Very informative article from Zaman
News National
Turkish neo-nationalists and global ultra-nationalists form an axis of evil
Neo-conservative scholar Michael Rubin addressed a forum on global leadership hosted by Bahçeşehir University in İstanbul last week (L). Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin (R), Workers' Party Chairman Doğu Perinçek (C), who was arrested recently in connection with a police crackdown on the Ergenekon gang, and former Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals Vural Savaş, are seen together in İstanbul in this photo dated December 2004 (R). Why would Gündüz Aktan, a former ambassador and a declared nationalist, refer to both Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) and Schmitt's staunch critic, Leo Strauss (1899-1973), in the same article as sources of inspiration to define the current domestic political struggle in Turkey?
Aktan did this in his farewell article to the readers of the Radikal daily on June 9, 2007 and claimed that Turkey's situation coincided with Schmitt's view that politics is a struggle of different lifestyles that can be fatal. Schmitt is known to be the ideologue of National Socialism, and Leo Strauss was a Nazi survivor who immigrated to the US to become the theoretician of the neo-conservative ideology. What brought these two unlikely bedfellows together and made them a source of inspiration to Aktan was their uncompromising antagonism against liberalism. Schmitt believed that through its endeavor to reconcile opposites, liberalism was an effort to change the intrinsic characteristics of politics and Strauss believed in "the continuation of the existing hegemony" by any means necessary. Schmitt believed that war is a way to keep the current hegemony so it has to exist to prevent the spread of liberalism. Strauss believed that "noble lies," robust internationalism, declarations of emergency, immunity from accepted rules and laws and, finally, the aestheticization of violence were all legitimate methods to preserve the standing hegemony.
Turkish neo-nationalists (Ulusalcı) do not have the intellectual depth of Gündüz Aktan, but their operational strategies overlap with those of Schmitt and Strauss to such an extent that it is unexplainable without a link between the various embodiments of the Ulusalcı ideology -- such as the Şemdinli gang, the Red Apple Coalition, the Ergenekon gang and the Republican rallies -- and the two conflicting ideologues of neo-conservatism. The link is in human form: Michael Rubin, Daniel Pipes, Matthew Bryza, Barry Rubin, Zeyno Baran and Soner Çağaptay (directly) and xxxx Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Robert Novak (less explicitly).
The most visible link between the American neo-cons and the Turkish Ulusalcıs is the love affair between Rubin and the self-marginalized Turkish daily Cumhuriyet. Rubin, an associate of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is the inventor of the term "Islamofacism." In his articles in the Middle East Forum journal he has openly praised names like Serdar Akinan, Tuncay Özkan and Nihat Genç and compared Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to French racist Jean-Marie Le Pen and Austrian fascist Jörg Haider. What is interesting and unacceptable about Rubin is the fact that though he has attacked Turkey after the March 1 memorandum with the worst of words, he was still invited to the War Academy in Turkey to give a conference. Rubin's claims about Fethullah Gülen reflect the rhetoric of the Ulusalcıs to the point that he uses Gülen's name in its distorted form (Fetullah), as is done by the Ulusalcıs of Turkey.
For an anti-imperialist newspaper like Cumhuriyet, Rubin, a political strategist working with figures like William Kristol and Robert Kagan who are leading the openly imperialist Project for the New American Century (PNAC), should be the last name to be praised or used as a reliable source in their pages. But this fellow and Cumhuriyet have developed a fruitful relation wherein Rubin cites Cumhuriyet's distortions as a source and then Cumhuriyet carries them to its headlines as if they belonged to Rubin himself. This vicious circle of "referencing" is used by other Ulusalcı publications. Aydınlık weekly, for example, uses its relations with Andrey Melnikov of Nezavisimaya, a daily published by the Izvestia Group in Russia, and Yana Amelina, a foreign policy editor for the Russian News Agency, in the same way. They are informed directly by Aydınlık or through its grandmaster Doğu Perinçek's son Mehmet Perinçek, who has a post-graduate degree from Moscow, and later on Aydınlık refers to them as reliable sources of information about the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the future of Turkey, Islam and the Gülen Movement. These Russian names are expectedly from the supporters of the Eurasia Movement and have good relations with Mehmet Perinçek due to his active role in Eurasianist circles. The Moscow bureau of the Ulusalcıs is run by Mehmet Perinçek and, in a striking similarity to Rubin, they have also organized conferences in Turkey managing to reach the core of the secularist establishment.
Political analyst Emre Uslu says that it is almost impossible to detect the organic links of the Ulusalcıs with the West because these people were the ones who once managed almost all relations between Turkey and the West. So their relations may be a continuation of old innocent relations. These relations are also hard to detect, according to Uslu, because they are being managed by institutions, think-tanks and academicians that have legitimate covers.
The think tanks actively engaging the Turkish Ulusalcıs are AEI, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Hudson Institute. The institutional relations between the American neo-cons and the Turkish Ulusalcıs are run by the office of xxxx Cheney, Richard Perle of AEI and Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute on the American side and, on the other side, by Mustafa Süzer, former owner of Kentbank and a close associate of Perle, and İlhan Selçuk, "big brother" of Cumhuriyet. Süzer's meetings with xxxx Cheney were disclosed in the Turkish press and never denied by either side. Selçuk is also reported to have spoken with Cheney's advisors and established a back-channel with the US vice president's office through Elçin Poyrazlar, the Washington representative for Cumhuriyet. Writing in the Yeni Şafak daily, Taha Kıvanç claimed that this back-channel had already been established before the American occupation of Iraq and that Selçuk had promised the Americans Turkey's support in return for American neo-con support for the Turkish Ulusalcıs to come to power in Ankara.
Cengiz Çandar claimed in a recent article in the Referans daily that the Ulusalcıs are using the pretext of a future American operation in Iran as an opportunity to convince the neo-cons that an Ulusalcı government in Ankara would serve them better.
The think tank connections of the Ulusalcıs are working both ways: The Ulusalcıs receive tactics and information from the think tanks, and they also try to influence the American administration through the think tanks. One example of this reciprocity can be seen in the articles of the Washington Institute's Çağaptay, in which Çağaptay has not only labeled Turkey's AK Party government as a danger to Turkish-American relations, but has even guided former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer on how to prevent the AK Party's further growth and Constitutional reforms. The Hudson Institute meeting in which the scenario of a possible military intervention in Turkey was discussed with two high-ranking Turkish generals in attendance is another example.
This advisory connection is evidenced mainly in newspaper articles from neo-con writers. The Washington Times, The Washington Post and The New York Times frequently publish articles by the American allies of the Ulusalcıs. Figures like Rubin, Pipes, Jim Hoagland and Novak try to convince Americans that post-July 22, 2007 Turkey is no longer an ally of the US; that the AK Party government would feel better at home in Iran than in the US; that the AK Party uses the rhetoric of EU membership and economic development to conceal its real intentions; that the real allies of America in Ankara are the soldiers and the American should work with them alone; that Turkey should not be taken into the EU; and that Turkey will soon become a second Iran in the region. One protagonist of this last absurd idea is Rubin, who wrote recently in National Review Online that a prospective return of Gülen to Turkey would have the same effect as Khomeini's return to Iran from Paris and called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not to support the AK Party government even in the name of democracy. Rubin was sarcastically critical of the American Ambassador in Ankara Ross Wilson, who managed to convince Rice to stand by democracy in Turkey, claiming that Wilson knew only partying in the garden of the embassy.
Ulusalcıs also have allies in the US State Department. Richard Perle is said to have worked on the name of the Turkish Ulusalcıs to convince -- successfully - Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Dan Fried that the AK Party is no good for the American policies in or around Turkey. Ali Aslan, the Washington representative of the Zaman daily, thinks that this is the only explanation that could explain why Fried could not stand firm against the e-memorandum of April 27, 2007. It was also claimed that State Department diplomat Matthew Bryza, long-time boyfriend and, more recently, husband of Zeyno Baran, was the person who wrote the declaration read by Fried that gave the Turkish military the "green light" by saying that the Americans were not on any side of the discussion. The extent to which Bryza was influenced by his wife is not known, but the similarities in their rhetoric against the AK Party are striking. Baran, who was already a controversial figure due to her involvement in the infamous Hudson Institute meeting, her article in Newsweek that predicted a military coup in 2007 and her involvement with the colored revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Ukraine, is known to have given speeches on several occasions claiming that the AK Party would, in time, return to its Islamist roots and that the Turkish public voted for the AK Party on July 22 with the assurance in mind that the army would oust the AK Party if it tried to change the system in Turkey.
Another channel for Ulusalcıs to reach American ears is the lobbyists that worked for Turkey in the past but lost their contracts with Ankara. These companies are contracted by Ulusalcıs because their names are already associated with that of Turkey. Ulusalcıs are even able to reach low-ranking employees of lobbyists that are currently working for Turkey. One such case is the Livingston Group, which campaigns against Armenian genocide allegations. Frank Gaffney, an employee of this company, wrote in a Washington Times article that Turkey should be kept out of the European Union.
The Eastern connections of the Turkish Ulusalcıs are more detectable but smaller in number. Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin from the Eurasia Movement is well known in this regard. He even protested the recent arrests of Ulusalcı Ergenekon militants in Turkey and claimed that Ergenekon was a supporter of Russia in Turkey. He claimed that Veli Küçük was the mastermind of the military project to turn Turkey's face to Russia. Küçük, on the other hand, had activities organized around the Azerbaijan Cooperation Association. Sources following the Ulusalcı organizations claim that Doğu Perinçek's daughter, Kiraz Perinçek, who is at the head of the Turkey department of Chinese Radio, and Adnan Akfirat, the head of the Turkish-Chinese Business Association, are working to create a rapprochement between Turkey and China.
The Western and Eastern connections of the Ulusalcıs are a reflection of the pre-July 22 election alliance forged between the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) in Turkey on a global scale, and these relations are no less paradoxical. Ulusalcıs want Turkey to close its gates to the world and to "continue their traditional authoritarian elitist hegemony" within these closed gates. But they are not powerful enough to close those gates from within, so they turn to their traditional enemies, "the American imperialists," to shut them in Turkey's face. The irony is that there are some Americans who are lending their ears to that call.
-
Very nicely written Avedis, thank you Joseph, and of course Dikran for sharing...Leave a comment:
-
No, Robert, It will Be Hypocrisy
By Avedis Kevorkian, Philadelphia PA, 5 May 2008
Robert Frost wasn't sure whether the world would end in fire or in ice, although he admitted that he was "with those who favor fire," but he did concede that if the world were "to perish twice. . .ice is also great and would suffice."
However, were Frost alive today, I am sure that he would agree with my long-held belief that hypocrisy will be the death of the world, and I am confident that he would probably add two more lines to his poem: "But from what I see of today's world/it will be hypocrisy." Yes, all right, I am no Robert Frost; but, then again, who is?
What has brought about these musing are a couple of recent reports which should have been front-page news in every newspaper, the featured story in every serious magazine, the lead story in every radio - and television-news broadcast.
I refer to the 569-page report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) of its study of the human-rights situation in more than 75 countries in which it found that "The US, the UK and other western nations are ignoring flawed or rigged elections in some countries for the sake of political convenience," and also to the report that the European Union's former attorney general for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, in her recently-published autobiography, "The Hunt," indicates that if she had told the world the truth about the human-rights violations by the Kosovo Muslims against the Serbian Christians, Kosovo would not have been granted its independence.
HRW's primary target this year was what it views as the hypocrisy of western nations condemning democratic violations only when expedient.
"Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing," HRW's executive director, Kenneth Roth, said in the report.
"It seems Washington and European governments will accept even the most dubious election so long as the 'victor' is a strategic or commercial ally," Roth said, calling the promotion of democracy "a softer and fuzzier alternative to defending human rights." The countries cited in the Report won't be listed here, but look around to see who America's "friends" are and ask if any of them are the kinds of governments under which you would want to live. If your answer is "No," then you know the countries discussed.
Among the crimes that Del Ponte now admits she knew about is how the present authorities of the independent Kosovo made money on trade of inner organs, taken out of the bodies of the kidnapped Serbs. According to Del Ponte, the leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (among whom is the present Prime Minister of the independent Kosovo, Hashim Tachi) committed atrocities, which are compared with the ones committed by Third Reich in the concentration camps. But, according to Del Ponte, prosecution of military criminals is tantamount to a political act. And, of course, we do not take a political stance regarding evil-doers, if they are our friends.
Recall the words of Jeane Kirkpatrick, America's Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, about General Galtieri, of Argentina, "He may be a bastard, but he is our bastard."
Interestingly, Del Ponte's book has come out after Kosovo independence--which, though a violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia, will not be a precedent for the independence of Artsakh, America insists. American foreign policy in these matters is driven by Ankara, and Ankara wants a Muslim country in Europe and eventually in the European Union and NATO, so Washington follows and declares that self-determination of peoples should apply in Serbia/Kosovo.
But, since Turkey doesn't want an independent Artsakh, the principle of territorial integrity of a country should apply in Azerbaijan, so Washington follows.
Many years ago, when I followed-up long correspondence with USELESSCO (as I call it) and spoke with the then Director General as to why his organization did nothing about the destruction by Turkey of Armenian culture and heritage in Turkey and Christian culture and heritage in occupied Cyprus, he replied "That would be provocative." What he meant, of course, was America would not approve any criticism of Turkey. When I asked if it were a Christian country destroying Muslim heritage what would his organization do, he walked away. His then Number Two, who was not party to the discussion but who was standing by, waited till his boss left, and said to me. "I'm with you." His successor has done nothing, either, but that is another subject.
It is obvious--at least to me--that hypocrisy is so pervasive that it is not even recognized as a vice and is accepted as the norm.
But it is not for nothing that the Litany from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer includes the following: "From all blindness of heart, from pride, vain-glory and hypocrisy. . .Good Lord deliver us."Leave a comment:
-
More from Zeyno:
How has the Armenian Genocide Bill in US Congress impacted the nature of Turkey’s relationship with Israel and the US?
"It goes without saying that allegations of genocide are a serious matter. Thus, it should come as no surprise that if this bill passes, it would seriously damage US-Turkey relations. (It was not brought up, as many expected, before April 24, although it could still be raised at a later date.) However, the passage of this bill will also damage relations with Israel. American-Israeli lobby groups have typically been some of the strongest allies for the Turks on this issue. The successful passage of an Armenian Genocide Bill would signal a failure on the part of those lobbyists, or, more likely, a policy shift. Turks would feel betrayed by such a move as they have long felt that the Jews understood that genocide and ethnic cleansing operations are not in the Turkish historical makeup. It was, after all, Turkey who gave refuge to the Jews when they were facing ethnically-motivated violence during the Spanish Inquisition."Leave a comment:
-
More from our enemy Zeyno Baran
Today.Az » Politics » Zeyno Baran: "Even if Armenia recognizes independence of Nagorno Karabakh, none of the countries, including its ally Russia, will support it"
07 April 2008 [13:07] - Today.Az
Day.Az interview with Zeyno Baran, head of the programs on Eurasian policy of Hadson Institute (the United States).
-What is a purpose of your current visit to Azerbaijan?
-I want to hold a number of meetings to discuss issues, regarding energy and some regional problems here.
-You have arrived in Baku from Bucharest, where you took part in the NATO summit. Possible accession of two post-Soviet republics-Georgia and Ukraine to NATO was stressed during the event. Is Azerbaijan's accession to NATO real?
-Indeed, Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to the alliance was discussed during the summit. It is important that the date of their accession has already been declared and due decision was made.
Thus, NATO, by admitting Georgia, will enter the Caucasus, and then the accession will be possible for Azerbaijan.
It should be noted that Ukraine and Georgia were more active in the striving to access NATO, but I think Azerbaijan will also become the member of the alliance in the end.
Will NATO membership help Georgia and Azerbaijan to settle conflicts on this territory?
-I can cite the example of Turkey and Greece. If these countries were not NATO members in culmination period of the conflict, they would have experienced greater tenseness in relations. But the NATO membership stabilized the situation timely.
Therefore, if Georgia becomes member of NATO, its relations with Russia would be more independent than now as Russia will not be able to put such pressure on Georgia. For instance, Russia avoids confrontation with Poland and Lithuania, which have become NATO members.
At the same time, it is not known, whether problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be settled before or after Georgia's accession to NATO.
-What do you think of the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries to support the UN resolution, which fixed support to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?
-On the whole, the Minsk group did not want the resolution to be raised. Presidential elections have been held in Armenia not long before, and a new President was elected. I think Azerbaijan should have worked moreat this issue before raising it. I think it would be better for it to avoid raising the issue.
Nevertheless, the United Stattes, Russia and France, which are mediators of the conflict settlement, were able to express a single position on the said issue. In the result, they decided to vote against and explained it by the fact that the support of resolution would have undermined their influence on Armenia. By saying no they faced Azerbaijan's resentment. The co-chairs wanted to make amendments to the resolution but in the end they decided to say no. In the result each side was discontented.
If the Karabakh problem was so easy, it would have been settled long before. The further resolution of the Konflict depends both on Azerbaijan and Armenia. The inauguration of the new president of Armenia will take place on April 9. If the sides can see the perspective, they will be able to take further steps.
Official Baku should agree that the co-chairing countries, are not supporters of Yerevan, only because they voted against resolution. They recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. I think the mediators should explain their position to the Azerbaijani people. The people of Azerbaijan should not think that the co-chairs are unfair.
I understand the Azerbaijani side when they say: "If the United States recognize territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, why don't they support us?". But the Azerbaijani powers should make the position of the OSCE Minsk group for themselves and explain it to their people.
-The working president of Armenia Kocharyan, inspired by the Kosovo precedence, spoke of possible soonest recognition of independence of Nagorno Karabakh by Yerevan. Is this step real and what will be the results?
-I think the president said it to consolidate positions of his country before talks with participation of the new President of Armenia. But the independence of Kosovo was recognized by another reason. Kosovo was controlled by NATO and was de-facto independent. In the result this independence was recognized officially, despite the protests of some countries, including Serbia and Russia.
But if Armenia takes this decision, no one will recognize Nagorno Karabakh. No one will understand it. In the reality it will be like recognition of independence of Northern Cyprus only by Turkey.
If Armenia recognizes independence of Nagorno Karabakh, this decision will be support by no one, including the Minsk group, including Russia, which is Yerevan's ally on some issues. Therefore, I do not take such statements of the Armenian leadership seriously.
-What do you think of Armenians' reproaches that the objectivity of US co-chair of OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bruza in the Karabakh issue was spoiled after he married Zeyno Baran of Turkish origin?
-(Smiles) Certainly, these statements are groundless. Being professional diplomats, we execute decisions of our country. The United States conducts its own policy regarding the said region. Certainly, the relations of the United States with Turkey and Azerbaijan differ, but at the same time, there is a need to consolidate US-Azerbaijani relations. We see Azerbaijan as an important partner for Europe in the sphere of energy, we see a growing economy, expansion of not only oil but also non-oil sector and striving for democracy.
The relations between Azerbaijan and the United States are on a high level. Me and Matthew Bryza do not take anyone's side. Being an American diplomat, he executes the policy of the United States.
For example, the US Ambassador has not yet been appointed for Armenia, as the congress has not confirmed a certain candidacy due to its well-known position on the so called Armenian genocide, corresponding to the position of the official Washington. Anyway, the new ambassador should adhere to position of the US Presidential Administration, which implies non-recognition of the genocide of Armenians.
Personal life should not be confused with state policy.
-Your husband has recently done unexpectedly optimistic statements regarding prospects of Karabakh conflict settlement. At the same time, he ofjen rejects saying so in his interview to reporters, explaining that he was misunderstood in Baku or in Yerevan. He did the same rejecting his statement made in his interview to Day.Az in Mardrid by results of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan held last year. Anyway, how do you assess prospects of the conflict resolution, being an influential political scientist and a spouse of the mediator of the conflict?
-The co-chairing observing the internal and external policy of Azerbaijan and Armenia for already 10 years, can made optimistic conclusions. I can say that I am not so optimistic, but I am not participating in the talks. Both Bryza and other co-chairs meet with Presidents and Foreign Ministers of the two countries and they are well aware of the talks.
As for Matthew Bryza's approaches to the problem. they are really optimistic. This is not a mere optimism. This is an optimism, caused by enthusiasm in search for the problem resolution. Certainly there are moments on which the parties have not yet achieved a compromise. But for example Bryza was also optimistic when prospects of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline construction, when many spoke of the difficult implementation of the project. But he was optimistic, he saw the problem, analyzed it and looked for the ways of its resolution.
It should be optimistic while settling a problem to bring positions of those who are dealing with the issue resolution, to a common denominator. It is difficult to settle the problem if one lacks optimism. Today, a new stage starts with Sarkissyan. Ceryainly, Sarkissyan, arises negative association due to his Karabakh past. Yet, both Azerbaijan and Armenia long for the problem resolution. This is an old conflict which need fair solution to be approved by both parties.
I hope the problem will be settled this year. I think the Aliyev and Sarkissyan did not meet in Bucharest as Sarkissyan has not been inaugurated yet. As is known, the elections in Armenia were accompanied with domestic political tenseness and Sarkissyan needs to restore situation in his country, prove his legitimacy and win the trust of people. We will see whether the leaders of the two countries will be able to find a resolution, which would be useful for their countries and the whole region. Anyway, the countries would not be willing to return to the past, the period of way.
Anyway, the people of the two countries and primarily, hundreds of Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs would win if this problem is settled by the end of the year.Leave a comment:
-
TURKEY, LIVINGSTON CUT TIES
By Kevin Bogardus
The Hill
April 1 2008
DC
Turkey has parted ways with former House Appropriations Committee
Chairman Bob Livingston (R-La.), whose lobbying firm has represented
the country for the past eight years.
Turkey has not renewed its longstanding contract with The Livingston
Group, and is instead transferring its main lobbying business to DLA
Piper, a multinational law firm that had split the government-relations
workload with Livingston over the past year.
Former House Majority Leader xxxx Armey (R-Texas), a senior policy
adviser with DLA Piper, will replace Livingston as Turkey's top GOP
lobbyist with Congress. Armey, who lobbied alongside Livingston last
year, will partner with former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
(D-Mo.), who lobbies Democrats for Turkey at DLA Piper.
It is unclear whether Turkey or Livingston initiated the split,
which both sides insisted was amicable.
"We have enjoyed a wonderful relationship for eight years, we've had a
lot of legislative victories together, and we wish the Turkish people
lots of continued success and happiness in the future," Livingston
said in a statement to The Hill.
Livingston's group did not respond to questions about whether the
contract hampered business with other clients.
Turkey Ambassador Nabi Sensoy, who said Livingston helped transfer
the lobbying business to DLA Piper, released a statement praising
the lawmaker as "a gentleman of remarkable capabilities and stature."
Sensoy also noted that Turkey had begun to restructure its lobbying
team by hiring DLA Piper last year, and described that as part of
a transition.
"Last year, we initiated a restructuring of our counsel and engaged
DLA Piper. The Livingston Group stayed on as part of our counsel during
a period of transition. As of now we continue to work with DLA Piper,
Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Armey," said Sensoy.
The parting of Turkey and The Livingston Group ends one of the more
lucrative Washington lobbying contracts for foreign governments. In
April 2006, Turkey renewed its relationship with Livingston through
a year-long contract worth $1.8 million.
In May 2007, Turkey hired DLA Piper on a $100,000-per-month contract
while retaining Livingston.
The Livingston Group saw a substantial decline in payments from Turkey
after DLA Piper was added to the account. In 2006, when it was the
top firm, Livingston took in a little more than $1.8 million. But
in 2007, when it was sharing the workload with DLA Piper, Livingston
earned just over $1 million, according to Justice Department records.
For its part, DLA Piper took in more than $1.3 million from Turkey
in the first nine months of 2007. It has yet to report earnings from
foreign clients for the remainder of the year.
Turkey's hiring of DLA Piper fit into a trend in which foreign
governments are putting more of their resources into Democratic
lobbyists. Armey indicated Turkey hired his firm because it had
stronger ties to Democrats than did The Livingston Group.
"It was time to be with some representation that was more expansive
to both sides of the aisle," said Armey.
Turkey mounted a massive lobbying campaign last year to defeat
a resolution describing as genocide the killings of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century.
Activists were optimistic a Democratic Congress would pass the measure,
which had the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), but
Turkey was able to beat it back partly by threatening to cut supplies
to U.S. military forces.
Though the resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
many of its co-sponsors withdrew their support after meeting with
Turkey's lobbyists. That, along with pressure from Republicans and
the Bush administration, forced Pelosi to postpone a floor vote on
the resolution last year.
In 2000, the resolution was close to a House floor vote, but then-House
Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) withdrew the measure at the request of
President Bill Clinton. Armey, who was majority leader at that time,
opposed the resolution.
"As I worked on it then as majority leader, my position still is our
current concern should be what current policy interests are best for
this country," Armey said. "It was easy to make those same arguments
I made as majority leader with President Clinton."
Activists who support passage of the resolution have criticized firms
in the past for lobbying for Turkey.
Livingston's group did not say whether such criticism hurt business
with other clients.
In lobbying for Turkey, Armey plans to emphasize how vital the Muslim
democracy is to the United States.
"On a broader-scale basis, folks in the United States and in Congress
need to have a better understanding of the strategic importance that
Turkey has," said Armey. "Turkey has been a very good citizen of the
world, far more than it has been recognized or appreciated."Leave a comment:
-
Turkey changes lobbying firm in US Congress
Bob Livingston Turkey has parted ways with former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, whose lobbying firm has represented the country for the past eight years.
Turkey has not renewed its long-standing contract with The Livingston Group, and is instead transferring its main lobbying business to DLA Piper, a multinational law firm that had split the government-relations workload with Livingston over the past year, US congressional newspaper The Hill reported on Monday.
According to The Hill, former House Majority Leader xxxx Armey, a senior policy adviser with DLA Piper, will replace Livingston as Turkey's top GOP lobbyist with Congress. Armey, who lobbied alongside Livingston last year, will partner with former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, who lobbies Democrats for Turkey at DLA Piper.
It is unclear whether Turkey or Livingston initiated the split, which both sides insisted was amicable. "We have enjoyed a wonderful relationship for eight years, we've had a lot of legislative victories together, and we wish the Turkish people lots of continued success and happiness in the future," Livingston said in a statement to The Hill.
Turkish Ambassador to the US Nabi Şensoy, who said Livingston helped transfer the lobbying business to DLA Piper, released a statement praising the lawmaker as "a gentleman of remarkable capabilities and stature."
Şensoy also noted that Turkey had begun to restructure its lobbying team by hiring DLA Piper last year and described that as part of a transition.
The parting of Turkey and The Livingston Group ends one of the more lucrative Washington lobbying contracts for foreign governments. In April 2006, Turkey renewed its relationship with Livingston through a year-long contract worth $1.8 million. In May 2007, Turkey hired DLA Piper on a $100,000-per-month contract while retaining Livingston. Turkey mounted a massive lobbying campaign last year to defeat a resolution supporting Armenian claims of genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.
Though the resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, many of its co-sponsors withdrew their support after meeting with Turkey's lobbyists. That, along with pressure from Republicans and the Bush administration, forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to postpone a floor vote on the resolution last year.
02.04.2008Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: