Turkish court blocks access to websites for reporting on preliminary probe into Erdoğan’s son.

Duvar English

An Istanbul court on June 27 imposed a publication ban on news reports about a preliminary probe into President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s son Bilal Erdoğan. 

On June 26, Reuters published a special report named “US, Swedish prosecutors study graft complaint naming son of Turkey’s Erdogan.”

The report said “Anti-corruption authorities in the United States and Sweden are reviewing a complaint alleging that the Swedish affiliate of a U.S. company pledged to pay tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks if a son of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan helped it secure a dominant market position in the country.”

The same report added “Ultimately, no kickbacks were paid, according to the complaint submitted to authorities by an individual and reviewed by Reuters.”

Istanbul Anatolian 5th Criminal Court of Peace has blocked access to 93 websites and Twitter accounts on the grounds of “violation of personal rights” for publishing the report of Reuters.

In its decision, the court said “Malicious distortions of truth may exceed the limits of acceptable criticism. Therefore, the duty of reporting necessarily includes responsibilities, and the limits that the press organizations must comply with. It was necessary to decide on the acceptance of the applicant’s request regarding the content that is far from reality, unconfirmed and far from goodwill and violating the applicant’s personality rights.”

Similarly, Presidential Communications Director Fahrettin Altun on June 26 deemed the reporting “a black mark” in the history of journalism.

Ruben Vardanyan, @RubenVardanyan_

In #Artsakh/ #NagornoKarabakh, the severity of the humanitarian crisis is evident as people are forced to resort to using limited portions of salt.

To address this situation, several actions should be taken:

1) Establishing an open humanitarian air corridor is of utmost importance, allowing UN or other humanitarian missions to have direct access to Stepanakert.

2) An urgent UN or other fact-finding mission needs to be deployed to the region. Witnessing the situation firsthand on the ground will provide a clearer understanding of the crisis.

3) Mediators from various countries, including Washington and Moscow, must exert pressure on Azerbaijan to bring about change. If they fail to do so, their mediation efforts will be futile.

4) Recognizing that the crisis is not only humanitarian but also rooted in political and historical factors is crucial. The perpetuation of state-sponsored anti-Armenian propaganda by Aliyev’s authoritarian regime cannot be ignored.

5) It is vital for renowned Armenians to speak out and raise awareness about the crisis. By coming together and supporting each other, Artsakh’s position as an integral part of the Armenian world can be reinforced, and together, we can overcome these challenges.

OPINION:

As President Recep Tayyip Erdogan begins his third decade in power, he has solidified his place as Turkey’s second-most consequential leader after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded the republic a century ago.

With the opposition disempowered if not in disarray, Mr. Erdogan now seeks to fulfill his lifelong ambition: the complete and permanent reversal of Ataturk’s legacy of modern reforms.

American and European officials who believe, with the election in the rearview mirror, that they can return to business as usual with Turkey are dangerously mistaken. The issues that concern Mr. Erdogan most are neither interest rates at home nor Swedish NATO accession abroad, but rather laying the groundwork for the renewal of an Islamic state if not a formal caliphate.

Just as Russian President Vladimir Putin considers the downfall of the Soviet Union the 20th century’s greatest “geopolitical catastrophe,” Mr. Erdogan believes it was the Ottoman Empire’s collapse.

None of this is idle speculation. Mr. Erdogan has said exactly what he wants.

He has described himself as the “imam of Istanbul” and as “servant of Sharia.” He declared that his goal is “to raise a religious generation.” He has described Turkish forces invading Syria as the “Army of Muhammad.” The reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque did not occur in isolation.

The latest foul play by Mr. Erdogan involves Armenia, the world’s oldest Christian nation. As Mr. Erdogan seeks to extend the reach of the Turkic and Islamic world from Turkey’s border with Greece and Bulgaria to China, Armenia, a country just slightly larger than Maryland, stands in his way.

Today, Mr. Erdogan believes he has found his moment to reverse this geopolitical inconvenience. The Turks tried more than a century ago, wiping away more than a million Armenians in a genocide Adolf

Paul Rusesabagina came to fame two decades ago as the hero in the movie Hotel Rwanda.

While reality was not as Hollywood depicted, fame sparked first ambition and then, failing to gain support in Rwanda, bitterness. He spoke about the necessity to overthrow the Rwandan government by any means necessary and then acted on it, wiring money to a terrorist group. Under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, one of the State Department’s top goals in Africa was to convince Burundi, the continent’s poorest country, to cease allowing cross-border insurgents to use its territory. He succeeded. Rusesabagina fumed.

In June 2020, Évariste Ndayishimiye became president of Burundi. Rusesabagina sought to convince him to cease stopping the terrorists Rusesabagina funded. After his capture, Rusesabagina’s story that he was taking a private jet to Burundi to talk to a church never made sense given Burundi’s poverty and the expense of international private charters.

After the plane diverted to Rwanda, a deception international law allows, Rwandan forces arrested Rusesabagina and tried him for crimes relating to terrorist attacks in southern Rwanda. The evidence was overwhelming. Behind the scenes, the State Department believed it. Rusesabagina’s supporters lobbied, Hollywood donors rallied, image trumped truth, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan intervened.

Negotiations were tough. Rusesabagina was a Belgian citizen. Belgian police certified the validity of evidence against him. Despite claims to the contrary, his trial was transparent and the Rwandans treated him well in prison. Privately, State Department officials acknowledged no evidence supported his adopted daughters’ claims of mistreatment.

Negotiators had to address not only Rusesabagina, but also his co-conspirators as it would be an affront to pardon one among many involved in the crime. Under Rwandan law, criminals can seek amnesty if they show contrition. Sullivan, Rusesabagina’s lawyers, and the former hotelier himself agreed he would. Rusesabagina penned a letter, seeking clemency, and acknowledging his calls to and support for violence and terrorism. He promised, “If I am granted a pardon and released, I understand fully that I will spend the remainder of my days in the United States in quiet reflection. I can assure you through this letter that I hold no personal or political ambitions otherwise. I will leave questions regarding Rwandan politics behind me.”

That lasted two months. Rusesabagina’s downfall has always been addiction to limelight. In late June, the New York Times published a lengthy interview in which Rusesabagina said, “‘They expected me to be silent. To be a good guy and behave . . . . No one can silence me that easily.”

The issue was never Rusesabagina’s silence but rather his terrorism sponsorship. While Rusesabagina’s supporters parry by criticizing Rwandan President Paul Kagame, these complaints are immaterial to his case: They do not justify the terror attack on Nyabimata that killed nine civilians.

Sullivan and Blinken have a problem. They gave their word to Rwanda to achieve a short-term goal and relieve donor pressure. Should they not respond to the deal’s violation, for example by deporting Rusesabagina to Belgium, then they signal that the agreements they broker are meaningless.

Sullivan and Blinken now turn their efforts to peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The chief sticking point is Armenian insistence that Azerbaijan guarantees the rights and safety of the ancient Christian community in Nagorno-Karabakh and their cultural heritage.

Rwanda may be a long way from Armenia, but the trauma of genocide links the two countries. Their ministers pay homage at each other’s memorials. The rhetoric in which Azerbaijan now engages parallels the genocide minimization if not denial that Hutu génocidaires and Rusesabagina himself engage. As Armenians seek American guarantees, they should recognize the cynicism with which Sullivan and Blinken conduct diplomacy. They should not gamble on the sanctity of any agreement Blinken negotiates or Sullivan guarantees, for neither keeps promises. For the government of Armenia or residents of Nagorno-Karabakh to trust either man now would be suicide.

Learn more: Punishing Blockades, Not Endless Talk, Is the Path to Peace | Britain’s Incredible Hypocrisy on Cluster Bombs | The Turkey-Iran Terror Nexus in Occupied Cyprus Shakes the Status Quo | Why Do Russia and Turkey Constantly Get the United States Wrong?

Today, the protest actions, which started yesterday in Yerevan demanding the immediate unblocking of Artsakh continued.

Protesters participating in the informative demonstration assembled in front of the Embassy of France and remained engaged in their cause. Subsequently, they proceeded to march from the Embassy of France to the US Embassy in Yerevan. Notably, the protest also included Artsakh children who had been displaced from their homes in Hadrut due to Azerbaijani aggression. The protests are being coordinated by the Operational Headquarters of the Government of the Republic of Artsakh.

Grigory Karasin, Chair of the Russian Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs, reacted to the “unfriendly” expressions of Azerbaijani MP Hudrat Hasanguliev.

In response to the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry on July 15, Hasanguliev claimed that “Russia does not want peace in the South Caucasus and is interested in the continuation of the bloody conflict between the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples.”

The Azerbaijani MP even allowed himself to call Russia “unreliable and bloodthirsty,” and demanded the withdrawal of the Russian peacekeeping contingent from Nagorno-Karabakh, EaDaily wrote.

“I hope that such anti-Russian attacks do not reflect the official position of Baku. It would be important to evaluate them in the Azerbaijani parliament as well,” said Karasin.

“I would like to remind the [aforesaid] MP that in all phases of the Karabakh conflict, it was mostly with the efforts of the Russian Federation that it was possible to stop the hostilities, bring the parties to the negotiating table, and reach compromises.

“In the fall of 2020, the bloodshed in the region was stopped with the personal mediation of [Russian] President V. V. Putin. With the participation of Moscow, tripartite agreements were developed at a high level, which form the basis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement.

“The Russian peacekeepers deployed [in Nagorno-Karabakh] by the decision of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia have brought peace to Karabakh, they are helping to solve priority humanitarian and socioeconomic issues. I will mention only one fact: since November 2020, the [Russian peacekeeping] contingent [in Karabakh] has demined more than 2.5 thousand hectares of land, including about 700 kilometers of roads. Our peacekeepers have given Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijanis a chance to talk about a peace agenda. We consider the demands to withdraw the Russian contingent as completely irresponsible.

“And in general, H. Hasanguliyev’s statement completely contradicts the spirit and content of the declaration of allied cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan of February 22, 2022, and does not correspond to the high level of relations between Baku and Moscow, including on the parliamentary line. We at the [Russian] Federation Council are ready to continue the constructive dialogue with our Azerbaijani colleagues, who, as we know, are absolute majority,” Karasin added.

by Michael Rubin,

When Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin sought to strangle West Berlin into submission 75 years ago, President Harry Truman stood firm lest dictators’ blockades become the norm. The Berlin Airlift brought temporary relief. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Stalin’s successor Nikita Khrushchev concluded President John F. Kennedy was weak and vulnerable. He again turned his sites on Berlin, but Kennedy pushed back hard. West Berlin remained secure, even if divided, until the end of the Cold War.

Credibility matters, but six decades after Kennedy, Western fortitude is in short supply. When dictators challenge democracies, diplomats often counsel dialogue but do nothing else. This has led dictators to embrace blockades and starvation as a policy tool. Less than a year after Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed received the Nobel Peace Prize, for example, he blockaded his country’s Tigray region to force its political submission. When he saw the West was all talk and no action, he simply tightened the noose. Several hundred thousand people died.

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY, OR THE MINORITY OF ONE

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev now repeats the process in Nagorno-Karabakh, home to one of the world’s most ancient Christian communities. In December 2022, he violated an agreement to keep a corridor open to allow traffic between the Armenian-populated region and the outside world. Last week, he even cut Red Cross shipments to the region. When Secretary of State Antony Blinken pleaded for dialogue, Aliyev responded with bullets fired at an American factory.

Neither the White House nor the State Department needed to be impotent. More than a quarter-century ago, Congress gave both the tools to tackle those who would use blockades and starvation as tools of statecraft.

The end of the Cold War lifted the lid off a pressure cooker. Long-suppressed local conflicts erupted in Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union. As both Turkey and Azerbaijan blockaded Armenia, American authorities debated how to respond, especially when one recipient of U.S. assistance interfered with the delivery of U.S. assistance elsewhere. The result was the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act. Initially part of the 1996 Foreign Operations Bill, Congress inserted it as an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 the next year, enshrining it in U.S. law. 

Specifically, the law declares: “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter or the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.] to any country … [that] prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.”

Frankly, it is common sense. Aid is not an entitlement, and those diverting, blocking, or embezzling American aid should not themselves receive any. Unlike other provisions that Blinken and effete diplomats waive in the false logic that accountability might impede dialogue, there is no waiver to the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act. If Abiy wants to block aid to Tigray or whatever ethnic minority displeases him, then all American assistance to Ethiopia should immediately cease.

Ditto Azerbaijan. The Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act does not require the formal designation of a blockade, so the State Department cannot weasel its way out with a false determination. Nor does it require that blocked aid be destined for a country. In short, U.S. officials could shrug their shoulders and inform Aliyev they have no choice but to suspend all assistance until he lifts all blockades and stops his ethnic-cleansing efforts.

Too often, administrations seek to reinvent the wheel. Dictators exploit the rotation of democracies’ diplomats and the lack of institutional memory.

It is time the State Department and Congress wake up. Legal mechanisms exist to restore credibility to American diplomacy and fight the growing scourge of blockades and ethnic cleansing. It is time for Congress to invoke the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, restore credibility to American diplomacy, and demonstrate that preventing genocide is not a throwaway line to advance a career, but an active goal of American policy.

Michael Rubin (@mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The traitor’s sleazy boot-licking has become so grotesque Turks actually replaced “son of a b*tch” with “son of Pashinyan”.

Deputy Enginyurt, recently elected deputy under the main opposition CHP, has used the expression “Son of Pashinyan” to insult a pro-government social media figure.

A Turkish opposition deputy called a pro-government YouTuber, who earlier in a video praised the government for its natural gas discovery in the Black Sea, “son of Pashinyan” to insult him.

Cemal Enginyurt, the deputy chairman of the center right Democrat Party, ran under the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and was elected deputy on 14 May. He was formerly a member of the far right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

Asked to comment on the recent consumer tax hikes in gasoline and natural gas, Enginyurt said on Monday during a broadcast of Sozcu TV:

“There is that clown who was telling that natural gas is free now. He was making such a fuss, telling people to leave their windows open. What a clown! He had made a fuss over a 25% reduction in natural gas bills, and he gloated, ‘Hey Pashinyan, you saw what happened?’ He was so sardonic.”

Enginyurt went on to call the YouTuber, “son of Pashinyan,” connoting “son of a bitch.” With an apparent intention to insult the YouTuber, he said:

“Now it’s my turn to ask, what happened, son of Pashinyan? Clown! Now the consumer tax on natural gas has been raised by 300%.”

Neither the show’s host Ebru Baki, neither the other guest Ali Haydar Firat reacted to Enginyurt’s remarks, or even showed a change of expression on their faces, as the three went on with their chat on the government’s tax hikes.

Dear President Michel,

We, the undersigned citizens and residents of the EU with Armenian ethnic backgrounds, want to express our grave concern regarding the so-called “peace deal” you are mediating between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

European values of democracy, equality, and human rights are of immense importance to every EU citizen and resident, ourselves included, and we think it is our duty to inform you what your actions as a peace mediator will inevitably result in.

By mediating this “peace deal” — which in fact is a “deal at the expense of Armenians” — you are putting the lives of 120 000 people under direct threat of extermination, triggering death, forced displacement, and refugee crisis which will most probably affect the EU directly. Is the EU ready to face a new wave of refugees this time from the Republic of Artsakh and, most probably, Armenia itself?

The Republic of Artsakh has been under a blockade since December 12, 2022. The blockade has deprived the citizens of Artsakh of basic human rights and security. According to a recent report by the human rights defender of the Republic of Artsakh, the citizens of Artsakh were deprived of healthcare, gas and electricity, to name a few of the human rights violations [1]. Any format of negotiations not recognising this difference between the perpetrator and the victim is going to only be satisfying the maximalist demands of the perpetrator.

This inhumane blockade combined with Azerbaijan’s long standing record of unprovoked aggression and hate crimes against Armenians, namely war crimes against Armenian civilians — be that in the course of the war, or against Armenian captives before 2020, clearly demonstrate Azerbaijan’s genocidal intentions and therefore there is no guarantee for the safety of the Armenians in Artsakh under the dictatorial rule of Ilham Aliyev and a peace deal would most likely result in ethnic cleansing. Disregard of the ICJ provisional judgment on Lachin Corridor, delivered in February 2022 [2], is blatantly being violated by Azerbaijan, and that already is proof that any deal not in favor of Azerbaijani demands will have no life. The Lemkin Institute of Genocide Prevention has issued numerous red flag alerts for genocide on Azerbaijan’s actions against Armenia and Artsakh [3]. Additionally, Ilham Aliyev’s recent statements, such as the “border will pass where we say” are not the rhetoric of a leader genuinely preparing for peace [4, 5]. Moreover, according to the ceasefire agreement from November 9, 2020 [6] Azerbaijan was obliged to release the Armenian POWs, which so far has not happened.

We would like to bring to your attention that the Basic Principles for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which were proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group included the principles of Non-Use of Force, Territorial Integrity, and the Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples [7]. These principles on numerous occasions, including by the Heads of States of France, U.S. and Russia, were recognised as an integrated whole. Azerbaijan is responsible for breaking the principle of Non-Use of Force twice in 2016 and 2020, occupation of the most part of the Republic of Artsakh, ethnic cleansing, and the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in the occupied territories. Even after the ceasefire agreement on November 9, 2020, Azerbaijan forced the residents of Aghavno, Berdzor and Nerkin Sus to leave their homes, thus ethnically cleansing these territories and demolishing all possible traces of Armenian cultural heritage.

Giving in to Azerbaijani demands, supported by its own military power and that of Turkey, to redraw the borders of Armenia proper, you are going to deprive our ethnic homeland of every possibility to defend itself, since Azerbaijan aspires to establish control checkpoints at main highways crisscrossing Armenia. Like the one already installed, by the acquiescence of the Armenian government, in Kapan-Goris highway.

Considering the above-mentioned, the only safety guarantee for Armenians in Artsakh is through self-determination and it can under no circumstances be guaranteed with Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan. The incumbent Armenian Prime Minister’s acquiescence to this is most likely acquired by the threat of the use of force, which shall be voided by such reputable institutions like the EU and your leadership. We are sure you know well that any agreement signed under duress or coercion is not valid [8].

The Republic of Artsakh is a thriving democracy, while Azerbaijan is an authoritarian state where the presidential post is passed from father to son. You are forcing a self-determined democracy into an authoritarian state against its will despite all warnings for total elimination of the Armenian presence in these territories.

We thus urge you to take into consideration the human rights violations Azerbaijan is continuously committing against the people of Artsakh and Armenia, the ethnic cleansing that will take place, if any deal in its current form is signed. We call upon you to refrain from imposing any deal which will result in everything but peace for the Armenian people. 

The people’s will for a free and independent existence must prevail over undemocratic decisions prompted by aggressions. Democracy should not be a double standard. It should be equally applied to all who fight for it.

P.S. This letter has been written before the complete siege of the Republic of Artsakh by Azerbaijani forces. Starting from 15 June 2023 all transportation of humanitarian cargo by the Russian peacekeepers has been prohibited by Azerbaijani military and evacuation of seriously ill patients by the International Committee of the Red Cross is restricted.

Moreover, on June 28 Azerbaijani forces launched an artillery and drone attack on the line of contact in Artsakh, killing four Armenian defenders.

Yours sincerely,

[Signed by 1264 signatories. See the attached .pdf file for the full list]

References

1. Report on the violations of individual and collective human rights as a result of Azerbaijan’s blockade of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Six months (June 12th 2023). Retrieved from https://artsakhombuds.am/en/document/1028
2. ICJ decision. 22 February 2023. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/180/180-20230222-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf
3. Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. Red Flag Alert for Genocide[PDF], 13 April 2023. Retrieved from https://www.lemkininstitute.com/_files/ugd/391abe_d1bf084767f64a9eaa6c02adb8009dc9.pdf
4. “Aliyev openly threatens and is sure that he will get away with it.” Opinion from Yerevan. Jam News, 29 May 2023. Retrieved from https://jam-news.net/opinion-on-aliyevs-statements-in-lachin/
5. Fabbro, Robin. “Aliyev says Yerevan ‘historically’ Azerbaijani.” OC Media, 25 December Retrieved from: https://oc-media.org/aliyev-says-yerevan-historically-azerbaijani/
6. Full text of the agreement between the leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, 9 November, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.commonspace.eu/news/document-full-text-agreement-between-leaders-russia-armenia-and-azerbaijan
7. Statement by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, 10 July 2009, l’Aquila, Italy. Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/mg/51152
8. Vienna convention of law of treaties (1969). Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

SHARE