| US lawmakers pressure Obama on Armenian issue |
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – While it is not clear whe Obama for America ther United States President Barack Obama will keep his promise to recognize the Armenians’ claims of genocide, a group of pro-Armenian lawmakers formally introduces a resolution calling for the US government’s recognition, as this year’s April 24 statement looms on the horizon A group of pro-Armenian U.S. lawmakers Tuesday formally introduced a resolution calling for the U.S. government’s recognition of the Armenians’ claims of genocide. Democratic congressmen Adam Schiff and Frank Pallone and Republican congressmen George Radanovich and Mark Kirk authored the legislation, and 77 out of 435 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, Congress’s lower chamber, cosponsored it. This number was considerably smaller than the over 160 original cosponsors who had backed the last similar resolution introduced in the previous House in January 2007. The legislation’s introduction came less than three weeks before President Barack Obama’s planned visit to Ankara and Istanbul. During last year’s presidential election campaign, Obama had pledged to recognize the Armenian killings as genocide, if elected. Moral obligation But it is not clear if he, in his expected April 24 statement on Armenian deaths, will qualify the killings as genocide, or if he will support the latest House resolution. Turkey warns that any formal U.S. recognition will damage bilateral relations in a major and lasting way. Supporters of the resolution argue that the United States has a moral obligation to recognize the killings regardless of the foreign policy implications. “The facts of history are clear, well documented, and non-negotiable,” said Schiff. U.S. Armenian groups welcomed the resolution’s introduction and urged Obama to keep last year’s promise. “We look, in the coming days and weeks, for the president to honor his pledge, to fully support this legislation, and to raise the discourse in Washington on the Armenian genocide from the level of Turkey’s threats and denials up to the level of the core moral and humanitarian values of the American people,” said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian Narional Committee of America. “This legislation is an opportunity for the United States to assume a leadership role in genocide affirmation and genocide prevention,” said Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America. To pass, the resolution needs to be approved first by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and then in a House floor vote. But even if it passes, it will not have a binding effect for the U.S. administration’s policies and will reflect “the sense of Congress.” April 24 statement It is not clear when the resolution could come to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s agenda. At a time when Turkey and Armenia are working on a package to normalize their relations, most analysts agree that Obama is not expected to qualify the Armenian killings as genocide in this year’s April 24 statement. “At this moment, our focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past,” said Mike Hammer, spokesman for Obama’s National Security Council. The last resolution was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee in October 2007. But it was then shelved and never came to a House floor vote following efforts by then-president George W. Bush’s administration’s efforts to stall it.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 US lawmakers pressure Obama on Armenian issue
Source: Reuters
By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) – Several U.S. lawmakers have written to President Barack Obama urging him to follow up on campaign statements and label the 1915 massacre of Armenians as genocide. The pressure on Obama comes ahead of an expected presidential trip to Turkey, which has warned that such declarations by the United States would damage relations. Turkey denies that up to 1.5 million Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks during World War One. Turkey accepts many Armenians were killed, but denies they were victims of a systematic genocide. Ronald Reagan was the only U.S. president to publicly call the killings genocide. Others avoided the term out of concern for the sensitivities of Turkey, an important NATO ally. Four members of the House of Representatives urged Obama to make a statement ahead of the 94th anniversary of the killings on April 24. “As a presidential candidate, you were … forthright in discussing your support for genocide recognition, saying that ‘America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides.’ We agree with you completely,” the letter said. It was signed by Democrats Adam Schiff of California and Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Republicans George Radanovich of California and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a visit to Turkey last week, said Obama would visit “within the next month or so” in his first trip as president to a Muslim country. During Clinton’s visit, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Turkey would consider mediating between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program. The foreign minister also said in a recent television interview that he saw a risk that Obama would describe the Armenian deaths as genocide, because Obama had done this during his campaign. But Babacan said the United States needed to understand the sensitivities in Turkey. Another consideration for Obama will be that both Turkey and Armenia say they are close to normalizing relations after nearly a century of hostility. Other members of the administration, including Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, have in the past supported calling the Armenian killings genocide. Democratic aides said they also expected several lawmakers to reintroduce a resolution branding the massacre of Armenians as genocide. Armenian-Americans have been pushing for passage of similar proposals in Congress for years. Two years ago, a resolution was approved in committee but dropped after Turkey denounced it as “insulting” and hinted at halting logistical support for the U.S. war effort in Iraq.
|
Tag: Barack Obama
-
Move from Senate ahead of Obama visit
-
Opposing of Iran’s Nuke Weapons
March 11, 2009 Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Turkey opposes Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, Today’s Zaman reported March 11. Also, Gul said the new U.S. administration under President Barack Obama signals that “a new era has begun.” He added, “It is important for world peace and stability that everyone is prepared for a new era like this to emerge.” Gul said Iran and Pakistani-Aghan relations were important challenges in the “new era.”
-
Obama Trip to Include Turkey Visit
Non-Arab Muslim Nation Is Central to Diplomatic Approach Toward Islamic World
President Obama, with first lady Michelle Obama yesterday on his way to Camp David, is likely to schedule his visit to Turkey at the end of next month’s European trip. At left, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who announced the visit yesterday in Ankara, poses for photographers with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey is well-placed to serve as a key administration ally on issues of importance to a population dismayed by U.S. policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. (By Pablo Martinez Monsivais — Associated Press)
By Scott Wilson Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 8, 2009; Page A03President Obama will visit Turkey at the end of his European trip next month, a decision that reflects the moderate Muslim nation’s central place in his emerging diplomatic approach to the Islamic world
Obama’s stop in Turkey, announced yesterday in Ankara by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, partly fulfills Obama’s pledge to engage the Muslim world in a substantive way within his first 100 days in office. But the president is not expected to use the Turkey visit to deliver his anticipated address on Islam, a speech he promised during his campaign to give in a Muslim capital soon after taking office.
Turkey’s place on his itinerary gives the young administration more time on the Muslim speech as Obama begins new diplomatic efforts with Syria and Iran, regional Muslim powers isolated for years by the George W. Bush administration. The visit extends the administration’s public-relations campaign toward Islamic nations that began when Obama gave his first television interview as president to an Arabic satellite channel, a signal, administration officials said, of a new approach toward a population dismayed by U.S. policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories.
As a non-Arab Muslim nation, Turkey is well-placed to serve as a key administration ally on those issues. Governed by a moderate Islamist party, Turkey has managed to accommodate religious and secular values in its democratic system, something other governments in the Arab Middle East have been unable to achieve with the same success.
“Turkey is one of those countries that shows that there doesn’t have to be a clash of civilizations,” said Marc Grossman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a Washington-based consulting firm.
Obama’s visit to Turkey is likely to conclude a European tour scheduled to begin early next month. On his second trip abroad since taking office, Obama’s agenda will focus squarely on the worsening global financial crisis and security, particularly the flagging war effort in Afghanistan.
The president will first visit London for the Group of 20 summit, where leaders of the world’s largest and emerging economies will discuss the global economic downturn. He then will travel to Strasbourg, France, for a NATO summit expected to feature a forceful U.S. appeal for more European troops in Afghanistan with fewer constraints placed on their deployment in combat zones.
Then Obama will go to Prague for a meeting of European Union leaders. Like many Eastern European economies, the Czech Republic is suffering the effects of the economic downturn more severely than many countries in the West.
In summarizing Obama’s goals, Mike Hammer, the National Security Council spokesman, said, “The president looks forward to his trip to Europe in order to lead a coordinated effort to resolve the global economic crisis while also revitalizing our security alliance with our European partners and keeping Americans safe.”
By concluding a European trip with a stop in Turkey, Obama is seeking to highlight its importance as a growing market, military ally and key player in securing oil and future natural gas from the Caspian region, administration officials and outside analysts said. Grossman, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs in the Bush administration, said the Turkey visit “will have the effect of tying together all of his previous stops on the trip.”
Turkey is a NATO member, and although it barred U.S. forces from invading northern Iraq through its territory, the Turkish government has about 800 troops deployed in Afghanistan. But Turkey has been kept out of the European Union — something that has caused friction within the NATO alliance at a time when the Obama administration is seeking more European troops for Afghanistan — despite U.S. support for its membership.
Some opponents of Turkey’s E.U. bid have argued that its Muslim character is at odds with an alliance comprising Christian-majority countries, although most of the resistance has focused on Turkey’s economic reform requirements.
A senior Obama administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue, said: “This visit is not about healing some E.U.-NATO rift. This is about underscoring our deep alliance with Turkey, that it is an important part of Europe, and that it is an important voice in the Muslim world.”
Turkey’s elected Islamist government, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been presented as a model in the Arab Muslim world where some more radical Islamist parties are gaining political influence. But there is a constant contest in Turkish politics between the Islamist parties and the nation’s military leadership, which has intervened several times over the years to topple governments that it believed strayed from modern Turkey’s secular founding principles.
Under Erdogan, Turkey has served as an intermediary in talks between Israel and Syria over the status of the Golan Heights, the key to an eventual peace agreement between the two countries. Those efforts were waylaid by the recent Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip, which drew condemnation across the Muslim world.
But Turkey, which also has relations with the armed Islamist movement Hamas, which controls Gaza, is viewed by many European and U.S. diplomats as an essential bridge between the Jewish state and its Arab Muslim neighbors.
Last week, the Obama administration sent two envoys to Damascus, the Syrian capital, in an effort to revive diplomacy between the countries that has been largely dormant since the Bush administration recalled its ambassador four years ago. Some analysts said Obama’s visit will provide an opportunity for him to hear firsthand from Turkish leaders what they have learned working with Syria as he begins to do the same.
Turkey is also a key link in the delivery of oil and natural gas from the resource-rich Caspian basin. The administration has great interest in the development of a natural-gas pipeline that would follow roughly the same route as an oil pipeline now running from the Caspian region through Turkey. In a statement issued with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, Clinton reiterated the administration’s desire to “enhance energy security and to expand the Southern corridor” for natural gas and oil delivery.
-
Obama to visit Turkey in next few weeks
ANKARA, Turkey (CNN) — President Obama plans to visit Turkey in about a month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets Saturday with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Clinton was holding talks in Ankara with officials “to emphasize the work the United States and Turkey must do together on behalf of peace, prosperity and progress,” she said.
Obama had said he was going to deliver a speech in a Muslim capital within the first hundred days of his presidency. Clinton did not say that Obama would be making such a speech during this visit.
A senior Obama administration official confirmed that Turkey will be the president’s first visit to a Muslim nation since taking office, but did not provide dates for the president’s upcoming visit to Turkey.
This official did say the visit would be “an important opportunity to visit a NATO ally and discuss shared challenges.”
The official added that “it will also provide an opportunity to continue the president’s dialogue with the Muslim world, a dialogue he started immediately and intends to maintain throughout his presidency.”
The State Department on Saturday issued a joint statement from Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan reaffirming the close U.S.-Turkish relationship.
Both countries pledged to pursue an Arab-Israeli peace settlement, peace in the southern Caucasus region, normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and a settlement of the Cyprus question — a dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots over territory.
They vowed to enhance the fight against terror groups such as al Qaeda and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and work to expand the natural gas and oil infrastructure to help Caspian basin and Iraqi energy producers reach European and world markets.
Turkey is a secular country and predominantly Muslim. It is a NATO member and has been a longtime ally of the United States. It is one of the few Muslim countries to have full diplomatic relations with Israel and has long been the Jewish state’s closest military and economic partner in the region.
-
Obama chooses Turkey
Barack Obama will visit Turkey next month, fulfilling a campaign pledge to travel to a Muslim country during his first 100 days in power.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 4:35PM GMT 07 Mar 2009Reuters Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, made the announcement on Saturday as she met with the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeking to enlist Turkish help in moving forward the Middle East peace process.
Mr Obama’s visit to Turkey will be an opening step in his long-standing promise to improve relations with the Muslim world. The visit, which will follow the G20 summit in London on April 2, is expected to coincide with the Second Forum of the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations, due to be held in Istanbul on April 6 and 7. The forum seeks to “address some of the ongoing tensions and divides across cultures and religions”.
Making a major speech there on US-Muslim relations will enable Mr Obama to tick off another campaign promise. Although by choosing Turkey, which is generally regarded a bastion of moderate Islam, he will opting for a less challenging political environment than if he were to travel to the heart of the Arab world.
US-Turkish relations were strained when the Turkish government refused to let George W. Bush use their territory for an invasion of Northern Iraq in 2003. But last week Turkey said it was ready to serve as an exit route for U.S. troops pulling out of Iraq.
Turkey is seen as a likely mediator of any Middle East peace deal since it maintains diplomatic relations with Syria, Israel and Hamas, the terrorist group which controls Gaza.
Mrs Clinton said Mr Obama would visit Turkey in the “next month or so.”
She also confirmed that two US envoys had arrived in Syria on Saturday, starting President Obama’s first decisive move towards improving relations with a rogue state which is seen as a key player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in sponsoring terrorism.
Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, the top Middle Eastern experts in the State Department and the White House National Security Council, held talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.
The US wants to break Syria away from its close alliance with Iran and hopes to steer the government in Damascus towards a peace deal with Israel and away from support of the Hizbollah terrorist group in Lebanon.
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 07 Mar 2009
-
AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA
MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN IS TRYING TO FIND A SUITABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE ALLEGED – ARTIFICIAL GENOCIDE CLAIMS OF ARMENIAN LOBI.. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING VALUABLE ANALYSIS ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.. A VERY VALUABLE AND AN EYE OPENER COLUMN. AS TURKISH FORUM WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND OUR MEMBERS TO READ AND SHARE…PS: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION? AND HOW HE REACHED TO? .. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING POSTING AFTERD THE MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN
From: Harut Sassounian [mailto:[email protected]]
Sassounian’s column of March 5, 2009U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey
Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end Americaʼs military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.
As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkeyʼs leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.
Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.
Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Todayʼs Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!
This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.
One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?
One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.
It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.
The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.
One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.
Due to Turkeyʼs persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?
The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!
——————– YORUM SS AYA TARAFINDAN —————-
Harut Sassounian’s Weekly Commentary
U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through READER’S REPLY COMMENTS!
Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life MagazineEver since Pres. Obama declared that he would end America’s military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.
“…salivating? What level of literary newsman ship is this, insulting from the first line!
As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkey’s leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.
Benefit of gold (!) over one million dead innocent Arabs plus PKK terror just next door, by aggressors who came 10.000 miles away for looting oil of the neighboring country, bringing calamities of all types instead of democracy and progress! Sir, is your logic normal?
Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.
That was a dirty agreement between two adventurous leaders, which was “shot dead by accident” thanks God!
Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Today’s Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!
“fleece USA (?) ! Is Armenia going to send troops to Afganistan or give bases to USA as she did to Russia?
This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.
Sir, a man of your standing and education should not be swept out of logic just by cause of nationalism! Would USA permit Turkey to “station 65.000 soldiers in Texas, use Houston, New Orleans as landing-transit harbor and go to war with Mexico using USA soil, passing an army and armor of about 100.000 and destroy neighborly relations?” Any answers?
One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?
The “genocide lie, is a dirty fly in the menu on the table, which has to be served and shared”! Did it ever occur to you how much economic loss and military cost did Turkey suffer because of this unfortunate “oil banditry”?
One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.
It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.
Sir, you are trying to guide USA, the country that sheltered you, into adventures and risks, just because of your “Great Armenian ego”! This error was done by your grand fathers a century ago, and it was the innocent
well-doing Turkish Armenians that paid the bill, when all humpabets ran away leaving their compatriots in misery!
The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.
One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.
“Turkish blackmail ? Or Turkish surrender and tail waging? The diaspora Armenians have not done any good for the Armenians in Armenia, or Turkey or elsewhere. Empty words of rich, secure persons, do not solve hunger!
Due to Turkey’s persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?
The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!
Human Rights? Of Turkey or Iraq or USA or Armenia?
Sir, keep the scenarios and observations for your own self. Turks are not dogs and have no tails to wag, like few typical brainwashed fanatic writers, continuously fomenting nothing but GRUDGE and TROUBLE, which is the only product they are talented to market worldwide! For more historical facts advise Altan and read as suggested.
March 9, 09
Sukru S. Aya – Istanbul