Turkish Forum

Tag: Gulen

  • Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths

    Bruce Fein

    Posted: June 4, 2009 06:10 PM

    On April 24, 2009–Armenian Remembrance Day– President Barack Obama issued a statement “remember[ing] the 1.5 million Armenian [deaths] in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” The President stumbled.

    To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.

    Immediately after the war, when events and memories were fresh, Armenians had no incentive to concoct high casualty figures or genocidal motivations for their deaths. Their objective was statehood. Armenians were encouraged by the self-determination concept in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, (while conveniently forgetting that they were a minority in Eastern Anatolia where they hoped to found a new nation). Armenian leaders pointed to their military contribution to defeating the Ottomans and population figures that would sustain an Armenian nation.

    Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: “The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente….” Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: “We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory.”

    When their quest for statehood shipwrecked on the Treaty of Lausanne and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1921, Armenians revised their soundtrack to endorse a contrived genocide thesis. It seeks a “pound of flesh” from the Republic of Turkey in the form of recognition, reparations, and boundary changes. To make their case more convincing, Armenians hiked the number of deaths. They also altered their story line from having died as belligerents against the Turks to having perished like unarmed helpless lambs.

    Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000.

    After statehood was lost, Armenians turned to their genocide playbook which exploited Christian bigotries and contempt for Ottoman Muslims. They remembered earlier successful anti-Ottoman propaganda. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the war, Henry Morganthau, was openly racist and devoted to propaganda. On November 26, 1917, Morgenthau confessed in a letter to President Wilson that he intended to write a book vilifying Turks and Germans to, “win a victory for the war policy of the government.” In his biography, “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story,” Morgenthau betrays his racist hatred toward Turks (“humanity and civilization never for a moment enters their mind”) and unconditional admiration for Armenians (“They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally.”).

    British Prime Minister Gladstone’s histrionic figure of 60,000 Bulgarian Christians slaughtered in 1876 captured the imagination of the west. The true figure later provided by a British Ambassador was 3,500–including Turks who were first slain by the Christians.

    From 280,000-750,000, Armenians initially raised their death count to 800,000 to test the credibility waters. It passed muster with uninformed politicians easily influenced by campaign contributions and voting clout. Armenians then jumped the number to 1.5 million, and then 1.8 million by Armenian historian Kevork Aslan. For the last decades, an Armenian majority seems to have settled on the 1.5 million death plateau–which still exceeds their contemporary estimates by 200 to 500 percent. They are now testing the waters at 2.5-3 million killed as their chances for a congressional genocide resolution recede. It speaks volumes that champions of the inflated death figures have no explanation for why Armenians on the scene would have erred. Think of the absurdity of discarding the current death count of Afghan civilians in the United States-Afghan war in favor of a number deduced in the year 2109!

    Armenians have a genuine tale of woe. It largely overlaps with the tale of tragedy and suffering that can be told by Ottoman Muslims during the war years: 2.4 million deaths in Anatolia, ethnic cleansing, starvation, malnutrition, untreated epidemics, and traumatic privations of war under a decrepit and collapsing Empire.

    Unskewed historical truth is the antechamber of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That is why the Government of Turkey has proposed an international commission of impartial and independent experts with access to all relevant archives to determine the number and characterization of World War I deaths. Armenians are balking because they are skeptical of their own figures and accusations.

  • Obama Should Forfeit his Nobel Prize

    Obama Should Forfeit his Nobel Prize


    Until he Tells the Truth on Genocide

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian3
    In his letter of November 20 to Armenian American organizations, Pres. Obama once again played shameful word games with the term genocide. At this point, one has to be incredibly naïve to believe that he is going to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide during the rest of his term in office.

    During the presidential campaign, when Sen. Obama was making repeated promises to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Armenian activists were nervously following the Turkish government’s attempts to use the false pretext of dialogue with Armenia to prevent him from fulfilling his pledge after the election.

    In early April, during a press conference in Ankara, when Pres. Obama was asked about his views on the Armenian Genocide, he dodged the question by stating: “My views are on the record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul’s leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one.”

    Clearly, Presidents Obama and Gul, for their own reasons, were scheming to undermine the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by pushing forward the Armenia-Turkey negotiations. They were joined in this unholy alliance by Russia and the European Union in pressuring Armenia’s leaders, who were only too eager to comply.

    This sinister deal was sealed when on the eve of April 24, Armenia and Turkey issued a joint press release announcing a roadmap for reconciliation!

    Not surprisingly, in his first April 24 statement, Pres. Obama repeated all the euphemisms and word games for which he had strongly condemned his predecessor, President Bush! Obama used the old and all too familiar denialist terminology of past presidents, such as “atrocity,” “massacre,” “terrible events of 1915,” and most incredibly, “Meds Yeghern”!

    In that statement, Pres. Obama used the same evasive answer he gave in Ankara: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.” Yet, he adamantly persisted in refusing to state what his actual views were.

    Furthermore, Pres. Obama urged Armenians and Turks “to address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward.” He expressed his strong support for their “courageous and important dialogue…to work through this painful history…” and applauded the Armenian and Turkish governments for accepting “a framework and roadmap for normalization.”

    Consequently, Pres. Obama left no doubt that he was going to sacrifice the truth of the “Armenian Genocide” on the altar of an illusory Armenian-Turkish reconciliation, using it as a fig leaf to conceal his erstwhile pledge.

    Last month, in a letter to Armenian American organizations, Pres. Obama reconfirmed that his view on “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century” had not changed. Once again, he failed to detail his views! The President was responding to a letter from the AGBU, Armenian Assembly, and Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. The three Armenian organizations had expressed their support for the Armenia-Turkey Protocols and appealed to the White House to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. In his response, Pres. Obama cleverly exploited the expression of support by the Armenian organizations for the reconciliation process, and downplayed his campaign pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. He reiterated that “the best way to advance…the just acknowledgment of the facts” is for Armenians and Turks to address the past “as part of their efforts to move forward.” He pledged “to continue to vigorously support the normalization effort in the months ahead.” The President was thus using the Protocols to undermine all efforts to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

    Keeping his pledge on the Armenian Genocide is in Pres. Obama’s own interest, as it would help rehabilitate his moral and political credibility by joining Pres. Reagan and scores of national parliaments, international organizations, and Holocaust and genocide scholars who are already on record confirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

    Pres. Obama should not be surprised if Armenian-Americans no longer trust him, and do not support him for re-election. Those who play games with genocide should not be rewarded.

    Anyone who lacks the courage to stand up for the truth does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize!
  • Turkey-Armenia Ties Connected to Karabakh

    Turkey-Armenia Ties Connected to Karabakh

    After White House Meeting, Erdogan Says Turkey-Armenia Ties Connected to Karabakh

    By Asbarez Staff on Dec 7th, 2009


    Read the Press Conference Transcript

    WASHINGTON (Combined Sources)—Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters after his meeting with President Obama that the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations was contingent on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

    According to Erdogan, the US and Turkish leaders discussed relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

    “This is important in the context of relations between Turkey and Armenia,” he said, adding that the two also discussed the Karabakh conflict within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

    On the issue of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, Obama said Erdogan had been “courageous” in his efforts to normalize the decades-old resentment and bitterness.

    Obama and Erdogan were also reported to have discussed Iran. According to Reuters, Obama said on Monday that Turkey could be an “important player” in efforts to resolve the long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

    The US President made the statement during a White House meeting with Erdogan, who said his country stands ready to do whatever it can to achieve a diplomatic solution to the issue.

    Obama said he had stressed the importance of resolving the dispute “in a way that allows Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, but provides assurances that it will abide by international rules and norms.”

    “I believe that Turkey can be an important player in trying to move Iran in that direction,” the president was quoted as saying by AFP.

    Obama also praised Turkey for its role in Afghanistan, where it has some 1,700 troops.

  • BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS,

    BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS,

    AZERBAIJAN: BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS, STEPS UP ANTI-WESTERN RHETORIC
    Shahin Abbasov 12/04/09

    Azerbaijani officials have taken aim at the West in recent weeks, in what some analysts believe could be an attempt to secure Russia’s support for a Baku-friendly settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

    The most surprising proposal in recent days to come out of Baku was a call for Russia to reestablish a military presence in Azerbaijan; Russian troops departed the country in 1993, and no mention had been made, until now, about their possible return.

    On November 26, MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev proposed that Azerbaijan should join the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Moscow-dominated military pact, and allow Russia to establish a military base in Azerbaijan. Hasanguliyev, a leader of the United Popular Front of Azerbaijan Party, presented the idea as a trade-off for Russian recognition of “Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh.”

    Although Baku’s national security strategy, approved in 2007, clearly defines “pursuing Euro-Atlantic integration” as a diplomatic priority for Azerbaijan, Hasanguliyev and others now complain that Baku has received little from the West in exchange for its interest in closer ties. Georgia’s own experience with the Atlantic Alliance suggests that Azerbaijan would never gain NATO membership, Hasanguliyev contended. Baku has not applied to join the Brussels-based military alliance.

    Representatives of the government and the governing Yeni Azerbaijan Party have not disavowed Hasanguliyev’s statement. Moreover, the statement appears to be part of a trend. At a November 20 conference in Baku organized by the presidential administration’s Center for Strategic Research, the United States and European Union came in for heavy criticism for their alleged failure to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Russia, which mediates the talks along with France and the United States, escaped censure. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    The pressure recently put on Armenia and Turkey to sign protocols on rapprochement “has never happened on the Karabakh issue,” charged Novruz Mammadov, head of the presidential administration’s Foreign Policy Department. Such an imbalance could lead to changes in Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, he suggested. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    Mammadov went on to accuse the West of ingratitude for Azerbaijan’s cooperation with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The lack of economic assistance for the $1 billion Mammadov says Azerbaijan lost from the 2008 economic crisis shows that “the West forgot us and helped Armenia,” he said.

    Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Ziyafet Askerov went a step further: Since force has been shown to be more effective than international law — a reference to the 2008 Georgia-Russia war and recognition of Kosovo — “the Karabakh conflict [could] be solved by the Azerbaijani army,” he threatened. “US foreign policy has become a hostage of the Armenian lobby,” he added.

    Discontent over Western criticism of the trial of two Azerbaijani bloggers – “Western media wrote more about the bloggers’ trial than about the Karabakh conflict since it began,” Novruz Mammadov claimed – and perceived NATO ingratitude for the 90 Azerbaijani peacekeepers serving in Afghanistan has added to the chill.

    Baku analysts are divided over the cause of this rhetoric.

    Azerbaijan’s irritation that more progress has been made on rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey than with the Karabakh peace process, now in its 15th year, could be driving Baku’s criticism of the West, believes Elhan Shahingolu, director of the Atlas Center for Political Research. “After the Turkish-Armenian protocols, Azerbaijan feels itself isolated and needs fast progress on the Karabakh issue,” Shahinoglu said.

    Russia’s absence from the criticism of the Karabakh mediators indicates that Baku hopes that “increased volumes of gas supplies and wider economic cooperation” mean that “Moscow would help in the Karabakh conflict,” Shahinoglu added. Annual trade turnover between Azerbaijan and Russia currently stands at $2.5 billion.

    After a November 24 meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at which the Karabakh conflict was discussed, an upbeat Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev declared that “if every country would have such relations as exist between Russia and Azerbaijan, there would be no problems in the world,” news agencies reported.

    Another political analyst, Zafar Guliyev, believes that more than the Karabakh conflict stands behind Baku’s anti-Western statements. An uptick in Western criticism of Azerbaijan’s democratization and human rights record – particularly the recent sentencing of two youth activists to prison terms — could play a role, too, he said. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    As Baku sees the West start to stick its neck out on such issues, the Azerbaijani government feels obliged to nudge it back into place, Guliyev noted. “In 2009, the Western powers and Turkey undertook efforts to reinforce their positions in the South Caucasus, and it is likely that some forces in the Azerbaijani government are concerned that the balance between the West and Russia [in the region], which always helped Baku to maneuver, could be broken,” Guliyev said.

    Both experts, however, believe that the rhetoric does not signal an official foreign policy line. The comments “so far” are “more muddled and emotional statements than a defined concept,” noted Guliyev.

    Shahinoglu, who opposes closer ties with Moscow, also believes that Baku is unlikely to change horses in mid-stream. “Azerbaijan has been pursuing Euro-Atlantic integration for more than 15 years and such abrupt changes now would not deliver anything positive,” he said.

    Editor’s Note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance correspondent based in Baku. He is also a board member of the Open Society Institute-Azerbaijan.

    Posted December 4, 2009 © Eurasianet

  • Turkish soldiers shot dead in ambush

    Turkish soldiers shot dead in ambush

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8399926.stm

    Five Turkish soldiers have been shot dead after gunmen opened fire on a military unit in northern Turkey, officials have said.

    A further four soldiers were injured in the attack, which took place in the province of Tokat.

    There was no immediate indication of who was behind the attack.
    However, both Kurdish and leftist militants are reported to be active in the area.

    Attacks on military bases in the north of the country are, however, rare.

    There have been rising ethnic tensions over recent days ahead of a court case hearing aimed at closing the country’s largest pro-Kurdish political party.

    On Sunday, one man died in clashes between police and protesters in the southeast of the country.

  • Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey after meeting

    Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey after meeting

    The White House

    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release
    December 07, 2009


    Oval Office

    1:25 P.M. EST

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I want to extend the warmest of welcomes to Prime Minister Erdogan.  I’m glad that I, personally, and the American people have a chance to reciprocate the wonderful hospitality that was extended to me when I visited Turkey in April.

    As I said when I had the great honor of addressing the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, I am strongly committed to creating the best possible relationship between Turkey and the United States.

    Turkey is a NATO ally, which means that we are pledged to defend each other.  There are strong ties between our countries as a consequence of the Turkish American community that has been established here.  We have had the opportunity to work together during this recent financial crisis, given Turkey’s role as a member of the G20.  And given Turkey’s history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role I think in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.

    During the course of our discussions here, we’ve had the opportunity to survey a wide range of issues that both the United States and Turkey are concerned about.  I thanked Prime Minister Erdogan and the Turkish people for their outstanding contributions to stabilizing Afghanistan.  We discussed our joint role in helping Iraq achieve the kind of independence and prosperity that I think has been advanced as a consequence of the election law finally being passed over the weekend.

    We discussed issues of regional peace, and I indicated to the Prime Minister how important it is to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capacity in a way that allows Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy but provides assurances that it will abide by international rules and norms, and I believe that Turkey can be an important player in trying to move Iran in that direction.

    And we discussed the continuing role that we can play as NATO allies in strengthening Turkey’s profile within NATO and coordinating more effectively on critical issues like missile defense.

    I also congratulated the Prime Minister on some courageous steps that he has taken around the issue of normalizing Turkish/Armenian relations, and encouraged him to continue to move forward along this path.

    We reaffirmed the shared commitment to defeat terrorist activity regardless of where it occurs.  I expressed condolences to the Prime Minister and the Turkish people for the recent terrorist attack that was taken there and pledged U.S. support in trying to bring the perpetrators of this violence to justice.

    And finally, I complimented the Prime Minister for the steps that he’s taken, often very difficult steps, in reintegrating religious minorities and ethnic minorities within Turkey into the democratic and political process, and indicated to him that we want to be as supportive as possible in further steps that he can take, for example, assuring the continuation of the Halki Seminary and addressing the vital needs of continuing the ecumenical patriarchy within Turkey.

    Over all, just to summarize, I am incredibly optimistic about the prospect of stronger and stronger ties between the United States and Turkey that will be based not only on our NATO relationship, our military-to-military relationship, our strategic relationship, but also increasing economic ties.

    And one of the concrete outcomes of this trip is to follow through on discussions that I had with both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul in Turkey to stand up a strategic working group around economic issues and improving commercial ties.  That will be launched with the participation of Secretary of Commerce Locke and our U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk, along with Turkish counterparts.  And we think that there is enormous potential for us to grow trade and commercial ties between the two countries.

    Turkey is a great country.  It is growing in influence around the world.  And I am pleased that America can call Turkey a friend, and I’m pleased that I’m able to call Prime Minister Erdogan personally a friend.  I’m grateful for his trip here and look forward to many years of collaboration with him to observe both the prosperity of the American people and the Turkish people.

    Thank you.

    PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN:  (As translated.)  Thank you very much.  I’m very grateful for the hospitality that both myself and my delegation have been shown since our arrival here.  And I would like to once again express my thanks for that hospitality.

    The fact that the President visited Turkey on his first overseas trip and that he described and characterized Turkish-U.S. relations as a model partnership has been very important for us politically and in the process that we all look forward to in the future as well.  And important steps are now being taken in order to continue to build on our bilateral relations so as to give greater meaning to the term “model partnership.”
    Of course, there are many sides to the development of this relationship — be it in the economic area, in the areas of science, art, technology, political areas and military areas.

    We have also appointed two people from our side to act as counterparts in order to liaise with their American counterparts to continue on this process.  Those two people are the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan; and the Minister of State responsible for economic affairs, Mr. Zafer Caglayan on the Turkish side.  I do believe that this group is going to work to take the Turkish-American relations forward, not just in the economic area, but in all areas in general.

    We, of course, have — we take joint steps on regional issues.  This is in the Middle East, in Iraq, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program.  We continue to have joint activity in Afghanistan, and the Turkish armed forces have taken over the command of the forces there for a third time with the additional support that we have sent to Afghanistan in the last couple of months.  And there are steps that we have taken with respect to training activity and other activities in the context of provisional reconstruction teams, and we continue on that.  We’ve had an opportunity to continue discussing those issues during our visit here.

    Another important area, of course, is energy.  Turkey is a transit country for energy issues.  And the agreement has been signed for Nabucco and we are ready to take some important steps with respect to Nabucco.

    We continue to talk with Azerbaijan.  I do believe that positive progress will be made in this area.  In addition to Azerbaijan, of course, there is the importance of companies like Statoil, Total, and British Petroleum and others.

    We have also discussed relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is of great importance.  This is important in the context of Turkish-Armenian relations.  We have discussed the Minsk Group and what the Minsk Group can do — the United States, Russia, and France  — to add more impetus to that process.  I can say that to have more impetus in the Minsk process is going to have a very positive impact on the overall process, because the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia is very much related to these issues.  As the administration in Turkey, we are determined to move forward in this area.

    Another important issue with respect for us in Turkey is the fight against terrorism.  And there was a statement that was made in this very room on the 5th of November 2007, which was very important in that context, because at the time we had declared the separatist terrorist organization as the common enemy of the United States, Turkey, and Iraq, because terrorism is the enemy of all mankind.

    Our sensitivity and response to terrorism is what we have displayed when the twin towers were hit here in the United States.  Wherever a terrorist attack takes place our reaction is always the same, because terrorism does not have a religion — a homeland.  They have no homeland, no religion whatsoever.

    We have also had opportunity to discuss what we can do jointly in the region with regard to nuclear programs.  We as Turkey stand ready to do whatever we can to ensure a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in our region.  And we stand ready as Turkey to do whatever we can do with respect to relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, because I do believe that, first and foremost, the United States, too, has important responsibility in trying to achieve global peace.

    And we, too, must lend all kinds of support that we can in our regions and — in our respective regions and in the world in general in trying to achieve global peace, because this is not the time to make enemies, it’s the time to make friends.  And I believe that we must move hand in hand towards a bright future.

    Thank you once again.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.

    All right, where’s Ben Feller?  There you are.

    Q    Thank you sir.  I’d like to ask you briefly about a domestic issue, that being the economy, heading to your speech tomorrow.  Do you support the use of federal bailout money to fund job creation programs?  Is that an appropriate use of that money?  Is that something that you plan to support tomorrow?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  You know, Ben, it would be a mistake for me to step on my speech tomorrow by giving you the headline today.

    Q    Not that big a mistake.  (Laughter.)

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  But let me speak generally about what we’ve seen.  On Friday we got the best jobs report that we’ve gotten in a very long time.  And it significantly beat expectations.  At minimum, it showed that for all practical purposes, we’ve stopped losing jobs.  And that’s consistent with the fact that in the third quarter we saw the economy grow.

    My first job when I came into office was to make sure that we got the financial crisis under control and that we tried to limit the devastating effects that it was having on the real economy.  We have had a very tough year, and we’ve lost millions of jobs.  But at least now we are moving in the right direction.

    What my speech tomorrow will focus on is the fact that having gotten the financial crisis under control.  Having finally moved into positive territory when it comes to economic growth, our biggest challenge now is making sure that job growth matches up with economic growth.  And what we’ve seen is, is that companies shed jobs very quickly, partly induced by the panic of what was happening on Wall Street, and they are still tentative about hiring back all those people who were laid off.  Also what we’re seeing is some long-term trends where companies are becoming so efficient in terms of productivity that they may feel that they can produce the same amount of goods or services without as many employees.

    So those present some particular challenges, given the fact that we lost over 3 million jobs just in the first quarter of this year before any of the steps we took had a chance to take effect.

    With respect to TARP specifically, I think you saw stories today and you’ve seen stories over the last several weeks that TARP has turned out to be much cheaper than we had expected, although not cheap.  It means that some of that money can be devoted to deficit reduction.  And the question is are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP — for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending — that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?

    And I will be addressing that tomorrow.  But I do think that, although we’ve stabilized the financial system, one of the problems that we’re still seeing all the time — and I heard about it when it was in Allentown just this past week — was the fact that small businesses and some medium-sized businesses are still feeling a huge credit crunch.  They cannot get the loans that they need to make capital investments that would allow them to then expand employment.  And so that’s a particular area where we might be able to make a difference.

    Is there somebody in the Turkish delegation that wants to call on a reporter?

    Q    Mr. President, is there any new and concrete U.S. action plan for disarmament and the elimination of the PKK terror organization in northern Iraq?  Thank you, sir.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, what the Prime Minister and I have discussed is coordinating closely in dealing with the problem of the PKK.  We have stated before and I have reaffirmed since I came into office that the United States considers PKK a terrorist organization, and that the threat that it poses not only in Turkey but also in Iraq is one that is of deep concern.  And as NATO allies, we are bound to help each other defend our territories.  More broadly, I think that it is important for us to have a consistent position with respect to terrorism wherever it takes place.

    So we discussed how we can coordinate militarily.  I will tell you that with respect to the issue of the PKK, I think that the steps that the Prime Minister has taken in being inclusive towards the Kurdish community in Turkey is very helpful, because one of the things we understand is, is that terrorism cannot just be dealt with militarily; there is also social and political components to it that have to be recognized.

    With respect to Iraq, I think the degree to which the Kurdish population within Iraq feels effectively represented within the central government in Baghdad, to the extent that we can resolve some long-term pressing issues like Kirkuk, the more I think that Kurds will recognize that their interests are not in supporting any kind of military activity but rather in working through conflicts politically, in a way that allows everybody to be prosperous.  And that’s the kind of process that we would encourage.

    Okay?  Thank you very much, everybody.  Happy holidays.

    END
    1:45 P.M. EST