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

  • The German-Turk Miracle: Arnold Reisman’s Turkey’s Modernization

    The German-Turk Miracle: Arnold Reisman’s Turkey’s Modernization

    Vol. 48 No. 4 (October 2007)

    http://etc.technologyandculture.net/2007/12/17/the-german-turk-miracle-arnold-reismans-turkeys-modernization/#respond

    Yakup Bektas

    This book, long overdue, brings to light the little-known story of how Turkey welcomed (and thus saved) several hundred prominent, predominantly Jewish, intellectuals, scientists, doctors, legal scholars, architects, librarians, and musicians fleeing the Nazis. They came from Germany and other German-speaking parts of Europe, mainly Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, with a number also from France and Spain. Reminding us that the Ottoman Empire had long offered refuge to the persecuted, among them the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, Arnold Reisman tells in Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Atatürk’s Vision (Washington, D.C.: New Academia Publishing, 2006, pp. xxvii+571, $30) how the empire’s young heir, Turkey, again provided a safe haven from 1933 through World War II. In the absence of this Turkish effort, Reisman shows how the knowledge and expertise of these Jewish scientists and artists might have been lost forever, and he also shows how much Turkey’s own modernization and educational and social reforms owe to them.

    What was left of the Ottoman Empire after World War I became today’s Republic of Turkey in 1923 following a difficult war of independence led by Mustafa Kemal, later called Atatürk, the republic’s founding father and first president (1923–38). Unceasing conflict had left the country impoverished and greatly reduced in territory and population, with all of its institutions in dire need of reorganization. A French-inspired model that the “Young Turks” had been designing for the disintegrating Ottoman Empire since the late nineteenth century began to take shape under the leadership of Atatürk. He envisioned a nation-state based not on religion or ethnicity but on “science” and positivist philosophy. The caliphate was abolished in 1924 and four years later the Latin alphabet was adopted to replace the Arabic script. Turkey’s new secular laws and dress codes emulated Western European models.

    To help with this modernization effort and in particular with university and educational reforms, Atatürk’s government invited European experts to Turkey and also sent a large number of students to Europe for academic training beginning in 1927. Shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, all professors of Jewish ancestry were dismissed, and Austria followed suit after its annexation by Germany. Atatürk’s government opened Turkey to these academics, offering them the best positions in Turkey’s few fledgling colleges at a time when Jews were elsewhere refused not only jobs but even visas. This intellectual influx suited Atatürk’s aims well and was particularly important to his radical program for reforming higher education on the European university model. In 1933, the old Istanbul Darülfünun was renamed Istanbul University, signifying its transformation from the “madrassa”-based system to the modern university.

    In autumn that year, the first group of more than thirty professors arrived to start teaching at Istanbul University, among them pathology professor Philipp Schwartz, who, on behalf of a new organization established to help dismissed German professors find employment abroad, had negotiated an agreement with the Turkish government that was hailed as “the German-Turk miracle” (p. 9). Even Albert Einstein is believed to have been considering the Turkey option as he was waiting to hear from Princeton, which he had been told “would not hire a Jew” (pp. 318–20). Led by émigré professors, Istanbul University earned the rank of “the best German university” of the time, an official German document of 1939 describing it as having “turned Jewish” (p. 279). Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these “German professors”—as they were called in Turkey—were Jewish, although there were also a good number of non-Jewish anti-Nazi intellectuals and political dissidents, including Ernest Reuter, who became Berlin’s mayor after the war.

    Turkish contracts and invitations even brought some out of concentration camps. When a son of chemistry professor Fritz Arndt was caught fighting the Germans during their invasion of Poland, the Turkish government intervened and got him to safety in Istanbul. But nothing was automatic: the deals had to be negotiated with and approved by the German government. Germany tried to persuade Turkey to employ only members of the National Socialist Party, but strong economic ties and Germany’s desire to secure an alliance made it possible for Turkey to bargain about such matters.

    Apart from positions at Istanbul University, the émigré professors were also given posts at what became Istanbul Technical University (1944) and Ankara University (1946), as well as other public institutions such as the Academy of Fine Arts. The School of Language, History, and Geography (Ankara, 1935) could hardly be imagined without émigré professors such as Assyriologist Benno Landsberger, Hittiotologist Hans Gustav Güterbock, Sinologist Wolfram Eberhard, and Indologist Walter Ruben, who not only established these disciplines there but also became world-regarded authorities.

    Reisman puts the number of these émigrés at “approximately 300 academicians and 50 technicians and supporting staff” (p. 9), or more than 1,000 men and women with their families. The émigré professors were offered high salaries, with many being honored as “ordinarius” or distinguished professor, and the list is very long: Erich Auerbach, who wrote his much-acclaimed literary critique Mimesis while in Turkey; philosopher-mathematicians Hans Reichenbach and Richard von Mises, two prominent figures of the “Berlin Group”; philosopher and Diderot expert Herbert Dieckmann; Orientalist Helmut Ritter; law scholars Ernst H. Hirsch and Andreas Schwarz; economists Alexander Rüstow, Alfred Isaac, and Wilhelm Röpke; biochemist Felix Haurowitz; botanist Alfred Heilbronn; physicist Arthur von Hippel; astrophysicist E. Finlay Freundlich; pediatrician Albert Eckstein; surgeon Rudolf Nissen; ophthalmologist Joseph Igersheimer; architect Clemens Holzmeister; opera director Carl Ebert; conductor Ernst Praetorius; composer Paul Hindemith. Among the women were applied mathematician Hilda Geiringer (von Mises) and architect and designer Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky. Reisman contrasts the egalitarian attitude toward women in Turkey (and Europe) with the situation in the United States, where he contends that sexual bias coupled with racial bias later made it difficult for these female émigrés to find tenured faculty positions.

    Although conditions in Turkey in the 1930s and 1940s were not sufficiently ripe for reaping the full benefits of this émigré bonanza, as Reisman notes, its profound influence is still alive in Turkey, especially in the formation of its universities and the shaping of its higher educational programs. Émigré professors helped Atatürk and his modernizing elite define the foundations of a “modern society.” It is no exaggeration to say that they stimulated in Turkey an educational and intellectual renaissance that invigorated its institutions, from education to music, science and medicine to archaeology, architecture to urban planning, conservation to preventive health, and they promoted the establishment of libraries, theaters, and music halls.

    The death of “the émigrés champion” Atatürk in late 1938 deeply saddened the newcomers. Ismet Inönü, the next president, continued Atatürk’s policy, but with a less charismatic leadership. When war broke out in 1939, Turkey resisted pressure from both sides to get involved. The German occupation of Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece terrified the émigrés, and Miriam Schmidt, at the time the teenage daughter of medical professor Karl Hellmann, recollects having “packed backpacks under our beds, in case the Germans came to Istanbul and we would have to flee to Anatolia” (pp. 396–7). Turkey’s government itself felt no less vulnerable. Although it managed to remain neutral, Turkey suffered economically. Serious inflation set in and by the end of the war food was rationed. Even highly paid professors felt the hardship, and after 1945 most of these refugee academics secured positions at the best colleges in the United States. Others left for Palestine (later Israel); some returned to Germany. After 1949, only a small number of them remained in Turkey, the departure of the others hastened not only by economic conditions but also by jealousies on the part of some Turkish professors and the opposition of Turkish nationalists to the renewal of their contracts.

    The bulk of Reisman’s book is devoted to describing the background and personal stories of a large number of the émigrés, and their work and experience in Turkey. He draws on oral histories, personal correspondence with colleagues and friends (as many as seventeen of them corresponded with Albert Einstein), and memoirs, both published and unpublished, as well as his own correspondence with their descendants and students. Only in the last chapter does he depart from the main story, offering some insights into Turkey’s technological and industrial development by comparing it with Israel and India. His most valuable observation is that Turkish universities have until recently lacked a link to industry, perhaps primarily because funding has been provided exclusively by the state. But he does not tell whether this lack of cooperation with industry and other characteristics of Turkey’s current university system have anything to do with the German émigré legacy.

    A number of minor shortcomings should be noted. Pages 397 and 399 have been transposed. Footnotes and references show imperfections, and online sources in particular are not fully digested. The book on the whole book could have been further refined, and the brief section on “Music and Islam” is too opinionated, especially relative to Iran and more particularly to the “expert” Reisman consulted there. The idea of “modernity” that emerges is simplistic, implying nothing less than a total assimilation to whatever is “Western.” But such flaws are trivial if not entirely irrelevant to the larger story.

    Turkey’s Modernization ends with a quote from economist Fritz Neumark, an émigré who stayed in Istanbul until his retirement in 1953, expressing the “admiration and gratitude” toward Turkey on the part of “German scientists, politicians and artists who looked for and found shelter along the Bosporus during [a] difficult time” (p. 465). Reisman deserves the highest praise for shedding light on a major intellectual exodus of the twentieth century, especially because this aspect has drawn little attention in English. Although the role of émigré scientists and intellectuals in the transformation of other areas is well known, the story of Turkey’s experience deserves further study. This book stimulates such an endeavor and provides an excellent start.

    Yakup Bektas, a graduate of the School of Language, History, and Geography in Ankara, is now with the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
  • Jefferson and Ataturk: Political Philosophies

    Jefferson and Ataturk: Political Philosophies

    by Garrett Ward Sheldon
    March 29, 2004

    Two Giants from two different eras and countries
    Reviewer: Dr J.E.Botton from Lynchburg, VA United States.

    I have been looking forward to the publication of this interesting book by Prof.Garrett W.Sheldon. This concise work by a jeffersonian scholar (87 pages and an appendix outlining the American and Turkish Constitutions) had been inspired, according to the author, by an “uncanny resemblance between the ideals of republicanism, freedom of religion,liberty of conscience, public education,economic development and national independence found in Ataturk and Jefferson”. Although I read it with great interest, I was somewhat dismayed by the the rather limited place given to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (only three references..) versus a man certainly very well known, particularly in the US, Thomas Jefferson (eighteen references). While the latter was a leader in the struggle for independence and foundation of a new State following a revolutionary war against England, Ataturk managed to establish a new Republic after a most difficult fight against the same England, as well as France, Italy, Russia, Greece,etc. during the First World War and, in the same time, getting the country rid of a much weakened Ottoman Sultanate and the Caliphate. In addition,and within only fifteen years, he managed a long lasting revolution in education by switching from an arabic to a latin alphabet, civil and political rights to men and women as well as minorities, complete separation of state and religion,etc.
    “Turks undoubtedly owe Ataturk an enormous debt of gratitude. After all, he almost single-handed saved their country from destruction. At the end of the first world war, it looked as though, after centuries of Ottoman decline, Turkey might disappear from the map altogether. But Ataturk rallied the bedraggled remnants of the Ottoman army, defeated the invading Greeks, threw out the humiliating treaty of Sèvres and won international recognition of an expanded and revitalised Turkish state.Over the next 15 years, Ataturk reinvented Turkey on the model of a European nation-state. He replaced an absolute monarchy with a democratic republic, an explicitly Islamic ethos with staunch secularism, a fractured and inefficient administrative system with a centralised bureaucracy, and an agrarian economy with an increasingly urban and industrial society. For Turkey, Ataturk was the equivalent of the Pilgrim Fathers, George Washington and Henry Ford all rolled into one.Astonishingly enough, it worked. Ataturk’s creation has not only survived but thrived. The remnants of a tattered empire have become an important country by any measure, with the world’s 17th-largest population as well as economy. Its armed forces are the second-largest in NATO. It exports everything from T-shirts to F-16 fighters, not to mention workers by the million. It has football teams that can challenge the best in Europe, and an airline that flies all over the world. For decades, Turkey has managed to preserve-albeit with the occasional interruption-both a vibrant economy and a functioning democracy.” (The Economist June 8th, 2000)

    One can easily state that Ataturk had achieved the military successes of George Washington, the political savvy of John Adams along the qualities of a Renaissance man such as Jefferson, all of it within less than twentyfive years. Nevertheless, this is an important work that, hopefully, may stimulate further evaluation of Ataturk, who, it may be useful to mention,had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the then greek prime minister Elefterios Venizelos, once his foe..

    Not withstanding his deprecators acting on misinformation and personal hatred, he deserves to be placed among the greatest achievers of the 20th century..

  • Mustafa of Thessalonica

    Mustafa of Thessalonica

    Ariana Ferentinou

    “It was a winter night in 1881. The storm was howling over Thessalonica. Everyone was trying to get warm in his ‘yatak’ and Kyra-Thodora, a well built Turkish-Rum midwife whom her fellow inhabitants in the city knew for her unique abilities (she had the reputation of a zero death rate in births that she took care of), is about to go to bed. Suddenly, loud knocks on the door are heard and she rushes to the door where she comes across the blushed face of a girl servant working at the house of the forty year old customs officer Ali Riza and his twenty year old wife Zubeide.

    – Rush, mami (midwife), rush, says the servant. My lady has started getting the birth pains!

    In the tall three-storey house in Islahane mahale where they arrive shortly afterwards, all the lights are on. Kyra-Thodora will do whatever she can to help the young woman with the birth. A little while later she holds in her hands a rosy-pink, blond-haired little boy. As the good hearted midwife tightens up the oda of the “lohusa” (woman who just gave birth), sprinkles fine salt on the baby for antiseptic purposes, wraps him tenderly with warm clothing and whispers magical spells for good fortune, she unknowingly becomes the godmother of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the “Father of Turks.”

    When the white envelope containing the book of the veteran journalist Christos K. Christodoulou arrived at my home address in Istanbul, a few months ago, I did not know that it was going to be such a rich source of first hand information about the first years in the life of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, that uniquely powerful leader who has dominated the history of modern Turkey, and to some extent of contemporary Greece.

    Yet the recent Turkish film “Mustafa” and the expected new Greek film “Zozo” about the documented love affair between Kemal Ataturk and the Greek operetta singer and actress Zozo Dalmas, makes the book by this Salonician journalist of the “Macedonia” newspaper and TV producer, all the more fascinating.

    For example, I do not know how widely known it is to the Turkish audience that the Ataturk’s neighborhood, Islahane, in 1906 had “442 houses, 22 shops, 17 empty plots of land, six fountains, three bakeries, one storehouse and two coffee shops,” as the author states, quoting from Prof. Dimitriadis’s major work, “The topography of Thessalonica during the Turkish rule, 1430-1912”.
    Or that Mustafa Kemal’s love for yogurt, tahini, salep, pekmez, omelets and cheese, comes from his days in Langada outside Thessalonica where in a farm belonging to his uncle, he and his sister were given the task “to scare away the crows who were attacking the broad bean fields, to supervise the herds of sheep, to milk cows and to plough.”

    What is interesting in this book is that the author, who worked for twenty five years, from 1978-2003 as a producer for the public television channel in Thessalonica, had the opportunity to come across and sometimes interview some of the last living citizens of Thessalonica who gave a first hand account of this fascinating period at the turn of the last century. Quoting old chroniclers like Georgios Stamboulis who wrote about “Life of the Thessalonicans before and after 1912,” Christodoulou writes that “Kemal frequented the coffee shop ‘Proodos’ (Progress) belonging to Dimitris Sarayiotis, opposite the White Tower. Also, the coffee shop ‘Tumba’ in the Sindrivani area. He used to be a passionate billiard player in the ‘Parthenon’ belonging to Petros Nedos in Hamidie Avenue (Queen Olga Avenue today), and used to drink his raki at Nahmia’s place, on the seaside road, where he used to play billards-bacikoto.”

    The story becomes even more interesting later on. “Among his co-players there was a Greek, a Kleomenis Hatzinicolaou, who was still alive, almost a centenarian during the 80s in Thessalonica, and remembered his friend Mustafa, “with whom they were playing ‘batska billards’ and then they used to dance and sing with a group of friends on the quayside.”

    And later on, another interesting piece of information: “Thanks to the reform measures applied temporarily by Young Turks in favor of the minorities in the Ottoman Empire, Mr. Hatzinicolaou set up in 1908, a Greek cultural-dancing association, at the inauguration of which ‘friend Mustafa’ was also present.”

    My beloved high school teacher and now professor of contemporary Greek History Vassilis Kremydas, speaking recently on a TV portrait about him, said that “history is useful because it makes us understand the present. But history is a science and has to use all available tools in order to compile a complete picture of the past.”

    The recently heated up discussion prompted by the film on the life of the founder of modern Turkey, has fueled another confrontation conducted between the sworn friends and enemies of Kemal Ataturk. But maybe this may an opportunity for taking advantage of what modern scientific methods provide us with; a more objective light on that important period in Turkish history. And that period of history, whether we like it or not, is tightly connected with Greece. Should this not, then, be an opportunity for the historians and chroniclers of our countries to maintain a taboo-free and contemporary thinking cooperation in order to give more depth to our past and give more meaning to our present?

    © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc.

  • Atatürk’s Prophesies: Why Douglas MacArthur Believed in them too?

    Atatürk’s Prophesies: Why Douglas MacArthur Believed in them too?

    Stories compiled By Prof. Mahmut Esat Ozan

    It was on November 24, 1935 that Mustafa Kemal, the first president of the young Turkish Republic, was given the name of ATATÜRK by the Grand National Assembly. He had led his people through war into self-government and finally into an entirely new way of life. He had been their teacher, adviser, as well as the father of the entire nation, since the word “Ata” in Turkish means just that.

    That same year a young American General, called Douglas MacArthur, came from thousands of miles away to pay homage to his idol, the great Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who had started to use his official name of Atatürk a short time earlier.

    General MacArthur visited Atatürk and had long conversations with him concerning the gathering clouds of war in Europe. In one of these conversations, Atatürk said: “The Versailles peace settlement will not end the reasons that started the World War. It has deepened the gap between nations, for there were centuries that imposed peace and forced the stipulations upon those who were defeated. Versailles was settled under the influence of hatred and was an expression of revenge. It went beyond the meaning of an armistice. If you Americans had decided not to be involved in European events and had followed up President Wilson’s suggestions, this period would have been longer, but the result of the settlement would have been peace. Just as the period of settlement would have been longer, the hatred and revenge would have been lessened and lasting peace would have been possible.” [Editor’s note: The Americans were indeed involved with the War after 1916, but after the War the public opinion in the U.S. changed. The Senate did not ratify the Versailles Treaty. America minded its own business. The Wilson principles were distorted by the British and the French to suit their own purposes, which of course sawed the seeds of World War II] Atatürk continued to prophesy: “To my understanding, just as it happened yesterday, the future of Europe will be dependent upon Germany. That nation is dynamic and disciplined. If Germany unites, it will seek to shake off the yoke of the Versailles Treaty. Germany, Russia, and England will have a strong army to conquer Europe. The next war will come from 1940 to 1945. France has lost the spirit of creating a powerful army, and therefore, England will not depend upon France to protect herself. France will no longer be a buffer state. “Italy will improve, somewhat, under Mussolini. He will first try to avoid war, if he can. But I fear that he will try to play the role of Caesar and it will prove to the World that Italy cannot produce a powerful army yet.”

    “America will not be able to avoid war and Germany will be defeated only through her interference. If authorities in Europe do not get together on the basis of controversies of political contacts and try to placate their own hatreds and interests, it will be tragic.”

    “The Troubles of England, France, and Germany will not come first or be of primary importance. Something new from the East of Europe has come up that will take primary place of importance. This new threat will spend whatever is available in its resources for international revolution. This power will utilize new political methods to achieve these goals. These methods are not known by Americans and Europeans and this power will try to make use of our small mistakes and the mistakes of Western nations.”

    “The victorious power after the war between 1940 and 1945 will not be England, France, or Germany, but Bolshevism. Being closest to Russia and having had many wars with her in the past, Turkey is watching Russia closely and sees the whole danger developing. Russia knows how to influence and awaken the minds of Eastern countries, and how to give them ideas of nationalism. Russia has encouraged hatred towards the West. Bolshevism is getting to be a power and a great threat to Europe and Asia.”

    After listening with great awe, General MacArthur replied to Atatürk, “I agree with you all the way. The political authorities of Western countries do not see the danger coming up. That bothers me too. By this we are pulled toward a war which would be fruitful to an entirely strange enemy. While Europe is busy in Europe, I am sure that enemy will spread to Asia too, the reason being Japan will try to fulfill her ambition to be the only great Asiatic power, while we are preoccupied in Europe. America cannot stay out of it. Whether we like it or not, Russia will try to enlarge her influence in Asia. If our political leaders will have understanding, they will not let Russia become our ally. That will cost considerable loss of land. Russia will get a big slice of Asia. Instead we should have her land, O.K.,… otherwise we will be helping a new danger. Any war we go into therefore, with Russia on our side, will not put an end to the European situation nor the Asiatic troubles (Perhaps MacArthur thought that Russia would receive war reparations in Asia rather than in the European continent.)

    General MacArthur also touched on other matters relating to a possible gain of communism in China and Manchuria. He also reiterated that the future of the World would be decided in Asia and not in Europe.

    When the conversation ended, Atatürk smiled and said, “Our points of view are almost the same, but let us hope we see it all incorrectly and that the leaders of the other nations will come up with a better result for the whole World.”

    As we all know by now, Atatürk’s hope has not been realized. The savior of Turkey, the great Atatürk died, just before his predictions came true one after the other.

    M. Study Slater, the author of the book THE GOLDEN LINK [M. Study Slater, The Exposition Press, Inc. NY (1962)] from whose pages these prophesies were gleaned, says, “If we look at General MacArthur, the experience, and the last twenty or thirty years and the influence of Atatürk upon him will afford us a better opinion of why he insisted upon certain points and his decisive attitude during the Korean War.” We might add to that statement another reason why General MacArthur was so very laudatory about the courage of the Turkish Brigade fighting side by side, with the American GI’s there.”

    In a relatively short period of time, the dreaded predictions of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and of General Douglas MacArthur, began to take form. The author continues: Benito Mussolini threatened the Mediterranean, and the poor imitation of Caesar started to strut in Ethiopia and Albania. In Germany, Adolf Hitler, a former Austrian wallpaper hanger, was successfully organizing juvenile and adult delinquents into a Third Reich, while Japan swept into Pacific Islands and Southern Asia. Joseph Stalin gathered hungry peasants into a large army and sent an octopus-like network of espionage agents into every country of the world to convert the self-martyred into communism. Mustafa Kemal assigned his friend Ismet Inonu and Fevzi Cakmak to help in building Turkey’s defenses along the Asian border and the Caucasus steppes.

    Within Turkey Atatürk did not tolerate the Mullahs’ constant threats to revolt against the newly established secular republic. Most were imp-risoned, some executed, such as the fanatical religious reactionaries who butchered Lieutenant Kubilay in the city of Menemen near Izmir.

    Atatürk also chased back to the Soviet Union, the Kurds and the Armenians, who were undeniably Communism’s riot-inciting agents in Turkey. The European and American media of the time, quite reminiscent of our contemporary bleeding-heats, such as the Amnesty International and the Helsinki Watch Human Rights ‘brokers’ as I call them, thundered accusations at the terrible Turks for ‘persecuting’ these poor defenseless people. “Defenseless!” screamed Atatürk, “Their persecuted defenseless hypocrisy is just what makes them dangerous. Have the Americans forgotten their own revolution?”

    Mustafa Kemal Atatürk realized that his immortality was assured through the love of his people and his historic role in new democratic Turkey. However, consciousness of this fact did not at all change the conduct of his life. His first asset was his belief in society, and though he fought directly for the nation, he always indirectly fought for human kind, of which he was an excellent example.

  • Turkey and Armenia Friends and neighbours

    Turkey and Armenia Friends and neighbours

     

    Sep 25th 2008 | ANKARA AND YEREVAN
    From The Economist print edition
    Rising hopes of better relations between two historic enemies

     
    KEMAL ATATURK , father of modern Turkey, rescued hundreds of Armenian women and children from mass slaughter by Ottoman forces during and after the first world war. This untold story, which is sure to surprise many of today’s Turks, is one of many collected by the Armenian genocide museum in Yerevan that “will soon be brought to light on our website,” promises Hayk Demoyan, its director.
    His project is one more example of shifting relations between Turkey and Armenia. On September 6th President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia when he attended a football match. Mr Gul’s decision to accept an invitation from Armenia’s president, Serzh Sarkisian, has raised expectations that Turkey may establish diplomatic ties and open the border it closed during the 1990s fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. The two foreign ministers were planning to meet in New York this week. Armenia promises to recognise Turkey’s borders and to allow a commission of historians to investigate the fate of the Ottoman Armenians.
    Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia could tilt the balance of power in the Caucasus. Russia is Armenia’s closest regional ally. It has two bases and around 2,000 troops there. The war in Georgia has forced Armenia to rethink its position. Some 70% of its supplies flow through Georgia, and these were disrupted by Russian bombing. Peace with Turkey would give Armenia a new outside link. Some think Russia would be happy too. “It would allow Russia to marginalise and lean harder on Georgia,” argues Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Media Institute.
    Mending fences with Armenia would bolster Turkey’s regional clout. And it might also help to kill a resolution proposed by the American Congress to call the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915 genocide. That makes the Armenian diaspora, which is campaigning for genocide recognition, unhappy. Some speak of a “Turkish trap” aimed at rewriting history to absolve Turkey of wrongdoing. Indeed, hawks in Turkey are pressing Armenia to drop all talk of genocide.
    Even more ambitiously, the hawks want better ties with Armenia to be tied anew to progress over Nagorno-Karabakh. But at least Mr Gul seems determined to press ahead. “If we allow the dynamics that were set in motion by the Yerevan match to slip away, we may have to wait another 15-20 years for a similar chance to arise,” he has said.

  • Turkey and Armenia – Friends and neighbours

    Turkey and Armenia – Friends and neighbours

    Sep 25th 2008 | ANKARA AND YEREVAN
    From The Economist print edition

    Rising hopes of better relations between two historic enemies

    KEMAL ATATURK, father of modern Turkey, rescued hundreds of Armenian women and children from mass slaughter by Ottoman forces during and after the first world war. This untold story, which is sure to surprise many of today’s Turks [sic], is one of many collected by the Armenian genocide museum in Yerevan that “will soon be brought to light on our website,” promises Hayk Demoyan, its director.

    His project is one more example of shifting relations between Turkey and Armenia. On September 6th President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia when he attended a football match. Mr Gul’s decision to accept an invitation from Armenia’s president, Serzh Sarkisian, has raised expectations that Turkey may establish diplomatic ties and open the border it closed during the 1990s fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. The two foreign ministers were planning to meet in New York this week. Armenia promises to recognise Turkey’s borders and to allow a commission of historians to investigate the fate of the Ottoman Armenians.

    Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia could tilt the balance of power in the Caucasus. Russia is Armenia’s closest regional ally. It has two bases and around 2,000 troops there. The war in Georgia has forced Armenia to rethink its position. Some 70% of its supplies flow through Georgia, and these were disrupted by Russian bombing. Peace with Turkey would give Armenia a new outside link. Some think Russia would be happy too. “It would allow Russia to marginalise and lean harder on Georgia,” argues Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Media Institute.

    Mending fences with Armenia would bolster Turkey’s regional clout. And it might also help to kill a resolution proposed by the American Congress to call the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915 genocide. That makes the Armenian diaspora, which is campaigning for genocide recognition, unhappy. Some speak of a “Turkish trap” aimed at rewriting history to absolve Turkey of wrongdoing. Indeed, hawks in Turkey are pressing Armenia to drop all talk of genocide.

    Even more ambitiously, the hawks want better ties with Armenia to be tied anew to progress over Nagorno-Karabakh. But at least Mr Gul seems determined to press ahead. “If we allow the dynamics that were set in motion by the Yerevan match to slip away, we may have to wait another 15-20 years for a similar chance to arise,” he has said.

    Source: Economist, 25 September 2008