Month: May 2010

  • The FETULLAH is the key force supporting Turkey’s ruling AKP Party

    The FETULLAH is the key force supporting Turkey’s ruling AKP Party

    Gülen movement an enigmatic mix of Turkish nationalism, religion, education

    Tim Steller Arizona Daily Star

    Sunday, April 25, 2010

    American sociologist Joshua Hendrick stumbled into the U.S. branch of the Fethullah Gülen Movement by agreeing to attend a 2005 conference about the Turkish Muslim leader in Houston.

    Expecting a standard academic conference, what he found instead was a ‘two-day promotion of Fethullah Gülen and the schools and social network that associate with his teaching.’

    All the presenters’ expenses were covered, and each received a $500 honorarium. Awards of $1,000 were offered for the best graduate-student papers, and reporters were flown in from Istanbul to cover the event.

    Hendrick, now at the University of Oregon, went on to write a Ph.D. dissertation on the Gülen movement in Turkey, where the secretive preacher has over decades become one of Turkey’s most powerful political figures. The Gülen movement is the key force supporting Turkey’s ruling AKP Party, a conservative religious party that competes for power with the country’s strongest traditional force – the military.

    Along with the military and the AKP, the Gülen movement is Turkey’s “third force,” the major British consultancy IHS Jane’s reported last year.

    But defining the movement is difficult because it is “part spiritual, part commercial, part Islamic, part education, part political,” Bill Park, a lecturer in defense studies at King’s College London, said via e-mail.

    Gülen’s followers and the leader himself use “strategic ambiguity” in talking about the movement, Hendrick wrote in his 2009 dissertation, “Globalization and Marketized Islam in Turkey: The case of Fethullah Gülen.”

    “Gülen was born both in 1938 and in 1941 … Gülen is both the reason behind his schools and he has nothing whatsoever to do with them,” Hendrick wrote. And when asked about the connections between Gülen-supporting organizations and the movement itself, Hendrick repeatedly heard the same answer: “There is no organic connection between these institutions.”

    The ambiguity makes some sense in historical context. The Turkish state established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the 1920s imposed secularity in the public sphere and put religion under state control. Today the struggle persists between a secularist military and religious forces, with the Gülen movement strongly on the religious side.

    The movement “would like to see Islam play a more dominant role in public life,” said Hakan Yavuz, a native of Turkey who is a professor of political science at the University of Utah. “The movement is today a religio-political movement similar to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church.”

    Yavuz continued, “The movement is not a fanatic movement. It’s also not a terrorist movement either. But it is a conservative communitarian (movement) and to some extent authoritarian.”

    The movement also celebrates the Turkish nation and culture, even in some foreign countries where it has established schools, posting portraits of Atatürk and teaching the Turkish national anthem, Park reported in a 2007 paper, “The Fethullah Gülen Movement as a Transnational Phenomenon.”

    “The movement’s philosophy fuses its brand of Islam with a Turkish nationalism,” he wrote in a 2007 paper.

    Gülen’s conflict with the military peaked in 1998, when he was charged with attempting to subvert the secular government. He fled to the United States, where he began living in exile on a retreat in eastern Pennsylvania.

    In the United States, Gülen began emphasizing interfaith dialogue, and his followers set up institutions dedicated to that pursuit throughout the country. One, the Foundation for Inter-Cultural Dialogue, is based in Phoenix and annually sends Arizonans on trips to Turkey.

    Gülen’s presence in the United States inspired some Turkish analysts to begin thinking of him as an American ally. However, the U.S. government has long had close relations with Turkey’s military.

    The multifaceted picture of Gülen’s relationship with the U.S. government became clearer in 2007. That year, Gülen sued the Department of Homeland Security (FBI), arguing that it should act on his application and award him permanent residence based on his extraordinary ability in education. The department fought him, arguing that he is not an expert in education.

    But eventually the department lost, and Gülen got his green card.

    Among those who wrote letters in support of Gülen were George Fidas and Graham Fuller, both former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)officials.

    “The U.S. has accommodated Fethullah Gülen himself (a source of irritation to Kemalist/secularists in Turkey) and the movement’s schools, colleges, dialogue associations, as has the U.K. and other Western democracies,” Park said via e-mail. “This is though less the doing of the U.S. government, narrowly defined as of U.S. society, the U.S. way of doing things.”

    Contact reporter Tim Steller at 807-8427 or at [email protected]

  • UTAH CLOSES FETULLAH’S SCHOOL

    UTAH CLOSES FETULLAH’S SCHOOL

    Utah daki Charter okul incelemeye alinmis acik cikan (KAYIP) para yuzunden, FETULLAHIN BIR DENIZ FENERI DAHA.

    State charter board votes to close Beehive academy

    Money matters» State governing body concludes that the school is financially unstable.

    By Rosemary Winters

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    Updated: 04/30/2010 10:10:16 AM MDT

    For the first time in its six-year history, the Utah Charter School Board has voted to revoke an operational school’s charter.

    Beehive Science & Technology Academy in Holladay will close after this school year unless it files and wins an appeal. Any appeal would be heard by the Utah Board of Education.

    The charter board, which voted 6-0 on Thursday to close the school, said Beehive doesn’t have enough students to be financially viable and is burdened by debt. The enrollment currently is 199, but the school could accommodate 250 students.

    In an e-mail, Principal Murat Biyik said the board relied on outdated financial statements to make its decision and that the school plans to appeal.

    “All of us were totally shocked” by the board’s decision, Biyik wrote, noting he was denied permission to speak at the meeting. “We are very optimistic that we will save the school during [the] appeal process.”

    Beehive was placed on a one-year probation in February, and Biyik said the school has complied with or made “substantial improvements” on all the issues the board identified. For example, the school has addressed concerns with its special-education program.

    Charter board chairman Brian Allen said the decision made him “heart sick” because he knows Beehive’s students like their school, which has a good academic record.

    “At the end of the day, we had to weigh the impact to the students who go to the school against our responsibility that taxpayers are getting the best deal for their money,” Allen said. “The scale tipped toward taxpayers.”

    Beehive, which serves grades 7 through 12, was founded by a group of Turkish-American scholars. It opened in August 2005.

    Last fall, the charter board, after a months-long investigation, cleared Beehive of allegations the school existed to advance and promote Islamic beliefs but flagged it for poor financial management. Charter schools are tuition-free, tax-funded public schools so they must be nonsectarian.

    In November, records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune showed that the school, operating on a $2 million annual budget, had a $337,000 deficit. The school renegotiated its building lease and laid off several staffers.

    On Thursday, Biyik said the deficit has shrunk substantially. Currently, the school has an income balance of $259,000 with $38,000 in the bank, he said. The difference has been used to pay off credit lines, a state revolving loan amount and other debts, Biyik said. The academy still owes money on the revolving loan, which originally was $184,000.

    But if the board’s decision sticks, Beehive students will have to find a new school for the 2010-11 school year.

    “It’s the most frustrating thing. I don’t know where to send my son,” said Marie Jess, whose son Jordan started at Beehive as a seventh-grader and now is finishing 11th grade. “I’ve never found a [public or charter] school that I felt compared to Beehive.”

    Jess called the board’s decision “unfair.” She hopes the school, which has achieved high scores on state academic tests, stays open.

    She likes the support she receives from Beehive’s faculty, who frequently send her e-mails to update her on how her son is doing.

    “I felt like they personally wanted my son to succeed,” she said, “and that’s a good feeling.”

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

    From: FLTURK@yahoogroups. com  On Behalf Of Cuneyt Oskal

    Sorun Gulen hocada degil zaten.

    Sorun, “Parayi gordum” filminin senaristleri Fethullahci bazi abilerde.

    Topladiklari parayi istedikleri yere harcayabilmeyi zannetmelerinde.

    Utah daki Charter okul incelemeye alinmis acik cikan para yuzunden

    bakalim o sorusturmanin sonucu nasil olacak?

    insallah Fethullahci abiler yuzlerinin aki ile cikarlar isin icinden

    yoksa…….

    “Parayi gordum” filmini cekerler Fethullahci abilerinde

    (Mahsun in trilogy si olabilir belki, “gunesi gordum” den sonra:)

    Deniz Feneri olayina donerse is cok uzulurum.

  • Roubini: Greece should have taken Turkey as example for crisis

    Roubini: Greece should have taken Turkey as example for crisis

    BURSA – Daily News with wires
    Istanbul-born economist Nouriel Roubini says the current turmoil in Greece would not have occurred if the European-Union member had looked east to Turkey and took copied its reform effort after the 2001 crisis. Speaking to businesspeople in Bursa, Roubini says Turkey’s membership in the EU will only strengthen the union and predicts a revival in membership talks

    If Greece had followed Turkey’s lead in making financial reforms in 2000-2001, it would not be in such dire straits today, one of the world’s most prominent economists told Turkish business leaders Wednesday in Bursa.

    Nouriel Roubini spoke at an event organized by the Automotive Industry Exporters Unions. The renowned economist, dubbed “Dr. Doom” because of his early prediction of the global financial crisis, addressed nearly 400 people, most of whom paid 350 euros to listen to him.

    Evaluating the worst global recession since the 1930s, Roubini said when the United States economy sneezed, the world would generally catch a cold, in the latest crisis, however, it had come down with “pneumonia.”

    “But the recent news is good,” Doğan news agency quoted him as saying. “The recovery has started. The debate is whether it will be a V-shaped, fast recovery, a U-shaped slow recovery or a W-shaped, double-dip recovery. My opinion is it will be a U-shaped process. This recovery will not be stable and steady.”

    Touching on positive economic data coming from the U.S., Europe and Japan, Roubini said newly developing economies will recover faster than Turkey and economies in Asia. He predicted a gross domestic product growth of 3 percent for the U.S., 2 percent in the eurozone, 5 to 6 percent in Turkey and 9 percent in China this year.

    “In the second half of the year, the growth rate might slow down in the U.S., dragging average annual growth down to around 2 percent,” he said.

    Turkey and other developing markets derived the correct lessons from the 2001 crisis and engaged in structural reforms, Roubini said. “Meanwhile, developed economies [in the West] started to have problems.”

    Reflecting on the importance of the U.S. economy in exiting the global crisis, Roubini said the stimulus policies implemented by governments worldwide are of crucial importance, as there will be trouble if they are implemented for too long or if they are curtailed too soon.

    Drama in Greece

    The reason the Greek drama engulfed eurozone economies is because “it did not implement structural reforms in time” and because of high budget deficits, the economist said.

    “The crisis in Greece will create huge problems,” he said. “Some countries might leave the euro. A possible intervention by the International Monetary Fund would only postpone the problem, not solve it. This crisis is a crucial test for the eurozone. If Greece had followed Turkey’s post-2001 reforms, it would not be in this situation today.”

    Turkey’s importance in the global economy will increase further, according to Roubini. “But Turkey should diversify in the trade sense,” he said. “It should orient toward new markets. Besides Europe, it should develop trade relations with the Middle East and Asia. These regions will post [remarkable] growth in the following period.”

    Turkey is “moving on its path” by taking the necessary lessons from the past, Roubini said. “It is open to foreign investment. Its labor costs are relatively low. It could be a center for financial inflows from Europe to the Middle East. It may be a trade center between the east and the west. You have a strong workforce, but it needs training.”

    Erdoğan’s suggestion ‘might not work’

    Reflecting on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s suggestion that every member company of the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodities Exchanges employ one extra worker to overcome unemployment, Roubini said this “might not work.” What the government has to do instead is engage in “structural, fiscal and financial reforms,” he said, according to the daily Hürriyet.

     Hürriyet

  • Andrew Dismore ousted!

    Andrew Dismore ousted!

    Andrew Dismore was a big burden on the British-Turkish relations.

    Türk düşmanı Andrew Dismore’u İngiliz halkı defetti…

    Andrew Dismore ousted by 106 votes

    Labour’s Andrew Dismore has lost his Hendon seat to the Conservative Party candidate, Matthew Offord, by 106 votes following a recount.

    Mr Dismore pulled in 19 529 or 42.1% of the overall vote, compared to Mr Offord’s 19 635 votes – 42.3% of the votes.

    Mr Dismore had been caught up in the expenses scandal, and was accused of “flipping” his second home designation.

    , 07 May 2010

    Election result: Hendon

    By Marcus Dysch

    New Face

    Conservative candidate Matthew Offord has ousted Labour’s Andrew Dismore to win the Hendon constituency in one of the country’s closest election battles.

    Mr Offord, a former deputy leader of Barnet Council, won by just 106 votes following a recount.

    He received 19,635 votes to Mr Dismore’s 19,529.

    The result represented a swing of 5.2 per cent to the Tories from Labour.

    […]

    Mr Dismore, who had held the seat since 1997, was understandably disappointed by the result. In his farewell speech he accused Mr Offord of a “dirty” campaign.

    He had worked tirelessly for Jewish and Israeli causes but was mired by expenses allegations in the past 12 months.

    […]

    , May 7, 2010

    Ousted Labour MP Andrew Dismore makes vitriolic speech

    Alex Hayes

    DEFEATED Labour candidate Andrew Dismore accused his Conservative opponent of “mud-slinging” during a vitriolic speech after results were announced.

    Mr Dismore lost the key marginal seat by just 106 votes following a recount, with the result announced just after 9am after a mammoth count.

    In the address he accused newly elected Matthew Offord of “name calling” and accused him of being disrespectful towards his long-term partner.

    He said: “This has not been a clean fight, in my view it’s been a pretty dirty campaign. It’s my eighth public election and I have never seen such a barrage of personal slurs and lies in this campaign.

    “I’m humbled by the fact so many of my fellow residents voted for me. The election result was a close one, only by a whisker in a seat the Conservatives thought they would take by a huge margin.

    “People voted for me because they appreciated the work I’ve done for them and their communities.”

    He warned the other candidates the precarious hung Parliament could see another election called in the next few months.

    , May 7, 2010

    Andrew Dismore may make legal challenge to Hendon result

    Alex Hayes

    ANDREW Dismore, who lost his Hendon seat by just 106 votes this morning, has not ruled out the possibility of a legal challenge over the staging of the vote.

    The Labour candidate lost after a recount of votes to Conservative Matthew Offord, but accused the Tory man of dirty tricks during the election campaign in his losers speech.

    Mr Offord said he was not ruling out legal action over problems with postal votes not arriving, queues at polling stations making people turn away and voters being given wrong information on which station to use.

    He said: “I have to speak to lawyers before I make any decisions on this. Yesterday there were problems of lots of people not having their postal votes.

    “I also saw a lot of people leaving big queues at polling stations because there were not enough staff on to cope with it, so in these areas those votes could have made all the difference.

    “There are also some things he (Mr Offord) was writing on his leaflets I will refer to lawyers as well.”

    The former barrister, who took control of the seat in 1997 added: “I don’t think there was anything me or my team could have done. If we had had more support in door knocking I think we could have won.

    “The Conservatives had the Ashcroft funded billboards all over the borough and we just couldn’t compete with that sort of money.”

    , May 7 2010

  • Ankara-Yerevan Accords Point toward Armenia’s Withdrawal from the Occupied Territories

    Ankara-Yerevan Accords Point toward Armenia’s Withdrawal from the Occupied Territories

     

    foto -geography.about.com

     

    Gulnara Inandzh
    Director
    International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

    The emotions, whipped up by commentaries which followed the signing on October 10 of the protocols between Turkey and Armenia, have prevented a logical analysis of the situation.  In order to begin such an analysis, we need to recognize that at the roots of the signing of these accords lie a multi-sided game of significance far beyond the South Caucasus region.

    If at the outset, the opening of the borders with Armenia was one of the conditions on Turkey’s path toward joining the European Union, then at the present time, the rapprochement of the two countries depends on the geopolitical situation and Ankara’s participation in these processes.  Immediately after the signing of the Turkish-Armenian accords, as one should have expected, the EU put forward some new demands for Turkey, about which the latter could not have but known about in advance.  This means that Turkey signed the agreements with Armenia not as part of its effort to join the EU, something that provides one of the points of departure for understanding why Turkey decided to reach an agreement with Armenia.

    At the same time, we must not ignore the pressures on Turkey both direct and behind the scenes.  And those came from more places than just the capitals of the countries which were represented at the signing ceremony.  (Here, we intentionally are not touching on the role of Israel in all these complicated political games, the situation around Iran, the transportation routes for Iraqi oil and the Kurdish element in Iraq, as each of these represent a distinctive subject for discussion).

    Turkey, who bear the genetic code of the Ottoman Empire as far as great power games are concerned, will not agree to play the role of a defeated country even under the pressure of world powers.  Ankara is not in such a weak geopolitical situation that it has to act in ways that harm its national interests.  Not long ago, we should remember, Turkey felt itself strong enough to refuse the United States the right to use the military base at Incirlik for the supply of the anti-Saddam operations of the coalition forces in Iraq.

    When pointing to the harm the protocols between Ankara and Yerevan create for Azerbaijan in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, one must not forget that the Armenian diaspora has terrorized Turkey with the issue of the so-called “Armenian genocide.”  In its turn, Turkish diplomacy, which connects this question with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict until recently took a position absolutely the same as Azerbaijan both because of their common Turkishness and because of Turkey’s own national interests.  These two issues also served as a factor which united the Azerbaijani and Turkish diaspora, which resisted recognition of “the Armenian genocide” by pointing to the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands.

    Viewed from that perspective, it would seem that Turkey, which has little to gain economically and politically by reaching an accord with Armenia, signed the protocols in a way that both undercut its own interests and angered its fraternal and strategic relationship with Azerbaijan.

    Of course, in contrast to the 1990s, Azerbaijan today is not the weak “younger brother” who needs support but an equal state that is confident in its own forces and demands respect on that basis.  This cannot entirely please the current Turkish powers that be, but it is not the occasion for a break with a reliable partner.  Differences in the question of the transportation of Azerbaijani gas to Turkey also cannot be the subject for speculation on such a strategic question as the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border.

    During the entire period of talks with Armenia, official representatives of Turkey at various levels repeated that the relationship Ankara sought would not harm the interests of Azerbaijan and that the Turkish-Armenian borders will not be opened until the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  Among those who have constantly said this are Turkish President Abdulla Gul, Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu, members of the parliament, opposition figures and others both before and after the signing of the protocols.

    At the same time, every step of Armenian-Turkish negotiations was discussed with Baku, and talks about the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue continued in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

    And in this context, the declaration of Turkish President Gul concerning the impact in “a short time” of the Armenian-Turkish accords on “the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict” merits attention and should calm many of the concerns in Azerbaijan.

    At the present time, when Azerbaijan has acquired major geopolitical importance, ignoring its interests on such an important issue is impossible.  Consequently, the interests of Baku were taken into consideration.  Note that immediately after the signing in Switzerland of the Armenian-Turkish agreement Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev arrived in Zurich where the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed.  Further, a short time after the signing of the agreement with the very same mission, Tina Kaidanow, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia arrived in Baku, and in the framework of the meetings of the foreign ministers of the Black Sea countries, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with President Ilham Aliyev and his foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov.  And the visit to Baku of General Ishyk Koshaner, commander of Turkish ground forces, to meet with Azerbaijani Defense Minister Col. Gen. Safar Abiyev is yet another confirmation of this.

    Taken together, it is clear that this cycle of visits was not a matter of chance.

    And if there were any doubt about this, the reaction both within Armenian society and also in the diaspora to the accord which should allow Armenia to escape from the blockade has been negative.  Evidently, Armenian society and politicians recognize that they will have to free the occupied territories, because otherwise no one intends to save Armenia.  It is not accidental that after the signing of the Zurich agreement, all sides represented at the ceremony except for Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan did not hide their satisfaction with what had taken place.

    In other words, everything shows that the Zurich agreement will have a positive consequence on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  Judging by the presence at the signing ceremony of the representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group, it is possible to assert that all interested sides are informed about this process and about its impact on the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

    If under the pressure of the diaspora Armenia will not ratify the agreement, Azerbaijan and Turkey will return to where they were before.  If the Turkish and Armenian parliaments all the same give legal force to the agreement, then Armenia will have to free Azerbaijani territories in order to secure the opening of the Turkish borders.  Otherwise, Ankara, responding to public pressure in Azerbaijan and in Turkey will not be able to open the borders with Armenia.  In that case, Azerbaijani and Turkish public opinion will be in a position to increase international pressure on Yerevan and the Armenian diaspora regarding the liberation of the occupied territories.

    If Armenia does not follow through, then Turkey will always be in a position to find reasons to close the borders.  In such a case, Azerbaijan will be left with only one choice – the liberation of the occupied territories by military means; and the countries involved in the division of spheres of influence in the region will have to agree with this.  Otherwise Azerbaijan, using its status as “the most reliable country for the transportation of gas,” will have every reason for refusing to allow the Nabucco project to pass through its territory.


    Every country has its own interests and priorities, and in this case, that means that there is no chance that Turkey will sacrifice its relations with Azerbaijan for new ties with Armenia.

  • Why Turkey is right in demanding the end to occupation in Karabakh

    Why Turkey is right in demanding the end to occupation in Karabakh

    VUSALA MAHİRGİZİ

    In order to continue the “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations, it has become the major stipulation to bring the protocols signed in Zurich, Oct. 10, onto the agenda of the two parliaments.

    There are reports that in the meetings held in Washington on April 12-13, Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan faced pressures to immediately bring the Zurich protocols onto the agenda of the Turkish Parliament. Some media outlets in the West and Turkey have strongly criticized Erdoğan for linking the “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations to the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” and thus, “blocking up” the way of the process. While assessing from several aspects the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” in the process of the “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations, we see that Prime Minister Erdoğan’s statement in the Azerbaijani parliament on May 13, 2009, is in line with the principles of the international law and human rights.

    Armenia does not want the factor of “releasing Karabakh from occupation” to be put into circulation; because if this factor is put into circulation, Armenia will be constantly viewed as an “aggressor state” in the international arena. On the other hand, former president of Armenia Robert Kocharian and incumbent president Serge Sarkisian came to power in Yerevan with the dynamism caused by the wave of Karabakh’s occupation – having the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” on the table in the discussions with Turkey means their admitting the stain of being an aggressor. Therefore, the present authorities of Armenia will not want to hold discussions by admitting the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” – i.e. start the game with a score of 1-0.

    In this respect, we should underscore that Prime Minister Erdoğan has taken the rather right step by including the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” into the process of “normalization.” This “stipulation” has been put into the agenda because of the protest against the violation of international law and human rights in the region, not because of the loyalty to the principle “one nation, two states” between Turkey and Azerbaijan as stated by Armenia and the West. What could Erdoğan cite to while putting forward the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” in Turkey-Armenia discussions, if not to the fact of the occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territories and displacement of one million Karabakh residents of Azerbaijani origin? The solution to the regional conflicts requires divine justice: conscience and justice require it before the friendship and brotherhood between the countries.

    Therefore, it is impossible to understand why some in the West, Armenia and Turkey have criticized Erdoğan for this “stipulation.” Which position seems more just: to release the occupied territories and send one million refugees to their native lands, or to ignore the displacement of one million people from their native lands and switch on the green lights for 146,000 Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh to establish a monoethnic structure?

    As soon as the issue on releasing the occupied Azerbaijani territories was brought into the agenda in Turkey-Armenia discussions, Armenian authorities led by Sarkisian tried to put into circulation “the right of Karabakh Armenians to self-determination.” If so, who will ensure the self-determination of one million Azerbaijanis that lost everything as a result of the occupation?

    By putting into circulation “the right of Karabakh Armenians to self-determination” soon after the issue of “releasing of Karabakh” was included into the agenda in the process of “normalization,” Armenia is acting unfairly toward Azerbaijan, Turkey and the historical truths of the region.

    The occupation of Azerbaijani regions adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia with the support of outside forces, posed threat to the peace processes in the region. Just after this occupation, Armenian and Azerbaijani intellectuals, who gathered to speak about peace late in the 80s and early in the 90s, were deprived of this opportunity. If we make an excursion into history we can see Azerbaijani poet Sabir, who realized that outside forces backed the misunderstanding between Armenians and Turks in 1905 in Karabakh, wrote a poem “Beynelmilel” (International).

    Hovhannes Tumanyan, who did not want a contradiction between the two nations in Karabakh, visited the Armenian villages holding a white flag, explained the situation to the people and succeeded in calming down the situation. Outstanding Azerbaijani playwright Jafar Jabbarli depicted the background of those happenings in his play “1905-ci ilde” (In 1905).

    Viewing the happenings from the historical perspective we see that the separatism in Nagorno Karabakh and occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territories left no place for the intellectuals and politicians of the two countries to maneuver. Therefore, the Turkish prime minister’s inclusion of the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” into the process of “normalization” of Turkish-Armenian relations becomes more important.

    Actually, the foundation of the future national conflict was laid when a referendum was held by Stalin on July 7, 1923, for Armenian autonomy in Karabakh. The plebiscite was scheduled the same day for the Turks in Armenia’s Zengezur region to “realize their self-determination,” but the plebiscite was not held, and in 1948-1952 approximately 500,000 Azerbaijani Turks were deported from Armenia.

    The process of Azerbaijanis’ deportation from Armenia took place in the Soviet Union, the “example of peoples’ friendship and brotherhood.” The last of the Azerbaijani Turks in Armenia was deported in March-June, 1988 – again during Soviet times. It was the last ring in Armenia’s turning into a monoethnic country.

    The autonomy given to Nagorno-Karabakh in 1923 contained the maximal rights that the present autonomous regimes in the world may envy. They managed themselves; headed their parliament, the great majority of the state agencies were led by Armenians; they had representatives in Azerbaijani government; the persons, who represented them in the Soviet parliament, were Armenian; they had school, university, radio, TV channels, newspapers and magazines in their language; even the labels of the products made there were in Armenian.

    With the rights of which autonomy can you compare the large rights of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh that was 120,000 approximately 25 years ago? We can see that “the right of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to self-determination” was the biggest injustice against Azerbaijan.

    A question arises: if as claimed by Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, they were indeed oppressed by Azerbaijan’s pressure in the autonomous province and passed a decision to unite with Armenia, can they show an example that during the 65-year autonomy an Armenian was injured on an ethnic basis?

    It is inadmissible that in the international discussions Armenia showing “Nagorno-Karabakh’s right to self-determination” tries to force Azerbaijan to the referendum in the monoethnic Nagorno Karabakh region with a population of 146,000.

    The question is not the “right of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to self-determination,” but the unification of a part of Azerbaijan to Armenia by occupation. Therefore, Prime Minister Erdogan’s inclusion of the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” into the process of “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations is an initiative serving to establish fair peace in the region, and should be necessarily supported in terms of international law and human rights.

    Armenian leaders, who are carrying on propaganda among the world community for opening the border with Turkey, constantly reiterate the following:

    “It is not normal that in the 21st century the border with the neighbor is closed.”

    If this remark is admitted, then how would the world community answer Azerbaijan’s right question: “Is it normal in the 21st century to occupy the territories of the neighbor, displace 1 million people, unite a part of the neighbor’s territories to its lands?”

    Assessing the matter in terms of the inactivity of the UN Security Council and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, it becomes more important that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan included the factor of “releasing Karabakh from occupation” into the “normalization” of the relations between Turkey and Armenia, while the international organizations are paralyzed concerning the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.

    * Vusala Mahirgizi is the director general of Azeri-Press Agency, or APA.

    Hurriyet Daily news