Author: Kajoyan Gevork

FRED HIATT: ARMENIANS WHO NEED HELP TODAY
By Fred Hiatt

Sacramento Bee, CA
Oct 16 2007

Imagine what the Armenian diaspora might have accomplished had it
worked as hard for democracy in Armenia as it did for congressional
recognition of the genocide Armenians suffered nearly a century ago.

It’s even possible that modern Armenia would be as democratic as
modern Turkey.

The Armenian American community notched a political victory last
week when the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27 to 21 for a
resolution demanding that the U.S. government officially acknowledge
that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenian people early in
the 20th century. The Turkish government insists that, while terrible
things happened, there was no genocide. The Bush administration,
reluctant to offend an important ally, lobbied hard against the
resolution.

There are passionate arguments on both sides of this fight: the urgency
of facing history honestly, on one hand; unease over attempting to
resolve such matters by political declaration, on the other. But what
is sad, when members of Congress are hailing the vote as a victory
for human rights, is how poorly human rights fare in Armenia today.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, none of its 15 component
republics seemed better poised to evolve democratically than Armenia.

A beautiful country of mountains and pastures and vineyards, it had a
clearer sense of national identity than most, with a long pre-Soviet
history as a nation; its own language, alphabet and church; and a
passionate diaspora, many of whose members were ready to bring not
only their skills but also their habits of democracy and civil society
to Yerevan. Of an estimated 10 million ethnic Armenians in the world,
only 3 million dwell in Armenia; more than 2 million live in Russia,
but about 1.5 million are in the United States.

Things began well, with the honest election of a former dissident
as president. But authoritarian tendencies soon emerged, the former
dissident rigged his re-election in 1996, and things went downhill
from there. As Freedom House noted last year, "all national elections
held in Armenia since independence have been marred by some degree
of ballot stuffing, vote rigging, and similar irregularities."

Meanwhile, opposition politicians have been jailed, protests have
been brutally suppressed, and broadcast media have been taken under
government control.

Conditions in Armenia are better than in some post-Soviet republics.

Though corruption is endemic, the economy is growing and ranks
relatively high in some measures of freedom for private enterprise. A
parliamentary election in the spring was conducted more fairly than
past polls. The ruling oligarchs tolerate some opposition parties,
nongovernmental organizations and non-official newspapers.

But conditions also are a lot worse than in some republics, notably
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Many members of their diasporas also
returned to their ancestral homelands, where they became passionate
advocates not only of national rebirth but also of democracy and
corruption-free capitalism.

Why the difference? Armenia was sidetracked early on by a war with
neighboring Azerbaijan over an Armenian enclave inside that country.

The enclave is under Armenian control today, but a cease-fire has not
given way to a peace settlement. Consequently, the two main Armenian
American lobbying organizations in Washington have focused more on
security questions — opposing arms sales to Azerbaijan, for example,
and opposing Turkey, Azerbaijan’s ally — than on promoting democracy
in Yerevan. Armenia’s rulers have known that, no matter how they
trample on individual rights at home, the lobbying groups will cover
for them here.

The heads of both U.S. organizations told me that their groups have
worked, sometimes quietly, to promote human rights and civil society
in Armenia. Undoubtedly their influence would be limited, no matter
how hard they tried.

But what if they had tried as fervently as they did to win Wednesday’s
vote? It’s hard not to think that 3 million Armenians might be less
poor and more free than they are today.

l

US-TURKISH RELATIONS MIGHT BE DAMAGED BY RESOLUTION REGARDING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Alsumaria
ld-News/2-8852-US-Turkish-relations-might-be-damag ed-by-resolution-regarding-Armenian-genocide.html
Oct 15 2007
Iraq

Yasar Buyukanit commander of the Turkish Armed Forces, warned Sunday
that US-Turkish ties "will never be the same again" if the US House
of Representatives passes a resolution ratified by the US Congress
labeling as genocide the World War I-era killings of over one million
Armenians by Turkish soldiers. Buyukanit said that an ally country
wouldn’t act in a similar way.

Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi insisted
that she would bring to the full chamber a resolution condemning the
killings of Armenians nearly a century ago as genocide, in spite of
the disapprobation of the White House.

As to White House Spokesman Tony Fratto, he said that the US
Administration will keep on strictly opposing this resolution that
would cause a huge destabilization in the US-Turkish relations and
that would harm the US interests in Europe and the Middle East.

TORTURED BY COMPROMISE
Suzanne Fields

Washington Times, DC
Oct 15 2007

Washington is awash in debates where politics collides with
principle. Politics is the art of compromise, but players are loathe
to admit compromise, or even to concede any ground at all. The
pols agree with the late Vince Lombardi, the famous football coach:
"Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing."

But politics, which "ain’t beanbag," ain’t football, either, though
the candidates fumble, flip and flop like a ham-handed halfback,
backing, filling and shaving meanings. We see compromises all about
us. Uncompromising politicians are usually called rigid ideologues,
but that’s not quite accurate. Rigid ideologues rarely win, but they
often influence the politics of the winners.

It’s the influence, not the ideology (or the theology) that certain
religious conservatives seek with their threat to form an ineffectual
third party over the abortion issue. They say they want a candidate
closer to their view and they’re willing to lose with Aloysius Q.

Nobody rather than win with Rudy Giuliani or someone like him, even
though Rudy or someone like him would give them everything else they
want, maybe even the judges who question the way abortion rights are
determined. When they finally focus on the enormous impact of what
they’re doing on many other issues they hold dear, maybe they’ll drop
the third-party fantasy. Or maybe they won’t. There’s fog over the
crystal ball this morning.

Sometimes debate pits domestic politics against foreign policy
interests. Congressmen with a significant Armenian constituency have
for years been pushing for a congressional resolution to label as
"genocide" the massacre of a million and a half Armenians by the
Turks of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago. Last week they succeeded,
getting a strongly symbolic but essentially meaningless resolution
endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Like so much else debated in Washington, the politicians are not
debating what happened way back when, but taking care to appease
a domestic constituency. Both President Bush and Defense Secretary
Robert Gates argue that the resolution is likely to anger the Turks,
jeopardizing the use of Turkish airfields and supply routes in
support of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Both George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton, sensitive to the importance of Turkey to the United States,
declined to use the word "genocide" to describe the great suffering
of the Armenians. This time, however, the "principled" congressional
grandstanders trumped the security of American soldiers in Iraq with
a feel-good resolution of non-binding sentiment. Not necessarily good.

No debate over when and whether to compromise produces as much sound
and fury (mostly sound) as how to define "torture." The word covers
a multitude of sins, but we all argue over where to put the line
separating the allowable from the forbidden. The president insists that
"this government does not torture people," and the approved techniques
must be "tough, safe and necessary." It’s not clear what’s tough,
safe and necessary, and what isn’t.

Jane Mayer, writing in the New Yorker magazine, reports that the
fictional television show "24," in which torture is a staple used
by a government counterterrorist unit to save millions of lives
from destruction by nuclear explosives or virulent biologicals,
has softened Americans, including policymakers, to accept torture in
certain circumstances. Senior members of the Bush administration watch
it regularly. (So do I.) A television show does not reality make,
but it can provoke debate.

When a civil liberties lawyer type on the show stops Jack Bauer, the
lead character, from doing what is "necessary" to extract information
from a terrorist with crucial knowledge about a nuclear warhead
about to explode, killing millions, a weak president orders the
agent’s arrest. Viewers must ask themselves which side of this debate
they support. Torture is not glamorized; the protagonist is often
psychologically tortured himself by what he does. Kiefer Sutherland,
who portrays the agent, has in real life been arrested for drunk
driving. Is this the result of stress on the actor’s conscience? Some
critics say so.

"24" uses the image of a ticking time bomb to illustrate plot
structure; the program’s creator explains this fantasy as wish
fulfillment. "Every American wishes we had someone out there neatly
taking care of business, " says Joel Surnow, executive producer of
the show. Someone asked him whether he would depict "waterboarding,"
an interrogation technique lending the illusion of drowning, to induce
testimony. Yes, he replied, and added wryly, "But only with bottled
water – this is Hollywood."

Few in Washington have such a sense of humor about what they say and
do, and what the pols sanction in real life with millions of lives
at stake is no laughing matter. We elect our politicians to make the
hard decisions for us, but we don’t re-elect them when they compromise
too little – or too much.

L’Opinione, Italia
12 Ottobre 2007

Intervista a Mons. Hovsep Kelekian / Ora è più difficile per i turchi
negare il genocidio

di Stefano Magni

Prima uccisero i militari armeni. Li fucilarono in massa e spararono
loro a tradimento, mentre combattevano nelle file dell’Impero
Ottomano, all’inizio del 1915. Poi incominciarono ad attaccare i
villaggi armeni in Anatolia, privati dei loro uomini in età di
reclutamento e dunque rimasti pressoché indifesi. Infine la
deportazione: lunghe file di donne, vecchi e bambini, costretti a
marciare in condizioni inumane, attaccati da bande di predoni curdi,
uccisi a migliaia dai soldati che avrebbero dovuto scortarli. Chi
sopravvisse dovette subire i campi di concentramento, nel deserto,
lontani dalla terra di origine, in Siria e in Mesopotamia. Così i
Giovani Turchi, dalla primavera del 1915 sino alla resa dell’Impero
Ottomano nel 1918, uccisero a sangue freddo 1 milione e mezzo gli
Armeni. Eppure pochi vogliono ricordare quelle vittime. Adolf Hitler,
nel 1939, dando inizio all’invasione della Polonia, ricorderà a quei
gerarchi che lo invitavano a maggior prudenza: `D’altro canto, oggi
chi parla più dell’annientamento degli Armeni?’. Anche oggi, nel
2007, il genocidio armeno è un tema tabù, non solo in Turchia (dove
proprio ieri è stato condannato per `Offesa all’identità nazionale’
il giornalista Arat Dink), ma anche negli Stati Uniti. Sino a ieri,
nella terra della libertà, lo sterminio di 90 anni fa non era
commemorato ufficialmente, nonostante la presenza in territorio
americano di una numerosa comunità armena (costituita in gran parte
dai nipoti e figli dei profughi del 1915-18), l’impegno umanitario
dell’allora ambasciatore statunitense a Istambul Henry Morgenthau e
il progetto (non realizzato) del presidente Woodrow Wilson di far
nascere una nazione armena indipendente dopo la resa dell’Impero
Ottomano nel 1918. Ora la situazione è cambiata, con l’approvazione
da parte del Congresso statunitense della Risoluzione H106, con cui
si invita il Presidente a commemorare ufficialmente il genocidio
nella data del 24 aprile e a condurre una politica estera volta alla
prevenzione di futuri genocidi, pulizie etniche e grandi violazioni
dei diritti umani. Ne abbiamo parlato con Mons. Hovsep Kelekian,
Rettore del Pontificio Collegio Armeno.

Mons. Kelekian, perché per l’omicidio di massa degli armeni iniziato
nel 1915 è giusto usare la definizione `genocidio’ e non `pulizia
etnica’ o `massacro’?
Non è per il numero, che supera il milione e mezzo. Queste cifre le
conosciamo, anche se vengono spesso negate. Fu un genocidio (e perché
l’umanità sappia la verità occorre che la Turchia accetti l’uso di
questo termine) perché il regime di allora voleva annientare
fisicamente il popolo armeno nella sua interezza, senza lasciare
superstiti. Questo è genocidio. Noi siamo convinti che quello fu il
primo genocidio del XX secolo, al quale sono seguiti tutti gli altri.
Si deve conoscere la verità storica del primo genocidio per capire
tutti gli altri e per far sì che non se ne ripetano di nuovi. Se
ancora oggi non si accetta questa storia è solo perché molti altri
governi vogliono fare dei loro cittadini ciò che vogliono e restare
impuniti.

Quanto è importante questa risoluzione del Congresso Usa per la
Comunità Armena?
Questa risoluzione era attesa da tanti anni. E’ veramente una grande
realizzazione per la nostra Comunità, che la stava attendendo
pazientemente. Molto probabilmente, se gli Americani hanno
riconosciuto ufficialmente il genocidio, molti altri paesi seguiranno
il loro esempio e faranno lo stesso. E questo mette in grande
difficoltà la Turchia, che tuttora nega.

Anche il presidente Reagan aveva parlato di `genocidio’ nel 1981. Che
cosa cambia dopo questo riconoscimento ufficiale?
Questa presa di posizione del Congresso può cambiare molto per noi
armeni. Gli Stati Uniti sono la principale potenza protettrice della
Turchia. Questo passo rende finalmente giustizia alle vittime. Cosa
succederà in seguito? Non lo si può sapere, perché dopo il Congresso
c’è sempre il Senato e poi dovrà essere il Presidente ad accettare
questa risoluzione.

I Turchi continuano a negare. Ma in base a quali argomenti possono
negare un genocidio di 90 anni fa, ormai ampiamente documentato?
I Turchi hanno sempre voluto vedere in questi atti, commessi dal
governo dei Giovani Turchi, un provvedimento contro l’aspirazione
all’indipendenza di un popolo diverso dal loro. Allora avevano appena
finito di perdere tutte le loro province nei Balcani e non volevano
perdere altri territori. Per loro prevenire la disgregazione
significa essenzialmente questo: affermare che non ci sono altre
nazioni al di fuori di quella turca. Questa era la motivazione
principale del genocidio. Oggi, evidentemente, i Turchi devono negare
questo episodio perché delegittimerebbe la loro storia, che è sempre
la storia della nazione turca.
Oggi però c’è un governo che si è sempre presentato come
un’alternativa ai nazionalisti. Si può dire che sia discendente dal
regime dei Giovani Turchi?
Non è il discendente diretto, ma non accettando per principio che il
genocidio è stato realmente commesso, anche questo governo turco sta
di fatto rivendicando la sua filiazione al vecchio regime. Perché?
Cosa lega la Turchia di oggi all’allora Impero Ottomano? Oggi la
repubblica turca dovrebbe essere libera da un pezzo da queste idee,
dovrebbe essere molto più democratica. Invece continua a fare sempre
gli stessi errori.

Alla luce di questa levata di scudi ad Ankara, secondo Lei la Turchia
è più vicina o più lontana all’Europa?
A questo punto è sempre più lontana. Ma non è un discorso facile.
Nella stessa Turchia sono sempre di più coloro che pensano che non si
possa continuare così, mantenendo intatta la vecchia ideologia e
manipolando la realtà. Io credo che adesso stia crescendo una nuova
coscienza turca. Studiando la storia in modo più obiettivo, sano,
anche i Turchi potranno un giorno sentirsi veramente europei.
Dovranno anch’essi fare il loro mea culpa, come tanti altri popoli
hanno già fatto.

mp;act=art&edi=221&id_art=6876&aa07

PanARMENIAN.Net

Human rights overwhelmed the Turkish blackmail

The USA made it quite clear to Turkey, that no matter how important
this country is to America for the sake of national interests, no one
can dictate the rules of the game to the American congressmen
11.10.2007 GMT+04:00

The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved
Resolution 106 about the Armenian Genocide with 27 votes for and 21
against. `This decision became a challenge to the White House and
poses serious threats for its relations with Ankara, which called the
Resolution `unacceptable and making no sense for the Turkish nation.’

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Shortly before the discussion of the document in
Congress President George Bush himself made a speech, who expressed
his fears about the `serious consequences in America’s relations with
one of the key allies regarding NATO and the war with terrorism.’ The
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoghan also warned that passing of such
a bill `will strain the relations of the USA with one of its most
important allies in the region.’ The US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice also expressed her concern: `I have no wish to forget what
happened, but the adoption of the Resolution at this time will create
problems for all we have so far tried to do in the Middle East,’
quotes the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

At first sight it was something unbelievable, morality overwhelmed
politics. Moreover, USA made it quite clear to Turkey, that no matter
how important this country is to America for the sake of its national
interests, no one can dictate the rules of the game to the American
congressmen. As for Ankara, it failed to count one thing – President
of the USA doesn’t have the right to interfere in Congress’
affairs. He cannot even come to Congress without the agreement of the
congressmen of both Houses. True, President of the USA or someone from
his Administration, including the State Department, may call the
Speaker of the House and bringing serious arguments may convince not
to put the issue to vote. This happened more than once, though. Turkey
obviously didn’t take into consideration who it is dealing
with. Lately the Armenian Community in the USA put a stress on the
human rights, which are being violated by means of the Genocide. And
the USA, as a defender of democracy and human values, can’t put its
image in danger. Turkey will not resolve to taking any serious
anti-American measures in any case, but will certainly take advantage
of the Resolution to undertake actions in Northern Iraq and secondly
to incite all its allies in the Islamic World against
Armenia. However, they are not large in number. And it will be rather
unreasonable from Turkey to irritate the nationalists calling upon
`teaching a lesson’ to the Armenian Community of Istanbul. If it
happens, the whole world then will say that the Turks haven’t changed
and that the present Turkey doesn’t differ from the Ottoman Empire at
all. But the most interesting thing is that in Turkey no one says that
the adopted document is only `the opinion of the House’, which is
optional. Perhaps it is simply useful.

`Today we are not considering whether the Armenian people were
persecuted and died in huge numbers at the hands of Ottoman troops in
the early 20th Century. There is unanimity in the Congress and across
the country that these atrocities took place. If the resolution before
us stated that fact alone, it would pass unanimously. The controversy
lies in whether to make it United States policy at this moment in
history to apply a single word – genocide – to encompass this enormous
blot on human history,’ said the chairman of the United States House
Committee on Foreign Affairs opening the hearings of the Resolution
106 about the Armenian Genocide. He quoted Henry Morgenthau, the US
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during World War I: `I am confident
that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible
episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem
almost insignificant when compared with the sufferings of the Armenian
race in 1915.’

Lantos reminded that among all the US Presidents Ronald Reagan only
called the events of 1915 `The Armenian Genocide’ in his annual
message on April 24. `Subsequent Presidents — George Herbert Walker
Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have refrained from using the
word out of deference to Turkish sentiments on the matter. Another
thing is that U.S. troops are currently engaged in wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They depend on a major Turkish airbase Incerlik for
access to the fighting fronts, and it serves as a critical part of the
supply lines to those fronts. A growing majority in Congress, and I am
among them, strongly oppose continued U.S. troop involvement in the
civil war in Iraq, but none of us wants to see those supply lines
threatened or abruptly cut. We have to weigh the desire to express our
solidarity with the Armenian people and to condemn this historic
nightmare through the use of the word `genocide’ against the risk that
it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States
armed services to pay an even heavier price than they are currently
paying. This is a vote of conscience, and the Committee will work its
will,’ said Tom Lantos in conclusion. «PanARMENIAN.Net» analytical
department

Panorama.am

20:26 12/10/2007

Didn’t Turkey recall its ambassador to the USA?

In NATO, there is hope that the USA and Turkey can work out their new
problems in the near future. `We won’t try to explain the current
situation, as that isn’t NATO’s duty, but we hope that these partners,
America and Turkey, in the near future, can work out their problems,’
said an unnamed NATO official to `Ria Novosti’ today.

We remind that Turkey’s foreign ministry recalled their ambassador to
the USA yesterday, in response to the House foreign relations
committee’s acceptance of Resolution No. 106 recognizing the Armenian
Genocide. But today, Turkey’s foreign minister, Rejep Erdogan,
rejected that assertion. `I have no such information. `It is possible
they called him back for consultations, but he wasn’t recalled,’ he
said. Yet, earlier reports had the Americans hoping for a quick return
of the ambassador, meaning the ambassador had in fact been recalled by
Ankara.

We note that next week the Turkish parliament plans on discussing the
relations between the USA and Turkey, after which an announcement
about their conclusion is expected.

Source: Panorama.am

Raw Story, MA
Oct 12 2007

Daily Show: US forgets past atrocities in exchange for help in the
war on terror

David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Published: Friday October 12, 2007

The Daily Show on Thursday took up President Bush’s promise to veto
a non-binding Congressional resolution condemning the Armenian
Genocide. "This resolution is not the right response to these
historic mass killings," Bush stated.

"What is the right response to historic mass killings?" asked
Stewart. "Historic mass flowers?"

"To be fair," Stewart went on, "Bush is but the latest in a long line
of presidents to placate Turkey by downplaying the whole Death of 1.5
Million Armenians thing. But this is a particularly delicate time."

He then played a clip of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying,
"The passage of this resolution at this time would indeed be very
problematic for everything that we are trying to do in the Middle
East."

"Question," said Stewart, raising his hand like a reporter at a news
conference. "Uh, what are we trying to do in the Middle East?"

Stewart then turned to "senior Armeniologist" Aasif Mandvi, who told
him, "I think the message here is clear. You help us with the war on
terror. We’ll see what we can do about your past."

"It’s not a bad deal, actually," Mandvi continued. "When Spain joined
the coalition, they were able to get their Inquisition downgraded to
a casual Q&A."

Mandvi told Stewart that Turkey really might withdraw its support for
the Iraq War over the resolution. "If Congress had known the bill
they had drafted would have real-world consequences, they’d never
have let it get this far," he stated. "The last thing this Congress
wants is to do anything that might impact policy — or people — or
things."

Stewart and Mandvi further noted that Congress has formally
apologized to Japanese-Americans for the World War II internment
camps and to Hawaii for overthrowing its queen. But slavery and
Indian genocide, not so much.

The following video is from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show,
broadcast on October 11, 2007.

ores_atrocities_if_1012.html

AMBASSADOR SENSOY’S ‘EXIT INTERVIEW’
by John Gizzi

Human Events, DC
Oct 12 2007

In what was apparently his last interview before heading back to
Ankara for consultations with his government, the Turkish ambassador
to the United States spoke to HUMAN EVENTS about the vote in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday in favor of a controversial
resolution condemning Turkish killings of Armenians in 1915.

Less than twenty-four hours after the 27-to-21 vote in favor of the
symbolic-but-politically incendiary resolution, Ambassador Nabi Sensoy
was recalled to Turkey for consultation with his government.

The recall of an ambassador, which is almost always to protest an
action by the country in which he is an envoy, is rare and, in the
case of Turkey and the United States, dramatic and unprecedented.

"I don’t really remember that this occurred in a long time in our
relationship," Sensoy told HUMAN EVENTS’ Editor Jed Babbin and me,
"It’s an extraordinary indication that Turkey is very much disappointed
in the way things happened yesterday." Turkey — a major U.S. ally
in the war on terror and in NATO — had voiced strong opposition to
the proposed resolution, as did President Bush in an appearance on
the South Lawn of the White House prior to the vote by the House panel.

As to what response Turkey might take — possibly closing down a
U.S. Air Force base or cutting back on its role in the war on terror
— Sensoy told us: "You can appreciate that I’m not in a position to
prejudge what the government might decide to do or what the parliament
might decide to do. So it will be quite impossible for me to speculate
on that.

"But the fact I’m being recalled for consultation is the first
indication of that." He emphasized the significance of his recall,
pointing out that "this is a message, of course, we use in diplomatic
life."

"It is very unusual," he said, underscoring the unprecedented nature
of his recall.

Turkey’s man in Washington told us that he would make it clear to his
government "that the Bush Administration and President Bush himself
were opposed to it, that he made this clear on various occasions."

He contrasted the attitude of the President with that of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in the House, with whom he spoke
two days ago. In his words, "She made it very clear that if it does
pass the stage of the committee, she is going to bring it to the
[House] floor."

As to why Pelosi is placing so much emphasis on a resolution about
something that occurred more than ninety years ago, Sensoy said "She
said, I think, to the press, about the timing…this was in the cards
for a long time."

Sensoy said "there was no relation" between the issue and Turkey’s
support of the U.S. action in Iraq, that "she has strong opinions
about this," and "when she came to the position of speaker, it seems
she promised to pass this resolution. She simply seemed to be living
up to her promise."

The ambassador warmly recalled Turkey’s long-standing relationship
with the U.S. and "we can’t take each other for granted. . .We have to
show utmost care for the continuation of that wonderful relationship
we have."

However, he quickly added, "anything that will disrupt that, or
constitute a setback, is somethingwe have to think about. And this
is surely one of those things that will constitute a setback."

John Gizzi is Political Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.

=22819

Angry Turks ready to cut U.S. ties

CNN
2007/10/12

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — With Turkish-U.S. relations strained, Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday that Turkey would not be
deterred by the diplomatic consequences if it decides to stage a
cross-border offensive into Iraq against Kurdish rebels.

"If such an option is chosen, whatever its price, it will be paid,"
Erdogan told reporters in response to a question about the
international repercussions of such a decision, which would strain
ties with the United States and Iraq. "There could be pros and cons of
such a decision, but what is important is our country’s interests."

Erdogan also had harsh words for the United States, which opposes a
Turkish incursion into northern Iraq — one of the country’s few
relatively stable areas.

"Did they seek permission from anyone when they came from a distance
of 10,000 kilometers and hit Iraq?" he said. "We do not need anyone
else’s advice."

Analysts say Turkey could be less restrained about defying the United
States because of a congressional committee’s approval of a resolution
labeling the mass killings of Armenians around the time of World War I
as genocide.

"Democrats are harming the future of the United States and are
encouraging anti-American sentiments," Erdogan said. Democratic
leaders in the House of Representatives support the resolution.

Erdogan said Turkey was ready to sacrifice good ties with Washington
if necessary.

"Let it snap from wherever it gets thin," Erdogan said, using a
Turkish expression that means breaking ties with someone or something.

At issue in the resolution is the killing of up to 1.5 million
Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted
genocide, saying the toll has been inflated, and those killed were
victims of civil war and unrest that killed Muslims as well as the
overwhelmingly Christian Armenians.

Turkey, a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its
ambassador to Washington for consultations and warned of serious
repercussions if Congress passes the resolution.

"In the United States, there are several narrow-minded legislators who
can’t think of their own interests and who cannot understand the
importance of Turkey," said Murat Mercan, head of the Turkish
parliament’s foreign relations committee.

Turkish authorities have refused to comment on whether Turkey might
shut down Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, a major cargo hub for
U.S. and allied military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey’s
Mediterranean port of Iskenderun is also used to ferry goods to
American troops.

The Yeni Safak newspaper, which is close to the Turkish government,
said Friday that Incirlik and $15 billion worth of defense contracts,
including purchase of warplanes, missile and radar systems, could be
reviewed. Turkey could also prevent U.S. firms from taking part in new
contracts, Yeni Safak said.

Erdogan said Turkey has long been seeking the cooperation of Iraq and
the United States in its fight against Kurdish guerrillas, but there
has been no crackdown on the rebel Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has
bases in Iraq. Erdogan said a recent anti-terrorism deal signed with
Iraq was not valid since it had not been approved by Iraq’s parliament
yet.

The Turkish parliament was expected to approve a government request to
authorize an Iraq campaign as early as next week, after a holiday
ending the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"We are making necessary preparations to be ready in case we decide on
a cross-border operation since we don’t have patience to lose more
time," Erdogan said, adding that Turkey has lost 30 people in rebel
attacks over the past two weeks.

A Turkish soldier was killed in a mine explosion on Thursday night on
Mt. Gabar in southeastern Sirnak province, authorities said Friday.

Turkish army units, backed by helicopter gunships, were hunting rebels
in the rugged border area.

Bahoz Erdal, a senior rebel commander, said the PKK fighters were
moving further inside Turkey and taking new "positions" in the face of
attacks from Turkey, pro-Kurdish Firat News Agency reported Friday.
The agency is based in Belgium.

The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people since 1984.

Source: urds.ap/index.html

PANEL APPROVES BILL ON ARMENIANS
By Desmond Butler

The Associated Press
Oct 11 2007 – 5 Hours Ago

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Bush administration, chafing over a House
committee vote to label as genocide the deaths of Armenians a century
ago, said Thursday lawmakers could better spend their time passing
legislation attending to today’s problems at home.

White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel reiterated the
administration’s disappointment with the vote by the House Foreign
Affairs Committee and said it would be problematic for American
efforts in the Middle East.

"While the House is debating the Ottoman Empire, they are not moving
forward with appropriations bills," said Stanzel. "The House has
not appointed conferees, they aren’t coming to the table to discuss
children’s health care, and they haven’t permanently closed the
intelligence gap that will open up when the Protect America Act
expires."

Meanwhile, the administration is trying to soothe Turkish anger over
the vote. The foreign affairs panel defied warnings by President Bush
with its 27-21 vote Wednesday to send the Armenian measure to the
full House for a vote. The administration will now try to pressure
Democratic leaders not to schedule a vote, though it is expected
to pass.

Hours before the vote, Bush and his top two Cabinet members and other
senior officials made last-minute appeals to lawmakers to reject
the measure.

"Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in
NATO and in the global war on terror," Bush said.

Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul criticized the decision to move the
measure toward a vote in the House.

"Unfortunately, some politicians in the United States have once again
sacrificed important matters to petty domestic politics despite all
calls to commonsense," said Gul, according to the state-run news
agency Anatolia. "This unacceptable decision by the committee,
like its predecessors, has no validity or respectability for the
Turkish nation."

In London Thursday, visiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates told
reporters the measure will damage U.S.-Turkish relations at a time
when U.S. forces in Iraq are relying heavily on Turkish permission
to use their airspace for U.S. air cargo flights.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday that passage
of the resolution by the House would gravely harm U.S.-Turkish
relations and U.S. interests in Europe and the Middle East.

"The United States recognizes the immense suffering of the Armenian
people due to mass killings and forced deportations at the end of the
Ottoman Empire," McCormack said in a statement. "We support a full and
fair accounting of the atrocities that befell as many as 1.5 million
Armenians during World War I" – which he said the measure doesn’t do.

Following Wednesday’s vote, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said
he would call the Turkish ambassador to Washington, and that Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice would talk to Turkish leaders on Thursday.

U.S. diplomats have been quietly preparing Turkish officials for
weeks for the likelihood that the resolution would pass, and asking
for a muted response.

Burns said the Turks "have not been threatening anything specific"
in response to the vote, and that he hopes the "disappointment can
be limited to statements."

"The Turkish government leaders know there is a separation of powers
in the United States, that today’s action was an action by the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, that this was not an action supported by
President Bush and the executive branch of our government," he said.

The Bush administration has expressed concern that the vote could
lead to Turkey cutting off crucial supply lines to Iraq. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates said ahead of the vote that 70 percent of U.S.

air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about one-third
of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq.

"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very
much be put at risk if this resolution passes, and Turkey reacts as
strongly as we believe they will," Gates said.

The vote also came as Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships
attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels near Iraq on Wednesday,
a possible prelude to a cross-border operation that the Bush
administration has opposed. The United States, already preoccupied
with efforts to stabilize other areas of Iraq, believes that Turkish
intervention in the relatively peaceful north could further destabilize
the country.

The committee’s vote was a triumph for well-organized Armenian-American
interest groups who have lobbied Congress for decades to pass a
resolution.

Following the debate and vote, which was attended by aging Armenian
emigres who lived through the atrocities in what is now Turkey in
their youth, the interest groups said they would fight to ensure
approval by the full House.

"It is long past time for the U.S. government to acknowledge and
affirm this horrible chapter of history – the first genocide of the
20th century and a part of history that we must never forget," said
Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America.