The Jewish Vote And The French Election

THE JEWISH VOTE AND THE FRENCH ELECTION
by Nicholas Simon

The Jerusalem Report
April 2, 2007

France’s Jews jokingly divide their country’s politicians into two
categories: former ministers who are friends of Israel, and serving
ministers who are former friends of Israel.

When it comes to candidates for office, however, they all try their
best to be included in the first category. And France’s Jews realize
very well that the politicians cozy up for their votes – but then
quickly forget their campaign promises and conduct the usual pro-Arab
policy when reaching office. This time, they hope, however, that
whoever reaches office will not forget the earlier campaign pledges
to institute a more evenhanded French policy toward the Jewish state.

Although Jewish issues and Israel are not a main topic in the campaign
now furiously under way for the successor to President Jacques Chirac,
and although Jews hardly make up 1 percent of the 42 million voters,
the mythical "Jewish vote" is far from forgotten.

If as expected, no one wins an outright majority in the first-round
vote on April 22, there will be a run-off on May 6 between the two
candidates who scored highest two weeks before, and according to
opinion polls, these are likely to be conservative Interior Minister
Nicholas Sarkozy, who is leading the field with around 30 percent and
Socialist Segolene Royal with around 26 percent. Centrist Francois
Bayrou is credited with about 18 percent and ultra-rightist Jean-Marie
Le Pen with 12 percent. The rest is divided among half a dozen other
politicians, none of whom is credited with more than a few points
each. But a surprise was always possible, and centrist Francois Bayrou,
a longtime friend of the French Jewish Community, suddenly surged in
the polls in early March, coming very close to Royal.

The polls indicated Sarkozy would trounce Royal by about 54-46
percent if they face each other in the runoff. Sarkozy has assiduously
courted the Jewish vote for years and Royal made efforts to attract
Jews at the start of the campaign. But as electioneering heated up
in March, both major candidates stood on their records and avoided
ultra-controversial topics like Arab immigration and the Middle East
conflict in an effort not to alienate any potential voters.

"Mathematically, the Jewish vote should really not count," says Meir
Waintrater, editor-in-chief of the respected Jewish monthly magazine
L’Arche. "But I punched the words ‘Jewish vote’ on Google in French
and got 21,700 results. There are nearly twice as many Protestants
in France as there are Jews, and yet, there were only 106 references
in texts to a ‘Protestant vote.’ And only 56 about Armenian votes,
although France has Western Europe’s biggest Armenian population with
350,000 people," (more than half of the number of Jews).

Does that mean Jews count 200 times more in France than Protestants,
and 400 times more than Armenians? "Apparently so in many minds,
though unfortunately, one suspects that fantasies about ‘Jewish power’
are the reason," says Waintrater.

"Nonetheless," he adds, "there are plenty of other groups in France
with specific interests. Amateur hunters and fishermen are far more
numerous than Jews when it comes to numbers of votes. And they are
far easier to satisfy by extending the hunting season than by fiddling
with foreign policy to please the Jews."

However, Waintrater says, many politicians believe individual
Jews often occupy positions in French society, which afford them
influence over segments of the general public. "When immensely
popular personalities like singer Enrico Macias (stage name of Gaston
Ghrenassia) and actor Roger Hanin (stage name of Roger Levy) say they
are going to vote for Nicolas Sarkozy, that counts enormously, even
if their votes are not necessarily motivated by factors connected to
their Jewish origins," says Waintrater.

He points to a cover story in the highbrow left-wing weekly Le
Nouvel Observateur last month, reporting a rightward swing by some
of France’s top intellectuals. The word "Jew" was not mentioned,
but, of five leading philosophers shown on the magazine’s cover,
Bernard-Henri Levy, Alain Finkielkraut and Andre Glucksman are Jewish.

"Well, multiply that, for example, by thousands of Jewish doctors and
pharmacists who speak to multitudes of people each day. What they have
to say is certainly of importance to politicians," says Waintrater.

One pharmacist, who has no qualms telling his clients who he is
going to vote for, is Casablanca-born Andre Elbaz, 45, a well-known,
much-liked figure in the middle class Paris suburb of Antony. "Like
me, the vast majority of people here are going to vote for Sarkozy,"
says Elbaz, an athletically built, good-looking man with a winning
smile. People come from throughout the neighborhood to consult him
on their aches and pains, swap jokes and ask who he is going to vote
for because they respect his opinion.

"Most of my clients are non-Jews so Israel is not really a subject
they’re interested in," says Elbaz, who owns a holiday apartment in
the Israeli seaside city of Ashdod. "What they are interested in,
and which is of top concern to many French people, and also obviously
to French Jews, is the lawlessness of young Arabs in French streets.

Everyone certainly hopes Sarkozy will crack down and restore order."

Although a middle-class area like Antony was not directly hit by the
late-2005 riots which swept through immigrant ghettos across France,
leaving 10,000 cars burned in three weeks, the memory of the upheaval,
together with continued soaring delinquency rates among young Arabs
and blacks, draws many voters to Sarkozy.

The media "guesstimates" that 80 percent of Jews will vote for
Sarkozy, but the Representative Council of French Jews (CRIF), the
roof organization for French Jewry, says it is not taking sides in
the election, except to remind Jews not to vote for ultra-rightist
Jean-Marie Le Pen, to whom polls are currently giving between 12 and
14 percent of the vote. This follows accusations by Royal supporters
that the CRIF’s attitude toward Sarkozy was openly supportive.

Parliamentarian Julien Dray, a Jew and a main Royal adviser, was
widely reported to have publicly shouted at a CRIF official: "You’ll
have to come crawling on hands and knees if you want to see her when
she is elected."

Conversely, no major French politician has devoted as much effort
over the years to endear himself to France’s 600,000-strong Jewish
community, the world’s third-largest after those of Israel and the
United States, as the 52-year-old Sarkozy.

Royal has built her career around domestic issues like health,
welfare and education. Her grasp of Middle East affairs is shaky,
as was demonstrated by a string of verbal gaffes she made during her
first-ever visit to the region, including Israel, last December.

During a stopover in Beirut, she met members of the Lebanese
parliament, including Hizballah MP Ali Ammar, who launched into a
violent anti-American and anti-Israeli diatribe in Arabic. Royal
replied that she "shared part of his analysis concerning President
Bush’s policies," which instantly drew condemnation from conservatives
in France and later apparently caused Hilary Clinton to call off a
scheduled meeting with Royal in the U.S. But the next day, Royal said
she had belatedly learned Ammar also compared Israel to Nazi Germany
and this had not been translated for her. She said she would have
left the room had she known this was said. Accompanying journalists
were sceptical about the explanation, believing her belated reaction
was prompted by aides contemplating possible damage control. She also
flipflopped on Israeli reconnaissance flights over Lebanon, saying
while in Lebanon that they should cease and later saying in Israel
that she understood why they were needed. Earlier she made statements
indicating she mixed up Iranian civilian and military nuclear efforts.

Royal’s main presumed Jewish connection is Francois Hollande, the
secretary general of the French Socialist Party, who is her partner
(they are not married) and the father of their four children. But
Hollande has no community ties and keeps his presumed Jewish origins
so secret that Jewish friends of the couple say he always evades
questions on the subject.

Close to three-quarters of French Jews are Sephardi, often with close
family ties in Israel. They or their parents fled France’s former
North African Arab territories of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia when
they became independent between 1956-1962. Jews consequently maintain
a deep grudge against France’s 6 million Muslims, who in turn, brought
with them to France anti-Jewish prejudices harbored in their home
countries. Hostility between the two groups has increased in recent
years as young French Muslims regularly harass or attack Jews to
"avenge" Palestinian brethren. The death a year ago of telephone
salesman Ilan Halimi, 23, after three weeks of agonizing torture at
the hands of a gang of mostly Muslim hoodlums, who kidnapped him for
ransom, has caused outright hatred.

French Jewish solidarity with Israel is near unanimous, unfettered
and highly emotional. Sarkozy knows this from multiple appearances
at Jewish events. His first trip abroad, after taking over the
neo-Gaullist UMP party in 2004 in order to turn it into a machine to
propel him to the Elysee presidential palace, was to Israel. After
the obligatory photo at the Western Wall, he was received by a beaming
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who told him: "We know you fully realize
we see you as one of our friends."

Sarkozy’s actions as Interior Minister, assigning police and funds
to protect Jewish premises against anti-Semitic attacks, has been
rewarded with prizes from the Simon Wiesenthal Center and B’nai B’rith.

Patrick Gaubert, a prominent French Jewish figure and president of
the influential International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism
(LICRA) describes Sarkozy as "the real star for French Jews."

Minister for Regional Development Christian Estrosi, a key Sarkozy
aide and a non-Jew, sums it up when he says, "Nicolas Sarkozy is the
natural candidate of French Jewry."

When Sarkozy made a lengthy and emotional speech on January 14 to
launch his campaign before tens of thousands of enthusiastic backers,
he conjured up a dozen figures of French history, from Joan of Arc to
Emile Zola and Charles de Gaulle. Saying they had inspired him to seek
the presidency, he included Georges Mandel, a Jewish predecessor as
French Interior Minister who was murdered by French Nazi collaborators
in 1944. Sarkozy, who wrote a biography of Mandel in 1994, also said
that his own life was marked by a visit to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem
where he stood amid multiple small lights twinkling in memory of a
million Jewish children killed during the Shoah.

Some members of the French Jewish community are even convinced that
"Sarko" is Jewish. He is not, but he does have a powerful Jewish
family tie, his maternal grandfather who raised him in the absence of
his unconventional father, Paul Sarkozy de Nagy-Bosca, a non-Jewish
minor Hungarian aristocrat who came to France after World War II to
escape Soviet rule in his home country.

A tall, seductive man who dabbled in art, advertising and bankruptcy,
he married Andree Mallah, a Paris law student and daughter of a
well-to-do doctor. They had three children, all boys, of whom Nicolas
was the second. In 1959, when Nicolas was four, Paul walked out on his
family. Relations between father and son have been poor ever since,
including several years when a teenage Nicolas refused all contact.

Sarkozy’s mother, left without financial support, resumed her law
studies and moved back to her parents’ three-story townhouse in an
elegant Paris neighborhood. She later became a successful lawyer.

When she came back to the family home, her father had been a widower
for three years and was delighted to have his daughter and three
young grandsons live with him.

The adored grandfather who became the main male influence in the life
of the young Nicholas was Benedict ("Benico") Mallah, born into the
once-powerful Jewish community of Salonika, the eastern Mediterranean
port city long dubbed "The Jerusalem of the Balkans." Sephardi Jews
settled in Salonika after their expulsion from Spain in 1492. They
prospered for centuries under Ottoman rule and made up a majority of
the city’s population at the start of the 20th century.

In 1904, "Benico" Mallah’s wealthy jeweller parents, Mordechai and
Reina, sent their 14-year-old son to boarding school in Paris. He
was later admitted to Paris University medical school but did not
return to Salonika because the situation deteriorated for Jews after
the city came under Greek rule in 1912. Those who remained were later
wiped out by the Nazis.

Benedict Mallah served as a doctor in the French army during World War
I when he met his future wife Adele Bouvier, then a nurse and young
war widow. Her parents baulked at the idea that their daughter would
marry a non-Catholic so he converted to please them. He is not known
to have set foot again in a church after his wedding, but neither is
he known to have gone back to synagogue, fitting into, and prospering,
in France’s highly secularized society.

Dr. Mallah’s Jewish origins came back to haunt him during World War II
when he and his family hid for two years in a rural French village,
fearing discovery by the Nazis for whom a Jew was a Jew, converted
to Catholicism or not. Nicolas was baptized, married in church, but,
as he grew up, he was always considered "not entirely French" by some
schoolmates and neighbors. He now describes himself as "an immigrant’s
son with mixed blood" and, if elected, would be modern France’s
first-ever national leader with such powerful foreign antecedents.

Sarkozy’s former fashion-model wife Cecilia, who made the cover
of Paris-Match in 2005, when she left him for the French-Jewish
advertising executive Richard Attias, has even fewer French connections
and some possible tenuous Jewish ones as well. Her mother was Spanish
and her wealthy furrier father, Andrei Ciganer, was born in Odessa,
Russia. French Jews believe he was Jewish and point out that one
of Cecilia’s middle names is Sara and that her eldest daughter by an
earlier marriage is called Judith. The Sarkozys, who have a 10-year-old
son, have reunited.

Sarkozy has further foreign connections since a step-sister and a
step-brother, children of his father by one of his other marriages,
reside in the United States and are U.S. citizens.

It is a weightier issue concerning the United States, which has been
prominent in the news in France in recent months. Sarkozy has long
been one of the most pro-American politicians on the French scene.

Speaking to the American Jewish Committee in Washington in 2004, he
boasted that French journalists called him "Sarkozy the American"
and he said he took that as a compliment. The nickname was not,
however, meant to be laudatory and there was a row last September
when a Socialist party report described Sarkozy as "an American
neo-conservative with a French passport."

This followed Sarkozy’s calling on President George Bush at the White
House. Bush is detested by much of the mostly left-leaning French
press and Sarkozy was blasted by French media after he said while
in the U.S. that he regretted "French arrogance" toward the United
States in leading diplomatic efforts to prevent the second Gulf War.

Sarkozy pledged that if he was president, "France would never again
appear to rejoice when America was in trouble."

The words have come back to haunt him because Sarkozy now needs
President Chirac, who conceived the anti-U.S. campaign, to support
his bid for the five-year presidential term. Sarkozy has therefore
started to water down his once-unwavering support for the U.S. and
praised Chirac’s role during the Iraq conflict. Unveiling his foreign
policy platform at a news conference in Paris on February 28, Sarkozy
pledged deep friendship to the United States, but asked Washington
to stay out of French affairs while paying tribute to Chirac for
"lucidity " in keeping out of the Iraq conflict he described as a
"historical error."

Some Jews immediately scrutinized Sarkozy’s statements to see if there
was any such turnabout concerning Israel. They were reassured to see
statements demanding the disarming of Hizballah and rejecting the
possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, "which would be a danger for the
existence of Israel." But there was some unease that, while Sarkozy
repeated "Israel’s security is non-negotiable," he echoed Chirac’s
stance that Israeli military reaction in Lebanon last summer was
"disproportionate."

And especially, they noted, each sentence about Israel’s security
needs was linked with words about the need for a "viable Palestinian
state." That wasn’t really new, but French Jews are not used to
hearing it from Sarkozy in the same breath as his backing for Israel.

The very next morning, Claude Goasguen, a close Sarkozy ally and the
vice chairman of the Israel-France parliamentary friendship group,
was on French Jewish radio to soothe ever-sensitive Jewish anxieties.

"Is Monsieur Sarkozy changing his stance toward Israel?" he was
asked. "Not at all," Goasguen replied. "President Chirac is going
to speak in a few days and we have no interest whatsoever in showing
the deep differences which exist in our camp on these subjects," he
said candidly. Goasguen added: "I think that with time, we will be
able to obtain a radical change in French policy, which will bring us
back to true friendship between France and Israel and that we will,
once and for all, end all differences between the two countries."

Time will tell. There is another French proverb which says: "The
only people who believe promises by politicians are those to whom
they are made."

PERTH: Glutton: Cafe Armenia

GLUTTON: CAFE ARMENIA

Sunday Magazine (Perth, Australia)
April 1, 2007 Sunday

CAFE ARMENIA 179 Booran Rd, Caulfield Sth. Call (03) 9578 8151

The first time I set foot in Cafe Armenia, two questions sprang to
mind. First: where is Armenia? The second, thanks to the sink and
stacks of plates next to our table, was: do we have to do our own
washing up?

I’ve since learnt Armenia is wedged between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran
and Georgia. Cafe Armenia, meanwhile, has moved around the corner to
slightly more salubrious premises. Gone are the sink, mozzie zapper
and fluorescent lights. Now there are orange pendant lights, plastic
tablecloths and a photo of Mount Ararat covering almost an entire
wall. Thankfully, the hearty peasant food remains unchanged. We’re
still greeted with a complimentary nostril-clearing dip of garlic,
tomato and capsicum, served with a mountain of flat bread. And a
plate of four fat, vine-leaf dolmas stuffed with beef and pork mince
($7) is still a wonderfully satisfying starter. The soups – the
stew-like chanakhi, with chunks of beef and potatoes, and the piti,
with lamb, chickpeas and potatoes – are rib-stickingly good and,
at $17 for an enormous bowlful, each could easily make a meal on
its own. But that would mean forgoing chef-manager Serzhe Sargsyan’s
specialty: marinated, barbecued meats served on menacing 45cm steel
swords. Sargsyan personally delivers our pork on the bone (two massive,
juicy chops for $16.50) and four perfectly seared baby loin lamb
chops (also $16.50) on a platter with a battalion of ridiculously
good roast potatoes. After all that, I reckon I could face a long
Armenian winter. And, no, we don’t have to do the washing up.

India Loses Out To Armenia In Number Of Super Growth Companies

INDIA LOSES OUT TO ARMENIA IN NUMBER OF SUPER GROWTH COMPANIES

Asia Pulse
April 2, 2007 Monday 3:06 PM EST

Amid domestic firms’ growing appetite for merger and acquisitions and
a robust economic expansion, India has surprisingly lost its place
as the world’s second largest home to "super growth" companies to a
relatively unknown Armenia.

According to a new study released on Friday by global consultancy major
Grant Thornton, there was a huge 56 per cent plunge in the number
of super growth companies in India. These are the companies with
significant above-average growth in areas like turnover and employment.

While the US has retained its top position on Grant Thornton
International’s Super Growth Index for third year in a row, India
suffered a dramatic drop to 14th position as the country’s proportion
of super growth companies halved from 34 per cent to 15 per cent.

India has been replaced by a newcomer Armenia in second position with
38 per cent proportion of super growth companies there, as against
44 per cent in the US.

The other top five countries in the league include Ireland (third),
the UK (fourth) and South Africa (fifth), all of which have improved
their rankings.

Other major climbers on the index include Russia,Philippines, Argentina
and Italy.

However, Hong Kong — another strong performer in 2006 at third
place, has also dropped out of the top ten list to 11th position
this year. Other major fallers in the chart include Malaysia and
New Zealand.

According to Grant Thornton International’s Alex MacBeath, fall of
last year’s two strongest performers India and Hong Kong was the most
significant finding in the survey.

ANKARA: "Armenian Genocide" Bill Strains US Ties

"ARMENIAN GENOCIDE" BILL STRAINS US TIES
translated from Turkish

Hurriyet, Turkey
March 31 2007

Two meetings with the theme of Turkish-US relations took place in
Washington this week. The first was a regular meeting of the Turkish
American Council. The second was a meeting of the Turkish American
Advisory Council.

I only attended the latter but I heard the repercussions of the
former. Inevitably, the meetings took place in the shadow of the
"Armenian Genocide" bill occupying the House of Representatives agenda.

It is not possible at this stage to say that the House is going to
approve the bill before 24 April. But, provided the bill gets referred
to the General Assembly it seems likely that it will get passed with a
majority vote. Aiming to prevent the vote from being taken the White
House and the State Department are strongly emphasizing that a House
ruling would sever vital logistic support going to the American forces
in Iraq via Turkey.

Be that as it may, it is not going to be easy to stave off the pressure
of domestic policy requirements. Even if the administration does use
its muscle to delay the vote we are going to face the same problem
again next year. We must take into consideration that the US President
is going to issue a message on 24 April like he does every year. True,
the message never contains the word "genocide" but the allegations
we reject are included in the most overblown fashion.

In the meantime, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has accepted a
ruling condemning Hrant Dinks’ murder, calling for Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code to be scrapped, and demanding the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations. It is not clear just when this ruling is
going to be passed on to the Senate Council. The text of the ruling
does include the word "genocide" in a roundabout way.

It is stated that Hrant Dink referred to the Armenian massacre as
"genocide." Of course, we cannot accept even the claim of "massacre."

But is it not contradictory to give the impression that by focusing
on the word "genocide" other accusations are acknowledged? I think
that what is needed is to fine tune reactions by assessing all these
elements.

As for Iraq; US observers are stating that Washington will not be able
to deny Turkey its right as a sovereign state to intervene in northern
Iraq against the PKK, but they say that if this course of action is
taken then Turkey will get bogged down like the United States has
become and that the military option will bring more harm than benefits.

No doubt this is realistic thinking. While it is easy to enter Iraq,
getting out again is clearly very difficult. Furthermore, Turkey has
far more vulnerabilities than the United States.

In the matter of measures against the PKK, it is clear that Gen (ret)
Edip Baser’s work is paying off to some degree. Some jointly decided
measures are not being announced. These are probably to do with the
exchange of intelligence information and perhaps to do with some
intelligence activities.

A measure of success has been achieved in the matter of severing
financial aid to the PKK. Even if the northern Iraqi leaders are not
going for an operation against the PKK they are reportedly saying
that they will not tolerate its actions against Turkey. Furthermore,
Makhmur camp has been cleared of weapons under UN observation and
all passage into and out of the camp is being checked.

There are still 12,000 people in the camp including 6,000 minors. It
seems inevitable that they will become PKK terrorists provided they
stay in northern Iraq. Solutions must be looked into to enable these
children in particular to return to Turkey.

Finally, it can be said that Turkish-US relations are going to continue
along their turbulent course, but in contrast to this both sides are
aware of their common interests. The problems in our vast region are
not limited to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Israeli-Palestine.

In both Afghanistan and Pakistan developments could take place that
could upset the balances. The one country that can help us most with
the Cyprus issue given the current conditions is the United States.

It is for these reasons that whatever differences in opinion we may
have, Turkey and the United States must adopt a line that not only
accepts one another’s policies but also makes room for them, and they
must avoid attitudes that could create tension and cause severances.

New Airplanes Of Old Models: Azerbaijani Expert Characterizes The La

NEW AIRPLANES OF OLD MODELS: AZERBAIJANI EXPERT CHARACTERIZES THE LATEST ACQUISITIONS OF THE AZERBAIJANI AIR FORCE
by R. Orudzhev

Source: Echo (Baku), March 30, 2007, p. EV
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 2, 2007 Monday

SECTION: MILITARY INDUSTRIES & CONVERSION; No. 35

THE AIR FORCE OF AZERBAIJAN DEMONSTRATED MIG-29 AIRPLANES BOUGHT
FROM THE UKRAINE; Yesterday, the Azerbaijani air force performed
demonstrative flights of MiG-29 and Su-25 airplanes and combat
helicopters at the air base in Gadzhi Zeinalabdin Tagiev settlement.

According to mass media reports, the MiG-29 airplanes were bought by
Azerbaijan from Ukraine.

Yesterday, the Azerbaijani air force performed demonstrative flights
of MiG-29 and Su-25 airplanes and combat helicopters at the air base in
Gadzhi Zeinalabdin Tagiev settlement. According to mass media reports,
the MiG-29 airplanes were bought by Azerbaijan from Ukraine.

Day.az reports with reference to ANS that, for the first time since
establishing its national armed forces, Azerbaijan holds a presentation
of its purchased armament.

Officially, it was reported that flights at the air base were performed
to study the level of training of Azerbaijani pilots.

Representatives of local television channels were also invited to
the demonstrative flights.

Answering the question to what extent the new acquisition would
strengthen Azerbaijani aviation, retired Major General Vladimir
Timoshenko, Azerbaijani military expert, said that "in principle,
the fact of this acquisition speaks for itself. These are very modern
airplanes that have very high combat characteristics. They have high
agility and the ability to fly at a very small altitude. In other
words, this model suits the conditions of Azerbaijan and its relief,
exceeding even the Su-27, known by its perfect qualities. The main
thing now is to learn to use these airplanes."

Uzeir Dzhafarov, another well known defense expert, expressed a
more pessimistic point of view. Dzhafarov said: "Information about
the purchase of these airplanes was known for a sufficiently long
time and the authorities simply refused to discuss it. To speak of
these airplanes as modern is absolutely at odds with facts. They are
simply new by themselves, that is, they have not been used. According
to their technical characteristics, I would say, they do not comply
with contemporary requirements. These airplanes were simply reserves;
in other words, they were stored in hangars and were not used to date.

Proceeding from this fact, it is announced that Azerbaijan has bought
new MiG-29 airplanes. I would answer those who think that these are
modern airplanes with the following: this acquisition is similar to
the situation when Uganda and Georgia bought BMP-3 combat infantry
vehicles from the Ukraine and Azerbaijan bought a BMP-1 from it. Some
of our military merchants said that the BMP-1 vehicles were allegedly
more suitable for maneuvering on mountainous terrain than the BMP-3.

It is clear that this was also a lie. If we compare the MiG-29
airplanes bought by us with the armament available in Armenia at the
102nd Russian base in Gyumri, we can see that our airplanes are more
vulnerable. Their field for maneuvering and for the fulfillment of
combat tasks is not very high in comparison."

Dzhafarov adds: "I would like to stress that currently Armenia has
much stronger fighters, bombers and attack airplanes which are far
superior to the MiG-29. Along with this, the Russian party keeps
supplying Armenians with new kinds of armament. It is no secret that
Armenia has air defense missiles S-300 and S-400 systems, which will
appear at the 102nd base soon. General of the Army Mikhailov, Commander
of the Russian Air Force, has already announced this. That is why,
purely subjectively, I am not happy with our latest acquisitions. I
think that instead of the MiG-29, of which, I was told, we bought
around 9-12 pieces, we could have purchased a smaller quantity of more
modern airplanes. For some reason, we share the erroneous belief that
the more pieces of armament we have the better.

As a result, Robert Simmons, special envoy of NATO in the Caucasus,
announced recently that both Armenia and Azerbaijan already breached
the armament quotas set for them in the framework of the all-European
agreements."

More Than One-Third Of Servicemen In The National Army Of Armenia Tr

MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF SERVICEMEN IN THE NATIONAL ARMY OF ARMENIA TRANSITED TO PROFESSIONAL BASIS

Source: Krasnaya Zvezda, March 30, 2007, p. 3
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 2, 2007 Monday

Serzh Sarkisyan, Security Council Secretary and Defense Minister
of Armenia, reported that more than one-third of servicemen in the
national army have already transited to a professional basis.

Sarkisyan said: "We have more than 8,000 privates and sergeants,
more than 10,000 officers and more than 5,000 warrant officers
serving on the contract basis. This is slightly more than one-third
of the army." According to Sarkisyan, the country will be unable to
fully transit to a professional army in the near future because the
state must spend a great deal more money on contract servicemen than
conscripts. The Defense Minister also reported that an ambitious
reform for the improvement of the armed forces to international
standards began in the army.

Armenia Names Defence Minister As New PM

ARMENIA NAMES DEFENCE MINISTER AS NEW PM

Agence France Presse — English
April 2, 2007 Monday 5:19 PM GMT

Armenia’s ruling Republican party on Monday named Defence Minister
and presidential favourite Serge Sarkisian as the country’s new
prime minister.

Sarkisian is a close ally of President Robert Kocharian, who is
expected to approve the nomination on Wednesday, parliamentary speaker
Tigran Torosian told AFP.

Sarkisian, 52, will succeed Andranik Margarian, who died of a heart
attack on March 25 after seven years as prime minister.

The defence minister is considered the favourite to replace Kocharian
when the president’s second term expires next year.

Like Kocharian, Sarkisian is from the disputed region of
Nagorno-Karabakh and fought in the 1988-1994 war in which Armenia
seized the region from Azerbaijan.

He also chairs the Republican party’s ruling council and is expected
to play a key role in the party’s campaign for May 12 parliamentary
elections.

ANKAR: CHP Asks For Anti-So Called Genocide Committee

CHP ASKS FOR ANTI-SO CALLED GENOCIDE COMMITTEE

The New Anatolian, Turkey
April 2 2007

The main opposition party over the weekend called for establishment
of a parliamentary investigation committee to broaden the scope of
strategies in order to forestall so-called Armenian genocide claims
and especially the Armenian lobby in the U.S.

The Republican People’s Party’s call came soon after the U.S. House
of Representatives slightly changed remarks over "genocide" in a
resolution in favor of Turkey.

The resolution which has no binding for Turkey but is important in
terms of international politics, excluded the term "Armenian genocide,"
but condemned the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink
in January.

The paper, passed on Friday, also replaced the part "Dink was
prosecuted under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) for
mentioning about Armenian genocide," with a new version worded more
cautiously, which reads, "Dink was prosecuted under Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) for calling the ‘1915 massacre of
Armenians genocide’."

A group of CHP deputies led by Istanbul Deputy Sukru Elekdag submitted
a motion to the Parliament Speaker’s Office on Saturday accusing
Turkish authorities of remaining relatively passive regarding the
so-called claims.

The petition, which cited that Armenia has made a long way to introduce
Turkey a genocidal country, thus a great many Western states has
come to use the opportunity laid by mostly Armenian diaspora to steer
Turkish foreign policy and reap concessions or avoid Turkey to become
a full member of the European Union, said that the so-called claims
have come to affect the current international affairs of Turkey as
a global threat.

It also said that the claim is engineered as a tool for the racist and
imperial policies of Armenia and Armenian diaspora which concentrated
on efforts to put forward territorial claims or compensations. "The
Armenian side has been carrying out a paramount international public
drive through academic publishing, political symposiums, lobbying,
and even movies portraying a genocidal Turkey," said the paper.

The petition also admitted that Turkey cannot be called better off
compared to Armenia since although it has gave pace to its efforts
recently, it is too late and weak to fight Armenian ardor regarding
the issue.

Kurdish Genocide

KURDISH GENOCIDE
by Aram Azez

OpEdNews, PA
April 2 2007

The Systematic Genocide of the Kurds and the Unethical International
Scheme

During his 35-year tenure, Saddam Hussein and his regime turned
Kurdistan, Iraq, and the region into hell. Imposing two unjustifiable
wars on neighboring Iran and Kuwait, Saddam and his regime took the
country through numerous catastrophes, atrocities and murdering of
countless Iraqis. However, world experts believe the gravest and
the best documented crimes of the defunct Iraqi regime were those
conducted during the Anfal genocide against the Kurdish people. The
Iraqi military campaign code name "Anfal" (spoilers of war) in 1988
was the gratuitous and obvious systematic genocide by all means but
there was no international recognition. The Iraqi state recorded and
kept detailed documents and videotapes of their crimes, which included
executions, torture sessions, mass killing and forcibly relocating
the Kurdish people, some dating back to1970s.

Right after the collapse of the Kurdish revolution led by then
Kurdistan Democrat Party leader Mustafa Barzani in the mid-1970s,
a systematic wave of Anfal operation was planed: forceful evacuation
of some quarter of a million Kurds from Iraq’s borders with Iran and
Turkey. Then, the regime destroyed all of the evacuated villages
to create barrier sanitary along these ‘sensitive frontiers’
where the Kurdish resistances have had always taken arms against
their oppressors. Most of the displaced Kurds from these areas were
transferred into compulsory camps and crude new settlements located
on the main highways, surrounded by army, monitored and controlled by
Iraqi secret agencies. Similar producers, or even worst were expected
in the years ahead.

However, renewed Kurdish arms resistance in late 1970s and the
Iraq-Iran war in early 1980s, interrupted the Ba’ath Party’s Anfal
plans, at least for several years. Yet the defunct Iraqi regime
attempted to resume the Anfal diagram in 1983, when Iraqi troops
surrounded one of the complexes where thousands of the Barzani clan
families were resettled, and within hours kidnapped 8000 males from
the camp aged twelve to seventy! Their fates for the public were
known only as "despaired Barzanis."

In the mid-1970s and the early1980s the procedures used against the
Kurdish border villagers and Barzanis, were the techniques that would
be used on a grander scale for continuing the Anfal campaign.

Undoubtedly, the absence of international objections encouraged
Saddam’s regime to believe that they could get away with an even
larger method without any hostile response. Actually, in this respect
the Iraqi regime seemed to have been accurate in its computation and
judgment of the international functioning, which was a green light
for Saddam to go ahead with the Anfal preparation!

Therefore, the Anfal Genocide’s full scale was a concerted series of
nine military operations which began on February 26, 1988, conducted
in several distinctive Kurdish geographic areas, and by September
6, 1988, reached its climax. By then, the now defunct Iraqi regime
had shattered 4500 of some 5000 Kurdish villages, and evidently used
chemical weapons to attack at least 250 villages and towns, the worst
of which was the gassing of March 16, 1988, on Halabja, a town where
more than 5,500 civilians died and some 11,000 others injured.

These chemical attacks paved the way for the Iraqi army to replace
an estimated two million of villagers in 1988. Hundreds of thousands
of these civilians were gather at first stage camps, and then driven
away in convoys of sealed military vehicles to southern Iraq. But
eventually more than180, 000 of them were massacred by the Iraqi
secret firing squads, who were waiting for the victims to arrive at
the edge of pre-dug mass graves. The ones that escaped the death
squads were buried alive and any information about the victims’
destinies to their relatives or to the public was denied for years.

However, during the 1991 Kurdish up rising which followed the first
Gulf War, the Kurds captured millions of paper records and videotapes
which were produced by security, secret intelligence, military,
Baath party and other Iraq state official agencies. 18 tons of these
evidences were eventually relocated to the US National Archives for
‘safe keeping.’ As a result of the second Gulf War, further documents
and evidences about the Anfal Genocide was discovered.

According to the NIDS, its organization holds approximately 2.4
million pages of official Iraqi documents most of which relates to
the Anfal atrocities.

In the aftermath of toppling of Saddam’s regime in 2003, Kurdish
authorities sent special teams to search for potential Anfal victims’
mass graves, especially the Barzanis in South Iraq. According to these
teams, the vast majority of the Kurdish victims’ remains were recovered
in three mass grave sites around Iraq’s Rumadi, Hather and Samawa
cities where 1400 of the Barzanis’ remains were relocated, but due
to security concerns the remains could not be returned to Kurdistan.

The teams’ searches were based on the defunct regime’s documents,
local civilians’ information; and the only five men and a twelve- year-
old boy who escaped and survived the mass killings. These survivors’
testimony at the Anfal genocide trail was significant evidence against
the defendants.

The former Iraqi regime members did not deny the Anfal Operations
in their public and medium announcements and during the trail of
those were responsible for the genocide. In one of his recorded
video speeches dated September 1983, Saddam gave the clearest hint
regarding the fate of the abducted Barzani men. "Those so-called
Barzanis, betrayed the country and betrayed the covenants, and we
meted out a stern punishment to them and we sent them to hell," he
said. During the Anfal trial, evidences of defendants’ crimes piled
against them. "Chemical Ali" also repeatedly told the court trying
him for genocide, he had ordered Kurdish villages cleared in the 1988
"Anfal" campaign which cost tens of thousands of innocent children,
women and men lives. No doubt, this couldn’t have been achieved
without regional and western bureaucrats’ support.

Even though Saddam got the justice he so deserved, yet if his
trial for genocide against the Kurdish people had continued, it
would have assured to shed light on a deeply unethical period in
both Islamic-world and western policies where the major countries,
including the United States, keep silent during the Anfal crimes
for strategic and economic interests. According to some former Iraqi
regime members, Saddam apparently wished-for making an issue of western
support during his trial, but his premature execution left no time for
such testimony. The former dictator’s trial could also have revealed
further concrete evidence of western involvement in the Anfal Genocide.

The former staff member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Peter W. Galbraith’s words also could have been useful evidence
against both former Iraqi defendants and their western advocate’s
involvement in the Anfal genocide. He visited Kurdistan at the
time and in the aftermath of the Anfal genocide against the Kurdish
people. Here is an example of what he has experienced. ..I stumbled
across it beginning in September 1987… I got permission to visit
Kurdistan. When Haywood Rankin from the US embassy in Baghdad and I
crossed from Arab to Kurdish territory, we were amazed that places
shown on our maps no longer existed. Later, we came across deserted
towns with bulldozers parked next to partially destroyed houses and
realized what was happening.

Mr. Galbraith also admits the US government’s significant role in
the defunct Iraqi regime’s crimes during the Anfal campaign: While
serving in the Reagan or Bush administrations, some of the principals
of the current war — including Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell —
played down the significance of Iraq’s use of poison gas, including,
in the case of Powell, against the Kurds. And months after the 1988
gas attacks on the Kurds, the current president’s father — with the
apparent support of his defense secretary, Richard Cheney — doubled
US financial assistance to Iraq. However, despite of all these best
documented crimes during the defunct Baath regime’s military campaigns
against the Kurds; the Anfal has neither internationally nor regionally
been recognized as genocide! Whereas, the International convention
(260A) of September 1948 regarding the prevention and punishment of
those who commit genocide, clearly indicates that the Anfal must be
accounted as genocide.

In regards to the similar atrocities, only two nations have been
persecuted more than the Kurds in modern history–the Armenians
by the Kemalist Turks and the Jews by Nazi Germans, but with their
political powers, Jewish genocide is internationally recognized and
the Armenians are struggling for international genocide recognition.

Yet the Kurdish case has been dismissed!

Now, 19 years later, the horrible images of Anfal campaign are
still vivid in the memories of the family members of the victims or
survivors, with no much hope for the their case to be officially
recognized as genocide; especially after Saddam’s premature
execution. Even though Saddam got the justice he so deserved, yet an
international recognition for the Anfal genocide, and an official
apology from the current Iraqi government could have been achieved
if the trial of the deposed dictator had continued! His premature
execution is evidence that there was fear of revealing foreign
involvements in the Anfal crimes, which was a systematic genocide of
the Kurdish people that the Baath party prepared from the mid-1970s
but reach its peak in 1988 when the Iraq regime massacred and gassed
more than 200, 000 innocent civilians. This has been a bloodstained
period for the Kurdish people.

Aram Azez is a Kurdish Political Journalist. He writes about
the Kurdish and Middle East Issues in both Kurdish and English
languages. Most of his articles are published in Kurdish-English
Newspapers and Websites(see for his articles
in English .) Currently he is editor-in chief of printed Kurdish
Newspaper, Newand .

77

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/page.php?a=328
www.newand.net
www.kurdishmedia.com

ANKARA: ‘New Relation Taking Shape Between Turkey And US’

‘NEW RELATION TAKING SHAPE BETWEEN TURKEY AND US’
Yonca Poyraz DoÐan

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
April 2 2007

Suat Kýnýklýoðlu, a Turkish foreign policy expert and currently the
executive director of the German Marshall Fund of the United States’
office in Ankara, has said some American observers of Turkey have
concerns about Turkish foreign policy moves because Turkey cannot
communicate its objectives and intentions well. Indeed, he said,
Turkey is reintegrating into the Middle East, which is not only in
the interest of Turkey but also in the interest of its European and
American partners.

"We need to try to ease the problems that arise at the moment between
us and the United States, or us and the European Union, and help
them to digest our new identity," Kýnýklýoðlu said. "We come from an
Ottoman state tradition. We feel like we don’t need to tell others
what we are doing, that others should understand us naturally, but
that’s not the case."

For Monday Talk, Kýnýklýoðlu spoke with us about the new dimensions
of Turkey’s foreign policy, and how it has been affecting Ankara’s
relations, mainly with the United States and regional countries.

You have so much contact with Turkey observers in the United States.

How do they see Turkey these days?

One of the biggest concerns I have been having in relation to how
Turkey is perceived in Washington has been a worryingly negative
interpretation of events in Turkey. And I think this has something
to do with how analysts based in Washington interpret events in Turkey.

The part of it might be that they are not physically in Turkey so
they are not fully aware of the true dynamics of developments in
Turkey. Two years ago this wasn’t the case, but I think over the last
year, since Turkey has been discussing the presidential election
and then the new [parliamentary] elections, the political tension
in Turkey has increased, so I think the way Turkey is interpreted in
Washington has also changed.

Would you give specific examples of these perceptions?

Well, there are some people in the United States who talk about a
military coup being imminent in Turkey. You know, the next president,
his identity, has become very much our primary concern over the last
couple of months, and it is going to intensify over the next few
weeks. If you live in Washington and listen to some of the analysis
there, you would think that there was an imminent danger of shariah
being established in Turkey. I am not convinced that this sort of
line is really objective about what is going on in this country.

What is going on in Turkey, in your opinion?

In my opinion, Turkey is going through a period of normalization in
many respects, becoming a more open, more democratic, more transparent
society. It is now healthily debating difficult issues like the
Armenian issue, the Kurdish issue, how to accommodate religion
within a secular democratic system, how to treat people who are not
necessarily of Turkish ethnic background but are Turkish citizens. I
think Turkey is going through a healthy period. The economy is going
extremely well. However, some macroeconomic issues have almost been
taken for granted. A couple of years ago, you couldn’t go to a bank
and get a loan for a house for 20 years. People seem to forget that
we had 80 percent inflation. I remember vividly when people would be
exchanging dollars in the morning and switching back to lira in the
afternoon because of a volatile exchange rate.

For four-and-a-half years we have been enjoying macroeconomic stability
and good growth. While Europe is growing about 1 percent a year,
we have been enjoying an average of 6.5 – 7 percent growth.

This is very impressive, and we are doing this in an environment when
there is a major war at our border. And at the same time, we are really
intensely discussing some of these issues that I have just mentioned.

Do you think Americans who observe developments in Turkey are convinced
that things are pretty normal or are they in a ‘watch and see’ mode?

Most of them remain concerned. I was in a workshop a few weeks ago
in Washington. We were discussing these things. That the Americans
express concern about Turkey is natural because Turkey used to be a a
flank country defending the southeastern corner of the alliance. Now
Turkey is more independent and becoming a regional power. The current
tensions between the United States and Turkey on some of the issues in
the region are normal tensions between a global hegemony and a regional
power that is reasserting itself. So we are now experiencing a period
where both sides need to adjust to this new situation. The Americans
need to come to terms with the fact that there is a different Turkey
at hand; it is no longer just a flank country in the southeastern
corner of NATO, but is a country in a central location.

How serious are these ‘tensions’ you’ve just mentioned in the
US-Turkish relationship?

We need to try to ease the problems that are arising at the moment
between us and the United States or us and the European Union, and
help them to digest our new identity. We Turks have a terrible problem
with communicating what we are doing. I am part of the generation of
Turks that emphasizes "Communication, communication, communication"
because we generally don’t communicate well what we are doing. One of
the reasons I joined the GMF is because it is an organization with
a very strong European network, and our work is really about Europe
and the United States. And we see Turkey as part of Europe. In our
work we bring in speakers who help Turks concern.

And we Turks, as [former US Ambassador to Turkey] Marc Grossman said,
"don’t have PR genes." We come from an Ottoman state tradition. We
feel like we don’t need to tell others what we are doing; the others
should understand us naturally, but that’s not the case. Especially
with a country like the United States, which has to deal with almost
200 countries on this planet, getting the attention of the US policy
community or the US think tank community is a challenge. And Turkey
should not assume that just by being Turkey or just by being located
in this geography in itself will mean that there is going to be an
interest in us. We shouldn’t assume that the US always has a great
interest in us. We should actually take our message to the United
States in seminars, hold workshops with intellectuals who have direct
contact with American counterparts and vice versa.

What is the US point of view regarding Turkey’s relations with Iran?

In the United States right now the most important issue is Iran.

Iraq, of course, is important, but the looming issue on the horizon
is Iran. And when we talk about Iran, Turkey’s relationship with its
neighbors comes into question. In fact, the Turkish government has
a foreign policy understanding that requires minimal problems with
its neighbors. And over the last years, Turkey’s relations both
with Syria and with Iran have deepened; our trade has increased,
our political dialogue has become deeper. I think in some quarters in
Washington, this has been dealt with apprehension and concern. Turkey
is also partly responsible for that perception taking shape because
we have not been able to clearly communicate the intentions behind
our foreign policy. But during the last six or seven months, there
has been an effort to explain why Turkey is following the foreign
policy it is following. That is actually not a source of concern but
on the contrary, it is a development that should be welcomed by the
United States.

Why is that?

This government’s foreign policy has been largely inspired by
Professor Ahmet Davutoðlu [who is the foreign policy advisor to the
Turkish prime minister]. It is based on the understanding that Turkey
should normalize its relations with its neighbors. And I think with
the exception of Armenia, this policy has been successful. Iraq is a
special case because we don’t have an Iraqi state right now. With Iran
this policy has been successful, with Russia it has been successful,
with Syria it has been successful, and with Greece we now have good
relations. I mean in general, this intellectual policy is a fresh and
welcome departure from the old and narrow understanding of our foreign
policy, which was "peace at home, peace abroad" which wasn’t inspiring
and didn’t allow for a sophisticated outreach to our neighbors. One
of the things that of course has come out from this is that Turkey
has become now very influential and active in the Middle East. Turkey
is one of those unique countries that can speak both to Israel and
to Palestine, or can have good relations both with the United States
but also with Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others. And I think this
has been a welcome and fresh new development in our foreign policy,
which is not always well understood in Washington.

What would be bothersome for the United States in that regard?

The primary concern we hear from our American colleagues is when there
was an effort to isolate Syria two years ago, Turkey was increasing
its trade and its contacts with Syria. There is also a timing issue
here. Turkey’s opening up to this region coincided with wanted to
isolate these places. But Turkey cannot limit its foreign policy
potential because other countries have an isolationist policy.

Turkey would wish that this new policy would have occurred in another
time period. But Turkey needs to trade with Syria, needs to trade
with Iran, and Turkey wants to create an interdependency with these
countries that would allow a moderating influence to be projected on
these countries. We’ve been actually living through historic times
because Arabs no longer perceive Turkey as the old Ottoman Empire.

Now we are experiencing days when Turkish columnists are being
translated into the Arab press and read widely, and Arab opinion pieces
are translated in the Turkish press. Thus Turkey is reintegrating into
the region, and that’s not only in the interest of Turkey; it is also
in the interest of our European and American partners. Because Turkey
is in fact a security-producing and security-generating country,
and can be and I think is an inspiration for many countries in
the region. It may not be a perfect model because we have different
historical experiences, but it can be an inspiration for many countries
that aspire to becoming more open, more modern countries in which
both democracy and Islam can cohabit.

US officials themselves usually say they see Turkey as a model country
in the Middle East. Do they reinforce this thought by asking Turkey to
play an intermediary role in the region, for example, in the conflict
with Iran?

Turkey, of course, enjoys some channels of dialogue that our American
friends sometimes don’t have, especially with Iran. Turkey is not the
only channel to Iran or Syria. Europeans also have channels of dialogue
with them, but I think the difference Syria and Iran trust Turkey much
more than many of the Europeans. Turkey is perceived as a country that
has the ability to take independent decisions. The March 2003 decision
not to allow US troops to invade Iraq from Turkish territory was a
key turning point. And I think in that regard, our American colleagues
from time to time do make use of Turkish diplomacy and Turkish access
to Iranian and Syrian officials — not only with Iran and Syria but
also with other regional countries like Saudi Arabia and others.

Sometimes it’s been said that the biggest obstruction in the way of
the US-Turkish relationship is the Armenian genocide resolution. Do
you agree with that?

I don’t think the genocide resolution is the biggest problem between
us. The biggest problem between us is the [terrorist Kurdistan Workers’
Party] PKK issue and the future status of Iraq. That’s our number
one issue. The Armenian issue is a problematic one, something again
where we need to tell our side of the story effectively. I heard some
Turkish colleagues who said, "Let the resolution pass and get on with
it." But I still tend to be on the side that the Armenian resolution
is a wrong decision and shouldn’t be passed by Congress.

And I am optimistic that it actually will not pass this year.

If it passes, do you think it will be disaster for bilateral relations?

If it passes, I think Turkey will take some measures; it will counter
this sort of affront, this inappropriate action by the Congress. I
think in the end, especially given our more problematic relationship
with the European Union, I think some sort of sobriety will set in
and both Turkey and the United States will continue to find ways to
work together, especially in Iraq. If the resolution does not pass, it
will be a much more constructive and cordial working environment with
the United States on Iraq than it might be if the resolution passes.

What do you expect to happen regarding Turkey’s concerns about
developments in Iraq and the role of the United States?

The United States is one of the primary determinants of what is going
to happen in Iraq. Turkey has an interest in both communicating and
influencing the events in Iraq. We have an Iraq with a very problematic
situation. You have the presence of the PKK, which always has the
potential to strike Turkish targets, kill Turkish soldiers.

And then you have also the future status of Iraq, which may produce
an entity, a Kurdish entity; I don’t know in what form or shape. It
could be a federal entity, it could be an independent one. Well,
you could have decades-long internal civil war in Iraq. Turkey does
not want that sort of instability to spread from Iraq into its own
territory. The one thing that many people forget is that in 2003,
when the war started, the last thing that people in the Southeast
of Turkey wanted to hear was "war." In 2003, it was right around the
time that Turkey was winning peace with its Kurdish citizens. Trade
and investment had started to increase, tourism started to increase,
with buses of western Turks traveling to Mardin, Urfa, Van and other
places. And it was precisely the wrong time when the United States
decided to invade Iraq because it complicated our own problems with
our citizens of Kurdish background.

Some US officials have mentioned that the United States will take
radical steps against the PKK. What could those be?

That could mean closure of some camps, the handing over of some of the
PKK leadership. These are all nice things, and we have been hearing
such promises for months now since the PKK coordinator Gen.

Ralston [former retired NATO commander Joseph Ralston, who is the US
envoy to coordinate efforts to fight the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)]
has been assigned, although we have yet to see the materialization
of something meaningful. Some people think that Turkey is eager to
make a military intervention into Iraq. This is not true. Turkey does
not want to intervene in Iraq. We would like the Kurdish authorities
involved in Iraq and for the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad to work
in cooperation with the United States to deal with this issue. The
PKK is a terrorist organization; it is listed as one by the United
States. We expect the Iraqi authorities to deliver on what they have
been saying to our leadership, but we need to see those things happen.

—————————————– —————————————
PROFILE Suat Kýnýklýoðlu

Suat Kýnýklýoðlu has been the executive director of the German Marshall
Fund of the United States’ (GMF) new office in Ankara since 2005. He
previously worked on Black Sea security and strategic issues as a
transatlantic fellow with an organization in Washington, D.C. He
came to the GMF from the Ankara Center for Turkish Policy (ANKAM),
where he served as the center’s director and editor of Insight Turkey,
a quarterly publication on Turkish foreign policy issues.

Before his tenure at ANKAM, Kýnýklýoðlu worked as a development
officer responsible for Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan at the
Canadian International Development Agency, based in Ankara. Prior to
that, he was a senior political and economic research officer at the
Australian Embassy in Turkey. He holds the rank of division/liaison
squadron commander in the Turkish Air Forces. His publications include
"History in the Making: Transformation in Turkey "; "Kirkuk, Northern
Iraq and the ‘Grand Bargain’"; "Dink, Doves and Democracy"; "Mind Your
Own Business, France" and "Spurned by the West, Turkey Looks Eastward."

–Boundary_(ID_9uHajPKP0SCIkrM/9+ HWVQ)–