Turkish Forum

Blog

  • Sassounian’s column of May 12, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of May 12, 2011

    Sarkozy Joins Obama in Deceit: 

    Neither should be reelected in 2012

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

     

    Armenians in France and the United States have a common challenge in 2012: To do everything in their power to block reelection of their deceptive presidents.

     

    Neither Nicolas Sarkozy nor Barack Obama kept their promises to their respective Armenian constituents. The French President failed to honor his commitment to support a law penalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide, while the American leader broke his promise to acknowledge the genocide.

     

    The long trail of Obama’s broken promises is well-known, but not many know about Sarkozy’s deception. On January 29, 2001, Pres. Jacques Chirac signed into law a decision adopted by the National Assembly on May 29, 1998, and the Senate on November 7, 2000, recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian community then petitioned the French government to assign a penalty of 45,000 euros and 5-year imprisonment for denial of the Armenian Genocide, similar to the existing law penalizing denial of the Jewish Holocaust.

     

    This reasonable expectation turned into a major controversy due to Turkish pressure on France and opposition from some French intellectuals who staunchly defended free speech. Under these circumstances, the French government tried to block a vote on this measure in the National Assembly.

     

    The French intellectuals, who objected to this law on grounds of restricting freedom of expression, conveniently ignored the fact that a similar law existed in France since 1990 to punish those who deny the Holocaust. The objections raised by Turkish denialists, on the other hand, were totally absurd. Turkey’s autocratic leaders had no right whatsoever to lecture the French on freedom of expression, while their own country arrested journalists, censored the media, and banned the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

     

    It was unfortunate that some well-intentioned but naive Armenians and their liberal Turkish friends also opposed the proposed law, thereby unintentionally supporting Turkish denialism. They opposed this bill by equating the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code banning the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, with the proposed French law penalizing the denial of the genocide. This is a farcical comparison because the Turkish law makes it a crime to tell the truth about the Armenian Genocide, while the French law makes it a crime to lie about it! Why didn’t these liberal Turks and French intellectuals, who claim to support freedom of speech, object to a similar French law penalizing denial of the Holocaust? Doesn’t that law also restrict freedom of speech? Why shouldn’t Armenian genocide victims be accorded equal protection under French law?

     

    After lengthy debates and delays, the French National Assembly approved the law on penalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide on October 12, 2006, and sent it to the Senate, where it has been stalled until last week.

     

    While Sarkozy was a presidential candidate, he repeatedly promised to support adoption of this law in the French Senate. But as President, he reversed course and opposed the measure. After coming under intense criticism by Charles Aznavour and the influential French Armenian community, and realizing that he is badly trailing his likely opponents in next year’s presidential election, Pres. Sarkozy recently met with several prominent French Armenians and promised not to oppose the bill in the Senate. This was too little too late. After Turkish leaders once again unleashed an intense lobbying campaign, Sarkozy’s political party (UMP), which holds a majority in the Senate, was instructed by his government to oppose the bill. On May 4, after a three-hour debate, the Senate refused to take up the measure by a vote of 196-74.

     

    The battle for this bill is by no means over. Taking advantage of Pres. Sarkozy’s poor rating in the polls, Armenians will now join forces with a majority of French voters to support the Socialist Party’s candidate in next year’s presidential election, just as Armenian-Americans are preparing to oppose Pres. Obama in the 2012 elections.

     

    In an attempt not to alienate Armenian voters altogether in the upcoming elections, France’s Justice Minister proposed the formation of a joint commission of Armenians and ministry officials that would bring to the courts’ attention incidents of genocide denial. This is a welcome development and in line with the existing commission on the Holocaust, but French Armenians should still insist on having a law that penalizes denial of the Armenian Genocide.

     

    While politicians, whether in France or the United States, are notorious for breaking their promises, Armenians in both countries can only reach their objectives by pooling their resources and forming a cohesive voting block that backs their political supporters and counters their opponents.

     

  • Syria a test case for democratic Turkey

    Syria a test case for democratic Turkey

    The bloody and widespread crackdown on democracy protesters in Syria presents an opportunity for Turkey to reconsider its ‘zero problems’ foreign policy – and work with its NATO allies to change the ideological landscape of the Middle East.

    By the Monitor’s Editorial Board / May 9, 2011

    The increasingly violent crackdown on democracy protesters in Syria has become a test case for neighboring Turkey and its ties to the West.

    As a member of NATO and the only democracy in the Muslim Middle East, Turkey has long boasted about “zero problems” on its borders. It actively sought to better ties with its neighbors, no matter their political persuasion. This approach has collected a string of successes, most notable Syria, with which Turkey almost went to war in 1998.

    Since then, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has developed a warm friendship with Syria’s autocratic leader, President Bashar al-Assad. The two governments held joint cabinet meetings and military exercises. Trade surged.

    But the limits of Turkey’s influence as a regional peace broker are now becoming clear. Despite Mr. Erdogan’s personal pressuring of Mr. Assad to reform, Syria’s forcible put-down and mass killing of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators has escalated to an alarming degree.

    Similarly, after the democratic revolt began in Libya, Erdogan talked with Col. Muammar Qaddafi, offering him a plan to quit power and call elections. Mr. Qaddafi ignored him, though Turkey was instrumental in negotiations to free four New York Times journalists who had been detained by Libyan authorities.

    Examples of “zero problem” failures extend further back in time: Turkey’s clumsy attempt to work out a nuclear-fuel arrangement with Iran; a severely strained relationship with Israel, in contrast to a time when Turkey had once facilitated Israeli-Syrian talks.

    The reasons for Turkey’s limited success are multiple. Cornered dictators are not so easy to remove. As Erdogan said last week, he’s not sure whether Assad – who had appeared to be a reformer – has lost interest in change, or whether he is being overruled by others in his government.

    Turkey also has tremendous stakes in preserving the status quo. For instance, it has billions of dollars in contracts to lose in Libya if Qaddafi falls. Turkey is also keenly aware of the threat of refugees pouring over its border if Syria collapses, and of the influence that Kurds in Syria could have on Kurd separatists in Turkey.

    Perhaps it’s not merely a matter of preferring the status quo, but also of divisions within Turkey itself. Erdogan leads a mildly Islamist party, but secularists suspect his long-term intent is to defy Turkey’s strict separation of mosque and state. Is Erdogan perhaps a reluctant democrat? Turkish secularists, and NATO allies who complain of his overtures to Iran or his attacks on a free media, sometimes wonder.

    Erdogan was ahead of the curve in calling for Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to step down. But he has been slow to do the same for Qaddafi (he only called for it publicly last week), and likewise slow in his public condemnations of the Assad government. Neither he, nor the United States, by the way, has called for Assad’s ouster.

    Turkey has an opportunity in Syria and other countries of the Arab Spring to stand much more firmly on the side of democratic protesters. True, there is only so much it can do. But it’s also not doing as much as it could.

    What it really needs is to reassess its “zero problems” policy. That worked at a time of one-on-one crises with countries, and when the aim was to avoid conflict and improve business ties.

    But there is an ideological sea change under way in the Middle East, and that requires a democracy like Turkey – as imperfect a model as it may be – to choose sides and stand squarely behind freedom advocates.

    At this time in history, zero problems can no longer mean zero principles.

    Turkey spent decades as a NATO member working with the West to contain the threat of Soviet communism. That was an ideological battle of great import to the progress of humanity.

    Similarly, Turkey has a historic chance to swing solidly behind the democratic movement in the Middle East and North Africa. Hesitancy works to its detriment. It besmirches its credibility among protesters (Libyan rebels burned the Turkish flag because Ankara did not back the no-fly zone). Worse, its lack of definitive support makes it harder for democracy advocates to succeed.

    As Turkey’s own president, Abdullah Gul, has written, “sooner or later the Middle East will become democratic.” Turkey, and its allies, must now make a strategic decision to back this movement – even when it’s inconvenient for them. And even at the risk of creating other problems.

    via Syria a test case for democratic Turkey – CSMonitor.com.

  • Iran: Ban stresses need for continued negotiations over nuclear programme

    Iran: Ban stresses need for continued negotiations over nuclear programme

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today underscored the need for Iran to continue negotiations with concerned countries over the status of its nuclear programme, telling the country’s President to also cooperate fully with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    In a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, held in Istanbul, Turkey, on the sidelines of the UN Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Mr. Ban stressed the importance of Iran’s negotiations with the so-called E3+3 – China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

    He also highlighted the importance of Iran cooperating fully with the IAEA, according to an information note released by the Secretary-General’s spokesperson.

    Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear programme is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy, but many countries contend it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and last year the Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions against it, citing the proliferation risks of its nuclear programme and Iran’s continued failure to cooperate with the IAEA.

    The issue has been of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    During their meeting today Mr. Ban also asked Mr. Ahmadinejad to cooperate with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), including a potential visit by that office to Iran.

    In addition, the Secretary-General and the President discussed recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa, especially Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, as well on the importance of a positive outcome for the LDC conference.

    While in Istanbul Mr. Ban has held a series of bilateral meetings with key officials, and today he met with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Benin’s President Boni Yayi, Turkish President Abdullah Gül, Georgia’s Prime Minister Nikoloz Gilauri, African Union (AU) Commission Chairperson Jean Ping and Cypriot Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou.

    via Iran: Ban stresses need for continued negotiations over nuclear programme.

  • 2011 GP3: No Turkish Delight For Quaife-Hobbs In Istanbul

    2011 GP3: No Turkish Delight For Quaife-Hobbs In Istanbul

    Adrian Quaife-Hobbs had a frustrating start to his GP3 campaign after a broken starter motor in the weekend’s opening 15-lap race effectively ended his chances of capitalising on his pre-season testing form. Adrian went into the opening rounds of the 16-race series buoyed by a scintillating pace in Barcelona in which he topped the time sheets.

     

    Arriving in Turkey the 20 year-old was confident of repeating that pace with the Marussia Manor Racing team, but in Friday’s wet/dry sessions was unable to get the most out of his Pirelli tyres. In qualifying on Saturday morning, Adrian was unfortunate to have his flying lap ruined by a spinning car, which came back onto the track in front of him, ending his run. He wound up 16th fastest but still confident of being able to move up through the order.

    However as he took to the grid for Saturday’s opening race, Adrian suffered a problem with the starter motor, which his mechanics tried to fix prior to the start. However as the one-minute board was shown, Adrian was pushed off the grid, and forced to start the race from the pit-lane. In a field of 30 cars, and with the added handicap of suffering a drive-through penalty for the grid infringement, he drove a strong race to make up six places crossing the line 24th.

    With the results of race one determining the grid for race two, Adrian lined up in that position on the 12th row and by lap three was already up to 17th. Over the course of the remaining laps, the Tonbridge racer was not able to make much more progress but was happy to have made up eight places at the flag to finish 16th.

    “It certainly hasn’t been the start of the season I was hoping for after topping the times in testing,” said Adrian. “In qualifying a car spun and came back onto the track just as I was going for my flying lap, which brought that to a finish. In race one the starter motor failed on the grid and although the team did a good job to try and fix it, because the one-minute board had been shown, the marshals pushed me off the grid and into the pits, and then I got a drive-through penalty too.

    “That was my weekend pretty much over although I think we recovered well in the second race coming back through the field from 24th to 16th. I was satisfied with our pace in both races, it’s just disappointing we had the starter motor problem in race one as we showed we could have had potentially two strong finishes.

    “We will put that all behind us now though and if we carry on working like we did this weekend I’m sure we will do well and be back on the pace for Barcelona.”

    The next double-header rounds of the 2011 GP3 Series take place over the weekend of 20-22 May at the Catalunya circuit in Barcelona, Spain.

    PaddockTalk Perspective

    via 2011 GP3: No Turkish Delight For Quaife-Hobbs In Istanbul :: PaddockTalk :: F1, Formula 1, NASCAR, IndyCar, MotoGP, ALMS, And More!.

  • The Unwisdom of Elites

    The Unwisdom of Elites

    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the 1930s. Meanwhile, Europe’s single currency is coming apart at the seams. How did it all go so wrong?

    Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.

    So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.

    The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.

    Let me focus mainly on what happened in the United States, then say a few words about Europe.

    These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?

    The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.

    So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn’t the man in the street.

    President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party’s ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.

    Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.

    Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that’s who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.

    So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America’s deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis.

    Needless to say, that’s not what you hear from European policy makers. The official story in Europe these days is that governments of troubled nations catered too much to the masses, promising too much to voters while collecting too little in taxes. And that is, to be fair, a reasonably accurate story for Greece. But it’s not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.

    The real story of Europe’s crisis is that leaders created a single currency, the euro, without creating the institutions that were needed to cope with booms and busts within the euro zone. And the drive for a single European currency was the ultimate top-down project, an elite vision imposed on highly reluctant voters.

    Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public?

    One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn’t be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn’t be giving lectures on responsible government.

    But the larger answer, I’d argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.

    www.nytimes.com, May 8, 2011

  • Mass appeal for bin Laden at Irish church

    Mass appeal for bin Laden at Irish church

    By MARK HILLIARD in Dublin, Ireland, and BOB FREDERICKS in NY

    The name alone got their Irish up.

    A Catholic church in Ireland has provoked outrage among its parishioners after announcing plans for a Mass to pray for the “soul” of Osama bin Laden.

    The Church of the Assumption in the affluent Dublin suburb of Howth distributed a leaflet to parishioners during its Sunday services that included details of the service.

    Listed under “Mass Intentions” for Thursday in the church pamphlet distributed yesterday was a call to prayer for “Osama Bin Laden (Recently Deceased)” during that day’s 10 a.m. Mass.

    Parishioners were immediately incensed, saying the idea of praying for the al Qaeda leader was an “insult,” particularly with the upcoming visit of President Obama to Ireland.

    “I was disgusted. I have family in America who would be disgusted,” said one regular Mass-goer. “The Irish-Americans would be absolutely horrified, as if we are on the wrong side.”

    The church attempted to play down the scandal yesterday, saying the request was probably taken down in a hurry and that the matter remained undecided.

    However, the parish note was removed from the Web site and it remains unclear whether the service will go ahead as scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday.

    www.nypost.com, May 9, 2011