Turkish Forum

Tag: Energy

  • Erdogan resists US calls for Iran sanctions

    Erdogan resists US calls for Iran sanctions

    Erdogan15

    By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 43 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has failed to persuade the prime minister of Turkey of the need for sanctions against Iran.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (REH’-jehp TY’-ihp UR’-doh-wahn) stressed at a press conference following his White House meeting, that persuading Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions should be left to diplomacy.

    He said that he expressed Turkey’s willingness to mediate negotiations between Iran and the West. But he also criticized current sanctions against Iran as being ineffective because of loopholes for Western goods to reach the Iranian market.

    The Obama administration may seek new sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, where Turkey currently votes as a non-permanent member.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking more help in the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama praised Turkey for its “outstanding” contributions there.

    Speaking in the Oval Office after a private meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Obama said Turkey’s commitments have helped bring stability to Afghanistan. Turkey took over the rotating command of the NATO peacekeeping operation in Kabul last month and doubled its number of troops to around 1,750. However, it has resisted repeated U.S. requests to send its troops on combat operations.

    Last week, Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops be sent to Afghanistan. The administration expects its allies to provide up to 10,000 reinforcements.

    Obama also expressed his condolences for a recent terrorist attack in Turkey, and said the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to defeat terrorism “regardless of where it occurs.”

    At least five Turkish soldiers were killed and several others wounded in an ambush Monday in central Turkey. Authorities have not identified the attackers but Kurdish and leftist militants are active in the area.

    Monday’s meeting between the two leaders comes at a time of rising Turkish influence in the Middle East and Central Europe. Before leaving for Washington, Erdogan said Turkey has already contributed the “necessary number” of troops in Afghanistan, and that Turkish military and police will train their Afghan counterparts and press ahead with health, education and infrastructure projects there.

    Turkey’s participation in the Afghan mission carries enormous symbolic importance because it is the only Muslim country working with U.S. troops to beat back the resurgent Taliban and deny al-Qaida a sanctuary.

    More broadly, however, the United States would like Turkey to use its sway as a regional power and Muslim majority ally to help solve some of America’s trickiest foreign policy problems. But the two sides disagree on many of the important issues.

    Turkey has sought to become a mediator for the United States with Iran and Arab countries, but it is unclear whether the Obama administration is eager for Ankara to play that role. The two sides disagree on sanctions against Iran and the Obama administration is uneasy about recent Turkish disputes with Israel.

    Greater friction is looming as the Obama administration intensifies pressure on Iran to end its nuclear ambitions. A U.S. push for sanctions at the U.N. Security Council, where Turkey currently sits as a nonpermanent member, will force Ankara to choose between a NATO ally and an important neighbor.

    The two allies also will need to navigate the perennial issue of an annual U.S. statement on the World War I-era massacre of up to 1.5. million Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Breaking a campaign pledge, Obama has refrained from referring to the killings as genocide, a term widely viewed by genocide scholars as an accurate description.

    The Obama administration has said it is wary that the sensitive issue could upset talks that could lead to reconciliation and a reopening of the border between Armenia and Turkey. It remains unclear how the administration will handle the issue in the future, especially if talks between Turkey and Armenia falter.

    Tensions have eased over cooperation in Northern Iraq. Turkish complaints about a lack of U.S. help in rooting out Kurdish militants launching attacks on Turkey from Iraq loomed over Erdogan’s White House visit with former President George W. Bush in 2007.

    Since then Turkey has boosted trade in the region and improved ties with members of the Kurdish minorities living on both sides of its border with Iraq.

  • ARMENIANS OF TURKEY PRAY FOR THE SAKE OF ‘ARMENIA OPENING’

    ARMENIANS OF TURKEY PRAY FOR THE SAKE OF ‘ARMENIA OPENING’

    )
    ARMENIANS OF TURKEY PRAY FOR THE SAKE OF ‘ARMENIA OPENING’
    Tuesday, 03 November 2009
    Armenians of Turkey will bless the protocols that Turkey and Armenia signed on October 11 in the homeland of President Abdullah Gul, Kayseri. Religious ceremony will be held in the Surp Krikor Lusavoric Armenian Church in Kayseri.
    Turkish-Armenians will pray for the sake of Turkey-Armenia protocols in an Armenian church in Kayseri. Armenian community will hold the first Sunday prayer in the church which is newly restored. The prayer will be leaded by Deputy Patriarch Aram Ateshian.
    TURKEY’S SECOND CHURCH GESTURE
    After restoring Armenian Akdamar church spending $1,5 million, Turkey makes another gesture and restores Surp Krikor Lusarevic Armenian Church in Kayseri, which is known as the first Armenian Church in Anatolia.
    The restoration work will be completed next week. Surp Krikor Armenian Church Foundation Chairman Zadik Toker invited people of Kayseri to the opening ceremony of the Church next week. Toker said, “Our church is very important as it is the first church of Armenian people in Anatolia. The Church was partially restored in 1996. Icons and themes in the church is restored in accordance with theiroriginals.”
    2)

    US Armenians hope for failure of Ankara-Yerevan deal

    Tuesday, November 3, 2009
    ÜMİT ENGİNSOY
    ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News
    American-Armenians and their congressional backers are keen on the ‘genocide’ recognition, not the creation of normalized ties between Turkey and Armenia, diplomats and experts say. Armenians will try to persuade the world that it’s the Turks that stopped the process, an expert argue Armenian-Americans and their backers in Congress are hoping for the collapse of a normalization deal between Turkey and Armenia so they can continue to lobby for U.S. recognition of what they term the “Armenian genocide,” diplomats and analysts said.
    The Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed historic protocols on Oct. 10 that called for the creation of normal diplomatic relations between the two neighbors and the reopening of their shared land border. Their parliaments must first ratify the deal before the provisions go into effect.
    Before reopening the land border, which has remained closed for 16 years, Turkey wants to see some progress toward the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Ankara’s close ally.
    Nagorno-Karabakh, a mainly Armenian-populated enclave inside Azerbaijan’s borders, has been under Armenian occupation since a war in the early 1990s.

    Reopening border key matter

    Yerevan, however, seeks to keep the normalization deal with Turkey and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as completely separate processes, urging Turkey to reopen the border as soon as possible. Diaspora Armenians, meanwhile, also staunchly oppose any concessions on Karabakh.
    But without progress on the Karabakh matter, it will be extremely difficult for Ankara to move to reopen the border. “If there’s no progress on Karabakh, Turkey simply can’t reopen the border with Armenia, which will effectively mean that the reconciliation process will have failed,” one Washington-based analyst said. “If this happens, it will be important to see which side will be blamed for the derailed process. The Armenians will try to persuade the world that it’s the Turks that stopped the process.”
    In that case, U.S. Armenians and their backers in Congress will seek to punish Turkey in Congress, the analyst said.

    Armenian efforts in Congress

    A resolution urging the United States to recognize the World War I-era killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide has been pending in the House of Representatives, Congress’ lower chamber, since February.
    Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Senator John Ensign introduced a similar resolution in the Senate, Congress’ upper chamber, last month.
    “Pro-Armenian lawmakers in both sides of Congress will step up efforts for genocide recognition in the event of the collapse of the Ankara-Yerevan deal,” said the analyst.
    “Any formal U.S. genocide recognition would kill the normalization process,” one Turkish diplomat said.
    But U.S. Armenians and their congressional backers are keen on genocide recognition, not the creation of normalized Ankara-Yerevan ties,” said the analyst.
    “So there’s a major trap jeopardizing the reconciliation process, and that trap can be prevented only if there’s progress on the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute,” the analyst said.
  • STREAMS TAKING DOWN OBSTACLES

    STREAMS TAKING DOWN OBSTACLES

    Tribuna
    October 29, 2009

    Fortunately, Russia has powerful allies in Europe nowadays
    Author: Giulietto Chiesa
    SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO DISREGARD WASHINGTON’S ORDERS IN THE MATTER OF ENERGY COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA

         As soon as Nord Stream negotiated all bureaucratic and
    technological obstacles, Europe and the United States initiated
    debates or, rather, mounted a campaign aiming to circumvent the
    whole project. It was then that Premier Vladimir Putin organized
    informal meetings with his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi
    and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany.
         Nord Stream is the largest project Moscow designed in years.
    It is a gas pipeline across the Baltic Sea to Germany that will
    spare Russia inconveniences of transit via Ukraine. Victor
    Yuschenko’s reign made the situation absolutely intolerable. The
    so called Orange Revolution put Kiev under Brussels’ and
    Washington’s protective wing and set it on a course into NATO via
    the European Union. In other words, it fomented a deliberate
    confrontation with Moscow. Why would Russia continue to try and
    appease Kiev? Past friendship is kaput. Besides, not even all of
    Europe is prepared to put up with the Ukrainian blackmailers. That
    their methods lack finesse is putting it mildly. Whenever gas
    bound for Europe disappears somewhere in Ukraine, Moscow turns the
    valve. As a result, both Kiev and Europe remain without gas. Sure,
    it costs Russia too but what really counts is that Europe is
    swindled out of one fourth of the gas it needs.
         Moscow’s pragmatic policy secured it another prospective
    buyer, one who desperately needs all energy it can lay its hands
    on. This new customer can well reroute the channels still going to
    the West in its own direction. The matter concerns China, of
    course. Gas pipelines to China are already built.
         In other words, Putin has found someone interested and
    prepared to pay. Nord Stream in the meantime costs more than 10
    billion euros. Germany was the first country where the Kremlin’s
    voice was finally heard. Ex-Chancellor Schroeder became the head
    of the project. Frau Merkel backed him. Sarkozy in France wants
    his slice of the pie too. There is South Stream as well, an
    alternative to Nabucco. South Stream will send Russian gas via the
    Black Sea to Bulgaria, Balkans, Greece, Italy. Putin’s plans found
    enthusiastic supporters in official Rome – Berlusconi and Eni. So,
    there is a new situation to be taken into account. It is in
    Moscow’s power now to deliver gas, Russian and Central Asian, to
    Europe without fearing that Ukraine will pull something off.
         Needless to say, official Washington does not take to all
    these developments. Pretty well forgotten, Jimmy Carter’s National
    Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski raised his voice again.
    Washington plainly announced that Moscow was out to divide West
    and East Europe. Its satellites joined the critical chorus.
    Estonia began complaining that the Baltic states had been
    “ignored”. A bunch of exes (former heads of states and
    governments) condemned Moscow for the intention “to restore its
    sphere of influence”. All projects promoted by Moscow seek to
    undermine economic stability of East Europe – that’s the most
    popular tune in East European capitals, these days. The Kremlin is
    condemned for what is called “energy blackmail”.
         But why wouldn’t Brussels itself rearrange gas in accordance
    with market realities? Russia will keep exporting gas in any
    event. East Europeans claim that Moscow has planned some foul play
    and that demands will be put forth soon enough. Sikorski in Warsaw
    went so far as to equate Nord Stream with the Molotov-Ribbentrop
    Pact. (To listen to these guys, construction of gas pipelines must
    be thwarted no matter what.) European allies sing hosannah to
    Nabucco, a project lobbied by the United States. Nabucco is about
    giving Russia the mitten and having the Central Asian work for the
    West. Besides, Nabucco is to be built across Turkey and Georgia.
    By and large, that’s a great plan, but… but Putin and Medvedev
    have already struck back. They have powerful (not to say decisive)
    allies in Europe now.
         Some events of considerable magnitude and importance are
    bound to follow. Since Putin, Berlusconi, and Schroeder decided to
    meet informally in St.Petersburg, it can only mean that a
    counteroffensive is about to be mounted.
         

    Translated by Aleksei Ignatkin

  • Improbable Embrace – Turkey and Armenia

    Improbable Embrace – Turkey and Armenia

    Hubble-Bubble
    pic
    Melik Kaylan, 10.23.09, 12:01 AM ET

    Turkey and Armenia are about to restore diplomatic relations. At the very least, they signed a landmark agreement to do so on Oct. 10 in Switzerland–after some tense last-minute wrangling in a Zurich hotel room with Hillary Clinton mediating. An astonishing development. A marvel to see in one’s lifetime, not unlike the fall of the Soviet Union. Two ancient peoples in eternal enmity. Sounds utterly implausible. Ancient hatreds never go away.

    That, at any rate, is the narrative–an arguably fraudulent one–that we’ve been fed for several generations. In fact, depending on how you calculate it, Turks and Armenians lived peaceably together for almost 600 years–or almost 900 years–until the 20th century. The calculation depends on whether you date their time together from the Seljuks or the later Ottomans–and where you end the timeline. Either way, it was an epoch or two, possibly an unprecedented achievement. Then, according to the prevailing interpretation, the Turks turned suddenly on their cheek-by-jowl neighbors, unprovoked, and wished to obliterate them from the Earth entirely as a people. It’s possible. Strange things have happened in the annals of genocide, though not after that long a duration of mutual tolerance. If so, why then? What changed?
    Here you enter into difficult terrain. Because you can easily slip into an alternate viewpoint, one that goes something like this: Turks and Armenians lived in peace until Czarist Russia began to move southward down the Caucasus, purging Muslims downward into Turkish territory–throughout the 19th century. All those fiery Daghestanis, Chechens, Abkhaz, Kurds. Many ended up in Ottoman lands, some say half a million. At one point, Russia actually occupied a whole swath of Turkey, including the provincial capital of Kars, for several decades until World War I ended. The Russians did their conquering explicitly as a Christian Crusade, claiming the complicity of all Eastern Christians (including Armenians) in that part of Turkey, an area seething with displaced Caucasus Muslims and Muslim Kurds. In short, if you are curious about a proximate cause for catastrophic bloodshed, look no further than Russkie provocation–a plausible scenario considering their conduct right up to the present in Georgia–of stirring one ethnicity against another for imperial ends.
    Discretion being the better part of valor, let us leave the historical dispute delicately hanging there for professional historians to sort out. The present is complicated enough. What happens if Turkey and Armenia bury the hatchet? Azerbaijan gets upset, for sure, and Azeris are close kin to the Turks. Why does that matter to America and the West? The Armenians carved out a slice of Azerbaijan in a secessionist war with Russian help during the post-Soviet chaos in the Caucasus. Azeris want it back. Armenians wish to keep it. Azeris don’t want Turkey to make peace with Armenia. Azerbaijan is a critical source of non-Middle Eastern oil to the West via pipeline through Turkey. Azeri oil will help liberate Europe from Moscow’s oil. No wonder foreign minister Sergei Lavrov attended the signing ceremony in Switzerland: Russia would benefit from driving a wedge between Turkey and Azerbaijan. The Azeris are already threatening to re-route their oil through Russia. So why is Turkey ready to alienate Azerbaijan?
    As many have observed, Turkey is pushing a neo-Ottoman strategic vision under Prime Minister Erdogan and his busybody foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu. Until their collapse in the 20th century, the Ottomans pursued a centuries-long game of diplomatic promiscuity with other world powers, allowing Venetians and Genoese trading rights early on, giving Sephardic Jews a new home after their expulsion from Spain, letting the British help them against the Czars and against Napoleon, inviting the Russians and Hapsburgs to compete over privileges in Ottoman lands.
    As the Ottomans declined militarily they used the country’s strategic position diplomatically to stay afloat. Under the more insular nationalist republic of Ataturk, Turkey allied exclusively with NATO and stayed out of regional engagement. Now Ankara is making friends with all its neighbors. Suddenly, the minefields along the Syrian border are being lifted and Syrians may enter Turkey with minimal red tape. Georgians have similar status. Baghdad and Ankara have just signed a slew of deals involving water, oil and trade. Greece and Turkey are friendlier than they’ve been in, say, 200 years with Greece actually backing Turkey’s candidacy to the E.U. Natural gas comes in from Russia while Turkish construction companies are doing more than anyone to build infrastructure across the Russian Federation. In short, a neo-Ottoman approach means that Ankara is allowing all the neighbor countries to gain so much benefit from Turkey’s evenhandedness that all are invested in keeping the country stable and prosperous.
    There are side benefits too. A Syria dependent on Turkey may become less dependent on Iran economically. Ankara’s deals with Baghdad show Iraq’s Kurds that hostility to Turkey will only leave them out of the loop economically. In the past, almost all neighboring capitals had a hand in aiding the Kurdish insurrection within Turkey–Moscow, Athens, Damascus, Baghdad and all the Iron Curtain belt nearby played that game. These days only the E.U. and the U.S. are pushing the issue of Kurdish rights. Prime Minister Erdogan calculates that as Turkey gains increasing leverage through befriending one and all indiscriminately while shifting an inch this way or that (such as publicly snubbing Israel), even the U.S. and E.U. will have to ease pressures or risk pushing Ankara further into the arms of rivals. The Erdogan government may calculate that Azerbaijan, too, will come around and realize that it will only lose from a rift with the Turks as the Azeris can, in reaction to the Armenia demarche, only befriend the Russian bear–and only for a while before it swallows them whole.
    Meantime, Ankara is going about eradicating the leverage of outside powers over Turkey over such matters as ethnic rights. The Kurds now have broadcasts in Kurdish. Armenia may finally have a partner other than Russia to trade with–that’s a lot of incentive. It’s a lot of incentive for the U.S. to climb on board too. Turkish-Armenian amity in the region will soon de-fang the various genocide bills so beloved of the Armenian diaspora.
    All this comes under the rubric of “neo-Ottoman” for another reason. The Ottomans held Islam’s Caliphate for five centuries, and it was under Islamic laws that they extended rights to religious minorities while ostensibly treating all Muslims as equals with no preference to ethnicity. Erdogan’s slide toward Islamist inclusiveness ironically stirs a beneficent echo in the hearts of Armenians in the region. They have flourished relatively unhindered in the Middle East under countries hostile to the West, such as Syria and Iran. They’ve had no problem living under anti-Western regimes such as the Soviet Union. Their historical sense of identity is anchored in ambivalence toward the West going way back to their doomed alliance with the Persians against Roman power. Throughout the Middle Ages they identified with Eastern Christianity against the Vatican. The Armenian patriarch showed no friendship toward proselytizing Protestant missionaries in the Ottoman era. In short, Armenians of the region feel no discomfort with Mid-eastern traditions or Islamization, and certainly not Erdogan’s apparently moderate version of it.
    One can only dream and hope for the day when Armenians, like Greeks do now, interact with Turkey in large numbers and perhaps even settle back into their interrupted history there. But that it happens under an Islamizing umbrella–and there’s the rub. For it’s not at all clear that once you drift in that direction, there can be any way back–that is, short of a Kemalist or, much worse, a Soviet-style enforced secularism. Erdogan’s strategy of giving all comers a stake in the stability of Turkey also anchors them in Turkey’s renewed Islamist pull. Israel is unlikely to benefit from this, except perhaps in the leverage it gives Turkey to negotiate for Israel with Islamic countries. The Europeans will soon lose all purchase on Turkey’s cultural and political center of gravity as the Turks learn that money from non-Western allies outdoes any expected benefits from the E.U.
    Erdogan’s policies are neo-Ottoman in this way too: in decline, Ottoman state policy, the Sultan or the Sublime Porte in Western parlance, was open to the influence of the highest bidder outside or inside the country. Everyone may benefit in the short term, especially the Turks with their new-found diplomatic clout. But in the long term, that kind of polity cannot be transparent. It can be enlightened in all sorts of ways except a fully Westernized one. Erdogan’s government is already swallowing up independent news media a la Putin. Backroom deals fill his party’s coffers and reward party loyalists at all levels of the economy. This kind of thing went on aplenty under the secularists too, but you can manifestly turn back from secularism, whereas Islamism looks like a one-way street and derives larger financial benefits from Saudi and Gulf investment. As money flows in–the IMF ranked Turkey as the world’s 17th-largest economy last year–the Turks can easily leave off struggling for their own freedoms.
    Republican Turkey has offered the single example, thus far, of a Muslim country living under Western democratic laws, however clunkily. But Islamic nostalgia is a powerful and insidious force. What people forget is that, from the 1400s onward, Turkey was as much based in Europe as in Asia. The Turks do not harbor a fundamentally eastern identity as many in the West mistakenly believe. The U.S. and E.U. can still keep the Turks in their camp. But first they must want to do so. And finally, they must start bidding higher.
    Melik Kaylan, a writer based in New York, writes a weekly column for Forbes. His story “Georgia In The Time of Misha” is featured in The Best American Travel Writing 2008.
    Read more Forbes Opinions here.

    __________________________________________________

  • Turkey Exposed:

    Turkey Exposed:

    Cannot Pretend to be

    Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

    SASSUN-2

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Playing the skillful political games of their Ottoman predecessors, Turkey’s current masters present their country under various guises — as European and Middle Eastern, Islamic and secular, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli.

    It now appears that the end is near for at least one of these Turkish charades. Israeli officials have finally awakened from their prolonged coma to discover that their erstwhile “strategic partner” is far more hostile than their Arab enemies.

    For a long time, Turkish leaders have been calling the Israelis all sorts of unsavory names and accusing Israel of committing barbaric acts, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Strangely, Israel has shown little indignation, even in the face of persistent racist and anti-Semitic outbursts by large segments of the Turkish public.

    The latest display of Turkish hostility was the exclusion of Israel from a multinational military exercise which was to start in Turkey on October 12. In protest, the United States, Italy and Holland pulled out of these maneuvers, causing their cancellation. In a move designed to further irritate the Israelis, Turkey announced that it would instead hold joint military exercises with Syria, Israel’s main adversary.

    Turkey’s Prime Minster Rejeb Erdogan told the Anatolia Press Agency last week that he had banned Israel from the military drill in response to the wishes of the Turkish public. “Turkey does not take orders from anyone in regards to its internal affairs,” Erdogan boasted. Some Turkish officials indicated that the ban was instituted because the Israeli jets assigned to the exercise had participated in the Gaza bombings earlier this year.

    This episode marks a major escalation of the long-standing Turkish bitterness towards Israel. For the first time, the Turkish military joined the civilian government in adopting an anti-Israeli position. Furthermore, Turkey went beyond mere verbal condemnation to taking concrete action. For years, the Israeli government was willing to swallow insults from Turkish officials, as long as its Air Force was permitted to make practice runs in the vast Turkish airspace, shared intelligence, and sold military hardware to Turkey.

    Making matters worse, Israelis were deeply offended by the broadcast of a Turkish show on state TV last week, depicting graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children and committing other atrocities.

    Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted by summoning the Turkish ambassador and accused Turkey of inciting hatred against Israelis. Lieberman stated that not even Israel’s enemies would air such a hostile TV series. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses.” Another Israeli official stated: “We need to stop accepting the Turkish dictates and humiliations. It is inconceivable that they should insult us at every opportunity, and we should continue to hold our tongues.”

    Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected any future mediating role for Turkey in talks with Syria. An unnamed “senior Israeli official” was quoted by Haaretz as stating that the strategic ties with Turkey may “have simply ended.” Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post quoted some Israeli defense officials as stating that “advanced weapons sales to Turkey would now be reviewed.”

    There were also widespread calls last week for the Israeli public to boycott Turkish resorts. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that Israel’s largest labor union would no longer plan for thousands of its workers organized tours of Turkey, and would direct them to go instead to Greece and Bulgaria. Since January, there has been a 47% drop in the number of Israelis spending their vacations in Turkey, according to Time magazine. An Israeli coffee shop chain expressed its displeasure by announcing that it would no longer serve Turkish coffee to its customers. In an unprecedented move, several Israeli cabinet ministers declared that they would turn down the Turkish Embassy’s invitation to attend Turkey’s Independence Day celebrations later this month.

    Many outraged Israelis advocated that, in retaliation, Israel acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Dan Margalit of “Israel Hayom” newspaper accused the Turks of not only committing Genocide, but also the “ongoing crime, which is expressed in energetic Turkish activity to deny the atrocity and to incite against any country and government and artist who wish to express their horror.”

    Ephraim Inbar, head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, reminded the Turks that they are still in need of “Israeli influence in Washington to prevent the passage in Congress of a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians during World War I a genocide.”

    In an unprecedented action, the “Im Tirtzu” Israeli student movement held a protest last week in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. The students displayed bloody pictures of victims of the Armenian Genocide, handed out books on the Genocide to passersby, and carried signs calling on Turkey to formally recognize the Genocide.

    To atone for its past sin of siding with Turkish denialists, Israel must officially affirm the Armenian Genocide as well as actively lobby for its recognition by other states. Israel should also permit the erection of a monument at a prominent location to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide and reverse its long-standing ban on TV broadcast of documentaries on this subject. It is certainly in Israel’s own interest to side with the victims of genocide rather than with its perpetrators!

    Instead of maintaining at all cost its unholy alliance with Turkey, Israel should earnestly pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians and live in peace with its Arab neighbors, thus obviating the need to curry favors with the Turkish denialist regime.

    ==================== SUBJECT RELATED E-MAIL’S RECEIVED=

    From: Ismet Takim [ismettakim@yahoo.com]

    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Our problems are just begining, l worned you all before, we play this game we will loose and guess who is happy???

    READ

    Turkey Exposed:

    and any of you still have any questions about this? some of our readers here is also responsiable for this and you have no idea what we will face, you just sit and watch, pro Palestenian Turkey is comitting suicide,

    Erdogan made the biggest mistake, and some of you who posts pro

    Filistin BS, tags and articles here should be ashame of themselves

    they have done a disservice and put our mainly my efforts back in

    time, and we have to fix this now, l have to go to work again and undo some of this,

    stupid stupid stupid bird brains bleeding hearts, stop your Anti Israel stands and get real, stop hurting Turkey,

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

    From: Metin Mangir [mangir.metin@gmail.com]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?


    While we are all focussed on the Armenian issue (because of our

    proxomity to the diaspora) Obama invited (!) Erdogan to come to WDC on

    Oct 29 (with two weeks notice), following the cancellation of the joint

    military exercises with Israel, US, and the increasing row with Israel

    upon showing of a TV program on TRT.  (now that Turkey has good

    relations with Syria,  does it not need Israel to squeeze Syria?? which

    was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

    The choice of date and such short notice is VERY significant (and

    insulting)!  The big brother is calling the errant boy on the carpet?

    By the way, in general the news about the Armenian protocols are

    positive in Turkey (amazing!).  Very few voices are opposing it.  Also

    it has lost its luster as the “milli birlik acilimi” and the return of

    34 people from Irak upon Ocalan’s orders has taken the center stage.

    If the borders open the real big winner will be Russia, more than

    Armenia.  Since (rightly) Azerbeycan will be pissed off at Turkey and

    the West, and get closer to Russia (if it can dare to play with such

    danger) and the West, US will loose the Caucases.

    What I do not understand is

    1)  how come US is willing to let this happen?  What has Russia forced

    upon US following Georgia?

    2) Davutoglu, who has written in three different places in his book

    about the  crucial importance of Azerbeycan for Turkey, is going along

    with this protocols steps?

    Metin

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

    From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

    Metin,

    I suspect one major thing behind Obama’s sudden invitation:  Afghanistan.

    He may ask for more troops from Turkey.  Secondarily, Iraq.  O. may discuss

    strategy with E. on the mechanics of US pull out, the vacuum in Iraq, etc.

    All have to do with US involvement in unpopular, unwanted wars that are

    draining the US economy and social life.

    Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and others are little more than dressing for

    the salad.

    This is one man’s opinion.  🙂

    Ergun  KIRLIKOVALI

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

    Statement released by National Security Council that met today is below. Afghanistan issue has been discussed. Turkey will resume Kabul Area Commandership for the second time.

    Afganistan‘da son dönemde meydana gelen gelişmeler, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri dahil, değerlendirilmiş, ülkemizin Afganistan‘ın istikrarına yönelik katkı ve girişimlerinin sürdürüleceği belirtilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin Kabil Bölge Komutanlığı görevini Kasım 2009 başında ikinci defa alacağı, yine önceki görevlerde olduğu gibi, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin terörle mücadele, uyuşturucu ile mücadele, mayın temizleme görevlerinde kullanılmayacağı teyit edilmiştir.

    Fariz Huseynov [huseynovfa@gmail.com]

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

    On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <vaslay@aol.com> wrote:

    dear Ergun

    you are not alone for this opinion

    is isn’t funny while we are disgracing our man and women in uniform ( TSK)
    Obama needs our soldiers not government

    if you didn’t have one of the best army in the middle east

    O. wouldn’t care less for you

    regardas,

    vedat aslay

    ——————-

    Dear Metin

    Excellent observation and analysis

    I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

    Yes Russia it seems that  the big winner?

    how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

    The is a big game going on over the middle east and Central Asia.

    The player are strong and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, TURKEY  and even Israel is foot soldiers in this game

    Obama will make sure that Erdogan is not out of step. If he is you know in military

    SOL, SAG, SOL SAG, SOL, SOL P……. SOL
    Don’t worry this game is a long game and  we are just watching part I

    Vedat Aslay vaslay@aol.com

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

    From: Yusif [yusif@azeris.com]
    Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

    That’s correct. Russia will be a winner big time.

    First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

    other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

    anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

    politically.

    Second, they will realize the South Stream project, always viewed as

    an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

    southern Europe and Turkey itself.

    Third, under the pretext of protection of South Stream, Russia will

    completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

    henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

    to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

    Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

    and through Armenian element will be able to exert pressure on Turkey

    and possibly other Middle Eastern states in the future. It benefits

    Russia to see islamization of Turkey. The practice of moderate Islam

    in the form of Gulenist ideology actually may suit Russia’s interests.

    In regards to US interests in the deal there are several factors.

    First of all, US was hoping for Russia’s support on the issues of

    nuclear threat from Iran. In general, apart from everything else, it

    is not in Russia’s interest to see containment and any sort of

    democratization of Iran. There is 25 mln Azeri minority in Iran which

    if needed could be a decisive factor in the future partition of Iran

    or a tool to bring down the current mullah regime. That’s one of the

    reasons Stalin was willing to and finally withdrew from Iran in 1946

    because he did not want a more sizeable Azeri minority within Soviet

    borders.

    Secondly, in my opinion, it’s not the US that is exerting pressure on

    Turkey. I think it’s Turkey which is using its inadequate behavior

    with Israel to pressure the United States. If we go back to 2003 we

    would see that Turkey was bold enough to withstand pressure from US

    during proposed invasion of Iraq from Turkey. To me personally, it

    doesn’t make sense to see America give up Azerbaijan and Georgia and

    the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

    politically.

    As far as Turkey’s position about Azerbaijan is concerned, I think

    they might have striken a deal on withdrawal of Armenian troops from 5

    occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

    mission. In any case, allowing any peacekeeping missions in Karabakh

    would be disastrous for Azerbaijan. If Russia’s troops are allowed to

    be stationed on Azerbaijani soil in any form, this would be the end of

    Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

    Georgia is a good example.

    Presence of US troops would mean almost the same. Experience with

    Kosovo is a good example. That’s why Kaidanow is all around (http://

    www.a1plus.am/en/official/2009/10/20/nalbandian-tina-kaidanow)

    Presence of Turkish troops, if any, would mean nothing at all,

    especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

    established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

    recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

    Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

    conflict and interim status of NK last forever, therefore ending in

    partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

    I guess, the original plan of these regional players is:

    1. to strike a deal, have Armenian troops withdrawn from 5 regions;

    2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

    3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

    4. re-arrange routes of energy resources from Azerbaijan and Central

    Asia through Armenia and/or through occupied Karabakh, as many allege;

    5. build confidence between people of the region

    6. hold a referendum in NK. Holding a referendum in Karabakh would

    mean complete loss.

    Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

    which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

    Armenians in Karabakh. That’s when the numbers will matter.

    Yusif

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

    Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”
    https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

    From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]

    The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

    Case one:  Azerbaijan.

    The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly.  Check out these recent developments:

    1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

    2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

    3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

    https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

    4-  Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

    When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan.  If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia.  Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out.  We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package.  Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

    April 24 is not far away.  We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines.  (Prediction:  the latter.  Why?  Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out.  Huge mistake!)

    Case two: Israel

    This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

    TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

    Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

    Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

    My take on all this:

    I am not against dialog or peace.  I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

    The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI


  • Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported

    Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    The Turkey-Armenia normalization process, due to take effect soon, in its present form carry imponderables that raise serious questions as to its merits for Turkey.

    Three major Turkish-American umbrella organizations, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), and the Federation of Turkish American Associations (FTAA), regrettably issued statements recently in support of the normalization process.

    In their endorsement, ATAA and TCA stressed, as has the Turkish government, the importance of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia in pursuit of regional peace, while FTAA, being more prophetic, argued that the process would be a blow to the Armenian diaspora, making it ineffective in its lobbying efforts against Turkey.

    There is, however, fierce opposition to the normalization process both in Turkey and Armenia.

    No pre-conditions

    The normalization process, in its present form, is ill-founded, ill-advised, and cannot be supported from the Turkish point of view. The arguments advanced for normalization, while sounding reasonable, and in principle commendable, represent to a large extent wishful thinking for the Turkish side, not backed by the two diplomatic protocols announced by Turkey and Armenia. The protocols, initialed on August 31 and due to be signed on October 10, form the blueprint for the normalization process.

    Reading through the protocols, the one thing that is striking is the generality of the language and the lack of concrete steps to be taken to resolve the outstanding issues between Turkey and Armenia. No caveat or pre-conditions are attached to normalization and the opening of the common border.

    Given that the opening of the border will overwhelmingly benefit Armenia, the protocols call for no concessions from Armenia.

    Genocide allegations and the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are the chief thorny issues between the two countries; but for Turkey, Armenia’s hitherto hostile behavior is also a cause for deep resentment.

    Genocide issue

    On the genocide issue, the protocols call for the establishment of a bilateral commission to study “the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including … an examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.” There is no mention to specifically address the genocide issue, whether it happened or not.

    Nor is there any commitment to open Armenian archives for examination. Turkish archives are already open.

    Likewise, the time frame for the completion of the commission’s work is left open. This work may continue for years, during which time the border will remain open.

    Swiss and other international experts will be joining Armenian and Turkish experts, and herein lies a potential trap for Turkey – considering how the West is already biased against the Turkish position. Switzerland is one country where denial of “Armenian genocide” is punishable by law. France is another one.

    Furthermore, assuming that the commission will reach a well-defined conclusion, there is no commitment on the part of Armenia that it would abide by this conclusion, or that it would try to dissuade the diaspora Armenians from continuing the genocide rhetoric.

    In its August 23, 1990 Declaration of Independence, Armenia stated that it will continue supporting international recognition of “the 1915 genocide,” and has done so ever since.

    It is probable that the Armenian diaspora will press for genocide recognition with undiminished fervor, with implicit if not explicit support of Armenia, regardless of the conclusions reached by the historical commission. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), the chief lobbying arm of the diaspora in America, is firmly against the Turkish-Armenian protocols. The Armenian-American community, in general, is also opposed.

    With the diaspora’s anti-Turkish lobbying efforts continuing in full force, Armenia can, as a last resort, “wash its hands off,” arguing that it has no “control” on the diaspora.

    There are also reports from Armenian sources that the Armenian government will insist that the historical commission should focus not on whether “genocide” occurred – because this is a given “fact” – but rather, how it occurred.

    In a recent interview with the Armenian Reporter in New York, Armenian President Serge Sargsian noted that Armenia and the diaspora are “one family,” and that  recognition of “genocide” is a “long-awaited victory for justice.”

    A clear message, but not a helpful one for normalizing relations.

    So, how is the establishment of the historical commission as foreseen in the protocols really make a difference as far as genocide allegations? A check of reality is in order here.

    Nagorno-Karabagh conflict

    The language in the protocols on the Nagorno-Karabagh issue is even fuzzier. Other than a “commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes,” the protocols contain no concrete reference to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. There is no mention of ending the illegal occupation of the Azeri territory by Armenia – notwithstanding the UN resolutions – of the innocent Azeri civilians that fell victim to ethnic cleansing by Armenian forces, and of the plight of one million Azeri refugees.

    On a recent visit to Moscow, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated that the Nagorno-Karabagh issue never entered into negotiations with Turkey, and never will.

    Still, as part of the normalization process, Armenia may implement a cosmetic withdrawal from the occupied territory, but this will fall well short of the UN demands, and will not in any way satisfy Azerbaijan. The Minsk Group has been ineffective to date.

    In any case, while the Nagorno-Karabagh issue drags on in negotiations, the Turkey-Armenia border will remain open.

    Occupation of Nagorno-Karabagh by Armenian forces was the reason Turkey closed the Turkey-Armenia border in 1993.

    Normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations without the solution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict will be a “sellout” by Turkey of brotherly Azerbaijan, and a betrayal of Azeri nation’s trust in Turkey.

    Other than trust, the chief fallout from a rift in Azeri-Turkish relations will be energy projects – including Shah Deniz II gas supply for the Nabucco project. Throughput to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) crude pipeline may also be curtailed, and the Kazakh oil reaching Baku (due to increase following recent agreement between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan) across the Caspian Sea, instead of the BTC outlet, will likely be exported from the Black Sea ports of Supsa (Georgia) or Novorossiysk (Russia).

    Economics aside, that will increase oil tanker traffic through the Bosporus.

    Should these eventualities materialize, Turkish politicians, or rather the AKP leaders, will have a lot in their hands to “explain.”

    Other issues

    Other thorny issues between Turkey and Armenia include refusal of Armenia to recognize the 1921 Kars Agreement (signed between Turkey and the three neighboring Soviet Republics defining the borders), reference to Mount Ararat as a national symbol in Armenia’s Constitution, inclusion of the Mount Ararat insignia on Armenia’s national flag, and reference to eastern Turkey as “Western Armenia” in the Armenian Declaration of Independence.

    Such stance on the part of Armenia is an antithesis of good intentions towards a neighbor. Yet, apart from a veiled reference to the Kars Agreement, the issue is largely ignored in the Turkish-Armenian protocols.

    How could a country like Turkey normalize relations with a neighbor when the latter signals territorial claims on its neighbor – and does not want to alter its mind-set?

    Could the U.S. have a normal diplomatic relation with Mexico if the latter claimed in its Constitution that the southwest U.S. is part of a larger Mexico?

    Lingering in the background, of course, is the nefarious ASALA terror that caused the death of more than 40 Turkish diplomats in various countries in the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

    Armenia cannot be directly blamed for ASALA’s terror, but the Armenian officials have not publically condemned the dastardly acts of ASALA.

    Memories are still fresh on Armenian president Andranik Makarian’s warm welcome extended to the ASALA terrorist Varadian Garabedian when the latter was released from French prison in 2001. The Yerevan mayor Rober Nazarian gave the terrorist assurance that he would be given food, shelter and a job in Yerevan. In fact, Garabedian received a hero’s welcome when he stepped into Armenian soil. He had been convicted in France of the 1983 bombing of the Turkish Airlines bureau at the Paris-Orly airport, killing 8 people and wounding 61.

    Call for judgment

    The notion of normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia is applaudable. Peace and political stability in the region require such normalization, and no reasonable person can oppose this process. Normalization, however, should be predicated on the ending of all hostile elements in the relations between the two countries.

    Other than closing the border in 1993, Turkey has not nurtured any adversarial notions towards Armenia. Countless Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, with their churches, hospitals, charities, etc. live peacefully in Turkey, enjoying the full rights of any Turkish citizen, including the right to vote, while at the same time the presence of some 70,000 illegal Armenian workers in Turkey is tolerated.

    No Armenian flags are publically burned or trampled upon on national holidays in Turkey, and children are not indoctrinated with anti-Armenian sentiments – in families, schools or mosques – from day one of reaching their consciousness.

    The despicable murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink – by unknown forces still under investigation – in January 2007 in Istanbul was widely condemned in Turkey, many Turks taking to the streets chanting “We are all Armenians,” or “We are all Hrant Dink.”

    Compare these realities with those in Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora, and what a stark, depressing contrast emerges! One would be hard put, for example, to find a single functioning mosque in Armenia.

    And no president of a Turkish-American organization was charged with and convicted of terror activities, like the ex-ANCA president Murat Topalian, who received, in 2001, a 3-year prison sentence in Ohio court for his involvement in a bomb attack against the Turkish House in New York in 1981.

    Notwithstanding some gross exaggerations, e.g., 1.5 million purported deaths, Armenians have a genuine sorrowful history to tell going back to World War I, and they want Turkey to account for the sad history. But Turks also have a painful, traumatic history, with 2.5 million Moslems (Turks and Kurds) contemporaneously perished in Anatolia, some half a million at the hands of renegade Armenian bands that joined the invading Russian and French forces, hitting the Ottoman forces from behind.

    Wartime tragedies are like the two sides of a coin, and if Armenia insists on accounting of history, it must also show empathy for the other side and face the excesses of its own history.

    That is why, it is essential that the historical commission that is envisioned in the protocols have access to all archival documents, Armenian and Turkish included, and the commission’s purview should be making a comprehensive review of the World War I events in their entirety.

    Turkey is prepared to face its history. Is Armenia prepared to face its own?

    Christian sympathies for the Armenian claims should not ignore or overlook tragedies visited on the Moslems.

    Wrap-up

    Wrapping up, reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia in principle is commendable, and in fact, long overdue. But such a process must first remove hostile attitudes that exist between the two countries. Because the animus, or an attitude of hostility, has been very largely on the Armenian side, Armenia must first change its attitude toward Turkey, e.g., by revising its Constitution.

    An expression of sorrow on the ASALA terror would be also helpful.

    The two Turkish-Armenian protocols, however, give no assurance or confidence that Armenia will take these steps. Based on ambiguous, noncommittal language in the protocols, one can only hope for a positive change on the Armenian side.

    But hope is not sufficient. There should be greater certitude in the protocols as to how Armenia will alter its conduct.

    The only certain clause in the protocols is the one that calls for the opening of the Turkey-Armenia border within 2 months after the protocols take force. There is little doubt that the land-locked Armenia, with most of its population living in poverty, will reap major economic gains from the free-trade opportunities afforded by a re-opened border.

    Once the border is opened, it will be virtually impossible to reverse the process regardless of how Armenia behaves. Closure of the border would draw harsh criticism from the U.S. and the EU.

    The Turkish-Armenian protocols, devoid of any pre-conditions, are being pushed by Turkey’s AKP government at the strong urging of the U.S., in particular President Obama in person. The EU is also pressuring Turkey. By signing these protocols, the government hopes to earn “brownie points” from the U.S. and the EU in an effort to further advance its Islamic political agenda.

    This is regrettable. While the issue is one of political convenience for the AKP government, it is essentially a matter of national dignity for Turkey.

    A fundamental question that the government must explain is, other than “brownie points,” what it will actually gain from the signing of the two protocols. If the purpose is to deflect the Obama administration from recognizing Armenian “genocide” – as President Obama said he would during the election campaign – it is a black mark for the Turkish foreign policy. It would be caving in to what is effectively a blackmail.

    When he visited Turkey in April, Obama inveighed that he had not changed his “thinking” on genocide allegations. The implication – a veiled threat – was not lost on Turks.

    Another key question is, if the protocols are ratified by the Turkish Parliament and they become binding, how the government will handle the Azeris’ certain displeasure. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly assured the Azeris that he will not disappoint them. Yet, the protocols give little hope of a diplomatic breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.

    Perhaps the government is hoping secretly that the Parliament will decline to ratify the protocols, letting the PM effectively “off the hook.” That eventuality, of course, will trigger another headache. Parliamentary ratification is a Constitutional requirement in Turkey. The Parliament, however, cannot make any alterations to the protocols. It can only ratify or reject them.

    The indications are that the Turkish government has forced itself into a predicament, possibly even a trap, of its own making.

    In this context, it is particularly disconcerting that, according to Nalbandian, the text of the Turkish-Armenian protocols was prepared entirely by the Armenian side, with Turkey suggesting only minor revisions. Why such passivity on the part of Turkish foreign ministry?

    There is a perception that the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s vision of “strategic depth” and “zero problems with neighbors” is turning the country into a weakling of a country lacking resolve and respectability. 

    It is also regrettable that ATAA, TCA and FTAA have lent support to the normalization process in its present form. Apparently they (at least ATAA and TCA) have chosen to toe the line with the official Turkish government policy. Living on a day-to-day basis with the realities of the Armenian propaganda perpetrated across America, these organizations should have known better. At the very least, they should have stayed neutral on the issue.

    ferruh@demirmen.com