Tag: Gulen

  • Ankara Seeks Influence Through Turks Living Abroad

    Ankara Seeks Influence Through Turks Living Abroad

    Leaders of Turkish descent across Europe recently received an invitation to a fancy event in Istanbul, all expenses paid. But what sounded innocent enough appears to have been an attempt by Ankara to get members of the Turkish diaspora to represent Turkish interests abroad. Turkish-German politicians have reacted angrily to the brazen lobbying.

    NOTE:

    WHAT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE IS THE INVITED PEOPLE WERE THE ONES CLOSER TO FETULLAH GULEN’S ORGANIZATION.. OR THE ONES THEY NEED TO DRAFT TO GULENIST MOVEMENT …AKP IS CONSIDERING THE GULENISTS ARE THE LIEDERS OF TURKISH DIASPORA

    SECULAR TURKISH ORGANIZATIONS AND TURKS REFUSED TO ATTEND.

    AMERIKADAN NEWYORK MERKEZLI BIR UST KURULUS BU TOPLANTIYA KATILMIS VE SUNUM YAPMISDIR.. AZERI WEB SITELERINDE CIKAN BU HABERI IKI HAFTA ONCE ILETTIK

    FETULLAHIN GÖLGESİNDE YAPILAŞAN*DIŞ TÜRKLER* 27 ŞUBAT TOPLANTISI

    DR. ERDAL SENER (TURKISH FORUM)

    The invitation that numerous Turkish-German politicians received in February sounded enticing: Lunch in a five-star hotel in Istanbul, travel expenses included. The session was titled: “Wherever One of Our Compatriots Is, We Are There Too.”

    Around 1,500 people of Turkish descent from several European countries accepted the tempting offer. Among the speakers at the event, which took place at the end of February, were businesspeople, NGO representatives and a member of the Belgian parliament of Turkish descent. But the meeting, which has sparked outrage among Turkish-German politicians, was more than a harmless gathering of the Turkish diaspora.

    The event was organized by the Turkish government, which is led by the conservative-religious Justice and Development (AKP) party, in an attempt to send a clear message to the participants that they should represent Turkey in other countries. Turks living abroad should take the citizenship of their new home country — not, however, with the intention of becoming an integrated part of that society, but so they can become politically active, said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spoke at the event. Erdogan also compared Islamophobia with anti-Semitism in his speech and said that countries which oppose dual citizenship are violating people’s fundamental rights. (Germany, for example, generally does not allow its citizens to hold dual nationality.)

    ‘Crime Against Humanity’

    Participants in the session told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the Turkish prime minister then repeated a sentence which had already sparked fierce criticism when he said it during a 2008 speech in Cologne: “Assimilation is a crime against humanity.” And even stronger language was apparently used by one representative of the Turkish government. According to Ali Ertan Toprak, the vice chairman of the Alevi community in Germany, who was present at the lunch, one speaker went so far as to say: “We need to inoculate European culture with Turkish culture.”

    The language in the invitiations already suggested the attitude of the Turkish government toward Turkish-German politicians. Ankara perceives them as being its own. Invitations sent in the name of Turkish Labor Minister Faruk Celik to German Bundestag members were addressed as “my esteemed members of parliament” and Erdogan was referred to as “our prime minister.”

    Turkish-German politicians and religious representatives in Germany are now voicing sharp criticism of Ankara. “It was very clearly a lobbying event on the part of the Turkish government,” said Toprak. He said that he himself was shocked about how openly the Turkish government had expressed its view that Germans of Turkish descent should represent Turkey’s interests. “If members of the (conservative) Christian Democratic Union who oppose EU membership for Turkey had been there, they would have got a lot of material for their arguments,” Toprak says.

    Highly Problematic

    Canan Bayram, a member of the Berlin state parliament, said she only attended the meeting because, as an integration spokeswoman for the Green Party in the city, she felt she needed to see what an event like this was like. Of course she covered her own travel and accommodation expenses, she said. “It was important to me that I make it clear that, as a member of a German state parliament, I do not allow the Turkish government to pay my expenses.” Sirvan Cakici, a member of the Bremen state parliament for the Left Party who attended the Istanbul meeting, also emphasized that she paid for her expenses herself.

    “The Turkish government should pay more attention to the interests of Turks in Turkey, rather than trying to exploit Turkish-Germans as their ambassadors,” said Vural Öger, a former member of the European Parliament who was also at the lunch.

    Other Turkish-German politicians turned down the invitation because they saw it as highly problematic right from the beginning. “It was clear that this was purely a lobbying event on the part of the Turkish government. As a German politician, I did not belong there,” says Özcan Mutlu, a member of the Berlin state parliament for the Greens. “We are not an extended arm of the Turkish government.” Memet Kilic, a member of the federal parliament with the Green Party, also declined to take part for similar reasons.

    ‘Unacceptable’

    It is not, in fact, the first time that the Turkish government has sought contact to Turkish-German politicians. After the 2009 parliamentary elections, Turkish-German Bundestag members received congratulatory calls from the AKP government. And in October 2009, the Turkish government invited German parliamentarians to an AKP party congress in Ankara.

    Ekin Deligöz, a member of the Bundestag for the Greens, says she has in the past received numerous invitations from the Turkish government, which she has turned down out of principle. “I refuse to represent the interests of the Turkish government simply because I was born in Turkey.”

    Turkish-German politicians feel that, in principle, it is acceptable if the Turkish government tries to seek contact with Bundestag members of Turkish descent. “After all, we act as a kind of bridge,” says Kilic. “It’s the most normal thing in the world.” He adds that it is “unacceptable,” however, if Ankara openly says that politicians of Turkish descent should act as a mouthpiece for Turkish interests.

    Sevim Dagdelen, a Bundestag member for the Left Party who turned down the invitation to attend the February event, talks of a “parallel foreign policy” on the part of the Turkish government. “I don’t want to be part of it,” she says. “I find it regrettable and cause for concern that other German politicians are apparently taking part.

  • Armenian Nazi Battalion during World War II

    Armenian Nazi Battalion during World War II

    “Armenian Nazi General Dro commanded the 20,000
    strong Armenian-Nazi 812th Battalion during World War II”

    ERMENI nazi legionTURKISHFORUM DANISMA KURULU UYESI VE YAZARI MERHUM SAMUEL WEEMS’IN KITABINDAN BIR ALINTI

    Samuel A. Weems – There was a funeral a few weeks ago in Vienna, Austria. Two small black urns were buried containing the brains and a few remains of 4-year old Annemarie Danner and 18-month old Gerhard Zeketner. During World War II these were two of the more than 600 children the Nazis proclaimed “worthless lives.” These children were taken to Vienna’s Am Stein Hospital to be murdered and their bodies used for medical research.

    Between 1935 and 1945, in the name of medical science and research, the Nazis murdered more than 75,000 individuals, including 5,000 children across Europe, in their quest to create a racial/ethnic pure state. These acts of terror and cruelty were in addition to what the Nazis did at their many death camps were Jews were exterminated.

    The term “genocide” was invented and created in 1944 to describe all the many different acts of murder the Nazis used in their attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish race. Annemarie Danner and Gerhard Zeketner are but two of the individual lives the Nazis stamped out.

    Armenians today are attempting to “steal” the term genocide by making the fake claim that the Turks massacred 1.5 million of their people in 1915. The undisputed hard evidence is that this tall tale was nothing more than the figment of the imagination of a high priest of the one and only state Armenian church. The priest’s motive for making up and telling this horrible lie was his attempt to get a foreign government to come and help the Armenians obtain someone else’s homes and land for free. This great lie is the foundation upon which the Armenian government has established its multi billion dollar fake “genocide industry.” The Armenians have been operating on this great lie since 1918. Armenia operates their “genocide industry” with great success in today’s world even if they do operate on fraud and deceit.

    The truth is the Ottoman Turks did only one thing which had good cause for doing so, but gave the Armenians a chance to claim that there was a massacre going on. That single act was to ask the Armenian Church to help them stop their congregations’ nightly terrorist acts against the Ottoman military supply lines. The Russians had invaded the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians in the eastern part of the country had joined the Russians. The Armenian Church refused to help the Ottoman government and state officials responded by saying they would themselves have to remove all Armenians from behind their army lines.

    Thereafter, the Ottoman government did remove all the Armenians who were doing such harm to their military forces. The United States of America has done exactly

    the same thing during World War II. Several Americans are known to have seen Armenians being alive and leaving the combat zone even though the Armenian church claims they were all murdered.

    At no time did the Ottoman Turks exterminate children for medical research as the Nazis did between 1935–1945. What makes such acts of Nazi terrorism worse is the fact they did not act alone in their attempts to create an ethnic/racial pure state. Consider the fact that more than 100,000 Armenians volunteered for Nazi military service and took an active part in the Nazi ethnic/racial cleansing campaigns. For ten long years Armenians took part in exterminating not only Jews but also children such as Annemarie Danner and Gerhard Zeketner.

    During World War II Armenians learned well the art of racial/ethnic cleansing from their Nazi partners in crime. Today. Armenia has ethnically/racially cleansed their tiny state so successfully that 94.8% of their population is now ethnically pure Armenian. The Armenians have ethnically/racially cleansed their tiny state of what they consider their “undesirables” much like they helped the Nazis do between 1935/1945. Jews, Muslims, and Christians of other faiths other than the state owned and approved church have either been murdered or forced out of Armenia.

    Consider the fact of how Armenia today continues to honor the Nazis. The Armenian Nazi General Dro commanded the 20,000 strong Armenian-Nazi 812th Battalion during World War II. After the war, even though serving the Nazis, Armenian Dro talked his way into the United States of America where he remained until his death. Just last year Armenians dug him up and took his body back to Armenia where he was reburied with full military and state honors. The Armenian American colony raised several hundred thousand dollars to help fund a youth leadership institute to honor this Armenian Nazi general. Just what specific leadership is Armenian children being taught today in the General Dro leadership institute–hate, ethnic purity of the Armenian race, racial superiority?

    And to think the Armenians, still running their “genocide industry” scam are building their very own genocide memorial two blocks from the American White House. There are less than one million Armenians even in the United States. Why should they spend $75 million dollars on a false claim to something that is disputed that happened 6000 miles away more than 85 years ago. The answer is simple. The Armenian American colony will use this self-invented, fake memorial to deceive and fleece even more American taxpayer dollars for their less than 200 year old homeland the Russians gave them after taking these lands from the Muslim owners. This Armenian genocide memorial will become one of the greatest and largest frauds ever attempted in the history of the entire world. Can anyone believe that Armenians, who took a very active role in the Jewish genocide of World War II, can build such a fake memorial to themselves today for the sole purpose of deceiving and fleecing American Christian taxpayers out of more and more foreign aid money that over the past ten years alone amounts to almost $1.5 billion dollars!

    It is fair to ask since the Armenians were ten year partners in crime with the Nazis during the World War II years–will they have a memorial to Annemarie and Gerhard and all the other poor souls the Armenians helped the Nazis murder and exterminate?

    Samuel A. Weems is a retired U.S. judge from Arkansas and is the author of ARMENIA: Secrets of A ‘Christian’ Terrorist State, The Armenian Great Deception Series – Volume 1, St. John Press. […]

    BU KITAP TURKISH FORUMDAN TEMIN EDILEBILIR

  • AKP: Whither Turkey?

    AKP: Whither Turkey?

    Ziya Meral and Jonathan Paris | March 09, 2010

    Recent arrests and the questioning of top military commanders over an alleged plot to create chaos in Turkey have many in the international media and elsewhere wondering if the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, which came to power in 2002, is spearheading an Islamist takeover.

    Can these arrests be seen as the latest act of a once seemingly Western-friendly AKP government on a mission to fulfill its Islamist ambitions? Current tensions between Israel and Turkey and major new initiatives in Turkish foreign policy toward once-shunned states in the Middle East seem to point to the same concerns of a Turkey turning her face from West to East.

    Although the genuine concerns of foreign observers and Western governments need to be addressed, predicting the future of Turkey from its changing foreign policy without an awareness of the domestic context results in problematic conclusions. A blinkered perspective explains why most foreign commentators have misread how and why the AKP came into power and how it maintained growing support from Turkish society, at least until 2009.

    The AKP generated broad support not because it claimed roots in an Islamist movement but because its pro-EU, pro-foreign investment, pro-democracy and pro-reform policies have attracted votes not only from its natural base of conservatives, but also from liberals, leftist groups, marginalized ethnic groups such as Kurds and even non-Muslims. All attempts by the Kemalist elites of the Turkish state and the armed forces to undermine the AKP’s coveted position through orchestrated social campaigns and politicized judicial efforts have led to wider support for AKP at home and abroad as a victim of anti-democratic power structures.

    However, the March 2009 local elections recorded only a 39 percent victory for the AKP, a significant drop from its 47 percent majority in the previous election in 2007. In retrospect, the AKP began losing its momentum in 2008 when it became perceived as a party that seeks to fill the pockets of its own supporters and punish anyone who stands in the way. In other words, the Turkish public was reacting to AKP in the same way it reacted to the other established parties that the AKP defeated in 2002.

    Efforts to regain AKP’s image of reform after the 2009 elections initially resulted in a burst of renewed excitement, particularly over promises to address the Kurdish issue and the problems faced by the Alevis, a religious and ethnic minority group of some 10 million, as well as proposed democratic changes to the current military-friendly Constitution.

    Yet, the AKP failed to implement any of these initiatives. Its silence over the closure of the Kurdish party, DTP, and subsequent arrests of Kurdish politicians lost it credibility as more and more voters realized that the AKP’s democratic vision lacked substance.

    Meanwhile, on the economic front, unemployment soared to a record high while the AKP publicly maintained the patently unsupportable argument that the global economic crisis had bypassed Turkey because its banks were soundly managed and capitalized. It is no surprise that currently AKP’s support hovers around 34 percent, a record low for the party.

    The rise and slippage of the AKP reveals much about the mood in Turkey that is often overlooked. Whenever the AKP achieved significant steps towards EU accession, economic growth, foreign investment, democracy and human rights, it gained broad popular support. When the AKP slowed down on reform and relapsed into power games and autocracy, it lost votes.

    The AKP’s volatile popularity reflects where Turkish society is today: Europe-looking, yearning for more democracy and economic liberty and, at the same time, trying to maintain a conservative culture and strong national identity. The greatest portion of the society wants a meaningful engagement with the world, not a return to an isolationist Islamist state. A study done by Sabancı University in 2009 found that the ratio of Turks who want Shariah Law in Turkey went down to 10 percent from 26 percent ten years earlier in 1999.

    The Kemalist elites have never been able to reflect the country’s reality outside of the golden triangle of Istanbul-Ankara-İzmir. By insisting on a peculiar type of secularism and national identity, they have alienated large sections of the Turkish society. That is why all of their attempts to treat Turkish society like a herd that will hand power back to them have not worked.

    Today, for the first time since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, a military coup looks impossible. The armed forces and the old elites now know that they are not any longer a law unto themselves. Turkish society has discovered its voice and has become the primary engine behind reform and progress.

    If this reading of the deeper social and political tensions in Turkey is correct, then recent changes in Turkish foreign policy cannot be seen simply in terms of a religious re-orientation of the country or an aggressive Islamist policy. Turkey must be understood on its own terms as a country which is evolving towards a stronger democracy that wants to be a proactive and independent actor in the world.

    Where this will take Turkey and what this will mean for United States-European Union-Turkey relations and stability in the Caucasus and the Middle East are open questions. That is why Turkey needs close support from the U.S. and EU more than ever before to ensure a soft landing.

    Ziya Meral is a London-based Turkish analyst and a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge. Jonathan Paris is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.  This essay was previously published in Hurriyet. Reuters Pictures.

  • Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

    Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

    15contractors CA1 articleLarge

    From Left: United States Air Force; Robert Young Pelton; Mike Wintroath/Associated Press; Adam Berry/Bloomberg News

    From left: Michael D. Furlong, the official who was said to have hired private contractors to track militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Robert Young Pelton, a contractor; Duane Clarridge, a former C.I.A. official; and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive.

    By DEXTER FILKINS and MARK MAZZETTI
    Published: March 14, 2010

    KABUL, Afghanistan — Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States. The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

    While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

    It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

    Moreover, in Pakistan, where Qaeda and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, the secret use of private contractors may be seen as an attempt to get around the Pakistani government’s prohibition of American military personnel’s operating in the country.

    Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

    Even in a region of the world known for intrigue, Mr. Furlong’s story stands out. At times, his operation featured a mysterious American company run by retired Special Operations officers and an iconic C.I.A. figure who had a role in some of the agency’s most famous episodes, including the Iran-Contra affair.

    The allegations that he ran this network come as the American intelligence community confronts other instances in which private contractors may have been improperly used on delicate and questionable operations, including secret raids in Iraq and an assassinations program that was halted before it got off the ground.

    “While no legitimate intelligence operations got screwed up, it’s generally a bad idea to have freelancers running around a war zone pretending to be James Bond,” one American government official said. But it is still murky whether Mr. Furlong had approval from top commanders or whether he might have been running a rogue operation.

    This account of his activities is based on interviews with American military and intelligence officials and businessmen in the region. They insisted on anonymity in discussing a delicate case that is under investigation.

    Col. Kathleen Cook, a spokeswoman for United States Strategic Command, which oversees Mr. Furlong’s work, declined to make him available for an interview. Military officials said Mr. Furlong, a retired Air Force officer, is now a senior civilian employee in the military, a full-time Defense Department employee based at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

    Network of Informants

    Mr. Furlong has extensive experience in “psychological operations” — the military term for the use of information in warfare — and he plied his trade in a number of places, including Iraq and the Balkans. It is unclear exactly when Mr. Furlong’s operations began. But officials said they seemed to accelerate in the summer of 2009, and by the time they ended, he and his colleagues had established a network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan whose job it was to help locate people believed to be insurgents.

    Government officials said they believed that Mr. Furlong might have channeled money away from a program intended to provide American commanders with information about Afghanistan’s social and tribal landscape, and toward secret efforts to hunt militants on both sides of the country’s porous border with Pakistan.

    Some officials said it was unclear whether these operations actually resulted in the deaths of militants, though others involved in the operation said that they did.

    Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would often boast about his network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan to senior military officers, and in one instance said a group of suspected militants carrying rockets by mule over the border had been singled out and killed as a result of his efforts.

    In addition, at least one government contractor who worked with Mr. Furlong in Afghanistan last year maintains that he saw evidence that the information was used for attacking militants.

    The contractor, Robert Young Pelton, an author who writes extensively about war zones, said that the government hired him to gather information about Afghanistan and that Mr. Furlong improperly used his work. “We were providing information so they could better understand the situation in Afghanistan, and it was being used to kill people,” Mr. Pelton said.

    He said that he and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive, had been hired by the military to run a public Web site to help the government gain a better understanding of a region that bedeviled them. Recently, the top military intelligence official in Afghanistan publicly said that intelligence collection was skewed too heavily toward hunting terrorists, at the expense of gaining a deeper understanding of the country.

    Instead, Mr. Pelton said, millions of dollars that were supposed to go to the Web site were redirected by Mr. Furlong toward intelligence gathering for the purpose of attacking militants.

    In one example, Mr. Pelton said he had been told by Afghan colleagues that video images that he posted on the Web site had been used for an American strike in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan.

    Among the contractors Mr. Furlong appears to have used to conduct intelligence gathering was International Media Ventures, a private “strategic communication” firm run by several former Special Operations officers. Another was American International Security Corporation, a Boston-based company run by Mike Taylor, a former Green Beret. In a phone interview, Mr. Taylor said that at one point he had employed Duane Clarridge, known as Dewey, a former top C.I.A. official who has been linked to a generation of C.I.A. adventures, including the Iran-Contra scandal.

    In an interview, Mr. Clarridge denied that he had worked with Mr. Furlong in any operation in Afghanistan or Pakistan. “I don’t know anything about that,” he said.

    Mr. Taylor, who is chief executive of A.I.S.C., said his company gathered information on both sides of the border to give military officials information about possible threats to American forces. He said his company was not specifically hired to provide information to kill insurgents.

    Some American officials contend that Mr. Furlong’s efforts amounted to little. Nevertheless, they provoked the ire of the C.I.A.

    Last fall, the spy agency’s station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, wrote a memorandum to the Defense Department’s top intelligence official detailing what officials said were serious offenses by Mr. Furlong. The officials would not specify the offenses, but the officer’s cable helped set off the Pentagon investigation.

    Afghan Intelligence

    In mid-2008, the military put Mr. Furlong in charge of a program to use private companies to gather information about the political and tribal culture of Afghanistan. Some of the approximately $22 million in government money allotted to this effort went to International Media Ventures, with offices in St. Petersburg, Fla., San Antonio and elsewhere. On its Web site, the company describes itself as a public relations company, “an industry leader in creating potent messaging content and interactive communications.”

    The Web site also shows that several of its senior executives are former members of the military’s Special Operations forces, including former commandos from Delta Force, which has been used extensively since the Sept. 11 attacks to track and kill suspected terrorists.

    Until recently, one of the members of International Media’s board of directors was Gen. Dell L. Dailey, former head of Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the military’s covert units.

    In an e-mail message, General Dailey said that he had resigned his post on the company’s board, but he did not say when. He did not give details about the company’s work with the American military, and other company executives declined to comment.

    In an interview, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top military spokesman in Afghanistan, said that the United States military was currently employing nine International Media Ventures civilian employees on routine jobs in guard work and information processing and analysis. Whatever else other International Media employees might be doing in Afghanistan, he said, he did not know and had no responsibility for their actions.

    By Mr. Pelton’s account, Mr. Furlong, in conversations with him and his colleagues, referred to his stable of contractors as “my Jason Bournes,” a reference to the fictional American assassin created by the novelist Robert Ludlum and played in movies by Matt Damon.

    Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would occasionally brag to his superiors about having Mr. Clarridge’s services at his disposal. Last summer, Mr. Furlong told colleagues that he was working with Mr. Clarridge to secure the release of Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, a kidnapped soldier who American officials believe is being held by militants in Pakistan.

    From December 2008 to mid-June 2009, both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Clarridge were hired to assist The New York Times in the case of David Rohde, the Times reporter who was kidnapped by militants in Afghanistan and held for seven months in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The reporter ultimately escaped on his own.

    The idea for the government information program was thought up sometime in 2008 by Mr. Jordan, a former CNN news chief, and his partner Mr. Pelton, whose books include “The World’s Most Dangerous Places” and “Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror.”

    Top General Approached

    They approached Gen. David D. McKiernan, soon to become the top American commander in Afghanistan. Their proposal was to set up a reporting and research network in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the American military and private clients who were trying to understand a complex region that had become vital to Western interests. They already had a similar operation in Iraq — called “Iraq Slogger,” which employed local Iraqis to report and write news stories for their Web site. Mr. Jordan proposed setting up a similar Web site in Afghanistan and Pakistan — except that the operation would be largely financed by the American military. The name of the Web site was Afpax.

    Mr. Jordan said that he had gone to the United States military because the business in Iraq was not profitable relying solely on private clients. He described his proposal as essentially a news gathering operation, involving only unclassified materials gathered openly by his employees. “It was all open-source,” he said.

    When Mr. Jordan made the pitch to General McKiernan, Mr. Furlong was also present, according to Mr. Jordan. General McKiernan endorsed the proposal, and Mr. Furlong said that he could find financing for Afpax, both Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pelton said. “On that day, they told us to get to work,” Mr. Pelton said.

    But Mr. Jordan said that the help from Mr. Furlong ended up being extremely limited. He said he was paid twice — once to help the company with start-up costs and another time for a report his group had written. Mr. Jordan declined to talk about exact figures, but said the amount of money was a “small fraction” of what he had proposed — and what it took to run his news gathering operation.

    Whenever he asked for financing, Mr. Jordan said, Mr. Furlong told him that the money was being used for other things, and that the appetite for Mr. Jordan’s services was diminishing.

    “He told us that there was less and less money for what we were doing, and less of an appreciation for what we were doing,” he said.

    Admiral Smith, the military’s director for strategic communications in Afghanistan, said that when he arrived in Kabul a year later, in June 2009, he opposed financing Afpax. He said that he did not need what Mr. Pelton and Mr. Jordan were offering and that the service seemed uncomfortably close to crossing into intelligence gathering — which could have meant making targets of individuals.

    “I took the air out of the balloon,” he said.

    Admiral Smith said that the C.I.A. was against the proposal for the same reasons. Mr. Furlong persisted in pushing the project, he said.

    “I finally had to tell him, ‘Read my lips,’ we’re not interested,’ ” Admiral Smith said.

    What happened next is unclear.

    Admiral Smith said that when he turned down the Afpax proposal, Mr. Furlong wanted to spend the leftover money elsewhere. That is when Mr. Furlong agreed to provide some of International Media Ventures’ employees to Admiral Smith’s strategic communications office.

    But that still left roughly $15 million unaccounted for, he said.

    “I have no idea where the rest of the money is going,” Admiral Smith said.

    Dexter Filkins reported from Kabul, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

  • BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION, KAHIRE BASININDA IKTIBASEN YAYINLANDI     Pulat Tacar [tacarps@gmail.com]

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Alon Ben-Meir

    Senior Fellow at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs

    Posted: March 9, 2010 05:09 PM

    Tam boyutlu görseli göster

    Reassessing the Genocide Resolution

    Once again, as has happened every spring for years running, the debate over whether the ethnic clashes against the Armenians in the break up of the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide has made it into the US political arena for Congress to weigh in. The recent resolution adopted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs-to officially recognize actions against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks-has less to do with the US government’s pursuit of historical accuracy, than political theater that has come at a strikingly inopportune time.

    Genocide is a serious label, and requires not only moral authority from those who use it but a deep comprehension of the historical context in which these events occurred. Armenians have every right to demand official inquiries about the terms and conditions in which hundreds of thousands of their ancestors were killed, but this is not the task of US Congress, who has neither the moral standing to codify armed clashes of a century ago without proper inquiry nor the right to be selective about human rights offenses for political points. Every effort should be made by President Obama and the remaining House Representatives to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.

    Beyond the very serious damage that such a resolution could inflict on US-Turkish relations, should it pass the full House, congressional interference at this juncture could severely erode the very moral argument used justify the resolution. Turkey and Armenia have only recently concluded two protocols calling for closer ties, open borders, and most importantly, the creation of a commission to examine the historical evidence of the tragic events. Not only will this vote undermine the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia, but it threatens the US-Turkish relationship at a time when Turkey is playing a critical role aiding the US and the Middle East peace process.

    Sadly, this resolution was politicized at the outset, thereby diminishing much of its moral tenet. Had the purpose been for the US to champion human rights and officially condemn any large scale atrocities in times of war, then why was there no debate about massacres in Sudan, Rwanda, Algeria or the Balkans? The fact that it was supported by a powerful lobby and sponsored by many members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Committee Chairman Howard Berman from California, and Donald Payne and Albio Sires from New Jersey, each of whom represent relatively large Armenian constituencies, takes this debate out of the moral realm and into the political one. Beyond this matter, Howard Berman and the Foreign Relations Committee failed to address the pressing issues behind what such a resolution would invite forth, mainly the land disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the issue of reparations for descendants of the victims, none of which can be treated in isolation. However large the political benefit these members of Congress may garner this election year by pushing this resolution, it is not in US interests, as the end result will hurt the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process and severely undercut Turkish-US cooperation should it come to fruition. Such a serious resolution requires the application of the highest moral review and investigation, not a politically convenient act which is considered an insult to Turkish identity. If genocide was in fact committed, it should be left to an international investigative tribunal, not politicians who need to be reelected every two years.

    Turkey has been a loyal friend of the United States for more than a half century, and continues to support American efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is a modern secular democracy, and has made great strides in remaining open and progressive. Why then should the United States Congress hold the descendants of the Ottomans responsible for the deeds of their fathers perpetrated a century ago? Since Turkey vehemently rejects the term genocide, what judgment should then be passed, and by whom, that will not tarnish the present generation of Turks? This generation had nothing to do with past events and, in fact, condemns the atrocities committed during that heinous war, regardless of who the perpetrators were. What then gives the United States’ House of Representatives the moral authority to pass judgment, when domestic political interest shamelessly dominates their motives? The argument against the resolution by the full House should be based on moral grounds, and the members must not act as judges and jurors when Turkey and Armenia have agreed to establish their own joint committee to unravel what in fact happened.

    At a time when America still suffers from a lagging global image after years of hawkish foreign policy and two ongoing wars, the United States Congress must support what Turkey and Armenia have agreed to do to resolve their conflict and help facilitate a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute. Even the Jewish lobby, in the wake of a series of diplomatic rifts between Turkey and Israel, acted quietly in favor of the Turks, resulting in a close margin in the vote. As much as Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent statements have not fared well with the Israeli public, the Israeli diaspora is keen on maintaining the strategic nature of its relationship with Turkey as well as Turkey’s relationship with the West.

    But more importantly, the Turkish government, who acted out fervently against the US government following the resolution, must come to grips with the separation of power in the United States. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have come out strongly against the resolution — albeit last minute — yet they cannot control the votes or the agenda of Congress. Under no circumstance should Prime Minister Erdogan cancel his upcoming visit to the US, as he should use this opportunity to present his case and prove that Turkey is capable of handling the disputes with Armenia without US congressional intervention.

    It is by no means certain that this misguided resolution taken by Pelosi and Berman will pass in the full House should it come to a vote. Furthermore, it is unlikely these sponsors will even bring the resolution to the floor unless they are certain it has a substantial chance to pass. This represents a keen opportunity for Democrats and Republicans alike to find a common area of interest and work in unison for the best interests of the US, Turkey, and the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

  • SPANISH PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    SPANISH PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    news.am
    March 11 2010
    Armenia

    The motion on Resolution on Armenian Genocide was introduced to
    Spanish Parliament. The sponsors of the document are representatives
    of Republican Left of Catalonia and three MPs of Initiative for
    Catalonia Greens.

    They also proposed to include in the resolution a provision that
    Spanish Government supports Armenia-Turkey normalization process and
    calls EU to back Yerevan-Ankara dialogue.

    February 26, the Catalonian Parliament, unanimously voted for the
    Armenian Genocide approval.