’ (2004), and ‘The Mess They Made’ (2006).  The latter was also published as ‘After Iraq’ in the US and the UK and as ‘Nach Iraq und Afghanistan’ inGermany.

    His most recent projects are a book and a radio series called ‘Climate Wars’, dealing with the geopolitics of climate change. They have already been published and aired in some places, and will appear in most other major markets in the course of 2009.

    Many thanks to those who have expressed the wish to be able to submit a donation to the site. ( $20 USD via Pay Pal is now an option)

    ::: gwynnedyer.net/ca/com is the official website of journalist and historian Dr. Gwynne Dyer. :::

    The information is posted free of charge for personal use. Articles are the sole property of Dr. Gwynne Dyer. Communication or submissions to this site become the property of gwynnedyer.com and may be published at our sole discretion

    =========================================================================

    DYER, GWYNNE

    Canadian Journalist/Producer

    Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military analyst. He is best known for his documentary television series, War which echoed the peace movement’s growing concern over the threat of nuclear war in the early 1980s. Nominated for an Oscar in 1985, it was based on his own military experience and extensive study.

    After serving in the naval reserves of Canada, the United States, and Britain, Dyer completed his doctoral studies in Military History at King’s College, University of London in 1973. He lectured on military studies for the next four years at the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England before producing a seven-part radio series, Seven Faces of Communism for the CBC and ABC in 1978. This quickly led to another radio series, War, in six-parts, 1981. Based on this series, he was invited by the National Film Board of Canada, the country’s public film producer to enlarge it into a seven-part film series in 1983. Upon release to critical acclaim, the series was broadcast in forty-five countries.

    War was a reflection of Dyer’s own growing concern about the proliferation of new technology, its impact on the changing nature of warfare and the growing threat of nuclear annihilation. Filmed in ten countries and with the participation of six national armies, it examined the nature, evolution and consequences of warfare. It featured interviews with top level NATO and Warsaw Pact military leaders and strategists, many of whom spoke to the Western media for the first time. The series argued that in an era of total war, professional armies were no longer able to fulfill their traditional roles. The growth of nationalism, conscript armies and nuclear technology had brought the world perilously close to Armageddon. War offered the unique perspective of the soldier from the rigorous training of young U.S. marine recruits at the Parris Island Training Depot in South Carolina, to the field exercises conducted by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe. It presented military officers from both sides talking frankly about how nuclear technology had changed their profession and follows them as they vividly describe how any superpower conflict would inevitably lead to an all out nuclear war. Dyer argued that the danger posed by the explosive mix of ideology and nuclear technology could only be mitigated by a total elimination of nuclear arsenals.

    This award-winning series was soon followed by another production for the National Film Board of Canada in 1986, The Defence of Canada, an examination of Canada’s military role on the international scene. Following similar arguments postulated in War, Dyer called for Canada to set an example by rethinking its position in NATO and NORAD. He maintained his ties in the Soviet Union and in 1988-90 produced a six-part radio series The Gorbachev Revolution which followed the thunderous changes occurring in Eastern Europe. He served as a military commentator in Canada during the Gulf War and in 1994 his series The Human Race was broadcast nationally on the CBC. It was a personal enquiry into the roots, nature and future of human politics and the threat posed by tribalism, nationalism and technology to the world’s environment. He continues to publish his syndicated column on international affairs which is published on over 300 papers in some 30 countries.

    -Manon Lamontagne


    Gwynne Dyer

    GWYNNE DYER. Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 17 April 1943. Educated at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, B.A. in History, 1963; Rice University in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., M.A. in Military History, 1966; King’s College, University of London, Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History, 1973. Served as Reserve Naval Officer in Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, 1956-64, 1966-68; U.S. Naval Reserve, 1964-66; British Royal Navy Reserve, 1968-73. Employed as a lecturer in military history, Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Ontario; senior lecturer in war studies, Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, England, 1973-77; producer of various radio and television special series from 1978; syndicated columnist, international affairs from 1973. Recipient: International Film Festival Awards; International Film Festival Awards, 1984; Best Writing Gemini for The Space Between, 1986.

    TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY SERIES

    1983 War (co-writer/host)
    1986 Defence of Canada
    1994 The Human Race (host)

    FILMS

    The Space Between, 1986 (co-writer/host); Harder Than It Looks, 1987; Escaping from History, 1994 (writer); The Gods of Our Fathers, 1994 (writer); The Tribal Mind, 1994 (writer); The Bomb Under the World, 1994 (writer).

    RADIO

    Seven Faces of Communism, 1978; Goodbye War, 1979 (writer/narrator); War, 1981; The Gorbachev Revolution, 1988-90; Millennium, 1996.

    FURTHER READING

    “Dyer’s Contrived Truth Doesn’t Tackle the Real Consequences.” Vancouver (Canada) Sun, 3 September 1994.

    Dodds, Carolyn. “Too Close for Comfort.” Saturday Night (Toronto, Canada), August 1988

    “Recording a Global Culture.” Maclean’s (Toronto, Canada), 25 March, 1996.

    See also Canadian Programming in English

  • Abandoning Ataturk

    Abandoning Ataturk


    Soner Cagaptay
    Newsweek
    September 19, 2009

    In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ottoman Empire, having suffered military defeats at the hands of Europe, realized it could match its rivals only by becoming a European society itself. So it embarked on a program of intense reforms. In 1863, Sultan Abdulaziz established Darussafaka, the empire’s first high school with a secular Western curriculum in Turkish. In the early 20th century, Kemal Ataturk followed through on the sultan’s dreams, making Turkey a staunchly secular state. Institutions such as Darussafaka, my alma mater, thrived.

    Not now. Last month, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) decided to start a training academy for imams in Darussafaka’s iconic, 130-year-old former campus, abandoned by Darussafaka for a new facility in 1994. Such a step would have been unfathomable even two years ago. But it’s a sign of how the era of Ataturk and Abdulaziz is coming to an end.

    Since coming to power in 2002, the Islamist AKP has transformed Turkey. Bureaucrats in Ankara now feel compelled to attend prayers lest they be bypassed for promotions. Religious observance has become a necessity for those seeking government appointments or lucrative state contracts. The AKP firmly controls the country’s executive and legislative branches and is extending its power by appointing sympathetic judges, university presidents, and the heads of major civil organizations. The party has used legal loopholes to raise the share of Turkey’s media held by pro-AKP businessmen from 20 percent to about 50 percent.

    The increasingly marginalized secular elite is largely to blame for its own downfall. After 1946, when Turkey became a multiparty democracy, the country ran on autopilot. Turkey’s secular establishment grew fatigued and stopped doing what it takes to maintain popular support. After the collapse of communism, Turkey’s working and lower-middle classes largely abandoned the left. Rather than cultivate them, secular parties waited for the masses to come to them. The AKP, by contrast, went to the people, establishing a vast, Tammany Hall-style network to distribute jobs and benefits while preaching traditional Islamist values. The result was its historic 2002 victory.

    Ataturk’s followers also neglected key institutions. Consider Darus-safaka. After the school moved to a new campus in the suburbs in 1994, the elite let the handsome, 19th-century buildings with a Bosporus view lay fallow for 15 years. Not one secular business, NGO, or university took interest in them.

    And consider the media. While nonreligious and liberal Turks continue to rely on newspapers — the old media — to get their message out, the Islamists have taken over the new. They now dominate the Internet, using a proliferating number of sites to spin news with an anti-Western and pro-AKP twist. This helps shape ordinary Turks’ attitudes. When the global economy collapsed in 2008, for example, these Web sites placed blame for the crisis on a supposed transfer by Lehman Brothers of $40 billion to Israel. Islamist Web sites have also played a major role in shaping the debate around the Ergenekon case, branding liberal and secular opposition figures as “terrorists” for allegedly supporting a coup plot against the AKP government and intimidating some into submission.

    Not only do Turkey’s secular forces seem to regard politics as a 9-to-5 job, they also lack a positive vision. The AKP, on the other hand, works around the clock. And while they may seek to undermine Ataturk’s reforms, no one can accuse the Islamists of lacking vision.

    This doesn’t mean that secular Turks should give up the game. Instead, they need to learn from their opponents. This means reengaging in retail politics, from grassroots activism to canvassing to voter drives. Secular Turks also need to assert a positive vision for their country’s future. In years past, the sultans, and then Ataturk, used Europe as their model. Secular Turks must update this vision today, defining a liberal, 21st-century Turkey. And they must make that vision more appealing than the AKP’s; otherwise, the people will choose the Islamists. And who can blame them?

    Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute.

    View this op-ed on our website.