Author: Jalatian Sonya

TURKEY’S NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATES ARMENIA’S ANTI-TURKISH ACTIVITY

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 25 2007

The discussion was made on terrorism, as well as bill on the so-called
Armenian genocide adopted by the US House of Representatives Committee
on Foreign Affairs, APA’ s Turkey bureau reports.

The official statement made after meeting covered the activities of
Armenia and Armenian Diaspora against Turkey.

"The adoption of bill as the result of the activities of Armenia and
Armenian Diaspora against Turkey should not be accepted normally.

This problem will be discussed thoroughly due to the development of
the events."

It is not clear whether the document envisaging the so called genocide
will be debated in the House of Representatives./APA/

GENOCIDAL TENDENCIES
By: K.C. Cody, [email protected].

The California Aggie Online, CA
age/paper981/news/2007/10/25/Opinion/Genocidal.Ten dencies-3056229.shtml
Oct 25 2007

I’m pissed off. I’m pissed off for a lot of reasons, but right now I’m
pissed off about genocide. Genocide is totally lame. It’s so lame,
in fact, that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted 27-21
last week on House Resolution 106 (H.R. 106), condemning Turkey’s
genocide of Armenians at the end of World War I. Body counts range
from 300,000 to 1.5 million, but basically between 1914 and 1920,
you didn’t want to be an Armenian in Istanbul.

The resolution’s content is all well and good, but it’s timing sucks.

Turkey isn’t too pleased about it, and that’s an issue. Seventy percent
of the cargo and 30 percent of the fuel we fly into Iraq goes through
Turkey, and it would be nice if we could keep that going.

Don’t get me wrong, the fact that the U.S. hasn’t already recognized
the Armenian Genocide is shameful; it’s about time we got around to
it. But now? Come on. This is not the time to suddenly discover our
moral fiber regarding events from nearly a century ago.

But what pisses me off about this stunt has nothing to do with Turkey,
Iraq or Armenians. If we’re going to recognize and condemn a genocide,
let’s start at home. Remember all those Native Americans who used
to live here? Yeah, me either, because they all got killed 300 years
ago by white guys like me.

If you want to talk genocide, let’s talk about the fact that over 80
percent of Native Americans died between 1492 and 1650. Let’s talk
about Manifest Destiny, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and massacres
like Wounded Knee. Let’s talk about Joint Resolution 4 (S.J.R. 4),
which would "acknowledge a long history of official depredations
and ill-conceived policies by the United States government regarding
Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of
the United States." While certainly not an admission of genocide,
it’s a start. Of course, that bill is No. 202 on a list of 423
"General Orders" before the Senate, which means it’ll likely get
about as much attention from Congress as I give my exes.

But enough of the past. There’s a genocide in Darfur that we could
actually do something about. Representative Barny Frank (D-Mass.),
a supporter of H.R. 106, has said, "It’s important to commemorate
genocides that have happened as a way of trying to diminish the
likelihood of them occurring again." It is in that spirit that he,
and all but one of his colleagues (Ron Paul), voted yes on H.R. 180,
the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.

On the surface it seems Mr. Frank is putting his money where his
mouth is – condemning a past injustice while acting against a current
one. But looking closer, all H.R. 180 really does is "establish a
federal list of companies … that do business in certain sectors of
the Sudanese economy, … [enabling] mutual fund and corporate pension
fund managers to cut ties with these listed companies if they choose
to do so." Basically, it’s optional.

Frank’s claim that the passage of H.R. 106 would "diminish the
likelihood of [genocides] occurring again," rings terribly hollow when
he and the rest of Congress are too cowardly to commit to decisive
action in Darfur. In a sick twist, House Speaker Nanci Pelosi
(D-Calif.) has even invoked Darfur to support H.R. 106, saying,
"While [the Armenian Genocide] may have been a long time ago,
genocide is taking place now in Darfur, … so as long as there is
genocide there is need to speak out against it." So the message is,
when a group of human beings is being systematically slaughtered,
you can count on America … to talk about it.

Mr. Frank and Mrs. Pelosi, along with President George W. Bush (he
is The Decider after all), are demonstrating the kind of crippled
morality and spineless political pandering that so often characterizes
U.S. policy towards genuine humanitarian crises.

They’re more concerned with the "official" stance of the government on
something 90 years behind us than they are about the more than 400,000
dead and 2 million displaced in Sudan today. And that pisses me off.

RUDOLF PERINA COMPLETING HIS MISSION IN ARMENIA

armradio.am
24.10.2007 15:40

October 26 US Charge d’Affaires in Armenia, Ambassador Rudolf Perina
is completing his diplomatic mission in our country, Press Secretary of
the US Embassy in Armenia Taguhi Jahukyan told ArmInfo correspondent.

October 26 the term of Mr. Perina’s three-month mission is coming to
an end. "Starting October 29 the responsibilities of the US Charge
d’Affaires will be carried out by Deputy Ambassador Joseph Pennington,"
the Press Secretary noted. She added that there is no information
about the candidacy of the US Ambassador to Armenia.

WILL A CROSS-BORDER OPERATION END TERRORISM?
By Dr. Davut ÞahÝner

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Oct 24 2007

In the event the operation lasts longer than planned, trade with
northern Iraq will be negatively affected.

In this case Turkey would be alienated in the region, which might
fall into the control of non-regional forces, leaving Turkey with a
chronic problem.

Possible mistakes during the operation may cause permanent scars in
bilateral relations between the Turks and the Kurds. Thus the targets
within the operation should be specific and well defined. The targets
should be determined and identified through prior intelligence.

Further political and military goals should be built around this
intelligence. It should include extensive information on the social
fabric, economic situation and other aspects.

The long presence of Turkey in northern Iraq may be perceived
as occupation and divert it from the path to the EU. The latest
developments within EU countries may also contribute to this process.

Considering that there are influential lobbies inside the EU working
hard to prevent Turkey’s full membership, the developments in northern
Iraq may be exploited by these opponents.

The role of the military in the administration of the country in
Turkey could be exaggerated and Turkey could be labeled a military
dictatorship. It should be noted that the Armenian, Greek and Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK) lobbies are waiting for the proper moment to use
this sort of propaganda to erode Turkey’s prestige and image in the
world. Such propaganda would seriously undermine Turkey’s political
and economic interests. For example, export and tourism revenues
would substantially decline.

Turkey may lose ground in the battles on the Armenian and Cyprus
questions, currently the most important national causes. In an
environment where Turkey’s image has been tarnished, the Armenian and
Greek lobbies may take serious steps that would inflict the greatest
harm on Turkey in regards to these issues.

It should be noted that the current essay reviews the risks involved
in the invasion of northern Iraq without proper preparations rather
than a limited cross-border operation. A real cross-border operation
could be fruitful under the following conditions:

Turkey should prescribe precise targets beforehand. The goal should
be the elimination of the most influential terrorists and the
higher members of the organizations rather than killing hundreds of
terrorists. To do this the targets should be determined very carefully
and the terrorist shelters should be effectively rooted out. Expert
teams rather than thousands of ordinary soldiers are required for
this sort of operation. The raids should be held under cover of night.

A number of small operations rather than a few comprehensive ones
should be considered. A couple of small, limited operations in a
week is a good target. That way the world and the region can become
accustomed to Turkey’s interventions.

The commercial and technical activities of the terrorists rather than
the terrorists themselves should be targeted. It may be difficult to
bomb their shelters on Kandil Mountains. However, equipment supply to
the terrorist organization could be halted. Moreover, the supporters
of the terrorist organization in Iraq could be punished.

The heavy weaponry, electric generators and equipment of the terrorist
organization could be targeted. Regular attacks on these sorts of
targets would diminish the power of the organization and lower morale
among its members.

Privates and reserve officers should not be employed in the
cross-border operations. Instead, professional and expert military
staff should be utilized. Special teams should be created for the
operations in the region; classic warfare based on regular units
should be avoided.

Increasing the number of warring troops against a low number of
terrorists is not a plausible solution. Quality rather than quantity
matters in the fight against this sort of organization. Increase in
the number of troops who are not trained for guerilla warfare will
lead to further losses in the battle.

The PKK terrorists should be made ineffective, dead or alive, in the
Iraqi cities. It is pretty surprising that the PKK militants have
sustained not a single wound in Iraq, where almost every day a number
of people are dying. For this reason, the relevant security units
should be legally authorized to render the terrorists ineffective.

In addition to the military measures, diplomatic and political attempts
should be made for an effective outcome. Particularly, policies should
be developed to ensure that Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani withdraw
their support from the PKK. Both carrot and stick policies should be
employed simultaneously. Turkey cannot obtain satisfactory results
by threatening the countries from which it expects support.

Other countries and groups should not be threatened if the threats
and the promises associated with the threats cannot be carried out.

Acting otherwise places Turkey’s credibility in question and makes
its resolve appear weak on the matter.

It is particularly essential to rely on the information and
intelligence supplied by the National Intelligence Organization
(MÝT) and the police. A separate unit that will deal with terrorism
may also be considered. However, it should be recalled that regular
armies often fail to address terrorist threats. Therefore, small,
flexible and professional units should be seriously considered.

Subtle border violations should be tolerated. Turkish troops have
already crossed the border at some points. The troops should advance
a little further through these already violated points. All these
activities should be carried out discretely. There is no requirement
to make a statement or explanation to the world in relation to such
discreet operations, or even overt ones. The Israeli case should be
examined thoroughly.

Communication and contact with other countries through the media
should be specifically avoided and third parties should not be
forced to make statements. The claims indicating that terror could
be eliminated and resolved in Iraq should be avoided. Unnecessary
promises should not be made to the public. Allies should be sought
inside Iraq and direct contacts should be established with the
people. To this end, TV broadcasts in Arabic and Kurdish should be
considered as an effective avenue. At no stage should dialogue and
discussion stop. Turkey is not at a point where there are no other
options outside of an operation. If politics is unable to generate
new alternatives, the security units cannot proceed further.

*Davut Þahiner is an international security expert working with the
International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK) 24.10.2007

–Boundary_(ID_dXsyp1QRGj5W/T0l5FbI2w) —

LET THE ARMENIANS REST

Chattanooga Times Free Press
October 24, 2007 Wednesday
Tennessee

One stares in dumb amazement at the war front because, incredibly,
front-page news in the past few days has had to do with what did or
did not happen almost a hundred years ago. More exactly, what should
what happened a hundred years ago be called?

The quarrel, put simply, is over the question, What do we call what
was done to the Armenians by the Turks in the early years of World War
I? The matter of interest is the persecution of the Armenians by the
Young Turks and ancillaries in the final days of the Ottoman Empire,
when the map of the Middle East was changing.

The dispute hit the front pages when a congressional resolution
affirming that the events of 1915-17 constituted genocide appeared
likely to pass in the House of Representatives. The Turkish government
reacted strongly, and President Bush urged Congress not to drive this
wedge between the United States and an important ally in the region.

It may be of historical terminological interest what to call the
Young Turks’ action. But it is worthwhile to remember that it has
been dubbed a "genocide" for many years, even though there has been
technical resistance to the use of the holy word. A Polish-born
lawyer named Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide" in 1943. "I
became interested in genocide," he said, "because it happened so many
times." His writings before World War II had concentrated heavily
on the events in Armenia. More than one international organization
has conducted studies of those events, each in turn determining that
the term "genocide" accurately describes what also has been called a
"massacre."

True, Lemkin did not have dispositive authority on the correct
use of the word, and after the Nazi Holocaust became widely known,
there were those who insisted that the Turkish holocaust should not
be thought a member of the same family. Their point has been that
Hitler’s war against the Jews was ethnic and cultural, while the
Turkish assault on the Armenians had to do with more conventional
geopolitical issues. The Turks themselves contended that the Armenians
were a fifth column working on behalf of the Russian Empire.

The questions are not uninteresting, but that they should have a
bearing on the Iraq war seems strange until one studies the geography
of the region. The interfaces are in the northeastern part of Iraq,
the area known as South Kurdistan. There we have an irredentist
passion among some Kurdish militants to sever formal ties to the
government of Iraq, in favor of a new-old nation unified by cultural
and historical factors. And, not incidentally, by physical control
of rich oil deposits.

The Turks do not wish a new state bulging up between them and Iraq —
especially because their own Kurds would surely be emboldened if the
Iraqi Kurds were successful. The situation could get "ugly," one U.S.

military officer is quoted as saying, if Turkey were to send troops
across the border to deal with Kurdish militants inside Iraq.

It was into this tense situation that the House resolution erupted.

Every day one member of Congress or another associates himself with,
or dissociates himself from, the resolution classifying as genocidal
the Turkish activity of 90 years ago.

We are asked to believe that the Turkish high command judges it more
important to resist such classification affirmed by an ally than to
pursue the common aims in the region. On the moral point, there is no
way in which Turkey can advance its credentials by trivializing what
in fact was done to the Armenians, more than 1 million of them having
been killed, allowed to starve, or exiled. But this ought not to be a
quarrel that affects contemporary points of contention in Iraq. Those
who linger with the muse of Clio are giving no aid whatever to the
dead Armenians, but are jeopardizing our Iraq enterprise by provoking
Turkish hubris.

The implications of this breach are horrendous. Turkey is a NATO power,
and if it were to act singularly it would damage a military-political
venture in which the United States — the father and mainstay of NATO
— is engaged at high pitch.

It is almost always relevant to ask the classical question, Cui bono?

Who stands to gain?

No postmortem aid to the dead Armenians is in prospect. On the
other hand, the Turks can’t permanently commandeer the historical
classification of actions by one state against a cultural or ethnic
minority. So is it a matter of pride?

We are constantly being told about the high-octane pride of Turks,
Kurds, Iraqis, whomever. Is the congressional resolution simply an
exercise in American pride?

COMPANIES SHOULD BE FINED IN AMOUNT OF 5% OF THEIR INCOMES IN CASE OF ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENT, ABGAR YEGHOYAN PROPOSES

Noyan Tapan
Oct 24, 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 24, NOYAN TAPAN. "Protection of Armenian Consmer
Rights" NGO will soon submit a draft law, according to which companies
should be fined in the amount of 5% (instead of 2%) of their incomes
in case of an anticompetitive agreement. The chairman of the NGO
Abgar Yeghoyan suggested at the October 24 press conference that
part of the fine should be transferred to the state budget, while
the remaining part should be used to conduct monitoring and raise
awareness of consumers. According to him, price monitoring should have
a continuous character. The draft law also proposes reducing the period
of a market study conducted by the RA State Commission on Protection
of Economic Competition, making it 15 days instead of 3 months.

A. Yeghoyan said that in recent period, egg and butter prices have not
grown in the country not in proportion with international prices. In
his words, a fall in prices of these foodstuffs will be observed
within a month as a result of the fines imposed by the commission,
otherwise, the commission must use other penalties.

A KURDISH LESSON
Bret Stephens

Wall Street Journal
46067790.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Oct 23 2007

A debate among U.S. military brass over whether to declare victory
over al Qaeda in Iraq coincides with threats by Turkey to strike
terrorist camps in northern Iraq belonging to the Kurdistan Workers’
Party, or PKK. Note the irony: The PKK, which in recent days has
killed scores of Turkish soldiers, was itself declared dead as a
terrorist group in 1999.

There are excellent reasons to avoid pronouncements concerning AQI’s
defeat. One is to deny the group the chance to offer testaments in
blood to its own resilience. A second is to avoid another political
embarrassment of the "Mission Accomplished" kind. But the main reason
is that the experience of terrorist organizations world-wide shows that
even in defeat they are rarely truly finished. Like Douglas MacArthur’s
old soldiers, terrorist groups never die. At best they just fade away.

Some examples: In its heyday in the 1980s, Peru’s Maoist Shining
Path was every bit as brutal as al Qaeda. The 1992 capture of its
charismatic leader, former philosophy professor Abimael Guzman,
was supposed to have dealt a fatal blow to the group’s capacity
to operate, as was the capture seven years later of his successor,
Óscar Ramírez. Yet as recently as last year, the Peruvian government
was forced to declare a state of emergency in the Huanuco region to
deal with terrorist activities by the group.

Or take the Taliban. In April 2005, American Gen. David Barno told
reporters he believed that, with the exception of a few bitter-enders,
the Taliban would be a memory within two years. The opposite
happened. In 2006, the rate of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan soared,
and the Bush administration was forced to deploy 6,000 additional
troops to recover territory lost to the Taliban and turn back their
anticipated spring offensive.

What about the PKK? Late in 1998 Turkey massed troops on its border
with Syria, with the declared intention of expelling the PKK and
its leader Abdullah Ocalan from Damascus if the Syrians didn’t do so
themselves. (A banner headline in the Turkish paper Hurriyet declared
"We’re going to say ‘shalom’ to the Israelis on the Golan Heights.")
The late Syrian strongman Hafez Assad got the message, and sent Ocalan
packing. He was eventually captured by Turkish intelligence in Nairobi,
and sentenced to death by a Turkish court (commuted to a life sentence
when Turkey abolished the death penalty in 2002).

Ocalan has since apologized to the Turkish people for the 37,000
deaths he caused in the 1980s and ’90s and called for a peaceful
solution to the Kurdish issue. The PKK itself declared a ceasefire.

That should have been the end of it. As Turkish analyst Soner Cagaptay
of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy observes, Ocalan was a
cult-of-personality figure in an organization that, unlike the cellular
structure of al Qaeda, was run along strictly hierarchical lines.

For the next few years the Turkish government made real, if limited,
strides in accommodating peaceful ethnic Kurdish cultural demands
in education and broadcasting. What remained of the PKK — 5,000 or
so fighters — mainly retreated to northern Iraq, where their bases
were attacked by Turkish forces no fewer than 24 times.

So might things have remained had the U.S. invasion of Iraq not
rearranged the strategic chessboard. The Turks did not help themselves
by failing to support the war, which caused strains with Washington
and prevented them from carrying out further cross-border raids. That,
in turn, created an opening for Iran, which until then had been the
PKK’s sole remaining state sponsor. Concerned about its isolation
in the region, and sensing an opportunity to make common cause with
the moderately Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Tehran
abruptly switched sides, going so far as to shell PKK positions
in northern Iraq. Not surprisingly, the Turks began to take a more
favorable view of Iran.

The U.S. role is scarcely more creditable. The Ankara government has
been pressing the Bush administration to hit PKK bases for at least
four years. The administration has responded with a combination of
empty promises of future action and excuses that U.S. forces are
already overstretched in Iraq. For the Turks, who contribute more
than 1,000 troops to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, U.S. nonfeasance
is a mystery, if not an outright conspiracy. "How is it that Turkey
fights America’s terrorists, but America does not fight Turkey’s
terrorists?" is how Mr. Cagaptay sums up the prevailing mood.

Yet the real mystery isn’t U.S. behavior, which was mainly dictated by
a desire not to rock the boat in what was (at least until this month),
the only relatively stable region of Iraq. It is the forbearance
shown to the PKK by Massoud Barzani, Kurdistan’s president, who has
otherwise sought to cultivate better relations with Ankara and Kurdish
moderates in Turkey, and who would have much to lose if an invading
Turkish army turned his province into a free-fire zone. One theory
is that Mr. Barzani wants to use the PKK as a diplomatic card, to be
exchanged for Turkish concessions in some future negotiation. But all
that depends on his ability to rein in the PKK at the last minute
and avert a Turkish invasion. Yesterday’s kidnapping (or killing)
of another eight Turkish troops puts that in doubt.

Meanwhile, the PKK has fully reconstituted itself as an effective
fighting force under the leadership of Murat Karayilan, who was canny
enough to see Congress’s Armenian genocide resolution as an opportunity
to take scissors to the already frayed U.S.-Turkish relationship. The
resolution was turned back at the 11th hour, but it remains to be
seen whether it has already done its damage.

All the more reason, then, for the U.S. to pre-empt the Turks by
taking the decisive action against the PKK it has promised for too
long. But the story of the PKK’s resurgence should also remind us of
the dangers of premature declarations of victory against terrorist
groups, especially when such declarations foster the illusion that
you can finally come home. Against this kind of enemy, there are no
final victories, and no true homecomings, and no real alternatives
other than to keep on fighting.

–Boundary_(ID_Bpnn9P7E9MzR1S3n3Y4q9Q)- –

LAUNCHING OF RUSSIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA ON CRIMINAL LAW HELD IN YEREVAN

Noyan Tapan
Oct 23, 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 23, NOYAN TAPAN. The launching of the multi-volume
"Encyclopedia on Criminal Law" published by the University of
St. Petersburg was held in Yerevan on October 22. 9 volumes of the
35-volume publication have been published since 2005, the publication
of the encyclopedia is envisaged to be finished by 2011.

Serjik Avetisian, the judge of the RA Court of Criminal Appeal, is the
author of the article concerning the institute of accessories, which
was included in the sixth volume of the encyclopedia. Another article
written by him, which is dedicated to crimes committed against property
(brigand attack, robbery, extortion) is expected to be included in
the encyclopedia.

SUGAR PRICE IN ARMENIA ALMOST DOUBLES IN A DAY

ArmInfo
2007-10-22 17:37:00

Sugar prices in Armenia have abruptly increased in a day. On October
21, the price per 1 kg of granulated sugar rose from 220-250 AMD to
400-450 AMD.

Armenian MP Samvel Alexanyan, the main supplier of sugar to Armenia,
told ArmInfo correspondent that the almost doubled price of sugar
is not only ungrounded, but has no logic explanation either, as the
sugar price in world markets remains unchanged. Moreover, when the
supplier learned about the unjustified excitement caused by retail
trading, he himself ordered to decrease the wholesale sugar prices
by 10 AMD. However, this decision of the wholesaler caused another
excitement – today the demand for this product totalled 1 thsd tons
as against the former 150-200 tons that were daily sold to retail
traders. "I think, the leap in consumer prices can be explained by
the ungrounded panic caused by the abrupt increase in prices of such
products as vegetable oil and butter, as well as flour and flour
products," he said. He added that in the world market these products
have grown in price only by 17-18%, and not by 80% as it is observed
in Armenia. He also noted that sugar is imported to Armenia mainly
from Brazil.

For his part, Press Secretary of the State Commission on Protection of
Economic Competition Armine Udumyan told ArmInfo that the Commission
starts studying justification of leap in sugar prices, from today
on. It will take the Commission 1-3 weeks to make out what is
what. This term is in accordance with the Regulations.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that the Commission fined 50 organizations
at the rate of 2% of the annual turnover for unjustified rise in
vegetable oil and butter price last week, the market situation didn’t
change. Moreover, vegetable oil and butter deficit is artificially
created in food stores.

While the state "anti-monopoly" organ and the economic entities puzzle
out who is to blame, today the majority of Armenian citizens return
home with half-empty bags, as their budget with an average salary of
40 000 AMD is not calculated for the unexpected price run-up.

New Statesman

The ‘desecration’ of Cyprus
Posted by Brian Coleman
22 October 2007

The deaths of a couple of dozen Turkish troops in operations against
the Kurds and the vote by the Turkish Parliament to in effect invade
Northern Iraq to pursue operations against the Kurdish people has
focused world attention on a conflict which the modern state of Turkey
has pursued for many decades.
Last weekend I was in Cyprus (and yes my expenses were paid by my
hosts) to attend events to continue to protest about the Turkish
occupation of North Cyprus in particular the beautiful town of Morphu,
twinned with my home Borough of Barnet.
Whereas over the last few years the legitimate Republic of Cyprus has
made huge economic strides.
On the back of EU membership it operates as a mainstream European
Country. The occupied north meanwhile continues to exist in a form of
Asiatic poverty with an army of occupation of about 40,000 troops.
Most of the native Cypriots (both Greek and Turkish) have long since
given up and abandoned the place to settlers flown in from Anatolia.
The desecration of Orthodox churches and the wholesale stripping and
sale abroad of religious icons and archaeological treasures has to be
seen to be believed and the ethnic cleansing carried out in the north
of this magnificent island is as bad as anything experienced in the
former Yugoslavia.
Yet as the new female Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato
Kozakou-Marcoullis told me in rather a forceful manner – she has a
touch of the Margaret Thatcher about her – there are thousands of
Britons buying property illegally confiscated from Cypriots many of
whom are my constituents in North London. In fact 95% of sales in the
occupied area are to Brits.
Quite why anyone would buy property they have no legal entitlement to
and which, when the eventual reunion of Cyprus comes, they may well
lose with no compensation at all is beyond me. However the British
Government sits back and does little to prevent these sales and the
environmental damage to picturesque North Cyprus which the huge
building boom is causing.
This last fortnight has also shown that Britain is not alone in
playing softball with Turkey; the attitude of President Bush to
Congress which was discussing the Armenian genocide was bizarre.
As the Armenian ambassador explained in his excellent piece on the New
Statesman website last week, nobody with any common sense denies that
the Armenian Genocide of 1915 onwards took place. Yet if the Germans
can admit their guilt over the Nazi Holocaust why cannot the Turks do
likewise?
The plucky little democratic country of Armenia still has to contend
with a blockade by Turkey not to mention the aggression of its
neighbour Azerbaijan whose idea of Democracy is to pass the presidency
down from father to son.
So why this desire by Britain and the US to butter up Turkey? Gone is
the Cold war threat from the Soviet Union and, with the election of
President Gul, the Islamists are taking over Turkey anyway. Quite how
the Turks imagine they can have any place in the EU whilst maintaining
their belligerence on Cyprus, Armenia and towards the Kurds is beyond
me.
Exactly why does the British Government continue to promote Turkey’s
EU membership? Could it by any chance be to do with Labour’s need of
the Muslim vote?