Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

In my view, Armenia is currently facing significant challenges unlike any seen since 1915

By

By Wally Sarkeesian,

In my view, Armenia is currently facing significant challenges unlike any seen since 1915. The country is under the influence of a pro-Turkish government, and distressingly, over 100 Armenian prisoners of war remain stranded in Baku for a thousand days, largely forgotten. Equally concerning, an equivalent number of POWs are incarcerated in various Armenian prisons, ranging from the defense minister to ordinary soldiers. To compound this suffering, the count of political prisoners in Armenia grows daily. However, both Armenians within Armenia and the diaspora remain silent, likely due to apprehensions of reprisal.

Among the known political prisoners are individuals such as Mamikon Aslanyan, Suren Manukyan, Mikayel Arzumanyan, Grigory Khachaturov, Armen Ashotyan, and many others. The Armenian-Turkish authorities have constructed a formidable security apparatus around themselves, including a formidable police force that discourages any challenge to their rule. Armenia is treading in perilous waters, and it is imperative for every Armenian to break their silence and voice their concerns. This is not a time for complacency.

The True Meaning of Ataturk’s Legacy | Opinion

By

STEPHAN PECHDIMALDJI , PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONAL 

Later this year, Turkey will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its republic, founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, one of the most revered figures in modern Turkish history.

While there will be much praise and accolades paid to Ataturk as a leader who led Turkey to independence after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and paved the way for democracy, for Armenian American families like mine, it is a stark reminder of how Ataturk continued the genocidal actions of the Young Turks, who were responsible for the 1915 Armenian genocide.

For years, Armenian Americans have fought for recognition of the genocide, when more than 1.5 million Armenians were systematically exterminated by the Ottoman Turks—a crime that Turkey denies to this day. And while Ataturk is credited with turning Turkey into a progressive nation-state, he shared the same hate and animosity toward minority communities including Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians. He saw these groups as a threat to the Turkification and Islamification of Asia Minor and embarked on a campaign to drive these communities out of the country, which culminated in the burning of Smyrna in 1922 by Turkish forces, which destroyed the city and drove its residents—many of whom were Greek and Armenian—into exile.

In many ways, Ataturk tried to finish what the Young Turks started in 1915, and even went a step further to ensure that history would judge him and his country favorably. It is one of the reasons why he founded the Turkish Historical Society as one of his last acts right before he died, which was responsible for guarding and maintaining the state’s official history. It was his way to make sure that Turkey’s role and responsibility in committing these crimes against humanity would somehow be forgotten or swept away into the dustbin of history.

That mentality and mindset has carried on throughout the last 100 years with Turkey still trying to control its narrative and history. It is why the Turkish government spends so much money today on lobbyists to manufacture and shape its image. And it’s also why Turkey’s current authoritarian president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has taken exception to any country that recognizes the Armenian genocide or holds them accountable for human rights violations. The image-conscious leader has even gone as far as rebranding the world’s perception of Turkey by officially changing the country’s name to Türkiye to part ways with any bird comparisons.

Turkey’s anniversary also comes at a very precarious time for the Armenian people. In the fall of 2020, Turkey’s ally, Azerbaijan, launched an unprovoked war against ethnic Armenians living in their ancestral homeland of Nagorno-Karabakh. The war which lasted 44 days, has been followed by a campaign to ethnically cleanse Armenians from the region.

For Armenians around the world, they see what is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh through the lens of their painful history. They see these latest acts of aggression, with the help of Turkey, as a continuation of the Armenian genocide and an existential threat to their very existence.

Ataturk’s legacy and the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh are not mutually exclusive. To a large extent, history is happening again. By disavowing its history, Turkey is essentially giving Azerbaijan a level of confidence that it can say or do anything they want, without consequences.

Supporters of then-Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, now president, hold a poster with his picture (R) and that of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern day Turkey, as they await his arrival at Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul on June 6, 2013.OZAN KOSE/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

That type of self-assurance allowed Azerbaijan to launch their war against Armenia and has given them license to illegally block the only road linking more than 120,000 Armenians to the outside world for more than seven months without any accountability.

Additionally, the rhetoric stemming from Azerbaijan today harkens back to the final days of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of the Republic of Turkey, which is rooted in the same type of xenophobia and racism felt toward Armenians.

So, while the messenger might be different, the message is the same. Azerbaijan is taking a page right out of Turkey’s history book and promoting a climate of hate toward Armenians. That hate has manifested itself through words and actions. In recent speeches, we’ve heard Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, unequivocally claim that Armenia is their historical land, while calling Armenia “Western Azerbaijan.”

We have seen this hate carried out through the treatment and torture of Armenian POWs and blatant execution of captured Armenian soldiers. And Azerbaijan continues to plant seeds of hate by enacting a state policy that hatred toward the Armenian people be taught to school children across the country.

Azerbaijan is taking its cues from Turkey and proving once again that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why Turkey should use the upcoming anniversary and festivities as a moment in time to fully reckon with its history and accept and formally acknowledge its role and responsibility in the Armenian genocide, and stop with its genocide denial campaign which started under Ataturk.

They need to put an end to this type of historical whitewashing and revisionism. It’s dangerous and irresponsible, and it’s costing lives. If Turkey is to be the model moderate Muslim-majority country that it wishes to be, it should come to terms with its past.

The Armenian people deserve it.

Stephan Pechdimaldji is a communications strategist who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He’s a first-generation Armenian American and grandson to survivors of the Armenian genocide.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/true-meaning-ataturks-legacy-opinion-1813119

Opinion: How Turkey’s Genocide Denial, Boosted by Shameful Academics, Threatens Armenian Lives Today

By

Alex Galitsky,

Turkey’s ultranationalists, led by President Erdogan, must be applauding the revisionism of academics like Benny Morris, who seem determined to let Turkey get away with genocide

The Armenian genocide in many ways shook the established world order to its very core.Here was an atrocity so inexplicably depraved that there was no word to describe it, and no system to resolve it.

In this watershed moment in human history, the basis of our modern system of international governance, human rights, and international law were born.

President of the Republic of Germany, Joachim Gauck has given the coup de grace to the Turkish state lie

By

The German-Turkish axis lived.

arton111845-408x480He stopped turning round after a century of complicity in breaking a silence that Armenians vain denounced a hue and cry endlessly.

By recognizing the Armenian Genocide as the first of the twentieth century, Pope Francis has planted at a historic homily at the Vatican ahead of the elevation of St. Gregory of Narek to the rank of Doctor of the Universal Church April 12, 2015.

This is not all!

After the European Parliament and despite its obscure president Martin Schultz, after Austria and before Bulgaria, an exceptional man, President of the Republic of Germany, Joachim Gauck has given the coup de grace to the Turkish state lie in not only recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915, but above all by admitting complicity or co-guilt of German Second Reich in its commission.

By speaking in precise terms, selected and targeted, the altar of the Cathedral in Berlin April 23, 2015, this man of faith and conviction brought down the wall that concealed the horror and made squealing fury Grand Turk never saw it coming.

To say that the Imperial German government played an obscure role in the execution of the genocide of Armenians by the Young Turk dictatorship during the Great War of 1914-1918. Informed by his intelligence officers, charitable and health organizations, industrialists, intellectuals, Deutsche Bahn employees, consuls and sinister Wangenheim, German Ambassador in Constantinople, he followed from day to day, often without the knowledge of Turks, the progress of the Armenian People’s extermination program.

Flanked by Walter Rössler, former German Consul in Aleppo, a Göppert Otto, a senior official at the German embassy in Constantinople, will remain throughout the war the henchman of Talaat Pasha, Enver and Djemal. It is he who will create a propaganda service responsible for translating and disseminating a revisionist booklet called “Truth on the Armenian revolutionary movement and government action” and many other publications of the same vein under national solidarity as war while imposing censorship on the atrocities committed against the Armenians.

Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg personally ordered the publication of shameful book written by Enver Pasha “Memoirs of Tripoli.”

Another German in charge of Armenian issues at the embassy of Constantinople, Heinrich Mordtmann will be responsible for the theory of the Armenian nationalist plot to justify the killings.

Especially, December 17, 1915, in the heart of terror, when the highest German diplomats – Metternich, German Ambassador Wangenheim successor to Constantinople, Gottlieb von Jagow also Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, horrified – interfered with the Chancellery for a German official disapproval against anti-Armenian atrocities committed by the Turks, Bethmann Hollweg replied, “The proposal for a public condemnation of an ally in the war, would be contrary to our entire history. Our only goal is to keep Turkey on our side until the end of the war, the Armenians perish or not. As the war continues and we will still need the Turks. “

It is therefore in full knowledge that the Chancellor gave the Armenians to their fate, that in order not to affect the Turkish-German sacred union based on a pact which entrusted the high command of the Turkish army from the Second Reich beginning of the Great War.

It is clear that the exclusive priority of the German Empire was maintaining a military front in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and in any case the fate of a people as a whole, it must be totally exterminated.

The German behavior is therefore not within a simple copycat or passive indifference, but a calculation reflected strategic interests well understood. To satisfy his ally, it is undisputed that Germany adopted a demonic choices while dreading his own implication in the commission of the carnage. Despite the indignation of some good German souls, Pastor Johannes Lepsius in particular and contrasting positions in government and administration, it appears that the German authorities will never cease to work, during and after the war, dissimulation, disinformation, forgery and denial of the Armenian genocide.

His involvement in the occultation is such that it has taken the form of an active assent. This appears clearly in the close and mutual collaboration that presided between the two countries for the duration of the war, so that this agreement is the necessary condition for the continuation of the fatal destiny devoted to the Armenian people, as decided by the Young Turks. In full forfeiture of the Ottoman Empire, it is clear that a formal condemnation threatening German would suffice to put an end to the “Final Solution” or strongly impacted its magnitude. The Second Reich never actually intervened and sketched, let alone any humanitarian relief gesture. This decisive fault termination, voluntary, intentional and orchestrated, coupled with a deliberate failure to assist a people victim of a mass crime, determined the devastation of a nation several thousand years.

This is blatantly, of complicity in “crimes against humanity” in the terminology of the time.

In June 1921, defeated Germany thought he saw in the political acquittal Telhirian, executor of the Grand Vizier Talaat, a unique opportunity to exonerate himself and to avoid the banning of nations, fear that summarizes its real ongoing concern throughout this abomination. Then, the interest in the Armenian cause declining over time, looking for German responsibility faded to disappear with the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, ending the last hopes of a dying people. However, if the principle of the supremacy of the moral law on the opacity of the reason of state is not an illusion, then the inalienable responsibility of Germany is indisputable. Therefore, even out of season 100 years have passed, adopting a bold face stance unjustifiable evil inflicted on the Body and the Soul of the Armenian nation to grow.

By accepting out of a secular silence, compromising and assume its overwhelming role in this “detail” of history in an unprecedented confession designed to improve international awareness morale and pedagogical level, without exempting the least world of its responsibilities, the twenty-first century Germany Joachim Gauck President did so work of justice and peace between the Armenian and Turkish peoples, beyond the Anglo-American palinodes pathetic. It also helps to put these terrible events at the heart of European history.

After this unprecedented declaration of frankness and courage, confronting German archives to those bloated French, Russian, Austrian and Vatican, might even be unnecessary because no state better than Germany has irrefutable evidence of the reality of genocide Armenians. Already alone, the German President has put an end to this complicity that allowed impunity to erase a Christian people of its ancestral territory, by the most barbaric means to install another Muslim allegedly holder of original historical rights.

After shattering confession like repentance of this man, at the risk of the spread of revisionist poison radicalized under the rule of President-Caliph, the floor is now international institutions, Court of Justice or European Court of Human Rights of Man and the great diplomacy.

By restoring clear the links between German fascism, the Second and the Third Reich on the one hand and the two greatest genocides of the twentieth century on the other hand, we want to believe that the moment is near when the sun will rise on Turkey, a Germany and Armenia, united, hand in hand, at the Memorial Dzidzernakapert where the eternal flame burns the soul of our Holy Martyrs, at the foot of the sacred mountain of Christianity: Mount Ararat .

Armand SAMMELIAN May 2015

Friday, May 15, 2015,
Ara © armenews.com

Armenian The Case for Self-Reconciliation

By

By keghart.com editorial
L-Finger-Hand-FWe live in a time when money, opportunity and position are bestowed upon those who enter academia or careers under the rubric of “conflict resolution,” also known as “reconciliation.” A more fitting name is the “Reconciliation–Industrial Complex,” or RIC.

Like the better-known term, “Military–Industrial Complex,” RIC refers to the overlapping aims and financial relationships that exist among government officials, powerful legislators, lobbyists, NGOs, think tanks, academia, media and creative fields, and the industries and corporations that support them. These parties provide funding and other support for government programs, public and private policy initiatives, salaried positions, grants, and political access that will serve their selfish interests rather than the needs of the general citizenry.

Quite often, Armenians whose livelihoods depend on RIC ridicule or dismiss as “unrealistic,” “immature,” or “living in a fantasy world” those critics who advise against indiscriminately embracing so-called reconciliation initiatives without making absolutely clear that genuine Armenian goals include genocide acknowledgment, reparations and restitution from Turkey.

Among the Armenian organizations that receive funding from Western interests and governments who themselves have agendas that may not agree with the Armenian national interest are the Caucasus Institute of Yerevan; the Civil Society Institute of Yerevan; the Civilitas Foundation; the Eurasia Partnership Foundation; the Golden Apricot Film Festival; the Hrant Dink Foundation; the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation; the Regional Studies Centre; and the Yerevan Press Club.

The pro-RIC interests who fund these Armenian organizations include: European Union; Council of Europe; British Embassy in Yerevan; U.S. Embassy in Armenia; U.S. Embassy of Azerbaijan; Honorary Consulate of Israel to Armenia; Embassy of Germany to Armenia; Kingdom of the Netherlands; U.S. Department of State; U.S Agency for International Development (USAID); Open Society Institute; Open Society Foundation-Turkey; Eurasia Foundation; Global Dialogue Foundation; Heinrich Boll Foundation; Goethe Institute; Friedrich Ebert Foundation; Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom; Enka Construction Company of Turkey; Turkey-Armenian Fellowship Scheme; and Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV).

How do we know that these pro-RIC Western interests are sincere if they and/or their governments will not even acknowledge the Armenian genocide, let alone approve of restitution of any kind? For example, a top member of the American Jewish Committee — which works against Armenian genocide recognition and backs Israeli military and political support of Azerbaijan — sits on the honorary board of the Civilitas Foundation. Given the strategy of the West (i.e. the U.S., Europe, and NATO) to use Turkey to penetrate the Caucasus and Central Asia, and use Armenia as a doormat, their grants to Armenian organizations should be viewed with considerable skepticism.

Ironically, there are Armenians who sermonize about forging friendships with, and exercising forbearance towards, Turks but who will not, in practice, extend that very same courtesy to their fellow Armenians.

Given the severity of Turkish barbarism that was unleashed upon the Armenian people before, during, and after the Genocide, it is paradoxical that Armenian reconciliationists seem willing to cooperate with Turks in a way that they are not willing to do with their own compatriots.

There are Armenians in the RIC camp who lack a brotherly attitude towards those Armenians who view so-called reconciliation efforts with skepticism. There is also no shortage of Armenians who hold grudges because of disagreements with fellow Armenians. And it is unfortunately common to encounter Armenians who envy, demean and hinder the efforts of, other Armenians.

Such opponents could discuss their differences, empathize, agree to coexist, cooperate, or make amends.

But then, should not understanding go both ways? Should not Armenian critics of so-called reconciliation try to find common ground with Armenian reconciliationists? This is difficult to accomplish if conflicts – whether intra- or inter-ethnic – are not dealt with and resolved but are instead swept under the carpet. Thus, we are left with pleas to “be nice to each other,” but not to discuss anything considered contentious.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But, is it informed opinion? As evidenced by who funds “reconciliation” initiatives, misinformation can skew our opinions. For example, how many well-meaning reconciliationists are aware that many of the funders do not recognize the Armenian genocide and are, in fact, pro-Turkey and pro-Azerbaijan?

Because the passage of years can soften people’s judgments of a heinous crime, time is on the side of the perpetrator. Thus, the perpetrating side’s stonewalling may be rewarded with forgetfulness. Meaningful Armenian action, therefore, must be taken in the present and not in some vague future.

It is supremely important that Armenian reconciliationists refrain from signing away Armenian rights to reparations and the restitution of Western Armenia. They should drop their minimalist “all we want is an acknowledgment or apology” plea.

There really is no such thing as Turkish-Armenian “reconciliation.” The word means a resumption of intimate relations after a breach. This does not describe the relations Turks had with Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The word better describes how we Armenians could and should unite to reach our greatest national potential.

Today, the internal strangulation of our people in Armenia at the hands of corrupt government officials continues. How long will the global Armenian nation – including Diasporan organizations who silently condone the actions of the current regime — tolerate the annihilation of what is left of Armenia?

If we wish to survive as a nation and see the continued moral, spiritual, and material progress of Armenia and Armenians, true reconciliation with one another on the eve of our genocide centenary must begin now. In the words of poet-activist Yeghishe Charents, “O, Armenian people, your only salvation is in the power of your unity.”

Azerbaijan is seeking tension – opinions

By

Azerbaijan-seeking tentionArmenian MPs are not surprised at either Azerbaijan’s attack on an unarmed helicopter of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army or declaration of Nagorno-Karabakh’s airspace a no-fly zone.

According to Chairman of the Free Democrats party Khachatur Kokobelyan, declaring Nagorno-Karabakh’s airspace a no-fly zone was one more provocative statement by Azerbaijan.

In an interview with Tert.am, he said that air forces had never had any problems with the Nagorno-Karabakh territory before November 12.
“And this is one more attempt on their part to show the international community that they are seeking tensions,” Mr Kokobelyan said.
Despite the Azerbaijan foreign office’s statement declaring Nagorno-Karabakh’s airspace a no-fly zone Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s helicopter landed at the Stepanakert airport in the afternoon on Thursday.

According to Mr Kokobelyan, the international community has so far adequately reacted to Azerbaijan’s attack on the Nagorno-Karabakh helicopter. He is sure that Azerbaijan’s attempts to destabilize the region will fail.
“It does not meet either our interests or the interests of the entire Caucasus or of the international community,” the MP said.
Azerbaijan’s attempts are evidence of its being incapable of meeting the criteria proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
“They are thus expressing their dissatisfaction,” he added.

Head of the Heritage parliamentary group Ruben Hakobyan is not surprised at the attack on the helicopter. And Azerbaijan’s foreign office is expected to make statements like that.
“This can be considered in the context of the events in late July-early August. To our army’s credit, we were able to adequately retaliate, and the attacker sustained heavy losses,” he said.

Azerbaijan is getting ready for war, resorting to provocations. Azerbaijan’s act must not go unpunished, Mr Hakobyan said.
Secretary of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutyun (ARF-D) Aghbvan Vardanyan hopes that the Armenian side will retaliate adequately.

“We know our neighbors very well. They have no changed their policy they are constantly creating tensions, trying to deal with us from a position of strength and show it is their territory. This time we must retaliate in a different way. Provocations will continue until enemy comes to realize that a dozen will be punished for one,” Mr Vardanyan said.

Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) parliamentary group member Levon Martirosyan told Tert.am that Azerbaijan’s foreign office did not make a serious statement.

“If they can declare a territory that is not theirs a no-fly zone, we might just as well declare Azerbaijan’s territory a no-fly zone. So it is a counterproductive approach, a way to nowhere.”

Islamic State Murders Erdogan’s Dog! Turkish lie welcomed Jews fleeing the Holocaust,

By

74896Image1By KANI XULAM  Rudaw

“Throw the dog a bone!”

Newly elected Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave that old expression new meaning when he “threw a dog bone” during his address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last month.

He said the new Islamic State had killed a Turkish dog — well, sort of — as part of the price Turkey paid for the release of 46 Turkish diplomats being held by Islamic State militants.

Mr. Erdogan denied that Turkey paid any ransom. He said, Ankara has “no monetary relationship” with the Islamic State, but quickly added, “You cannot expect us to divulge what the intelligence agencies do in their business.”

No — that might reveal the ransom paid!

Right after that suspicious denial, Mr. Erdogan “threw his dog bone” in this casual aside: “We lost a dog to them.”

For those who follow Mr. Erdogan, it came across as an enticing ploy calculated to curry favor with his audience: Americans love dogs and adopt them as house pets and often treat them like family members.

Muslims — and Mr. Erdogan considers himself a pious one — dislike dogs, consider them dirty, and think those who befriend or adopt them childish.

So that pooch killed by Islamic State militants must have been owned by a secular Turkish diplomat — whose numbers, incidentally, are dwindling as Turkey reorients itself towards Mecca.

Still, the Turkish president couldn’t resist using a “dirty” dog to “clean up” his image and that of his country’s for some hoped-for sympathy from the unsuspecting Americans.

But the shaggy dog story was peanuts — compared to Mr. Erdogan’s outlandish claim that “Turkey has never been a racist state.”

Trying to bolster his claim, “Our country embraced the Jews who were fleeing Hitler’s persecution,” he added with a deadpan expression.

The average New Yorker may not know whether Turkey is racist, or if it truly “welcomed” the persecuted Jews, but that roomful of highly educated Americans knew better — and should have challenged Mr. Erdogan’s blatant lie.

Alas, none did.

Let’s subject his claims to hard facts.

The majority Turkish population dictates to the minority Kurdish population what to do, including prohibiting us from calling ourselves Kurds.

Isn’t that racism, Mr. Erdogan?

As to his assertion that Turkey welcomed Jews fleeing the Holocaust, nothing in the historical record supports Mr. Erdogan’s far-fetched claim.

The Turkish president is too young to know this, but a ship called Struma gleams brightly as exhibit A to invalidate his contention.

On December 12, 1941, it sailed with nearly 800 Jews from the port of Constanta, Romania for Palestine.

Three days later, its engine failed in Turkish waters and the helpless ship was hauled to Sarayburnu harbor in Istanbul. But contrary to Mr. Erdogan’s claim, its passengers were not allowed to disembark –were even quarantined — as if they were all infected with the deadly Ebola virus!

Two months later, the engine-dead ship was tugged out of the harbor through Bosporus — and despite the frantic pleas of its passengers for help, and thousands of Turks helplessly watching — was coldly set adrift ten miles outside of Turkey on the Black Sea.

The next morning — February 24, 1942 — a Soviet submarine mistook the Struma for a cargo ship carrying war materials to the Nazis, and torpedoed it — plunging 782 Jews to the bottom of the sea.

Only one man survived:  David Stoliar.

Until his passing on May 1, 2014, he was a living witness to how Turkey had really treated the fleeing Jews.

Today, another humanitarian crisis is staring Turkey in the face and Ankara is fudging yet again.

The Kurdish town of Kobane at the Turkish border has been mercilessly attacked by the militants of Islamic State for more than a month.

Yes, Turkey has opened its Mursitpinar border crossing to allow Kurdish civilians cross into its territory, but is only reluctantly – and recently — permitting military hardware and some Kurdish fighters in.

The story of the murdered pooch is also revealing relative to the ongoing empty talks that are taking place between the Kurdish politicians and their Turkish interlocutors on the island of Imrali and Ankara with ramifications for Americans.

While Turkey claims to be working for “peace” with the Kurds, early this month its parliament authorized Ankara to conduct cross-border military operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Islamic State.

Eleven days later, The Turkish air force conducted its first operations, not against the militants of Islamic State, as Washington wants Ankara to do, but the de facto allies of Coalition forces, the PKK.

America’s desperate search for a reliable ally in Ankara is a fool’s errand no different than the Kurdish pursuit of peace in the Turkish capital.

In other words, Mr. Erdogan likes Kurds and Americans as much as he likes the dogs

Opinion: Historic chance for Scotland

By

On Thursday around four million Scots will be voting on the future of their country’s independence. The cultural and political otherness of the Scots justifies the experiment, 0,,17910386_303,00says DW’s Daniel Scheschkewitz. 

For many years, Scotland was considered by many people in Germany and Central Europe as a remote region in Britain’s far north, linguistically equated with England . Sure, people knew that it rained a lot there, and that Scotland’s men were fond of wearing skirts and drinking whiskey, and that their proverbial stinginess was less than amusing. But that Scotland was for many centuries a proud, independent nation before 1707 – that was less well known, overshadowed by its more recent history as part of the United Kingdom.

But all that is old news: If the majority of Scots over the age of 16 say ‘Yes’ to independence on Thursday, Scotland could return to the map of Europe as an independent state. The United Kingdom, that governmental construct of the 18th century, could become a part of the past, with as yet unrecognizable political and economic consequences. Would this be a step backwards? A historical- romantic anachronism and relapse into a small state mindset in a modern Europe without borders? In my opinion: No!

Always been different

Scotland has always been different from its neighbor to the south, England. Even the Romans recognized that fact. Not for nothing did Emperor Hadrian, in the second century, order a wall to be built along the border with the Celtic Picts in the north. In the coming centuries, the northern Celts and, in the south, the Normans and Anglo-Saxons, waged war against each other, with the Scottish army always striving to preserve its independence.

It was only after the union of the royal houses in 1603 and later, the ill-fated attempt by the Scots to launch their own trading empire in India, Africa and the Americas, did they agree to a financially necessary parliamentary union with England in 1707. This set the foundation for the rise of Great Britain as a world power. Scotland and England, along with the carbon -rich Wales, created a resource pool, unique in the world, which brought the island kingdom political power on the world stage and prosperity at home. Problems over cultural and political differences only resurfaced in the second half of the 20th century, but then with full force.

Union from another time

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher de-industrialized Britain and overhauled the ailing national budget with the black gold from Scotland’s North Sea oilfields. At first the Scots took it all in stride, but when they began to realize that many in their oil capital of Aberdeen, which by all right should have resembled a Scottish Abu Dhabi, still lived in poverty and misery, doubts began to emerge. These doubts only increased as Thatcher’s Conservative Party took almost unbroken control of the British Parliament – this despite Scots not having sent even one Conservative MP to Westminster in every election since 1997.

In a Scotland widely deprived of its political influence and economic possibilities, the influence of nationalists began to grow. In 1999, they managed to wrest political control from London and set up the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

 

 

Opinion: Thirty Year’s War in the Middle East?

By

DW’s editor-in-chief, Alexander Kudascheff.

0,,17422054_303,00The leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is in the process of starting a religious war in the Middle East, one that could go on for a very long time,

 The situation is downright alarming: an army of crusaders has brought the Middle East to its knees. 10,000 fighters who belong to the Islamist, fundamentalist and murderous group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) are headed for Baghdad with aims of seizing Iraq’s capital city and deposing its president – all in a bid to bring down Iraq’s Shiite rule.

Their objective includes bringing about a reversal of postwar order in the Middle East: an end to nation states, the founding of a new Muslim community, or Ummah, and a caliphate, within which the Sharia is the foundation of the law. ISIS members have already displayed political and religious readiness for a violent conflict, evocative of Jihad, one of the early tenets of Islam that calls believers to martyrdom.

These Sunni Jihadists led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – whose name calls to mind the first of all caliphates, the “descendents” of the Prophet Muhammad – are looking to oust not only President Maliki and the Shiites from Baghdad, however. They have ignited the entire region. Iran has pledged support to stand by Iraqi Shiites and is even considering, as contradictory to traditional political alliances as this may seem, to join sides with Washington. US President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has yet to announce plans for how he intends to support Maliki.

Shiite axis

For Tehran, the pledging of support to Iraq’s Shiites is a matter of course, just as it supported President Assad – an Alawite – with the help of Shiite Hezbollah militias in the Syrian civil war.

Iran has a strategic regional interest in upholding the Shiite axis in the Middle East, which comprises Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and itself: It is a way of securing its influence. But it is also more. It would be unthinkable for Iran’s Ayatollahs and Mullahs, who see themselves in the tradition of Ayatollah Khomeini, to ignore any neighboring Shiites in a time of need. This is grounds for Jihad – a holy war.

There has been civil war in Syria for a long time now, between Assad and the opposition, but also within the opposition itself – between ISIS and the proponents of the secular democracy movement. Almost 200,000 people have died and millions have been displaced, and yet, Assad remains in power: a never-ending blood bath.

And surrounding it stand the other Middle East actors. The Kurds have established themselves in North Iraq and have no fear of ISIS. Their military strength and newly acquired political identity pose a challenge to Turkey, which has had its share of troubles with the chaotic situation on both sides of the border to Syria. Jordan – for years, a state burdened by Palestinian refugees – has had to deal with the second highest influx of Syrian refugees, behind Lebanon. And nobody knows how secure the Jordanian kingdom really is.

Visions of power

And then there’s Saudi Arabia: Iran’s great adversary on the Persian Gulf, its great rival in the struggle for intellectual and spiritual dominance in the Middle East – the keeper of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia follows the ultraconservative teachings of Wahhabism, and is thus a religious state – with a lot of money. It has often been a key supporter of Islamic pursuits abroad, and also played a role in setting up Islamist groups. A kingdom with a double standard: it fears Jihadism and fosters it at the same time, in the hope that it’s never directed towards the Saudi dynasty.

However, the insane vision of an ISIS caliphate would not only incorporate Syria and Iraq; it would also involve Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the Prophet. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s name alone seems to indicate the power the terrorist is after.

Even if al-Baghdadi were stopped in his attempted conquest, Jihadism wouldn’t be stopped. It would be merely put on hold. This war in Iraq, the battle of Baghdad, is the beginning of an all-out religious war between Shiites and Sunnis. And with it, the Middle East now faces a conflict akin to the Thirty Years War. Israel’s existence has never been this uncertain. And the West won’t be able to watch for long.

What plays Vladimir Putin? Ara Toranian

By

The Russian president is it a force of nuisance or proposal for Armenia? September 3, 2013, Vladimir Putin weighed its weight arton100384-480x271to prevent the signing of the Association Agreement between Armenia and the European Union which they had worked for four years. Meanwhile, he imposed his accession to the Eurasian Union under construction with Kazakhstan and Belarus. However, on May 29, Putin signed the agreement provided in Astana with these two countries, while in Armenia saw excluded. What has happened then between?

Kazakh president, who from the beginning had reservations about entering Armenia in the Eurasian Union in the name of solidarity with Azerbaijan, has developed a series of obstacles before it. He first denied any economic development that would make it more bearable this association with more powerful it, especially energetic states. But above all, he demanded – at the express request of Baku – a customs barrier is established between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in order to maintain the ostracism of the Armenian territory was liberated from Turkish Azerbaijani. This injunction, which however goes against the Putin asserted willingness to join Armenia in the Eurasian Union, has left the Kremlin no apparent reaction. And silence feeds all speculation.

What does this mean in fact? Putin, who poses as great sachem of the Eurasian Union and great rival of the West, is unable to impose its Kazakh partner in this case? Or, more cynically, it is simply being let go Armenia, leaving it in midstream, after weighing all his weight to get out of the sphere of European influence in the region? The information of 23 May 2014 on the sale of new Russian heavy weapons to Azerbaijan (over 100 tanks T_90) nourishes all suspicions. Especially, the last Azerbaijani diatribes against the West, and particularly against the U.S. position on Nagorno-Karabakh (denounced – wrongly – as pro-Armenian), suggest that Baku could s’ rely on Russia to resolve the issue, which is also an issue as to the nature of relations between Moscow and Ankara.

It is clear that Russia has always had the ambition to militarily regain a foothold in this highly strategic area on the border of Iran. Armenia is now broadly in his boot. This leaves him to renegotiate increase its share of influence on Azerbaijan, with the danger to Yerevan that dealings will be done at his expense. The risk of betrayal of Russia is indeed registered watermark in the history of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, as evidenced by the granting by Stalin from that territory of Armenia to Azerbaijan. And nothing seems able to resist playing a more or less identical scenario, if it is not, perhaps, any western expansion area domination Kremlin reserves – although his protests generally remain very theoretical …

It is clear from these episodes that Putin does not derogate from despotic paradigm that has always prevailed in the tsarist policy in the Caucasus. In this scheme, the role assigned to Armenia is of a captive ally and not a strong partner. And he is certainly not in the interest of regional Kremlin to abandon the appetites of Turkism, or leave completely wither (hence its preferential tariffs for the supply of gas), it does nothing that can either make him head out of the water and bring to pass his “support”. If necessary, it seems that the Russian big brother is even willing to weaken even further Yerevan to increase its length.

Seen, Armenia is still stuck between the hammer and the anvil. But the Turkish-Azerbaijani side is clearly not the only power to take advantage of this situation. What plays Vladimir Putin? And expected by Europe to establish the status of particular partnership advocated by François Hollande May 12 in Yerevan, which allow Armenia to break his isolation, loosen the grip without preventing him to sign, where appropriate, with the Eurasian Union? The question is, more than ever.

Ara Toranian