Turkish Forum

Blog

  • Lewis’ Rebuke of Armenian Allegations

    Lewis’ Rebuke of Armenian Allegations

    Princeton University Scholar Lewis’ Rebuke of Armenian Allegations Supported by French Daily Le Petit Journal

    “[T]hat the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is a downright falsehood.  What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale.

    But to make this a parallel with the holocaust in Germany, you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order, the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of the state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a rather absurd parallel”.
     
    Professor Bernard Lewis
    April 14, 2002,
    National Press Club
    Also on C-Span 2

  • The Kosovo Syndrome

    The Kosovo Syndrome

    The Kosovo Syndrome and the Search for a Settlement in Cyprus
    by Sema Sezer

    From the early 1990’s to today, we have seen the formation of 9 new independent states in the south and east of Europe emerge from the break up of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia alone. On 1 January 1993, Czechoslovakia was divided into the “Czech Republic” and “Slovakia” through what was termed as a “velvet separation” as a result of a joint decision taken by the Czech and Slovakian Parliaments. On 1 May 2004, the two new states joined the European Union (EU). Disintegration in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia started in 1992 with the separation of four states – Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. Finally, a total of seven independent states were born out of the former Yugoslavia with the separations of Montenegro from Serbia following a referendum on 21 May 2006, and then Kosovo, which was an autonomous region, after it declared its independence on 17 February 2008 from Serbia. Slovenia joined the EU with the 1 May 2004 enlargement process, while Croatia is in continued EU accession talks since October 2005, and Macedonia declared as a candidate country in December 2005. The winds of dissolution/separation were not limited to the east and south of Europe. In past years, debates on the issue of separation have arisen even in Belgium, despite its capital, Brussels, being central to the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Debates have increasingly intensified as to whether the separation of Montenegro in 2006 and Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia could constitute an example for problematic regions in other parts of the world. Cyprus became the main focal point of these debates in Turkey.

    The reasons for mentioning the above events is to point out that every new-born state has been recognised by the international community, especially the EU states, and have taken their place in the international system within a short period of time despite the methods, and political and legal aspects of separation and independence processes all being different as in the examples of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

    Kosovo and Cyprus: Differences and Similarities

    Essentially, the Kosovo and Cyprus cases are both politically and legally different. However, some parallels can be drawn on the grounds of human rights violations, which were experienced by Kosovar Albanians and which are still being experienced by Turkish Cypriots today, behavioural similarities between Serbians and Greek Cypriots and military interventions in both regions . Comparisons between these two nations can even be made based on both having lived under Ottoman rule for centuries. For instance, the majority of the 7.5 million population of Serbia is Serb and Orthodox. In Kosovo, the population of 2 million consists of 95% Muslim, 90% being Albanian. In Cyprus, approximately 260 thousand Turkish Cypriots live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), whereas 750 thousand Greek Cypriots live in the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus (GASC). The majority of Albanians and Turkish Cypriots are Muslim, whereas Serbs and Greek Cypriots are Orthodox Christian. A dominating sense of distrust between both the Serb and Albanian people in Serbia and Kosovo and the Turkish and Greek Cypriot population in Cyprus has led to a loss of will to live together.

    The de facto situation in both Kosovo and Cyprus started with the destruction of the existing constitutional system by the Serb and Greek Cypriot majority respectively. In this process, both Albanians and Turkish Cypriots experienced ethnic cleansing, human rights violations and forceful migration. The Serb and Greek Cypriot attacks only stopped following military interventions. The United Nations peace force that was sent to the island in 1964 failed to make any significant impact in preventing Greek Cypriot attacks from 1963-1974. The bloodshed on the island eventually stopped through Turkey’s military intervention in 1974 by using its rights from the 1960 Guarantee Agreement. The existence of a Turkish military presence on the island is the biggest guarantee preventing a return to 1974. The military intervention in Kosovo came in 1999 from the Kosovo Force (KFOR), or in other words NATO forces.

    Human rights violations and massacres orchestrated by the now deceased Serb leader Milosevic in Serbia and Papadopoulos in Cyprus, who was later to become the President of GASC during 2003-2008, presents another great similarity. The only difference being, while Milosevic was tried in front of the international community, Papadopoulos, who is known as the architect behind the ‘Akritas Plan’, the plan for the annihilation of Turkish Cypriots, was rewarded with Presidency. Furthermore, the disclosure of documents showing Papadopoulos as the person who was conducting money laundering for Milosevic in the GASC also shows another similarity between them.

    In the south of Cyprus, the United Kingdom has two military bases (Akrotiri and Dhekelia), which were retained in accordance with the international agreements of 1960 and were not registered as EU territory; it is also used by the United States. In Kosovo, the US has the biggest military base in the Balkans and Europe – “Camp Bondsteel”.

    After the military interventions of NATO in Kosovo and the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) in Cyprus, Serbs and Greek Cypriots lost control of territories where Albanians and Cypriot Turks lived. However, according to the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) decisions, Kosovo continued to be considered as “Serbian territory” (Resolution 1244, 1999), and the Greek Cypriot Administration as the “Legitimate Government of the Republic of Cyprus” (Resolution 186, 1964).
    Kosovo-Cyprus Precedent Debates and Double Standards of the International Community.

    The different approaches taken by the international community to the Kosovo and Cyprus issues demonstrates the double standards applied from the beginning. The different approaches to the issues demonstrated by the proposed resolutions, the UN’s “Annan Plan” for Cyprus and the “Ahtisaari Plan” for Kosovo, are total opposites. While one of them encourages the “reunification” of the island, the other encourages “separation” of Kosovo from Serbia. This attitude still applies after the independence of Kosovo. Another example was when, within a short period following the declaration of independence by the TRNC, the UNSC decided to define this declaration as “null and void”, taking a decision that “calls for non-recognition” (15 November 1983/541, 13 May 1984/550). However, the same UNSC did not take any such decision against Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

    The USA, the EU and NATO countries reached a consensus, with a few exceptions, on the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, which declared its independence on 17 February 2008. While the USA was among the first states that recognised Kosovo, the EU declared that it has officially noted Kosovo’s independence on 18 February and left the decision of recognition to individual member states. Greece, GASC, Romania, Spain and Slovakia declared that they would not recognise the declaration of independence . The point of departure for these decisions is that independence can set a precedent for minorities in Romania, Slovakia and the Basque and Catalonia regions of Spain. The main concern of Greece and GASC is that this situation can pave the way for the recognition of TRNC’s independence. Moreover, Greece is concerned about Albanians and Macedonians. However, what almost all the states agree upon is that regardless of recognition, “Kosovo is not a precedent for Cyprus”.

    The most striking comment in the precedent debate came from the former President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, towards the end of his 8-year term, making an accusative statement of “the EU for its double standards in Kosovo and Cyprus” on 15 February 2008. Putin’s statement of “Northern Cyprus has been independent for 40 years. Why don’t you recognise it? Europeans aren’t you ashamed of your double standards?” is actually not in support nor an expression of the necessity for the recognition of TRNC’s independence. However, criticism of the double standards displayed by EU members echoed in many circles . Moreover, the statement is significant since this is the first time that the President of a permanent member of the UNSC has mentioned it. Essentially, expecting a change in policy towards Kosovo and Cyprus from Russia, which is known for its established support of Serbian and GASC policies, would not be realistic. Especially when one considers the role played by Russia in the crisis, which gave rise to a potential armed conflict, by selling an S-300 long-range SAM system to GASC and prevented a discussion of the UN Secretary-General’s Cyprus Report following the referendum of 24 April 2004 at the UNSC.

    Consequently, what was the main aim of Putin’s statement? The following part of the statement has the answer. While Putin stated that they support a unified state in Cyprus and that the recognition of Kosovo is immoral and illegal, he also declared that Kosovo is not different from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whereby they were forced to change their policies in these regions. Consequently, Putin might be signalling to Europe via the case of the TRNC that four frozen conflict zones can be separated – Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia, Trans-Dniester from Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan – and that their declaration of independence can be recognised. However, while evaluating Putin’s statement, the possibility of Kosovo setting a precedent for the federal republics and provinces in the Russian Federation like Chechnya, Tatarstan, Sakha (Yakutia) and Kaliningrad should not be overlooked.
    At first glance, Kosovo cannot be taken as a precedent for the TRNC neither in terms of its declaration of independence nor the model applied following the declaration of independence. This is because the TRNC already declared its independence on 15 November 1983, 25 years before Kosovo. Although the TRNC is not recognised, except by Turkey, it has all the necessary institutions for a functioning state, and has a more improved sense of democracy than most Western states. Moreover, although many states recognised Kosovo, is it truly independent? Are we going to experience a new model for independence, independent from Serbia but dependent on the international community?

    Consequently, the issue of Kosovo being a precedent for others can only be examined to criticise the international community’s attitude based on the existence of contradictory policies. Because, as mentioned by Putin, the international community is constantly making efforts to unite Cyprus, which has been divided for 40 years, but supported the separation of 7 states from Yugoslavia, Kosovo being the latest example.
    Turkey’s guarantor status and the presence of TAF on the island seem to be the main influence behind the different international approaches to Kosovo and Cyprus. But when you examine this closely, the absence of a system like the Guarantee and Alliance Agreement of Cyprus and the continuation of KFOR for the security of Kosovo, allows the EU, UN and NATO to maintain greater influence over Kosovo. But in reality, according to article 3 of the 1960 Guarantee Agreement, in the case of a breach of any article of the Agreement, the guarantor countries, multilaterally, unilaterally or in cooperation, have the right to re-establish the state of affairs described by the Agreement. Turkey, whose Armed Forces are the second largest army in NATO as well as the most powerful and operationally capable in the region, intervened on the island based on its right to do so on 20 July 1974. In addition to this, provisional article 10 of the TRNC constitution grants its national defence and security to TAF. All of these factors not only provide a military deterrent but also a political one.

    Reflections of Kosovo’s Independence to the Cyprus Issue

    On 17 February 2008, while the first round of Presidency elections were held in GASC, Kosovo became the 49th state of Europe by declaring its independence. Kosovo’s independence has two effects on the Cyprus issue: the first and foremost being the rising discourse directed against Papadopoulos, initiated by the international community and his election rivals claiming that under his Presidency “the island will remain divided”. The EU and US kept this discourse on the agenda based on the idea that Papadopoulos’s rigid policies were restricting any area for movement and created an expectation that if Papadopoulos lost, then “a new period for resolution will start”. Putin’s accusing statement toward European states of “double standards regarding Kosovo and Cyprus” and Kosovo’s declaration of independence on the same day of the first round of elections reinforced Greek Cypriot voters’ fear of the international recognition of the TRNC and negatively affected votes for Papadopoulos. From this perspective, the international community had reached its aim after the first round of elections and was indifferent towards the remaining two candidates, Kasoulides and Christofias, in the second round. Both candidates based their campaign on “supporting a solution and negotiation with Turkish Cypriots”. Consequently, the uncompromising Greek Cypriot attitude in the referendum of 24 April 2004 was blamed on the losing party rather than the Greek Cypriot people. The electoral victory of Communist AKEL leader Christofias in the second round on 24 February enabled the restoration of GASC’s image in the international community as the side “who wants a solution”. Therefore, it was Papadopoulos himself that failed in the elections, not his policies.

    The second effect is that rather than push for the international recognition of the TRNC, as was the case with Kosovo, efforts at unification for the island were intensified by the international community. In other words, Kosovo’s independence created an opposite effect in Cyprus. Following the Christofias – Talat meeting on 21 March 2008, study groups and technical committees were established for a three month period in preparation for comprehensive negotiations. The reports, which will be presented to the respective Presidents at the end of June, will determine the initiation of comprehensive negotiations.

    When analysing the current political situation in Southern Cyprus, AKEL’s policies and the influence of the Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church, it appears very doubtful that the Christofias administration have enough will for a solution with possible negotiations. The most significant reason for this is that the Greek Cypriot National Council, which is composed of all the Greek Cypriot political party leaders, decides policies on the Cyprus issue. The signing of all Council decisions by the leader of AKEL, i.e. Christofias, during Papadopoulos’s presidency can be taken as a sign that the Greek Cypriot policy of 2003-2008 will continue. During Papadopoulos’ presidency an agreement had been reached where part of these negotiations were to continue with a coalition government model with policies towards the Cyprus issue and to never put the Annan Plan on the agenda. In fact, we can now see that after his election, Christofias seems to be sticking to this agreement.

    Christofias talks about a two region – two nation federal solution. However, he employs a “unitary” state discourse with statements calling for “one state, one sovereignty and one citizenship”. He proposes the annulment of the 1960 Guarantee Agreement, withdrawal of Turkish soldiers from the island, the return of Turkish migrants to Turkey and Greek Cypriots to their estates in northern Cyprus as preliminary conditions. Like Papadopoulos, AKEL defends the use of Turkey’s EU accession process in the Cyprus issue. All of the above show that when Christofias and Papadopoulos are compared, the expected change is not evident and only that the “terminology” and “methodology” has changed rather than the core principles. Moreover, by using the phrase “Cypriot Solution”, and stating that the solution can only be found by the Turkish and Greek Cypriots we can see that he is trying to move away from the UN framework and push out the guarantor states from the process.

    However, the election of a Greek Cypriot candidate, who favours a solution, be it sincere or not, means an increase of pressure on the Turkish side. With a “Now” solution prone administration in office in the GASC, there will be increased demands for some facilitative action from Turkey. These demands will focus upon Cyprus’s obligations in accession talks, Turkey’s guarantor status and TAF’s presence on the island. Actually, Greek Cypriot and Greek officials state that “there is no need for the 1960 Guarantor Agreement, the guarantee of the EU will be sufficient.” They do not pay attention to the fact that the agreement, which was signed by Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom, cannot be annulled without the mutual agreement of all signatory states. Naturally, nobody asks how the EU can provide a guarantee for Turkish Cypriots, while Greece and GASC are members of the EU and Turkey is not.
    The goal of the Greek Cypriots is possibly to gain time by employing diversionary tactics rather than reaching a solution. In December 2006, the EU suspended accession talks in eight chapters with Turkey, deciding to monitor Turkey’s Cyprus obligations until 2009. If Turkey does not meet these demands, a crisis may arise between the EU and Turkey toward the end of 2009. If Turkey meets the demands for the “normalisation of relations with the Republic of Cyprus, opening of ports and airports and application of supplementary protocol” without reaching a lasting-comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, this would mean “the end of the Cyprus issue” for the Greek Cypriot side. It is possible that the Greek Cypriot Administration is trying to buy time with diversion tactics until the Kosovo issue dies down from the international agenda. This is because, suitable conditions for the TRNC to demand recognition have arisen following Kosovo’s declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, just as it had after the 24 April Referendum. However, the international community, which promised the “removal of isolations” after the referendum, is trying to prevent the rising voices of Turkish demands with statements of “finding a solution in Cyprus” while at the same time recognising Kosovo’s independence.

    Conclusion

    Even if comprehensive negotiations are initiated on the island, reaching a settlement seems unlikely because both sides have a different understanding of a “settlement” and “expectations” from the process. Despite administrations and leaders from different political spectrums coming to office throughout the years on both sides, a settlement could not be reached. Although former President Denktas has been accused of being uncompromising, no settlement has been reached during Talat’s presidency either. If GASC continues with the same attitude, the infertility of this process will be realised. Consequently, this new initiative on the island, which started after Kosovo’s declaration of independence and the presidential elections in GASC, would be the “last initiative” for the resolution of the Cyprus issue. However, the EU membership of GASC, the proposed Cyprus obligations in the Turkey-EU accession talks and the isolation of the TRNC will decrease the possibility of GASC accepting a solution under the auspices of the UN.
    For now, the significant issues are, what would be the parameters of a possible solution in Cyprus and in case of the failure of efforts for a resolution, what kind of alternatives can arise for the TRNC in light of Kosovo setting a precedent? Since “independence” was never mentioned in the Ahtisaari Report, the independence model for Kosovo means being independent from Serbia but dependent on the international community. In fact, after Kosovo’s declaration of independence, the UN passed its control to the EU and the EU’s representative in Kosovo declared it will continue to work under the name of “International Civilian Representative”. To further demonstrate this point, approximately a total of 2000 police and judges from EU member states are operating in Kosovo. Regardless of how many states recognise Kosovo, its UN membership is impossible in the near future while GASC, Greece, Spain, Romania and Slovakia continue to oppose it; similarly Kosovo’s membership to the EU and NATO also cannot happen. Unfortunately, the story does not end there; Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is expected to create new political and legal problems even if Kosovo is recognised by various states.

    Every regional conflict has its own specific conditions and these conditions should be considered for any settlement. Consequently, in the case where the Greek Cypriot side takes preventative actions against a resolution, instead of a “contrivable unification”, other alternatives may arise. The most rational way for a lasting solution on the island is the initiation of the negotiation process to reach an understanding for the “agreed separation” of the “TRNC” and the “GASC” in line with the de facto status created by the events of 1963. The initiation of such a process, which will test the international community’s sincerity, will have a positive impact on peace and security in the Eastern Mediterranean, in addition to preparing a proper basis for the settlement of Turko-Greek disputes. The preliminary condition is that the international community should face both politically and legally the reality of the state that they recognised in Cyprus, GASC, is not the “1960 Republic of Cyprus”, which was crafted in the Agreements of 1959-1960.

    Endnotes
    1 for a deeper anaylsis see, Sema Sezer “Kosova Sorunu ve Kıbrıs Meselesi Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma”, Stratejik Analiz, No: 91,November2007,pp.40-48.
    2 “Kosova’yı Tanıyan Ülke Sayısı 23 Oldu”,26February2008,
    3 Putin: Europe has double standards against N. Cypres, 15 February 2008

  • Iraqi Forces Mass Outside Southern City of Amara

    Iraqi Forces Mass Outside Southern City of Amara

    Monday 16 June 2008
    by: Andrew E. Kramer and Alissa J. Rubin, The New York Times

    Editor’s Note: This story describes a military operation by, “Iraqi forces”. Scant mention is made of support for the operation by US military forces. In fact the so called Iraqi military is organized, funded and often backed in operations directly by US military forces. This fact omitted by The New York Times is conspicuous by it’s absence. ma/TO

        Baghdad – The Iraqi Army continued to mass troops outside the southern city of Amara on Sunday and Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, offered a three-day amnesty and weapons buyback program to militants willing to surrender.

        Similar offers in the past few months have presaged other military operations, in Basra, the Sadr City slum of Baghdad and in Mosul in northern Iraq.

        This time, Mr. Maliki is preparing for an operation against the capital of a rural marsh region in southern Iraq, on the Iranian border, where Iraqi officials say a poisonous blend of militia lawlessness and weapons smuggling from Iran has created a chaotic situation.

        The city is also the capital of the only province in Iraq dominated politically by followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, a political rival for Mr. Maliki.

        In the city Sunday, traffic thinned on the streets. Those who did venture out in cars said they feared American air strikes.

        Some residents said the militiamen Mr. Maliki’s government is focusing on, and who Iraqi commanders say include leaders who fled from earlier fighting in nearby Basra, had again fled.

        Still, Iraqi army patrols were setting up checkpoints in the city Sunday and searching cars, some driven by residents moving to neighborhoods they believed would be safer during the anticipated fighting.

        “We are very scared of the waves of military moving into Maysan,” Abdul Ameer Abbas, a 41-year-old high school teacher, said, referring to Iraqi army troops who have been staging outside of town and in a sports stadium.

        Haider Karim, a 35-year-old Taxi driver, said the militiamen had already fled and that the civilians would bear the brunt of the military operation.

        “The security forces must follow these criminals wherever they go because they terrified innocent people,” he said. “We don’t want to be terrified again by the warplanes and troops.”

        The operation is the Iraqi army’s fourth this year to regain control over militia-dominated cities. Though disparate in their specific blend of violence and ethnic and sectarian divides, in all three cities the army has followed a template including offers of amnesty backed by military force.

        Mr. Maliki, in a statement, said militias in the city had three days to take advantage of the amnesty and surrender heavy weapons, such as rocket propelled grenade launchers, machine guns, mortars and rockets. The government, he said, would “give the outlaws and the members of the organized crime groups a last chance to review their stance.”

        The statement also promised rewards for residents who reveal the locations of militia arms caches in the city.

        The Maysan province, rural and remote from Baghdad, lies amid vast marshes. The dozen or so tribes in the area have an independent streak; even Saddam Hussein could not force them into submission.

        After an uprising in the marshes after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr. Hussein sought to stamp out the way of life of the marsh Arabs, as they are known, by digging giant canals to drain the wetlands. Outside of Amara, the capital on the Tigris River, the province of about 920,000 people includes settlements built of reed huts.

        Meanwhile a spokesman for the movement loyal to Mr. Sadr clarified statements made earlier in the weekend that suggested that Sadrists would not participate in the upcoming elections.

        On the contrary, said cleric Lua’a Smaysim, the head of the Sadr movement’s political committee, Sadrists will run, but not under the Sadr banner. They will run as independents or possibly as part of other groups, he said.

        “We will participate in the next elections, but there is no Sadrist list,” said Mr. Smaysim. “We will participate as individuals. Also we will support a lot of independent nominations from another lists.”

        Mr. Sadr, a protean force on the Iraqi political scene, in recent days appeared to be redesigning his movement to avoid being affected by a new election law expected to be approved this month that will govern elections in the fall for provincial council members. The law will outlaw the participation of parties or movements that have an armed wing.

        The ban on parties that have militias is clearly aimed at Mr. Sadr’s followers because his movement is affiliated with the Jaish al-Mahdi, an armed group, said Saad al-Hadithy, a political science professor at Baghdad University.

        “Therefore the Sadr movement decided to participate in this election through individuals who represent this movement and still have loyalty to it, but who are using their own names,” he said. “Those independent politicians will say that they are independents, but they are related to the Sadr movement in one way or another,’ he said

        Some may participate by joining the new political alliance created by former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaferi, also a Shiite, said Mr. Hadithy as well as Shiite politicians.” The Sadr movement declared that they will participate with new entities or with independent individuals and this of course is to avoid being banned from the next elections because of their militia, ” said Basim Sharif, a parliament member from the Shiite Fadhila Party,

        Mr. Sadr had announced on Friday that he was splitting his movement in two and that the political wing would no longer be involved in any military operations. By the end of the weekend, it appeared that when it came to fielding candidates, it would no longer carry the Sadr name.

        The Sadr movement has broad popularity among the poor and had been predicted to garner more seats in the upcoming provincial elections. Such an outcome would almost certainly mean fewer seats for members of Shiite parties loyal to Mr. Maliki.

        Recent operations by government forces in Basra and Sadr City have weakened Mr. Sadr, said a western diplomat who is closely watching the situation, but Iraqi political commentators say he remains a unique populist force in Iraq.

        “Most of the places targeted by the government military operations are widely popular with the Sadr movement,” said Mr. Sharif.

        “The government says that it’s not targeting a specific party but the most targeted is the Sadr movement because of its popularity and its resistance to the occupation.”

        ——–

        Suadad al-Salhy and Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Amara.

  • Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the U.S.

    Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the U.S.

    TURKEY, AZERBAIJAN, GEORGIA AND THE U.S. HAVE BEEN WORKING
    TOGETHER TO DIVERSIFY ENERGY RESOURCES AND ACHIEVE
    ENERGY SECURITY IN THE CASPIAN REGION FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES

    • At the epicenter of Eurasian energy and transport routes, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are bolstering global energy security by providing for the safe and secure flow of goods, services, and energy resources to world markets.
       
      Since the “Contract of the Century” was signed in 1994, Azerbaijan has extensively developed its energy resources to diversify western energy supplies.  The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline became fully operational in July 2006, and will provide one third of new oil to international markets.  
    • Turkey and Israel are jointly working for the realization of the Turkey-Israel Multi-Pipeline System which will support global energy security as the North-South energy corridor becomes as important as the East-West energy corridor.
    • New opportunities have emerged in Turkmenistan for the realization of the Turkmenistan-Trans Caspian-Turkey-Europe Gas Pipeline Project (TCP).

    THE ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT

    • Armenia occupies 20 percent of neighboring Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno Karabakh region and seven additional regions.
    • The State Department’s 2008 fact sheet on the region states: “The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United States.  The United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between the parties with the aim of achieving a lasting and comprehensive political resolution of the conflict. The United States remains committed to finding a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the Minsk Group process.”  The United States mediates the peace process as a Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group which was established in 1992.
    • From a total population of eight million, there are nearly one million refugees and internally displaced Azerbaijanis.
    • According to the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan’s Nakhichevan exclave is “blockaded by neighboring Armenia.”
    • Four U.N. Security Council resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) adopted in 1992 and 1993 call for the unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories.
    • Armenia has not recognized the Armenian-Turkish border.

    ARMENIA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAN

    • Iran is one of Armenia’s largest trading partners.  The two countries are working on a trade agreement.
    • An Iran-Armenia gas pipeline was opened by President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Armenian President Robert Kocharian on March 19, 2007.
    • Russia and Iran are planning to construct a refinery in Armenia with an annual capacity to refine 53 million barrels of oil and produce gasoline and diesel fuel.  Armenia will only use 1 million tons of refined oil; the vast majority will be exported.
    • The State Department expressed concern about relations between Armenia and Iran in its 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism
      “Armenia’s warming relations with neighboring Iran continued, with Armenia hosting official visits by Iranian President Ahmadinejad (October) and Iranian Defense Minister Najjar (November).  In addition to fostering closer diplomatic ties, these visits served to solidify previous bilateral commitments to develop joint energy and transportation projects.  This closer cooperation has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states in advocating for sanctions on the Iranian regime.”

    June 2008,
    Mustafa Nevruz SINACI
    TURKISH FORUM ADVISORY BOARD
    Ankara, TÜRKİYE

  • BUSH RECOGNIZES ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

    BUSH RECOGNIZES ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

    GEORGE W. BUSH RECOGNIZES ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

    —  Republican Candidate Calls on Americans to
    Remember and Acknowledge “Facts and Lessons” of
    the “Genocidal Campaign” against the Armenians

    WASHINGTON, DC – In a powerfully worded letter to two of his
    leading Armenian American supporters, Republican presidential
    hopeful Texas Governor George Bush acknowledged the Armenian
    Genocide, called on Americans to join with him in remembering the
    crime committed against the Armenian people, and pledged as
    President to ensure that the United States properly recognizes this
    terrible atrocity, reported the Armenian National Committee of
    America (ANCA).

    Governor Bush’s letter, addressed to Michigan community activist
    Edgar Hagopian and New York businessman Vasken Setrakian, who
    attended Harvard with the Governor, also called for continued U.S.
    aid to Armenia, encouraged a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno
    Karabagh conflict, and praised the “tremendous contribution of the
    Armenian community to the United States.”

    “We welcome Governor Bush’s principled stand on the Armenian
    Genocide and join with him in calling upon all Americans to
    acknowledge both the facts and lessons of this crime against
    humanity,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.  “We would
    like, as well, to voice our community’s gratitude to Vasken
    Setrakian and Edgar Hagopian, both of whom have done so much to
    share with Governor Bush the issues of pressing concern to our
    community.  We appreciate their leadership and value their
    contribution to expanding the voice of Armenian Americans in the
    political process.”

    Governor Bush’s rival for the Republican nomination, Arizona
    Senator John McCain, has yet to speak out on Armenian issues.  He
    has remained silent, in particular, on the Armenian Genocide,
    despite having received an unprecedented number of postcards from
    Armenian Americans as part of the ANCA’s million postcard campaign
    to leading presidential candidates – including Governor Bush, Vice
    President Al Gore and former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley.

    The two hundred thousand postcards addressed to Sen. McCain ask him
    to explain his vote in 1990 against former Senator Bob Dole’s
    Armenian Genocide resolution and, more recently, his 1999 vote to
    lift the Section 907 restrictions on U.S. aid to Azerbaijan,
    despite Azerbaijan’s failure to lift its blockades of Armenia and
    Nagorno Karabagh.  (For more information on the ANCA postcard
    campaign, visit anca web site.)

    In a September 1998 speech in the U.S. Senate, McCain attacked a
    Congressionally approved ten million dollar aid package to the
    American University of Armenia as an “objectionable program,” and a
    “serious diversion of scarce resources otherwise needed for truly
    worthy programs.”  (For more information on this speech, visit
    .)

    Provided below is the full text of Governor Bush’s letter.

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

    George W. Bush for President
    February 19, 2000

    Mr. Edgar Hagopian
    Mr. Vasken Setrakian

    Dear Edgar and Vasken,

    Thank you for your inquiry to my campaign regarding issues of
    concern to Armenian Americans.

    The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality,
    mass murder and genocide.  History records that the Armenians were
    the first people of the last century to have endured these
    cruelties.  The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign
    that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to
    remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in
    a century of bloody crimes against humanity.  If elected President,
    I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic
    suffering of the Armenian people.

    The Armenian diaspora and the emergence of an independent Republic
    of Armenia stand as a testament to the resiliency of the Armenian
    people.  In this new century, the United States must actively
    support the independence of all the nations of the Caucasus by
    promising the peaceful settlement of regional disputes and the
    economic development of the region.  American assistance to Armenia
    to encourage the development of democracy, the rule of law and a
    tolerant open society is vital.  It has my full support.

    I am encouraged by recent discussions between the governments of
    Armenia and Azerbaijan.  The United States should work actively to
    promote peace in the region and should be willing to serve as a
    mediator.  But ultimately peace must be negotiated and sustained by
    the parties involved.  Lasting peace can come only from agreements
    they judge to be in their best interests.

    I appreciate the tremendous contribution of the Armenian community
    to the United States.  The Armenian community has been and will
    continue to be a model of dedication to values of faith and family.

    Sincerely,

    [signed]
    George W. Bush

     

  • Education or Ethnic Pandering?

    Education or Ethnic Pandering?

    What is the Purpose: Education or Ethnic Pandering

    On November 16, The State Assembly of the State of Wisconsin considered a
    bill that requires that the Great Hunger in Ireland, the Holocaust, and
    the Armenian Genocide be included by school boards as part of national and
    world history curriculum and that those days also be commemorated.  I am
    writing to express the Wisconsin Turkish community’s deep objection to any
    mandating by the Wisconsin legislature of the alleged “Armenian
    genocide” as required study material in State schools. I am not a
    historian but as a lawyer it is my obligation to respond to this threat to
    defend justice and the truth. But most importantly, I believe it is a duty
    on us to be objective and to defend the rights of all of the people,
    Armenian and Turks alike who suffered tremendously in a civil war during
    the World War I in eastern Turkey.

    At the outset, one needs to understand there were massacres that took
    place on both sides. Historical facts show that there was repression but
    no genocide of any sort and it was never one-sided tragedy. However,
    taking advantage of their well-established lobbying organization in the
    U.S., the Armenians are presenting their version of the distorted
    history.  It is absolutely crucial to be able to make a distinction
    between truth and fiction before declaring April 24th as the so-called
    “genocide Remembrance Day” for the Armenians. We, Turks, do not agree with
    this fabricated history. It is obvious that many of the State
    representatives have little or no knowledge of these complex historical
    events. When the political ambitions take precedence over historical
    truths it can only cause harm to the objectivity of history and create new
    problems. Although it is not my intention to give a mini-lesson in the
    history of Turkish-Armenian relations which is highly debated in scholarly
    circles it would be beneficial to provide brief information about what
    happened 80 years ago.  

    Historical research indicates that the Armenians were attempting to break
    away from their long term ruler the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) during the
    World War I. Revolutionary Armenians revolted and assisted Russian
    invasion of eastern Turkey and partaken in killing of innumerable Turks
    and Kurds, who were their long time neighbors. However, when the Russians
    were forced to retreat, the Armenian people were left behind
    unprotected. Hence, Turkish and Kurdish citizens of the empire struck back
    in revenge.  In the resulting civil war, the Turks as well as the
    Armenians suffered. Consequently, the Ottoman government decided to expel
    Armenians to Syria.  Many of them died along the way. While the Armenians
    have consistently sought to portray themselves to the world as innocent
    and helpless victims, no mention is made of the tens of thousands of
    Ottoman Armenians who fought in the ranks of the invading Russian Army,
    nor of their betrayal of their own state. Ignoring the fact that more than
    two million Turks were killed during the World War I, Armenians insist on
    viewing their suffering as a unique phenomenon of the period, rather than
    as part of the tragedy. Certainly, it cannot be even compared to the
    horrors experienced by the Jewish nation in the first half of this
    century.

    Because their genocide claim lacks the support of independent scholarly
    research Armenian groups have developed a strategy to legislate their
    version of history by lobbying the U.S. Congress to pass resolutions
    recognizing their allegation. However, the U.S. government does not
    recognize the genocide but refers to it as massacre. Accordingly, these
    attempts so far have been rejected several times in the House and in the
    Senate. After failing in their attempts at the national level, they have
    turned to State legislators where their lobbies could function more
    effectively. Unfortunately, they have been successful in some States such
    as California and Massachusetts where Armenians are highly
    represented. This shows the fact that there is a political preference
    depending on the local political clout of favored minorities. This brings
    to mind that all minorities are equal, but some minorities like Armenians
    are more equal than others. Armenian lobby is pushing once again for
    “genocide recognition”, and this time they are doing it in Wisconsin. This
    bill, if passed, will not only grievously hurt and humiliate families of
    Turkish-Americans and their children, but also turn an alleged and highly
    disputed Armenian myth into legislation at the expense of ruining the
    United State’s relations with a loyal and important ally, Turkey.

    Moreover, Armenians’ insistence on fomenting hatred with their one-sided
    claim has resulted in a terror campaign since the 1970s.  Armenian
    terrorists have assassinated many Turkish diplomats, four in the U.S., and
    their immediate family members in order to compel the international
    community to accept their distorted version of history.  The purpose of
    these lines is not to condemn all Armenian nation as terrorist but to call
    attention to contradiction that those who wish to generate sympathy for an
    alleged genocide have chosen murder and other acts of terrorism. Only
    couple of weeks ago FBI has arrested Mr. Mourad Topalian, recent president
    of the major Armenian American lobby, namely ANCA, for his alleged
    terrorist activities against the Turkish nation.

    Many nations (minorities) have long been subject to inhuman and racist
    treatments by their suppressive governments. I believe we should teach our
    children about dark sides of the history as well as good. However, we
    should be very cautious when undertake such a delicate mission not to
    poison fresh minds of our children by creating negative image of certain
    nations. Let’s think about it for a second, your six years old child goes
    to school and his/her teacher tells that the day is commemoration of the
    Holocaust, Armenian or Irish genocide. The first impressions of this child
    will, most probably, be that the Germans are bad, the Turks are bad, and
    the English are bad because they killed people. We cannot expect a six
    years old to properly analyze that the issue here is the genocide not the
    condemnation of nations involved. Because children at that age just accept
    what they have been told without discussing it. These kids will grow up
    with this in mind and when they come across to a Turkish or a German, most
    likely first thing they will remember is what they learned in the
    school. It is obvious that such a situation will promote ethnic and racial
    intolerance.

    What’s more, to enact such a bill by singling out Armenians for
    remembrance will only encourage hate crimes and other forms of
    intimidation against people with Turkish origin.  Furthermore, it will
    serve to the purposes of those people whose purported motivation was
    revenge for the alleged genocide such as last month’s indicted Armenian
    terrorist leader Mourad Topalian. While it is absurd to even blame Turkey
    for the alleged events (1915) that took place before its birth (1923) it
    is equally absurd to claim genocide when Turks even have suffered heavier
    losses than Armenians did.

    The statistics show that there is an inescapable link between violence and
    vandalism and ethnic and racial intolerance. At the very extreme, we may
    witness Turkish houses are burned and Turkish children are beaten in
    schools resembling what happens in Germany.  Americans have already
    suffered much from racial discrimination and violence. Instead of
    provoking very young children against certain nations, teaching of
    tolerance should be priority in state schools. In order to educate pupils
    about the historical record of inhumanity and racism, a wide range of
    curricula can be added to the program including war crimes, crimes against
    humanity, genocide, the Native American, Cambodian, Vietnamese and Black
    Slavery issues. Otherwise, we the Turks will unquestionably think that
    this legislation, mandating classroom instruction on the alleged Armenian
    genocide, is unjust and is to promote the politics of ethnic identity,
    that is intending to chastise the Turkish nation and the government of
    today. Therefore, it is not about education but ethnic pandering. Once
    more, the allegation has been extremely disputed among reputable American
    and other scholars, and never proven in a court of law or other impartial
    tribunal. In conclusion, the State of Wisconsin should not lend its
    credibility to an unproved charge against an entire nation. Furthermore,
    passing of such bill will not serve for a worthy cause rather than
    increasing ethnic hatred against certain nations.

    Mehmet Komurcu
    Madison, WI
    [email protected]