Turkish Propaganda strategy

[Joseph]

Interesting and I think realistic

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=120489

OMER TASPINAR [email protected]

Time to say new things on the ‘genocide’ issue

The Anti Defamation League’s recent decision to acknowledge that the Armenian “massacres” of 1915 were tantamount to “genocide” has created a political storm in Turkey. Seen from Washington, such Turkish resentment is counterproductive. It only confirms the fact that Turkey needs to come to terms with its own history. When you have prominent leaders of the Turkish Jewish community writing letters to the ADL reminding them that the Turkish Jewish community’s well-being is jeopardized, this does not exactly come across as a ringing endorsement of Turkey’s democratic maturity.
What the Turkish body politic and public opinion fail to understand is that the genocide issue is already a lost battle in the West. This battle is lost partly because of Turkey’s own behavior and stern, uncompromising image. The official Turkish narrative on the question of “genocide” displays all the symptoms of an authoritarian state that has created a taboo. The education system, nationalist press and bureaucratic reflex are all symptomatic of a totalitarian way of thinking where even a slight departure from the official line creates mayhem. How else can one explain efforts to undermine academic conferences on this issue, or the disgraceful treatment of Orhan Pamuk by most of the nationalist press after he was awarded the Nobel Prize?

The official rhetoric of the government is simplistic: Leave history to the historians. What is, then, the logic behind accusing historians discussing the issue in an academic conference as traitors ready to stab the nation in the back? Such conspiracy-prone approaches increasingly produce an anti-European, anti-American, anti-Kurd, anti-Armenian and anti-liberal nationalism. At the end of the day, Turkey is seen by the West as a country that is fighting its own religion, ethnicity and history. A normal country able to discuss its history freely would probably be less alarmed when others accuse it of having committed “genocide.”

The Turkish overreaction to the slightest criticism on this issue -- even when it comes from traditional friends -- reveals a disturbing sense of insecurity, bordering on guilt. But it is perhaps the lack of a commonsense strategy that is most disturbing. For years, Turks have refused to engage the world community. There was a clear reluctance to answer questions when Turkish embassies all over the world were asked to participate in panel discussions and respond to questions -- in short, to make their own case.

What is often overlooked by Ankara is the fact that the official rhetoric did not change the international perception of “genocide.” To the contrary, Turkey’s reluctance to engage left the field wide open for anti-Turkish propaganda. Then, about 20 years ago, Ankara finally decided to engage more seriously -- but strictly on historical and legal terms. What emerged was not a pretty scene. The Turkish view, in a nutshell, is that you have to put things in historical context. There was a war. Russians invaded and Armenians cooperated with the enemy in order to secure an independent homeland. Armenians, in other words, were not innocent civilians but nationalist rebels.

Fine. But this doesn’t change the fact that they were a minority and that the Ottoman state was in charge of their protection. The Ottoman state decided to deport them. What happened during the deportations? Hundreds of thousands were massacred. Wasn’t the government and military in charge of protecting the deported? How can you have hundreds of thousands of men, women, children massacred without a sustained campaign? The legalistic answer is that there was no “intent” to exterminate the Armenian race. OK, so what happened is not comparable to the Holocaust. But isn’t it still “genocide” when close to a million people are killed while the state is unable and unwilling to protect them?

Today what Turkey needs to do is to engage Armenia and start a reconciliation process. This is no longer a historical issue. It is a political and psychological predicament. Turkey should also issue an official apology, but also indicate that territorial or financial compensations are out of question. A monument that would commemorate the death of Armenians would go a long way in creating goodwill from the international community. But most importantly it would start a process of self-healing at home. Opening the border with Armenia would also secure the moral high ground as it did on the question of Cyprus three years ago.

Two years ago, when I visited Yerevan, former Armenian President Levon Ter Petrossian asked me if Prime Minister Erdo?an is politically strong enough to engage the Armenian question without succumbing to populist nationalism. I told him we will have to wait for better days. Now that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the elections in a landslide, it has an opening to do the right thing. Let’s hope it will…

27.08.2007
Comments | Send to Print | Send to My Friend

[Joseph]

A frank and passionate interpretation of the significance of ADL's recent statement on the Armenian genocide appeared in the 27 August issue of Milliyet in an article entitled "If*We Could Tell Ourselves."*The writer is Yasemin Congar, Milliyet's Washington correspondent and one of Turkey's most respected journalists and liberal opinion makers. Milliyet is a*mass-circulation daily that publishes mixed opinion ranging from liberal to neo-nationalist-republican-secularist. Below is a translation of the second half of the article, which essentially urges the Turkish public and state to come to terms with what has become accepted in*international "public conscience."


Perhaps, the ADL statement presents us with an opportunity. We might no longer have to get stuck on the same point as we always do if we can confess to ourselves the two attributes of this statement.

Can we do this? Can we tell ourselves that this statement is, first, an expression of honesty; and that, second, it echoes what is already widely accepted in the public conscience?

Some of us may describe this view as naive, stupid, and even treasonous. Nevertheless, I think that [ADL National Director Abraham] Foxman sincerely believes what he says when he notes that "what was done to the Ottoman Armenians was tantamount to genocide."

I have been discussing this issue with leading members of Jewish-American community for many years. Although, they never said in the past that "the Ottomans committed genocide," I could see that they believed they did--just like the congressmen who support or oppose the Armenian bill and just like numerous members of the Bush administration who are trying to stop this bill. (In any event, it is not as if the ADL was arguing that "there was no Armenian genocide" and it started saying "there was one" all of a sudden.)

In the meantime, do we not already know that the Turkish official position on the Armenian issue has not gained much acceptance in public consciences around the world regardless of whether various organizations, parliaments, governments, or courts endorse or reject it?

The Turkish historical argument, which has been generated by official channels or with official support and which has been considered as consistent with Turkey's "national interest" for years, has not had much of an effect in the face of real-life experiences.

The story that dominates public consciences on the Armenian issue today was built on the real-life accounts of the victims. It is because of these accounts that several prominent figures with high moral authority like Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel call what happened a "genocide."

On the one side, we have an official Turkish historiography that contradicts these accounts.

On the other side, we have the work of historians of Armenian and other nationalities--work that, for the most part, cannot be labeled "official Armenian historiography" and that is consistent with real-life experiences.

Then, we have a world that considers the first of these two channels of presentation "propaganda" and accepts the truth of the second channel in its conscience.

Would it not be a new beginning just to share this observation among ourselves?

[Joseph]

RMENIAN TURCOLOGIST CALLS THE BLACKMAIL AND THREATS BY ANKARA TO PREVENT INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE A TRADITIONAL TURKISH POLICY

arminfo
2007-08-28 16:47:00

The blackmail and threats by Ankara to prevent international
recognition of Armenian Genocide are just a traditional Turkish
policy. One should take it easy, Director of Oriental Studies
Institute, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, turcologist Ruben
Safrastyan said at a briefing in Yerevan.

As regards the recent tension between Turkey and Israel because of
the initiative of an influential Jewish organization of the USA -
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), on possible recognition of Armenian
Genocide in Ottoman Turkey, R. Safrastyan said the threat of Turkey
is political and not military. "Turkey is the only ally of Israel
that is actually isolated in the Middle East. Naturally, Turkey takes
advantage of this circumstance," he said. R. Safrastyan also added
that when the relations of Israel with the Jewish lobby in the USA
became tense, Turkey threatened the Jewish community in Istanbul.

"Turkey uses this circumstance as well. It is part of the Turkish
policy and diplomacy. I perceive such policy of Ankara as a traditional
Turkish policy, and I think this normal," he said.

[Joseph]

ATAA response

Below is the ATAA response. I should mention that the ATAA is in the midst of severe turmoil and is largely ineffective. The only reliable lobbyists for Turkey is the US State Dept., defense companies and the ADL, AJC. Now the ADL and AJC will most likely back off in their efforts to be shills on behalf of Turkey





ATAA responds to Anti Defamation League-ADL’s Statement

With great consternation has the ATAA witnessed the machinations of the ADL as it comments on the events of 1915. The ATAA maintains two complementary positions. First, the loss of civilian life in eastern Anatolia during World War I was tragic for Muslims and Christians alike, but that for the Ottoman Armenians, who had considered these regions among their traditional homelands, the depopulation of these areas from both the government-ordered relocations and inter-communal violence, the harm was particularly acute and we acknowledge this independently as a tragedy. We mourn all of the innocents who died and respect those who wish to preserve their memory. And second, the historic record does not reflect that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to genocide as the term is understood in proper context, that of the U.N. Genocide Convention. Suggestions that it is an insult to the Armenian memory to consider Armenian losses anything other than genocide not only demeans the Convention, under which the Armenian case has yet to be tested, but also inhibits any efforts toward reconciliation among Turks and Armenians, whose shared history is vastly more complex than the hammer-and-fist rhetoric swirling around the single word, genocide.

The ATAA perceives as a ray of hope from recent announcements by the ADL that it believes that the only way forward is to reconcile Turks and Armenians, rather than to punish Turks, which would be the net effect of passage of H. Res. 106. The ADL correctly realizes that the foundation of reconciliation will be laid by joint study of the shared history of Turks and Armenians, including its high points and low points. The ATAA, therefore, commends the ADL in this respect and looks forward to the empanelment of a joint historical commission composed of the world's leading scholars on Ottoman history regardless of their country of origin. The ATAA also hopes that the ADL will encourage the government of Armenia to participate in this effort. Finally, knowing that deciding history by legislative fiat would defeat the purpose of further study, the ATAA commends the ADL's opposition to H. Res. 106 and all legislation that would pre-judge a historical controversy.

Assembly Of Turkish American Associations
1526 18th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036
Phone202) 483-9090,Fax202) 483-9092
Email:[email protected]
ATAA PRESS RELEASE / August 28, 2007

[Joseph]

SOLI OZEL: TURKEY'S RELATIONS HOSTAGE TO ARMENIAN ISSUE

Today's Zaman, Turkey
Yonca Poyraz DoÐan
Sept 3 2007

The Armenian issue will be a priority for the new government because
it's blocking our international relations, says Soli Ozel, a senior
lecturer in international relations and political science at Ýstanbul
Bilgi University, specializing in Turkey's relations with the United
States.

"There has been talk that the Turkish government should do something
about the border with Armenia. Some say Armenians should do something
before Turkey does something. There are people in this country
dissenting from the official version of what happened in 1915.

Those people would have much more credibility than any of the official
people that we send around. Have the historians work on the issue
and have the dissenters on the historical committee," Ozel said.

Recently, the US-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reversed its
long-time policy concerning the killings of Anatolian Armenians in the
early 20th century and said the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks
"were indeed tantamount to genocide."

Armenians claim up to 1.5 million of their kinsmen died in a genocide
campaign by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, but Ankara
rejects the label, saying both Armenians and Turks died in civil
strife when the Armenians took up arms for independence in eastern
Anatolia, siding with Russian troops that were invading the crumbling
Ottoman Empire.

And there is a non-binding "Armenian genocide resolution" pending at
the US Congress, likely to pass next year. Ozel said there might be
a crisis over the Armenian issue with the US.

For Monday Talk, Ozel told us the circumstances that prompted the
ADL's stance, what the Turkish government can do at this point and
how Turkey's relations with the US have been affected.

How should we put the ADL's decision into perspective?

First we have to distinguish the position that the ADL now wishes
to take vis-a-vis whether or not what happened in 1915 should
be considered genocide. And second, whether or not the ADL should
support a genocide resolution in the US Congress. In terms of Turkey's
political demands of the Jewish agencies' not supporting the resolution
in the US Congress, their position remains the same, but obviously the
fact that they are changing their position in terms of how to judge the
events of 1915 undermines that political position, at least vis-a-vis
some Congress people who may be susceptible to their pressures.

Do we need to talk about the internal dynamics of the organization?

Whether or not this is purely an internal affair or it is to be
understood in a context, these two are linked, but I think the
immediate crisis that we've seen was a function of an internal ADL
development. When we look at the chronology of events, what we see
is the New England chapter elects a new president, Andrew Tarsy. He
decides to call what happened in 1915 genocide, and he is summarily
dismissed from his position. There is an upheaval within ADL, so
Abraham Foxman says, yes indeed, we consider these brutalities and
violence as genocide; we've changed our position in terms of how
we're going to be naming what happened.

Foxman had also an announcement after that. Was it a step back?

The second announcement by the ADL was not a step back. However,
one has to take into consideration ... [that] the Jews are the most
liberal community in the American political system; they take the
lead in every humanitarian cause. And when even the entire country
was in favor of a war against Iraq, most Jews had been against it as
a community, in spite of the fact that many of the neoconservatives
themselves were of Jewish origin. So you could not really as Turkey
go on indefinitely expecting from such a liberally minded, sensitive
constituency to go against its own better judgment in an age when the
term genocide has been a bit depreciated, has been "desanctified,"
if you will, not to really go the extra mile and say what happened
really is genocide.

Did some of Turkey's foreign policy steps, like becoming friendly
with Syria and Iran, have an effect on the ADL's decision?

There are circumstances that make it easier for an internal dynamic
within the organization to make it possible for the organization
itself to change course. And that is of course the recent events
during the term of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party): the
invitation of Hamas, Turkey's reluctance to accept it as other Western
countries do as a terrorist organization, cozy relations with Syria,
and far more importantly very cozy relations with Iran, which Israel
sees as a mortal enemy -- and obviously many American Jews share
that perception of the Israelis. The fact that Turkey has not been
very vocal in protesting the holocaust denying conference in Iran,
and Turkey has not been against the nonsensical remarks of [Iranian
President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad who questioned the holocaust and called
for wiping Israel off the world map, these are strong words, as far
as the Israelis and the Jewish community in America were concerned,
Turkey's reaction was not at a desired level.

The American Jewish Committee took a political stand too when its
head wrote, 'Picture a day when a muscle-flexing Iran or Saudi Arabia
seeks to make denial of the Holocaust a condition of doing business
with other countries.'

What in my view is far more politically oriented was an editorial
written in The Jerusalem Post by David Harris, national executive
director for the American Jewish Committee, a much more hard-core,
politically engaged organization in Jewish affairs, probably more
attuned to Israeli sentiment. I cannot suggest that Israel has asked
these organizations to do what they've done. It was [Israeli President]
Shimon Peres' intervention which led Foxman to equivocate rather than
take a step back. But in the context there is enough circumstantial
reasoning to suspect that there has been some give and take.

Why did Peres step in?

Because Turkey asked him to step in. Turkey basically threatened
that Turkish-Israeli relations would suffer gravely and instead of
calling the American ambassador, we called in the Israeli ambassador,
and in my judgment we made a mistake there by erasing the distinction
between the American-Jewish community and American domestic politics,
and Israel. I personally don't see why Israel would overtly offend
Turkey and push those organizations. Also I wouldn't think that these
organizations would act only when Israel told them to do something. I
think in that particular case, they've acted on their own, fully
knowing how Israel would react and the repercussions.

Have the Jewish organizations been really willing to fight Turkey's
fight?

Over the last few years the Jewish organizations have been more
reluctant to go out to fight Turkey's fight. Because let's admit it,
this is a losing fight because of the way we choose to fight this
resolution issue. We made many mistakes that weakened our position
and made our believability suspect.

What type of mistakes?

At a time when you're discussing whether genocide took place, and your
argument is, no it was reciprocal and the Armenians did the most harm,
the head of your historical association comes up with an idea, which
is anathema to anyone let alone the Jews, of having lists of people
based on their ethnic origin. And the government has not disassociated
itself [from this].

What should have been done?

We should have talked about the context, we should have talked about
nationalism, and we should have talked about the responsibility of the
great powers in both instigating certain things and being perpetrators
of some other things. But most importantly, we should have been able
to express regret that such a human tragedy has taken place. Then you
could ask for respect for all who have died during World War I. The
Turkish Republic is not responsible for what happened in 1915. The
Turkish authorities could express deep sorrow for the tragedies
that happened.

So the Turkish strategy has failed?

Obviously the strategy to stop this momentum, to stop the US Congress
from passing a non-binding resolution, has utterly and miserably
failed. Let's just recognize this, a congresswoman elected from
California who is the speaker of the house today cannot afford --
unless extraordinary circumstances are present -- not to bring the
resolution to the floor of Congress before the 2008 elections. There
are more than 225 co-signatories already. Unjustly perhaps, but this
is the battle Turkey has lost.

How could Turkey change the terms of the debate?

What the Armenian diaspora wants is to call it genocide. We don't have
to accept that. Nobody in Turkey will accept that. But we have played
along in this name game. It's not the naming game what is important;
the real issue is to get into the bottom of things. You can take what
[Yusuf] Halacoðlu [head of the Turkish Historical Society (TTK)]
had said and turn the table around. You can say this is really a
multireligious and multiethnic land. We have people who felt compelled
to convert to Islam, obviously to save their lives.

Use the same fact for a different narrative. By accepting the name
game, you basically put the entire population face to face with a
major threat. By putting the issue in an ethnic and nationalistic
discourse, you made an emotional interpretation of what happened.

First, you have to change the air, and then you can discuss things.

How would normalizing relations with Armenia help Turkey?

The only reason I could see why Turkey would not do such a thing is
because of Azerbaijan and sensitivities among the Turkish public that
20 percent of Azerbaijan proper, in addition to Nagorno-Karabakh,
is under occupation; people are refugees in their own countries and
the Armenians are doing nothing about it, the world community is not
doing anything -- then why open the border. If Turkey were to open
the [border] gate with Armenia, it would have much more influence on
Armenia than it has today. Secondly, it will be better able to explain
its position, because many foreigners do not know of our unofficial
flights between Yerevan and Turkey; there are about 30,000 Armenians
who actually work here. And finally, border towns want the borders to
be opened because they suffer economically. I think we should also
reason it out with the Azeris as well and get on with life. This
would be enough to help Turkey with the Armenian resolution.

If the resolution passes next year, would Turkey close Ýncirlik base?

Turkey will have to respond to this. I don't think it will necessarily
close down Ýncirlik altogether but it may not allow supplies to be
sent from Ýncirlik. Which, by the way, may be the only way for the
Bush administration to convince Congress -- if that is the case then
the lives of American soldiers would be jeopardized.

The Bush administration may then put the blame on the Democrats and
say, "You jeopardized the lives of American troops." It may also
backfire on the Republicans and the Democrats may say, "We always
told you Turkey was an unreliable ally -- at a time when our troops
are suffering they're doing this to us."

What are the other foreign policy priorities ahead of the new Turkish
government?

Relations with the European Union of course, but I'd say relations
with the United States. Our relations with the United States have an
effect on all of our other relations, including Iran, Iraq, the rest
of the Middle East and Russia. We've got to have a new understanding
with the United States as to where we want to take those relations.

The time may come when Turkey will have to choose between Iran and
the United States, or Iran and the West, or even Iran, Russia and
the West. Even though Iraq has harmed US-Turkish relations gravely,
we've got have a dialogue and we have to be much more actively be
part of the solution. Turkey is probably the best-meaning of the
parties involved in Iraq, but because of our inability to deal with
the Kurdish issue, we have not been recognized as a constructive actor.

We've got to come to an understanding with the United States about what
they want to do in Iraq and what we want to do in Iraq. Mending our
relations with the United States is a priority foreign policy issue,
in addition to the European Union.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[PROFILE]

Soli Ozel A senior lecturer in international relations and political
science at Ýstanbul Bilgi University, he is also a columnist for
the daily Sabah. He has also taught at UC Santa Cruz, Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), the
University of Washington, Hebrew University and Ýstanbul's Boðazici
University. He has received fellowships from St. Antony's College,
Oxford University, the EU Institute of Security Studies and the
Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. His pieces have
been published in international publications.

--Boundary_(ID_vlKQbhP8W0pojXXsEs1ncQ)--

[Joseph]

OMER TASPINAR

Is there life after the Armenian resolution?

It's a common joke in Washington. American foreign policy boils down
to essentially two noble endeavors: damage control and crisis
management. It looks like relations with Turkey will soon need both.
As if there was a shortage of problems in Turkish-American relations,
we are soon likely to witness a new crisis of unprecedented
proportions. Everyone I talk to in Congress unanimously agrees, "This
is the year for the Armenian genocide bill."

What people need to understand in Turkey is that this bill is purely
about American domestic politics. It has very little to do with the
deterioration in Turkish-American relations over the last few years.
Yes, Turkey's traditional friends in Washington -- not the most joyful
group, mind you: the pro-Israel lobby, the Pentagon and defense
companies -- are disappointed with Turkey's lack of support for the
Bush administration's Middle East policy. But, Turkey is certainly not
alone in this camp. The whole world is angry with the Bush
administration.

The real problem is elsewhere. First, there is something that Ankara
and the Turkish Embassy in Washington are stubbornly refusing to
understand: Turkey has already lost the "genocide" battle. There is
simply no one -- except people with a vested financial or political
interest -- who believe Turkey's side of the story. Whether "the
events of 1915" amount to "genocide" or not is not even debated in the
West. This is one of those situations where perception becomes
reality. Turkey can blame the nefarious Armenians and all kinds of
anti-Turkish lobbies for this situation, but the fact of the matter is
that suppressing free debate on this issue and accusing academics
organizing conferences does not help the slogan "leave history to
historians."

The second problem is that this year's genocide resolution comes at a
time when American politics is extremely polarized. I've never seen
such hatred between Democrats and Republicans during my 10 years in
Washington. The Democratic Speaker of Congress Nancy Pelosi and
President Bush are barely on speaking terms. There is certainly no
mood to do favors or exchange quid pro quos. In the past, when things
got rolling on the genocide front, Ankara could always rely on the
president to give a call to the speaker of the house to bring some
"geostrategic" sense to the legislative branch. The war in Iraq and
the current climate of polarization in American politics has
drastically changed this picture. Civility is out the window and no
one is in the mood to compromise.

Add to this the fact the formidable Armenian lobby has the numbers to
pass the resolution, largely thanks to a multitude of congressmen who
would probably not be able to show Turkey's place on the map.
Moreover, Pelosi represents a California constituency that has
regularly contributed to her campaign over the years. This is after
all a game of "legalized corruption" at which the Turkish-American
community needs to get much better.

All this amounts to the fact that the Armenian resolution is very
likely to pass this year, which brings us back to "damage control" and
"crisis management." There is no doubt the Bush administration will be
in an extremely difficult situation once the resolution passes. Yet,
there is a silver lining: in case Turkey manages to strike the right
tone in its response, relations between Ankara and Washington can
unexpectedly improve after the resolution. In my humble opinion,
Turkey needs to be measured in its reaction. The Armenian bill is
after all a non-binding resolution with no impact on American policy.

Yes, it will probably become politically impossible to avoid a partial
restriction of [air base] Ýncirlik's use -- ideally in a creative way,
because of "environmental" reasons having to do with EU harmonization
laws, for instance, but instead of mobilizing massive anti-American
demonstrations, Ankara should rapidly come back to the negotiating
table in order to test the limits of damage control in Washington.
After such a disastrous development in relations with Turkey, it may
become simply impossible for the Bush administration to postpone
concrete action against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). After all,
you sometimes need to hit rock bottom to bounce back. This could be
one of those instances, proving that there is life after death. Who
knows, it may even prove to be a good thing for Turkey to get the
resolution monkey off its back. We will have to wait and see.

03.09.2007
Columnists

Source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/ya...haberno=121012

[Joseph]

This poorly written editorial is so utterly non-sensical and and self-deceptive that it hardly warrants commentary. Too bad this person is still not in charge of the ATAA.

Why Turkish-Americans are losing the battle?

Monday, September 3, 2007

print this page mail to a friend

OPINIONS

All News »

» All quiet (and boring) on the Cyprus front
( Sylvia Tiryaki)
» The secular elite vs. the popular Islamists
( Michael van der Galiën )
» Why Turkish-Americans are losing the battle?
(Vural CENG?Z )
» Letter to the editor
» Turkey and democracy try each other
(Frank White )
» MORE


The resolution on the ‘Armenian Genocide’ will soon be accepted in the US Congress and major troubles will arise for Turks, Americans and others

Vural CENG?Z
Finally the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) accepted that the 1915 killings were an act of genocide. Executive Director of the America Jewish Committee (AJC), David Harris, wrote an article on Aug. 21 declaring that he would admire any Turk who admits the genocide. This is a big step to lose the political battle in Washington. With more than 226 members of the United States Congress supporting resolution 106, it looks like it will be accepted.

Turkish-American ties will be harmed Turkish-Americans are losing because they are not fighting as well as they used to do. Many members of the NGO community are in Turkey for summer vacations, and they will learn soon that this is not a part-time battle. Also, both the Federation of Turkish-American Associations (FTAA) and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) are weak with board members facing lawsuits now. The assembly's president is a representative of the Turkish government, and the president-to-be is the lawyer of the Turkish Embassy. This creates doubts in Washington about the ATAA's position and sincerity as an NGO. The FTAA is a different story with its 30-year-long unchanged administration. And what is the embassy doing? Nobody knows because phone calls are left unanswered. On the other hand, most Turkish academics are not afraid of the outcomes of any resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, as we experienced during the symposium on Turkish-Armenian conflict held in Ankara in May. This is very brave and perhaps the most logical attitude. The Turkish government and the Turkish people will be able to formulate new policies on their relations with Armenia, Europe and U.S. For the U.S., it is a different story. When the strong U.S.-Turkey-Israel ties are destroyed, the results will not be easy to accept for any U.S. administration. Losing Turkey for a 92-year-old conflict between its two sizeable minorities is going to hurt the U.S. – in Iraq and beyond. The U.S. will not be able to find another friend so effective in Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Turks are not going to change their historical beliefs in a day because the U.S. Congress wishes so. On the contrary, more people will act more aggressively against U.S. policies. The small and weak republic of Armenia is going to suffer due to the political developments. It may even find itself in the middle of a war with Azerbaijan since Turkish-Russian and Turkish-Iranian relations will get much better after the big ''G-day'' – the day Armenian-Americans will succeed for the first time in their history to carry the genocide resolution to the U.S. Congress.

Tight belts on Turkey Hard times are ahead for Turkish-Americans also. First, all efforts to bring Turkish-U.S. relations back to the level of the ''good old days'' will be completely ruined: No more cooperation and alliance talks. Second, Armenian-Americans will get more aggressive in schools and college campuses as happened with the last elections when the Democrats won. Finally, U.S.-Turkish business relations will be damaged, so will the businesses of many Turkish-Americans. What I am really puzzled by is this: How could the American public and their representatives risk to lose the war totally in Iraq, sacrifice a 60-year old friendship, and put in danger the always protected Israel to meet the demands of a minority? Yes, it is called ''politics'' but there is an issue that should always overcome politics, and that is national security. The western world is saying that it supports the Turkish government; however, three belts are tightened violently on Turkey: The Armenian, the Greek and the Kurdish belts. We will see how long the Turkish Republic will be able to breathe.

…………

Vural Cengiz is the president of the Azerbaijani American Institute, and former president of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. He can be contacted at [email protected]

[Joseph]

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=121217

YAVUZ BAYDAR [email protected] Columnists
For Turkey, ‘embracing’ a small neighbor should not be so difficult

Time is running out for shaping a new strategy in Ankara over what increasingly more countries now regard and officially recognize as “the genocide” of Ottoman Armenians during World War I.
The resolution in the US Congress hangs in the balance, backed by a majority of members. As well, the sharp turn of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is perhaps very timely for many of the genocide recognition supporters and could be a turning point for the issue.

It should also come as a wake-up call for Turkish diplomacy. It seems more than obvious that a new approach, new parameters and new strategy are needed. One might claim that all of this is long overdue. For the past decade, pressure has slowly been building up over the matter; however, rather than agreeing with what by any international standards constitutes the definition of “genocide,” one parliament after another has approved recognizing the fate of the Ottoman Armenians as such.

The flow of events in the direction of Armenian genocide recognition now appears unstoppable. When, rather than if, the US Congress passes the resolution, a wall will be torn down, opening the floodgates for other countries that synchronize their actions with the US to swiftly join in. A fair prediction is that by the year 2015, the 100th anniversary of the killings in Asia Minor, a large majority of the world’s nations will be in line with the recognition. In other words, the scene will be Turkey versus the rest of the world.

“So what?” is the response by a few in positions of power when confronted by this potential scenario. This answer is based on the assumption that Turkey can withstand any criticism from the rest of the world as long as it maintains a strong economy. However, there is another crucial consideration missing in that stance -- it will be morally unsustainable. As long as you keep silent on, or even worse, in total denial of, the tragedy, crucial supporters that are were in favor of Turkey will continue to turn against it. The more obstinate Ankara is in being “aggressively in denial” with “Armenians killed Turks” or “Armenians started it all” type discourse, the more insulted the world will feel.

What is needed is a new way of thinking. First of all, it is necessary to be fully aware that the year 2015 (potentially the year Turkey will be granted EU membership) will be the year of reckoning. From that point on, the new administration in Ankara, who will certainly be a fresh combination of a dynamic president and a prime minister with strong aspirations to “clear the way” for a strong and reliable Turkey for the West, should provide a detailed road map for dealing with the issue.

Given that viewpoint, there seems to be only one way forward -- leaving aside all diplomatic hangups, starting a full dialogue with Yerevan and opening the borders.

Will that be easy? Of course not. But keep in mind that President Abdullah Gül was trying all possible ways to avoid the issue and exercised great care in dealing with Yerevan directly. Although he has met fierce resistance from some senior Foreign Ministry bureaucrats and the National Security Council, both he and Erdo?an know that the only way out is to begin talks with their eastern neighbor. When this is done, most of the pressure from abroad will dissipate.

Yerevan is also in great need of opening the channels of communication with Ankara; it is squeezed between Russia and Iran and with both a strained balancing act is apparent. It certainly understands the rationale behind having normalized relations with Turkey. For Ankara, the dialogue also will serve as an efficient means to normalize its strained relations with the US.

Both Gül and Vartan Oskanyan as foreign ministers tried hard to find ways to open the border. There was a draft plan which provided several options including: opening the border post only for limited hours, opening it only to non-Turks and non-Armenians, opening only for the transit of goods, etc. The interests of both sides have now been well defined and should be brought to the table when talks begin.

It is a crucial moment for Turkey, and for Gül and Erdo?an it requires facing the issue head on. Luckily, for them, the main opposition in Turkey, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), could be a positive force in helping to develop a feasible solution.

Let each side keep in mind that not reaching a climax of “genocide recognition” by 2015 in refusing to normalize relations with each other will be harmful to both countries. Winners or losers -- the decision is in their hands.

05.09.2007

[Joseph]

Yes Lale, the Turkish final resort to try to block passage of a non-binding resolution in the US Congess should be to blackmail the US military. What great friends and allies the Turks are to the US.

First, they blackmail Turkish Jews with threats of violence should they not lobby on behalf of the gov't and now they want to blackmail a country that has continually helped lift them out of the dark ages.

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=121399

LALE SARIIBRAHIMOGLU [email protected] Diplomacy
US Congress should weigh importance of ?ncirlik

Since the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, ?ncirlik Air Base in southern Turkey and the nearby ?skenderun port have become increasing vital for US forces as locations from where they have been meeting their vital needs, varying from stockpiling arms and other goods required for a warring nation to using them as a cargo hub.
The US is still trying to normalize its relations with Turkey after the rejection of a March 1, 2003 decree by Parliament that would have allowed US forces to use Turkish soil for their war in Iraq. Similarly Turkey has also been attempting to normalize ties with its close ally as the July 4, 2003 arrest of Turkish officers by US forces in northern Iraq has continued to humiliate many Turks, be it right or wrong.

According to a Western source, while the US is desperate to rebuild its relations with Turkey, the Bush administration has been worried about the possible adoption of an Armenian genocide bill by the Democrat-controlled Congress in the coming months.

Turkey has denied the definition of the World War I events as genocide but has been left little room for maneuvering, mainly because of its longtime negligence of pursuing policies to reverse the belief around the world that the events were in fact genocide.

The Bush administration, understood to have a limited effect in changing the opinions of Congress, is now seeking to limit the possible damage of the genocide bill for relations between the two nations.

US concern to limit possible harm derives mainly from the importance of ?ncirlik and ?skenderun for its forces in nearby Iraq. For the US, ?ncirlik is outside the theater, making it safe. Furthermore, it is large and discreet in the sense that it provides a quiet way of doing business.

The US also has a very large presence at ?ncirlik and ?skenderun, with around 5,000 men in total, including some engineers and workers. US C-17 cargo planes have been flying in and out of ?ncirlik carrying military equipment to Iraq while using the base as a depot for various goods to be carried to the region.

Remarks made by an aerial port operations officer with the 728th Air Mobility Squadron, Capt. James Burnham, at ?ncirlik on Nov. 14, 2006, in the US Air Force Print News (AFPN) explain how vital Turkish facilities are for the US in its war in Iraq: "By flying critical supplies via C-17 Globemaster III from this eastern Turkey airbase directly to service members at remote locations in Iraq, more than 3,300 convoy truck missions are taken off the Iraqi roads each month."

"During around-the-clock operations at the Cargo Hub here (?ncirlik), supplies such as essential add-on humvee equipment or repair parts and medical supplies are examples of critically needed items that are loaded onto C-17s destined for Iraq," said 2nd Lt. Ryan Randall, the officer in charge at the Air Terminal Operations Center. (Michael Tolzmann, AFPN, Nov. 14, 2006, ?ncirlik Air Base, Turkey)

Close to 60 percent of all air cargo destined for Iraq passes through ?ncirlik Air Base, said Col. Tip Stinnette, commander of the 39th Air Base Wing. "?ncirlik is a strategic center of gravity for the US and Turkey in this region," Colonel Stinnette remarked. (Ibid)

"The greatest accomplishment of this airlift hub is that every time we fly a sortie, we keep a convoy of trucks and drivers off of the dangerous roads of Iraq," said Col. Mike Cassidy, the 385th Air Expeditionary Group commander. Since the inception of the Cargo Hub mission in June of 2005, more than 103,000 tons of cargo has moved through ?ncirlik, reported the AFPN.

No matter who says what, the US officers' explanations of the vitality of ?ncirlik are themselves proof to justify the US administration's concern over the adoption of the genocide bill. Another reason the US has been trying to pursue a policy of damage control is that a possible adoption of the bill could impact relations with Turkey -- among the leading nations in terms of US defense sales.

It is also true that the US has been vigorously lobbying the European Union to allow Turkey to come closer to this democratic club of nations, but current realpolitik dictates that the US attitude controls the potential harm from the bill. Those immediate relations influence a current focus on not jeopardizing US usage of ?ncirlik and ?skenderun or threatening defense sales.

I think the US Congress, for the sake of its country's national interest, should also weigh up the importance for the US of its Turkish facilities and forget about adopting the bill.

06.09.2007
Comments | Send to Print | Send to My Friend

[Joseph]

Yes, the Turks would like the US to do its dirty work (killing Kurds, etc)as well as face Turkish bribery for relations to remain normal. Great friends.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=82838

Turkey can become even colder about U.S. if genocide recognized, expert says

Friday, September 7, 2007

SERKAN DEM?RTA?
ANKARA – Turkish Daily News

Relations between Turkey and the United States may be damaged further if the U.S. Congress recognizes the killings of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire as genocide, warned a senior fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“But this is not the only case,” Dr. Ian O. Lesser, a member of the team drafting the Transatlantic Trends 2007 survey, told the Turkish Daily News. “The Turkish public opinion is very sensitive about the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) attacks. The United States should do something on that issue not only to win the hearts here but also as a strategic decision.”

The survey, unveiled yesterday, analyzes relations between the United States and European countries through a series of studies in 13 countries, including Turkey.

There is growing frustration among Turks over perceived U.S. ignorance on the PKK's presence in northern Iraq, placing the country near the top of a list of anti-American nations.

“I hear what everyone else is hearing,” Lesser said. “The (genocide) resolution is expected to pass this year. Even though it is symbolic, Turkish public opinion will harshly react to that. But both parties should try to keep their reaction as moderate as possible.”

Lesser was not optimistic that the new leadership in Turkey, including the new president and foreign minister, could change the current chill in ties between the two NATO allies. He said that a powerful majority government would be important to mend existing fences but warned the problematic areas in bilateral relations such as the PKK and the genocide resolution remain on the table.

“This is just like the general public opinion of Turkish people toward the United States,” Lesser said. “We were asking the Turks if they were optimistic that bilateral relations would get better after the presidential elections in the United States. And the Turks said, “No.” They are rather pessimistic. Why? It is all about Iraq. It is all about (U.S. President George) Bush. But it seems the attitude (of the Turks) will not change even if Bush leaves office because Iraq remains even if Bush leaves.”

On Turkey's recent agreements on energy cooperation with Iran despite repeated objections from Washington, Lesser dismissed claims that Turkey was blackmailing the United States to block the passage of the genocide resolution. “I think Turkey is making such agreements to meet its energy needs,” he said.



Good news, bad news

The survey reveals one good and one bad finding for Turkey.

Although a majority of Europeans do not want Turkey to enter the European Union, the survey also shows that a good number of them think that Turkey's membership is inevitable. The survey also shows that the public in only four EU countries believes that Turkey will not become a full member of the 27-nation bloc.

“This is a good thing that the Europeans see the inevitability of Turkey's membership,” Lesser said.

But the report also found that 26 percent of Turks desire membership.

One chart in the survey measures Turks' sentiments toward other nations in degrees Celsius, indicating the level of chill or warmth Turks feel for other peoples. Turks' positive feelings toward the United States are at about 11 degrees Celsius. Israel stands at the bottom of the list with five degrees Celsius, close to freezing. “These numbers were twice higher in last year's survey,” Lesser pointed out.

But Turks' warmth toward Palestinians, Iranians and Europeans also decreased, the survey found. “There is a growing tendency toward political isolation which is quite worrying,” Lesser said. "A one-year-long political debate at home as well as rising nationalism as a result of the terrorist attacks could be major reasons for this. (But) it is still hard to explain this situation when thinking of the growing integration of the Turkish economy with the world and profiting from globalization," he said.