Author: Hovhannisian John

Arabisto.com, FL
Oct 28 2007

Calamity in Turkey: A Hot Bed Over PKK Incursion and Armenian
Genocide Resolution

Beatrice Vanni
October 28, 2007 09:26 AM

It has now been a hot bed of activity for two weeks in Turkey with
the military already bombing their Iraqi borders and panting for an
incursion into northern Iraq to banish the PKK. Add to it the
Armenian Genocide resolution hanging in the balance of the U.S. House
and Turkey emerges in yet another controversy.

Tumultuous times reared its head again in Turkey over these two
issues and the masses repeatedly took to the streets demonstrating
their resolve to annihilate

the PKK and curse America for not getting on board with it. Add
insult to injury over the Armenian Genocide Resolution 106 and we
have a hornet’s nest brewing in the bowels of Turkey.

While the PKK ranks high on the agenda at the present time for
Turkish, Iraqi and American governments to work together, the
Armenian Genocide issue simmers on the back burner especially since
Bush has been emphatically against its passage.

Where is Turkey headed and what results are on the horizon? Is it the
time to go into Iraqi territory with guns blazing? It is, afterall,
the only area in Iraq that has been somewhat quiet through all this
time.

Clearly, Turkey bears the right to go after a terrorist organization
which boldly takes lives on their sovereign soil and killing over
30,000 of their citizens since the early eighties. Throughout this
same time, whole villages were cleared out overnight and many times
razed to the ground, many lost their jobs and families no longer
whole. We see in Istanbul today the remains of those families who
still live on the streets while the Turkish government tries to
repatriate them to their own villages.

>From 1999 to about 2002, the PKK underwent some changes to a more
peaceful stance and all but disappeared for a couple years prior to
the Iraq War. During that same time, tourism began blossoming in
earnest in the east after many years of struggle, only to be eclipsed
by the quagmire next door. Additionally, in recent years, the AK
government began investing in the people of the eastern side and
development proved fruitful.

Unfortunately for Turkey, the PKK resurrected itself this time
stronger than before and not just affecting eastern Turkey but many
other areas as well with bombings and revenge against Turkish
soldiers and citizens alike.

Conversely, Turkey does not remain totally innocent in this Kurdish
fight for its own state. The Turkish Kurds mostly live in the
under-developed eastern part of the country where, traditionally,
little investment occurred to build the infrastructure to support
education, decent job opportunities and reasonable wages. One can
still easily see remnants of the PKK impact with no schools in the
villages for children to attend, poor sewage systems to support
indoor plumbing, minimal electricity and even communal ovens for
cooking.

To face rising terror in this region once again and spilling over
into other parts of Turkey, the government is hard-pressed not to
respond with determination and force. Expecting their allies to
support their request for incursion into northern Iraq, Turkey treads
a fine line. Without Iraqi and American approval, Turkey risks
escalation not only with the PKK, but also spawning unrest where none
existed in this Kurdish border area of Iraq, and force coalition
troops to stand at the ready.

On the other hand, while it may now be America’s duty to fight the
PKK because it affects another part of Iraq and their Turkish ally,
the PKK never have fought alongside the insurgents, Al Qaeda and
other militants in Iraq. Thus, the PKK mattered little in the fight
to get Iraq under control, and it was only right for the Iraqi
government to focus on the factions hell-bent on creating strife
instead of going into predominantly peaceful areas and stirring up
the pot.

It’s understood that the escalation by the PKK ups the ante for the
Turks; although, it begs an answer to how Iraq can avoid additional
jeopardy of losing what calm has been achieved there, and the issue
of the lack of American troops to support such a deployment to a
peaceful area.

So the dilemma returns to Turkey’s back now. Will going into Iraq
finally stop the PKK? If so, go but do so at great risk to relations
with others. Will going against the wishes of the Iraqis and
Americans create more of a quagmire not to be resolved for years?
Possibly, because it can bring the PKK into the middle of something
they don’t want to be a part of, and at the same time, bring the Iraq
War onto Turkish land.

A joint Turkish-American operation against the PKK in northern Iraq
bears credulity; however, if the Turks go into Iraq of their own
volition, what keeps the likes of Iran or Syria wanting to play their
hand to solve their own Kurdish issues? Moreover, should America
participate in this venture cutting food, electricity and
construction to a growing region at the risk of inflaming instead of
defusing an already tenuous situation? Could it force the PKK to
marry other factions unknown to be their pals in the past?

While many questions cannot yet be answered, the Turkish government
and her people must act with discretion and patience to combat the
PKK and at the same time agree with their allies on the best solution
to follow. While Turkey cannot afford to risk their reputation on the
world platform, America must not abandon Turkey who has been the best
of allies for 50 years.

yID=872

Times Daily, Alabama
Oct 28 2007

Pelosi gets yet another lesson in diplomacy

By Jonathan Gurwitz

Last Updated:October 27. 2007 11:00PM
Published: October 28. 2007 3:30AM

Commentary: Now that the United States has 168,000 military personnel
in Iraq, it’s a different story on Capitol Hill.

The last time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did her best impersonation
of a secretary of state, her amateur performance was merely reckless.
This time it is dangerous.

Pelosi’s April visit to Syria should have demonstrated a fundamental
about diplomacy – words matter.

Pelosi created an international tempest by claiming to bear a message
for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert, one stating that his country was prepared to engage in peace
talks with its longtime enemy without preconditions. That would have
marked a significant departure from six decades of Israeli practice.

Olmert did not make such a departure, which forced the Israeli
Foreign Ministry to issue a clarification that contradicted Pelosi’s
supposed communique.

Pelosi also declared that the road to peace in Lebanon, which Syrian
Baathists regard as a vassal state, runs through Damascus. Farid
Ghadry, president of the Reform Party of Syria, blasted Pelosi’s
carelessness, writing, "Assad is viewing her trip as a green light to
take over Lebanon the same way Saddam viewed (U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
April) Glaspie’s lack of interference as a green light to invade
Kuwait."

Unlike Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, who prefaced the
dialogue with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a harsh
rebuke of his government’s repressive policies, Pelosi’s photo-op
notably glossed over Assad’s totalitarian tendencies and his regime’s
routine violation of human rights.

This month, 92 years after the fact, Pelosi felt the time had come
for American lawmakers to finally issue a definitive statement about
the first state-sponsored mass murder of the 20th century. When the
Armenian genocide issue came up in 2000, one of its most forceful
opponents was Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif. The Fresno Bee reports that
Lantos warned against offending Turkey, telling colleagues that
"there is a long list of reasons why our NATO ally at this point
should not be humiliated."

Some of those reasons were related to U.S. enforcement of a U.N.
no-fly zone in northern Iraq: No access to U.S. bases in Turkey, no
no-fly zone.

President Bill Clinton felt that the security imperatives in Iraq
outweighed the political significance of a congressional declaration
in Washington. So he appealed to members of his own party, including
Lantos, to delay the genocide resolution and, ultimately, to
Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert to kill it.

Now that the United States has 168,000 military personnel in Iraq,
it’s a different story on Capitol Hill. Lantos, as chairman of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, dismisses Turkish sensitivity.

"The Turkish-American relationship is infinitely more valuable to
Turkey than it is to the United States," he said recently on CNN.

President Bush appealed to Congress to put the welfare of American
military personnel first. Most military air cargo headed for Iraq
passes through Turkey’s Incirlik air base, including new MRAP –
mine-resistant, ambush-protected – vehicles that are finally
providing a measure of protection against deadly IED attacks. No
Incirlik, no MRAPs, or at least their delivery to the war zone will
be delayed. Contrary to Lantos’ assertion, more Americans will die if
the United States loses access to bases in Turkey.

Yet, unlike her predecessor as speaker, Pelosi pushed forward with
the genocide resolution, in spite of the known consequences. Assuming
the guise of secretary of state again, she said it was part of her
mandate to reassert America’s moral authority. By end of week, cooler
heads appeared to be prevailing.

Congress should go on record about the atrocities that claimed 1.5
million Armenian lives. Historical amnesia about the systematic
slaughter of Armenians has encouraged many of the genocidal movements
that followed.

But after nine decades and with a war in Iraq, now is not the time to
put U.S.-Turkish relations to a test.

Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, George Shultz, James Baker,
Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright and
Colin Powell sent Pelosi a letter in September warning her that the
resolution would endanger U.S. national security interests. A real
secretary of state would already know that.

Jonathan Gurwitz writes for the San Antonio Express-News. His

EWS/710280326/-1/COMMUNITIES

Analysis: Azerbaijan looks to stash cash
Posted on : 2007-10-25 | Author : World News Editor
News Category : World

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 (UPI) In a world of record-high energy prices,
several former Soviet states flush with cash from hydrocarbon exports,
notably Russia and Kazakhstan, have begun to invest their surplus
energy revenue abroad, primarily in their energy-poor
neighbors. Current estimates allocate Azerbaijan 0.6 percent of global
proven oil reserves while Baku’s rapidly expanding energy
infrastructure in 2006 shipped 50 percent more than in 2005.

Azerbaijan’s $21 billion economy, expanding at more than triple the
rate of China’s, can now be added to that select category of former
Soviet states so flush with clash that it can afford to consider
foreign investment. Like its massive energy-rich colleagues, Baku has
begun to acquire assets in neighboring states. Azerbaijan’s
hydrocarbon production is on a steep increase, having grown by 45
percent from 2005 to 2006, while it is expected to grow another 30
percent between 2006 and 2007. While at $60 a barrel, Azerbaijan’s
revenue stream was estimated at around $230 billion; currently, world
energy prices are hovering at nearly $90 a barrel, producing more cash
than the economy can absorb, in a pattern similar to the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ windfall in 1973 following the oil
embargo imposed after the Arab-Israeli war.

According to the U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, the economy of
Azerbaijan is the fastest growing in the world with a growth rate in
2005 of 26 percent, while it exceeded 30 percent in 2006. For 2007 the
International Monetary Fund in February predicted Azerbaijan’s growth
would be 29 percent, down from 31 percent in 2006.

Speaking last month to journalists, President Ilham Aliyev said
Azerbaijani investments had reached several billion dollars.

"For instance, the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan has started
investing in the economies of Georgia, Turkey, and East European
countries," he said, adding SOCAR "has a high credit rating, which
allows the company to draw any funding both for its activity in
Azerbaijan and for investment projects abroad."

Profit was not the sole consideration of the Azeri government,
however, as Aliyev said Baku should invest primarily in countries that
are "friendly to Azerbaijan." SOCAR is also considering investing in
Romania.

Aliyev had even more positive data for his parliamentarians, telling a
Cabinet meeting that Azeri gold and foreign exchange are now $6.3
billion, adding Azerbaijan’s 2008 consolidated budget will be $12
billion. As a measure of how far the Azeri economy has come in a short
time, in 2002 Azerbaijan’s government budget was $1.5 billon. Since
2004, Azerbaijan’s state budget quadrupled.

The massive influx of oil revenues has not been an unalloyed blessing
for the Azeri economy, however. According to Azer Amiraslanov, the
deputy chairman of the Majlis permanent parliamentary commission on
economic policy, inflation in Azerbaijan next year is projected to hit
13 percent, but he downplayed its potential impact.

"The level of inflation is not the major problem. It is important to
have inflation within a regulated level, which can be achieved through
pursuing the right macroeconomic policy."

Azeri inflation is being fueled not only by increased energy prices
but also by a rise in grain prices, a commodity Azerbaijan imports
mainly from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Baku is also diverting revenue to some dubious projects such as an
expanded defense budget that, according to Deputy Economic Development
Minister Mikayil Jabbarov, in 2006 accounted for 15 percent of all
government spending, exceeding $1 billion, an extraordinary amount for
a nation of 8.1 million citizens. A further factor influencing any
"trickledown" effect of energy revenues to the Azeri population is the
country’s rampant corruption.

Complicating Azerbaijan’s gold rush is its geographical location,
bounded as it is by its fellow Caspian petroleum neighbors Russia and
Iran. Baku’s prosperity is based on a carefully calculated reading of
the foreign policies of its giant petro-state neighbors to the north
and the south. Despite Azerbaijan’s ardent desire for closer relations
with NATO and Washington, the recent Caspian Sea Littoral States
Summit apparently decoupled Baku from its earlier efforts to secure
U.S. and NATO backing for its efforts at safeguarding its independence
by acknowledging that Iran and Russia remain primary foci in its
foreign policy — this despite massive Western investment in its
energy export infrastructure in the from of the Baku-Supsa and
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipelines, both free of Russian or Iranian
control. Should Russia and the United States come to a major
disagreement over Iran’s nuclear and energy policies, it seems certain
Azeri prosperity will suffer. Azerbaijan’s prosperity will only
continue as long as it mollifies Washington, Moscow and Tehran, a
complicated balancing act at best.

(e-mail: [email protected])

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 (UPI) —

WHAT RESPONSE SHOULD THE STATE MAKE

Hayots Ashkharh Daily
Oct 26 2007
Armenia

The clash between the activists of Armenian Pan National Movement
and the law enforcement officers on October 23, in Abovyan-Koryun
crossroad, is of course not a significant event, but all the bases
exist to presume that it is only the first sign. It is obvious that
Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Armenian Pan National Movement don’t have even
the smallest chances to win the forthcoming Presidential elections,
in February. 3-4% is the maximum record that they can dream of. What
to do? How to attract the attention of the public and the foreign
world? Only by the destabilization of the situation. Consequently
the clashes similar to the one that occurred on October 23 will
not only repeat but can most probably take a massive and furious
turn. Therefore, it is better not to concentrate on this specific
event and try to observe the problem from a more profound point of
view. In the whole civilized world the fact of the existence of the
state testifies to the closing stage of revolutions.

Lets take for instance our neighbor Georgia. The "revolution of roses"
was staged there, because, in fact they lacked a state that must
fulfill its obligation towards the citizens. The principle question
of the political situation that has been created in our reality
four months before the presidential elections is simple and clear –
Is Armenia a state or not? If it is a state, then it mustn’t allow
others to violate the Constitution. The state itself is facing the
challenge of not observing law and order, but proving the fact of its
existence. This means the state, is obliged, rather than entitled to
use all the measures in hand to avert all the actions aimed at the
forcible change of the constitutional order. By paying the taxes
and fulfilling other obligations envisaged by the constitution
the country’s citizens obligate the state to protect their main
rights. And the most important one is to respect the majority’s will,
during the process of the formation of government that is to say the
elections. If opposition refuses to respect this right, thus they
challenge not only the government and the state but also the majority,
that is to say the people. Both in the whole civilized world, and
in our country the state must control and avert all the steps that
are aimed at, not only revolution or political disobedience but even
illegal actions during the rallies, demonstrations, and protests. This
is the direct obligation of the Council of Europe member states
towards their citizens. Lets’ remember how strictly the police in
the European countries follow the process of street rallies and
demonstrations. If we strive to become part of the civilized world,
first of all we must not only acknowledge the right of the state to
avert any type of infringement against the constitutional order, but
also demand to fulfill their obligations towards the citizens. Such
as: a) Unconditionally avert any attempts of anti-constitutional
action. b) Prevention of any initiative of using force. c) Prevention
of the attempts to make the people a tool for the realization of their
personal goals, pushing them to take anti-constitutional measures. In
our reality one can say anything on behalf of the people, but when
on behalf of the people some are trying to violate their greatest
achievement, their right to have a state, then the one who exercises
rather than controls this right, must prove the fact of the existence
of this state. It is far not a matter of preserving the position
or the power. If today the government is not able to avert even the
desire to stage a coup d’etat through anti-constitutional measures,
tomorrow we will deal with the unique "chain reaction" leading to the
eradication of the statehood. That is to say after one year Paul will
decide to stage a revolution, after some period of time Peter will
decide to do the same and so on and so forth. What is this, if not a
path that leads to the eradication of the statehood? To forget about
this nihilism introduced to society, which comes from the ancient times
and still continues, the state must prove the fact of its existence,
by fulfilling the obligation of keeping the constitutional order.

"TER-PETROSYAN PREFERRED TO BUY WEAPON"

A1+
[06:51 pm] 25 October, 2007

Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s critics accuse him of "dark" and "cold" years.

"War has its rules and dictates its conditions.

Armenia had more than 500 thousand homeless people saved during the
earthquake, more than 500 thousand Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan
and was facing the war,- said the head of the "Republican" party Aram
Sargsyan to "A1+",- the heads of the country had to decide what to
spend the money on – on weapon, heating, light or delicious food. Our
authorities preferred to buy weapon, while Azerbaijan proffered to
buy electricity and to brighten Baku.

In the result, we liberated 15 thousand square meter territory to
safeguard the independence of Karabakh.

We kept both Karabakh and its independence. Was it worth living in
poverty? I am sure it was worth it. If we did as Azerbaijan did,
who would swim in the Lake Sevan today?"

Aram Sargsyan ensures that Ter-Petrosyan’s "activities were aimed at
future. Another problem is that the society does not assume it".

Levon Ter-Petrosyan left his post in 1998 since his version on the
settlement of Karabakh conflict did not satisfy the society. Those
who came to power after Ter-Petrosyan accused him of giving back
Karabakh and liberated territories. In his speech on 21 September,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan mentioned that he did not have his version of
Karabakh conflict settlement at the moment and the authorities us
this announcement in their interest.

"Levon Ter-Petrosyan gave time to the authorities to carry out their
promises by his silence for 8 years.

If they did not brought the country to this situation, believe me,
Ter-Petrosyan would not return, – said Aram Sargsyan,- he simply said
what the Former US President Bill Clinton, the former president of
France Zhak Shirak and Former Russian president Boris Yeltsin thought
of the Karabakh problem, and imagined clearly how we could reach
peace and final resolution of the conflict in this context. Today
Ter-Petrosyan does not know what Bush, Sarkozy and Putin think of the
Karabakh problem. Unfortunately, today’s authorities also do not know
what the mentioned presidents think of the Karabakh problem. They do
not know since they are not reliable. No one trusts our authorities".

Aram Sargsyan is confirmed that we will hear the answers to the
problems that trouble us from Levon Ter-Petrosyan during the gathering
tomorrow at 17.00 in the Liberty Square.

BUSH-CHENEY VS. THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

People’s Weekly World
6
Oct 25 2007

During World War I, the Turkish-controlled Ottoman Empire was
crumbling. In the decades before the war, economic dislocation and
political crisis intensified the long-standing oppression of the
Armenian Christian minority. World War I (1915-1918) was a bloody war
between rising and aging empires: the Ottoman Empire was allied with
the German monarchy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire on the losing
side, against an alliance of Czarist Russia, Britain, France, Japan
and the United States.

It was a war between two rival alliances seeking in effect to
redivide the world, the winners taking from the losers their colonies,
foreign markets and investment zones. Also, both alliance systems had
for decades been fighting colonial wars in which their losses were
relatively small compared with the enormous death and destruction they
created for the peoples of Africa and Asia. They had come to see war
as a relatively cheap and painless way to get what they wanted in
world affairs. With imperialist arrogance, they stumbled into what
became the biggest war in human history up to that point.

Mass murder by a crumbling empire

After an Ottoman attack against Russian forces in Czarist Russian
Georgia ended in a disastrous military defeat in 1915, it became the
trigger for the ultranationalists in power in Istanbul to undertake
the mass murder of the empire’s Armenian population. Propaganda was
unleashed portraying Armenians as subversive agents of Russia. To this
was added traditional stereotypes of Armenians as greedy businessmen
exploiting Turks, as Christians plotting against Islam, as bandits
and criminals.

Legislation confiscating the property of Armenians was passed in
1915. Armenians in the Turkish army were arrested and large numbers
were executed without trial. The Turkish military and "special forces,"
made up of thousands of recently released criminals, were unleashed to
confiscate Armenian property and "resettle" Armenians in death marches,
leaving innocent men, women and children to fight as best they could
for their lives against armed representatives of the Ottoman state.

These events were widely publicized in Britain, France and – thanks
to the activities of Henry Morgenthau Sr., U.S. ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire, and other U.S. officials, who observed and commented
upon the mass murder – the then-neutral U.S., where campaigns were
mounted to help the "starving Armenians."

After World War II, scholars discovered evidence in various German
archives corroborating the existence of this mass murder. (Germany,
which had been an ally of the Ottomans, had no interest in publicizing
this information.) But there was never any doubt that what was
happening in the period 1915-1917 was the attempted mass murder of
a whole nationality as part of Ottoman government policy.

Under the United Nations Charter this constitutes genocide. After the
genocide carried out by Nazi Germany and its fascist allies against all
the Jewish people whom it could capture and kill during World War II,
the genocide carried out by the Ottoman state against all Armenians
whom it could capture and kill within its far-flung empire is the
most researched genocide in history.

This history is important to Americans today because the Bush
administration has acted to block an attempt by the House of
Representatives to join more than 20 other nations in specifically
condemning these events as genocide. After the Democrats regained
control of Congress in 2006, many hoped that this long-delayed
resolution would finally be enacted.

Chauvinism used by Turkish right wing

Mustapha Kemal, an Ottoman general, established the modern Turkish
Republic after World War I, combining an authoritarian nationalist
ideology with various modernizing reforms. He remains the object of a
large personality cult in Turkey, particularly among the business and
military ruling groups who have always used Turkish chauvinist ideology
against their enemies on the left and against their religious rivals.

Turkey, which was neutral during World War II and then became a
member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization because it was an
anti-Soviet and anti-Communist state, has sought to prevent nations
from using the term genocide for the mass murder of the Armenians,
which it has largely denied, minimized and blamed in part on Armenian
wartime subversion.

Over the decades the U.S. and other nations, including, for its own
regional military reasons, the government of Israel, have gone along
with these efforts by Turkey. It was recently revealed that the Turkish
government has employed a lobbying firm led by the disgraced former
Republican House leader Robert Livingston to defeat the Armenian
genocide condemnation. Livingston’s firm has used the $12 million
which it reportedly received from the Turkish government to buy
opposition to the bill, news reports indicate. This, along with Bush
administration propaganda that the House resolution would endanger
U.S. troops in Iraq, has reduced support for the measure.

An unholy alliance

The Bush administration has undermined the separation of church and
state in the U.S. in an unprecedented way and has allied itself
domestically with conservative evangelical Christians. Yet it is
actively seeking to keep the U.S. Congress from condemning the
extermination of a Christian minority carried out on both racist
and religious anti-Christian grounds. In the name of supporting "our
troops," the Bush administration is appeasing a Turkish government
and military whose oppression of the multinational Kurdish minority
in the region, and previous history as an oppressive colonial power,
make it a source for instability in the area. Turkey’s one big
drawing card for the White House, though, is its military power,
which is the only thing that matters for this administration.

If the Bush administration were serious about peace and stability
in the region, it would use its influence to encourage the Turkish
government to deal with its contemporary denial of cultural rights
to its Kurdish and other minorities, not appease it in the hope that
it will continue to act as a regional military henchman, the way the
German Empire in World War I hoped that the Ottomans would act to
advance its war aims.

The Bush administration policy in Iraq is an ongoing, open-ended
disaster which benefits only military contractors and their lobbyists
in the U.S. The soldiers who have been sent to Iraq include many
National Guardsmen often pulled from vital public sector occupations
like police and firefighting. They will not return to the U.S. like
some of their generals, who retire to become rich lobbyists for
military contractors. And they won’t be joining the gravy train of
well-connected Republican members of Congress like Robert Livingston,
who has now become a rich genocide-denying lobbyist for the Turkish
government.

We should contact our House members and senators and demand that they
support the resolution on the Armenian genocide.

In 1939, Hitler said privately to his officers, "Who, after all,
speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Who does? Civilized people throughout the world.

We must all tell the Bush administration that we do, or the horror
will continue and perhaps a generation from today some other tyrant
will say, to defend another attack on another people, "Who, after all,
speaks today about the annihilation of the Jews?"

Norman Markowitz is a history professor at Rutgers University.

WHY WE ARE LOSING TURKEY
By Tony Blankley

RealClearPolitics, IL
10/why_we_are_losing_turkey.html
Oct 24 2007

With the steady decline of our selected ally Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s
ability to govern Pakistan and the growing alienation of the Turkish
people and government from their longtime ally the United States,
it is fair to say that from the Bosporus to the Himalayas, American
interests continue to decline, while American policy drifts. It is
ironic, if not mordant, to observe that in that zone, our policy in
Iraq stands out as holding more promise for success than most of the
other policies we are attempting. This week, let me consider why we
are losing Turkey.

The unfolding estrangement of the Turkish people (and derivatively,
the Turkish government) had been predicted and virtually unnoticed by
Washington until last week. This tragic event needs to be understood
thoroughly by the United States and the West because it goes to the
core of our theory of how to defeat radical Islam.

About three years ago, as then-editorial page editor of The Washington
Times, I hired a leading Turkish correspondent in Washington, Tulin
Daloglu. She was — and is — a superb student of Turkish culture
and politics, a secularist, a friend and admirer of America and a
Turkish patriot. I asked her to describe in her column each week
what the Turkish people and government were thinking, particularly
about American policies and actions. I thought more attention both
in Congress and the administration was needed on Turkish attitudes
and American-Turkish policy.

I was deeply concerned that Turkish attitudes were slipping dangerously
away from us, despite Turkey being our strongest Muslim ally in the
Middle East and the model for how Israel and the West could establish
a modus vivendi with a major Muslim country. Turkey has been both
taken for granted and ignored by Washington for years.

In Congress, the well-organized Greek- and Armenian-American
communities had a stronger voice than the Turkish-American community.

And, of course, for historic reasons, Greek-Americans and
Armenian-Americans usually oppose various Turkish policies. The
administration’s peevement with Turkey for not permitting our
4th Armored Division to enter Iraq through Turkey in 2003 led to a
failure to attend carefully to a decaying relationship with our great
ally. For about two years, the State Department barely communicated
in a significant way — on a policy basis — with Turkey.

To read Daloglu’s columns in The Washington Times these past years
is to read week by week the sad, objective chronicle of the loss of
a vital ally.

In the past week, the Turks’ reaction to the congressional Armenian
genocide resolution and their threat of serious military action
against our allies the Iraqi Kurds finally has — too late — gotten
Washington’s attention. But beyond the appalling mess we have if
Turkey invades Iraq (under the U.N. resolutions, we are, arguably,
obliged to defend the Kurds from the Turks — militarily), there is
a larger and still-ignored lesson to be learned by the meltdown in
support we have received from the Turkish people.

If there is one idea that Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and
liberals, share on how to fight the war on terror, it is that we need
to reach out to and win the hearts and minds of the moderate, modern,
peaceable, more secularist Muslims and empower them to defeat by both
persuasion and other methods the radical, violent fundamentalists in
their religion.

That would be a very, very good idea. But consider the Turkish
experience in the past six years. The Turks are the moderate, modern,
peaceable, more secularist Muslims. Moreover our countries have been
close allies for a half-century. And Turkey has had extensive friendly
commercial relations with Israel. They are Turks, not Arabs, and are
therefore less susceptible to the emotional plight of the West Bank
Arabs under Israeli occupation.

And yet we have lost the Turks almost as badly as we have lost the
angriest fundamentalist Arab Muslims. If we can’t keep a fair share
of their friendly attitude, how do we expect to win the much vaunted
and awaited hearts and minds campaign?

While I hardly have the answer to that question, one lesson can be
learned from the Turkish debacle (or near debacle): While we cozied
up to their arch threat — the Iraqi Kurds — we kept telling them
not to worry and to trust us. We did little to allay their fears that
the Iraqi Kurds were giving the PKK terrorists succor and sanctuary
in Iraq. We didn’t pressure our allies the Iraqi Kurds to pressure
the PKK. In the future, we are going to have to earn each ounce of
friendly relations based on what we actually do for the object of
our desire. Good intentions and common visions of the future are not
likely to be readily available.

MAHMUD AHMADINEJAD: ARMENIAN-IRANIAN RELATIONS EXCELLENT

DeFacto Agency
Oct 23 2007
Armenia

October 22 Presidents of Armenia and Iran Robert Kocharian and Mahmud
Ahmadinejad held a tete-a-tete meeting, after which Armenian-Iranian
talks continued in an expanded composition. A joint statement and a
number of memorandums were signed on the outcomes of the meeting.

Upon the completion of the meeting Armenian and Iranian Presidents
held a joint press conference, in the course of which they again
underscored the high level of bilateral relations between Armenia
and Iran and mentioned great potential for expanding and deepening
bilateral cooperation.

RA President Robert Kocharian stated that at the talks the
interlocutors had discussed a wide spectrum of bilateral relations;
special attention had been paid to economy, including the realization
of joint economic projects. Robert Kocharian noted the Armenian sector
of a highway connecting Armenia and Iran would be put into operation
October 26. The Presidents of Armenia and Iran also considered regional
issues. RA President informed his Iranian colleague of the course of
Karabakh conflict settlement process.

In his turn, President of Iran Mahmud Ahmadinejad estimated
Armenian-Iranian relations as excellent. In his words, relations
between Armenia and Iran are stable, dynamically developing and
friendly and are based on mutual respect. Iranian President underscored
there were no barriers for the relations’ development. He added the
issues referring to the sphere of transport, energy and bank system
had also been considered in the course of the meeting.

Touching upon regional issues, Mahmud Ahmadinejad noted Iranian
party was confident that all regional issues could be settled via
peace talks, and Iran is ready to promote the process. "Iranian party
attaches importance to relations with Armenia, including the sphere
of regional security", the President of Iran stated.

WHICH EVIL CAN CAUSE US MORE HARM?

Wilmington Morning Star, NC
NEWS/710220307/1002
Oct 22 2007

Are we focused on Iran, or not? The Bush administration says that
Iran is the greatest threat to our effort in Iraq, to the security of
Israel and to the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Indeed, the White House says
that Iran is the principal supporter of terrorism around the world.

And, oh yes, Iran is working to get a nuke.

So if all that’s true, why are we antagonizing the key countries we’d
need to help us against Iran? Why drive away Russia, China and Turkey?

Military strategists have a useful concept: "The Main Effort." It’s
a simple idea, based on common sense: Concentrate on one thing at a
time, first things first.

But of course, in the "fog of war," it’s easy to lose sight of the
main effort. And so the U.S. Army field manual, published in 2001,
lays out the concept in a whole chapter, just to make sure that
everyone gets it: "The main effort is the activity, unit or area that
commanders determine constitutes the most important task at that time."

The idea of "the main effort" applies to geopolitics, too.

In the ’40s, the Soviet Union was an evil empire, but it was less
evil – and certainly less of a threat to the United States – than
Nazi Germany. And so we concentrated our main effort on defeating
Hitler. And it worked.

Indeed, we tend to win our wars when we can surround and isolate our
foe – as with Grenada in the ’80s, or Serbia in the ’90s. By contrast,
we are much less successful when the enemy can be easily resupplied
and reinforced by its allies, as was the case in Korea in the ’50s,
and Vietnam in the ’60s and ’70s.

And so back to Iran. If we are to prevail, we will need to isolate
the country, cutting it off from potential aiders and abettors – most
obviously Russia and China, the two countries that provided help to
North Korea and North Vietnam.

So how’re we doing? Let’s start with Russia. Recently Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice was in Moscow, preaching democracy in the
middle of that autocracy, telling dissidents, "I think that there
is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin." She’s right,
of course. But Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is not our principal
enemy – he’s not the main effort.

And for his part, Putin has tricks up his sleeve. So he went to Tehran,
hobnobbing with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warning the
United States not to attack. And if the United States does attack
anyway, who will the Russians help?

Now to China. The Chinese are already buying Iranian oil. Surely,
China is nervous about possible American military action against Iran;
the Chinese don’t want to see the United States gaining still more
control over Middle Eastern oil supplies.

So what does the United States do? Does it reassure China that we’re
its friend? That we’re no threat to China, come what may with Iran?

No, we do just the opposite. On Tuesday, President Bush welcomed the
Dalai Lama – regarded by the Chinese government as a renegade and a
traitor – to the White House, and Wednesday, Congress awarded him a
special gold medal.

The official Chinese reaction was "fury." Now we can say that the Dalai
Lama is a jolly good fellow, but whose help do we want against Iran –
his? Or China’s?

As a smaller example, the House is working on a resolution condemning
Turkey’s genocide against the Armenians. Did the Turks do it, 90
years ago? Sure. But today, do we want Turkey’s help against Iran,
or not? It’s possible to argue that current American policy toward
Russia, China and Turkey is perfectly correct.

In which case, Iran is not really our main effort, after all. And the
United States is therefore unlikely to succeed in thwarting Iran’s
manifold ambitions.

James Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday.

TURKISH MINISTER CALLS FOR US ACTION AGAINST KURDISH GUERRILLAS
By Al Pessin

Voice of America
Oct 21 2007

Turkey’s defense minister told U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates the
United States must take "tangible action" against Kurdish guerrillas
in Northern Iraq, whose latest attack killed at least 12 Turkish
soldiers, wounded 16 and left 10 missing. But the minister also
indicated unilateral Turkish action is not imminent. The men spoke
after a meeting in Kiev Sunday, and VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the
Ukrainian capital.

Turkey’s Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul (l) with his U.S. counterpart
Robert Gates, Kyiv, Ukraine, 21 Oct 2007 Turkish Defense Minister
Vecdi Gonul emerged from a half-hour meeting with Secretary Gates
saying Turkey wants U.S. action.

GONUL: "So far, we shared intelligence and they did some things, but we
would like to have something tangible, tangible. We are expecting this.

PESSIN: "Tangible military action, you mean?"

GONUL: "Any kind of tangible actions."

Minister Gonul said the Turkish people are suffering from the attacks
by group known as the PKK, and, in his words, "our boys are dying."

But at the same time, he indicated that while Turkish military planners
are working on a possible incursion into Iraq, authorized by parliament
last week, action is not imminent.

"Not urgently," said Vecdi Gonul. "They are planning. They are planning
to cross [the] border because, firstly, the intelligence is important,
getting enough information. And we [would] like to do these things
with the Americans."

Secretary Gates welcomed that approach.

"I am heartened that he seems to be implying a reluctance on their
part to act unilaterally, and I think that is a good thing," said
Robert Gates.

But the secretary would not say what action the United States is
prepared to take, short of more intelligence sharing.

"We have done a number of things in terms of cooperating with the
government of Turkey," he said. "I think that the first and foremost
challenge that we face, as is so often the case with terrorism,
is actionable intelligence. And I told him that lacking actionable
intelligence, for them to send a large force across the border without
any specific target was likely to lead to a lot of collateral damage
that nobody needed."

Secretary Gates says he and his Turkish counterpart also discussed the
pending U.S. congressional resolution that would label the Turkish
mass killing of Armenians early in the last century a ‘genocide.’ A
U.S. official says Secretary Gates told Minister Gonul a Turkish
attack inside Iraq would make it more likely the resolution might
pass, which the secretary believes would hurt U.S.-Turkish defense
cooperation, crucial to the U.S. effort in Iraq. Secretary Gates says
he also called on Turkey to pursue reconciliation with Armenia.

Secretary Gates said he repeated his view that a Turkish military
incursion into Iraq would be bad for all concerned.

"I told him that restraint should not be confused with weakness,
that a major cross-border operation would be contrary to Turkey’s
interests, as well as to our own and that of Iraq," said Secretary
Gates. "I told him that we should work together on this."

Secretary Gates and Minister Gonul met on the sidelines of a conference
of the Southeastern Europe Defense Ministers’ group.

Minister Gonul reports the Turkish Prime Minister will visit President
Bush in two weeks, but he would not promise Turkey will hold its
reaction to the latest Kurdish attacks until then, saying the decision
on when to act is a tactical matter.