Page 2255 – Turkish Forum

Abdullah, Gul to discuss Palestine, bilateral relations

Posted by: “ALI BENLIOGLU” [email protected]

Sun Feb 1, 2009 2:45 pm (PST)

GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN / ARAB NEWS

RIYADH: Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah will hold talks with Turkish President Abdullah Gul here tomorrow in a renewed bid to boost bilateral ties and exert more efforts to pressure Israel and the international community to resolve the crisis and restore peace in the Middle East.

“The Turkish president, who will be accompanied by a 140-member delegation, will begin a four-day official visit to the Kingdom on Tuesday,” said Turkish Ambassador Naci Koru, here yesterday.

The visit of Gul on the invitation of King Abdullah is very important keeping in view the fact that Turkey can play an influential role in eliminating divisions among the Palestinians, a move strongly supported by King Abdullah himself. Koru said the two leaders would discuss the whole gamut of bilateral, regional and international issues, including Gaza,
Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in their talks.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was given a hero’s welcome recently on his return to Istanbul after accusing Israel of “knowing very well how to kill” during a heated debate at the World Economic Forum. Moreover, Riyadh and Ankara have also renewed their commitments to boost bilateral ties, which have been progressively growing following the historic visit of King Abdullah to that country in 2006.

Asked about any accord to be inked by the Kingdom and Turkey during the president’s visit, Koru said that Gul would also witness the signing of two major agreements. The accords include an agreement in maritime transport sector and another in the field of youth and sports. He said that Gul’s itinerary, which will take him to Riyadh and Jeddah, would be intense because of several official-level meetings and visits to Saudi academic institutions.

The ambassador said that the Turkish president would also visit the Riyadhbased King Saud University, the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) and a military center near Al-Kharj, some 45 km south of Riyadh.

He said that the Turkish president would address members of the Turkish community in Riyadh on Wednesday. He will visit the headquarters of the Organization of Islamic Conference on Feb. 5, the day he will arrive in Jeddah. The diplomat said that Riyadh and
Ankara had forged closer ties on all fronts. The two-way trade exceeds $5 billion annually, representing a growth of 30 percent. Also, the tourism traffic has reported a massive increase from 22,000 Saudis visiting Turkey in 2001 to over 70,000 in 2008.

Turkish Air is currently operating 28 flights a week from Saudi Arabia, compared to only a few flights per week four years back.

This is in addition to the flights operated by Saudia and other Gulf carriers. In the field of agriculture, Riyadh and Ankara have mapped out a new strategy, which is now facilitating joint agriculture projects. Several Saudi and Turkish companies have come forward with proposals for joint projects, which need to be OK’d by regulatory authorities. In fact, the
recent visit of Saudi Minister of Commerce and Industry Abdullah bin Zainal Alireza
to Turkey cleared the decks for agriculture cooperation.

February 3, 2009

TURKEY DECODED by: Ann DISMORR

Immediate Media Release –
“TURKEY DECODED” with Ambassador Ann DISMORR
Date: On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, NYC.
Today’s Date: January 28, 2009, NY
For INVITATION of the Program>

LIGHT MILLENNIUM in collaboration with the COLUMBIA University Middle Eastern and Asian Languages and Cultures, Middle East Institute, and the Consulate General of SWEDEN in New York, proudly presents:

A Book Presentation and Signing:

TURKEY DECODED
by:
Ann DISMORR
Swedish Ambassador to Turkey from 2001-2005

Introduction of the author by:
Ambassador Ulf HJERTONSSON

Moderator:
Professor Peter AWN
Dean of General Studies and Director of MEI at Columbia University

WHEN:On Wednesday, February 25, 2009
TIME: Registration & Reception 6:30 pm, with program to follow

WHERE:Columbia University, International Affairs Building (IAB room 1501, 15th floor)
Located at 420 W. 118th Street (at Amsterdam Avenue)

Please RSVP by: February 24, 2009, 5PM.

Please RSVP to> [email protected]

Web site:
– This event is free and open to the general public.

Ann DISMORR’s book, “Turkey Decoded”, examines Turkey’s foreign policy, ties with the US and the Middle East, as well as troubled relations with the EU.

Some of the twenty-first century’s greatest challenges are reflected in Turkey-EU relations: the widening gap between the West and the Muslim world, terrorism, and the struggle for human rights and democratization. Although membership talks were launched more than three years ago and are anticipated to finish in 2014, fully fledged membership is far from certain. There is growing concern in both Turkey and the West about Turkey’s “Islamization.”

Ann DISMORR examines the implications of Turkey’s affiliation with Europe while also addressing its role in the Middle East and its complex relationship with the U.S. She pays particular attention to the sweeping reforms initiated by the Justice and Development Party, and to the career and policies of one-time political prisoner and current Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

From the unique view point of one of the few female ambassadors to Turkey, DISMORR describes a country in transition, covering topics from the Kurds to the Iraq War, women’s rights, the crisis over Cyprus and the polarizing presidential election of 2007.

“Turkey Decoded” includes the following 12 chapters:

1) Turkish Identity;
2) Turkey in the Waiting Room of the European Union;
3) Changing EU-Turkish Relations, 1999-2007;
4) Pro-Islamic Party Gained Power and Succeed in Historic EU Breakthrough;
5) From Human Rights Deficit to Progress;
6) The Kurdish Question: A Roadblock to Turkish EU Membership?;

7) Women Between Tradition and Transformation;
8) Changing US-Turkish Relations and their Impact on the EU Process;
9) Turkey’s Role in the Middle East: Possibilities and Limitations;
10) Turkey: Bridge or Barrier Between East and West?;
11) Turkey’s Future: EU Success Story or Unfulfilled Promise?;
12) The Beginning of a Post-Kemalist Era.

Following the presentation, there will be an open discussion moderated by Prof. Peter AWN.

The American Turkish Society(www.americanturkishsociety.org), as a part of its Meet the Ambassadors program, will host a reception in honor of Ambassador Ann DISMORR and guests at the event’s venue.

* * * * *

About the Author:

Ann DISMORR has extensive knowledge
DISMORR’s other key Swedish Foreign Ministry 1981
Senior advisor on Parliament’s Ambassador in Turkey and Azerbaijan Ambassador in Lebanon 1999-2001
Counsellor, Swedish UN Mission in Geneva Deputy Director, Foreign Ministry in Diplomatic Advisor to Sten Andersson, Executive assistant to Foreign Minister Negotiating EU-EFTA affairs, Foreign Embassy in the UK; first secretary, Embassy in Zimbabwe; second secretary, Chairperson of the Friendship Association Author of the book “Turkey Decoded” Co-author of the book “Plikten PhD studies at Yale University, Connecticut, Postgraduate studies (political science), Bachelor of Arts, University Lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1979-1981,

style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">About Ambassador Ulf HJERTONSSON:

As of March 1, 2006, Ambassador Ulf HJERTONSSON is the Consul General of Sweden in New York. Ambassador Ulf HJERTONSSON has worked for the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs since 1965. His career in the Swedish foreign service has included a number of key appointments, both in Stockholm and abroad.

Most recently, from 2001 to 2006, he was Ambassador of Sweden in Helsinki, Finland. Prior to this, he served as Special Adviser to the Foreign Minister and Chairman of the EU-US Task Force during the Swedish EU Presidency in 2001.

Previous appointments include Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Stockholm in 1995; Ambassador of Sweden in Madrid, Spain, in 1989; Minister at the Embassy of Sweden in Washington DC in 1985; Foreign Policy Adviser to Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1984; and Assistant Under-Secretary for Political Affairs in 1983.

His first diplomatic assignment was at the Swedish Embassy in Santiago de Chile, followed by the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations in New York in 1967, and the Swedish delegation to the European Communities in Brussels in 1978.

Ulf HJERTONSSON has a special interest in language and literature and has published a number of literary translations, including works by Pablo Neruda and Michel Tournier.

About Professor Peter J. AWN:

On July 1, 2008, Professor Peter J. AWN took up his three-year term as Director of the Middle East Institute. He also continues to serve as Dean of the School of General Studies at Columbia.

Peter J. AWN is Professor of Islamic Religion and Comparative Religion in the Department of Religion. He received his Ph.D. in Islamic Religion and Comparative Religion from Harvard University in 1978, at which point he joined the Columbia faculty. Previously he earned degrees in Philosophy, Classical Languages, and Christian Theology. Professor AWN‘s book, “Satan’s Tragedy and Redemption: Iblîs in Sufi Psychology“, received a book award from the American Council of Learned Societies. In 1984 he was the first recipient of the “Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Award” for distinguished teaching and research. In 1995 Professor AWN was awarded the “Great Teacher Award” from the Society of Columbia Graduates. Professor AWN has received numerous grants including a Fulbright and several grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities. He was also a Principal Investigator on the Muslim Communities in New York City research project, sponsored by the Ford Foundation. In addition to his work at Columbia, Professor Awn has been Visiting Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Professor AWN has traveled widely in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Iran, and South Asia.

In addition to his service as Dean of the School of General Studies (GS), Professor AWN currently serves as Acting Dean of the School of Continuing Education (SCE). He has served as chair of the Department of Religion, chair of the Steering Committee of the Chairs of the Arts & Sciences Departments, and chair of the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences. In addition he has served as Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Religion, and Arts & Sciences Faculty Liaison to the Office of University Development and Alumni Relations.

Producers of the program: Bircan Ünver, Light Millennium & Prof. Etem Erol, Columbia University &
Martina Högberg, Consulate General of Sweden in New York

For more information: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] or/ [email protected]

– For INVITATION> https://www.lightmillennium.org/events/ann_dismorr_turkey.html

“The Light Millennium, is a 501 (c) (3) Tax Exempt and Public Benefit Organization &

has become associated with the Department of Public Information of the United Nations effective December 12, 2005, and member of the Non-Profit Coordination Committee of New York. – – . Based in Queens, New York – On the Web since August 1999…
YOU ARE THE SOUL OF THIS GLOBAL PLATFORM. & WE ARE FOR THE GREATNESS IN HUMANITY.”

If you wish to receive The Light Millennium’s media releases, announcements or about future events
or to be part of the Light Millennium, please send us an e-mail to> [email protected]

February 3, 2009

“İstanbul in Turkish and World Culture”

Conference web page:

The Seventh International Congress on Turkish Culture will be held in 2009 with the theme of in relation with “İstanbul 2010: European Capital of Culture”. International Congresses on Culture are organized by the Atatürk Center for Culture in every four years.

The Congress will be held on October 6-10, 2009 in Ankara. The participants are expected to fill up the attached form and to send it together with a summary of their papers to the Atatürk Center for Culture with e-mail, mail or fax no later than March 1, 2009. I would like to thank to all participants for their invaluable contributions.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Dr. Osman HORATA
Chair
The Atatürk Center for Culture

February 2, 2009

Will the AKP’s Foreign and Economic Policies Help in Local Elections?

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 21

February 2, 2009

By: Saban Kardas

Following his controversial remarks about Israel’s policies in Gaza made at the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in Davos, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has refocused his attention on domestic politics. The municipal elections on March 29 are expected to be a major test of the policies of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). As the elections approach, the government is gearing its economic and foreign policies toward boosting the electoral performance of AKP candidates.

In November Erdogan challenged his opponents, saying that if his party came in second in the elections, he would step down from the AKP chairmanship (Zaman, November 25). An earlier EDM analysis maintained that the March elections would be dominated by national political issues and the AKP might exploit its position as the incumbent to improve the chances of its candidates against their rivals (EDM, December 3).

AKP representatives are capitalizing on Turkey’s new international profile to mobilize popular support. Deputy Speaker of Parliament Nevzat Pakdil told AKP party supporters that the coming elections were not just about voting for mayors or city council members but that the Turkish people would be asked to “approve Prime Minister Erdogan’s noble stance in Davos, which put Turkey on the map worldwide” (www.cnnturk.com, February 1).

Indeed, most Turks view Erdogan’s walking out of the Davos meeting in protest over Israeli policies as a staunch defense of Turkey’s image and the rights of Palestinians in international forums (EDM, January 30). Erdogan’s team was successful in couching his policy in terms of conducting an independent foreign policy, and the Davos incident prompted the Turkish public to “rally ’round the flag.” Since the Turkish people historically have the impression of being treated as inferiors in international diplomacy, people from across the political spectrum expressed their support for Erdogan, welcoming him almost like a new national hero. Likewise, most party leaders affirmed Erdogan’s reaction, though expressing some reservations about his style.

While Erdogan’s popularity has been boosted at home following the Davos incident, some critics charge that the government’s policies in the Middle East in general and Erdogan’s attitude in Davos in particular might be driven by populist concerns to secure victory in the elections. They also raise concerns that such short-sighted policies might undermine the country’s long-term interests (BirGun, Cumhuriyet, January 31).

Analysts believe that that Davos incident will improve the AKP’s showing in the municipal elections. A survey conducted by the Metropoll polling company to measure the impact of the Davos incident revealed interesting results. As of January 31 Erdogan’s Davos position was supported by 78.3 percent of the respondents and Turkey’s Middle East policy by 82 percent. Compared with the results of Metropoll’s previous poll on January 24, the share of “those who approved the Prime Minister’s political style” increased from 55 to 74 percent. Moreover, when asked “what party would you vote for if there were an election this Sunday,” 49.3 percent said that they would vote for the AKP, in contrast to only 38.9 percent on January 24 (www.aktifhaber.com, January 31).

The immediate impact of the Davos incident might have inflated the AKP’s support. Some analysts, including Tarhan Erdem of Konda polling company, believe that by the time of the elections the impact of Davos might have evaporated. Others, however, expect at least a 5 percent increase in the AKP’s vote in local elections. Observers point out in particular that through his Davos stance, Erdogan would probably undermine the performance of the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and the Felicity Party (SP). The AKP is likely to prevent its nationalist and conservative voters from switching to the MHP and the SP, respectively, while attracting supporters from these two parties’ (www.haber3.com, January 31).

After his abrupt return from Davos, Erdogan spent the weekend in Istanbul in a bid to throw his weight behind his party’s candidate for mayor of Istanbul, Kadir Topbas. He attended the opening ceremonies of several billion dollars worth of infrastructure investments in Istanbul, as well as AKP gatherings. He opened new lines extending Istanbul’s subway network and attended celebrations for the introduction of new ferries to Istanbul’s transportation fleet (Cihan Haber Ajansi, January 31; www.ntvmsnbc.com.tr, February 1).

Speaking to large crowds, Erdogan touted the government’s successes in foreign policy, economy management, and tough bargaining with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He accused the opposition, especially the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), of populism and empty talk. He presented his own party as the only one that could “talk the talk and walk the walk,” noting improvements in the economic indicators.

Although Erdogan promised that the AKP would not resort to populism, several of its policies and their timing raise questions about how sincere he was on that score. Providing free coal to low-income families has been a constant source of accusations that the AKP uses state money to solicit votes. Erdogan has responded to such criticism by claiming that the government was fulfilling the “social state’” requirement laid down in the constitution (Cihan Haber Ajansi, February 1).

Erdogan also announced a price cut for natural gas by 17 percent for residences and 18 percent for industry effective on February 1 (www.cnnturk.com, February 1). In response to the falling energy prices on global markets, the government had been under pressure to reduce gas prices domestically. Although preparatory work on a formula to cut prices had been in progress for some time, the announcement of such a decision during the election campaign is significant.

In a similar move, the Agricultural Minister announced that between January and March, the ministry would pay farmers half of the 5.026 billion lire ($3.023 billion) allocated for agricultural subsidies (www.dunyagazetesi.com.tr, January 31).

It is perhaps unfair to charge the government with basing its economic and foreign policies on the short-term interest of winning the local elections; but undoubtedly the AKP skillfully capitalizes on its position as incumbent to the advantage of its own candidates, which raises the question: How level is the playing field for the opposition parties?

https://jamestown.org/program/will-the-akps-foreign-and-economic-policies-help-in-local-elections/

February 2, 2009

SUPPORT JACK LANG & “LIBERTY FOR HISTORY”

(Note: My thanks to https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/01/2729-armenian-tuggery-intimidation-in.html site for bringing this information to my knowledge. I am covering this issue as a gesture of support to Jack Lang, the courageous French politician who saw through the Armenian falsifications and bogus genocide claims and dared to change his position on the genocide claims. I believe his example will provide a most educational paradigm of how truth eventually wins over propaganda.)

Below, please find Jack Lang’s speech , 11 October 2008, Blois, France, which instantly attracted the poison arrows of a stunned Armenian lobby. Strident articles, nasty letters, and vitriolic internet posts poured from major Armenian lobbyists (and their ethocidal friends), quickly labeling this brave man a revisionist and a denialist, as well as calling him many choice names (some of which are not repeatable here but others like the following are: inconsistent, self-indulgent, felon, Judas, heinous negationist (?), scandalous, cynical, coward, shamed and dishonored France, insulted the values of humanism, etc., etc.)

It is interesting to note that Jack Lang had signed the preface to the book “the news of the genocide of Armenians” published by the CDCA in October 1999; one more reason not to trust the information presented in Armenian books.

Armenians questioned Lang’s alleged cynicism in his support of France’s Gayssot law which criminalizes denial of Jewish and Gypsy genocides. Armenian fail to understand the difference: the Jewish Holocaust is a fact supported by a court verdict (Nuremberg); Armenian genocide is an allegation, not supported by any court verdict and a much contested and discredited allegation at that. All Armenians have are a bunch of hearsay, forgeries, exaggerations, embellishments, and distortions, none of which help explain the Armenian propaganda, agitation, raids, terror, rebellions, treason, territorial demands, and the civil war all of this translated into causing half a million Muslim dead, mostly Turkish, in that order, between 1890 and 1921.

TERESET (temporary resettlement of 1915) is one frame in the 1890-1921 film. TERESET was a home security measure that was caused by the Armenian rebellions and treason during a time of war. None of this has anything to do with extermination of a people nor can it be explained by the term genocide. Genocide claims are political, not factual. Human suffering was universal and caused by all sides; selecting favorite victims out of this lot and ignoring the suffering of the rest is cruel, unethical, and inhuman.

Historians are best equipped to deal with the complexities of controversial history and they must be allowed full access to archives to do their jobs properly. Turkey opened her archives two decades ago and more than 80,000 scholars have used them since. The Republic of Armenia (Yerevan) , various Armenian churches (Istanbul, Etchimiadzin, Jerusalem, Mekhitarists, and more) and Armenian political associations (ARF, ANA, etc. in Boston, Glendale, etc.) and institutions (Zorian, Gomidas, etc.) need to open their archives and provide full access to scholars. Turkey propsed in 2005 establishment of a historians commission to study the matter but Armenian declined. The solution must be seen through more research, dialog, review, and debate; not less. Memory laws destroy freedom of speech on these issues and replace history scholarship with political partisanship.

Therefore, I salute jack Lang for his visionary and courageous stand in the matter of Turkish-Armenian conflict during WWI and for supporting more liberty, not less, for history.

SPEECH BY MR JACK LANG, 11 OCTOBER 2008, BLOIS, FRANCE

“I turn a word about who we meet, I do not at all exhausted in a few words, and I am surrounded at the moment of eminent specialists who have worked, and then in the room Similarly there are great historians intervene. Some words in bulk, I am not prepared to talk, a few words to say in bulk at the heart of this discussion is freedom, freedom of thought, freedom to seek, freedom to discover, freedom to ask questions. Freedom … and it is both a conviction and a temperament. I believe that in all matters relating to intelligence, art, creation, freedom must be the principle, sometimes even absolute, and we cannot make exceptions or conditions may, in certain circumstances perfectly defined, freedom of thought, including forgiveness may be politically incorrect, including think evil. If we do not recognize the right to think, think evil, then the point is freedom.

I will not think badly of course, everyone has their beliefs, values, but at the same time it should, except within certain limits, and unfortunately to propose a topic or question you are going to discuss, what we believe that by reasoning or by intuition or emotion or because we are citizens of that time, the law on the Holocaust and the denial of the Holocaust must be respected as such? Why, how? And why are we reserved, if not hostile to other acts of proclamation and especially to other criminal laws related to historical facts?

I take a concrete example to move forward, so I do not answer the question that I ask, it will be in the debates. To move forward a little in my question, I take the example of Armenia. It is that myself, so I have to say the truth as it should, I passed the first resolution of the National Assembly on the recognition, in quotes, can we say, because it is also necessary that historians do their work, the Armenian genocide. I voted because I thought it was an act of moral and repair history, and given the absolute refusal of the Turkish government to accept any discussion, any debate on this subject, it seemed to me the French National Assembly could perform this act. I do not know if I react the same way today, but in any case I have voted. And at the time, I was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, so I am doubly guilty, if I may say, MP and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, I am prepared with force against the second law on Armenia, already at that time I committed a crime, vis a vis the instructions of my own group, I refused to vote as a text monstrous.

It allows the prosecution against historians, against persons, against citizens, against journalists, who would undertake to discuss, reflect on the magnitude, the reality on the forms of killing (there were massacres ) of Armenians committed by the Turkish armed. Yes, he must speak clearly, those who voted it did not at all a kind of moral commiseration, not at all a kind of attachment to a story. They did so simply by electoral concerns, thinking and raise the voice of the Armenian community of France, who deserves our respect. But at the same time, the duty of a senior politician, a member of Parliament, a minister, is to carry out its mandate with courage and conviction, and to resist any pressure whatsoever. And the consequence of this vote absurd, unacceptable to the National Assembly, was in Turkey itself, I participated as a guest professor of the Bilgi University in Istanbul, we were able to convene a committee of Historians mixed Turkish and Armenian, was a first, which had agreed to meet, discuss, think to compare their views, discuss their assessments. And this vote was such that it echoes blocked temporarily, this work is essential to understand, to know the historical reality in the region.

***

SUPPORT JACK LANG AGAINST ARMENIAN INTIMIDATION AND THREATS

Please send your message of encouragement in English to Jack Lang via email at:

[email protected]

and/or

[email protected]

or by Fax to: + 03 21 30 91 22

Your support is not only for a politician who is intimidated and terrorized by Armenians, but also, perhaps even more so, for an idea: “liberty for history”…

***

February 2, 2009

OBAMA and Armenian Issue: Moving Forward

The following article by Bruce Fein, was published in The Journal of
Turkish Weekly on January 27, 2009.

Armenian Issue: Moving Forward

During the Senate confirmation hearings of the newly confirmed
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Robert Menendez (D. N.J.)
lobbied the Obama administration to characterize the tragic events of
World War I as a “universally recognized” Armenian “genocide”. That
official verdict was said necessary to “move forward.” The Secretary
of State demurred on the characterization question, but concurred with
the idea of moving beyond the contentious status quo.

Moving forward, however, requires recognition of facts, not fiction:
that the Armenian “genocide” is disputed by reputable scholars and
historians; that politicians are ill-equipped to deliver “genocide”
verdicts on matters light years beyond their ken; that Ottoman Muslims
also suffered horribly during WWI at the hands of Armenians fighting
as armed belligerents; and, that voicing sympathy for Armenian
suffering while ignoring the suffering of those whom Armenians
slaughtered and terrorized would reflect the Christian bigotry of
yesteryear.

The Armenian “genocide” is hotly disputed within the universe of
genuine Middle East scholars versed in the Ottoman Empire, the
circumstances of World War I, and otherwise. An inexhaustive list of
doubters would include: famed Middle East expert Bernard Lewis of
Princeton University, the late Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A., Guenter Lewy
of the University of Massachusetts, Justin McCarthy of the University
of Louisville, Norman Itzkowitz of Princeton University, Brian G.
Williams of the University of Massachusetts, David Fromkin of Boston
University, Avigdor Levy of Brandeis University, Michael M. Gunter of
Tennessee Tech, Pierre Oberling of Hunter College, the late Roderic
Davison of George Washington University, Michael Radu of Foreign
Policy Research Institute, and military historian Edward J. Erickson.
Outside of the United States even more scholars have endorsed a
contra-genocide analysis of the history of the Ottoman Armenians,
among them Gilles Veinstein of the College de France, Stefano
Trinchese of the University of Chieti, Augusto Sinagra of the
University of Romae-Sapienza, Norman Stone of Bilkent University, and
the historian Andrew Mango of the University of London. In addition
to these and other scholars, the United Nations, Great Britain, and
Sweden have refused to endorse the “genocide” label.

Politicians, including Members of Congress or the President, are
ill-suited to decide the issue pivoting on century-old happenings that
sharply divide experts. They have neither the time nor inclination to
undertake intellectual labors commensurate with the importance of a
“genocide” charge. And they do not sit like members of a jury to
listen to both sides present their respective cases. Senator Menendez
exemplifies why politicians should shy from deciding ancient
historical controversies. He rendered judgment without examining all
the credible evidence and analyses.

Moving forward on the “genocide” question requires placing the
decision with an international commission of impartial experts with
access to all relevant archives. The most important archives that
remain closed belong to Armenian organizations. Turkey’s Prime
Minister has agreed to the international commission solution to the
Armenian “genocide” issue.

Moving forward further requires reciprocal apologies by both Turks and
Armenians for the mutual devastation wrought upon each other. What is
customarily ignored are World War I’s harrowing Ottoman Muslim deaths
effectuated by numerous bloody Armenian revolts; raids and slaughters
by Armenian extremist revolutionaries; treasonous defections in the
hundreds of thousands to fight for invading Russian and French armies;
and, austere wartime conditions that occasioned starvation, disease,
epidemics, and deaths from acute shortages of medical personnel and
medicine. According to research reports, nearly 524,000 Ottoman
Muslims perished from the actions of Armenian revolutionaries during
the war.

Armenians have never acknowledged any culpability for their side’s
atrocities of World War I. Instead, they apotheosize to this day those
Armenians who murdered scores of Turkish diplomats in the 1970’s and
1980’s.

William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” descried the bigoted
hierarchy of human suffering that would be reflected by expressing
moral outrage over historical Armenian suffering or killings while
remaining silent over the counterpart suffering and deaths of Ottoman
Muslims or Turks. To paraphrase from an immortalized passage: “Hath
not a Turk eyes? Hath not a Turk hands, organs, dimensions, senses,
affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same
weapons, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick a Turk, does he
not bleed? If you tickle a Turk, does he not laugh? If you poison a
Turk, does he not die?”

In sum, to honor her pledge to move forward on the Armenian “genocide”
question, Secretary Clinton should promote the ideas of an
international commission of experts and reciprocal apologies. It is
also the best formula for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

February 2, 2009

Blog

Abdullah, Gul to discuss Palestine, bilateral relations

Posted by: “ALI BENLIOGLU” [email protected]

Sun Feb 1, 2009 2:45 pm (PST)

TURKEY DECODED by: Ann DISMORR

“İstanbul in Turkish and World Culture”

Will the AKP’s Foreign and Economic Policies Help in Local Elections?

Will the AKP’s Foreign and Economic Policies Help in Local Elections?

SUPPORT JACK LANG & “LIBERTY FOR HISTORY”

OBAMA and Armenian Issue: Moving Forward