Turkey Archives

UC Riverside Student Government Passes Turkey Divestment Measure

May 14, 2015 By administrator

The UC Riverside Student Government votes to divest from Turkey

RIVERSIDE, Calif.—The Associated Student Body Government of the University of California, Riverside on Wednesday voted unanimously to divest approximately $72.6 million in bonds and holdings in the Turkish government.

“By investing $70 million in Turkish bonds, the UC system is supporting a human rights violation that the Turkish government has denied for a century. It is important that we support this divestment revolution because it shows that UC Riverside takes a strong stance against the perpetuation of genocides,” said Armenian Student Association member Petros Keosoian.

The resolution aims to divest the funds from the Turkish government “for it’s role in and the continued denial of the Armenian genocide”.

“This marks another step in the Armenian community’s call for divestment from the Republic of Turkey, following in the steps of UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, and UC Davis,” said Seto Cherchian, a member of the UC Riverside ASA and an activist from the Armenian Youth Federation.

Wednesday’s vote marks the fifth divestment resolution passed at a University of California Campus. Just last week student governments UC Irvine and UC Davis joined their peers at UCLA and UC Berkeley in passing similar resolutions. Moreover, just last month, ASUCI unanimously passed A resolution “Commemorating the Armenian Genocide and Condemning its Denial,” raising further awareness on campus about the Armenian Genocide and its need for international recognition.

The resolution is an initiative started in part by the Armenian Youth Federation (AYF) Western United States- a grassroots community organization dedicated to justice for the Armenian cause and the Armenian people. For any questions, comments or inquiries on the #DivestTurkey campaign, please email divestment@ayfwest.org.

Turkish Prosecutor says weapon-laden MİT trucks made 2,000 trips to Syria “full to the brim with weapons”

May 13, 2015 By administrator

A pro-government prosecutor who was appointed to the case regarding the alleged transport of weapons and munitions to Syria via trucks belonging to Turkish intelligence filed for a verdict of non-prosecution regarding the case and adMITted that weapon-laden trucks made 2,000 trips to Syria, according to the lawyer of one of the defendants of the case.

Lawyer Hasan Tok, the legal counsel for former Adana Provincial Gendarmerie Regiment Commander Col. Özkan Çokay, who was at the scene when trucks belonging to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) were searched in January 2014, said that Prosecutor Ali Doğan stated in court that trucks owned by MİT made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.

Doğan is a known government loyalist and filed for a verdict of non-prosecution regarding the investigation into the trucks after he was appointed to the position of Adana chief public prosecutor. According to Tok, Doğan had asked the defendants in a previous hearing, “2,000 trucks have passed [into Syria] why was this one specially chosen?”

“We didn’t know there had been 2,000 trucks passing into Syria, may God bless Ali Doğan,” said Tok. Report ZAMAN

Ali Doğan’s reference to 2,000 trucks echoes an alleged statement by MİT head Hakan Fidan in which he said he “sent around 2,000 trucks [with] equipment” to Syria after General Staff Gen. Yaşar Güler complained that the region needed arms and ammunition to be saved. A voice recording was published online in March 2014 of a top-secret conversation between then-Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu, Fidan and Güler, revealing Turkey’s clandestine effort to aid certain groups in Syria.

Prosecutor Takçı: someone had sworn an oath to get us convicted

Aziz Takçı, one of the four prosecutors involved in an investigation of trucks belonging to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) that were allegedly carrying weapons to radical groups in Syria, said in his defense statement to the Tarsus Second High Criminal court regarding the investigation of the MİT trucks, “Someone [in the government] had already sworn an oath to convict us [prosecutors investigating the MİT trucks]. We also know that some people [within the government] were pressuring the HSYK [Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors], saying, ‘Why aren’t the detentions [of prosecutors] happening sooner?’” said Takçı in his statement to the court, according to GriHat news portal.

Turkey has wanted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power ever since an uprising that started at the end of 2011 turned into a fully-fledged civil war in the neighboring country. Assad is a member of the Nusayri (Alawite) sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, whose members are a minority in both Syria and Turkey.

Prosecutor: trucks were full to the brim with weapons

Describing the events that unfolded on Jan. 19, 2014, when trucks later found to belong to MİT were stopped in the Ceyhan district of Turkey’s southern Adana province en route to Syria, Takçı said: “When I went to the scene there were two trucks. A few stubbly bearded men, claiming to be MİT operatives, were shouting, swearing. As I had gone to the scene of the search, I had to look at what was there. [The trucks] were full to the brim with weapons…155mm [howitzer] shells, anti-aircraft munitions; I also saw munitions of different types and sizes.”

“I told the gendarmerie [present at the scene] to record these items, what else can a prosecutor do? Then out of nowhere, the chief public prosecutor of Adana, the chief police officer, and Governor Hüseyin Avni Coş [all] came to the scene with 400-500 riot police. The governor told me that Prime Minister [current President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan had called him and had said, ‘These trucks belong to MİT, we sent the weapons and ammunition. The prosecutor must leave the trucks, we are going to lay the [necessary] legal framework,’ several times,” said Takçı.

“In the meanwhile, Hüseyin Avni Coş was saying that he was going to obstruct this [investigation] even if it would mean his death. I told him, Mr. Governor, you don’t need to say such things. The state has laws. No one needs to die, if [as you say] the Prime Minister [Erdoğan] has called. Then I asked him to present me a [official] document with only a few sentences, which I could sign, and told him repeatedly that if the individuals who claimed they were MİT operatives gave their IDs, they could be released,” said Takçı.

Takçı said that after he had the license plate of the vehicle carrying the people claiming to be MİT operatives checked, he found that it belonged to suspects known to have affiliations with al-Qaeda. “Al-Qaeda is recognized as a terrorist organization by the Supreme Court of Appeals. It [Al-Qaeda] is on the ministerial cabinet list and the world’s list [of recognized terrorist organizations],” he said.

MİT agent double-crossed Syrian colonel, while I’m being charged for espionage

Takçı also said in his statement to the court that MİT operative Önder Sığırcıklıoğlu, who sold out a Syrian colonel who had defected to the Free Syrian Army from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) controlled by Assad for $100,000, was absolved of espionage charges while he was being charged with espionage for investigating the trucks.

Three MİT officials, including Sığırcıklıoğlu, were arrested in 2012 for allegedly abducting Col. Hussein Harmush, one of the most senior Syrian military officers to have defected to the opposition Free Syrian Army, from a Turkish refugee camp in the southern province of Hatay near the Syrian border and handing him to pro-Assad forces in Syria for $100,000.

As the Adana Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office had formally charged five suspects, one of whom was a MİT regional official, for their supposed role in handing over Harmush to Syrian security forces, it appeared that MİT was deeply involved in the abduction. The suspects were sent to prison, where they face charges of political espionage.

Takçı: you don’t have to be a prosecutor to know that the case can be linked to terrorism

Stating that there is no need for suspicion and that only a shred of doubt is enough for public prosecutors to act, Takçı said: “They [prosecutors] are asking me why I took [members of] the law enforcement agency with me. Who am I supposed to undertake the investigation with as a public prosecutor? Of course, with members of the law enforcement agency. Moreover there is talk of a truck full of weapons.”

“Who can carry a truckload of weapons? You don’t have to be a public prosecutor to know that such a crime is being has the suspicion of being [affiliated to] terrorism,” he said.

Even if undersecretary to MİT had come, he’d have to prove his link to trucks

Pointing out that, after he had ordered the trucks to be stopped and searched, another vehicle carrying individuals claiming to be MİT agents came to the scene, Takçı stated that the newly arrived operatives started to argue with gendarmerie personnel at the scene, demanding the search be stopped, even using curses insulting Takçı’s mother. Takçı said, “I wanted to see their identification, but they refused, so I told [the gendarmes] to keep them under control while the search was going on.”

Admitting that one of the operatives had later complied with his request to show identification, Takçı emphasized: “The people in civilian vehicle, which came later, these weren’t the people in the trucks. I have to be frank: Even if the undersecretary of MİT had come, he would have had to make his connection to the trucks very clear.”

Takçı: Drug smugglers are convicted, while weapons smugglers are to be released

Even if the trucks were proven to belong to MİT, as the prosecutor, he would have had to collect any evidence before it was lost, Takçı explained, adding: “A MİT operative was caught in Van [province] with a substantial amount of drugs on his person, no one said to him, ‘Oh, you’re a MİT agent, [sorry].’ The evidence was put forward, and he was detained, arrested and later convicted… Those who are caught smuggling 50 kilograms of drugs are to be convicted, while those who are caught smuggling three trucks worth of weapons are to be let go? What a country to live in!

Takçı: Legal decisions influenced by ruling party are most dishonorable

“Is this [government] always going to remain? Is there always going to be this ruling party? In the future, the political landscape will change and another party will come [into power],” he remarked, continuing: “The [new] ruling administration will come and say to me: ‘Why did you not see these pieces of evidence? Why did you allow this car to leave? Come and account for your actions.’ Are we to change our decisions based on the political party in power right now? I consider this to be dishonorable. If a judge or a prosecutor renders a decision according to the [views of the] current political party, then that person is the most base, most parasitical, most dishonorable person there is, as I would be, if I had let my actions be influenced by the party in power.”

Prosecutor Karaca: Site where weapons were dropped now an ISIL base

Another of the four prosecutors involved in the investigation, and currently under arrest, Ahmet Karaca, said in his defense statement that, before the investigation into the trucks belonging to MİT had begun, an investigation into rocket warheads found in the province of Adana was already underway, adding: “The driver of [one of] the trucks said, ‘I’ve taken 2 loads like this before. I deposited them at the same spot,’ and the place he indicated, close to the Turkish-Syrian border, is, unfortunately the place where the terrorist organization [the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL)] now holds camp.”

A total of 935 rocket warheads, manufactured in Adana and Konya provinces, had been seized from a truck in the southern province, then-Governor of Adana Hüseyin Avni Coş told media in 2013.

Pointing out that 85 citizens had lost their lives in terrorist attacks between 2012 and 2013, and that the investigation into the trucks is now open to the public, Karaca stated, “Those trucks were full to the brim with weapons.” He expressed his grief at being persecuted for simply performing his duty, stating: “If you find one piece of evidence linking me to crime, I’m willing to serve time without even the need to submit a defense. Send me [to jail] and I’ll go without blinking an eye.”

The Role of Historians of Turkey in the Study of Armenian Genocide

May 13, 2015 By administrator

Author: Professor Erik Jan Zürcher, Turkish Studies, Leiden University

On the occasion of the centenary of the Armenian genocide someone like me, who sees himself as a historian of Turkey in the twentieth century, has to speak out.

In the first place, there are moral and ethical reasons why this is so. Historians of the late Ottoman Empire and Turkey in the twentieth century have a special responsibility, because we have been part of the fabric that maintained the silence for so long. We cannot allow a situation to continue such as I knew it when I was a student and a young university teacher in the nineteen seventies and eighties, when –in spite of the fact that outside our field the genocide had been an object of historical research for 50 years– we were barely aware of what had happened in 1915. Our textbooks only mentioned it as a footnote to history, if at all, and never defined it as a genocide. Our teachers never discussed it.

I felt the effects of this silence clearly in my own research. In 1984, I published the book that would form the basis for my academic career. It was called The Unionist factor. The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement (1908-1925). The dates in the title are significant, because the most important thesis of the book was that the national resistance movement in the Ottoman Empire after the World War I, out of which the Republic of Turkey emerged, was in fact the creation of the Young Turk Committee of Union and Progress that had been in power during the World War I. It was also this Committee that launched Mustafa Kemal, the later Atatürk, as a leader.

The book was well received, but a friend of mine translated a review in an Armenian journal for me. That, too, was appreciative of my work, but it also voiced a criticism. According to the reviewer my story seemed to play out in an empty landscape, as if the elimination of the Armenians had not taken place. At the time my reaction was: ‘Yes, that may be true, but my book was not about that.’ It was only 20 years later, when I started to involve myself more with the Armenian question in the context of the pioneering Workshop on Armenian Turkish Scholarship (WATS), that I realised that I had been wrong. Even the continuity of the political leadership between the Unionist period and the Kemalist republic, the subject of my book, cannot be studied without taking into account the fact that this leadership had been formed in the crucible of 1915-16 and that the national resistance movement that brought forth the republic was in so many ways a continuation of World War I –politically, ideologically and personally. It is true, of course, that the top political and military leaders of the World War I era had fled the country in 1918 and that most of them were killed by Armenian agents in the following years, but still: quite a few of the people involved in the genocide held high office in the republic, and the shared experience of 1915-16 undoubtedly created group solidarities.

Involving oneself with the issue of the genocide is not just a moral issue, however. Historians of Turkey also have something specific to offer. Now that the outlines and many of the details of the genocide have been so well established by historical research based on original documents and eye-witness accounts, there are, I think, two areas where historians of Turkey can contribute significantly to a better understanding of it, on the basis of Turkish sources. The first area is that of the causes and motives. At this point in time we have come to recognise that both longer-term developments (the popularity of social Darwinism, militarism, the issue of reforms and land disputes, mass migration of Muslim refugees) and short-term ones (the Ottoman loss of the Balkan War, the outbreak of the World War I, the Ottoman defeat at Sarıkamış the British landings at Gallipoli and the rebellion at Van) played a role.

Looking for causes and motives is important because it helps us better to understand what happened. It does not affect the issue of genocide, and the fear of some Armenian scholars that analysing the causes and motives is necessarily apologetic, is groundless. What is important for the definition of genocide is intent, the intent to destroy an ethnic or religious group wholly or in part. The motive behind this intent is not relevant, that is why the denialist argument that what happened in 1915 cannot be genocide because Armenians formed a threat is nonsense, even if this contention were founded in fact.

The other issue is the way in which modern Turkey, as it emerged after World War I was shaped by the Armenian genocide. I have looked at the personal and ideological continuities between the Committee of Union and Progress and the Kemalist republic, which are considerable. More can certainly be done in this field, but the issues that now require attention (and increasingly are also getting it, in Turkey as well) are the transfer (or theft) of Armenian property and the conversion of Ottoman Armenians. The first, together with the more regulated takeover of Greek properties, laid the basis for the emergence of a Turkish bourgeoisie during the republic and quite a few major corporations of Turkey have their roots in this process. I am not a lawyer and I have no idea about the validity of legal claims after a century has passed, but for a better understanding of Turkey we need to know more about the transfer of property, for instance through access to the still closed cadastral archives.

The conversion to Islam of large numbers of Armenians during World War I is the other big issue that needs to be addressed. As in any nation-building process, homogenising the population has been a key feature of modern Turkish history. This has obscured the fact that many Turks today have some Armenian roots. Nobody knows exactly how many Armenian women and children were taken into Muslim families in 1915-16, but even if we assume a relatively low number of 100,000 and project on that the demographic trends of Turkey in the twentieth century, that would mean that something like 2.5 million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent. Rediscovering these roots has become popular among progressive Turks in recent years.

In other words: the Republic of Turkey not only carries the legacy that it was founded and ruled to a considerable extent by people who had been involved in the genocide, it also carries a material and a personal legacy of the Armenians themselves.

I am happy to say that not only in the world of Turkish studies in general, but also among Turkish historians in Turkey the number of those who are genuinely interested in finding the truth and discussing it openly, is increasing constantly. Both the ground breaking conference at Bilgi University in 2005 and the demonstrations following the murder of Hrant Dink in 2007 have been milestones. At the many conferences that have been held at the centenary of the genocide, Turkish scholars have played an important role.

This new openness is a hopeful sign that reconciliation between Turks and Armenians is a possibility. That reconciliation cannot be built on denial, that is obvious, but it also cannot be built on compromise. Compromise is a politician’s tool and it serves to solve current issues, but it has nothing to do with an enquiry into historical truth. People cannot be slightly murdered. Nor can reconciliation be built on the notion, heavily promoted by the current Turkish government, that all those who suffered in the horrible years of the World War I in Turkey should be commemorated together. Many more Germans died in the World War II than Jews (although some of the Germans were Jews and some of the Jews Germans) but Chancellor Merkel would not dream of claiming that these should be remembered equally as victims of their time and circumstances. ‘Respectfully agreeing to disagree,’ a solution proposed by some semi-official spokesmen in Turkey, is no solution either. It implies that recognition and non-recognition of the genocide are morally and academically equivalent positions. They are not.

Acceptance of the historical truth will take time, even though the circle of Turkish historians actively promoting it is increasing. Younger generations of Turks (which means the vast majority of them as this is a young country), having been exposed to nationalist state rhetoric in school, during military service and in the media, are genuinely convinced that the story of the genocide is a lie. Unlike the first generation of the republic they no longer consciously deny a truth they know only too well. Instead, the younger generations of Turks often place the ‘Armenian lies’ in the context of the conspiracy theories that are so prevalent in Turkey – they see them as a weapon used by the West to denigrate and harm the country.

That makes the task of re-educating the Turkish public and opening up the debate huge. But the door has been opened and it cannot be closed. Among Kurdish intellectuals and politicians, too, we see a completely new readiness to discuss the events of 1915 with an open mind, not only in Istanbul and Ankara but also, even primarily, in the southeast.

A broader realisation in Turkey and beyond that genocide is a personal crime, in other words: that persons can be accused and convicted of genocide, but not nations or states, might also make the discussion easier. The current Turkish state and society can rightfully be accused of denying the genocide, but not of the crime itself. Its perpetrators are long dead.

Recognition is important not just for the Armenians, but also for Turkey itself. As Taner Akçam has argued long ago, the genocide needs to be faced if Turkey is to develop into a more relaxed, more democratic, more humanist society. Discussion and recognition can act as a catalyst to remove the blanked of narrow and increasingly religiously tainted nationalism that lies over this society. So, let us hope that the centenary is the opening of a new page in the story of facing the historical truth, in the interest of Turks as well as Armenians.

Professor Erik Jan Zürcher, Turkish Studies, Leiden University

Please cite this publication as follows:

Zürcher, E. (May, 2015), “The Role of Historians of Turkey in the Study of Armenian Genocide”, Vol. IV, Issue 5, pp.12-17, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, Research Turkey. (http://researchturkey.org/?p=8775)

Editor’s Note:

Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (Research Turkey) encourages pluralism and opposing views to be discussed. Anyone who would like to contribute as a response to this article could send their pieces to editor@researchturkey.org. All publications of Research Turkey are peer reviewed. No view in the articles could be considered as the institution’s official views.

Turkish Obsession with Armenian Territorial Demands

May 12, 2015 By administrator

BY HARUT SASSOUNIAN

On the occasion of the Armenian Genocide Centennial, Turkish reporters insistently inquired about Armenia’s territorial claims from Turkey.

In an interview published on April 25, 2015, in the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper, a reporter asked Pres. Serzh Sargsyan if Armenia had territorial demands from Turkey. Below is my translation of Hurriyet’s Turkish text of Pres. Sargsyan’s response:

“Since its independence, the Republic of Armenia has not had any territorial claims from Turkey or any other country. Our government’s foreign policy agenda has not had such an issue, and does not have it today. This is clear. We are a full and responsible member of the international community. As a UN member state, we understand our role in the international community; we respect the principles of international law.… If you pay close attention, Armenia’s demands for land from Turkey are discussed in Turkey, not in Armenia! As to why this is so, I let everyone draw their own conclusions.”

During a meeting with representatives of the Armenian-American community on May 7 in Washington, DC, I asked Pres. Sargsyan to clarify his comments to Hurriyet which were misunderstood or misinterpreted by some Armenians and Turks. The President explained that he had not said that Armenia did not have territorial demands from Turkey. He had simply stated that Armenia did not present such demands, and added: “We have no right to say that we have no territorial demands from Turkey. We also have no right to say that we have such demands.” The President went on to say that “Armenian political parties in the Diaspora are free to present such demands.”

Pres. Sargsyan is clearly indicating that as a head of state, demanding land from Turkey — a powerful and menacing neighbor — could have serious consequences on Armenia’s national security, which is not the case when such claims are made by individuals or organizations.

Earlier that same day, the morning of May 7, during Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, another Turkish journalist asked the same question about Armenian territorial claims from Turkey. Nalbandian gave the same answer as the President: “Armenia has not made territorial claims from Turkey.” He also wondered why is this issue raised in Ankara rather than Yerevan?

Four years ago, on July 23, 2011, Pres. Sargsyan gave a firmer answer when an Armenian student asked him about the eventual return of Mount Ararat and Western Armenia:

“It all depends on you and your generation. I believe my generation fulfilled its task when it was necessary in the early 1990’s to defend a part of our homeland — Karabagh — from enemies. We were able to do that…. My point is that each generation has its own task, and it must be able to carry it out, and carry it out well.”

The Armenian President’s answer created a huge storm of controversy in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Journalists and officials in both countries mounted hysterical attacks on Armenia, accusing Pres. Sargsyan of “urging Armenian youth to occupy Mt. Ararat and Eastern Turkey.” Insulting adjectives were hurled at Pres. Sargsyan by Turkey’s then Prime Minister Erdogan, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, Minister Egemen Bagis, Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, and the Foreign Ministries of both countries. Erdogan even demanded an apology from Armenia’s President. To incite the masses, protests were organized in Turkish cities where photographs of Pres. Sargsyan were burned!

It is understandable why Turkish leaders are so apprehensive when the issue of Armenian territorial demands is raised. Knowing full well that their ancestors eliminated the Armenian population from their native lands, Turkish officials are haunted by the fear that Armenians would reclaim their historic homeland of Western Armenia, today’s Eastern Turkey!

In order to unite Armenians around the same set of demands, I believe we should adopt the slogan — “seeking justice” — which includes all Armenian claims from Turkey as expressed in the Pan-Armenian Declaration of the Armenian Genocide Centennial adopted in Yerevan on January 29, 2015, by the governments of Armenia and Artsakh, and leaders of major Diasporan organizations. Paragraph 6 of that Declaration calls for “restoring individual, communal and pan-Armenian rights and legitimate interests.” Furthermore, the Declaration’s preamble specifically mentions “the dispossession of the Homeland,” the Treaty of Sevres of August 10, 1920, and Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award of Nov. 22, 1920, which granted Armenia a territory several times larger than today’s Armenian Republic.

The Dersim Massacre: Turkish Destruction of the Kurdish People in the Dersim Region

May 12, 2015 By administrator

By Shakhawan Shorash:

Dersim 1937 – victims of Turkish brutal repression

There are many accounts of mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against defenseless minorities committed by state authorities and military forces in the multiethnic states in the twentieth century. Long term ethnic tensions and conflicts during the colonial period and after the end of colonialism continued in many countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. These resulted in mass killings and destruction campaigns committed by the states at different times. Ethnic conflict and the factors behind the conflict make the risk of mass killings and genocide higher and more possible in multiethnic states. Ethnic conflict factors have the ability to promote a genocidal mentality and can result in the crime of genocide when extreme leaders and ideologies take political and military power.

The tension between the oppressed Kurds and the Turks goes back to the nineteen century under the Ottoman Empire and continued after the birth of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. In Turkey, close to the end of the Ottoman Empire, there were many internal, negative factors at play, including legitimacy problems, weak national identity, internal security concerns, demographic changes and bias, the dominance of an ethnic mosaic and multiethnicity inside the country, border problems, discrimination, marginalization, historical injustice, exclusionary ideas and leaders, secession trends, and external concerns. In response to these internal problems, which weakened the Ottoman Empire, some radical nationalist groups emerged. The extant negative factors created a suitable ground for the rise of Turkish radical nationalism, which developed and progressed quickly and created the right circumstances for the elevation of a rigid and intolerant mindset toward non-Turkish minorities. The nationalist political organization Itihad u Teraqi (Committee of Union and Progress) and young Turkish officers and the thinkers, such as Ziya Gokalp the author of The Principles of Turkism, influenced the Turkish society. The nationalist trend focused on the creation of a strong Turkish national state based on Turkish identity.

The extreme nationalist movement, which focused on Turkishness, laid the groundwork for the promotion of genocidal factors, such as dehumanization of the unwanted ethnic groups and rationalization of the ethno-nationalist genocidal aims. Non-Turkish ethnic groups rejected the rigid Turkish nationalist mentality and continued to support the plurality and multiethnicity of the society. However, according to Turkish nationalism, those ethnic groups could not fit into a national Turkish state, as they constituted a serious problem for Turkish national identity and were a real threat to Turkish unity and sovereignty. Therefore, they were unwanted, and Turkish nationalism legitimized the ultimate solution—the cleansing of Turkish society of the impure ethnic elements via expulsion, assimilation, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. The unwanted ethnic groups were the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds, Qizikbash, and other small ethnic groups.

When the radical nationalist group took control and had authority over the military power and resources, the realization of ethnic cleansing and genocidal aims became likely. This nationalist government of The Young Turks, wiped the Armenians out in an organized and systematic destruction campaign in 1915. Nevertheless, the genocide of the Armenians was not the last destruction campaign committed by Turkish ethno-nationalist leaders. In fact, Turkish nationalists cleansed the country of non-Muslim ethnic groups of Greeks, Assyrians, Qzilbash (Shia-Muslims), and Ezidi Kurds.

In 1923 Mustafa Kamal, the founder of the new Turkey, took power as the first Turkish president of the Republic of Turkey. He too was an extreme nationalist, inspired by the Young Turks and nationalist thinkers. Like the other nationalist officers, he believed in a pure Turkish ethnic state. He and three other officers established the political organization called Motherland and Freedom in 1905, and, in 1908, he was among the first members of the nationalist organization of Itihad u Teraqi. Thus, the extreme nationalist wave continued its power after the birth of the new Turkey.

Turkish leaders had another policy concerning the Kurds in general and the Alevi Kurds of Dersim in particular. Turkish leaders, especially Mustafa Kamal, used the loyal Kurds in the independence wars against the Greeks and the Armenians in exchange for political rights (Beshikchi, p. 3). Mustafa Kamal was aware of Kurdish separatist tendencies and this policy aimed at weakening the Kurdish resistance. Mustafa Kamal stressed Kurdish-Turkish unity and regarded the Kurds as brothers and the Turks and Kurds as an undivided people. In September 1919, he stated: “Turks and Kurds will continue to live together as brothers around the institution of khilafa, and an unshakable iron tower will be raised against internal and external enemies.” When the Ankara authority under the leadership of Mustafa Kamal became stronger in 1921, he removed the Kurds in his statement:

Source: kurdistantribune

BBC: Libya conflict: Turkish ship ‘bombed near Tobruk’

May 11, 2015 By administrator

A Turkish freighter has been attacked near the coast of Libya, leaving one crew member dead, Turkey’s foreign ministry has said.

The ship came under artillery and aerial fire near the eastern port of Tobruk late on Sunday, the ministry said. Several crew members were hurt.

Turkey criticised what it called an “atrocious” act.

But Libya said it had issued warnings about not approaching parts of the coastline.

Libya has been in chaos since its long-time leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, was overthrown with Western military help in 2011.

The internationally-recognised government is based in the port city of Tobruk and in al-Bayda, having been expelled from the capital, Tripoli, by militias in 2014.

Turkey’s foreign ministry said the ship, which was carrying gypsum from Spain to Libya, came under attack 13 nautical miles (24km) from Tobruk, its destination.

The Turkish third captain was killed.

But a spokesman for forces belonging to the Tobruk government said it was destined for Derna, a port city 106 miles (171km) further west.

“A ship was shelled about 10 miles from Derna coast. We have warned before about approaching Derna port,” Mohamed Hejazi told Reuters news agency.

Turkey said the Cook Islands-registered ship was in international waters when it was attacked, something Libya denies.

In January, Libyan air force jets bombed a Greek oil tanker, killing two crew members, after saying its movements in Derna had raised suspicions.

Reports say no tankers unloaded in Derna between the bombing and two weeks ago, when a Maltese-flagged ship docked there.

Islamist militias have established a strong presence over the last two years, and some militants have pledged of allegiance to the Islamic State militant group.

One day you are CIA director next day you’r Turkish government Lobbies Ex. CIA director Porter Goss hired

May 10, 2015 By administrator

Former CIA Director Porter Goss, now Turkish GOV. lobbyist.

The Turkish government has hired former CIA Director Porter Goss for lobbying activities, according to a form filed with the US Department of Justice that was published online.

The form, filed pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, was published on Friday by The Intercept, an online publication that focuses on reporting on the documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

Goss, who served as the CIA director from 2004 to 2006 under the George W. Bush administration, registered through his new employer, Dickstein Shapiro, a law firm which The Intercept said has a long standing relationship with the Turkish government.

According to the form, Goss will “provide counsel in connection with the extension arid strengthening of the Turkish-American relationship in a number of key areas that are the subject of debate in Congress, including trade, energy security, counter-terrorism efforts and efforts to build regionalstability in the broader Middle East and Europe; educate Members of Congress and the Administration on issues of importance to Turkey; notify Turkey of any action in Congress or the Executive Branch on issues of importance to Turkey; and prepare analyses of developments in Congress and the Executive Branch on issues of importance to Turkey.”

The form, dated April 23, indicates that Goss’ services will continue indefinitely.

The Intercept report called Goss’ decision to work for the Turkish government as an “odd choice” for the ex-CIA director, who once declared “there is no viable alternative to freedom – only freedom offers men and women the opportunity to reach their full potential,” given the poor press freedom record of the Turkish government, which “has arrested dozens of journalists, has violently suppressed peaceful protests and has censored social media.”

Voice of America: Serious rift is developing between Russia and Turkey

May 9, 2015 By administrator

Article by Dorian Jones, published on the website of Voice of America:

A few months ago, bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia were on the upswing, buoyed by a close bond between their two presidents. Now, there is speculation that a serious rift is developing between the two countries, although powerful economic ties remain a unifying force. Fueling the speculation was President Vladimir Putin’s backing of Armenia’s genocide claims against Turkey, along with Ankara’s refusal to attend Moscow’s World War II commemorations and intensifying rhetoric by both sides.

Semih Idiz, diplomatic columnist for Turkey’s Taraf newspaper and the Al Monitor website, said there has been a remarkable reversal in bilateral relations.
“Until quite recently they were shown as exemplary relations,” he said. “But they seemed to have hit rock bottom at the moment. And the best indication of that is Mr. Erdogan refusing to go to the May victory celebrations in Moscow. This whole impression that somehow Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Putin are bosom buddies — I think that has been shattered at the moment.”

In December, Ankara gave Putin a full state welcome, during which the Russian president described Turkey as a strategic partner. During that visit, Putin canceled a natural gas pipeline running through Bulgaria to Europe and announced plans to build a new pipeline through Turkey called “Turkish Stream.”

Volkan Ozdemir, an analyst for the Ankara-based Institute for Energy Markets and Policies, said such projects, along with wider trade, will be safe from the rising bilateral tensions. “I don’t see any relation between these political tensions and natural gas pipeline projects or deals including Turkish Stream,” he said. “A Turkish and Russian bilateral relation is based on mutual economy interests, not strategic alliance. Russia is the first partner of Turkish imports and on the other hand, Russia serves as a big market for Turkish goods.”

Soli Ozel, an International relations expert at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University, said Ankara’s latest spat with Moscow has exposed the unbalanced nature of the relationship. “The Russians have not been at all forthcoming in terms of respecting where Turkey has interests,” said Ozel. “So I don’t see the Russians being particularly careful about not upsetting, offending or whatever the Turks, whereas the Turks have been usually pretty careful. This is, in my judgment, a relation of unequals.”

Turkey Busy recalling ambassadors, while Armenia busy getting more countries Recognizing Armenian, Genocide Luxembourg

May 8, 2015 By administrator

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry recalled ambassador from Luxembourg after the country’s parliament adopted a resolution to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Thursday condemning the decision by Luxembourg parliament. The Ministry said they had expressed their position during a meeting with Luxembourg Ambassador in Ankara and recalled ambassador Lehent Sahinkaya from Luxembourg

As reported earlier, Armenia welcomed the unanimous adoption of the resolution. “By adopting this resolution, Luxembourg added to the list of the countries, which have recognized the Armenian Genocide, making its important input in the eminent work of preventing new crimes against humanity,” Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said.

Armenia Official Criticizes Turkey for Genocide Denial

May 8, 2015 By administrator

By RICK GLADSTONE MAY 7, 2015 The New York Time

Armenia’s foreign minister criticized Turkey on Thursday over its angry responses to what he called the growing and “irreversible” trend of global acknowledgments that the killings of ethnic Armenians by Ottoman Turks 100 years ago was a genocide.

The minister, Edward Nalbandian, also expressed hope that President Obama, who had described those killings as a genocide before he was elected president, would use that terminology while still in office, which he has not yet done. “Of course if the president uses the G-word it would be a strong and important message,” Mr. Nalbandian said.

An estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed and their property destroyed or confiscated during the period of 1915 to 1923 when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and many survivors and their descendants scattered into a diaspora that has placed Armenian enclaves in more than 100 countries. Some of the biggest Armenian communities are in the United States.

Turkey’s government has expressed condolences to Armenians but has denied that the killings constituted a genocide, arguing that many Ottoman Turks also were killed in that era of war and upheaval. It has responded angrily in recent weeks to declarations by Pope Francis, the European Parliament and others that Turkey should acknowledge the killings as a genocide. The word was invented in the 1940s by a Polish-Jewish jurist, Raphael Lemkin, who said he created it in part because of the Armenian killings.

The latest target of Turkey’s anger was Luxembourg, which on Wednesday adopted a resolution recognizing and condemning the Armenian genocide, becoming at least the 22nd country to do so. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Luxembourg in response, denouncing the resolution as a distortion of history.

Mr. Nalbandian, who has been deeply involved in the centennial events in Armenia and abroad, suggested that it was unlikely that a normalization of relations with Turkey would happen soon, partly because of the unresolved genocide legacy issue. The Turkish-Armenian border is closed, and there is virtually no trade between the countries.

“We are where we are,” he said. “Turkey is just continuing its policy of denial. They are criticizing, but the process of recognizing genocide is irreversible.”

Mr. Nalbandian said he was encouraged that an increasing number of Turks appeared to be questioning their government’s official policy of genocide denial. He also said a Turkey-Armenia reconciliation was necessary.

“We have no other alternative,” he said. “We have to live together, not with a policy of denials, but with joint efforts to turn the dark pages.”

Noubar Afeyan, a prominent American venture capitalist of Armenian descent who is chairman of the national committee that organized the centennial events in Washington, said many members of the post-genocide generation had moved beyond grief, embracing the tenacity of the Armenian diaspora, which now totals 10 million.

“As an Armenian who was born in Lebanon, grew up in Canada and lived in the United States for 35 years, I believe it’s the natural result that Armenians are maturing in relation to this tragedy,” Mr. Afeyan said in a telephone interview. “It’s extending to be not only about crimes and victims, but survivors and their saviors.”