Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act vote set for June 18

By

June 13, 2014 – 09:30 AMT

The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the leadership of Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), is set to consider H.R. 4347, the Turkey Christian Churches Accountability 179831Act, on Wednesday, June 18.

Capitol Hill sources said that the Turkish Government is actively seeking to block adoption of this bipartisan religious freedom measure, reported the Armenian National Committee of America.

Introduced this March of this year by Chairman Royce along with the panel’s Ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY), H.R. 4347 would require that the U.S. Department of State formally report to Congress on an annual basis about the status of Turkey’s return of stolen Christian churches and properties in Turkey and occupied Cyprus. H.R. 4347 builds on a measure (H.Res.306), spearheaded by Chairman Royce and then House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Democrat Howard Berman (D-CA), which was overwhelmingly adopted by the House of Representatives on December 13, 2011. That resolution set the groundwork for H.R.4347 by calling upon the government of Turkey to honor its international obligations to return confiscated Christian church properties and to fully respect the rights of Christians to practice their faiths.

“We want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for advancing this religious freedom legislation and look forward to the Committee’s consideration of a principled and practical American stand in support of the rights of Christians in present-day Turkey and occupied Cyprus to practice their faith in their own houses of worship,” said ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian. “We are pleased to join with all believers in religious freedom – including of course our Cypriot, Greek, Pontian and Syriac brothers and sisters – in supporting this measure, and encourage all our friends to urge their legislators to support its timely passage by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the full House of Representatives.”

Prior to consideration of H.R. 4347, the Committee will be holding a hearing on “Protecting Christian Heritage in Turkey,” which will include testimony from Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou, Visiting Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution at the Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; and Mr. Khatchig Mouradian, Coordinator of Armenian Genocide Program at the Rutgers University Center for Genocide and Human Rights.

In a statement he issued upon the introduction of this religious freedom measure, Chairman Royce outlined the need for passage of H.R.4347: “This legislation holds Turkey accountable for its international obligations to protect and promote human rights, and it calls attention to Turkish leaders’ broken promises to return church properties to their rightful owners. Over decades, Christian church properties, particularly those belonging to the Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Orthodox communities have been either violently overtaken or illegally confiscated by Turkish authorities under various excuses. These churches under Turkish control have been looted, converted to mosques, storehouses, casinos, vandalized and often irreparably damaged,” stated Chairman Royce. “Vulnerable religious minorities deserve more than just piecemeal returns of their stolen religious properties. It is important that the United States continue to encourage Turkish leaders to uphold their commitments and return all remaining properties without further delay. This bill will make promoting religious freedom and tolerance in Turkey a U.S. diplomatic priority.”

Ranking Democrat Engel concurred, noting, “The Republic of Turkey, and indeed all nations, have a responsibility to protect, restore, and return religious properties which have been unlawfully seized from their communities and rightful owners by state authorities. Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Orthodox communities in Turkey have for many years been seeking the return of their confiscated properties. The claims of these communities must be respected and addressed in a comprehensive and timely manner. This legislation calls on the Republic of Turkey to meet its international obligations, and urges the United States to prioritize the return of unlawfully seized religious properties in order to begin to resolve the legitimate claims of these communities.”

CHP lawmakers accuse Turkish government of ‘protecting ISIL and al-Nusra militants’

By

Yet another prove of Turkish Government False-Flag Operation in Mosul

ANKARA

ISIL commander Abu Muhammad April 16-2014 allegedly receiving free treatment in HatayThis photograph shows ISIL commander Abu Muhammad, April 16, 2014, allegedly receiving free treatment in Turkey Hatay State Hospital after being injured during fighting in Idlib, Syria.

Two lawmakers from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) have accused the government of protecting and cooperating with jihadist militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the al-Nusra Front, while the Turkish government quickly denied the claim.

CHP Deputy Parliamentary Group Head Muharrem İnce has asked for explanations of a photograph showing ISIL commander Abu Muhammad allegedly receiving free treatment in Hatay State Hospital on April 16, 2014, after being injured during fighting in Idlib, Syria. The photograph circulated widely on the Internet following ISIL’s assault on Mosul June 9.

“If we keep silent now, it is to let the government work more comfortably in this situation and prevent our people, our flag and our country from being harmed. But we will talk about the point to where wrong policies have dragged our country and what kind of trouble have all those whom they have fed, treated and assisted brought us,” İnce said at Parliament in Ankara on June 12.

He also said the visits carried out on the same day by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu to opposition leaders were not enough. “He should also come and inform Parliament,” İnce said.

 ‘Militants stayed at religious body’s guest houses’

Meanwhile, CHP Istanbul deputy İhsan Özkes claimed militants of the al-Qaeda splinter group the al-Nusra Front were allowed to stay at the guesthouses of Turkey’s Religious Affairs Directorate (Diyanet) under the monitoring of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) in the southern province of Hatay.

Özkes, a former mufti, also claimed the order to host the militants was given by former Interior Minister Muammer Güler in a circular sent to the Hatay Governor’s Office, which openly demanded assistance to al-Nusra fighters.

The allegedly official document shown by Özkes reveals that al-Nusra fighters were brought by the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) in order to fight against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) affiliated Democratic Union Party (PYD) in northern Syria.

“It is important to provide the necessary support for the intelligence officers on the issue of assisting the fighters of al-Nusra, including Tunisians and Chechens, who have been brought [here] under the supervision of the MİT to fight against the PKK-affiliated PYD, crossing the borders to Syria and complying with the confidentiality of the matter,” the document reads.

“The province of Hatay has strategic importance in the crossing of fighters from our country’s borders to Syria. The logistics supply to Islamic groups, their training and the treatment of the injured will mostly be carried out from there. The MİT and other relevant authorities have been tasked on the issue,” it also said.

Özkes also accused the government of sending charity money collected by Diaynet to the Islamist fighters. “Have those who fought been sheltered in the Quran classes and dormitories belonging to Diyanet? Is there an Interior Ministry circular that was sent to Diyanet on the issue?” he asked.

‘Turkey hasn’t become a target’

Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç denied the allegations during his press conference on June 13.

“Has Turkey provided any weapons or financial aid? Absolutely not, and the whole world knows this,” Arınç said.

Arınç also said that the latest incident does not mean that Turkey has become a target.

The debate was sparked after the ISIL militants took 49 workers of Turkey’s Mosul Consulate and 31 Turkish truck drivers hostages after seizing Iraq’s second biggest city, Mosul.

Source: hurriyet daily news

June/13/2014

Syrian Kurds blame Turkey for backing ISIS militants,

By

By Amberin Zaman

The YPG accuses Turkey of fanning the flames of the conflict, providing arms and sanctuary to ISIS and sealing its borders in an effort to quash the Kurds’ march toward self-rule. Turkey denies the accusations, describing ISIS as a terrorist group and a threat.

AL-TLEILIYE, Syria — A raised metal bed stands in a yard. The stench of rotting flesh chokes the air. A man in fatigues points to traces of blood blotting the earth, 000_nic6337380.sisaying, “Women, children, they murdered them in their sleep. They even killed the dog; that’s what causing the smell.”

Djvar Osman is a commander for the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Kurdish militia that controls a band of mainly Kurdish-populated territory in northeastern Syria they call Rojava. We are in al-Tleiliye, a tiny village close to the Turkish border that was raided May 29 by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

The jihadists shot dead 15 civilians, many as they slept outdoors, in what appears to have been a retaliatory attack against the YPG. One of the victims, Mohammed Mahmoud Hossain, was only a year old. All were Sunni Arabs, apparently mistaken for the village’s original occupants, Kurdish-speaking Yezidis, who are doubly targeted because of their syncretic faith.

As YPG commanders ponder the dizzying gains of ISIS in neighboring Iraq — the group captured the city of Mosul on June 8 — an Arab farmer in a hamlet outside al-Tleiliye stiffens when approached by a journalist. He survived the bloodbath, but his brother did not. “I cannot say more,” he rasps, pulling an imaginary zipper over his mouth. He walks toward a concrete hut, its walls covered in a crude Arabic scrawl. “We have come to slaughter you. It’s forbidden for Jabhat al-Nusra to approach,” it reads.

The turf battle between the YPG and Islamist extremists has been raging along the Turkish border for more than a year. It has taken mind-bending turns with ISIS fighting against other opposition fighters, including Jabhat al-Nusra, to win control over strategic border crossings with Turkey. Thus, the Arab farmer’s hamlet has changed hands between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS and is presently under YPG rule. The other big prize, the Rumeilan oil fields to the east of Serekaniye, are also for the most part in Kurdish hands. Whoever controls the oil fields and the borders controls the illegal fuel trade, which in turn helps finance the purchase of weapons and influence.

On one recent morning, giant pillars of smoke billowed from outlying fields along the main road from Rumeilan to Aleppo, filling the air with acrid fumes. Men with blackened faces were producing their own oil from makeshift wells. “They are tribal Arabs. We keep telling them to stop this. It is ruining our crops and our health,” complains Welat Haj Ali, a former Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) fighter and Rojava’s unofficial undersecretary for defense. “The biggest battle [against ISIS] was fought here, in these fields,” he says.

The YPG accuses Turkey of fanning the flames of the conflict, providing arms and sanctuary to ISIS and sealing its borders in an effort to quash the Kurds’ march toward self-rule. Turkey denies the accusations, describing ISIS as a terrorist group and a threat.

On June 9, Turkish officials said they were investigating claims that ISIS had kidnapped 28 Turkish truck drivers in Mosul. But the YPG’s tight links to the PKK, the Kurdish rebel group that has been fighting for self-rule in Turkey since 1984, renders them an even greater threat in Ankara’s eyes. There is little doubt that until recently, Turkey was allowing jihadist fighters to move unhindered across its borders.

In Michu, a deserted Arab hamlet on the edge of the front lines, Abdo Sino, a paunchy YPG commander, echoes the view that Turkey is complicit in the violence. He points to a cluster of cinder block houses lying just north of the YPG dugout. The village, al-Rawiya, is under ISIS control. Sino and his men had carried out a hit-and-run raid against al-Rawiya on May 27, killing eight ISIS fighters and prompting the revenge attack on al-Tleiliye. “Two Turkish ambulances picked up their wounded and carried them back to Turkey. We saw it all through our field glasses,” Sino claims.

Many of the ISIS fighters are Chechens and Azeris. Sino shows us pictures he took of the dead combatants with his mobile phone. They have pale white skin, long curly hair and unkempt beards. Next comes a well-thumbed pocket manual titled “The Muslims’ Citadel.” It is filled with Quranic verses exalting martyrdom and was printed in Azerbaijan. Sino says he found it in the pocket of one of the slain ISIS men. 

YPG fighters in Michu are adamant that their ISIS foes continue to be allowed safe passage through Turkey. “We are going to bury [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan right here, in Rojava,” vows one young fighter. But the battle has reached a stalemate, and the finger of blame is shifting toward Damascus, a further sign of the fraying entente between President Bashar al-Assad and the Kurds.

This temporary peace was forged when the regime redeployed its troops from the Kurdish areas in summer 2012 to fight opposition forces elsewhere in the country — and some say to get back at Turkey for its unabashed campaign to topple Assad. The ensuing vacuum allowed the Kurds to share power, albeit symbolically, with Christian and Arab locals.

The Kurds’ overtures to minorities (they have allowed the Syriac Orthodox Christians to form their own battalion to defend themselves and to help fight al-Qaeda) and their policy of empowering women (about a third of the YPG’s fighting force is female) have won them fawning reviews in the Western media. But Western governments led by Washington continue to spurn contact with the Rojava administration because of pressure from Turkey, a NATO ally, but also because the Kurds refuse to take up arms against Assad. But for how long, a growing number ask.

Assad’s recent battlefield gains are prompting worries that his next move will be against the Kurds. Until such time, he is using ISIS to keep them in check, the Kurds claim.

“Why else is the Syrian army turning a blind eye to ISIS activities around areas under its control?” asked Salih Muslim, the co-chair of the Democratic Unity Party (PYD), the political arm of the YPG, in a recent interview with Al-Monitor. Such fears have prompted the Kurds to hedge their bets. Muslim confirmed that Rojava officials had initiated new talks with the Istanbul-based Syrian opposition to secure recognition of their fledgling administration.

He hopes that the recent trickle of US-funded aid through Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq will pave the way to formal contact with Washington.

Relations with Ankara are also showing signs of a thaw. Since March, Turkey has been allowing limited aid to be delivered twice a week through the Mursitpinar border gate to the YPG-controlled town of Kobane, under blockade by ISIS. And a new set of secret talks are reportedly underway between the PYD and Turkey’s national intelligence agency, MIT. These moves are closely bound up with Ankara’s peace negotiations with imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, who is widely revered in Rojava. Mohammed Kemal, the Rojava official in charge of press relations, told Al-Monitor, “We have been instructed from the top [by Ocalan] to stop talking about Turkey’s support for ISIS.” The news had apparently not yet filtered to the YPG fighters in Michu.

Western diplomats say it is likely that Turkey has helped ISIS and other jihadists in the past, but they dismiss claims of collusion between ISIS and the Syrian government. “We have no evidence to prove this,” said a senior Western diplomat based in Iraq. Either way, friction between the Kurds and the regime is on the rise. Sporadic clashes between the YPG and regime forces have been erupting with greater frequency, most recently near the Yarrubiya border crossing with Iraq. The Kurds’ refusal to allow voting in many towns during the presidential elections sharpened the government’s anger.

I got to witness the tensions firsthand in the Syrian Kurds’ putative capital, Qamishli, where the regime maintains a sizable presence. I recklessly decided to take pictures of a building surrounded by posts painted over with the Syrian flag. It proved to be the headquarters of the dreaded Syrian Mukhabarat, or national intelligence. Armed Syrian soldiers stopped us, demanding to know who I was. My YPG minder said I was a journalist who had come to cover the presidential elections. The soldiers were unswayed, and a tense standoff ensued. The encounter was threatening to blow up into a firefight when a reinforcement of pumped-up YPG fighters arrived on the scene. The Syrians backed down with these parting words: “Your days are numbered.”

 

Amberin Zaman is an Istanbul-based writer who has covered Turkey for The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Telegraph and the Voice of America. A frequent commentator on Turkish television, she is currently Turkey

 

Turkey and United States Conspire to Issue April 24 Statements

By

By Harut Sassounian
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

While it is not surprising to learn that Turkey and the United States have coordinated their official declarations on the Armenian Genocide, recent revelations have confirmed Turkey US Conspiretheir shameful behind-the-scenes schemes.

In a speech delivered in Australia late last year, former US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans revealed for the first time that the State Department regularly conferred with the Turkish Embassy in Washington on the content of the US President’s annual April 24 statement on the Armenian Genocide.

This clearly reflects the degree of collaboration between Turkey and the United States on the genocide issue, and even more appalling, American officials’ succumbing to the gag rule imposed by a denialist regime!

The American-Turkish collusion on the Armenian Genocide issue was recently corroborated by Deniz Kahraman in the Aydinlik Turkish newspaper, revealing that the two governments jointly drafted the statement that Prime Minister Erdogan issued on April 23, 2014. He offered condolences to Armenians, Turks, and others who died from various causes during World War I, thus equating the deaths of Turkish soldiers with Armenian Genocide victims.

Basing his information on unnamed diplomatic sources, Kahraman wrote that the White House had been fully aware of the content of Erdogan’s statement in advance of its release. In fact, the Turkish Prime Minister’s text was prepared with U.S. input and finalized by officials in both countries. It appears that the initial text was prepared by the Turkish Foreign Ministry, after which the White House made some modifications, “based on U.S. sensitivities” on this issue. On April 21, the Turkish Foreign Ministry forwarded the final text to Prime Minister Erdogan’s office which released it to the public on April 23.

Kahraman also revealed that in return for accepting U.S. modifications of Erdogan’s statement, Washington offered to block the pending Armenian Genocide resolution in the Senate, after its adoption by the Foreign Relations Committee in early April.

Aydinlik reported that Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has personally followed since last year the Armenian Diaspora’s preparations for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Turkey is reportedly evaluating its countermoves, which include convincing the Armenian government to revive the comatose Armenian-Turkish protocols, while simultaneously energizing the mediating efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group to resolve the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict through public diplomacy.

According to Aydinlik, Ankara is evaluating its plans on how best to counter Armenians who are pursuing their demands from Turkey through three separate channels: “legal, political, and public opinion.” Kahraman reported that a serious political rift emerged last June between Turkey and the US, after which Washington started pressuring Turkey to take more resolute steps on the Armenian Genocide issue and normalize relations with Israel. To appease the United States, the Turkish Prime Minister issued a statement on April 23, on the eve of the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Aydinlik also reported that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in favor of Turkish denialist Dogu Perincek had strengthened Ankara’s hand in international circles. However, Washington wanted Turkey to be more accommodating on the Armenian Genocide issue. That is why Turkish and US officials orchestrated the release of a public statement by Erdogan on April 23, right before Pres. Obama’s own statement on April 24.

It is therefore not surprising that State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had high praise for Erdogan’s April 23 statement, describing it as a positive step that would pave the way for improved relations between Armenia and Turkey. Unbeknownst to the public, the State Department was in fact praising a statement that it had helped draft.

While Turkey and the United States are playing a dishonest game of publicly supporting each other’s privately orchestrated statements on the Armenian Genocide, Foreign Minister Davutoglu let the cat out of the bag by announcing in Parliament that Erdogan’s April 23 message of condolences was part of the Turkish campaign to undermine Armenian efforts to commemorate the Centennial of the Genocide.

Finally, I wish to remind all those who have wrongly claimed that Erdogan’s April 23 message was an unprecedented pronouncement by a Turkish leader, almost 90 years ago, on June 22, 1926, Pres. Kemal Ataturk made a truly bold statement in an interview with the Los Angeles Examiner: “These leftovers of the Young Turk Party who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred….”

Samantha Power to visits Turkey for Syria talks

By

ANKARA The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and President Barack Obama’s key foreign policy aide, Samantha Power, will visit Turkey this week to discuss the n_67640_1Syrian crisis and other regional issues, Turkish Foreign Ministry officials have told the Hürriyet Daily News. As part of her regional trip, Ambassador Power will hold talks in Istanbul, meeting Deputy Undersecretary Ömer Önhon on June 12, before visiting a refugee camp for Syrians in the southern province of Gaziantep. The situation in Syria will be high up the agenda during talks in the Foreign Ministry, along with a number of other regional issues, a Turkish official said. Power served as Special Assistant to Obama and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Staff at the White House, prior to serving as U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N.

June/10/2014

Samantha Power to visits Turkey for Syria talks

By

ANKARA

The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and President Barack Obama’s key foreign policy aide, Samantha Power, will visit Turkey this week to discuss the n_67640_1Syrian crisis and other regional issues, Turkish Foreign Ministry officials have told the Hürriyet Daily News.

As part of her regional trip, Ambassador Power will hold talks in Istanbul, meeting Deputy Undersecretary Ömer Önhon on June 12, before visiting a refugee camp for Syrians in the southern province of Gaziantep. The situation in Syria will be high up the agenda during talks in the Foreign Ministry, along with a number of other regional issues, a Turkish official said.

Power served as Special Assistant to Obama and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Staff at the White House, prior to serving as U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N.

June/10/2014

Mensoian: Although our cause is just, that alone will not bring us victory

By

By

The Armenian Weekly has published an article “Turkey and Genocide Recognition: A Candid Assessment” by Michael Mensoian. The full text of the article is below.

Here we are within one year of an historic milestone in our quest for justice. It is now 99 years since the Ottoman-Turkish government unleashed the genocide that slaughtered Mensoian Articlesome 1.5 million innocent Armenian men, women, and children. A genocide that uprooted another 500,000 from their ancestral lands and saw tens of thousands of our young women and children taken in servitude and denied their birthright to grow up as Armenians.

The purpose of the genocide was simple enough: to empty the historic provinces of Western Armenia of its people and to plunder their wealth. Complicit in this politically motivated crime were the government leaders of England, France, and the United States by their acceptance of the horrendous slaughter that was taking place with their full knowledge, notwithstanding what amounted to their meaningless protestations. Compounding this tragedy, England, as the principal architect of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), welcomed Kemal Ataturk, who was no less responsible for the anguish visited upon the Armenian people, and the newly formed Republic of Turkey into the community of nations absolved of all responsibility for the genocide.

The new Turkey was given the blood-soaked historic lands of Western Armenia emptied of its people by a genocide that subjected its victims to the most inhumane and barbaric methods imaginable. These supposed bastions of democracy saw fit to ignore this heinous crime against the Armenians. The personal and community property plundered from the victims was gifted to Ataturk in the Treaty of Lausanne. The government of the United States, by its inaction, was as culpable as England and France in allowing this transgression against the Armenian people to go unpunished.

The year 2015 will mark the 100th anniversary of the genocide that sought to wipe us from the face of the earth. A genocide that has continued unabated in the decades that followed to destroy physical evidence that Turkey occupies lands that were settled by our people for millennia—lands that still, legally and morally, belong to the Armenian nation. Today we are no closer to the justice that is rightfully ours than we were during those years immediately following the genocide, when our nation faced an improbable future against seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Now here is the rub. Turkish intellectuals stress the importance for Turkey to “acknowledge its past”; bravo to them. When foreign leaders say that Turkey should face its past especially during official visits to Turkey, we become euphoric when it is reported in the Armenian press. Similarly when Turkish citizens demonstrate in remembrance of the tragic assassination of Hrant Dink or proclaim that “We are all Hrant Dink,” we are encouraged to believe that we are moving ever closer to the justice we seek. We want to believe that a wave of sympathy, like a tsunami, is slowing building and when it finally crashes on the Turkish shore, government leaders will be forced to acknowledge the country’s past. I don’t believe so. However, given the volatility of the domestic political environment within Turkey, no one can say with certainty what may happen in the future.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as a prelude to the 100th anniversary of the modern era’s first genocide, continues the official policy of denial that every Turkish government has followed. He refers to the common pain that Armenians and Turks endured and the need for historians to make a judgment as to what actually happened during the years from 1915 to 1923. His hypocrisy can be understood, but how can one say the same for President Barak Obama when his April 24th message is once again filled with platitudes; when fails to use the word genocide; and when he suggests that a “full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all of our interests.” Who is he addressing with this banal suggestion?

Mr. President, the slaughter of 1.5 million innocent Armenian men, women, and children between 1915 to 1923 is an historic fact that has been thoroughly documented and evaluated by unbiased, credentialed scholars—not politicians—who have unanimously agreed that it was genocide. Yes, it would be “in all of our interests” if you would remind your friends in Ankara, as well as yourself, to acknowledge the facts.

Our naiveté in believing that the pressure is mounting on Ankara to accept its past is frightening. As part of the Turkish response to 2015, Erdogan has once again invited Armenia and the (Diasporan) Armenians to join Turkey so that we may “…wipe away the tears, push prejudice to one side, and reveal historic truths…in an objective manner.” Looking north across the Black Sea, Erdogan must be emboldened by President Vladimir Putin denying what the world was witnessing in real time—his occupation and annexation of Crimea from a sovereign neighboring state without fatal repercussions.

With all of his internal problems, the government of Prime Minister Erdogan is not about to collapse anytime soon. For us to believe that Turkey will implode for our benefit is an old saw that has been played since I was a youngster. Will it never end? Whether we like it or not, Turkey has assumed even greater strategic importance as the Southern Gas Corridor, as Western Europe seeks to shift its dependence on Russian oil and gas imports to the energy resources of the Caspian Sea Basin.

To bolster our belief that the political climate for recognition is improving, we conveniently overlook the possibility that the demonstrations for Hrant Dink (as well as the Taksim Square/Gezi Park demonstration that quickly spread to other major Turkish cities) may simply have served as the vehicle for urban and educated Turkish citizens to vent their frustration with the policies of Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), rather than actively supporting recognition—notably, his shift from the policies of Ataturk, especially the shift from a secular society to one that places significantly greater emphasis on the ultraconservative values of the Islamic faith. This has placed increased restrictions on individual rights and the movement toward an open society. Given this legitimate concern of these citizens, we cannot gauge the depth of their sympathy for our cause until it runs up against their loyalty and love for Turkey. However, it is extremely gratifying that the Human Rights Association of Turkey has come out forcefully not only for recognition, but for indemnification. It is not surprising that boundary rectification was not mentioned.

Yet, to be fair in our assessment we cannot summarily discount the fact that there are Turkish citizens sincere in their protestations who cringe at the suffering that the genocide has wrought upon the Armenian people. These Turks may or may not be in the vanguard of a people who are tired and ashamed of the guilt their intransigent leaders have forced them to bear.

A factor we seem to overlook is the response of those sympathetic Turkish citizens once they realize that there is a difference between advocating the need for the nation to face its past and actually acknowledging its past. Acknowledgement is the moment when they must come to terms with the hideous crime of genocide carried out by their forebears. Recognition carries a heavy emotional, moral, psychological, and economic burden. There are significant groups within Turkey, at least a majority, that would never willingly accept recognition. The culturally conservative rural population would have the most to lose with recognition. They are settled on land that belongs to the victims of the genocide. Of the 77 percent of the population that is classified as urban, it is safe to say that a majority are or lean toward being culturally conservative as well. The military may have been weakened by Erdogan, but it still remains a powerful force in support of a secular state and against recognition. Then there are those who for various reasons would object to any accommodation with our legitimate demands.

Unfortunately there are any number of foreign leaders, including those who have supported recognition, who would eagerly accept any proffered recognition by Erdogan or his successors as being sufficient to put the genocide issue to rest forever. It is not a pleasant thought to consider. And solely for the sake of argument, should recognition be achieved, there is no guarantee whatsoever that indemnification and boundary rectification would follow. Can you name one nation, other than Russia possibly, that would vigorously support our legitimate claims against Turkey for either indemnification or boundary rectification?

One final comment. The spate of reports coming from Diyarbakir is uplifting. The rehabilitation of the Sourp Giragos Armenian Church was a singular event in what might be called a sort of rapprochement between Armenians and the Kurdish people of Diyarbakir. Much credit should go to the people of the city and their officials, Abdullah Demirbas and Osman Baydemir. However, does the rehabilitation of a long-neglected Armenian church serve to expiate the transgressions of their Kurdish ancestors who participated in the genocide? It reminds me of the practice by the powerful and wealthy during centuries past who would have a church built or perhaps rehabilitated or adorned as a way to ease their entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. Does this rapprochement include encouraging the progeny of those young Armenian women and children taken during the genocide to become acquainted with their Armenian roots?

We may not want to accept it, but these “lost” or Islamized Armenians, however diluted their blood may have become through the generations, are still our people. How we respond and develop this relationship has significant ramifications for Hai Tahd. This is not suggesting that we proselytize, but simply take the opportunity to develop a dialog, perhaps with the assistance of our recently contrite Kurdish friends. It is something for our leaders to actively expand upon.

It is interesting to note that at the recent commemoration of the genocide in Diyarbakir (reported in the Armenian press) the Kurdish speakers referred to the shared pain that Kurds and Armenians suffered. One would think that the purpose of the genocide was to eliminate both Armenians and Kurds; that Kurds had no role in what happened; or that they did not benefit from the wealth that was plundered. Kurds continue to suffer under the brutal yoke of Turkish oppression, but let them not deflect their participation in the genocide by implying that they were also victims.

We should keep in mind what Talleyrand, the foreign minister to Napoleon, once remarked: that nations do not have friends, they only have interests. It would be surprising if we had any friends (with the possible exception of Russia) who would vigorously support our quest for justice against Turkey. For nearly a century Turkish leaders have been determined not to accept responsibility for the genocide. Although our cause is just, that alone will not bring us victory. Aiding Turkey as an unyielding enemy of Hai Tahd is the passage of time. After nearly a century we have yet to develop and implement a comprehensive coordinated plan that vigorously attacks Turkey’s numerous vulnerabilities. Our efforts have been and continue to be sporadic, disconnected, and diffused. We face a formidable enemy. Unfortunately, we do not have forever to achieve our purpose.

About Michael Mensoian
(More Articles)Michael Mensoian, J.D./Ph.D, is professor emeritus in Middle East and political geography at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a retired major in the U.S. army. He writes regularly for the Armenian Weekly.

Turkey’s DC Envoy Angered by Jewish Group’s Genocide Recognition

By

WASHINGTON—In a tersely-worded letter, Turkey’s new Ambassador in Washington, Serdar Kılıç, accused the American Jewish Committee of being “unfair, insulting and Turkish-Ambassador-USpatently out of touch with realities” when the group issued a statement on April 23 recognizing the Armenian Genocide and urging Turkey to face its history.

Kılıç wrote the letter to David Harris, the executive director of AJC on April 24. Asbarez obtained the letter, in which the Turkish Ambassador expresses “our extreme disappointment and regret with the statement issued yesterday by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in which the tragic events of 1915 are unjustly labeled as “genocide.” We reject the AJC statement in its entirety.”

Headquartered in New York and with governmental affairs offices in Washington, the AJC was established in 1906 and has grown to become a global advocacy group. On April 23, the AJC issued a statement honoring the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

The Turkish Ambassador goes of to reiterate official Ankara’s denialist position that Armenians were not the only victims during the “final years of the Ottoman Empire,” and cites Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s now infamous “condolence statement” on April 23.

Kılıç also cites notorious Genocide denier Bernard Lewis, quoting a passage from his book, “Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian,” in which he argues that Armenians staged a rebellion and accordingly were killed.

“Ambassador Kılıç’s letter reflects a growing disdain on the part of the Turkish government toward the Jewish American community’s moral stance against Genocide,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

“This remarkably disrespectful diplomatic correspondence confirms what we have always known, namely that the Turkish government has, since day one, viewed its relationship with the American Jewish Committee – and, more broadly, its political connection to the Jewish American community’s moral standing on issues of Genocide – as a cynical alliance aimed at blocking U.S. support for a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,” added Hamparian. “Now that the AJC has taken a truthful stand on the Armenian Genocide – a principled position consistent with the views of Americans of Jewish heritage and faith – they are angrily attacked and insulted by the Turkish government. From Ankara’s perspective, the depth of this relationship was clearly only denial-deep.”

Below is the complete text of Ambassador Kılıç’s letter:

Dear Mr. Harris,
I am writing to you to express our extreme disappointment and regret with the statement issued yesterday by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in which the tragic events of 1915 are unjustly labeled as “genocide.” We reject the AJC statement in its entirety for the following reasons:

To begin with, the final years of the Ottoman Empire were indeed a tragic period; however not only for the Armenians but for all the people that made up the Empire. The AJC statement in this respect, while trying to capitulate on the sufferings of the Ottoman Armenians, reflects a one-sided and biased account by turning a blind eye to the sufferings of other ethnic and religious communities during the aforementioned period. Our fundamental objection to your statement in this context is branding the 1915 events as genocide, which is a specific crime, clearly defined by 1948 Convention. According to the Convention, only a competent international tribune is authorized to pass a judgment as to whether a specific act constitutes genocide. Such a court decision exists in the cases of the Holocaust, Rwanda and Srebrenica, while no decision exists for the events of 1915.

Turkey acknowledges the fact that the relocation of some of the Ottoman Armenians actually resulted in tragic consequences. As a matter of fact, only yesterday Prime Minister Erdogan acknowledged this fact and offered his condolences to the grandchildren of the Ottoman Armenians who lost their lives in 1915. In his statement, Prime Minister Erdogan called on the Armenian leaders to work towards building a common future together, instead of turning our equally painful history into a matter of political conflict.

The call in AJC statement that “history must be faced” is a message that Turkey fully concurs with. Indeed, we have expressed our readiness to face our history and to that end proposed the establishment of a Joint Historical Commission as a concrete reflection of this position. Scholarly research to be carried out by Turkish, Armenian and international historians would play a significant role in shedding a more fair and just light on the events of 1915.

Furthermore, the nature of the 191 5 events is freely and widely discussed in today’s Turkey, unlike the case in Armenia, where the issue remains a dogmatic taboo that prevents the Armenian side from accepting our Joint Historical Commission proposal. On the other hand, contrary to what you suggest in your statement, our archives, hundreds of thousands of documents including this period, are also open to all researchers around the world.

There was no intent to destroy or annihilate the Armenian population since many Ottoman Armenians, including those residing in the capital of the Empire, were not relocated. Using the frequently cited but extremely flawed analogy of the Holocaust, this would be tantamount to the Nazis taking a decision to annihilate all Jews but yet taking no steps against the Jews living in Berlin, which was inconceivable. Bernard Lewis, in his book entitled “Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian,” explains in breadth the basic differences between Holocaust and the 1915 events; including the fact (i) “that the Ottoman Armenians were involved in an armed rebellion, whereas the Jews were not, but were attacked solely because of their identity” and (ii) “that the persecution of Armenians was mostly confined to endangered areas, while the Armenian populations in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, notably in big cities, were left more or less unharmed.”

It is also disappointing to note that the AJC, while referring to Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, has failed to mention Srebrenica, which was also termed as genocide by the International Court of Justice, and instead has decided to label the historically, politically and legally contentious events of 1915 as genocide. We sincerely hope that this is not a reflection of an Islamophobic viewpoint on this issue.

In view of the foregoing, we find the AJC statement unfair, insulting and patently out of touch with realities. It seems that the AJC follows a different agenda and is reluctant to acknowledge Turkey’s position and all the steps we have hitherto taken on this issue. That such a step comes from the leadership of a community which was welcomed by the Ottoman leaders in the 16th century and was protected from the Holocaust during WWII further aggravates our disappointment with your latest statement.

delegationArmenian to NATO raises problem of Turkey’s involvement in Kessab events

By

Armenia’s parliamentary delegation, which participated in a meeting of the Political Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, May 30 to June 1, Turkey Kessabraised the issue of Kessab.

Specifically, the Armenian MPs stated that Turkey, which is a NATO member, not only allowed gunmen to enter Kessab through its territory, but also provided financial aid to them.

“The Turkish representative reacted at once, saying that Turkey’s government had nothing in common with Syria developments and did not sponsor any insurgent groups, which is untrue. Numerous facts prove this [Turkey’s involvement]. Our delegation requested that NATO think of the necessary measures to prevent its member-states from resorting to such steps,” Head of the Armenian delegation Koryun Nahapetyan told reporters on Monday.

Unfortunately, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly did not respond to the Armenian delegation’s request.

Armenian delegation member, Heritage parliamentary group member Tevan Poghosyan said that the 28 NATO member-states share a common feature – not offending partners.

“Unfortunately, it is not the case in the Collective Security Treaty Organization. So we should not expect any of the NATO members to wag their finger at Turkey,” he said.

However, raising the problem was important.

Turkey: Officials may face probe for Hrant Dink murder

By

İsmail Saymaz ISTANBUL / Radikal

Hrant Dink court A man holds a portrait slain journalist Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on April 24 as he takes part in a commemorative march in honour of Armenian intellectuals who were deported under under the Ottoman rule during the World War I. AFP Photo / Ozan Köse

Key officials could face a probe regarding the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on charges of intent or negligence after an Istanbul court overturned a previous ruling.

An Istanbul court has lifted a previous decision, which has ruled there was no need for sanctions against the former deputy governor of Istanbul, Ergun Güngör, Istanbul Police Chief Celalettin Cerrah, former Istanbul Police Department Intelligence Head Ahmet İlhan Güler and six police officers regarding the 2007 assassination.

The court recommended an investigation into nine officials following a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision. A lawyer for the Dink family, Hasan Bakırcıoğlu, confirmed that it is now legally possible for a probe against Güngör, Cerrah, Güler and six police officers.

Dink, the highly esteemed former editor-in-chief of weekly Agos, was murdered in broad daylight in front of his newspaper’s building on Jan. 19, 2007, by a 17-year-old Turkish nationalist. The triggerman, Ogün Samast, was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to 22 years and 10 months of prison after a two year-trial, but lawyers representing the Dink family have repeatedly expressed their dismay over the way the investigations and the trial were conducted.

His assassination sent shockwaves through Turkey and grew into a wider scandal after it emerged that the security forces knew of a plot to kill Dink, but failed to act.

Backing up widespread accusations of a state conspiracy, another key figure in the trial, Erhan Tuncel, claimed in December 2013 that he had informed the police of the plan, but that his warnings went unheeded.

There have been suggestions that the killing was a result of “deep state” work, but the court said there was no organization behind the murder. According to reports, Dink was called to a police department and “warned” about the plot against him, fueling belief that the murder was known by some institutions within the state beforehand.

June/06/2014