Armenian Genocide Resource Center: Kamer KASIM

Interruption Of The Search Function At Our Site

Armenian Genocide Resolution's Real-World Impact

Turkish Anger At Holocaust Remark

Australian Senator Apologizes To Armenians For Questioning Genocide

Sargsyan: Genocide Happened And No Armenian Doubts It

Halacoglu Reacted Discussions On Opening Of Armenia Border

Interviewee: Professor Of Utah University Hakan Yavuz

Turkish Website Blames Ra President And FM

"We Must Make Use Of The Diversity Of Diaspora: Minister Of Diaspora

Why U.S. President Obama Must Be ‘Cautious Realist’

Erdogan Rejects Immediate Agreement With Armenia

Turkey / Armenian Culture: Tribute Or Plunder?

Mr. Obama And Turkey

White House Press Secretary Questioned On Armenian Genocide

If Obama Recognizes Genocide, Turkey Will Follow His Example

Armenian Citizen At Crossroads

Leave Turkey’s Bid To Join Eu To Us, Sarkozy Warns Obama

Obama's Trip To Ankara Promises To Be A Genuine Meeting Of Minds

Fisk: Will Obama Honour Pledge On Genocide?

Prof Ataöv Speaks To Full Houses In Toronto And Montreal

What You Need To Know About Turkey Mr President

Don’t Trust Every Promise Obama Makes

New Regional Parameters: Possible Outcomes Of Armenian-Turkish Border Opening

Us Congress Should Not Debate Genocide Resolution

Akcam: Obama's Speech To Turkish Parliament Positive And Smart

Obama And Armenian Question

Harshness And Sharpness Of Obama's Speech Was Unexpected

Taner Akçam’s Salary Is Paid By Armenian Organizations

"History Down"

Obama Met With Archbishop Atesyan

Nalbandian Accuses Ankara To Thwart The Normalization Of Relations Between Ankara And Yerevan

You Said Diaspora?

Turkish Intellectuals Reflect On Obama's Visit

More Than 300 European Organizations Urge Obama To Recognize Genocide

Hayk Demoyan: Turkey Has Calculated All Its Steps In Advance

Why Is Obama Paying So Much Attention To Turkey?

How Did Turkish Newspapers Receive Obama?

President Of Turkey: World Needed Obama's Message

Waiting For The Word: What Did Or Didnt President Obama Say In Ankara?

How Obama Became A Smash Hit In The Country That Gives The US Its Lowest Approval Rating

Inventory Of Obama Visit

To Get Turkey Right, Hear What Obama Said

He’s Bright, He’s Charming, He’s Cool, But...

Time For Historic Decision

American Public Did Not Understand This Visit

Us, Turkish, Azeri Leaders Engage In Phone Talks Over Nagorno-Karabakh

Obama Portrays Another Side of U.S.

Obama, Turkey and History

Russia Demands Turkey To Normalize Ties With Armenia

Obama Mesmerizes Turks With Pledges, But Experts Caution On Delivery

Turks Open Homes To Armenian Fans

Laciner: Obama Should Not Neglect Turkish Approach

What Would You Tell Obama?

Rebel Land: Among Turkey's Forgotten Peoples

Baku Sets Own Rules For 3-Way Play

Right Intentions But Wrong Dialect

Will Turkey Miss Its Third Opportunity?

Et Tu Barack? Pravda

Saudi Arabia Not To Establish Diplomatic Relations With Armenia, Until Azerbaijan's Territorial Integrity. .

Taylor: How Obama did in Turkey

Obama's Turkish Successes

Good Education

Terror May Become Idea To Unite World Armenians Again

Obama's Strategy and Summits

" Armenians Under Turks: From Seljuks To `Sahmanatroutyoun'"

Insight: Beyond Obama Magic

We Mustn't Practice Self-Deception In Negotiations With Turkey

Only 20% Of Armenians Favor To Establishment Of Armenia-Turkey Relations

Hemshin Armenians On Big Screen:Interview With Hemshin Armenian Ozcan Alper

Sevres Treaty As Armenian Precondition To Talks With Turkey?

Cost Of Matter: Activization Of Russian Diplomacy In Relations With Azerbaijan & Armenia

Turkey’s Agenda, Condensed

Is Turkey Neglecting Azerbaijan’s Concerns?

U.S. Ambassador To Turkey Answers Questions In Internet Chat

Armenian Assembly Ensures That Searing Eyewitness Account Of Genocide Reaches Congress

Thoughts Near Ararat: Geopolitics As Seen By Borderline Village Residents

Time For Truth: Turkey Reneged But President Obama Must Not

Openings Closed One After Another?

Obama Discredited Neocons' Campaign Against Turkey

World Children To Join Izmir Youth Fest: Armenia Not Attending

Zones Of Resistance Toward Turkish-Armanian Rapprochement I-II

Obama Visit To Turkey:Broader Context

Egoyan'S New Film On April 24

Crisis Group Issues Blueprint For Further Crisis

Soccer Diplomacy And Road Not Taken

Turkish-American Romance

61% Of Armenians Opposed To Establishing Closer Relations With Turkey

Anca Endowment Fund Responds To Crew Allegations

Armenian Question: Snapshot

Armenia Gives Assurances On Border Recognition

ARF :Obama Will Keep His April 24th Promise

Controversy In Greece After Obama's Visit To Turkey

Kamer Kasim: U.S. Should Put Pressure On Armenia

War, Oil & Gas Pipelines: Turkey Is Washington’s Geopolitical Pivot

Sargsyan-Year of Deception

Turkey's Ambassador To Australia Trying To Prevent Recognition Of Armenian Genocide

Obama: World President

Facing History: Denial & Turkish National Security Concept Taner Akcam

‘Dinner With President’: Oral Calislar

TurkishPAC Takes Position on Armenian-Turkish Relations

Pitfalls & Possibilities: Armenian-Turkish Relations Explored

Ethic Cleansing

Arf Vows To Prevent Disrespect Of Turkish Flag On April 24

"Turkey/Armenia: Choices for Obama"

Turkey & Armenia: Opening Minds, Opening Borders

‘Genocide’ Is Matter Of Opinion

Interruption Of The Search Function At Our Site
Dear Friends,

Yesterday there was a major series of fiber-cuts in AT&T's Silicon Valley network. These ten cuts affected search services throughout the day. Search service was restored late yesterday.

The fiber-cuts appear to have been malicious. AT&T is now offering a $100,000 reward.

News coverage, if you're interested, can be found here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10216151-94.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/10/MNP816VTE6.DTL
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=1328166061
http://cbs5.com/crime/phone.internet.outage.2.981720.html

We apologize for any problems this service outage may have caused.

Best regards,
Alan & Jim
FreeFind (Search Provider For Our Site)

The Armenian Genocide Resolution's Real-World Impact Emil Sanamyan, www.worldpoliticsreview.com April 8 2009
Recurring efforts by Armenian-Americans to secure official U.S. condemnation of the Armenian genocide have often been portrayed by opponents as "counterproductive" to U.S.-Turkey, as well as Turkey-Armenia, relations. But the campaign to pass a non-binding congressional resolution has actually helped focus these relations by catalyzing Armenian-Turkish dialogue, advancing democratic debate inside Turkey and, perhaps most counterintuitively, helping navigate the U.S.-Turkish partnership through a troubled stretch.

An Ancient Relationship

Separated by religion and language, for almost a thousand years Armenians and Turks shared one homeland -- a large area known alternately as Eastern Turkey and Western Armenia. It was never a harmonious arrangement. Rather, Ottoman Turks, as overlords, merely tolerated Armenians as a lower caste, so long as they did not threaten the prevailing order.

When Armenians began to demand more equal rights, Ottomans responded with increasingly bloody crackdowns. In 1915, that process culminated in a complete removal of Armenians from their homeland and more than a million deaths.

It is that legacy that lies at the core of today's acrimony.

Armenians seek condemnation of how their ancestors were treated. Many Turks view any such remorse as a concession that could lead to demands of financial and even territorial restitution.

But lobbying campaigns in the U.S. and elsewhere are merely one aspect of this tug-of-war. The other is Turkey's policy towards present-day Armenia: For the past two decades, Turkey has refused to establish diplomatic ties or to open the land border with Armenia.

That policy, born out of efforts to support Azerbaijan in its territorial dispute with Armenia over the breakaway province of Karabakh, has long become a liability for Ankara. Not only has the embargo failed to achieve Armenian compromises, it has emerged as an irritant in relations with the European Union and U.S. Still, owing more to policy inertia more than anything else, it remains in place.

Enter the Armenian genocide resolution.

Every time that recognition efforts in U.S. have intensified, Turkey has launched a fresh round of diplomacy with Armenia. This was the case in 2000 and again in 2004. Most strikingly, it has been the case since the election of U.S. President Barack Obama, who has been more vocal on the Armenian genocide than any of his predecessors.

While Turkey's diplomatic initiatives are intended primarily to stall the embarrassing resolution by painting it as "counterproductive to fruitful negotiations," they also have a secondary effect of rekindling Armenian-Turkish dialogue. That helps smooth tensions and should help to eventually normalize relations.

A Rekindled Debate

The proposed resolutions have had an even more striking impact inside Turkey itself.

A Turkish parliamentarian told a Washington audience in 2007 that, if adopted, a genocide resolution would be headline news for every Turk throughout the country, including shepherds in the remotest mountain pastures.

To understand how a non-binding congressional resolution might have such an exaggerated importance, look no further than the Turkish government. For decades, Ankara has made the issue a foreign policy fetish. The determination to oppose the resolution at any cost has helped publicize what otherwise might have remained an obscure chapter of history, both abroad and in Turkey.

Until relatively recently, many Turks were simply unaware of the Armenian massacres. The issue was left out of school books and largely forgotten.

Enter the Armenian genocide resolution.

The battle over the non-binding resolution brought history back to life in a contemporary Turkey torn between its nationalist, fundamentalist and progressive urges.

Over the last decade, the issue of the Armenian genocide has become a focal point of public debate. Clumsy attempts by the nationalist establishment to ban public discussion of the Armenian genocide have led to a series of lawsuits against journalists and writers, leading to even more publicity.

When a Turkish-Armenian editor who spoke openly about the genocide was killed by nationalists, the outpouring of outrage -- tens of thousands of Turks chanting in the funeral procession, "We are all Armenians" -- was unprecedented and revealed a strong, if often invisible, desire for change.

These days, Turkish television programs regularly host intellectuals arguing about details of 90-year-old history: how many Armenians died, and why, and what should be done about it today.

The genocide resolutions and Turkish government's determination to fight them has rescued this history from obscurity.

A Flailing Alliance

Following Turkey's opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S.-Turkish alliance had become dysfunctional, with the two NATO allies' forces coming close to a direct confrontation in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Among the issues exacerbating relations was Turkey's ongoing battle against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) based in Northern Iraq. While the U.S. had designated the PKK a terrorist group, it had done little to support Turkey in its campaign against the guerilla movement.

Enter the Armenian genocide resolution.

In 2007, the Bush administration worked closely with Turkey and associated interest groups to prevent the genocide resolution from being voted on in the House of Representatives, with President George W. Bush going so far as to personally lobby members of Congress.

The "war on the non-binding resolution" restored a level of trust between Washington and Ankara in ways that the "war on terror" could not.

The Turks began to coordinate their operations in northern Iraq with the U.S., which furnished actionable intelligence on PKK camps in Iraqi Kurdistan. And the Turkish military resumed its orders of U.S.-made weaponry.

History with a Future

On his visit to Turkey this week, President Obama did not use the term genocide. But with a non-binding resolution on Armenian genocide just re-introduced in the House of Representatives, he also confronted the question of Turkish-Armenian relations head on.

At a press conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gul, he implicitly leveraged his position on genocide, which "has not changed," to a positive outcome of Armenia-Turkey talks, "very quickly, very soon."

Significantly, in the same speech to the Turkish parliament in which he outlined a broad blueprint for future U.S.-Turkish engagement, Obama spoke of the need for "each nation to work through its past" and for Turkey to address its Armenian legacy.

Emil Sanamyan is Washington editor and bureau chief for the Armenian Reporter.

Turkish Anger At Holocaust Remark Jamie Walker | April 11, 2009 The Australian
TURKEY has officially complained to Canberra that a state Labor minister tried to lever one of the most sensitive episodes in that country's modern history into votes for the ALP.

What began as a seemingly unremarkable speech by South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson to 40 people at a Greek community function has so angered Ankara that its ambassador to Australia, Murat Ersavci, protested to Foreign Minister Stephen Smith about the "defamation" of his country.

"I feel our relations are too important to be used in these self-serving, petty local politics," Mr Ersavci told The Weekend Australian. The Turks are seething over remarks Mr Atkinson made about the role of one of the country's towering figures, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in the tragedy that engulfed its Pontian or Black Sea Greek minority between 1915 and 1922.

Kemal was the commander who broke the hearts of the Anzacs at Gallipoli and then held out a hand to Australia by declaring its fallen soldiers would forever be sons of Turkey. He is revered in his homeland as the founder of the modern Turkish republic.

After doing the honours at the launch of a plaque commemorating what he called the "genocide" of Pontian Greeks by Turkish nationalists led by Kemal's forces -- a contention flatly rejected by Ankara -- Mr Atkinson poured petrol on the flames by declaring that anyone who disputed this version of history was practising a form of "holocaust denial".

When his account was challenged in federal parliament last month by the Deputy President of the Senate, Alan Ferguson, it was the expatriate Greek community's turn to be outraged. The veteran Liberal senator has since apologised for any offence he might have caused.

Mr Atkinson, seizing on this, had Senator Ferguson's speech to parliament translated into Greek and mailed out to thousands of voters from Greek, Assyrian, Syrian Orthodox and Armenian backgrounds in eight state seats in Adelaide.

Other state Labor MPs followed up with letters urging them to remember Senator Ferguson's speech "supporting the Turkish version of history" at next year's state election.

Mr Atkinson denied that he had used the issue as a political wedge against the state Liberals.

"I have an intellectual interest in this ... if there were no Greeks in my electorate, only Armenians and Turks, I would take the same position," he said.

For the record, Mr Atkinson said he knew of 12 ethnically Turkish constituents in his inner Adelaide seat of Croydon, against some 900 of Greek extraction. There were two Armenians.

The 2006 census found that 365,200 Australians described themselves as being of Greek descent, and 59,400 as Turkish.

Mr Ersavci said he had received "thousands of letters" from Turkish Australians concerned that they could face discrimination because of the "defamation situation" in South Australia.

Referring to Mr Atkinson's speech to the Pontian Brotherhood of South Australia last December, the ambassador said: "He seemed to be completely unaware of what is going on in the world. Politicians should not rewrite history, especially when talking about the Black Sea Greeks."

Mr Ersavci, who will attend Anzac Day commemorations with Mr Smith at Gallipoli in a fortnight, said he had asked the Foreign Minister to look into the Turkish Government's concerns. "He said he would do it," Mr Ersavci said.

Mr Smith's office said he had written to South Australian Premier Mike Rann outlining the federal Government's position "on these historical events" in Turkey at the time the remnants of the once mighty Ottoman Empire gave way to the new republic.

Australia believed "dialogue between the governments and communities of the countries concerned" was best and would not seek to intervene in the historical dispute.

Mr Atkinson said he backed independent research findings, contested by Turkey, that 1.5million ethnic Armenians and 350,000 Pontian Greeks were massacred during and after World War I.

Mr Ersavci said Turkey acknowledged that a "war within a war" had taken place, but not on the scale purported. The toll among Pontian Greeks cited by Mr Atkinson was "simply preposterous".

Sticking to his guns, Mr Atkinson said: "To say that is a non-existent event is equivalent to holocaust denial."

Australian Senator Apologizes To Armenians For Questioning Genocide asbarez.com April 9, 2009
ADELAIDE, Australia--Senator Alan Ferguson has apologized for calling the Armenian and Pontian-Greek Genocides "debatable." In a speech made to the Federal Parliament's upper house two weeks ago, Senator Ferguson brought into question the historical truth of the Armenian and Greek Genocides by stating they "cannot be accurately depicted" today.

The Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia) and leaders of the Greek and Assyrian communities immediately presented objective academic material regarding the Armenian Genocide and demanded that Senator Ferguson apologize for casting doubt over the accuracy of these crimes against humanity, which have been condemned by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

Senator Ferguson subsequently reviewed his position and in his letter of apology, stated that he was "deeply sorry" as his speech was never intended to cause "distress".

It continued: "I accept the findings of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples in relation to the atrocities that were committed against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontian Greeks..."

ANC Australia President, Varant Meguerditchian said the community accepts Senator Ferguson's apology and looks forward to establishing a strong working relationship with him.

"We accept the Senator's remorse as genuine and believe that the Senator now realizes the great impact this crime against humanity has played in the lives of so many descendants of the Armenian and Pontian-Greek Genocides who now consider Australia their home.," said Mr. Meguerditchian.

Serzh Sargsyan: Genocide Happened And No Armenian Doubts It, Panorama.am 10/04/2009
The President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan says it is quite possible that the closed Armenian-Turkish border will be opened. In his interview given to Russian "Vesti", the President answered to the reporter's question regarding the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border: "I think it is possible.

As you know historic facts ties us with the Turkish people. Every Armenian in the world has no doubts regarding the Genocide. Everybody is sure. But the Turkish people and the Turkish authorities reject that fact.

Irrespective of that fact we have taken the initiative and offered them to set diplomatic relations without any conditions, to open the border, and after, to create an inter-state committee to discuss various question. As you know I have invited the President of Turkey Mr. Gul to Yerevan and he has accepted my invitation. We have passed a difficult but much learning path of negotiations and we are getting closer to the finish. I hope that when I leave for Turkey to watch the football match of Armenia-Turkey national teams the border will be also open or it will be the eve of that. If I am not mistaken the football match is dated on 7 October."

Halacoglu Reacted Discussions On Opening Of Armenia Border
"As the reopening of the borders with Armenia is not only Turkey's problem, Azerbaijan can not stand aside.

Diplomatic attempts should be accepted normally," one of the leaders of the struggle against Armenian genocide claims, former chief of Turkish Historical Society, Professor Yusuf Halacoglu told APA's Turkey bureau. He said it was very important to solve the problem through discussions.

"Of course, nobody should expect Turkey to reopen the borders, while Azerbaijani territories are under occupation. It will cause severe reaction of Turkish public. I do not think that the government will do it. Tats why, there is no ground to worry. Azerbaijan should hold discussions on this issue with Turkey. Apart from Azerbaijan and Turkey, the United States is also interested in this issue. In order to establish stability in the region the US wants Armenia to be involved in the agreements signed up to now and has some demands from Turkey. The main thing is – no agreement can be signed, unless the occupied Azerbaijani territories are released and Nagorno Karabakh obtains its previous status," he said.

Yusuf Halacoglu repeated the words he said in Gars a few days ago.

"I repeated there that our borders are our honor. There will be no peace in the region, until Armenia releases the occupied Azerbaijani territories, because in this case everybody will occupy the territory of another country. Basing on this logic, Turkey may also occupy Armenia. So, everybody should respect borders. If we do not admit the so-called genocide, Armenia may slander as much as it wishes. Armenia may not accept our borders, either. Armenia has no power to change out borders. What will happen, if Armenia does not accept our borders, while the whole world accepts? Therefore, Armenia should release the occupied territories. The discussions following it are mush easier," he said.
http://www.historyoftruth.com

Interviewee: Professor Of Utah University Hakan Yavuz
-The relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey are tense as never before since Azerbaijan gained its independence. President Aliyev refused to visit Turkey, even after the phone conversation with Hillary Clinton. Does it mean that we are witnessing the new geopolitical shift in the region?

-For Turkey to become an important country in the Caucasus, Turkey must work together with Azerbaijan. Armenia has only 2.5 million people, Azerbaijan has 8 million people, plus incredible energy resources and economy. It is more important the ethnicity the Turks and Azerbaijanis. They speak in the same language, they belong to the same ethnic roots, there is no way under any condition that Turkey would turn against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is a closest country to Turkey in terms of support, culture. These are the well known facts. But Turkey is under pressure by the USA now. Even Obama during his speech in the Parliament, even during his press conference with Abdullah Gul, he made very clear that he would like to see the border to be opened between Turkey and Armenia. Not only Turkey is under pressure of the U.S., but Turkey is under pressure of the European countries as well. They all want this border be opened. I think that Turkey didn't do a good job and Azerbaijan also didn't do a good job in terms of explaining the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to the international community that this war was created by Armenia and large numbers of Azerbaijanis are refuges, thousands of them were killed by Armenians. In other words, we didn't do a good job both Azeris and Turks to explain the suffering of people in Karabakh issue. That's why somewhat the world's public opinion and specially the European leaders and the American leadership are not fully aware or informed about this conflict.

- How will the reopening of borders influence the image of Turkey in Azerbaijan and other Turkish-speaking countries?

-Turkey did so bad and so wrong that tomorrow no country of the region, including Turkish republics, will accept Turkey seriously. Turkey does all this things because of European and American pressure. It is mean that Turkey is not independent country. It is nothing but puppet of either the USA or EU. In other words, if Turkey will pursue the current foreign policy that would create the problems in the Central Asia and the Caucasus. Turkey is led by wrong people, and the recent elections proved it. You also should take into account that there is a very powerful Armenia lobby inside of Turkey and specially within AKP. But I really think that the public opinion in Turkey very much against this. This will ruin the Turkey image. They already ruined the image of Turkey in the Turkish world.

- What is your judgment of Caucasus Peace and Cooperation Initiative?

-It was a rash decision. It wasn't very well thought. I am very critical of the Turkish foreign policy during the Georgian crisis and I am very critical of current Turkish foreign policy right now that they don't consult and work together with Azerbaijan. You also need to know that not only me, but most of the opposition parties in Turkey also disagree with the policy of Justice and Development Party of Racab Tayyib Ardogan. Their policies in Caucasus are bankrupt. It doesn't work. The relations with Georgia are not good because Turkey didn't support Georgia properly and Turkey had supported Russia, and the same with their policy toward Azerbaijan now. Turkey is shooting itself at the foot. That's why the countries of Caucasus don't trust Turkey as they used to. Turkey have lost Georgia, Turkey is losing Azerbaijan. Having said that, I believe that the border will not be reopened. I think that empty talks before the 24 April.

- What is the attitude of the Turkish society and politicians towards the border reopening issue?

- I have heard that there is a major reaction from the military. That's the military is not very happy with the policy of the government, specially on the border reopening issue and other issues as well. Again, in my understanding the border will not be open. On the border issue the military very and very unhappy. Turkey is getting screwed. Turkey showed that it can't be a reliable country. I am a Turk but unfortunately they are following such stupid path that we have lost the closest state Azerbaijan. What we have in return? What Armenia has to offer to Turkey? 2.5 million hungry people in Armenia where no money and no job. It is not in the national interest of Turkey to reopen the border.
APA / http://www.historyoftruth.com/

Turkish Website Blames Ra President And Foreign Minister By Hakob Chaqrian, AZG DAILY 11-04-2009
The website of Turkish Forum, acting in the USA, wrote yesterday, "After the threats of the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who said, 'We will stop the dialogue with Turkey, if the latter continues to put forward preconditions to normalize relations', similar words were uttered by the Armenian President Serzh Sargsian. He spoke with gratification about Barack Obama's support and mentioned that they were waiting for opening of Armenian-Turkish border, but they were not going to accept any precondition. Serzh Sargsian re-affirmed Armenia's inflexibility not to renounce its insistence on the Armenian Genocide. At the same time, Sargsian said that they would not move off Karabakh. Before it, the Armenian President expressed readiness to wage war for Karabakh in case of need".

"We Must Make Use Of The Diversity Of Diaspora, Tells Armenia's Minister Of Diaspora At The Meeting With Leaders Of Armenian Organizations Of France Noyan Tapan, Apr 10, 2009

Marseilles, April 10, Noyan Tapan, "The Armenians Today". The minister of Diaspora of Armenia met with the leadership of Armenian organizations on April 7 in Lyon. Issues related to the mission, principles, activities and tasks of the ministry of Diaspora were discussed at the meeting. As the Information and public relation department of the ministry of Diaspora reported, H.Hakobian informed, that the concept of developing the Armenia-Diaspora cooperation was elaborated aftercareful examination of the archive of the Diaspora Committee, all activities of Diaspora related departments at all the ministries, all speeches and other materials. A number of individuals, institutions, university chairs, centers and editors of well-known newspapers operating in the Armenian Diaspora were familiarized with the concept. Only after taking into consideration suggestions and remarks, will the concept be submitted for approval to the Government of Armenia. The next question of the discussion was related to the issue of emigration from Armenia. According to the minister H.Hakobian, labor migration is more topical problem in Armenia at the moment rather than the issue of abandoning the motherland. At the same time, Ms. Hakobian stressed, that Armenia can't stand raising a question of gathering Armenians back to the motherland, since two-third of the Armenian people lives out of the Motherland. According to the minister, the problem should be approached from two perspectives: first, millions of Armenians live in the countries bordering Armenia (Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Georgia, etc), where the risk of collision is high and the situation is not stable. Thus, as the minister mentioned, Armenia should be ready to accept and provide with jobs her counterparts in the case of clashes. Second, as the minister characterized, there is an utter necessity to unite around all-national tasks: "We all, together with you, must build such Armenia, that everybody would dream to come and live in. It is impossible to build such Armenia in 17 years. 17 years in the course of history is only an instant. We ask you to invest into Armenia not your resources, but your experience, abilities, knowledge and skills to help her to flourish. Therefore we declare the Diaspora to be our comparative advantage. If it is oil for some, 'Spyurk' is for Armenia. Every Armenian has rights and responsibilities in relation to the motherland," says the minister. According to her, the Armenian nation should unite around all-national goals and move forward. The Diaspora is diverse, 'multilayerad' and with diverse needs: We must make use from that diversity. We don't want all become the same. Remaining different, let's be together", - declared the minister.

Why U.S. President Obama Must Be A ‘Cautious Realist’ Guner Ozkan JTW Columnist Friday, 10 April 2009
Obama was met like a pop star anywhere he went in Europe and Turkey in last several days. There are many credible reasons for this: young, dynamic, kind, black, inspirational, non-unilateralist, and so on. These credentials and characteristics he has and displays are very different from those of his predecessor, G.W. Bush. During his more than two-day visit to Turkey, he said a lot and not much at the same time, just like he did in London, Strasbourg, and Prague, about the challenges the world is confronted with. Someone who was listening to Obama during his visits, and even before during his election campaign, can easily describe him as an idealist. But Obama himself says he is not. He expresses that he is well aware of the difficulties and challenges ahead to resolve piles of problems from Afghanistan, global terrorism, Iraq, and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to environmental issues in a short period of time. He is right, nobody should expect that all these issues can be and will be resolved soon, and also nobody should ask the U.S. to resolve them on its own. He also says that when toughness is required, the U.S. under his leadership will be tough. So, while impacts of Bush’s policies, and most importantly the long term legacy of U.S. foreign policy around the world, are still being vividly felt, Obama cannot be a pure idealist. He has to be a ‘cautious realist’ at best. Mammoth challenges in and about Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the South Caucasus explain why Obama is and has to follow a policy of ‘cautious realism’.

Afghanistan

Just take a look at the enormous challenges Afghanistan has faced for decades: war lords, clan rules, ethnic divisions, religious extremism, opium cultivation, poverty, illiteracy, displaced persons, and external influences. The sheer size and diversity of the problems in Afghanistan are so great that the U.S. has not been and will not be able to resolve them all on its own. In fact, most Americans know this fact, and that is why they elected someone like Obama as their President, an advocate of cooperation and multilateralism for common challenges. But will Obama get that much needed help from those states he and previous U.S. governments called as their allies. Hardly likely so. Everyone knows that Afghanistan needs two things at the same time: a huge economic, social, and educational development programme and a well trained military force. It is because the development programme is needed for long term salvation of the country, and the second is necessary for the protection of accomplished improvements. These two necessities must be applied for at least a generation-long period of time if success is really wanted. The U.S. allies have committed neither enough financial assistance nor essential military force to Afghanistan during either the G20 Meeting in London or in the NATO Summit in Strasbourg. The G20 gathering dealt more with how to resolve the global financial crisis and the NATO Summit produced just five thousand more troops from various allies of the U.S. only for providing security for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan. An Afghanistan without a substantial development strategy cannot be stable no matter how many soldiers are deployed in the country and how many times suspected Al Qaeda houses and members are bombed by the U.S. in northern Pakistan.

So, the new U.S. government has to increase pressure on its rich allies to devote more capital, manpower, and energy to the development and security of Afghanistan. For sure this must include Pakistan, too, as it has now become a major safe haven for Al Qaeda and its sympathisers. Other immediate neighbours of Afghanistan, namely China, Iran, and the Central Asian Republics, have to be convinced that the U.S. is in Afghanistan just for security and stability there, not for any other objectives. Just like the U.S. has, they have seen Al-Qaeda and instability in Afghanistan as one of the most important threats against their security. Yet, convincing those states to help the U.S., at least with the logistic supply or joint operations in development and security issues, still requires diplomatic and practical, honest policy applications and changes on the ground in their relationships with Washington. Without accomplishing any ease of tension between Washington, Moscow, and Tehran on other bilateral issues, such as Missile defence systems in Eastern Europe and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the U.S. cannot get any genuine support for Afghanistan from Iran and the Central Asian states, which are still in Russia’s orbit. Obama has indeed been trying to realise the abovementioned policies. He is trying to open up a new chapter with Russia by sorting out the issue of missile defence shield in Czech Republic and Poland, and calling for a further reduction in nuclear weapons. In the case of Iran, apparently the most difficult one, he has again called for cooperation over Afghanistan. While in an international arena where mistrust is still rampant, mainly thanks to G.W. Bush, there is no room for idealism at least for now. Being aware of this, though in the initial period Obama’s appeal to the world on Afghanistan appears idealistic, it will soon turn into a ‘cautious realism’ and perhaps farther on into a pure realism.

Middle East

The Middle East impasse, particularly the Arab-Israel conflict, though this is, one way or another, connected with Afghanistan, has remained ‘the mother of all conflicts’ in front of the world and Obama. The motto of ‘unclench your fist’ and his visit to Turkey were positive steps taken in the right direction by Obama. But, these words and visits should not be left just as mere rhetoric, and so have to be supported by concrete policy actions on the ground. These steps should be taken first by the U.S. as it is occupying the strongest and most influential positions in the developments in the Middle East. Turkey can and should continue to be an intermediary between Syria and Israel and Iran and the U.S., but its being an interlocutor cannot produce any success if the U.S. government continues to remain indifferent to the plight of Palestinian people. So long as the U.S. policy towards Israel continues as ‘business as usual’, and while Palestinians are still being killed, it is highly unlikely that people in the Middle East will unclench their fist. Nor will Iran, especially on the nuclear issue, ever be convinced of the honesty and idealism that the new U.S. administration has put on display.

Obama’s conviction is true that a nuclear Iran will likely lead a number of Middle Eastern states to rush to obtain nuclear weapons for their security urge. From Obama’s viewpoint such a development is unacceptable, as it carries the likely danger of using those devices in a highly unstable Middle East. So, there are not too many options really. As the sanctions did not work, the option of bombing Iran was considered by Bush and is still on the table for Israel. The other and the last and best option is the honest engagement of the U.S. in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states. This has to include the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in the pre-1967 war borders. A Palestinian state falling short of this requirement will neither provide viability nor appease people in the Middle East nor end conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan nor root out cells of Al-Qaeda around the world. The appointment of George Mitchell, the peace-broker in the Northern Ireland conflict, as the special envoy for the Middle East may be considered a good start. But one should not forget the fact that the Northern Ireland issue is different from the Arab-Israeli conflict, for while it is a more balanced dispute between Catholic and Protestant Irish people only on religious and territorial grounds, the latter conflict concerns the continuous territorial expansion of Israel at the expense of Arabs and Palestinians on an ethnic ground and non-stop humiliation of the Muslim World on the religious ground. It is now much more difficult to obtain peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict, since Israel is governed by an unbending and robust new government led by Netanyahu. Thus, Obama’s appeal to the Muslim World during his visit to Turkey is a kind gesture and was surely warmly welcomed by many in Turkey and the rest of the Muslim World. Obama’s wish to see a peaceful Middle East and his ideas to bring the conflicting sides together seem to have a chance of success only if he gets equal warmth from a similar appeal to be made to the Israeli people and pro-Israeli lobbies in the U.S.

South Caucasus

Regarding the South Caucasus, Obama appears to have mainly urged the Turkish side to open its border with Armenia. Armenian isolation and its economic and military dependency on Russia have been partly contributed to by the Turkish embargo of closing the border and denying the establishment of diplomatic relations with Yerevan. But it was Armenia’s own choice from the very beginning, in the early 1990s, and even before the dissolution of the USSR, that leaning on Russia was the most secure policy in the region against not just Turkey but Azerbaijan, too. Regarding Turkey’s regional greatness in terms of its size, economy, and military power, it may be thought that Ankara can accommodate unilateral compromises to be made towards Armenia on the border, diplomatic, and so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ issues. Doing so without any compromise on the Nagorno Karabakh dispute by the Armenian side will cause huge disappointment in Azerbaijan with a possible consequence of delaying, if not totally abrogating, the NABUCCO project. It is also hugely difficult for the Turkish government to have the Turkish public opinion absorb any compromise to be given to Armenian side without getting any progress or guarantees on Armenia’s resistance to recognise Turkish borders, Diaspora Armenians’ insistence on the recognition of the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ and the Nagorno Karabakh issue.

The U.S. policy in the South Caucasus, as Obama implied during his visit, will likely be similar to that of the Clinton Administration, which was based on including Russia and expecting intra-regional disputes to be resolved among themselves with some external encouragements when and if necessary. After Georgia lost the August 2008 war against Russia and during the still ongoing war of words between Saakashvili and Russian leaders, new energy pipelines via Tbilisi have become harder to work on. Against the odds, Russia-Turkey relations have become even stronger following the Georgian crisis. A solution to the NK problem would then boost the restart of the energy cooperation in the region, but again, on the condition of satisfaction of the Azerbaijani side. The participation of Georgia in this new cooperative effort will possibly be delayed until after the replacement of Saakashvili with another, but much more balanced and cautious, pro-Western government. The upcoming demonstration of the united opposition against Saakashvili will likely decide whether Georgia’s return to regional cooperation is going to be sooner or later.

In the end, challenges of the world are so many and too much complicated and bigger that even the U.S. cannot sort them out alone. The Obama government has, in fact, had no such claim of resolving things on its own as being either a financial and political supplier or world cop. Obama as the leader of the most powerful state can, as he himself often stresses, encourages the hesitant ones and opens the way for others to facilitate further cooperation among themselves. Obama is and has to be an optimist and obviously appears to be an idealist for many. But, the legacy of Bush has left such a world that being an idealist for the U.S. in these days cannot bring any good for peace, security and prosperity in the world. There are areas in which the U.S. will have to follow realist policies and other areas in which it will seem to be pursuing an idealist approach. Overall, Obama will be a ‘cautious realist’, and his foreign policy will sooner or later reflect that. In either case Obama, during his visit, asked Turkey to be part of it as the U.S.’s ‘model partner’. Can Turkey and the U.S. manage to develop and enrich this new relationship as a real ‘model’ for the rest of the Middle East and the world? Yes, they can, so long as the U.S. pursues a bit of constructive foreign policy beginning first as an honest peace broker in the Middle East.

* Guner Ozkan is a lecturer at Muğla University and an expert on the Caucasus at the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (USAK). 10 April 2009

Erdogan Rejects An Immediate Agreement With Armenia 4 April 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
Before the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama, the Turkish Prime Minister said Friday that his country had taken steps to improve relations with Armenia.

Invited to speak at Chatham House in London on the theme of "the global economic crisis and Turkey," Prime Minister Erdogan said that his country through the global financial crisis in a better position than most European countries through its banking and financial policy strictly. He also reflected on the recent elections in Turkey. Concerning regional policy of Turkey he said "peace, reconciliation and dialogue" is the important part of the policy of Turkey.

During the session of questions and answers that a member of the audience (in Iraq) has long posed a question on "the relations of Turkey with its neighbors: Iraq, Iran and Syria and its perspectives on a independent Kurdistan in the north ", the moderator said laughing" You could also add Armenia to question this long. " About eight questions were asked and then the Prime Minister has responded to his liking.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan was then started by the relations between Turkey and Armenia. He began by saying: "We do not accuse a nation or another country of having committed genocide" and continued "the Armenian diaspora accuses us of genocide. This is not something we can accept. For Turkey, it is impossible to accept something that does not exist. I wrote to President Kocharian to establish a commission and let the historians consider the alleged genocide and prepare a report .... But he never responded to my call. Now there is a positive process. "

He then referred to the diplomacy of football and he met Armenian President in Davos.

He added that "until the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is not resolved, it is not possible for us to reach a healthy solution for Armenia, we can not advance a comprehensive". He added "we're talking to Azerbaijan, Armenia and the countries co-chair of the Minsk Group to expedite the process." He said that without resolving the issue of Karabakh would not be possible to reach the Turkish proposal of a Platform for Stability and Cooperation in the Caucasus.

Turkey / Armenian Culture: Tribute Or Plunder? 3 April 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
www.collectifvan.org - Lao Zart, the singing of Armenian partisans fighting against the oppression of the Turkish sultan in the nineteenth century, is listed as song of the resistance group of Turkish musicians Yorum. Yorum The group was formed in Turkey to be the voice of the earth and the peoples of Anatolia, where the group was born. It is therefore very likely that the musicians Yorum know the origin and meaning of Lao Zart and its importance to the Armenian people, dispersed around the world since the 1915 genocide. So, the recovery of this song symbolism can be seen as a tribute to Armenian people removed from their ancestral lands, or the shameless looting - one more - a cultural heritage left by force of circumstance?

When Yorum gives LA, it's not IF IF FA understand ...

Zart Lao is the singing of Armenian partisans fighting against the oppression of the Turkish sultan in the nineteenth century. It means "Wake up my child!" In the dialect of the inhabitants of flies and calls for resistance against the Sultan (Abdul Hamid likely in the years 1894/96) as follows "The Sultan wants to exterminate us, wake up my child! I die for you ".

This song is taken Armenian - having been 'stripped' of its original lyrics - like songs of resistance by Turkish musicians Yorum group, who is said to close the revolutionary circles in Turkey. Yorum sing the victory of the people and the revolt against oppression.

Zart Lao Turkish by the group Yorum

Translation of the Turkish song:
"We hammer the anvil iron is hot for the fight We come in waves Behind the barricade: the motherland
There are arms to fight, there is momentum to spend, there are fronts to fight The victory is coming soon
There are lives to give brothers are standing sacrificing our lives for our people's victory is coming soon "

To read it, it seems more nationalistic than revolutionary ...

Yet Yorum was created in 1985 in Istanbul by university students in order to react to the military coup of 1980 and measures to depoliticize and oppression that have been imposed 'Peoples' of Turkey.

Several members of the group Yorum were tortured on numerous occasions and sentenced to many years imprisonment.

Le chant des partisans Armenian, Lao Zart, was in the 19th century, the term of the Armenian people's revolt against the oppression of the Sultan. Nothing has changed except the people oppressed ... A century ago, it was the Armenians, now it is the Kurds: the movement in which bathes the group Yorum is very close to the struggle of the Kurds.

Yorum was formed to be the voice of the earth and the peoples of Anatolia, where the group was born.

It is therefore very likely that the musicians Yorum know the origin and meaning of Lao Zart. And its symbolic importance for the Armenian people, dispersed around the world since the genocide that has pulled its ancestral lands.

So Zart Lao Turkish, is it a tribute to the Armenian people, wiped out two-thirds in 1915, and thus diverted from a redo sing Armenian resistance robbed on his land? Or the simple recovery of a popular heritage left fallow?

Can you remember the first case by reading the profession of faith group Yorum online on its site? "Yorum is the voice of Turks, Kurds, Cherkes, Georgians, Lazes, Arabs ... ie of all the peoples living on the lands of Anatolia. "

All? It is hard to understand that a leftist group that participates in the struggle for the right to practice the language banned in Turkey, forgetting in his accounts, the grim reality: 1 500 000 Armenians, 500 000 Chaldean-Assyrian-Syriac and 350 000 Greeks were methodically exterminated in 1915 ...

Hrant Dink, a man of the left if any, said: "The Turks have become revolutionary class [missed their shift] on the Armenian question."

Unfortunately, even the most leftist of them convey racist stereotypes and discriminatory: "The Armenian is friqué, bourgeois imperialism, artisan, merchant. The Armenian can be neither peasant nor proletarian" (which proves total ignorance of the history of Anatolia). And these 'leftists' are, in most cases, openly negationist.

It trusts that the veil of amnesia was lifted for musicians Yorum since this video was posted on YouTube (October 26 2007: less than one year after the assassination of Hrant Dink) and that this Armenian song has since regained its original colors. It is hoped that this' wave of compassion 'to the' sufferings of the Armenians', wave, waving Turkish certain intellectual circles, they have achieved.

If so far Zart Lao continues to be plagiarized, we should like to ask our friends Yorum - first group convicted for courageously sung on stage and the first Kurdish group to sing in Arabic and Cherkessia -- to revive the Armenian Anatolia: Lao Zart they sing in Armenian. They put their obvious talent in the service of a just cause, they make it to the Armenian people some of its identity destroyed.

Yorum that pushes its revolutionary spirit to say no to looting and cultural genocide.

Zart Lao!

When Yorum gives LA, it's not IF IF FA understand ...

The site of the group Yorum: http://www.grupyorum.net/fr/extended.php? H_article_id = 3 & = & h_tarih

Words of Lao Zart (Khoujan asker) in Armenian

Khoujan asker zork é hanel Yeguas mecho tachdné badel Soultan Gouzé tchentchèl mezi Zart Lao mèrnim kézi
Inch anidzem Tourki askérin Vor esbanets tchoch Apoyin Wednesday togheter ororotsin Zart Houy Lao mernim kézi
Khekhdj mechetsin Merav lalov ODARA yerguirnèr man galov Merav Tourki hargu dalov Zart Lao mèrnim kézi
Turkish Lyrics: Orse çekici vuruyoruz kyzgyn demir tavyndadyr dalga dalga geliyoruz barikatyn Ardy vatandyr
Bilek vuru?maya Soluk var var var harcanmaya Cephie sava?maya Zafer yakynda
var verilecek can karde? var ayakta halkymyza can FEDA Zafer yakynda

Mr. Obama And Turkey New York Times April 4 2009
President Obama has wisely decided to visit Turkey during his first official trip to Europe. The United States needs Turkey's cooperation -- in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as with Iran and efforts to broker Middle East peace. But there are also very worrying trends in Turkey's relationship with Europe and its internal politics.

Mr. Obama must do all he can to help reverse those trends and anchor Turkey more firmly in the West.

The Justice and Development Party scored an impressive re-election in 2007 after pursuing market-oriented policies that brought economic growth and more trade ties with the European Union. That conservative Muslim party also expanded human rights and brought Turkish law closer to European standards.

Those reforms have since stalled -- partly because of opposition from civilian nationalists and generals who still wield too much clout. (The trial of 86 people accused of plotting a military coup is a reminder of the dark side of Turkish politics.) But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also seems to have lost enthusiasm for the European Union bid and the reforms that are the price of admission. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has been especially unhelpful, making clear that he will do all he can to keep Turkey out of the European Union. Mr. Obama must persuade Mr. Sarkozy and others that admitting Turkey -- a Muslim democracy -- is in everyone's interest. And he must persuade Ankara that the required reforms will strengthen Turkey's democracy and provide more stability and growth.

We are concerned about Mr. Erdogan's increasingly autocratic tendencies. His government's decision to slap the media mogul Aydin Dogan with a $500 million tax bill smacks of retaliation against an independent press that has successfully exposed government corruption. Ankara's willingness to help rebuild schools in Afghanistan is welcome. But the situation there is dire, and NATO also needs more troops and needs access to Turkish military bases to facilitate the transport of American soldiers and equipment into Afghanistan and out of Iraq.

Ankara has played a positive role, mediating indirect talks between Israel and Syria. With Washington's encouragement, Mr. Erdogan could also use his relationships with Iran, Sudan and Hamas to encourage improved behavior.

Turkey's cooperation with Iraqi Kurds has vastly improved. There are also reports that Turkey and Armenia may soon normalize relations.

We have long criticized Turkey for its self-destructive denial of the World War I era mass killing of Armenians. But while Congress is again contemplating a resolution denouncing the genocide, it would do a lot more good for both Armenia and Turkey if it held back. Mr. Obama, who vowed in the presidential campaign to recognize the event as genocide, should also forbear.

The Bush administration's disastrous war in Iraq fanned a destructive anti-Americanism in Turkey. Mr. Obama's visit is likely to soothe hostile feelings. But he must go beyond that to secure a relationship with an important ally and an important democracy in danger of backsliding.

White House Press Secretary Questioned On Armenian Genocide hairenik.com April 3, 2009
WASHINGTON (A.W.)-On April 3, during a news briefing aboard Air Force One on route to France, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned on President Obama's position regarding the Armenian Genocide by the White House press pool.

Asked whether the President still believes that "the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians," Gibbs said, "We'll get into that I think later on." He was then asked, "During this trip?" And he replied, "I'll leave that for-I can't give away everything in one gaggle, for goodness sakes."

On April 5, U.S. President Barack Obama will arrive in Turkey, making it the first Muslim country he visits after taking office. Analysts say his trip will aim at strengthening ties with Ankara, and point to the issue of the Armenian Genocide as possibly the most challenging for the president to deal with during his talks with Turkish officials.

The Armenian Weekly with provide in-depth coverage of Obama's visit to Turkey.

If Obama Recognizes The Armenian Genocide, Turkey Will Follow His Example 03.04.2009
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "US hasn't yet recognized the Genocide, but 35 other states have already done that," world known chansonnier Charles Aznavour stated.

"Now we are waiting that maybe Mr. Obama will have the good idea to recognize the Genocide and after that Turkey, I think, will follow his example. About the Israel, well, they usually want to be known as the only country who suffered the massacres," HAYINFO cited Aznavour as saying.

During his election campaign the 44th President of The United States Barak Obama pledged that, as president, he will recognize Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915 as the Armenian Genocide.

House Resolution 252 affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide is currently co-sponsored by 88 congressmen.

Armenian Citizen At The Crossroads
ISTANBUL - The emotional dilemmas of an Armenian citizen living in Istanbul have become the subject of a book by Bercuhi Berberyan. The character is not regarded as a citizen in the place where she lives, Turkey, and doesn’t feel herself in Armenia, which is said to be her country

Bercuhi Berberyan's story is the story of an Armenian citizen living in Istanbul, who felt "lost" in Armenia. Her novel expresses her experiences in Armenia and the exclusion she has felt in Turkey and as a visitor to Armenia.

In addition to a novelist, Berberyan is a painter, theater actress and a writer working for daily Agos.

She was born in Istanbul but her roots are in Anatolia. Despite her good economic conditions, she has never thought of leaving Turkey for another country as a tourist. "Whenever the idea of travel occurs, I suffered pains in my stomach," she said. Despite those feelings, one day she had to go to Armenia. "I was dragging my feet," she said. She visited Armenia first in 2006 with a group of 16 people from high school.

’I am not a citizen in my homeland’

Berberyan’s visit took 10 days. She expressed her feelings in a book, saying, "Turkey’s Armenians are foreigners in Armenia. I am not regarded as a citizen in my own homeland Turkey, and I don’t feel myself in my homeland in Armenia, which is told to be my country."

Berberyan’s book titled "A Turk in Armenia" was recently released by Metis publishing house. Speaking to Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review, Berberyan talked about Istanbul’s Armenians and diaspora.

"My family experienced the incidents of 1915 but we have never been hateful. As different from diaspora, we continue living on this land. Everyone asks me why I came here; they ask if my country is Armenia or not. These questions hurt me," she said.

Berberyan said the situation was not much different from Turkey, and that people had prejudices against Istanbul’s Armenians. "The people of Armenia do not accept us as Armenians. According to some, we are ’sold’ because we are living together with Turks. And according to some, we are either ’heroes’ or ’victims.’ An eastern Armenian language is spoken in Armenia. Western Armenian is mainly spoken in Istanbul. There is dialectical difference between the eastern and the western Armenian, that’s why there might be difficulties in communication," said Berberyan.

Berberyan said she had difficulty in understanding the language in Armenia. "They did not even put forth an effort to understand us. I felt myself lost in a place that I did not know. Also, an unidentified smell was following me and driving me crazy," she said.

Berberyan said the smell annoyed her until she left Armenia. "The smell stopped following me only when I returned to Istanbul."

Letting the dove fly away

Berberyan said she was not planning to write a book on her Armenia impressions. "I was in front of an historical church and a beggar with a dove in his hand came by me and said ’give me some money and I will let the dove fly for your luck.’ As I handed the money to him he threw it like his hand burned and shouted saying ’you are a Turk,’ because I unwittingly gave him Turkish money. There was much hatred in his eyes," she said.

Berberyan said she angrily walked to the entrance of the church and, changing her mind, she held the beggar’s arm and told him to give the dove to her. "He was confused. I loved and kissed the dove for a few minutes and gave it back to him saying ’take it and let it fly if you want.’ Her eyes were full of tears and said ’whoever or whatever you are, I will let this dove fly for your beautiful heart.’"
© Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

Leave Turkey’s Bid To Join Eu To Us, Nicolas Sarkozy Warns Barack Obama
Turkish protestors shout slogans and hold banners reading "Obama go home" during a demonstration against upcoming visit of US President Barack Obama in Turkey on April 5, 2009, David Charter in Prague

The love-in between Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama proved short-lived after the French President warned his US counterpart yesterday to keep his nose out of the issue of Turkey’s membership of the European Union.

President Obama used his first EU-US summit, on the eve of his visit to Turkey, to encourage European leaders to embrace the Muslim country and “anchor it in Europe”. However, Mr Sarkozy, a long-standing opponent of full membership for Turkey, rebuffed the US leader in language that seemed to sour the revival of Franco-US relations.

Support for Turkey in joining the EU, a process that it began formally in 2005 and hopes to complete before 2020, has long been an American foreign policy goal.

Mr Obama, who flew to Turkey last night, clearly wanted to leave on a positive note. He told EU leaders: “The United States and Europe must approach Muslims as our friends, neighbours and partners in fighting injustice, intolerance and violence.

“Moving forward towards Turkish membership in the EU would be an important signal of your commitment to this agenda and ensure that we continue to anchor Turkey firmly in Europe.”

Mr Sarkozy, who has talked of offering Turkey a privileged partnership rather than membership, did not wait to hit back. “I have been working hand in hand with President Obama but when it comes to the European Union it is up to member states of the European Union to decide [on membership],” Mr Sarkozy said in an interview on French television. “I have always been opposed to this entry and I remain opposed,” he added.

His comments laid bare the continuing EU split over Turkish membership, with France and Austria openly opposed and deep reservations in Germany and the Netherlands. Turkey would become the most populous EU country and Germany in particular is said to have concerns about the shift in power that this would cause, with the largest number of MEPs coming from Turkey, along with strong voting rights in European Council decisions.

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, sought to paper over the cracks as he welcomed Mr Obama’s comments. “We have started a process of negotiations with Turkey for membership of the European Union and that was a unanimous decision of the European Union, all 27 member states,” Mr Barroso said.

“Of course we have to go on with the negotiations and at the end, we have to see if Turkey is ready to join and if the European Union is ready to integrate Turkey.”

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, reiterated his country’s desire to join the EU when he visited Brussels this year.

Olli Rehn, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, called last week on Turkey to renew its focus on reforms to meet Union entry criteria for democracy and workers’ rights. “The pace of negotiations depends on the pace and intensity of the reforms in your country,” he said.

The Turkish press said yesterday that the country had secured concessions for dropping its objections to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, becoming the next Nato Secretary-General.

Ankara had argued that Mr Rasmussen was not suitable because he did not offer an apology for cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper in 2005, which led to violent demonstations across the Muslim world. Turkey expects to secure several key Nato posts, including that of assistant secretary-general.

Mr Rasmussen insisted in the Danish media yesterday that he had not sacrificed his defence of freedom of expression in order to secure Turkey’s support of his nomination.

Turkey also objected to the hosting by a Danish satellite of a Kurdish television channel that is regarded by Ankara as a mouthpiece of the outlawed PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Speaking to the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Mr Rasmussen added: “If it can be proven that Roj TV is participating in terrorist activities, then we will do what we can to close the television station . . . within the framework of what Danish legislation allows.”

Obama's Trip To Ankara Promises To Be A Genuine Meeting Of Minds By Grenville Byford | Newsweek Apr 4, 2009
The Bush administration spent years trying to isolate people the Turkish government thought should be engaged—Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, to name a few. The Obama administration broadly endorses engagement. Turkish-American relations are therefore about to change from being good despite fundamental disagreement to being a genuine meeting of minds. Some people in Washington have been screaming that Turkey's increasingly good relations with the countries in its neighborhood means it is "turning away from the West." Apparently they view international relations as a form of monogamy in which it's evidently dangerous to go out on a date. In fact, international relations are like business partnerships. An extensive Rolodex greatly increases a partner's value.

President Obama's visit this week to Turkey will also be unusual because, for once, America wants more from Turkey than Turkey wants from America. Turkey will respond generously because Barack Obama is likely to be around for a long time, and he will certainly remember anyone who helped make his first major foreign trip a success.

From Turkey's perspective, the most important item on the agenda is what it does not want: official U.S. recognition that what happened to the Armenians was genocide. I doubt Obama would have accepted an invitation to visit Turkey now if he was not planning to oppose a congressional resolution on the subject, or if he intended to use the G word on April 24, when he will make a statement commemorating the Armenian massacres of 1915. What this Turkish government will also ask for is unambiguous American backing for its plans to amend its present military-dictated Constitution along more democratic lines. They will not want to hear, once again, the Bush "we don't take sides" approach.

Heading up America's agenda are two items on which there is much common ground. First, Iran. Obama has indicated he wants to open wide-ranging negotiations, but he will not rush into them without first testing the waters. Similarly, Obama is serious about making progress on Mideast peace. Like Tony Blair and Tayyip Erdogan, Obama is thought to recognize that Hamas can no longer be ignored, though he cannot possibly say so publicly. Turkey's leaders (and their advisers) can provide Obama with valuable insights, and help start the ball rolling. This would allow Obama to avoid political exposure in Washington for "talking to terrorists" until he has a sense of the other side's position. Before setting anything in motion, though, he likely wants to take the measure of Prime Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gül personally. Both should remember that the role of matchmaker is transitory, and the principals must soon talk alone. In the long term, there is also the potential for friction because America is probably less willing to compromise than Turkey and may terminate discussions that Turkey would choose to keep going. Turkey, after all, will suffer much more than the United States if sanctions against Iran are ratcheted up.

Obama would also like to get more help on Afghanistan, principally more Turkish soldiers. This is a potential source of friction. Since Obama managed during his NATO meeting to pry commitments from France and Britain for a few hundred additional personnel, it will be hard for Turkey to do nothing.

Another item is Iraq. What needs to be agreed upon is already in place (except Turkey's relatively uncontroversial agreement that it will act as a corridor for U.S. withdrawal). Turkey will want intelligence sharing about the Kuridstan Worker's Party, or PKK, to continue, but there is no indication it will not. America will want Turkey's discussions with the Iraqi Kurds to continue. After Gül's successful Iraq visit, why wouldn't they? Both sides are hoping that Iraq will remain stable as the United States withdraws, but there are no major items either might agree to that it is not already doing.

Then there is Cyprus, but the real problem here is between Turkey and the European Union. Europe wants Turkey to open its ports and airports to the Greek Cypriots. Turkey wants Europe to ease the commercial isolation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in exchange, but the Greek Cypriots veto this. The United States can offer its support and its good offices, but it does not have much leverage over either the European Union or the Greek Cypriots. This is also broadly true of Turkey's EU entry negotiations.

A final item is the Nabucco pipeline bringing Central Asian gas to Europe via Turkey. Both America and Turkey would like to see it built. The question, however, is who will pay for it? Neither America nor Turkey has much spare cash right now.

And will Obama choose his Turkey visit to give a much anticipated speech of reconciliation to the world's Muslims? Of course not. Obama has to speak from the center of the Muslim World. Egypt must be the favorite, but a speech in Saudi Arabia would carry enormous symbolism, though I doubt the Saudis would go along. A good outside bet is Jordan. King Abdullah, remember, is a descendent of the Prophet—and a U.S. ally.
© 2009

Robert Fisk: Will Obama Honour Pledge On Genocide Of Armenians? 6 April 2009
It's all supposed to be about campaign promises. Didn't Barack Obama promise to deliver an address from a "Muslim capital" in his first 100 days? It's got to be in a safe, moderate country, of course, but where better than Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's secular/Islamist nation of Turkey, whose rulers talk to Syria as well as Israel, Iran as well as Iraq? But when the Obama cavalcade turned up in the heart of the old Ottoman Empire last night, he and all his panjandrums were praying that he did not have to use the "G" word.

The "G" word? Well, if it doesn't trip him up in Turkey today, Mr Obama is going to have to walk into a far worse minefield on 24 April when he has to honour another campaign promise: to call the 1915 massacre of 1,500,000 Armenian Christians by Ottoman Turkey a "genocide". Presidents Clinton and Bush jnr made the same pledge in return for Armenian votes, then broke their solemn promise when Turkish generals threatened to cut access to their airbases and major US-Turkish business deals after they were in office.

This is no mere academic backwater into which Mr Obama must step but a dangerous confrontation with the truth of history, an explosive swamp of bones and old photographs along with a few still-living survivors through which he must either walk with dignity or retreat with shame; and the entire Middle East will be watching the results. For the Palestinians most of whom, ironically, are Sunni Muslims, the same religion as the Ottoman Turkish murderers it is a crucial issue. For if Mr Obama cannot risk offending America's Turkish allies about a 94-year-old persecution, what chance is there that he will risk offending America's even more powerful ally, Israel, by condemning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, the ever-growing illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the constant destruction by Israel of Palestinian homes that prevent the creation of a Palestinian state?

Starting on 24 April 1915, Enver Pasha's Turkish army and militias rounded up almost the entire Armenian community, massacred hundreds of thousands of men and sent vast death marches of women and children into the deserts of Anatolia and what is now northern Syria. Expert historians, including Israel's own top genocide academic, insist that the shooting-pits, the organised throat-cutting, the mass rapes and kidnappings even the use of primitive suffocation chambers all constituted a systematic genocide.

And it is important to record exactly what Mr Obama said on his campaign website in January 2008. "The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president." Which pretty much locks up any attempt to wriggle out of the promise. Or so you would think.

But already the administration's soft shoes have been trying to finesse away the pledge. "At this moment," Mike Hammer, a White House National Security Council spokesman, said last month, "our focus is on how, moving forward, the US can help Turkey and Armenia work together to come to terms with the past". That Mr Obama should allow such a statement to be made, along with the usual weasel clichés about "moving forward" and "coming to terms", speaks volumes.

Neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs in general have tried to or should compare the 1915 slaughter with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but there are some faint historical mirrors which rightly worry them. The Turks allege that they began killing Armenians in the city of Van because Armenian insurgents, backed by a regional superpower, in this case, Tsarist Russia, attacked the Turks of eastern Anatolia. Israel claims it bombarded Gaza last December and January because Palestinian "terrorists", backed by a regional superpower Iran fired rockets at Israelis.

The political parallels are not exact, of course, but Israel can in any case scarcely debate them when it officially refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide in the first place.

But for Mr Obama, there are more pressing points. US and Turkish officials are already discussing how Ankara can help in a US military withdrawal from Iraq, and Mr Obama desperately wants Turkey to help open up the Muslim world to his government to staunch the massive wounds the Bush administration inflicted.

Professor Türkkaya Ataöv Speaks To Full Houses In Toronto And Montreal
http://www.bizimanadolu.com/pages/2009/mar09/fotomar09/ataov07.jpg
NOTRE ANATOLIE
TORONTO AND MONTREAL BUREAU

Turkish historian and political scientist Professor Türkkaya Ataöv's much anticipated seminars in Toronto and Montreal attracted a lot of attention from Turkish and Armenian communities. Prof. Ataöv came to Canada as part of a North American conference series that are ongoing until March 28, 2009, in over 20 cities including Boston, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC. Many Turkish organizations across United States and Canada collaborated in organizing the seminars titled "How to Come to Terms with One's Past: A Probe into History Including Armenian-Turkish Relations."

Türkkaya Ataöv, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Ankara University, spoke in Toronto, at the Ryerson University on February 18, 2009, and in Montreal, at the McGill University on February 20, 2009. Toronto event was organized by the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations and the Montreal event was organized by Bizim Anadolu and the Turkish Students Society of McGill University.

Both universities were under tremendous pressure from the Armenian community to cancel the seminars. However, at the end, academic independence and freedom of speech prevailed. Ryerson and McGill university officials stood up to the pressure and refused to cancel the lectures. Dr. Mustafa Koç, who teaches as an associate professor at the Department of Sociology at the Ryerson University, said that Ryerson always tried to provide a space for open discussion. Dr. Koç who moderated the seminar in Toronto, said that, unlike many jurisdictions where different viewpoints were ignored, not provided, censored or banned, universities such as Ryerson aimed to create an open environment of teaching and learning. "We make room for debate and offer a platform for expression of differing viewpoints." he said. In his opening remarks, Dr. Koç emphasized the desire for dialogue and peaceful debate: "I am hopeful that Turkish and Armenian communities will find ways of dealing with the past tragedies in open and honest ways by listening to each other, not by trying to silence the other. This is true for all other disputes where there are competing historical narratives. I cannot imagine peace without dialogue."

Under the threat of cancellation of the seminar they helped organize, Turkish Students Society of McGill University (TSSMU) issued a statement which reiterated their belief in "healthy dialog, reconciliation, mutual respect and peace." TSSMU statement also referred to Turkey's proposal of a Joint History Commission, consisting of Armenian, Turkish and independent scholars, to examine all the historic evidence to come up with a final conclusion which both parties would abide with. This proposal supported by the Government of Canada has been refused by Armenia.

Professor Türkkaya Ataöv, recipient of numerous international awards, medals and honorary doctorates, has been elected to central executive positions of UN-related international organizations that deal with racial discrimination, human rights, terrorism, nuclear war and exchange of war prisoners. Professor Ataöv has published over 80 books on the Armenian issue and was invited, by the French court, to the 1984 and 1985 Paris trials of Armenian terrorists, as a witness of authority.

In Toronto, at the end of Professor Ataöv's speech, moderator Dr. Koç opened the floor up for questions, indicating that there was only half an hour of time left until the room had to be vacated. Dr. Koç asked the guests to limit the time of their questions to two minutes so that as many people as possible could get a chance to ask. First request came from the Armenian National Committee of Canada's (ANCC) Executive Director Aris Babikian. Mr Babikian was offered the podium and the microphone so that he could be heard better by the audience. Babikian first said that he wished to speak for half an hour, in other words, the entire time that was left for the reserved room. This drew reactions from the crowd and the moderator reminded that he was giving two minutes for each question. Regardless of the warnings, Babikian spoke for over 20 minutes, while Prof. Ataöv sat at the side of the stage and listened patiently. Finally, after increasing pressure from the audience and the moderator, Babikian managed to form a few questions. Once presented by the questions, Prof. Ataöv held the hand of Mr. Babikian and said "Don't go anywhere, stay here by my side while I answer all your questions." As Prof. Ataöv answered Mr. Babikian's questions, they remained hand-in-hand for minutes on end, occasionally sharing a laugh together.

http://www.bizimanadolu.com/pages/2009/mar09/fotomar09/ataov04.jpg

Montreal portion of Prof. Ataöv's visit was organized by Bizim Anadolu and the Turkish Students Society of McGill. The moderator Dr. Aydin Yurtcu, 1964 graduate of McGill, welcomed the Turkish and Armenian students that filled the room, by saying "It is good to be back home." Dr. Yurtcu, before leaving the podium to the guest speaker, promised the Armenian students that they would be allowed to read a statement after the lecture.

Soon after Prof. Ataöv started his speech, it became evident that the Armenian students were not there to listen but to create a distraction. Addressing the students who were disturbing the seminar, Prof. Ataöv said "I only ask you to listen. You may not agree, but you should listen." Prof. Ataöv added that he had listened to many opposing views including Mr. Babikian in Toronto. Prof. Ataöv also urged the students to sometimes read the Turkish sources just as he himself reads the Armenian sources.

When Prof. Ataöv's speech ended, Dr. Yurtcu, before opening the floor for Q&A, invited an Armenian student who had asked for Dr. Yurtcu's permission to read a long statement. This statement which was written beforehand to prevent Prof. Ataöv from speaking at McGill, did not contain any references to any of the topics Prof. Ataöv had discussed during his speech. After the statement ended, other students, both Turkish and Armenian were able to ask questions. Prof. Ataöv made extra efforts to speak one-on-one with all the Armenian students who had questions.

Türkkaya Ataöv has two M.A. degrees and a Ph.D. from Syracuse University in New York. His books have been translated into 20 languages and have appeared in 35 countries across 5 continents. Professor Ataöv has lectured in several American, British, Russian, German, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, Middle eastern, African and Australian universities in four decades.

http://www.bizimanadolu.com/pages/2009/mar09/fotomar09/ataov03.jpg

After the Ryerson and McGill seminars, Prof. Ataöv kindly accepted to speak in Turkish in yet another event supported by Bizim Anadolu, Turkish-Canadian Action Committee, Azerbaijani Community of Ottawa, Quebec Azerbaijanis Association and Council of Turkish Canadians. At this last gathering in Canada, Prof. Ataöv told the story of how he, as a young man studying in United States, one day came across a book written by William Saroyan, an Armenian author, and he liked it so much that he decided to translate this book into Turkish ("Aram Derler Adima") and promote it in Turkey. Türkkaya Ataöv who charmed all who came to listen to him, ended his Canadian tour on the note that he was, as all Turks were, only after truth, peace and reconciliation.

What You Need To Know About Turkey Mr President
ISTANBUL - Turkey is not just misunderstood. The country is also misunderstood incorrectly. Or so goes a word game popular among Turks from all walks of life when the topic turns to how the country is perceived internationally.

If the topic is history, Turks lament the fact few foreigners know of Piri Reis, the Ottoman cartographer who produced a map of South America before the Spanish conquistadors did. If the issue is contemporary rights for women, the fact they were voting here before most of continental Europe is something we are inclined to share with visitors. Or how about the detail of the airplane factory that was exporting to Germany back in the 1930s.

So in light of a presidential visit, the Daily News decided that it would be interesting to ask a number of prominent Turks their opinion of Obama’s visit and what they think the U.S. president might not have known before his arrival Sunday night Ğ but might be helpful now that he is an old Turkish hand.

Five people were chosen from various segments of society: İshak Alaton, Ömer Bolat, Zeynel Abidin Erdem, Salim Uslu and İlter Turan. Their opinions are as follows.

İSHAK ALATON - Board Chairman, Alarko Holding

Mr. President,
You probably don't know that:

1-Women at the time of Atatürk in the Turkish Republic obtained the right to vote in Parliament in 1936, much earlier than in many Western European countries.

2-Security in Turkish society is far better than in all U.S. cities. Aggression on the streets of Istanbul or İzmir or any other Turkish city is a small fraction of the criminal cases in Washington or New York or any other U.S. city.

3-There are over 50,000 migrant Armenian workers from Armenia, mainly in Istanbul, who are working illegally, while the police willingly turn a blind eye. That Fethiye Çetin's recent book ''My Grand Mother'' may have done more for enhancing empathy among Turks and Armenians than any other political act.

4-Iranians can travel to Turkey without a visa, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians take their summer vacation in Turkish resorts.

5-The oldest American institution of higher education outside the United States is in Istanbul, and has seen several thousands of liberal Turks graduate from there in over a century.

6-Mary Magdalene, Jesus' mother, is buried in Turkey on a hill close to the port of İzmir. Santa Claus, patron of Christmas festivities, was born in southern Turkey.

7-Alexander the Great broke the Gordion's knot in Gordion, which is now Ankara. There was a prophecy that the leader who would break Gordion's knot would conquer Asia. Maybe President Obama should bring a good solid sword.

SALİM USLU - HAK-İŞ (Labor) Confederation General President

In terms of Turkey-U.S. relations it is very important that U.S. President Barack Obama has included Turkey in his first extensive foreign policy tour after he was elected. The reason is that Turkey is a model country carrying out successfully the reconciliation and political dialogue process in undertaking and fulfilling its responsibility within the international scope. Turkey, in its region, on the contrary to the experiences in the Middle East, Balkans and the Caucasus, is a source of peace and stability. Turkey, from energy to security, is the most significant actor in the region. It is a country undertaking its responsibility in the international scope up to Herzegovina and alliance of civilizations. Due to his visit, what should Barack Obama know about Turkey can be listed as follows:

1-Turkey is a country of tolerance: Turkey is a country that has experience of multiculturalism coming from history, connections with a very wide geography and hosted various civilizations on its lands. Turkey is aware that communication between different cultures is possible, necessary, useful and enriching. For this reason conflicts between cultures have not been experienced in Turkey from past to present, different civilizations lived together in peace. Turkey’s contemporary, secular and democratic identity creates a suitable base on which different cultures can live.

2-Turkey is a junction of immigration: Turkey is located at the junction point of Europe and Asia. It is a country that receives immigration from all of its neighbors primarily Iran and Iraq due to its geographic location and tolerant environment and democratic climate. Turkey is a country that has accepted everyone who ran away, due to economic and political reasons, from the authoritarian administrations that existed in their countries. Because Turkey is a tolerant country that has been a cradle for many civilizations through many ages and which can open its arms to all differences.

3-Turkey is a country attempting to resolve its problems by itself: Turkey is a country trying to solve its economic, social and cultural problems on its own and it has achieved stability. In recent years it has been a country designing by itself the conversion projects that it has been carrying out primarily in urbanization, energy and transportation (ground, air and railways) and vitalizing them, as well as planning what to do, how and when.

4-Turkey has been developing its own social model: Even Turkey does not have a determined strategy. Changes and conversions in the economic structure shall create such a model. As a matter of fact, Turkey’s EU project is a change and conversion project. It is a project to upgrade Turkey into the first league towards democracy and rule of law. EU Project is a project giving the chance to be a contemporary society for Turkey. It has been implementing this project successfully.

5-Turkey is a significant center of attraction with its young population. Turkey is a significant country with its young and dynamic population structure and labor potential. In Turkey the non-institutional civil population is 70.5 million people as of December 2008. The non-institutional working age population is 50.3 million people. Of the total labor market 22.3 percent consist of young people between 15 and 24 years old. Turkey has been involved in work that includes proactive employment measures toward the young population, vocational training reform, incentives, to encourage entrepreneurship, providing new training and labor harmonization services to the young people who have completed their education and widening vocational knowledge, guidance and consultancy services.

Dr. ÖMER BOLAT - Former President, Independent Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (MÜSİAD)

First of all, I would like to welcome the newly elected president of the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. We, the Turkish people, like to host visitors, with particular attention given to foreign guests. This visit bears significant meanings. Before anything else, Obama is a historic figure as he is the first black president of the United States in its relatively short history of 230 years.

As the first black president, Obama is the descendent of people who were denied basic human rights and treated as slaves up until 40 years ago. It is even more exciting that his father was an African Muslim. After the devastating legacy of George W. Bush, who was probably the worst president in U.S. history, inflicting distress and damage on the Islamic world and causing, with his economic policies, the greatest crisis in 70 years in his own country and the entire world, Obama's election was celebrated with joy and enthusiasm. If other nations of the world were to vote, Mr. Obama would win a sweeping victory.

In light of these facts, Obama's mission is both easy and difficult. It is easy because the legacy he inherited is so awful that the improvements and progress he will achieve in the economy, in foreign policy and in relations with the Islamic world will yield very positive results. But expectations are high for President Obama to correct all these mistakes. If the improvements come slowly and late, the hope and enthusiasm around Obama may quickly deteriorate.

Obama's visit to Turkey is very significant and meaningful. First, Obama's inclusion of Turkey in his first European tour on the occasions of the G20 summit in London and the NATO summit in Strasbourg is an indication that he recognizes the rising potential and importance of Turkey on the international stage.

Obama is the first U.S. president to visit Turkey within the first two and a half months of his presidency. He is also paying his first visit to a Muslim country after beginning his term. Hence, the talks he is holding in Turkey and the messages he is giving have been awaited with great interest throughout the world, particularly in Islamic countries.

President Obama and his team should be aware of one thing: The Turkish people are not biased against any country. Our national character is that we respond to friendship from countries and nations with even more friendship, and respond to hostility with even more.

During the Cold War era, Turkey and the United States were in the same axis, as they are members of NATO, and the U.S. had a relatively positive image in Turkey. However, as NATO and the Western alliance identified Islamic countries and the rise of Islamic values as the new threat after the end of the Cold War, the image of the U.S. in particular, and Western nations in general, was tarnished terribly in Turkey and other Islamic countries.

Both Turkish people and the Islamic world may soften against the U.S. if they get the following messages from President Obama during his visit to Turkey:

1-Obama and the new U.S. administration should declare that they will adopt an approach in the Palestine-Israel conflict that will put an end to the cruel economic and military assaults of Israel on Palestinians. No one expects the U.S. to terminate its relationship with Israel as an ally. But the U.S. can pursue a new and more balanced policy that recognizes and supports an independent Palestinian state.

2-In both its discourse and its practices, the Obama administration must convince the Islamic world that it does not target its nations and values.

3-Given that the U.S. is alleged to have encouraged and incited past coups in Turkey, Obama should declare that the U.S. will now prefer and support a libertarian, democratic and pluralist administration and respect the will of the Turkish people at the ballot box. This will prevent new coup attempts in Turkey. In this regard, as the best example of Islamic values expressed in a pluralist democratic administration, Turkey can play a positive and important role between West and the Islamic world and be a guarantee of peace in the whole Eurasian region.

4-The Turkish people expect President Obama to say that he will oppose the resolution in the U.S. Congress about the so-called Armenian issue and that the issue is best left for historians to discuss.

5-The Turkish people expect Obama to demonstrate that he has the leadership, strong capacity, applicable solutions and instruments to take the U.S. and the world out of the economic crisis, the worst seen in 70 years.

6-The Turkish people expect President Obama to openly reject the quest for a New World Order with a single superpower or a bipolar world order, and that he will work for his term to be a peaceful, blissful, libertarian, equalitarian one based on mutual respect and welfare for everyone.

Only then will Turkey, and Islamic countries and peoples of oppressed countries, believe that Obama's election as the new U.S. president is a real revolution. Otherwise, it will be understood that the Obama revolution is empty substance-wise, although it was exciting at the beginning. I believe that Obama is aware of this fact, and of expectations on him and the challenges that await him.

Prof.Dr. İLTER TURAN - Professor of Political Science, Bilgi University

Obama may not appreciate the following:

1-The strong sense of injustice that Turks feel over Israel’s stand on the Palestine issue.

2-Turkey has been at peace with Iran for some 400 years and wants that to continue.

9-The historical baggage that Turkish foreign policy carries such as the issue of minorities and how Western powers dismembered the Ottoman Empire through mobilizing client groups by promising them autonomy, independence, etc. in return for their cooperation in paralyzing the Ottoman State.

4-The Turkish side of Armenian claims of genocide and rival accounts of the "massacre."

5-How strongly the Turks feel about Cyprus or how the Turkish position has been influenced by Greek Cypriot policies of extermination against the Turks before and during the earlier years of independence

6-Turkey has failed to develop competency in dealing with situations outside of governments, for example with contingencies that involve other political actors in addition to formal agencies of government, lobbies being the prime example.

7-The sensitivity toward secularism in Turkish political elites.

Dr. ZEYNEL ABİDİN ERDEM - President, Erdem Holdings

Things Obama doesn’t know about Turkey:

1-The history of Turkish-American relations is longer than 60 to 70 years. It began in the 19th century and continues to this day.

2-The first Ottoman-English dictionary, Redhouse, was printed in 1861.

3-The American Hospital began operating in Istanbul in 1920.

4-In 1863, Robert College, the first American college established outside the country, was opened. After that, Uskudar American, Tarsus and İzmir colleges were all established.

5-Istanbul was the capital of three separate historical empires: the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires.

6-Istanbul is a mosaic of beliefs: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Assyrians, Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, mosques, churches, synagogues, mausoleums, graves, sacred springs, saints’ tombs, elders, saints, lodges, Alevi community centers, Koran courses... Sacrifices are cut, spells cast out and charms written; the cross is thrown into the Bosphorus. While church bells are rung, the call to prayer is sounded. At the same moment, in the holy places, the Torah, the Bible and the Holy Koran are read. The Bible is read in the churches in Greek, Latin, Armenian, Arabic and Turkish.

7-In Turkey, there is a city in which the representatives of seven separate languages and religions live in peace Ğ the city of Mardin.

8-The Ottoman Empire ruled on three continents for 622 years. Turkey is a secular and democratic state that the grandchildren of the Ottomans would feel proud of.

9-At the time of the Gulf War, Turkey opened its embrace to 500,000 Iraqi Kurdish citizens who took refuge here and were provided with food, shelter and health services for one year.

Don’t Trust Every Promise Obama Makes
Barack Obama has become the first American president to openly show the importance he places on Turkey in a concrete way. The details of speeches or negotiations are not important. What is important is the visit itself.

We all watched how the anti-American feelings in Turkey were suddenly diminished after Obama won the election. Bush was so bad, and so severely hurt the image of the United States, that even if Obama does nothing to try and change it, the man himself is enough to change this perception.

Upon his arrival Sunday evening, the Turkish people embraced Obama. Not even his Kenyan origin or his sympathy for Islam is important. His attitude alone was enough to gain our regard.

In only one day, he fixed the U.S. image that Bush destroyed over eight years. Of course, we must not forget that there are things Obama can and cannot do.

The United States is a super power and such nations only pay attention to their own interests. So there is just one thing I would like to draw to your attention: Do not to believe in everything.

Former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was announced secretary-general of NATO during the alliance’s summit only after some promises were made to Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President Abdullah Gül stated that they received promises that Roj TV would be shut and Turkey would assume some posts in NATO.

In my article yesterday, I stated that the reaction to Rasmussen was correct, not an over-reaction, but taken only so far and left at that, and that the Turkish attitude was correct. In this article, I would like to warn my readers.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that one should not trust promises too much. Obama might promise as much as he likes, but if conditions change, then promises cannot be kept. Let’s keep that in mind. International relations are like that and no one can do anything about it.

Don’t forget Gen. Rogers agreement

I was on duty in Brussels during the negotiations over Greece’s departure and return to the NATO military wing after the Cyprus movement in 1974. I know each detail very well. The U.S. Gen. Rogers from the NATO forces signed an agreement with President Kenan Evren, the head of state and commander of the military coup on Sept. 12.

According to this agreement, one of the commands of NATO in the Aegean region was to be given to Turkey. But the most delicate part of this matter was that the Greeks did not want to sign such a document. The Americans were in a hurry to return Athens to NATO, so they put pressure on Ankara and said, "No document needed."

It was the era of the Sept. 12 military coup. The matter was resolved on a military basis. NATO military force commander Gen. Rogers promised Evren, "I give you my word as a soldier. The Greeks will accept your wish." And Evren as a soldier accepted his promise. What could be more valuable than a soldier’s promiseÉ?

I’ll never forget, a few weeks after this agreement, I joined another meeting in Brussels. During a meeting with Turkish parliamentarians, the U.S. Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, said, "Trust me. I will have the Rogers-Evren agreement implemented." Do you know what happened later?

The Greeks did not keep their promise. Maybe they never made such a promise and Gen. Rogers thought he would have the Greeks implement his promise to the Turks. It was too late when he noticed that he was mistaken. It was all over when he apologized to Evren later on. Greece went back to the NATO military wing in an inexpensive way. It did not pay anything in return.

In the same manner, Obama might forget his promise made in Strasbourg. To tell the truth, I think he will easily forget it. So has Turkey behaved foolishly by believing Obama and accepting Rasmussen’s candidacy? No.

Even if our exercise of power over Obama is not very strong, we have Rasmussen in our hands. We can put the NATO secretary-general through the wringer.

As far as Obama is concernedÉ I don’t think that after making such a promise the U.S. head of state will turn his back on us and look in a different direction.

Even if he forgets, Turkey will remind him quite often. Ankara is not as it used to be. It is no longer a capital that accepts every word spoken by Washington.

New Regional Parameters: Possible Outcomes Of Armenian-Turkish Border Opening 2009/04/06 HETQ Anahit Shirinyan
Regional and international were abuzz last week regarding potential developments in negotiations aimed at normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey. Public opinion was not only focused on the possible opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey, closed for the past fifteen years, an event that would herald a new era in relations between the neigh boring states, but also what such an eventuality would mean for regional politics in general.

Such developments could lead to a shift in the existing regional power balance. These developments are quite contradictory and proceeding with such speed that they can lead to unforeseen consequences.

Regardless of whether the border is opened within the predicted timeframe, sometime in April, or not, the issue is on today’s political agenda. Thus, let us attempt to make some predictions on the matter.

1. The opening of the Armenian-Turkish border will expand Armenia’s political role in the region. By imparting a number of theoretical benefits to Armenia, it will afford greater manoeuvrability to Armenia in its foreign affairs. The border opening will strike a blow to the number one trump card held by Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict settlement process – to keep Armenia in a blockade since it still hasn’t agreed to make concessions regarding the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to reports circulating in the press, Ankara is attempting to include a point regarding the Karabakh conflict in the Armenian-Turkish agreement it is planning but Yerevan is stubbornly showing its resistance on the issue. Due to a correct exercise of politics Yerevan truly possesses the possibility to neutralize Baku’s only effective and essential trump card when it comes to the Karabakh conflict.

2. The opening of the border will spur the further deepening of the strategic partnership between Tbilisi and Baku. Baku isn’t concealing its negative reaction to the thaw between Armenia and Turkey and has recently seen fit to even make direct threats to Ankara. Last week, for example, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, during a conversation with a third party, threatened to cut off gas supplies to Turkey if Ankara went ahead and signed a separate agreement with Armenia and opened the border without coming to some prearranged understanding regarding he Nagorno-Karabakh issue. It already has been widely publicized that President Aliyev will not participate in the “Civilizations Alliance” forum to be held in Istanbul on April 6-7. This refusal to participate is yet another sign intended to show Baku’s displeasure regarding unfolding developments.

“If the border is opened before the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, it would run counter to Azerbaijan’s national interests,” stated Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov.

Georgia is the second country whose interests are opposed to the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border. After the Georgian-Russian conflict of August, 2008, analysts have openly started to talk about the uncertainty surrounding Georgia as a transit country for projects with a strategic importance directed towards the West. Now too, western analysts don’t conceal the new possibilities that the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border might have regarding the implementing of energy-related projects towards the West.

In addition to the huge economic and political dividends reaped by Georgia due to the energy supply routes that transverse its territory, the lion’s share of Armenia’s foreign trade, even that with Turkey, passes through Georgia. Thus, as stated by Jemal Inaishvili, President of Georgia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, “The restoration of a direct route will definitely impact on Georgia’s economy.” Despite the fact that Inaishvili welcomes the wish of the two nations to establish normal relations, nevertheless, he believes that, “The restoration of direct links between Armenia and Turkey will lead to specific economic losses for Georgia”. This will include a visible drop in cargo flows that will in turn negatively impact on the ports of Batumi and Poti.

Naturally, all this will impel Baku and Tbilisi to seek out alternative routes of cooperation. Last week in Tbilisi the foreign ministers of the two nations signed a document regarding joint political programs. It’s not by chance that reports have recently surfaced in the Azerbaijani press signalling the continuation of Georgian-Azerbaijani collaboration. As stated by Fridon Todua, deputy speaker of the Georgian parliament and chairman of The Parliamentary Group of Friendship with the Republic of Azerbaijan, in an interview with Day.Az, “despite the resistance of Armenia, it is impossible to stop implementation of the project (Baku, Tbilisi, Kars railway), since it has already started.”

3. The opening of the border will spur the deepening of cooperation between Baku and Moscow. Baku, in its relations with its strategic partner, will try to compensate for the “crisis” through new arrangements with Moscow. Russia has been trying to woo Baku for a long time, forcing Azerbaijan to give up on new projects aimed at Western energy independence. And on March 27, a mutual understanding agreement was signed between Azprom and Azerbaijan’s State Oil Company that calls for the long-term supply of gas at market prices.

At the same time a telephone conversation took place between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Azerbaijani President Aliyev on April 3. According to official reports, the two leaders discussed the G-20 Summit, the global economic crisis and other issues of mutual concern. Azerbaijani news outlets, however, report that issues related to the Karabakh conflict was also touched on in the conversation.

4. The opening of the Armenian-Turkish border will also strengthen Washington’s position in the South Caucasus. In particular, Washington’s active role of late in the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations has laid the groundwork for this. While it is a fact that Washington has long abandoned implementing its political agenda in the post-Soviet arena via Ankara, preferring to do so directly, new developments can restore this erstwhile significance of Turkey in the eyes of Washington.

In the words of Matthew Bryza, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia would “create a new and positive dynamic” in relations across the region, “as well as in developing the economic and transport links we have been pursuing ever since the collapse of the former Soviet Union.

The United Sates is pretty limited when it comes to exerting direct influence over Armenia. What prevents it from doing so is the Russian political, military and economic presence in Armenia. In the event that the border is opened, Washington will be given the possibility to expand its influence in Armenia to a certain degree via Ankara. Moreover, by coming forth as the primary mediator in the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, the United States automatically gets to hold a more active playing card in the Karabakh conflict settlement, the next logical step in the progression of these relations.

To this must be added the fact that Turkish-American cooperation in the South Caucasus will also assist in the rebuilding of mutual confidence between the two nations, yielding possibilities of cooperation in other matters as well, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan.

5. At the same time, the border opening will assist the development of Russian-Turkish relations. Turkey, which has traditionally competed with Russia for dominance in the region, is still buoyed by the same tradition but has taken into account the Russian factor in the post-Soviet territories. Thus, future cooperation between Ankara and Moscow is inevitable, particularly in terms of Armenia. In reality, the possibilities of Russian-Turkish cooperation are even greater when the “Armenian link” comes into the picture. Glaring testimony of this was the agreement reached last year that called for the sale of Armenian electricity to Turkey. It’s another question as to what extent the interests of the “link” will be taken into account.

6. The opening of the border will lead to the necessity of greater scope and specificity of the Armenian-Iranian partnership. There has been no official reaction from Tehran regarding recent Armenian-Turkish developments. It is clear nonetheless that Tehran has remained on the sideline of regional processes ever since the developments subsequent to last year’s war between Georgia and Russia. As strange as it may seem, Armenian-Iranian cooperation will assume greater significance after the border is opened between Armenia and Turkey. Armenia has traditionally viewed Iran as a counterweight to Turkey and in this matter it can even play a more effective role than Russia.

While true that the Iran-Armenia railway agreement reached on April 4 can’t be viewed in this context as a long-range step, nevertheless, regardless of the suspicions as to its economic viability, the project can assume important political significance in the near future. Thus, Yerevan will obtain greater flexibility in terms of foreign policy with the deepening of cooperation with Iran. What remains is to ensure the actual implementation of Armenian-Iranian joint projects.

The opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey can thus lead to genuine changes for the region as a whole. A situation can be created in which everyone is cooperating with everyone else and where each player is doing so with the aim of protecting its national interests. Armenia can emerge as the main “hero” in all these developments and, as a result, it can be confronted with new challenges as well as possibilities. The greatest benefit from this new situation will only be culled due to a specifically well-crafted political policy that is flexible at the same time.

[Opinion] Us Congress Should Not Debate The Armenian Genocide Resolution Today's Zaman
Once again a few important members of the US Congress are trying to pass a resolution condemning a country that did not exist for a hundred-year-old atrocity that occurred during a war. Surely, given the state of the global economic crisis, there is a better use of the time of the Congress.

Few, if any, of us were around when the war was waged. To quote a great US general, “War is hell.” But war is war and genocide is genocide.

Webster’s defines genocide as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group. In fact, the term was not even created until 1944.

Scholars of history have come down on both sides of the issue over what happened and what we should call it. My own views add very little to an age-old debate. But I do feel strongly that all of our energies would be much better applied to the future.

Turkey is a great friend of the United States and a leader in Europe. Turkey’s contribution to spreading peace throughout the world is remarkable. All of her citizens should be very proud of the role Turkey is playing in the global effort for peace.

Yet some congressmen wish us to ignore present-day Turkey and instead slap the Ottoman Empire for an event nearly 100 years ago. I and a growing number of my colleagues simply refuse to go along with the attempts to embarrass Turkey.

I value my country’s friendship with Turkey. I prefer to look forward to the future of relations between our two countries. I refuse to allow the deaths of hundreds of thousands on both sides to be used as a modern-day political football.

I regret that World War I occurred. I regret that all war has occurred. I pray for the ethnic Armenians who lost their lives as I pray for the Azerbaijani victims in Khojaly.

As a Christian, I oppose the persecution of any religion and those that practice that religion.

As a member of the US Congress, I do not have the luxury of time to settle old scores. We live in a world where evil lurks in many dark corners across our planet. My country needs the help of those that are willing to stand with us to counter this evil. I am proud to stand with Turkey in bringing peace to the many troubled areas of our earth.

There are countless activities we can take together to make our world a better one. Until the day where peace has encompassed every corner of our planet, I will prefer to work to make our future safer for all of our children and grandchildren. The Congress can devote its time to settling political scores when our work is complete.

What happened in 1915 must never be forgotten. To quote the great poet Maya Angelou, “History cannot be unlived, despite its wrenching pain, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”

*Congresswoman Jean Schmidt is a member of the US House of Representatives from Ohio.
06 April 2009, JEAN SCHMIDT * TODAY'S ZAMAN

Akcam: Obama's Speech To Turkish Parliament Positive And Smart 07.04.2009 PanARMENIAN.Net
A prominent Turkish scholar says President Obama gave a tactful but powerful push to the Turkish government to confront the question of whether the killings of Armenians in 1915 were the first genocide of the 20th century, Boston Globe reports.

Taner Akcam is a longtime advocate for human rights for minorities in his native Turkey, as well as an academic authority on Turkey's handling of the genocide issue. He is a professor in genocide studies at Clark University in Worcester, and author of the 2006 book, "Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and The Question of Turkish Responsibility."

Akcam said of Obama's speech to the Turkish Parliament in Ankara: "I think he really pushed the borders, in a very positive and very smart way."

Obama stopped short of using the word genocide, but applauded the Turkish government for its willingness to improve relations with neighboring Armenia, which necessarily requires dealing with the sensitive genocide issue.

Akcam said Obama went as far as any president could go in addressing a foreign country's legislature. During the presidential campaign in 2008, Obama said that the killings of the Armenians amounted to genocide. Before addressing the Turkish Parliament, Obama said that he had not changed his views, which were "on the record."

But Akcam had been jailed in several times in the 1970s. He escaped from prison in 1977 after serving one year of a nine-year sentence, and received asylum in Germany. He taught in Minnesota before moving to Clark.
«PanARMENIAN.Net».

President Obama And The Armenian Question Commentary: Ömer Engin LÜTEM AVIM
President Obama, who had verbally and in written promised to recognize the “Armenian genocide” many times during his election campaign, refrained, as expected, from pronouncing the word ‘genocide’ during his visit to Turkey. The President used the term “tragic history” during the press conference held with President Gül and used the expression, “terrible events” while addressing the Turkish Parliament.

Yet this does not necessarily mean that President Obama has changed his mind regarding the 1915 events. In fact, in response to a question addressed to him during the press conference, Obama has stated that he has not changed his views on this issue that are already on record.. He has further added that as negotiations are taking place between Turkey and Armenia, one has to act in a constructive manner and the US has no desire to preempt any possible arrangements or announcements that might be made in the near future. On various occasions in the recent past, Turkish officials had made it clear that the President’s recognition of genocide allegations or the adoption of a resolution by Congress regarding these allegations would negatively influence the negotiations taking place between Turkey and Armenia.

Obama’s above cited can be explained as he believes in the “Armenian genocide”, yet he has refrained from voicing his thoughts on this issue for the time being for the good of the negotiations taking place between Turkey and Armenia. Moving within this perspective, it can be concluded that President Obama will not use the word genocide in his upcoming 24th of April message. Yet these statements of his may also be interpreted to mean that he will feel free to pronounce the term “genocide” or will not exert any efforts to prevent the Congress from adopting a resolution endorsing genocide allegations in case a reconciliation is not reached between Turkey and Armenia.

President Obama’s statements in his speech at the Grand Assembly stressing that each country must work through its past and that reckoning with the past can help it seize a better future, following his words which point out that the issue of how to deal with the past is a problem confronting all democracies, and that the United states is still working through some of her own darker periods in her history, are all related with the Armenian allegations and they give the impression that he intends, in a disguised manner, to inculcate Turkey with the acknowledgement of these allegations.

However, it is possible that these words are directed towards the Armenians in the US rather than towards Turkey in order to satisfy the former regarding the genocide allegations. Since Turkey has proposed to set up a Joint Historians Commission in order to verify the historical attributes of the events and has clearly iterated that she will accept the conclusions to be reached by this Commission, it would be rather meaningless to demand from Turkey to recognize genocide allegations before such a study is carried out. In this context, it can be seen that Turkey’s Joint Historians Commission proposal is the best formula in response to President Obama’s request to deal with the past.

During his speech, President Obama has attributed special importance to the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border and has thus stated that the US strongly supports the full normalization of relations between the two countries. If one recalls that the primary, in fact the only, reason for Armenia's longing to construct normal relations with Turkey is to ensure the opening of the borders, then it is clear that these words of Obama will be well received in Armenia.

In conclusion, it is possible to say that the new US President, who wants to accord an important role to Turkey in the implementation in his Middle East and Afghanistan policy and to construct close relations with Turkey, tries to push to the backstage the Armenian allegations presented as an obstacle in this regard by the Diaspora, with some formulations not too disputable neither by the Turks nor the Armenians, and that, with the help of his charismatic personality, he has been successful in this, at least as regards the Turkey part of the equation.

The Harshness And Sharpness Of Obama's Speech Was Unexpected Anna Nazaryan, "Radiolur" , 07.04.2009
Yesterday's speech of President Obama on the Armenian Issue was harsh and sharp, and it was unexpected, Suren Manukyan, Deputy Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum Institute, told a pres conference today.

Suren Manukyan considers that the hints Turkey drops about the signing of an agreement on the establishment of Armenian-Turkish relations, opening of the border and creation of a joint commission come to substitute Barack Obama's pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

"I think we will gain nothing from that agreement, while it will give much to Turkey, because in 15 years those in Turkey will probably understand the ineffectiveness of today's policy, i.e. they will understand that the closed border has not solved the issue it was supposed to solve: Armenia has not been destroyed."

Turkologist Ruben Safrastyan considers that the process of recognition of the Armenian Genocide yields to the processes of opening of the border and establishment of Armenian Turkish relations.

"Recently Turks have been pushing forward the question of opening of the border and, thereby solving a very important issue, i.e. the official refusal from territorial claims. If we recognize the Kars Agreement, we thus refuse from any territorial claims, while in case of recognition of the Armenian Genocide some threat will still continue bothering the Turkish state and authorities," Safrastyan said.

Taner Akçam’s Salary Is Paid By The Armenian Organizations
Saying: “It was my dream to follow post-graduate studies in Europe or America while I was working as an assistant in a university in 1976” Taner Akçam is currently realizing his dream with the support of the Armenian organizations. Akçam’s salary, who is working at University of Minnesota in America, is paid by Armenian Zoryan Institute and Kafesciyan family.

The work that is presented by Akçam as an academic study is the repetition of the studies that is done by Vahak Dadrian. And Dadrian is the person known as the defender of the genocide lie among the academic circles. Dadrian was condemned by the academicians for taking sides and not acting within the limits of scientific ethic on the Armenian issue.

It was revealed that the salary of Taner Akçam, who is working as an Assistant Professor in America, is paid by Armenian organizations. The person, who revealed the fact that Akçam, who is one of the most passionate defenders of the Armenian genocide lie, is being nourished by the Armenians, is Ergun Kırlıkova, who lives in California. Kırlıkova inquired if Akçam is directly or indirectly supported by an Armenian institution by sending a letter to Robert Bruininks, the rector of the university following Taner Akçam started working at the University of Minnesota. Kırlıkova’s question was answered by Brent P. Benrud, in the name of the law office of the University of Minnesota in January 2008. It came out from Brent Bernud`s answer to Kırlıkova that a huge part of Akçam’s salary was paid by Armenian Zoryan Institute and Kafesciyan family.

Akçam does not Make Any Scientific Studies
In the letter that was sent to the administration of the university by Ergun Kırlıkova, it is stated that Taner Akçam, is repeating his claims on Armenians under the disguise of an academic study. Kırlıkova has also noted important information on the matter: The work presented as an academic study by Akçam, is in fact, the repetition of the studies that is done by Vahak Dadrian. And Dadrian is the person who is known as the defender of the genocide lie among the academic circles. Dadrian was condemned by the academicians for taking sides and not acting within the limits of scientific ethic on the Armenian issue.

Taner Akçam is also studying on “Armenian Genocide” in the name of Clark University in America. While we were preparing our magazine for publication, Akçam has attended to a conference entitled “New Perspectives on the Armenian Genocide” in California University during 26-28 March. Taner Akçam has acted as the defender of the Armenian genocide thesis here. Also Sara Nur Yıldız and Ohannes Kılıçdağı from Bilgi University have also attended the conference as lecturers.
Source: Aydınlık–29.03.2009 genocidereality.com

"History Down" by Ara Toranian 8 April 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
We had experienced genocide Canada Dry with a series of accurately describing the act, but failing to appoint him by name (this has long been one of the faithful allies of Turkey as the United States, before Obama or Germany).

It was now with the last article on the Armenian question by the magazine "History", a situation totally reversed. If the concept of genocide is displayed - there is the logo on the label - its content is sanitized, however, revised downward. So from reading this new forgery, genocide is no longer one in the sense of three or four major crimes against humanity of the twentieth century, but ethnic cleansing becomes more ordinary. There was no one and a half million dead, but "six hundred thousand." There was no massacre by two to three million Ottoman Armenians, but "one million five hundred miles." There was no intention to liquidate the population, but an unfortunate combination of circumstances which led to a catastrophic outcome. All this is horrible, certainly. Wrong, of course. But reduced in small steps, in impressionist style. And the whole landscape to see changed.

This new process is emerging as even more insidious is that it develops under the banner of the word genocide, which is in this case act as moral support to the presentation of this adulterated version of the event. It does not deny the more significant, but it dilutes the meaning. And hence, we regard the same opinion ...

This is the second time in thirty years of existence the journal History, now in its 378th issue, devoted his "one" in 1915. The first time, there are more than ten years was to make very beautiful to negationist theories, particularly that of Gilles Veinstein. And this on the grounds of objectivity is performed on the "5 minutes for the Jews, 5 minutes for the Nazis, such as brocade Jean-Luc Godard.

Today is the United States that month went for a "leading expert" to answer this interview river 13 pages. A Fuat Dundar what capacity should the honor of being selected? According to history, writing 3 books published in Turkey on the Young Turks. But none is specifically dedicated to the extermination of Armenians. We could have such appeal in France Yves Ternon specialist problem or Kévorkian Raymond, who has published on the subject last year an exceptional editions Odile Jacob. But it would be too simple. Our unknown is indeed our two French on the great advantage of being Turkish, which is now clearly a warranty claim to speak impartially of the matter ... The evidence: not once does the gentleman, he The concept of genocide to define the crime ... Only the titles of the journal makes mention.

And we learned which questions? Another "scientific", although to us this one: François Gorgeon who is a biography rather complacent about the Sultan Abdul Hamid, which tends to restore the reality that Europe called the "great Saigneur. A book that minimizes the importance of the anti-Armenian massacres of 1894-95. Too.

And we said Fuat Dündar to "help us understand what was decided and organized the deportation in 1915? Well in two words, it is the fault not of chance. That "until the eve of World War (...) Young Turks had not developed hostility against them (ie Armenians), the author forgot to switch the massacre in Adana ( approximately 30 000 deaths) of which we celebrate the hundredth anniversary this year. Only "the same period the Young Turkish power has shifted and dispersed to other non-Turkish (Kurds, Albanians, Bosnians, Circassians) (...), but for these people the decision did not have the same consequences loopholes for the Armenians. " Our historian failing to specify that this "movement" of refugees from the Balkan war (mostly) designed to install in homes left warm by Armenians "parties", for the death. Fuat even says that in February 1915 Djemal Pasha's decision to deport the Armenians of Zeytoun Dörtyol and after "some armed clashes", taking the view that Turkish official at the time. Which implies that the Armenians were "rebels" to quote the term used by the author. But never the population of these cities has "rebelled" at that time. This is neither more nor less than a false pretext at the time by the Turkish authorities. They intended to play on the reputation of resistance Zeitoun under the Sultans for these first steps of deportations, with, like the others that followed, unspeakable atrocities on women, children and the elderly (torture, rape , etc.)..

We do not eventually go through all aspects of this biased interview with the obvious purpose is to provide an under-valued version of the facts. But the conclusion of the article, in the form of final bouquet, is enough in itself to clarify the intention of the author: "I believe that the massacre was the product of circumstances, the consequence of a gradual evolution of events (...). If there had been no deportation in February 1915 to Zeytoun there have been no reactions from the Armenians of Van and Istanbul (sic) (...) if Van was not fell to the Russians because of this rebellion, the mass killings would not have occurred ".

This reading of history as seen by the small end of the telescope, with "if" in fact aiming to lower its threshold responsibility of the Turkish authorities, the clear determination of any criminal. Then comes the absolute enormity: "I do not think the government ordered the killings, but he helped the executioners: somehow, he was tasked to provide logistical support." Does it mean that Talaat, Djemal, Enver, respectively interior ministers of the navy and defense, three key members of government, that would assist the police, the organization and to the special army, which would have acted on their own? Fit for genocide Guignols de l'info, which would be conducted without the knowledge of free will of the Turkish government ...

And finally, pearl beads, always in the mouth of Fuat: "To the Young Turks was the danger but not arménité demographic imbalances. That is why I advocate that policy Turkification was - above all - a statistical and mathematical. The developed arménophobie not before but after the massacre. " Well! What would it have been if arménophobie had put the party! Thus the elimination of the Armenians would have simply responded to the need to restore a balanced population? Well, there was really no mortmain Turkish family planning at the time! And the annihilation of an entire people has been a "statistical and mathematical operation? But then, how the author says it a surprising side effect of this calculation, management mathematical killings and the fact that according to him a few lines above, the crime was not planned but caused by an unfortunate chain of circumstances (if there had been no Zeitoun "ect.)

It is a very, very far from what is shown and proven long all true experts in the field, such as Yves Ternon, the Vahakan Dadrian, through Taner Akçam and Raymond Kékorkian: that the genocide of Armenians has resulted from a political decision, that its establishment, according to a scenario identical in all places where the Armenians lived actually obey central planning, and this is undoubtedly one of the most "great crimes of the twentieth century." Qualifications used by the major allies of Turkey that the United States (before Obama) and Germany that they, unlike Mr. Dündar, at least have the intellectual honesty not to falsify the facts and figures even if for reasons of realpolitik with the Turkish state, they hypocritically circumventing the word genocide.

But when will deign History magazine does offer its readers a thesis consistent with the truth? Will it take 2015, the hundredth anniversary of the genocide, to be eligible?

Finally, always obedient to the will of misinformation that characterizes this interview, our specialist after a demonstration at the least far-fetched - believes, based on particular books secrets Talaat Pasha made public recently, that the number of deaths caused by the genocide would not be a million and a half, but six hundred miles. A figure which, as just like the rest of these pages, minimize the facts. Most studies evaluating effect of at least 1 300 000 the number of Armenians killed in 1915-16, an estimate that does not include the 1994-95 massacres hamidiens (two to three hundred miles dead), massacres Adana, genocidal atrocities committed in Iranian Azerbaijan in 1915 and the spring-summer 1918, the massacres at the same time by the Ottoman army in the regions of Kars and Alexandropol and Baku, the "military operations "Kemalists of the Caucasus. This figure of 600 000 deaths given by Mr. Dundar reviews even to lower the source to which it refers, the black book of Talaat, including the very moderate historian Ara Sarafian deducted for his part that the number of deaths in 1915 was 800 to 900 000. A document that more does not take into account the whole process. But we will understand the purpose is not to enlighten the reader as exonerate Turkey, dramatize things, and explain why from the first genocide of the twentieth century has been so obscured. These little arrangements with the truth involved in a magazine for the general public to some months of the Turkish season in France after all agree to a lot of interest, except of course those of victims. But those are for others. So why deprive ourselves?

To end on a lighter note, the box of the magazine story about the number of Armenians in the world has no shortage of salt either. This magazine has definitely a big problem with numbers and assesses the number of Armenians in the diaspora. "They are 2.7 million in diaspora. They are present in Russia (1.5 million), the United States and Canada (1.2 million), Syria and Lebanon (900 000), Africa (900 000) in the European Union (700 000 , especially in France), Iran (500 000) and Latin America (200 000). "Or, if you make the addition, 5 900 000. Find the error. So if the monthly tangle so brushes in current data and easily verifiable, what credibility can claim it when he bites to make revelations about the numbers more difficult to demonstrate. If the past is definitely not Turkish his thing, this Armenian either. Clearly, this magazine calculates wrong. Whether dead or alive.

Barack Obama Met With The Archbishop Aram Atesyan 8 April 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
The U.S. president Barack Obama went Tuesday in contact with the Turkish company in Istanbul and visited two mosques, illustration of a speech the previous day in Ankara, where he expressed his desire to strengthen ties with Turkey and the Muslim world .

Monday, Mr. Obama, who made his first visit to a Muslim country, has assured that the United States "are not and will never be at war against Islam", showing its willingness to establish a partnership with the Muslim world "with concrete actions notably in the field of education.

After the lesson lecture, practical work: the president continued his visit in Istanbul two days in Turkey, the last leg of his European tour, visiting two places symbolic of Islam and its relations with the Christian world.

Accompanied by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mr. Obama had a long walk down Sainte-Sophie, listening with a studious attention to the history of this basilica built in the sixth century, and then converted into a mosque in 1453, after the conquest of Constantinople (the now Istanbul) by the Ottomans.

Last transformation: the building was in 1935 by decree of the secular Turkish Republic, a museum where President Obama could admire the original Christian mosaics, preserved during the Ottoman period under a layer of plaster on the orders of the sultan, and the Muslim calligraphy.

From there, Mr. Obama visited the Blue Mosque, built in the seventeenth century on the orders of Ottoman Sultan Ahmet I, which, in socks, he enjoyed under the leadership of the mufti of Istanbul turquoise earthenware which mosque owes its name.

Practicing Christian, Mr. Obama smiled and learn from the mouth of the Mufti that his middle name, Hussein, was inscribed on the dome of the mosque. Hussein was the surname of one of the grand-son of the prophet Muhammad.

The U.S. president had previously talked with the leaders of various religious groups - Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Syriac, Jewish, Armenian and in particular the Archbishop Aram Atesyan, President of the Religious and representative of the Patriarchate.

He completed his visit to Turkey by a discussion with students from different universities in Turkey, during which he turned into a professor to explain the policy of his country in fields as varied as nuclear weapons or climate change .

During this exercise, Mr. Obama reiterated his message to Muslims, saying: "I believe we can forge a partnership with Turkey and throughout the Muslim world, to new opportunities."

He also launched a special appeal to youth, said: "In simple exchanges can bring down the walls between us. I want to tell you that the world is what you make ..."

"You can decide to build new bridges, rather than building new walls. You can choose to put aside old divisions, and move towards lasting peace," he said.

He used this year to renew its support for Turkey's accession to the European Union.

The hand of U.S. President to the Muslim world has been unanimously hailed Tuesday by the Turkish press, and his insistence on the strategic nature of relations between the United States and Turkey, endangered by the U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003.

"Obama has captured the hearts" in the headline "A" the popular daily Vatan.

The President has outlined a vision of a world that no longer relies solely on military power but also on peace, dialogue and compromise, "wrote columnist Fikret Bila in the liberal daily Milliyet.

"In the new world order, the United States are again on the side of Turkey," commented columnist Mehmet Barlas in the mass circulation newspaper Sabah.

Edouard Nalbandian Accuses Ankara To Thwart The Normalization Of Relations Between Ankara And Yerevan 7 April 2009, Gari / armenews
Just before departing on Monday, April 6 to Istanbul, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, has accused Ankara of the process of standardization over the Armenian-Turkish relations which his visit to Turkey was supposed to give a decisive impetus. The head of the Armenian diplomacy should indeed take advantage of its two-day visit to Turkey within the framework of a summit on the Alliance of Civilizations under the auspices of the UN to meet with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan and d ' Other Turkish officials and discuss with them the prospects for the normalization of bilateral relations. Different signals have indeed suggested that the two countries are about to accomplish a major step towards a rapprochement, which would inter alia by re-establishing diplomatic relations and the reopening of land border, closed since Ankara in 1993 by imposing a blockade on Armenia in solidarity with Azerbaijan.

Some Turkish newspapers have even suggested that an agreement to that effect would be concluded during the visit of Mr. Nalbandian in Istanbul. However, the Turkish Prime Minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan had cast a cold April 3, saying at a press conference in London that it would not be possible until the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh has not found solution meets the requirements of Yerevan. Meanwhile, Turkey had received the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama, who spoke April 5 before the Turkish parliament the "massacres of 1915, leaving in suspense as to the classification of these genocidal massacres, another subject of litigation major between Armenia and Turkey, which has posed as a condition for normalization with Yerevan abandonment of the Armenian claim to international recognition of the genocide. The American president had encouraged Turkey to take a look peaceful on its history and to normalize its relations with its neighbor Armenia, including reopening the border.

In a release issued April 5, Mr. Nalbandian replied to Turkish Prime Minister pointing out that the Nagorno Karabakh was not on the agenda of ongoing negotiations between Armenians and Turks, who left Ankara to designate settlement as a precondition was hired when the unprecedented dialogue with Yerevan in 2008. In an obvious allusion to Mr. Erdogan, he said that "statements posing preconditions for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations can be regarded as an attempt to thwart the progress achieved in the negotiations." Statements made after the Turkish warnings of Azerbaijan addressed to his brother Turk "for it does not normalizing relations with Armenia until the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh will not be resolved. The Azeri President Ilham Aliyev would have canceled his participation at the Istanbul summit to mark its disapproval of the process announced between Yerevan and Ankara. In his statement, Mr. Nalbandian also said that Ankara should not use its rapprochement with Yerevan in order to prevent the advance of the process of international recognition of the Armenian genocide. "It has been said many times, and I want to emphasize again, the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations can not call into question the reality of the Armenian genocide," including Mr. Nalbandian said. The Turkish newspaper in English "Hurriyet Daily News indicates that Mr. Nalbandian was expected in Istanbul on 5 April to Sunday evening. The delay of the head of the Armenian diplomacy should be interpreted as a sign of his displeasure after Mr Erdogan, according to the Turkish daily.

You Said Diaspora? 6 April 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
She had a taste this old-fashioned lecture in honor of the visit to France by the Minister of Diaspora Heranoush Hagopian * on Friday April 3 at Alex Manoogian Cultural Center (AGBU). Admittedly, a rather pleasant taste, but the flowers perfume the era of the former Soviet Union when the swarms Minister, on a paternalistic action in the Armenia-Diaspora unification, while a member of the delegation, suddenly become numbing, sleep indefinitely ...

She herself expected better. At a reception that would have met hundreds of people, as in his previous trips abroad. It did not happen, since only a great thirties, picked, not journalists, came to meet our Minister of guardianship.

Flanked at its Alexis Govcyian left and right of Mourad Papazian (circonspects. ..), Ms. Hagopian spoke to not abandon a fifteen plus hours later, after having brushed the table ideal that should guide the future relations "diasporarméniennes.

In preparation for his river, it will discuss the great suffering of the people of Armenia, while noting that 80% of the diaspora are not involved in the Armenian. Then she came to the menu of the statements of intent. A package of measures including:

Priority to the fight against terrorism and corruption. Democratization of Armenia. Addressing issues related to ecology.

Take into account the demands, suggestions and criticisms of the diaspora by organizing round tables.

Develop language learning Armenian diaspora, where the priority is to help strengthen and make each of its arménité and its national identity. To this end, the ministry will provide books and technical assistance to Armenian schools abroad.

Willingness to develop relations between the Diaspora with Armenia, from the planning of meetings with youth, athletes, artists and intellectuals. And encouraging the diaspora to visit their historical homeland.

Mission scientists to come and teach in Armenia. Scholars to teach the history and the diaspora, a way to take advantage of the enormous intellectual potential of the diaspora to address the glaring needs of Armenia.

Political investment in the development of Armenia.

Armenians call the peripheral countries with a high concentration of Armenia, or elsewhere, to gain or regain the Motherland, physically or mentally.

For each position discussed, 80 Ministry officials will listen and try to facilitate initiatives or personal issues and associations.

When donations from the diaspora have declined by about 30%, the tone is given: gathering flock astray, motivation and awareness of the Armenian identity, repopulation of Armenia, more investment of Diaspora in Armenia, and so on.

For example, Hagopian Heranoush include the model of success that the State of Israel.

And to conclude it will announce the creation of a diaspora of the Journal Online, available in several languages, without being cited french.

As Kant, philosopher, thinker of the Enlightenment: "what is that good will is such, it is not his work or his success, not her ability to achieve a particular purpose proposed is [...] just want to. "

Jean Eckian

* Heranoush Hagopian was born on 12 April 1954 in the village of Kamo.

A graduate of the Department of Applied Mathematics State University of Yerevan in 1975 and the Faculty of Law in 1994, it is also a graduate of the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee SUCP. Professor at the State University Gavar, author of 2 monographs and 26 scientific articles. From 1975 to 1983 she worked as an assistant professor at State University of Yerevan. From 1978 to 1983, First Assistant Secretary and, later, secretary of the State University of Yerevan (LCYU). From 1983 to 1990, First Secretary of the Central Committee of LCYU, deputy of the Supreme Council of Armenia SSR (1986-1990), member Presidium of the Supreme Council. From 1995-1997, Heranoush Hagopian was vice-president of the Social Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS. It is also a member of a faction of the Republican Party, and Minister of Social Security of the Republic of Armenia from 1996 to 1998.

On 25 May 2003 she was elected to the National Assembly and Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Science, Education, Culture and Youth.

She was also co-chair of the Board of the Armenian-American Health Center and member of the Coordinating Committee on the Status of Women.

Since 2004, she is the head of the delegation of the Interparliamentary Union, President of the Armenian International Women's Association and co-chair of the Women's Health Protection Association.

Turkish Intellectuals Reflect On Obama's Visit, Armenian Issue Khatchig Mouradian, www.hairenik.com/ April 8, 2009
Turkish intellectuals-from progressives to hardliners-I interviewed on the eve of President Obama's visit to Turkey believe that the U.S. administration will firmly support the dialogue between Turkey-Armenia, but will not recognize the Armenian Genocide. Many progressives, however, expect Obama to pressure Turkey to allow free discussion of the Armenian issue.

According to The Economist Turkey correspondent Amberin Zaman, "The Obama visit will reset the parameters of Turkey-U.S. relations that were reduced-under eight years of the Bush administration-to a cynical focus on the security relationship driven by the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Turkey's strategic role as a the main hub for logistical supplies flowing to US troops based there." She adds, "This policy came at the expense of human rights. With its own record blemished by atrocities committed in Iraq, U.S. criticism of Turkey's human rights record carries no moral weight. This will and must change with Obama. This means closer scrutiny of Turkey's treatment of its ethnic and religious minorities and scrapping laws that, among others, criminalize free discussion of the horrors inflicted on a once vibrant community of Ottoman Armenians who lived across Turkey."

In turn, historian Halil Berktay expects from the Obama administration "positive, affirmative support for steps oriented to a Turkey-Armenia reconciliation; approval of and rewards for a unilateral opening of the Turkish-Armenian border; as well as any other trust-building measures." He also expects that Obama will not say "anything explicit on U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide," but will, instead, "advise that this is best solved by Turks and Armenians; advise that total freedom of speech and scholarship inside Turkey (and Armenia) is crucial in that regard; also advise, as gently as possible, that at the end of the day, countries are better off recognizing and admitting bad things in their past rather than burying or denying them (but that such recognition should not be forced on them from the outside)."

Journalist and scholar Ayse Hur thinks that Obama will refrain from acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. "For the sake of the great strategic goals of the U.S., he will not use the word 'genocide.' Instead, he will insist on opening the Armenian-Turkish border and establishing good neighborly relations."

Human rights activist and journalist Baskin Oran believes that "Armenia-Turkey relations will be normalized (embassies and borders opened) [even] without Obama's visit." It is possible, however, that Obama's visit will strengthen the Turkish government's hand "against the nationalist opposition," he adds.

Kemal Cicek from the Turkish Historical Society-the guardian of Turkey's official thesis on the fate of the Armenians in 1915-says, "The U.S. policy will not be different at all. The U.S. administration will keep the balance between the two countries [Armenia and Turkey], but will not please the Armenian diaspora by using the 'g' word in his presidential statement on April 24. Moreover, we are expecting that the U.S. President will support Turkey's proposal to establish a joint historical commission for studying the events of 1915-1916."

According to human rights activist and journalist Ayse Gunaysu, Obama should not encourage Turkey "to continue its policies of denying the Armenian Genocide and injuring the memories of the victims and their grandchildren all over the world." She added, "The Turkish authorities and also business organizations and other private or public institutions are making calls to President Obama not to pressure Turkey for the recognition of Armenian Genocide. They don't represent me and they don't represent many people who think like me. I am a Turk and I do believe that Turkey should officially recognize the Genocide."

Gunaysu concludes, "We often hear from such official and semi-official entities that accusation of Genocide is an insult and an injury to the Turkish people. I am a Turk and I feel insulted and injured by the denial of the Genocide.

More Than 300 European Organizations Urge Obama To Recognize Genocide www.asbarez.com , April 7, 2009
BRUSSELS--A letter signed by more than 340 European organizations is urging US President Barack Obama to stand firm against Turkish pressure and honor his campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, reported the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy.

The letter, sent to the White House while the President was in London for the G20 summit Friday, stresses that a failure to recognize the Armenian genocide "would be interpreted by genocide-perpetrating governments as a full license to continue their bloody acts." It highlights Turkey's growing support for the Sudanese government as a contemporary example of how the genocide in Darfur continues because states like Turkey have gone unpunished for committing the same crime.

"Recognizing the Armenian Genocide means moving toward a durable peace; it means more stability, more justice and more democracy in the region," said Hilda Tchoboian, the chairperson of the European Armenian Federation. "These are European values. The European Armenian Federation shares these values with President Obama and we hope these values can once again become the bulwark of US policy."

A proper recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the United States, the petition says, "will unleash the momentum of true change and democratization inside Turkey" and "provide unprecedented momentum to the process of dialogue between Turkey and Armenia."

A principled stand by the United States would "definitely require of Turkey a fundamental commitment to a just peace," the letter adds.

The letter states that European Armenians along with other European mainstream democratic forces would never accept Turkey's membership in the EU as long as "the Turkish state denies the Armenian Genocide, promotes racism and pursues a policy of discrimination towards its minorities."

According To Hayk Demoyan, Turkey Has Calculated All Its Steps In Advance Noyan Tapan, Apr 6, 2009
YEREVAN, APRIL 6, NOYAN TAPAN. According to Hayk Demoyan, the Director of the Museum-Institute of Armenian Genocide, today the West wishes to see the Armenian-Turkish border opened, which causes inconveniences for Turkey. As H. Demoyan reported at the April 6 press conference, the probability of border's opening causes problems in Turkish-Azeri relations. Besides, according to the speaker, the Turkish authorities have to somehow show to their own society that they do not yield to United States' pressure in the issue of opening the border. "In one word, the possibility of Turkey's manoeuvre in the issue of opening the border has become limited," H. Demoyan said. He added that European media criticized the statement of a Turkish official that the border cannot be opened until there is the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

According to H. Demoyan, by saying "opening of the border" Armenian society imagines a near campaign or attack by the Turks. While, in his words, only opening of two barriers is spoken about. H. Demoyan added that cargo transportations will be done and a contact with the outer world will be established thanks to opening of the two barriers. "The advantages of opening the border are huge for Armenia," he said meanwhile adding that the Armenians should be cautious. "Let us not be naive: Turkey has calculated all its steps in advance. We should not forget that Turkey is the ally of the country, with which we are at a non-announced war," H. Demoyan said.

Why Is Obama Paying So Much Attention To Turkey? States News Service, April 5, 2009
The following information was released by Radio Free Europe /Radio Liberty:

U.S. President Barack Obama has arrived in Turkey for the start of a two-day tour, the first predominantly Muslim country he is visiting since taking office.

During his first day in Ankara, April 6, he will address the Turkish parliament and hold talks on Turkey's role in the Caucasus and the Mideast.

Then, on April 7 he attends a major international conference in Istanbul to promote East-West dialogue.

So far, Obama has spent most of his first presidential trip abroad dealing with alliances.

Those include the G20 for confronting the global economic downturn, NATO for reinforcing efforts in Afghanistan, and the EU for strengthening trans-Atlantic ties.

Turkey is his only visit focused on a single state, and his only stop in a predominantly Muslim country before he heads home on April 8.

Why is he giving so much attention to Turkey?

In Turkey, Obama has a venue for addressing a number of problems at once -- from Iraq, to the Caucasus, to Iran. And he can highlight the apparent readiness of Ankara -- a major regional power -- to endorse his drive to explore diplomatic solutions to ease regional tensions.

If Obama makes common cause with Erdogan, there is a danger that in Turkey he may be seen as showing too much confidence in a leader whose populist Islamist party is heavily criticized by Turkey's secular establishment

For Iraq, Washington wants Ankara and other neighborhood states to help create a stable political environment as the United States looks to withdraw troops.

In the Caucasus, Washington wants to counter Russian moves to cow Georgia and bring it back into Moscow's orbit. The White House welcomes signs that Turkey may reopen its border with Armenia and play a larger role overall in the Caucasus, where the United States and Turkey, as well as Russia, have major energy interests.

And Washington may want to explore more direct cooperation with Turkey's own efforts to use its economic and political clout to become a broker for talks between such varied players as Syria and Israel, or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Turkish Regional Ambitions

Turkish analysts say the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is keen to make Turkey a major regional diplomatic power and is ready to work with Obama.

Mustafa Akyol, the deputy editor of the "Hurriyet Daily News," an English-language publication in Istanbul, said the Turkish government hopes "that we can be the party that can really build soft power in the region."

"They have tried it with Syria and Israel, they tried to talk with Hamas and give advice on restraint to Hamas and to stop their terrorist methods and enter into the peace process with Israel. But they haven't been fully able to do this because of two reasons," Akyol said.

"One reason was that the government felt the Bush administration was not very open to dialogue in the first place with these actors in the Middle East. So, when Obama came to power with a more reconciliatory tone, with a message that says 'I will talk and we [the United States] will listen,' and when Obama said he wants to engage in a process with Iran, Turkey said, 'Yes, this is what we have been waiting for.'"

Akyol and other analysts say Ankara's interest in using soft power also extends to the Iranian nuclear crisis, one of Obama's toughest challenges.

If Obama makes common cause with Erdogan, there is a danger that in Turkey he may be seen as showing too much confidence in a leader whose populist Islamist party is heavily criticized by Turkey's secular establishment.

That could be why the U.S. president is taking some highly visible steps during his visit to show he stands outside the Turkish Islamist-secular political divide.

In Ankara, Obama will meet with the leaders of Turkey's main opposition parties.

And, in an unprecedented move, he will also meet with the leader of Turkey's Kurdish party. That will endorse Ankara's extending greater cultural rights to the Kurdish minority as the government seeks to isolate the armed PKK, which both Turkey and the United States consider a terrorist organization.

Obama will also address the Turkish parliament in Ankara. The White House has indicated the president will use the speech to discuss the progress of Turkey's democratic reforms and to reaffirm U.S. support for Turkey's bid to join the EU.

Speech To Muslim World?

There has been much speculation whether Obama will also use this trip for a major speech to the Muslim world. If such an opportunity arises, it would come in Istanbul on April 7, when he attends a UN-backed forum aimed at fostering dialogue between the West and the Muslim world. The forum is the Alliance of Civilizations, cochaired by Turkey and Spain.

Obama has said previously he would make an address to the Muslim world during his first 100 days in office. And Turkey, where opinion polls showed favorable views of the United States dropping from 52 percent in 2000 to just 9 percent in 2007 -- before moving up slightly to 12 percent last year -- might seem a convenient location.

But many analysts say Obama will not make Istanbul his platform for a formal policy address to Muslims. Instead, he is likely to speak at the conference in general terms.

The reason is -- again -- Turkey's own split identity between secularism and Islam.

Lale Sariibrahimoglu, an Ankara-based columnist for the daily "Today's Zaman," says Turkey's strongest defender of secularism, the army, resents Washington's past efforts to portray the country as a Muslim role model.

That includes the Bush administration's involving Turkey in its Greater Middle East Initiative to encourage democratic change in the Muslim world.

"The Bush administration's policy of seeing Turkey as the leader of moderate Islam in the world, as [an Islamic] role model, annoyed the Turkish establishment, led by the Turkish military," Sariibrahimoglu said.

"But when [U.S. Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton was here, she was asked on a talk show whether this is how Americans perceive Turkey, as a role model for moderate Islam, because the Turkish establishment doesn't like this terminology since we have a secular constitution. And she ruled out any such policy under the Obama administration."

Another analyst, Bulent Aliriza of the Washington-based think-tank CSIS, agrees. He says Obama, while in Turkey, is not likely in to go much beyond what he has already said from the White House.

"Although the White House is stressing that this is not going to be the location for his big, publicized message to the Islamic world that he promised to deliver in the first 100 days, it is a good opportunity to add it onto a European trip and underline the messages that he has already given through his interview with Al-Arabiya and the Norouz message to Iran to the Islamic world," Aliriza said.

In those messages, Obama encouraged Muslims angry at the United States to unclench their fists and grasp America's hand, extended to them in friendship, instead.

However, Aliriza said that while Obama may want to avoid any impression he is giving his promised "big speech" to Muslims in Istanbul, for the world audience it may be a distinction without a difference.

"In fact," said Aliriza, "the entire Islamic world will be listening to the message that Obama will give in Turkey to see whether he intends to follow through on his promise to establish a new, less confrontational relationship with the Islamic world."

How Did Turkish Newspapers Receive Obama? BIA, Turkey April 7 2009
The Evrensel, Birgun and Gunluk newspapers criticised Obama's messages as insincere. Hurriyet, Milliyet and Radikal quoted his message of a new phase in Turkish-American relations. Star and Taraf published his message to the Muslim world.

Bia news centre - Istanbul 07-04-2009 Emine OZCAN

US President Barack Obama's visit to Turkey was on the front pages of Turkey's daily newspapers today.

The Hurriyet newspaper referred to Obama's slogan of "change" and said "We Must All Change". The first page was devoted to Obama's comments on the importance of Turkey and praise for the country.

The Zaman newspaper announce Obama's visit under the heading "Historical and Warm Messages." The newspaper acknowledged Obama's gesture of visiting Prime Minister Erdogan at the Prime Ministerial Office and further discussed four messages of the US President:

"The USA is not at war with Islam, nor will it be. We support EU membership for Turkey. We will form a model partnership with Turkey. PKK and Al Qaida are common enemies. Many American families have Muslim members. I am one of them."

The Sabah newspaper's headline ran "Obama's Ankara Manifesto." The newspaper reported that Obama supported an opening of the border with Armenia, a discussion of the events of 1915 in parliament, and a re-opening of a priests' seminary on Heybeliada in Istanbul.

The Radikal newspaper read "Let Our Partnership Be a Model", with another heading saying "Two laicist democratic countries must form a model partnership."

The Birgun newspaper was more critical, saying "Obama's Bargain for Cheap Soldiers." Referring to the Ataturk quote "Peace in the country, peace in the world," which Obama wrote into the visitor's book at Ataturk's mausoleum in Ankara, the newspaper said, "He might write [that], but he has visited in order to place more Turkish soldiers in the region, especially Afghanistan."

The Evrensel newspaper said "Trying to Please Everyone", saying that he was trying to win over everyone with different messages.

The Milliyet newspaper covered Obama's visit with the headline "Setting off with Turkey," reporting that Obama's speech in Turkish Parliament on Monday showed the path ahead.

The Haberturk newspaper's headline read "He Didn't Budge," adding below, "On his first visit to a foreign country, US President Barack Obama spoke candidly, emphasing a laicist democracy. He sent the world important messages."

With its heading "You Change, Too", the Vatan newspaper said that Obama was calling on Turkey to change. The newspaper also covered the president's comments on the 1915 events and priests' seminaries.

The Star and Taraf newspapers had nearly the same headline, the Taraf writing "We Will Not Fight with Islam", and Star saying "We Will Never Fight with Islam."

The Gunluk newspaper said, "Obama Came, Bush Talked," arguing that Obama was following Bush's policy and supporting Turkey against the PKK.

The Yenisafak newspaper put Obama's sentence "There are Muslims in My Family" on the front page and emphasised that Obama would try to make good Bush's mistakes. (EZO/AG)

President Of Turkey: World Needed Obama's Message
"Without Security And Stability There Will Not Be Any Welfare, Economic Welfare", April 08, 2009, By Spero News

In a CNN Market Place Middle East interview with Abdullah Gul, the President of Turkey talks about his recent visit with U.S. President Barack Obama, as well as such varied Middle East topics as Iran, Iraq and the Palestinian situation.

Following is a transcript of that interview, conducted by CNN's John Defterios.

Abdullah Gul: Well it's an opportunity for both of us, because Obama, he is saying that there is a need for change and his message is so clear. He is saying that we are going first to listen, we are not going to enforce and he is saying that we are not going to act unilaterally. So this is a good message, in fact the world has needed this message. And of course for us also, it's a good opportunity to convey all our messages to him. In the Middle East, in the Far East, in the problematic areas, all the leaders they should not miss this opportunity because President Obama is saying that 'we are going to listen to you.

John Defterios (CNN): You had a mid march meeting with the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. Public gestures aside, is Iran willing to accept the olive branch that President Obama is putting forward?

Abdullah Gul: The problems are not easy problems. I am sure that they are listening, they are deliberating and I am sure that at the end when they are convinced that all these messages are sincere, and then we can see the action. So I am very much optimistic.

John Defterios: Does it take the elections to pass in June, the elections in Iran to have the next stage of response from Iran? Is it important?

Abdullah Gul: Election is always important, in any country you see, even in Iran, in all societies. And the politicians before the election, they have to be populists. So therefore after the election maybe these serious issues can be handled better.

John Defterios: You had a visit to Iraq. They are trying to rebuild the economy; they are trying to expand the energy sector as you know. But you say they have fears of the future. Are they worried that the US is going to pull out before the economic rebuilding and political stability is there.

Abdullah Gul: I spent two days there. I think I was the first leader to spend the day there. Definitely the security is still a big problem there. But when you compare it to previous days, years, I think its getting better. Turkey is helping them a lot and I think my visit was very much very useful for the both sides. We are in good co-operation with them. Territorial integrity and political unity of Iraqis is essential so therefore all of us we have to support them, we have to help them and I am sure that they will succeed in the end.

John Defterios: One final point, you can't have stability in the region without a solution to Gaza. And the rebuilding effort is not moving forward because you have a divided government between Hamas and Fatah. Can they come together so you can get economic development rekindled in the Palestinian territories?

Abdullah Gul: Of course without security and stability there will not be any welfare, economic welfare. As far as Palestinians are concerned, first they should not be divided between them, they should unite. We should all support them. Later on of course, Palestinian and Israelis. Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon it's a comprehensive Middle East peace process. Sometimes we are on the scene, sometimes we are not. But we are doing very good things there. I hope that the others also they realize this and they appreciate what Turkey is doing.

Waiting For The Word: What Did Or Didnt President Obama Say In Ankara? By John Hughes, ArmeniaNow editor
Published: 07 April, 2009 Article tools printable version email to friend comments (5) share the article Now that US President Barack Obama has returned to Washington, D.C. after his highly-scrutinized visit to Turkey, what he said/what he didnt say is the substance for analysis, for second-guessing, for between-the-lines interpretation that may or may not reflect whether Turkish-Armenian relations will changed as a result of the trip.

Obama who as a senator supported US legislation that favors recognition of the Armenian Genocide and who has stated his intentions to support recognition during his administration proved his diplomatic skills when the issue was broached in an Ankara press conference Monday.

"I want to focus not on my views right now, but on the views of the Turkish and Armenian people. If they can move forward... the entire world should encourage them," the president said.

It appears that some see two words as critical in that comment: right now.

The Washington-based Armenian Assembly of America (www.aaainc.org) the largest Armenian-American advocacy organization took Obamas answer as a positive signal of his continued commitment to acknowledgement of the 1915-18 massacres and deportations as something other than tragic events as officially characterized by his predecessors.

"For the first time, a U.S. President has delivered a direct message to Turkish officials in their own country that he stands behind his steadfast support and strong record of affirmation of the Armenian Genocide," said the Assemblys Executive Director Bryan Ardouny.

And in continuing, the Assembly leader in effect laid down the gauntlet by adding: "On April 24, the Assembly looks forward to President Obama's statement reaffirming the Armenian Genocide."

Reaction by the Armenian National Committee of America (www.anca.org) was less reserved, saying that Obama had missed a valuable opportunity in Ankara, but also looked to April 24 as a chance for him to do what no other US president has done.

A statement by ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian says that while Obamas comments were a step in the right direction they were nonetheless far short of the clear promise he made as a candidate that he would, as President, fully and unequivocally recognize this crime against humanity. We expect that the President will, during Genocide Prevention Month this April, stand by his word . . .

But if sentiment expressed on todays AC 360 CNN feature http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/06/obamas-turkish-dilemma/) prevails in the White House, recognition is and should be lower on the presidents agenda than other Turkish-American priorities.

Referring to HR252 a congressional resolution supported by the Assembly and ANCA -- F. Stephen Larrabee, Corporate Chair in European Security at the RAND Corporation, writes:

Instead of passing the Genocide resolution Congress should encourage the process of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, particularly the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border (closed since 1993), which would have an important economic impact on Armenia and decrease Armenias economic isolation.

In return for heading off the resolution, Turkey should pursue reconciliation with Yerevan and continue the effort to promote greater internal openness in addressing the Armenian issue that has been evident in recent years.

This would represent a win-win situation for all sides and avoid a crisis that could do untold damage to U.S.-Turkish relations and broader U.S. interests in the Middle East and Caucasus.

In Yerevan, Obama received mostly passing grades for his handling of the genocide question, as local analysts understand the complexities of events that include the US need for close relations with Turkey in the fallout of generally-ruined Islamic relations Obama inherited from George W. Bush.

Public and political response from Turkey showed that Obama made considerable progress in improving US-Turkey relations. By saying genocide on April 24 he would risk losing whatever gains were made on Monday.

Ruben Safrastyan, head of the Oriental Studies Institute at the RA National Academy of Sciences says that Obama played a double game.

Saying that his position has not changed, he, at the same time, did not pronounce the word genocide, setting the ground for making compromises to improve Armenian-Turkish relations by means of negotiations, Safrastyan said. But he also made it clear for Turkey that history has to be revised and compromises have to be made. Other than that, his position has not changed and he may pronounce the word genocide one day.

According to another analyst, that day wont be soon.

I was not expecting the US President to use the word genocide during his visit to Turkey, said Alexander Iskandaryan, Director of the Caucasus Media Institute. Yesterdays statement showed once again that Obama will not use the word on April 24 either.

How Obama Became A Smash Hit In The Country That Gives The United States Its Lowest Approval Rating. By Yigal Schleifer April 2009
After charming his way through summits in Britain, France, and the Czech Republic, U.S. President Barack Obama ended his European tour in Turkey, where he needed every last ounce of his charisma (and had to do without the backup of his wife Michelle, who returned to Washington to be with their daughters).

The last eight years have been brutal on the U.S.-Turkey relationship. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 exposed a deep rift between the two countries, with Ankara opposing the war and Turkey's parliament refusing to pass a motion that would have allowed U.S. troops to use the country as a launching pad for attacking the Saddam regime. Things have been even more dismal on the public opinion front. In a 2007 Pew Research Center public opinion survey, only 9 percent of Turks surveyed held favorable views of the United States, meaning that Turkey was the country with the least favorable view of the United States among the 47 countries and territories surveyed. (If it's any consolation for the United States, other surveys found that Turks seem to be a grumpy lot, holding generally unfavorable views of many other countries.)

America's fall from grace was reflected in Turkish popular culture. A 2005 Turkish bestseller, Metal Firtina (Metal Storm), envisioned Turks and Americans engaging in all-out war, the story ending with a nuclear device detonating in Washington. Kurtlar Vadisi -- Irak (Valley of the Wolves -- Iraq), a crassly anti-American and anti-Semitic 2006 film that became one of Turkey's best-grossing movies ever, saw a team of Turkish agents battling evil Americans in northern Iraq and a devious doctor (played by Gary Busey) who runs an organ-harvesting operation that relies on Iraqi corpses.

Yet Turkish public opinion might now be turning a corner. Obama's election and visit seemed to bring out a healthy dose of goodwill and excitement in Turkey. On the day of his arrival, Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest newspapers, ran a large headline that said in English: "Welcome, Mr. President" (though adding in Turkish below the fold, "But we have been offended for the last eight years"). Two competing Istanbul pastry makers both came up with a flaky phyllo dough dessert called Baracklava. And for the last few weeks, a face that looks strikingly like that of Obama's has been staring from billboards across the country, part of an ad campaign for a low-interest account at one of Turkey's largest banks. Meanwhile, in a speech he gave in late March at Princeton University, Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign-policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, suggested that we might soon witness the dawning of a "golden age" in U.S.-Turkey relations. "Our approach and principles are almost the same, very similar [to the United States'] on issues such as the Middle East, Caucasus, the Balkans, and energy security," he said.

The Obama administration also appears to have realized that a new approach is needed for Turkey, especially in terms of public diplomacy and reconnecting with the Turkish public. During the Bush years, U.S. officials only seemed to show up in times of crisis, their arrival usually creating a sense of dread that only increased tension, rather than easing it. This has already changed. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Turkey last month mostly to just say hello and, as she explained, listen to what Turks had to say. In a radical -- and well-received -- departure from the way things had been done previously, Clinton appeared on a popular television chat show, Haydi Gel Bizimle Ol (Come and Join Us), similar to the popular American talk show The View. On the program, Clinton opened up to the four hosts about her family life and her challenged sense of fashion.

The contrast between Clinton's first trip as secretary of state to Turkey and the several frosty visits that her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, made in recent years, was striking.

Following in Clinton's footsteps, Obama made his own public-outreach effort, holding an Istanbul town-hall meeting with some 100 Turkish university students that was broadcast live on television. The event took place in a cultural center, a 17th-century Ottoman building that was once a cannon factory, and presented the U.S. president as the college professor in chief: pedagogic without being pedantic, using humor when he needed to, and taking advantage of even bad questions to raise the level of the discussion. Touching on everything from climate change to the Kurdish issue, Obama told the students that the image of America that they might have been getting from films or television shows was not the correct one. "Sometimes it suggests that America has become selfish or crass and doesn't care about the world beyond its borders," Obama told the students. "I'm here to tell you that's not the America I know."

"We are still a place where anyone who tries can still make it. If that wasn't true, then someone named Barack Hussein Obama could not become president," the president added.

"It's a different style, but I think it's effective," town-hall-meeting attendee Berna Ozkale, a 21-year-old senior studying chemical engineering at Istanbul Technical University, told the Christian Science Monitor. "I went to an American high school in Istanbul and I have gone to the United States, but that doesn't mean I was happy with what America was doing and President Bush. ... All these students are here because they have hope in the new American president. ... I wouldn't have come if it was George [W.] Bush."

If there was a golden age in U.S.-Turkey relations, it was probably the several-day visit that then U.S. President Bill Clinton made to Turkey in 1999. Clinton is still fondly remembered for visiting an area outside Istanbul that had been hit by a devastating earthquake only a few months before and for delivering a rousing speech in parliament. Pictures of a smiling Clinton are still easy to find in the small shops in Istanbul's Grand Bazaar, where the former president's image is often displayed as shorthand for "We like Americans."

It's likely that Obama pictures will soon be on display in the bazaar. On a visit there during Obama's first day in Turkey, I spoke with Ismail Aksahin, a kilim rug merchant who has been working the Grand Bazaar since 1992. "We are feeling good about Obama. Bush was a bad option for us for eight years. We feel about Obama the way we feel about Clinton."

"If you had asked most of us here a year ago if we were ready to embrace America, everybody would have said, 'No,'" he added, waving his hand dismissively.

"Now the wind is blowing in a different direction."

Yigal Schleifer is the Istanbul correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor

An Inventory Of The Obama Visit
U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit may be analyzed as follows in terms of both Turkish-American relations and its respective outcomes regarding a series of domestic and foreign issues in Turkey:

1) A PRESIDENT OWNING UP TO ATATÜRK
President Obama has portrayed an identity that owns up to Atatürk’s legacy and his vision with strong expressions. His remarks on Atatürk (“He continues to inspire the world”) his commitment to “support Atatürk’s modern and democratic Turkey vision” and his declaration about having adopted the “peace at home, peace in the world” ideal himself were undoubtedly incredibly warm and powerful messages. And yet, the fact that Obama regards directing Turkey towards democracy as the pinnacle of Atatürk’s success, and that he emphasizes Atatürk’s vision along with the democracy angle should be underlined. We could say that Obama’s view closes the door on Atatürkism interpretations that hold the Republic above democracy, and do not embrace democracy at all. Obama has pointed to democracy as the only source of guidance as a solution for all of the problems.

2) STRONG EMPHASIS ON SECULARISM
Obama’s standing behind secularism with strong undertones is a complimentary factor to his view of Atatürk. It should be noted that he presents secularism as a vital component of democracy by emphasizing “secular democracy” during his Parliament speech and he defines a common denominator between Turkey and the U.S., namely “the promise of a secular nation,” where nations do not define themselves through their religious identities.

3) MODERATE ISLAM EXPRESSION IS HISTORY
Another issue complimentary to this development is the fact that the “moderate Islam” expression has come to an end. It had been made public that this very concept has been removed from the official U.S. language during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Turkey last month. President Obama has maintained the same stance with increasing emphasis during his visit to Turkey. This way, all question marks and doubts that had appeared within the sensitive circles in Turkish society regarding the U.S. writing off secularism in Turkey due to this particular language that had found its way in the official circles during the Republican era must have dispersed significantly.

4) MEANING OF A MODEL RELATIONSHIP?
Despite all this, religion is still the determining factor in the U.S. view of Turkey. Even more so, when one considers how Obama utilizes the model relationship concept, it will become evident that he has formulated the model largely on the meeting of two different religions. Obama says, “A nation that is predominantly Christian, and a Western nation where the majority is Muslim, shall be coming together.” Obama thus sends a message to the entire Muslim world, saying, “Look, we could establish close relations with you, too, just as we have with Turkey. You may regard our relationship with Turkey as an example.” These words of his clearly express that Obama places Turkey in a very special position on a global stage in any case. A significant role model as far as the U.S., wishing to build bridges with the Muslim world in the post-9/11 era, is concerned, Turkey retains these characteristics during the Obama presidency as well. The difference is the fact that Washington is not going to change its stance at the expense of giving up on secularism.

5) WARM TO THE OPPOSITION AS WELL
Another significant aspect of the visit is Obama’s warm messages to all circles in Turkey. In this context, his visits with CHP, MHP and DTP leaders are an important novelty. Neither Bill Clinton, nor George Bush, had deemed it necessary to visit with the opposition leaders in their 1999 and 2004 visits to Ankara. Obama, on the other hand, has given the message that he not only knows all the actors on the Turkish political stage, but he cares for them as well. This situation has also prevented Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from perceiving and presenting this visit as a show of support solely for himself and his party.

6) CLOSE RELATIONS WITH ERDOĞAN
And yet, no one can deny that this visit has all but filled the sails of both President Gül and Prime Minister Erdoğan. Obama has established a close and warm relationship with these two leaders on the heels of his inauguration. We could safely guess that Obama shall be in a process of very close dialog and consultation with both his counterparts, and quite a few sensitive international issues shall be brought up in the course of this dialog in the coming days. This close dialog shall not only reinforce Turkey’s role within the region, but also add to Turkey’s ability to influence the U.S. Likewise, it will open Turkey up to the U.S. expectations, as well. The expectation of a gesture in the form sending Turkish troops to Afghanistan is likely to be the first test in this context.

7) EXPECTATION OF AN ACTION IN THE KURDISH ISSUE
The fact that Obama had sat down with the DTP leader Türk in addition to the messages he had given regarding the Kurdish issue indicates that the Democrat White House is expecting rather progressive steps of the AKP cabinet in this regard. Expectations of new opportunities for Kurds, especially in education, seem to be rising to the top. What’s more, this is the first time a U.S. president has mentioned Kurds in Turkey as an ethnic minority. The fact that Obama has sat down with the DTP, a political action toward a political figure with whom many civilian and other political figures would not shake hands, has rendered it as the most important component of the solution, and has solidified this position. It is quite inevitable that this shall have an effect that will increase the DTP’s power domestically as well as outside Turkey. The visit has carried the political solution process of the Kurdish issue to a new threshold in this regard.

8) A STEP FOR THE HALKI SEMINARY
One of the clear requests of the new U.S. president is the opening of the Halki (Heybeliada) Seminary. The issue has been addressed by every U.S. president. But Obama has carried the message all the way to the Turkish Parliament quite clearly. We’ll see if this could be enough to break the AKP’s conservative resistance in the subject.

9) BORDER GATE WITH ARMENIA
Similarly, Obama’s request to open the Turkey-Armenia border gate seems to be another source of Ankara. The step that Turkey is preparing to take has already caused cold winds between Azerbaijan and Turkey. How Turkey will balance its rooted interests in Azerbaijan and initiatives in the Armenian issue will be the most critical case in the days to come.

10) PROGRESS IN BILATERAL RELATIONS?
Turkish-American relations faced the biggest crisis in their history following the rejection of the March 1, 2003, troop deployment note in the Turkish Parliament. With the sack incident that occurred on July 4, 2003, bilateral relations totally hit bottom. During that time, many commentators said Turkish-American relations would never be the same again. But the situation today proves they were wrong. Starting from today, Turkey, in the eye of the Obama administration, is one of the most special allies in the world. This will obviously increase the significance and influence of Turkey in the international arena. However, internal issues in relation to bilateral relations’ new agenda may create tension within Turkish internal politics. Sedat Ergin © Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

To Get Turkey Right, Hear What Obama Said
The trip to Turkey by President Barack Ğ Hussein Ğ Obama, as people loved to emphasize here, was a big success. Except for a few hundred "anti-imperialist," lefty protestors who hit the streets chanting, "Yankee go home," most Turks welcomed him calmly and some even fondly.

Some nationalists, including Nationalist Action Party, or MHP, leader Devlet Bahçeli, didn’t like what he said about Turkish-Armenian relations Ğ or rather the lack thereof. But that’s quite normal. The Armenian lobby in the United States, which is no fan of Turkey, didn’t like the way he handled that issue either. The disapproval of extremists on both sides of a question is often the indicator of a fair position.

Personally speaking, I very much liked Obama’s messages. The steps he suggested that Turkey take were completely reasonable. Of course, we need to introduce further reforms to honor the rights of our Kurdish citizens and religious minorities. To be sure, the Halki Seminary, unwisely closed by the Turkish authorities in 1971, needs to be reopened. This is all Democracy 101.

Enter ’secular democracy’

Democracy 102, if you will, was hidden in Mr. Obama’s semantics. In the speech he delivered at the Turkish Parliament, for example, he used a term that we Turks should well note: "secular democracy." This came as he was speaking about the heritage of Atatürk, the country’s founder. "His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong and secular democracy," Obama said. "And that is the work that this assembly carries on today."

While it may not seem like rocket science, that formulation is actually quite brilliant. Because the term, "secular democracy" is not common in Turkey’s political language. We generally, rather, use two different terms: "Secular republic" (laik cumhuriyet) and "democracy" (demokrasi). And these two are sometimes seen as alternatives to each other. Military coups are made, and justified, in the name of the secular republic. And democracy is often loathed by the latter’s zealous defenders as a counter-revolution to theirs. But what is good in a secular republic if is not democratic? The Soviet Union, for example, was a secular republic, but it really was not the place you would want to live in if you have an aspiration for things like civil liberties. The same can be said for North Korea, Red China or Saddam’s Iraq. They all had official ideologies (Kim Il Sungism, Maoism, and Baathism, respectively) that were as secular as they could be. And they all defined themselves as republics. Are you impressed?

What is much better, of course, is to have a democratic ideal, not an official ideology, as the basis of a state. And secularity is only meaningful if it serves this democratic ideal. What secularity does in that context is to save the state, and thus the society, from the dominance of a religious doctrine. But if secularity becomes a doctrine in itself, which aims at suppressing or manipulating religion, then it becomes a threat to the democratic ideal. That is exactly what has happened in Turkey, and that’s why we Turks need to re-understand secularity ("laiklik" as we call it) in a democratic, not autocratic, way.

Obama’s speech not only included a semantic eye-opener in this respect. It also implied that Turkey’s secular state does not have to clash with, and should not blind us from, the Muslim identity of a large portion of its people. Nine times in his speech he referred to Islam and Muslims. And he gave messages that went to not only the Turks but the whole Muslim world: "The U.S. is not, and will never be," he said, "at war with Islam." There is a reason why he said that not in London or Prague, but in Ankara.

The American president also disagreed with those fear-mongering pundits who constantly pump out the idea that Turkey is "turning its face to the East" under its current government. "I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future," Obama noted, "they wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another." And he explained why they were wrong: "Here is what they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide Ğ it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy."

Absolutely. The mistake of those "debaters" is to force Turkey to fit into a single identity that they pick and choose. They tend to define it only as a Western ally, a NATO member and a secular republic. This is all true, and very good, but there is more. Turkey is also the heir of the Ottoman Empire, a leading member of the family of predominantly Muslim nations, and the testing ground for the synthesis of Islam and democracy. That is what makes her special. That is what gives her a meaning that goes way beyond its borders. Obviously the American president gets that right. Perhaps it is time for Turks to get it, too. Mustafa Akyol © Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

He’s Bright, He’s Charming, He’s Cool, But...
ANKARA - Turkey hailed U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit as a turning point in relations with the United States, but his visit appears to have left people on the streets dazed and confused.

Descriptions of Obama range from "the smiling face of imperialism" to "a member of the family." "He couldn’t gain my confidence. Capitalism and imperialism have simply disguised themselves in a more smiling and friendly mask. We haven’t seen his deeds yet. Is it possible for U.S. foreign policies, which were fixed far before Obama, to demonstrate a change? It is impossible," said Ahsen A., 19-year-old university student at Ankara’s Gazi University.

Many aspects of the public image of Obama have been deemed promising and unusual, not only among Americans, but also among Turks who likewise hoped to see a U.S. president in firm contrast to his predecessor, George Bush. Obama’s sympathetic manners, perceived even-tempered personality and Muslim identity appear to have won the hearts of Turks.

Some say he is likely to smash the deep-rooted anti-Americanism and long-held stereotype of America’s negative and selfish image in Turkey, but not everyone seems to have been convinced by his performance. Some went crazy as traffic chaos doubled during Obama’s presence while for others his Muslim identity was sufficient to nourish new hope for a better future for Turkey.

"He is very sympathetic, friendly and witty. His Muslim identity can contribute to the better relations between Turkey and the U.S. Obama has changed my stark stance toward the U.S.," said university student Hilal Algan, 20.

"I found Obama pretty well intentioned. I was impressed particularly by his manners while he was visiting the mosques in Istanbul. He was so fascinated with what he saw. He is fairly young and inexperienced. I hope he will not be abused by the experienced politicians," said homemaker Perihan Öztürk, 65.

The youth were more skeptical toward what Obama said while the adults seemed more inclined to believe him.

Some, meanwhile, took offense at Obama’s coming to Turkey with full equipment. "Is he suspicious about Turkey and Turkish people that he even brought his toilet and water from the U.S.?" said homemaker Sevim Çetinkol, 70. "

For 16-year-old university student Gözde Aktekin, the traffic chaos created by the extraordinary security measures taken to protect Obama were a limitation put on the liberty of the people.

"Obama offers economic cooperation, but the economic crisis already emerged in the U.S. If he had a remedy, he would have solved the problem in his own country," Aktekin said.

Shop assistant Münevver Arısoy, 39, complained about the lack of customers during Obama’s stay in Ankara because of the traffic jam. She also found Obama selfish."The customers couldn’t come to the city center for shopping because of the blocked roads. " Arısoy said.

For simit-seller Barış Tunçbilek, 21, Obama seemed gentle and his manners made him feel closer to the United States and its people, while for civil servant Huriye Erdoğan, 42, Obama was like a member of her family. "He is a credible personality. His name is Hussein, a Turkish name, and he is black, which makes me feel sympathy for him. I think Obama can repair the U.S.’s negative image," Erdoğan said.

University student Emre Yampal, 22, said Obama was more promising after the Bush administration but his emphasis on his Muslim identity was solely a trick. "He simply wants to gain sympathy from Turks and make Turkey what the U.S. wants by highlighting his Muslim identity in a Muslim-dominated country. Time will show how successful Obama will be," Yampal said.
by İzgi Güngör © Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

Time For A Historic Decision
Did it really close the George W. Bush era? That is, did the Barrack Hussein Obama’s swing through London, Strasbourg, Prague, Ankara, Istanbul and of course Baghdad mark the end of the hegemonic and agonistic style of the Bush presidency and the opening of a new style based on engagement, cooperation, consensus seeking and partnership?

Turks were impressed with Obama making, excluding Canada, his first-ever presidential bilateral visit to Turkey, mostly delighted with his modest gestures throughout the trip, though some people were angered with some elements in his "open buffet" statements, the majority managed to find sufficient "food for thought" to fill their plates and felt comforted, yet, is it not too early to make such a comment? What we were definitely convinced of was the demonstrated integrity of the character of Obama. It was not easy, obviously, to stand side by side with the Turkish president and answer an American journalist’s question on alleged Armenian genocide issue saying he maintained his views on the issue but believed rather than creating obstructions everyone must help Turkey and Armenia proceed further towards normalizing their relations. It was a courageous statement.

It was irritating for many Turks, but it was just a statement of fact when later that day he told Parliament that although he knew that there were strong views in the Turkish legislature about the "terrible events of 1915" and although "there has been a good deal of commentary about my views" the contentious issue was indeed one of "how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive." The message was indeed clear: Face your past. He was stressing that message while at the same time softening down possible reactions by recalling examples from some very bitter episodes of American history. In both Ankara and Istanbul, the U.S. president explained to Turks that while he appreciated the "historic and courageous steps" taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders so far, opening the border, normalizing relations would not only return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence serving both nations.

What Obama said and the little information we have about the two years of "secret" diplomacy between Turkey and Armenia were all indicative of a historic decision in the pipeline which might be unveiled as early as next week. There are already "not so credible" speculations that it would come on April 16 during Foreign Minister Ali Babacan’s trip to Yerevan for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation meeting there, while some people say Ankara is still pioneering whether to withhold such a "done deal" with Armenia until after the "April 24 hurdle" (the anniversary of the so-called genocide) was over and after it was seen that Obama, who had committed himself during the campaign to recognizing genocide, did not make reference to the contentious word in his anniversary speech. Yet, it appears as well that the United States has been pressuring Ankara to announce the deal before Obama makes the anniversary statement with no reference to genocide fearing that if Turkey doesn’t deliver Armenia border opening and other steps towards normalizing relations with Armenia, Obama’s image and credibility could suffer a serious blow.

Azerbaijan factor

On the other hand, Azerbaijan’s strong protest to the Turkey-Armenia deal in the making, as manifested with President Ilham Aliyev boycotting the Istanbul Alliance of Civilizations and Ankara’s concerns of a possible domestic political spillover from undertaking such a step without getting a firm guarantee from Obama that he would not recognize it as genocide in his April 24 statement, is making it difficult for Turkey to announce the timing of the announcement of the deal with Armenia. After three telephone calls by President Gül and a telephone call by President Obama have all apparently failed to soothe Aliyev’s strong opposition, now there is an expectation that either Gül or the prime minister will make a "working trip" to Baku to convince Aliyev that normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations would not mean Turkey letting Azerbaijan down but on the contrary will provide Ankara a better and more efficient opportunity to contribute to a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.
Yusuf Kanlı, © Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

American Public Did Not Understand This Visit
We followed President Obama’s visit to Turkey very closely. For two days we kept you informed. We shared with you the political intention or meaning behind the messages of the visit.

After Obama left, I asked myself, "We talked about everything, but how did the American public perceive this visit?" I went through the American press and talked to diplomats and insider sources who watched this visit closely. The result was surprising. I was amazed when I saw that the American public did not quite comprehend this visit to Turkey. When I moved to the bottom of the cause, I understood why.

Let’s start with the formal wing. The U.S. administration watched this visit closely and received the necessary messages. There is no problem there. The bureaucracy knows now what the White House thinks about problems regarding Turkey and is preparing to react accordingly. The problem lies in the American public’s perception.

Attention has been drawn to the fact that this visit happened too early and without sufficient preparation. Some sources say that the administration has not yet completed its staff and team. A director of a civil society movement who said, "The media could not understand this visit. There are even some among them who still question why Turkey was visited," also said that the American public is preoccupied with economic issues and therefore cannot perceive issues like Armenia or Turkey very well.

If we take a look between the lines, we encounter the same points. What is important for the media are developments regarding huge companies on the verge of bankruptcy or how to implement decisions that resulted from the G20. There is neither interest in Cyprus, nor northern Iraq, nor Turkey’s full membership in the EU. In addition, if we look upon how the media reflects on this visit, we see before us "a message sent to the Islamic world." I paid attention and noticed that the president’s visit to the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia, his meeting with students, his speech at Parliament and other contacts were especially perceived as flowers offered to the Islamic world.

The most important aspect the United States saw in this visit was the fact that the American media applauded Obama quite a bit. Obama is criticized as a sophomore politician and an inexperienced statesman in his country, but in his performance during the visit to Turkey, he was reflected as a natural politician, serious statesman and influential president.

Let’s talk about Obama’s visit in the light of Armenia. The Turkish media has described the U.S. president’s meeting with the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers in Istanbul as a "surprise." Whereas, it was not a surprise. On the contrary, it was planned ahead, and the Armenian foreign minister came to Istanbul only because of this meeting.

The Armenian lobby in the United States is not very happy with the events in Turkey. And in Ankara, while responding to a question, Obama said, "I have not changed my attitude regarding genocide," and made the lobby smile. But his statement, "Despite that I will not interfere," caused the lobby to frown. The Armenian lobby is still persistently waiting for Obama to surprise everyone on April 24 and pronounce the word "genocide."

Atmosphere in Yerevan is different

Foremost, everybody is aware that the genocide issue depends on the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. Obama has put Turkey and Armenia into a tunnel. When exiting the tunnel, the border needs to be opened and the diplomatic relationship between the two countries established. The diaspora wants Yerevan not to hurry. The opening of the border and establishment of diplomatic relations might lead to a temporary suspension of the genocide dispute or even result in a burial of the issue, never to come up again. The diaspora does not want that to happen. It makes plans to accuse Turkey of genocide and seek justice thereafter. Yerevan keeps its hopes high. The words of an Armenian diplomat are very interesting: "The genocide and Nagorno-Karabakh disputes only exist in details from now on. The United States took a step and started a process. It seems that it won’t be long until a result comes up." Here we go. Let’s hope for the best.
Mehmet Ali Birand , © Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

Us, Turkish, Azeri Leaders Engage In Phone Talks Over Nagorno-Karabakh
ISTANBUL - The presidents of the United States, Turkey, and Azerbaijan were engaged in a three way phone talks over the normalization process of Turkish-Armenian relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, according to reports on Wednesday. (UPDATED)

U.S. President Barack Obama telephoned his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev Tuesday and expressed support for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Obama also told Aliyev that the United States is committed to a strong relationship with Azerbaijan, the White House said.

Aliyev's office said Wednesday Obama and the Azeri leader "had a frank conversation during which they expressed satisfaction at the successful development of Azerbaijan-U.S. relations".

"Barack Obama informed the Azerbaijani leader about steps taken by the United States concerning Turkey-Armenia relations. President Ilham Aliyev brought the Azerbaijani states position on the issue to the U.S. president’s attention," Aliyev's administration said in a statement.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul also called Aliyev to brief the Azeri leader on his discussion with Obama about the latest developments on Turkey-Armenia relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict during the U.S. president's visit to his country, TV channels reported Wednesday.

Addressing Turkish lawmakers Monday, the U.S. president praised Ankara for its role in helping to work toward a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which he said "has continued for far too long."

He had also praised "courageous" contacts between Turkish and Armenian leaders aimed at reconciliation and said Turkey should reopen the border it closed in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan during its conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Azeri officials have expressed concern over the prospect of the border being reopened and some media reports suggested that Baku might even go one step further in halting the sale of natural gas to Turkey. Azerbaijan has said that opening the border before the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the country’s occupied territories would run counter to its national interests.

Aliyev also refused to attend an international meeting in Istanbul earlier this week, a move that can be seen as a protest against the prospect of the border being opened between Armenia and Turkey.

Normalization talks continue
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Tuesday that Ankara and Yerevan have been in talks for months to normalize relations and that the two countries have come a long way.

"We are working on a comprehensive solution, and our talks are going well. We have made significant progress so far, and both parties have declared satisfaction over the process several times," Babacan was quoted by the Anatolian Agency as telling reporters at a news conference after the second gathering of the Alliance of Civilizations in Istanbul.

"I think third-party countries should act with sensitivity during this ongoing process," he said.

Babacan said Azerbaijan and Armenia are also holding talks to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, adding his country’s aim was peace, stability and prosperity around Turkey.

Turkey and Armenia have no diplomatic relations, and their border has been closed for more than a decade over Armenia's invasion of territory that accounts for 20 percent of Azerbaijan – a frozen conflict legacy of the Soviet Union known as Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both countries have however been engaged in a normalization process, including the reopening of the border, since Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a landmark visit to Yerevan last year to watch a World Cup qualifying football match between the countries’ national teams.
© Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

Obama Portrays Another Side of U.S.
President Wraps Up Overseas Tour in Which Humility, Partnership Were Key Themes

By Michael D. Shear and Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post, April 8, 2009

ISTANBUL, April 7 -- President Obama concluded his inaugural overseas tour Tuesday after presenting to the world a starkly different image of the United States than his predecessor had, returning home from encounters with exuberant U.S. troops in Iraq, fawning crowds in Europe and Turkey, and foreign leaders who welcomed a new partnership with the country but did little to support its goals.

Obama left Istanbul shortly after 2 p.m. local time and made an unannounced stop in Baghdad, where he addressed U.S. troops and received a briefing from Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of American forces in Iraq. He also met with President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during the several-hour stop, his first visit to the country as president.

Throughout his trip abroad, Obama portrayed a proud but flawed United States, using a refrain of humility and partnership in an attempt to rally allies around such issues of mutual concern as the global economy, climate change and nuclear proliferation. He talked about the nation's "darker periods" of slavery and repression of Native Americans, and its past sanction of torture that he has ended. He also spoke with pride about the United States' diversity and its central role in rebuilding post-World War II Europe, while condemning "anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious."

Despite his celebrity reception at nearly every stop on the six-country tour, Obama was unable to persuade European allies to increase fiscal stimulus spending or to send additional combat troops to Afghanistan for long-term deployments.

"Why didn't the waters part, the sun shine and all ills of the world disappear because President Obama came to Europe this week?" said David Axelrod, one of Obama's top aides. "That wasn't our expectation. . . . We understand . . . that this involves solving the problems, the difficult, thorny problems we face in the world."

The president's advisers pointed to the Group of 20 agreement to commit more than $1 trillion in new money to the International Monetary Fund and other programs to revive the global economy and protect the poorest nations from the economic downturn. Obama announced new arms-reduction talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. And, the advisers said, the president, through his tone and policy proposals, outlined a broad framework for improving U.S. relations with the world.

"There was a sense that America was back. So many of the leaders basically said, 'It's nice to have America back at its place,' " said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

But his conservative critics at home said Obama displayed more style than substance. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said the president "maintained, and if anything added to, the feeling of bonhomie that the rest of the world now regards him."

"On the substantive front, there wasn't all that much, and what there was, if you hold it up to the light, there should be many questions about it," he said, referring to Obama's goal, outlined in Prague, of eliminating the world's nuclear arsenals. Donnelly added that "in the case of Afghanistan, the silence was deafening."

"People already liked Obama, that's nothing new," he added. "And at some point there needs to be a 'therefore' clause. The president already had the world's goodwill, but he has yet to translate that into action for the public good, especially on the security issue."

Obama used his time in Istanbul on Tuesday to reach across cultural barriers -- meeting with Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, slipping off his shoes to tour a 400-year-old mosque and urging an audience of university students to "build new bridges instead of new walls" throughout the world.

"The world will be what you make of it," Obama said in the town hall-style meeting here, where he emphasized, as he has in earlier forums, the growing power of young people to change politics and policies.

From the moment in London last week when he handed Queen Elizabeth II an iPod, to rousing appeals to youth in Strasbourg, France, and Prague, to Tuesday's session in Istanbul, Obama used his trip to signal a generational change in the White House and the power of youth to affect global decision making.

Echoing a theme and strategy from his presidential campaign, Obama urged young people to harness their collective power on issues as varied as climate change, nuclear proliferation and the fight against Islamic extremism. In Strasbourg, he told them that "this generation cannot stand still."

"Each time we find ourselves at a crossroads, paralyzed by worn debates and stale thinking, the old ways of doing things, a new generation rises up and shows the way forward," the president said, adding a favorite campaign mantra: "This is our generation. This is our time."

Obama told the students in Istanbul that he believes in setting ambitious goals, including establishing a constructive relationship with Iran, ridding the world of nuclear weapons and forging a peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He also said he would like to change the way the United States is viewed in parts of the world.

"America, like every other nation, has made mistakes and has its flaws," he said. "But for more than two centuries, we have strived at great cost and sacrifice to form a more perfect union."

Obama, who is relatively inexperienced in foreign policy, met over the past week with the leaders of Russia and China and others from across Europe, Asia and Africa on such topics as the global financial crisis and nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Mehmet Ali Birand, a prominent journalist and broadcaster who has covered several previous U.S. presidential visits, said Obama was impressive in Turkey.

"He said things that were not very light music to our ears, but we could swallow it," Birand said, referring especially to Obama's refusal to disavow his earlier statements that the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire before and during World War I was genocide.

"He was very clear on what he expected from the Turks," Birand said. "He is not a guy who just came in and gave us some angles."

At each stop, Obama sought to enlist young people to shake up old political orders and assumptions.

"Young people, they can get rid of some of the old baggage and the old suspicions," he said in a wide-ranging exchange with students here. He cited his talks with Medvedev as an example of new thinking, saying he and the Russian president had come of age in the twilight of the Cold War and viewed each other differently than leaders of earlier generations.

Watching the 47-year-old president touring Istanbul's ancient sites, Mehmet Karaman, a 20-year-old student, said: "Obama is a new chance for the world."

"He's young, and after seeing what the older generation has done, he knows it's better to reach out and listen to young people," said Karaman, who joined excited crowds in the streets as Obama visited Istanbul's historic old town.

Emre Erdogan, head of the Turkish research firm Infakto, said Obama's message is resonating with Turkish youth.

"Turkish young people are not optimistic about their lives," he said. "They are looking for a sense of confidence and security in their lives. Obama gives them hope."

Obama, Turkey and History
For those of us who have lived abroad for many years and despaired of the way the image and reputation of the United States had been tarnished during the past eight years, it was a welcome relief to hear the message delivered by Barack Obama in Turkey. From the podium of the National Assembly in Ankara, he spoke not only to Turks, but to the entire Muslim world and he carved out an image of a global statesman.

The United States, he said, "is not and never will be at war with Islam" and that " America's relationship cannot and will not be based on opposition to Al Qaeda." That had to to resonate from Morocco on the Atlantic to Indonesia on the Java Sea. He drew generous applause by reminding Turkey's politicians, its president, prime minister as well as its generals and admirals in the audience that "the United States has been enriched by its Muslim Americans" and that "many other Americans have Muslims in their families or they have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know," he said, "because I am one of them."

The president pledged to support Turkey's admission to the European Union. He urged dialogue with the Republic of Armenia and by inference with Greek Cypriots to bring peace and stability to what until now has been the divided island of Cyprus. He cited Turkey's friendly relations with Israel and hoped that ways could be found to bring peace with it and the Palestinians and a resolution of its own differences with Kurdish opponents both in neighboring Iraq and Turkey. But he was quick to say the United States opposed the Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey, as it does all forms of terrorism.

Obama was sensitive enough, as few American presidents have been, to acknowledge Turkey's contribution to the United Nations effort during the Cold War, something the Turks felt had been forgotten for too long. I reported on the Turkish brigade of some 4500 troops that fought alongside the U.S. 25th Infantry Division in 1951 to repel Chinese invaders during the Korean War.

Important as it was in symbolic terms, the Turks' willingness to allow the United States to use monitoring devices based in Turkey to spy on the Soviet Union was vital throughout the Cold War.

U.S. electronic and satellite eavesdropping enabled both the CIA and the National Security Agency to detect every nuclear weapons test conducted by the U.S.S.R from its highly secret base at Baikonur. The Russians were aware of the Turkish collaboration, but they chose to ignore it rather than provoke a more serious confrontation with the United States.

Turkey's commitment went even further. It allowed the United States to base its high-flying U-2 spy planes on Turkish soil from which they could be flown on to Peshawar in Pakistan for overflights of the Soviet Union. One of those missions was flown by the American pilot, Francis Gary Powers, who was shot down by the Russians on May 1, 1960. During one of the most dramatic episodes of the Cold War, President Eisenhower denied that the flight had ever occurred, But to U.S. embarrassment that claim was debunked by Moscow when it unveiled the wreckage of the U-2 and then Powers at his trial in Moscow. Throughout Powers' imprisonment and his involvement in an eventual prisoner exchange for a key Soviet agent, never a word was ever mentioned of the important role played by Turkey.

Russia Demands Turkey To Normalize Ties With Armenia 06.04.2009
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey is interested in expansion of its ties with CIS, and Russia demands normalization of ties with Armenia, Mikhail Alexandrov , Caucasus Department Head in Caucasus Institute told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter. Turkey has already made decisions on creating political relations with the states in the region.

"Yet, Ankara sets a number of conditions: Armenia's mitigating its position on the international acknowledgment of the Genocide. Naturally, Armenia will never abandon its demands on Genocide recognition, yet Turkey insists on a softer position.

It's also connected with acknowledgment of boundaries of present-day Turkey and Armenia's abandoning its territorial claims. Ankara will be satisfied by these steps and, consequently, agree to establish diplomatic relations. NKR conflict is never mentioned. Moreover, border opening spells, in essence, Ankara's refusal to pursue pro-Azerbaijani policy towards Armenia," Alexandrov stressed, adding that Armenia will have to compromise to some extent.

[News Analysis]Obama Mesmerizes Turks With Pledges, But Experts Caution On Delivery
Analysts and scholars in the Turkish capital have put a positive spin on US President Barack Obama’s landmark visit to Ankara yet cautioned on the delivery of promises he made in a much-anticipated speech delivered to members of the Turkish Parliament. Many commentators welcomed the speech and visit of the US president but criticized the lack of details and substance. “We need to see how Americans will flesh out this policy,” one analyst said, while others note the trip was immensely important, albeit loaded with symbolism.

Sedat Laçiner, a security analyst and chairman of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Center (USAK), said, “The old era, strained with hard-line [former US President George W.] Bush policies shaped by his neoconservative team, is over.” Speaking to Today’s Zaman, he noted that the US has signaled its willingness to engage in a mutually beneficial partnership in dealing with regional issues as opposed to imposing an attitude adopted in the past.

US-Turkish relations took a dive in 2003 when Turkey opposed the Iraq invasion and did not allow US troops to open a northern front from Turkish soil. A deterioration of ties since then resulted in anger on the Turkish side over the US not doing enough against the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Near the end of Bush’s term in office, the US agreed to share vital intelligence about the PKK. Obama on Monday reiterated this cooperation. He said in a joint press conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gül that “the US is open to providing Turkey further support in its fight against Kurdish terrorists,” adding, “We have seen that cooperation bear fruit.”
Many commentators welcome the speech and visit of US President Obama but criticize the lack of details and substance. ‘We need to see how the Americans will flesh out this policy,’ one analyst says, while others note the trip was immensely important, albeit loaded with symbolism.

Laçiner finds the tone of the speech very strong, noting it contrasts to previous messages heard from the US side. "I think the US is trying to develop a strategic model whereby it can further American interests in the region while respecting and safeguarding Turkish interests as well," he said, citing as an example the US's strong backing of Turkey's full EU membership. "It appears now -- more than ever -- that Turkey's greater role in the EU fits perfectly in the grand scheme of global policy as formulated by Mr. Obama," he added.

"In meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union," Obama said on Monday. The message was not taken well by France and Germany, two heavyweights in the bloc. Sarkozy reiterated his opposition on Sunday and said, "I have always been opposed to this entry," in an interview with France's TF1 television. Commenting on Obama's remarks, German Chancellor Angela Merkel noted, "It's clear there are different opinions," signaling opposition to Turkey's full membership.

Good start but not enough

Seyfettin Erol, a professor of international relations at Gazi University in Ankara, cautioned, however, that the speech lacks substance on issues confronting Turkey. Nevertheless, he welcomed it as a positive turn, breaking away from old Bush policies. "We need to see how the Americans are planning to introduce this new policy," he stressed in a phone interview, adding a caveat: Enhanced relations might be construed by some countries in the region as a US attempt to use Turkey as a proxy, thereby risking a backlash against active Turkish diplomacy.

One analyst disagrees with Erol's argument. "There is no need to downplay the importance of Obama's visit and speech," Hüseyin Bağcı, a professor of international relations at Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ), said, noting that the visit strengthened Turkey's role as a regional player ready to assume global responsibilities. He pointed out increasing trade volume and business interests between the two countries and noted that "both countries are becoming partners in shaping global politics." Bağcı added, "It also boosted the 'soft power' image of Turkey."

Laçiner shares Erol's concern over Azerbaijan. "Wrong steps might antagonize Baku," he said. "Turkey needs to be very careful in the ongoing dialogue with Armenia and should avoid traps that might damage the vital interests of Turkey with respect to Azerbaijan," he added. Ankara and Yerevan are engaged in negotiations aimed at restoring full diplomatic ties and may be on the point of reopening their border. "I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations, which are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly, very soon," Obama said in his speech in Parliament.

US President Barack Obama paid visits to Sultanahmet Mosque and Hagia Sophia yesterday as part of his two-day visit to Turkey. He also examined a kemençe, a traditional musical instrument, at Dolmabahçe Palace .

Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in response to Armenia's occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan objects to the opening of the border. The rift between Turkey and Azerbaijan became evident when the Azerbaijani government sent a low-level delegation to the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) forum held in İstanbul on Monday. Laçiner says the Turkish government has failed to make its case both in the eyes of the Turkish and the Azerbaijani publics. He also talked about the increasing Russian influence and meddling in the Caucasus. "A very dangerous game is being played there," he said. "When push comes to shove, Azerbaijan is more important than Armenia or even Obama," Laçiner said.

Erol, on the other hand, is concerned about how Russia and other countries in the region are perceived. "If it is seen as hampering the role of independent Turkish policy, that might limit the room to maneuver for Turkish foreign policy," he said. Bağcı, however, argues that there is an overlap in the national interests in the region and that US support might boost Turkey's hand. "I think Obama gave strong messages to both allies in the West and Muslim countries in the East," he said.

Turkey as pivotal country

In his speech Obama covered other issues as well, ranging from the global economic crisis to energy policies and from the Middle East to the nuclear-ambitious Iran. "All these issues he mentioned tell me he sees Turkey as playing an important role in them and that he attaches great importance to it," Laçiner said. He also emphasized that Turkey could possibly become a third capital in addition to Tel Aviv and Washington in formulating policies impacting the region. "It is a declaration of failure of past American policies adopted during the Bush era and the launch of a new period," he noted.

Professor Bağcı maintains that Obama's visit reaffirmed the school of thought that Turkey is reading global and regional developments very well. "We are acting in coordination with the West as well as with the Muslim world," he stressed. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both countries strongly support the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, he said. Obama is also of this view, saying that "both Israelis and Palestinians must take the steps that are necessary to build confidence."

"Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and İstanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet ['Yes' in Turkish]. Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together -- and work together -- to overcome the challenges of our time," Obama said in the Turkish Parliament on Monday.

Pundits also welcomed Obama's message to the Muslim world, using Turkey as a platform. Bağcı commended the US president for choosing Turkey as the base from which to send a message of reconciliation. Obama told the audience on Monday that the US was not at war with Islam and renewed his pledged to be respectful, even when there are disagreements. He also wished to convey America's deep appreciation for Islam, which, in his words, "has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better."

In a bid to repair the US's tarnished image in the Muslim world, Obama said: "The US has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them."

As for Iran, Professor Bağcı warns about possible pitfalls in dialogue with the US. "While Iran is certainly one of our major trading partners -- especially in energy -- we have to be very careful in playing a role in the rapprochement of the US with Tehran," he said. He also noted that "the US offer of dialogue has had no substance so far, and we simply don't know how the Iranians would like this to play out."

Obama's message also touched upon Iraq and the withdrawal of US troops from there by the middle of next year. "We will work with Iraq, Turkey and all of Iraq's neighbors to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security," Obama said. Professor Erol says the details need to be hammered out before cheering for Obama. "The territorial integrity of Iraq is paramount, and we need to know what kind of power balance the Americans have in mind post withdrawal," he said.

Ultimately, Bağcı finds messages Obama relayed at home as important as those he delivered abroad. "An emphasis on democracy and secularism was important," he said. Laçiner finds the stress on continuing reforms highly important as well.
08 April 2009, ABDULLAH BOZKURT ANKARA

Turks Open Homes To Armenian Fans
ISTANBUL - Servas, the civil society organisation that gathers people who care about peace and international dialogue globally, has 200 of its members in Turkey opening their houses to Armenian supporters coming to Turkey for the national football game between the two countries. The first match of historical importance in the World Cup 2010 was played Sep. 6, 2008, at the Hrazdan stadium in Yerevan, Armenia.

Mehmet Ateş, secretariat of peace for Servas, spoke to Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review and told this project is the idea of Sercan Duygan, another member of the organization.

Ateş said in order to solve the problems Turks and Armenians should sit at each other’s tables and establish human contact. "When the awareness level of our world today is considered, it is clear that the attempts to put up walls between people insensibly are not helping anyone."

Although the project was welcomed and supported, the tension that can rise from time to time between the two nations sometimes reflects on the members of Servas, too. Elif Karadenizli, the "Day Host" of Servas, said sometimes arguments took place on the e-mail forum of the organization on the matters related to Armenia. "The reactions arise from prejudices entirely" Karadenizli said. "There are many factors that feed our prejudices; the imposed official history is only one of them. First of all, we should leave politics aside and try to leave our prejudices behind."

Özge Karadenizli, the coordinator of the project, said she agreed with Elif Karadenizli. "There is no border between the west and the east of Turkey but there is not enough contact either. The border between Turkey and Armenia may be opened but this would not be a sign of relations returning to normal. First, the borders between the peoples and their prejudices should be eliminated."

The members of Servas will not only host their Armenian guests at their homes but also organise cultural and social activities while providing a platform for dialogue. Ateş, Elif and Özge Karadenizli, addressed Armenians in the name of Servas: "We are ready to share our homes with you, the most private area of our lives. Come, let us strip ourselves of prejudices and get to know each other."

What is Servas
Servas is an International nongovernmental, multicultural peace association run by volunteers in over 100 countries. Founded in 1949 by Bob Luitweiler as a peace movement, Servas International is a non-profit organization working to build understanding, tolerance and world peace.
© Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

Laciner: Obama Should Not Neglect Turkish Approach 5 April 2009
* Interview with Dr. Sedat Laciner, By Gulay KILIC (JTW)

Sedat Laciner evaluated Obama's visit in terms of domestic and foreign policy of Turkey. There are some interesting and striking issues mentioned by Laciner.

According to you, what should be Obama's messages for Turkey?

S.L. Obama's messages for Turkey can be divided into two main topics: messages relevant to Turkey and messages relevant to the Muslim World and the Middle East.

First, if we began with Turkey's messages, we can say that the relationship between Turkey and the USA was damaged during the Bush era. Most of these injuries were caused by the neo-con (neo-conservative) mentality of Bush and his team. Therefore the U.S.'s relationship with Turkey was not different from the U.S.'s relationship other countries. The Turkey's unluckiness stems from its near proximity to Iraq, occupied by the U.S. After the rejection of the 1 March Bill the American Administration connected its lack of success in Iraq with the aforementioned rejection and started a kind of punishment politics. Of course if Turkey had opened borders to the American military force, this would have been advantage to the U.S.

The U.S. occupied Iraq in only a few days and U.S.' problems did not appear in this period, problems began after the occupation about Iraq could not been administered. U.S. was not able to utilize from Turkey in this issue. Afterwards, Turkey accepted the Bill and Turkey also struggled to send military forces to Iraq to help the U.S. However, these efforts were ignored by the Bush administration; moreover, America did not accomplish the function about PKK. The U.S. also gave complex messages about the Administration of the Kurdish region and the territorial integrity of Iraq. Moreover, the Bush Administration could have cooperated with Turkey, but they avoided collaboration. Almost, Turkey is even excluded from Iraq and Middle East. The Obama Administration should give the sense of a new start and should give the message that Turkey will be a partner in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Afghanistan regions. The message will give hope for the future and will heal the injuries of Bush era.

Second, Turkey is not only a Middle Eastern country, but is at the same time a part of the Caucasus, the Black Sea and Europe, therefore, Turkey and the U.S. need an intense relationship. Thus, Obama did not consider visiting Turkey in line with visiting the Middle East, Greece, or Cyprus. First London, second Strasbourg, third the EU's Term President Prague, and finally Istanbul will be visited. Obama's first visit to Turkey comes as part of his European trip. It should be highlighted as a European country and as one cooperating with the U.S. in the Black Sea region, Central Asia and Europe.

Another important point is the Armenian Issue, in this sense Obama should behave like an American President. Because, at this moment, there is the potential for serious improvement in the Turkey-Armenia relationship, we hope that Obama will escape from reactive, sensitive, and extreme discourses that could destroy this potential.

The second type of message that should be given in Turkey is a global-regional message. It was indicated that Obama would make a declaration in a Muslim country for all the other Muslim countries. It is discussed whether Turkey will be this country or not. There are still discussions on the issue but whether this country will be Turkey or not, Turkey is the first Muslim country Obama will visit. Consequently in Turkey explanations of or comments on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine and other Muslim countries problems will have great importance. These explanations and comments also will demonstrate that how the new American Administration observes the relationship between civilizations. Obama's messages could heal the rift formed in the Bush period.

Why does Obama come to Turkey?

S.L. This is no ordinary visit. Generally, after the election, an American president's every action is observed. Their actions regarding the economy, environmental problems, and foreign relations are all closely watched. While this occurs in many countries, this issue is more important in America. The American policy depends on the American president. We are talking about the strongest country in the world. Conventionally, American presidents first visit North America (Mexico) and then Canada, however, this is not considerer like a foreign visit. Foreign visits are considered to be those that take place overseas. In this respect, Obama's first oversea visit includes Turkey, even if Turkey was added to the list of countries at the last moment. Therefore, there were some arguments about this issue.

Secondly, when we look where Obama will go before coming to Turkey, the agenda includes London, Strasbourg and Prague. The G-20 will be in London, which countries with the world's largest economies come together, the NATO meeting will be in Strasbourg and then Prague, which is the term president country in the EU. So, the G-20, NATO, Prague comprise Obama's travel agenda. Obama will attend an inter-civilization meeting in Turkey. In this aspect Turkey has an important mission. To view this as just an ordinary visit is wrong. In the past, the presidents and prime ministers of Turkey have lined up at the American President's door. Negotiations were very difficult. Turkey was treated as an ordinary country. Turkey's presidents and prime ministers had a chance to meet U.S. President for 15-20 minutes, and if the meeting runs a bit longer, the Turkish media would comment that "the U.S. attributes more importance to Turkey". The American media ignores negotiations with Turkish leaders. Consequently, the importance of the visit is a natural step.

Usually, American Presidents come to Turkey, but their visits are usually added to a trip to Greece or Middle East which has angered some people. Why does Obama come to Turkey? Turkey has become increasingly important. Its significance can be viewed in two lights: economic and political- military. In terms of economic issues Turkey is one of the G-20 countries, and is perceived as a vital country in the repair of economic issues as is the case with China, India, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia. Although economic growth of Turkey has escaped observation, it has the 17th biggest economy in the world. It depends on imports and exports; therefore, Turkey has the potential to contribute to solutions of the global economic crisis. Another aspect that makes Turkey crucial for America in economic terms is the fact that Turkey is a country that can help America to decrease its military defense spending.

In the political aspect, Turkey follows an active policy different from the past and takes initiative in Middle East, Afghanistan, and other countries. Moreover, Turkey produces alternatives to, and solutions for conflicts and makes peace, so it is an important foreign policy actor that America should not ignore. Turkey takes an active role in the Middle East and Muslim countries, and Turkey's reputation reflects the impact and area of its influence.

Turkey is a member of NATO, a candidate for the EU and at the same time member of Middle-East country and a Muslim country. It means Turkey has a special mixture; therefore, will be able to contribute to American foreign policy. There are special problems such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine, in which Turkey has a high credibility. The common aspects of the countries that struggle in these conflict is their respect for Turkey; their reliance on Turkey's intervention, and contribution and their appreciation and preference of Turkey's power in platform making. Turkey has also a potential to bring together Americans and Iranians, Arabs and Israelis. In addition, Turkey can contribute to these problems one by one. The Turkish military is already in Afghanistan, and Americans will hope for increased Turkish military force there. Moreover, regarding Americas' troop reduction in Iraq, Americans think that the political and other powers of Turkey can contribute to filling the gap that will occur after the withdrawal of American military forces. Obviously, America can use Turkey's help in solving the region's problems. Obama should not neglect Turkey.

What are the expectations of Turkey's Administration from the visit?

S.L. First of all, Turkey wants to be a real partner of America. Turkey hopes that this partnership is not alleged and that it is consulted and acts together instead of America taking a step around Turkey's territory. Turkey also hopes to develop the agreement reached during the Bush era about terrorism which stipulates that the PKK should be defined as a "common enemy' by both Turkey and the U.S. and wants to act together in combating PKK. Furthermore, Turkey hopes to work with the U.S. regarding the Kurdish issue and Iraq's territorial integrity, and expects the U.S. to refrain from following a secret agenda. Turkey is exhausted from conflict and America's armed approaches in the region. Turkey' economy and politics have sustained heavy blows during wartime. Turkey expects a more constructive, less conflict-centered approach from America in the next period. Moreover, Turkey foresees traditional American contribution to Turkey's full EU membership. Regarding Cyprus, expectations are that USA should keep its pre-Annan Plan promise, according to which the isolation of Turkish people in Cyprus would be ceased. Turkey hopes that the U.S. would punish a party that breaks its promise and would award the party that keeps it promise. Turkish people are the compromising part of Cyprus. South Cyprus has peace of mind from their full EU membership so they have not exhibited a constitutive attitude.

Obama's America should act together with Turkey in the Caucasus and view Azerbaijan and Georgia optimistically as members of NATO. In Caucasus America should economically and politically support the struggle to establish integration in which Turkey is a central power. The Armenian issue and the lobbying by the Armenian Diaspora should not affect the American view of the Caucasus. America should struggles to include Armenia in integration among Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. For this, Armenia should first withdraw from the occupied territories in Karabagh problem; Armenia has been holding a bigger region than West Bank occupied by Israel. Obama would not blow Turkey's advantages in Afghanistan by increasing Turkish military power. Turkey is the antidote, in terms of religious understanding to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and other areas where extreme religions are in strong need of Turkey's Islam. If Obama does not realize how Turkey has used religion as a force against radical Islamism, and if he tries to benefit from Turkey only by increasing the number of Turkish military he will have been blown the advantage of Turkey. For if Turkey were to enter into a military conflict with another Muslim country, such as Afghanistan, it's soft power in the region would be reduced.

Will the Turkey be a new partner of America in Central Asia, Middle East and the Caucasus?

S.L. America has determined Middle East policy with Israel and England up to now. Other countries remain as alleged partners. Although Turkey is a member of NATO, it was trying to stay away from the Middle East issues. Turkey has just begun to develop its role in the Middle East, which began with Turgut Ozal and continues whit Tayyip Erdogan. Out of this Turkey behaved unwillingly about the Middle East issues. America realized the unsuccessfulness of the policy determined by Israel and England. The Middle East, despite all the efforts of the United States to make it more secure, more stable, and integrated into the world economy, has not been turned into a such a place. So the policy has a failed. Turkey offers new alternative. I think Turkey's participation in the American Middle East policy in this respect will have big benefits.
5 April 2009 By Gulay Kilic, JTW

What Would You Tell Obama?
After the G20 and NATO summits, the US President is now in Turkey. We would like Obama to close down military bases, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and fight against global climate change.

Bıa news centre - İstanbul 05-04-2009, Erhan ÜSTÜNDAĞ

On Sunday night, US President Barack Obama comes to Turkey’s capital Ankara. On Monday (6 April), he is to address the Turkish parliament and speak to party leaders. It is known that he will ask for soldiers for Afghanistan and that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) will want to discuss the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

On Tuesday, Obama will come to Istanbul. Unfortunately, we at bianet will not be able to speak to him. In fact, because he is coming, the Istanbul governor will shut down roads and squares, making our lives more difficult.

However, we will use this medium to call on Obama. He has made the decision to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, and we want him to continue with policies of “change” in other areas:

Please close down the US military bases in Turkey. You could start with the İncirlik base near Adana, in the south of Turkey, built in 1951. Your country used it illegally for its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it harbours nuclear weapons.

Pull out of Iraq immediately, and give up on trying to control Afghanistan. Your previous government terrorised the whole world in the name of “war on terrorism” and shelved rights and freedoms. We would like them back.

Recognise the International Criminal Court so that your country’s leaders can be tried for war crimes that have been alleged. We want justice.
If you do not take decisive steps to deal with global warming, you will drag your country and the whole world into distaster – undoubtedly, the poorest will go first. We ask for urgent change.

Abolish the death penalty. According to Amnesty International, 37 people were killed by the state in your country last year. This is unacceptable.
Stop wrestling with Cuba and lift the embargo. Also give up supporting fascist leadership in places around the world. You can make up for your support of such regimes in the past. It is difficult, but not impossible.

Realise that capitalism is not the solution. Become socialist – you will see that everything is better than. (EÜ/AG)

Rebel Land: Among Turkey's Forgotten Peoples By Christopher De Bellaigue; Out Of Steppe: The Lost Peoples Of Central Asia By Daniel Metcalfe The Times April 4, 2009, The Times review by Maureen Freely

A young Englishman goes to Turkey to work as a correspondent. He falls in love, picks up the language, and is caught up in the great romance of East-West relations, imagining that his new home, Ankara, is its hub. He becomes interested in Turkish history, noting, with some puzzlement, that his Turkish friends want, for the most part, to turn away from it. But they recommend a few books by eminent British and American scholars. Having read them, he is inspired to write an essay on the origins of the Turkish Republic for The New York Review of Books, in which he refers in passing to the massacre of up to half a million Armenians in 1915, suggesting that it is best understood in the context of widespread ethnic conflicts that raged throughout the Ottoman Empire after it entered the First World War on the losing side and began to break apart.

When the scholars of the Armenian diaspora bombard The New York Review of Books with furious letters (claiming a death toll three times larger, and insisting that it was - because planned and orchestrated from above - a genocide) our young correspondent is appalled. How could he have got it so wrong? He does more reading, this time drawing o n texts rarely found on the coffee tables of the Turkish secular elite, slowly coming to see that he has blundered into one of the great historical controversies of all time.

This is the story that Christopher de Bellaigue tells against himself in the opening pages of Rebel Land. The chapters that follow chart his attempt to make amends. The obvious way forward would have been to track the history wars that were in full swing in and outside Turkey in 2005 and that have led to the deniers of official history being challenged for the first time by Turkish scholars on Turkish soil. The trials of Orhan Pamuk and more than 100 others for insulting Turkishness can be best understood in this context.

So can the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in 2007 and the still-unfolding Ergenekon trial, which links several retired generals and almost a hundred others in the secular elite to a state-sponsored terrorist organisation that had allegedly planned to use a string of assassinations and false terrorist incidents to silence those wishing to challenge official history, while at the same time softening up the country for a coup.

One day, when it is all over, if it is ever all over, someone will write a book about it. It is greatly to de Bellaigue's credit that he decides to leave that poisoned chalice for someone else. Hoping to find the human stories of love, longing and loss, he sets out for Varto, a small town in the southeast that was "caught up in the fury of 1915" and has, a knowledgeable friend assures him, continued to be "important beyond its size". By that the friend means that it plays a significant role in the Kurdish separatist movement, contributing not just heroes but (the friend says with a smile) three of its most famous traitors.

On the last leg of his journey, de Bellaigue gets a lift with a group of American Armenians making a pilgrimage to the monastery of Surp Karapet. As he stands with the pilgrims before the ruins, trying to pass himself off as one of them, he notes that they are ringed by a not entirely friendly group of Kurdish peasants, who are surrounded in turn by Turkish soldiers. All three circles, he notes, have claims on this land. Coming down from the Serafettin mountains, and seeing Varto from a distance, in a valley "hollowed and glassy where the meltwaters had spread" and set against the great grey whale of the BingÃ¶l plateau, he is stunned by its beauty. He has "an impression of water as landscape, masterful and unruly, swilling drunkenly and breaking banks of its own making", seeing it as a landscape that "inspires one not to recumbency, as the Aegean groves, nor to poetry, as the oases of Iran, but to action". But the pace slows as he arrives in town to be met by the two policemen who will follow him throughout his travels in and around Varto.

The more he sees of the district, the more he comes to understand it as an occupied territory. As he wanders from village to village, watched and mistrusted on all sides, there are echoes of Ka wandering through the neighbouring city of Kars in Orhan Pamuk's Snow.

Soon de Bellaigue has met the mayor, whose party has links with Kurdish separatists, and the district governor, whose masters are intent on crushing not just the separatists, but all manifestations of Kurdish culture. He rents a room in the hostel where the state houses its teachers: one of their jobs is to crack down on all students heard using one of the two Kurdish languages still spoken behind closed doors. Later, there is the "captain" who sweeps in from points unknown for a friendly chat at the police station, and who is in no doubt that de Bellaigue is (like himself) a spy.

By now just about everyone else in Varto has reached the same conclusion. If they do agree to talk about history, most of it is lies. But he doggedly persists, reading whatever he can find and visiting the Varto diaspora in Germany and northern Iraq. One particular exile opens doors for him, and slowly he is able to pull together a tangled century-long web of human tragedies in such a way that no reader (even this one, who would like to believe in truth and reconciliation) can close the book feeling anything other than despair.

There are no innocents in this story. Europe and Europeans (not least the author) play their part. The book is sure to cause a new skirmish in the history wars de Bellaigue so assiduously avoided, but his critics should pause, at least, to admire the fineness of its prose and the darkness of its heart. It is, in the end, a brilliant literary thriller, an incursion into forbidden territory that is all the more gripping for being true.

Daniel Metcalfe is, in many ways, a younger version of de Bellaigue. In Out of Steppe, he recounts, sometimes guilelessly, but always with a noble heart, his search for the forgotten peoples of Central Asia. These include the Karakalpaks of Uzbekistan; the last remaining Jews of Bukhara, said to be the descendents of the Israelite tribes of Isaachar and Naphtali; the Germans who have lived in Kazakhstan since Catherine the Great brought them over in the late 18th century; the Yaghnobis, said to descend from fire-worshippers; the Hazaras of Afghanistan, whose giant Buddhas were destroyed by the Taleban; and the Kalashas of the Hindu Kush, thought by some to be the descendents of Alexander's army. Everywhere there is the detritus of the Great Games that have been played out on this soil: the environmental atrocities are, if anything, even more appalling. And then there is the destruction of old buildings and old ways in the name of modernity. The lost peoples of Central Asia are not so much lost as heading for extinction, and it may be too late to save them.

Rebel Land: Among Turkey's Forgotten Peoples by Christopher de Bellaigue Bloomsbury, Â£20; 288pp

Out of Steppe: The Lost Peoples of Central Asia by Daniel Metcalfe Hutchinson, Â£18.99; 352pp

Baku Sets Own Rules For 3-Way Play
ISTANBUL -Azerbaijan has attached three conditions to its giving consent to the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review has learned.

Baku sets own rules for 3-way play All three conditions are related to the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied Azerbaijani territories, sources familiar with the issue told the Daily News. In addition to Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian forces have also occupied seven regions surrounding the enclave to which both countries claim sovereignty.

Azerbaijan sent an envoy recently to Ankara to explain the government’s views on the reconciliation process between Yerevan and Ankara, which closed its borders with Armenia in 1993 after Armenian forces occupied Azerbaijani territory.

According to the envoy, Azerbaijan insists on three conditions to give its green light to opening the borders:

* Armenia should withdraw from five of the seven regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, which are Agdam, Fizuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan and Qubadli.

* The return of the southern portion of the Lachin corridor.

* The use by Turkey of the Lachin corridor.

The Lachin corridor connects Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. By enabling Turkey to also use the Lachin corridor, Azerbaijan wants to have direct land access to Turkey.

The envoy is said to have voiced concern about being left out of the talks between Armenia and Turkey.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in a move to alleviate Azerbaijan’s concerns, stated: "There will be no Turkish-Armenian deal before the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Then, problems between Turkey and Armenia can be solved, too.

"We hope the U.N. Security Council makes a decision naming Armenia as the occupier in Nagorno-Karabakh and calling for a withdrawal from the region. This is a process the Minsk Group É could not succeed in for 17 years," Erdoğan said in a news conference he held late Wednesday.

The Minsk group Ğ set up in 1992 and co-chaired by Russia, the United States and France Ğ is seeking a solution to Nagorno-Karabakh problem, one of the most intractable conflicts arising from the Soviet Union's collapse.

Right Intentions But Wrong Dialect
ISTANBUL - Whether by gaffe or by wily political maneuvering, the newly launched, state-run Armenian radio station is broadcasting in the Eastern Armenian dialect, which is incomprehensible to nearly everyone outside of Armenia. Officials were unaware and say they are now investigating

Right intentions but wrong dialect Turkey’s new Armenian radio station launched by the state to serve the Armenian community in the country missed the mark by launching in a dialect that is incomprehensible to the local Armenians.

The new radio station launched by the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation, or TRT, on April 2 is using the Eastern Armenian dialect in its broadcast, used mainly in Armenia.

The rest of the world’s Armenian communities, including the one in Turkey, use Western Armenian, also called "Askharhapar." While the two dialects cannot be described as totally unintelligible to each other, different uses of the same words and accents make most communication between the speakers of the two dialects very problematic in the least.

Western Armenian, developed of Istanbul origin, is considered the modern Armenian dialect in the Armenian world. Another factor illustrating the importance of Western Armenian is that the classics of Armenian literature have been written in it since the 19th century. Eastern Armenian is the official language of Armenia and is also spoken by the Armenians in Iran.

The difference between the Western and Eastern Armenian dialects is one of the forthcoming subjects on the agenda of the newly founded Ministry of Diaspora of the Armenian Government.

Turkey’s Chief Negotiator to the European Union Egemen Bağış expressed surprise at the situation last Friday night and said he will investigate. In a speech before an annual meeting on the European Union and Turkey, sponsored by daily Radikal and the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, Bağış defended the ruling party's outreach into state broadcasts in "local languages."

The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, seeks no political advantage with its new initiatives in Kurdish, Armenian and other languages other than "to create a better communication channel with all of our citizens," the chief negotiator said.

When told most local Armenians did not understand the broadcasts, Bağış said: "I hadn't a clue. This is the first time I have heard this. Perhaps TRT could only find news presenters speaking this dialect, I just don't know. But I will look into it."

One major problem faced by young Armenian Turks is their lack of proficiency in speaking their mother tongue even though most graduate from minority schools. Lack of proficiency also precludes them from following a radio station broadcast in a different dialect.

While the government has initiated efforts for the establishment of Armenian language and literature departments at universities, the current lack of academic teaching at the university level has taken its toll on the development of the language.

Some Armenian Turks tried to establish a private Armenian radio station a decade ago, with efforts led by journalist Hrant Dink, who was gunned down in 2007. Lack of funds prevented the establishment of the station.

’Target not own citizens’

While the Armenian Society of Turkey had abandoned hope of getting their own radio frequency; they were surprised with TRT’s Armenian broadcast. Etyen Mahçupyan, editor in chief of the weekly Agos newspaper, speaking to the Daily News, said: "This means Turkey’s target audience is Armenia, not their own citizens. This initiative is for supporting the foreign policies of Turkey; therefore, it is not sincere. It bears thought that Turkey makes such an initiative without trying to find out what its own citizens need." Mıgırdiç Margosyan, a world famous Armenian writer, said he agreed with Mahçupyan and added, "What is being done is unfair; this broadcast is not addressed to us."

Pakrad Öztukyan, an editor for Agos, indicated that the Armenians of Turkey cannot understand or speak Western Armenian. "I do not know of TRT’s broadcasting policy. If the target audience is Armenia, broadcasting in Eastern Armenian is the right decision," Öztukyan said.

Will Turkey Miss Its Third Opportunity? Mehmet Ali Birand
Are we going to be able to benefit from US President Barack Obama’s visit to Turkey? Or will we once again get into small internal disputes and miss out on an opportunity? International relations are like bargaining. If you play well, you can win more easily

Turkey may be in an unfortunate position in some ways, yet it is one of the world’s most fortunate countries in other respects. Many of us always complain and say, "Our neighbor is not Switzerland or Austria, so we cannot be relaxed." But Turkey’s fortune is based exactly on this position.

We feel discomfort because of the countries surrounding us, but thanks to them, our international and strategic importance increases, bringing with it great advantages. This is the U.S. perspective on us: Turkey has Iran on one side and Iraq on the otherÉ

It is a country that is involved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, and in Eurasia. It has one foot in the Mediterranean and the other in the Aegean. It is a country that should be listened in each regional crisis.

It is an indispensable power for Afghanistan and an important player that contributes much to the Palestine and Lebanon issues. This is how Washington perceives Turkey. But some administrations consider Turkey as a bird in the hand, while others treat it as a strategic ally.

The first opportunity came with Bush Sr.

Two administrations that glorified Turkey and carried U.S.-Turkey relations to an incredible point have passed through Washington in recent years. One of these was the administration of Bush Sr. (former U.S. President George W. Bush's father), which cooperated with President Turgut Özal during the first Gulf War in 1991.

The Özal-Bush talks and the mutual confidence between two countries led Turkish-American relations to experience a golden age. Bush formally visited Ankara in July 1991 to thank Turkey for its extremely valuable support. Özal, not missing out on the chance, received U.S. support to solve the Cyprus issue and made an attempt with Papandreu Sr. But "hawks" in the Foreign Ministries of Turkey and Greece joined forces and prevented the attempt.

Then, Clinton passed through Ankara

This was Turkey’s most valuable opportunity, which it lost in Cyprus.

President Bill Clinton came to Turkey in November 1999. Before his visit, he had put Turkey on top of the "Ascending Countries List" during a speech at Georgetown University. A breathtaking greeting for Clinton took place here. While talking about the new dimensions of Turkish-American relations during his speech at the Parliament, Clinton said Turkey was a bridge of stabilization through which the energy lines of the region passed.

When Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, was captured in Kenya in 1998, Clinton himself made the decision to deliver Öcalan to Turkey, saying, "I am doing you this favor and you should take some steps to solve the Kurdish issue." As a result, the first plan to liquidate the PKK was launched, but the plan could not be finalized. So Turkey could not benefit from this opportunity, either.

The U.S. is a superpower. On whichever issue the U.S. exerts its authority, particularly the European Union, Cyprus, Armenia and the Kurdish dispute, it facilitates Turkey’s work. Now, we face a third opportunity. The attitude of the Obama administration is ahead of the others.

Of course, he has expectations. But he also has something to offer in return. This time, Turkey is different. It is perceived differently by Europe. If we look at Hillary Clinton’s attitude during her Ankara visit, it looks like Turkey’s star will rise on the horizon of Washington.

I wonder whether we will be able to benefit from this situation. Or will we once again get into small internal disputes and miss out on an opportunity because of fruitless political fights? International relations are like bargaining. If you calculate and play well, you can win more easily.

Et Tu Barack? (part I) David R. Hoffman, Pravda, Russia, April 8, 2009
The late Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is alleged to have said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

The late Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler, to rally support for the pending Holocaust, is alleged to have rhetorically asked his followers, "Who remembers now the extermination of the Armenians?"

While historians continue to debate whether Stalin or Hitler actually uttered these words, the insights these quotations reveal about the frailties of humankind are chillingly accurate, whether it's the human mind's capacity to numb itself to tragedy or humanity's ubiquitous myopia.

In the not too distant past, most Americans got their news from their daily newspaper. Such media, however, often had to deal with spatial limitations, which compelled reporters to compartmentalize newsworthy events into a few brief paragraphs, usually through the use of statistics or similar numerical devices.

Unfortunately the cold logic of numbers was incapable of emotionally conveying the magnitude of some of history's most horrific events: Hitler's Holocaust, Stalin's purges, the Khmer Rouge's reign in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China, or the countless other atrocities that occurred, and that continue to occur, throughout the world.

As the cliche goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words," and soon photographs and television arose to overcome the deficiencies of the print media. But these new developments had deficiencies of their own. While a picture or film can possess the capacity to shock, repulse or outrage a person, the more this person sees that picture or film the less impact it has. The human mind has an uncanny ability to numb itself to repetitious stimuli, and while this may be a blessing, especially to police officers, coroners, doctors or criminal law attorneys, it can also be a curse.

When one looks at images of civilians killed or wounded in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, of rape victims in the Congo, of refugees in Darfur, of victims of oppression in Myanmar, or of the starving and impoverished throughout the world, the outrage should feel the same, regardless of whether it is the first time, or the thousandth time, that one has seen these images.

But usually this is not the case; thus the deaths of millions become a statistic.

This numbing effect is usually accompanied by a myopia that compels people to look no further ahead, or backward, then is convenient at the time; hence the world forgot "the extermination of the Armenians."

Sadly, what is convenient to forget often becomes inconvenient to remember. This was the case when several members of the United States Congress introduced an "Armenian Genocide Resolution" during the dictatorship of George W. Bush. To appease his NATO allies, Bush opposed this resolution.

What inspired my recollection of the Stalin and Hitler quotations was a recent article by the Miami Herald's Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts that discussed how the "revelations of the Bush era excesses continue to drip like water upon the stone of public conscience." Pitts compared the "fear and paranoia" of the Bush era to the "red scare" that launched the witch-hunts of the McCarthy era, and opined that America, just as it came to rue McCarthyism, will one day rue the excesses of George W. Bush and his cabal of war criminals.

As I wrote in previous Pravda.Ru articles (Bush vs. Hitler and Axioms of the World), history, especially American history, is analogous to a pendulum that perpetually swings from overreaction to regret, and back again. Before the McCarthy era witch-hunts there were the Alien and Espionage Acts, which were used by the United States government to destroy political organizations and imprison people who were simply exercising their right to freedom of speech. Before that came a hysteria generated by a newspaper magnate seeking to increase profits and circulation, which eventually led to the Spanish-American war--a lesson not lost on today's corporate-controlled media that sought to profit from the war in Iraq.

This hysteria was even present at America's birth, when its second president, John Adams, used draconian laws, known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, to quash dissent and decimate the newly created Bill of Rights.

If the past is an accurate barometer, then the cycles of history warn us that all the ruing in the world will not prevent the ascendancy of another American president as corrupt, as mendacious, as hypocritical, as criminal, and as sadistic as George W. Bush.

The reason George W. Bush had no compunction about using torture, rendition and illegal detention in an allegedly democratic nation is because the right-wing, corporate-controlled media that packaged him for public consumption are particularly adept at creating and marketing "people without principles." PIMPS (Propagandists in Media Positions), like Rush Limbaugh and the pseudo-journalists at the Fox (Faux) News Network, have elevated this to a science. Their strategy is simple--mindlessly defend the politicians you support and mindlessly condemn the politicians you oppose.

Hence, throughout the Bush dictatorship, Limbaugh vilified people for "not supporting the president." But now that Barack Obama holds this office, Limbaugh, drug-addled hypocrite that he is, says he hopes Obama's economic policies will fail.

Right-wingers have also attempted to justify the Bush dictatorship's use of torture, and quest to destroy America's constitutional form of government, by claiming that these tactics prevented terrorism.

But diversion is not prevention. What became safety to those on American soil became terrorism to Iraqi civilians and American troops serving in that battle-scarred nation.

Bush apologists also claim he is not responsible for the failure to prevent the September 11th, 2001 attacks, because he had only been in office a little over seven months when they occurred. The blame, they claim, falls on the previous president, Bill Clinton, who had eight years to eliminate Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

But, if this is the case, why are so many of these apologists now criticizing Barack Obama's efforts to repair the economic mess that the Bush dictatorship, thanks to two fraudulent elections, had eight years to repair?

Even so called legal "experts" like law professor John Yoo, who worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush dictatorship, and Supreme Court "justice" Antonin Scalia have defended the Bush dictatorship's use of torture, rendition and illegal detention. Yoo, as I discussed in my article When Self-Loathing Becomes Law: Clarence Thomas Story (Part I), even claimed that the illegally elected Bush had the authority to suspend the Bill of Rights and imprison American citizens without legal due process or access to the courts.

But while Yoo had the capacity to suggest policy, Scalia has the power to create it. An alleged "pro-life Christian," and primary architect of the Bush dictatorship's coup of 2000, Scalia may be the most ethically deprived and morally corrupt Supreme Court "justice" in American history.

His support of the use of torture, as Leonard Pitts reported, is based on the escapades of Jack Bauer, a fictional counterterrorism expert on the television drama "24." In other words, the fundamental rights and freedoms of every single person in the United States are now in the hands of a man who believes a television program should dictate how the constitution is interpreted. Undoubtedly hypocrites like Antonin Scalia were the type of people Mahatma Gandhi had in mind when he said, "I like your Christ, but not your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

In his column, Pitts also pointed out that information gathered through the use of torture is notoriously unreliable, because a person being tortured will be inclined to say whatever the torturer wants to hear.

In support, he cited the case of Abu Zubaida, who was mistakenly identified as a high-level al-Qaida operative. During the course of being tortured, Abu Zubaida provided an abundance of information, most of which proved to be false. Yet millions of tax dollars, and thousands of man-hours, were wasted investigating Abu Zubaida's tortured induced "leads."

If Scalia, Yoo and other advocates of torture really want to know how reliable torture is, they need only look at the "results" of former Chicago police commander Jon Burge.

Burge commanded a unit that allegedly used torture to coerce confessions from numerous criminal suspects, many of whom were later discovered to be innocent. Before their exonerations, several of these wrongfully convicted men spent years in prison, some on death row, while Burge enjoyed retirement on a government pension.

In reality, torture can actually increase the chances of terrorism by creating more terrorists. Families of torture victims are certain to hate the government doing the torturing; therefore they can be more receptive to the overtures of terrorist groups.

Saudi Arabia Not To Establish Diplomatic Relations With Armenia, Until Azerbaijan's Territorial Integrity To Be Restored: Ambassador
V.Zhavoronkova, Trend News Agency April 8 2009
Saudi Arabia will not establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, until the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan to be restored and its interests to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be provided, new appointed Saudi Arabian Ambassador Fahd bin Ali al-Duseri said at a meeting with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov.

Saudi Arabia treats to the problems of Azerbaijan with great sensitivity and is always ready to assist to resolve those problems, ambassador said presenting a copy of credentials on his appointment to Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan.

The ambassador appraised Azerbaijan's position to resolve the situation in the Middle East and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister thanked the Saudi Arabia leadership for its position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

Azerbaijan is interested in immediate restoring of peace and stability in Gaza and is planning to make its contribution to reconstruct the region, Mammadyarov added.

Gordon Taylor: How Obama did in Turkey
Source: pashagypsy.blogspot.com under the title: The Baby in the Iron Womb (4-9-09)

One treads carefully in the Turkish presence. Turkey is no joke.
--Jan Morris

It's a tough audience, the Turkish parliament. Say the wrong thing and you'll quickly discover the disadvantages of growing a mustache. The above photograph was taken 21 December 2008 after a Kurdish deputy of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) got up and told his fellow MPs that it was high time for Turkey to face up to the Armenian Genocide of 1915. As a Kurd, of course, he had his motives for this deliberate provocation: he knew that until the Turks confronted the truth about 1915, they would never recognize reality about the Kurds. It was a gutsy move. He, his DTP party colleagues, and millions of other people are still waiting for something other than a fist in the face.

On April 6, in Ankara, Barack Obama faced the same uncertainties. You could see it on the videos: the tiniest dent in that iron assurance we have come to expect of him. Perhaps it was because Michelle, his partner in world conquest, had left him to be with their daughters back home. In any case, he seemed slightly hesitant as he spoke to the Turkish parliament. "Who are these people?" one can almost hear him thinking; or, perhaps he was mesmerized by the sight of all those mustaches. This was not an easy crowd, nothing like those cheerful Europeans in Prague and London, delirious at having found a U.S. President who actually seemed to have a brain in his head. Most of Obama's Ankara speech, said reports, was greeted with silence.

But, to begin with a generalization, it was as good a speech as one could expect, given the occasion. In it nuance, nonsense, diplomacy, and willful disregard of reality found equal expression. Someone from the military-industrial-diplomatic complex worked hard on this text, and it showed.

First, the nonsense. Those who take a jaundiced view of Turkish nationalism can find plenty of it in Obama's words. He began his speech with the usual--a homage to Ataturk, the Republic's founder--by referring to the morning's signal event, the requisite wreath-laying at Fred's tomb. Here his restraint was admirable. At no point did Obama point out the absurdity of a free and quasi-democratic people, a NATO member and EU-aspirant, bowing and scraping before a personality cult that rivals that of Kim il-Sung.

Obama then moved on to the main event: friendly persuasion and flattery. There were references to Turkey's democracy, a dubious concept, as well as to the friendship between our two peoples--which really is a lie, since I doubt that more than five Americans out of a hundred could find Turkey on a map. (Hell, they can't even find their own country!) Here the message was, Let's Cooperate. The two nations, he said, were working together for peace and prosperity, as was appropriate. Obama affirmed U.S. support for Turkey's EU candidacy. (Which he can do because he knows that France and Germany will have the guts to tell them No.) Cliches like Resolute Ally, Responsible Partner, and Bridges Over the Bosphorus were given the requisite airing. Two Turkish basketball players were duly noted. Obama praised the Turks for their progress (non-existent) on penal code reform, as well as for their establishment (scorned by most Kurds) of a TV station broadcasting in Kurdish. This is where it began to get interesting:

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static: they must move forward.

In other words, We know that you've passed a few laws. But you have to make them work; otherwise it's just an empty form. (Which is the game, Turkey-watchers know, that the Turks have always played.)

Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

Note: "a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state." This is the toughest sell of all, the idea that the freedoms Turkish officials fear so greatly could actually strengthen their beloved, all-important Turkish State. This is the heart of the matter. And the Halki Seminary? It's an interesting gambit, a reference to a long-closed seminary near Istanbul which the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate desperately needs to have reopened if it is going to sustain itself in its ancient home. If you really become a democracy, Obama is arguing, you become stronger. And upholding minority rights is the key.

I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation.
Note: "that enriches our countries"; using the language of inclusion to cajole the listeners into going along. Obama then moved on to admission of past American sins, like slavery, in order to slide into that most treacherous of quicksands, the Turkish treatment of Armenians.
Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.
No one, I submit, is ever going to make a more diplomatic, nuanced statement about this subject. With this Obama and his speechwriters have slipped through a narrow opening indeed. If the "full and frank exchange of views" of diplomatic doublespeak were taken literally, a visitor might have said, "Grow up, people, and stop being afraid. Yes, the murderers of a million Armenians were your ancestors, but the ordinary Turks who worked to save their Armenian neighbors were also your ancestors, as were the army units which refused to participate, and the Ottoman generals and officials who refused to go along. Ataturk himself called it a 'shameful act.' So what is your problem?" Obama would never have said such a thing, but for what he did say he deserves credit.

So for the Greek patriarchate and the Armenian Genocide, two touchy subjects, we can give Obama decent marks. He went on to make a statement which was, for America's tone-deaf news media, a big deal: "[T]he United States is not at war with Islam." And he made a pitch for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But for Turkey's biggest problem, the Kurds, Obama was as silent as a Turk at Easter. True, he had declared himself in favor of "robust minority rights." But in a Turkey defined by the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, "minority" does not apply to the Kurds. Unlike Jews, Greeks, and Armenians, 15 million Kurds do not have official "minority" status in Turkey. They are full-fledged citizens, indigenous residents of Anatolia for thousands of years, who have a culture and language that has never been recognized by the Turkish Republic.

In a short meeting with Ahmet Turk, vice-chairman of the DTP and the "grand old man" of Kurdish politics in Turkey, Obama expressed "sympathy" for the Kurds but said what he had to say, that violence was not a solution for the Kurdish problem. As he said this, Turkey's Kurdish provinces were still reeling from the latest outbreaks of police violence, which left two Kurds dead and a Kurdish female deputy of the DTP injured after being beaten by the state's "security forces." Despite these almost daily reports, it is still official U.S. policy that the PKK, which has made repeated offers of negotiation, is a "terrorist group"; and the Turkish government, which rarely sees a head that doesn't deserve beating or an F-16 that isn't worth buying, is a beacon for democracy in the Middle East.

So nothing really has changed. Obama's speech made some intriguing gambits, and the symbolism of meeting with Kurdish MPs, a group that has been shunned up to now, will no doubt resonate; but without straight talk and an abandonment of the lavish armaments contracts that are the true core of Turkish-American relations, nothing ever will change. Like a baby in an iron womb, Turkish democracy has gestated for decades without hope of accouchement. Turkey's governance has always had one goal: to maintain the state and its power. And the pattern continues. For the sake of the all-important State, political parties have been closed, papers shut down, reporters imprisoned, YouTube prohibited, websites darkened, letters of the alphabet proscribed, and thought crimes punished. While murderers of liberals and ethnic minorities, caught red-handed, go unpunished, people who speak the simplest truths are arraigned and convicted within weeks. Inquiries into the most blatant thuggery drag on, without resolution, for years. Judges render verdicts that defy common sense, then retire to drink tea out of tulip-shaped glasses.

And so it goes. April 9, 2009 http://hnn.us/

Obama's Turkish Successes By Utku Cakirozer
In the aftermath of President Obama's visit to Turkey early this week, PostGlobal asked five Turkey experts from prominent American research and policy institutions for their reactions to President Obama's visit to Turkey. They reached broad consensus on two issues.

First, Obama made it clear to everyone where exactly Turkey stands in the eyes of the United States. He confirmed his administration's perception that Turkey belongs to West, and supported Turkey's European Union accession process. He did this not only symbolically (by including Turkey to his tour to Europe rather than to Middle East), but also with powerful statements before the Turkish parliament in Ankara. While showing great respect to Islam, the religion of the majority of Turkish society, he underlined the secular and democratic nature of the country, too.

Second, he made great strides toward remaking America's image within Turkish society. Between his personal charm, his promise never to make war against Islam, his firm support for Turkey's EU accession process and his promise to continue supporting Turkey's struggle against terror, he gave important signals that Turks immediately understood.

Some observers prefer a cautious stand about the future of the relationship, especially regarding the American Armenian community's expectation that the President will officially declare the killings of Armenians during the First World War as "genocide." These analysts warn that such a development could radically change that rosy forecast for Turkish-American relations.

Other analysts were less satisfied with the President's performance, highlighting his avoidance of certain human rights issues like freedom of expression and women's rights - the roots of which problems, they believe, emanate from the authoritarian attitudes of the AKP government.

Thoughts from the five experts, in their own words, are below. Please add your own impressions in the comment thread.

Zeyno Baran, Director, Center For Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute

President Obama made America human again--by reaching out to the various communities in Turkey, holding a town hall meeting with Turkish youth and giving a masterful speech in the Turkish parliament. He personified an America no longer afraid to interact with others on an equal footing. He was already hugely popular and I believe many Turks are even more hopeful that he will indeed bring peace and prosperity to Turkey's difficult neighborhood.

It was extremely important for him to refer to Turkey as a secular democracy; this once and for all ended the debate about whether the U.S. under the Obama administration would continue to see Turkey as a Muslim country or once again see it as part of Europe.

He often referred to American history and experiences and his personal life story to make his point, which was much more effective than just lecturing another sovereign nation about the things they ought to be improving, including the treatment of minorities and dealing with past traumas. In fact, the two countries have very similar founding principles of uniting people under the common citizenship concept, not under an ethnic or religious identity, yet both have fallen short of the promise at times. Turkey gave women their rights much sooner than the United States, yet its concept of being "Turkish" somehow moved from being an ideology like being an "American" to an ethnic one, thereby causing ethnic strife, especially between the Kurds and Turks, as well as other non-Turkish communities. For its part, the United States has redeemed itself by electing a black president, yet the Native American communities are still waiting for their justice and dignity.

I believe it was also important that during his speech at the Parliament, President Obama talked at length about George Washington and how important a figure he is for the United States. In this spirit, he praised Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his immense contribution to the creation of modern Turkey out of the ashes of a fallen empire. Although Americans sometimes are critical of Turks still holding Ataturk in such high regard and naming streets, schools, airports and many others after him as being stuck in the past, the capital of United States is named after President Washington, along with many other sites and even the delicious (Washington) apple! Turks and Americans may be closer than they think.

Soner Cagaptay
Director, Turkish Research Program, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy

There has been much confusion in the United States and Europe about Turkey's identity. Until September 11, Turkey was considered a NATO ally, a secular democracy and a member of the West. Suddenly, following September 11, this changed. Turkey became a Muslim ally, considered a model of Islamic democracy and a member of the Muslim world. Punditocracy began to describe Turkey as a "moderate Muslim state," and regional experts viewed Turkey as part of the Greater Middle East. A German Turk born and raised in Berlin told me that prior September 11, his friends referred to him as "the Turk." On September 12, he became "the Muslim." He added: "I had not changed in one night, but the world had."

With his Ankara address, Obama put the post-September 11 confusion about Turkey's identity to rest. The President started his speech with a rhetorical question: "I have been to...the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet (Yes, in Turkish)." The president added that Turkey belongs in Europe and the West and that "Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith." For Obama, Turkey is a country in the West that happens to be Muslim, rather than a Muslim country in the Muslim world.

This is good news for Turkey's democracy, and even better news for the Western orientation of Turkish foreign policy. In his address, Obama made strong references to Turkey's secular democracy and the need for the country to move towards European Union (EU) accession. Importantly, Obama set Europe and its liberal democratic traditions as Washington's benchmark for evaluating domestic Turkish developments. On foreign policy, lately a civilizational view of world politics has formed in Ankara, relativizing good and bad according to religion and splitting the Turks from the West. In the latest incident, at the Davos meeting in January, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan chided Israel's president for "killing people" -- and then returned to Ankara to host the vice president of Sudan. To encounter this religion-based civilizational view, the President referred to Turkey as a "resolute ally and a responsible partner in transatlantic and European institutions." Obama understands Turkey's strategic importance ?Turkey borders Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Russia, and is a staging ground for operations in Afghanistan and beyond. With his speech, Obama set NATO as a Western gauge for cooperation with Turkey on key foreign policy issues.

Steven Cook
Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

President Obama found that on the range of important issues from Iraq and Iran to Middle East peace, Turkey's policies are generally consistent with those of the United States. The Turks have long sought a stable, federal Iraq. The flowering of relations between Ankara and Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish Regional Government, combined with considerable Turkish investment in northern Iraq mitigates a complicating factor in Washington's Iraq policy. The situation in Kirkuk and the persistence of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) violence against Turkey remain flashpoints, but as the Turks and Iraqi Kurds develop closer ties, the magnitude of these problems diminishes, forestalling some of the most dire scenarios about Turkish military intervention that could unravel the progress that Iraq has made over the last eighteen months.

In the context of improved Turkish-Iraqi Kurdish relations, the Kurdish president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has called upon PKK terrorists to lay down their arms or leave Iraq. For the United States, Turkey is no longer the malevolent wildcard in the game of stabilizing Iraq. Once more, President Obama's clear declaration that the PKK is a terrorist organization that present a common threat to Turkey and the United States helped reassure Ankara that Washington will not back away from 2007 agreement supplying the Turkish military "actionable intelligence" to combat the terrorists. This is likely to garner President Obama significant amounts of good with both the Turkish government and people.

Svante Cornell
Research Director for the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, School of Advanced International Studies

Mr. Obama's visit to Turkey was an important step in rebuilding Turkish-American relations and to restoring America's position in the greater Black Sea region. In particular, Mr. Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament should be commended for the offer of cooperation and restoring the strategic relationship between the two countries. On the whole, Mr. Obama's speech did include important signals to Turkey, but failed to state a number of important elements.

On the positive side, Mr. Obama departed from the misguided notion, popular in parts of the Bush administration, to give importance to Turkey as a "Muslim democracy", a policy that often slipped into support for "moderate Islamic" movements such as the ruling AKP. To many Turks, however, that was taken as an insult: why, many Turks asked, was their country's democracy qualified with the "Muslim" adjective, denying the country's long history of secularism? Mr. Obama did not mix Turkey's political system and its cultural identity. He explicitly paid homage to Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish republic, and made sure to emphasize the word "secular" when referring to Turkey as a "strong, vibrant, secular democracy" This is a positive factor, as it may rein in some of the AKP's efforts to undermine secularism, which the party has been able to advance with little reaction from the West and to the anger of secular Turks. If the Obama administration continues to emphasize the twin, interrelated elements of secularism and democracy, that will bode well for the future. Moreover, Obama's clearly equated al-Qaeda's terrorism with the PKK's terrorism - showing appreciation for the sensitivity of the issue, which will be key to the bilateral relationship.

But Mr. Obama failed to indicate awareness of the authoritarian tendencies of the AKP government, and of the deteriorating conditions for women in the AKP's Turkey. While speaking in general terms on the need for further reform, he did not allude to the government's onslaught on freedom of expression in the country, exemplified by the Prime Minister's public bullying of oppositional media, lawsuits against journalists, the shady takeover by pro-government businesses of media outlets, or the half billion dollar fine slammed on the country's largest and moderately oppositional media group. Neither did he mention the importance of ensuring women's representation in the workforce and in politics, both of which have declined rapidly since the AKP came to power.

Mr. Obama also glossed over Turkey's role as an energy corridor, but U.S.-Turkish cooperation in the Caspian region and its accomplishments could have emphasized more explicitly. Mr. Obama also referred only in passing to Turkey's role on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Yet Mr. Obama's hope that Turkish-Armenian relations will be normalized is entirely dependent on progress in that conflict. However, Mr. Obama did not reiterate America's own active participation in efforts to resolve that conflict. Indeed, the problem was on clear display as Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev refused to travel to Turkey for a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations, in spite of phone calls from Hillary Clinton. Azerbaijan is understandably concerned by American and AKP support for a normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations that would not go hand in hand with Armenian concessions on the Karabakh conflict.

Omer Taspinar
Director, Turkey Project, Brookings Institute

The symbolism of this visit would have been much different had Obama decided to come to Ankara after visiting Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Tel Aviv and Riyadh. But a visit to Turkey after visiting London, Strasbourg and Prague is a whole different affair. The message is crystal clear: Turkey belongs in Europe.

Equally clear is the fact that we are living in a world where the "clash of civilizations" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this increasingly polarized global context between Islam and the West, Turkey is the most democratic, secular and pro-Western country in the Islamic world. It is the only Muslim member of NATO and the only Muslim country in accession negotiations with the European Union. To use the old cliché, Turkey is the bridge between the Middle East and the West. More importantly, it is an active facilitator of difficult relations between Israel and Syria and a country that wants to play a similar role between Washington and Tehran.

All these factors have significantly contributed to the symbolism of the visit. But make no mistake. An important part of President Obama's visit to Turkey was also about averting a major crisis in relations because of the Armenian genocide issue. Let's not forget that President Obama pledged several times during his electoral campaign to recognize the Armenian genocide. On April 24, in less than two weeks after his visit to Ankara, President Obama will face a critical decision. Will he refer to a "genocide" in his Armenian Remembrance Day letter? Most Turkish analysts seem to believe that he will not. I'm not so sure. When asked the question, President Obama replied by saying that he has not changed his mind on this issue. But he also pointed out that the focus should be on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, and not on America's view of this issue.

Any presidential recognition of the Armenian genocide, or a Congressional resolution in favor of such recognition, will radically change Turkish-American relations. Ankara could retaliate in a number of ways. In its most extreme, but not necessarily most unrealistic form, scenarios include a decision by Ankara to limit the use of the Incirlik Air Base, which provides more than half of the logistic support for American troops in Iraq.

How can a crisis on this issue of genocide be averted? The answer is simple: Turkey needs to open its border with Armenia. The key development in the aftermath of President Obama's visit to Turkey may very well be Ankara's decision to do so. Such a development would provide the face-saving excuse Mr. Obama needs to refrain from honoring his campaign promise on April 24. If Turkey opens the border, the Armenian Remembrance Day letter may refer to positive developments on the ground between Armenia and Turkey. Yet, Ankara will drag its feet before opening the border and try to get America's support for Azerbaijan. It will be a very long two weeks until April 24th.
by Utku Cakirozer on April 9, 2009 http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/

Good Education
While watching Mr. Obama deliver his speech in the Turkish Parliament, a thought came to my mind. About 30 years ago clairvoyants in the U.S. had foreseen that an African-American president would one day rule the country. Actually the predictions of the clairvoyants turned out to be true, or a perfect product named Mr. Barack Hussein Obama has been introduced to the American people.

I had the opportunity to meet and listen to the speeches of several former U.S. presidents. It seemed to me that the best educated and cultivated of them all is Mr. Obama. The speech he delivered at Parliament was obviously a carefully prepared and very well studied one. It seems the U.S. Embassy in Ankara played an important role in writing the text.

It is natural that we should have differences of opinion with the U.S. But the important thing Mr. Obama tried to convey in his visit to Turkey and during his speech at Parliament is that to minimize these differences of opinion we should start from somewhere. If the U.S. has five international issues that take priority, four of them are over Turkey and one concerning this region. To straighten out these issues, the U.S. has to talk to Turkey. Turkey, on its part, has to make long, short, middle range plans concerning the U.S.

First of all there is the south Caucasus issue and mainly the normalization of relations with Armenia. To bring peace to the south Caucasus region, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem should be solved. But you cannot do it solely to satisfy the Armenian diaspora in the U.S. There is no need to create concerns in Turkey, in Azerbaijan, in Iran by bringing Azerbaijan closer to Russia. To safeguard the energy flowing through Turkey, stability should be brought to the Caucasus region. It is true also for the Middle East. The great concern for all parties is the vacuum that will be created after U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq and who will get hold of the American arms that will remain in the country.

Two reasons were influential in the creation of a strong opposition in Turkey against the U.S. The first is the aid given to forces supporting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, and the second is support given to forces that demand the acceptance of the so-called Armenian genocide. The expectation here is that the U.S. should find solutions to these two main problems. Coming to the economy. At the G20 meeting, the IMF was burdened with the mission of saving the world. Including Turkey, the IMF procured additional financial aid for several countries. Time will show is if this financial support will be enough. But there is a strong possibility that these can change the export-import balance to Turkey’s benefit. 2009 will be a difficult year not only for Turkey but for European countries as well. It is impossible to think that European economies and the U.S. economy will recuperate before 2010 and 2011 consecutively. On the other hand, President Obama’s insistence that Europe, which wants a relationship based on privileged partnership, should give accession to Turkey is meaningful.

You can remember that also in 1999 the U.S. had pressured Europe in Helsinki to accept Turkey’s membership application. It is important that Mr. Obama has given a message to Europe that the U.S. wants Turkey within Europe. But Europe is reluctant in accepting it. It is obvious that these days that Europe has its own serious economic problems and doesn’t have time to pay attention to Turkey. Most important of all, Europe doesn’t want to talk economics with Turkey and seems satisfied to open and close chapters during accession negotiations, always bringing up the condition of solving the Cyprus problem. All the world knows that a solution to the Cyprus problem and all problems in the eastern Mediterranean is directly related to the consent the U.S. will give.

In the meantime both in Ankara and Istanbul people had a very difficult time in going to their jobs and coming back to their homes during the Obama visit, though they seemed to like the new U.S. president very much. Maybe tight security was exaggerated by police forces, but innocent of what was going on around him, Mr. Obama became the target of most Turks’ anger.

Although I found him very sympathetic, I, too, showed strong reaction when police searched my car when entering the Parliament complex. When we complain about these exaggeratedly tight security measures, officials say, "It is done all over the world." This cannot be an excuse. While trying to guard our guests coming to Turkey, let’s not create feelings of hatred for them among the people.
Mithat Melen, © Copyright 2008 Hürriyet

Terror May Become The Idea To Unite World Armenians Again: Head Of Center Of Political Innovations And Technologies Mubariz Ahmedoghlu
Today Az

World Armenians are not a monolythic structure, which is due to Armenians' inclination to assimilate with the title nation of the country where they leave, said head of the Center for political innovations and technologies Mubariz Ahmedoghlu.

According to him in the result the number of Armenians is reducing, while the difference between the views of Armenians, residing in Armenia and Armenians that live in different countries of the world is growing.

"For example, Armenians transform into Frenchmen, while residing in France, too rapidly, while Armenians in the United States assimilate the way of thinking and conduct of the Americans. In the established conditions, to preserve the nation, Armenians need any idea around which they could have unite regardless of the country of their residence and this idea is a mythical "Armenian genocide" of 1915 in the Osman Turkey.

Moreover, this very idea was a forming basis for creation of the ASALA terror organization -Armenian Secret Army of Liberation of Armenia. And hre it would be timely to remind that in period of the intensive activity of ASALA, that terminated a number of Turkish and European diplomats and peaceful civilians, the degree of solidarity among world Armenians was quite high.

Therefore, I quite accept this terror might become the idea around which the world armenians will unite again and if this happens we will hear about new murders and terror acts by Armenian terrorists.

Film About Armenian Terror Posted On Lithuanian Internet Portal Today AZ
A documentary about Armenian terror has been posted in a video format at Lithuanian website www.spaltai.lt, according to the press service for the State Committee of Azerbaijan for work with diaspora.

The film features the genocide and terror acts to which Azerbaijani people underwent by Armenians. This film can be viewed at http://slaptai.lt/news.php?readmore=1069.

This propaganda action is initiated by the association of Lithuanian Azerbaijanis under support of different diaspora organizations.

This documentary will be demonstrated at the website within a year. The picture taken in Azerbaijan in 2003 was demonstrated in Vilnius at the commemoration event on the Day of Azerbaijanis genocide on March 31. 150 DVDs with the film "Armenian terror" in English and Russian were distributed among the event participants. The film director is Sevda Hasanova.

Obama's Strategy and the Summits April 6, 2009 Geopolitical Intelligence Report, By George Friedman
The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity. . .

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

"The Armenians Under Turks: From The Seljuks To `Sahmanatroutyoun'"
Lecturer: Dr. Ohannes Kulak Avedikyan
Date & Time: Thursday, April 30, 2009 @ 7:30PM
Place: Merdinian Auditorium, 13330 Riverside Dr. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Directions: On the 101 FY Exit on Woodman, Go North and Turn Right on Riverside Dr.

Abstract: The lecture will cover the period from the invasions of the Seljuks to the Armenian Highlands to the establishment and fall of the Ottoman Empire. The cultural, social, political and national implications of the Seljuk invasions and the Ottoman Empire on the indigenous Armenian population of the region and the ensuing catastrophic developments will be discussed. The relatively well-to-do Armenian `Amiras' of Constantinople and their role in the development of the first `Sahmanatroutyoun' of the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire will also be assessed. The `Armenian Question' vis-Ã -vis the political maneuvers of the Ottoman Government with the European countries will be discussed and the ethnic, political and social environments that led to the organization and implementation the first Genocide of the twentieth century by the Turks will be highlighted. Light will be shed on the reasons and the circumstances of the perpetration of the most heinous crime of the century.

Ohannes Koulak Avedikyan. Born in 1946 in Kayseri (Gesaria) and moved with his family to Istanbul, Turkey in 1954. He received his elementary education in Sahagian-Nounian school and his secondary education in the Central National School in Istanbul. In 1965 he was admitted to the University of Istanbul, in the Biology department, where he established a biochemistry laboratory.

From his early childhood he was fascinated by the history of the Armenians and has ever since collected innumerable data on the origins, language, the kingdoms and the cultural and political developments of the Armenian nation. He moved to the USA in 1977 and attended the Emperor's College of Traditional Oriental Medicine. He continued his education and graduated from the Samra University of Oriental Medicine as a specialist doctor in natural and oriental healing. He has served and continues to serve on the Board of the Union of Bolsahay, and heads the Cultural Committee. He has founded and served as the editor of the `Voice' magazine and has organized numerous cultural and educational activities.

Insight: Beyond The Obama Magic By Bridget Kendall, BBC NEWS, 2009/04/09
So Barack Obama is back home after his eight-day whirlwind odyssey -his first proper foray overseas as US President.

Time for him to snatch a family holiday with his girls and prepare for that new White House puppy there has been so much media chatter about.

Time for the rest of the world to mull over what has been learnt about his presidential priorities and promises for tackling global challenges.

There is no doubt that the contours of his foreign policy are taking shape.

A scattergun of speeches, high on rhetoric and rich in crafted messages, have targeted specific audiences.

And all, it seems, have been won over: enthusiastic Brits, excited continentals, gratified Turks, and weary, gritty US troops, still counting the days of their Iraq combat duty.

Humble tune

The range of his remarks has been impressive, the tone supple and carefully calibrated. Apart from one evening press conference in London where jet lag and a cold seemingly caught up with him, he was fluent and inspirational.

He marked clear blue water between himself and his predecessor. He admitted America had been wrong on some things and would change course if it made new errors.

This was a refreshingly humble tune to the ear s of foreigners who were infuriated by what they heard as a stubborn drumbeat of unilateralism from the previous president.

He did not dodge the awkward questions. Even the touchy issue of genocide which still enflames Turkish-Armenian relations was elegantly, though indirectly, dealt with. Without upsetting his Turkish hosts by repeating his campaign pledge for Armenia's grievance to be recognised, he delicately urged the two sides to focus instead on their mutual future.

And yet.

Heady though his rhetoric may be, it cannot entirely conceal curious inconsistencies and the shadow of future difficulties.

Take the perennially controversial question of America's global leadership.

"We have come to listen as well as lead... We may not always have the best answer," he and his officials repeated endlessly.

Perhaps it was different behind closed doors, but in public his folksy "town hall meetings" and press conferences were, above all, an opportunity for him to do the talking. It was his audience who did most of the listening.

Falling into step

His cadences reinforced the impression of a preacher, ready to inspire and guide a wandering flock. "The challenge is great... so many have lost so much," he intoned, an orator up high upon a podium - even if he did deliberately deflate the balloon of his own authority now and again with conversational humour. "I think we did OK," he replied at one point about the G20 summit, with disarming simplicity.

The point is that Barack Obama still wants to proclaim the fact of American exceptionalism.

"America is a critical actor on the world stage and we should not be embarrassed about that," he declared.

But the further point is that, in his case, America's allies are still ready to fall in step behind him... for several reasons.

He likes to argue that it is because his unlikely ascendancy to the presidency is an embodiment of his political message that anything is possible.

But he is also quite simply a global celebrity, a political rock star -the undisputed centre of attention at all the many summits he attended.

Recall only the exuberant shout of "Mr Obama" by Silvio Berlusconi at the Queen's photo shoot - so loud that it earned the Italian Prime minister a royal reprimand.

Remember the cat-like grin on the face of Gordon Brown as he basked in President Obama's praise of his London summit-hosting skills and the reassurance that Britain still somehow merits a "special relationship".

Mantle of leadership

And look closely at that picture of the Obamas posing for cameras next to the French presidential pair in Strasbourg. Nicholas Sarkozy stands on anxious tiptoe next to his willowy wife, but is utterly dwarfed by the towering figures of Michelle and Barack Obama. It had a symbolic resonance, as though European leaders preoccupied=2 0with internal rivalries and their own self importance, lack the stature to see President Obama's further horizons.

And that, perhaps, is the third reason why President Obama can get away with claiming that the US still deserves the mantle of global leadership. His vision is bold and his mission, he tells us, is to galvanize international collective action to solve not just problems of the next four or eight years, but of future generations.

George W Bush fought a war on terror. Terrorism remains one of Barack Obama's scourges too, but so does global warming and a newly revived nightmare of Armageddon from misplaced nuclear weapons.

No longer does the US President invoke a fight for freedom and democracy as the cure for the world's ills, as George W Bush did. Barack Obama's call is to liberate humankind from fear, of the cataclysmic natural and man-made disasters that may overwhelm us if we don't act together.

But a few niggling loose ends mean there are a few contradictions here.

Firstly, yes, the apocalyptic vision may be different. But examine policy on a day-to-day level, and the dividing line between the old Bush and new Obama administration look decidedly smudgy. For all Obama's talk of change, the general direction of American foreign policy is surely rather familiar.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the exit strategies rest on training up the local army and police to do the security job themselves.

On Middle East Peace, the aim remains to get the Israelis and Palestinians to talk about a two-state solution, with no indication yet that the White House might rethink its refusal to talk to Hamas or Hezbollah militants.

On Iran the policy is still carrot and stick, though the carrot has been sweetened slightly by the inclusion of Americans in the official negotiating team.

And even President Obama's much vaunted reset button in relations with Russia has broken no real new ground yet- either on missile shields or Nato expansion. An offer to sit down with Russia to discuss new cuts in nuclear arsenals is exactly where Presidents Bush and Putin started out - and look how that love affair ended.

Secondly, how does one join up the dots between Obama the visionary, whose goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other threats, and Obama the pragmatist, who sees the way to do this is to use US leadership to "guide a process of orderly integration"?

If his philosophy is to engage with global leaders across the board, how far is he prepared to go? Is he still willing to confront nations about human rights abuses or other worrying behaviour?

Or has the bigger strategic goal of repairing relations with Russia and China eclipsed the human rights agenda, so that from now on issues like Russia's still incomplete withdrawal from Georgian territory, or China's treatment of protestors20in Tibet will be put firmly on the backburner?

Is Obamaland a return to realpolitik and an end to alliances built on values?

And there is a third area of apparent contradiction.

On the one hand President Obama sends a message of flexibility, an appreciation of complexity. But he sometimes comes across as a leader who, when pushed, will put his foot down.

In Strasbourg, addressing young Europeans, Barack Obama declared that the fight to keep al-Qaeda at bay did not need to lead to a compromising of moral values. This was why he was closing the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, he said, and outlawing the use of torture in interrogations.

In Prague he argued that the rules to prevent transgressions against nuclear agreements must be binding, and "violations must be punished."

In Ankara, indicating his support for the Turkish government's fight against the Kurdish militant movement PKK, he announced "there is not excuse for terror against any nation."

It sounds so principled and categorical: an American President prepared to send tough messages and take decisive action.

" Not all nations want to be guided into a 'process of orderly integration' "

And he has already shown there is a hint of a streak of ruthlessness in him.

Take his determination to keep going with US airstrikes on suspected al-Qaeda hide outs in Pakistan's border areas, despite the risk of civilian=2 0deaths and government protests.

Take his readiness at home to contemplate bankruptcy for giants of the US car industry.

And take the steel in his voice when he addressed European leaders about his expectation that they would step up to the plate to do their bit when it came to more resources for Afghanistan.

At the moment he can do no wrong, but once the honeymoon is over and Obamamania subsides, there is plenty of room here for tensions and resentments.

But the final twist is that the Obama vision of a world that is willing to pull together, and the Obama method of using the weapon of rhetoric and persuasion to win over converts, has already run into the brick wall of reality.

Not all leaders are susceptible to the Obama magic. Not all nations want to be guided into a "process of orderly integration".

Only hours before his nuclear speech in Prague, the North Koreans made that abundantly clear. They defied American and global appeals and went ahead with their rocket test launch, threatening to raise the stakes still further if UN sanctions were tightened.

And in response, it turns out that not much has changed at the UN Security Council either. President Obama may speak winningly and the handshakes from last week's summits may paint a rosy picture of collaboration, but Russia and China have not budged from their recent reluctance to endorse more UN sanctions.

Business as us ual.

An early reminder that it will take more than fine speeches to reshape the world. And once the low hanging fruit of easy diplomatic gains have been plucked, the course of American foreign policy may be just as rocky as it has ever been.

We Mustn't Practice Self-Deception In Negotiations With Turkey 08.04.2009
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Due to Armenian diplomacy NKR conflict no longer determines normalization of Armenian-Turkish ties, which greatly raises Azeri's concerns, Hay Dat Bureau Director Kiro Manoyan told a news conference today.

"Turkey was Baku's only lever of influence on Armenia. Despite Ankara's declarations that Turkey won't abandon Azerbaijan in NKR conflict, I believe that Karabakh issue is no longer a precondition in Armenian-Turkish negotiations, " Kiro Manoyan noted adding "Otherwise, Ilham Alivev would have attended "Alliance of Civilizations" project meeting in Istanbul."

Still, abandoning "Karabakh precondition" doesn't mean Ankara has altered its position on NKR conflict settlement. "Turkey will still be an ally to Azerbaijan and its protector in Karabakh conflict issue. We mustn't practice self-deception here," Kiro Manoyan emphasized.

Read Full Post !

Armenian Genocide Resource Center

14.10.11

3324) Video: Sarkozy In Armenia

19.4.09

2809) Media Scanner 19 Apr 2009 ( 106 Items )

Translate