Tag: Ottoman Empire

  • Operation Calamity

    Operation Calamity

    The Israeli commandos who stormed a flotilla of aid ships were expecting a cakewalk – but then the bullets began to fly

    Uzi Mahnaimi and Gareth Jenkins

    Published: 6 June 2010

    Video footage, released by the Israelis, shows the commandos being attacked on the aid shipIstanbul’s face has changed radically over the millennia — Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Turk — but it remains one of the world’s great cities, home to a cosmopolitan and enlightened elite. There is also another Istanbul, however, one that last week lured Israel into scoring a spectacularly violent own goal and advanced the cause of militant Islam.

    In the heart of the city, not far from the famous Blue Mosque and the shopping district of Nisantasi, which attracts visitors from western Europe, is Fatih, a fundamentalist stronghold where westerners are treated with suspicion and the clothing and customs speak of the Middle East.

    For most of the members of Turkey’s secular middle class, who spend their lives in the air-conditioned offices and apartments, glitzy shopping centres, cafes and bars of the city’s upmarket neighbourhoods, Fatih’s narrow streets and chador-clad women could just as well be in a foreign country. Few have visited Fatih and most would laugh at the thought of it.

    But it is from Fatih that Turkey’s most Islamist radical groups and organisations co-ordinate their activities and publish books and magazines extolling the virtues of a strict Islamic lifestyle — and, in many cases, openly calling on their young male readers to support the global jihad against the West.

    Fatih is the headquarters of Insan Hak ve Hurriyetleri (the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, or IHH) — a name that has gone round the world since Israeli commandos killed at least nine of its activists early last Monday on a boat carrying relief supplies for Gaza.

    IHH draws many of its members not just from Fatih but also from the shanty towns that encircle the sprawling city of 14m. Many are migrants from the countryside who have brought with them the conservative Islamic values of rural Anatolia.

    Last week’s deadly confrontation in the eastern Mediterranean pitted a band of these tough young men — spoiling for a fight, in the opinion of one non-Turk who was on the boat — against a unit from Israel’s military elite that had no idea what it was taking on. Israeli special forces marines — who thought the task was beneath them because they had been told to cow the Turks with paintball guns — suddenly feared for their lives and started firing real bullets.

    How could such a catastrophic miscalculation occur? And what really happened when Israel took on the Mavi Marmara as it cruised towards Gaza? Some of the accounts are partisan, lurid and wildly contradictory, but by the end of the week a plausible narrative was beginning to emerge.

    Intelligence was good. We knew about all ships, their names and even specific information about some of the militants on boardFlotilla 13, Israel’s SBS-style navy frogmen, are respected as among the best of the world’s special forces. Last year the deputy commander of their frogman school, a captain, was sent on a daring operation in the eastern Mediterranean. Sailing on a millionaire’s yacht to disguise their activity, he and his men crossed into Syrian waters just after dark, not far from the port of Tartus. Next morning they reached their operational location about a mile from a line of villas belonging to the Syrian elite.

    Several commandos were sunbathing on deck, posing as tourists, when the spotters hidden on board detected a movement in the garden of one of the villas. A specialist sniper, armed with a long-range gun equipped with a silencer, was called to the upper deck.

    The middle-aged Syrian general was sunbathing, fearless, in his back garden. His unsuspecting bodyguards controlled the front garden and the entrance. A single bullet was fired. No sound was heard. The general, in charge of arms sales to Hezbollah and liaison officer to North Korea, slumped back.

    Before his family discovered that he was dead and not asleep, the yacht slipped into international waters. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria heard the bad news over the telephone while visiting Iran. Just before dawn, the yacht reached Flotilla 13’s base near a beautiful bay and impressive crusader castle in northern Israel. It was returned to its Israeli owner and the captain awaited his next mission.

    Three weeks ago, when he was called to the briefing room, he expected another daring operation, perhaps a night-time underwater assignment to one of the Iranian ports. But when the bald-headed Flotilla 13 commander introduced the assignment, the captain was flummoxed. Some peace activists were planning to break Israel’s three-year-old blockade of Gaza with a flotilla of small ships carrying food aid, building materials and other supplies. Flotilla 13’s mission was to stop them. He was to command one of the forces boarding the largest ship, the Turkish Mavi Marmara.

    What kind of mission is this, he asked, to board a passenger ship? Someone must have got it wrong, he suggested, they were not the coastguard but the most highly trained soldiers in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Send the police instead. His commander was adamant. These were the orders from the big guys.

    Flotilla 13 is a small brigade with heavy-duty missions. But as from three weeks ago, all cross-border operations were called off and everyone was focused on stopping the “peace flotilla”. “Intelligence was good,” the captain said last week during a debriefing. “We knew about all ships, their names and even specific information about some of the militants on board.”

    They were told to prepare for minor resistance from passengers. Paint guns and Taser-type weapons, which they had never used, would suffice.

    Because the operation was unprecedented for the commandos, they underwent several strange briefings. A psychologist told them how to deal with civilians. A lawyer explained to the stunned commandos the legal aspects of their operation. Then came a man from the foreign ministry in a three-piece suit and tie. The commandos, some of them still in swimming gear and wetsuits, gave him a friendly welcome. He was followed by the more familiar intelligence briefing and technical elements.

    The captain and his men held a rehearsal. Fifty civilians were loaded onto ships and the commandos “took over”. One of them recalled: “It was a nice day out in the Mediterranean.”

    The real thing began last Sunday evening. Those assigned to helicopters arrived at an air force base. Those who would be in the “Morenas” — the frogmen’s special high-speed boats — mustered at Ashdod navy base.

    Out at sea four small boats carrying international peace activists who had set out from Cyprus had a rendezvous with the Mavi Marmara, which had set sail from southern Turkey. It was under the control of the IHH, which Israel regards with deep suspicion as an associate of Hamas, the Palestinian militants in Gaza. But there were non-Turks among about 600 people on board, including Sarah Colborne, director of campaigns and operations at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in London.

    “We had assembled all the boats in international waters,” she said on her return to Britain last week. “At 11pm that night, Israeli naval boats were detected on the radar and sighted and a decision was made to move further back into international waters.

    “We managed to get some broadcasts out that we were on a humanitarian mission, that the United Nations had called for ships to be sent with humanitarian aid to break the blockade on Gaza, that we were simply undertaking that goal. An emergency medical room was assembled and we were all told to put lifejackets on to prepare for any attack.”

    Another Briton, Theresa McDermott, an Edinburgh postal worker and member of the Free Gaza Movement, was alongside the Mavi Marmara in the fleet’s smallest boat, Challenger 1.

    “The skies were clear and there was a full moon. Their boats had the lights on, so on either side of us we could see two large vessels on the horizon. They were shadowing us all the way, and one of the photographers on board got a picture of a military frigate. They followed us through the night and most people went to sleep. I was up on the top deck keeping watch and trying to make sure they weren’t sneaking up on us.

    “At 2am we realised one of their boats had come right up the back of the flotilla, but then it dropped off again. They were trying to make us feel nervous. It went very quiet, then at 4am we heard people starting their morning prayers on the Mavi Marmara. We were right next to them so we could hear the prayer call. It was still dark, then all of a sudden we saw smaller lights across to starboard and we knew the Israelis had dropped the smaller boats, carrier craft, into the water.

    Both of them are talking in codes and language from their days with the special forces that no one can understand“They went for the Mavi Marmara first, with Zodiac commando boats that sliced through the flotilla. The Israelis started firing smoke bombs and sound grenades onto the Mavi Marmara. We heard the cracks of gunfire and I realised they were much more forceful than when they have taken us off boats before. They were coming really hard.”

    Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, spent last weekend in Canada, where he was supposed to be preparing for a meeting on Tuesday with Barack Obama.

    On Sunday all thoughts of it were set aside and a full operations room was established to let him control the events about to take place off Gaza.

    The first call on his secure line — codename Mountain Rose — was put through late on Sunday to Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, sitting in the operations bunker at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv.

    The relationship between Bibi and Ehud goes back more than 40 years. Barak was a commander of Israel’s equivalent of the SAS and Bibi was one of his young officers. In 1972 they were among the commandos who stormed a hijacked Sabena jet at Tel Aviv airport. Bibi was injured by a bullet in his hand. Barak went untouched. Ever since, Netanyahu has regarded him as his mentor.

    After they went into politics, Netanyahu became leader of Likud and Barak leader of the Labour party. But as prime minister in a coalition government, the rightwinger rarely opposes his old commander’s recommendations. “Both of them are talking in codes and language from their days with the special forces that no one can understand,” complained a cabinet minister recently.

    Once again they had kept the government out of the loop about the peace flotilla. The seven members of the inner cabinet, known in Israel as the “Septet”, had been told individually of the general idea to storm the ships but were given no details.

    Netanyahu now wanted to know if all military preparations were going well. Barak assured him everything was under control. It was only then that Netanyahu made telephone calls to world leaders to explain the delicate situation. David Cameron took his call at 10pm London time.

    In Israel the frogmen got into their Black Hawk helicopters. “Normally, before an operation, we sit in the choppers silent like the grave. We are tense and worried,” said one of them later. “This time we were in high spirits, talking and cracking jokes.”

    Another soldier gave his account: “You climb in according to your prepared order. I was the sixth from the left-hand side. One before last. We had a pleasant night flight of about 40 minutes. Once arrived, I took the rope and jumped — about 20 metres of descent.”

    It was 4.10am Monday Israeli time. Vice-Admiral Eli Marom, the Israeli navy commander, was in one of the Morenas speedboats only 50 yards from the Mavi Marmara. He took out his handgun and shot three times in the air. Operation Sky Winds had begun.

    Three Israeli commandos landed on the upper deck of the Mavi Marmara where young Turks “started resisting naturally … like anyone who feels his life is threatened”, said Abdul Razzaq Maqri, a former Algerian parliamentarian who was on the ship.

    The first Israeli officer was badly beaten and lost consciousness. The next two were beaten, tied up and hustled away to a lower deck. One of the Israelis said later: “Once I’d landed on the upper deck I noticed two terrorists beating one of our guys with a metal bar. I jumped on them, pushing them aside, but immediately they turned on me and began beating me.”

    Their captain and the rest of his force, unaware of the situation, were still landing on the upper deck one after another and receiving the same treatment. The first Israeli to understand the situation was a young soldier monitoring live images from the scene. “They are smashing the fighters,” he was heard shouting. “They’re giving them hell.”

    An officer in the command room asked: “Who is smashing whom?”

    “The Arabs … the terrorists … these people … they are giving hell to the fighters.” He paused. “They threw him [a soldier] from the upper deck!”

    On his speedboat, Marom heard over the communications system the tense voice of one of his commando officers on board: “They are using real arms, I repeat, they are using real arms. Request permission to use handguns.”

    In Tel Aviv, Barak was watching events live on a monitor and heard the request. Next to him was Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, the commander of the IDF. Barak whispered: finish this at once. Netanyahu, calling from Canada, was ignored.

    This was the moment when the commandos “switched the hard disk”, as one of them described it, stopped trying to be policemen and slipped the leash. Reports that one soldier, a staff sergeant, killed six Turks with his handgun have been denied by the IDF. But several militants from the IHH were soon dead on the deck.

    Maqri remembers a shot ringing out and a fellow Algerian activist crumpling, bleeding from an eye. Colborne, who had been woken from a brief sleep by the sound of the attack and rushed to the top deck, saw the first fatality: “He was shot in the head. I saw him. He was obviously in a very bad way and he subsequently died. There were bullets flying all over the place when I was on the top deck and I took the decision to go downstairs.

    “I couldn’t quite believe they were doing what they were doing. There was live ammunition flying around and I could hear the sounds of the bullets flying and the whir of the helicopter blades as people were dropped down onto the roof. What I saw was guns being used by the Israelis on unarmed civilians.”

    The Israeli commandos stormed the control room of the ship. “The door was closed and I opened it with a strong kick,” said their captain. “The skipper was standing there talking to me, I think in Turkish. I ordered him in English to turn off the engine. He refused. I put the handgun to his throat. He got the hint. The engine was switched off. I informed the command that we controlled the ship.”

    It was only then that Barak asked to be connected to Netanyahu. All under control, he said, in the slow charismatic voice that Netanyahu adores so much from their days of cross-border operations. Only a minute later Barak regretted making his report. Marom was on the line now. Three soldiers are missing, he told Barak. We’re searching for them.

    Hamas has held an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, hostage for four years and his plight has turned Israel upside down. Did three of Barak’s best men face another agonising hostage situation? As usual, under stress, he was calm. “Freezing ice is in his veins, not blood,” said one of his former subordinates, trying to describe his behaviour during operations.

    On board the Mavi Marmara, commandos rushed the lower decks to search for their friends. Andre Abu-Khalil, an Al-Jazeera TV cameraman, said the Turks “took the wounded Israeli soldiers to the lower decks. Twenty Turks made a human shield to prevent the Israeli soldiers from approaching. They knocked on the metal walls to warn them not to advance.

    “Then, using a loudspeaker, they said to the Israelis that the soldiers would be freed only after the IDF provided medical help to the wounded people.”

    The Israelis went on searching, said Abu-Khalil. “It took about 10 minutes till the Israeli soldiers opened fire. One of the people got a bullet in his head; the other was shot in his neck.”

    The commandos stormed the machine room, killing militants guarding it, and found a wounded soldier chained to one of the pipes. The two others had managed to escape, jumping from a porthole into the sea. Marom called Barak: all soldiers found. There were nine civilians dead.

    “At 5.15am we started broadcasting over the Tannoy for help to evacuate the critically injured,” said Colborne. The civilians dragged the casualties to an inner hall and closed the door behind them.

    One of them, Hanin Zuabi, an Arab Israeli MP, spoke to one of the soldiers in Hebrew. “She asked me to take care of their injured people. I told her, ‘I’m not willing to get in there as I’m not sure they don’t have weapons, but we will take care of the wounded. Please, stay at the door and make sure only wounded will get out’.”

    The Israelis say that during an initial search of the ship they found weapons, gas masks, ceramic flak jackets, written instructions and thousands of dollars in cash. “It was clear that they were very well prepared for resistance,” said one defence source.

    They came up with a razor and a little knife that you use to open boxes and they said they had found weapons. We laughed at this point. What else could you doIsraeli intelligence is adamant that the IHH is a fundamentalist group affiliated with Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Hamas was an Islamic humanitarian organisation that developed a military wing. Israeli security suspects the IHH of following the same path.

    One of the western activists on board said anonymously later that some young Turks had clearly been spoiling for a fight. But the ages of the dead — a 19-year-old, three men in their thirties, two in their forties, a 54-year-old and a 60-year-old — indicate that the clash was not confined to young militants. Most were killed in classic special forces style by several shots to the head and torso.

    Other vessels in the peace flotilla had been overcome with much less violence — although some on board reported being beaten and Tasered.

    On one of them, the Sofia, was Henning Mankell, the Swedish thriller writer. He felt that the masked and armed Israelis who took it over were ashamed of what they were doing. At least two of them were women.

    He said: “I think in one way the soldiers were very disciplined, but if you looked at the eyes of the women they were not terrified but they looked as if they felt really like, shit — what the hell am I doing here?

    “We asked why they did it and they said we had weapons aboard. We said we don’t have any weapons so they made a search of the ship. They came up with a razor and a little knife that you use to open boxes and they said they had found weapons. We laughed at this point. What else could you do.”

    The boats in the flotilla were taken to Ashdod where agents of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, began to interrogate what they suspected was a hard core of IHH militants from the Mavi Marmara before releasing everyone under international pressure.

    In Canada, Netanyahu cut short his trip and returned to Israel, where he faced unprecedented criticism. Western governments lined up to condemn the operation and security experts asked why the Israeli intelligence service had not infiltrated the Turks or sabotaged the Mavi Marmara.

    It was suspected of sabotaging at least two of the smaller vessels, which suffered steering difficulties. One of them, the Irish-sponsored Rachel Corrie, with Mairead Maguire, the Nobel peace prize laureate, on board, stayed behind for repairs and did not approach Gaza until yesterday morning. It was stopped without violence by an Israeli boarding party.

    Israel has rejected much of the criticism of Operation Sky Winds, but the Israeli defence establishment, long friendly with the Turkish military, is extremely worried. Turkey’s government, itself religiously based, has aligned itself with public anger. Reports to the Israeli defence ministry indicated that it might close down an Israeli intelligence station based on Turkish soil, not far from the Iranian border.

    “If that happens,” said a well-informed Israeli source, “Israel will lose its ears and nose, which watch and sniff the Iranians’ back garden.”

    It would mean that Israel’s botched Gaza blockade had weakened its defences against the much graver threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

    Additional reporting: Jamie McGinnes and Jon Swain

  • The Turkish Myth..

    The Turkish Myth..

    An Important Article For your Files and to send your Armenian and Greek friends and Their discussion groups to show them that they are victim of lies by their diaspora:

    Turkish Forum – World Turkish Coalition (Dünya Türkleri Birligi)

    Support Turkısh Forum: https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2010/02/09/aidat-ve-bagis-odeme-yontemleri/
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————
    See what they were saying way back in the 23 June 1923 edition of the Nation Magazine (it is simply amazing, especially the response at the very end coming from an Armenian): Sevgin Oktay [Sevgin@OktayEnterprises.com]

    for the record:

    Arthur Harold Moss (born November, 1889 Greenwich Village – Feb. 20, 1969 Neuilly-sur-Marne) was an American expatriate poet, and magazine editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Moss

    the June 13, 1923 edition

    The Turkish Myth

    March 9, 2007

    By Arthur Moss & Florence Gilliam

    he few Westerners of importance who have tried to give faithful pictures of life in the Near East have been outnumbered to the extent of being smothered. Major General Harbord, sent officially to investigate conditions; H. G. Dwight, a former United States consular official and author of “Constantinople” and “Stamboul Nights”; Pierre Loti, the romantic lover of Turkish civilization; Anatole France, whose keen mind usually penetrates popular illusions; and H. G. Wells, in “The Outline of History,” are members of the small group of Westerners who have defended Moslem civilization. When Lothrop Stoddard says: “Fourteen hundred years ago Islam rose and flooded the civilized world,” he obviously regards the Mohammedan advance as a wave of barbarism sweeping to destruction the elements of a lofty Western civilization. A pretty theory upon which H. G. Wells has made the following comment: “If the reader entertains any delusions about a fine civilization, either Persian, Roman, Hellenic, or Egyptian, being submerged by this flood (the advance of Islam), the sooner he dismisses such ideas the better. Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer.” Anatole France goes him one better by declaring that “the most tragic day in history is that of the battle of Poitiers when in 732 the science, the art, and the civilization of Arabia fell back before the barbarism of the Frank.”The age-old charge against the Turks is of course the Armenian massacres. A journalist not long since tabulated the reports of these massacres in recent years and showed that they totaled thirty-five million slain. As the whole Armenian population is known never to have exceeded three million, there is obviously a case of falsification somewhere. The Bryce reports have been proved to be without tangible evidence and to have been based entirely on hearsay. It has been remarked that investigation in the villages where Turks were in the minority would have revealed just as many instances of Greeks and Bulgars massacring Turks. Indeed it is notable that the Greeks and Bulgars accuse each other of such atrocities much more than they accuse the Turks. The situation is of course the result of an agelong conflict between different peoples who have become almost inextricably mixed politically. Those massacres which occur among the Armenians are most often the work of the Kurds, who are roving bands about as lawless as the mobs in parts of the American South, and about as out-of-hand politically as the banditti who infest parts of Italy and Spain.

    Finally, there could be no more complete refutation of the long-perpetuated charges against Turkey than the behavior of the Turkish army during the recent offensive in Smyrna. All the events of this advance have been reported by British and American papers whose policy has been consistently anti-Turkish. When the victorious army entered the region, the Christian population, remembering the precedent of 1919 when the Greeks slaughtered 4,000 Moslems, began sending out panic-stricken appeals for protection, anticipating retaliation on the part of the Turks. And the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva sent to Angora a mild request that no reprisals be made for the Greek atrocities. A strange turn of phraseology: the League of Nations admitting Greek atrocities! Gradually it dawned upon the Christians in Smyrna and upon the Christian nations of Europe that no reprisals were to be made. But the retreating Greeks in complete demoralization behaved so badly that even the efficient British censorship could not stop the leaking of news. The pillaging and burning by the defeated Greek army grew to such proportions that it was difficult for Izmet Pasha to restrain his troops from retaliation. But restrain them he did, and his men behaved with such dignity and orderliness as to profoundly impress Western observers. (How different from the actions of our own marines in Haiti!) The first Turk troops to enter Smyrna were military police who prevented looting and did their best to still the panic among the hysterical Greek civilians. The correspondents of the Chicago Tribune, the London Daily Mail, and Reuter’s stated emphatically that the unfortunate burning of the city was not in any way traceable to the Turks. In spite of these reports by correspondents who were on the spot and who have no reason to favor the Turkish cause, we still hear that the Turks burned Smyrna.

    During the retreat, Reuter’s correspondent was warned by Greek officers to leave Ouchak as that town was to be burned. I quote his dispatch from Smyrna: “The demoralization of the Greek troops was complete and the behavior of most of the Greek officers disgusting. On the retreat to Smyrna many Greek officers personally led the looting and pillaging.”

    But it remains for an American official, a man sent by a great relief organization to help succor the downtrodden Greeks and Armenians, to knock the last props from under the stupid edifice of lies and anti-Turk propaganda. Colonel Haskell of the American Red Cross has just returned from a tour of investigation in the Near East. Speaking officially he said: “America should feed the half million Turks whose hinterland was wilfully demolished by the retreating Greeks, instead of aiding the Greeks and Armenians who are sitting around waiting for America to give them their next meal. The stories of Turk atrocities circulated among American churches are a mess of lies. I believe that the Greeks and not the Turks are barbarians.”

    It has been pointed out that the past wars of Islam have been waged with the hope of plunder. How many nations have entered war without some such hope? And in Angora the desire was not for conquest but simply to regain Constantinople, a city that has been Turkish for 500 years and has at present a population which is predominantly Turkish. If wars of conquest are to be deprecated, what could have been a plainer scheme of aggrandizement than the last Greek expedition, materially fortified by the imperialistic policy of Lloyd George? The Greeks were deluded by a dream of regained Alexandrian Empire. It is as though Italy should suddenly demand the restitution of all the Roman provinces on the strength of her glorious past. Charles Saglio in l’OEuvre, Paris, commenting upon the statement of the British Government that the Turkish victory complicated matters in the Near East, said Mustapha Kemal had really rendered a great service to the Allies in driving the Greeks out of Smyrna, which was the most Turkish of all Turkish territory, and had thus largely cleared up the situation instead of confusing it.

    In Turkey, all three main religions–Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity–are on an equal footing; the numerically dominant one is completely divorced from the state. This will not mean any falling off in the followers of Mohammed, but merely that other religions are to have equal rights. A Catholic cannot go as far politically in secular America as a Christian can go in so-called theocratic Turkey. Turkey is no more Islam than Italy is Catholicism. There are rumors of a religious war. If it ever comes, it will not come from Turkey as a center but from the outside pressure of Arab tribes. Even under less enlightened rulers than the present government the Turks have been extraordinarily tolerant to other religions. During the 500 years of Turkish occupation of Jerusalem no religious shrine belonging to another people was molested. All sacred spots were open to visitors of the different faiths. And it may be noted in this connection that the inauguration of Allied control precipitated an immediate squabble of nations and sects concerning the guardianship of the holy places. It is not likely, either, that any Western nation would have allowed to Mohammedan missionaries extraterritorial rights such as have been enjoyed by the American College in Constantinople.

    Turkey’s greatest crime in modern times seems to have been her entrance into the war on the losing side. Most of our war records tell of the villainy of Enver Bey, but how many refer to Mahmoud Shevket Pasha, the Minister of War whom the Germanophiles of Turkey assassinated because he was doing his best to keep Turkey out of the conflict?

    But whatever may be the merits of this case, the Treaty of Sevres, August, 1920, was the last and greatest effort of the Christian Powers to divide Turkey as they have divided Austria, leaving the latter state to the mercies of international charity. In Turkey there was not the excuse of a heterogeneous population as in Austro-Hungary, the population of Turkey being 70 per cent Ottoman Turk and 85 per cent Moslem. The Treaty of Sevres was an AngloFrench grab-scheme; its successor which is to be evolved from the proposals and counter-proposals initiated at Lausanne is likely to be little more.

    It is almost impossible to grasp the revolutionary achievements of Mustapha Kemal Pasha, head of the Angora Government. Here is a man of forty, who in the course of a few years has accomplished what would have been considered a task for 500 years, leaping from entirely unrepresentative governmental methods to really democratic ones. Many of the petty rulers of Turkey before the war were lazy rather than vicious. Turkey was a despairing country, sure of being attacked by European Powers whatever its policy. No one wanted to be really responsible for anything. Kemal has made sweeping changes in this respect. Suffrage is absolutely universal with no discrimination for race, color, creed, or sex. The harem system has long been outworn and economically impractical, and there is now an active Turkish Women’s Party with at least as much influence as the National Woman’s Party in America. (Kemal has recently been married to Latifeh Hanoum, one of the leaders of this party.)

    The present Government is based on the village system. Each village elects representatives to a body which in turn elects district representatives. These form a council which votes for president. Mustapha Kemal is responsible to this council and trusts himself to a general election at least once a year; he has held office ever since the formation of the Angora Government. It is new for Turkey to have a ruler animated by statesmanlike intelligence and backed by popular support. Angora has recognized the independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Hejas, and Irak. These countries are more grateful to Angora for such recognition than they are to the Allied congress which made them independent states. Because of Mustapha Kemal’s genius and honesty of purpose, and the ability and liberalism of the men associated with him in the new Turkish Government, the Moslem world presents an almost united front under the leadership of Turkey.

    The Western world has just begun to realize the great difference between Old Turks and Young Turks. Mustapha Kemal’s Government is endeavoring to prove by its every political move that the appropriate term of the hour is neither of these, but New Turks.

    To THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

    SIR: It is always disappointing when so admirable a journal as yours gives place and apparent weight to arguments in support of indubitable tyranny, but it is especially so when such arguments are palpably irrelevant and illogical. The article on The Turkish Myth, sponsored by Arthur Moss and Florence Gilliam, is the case in point.

    Conceive of attempting to speak upon so grave a matter without even the most elementary knowledge of the historic background! Islamic civilization and the Turk! Is it possible that anyone who has given thought to this question at all does not know that this great civilization was Arabic or Saracenic; and that on the historic day of Poitiers, 732, to which allusion is made, when “the science, the art, and the civilization of Arabia fell back before the barbarism of the Franks,” the Turks were still, as they were for some five or more centuries to come, in the heart of Tartary or Turkestan; and that when they arrived it was not to save or to add to but first to destroy and then to imitate such remnant of this civilization as was left? An impartial and a thorough reading of Mr. Wells, to whom these writers allude, would at least have made this fact clear. For on this point he is specific. And even of the Arabs themselves he says (page 636, Vol. II) “the mind of the Arabs blazed out like a star for half a dozen generations after the appearance of Islam, having never achieved anything of importance before or since.” And with respect to the Turk versus the Greek (Col. Haskell’s barbarians, according to the article), quoting with approval Sir Mark Sykes, Mr. Wells apparently believes (page 124, Vol. II) that

    Constantinople had been the tutor and polisher of the Turks. So long as the Ottomans could draw science, learning, philosophy, art, and tolerance from a living fountain of civilization in the heart of their dominions, so long had the Ottomans not only brute force but intellectual power. So long as the Ottoman Empire had in Constantinople a free port, a market, a center of world finance, a pool of gold, an exchange, so long did the Ottomans never lack financial support Muhammad was a great statesman; the moment he entered Constantinople he endeavored to stay the damage his ambition had done: he conciliated the Greeks, he did all he could to continue Constantinople the city of the Emperors but the fatal step had been taken; Constantinople, as the city of the Sultans, was Constantinople no more; the markets died away, the culture and civilization fled, the complex finance faded from sight; and the Turks had lost their governors and support.

    In the face of this and of the vast bulk of other historic evidence, is it not really overbold on the part of these apologists to attempt to intrigue your readers into an exactly opposite view? Pierre Loti, H. G. Dwight, and Major General Harbord may indeed, in some respects, share their point of view. But I feel that long-time and distinguished friend of Armenia, Anatole France, does not.

    And when they come down to modern times and to that real and perennial skeleton in the closet, the desperate struggle of the Armenians for emancipation, and the wholesale massacre of them by their “tolerant” masters, your writers do not appear to be on any firmer ground. Ignoring the legion of eyewitnesses of every class and nationality, they fall back upon a journalist’s mocking tabulation to the effect that if reports were credible then of a total population of 3,000,000 people 35,000,000 would already have been slain. I wonder if this journalist, and the writers, would be willing to accept a reduction of 34,000,000? This would bring the number of slain down to only one million, the number generally estimated, and still leave the Armenians with a heavy enough loss and the Turks with a sufficiently ghastly responsibility.

    In the last paragraph but one, one comes upon the interesting news that Angora has “recognized” Armenia (Russian Armenia) and that the Armenians are more grateful to Angora for having done this than to the Allied Congress which made them independent. Ye gods! And did the Allied Congress make these Armenians independent? We who have been following the case closely have always supposed that Armenia had won her own independence and had kept it by Russian sanction and that she felt not the least gratitude either to Turkey or to the Allies.

    BERTHA SULLIVAN PAPAZIAN

    THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

    SIR: We beg leave to reply to Miss Papazian’s letter of June 12, wherein she objected to certain statements made in our article The Turkish Myth. The venerable Arslanian, present Patriarch of Christian Armenia and certainly more qualified to speak for his people than are absentee patriots, stated to the Chicago Tribune representative in Constantinople on April 30: There is no truth in the story that my people have appealed to Sir Horace Rumbold to raise any Armenian question at Lausanne. We formally disapprove of propaganda conducted by Armenians abroad. This only arouses animosity and accomplishes nothing. It makes the Armenian people a mere cloak for the selfish policies of the Great Powers. We Armenians are participating wholeheartedly in the elections as our duty. We are resolved to work hand in hand with Turkey in the interests of the nation.

    The Patriarch was not under Turk coercion or influence, being at the time under the protection of Allied guns. Miss Papazian says that the recent independence of Armenia was achieved by the Armenians. True, but by Armenians at home, working hand in hand with members of the new government of Turkey. We did not, as Miss Papazian suggests, ignore testimony of eyewitnesses as to alleged massacres. One of the writers, Mr. Moss, has spent considerable time in the Near East and has first-hand knowledge of atrocities perpetrated by Kurdish bands (as was admitted in our article), and also knows of many atrocities committed by Armenian, Greek, Bulgar, and Serb comitadje.

    ARTHUR MOSS and FLORENCE GILLIAM

  • Ottoman Empire and Germany (1871-1908)

    Ottoman Empire and Germany (1871-1908)

    Military-economic relationship
    Trade Activities of German Armaments Industry
    In the Ottoman Market

    By Naci Yorulmaz
    Free University, BerlinGermany

    Abstract

    At the beginning of the 19th century Ottoman Empire was “self-sufficient in its armaments production” but afterwards by the middle years of the nineteenth century the empire could not escape the consequences of the technological change in the defense industry and had become completely dependent on foreign arms suppliers. Because of dependency of the Ottomans on imports increased the financial burden, and opened another door to “economic penetration” by the European Powers.

    In the eve of the World War I the Ottoman favored the Germans for the army orders. The reasons for this preference were, as indicated in many other researches as well, not due to the higher quality or lower price of their products compared to the other companies. Instead, the political relationships between the two Empires, along with some forms of private acquaintances, were decisive in the relative inclination towards German companies.

    The expansion of German military influence in Turkey went hand in hand with commercial influence. At this point it is briefly worth examining the claim that the trade related military technological associations on the eve of the First World War triggered in a closer economic and political relationship between two countries after the war until today.

    Read more…

  • Ottoman mission

    Ottoman mission

    By Delphine Strauss

    Published: November 24 2009 02:00

    osmanli

    In one of Istanbul’s artier quarters, a second-hand bookshop sells leaves torn from an old school atlas that depict the dominions of the Ottoman empire, all neatly labelled in a flowing script few Turks are now able to read.

    The faded pages are a reminder of the heritage long rejected by the modern Turkish state as it sought to forge a new national identity and survive on the frontline of 20th-century geopolitics. Just as the social reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the secular republic, presented European culture as the standard of civilised behaviour, so foreign policy became firmly west-facing as Turkey sought shelter from the Soviet power on its border.

    Now, however, the ruling Justice & Development (AK) party is reengaging with territories once ruled by the sultans, from the Balkans to Baghdad, in a drive to return Turkey to a place among the leadership of the Muslim world and the top ranks of international diplomacy.

    Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister and architect of the policy, rejects the expansionist tag of “neo-Ottoman” bandied about by AK critics, preferring his well-used slogan, “zero problems with neighbours”. The US and the European Union praise this unobjectionable aim: to act as a force for stability in an unstable region.

    Turkey has long mattered – as Nato ally, friend of Israel, EU applicant and energy route to the west. But its growing economic strength and diplomatic reach give it influence over some of the toughest issues facing Washington and other capitals: from frozen conflicts in the Caucasus to Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the threat of disintegration in Iraq. “We are neither surprised by nor disturbed by an activist Turkish agenda in the Middle East,” Philip Gordon, assistant secretary at the US state department, said in Ankara this month.

    Yet the speed and bewildering scope of Turkey’s diplomatic endeavours have left both Turkish and western observers wondering whether it can juggle all its new interests. In a month of frenetic activity, Mr Davutoglu has staged a show of new friendship with Syria, ending visa restrictions on a border once patrolled by Turkish tanks; paid a high-profile visit to Iraq’s Kurdistan region, long shunned as a threat to Turkish unity; and signed a landmark deal to mend relations with Armenia. “Today we, children of the Ottomans, are here to show interest in the development of Mosul just as our ancestors showed centuries ago,” Zafer Caglayan, trade minister, said as he opened a consulate in the northern Iraqi city last month. Turkish diplomats claim credit, in the last year alone, for mediating between Israel and Syria, hosting talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and liaising with Sunni militants in Iraq.

    But Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a prime minister who scorns diplomatic niceties, has shown the potential for new friendships to damage old ones.

    Israel, which long valued Turkey as its only Muslim ally, was already infuriated by his frequent condemnations of its Gaza offensive. In October, Mr Erdogan compounded the insult not only by ejecting Israel from joint military exercises but by renewing his criticisms while in Tehran standing beside Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iranian president. He caused consternation by saying Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s war crimes-indicted president, could not as a Muslim be capable of genocide, nor could his actions be compared with Israel’s.

    “Why is it that . . . a more prominent Turkey has, it seems, to come at the expense of its relations with Israel?” Robert Wexler, the US congressman, asked recently. US newspaper columnists went further, arguing that Ankara was undermining efforts to put pressure on Iran, or even that illiberal Islamists could no longer be trusted in Nato.

    The virulence of the reactions reflects the value attached to Turkish support. Although no longer a bulwark against Soviet power, the threat of radical Islam has given Turkey new weight as a partner to channel western values to the Muslim world – and, by its western alliances, show that a “clash of civilisations” is not an inevitable result of religious difference.

    Mr Davutoglu is touring European capitals this month, employing Ottoman-tinged rhetoric to persuade people that Turkey’s European vocation is unchanged. “You cannot understand the history of at least 15 European capitals without exploring the Ottoman archives,” he told an audience in Spain this week.

    For Ankara, there is no question of changing orientation. “We have one face to the west and one to the east,” Mr Erdogan said last month as he signed trade deals in Tehran. Yet it is natural for Turkey to keep its options open, given the manifest reluctance in some EU countries to admit it to membership.

    Ankara presents its new friendships as an asset to the EU, giving it a partner to promote western aims in the region. The European Commission’s latest report on Turkey’s accession process endorsed that view, with praise for its foreign policy. But Brussels also makes it clear that geostrategic importance cannot replace the domestic judicial, political and human rights reforms required to meet the criteria for membership.

    Ankara’s focus, however, is on grander projects than box-ticking compliance with European legislation. A lack of enthusiasm for Herman van Rompuy’s appointment last week as president of the European Council reflects not just worries over his past opposition to Turkey’s candidacy but a preference for a heavyweight leader who would want Europe to play a bigger part on the world stage.

    Ibrahim Kalin, Mr Erdogan’s chief foreign policy adviser, argues that Turkish activism is not a reaction to disappointments in the EU but simply “a fully rational attempt to seize new spaces of opportunity” – including the EU’s virtual absence from geopolitics.

    Frictions with the EU may worsen, however, if Turkey engages in rivalry with countries used to seeing it as a junior partner. Western diplomats have noted Mr Davutoglu’s reluctance to support a French attempt at conciliation between Israel and Syria, for example, and say Mr Erdogan’s grandstanding in Iran “is definitely causing irritation”.Turkey thus needs to ascertain how much influence it has, what it is based on, and where new policies may upset old alliances.

    Greater regional engagement is in part a response to changing balances of power. The coming American withdrawal from Iraq threatens a vacuum in which Turkey is one of the most plausible counterweights to Iranian influence – its credibility enhanced by its refusal to let the US use its territory to invade in 2003.

    Ian Lesser from the Washington-based German Marshall Fund notes that ideas of a “Middle East for Middle Easterners” have been circulating for some time. “The crucial difference is that Turkey is now a much more significant actor in both economic and political terms, and Turkey’s Middle Eastern choices are, rightly or wrongly, seen as linked to the country’s own identity crisis.”

    Foreign policy is certainly shaped by a growing affinity with the Islamic world, in a country where religious practice is becoming more visible and public opinion a greater force. Mr Erdogan’s comments on Gaza, or on Iran’s nuclear programme, appear both to recognise and reinforce views on the street: a survey by the GMF found that almost one-third of Turks – compared with only 5 per cent of Americans – would accept a nuclear-armed Iran if diplomacy failed.

    Chief AK weapon in its drive eastwards, though, is not religion but trade. Exports to what the country’s official Turkstat agency classifies as the Near and Middle East account for almost 20 per cent of the total so far in 2009, up from 12.5 per cent in 2004. Turkish conglomerates are also stepping up investment in a region where their presence is considered benign.

    “We don’t want a cultural bias against us,” says Sureyya Ciliv, chief executive of Turkcell, the mobile operator, which has interests in central Asia, Georgia and Moldova. Anadolu Efes, with almost 10 per cent of Russia’s beer market, wants to start producing non-alcoholic beer in Iran. Limak, a group centred on construction, is seeking projects in the Gulf, north Africa and Europe “east of Vienna”. “It’s a natural development,” says Ferruh Tunc, senior partner in Istanbul for KPMG, the consultancy. “Turkey’s position until the Soviet Union collapsed was unusual – it was like the last stop on a Tube line.”

    Yet a previous initiative, reaching out to the Turkic-speaking world after the central Asian states won independence, left Turkey with excellent trade links but limited influence compared with China and Russia. Morton Abramowitz, a former US ambassador to Turkey, warns in this month’s Foreign Affairs journal that in the AKP’s latest diplomatic push as well, “despite the acclaim it showers on itself . . . symbolic achievements have far exceeded concrete ones”. More-over, Turkey’s opposition this spring to Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s appointment as Nato chief “alienated many Europeans by seeming to favour Muslim sensibilities over liberal democratic values”.

    Can Ankara not reach out peacefully on all fronts, as it claims, without repercussions and a risk of overstretch? “You need very judicious fine tuning to be able to deliver this . . . The danger is of overplaying their hand,” says a western diplomat.

    Mending fences with Armenia won praise in the west, for instance, but in Azerbaijan nationalists tore down the Turkish flag, viewing the move as a betrayal of old alliances. Baku may yet take revenge by demanding higher prices to supply gas.

    The next test of Turkey’s new foreign policy will be Iran. The AKP claims its opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran is more effective because it delivers the message as a friend and trading partner. Turkey’s interests in trade with Iran are understood but Mr Erdogan may be pressed in Washington and Brussels to explain why he defends Iran’s nuclear programme as “peaceful and humanitarian” and lends the regime credibility rather than backing isolation.

    Katinka Barysch of the Centre for European Reform, a London think-tank, says: “As a long-standing Nato member and a country negotiating for EU membership, Turkey is expected to align itself with the US and Europe – or at least not do anything that undermines the west’s political objectives in the Middle East. As a regional power, Turkey will want to act independently and avoid antagonising its neighbours. It is not clear how long Ankara will be able to avoid tough choices.”

    Tricky legacy

    Ottoman analogies are a double-edged weapon in Turkish politics. Those urging more rights for Kurdish citizens, for example, might recall the Ottomans’ multicultural tolerance. But some view such nostalgia as a challenge to the principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s republic, with its emphasis on a distinctly Turkish language, culture and identity. Halil Inalcik, a historian at Ankara’s Bilkent university, warns: “We are not Ottomans . . . We’re a nation state. That was an empire.”

    ‘There is progress but it’s uneven’

    Turkey’s shift in foreign policy reflects its ambition to assume greater responsibility as a regional power. It may also reveal frustration over another ambition that has been delayed, if not thwarted: Istanbul’s bid to join the European Union.

    Officially, the EU has been committed to full membership since 2005. Yet eight of the 34 negotiating “chapters” remain blocked as a result of Turkey’s long-running conflict with Cyprus. Meanwhile enthusiasm is faint in France and Germany, the bloc’s traditional centres of power. “There is progress but it’s very uneven,” one Commission official says.

    The most recent update on negotiations came with the Commission’s mixed review of Turkey in last month’s annual enlargement report. Praise forits overtures to its Kurdish minority, and its agreement to reopen its border with Armenia, was tempered by concern over a fine imposed on one of Turkey’s leading media companies. Ostensibly for tax evasion, the $4bn (€2.7bn, £2.4bn) levy was likened by Olli Rehn, Europe’s enlargement commissioner, to “a political sanction”. European diplomats expressed surprise, too, at recent comments that seemed to lend support to Iran. Diplomats also say they do not expect breakthroughs from this week’s EU-Turkey ministerial meeting to discuss foreign affairs, which Mr Rehn will attend.

    If it is accepted, Turkey will become the first predominantly Muslim EU member and also the most populous, giving it a sizeable number of seats in the parliament and threatening the power of Paris and Berlin. Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, displayed his opposition at an EU-US summit in Prague in May. After Barack Obama, on the eve of his first visit to Turkey, urged his hosts to “anchor” the country more firmly in Europe, Mr Sarkozy promptly suggested the US president mind his own business. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has been more diplomatic,suggesting Istanbul be addressed instead as a “privileged partner”.

    The creation of a full-time EU presidency and foreign policy chief seems unlikely to accelerate accession. In a 2004 speech, Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister chosen as president, said Turkey “is not a part of Europe and will never be”. Those remarks proved awkward in the run-up to his selection last week but – as Istanbul no doubt noticed – they did not cost him the job.

    Financial Times

  • A. K. P-NESS: The condition of being A.K.P.

    A. K. P-NESS: The condition of being A.K.P.

    For reasons unknown, Istanbul has been dubbed the 2010 European Capital of Culture. And guess who is in charge of the year-long celebration? The AKP-controlled Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Agency, that’s who.

    • The AKP, the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, the Justice and Development Party which brought neither justice nor development—
    • The AKP, seven years in office spent worrying about whether a woman should touch a man’s hand, and calling it modernity—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, squeezing the heads of women into headscarves, covering their bodies in bedsheets, and calling it freedom—
    • The AKP, seven years in office with a prime minister who has grabbed responsibility for both women’s ovaries and men’s testes (and use thererof) by encouraging, at the top of his lungs, the production of at least three children in each family, and calling it democracy—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, still banning thousands of websites, in the name of morality—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, still spewing nonsense that the reason Turkey was spared epidemics in the 16th century was due to the Islamic religious ablution five times a day—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, and its education ministry still distributes maps to students that depict Armenia, Bulgaria and Georgia residing within Turkish borders—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, falsely imprisoning doctors, journalists, writers, businessmen, former military officers, and labor union leaders for their dissenting political views and depriving them of the constitutionally guaranteed rights—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, and now picking a mindless quarrel with Israel to satisfy its egomaniacal cravings—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, conducting stealth foreign policy initiatives under the direction of western puppet masters that lead to alienation, humiliation, and embarrassment for the Turkish people, and the Turkish Army—
    • The AKP, seven years in office, resulting in fabulous wealth to party members, their families, and their special friends—
    • The AKP, seven years in office looting the nation and trashing its culture, and calling it development—

    And now this same AKP, is preparing for the big cultural event of next year by continuing to do what it does best… the P-word…PLUNDER!

    Of surprise only to those who have spent the last seven years at the North Pole watching the polar ice cap melt, the Istanbul agency in charge of next year’s culture fest is being charged with corruption. Big money is missing. And, as is usual, no one knows what’s going on. Bear in mind that this money comes from another sweetheart deal, this one a hosing system that the AKP-controlled parliament approved two years ago. And it’s a beauty. Every time a long-suffering Turkish citizen buys gasoline a few kurus are siphoned off to feed the “culture agency.” The opposition party, the normally inert CHP, claims that this could amount to 250 million lira a year, adding that it smells a lot like the Deniz Feneri swindle that reaches, according to German Prosecutors, the highest levels of the Turkish government. But in typical AK-Plunder party style that investigation has been delayed, deferred, and otherwise quashed. But one thing remains absolutely clear; when the public’s money goes missing, the AK Plunder-party is involved.  Playing with Erdoğan’s immortal words uttered in Davos: AKP, about plunder, you know stealing very well.

    Beyond money, what has also gone missing is brainpower. It seems that the center piece “cultural” project focuses on yet another p-word: the penis. In particular, the penis of Prince Mehmet who had his prepuce removed to great and long acclaim in 1582. The prince’s father was Murad III, whose reign was described in My Name is Red, the book by the relentlessly self-promoting Turkish author, Orhan Pamuk, another P-word. Pamuk also got money from the culture agency—750,000 lira. Pamuk will use the money to open a museum—the Innocence Museum—the name of  his latest book. For certain, connected and cooperative Turks, the rich get richer. And Yaşar Kemal, Turkey’s greatest writer gets exactly what?

    It seems that back in the good old days of 1582, the celebration for paring the prince’s prepuce lasted a record 52 days (some sources say 55, but who’s counting). By any measure, that’s a long time to celebrate a teeny-tiny piece of skin from a wee pup of a boy. Moreover, it seems a rather weird event to play such a huge role in any representation of Turkish culture, even by rock-bottom AKP standards. But maybe I’m missing something. Of course, there was much pomp associated with the prince’s penis, considering where it came from and who it emulated, that is, the sultan and the sultan’s. (The boy’s mother seems to have played an uncredited role in the original production.) In this case, certainly pomp is important. Just examine politics and politicians for example (two more P-words). Thus one should pay notice to, and take heed of, the various and sundry processions, gift presentations, and celebratory performances that lasted so long. All this will be staged and dramatized, animated and filmed, documented and published. It will be like living in the 16th century, precisely where the AKP is bringing the country. In a somewhat penetrating article, the Turkish Daily News reported that the cultural commission’s project about the princely penis would not last the full 52 days. Instead, it would be a “shortened performance.” Indeed. Whether this wording was meant to be tongue-in-cheek was not immediately apparent. Nevertheless, even the “shortened” re-creation of Mehmet’s circumcision ceremony is estimated to cost Turkish automobile drivers 12 million lira. And that’s a whopper of a resurrection.

    All of this sent me scurrying to my archives to find how some costs might be cut. Perhaps the actual cutting scene can be cut? Perhaps a cast member can be cut? Perhaps? Perhaps? I leave the reader to judge. As luck would have it, right next to my Atatürk biography by Andrew Mango, I found my copy of Jarrahiya Ilhaniye a tome about royal surgery by 15th century surgeon Serafeddin Sabuncuoğlu. It deals with everything one would want to know about Ottoman surgical techniques, particularly as applied to circumcision, more sharply applied to Prince Mehmet. I have read the details of the actual procedure. It might be sufficient to just peruse the following and decide for yourselves whether this event is worth all the time and millions.

    The author, Dr. Sabuncuoğlu, suggests a scissor with slightly curved blade tips. He also recommends that two ligations be made for health and safety. No argument from me. He advises that “the surgeon cut the perpetual skin between the ligatures so that there will be no flow of blood and the glans won’t be wounded.” Again, this sounded like good advice to me. But then he began to discuss a complication that often occurs. Oh-oh, I hate complications, particularly…well…. Okay, it’s about…never mind, I’ll let the doctor tell the story*…

    (Note: The bold-faced comments in brackets are mine and were recorded on a listening device in the prime minister’s office while I was reading Dr. Sabuncuoğlu’s book. I thank the prime ministry for the use of the tape. Such understanding people.)

    “If a part or whole layer of the foreskin slips from your hand”[YIKES!], Sabuncuoğlu cautioned, and is inverted during the operation [INVERTED? HOW…? LET ME OUT OF HERE!] draw it out immediately with a hook or a crochet [A HOOK? OH MAMA! ANNE! İMDAT!] and make your incision before the place swells.” [WHAT INCISION? WHAT PLACE? WHAT SWELLS?]

    Sabuncuoğlu seems unusually calm about such things. He adds, “If you fail to do this, let it be.” [LET IT BE? WHAT KIND OF A DOCTOR ARE YOU?].

    Not to worry says  Sabuncuoğlu. [I’M WORRIED! I’M WORRIED! IT’S MY PENIS FOR ALLAH’S SAKE!] “Allow the swollen part to subside, and then gently peel the skin.” [SUBSIDE? WHAT AM I? A PATLACAN? PATLICAN MIYIM?].

    “Be careful not to cut the tip of the penis,” warns the doctor, “but if it is cut there is no harm done.” [EASY FOR HIM TO SAY! ALLAH KAHRETSİN! HE SOUNDS LIKE ERDOĞAN AND HIS TEĞET ECONOMIC POLICY!]

    “Dress the wound with flesh-generating powders.” [YOU QUACK! ŞARLATAN HEKİM!]

    “Should the foreskin be cut away more than needed and the skin is wrinkled up that will do no great harm either.” [AAAGH!!! LANET OLSUN!!! AHMAK! DANGALAK!!!!]

    But perhaps I overreacted.

    Nevertheless, this great leap backward by the AKP, typical as it is, should be thwarted on the grounds of defamation of the character of the Turkish people. We live in a dangerous, difficult age. And that’s the point. We are not Ottomans who kept their women enslaved beneath the veil and behind the lattice, and all their people ignorant and illiterate. Our cultural reference is not their dark-mindedness. We, all of us, are modern, vital citizens of Turkey. Our cultural reference point is the Enlightenment not the corruptions of the Ottoman Empire. That’s the message that should be conveyed to Europeans, and indeed, the world. But first we need to convey it to ourselves. It is far, far better thing to light a candle than continue to curse the darkness. And that is the one sure way to dispel the murk of AKP-ness.

    Cem Ryan, Ph.D.

    İstanbul

    * Consult the below address at MuslimHeritage.com for more “ceremonial” details.

  • Armenia: the end of the debate?

    Armenia: the end of the debate?

    Gwynne Dyer

    By Gwynne Dyer

    Published October 21, 2009

    THE FIRST great massacre of the 20th century happened in eastern Anatolia 94 years ago. Armenians all over the world insist that their ancestors who died in those events were the victims of a deliberate genocide, and that there can be no reconciliation with the Turks until they admit their guilt. But now the Armenians back home have made a deal.

    On October 10, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed a accord in Zurich that reopens the border between the two countries, closed since 1993, and creates a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915. It is a triumph for reason and moderation, so the nationalists in both countries attacked it at once.

    The most anguished protests came from the Armenian diaspora: eight million people living mainly in the United States, France, Russia, Iran and Lebanon. There are only three million people living in Armenia itself, and remittances from the diaspora are twice as large as the country’s entire budget, so the views of overseas Armenians matter.

    Unfortunately, their views are quite different from those of the people who actually live in Armenia. For Armenians abroad, making the Turks admit that they planned and carried out a genocide is supremely important. Indeed, it has become a core part of their identity.

    For most of those who are still in Armenia, getting the Turkish border re-opened is a higher priority. Their poverty and isolation are so great that a quarter of the population has emigrated since the border was closed sixteen years ago, and trade with their relatively rich neighbour to the west would help to staunch the flow.

    Moreover, the agreement does not require Armenia to give back the Armenian-populated parts of Azerbaijan, its neighbour to the east. Armenia’s conquest of those lands in 1992-94 was why Turkey closed the border in the first place (many Turks see the Turkic-speaking Azeris as their “little brothers”), so in practical terms Armenian president Serge Sarkisian has got a very good deal.

    The communities of the diaspora, however, believe the Armenian government has sold them out on the genocide issue. Their remittances are crucial to Armenia, so President Serge Sarkisian has spent the past weeks travelling the world, trying to calm their fury. In the end, he will probably succeed, if only because they have nowhere else to go.

    But can any practical consideration justify abandoning the traditional Armenian demand that Turkey admit to a policy of genocide? Yes it can, because it is probably the wrong demand to be making.

    Long ago, when I was a budding historian, I got sidetracked for a while by the controversy over the massacres of 1915. I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year. What happened is quite clear.

    The British and the Russians planned to knock the Ottoman empire out of the war quickly by simultaneous invasions of eastern Anatolia, Russia from the north and Britain by landings on Turkey’s south coast. So they welcomed the approaches of Armenian nationalist groups and asked them to launch uprisings behind the Turkish lines to synchronise with the invasions. The usual half-promises about independence were made, and the Armenian groups fell for it.

    The British later switched their attack to the Dardanelles in an attempt to grab Istanbul, but they never warned their Armenian allies that the south-coast invasion was off. The Russians did invade, but the Turks managed to stop them. The Armenian revolutionaries launched their uprisings as promised, and the Turks took a terrible vengeance on the whole community.

    Istanbul ordered the Armenian minority to be removed from eastern Anatolia on the grounds that their presence behind the lines posed a danger to Turkish defences. Wealthy Armenians were allowed to travel south to Syria by train or ship, but for the impoverished masses it was columns marching over the mountains in the dead of winter. They faced rape and murder at the hands of their guards, there was little or no food, and many hundreds of thousands died.

    If genocide just means killing a lot of people, then this certainly was one. If genocide means a policy that aims to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group, then it wasn’t. Armenians who made it alive to Syria, then also part of the Ottoman empire, were not sent to death camps. Indeed, they became the ancestors of today’s huge Armenian diaspora. Armenians living elsewhere in the empire, notably in Istanbul, faced abuse but no mass killings.

    It was a dreadful crime, and only recently has the public debate in Turkey even begun to acknowledge it. It was not a genocide if your standard of comparison is what happened to the European Jews, but diaspora Armenians will find it very hard to give up their claim that it was. Nevertheless, the grown-ups are now in charge both in Armenia and in Turkey, and amazing progress is being made.

    n Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

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

    Latest Articles :: Gallery :: Books :: Directory :: Contact

    Coming Soon – Selected Book Chapters

    Podcasts   Ideas1 Ideas2 Ideas3 TVO

    The Climate Wars

    © 2000-2009 all rights reserved

    .

    GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries.

    His first television series, the 7-part documentary ‘War’, was aired in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, ‘The Profession of Arms’, was nominated for an Academy Award.  His more recent television work includes the 1994 series ‘The Human Race’, and ‘Protection Force’, a three-part series on peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards.  His award-winning radio documentaries include ‘The Gorbachev Revolution’, a seven-part series based on Dyer’s experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1987-90, and ‘Millenium’, a six-hour series on the
    emerging global culture.

    Dyer’s major study “War”, first published in the 1980s, was completely revised and re-published in 2004. During this decade he has also written a trio of more contemporary books dealing with the politics and strategy of the post-9/11 world: ‘Ignorant Armies’ (2003), ‘Future: Tense’ (2004), and ‘The Mess They Made’ (2006).  The latter was also published as ‘After Iraq’ in the US and the UK and as ‘Nach Iraq und Afghanistan’ inGermany.

    His most recent projects are a book and a radio series called ‘Climate Wars’, dealing with the geopolitics of climate change. They have already been published and aired in some places, and will appear in most other major markets in the course of 2009.

    Many thanks to those who have expressed the wish to be able to submit a donation to the site. ( $20 USD via Pay Pal is now an option)

    ::: gwynnedyer.net/ca/com is the official website of journalist and historian Dr. Gwynne Dyer. :::

    The information is posted free of charge for personal use. Articles are the sole property of Dr. Gwynne Dyer. Communication or submissions to this site become the property of gwynnedyer.com and may be published at our sole discretion

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

    DYER, GWYNNE

    Canadian Journalist/Producer

    Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military analyst. He is best known for his documentary television series, War which echoed the peace movement’s growing concern over the threat of nuclear war in the early 1980s. Nominated for an Oscar in 1985, it was based on his own military experience and extensive study.

    After serving in the naval reserves of Canada, the United States, and Britain, Dyer completed his doctoral studies in Military History at King’s College, University of London in 1973. He lectured on military studies for the next four years at the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England before producing a seven-part radio series, Seven Faces of Communism for the CBC and ABC in 1978. This quickly led to another radio series, War, in six-parts, 1981. Based on this series, he was invited by the National Film Board of Canada, the country’s public film producer to enlarge it into a seven-part film series in 1983. Upon release to critical acclaim, the series was broadcast in forty-five countries.

    War was a reflection of Dyer’s own growing concern about the proliferation of new technology, its impact on the changing nature of warfare and the growing threat of nuclear annihilation. Filmed in ten countries and with the participation of six national armies, it examined the nature, evolution and consequences of warfare. It featured interviews with top level NATO and Warsaw Pact military leaders and strategists, many of whom spoke to the Western media for the first time. The series argued that in an era of total war, professional armies were no longer able to fulfill their traditional roles. The growth of nationalism, conscript armies and nuclear technology had brought the world perilously close to Armageddon. War offered the unique perspective of the soldier from the rigorous training of young U.S. marine recruits at the Parris Island Training Depot in South Carolina, to the field exercises conducted by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe. It presented military officers from both sides talking frankly about how nuclear technology had changed their profession and follows them as they vividly describe how any superpower conflict would inevitably lead to an all out nuclear war. Dyer argued that the danger posed by the explosive mix of ideology and nuclear technology could only be mitigated by a total elimination of nuclear arsenals.

    This award-winning series was soon followed by another production for the National Film Board of Canada in 1986, The Defence of Canada, an examination of Canada’s military role on the international scene. Following similar arguments postulated in War, Dyer called for Canada to set an example by rethinking its position in NATO and NORAD. He maintained his ties in the Soviet Union and in 1988-90 produced a six-part radio series The Gorbachev Revolution which followed the thunderous changes occurring in Eastern Europe. He served as a military commentator in Canada during the Gulf War and in 1994 his series The Human Race was broadcast nationally on the CBC. It was a personal enquiry into the roots, nature and future of human politics and the threat posed by tribalism, nationalism and technology to the world’s environment. He continues to publish his syndicated column on international affairs which is published on over 300 papers in some 30 countries.

    -Manon Lamontagne


    Gwynne Dyer

    GWYNNE DYER. Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 17 April 1943. Educated at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, B.A. in History, 1963; Rice University in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., M.A. in Military History, 1966; King’s College, University of London, Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History, 1973. Served as Reserve Naval Officer in Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, 1956-64, 1966-68; U.S. Naval Reserve, 1964-66; British Royal Navy Reserve, 1968-73. Employed as a lecturer in military history, Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Ontario; senior lecturer in war studies, Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, England, 1973-77; producer of various radio and television special series from 1978; syndicated columnist, international affairs from 1973. Recipient: International Film Festival Awards; International Film Festival Awards, 1984; Best Writing Gemini for The Space Between, 1986.

    TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY SERIES

    1983 War (co-writer/host)
    1986 Defence of Canada
    1994 The Human Race (host)

    FILMS

    The Space Between, 1986 (co-writer/host); Harder Than It Looks, 1987; Escaping from History, 1994 (writer); The Gods of Our Fathers, 1994 (writer); The Tribal Mind, 1994 (writer); The Bomb Under the World, 1994 (writer).

    RADIO

    Seven Faces of Communism, 1978; Goodbye War, 1979 (writer/narrator); War, 1981; The Gorbachev Revolution, 1988-90; Millennium, 1996.

    FURTHER READING

    “Dyer’s Contrived Truth Doesn’t Tackle the Real Consequences.” Vancouver (Canada) Sun, 3 September 1994.

    Dodds, Carolyn. “Too Close for Comfort.” Saturday Night (Toronto, Canada), August 1988

    “Recording a Global Culture.” Maclean’s (Toronto, Canada), 25 March, 1996.

    See also Canadian Programming in English