Author: Tadevosian Garnik

MEDIA LYING OVER CHURCHILL’S CRIMES
By Gideon Polya

MWC News
;Ite mid=1
Nov 19 2008
Canada

British-Indian Holocaust

Churchill is our hero because of his leadership in World War 2, but
his immense crimes, notably the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, the 1943-1945
Bengal Famine in which Churchill murdered 6-7 million Indians, have
been deleted from history by extraordinary Anglo-American and Zionist
Holocaust Denial.

In addition to his participation in British colonial war crimes in
South Africa, the Sudan, Afghanistan and India as a soldier "just
obeying orders", Churchill was deeply complicit as an Establishment
politician, Minister and Leader in the political failures leading
to World War 1; the disastrous WW2 Dardanelles campaign; the 1920s
bombing of Iraqis and Kurds; political failure leading to World War 2;
active promotion of Japanese entry into World War 2, pre-knowledge
of the indefensibility of Singapore; pre-knowledge of the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor; opposition to Indian Independence from
the crippling obscenity of the British Raj; the 1943-1945 Bengal
Famine; the anti-Arab anti-Semitic war-time decision to partition
Palestine in favour of racist Zionist colonizers; and promotion
of Hindu-Muslim antipathy with resultant Partition carnage and the
present Pakistan-India nuclear standoff.

These core crimes will be outlined and documented below (for
a very detailed and referenced analysis of Churchill’s crimes
see the revised and updated 2008 version of my 1998 book "Jane
Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity,
holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability" (see:
).

However Churchill’s crimes through evil or incompetent involvement
in these holocausts have been largely white-washed out of history
by a huge body of Anglo-American, Zionist and Australian historians,
journalists and politicians. Perhaps the most telling evidence for this
entrenched UK, US and Zionist holocaust denial comes from a passage
in Tariq Ali’s recent book "Street Fighting". An Autobiography of
the Sixties" (Verso, London, 2005).

In pages 96-98 of this "Street Fighting" book Tariq Ali describes
an Oxford Union debate on a Condolence Motion occasioned by the
death of Winston Churchill in 1966 and the response by a brilliant
anti-Establishment, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist socialist
Richard Kirkwood who listed the following of Churchill’s crimes in
opposing the Motion [my added dates in square brackets]: "It was
Churchill who had been the most vociferous proponent of the armed
intervention against the Russian Revolution of 1917; it was he who
had justified the use of troops against the Welsh miners of Tonypandy
[1910]; led the siege of Sidney Street in East London against a couple
of anarchists [1911]; played the provocateur during the General Strike
of 1926; backed the Greek far-right against the resistance in 1944;
and opposed the Independence of India. It was for his consistent
and long record of vindictiveness and hostility towards workers
throughout the world that he was being mourned. For these reasons
alone, shouted Kirkwood above the growing din, he, for one, would
not stand and observe even a second’s silence … He sat down to a
chorus of boos, with some of his opponents literally frothing at the
mouth. Kirkwood, however, was unmoved. As over 400 people stood up
to observe the formalities, about twenty-five of us remained seated
and were counted. Kirkwood was delighted. After all, he had separated
the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks"

The extraordinary thing is that, due to British, American and Zionist
holocaust denial, even a highly educated, anti-racist, anti-colonialist
and anti-imperialist in 1966 was apparently utterly UNAWARE of
the immensity of Winston Churchill’s crimes, of which arguably the
most serious was the deliberate, sustained, remorseless starving to
death of 6-7 million Indians in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust –
an atrocity larger in magnitude than the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust
(5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation).

I have provided below a catalogue in chronological order of Churchill’s
crimes that are certainly on a par with those of arch-fiend Adolph
Hitler in terms of avoidable deaths. Key avoidable death statistics
associated with these British Imperial crimes are given in parenthesis
(the default references are my books "Jane Austen and the Black Hole
of British History" and "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since
1950" (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007:
). [One is compelled at this point to ask the questions, what
if Churchill, like many of the British Establishment, had been
anti-Jewish anti-Semitic as well as anti-Arab ant-Semitic and what
if Adolph Hitler had been more "democratic" and played cricket?]

1. Involvement as a soldier in British imperial war crimes in India
[1896-1899; compelled on advice to join his regiment in India after
charges of homosexual abuse; avoidable deaths in British India
1757-1947 1.5 billion; avoidable deaths in the 1895-1897 famine
about 1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, 6-9 million deaths]; a
stint in Sudan at the Battle of Obdurman [1989; horrendous British
atrocities]; a stint in South Africa as a war correspondent and
thence as a soldier [1899; Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902):
28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration
camps; see: "Australia’s secret genocide history" on MWC News:
].

2. Churchill was one of the more bellicose members of the British
Cabinet prior to the outbreak of World War 1 [World War I Allied
military and civilian dead totalled 5.7 million and 3.7 million,
respectively, and the German-allied (Central Powers) military and
civilian deaths totalled 4.0 million and 5.2 million, respectively;
the troop movement-exacerbated Spanish Flu Epidemic killed 20-100
million people world wide: ].

3. Churchill was responsible for the disastrous 1915 WW1 Dardanelles
Campaign in Turkey [that killed 0.2 million Allied and Turkish
soldiers and helped to precipitate the 1915-1923 Turkish Armenian
Genocide that killed up to 1.5 million Armenians – a genocide that
the holocaust-denying Turks, racist Zionists of Apartheid Israel and
US Congressmen refuse to acknowledge as such ].

4. Churchill vigorously promoted the unsuccessful UK and US invasion
of Russia in response to the Russian Revolution [1917-1919; millions
died in the Russian Civil War and the subsequent the Russian Famine;
7 million died in the circa 1930 Ukrainian Famine; and perhaps up
to 20 million died overall in Stalinist atrocities i.e. a death toll
comparable to that in World War 2].

5. Churchill was involved in the suppression of the Arab revolt in Iraq
(invaded by Britain in 1914) and bombing of Kurdish villages [violent
British occupation of Iraq involving everything from poison gas
(1920s) to mass murder of children (today) occurred on and off in the
period 1914 to the present; 1990-2008 Iraqi excess deaths 4 million;
under-5 infant deaths 1.8 million; refugees currently 6 million].

6. Churchill was actively involved in the genocidal suppression of
India and vehemently opposed Indian self-determination [1757-1947
excess deaths, 1.5 billion; Victorian era excess deaths, 1837-1901
0.5 billion; 1901-1947 excess deaths 0.4 billion; avoidable deaths
in the 1895-1897 famine about 1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine,
6-9 million deaths; 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust deaths 6-7 million].

7. Churchill was again one of the more bellicose members of the
British Parliament in the 1930s but is generally positively credited
with warning the world about the rise of German Nazism [ World War
2 military deaths 25 million and civilian deaths about 67 million].

8. Churchill actively sought the entry of Japan into World War
2 in order to involve the US and hence ensure victory [35 million
Chinese avoidable deaths, 1937-1945; 6-7 million Indians perished in
Churchill’s deliberate scorched earth policy in Bengal 1943-1945;
millions more died in the WW2 Eastern Theatre; see Rusbridger,
J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured
Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].

9. Churchill knew well in advance that Singapore was indefensible
[8,000-15,000 killed, 130,000 captured in the 1941 Malaya campaign;
14,000 Australian, 16,000 British and 32,000 Indian troops surrendered
in Singapore; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at
Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit,
New York)].

10. Churchill did not warn the Americans about the impending Pearl
Harbor attack [the US authorities knew too but still did not warn
their military personnel in Hawaii; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave,
E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt
into World War II (Summit, New York)].

11. Churchill hated Muslims, Arabs and Indians and remorselessly
refused food to 6-7 million starving Indians, rejected Viceroy Wavell’s
pleas and blocked Canadian attempts at relief [6-7 million Indian
deaths – the British Bengali Holocaust death toll being numerically
greater than the 5-6 million dead in the Nazi German Jewish Holocaust;
see Moon, P. (1973) (editor), Wavell. The Viceroy’s Journal (Oxford
University Press, London) ].

12. Churchill rejected top scientific advice and supported bombing of
German cities instead of protecting Atlantic convoys [0.16 million
allied airmen killed; 0.6 million German civilians killed; Battle
of the Atlantic almost lost; huge impact on famine in the Indian
Ocean region due to halving of Allied shipping in 1943; see Snow,
C.P. (1961), Science and Government (The New English Library, London);
Behrens, C.B.A. (1955), Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War
(Longman’s, Green, London, 1955); Taylor, A.J.P. (1975), The Second
World War. An Illustrated History (Hamish Hamilton, London) ].

13. Churchill acknowledged the crucial importance of maintaining
Hindu-Muslim antipathy to preserve British rule [1 million dead and
18 million Muslim and Hindu refugees associated with India-Pakistan
Partition in 1947].

14. Churchill over-rode strong British military objections in 1944
to decide on Partition of Palestine [in 1948 Jews were 1/3 of the
population; there are now over 7 million Palestinian refugees;
post-1967 Occupied Palestinian excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967
under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; excess deaths in countries partially
or completely occupied by Apartheid Israel now total about 24 million;
4 million Occupied Palestinians still illegally and abusively
imprisoned by racist Zionist goons in their own country].

15. British, American, Zionist and Australian adoption of Churchill’s
holocaust denying legacy, specifically his famous "history is written
by the victors", has ensured continuance of Anglo-American and Zionist
atrocities involving invasion, occupation, devastation and genocide
[in relation to Occupiers (in parenthesis) 1950-2005 excess deaths in
post-1945 occupied countries total 36 million (Belgium) 142 million
(France), 24 million (Apartheid Israel), 0.7 million (Apartheid South
Africa), 23 million (Portugal), 37 million (Russia), 9 million (Spain),
727 million (the UK) and 82 million (the US); 25 million Indigenous
excess deaths in post-1950 US Asian Wars; 9-11 million excess deaths
associated with 1990-2008 Bush Wars; post-invasion excess deaths in
Occupied Iraq 2 million, refugees 6 million; post-invasion excess
deaths in Occupied Afghanistan 4-6 million, refugees 4 million).

Yet, to list just s few examples of UK-US holocaust ignoring,
there is absolutely NO mention of the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust
in the biography of Winston Churchill by pro-Zionist Professor Sir
Martin Gilbert (Gilbert, M. (1991), Churchill. A Life (Heinemann,
London); the recent histories by leading conservative Australian
historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey (Blainey, G. (2000), A Short
History of the World (Viking, Melbourne), Blainey, G. (2004),
A Very Short History of the World (Viking, Melbourne), Blainey,
G. (2005), A Short History of the 20th Century (Penguin, Melbourne);
the recent history of Britain by pro-Zionist Professor Simon Schama
(Schama, S. (2002), A History of Britain (BBC, London)); or even
in an important book on Denial entitled "Denial. History betrayed"
by Australian historian Professor Tony Taylor (Monash University,
Melbourne; see my review ""Denial" book ignores UK and US genocide
crimes": ).

Another way of gauging this extraordinary English language holocaust
ignoring and the ignoring of the immense crimes of Winston Churchill
is to do a Yahoo Search for "Hitler’s crimes" (25,000 results) and
for "Churchill’s crimes" (54 results, all but a mere several of these
referring NOT to Winston Churchill but to horribly persecuted American
Indian Professor Ward Churchill’s "Crimes Against Humanity").

Perhaps, to be fair, we should leave the penultimate words to Winston
Churchill himself. Here is a succession of Winston Churchill quotes
that say it all.

"In the standard of life they have nothing to spare. The slightest
fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation,
and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of
scores of millions of people, who have come into the world at your
invitation and under the shield and protection of British power."

(Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons about Indians
(1935); 1. Hansard of the House of Commons, Winston Churchill speech,
Hansard Vol. 302, cols. 1920-21, 1935; quoted by Jog (1944), p195 in
Jog, N.G. (1944), Churchill’s Blind-Spot: India (New Book Company,
Bombay).).

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly
religion." (Winston Churchill to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for
India (1942); 4. Diary of Amery (Secretary for India), September 9,
1942; quoted by Ziegler (1988), pp 351-352 in Ziegler, P. (1988),
Mountbatten. The Official Biography (Collins, London); see also

Moon, P. (1973) (editor), Wavell. The Viceroy’s Journal (Oxford
University Press, London).).

"No great portion of the world population was so effectively protected
from the horrors and perils of the World War as were the peoples of
Hindustan. They were carried through the struggle on the shoulders
of our small Island." (Churchill (1954), vol. 4, p181 in Churchill,
W.S. (1954), The Second World War. Volumes I-VI (Cassell, London) –
a book in which he makes NO mention of the 6-7 million Indians he
murdered in 1943-1945; his statement is a gross falsehood in view
of 2.4 million Indians serving in the Allied forces in WW2 and 6-7
million Indian deaths in the 1943-1935 Bengali Holocaust).

"{Churchill} cynically telling the Cabinet in February 1940 that he
"regarded the Hindu-Muslim feud as the bulwark of British rule in
India"" (p381, Irving, D. (1987), Churchill’s War, Volume I, The
Struggle for Power (Veritas, Bullsbrook, WA) ) – from which we glean
(p538) "Getting America into the war remained Churchill’s highest
priority throughout 1941", a position consonant with the position
of the 1941 UK Ambassador to Japan: "I had, moreover, given it as
my considered opinion in October 1941 that Japan’s former desire to
avoid war with the United States at almost any cost could no longer
be counted upon as a factor in the situation should Japan feel herself
to be finally driven into a corner … there can be no doubt that the
absence of any British moderating influence, whether at Washington
or Tokyo, increased the chances of that breakdown which eventually
occurred" (Sir R. Craigie, British Ambassador to Japan in 1941, in
his final report to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden (1943); Report
of Sir R. Craigie (former British Ambassador to Japan) to Mr. Eden
(British Foreign Secretary) in 1943, reproduced in Rusbridger & Nave
(1991), Appendix I; Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at
Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit,
New York)).

"History is written by the victor", an aphorism often attributed to
Winston Churchill.

Conclusion

History ignored yields history repeated. This extraordinary holocaust
commission, holocaust denial and holocaust ignoring is an object
lesson of this aphorism in a 21st century in which the British
Imperialism of past centuries has been transmuted into an equally
violent and destructive Anglo-American imperialism (excess deaths
in the 1990-2008 Bush wars now total 9-11 million). According to the
prestigious American Association for the Advancement for Science (AAAS)
the world is facing acutely serious nuclear, greenhouse and poverty
threats – 25,000 nuclear weapons (including the 15,000 of the US and
the 200 of nuclear terrorist, war criminal, racist Apartheid Israel);
there is a Climate Emergency in which the current 387 ppm atmospheric
CO2 is already associated with huge Arctic ice melting, mass species
extinctions and coral reef death and top scientists are urging a
reduction to no more than 350 ppm; and 16 million people already
die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated
disease. Scientific risk management demands zero tolerance for lying.

We can no longer tolerate humanity-threatening lying – there must
be general zero tolerance for lying, whether lying by omission or
lying by commission. We must resolutely oppose and expose racist,
warmongering, genocidal, UK, Zionist and US imperialist lying,
holocaust commission and holocaust denial – enough is enough, vastly
too many people have died. Peace is the only way but silence kills
and silence is complicity – please inform everyone you know.

Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Chief political editor, published some
130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge
pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive
Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003),
and is currently writing a book on global mortality —

KONSTANTIN ZATULIN: NAGORNO-KARABAKH TO BE RECOGNIZED SOONER OR LATER

De Facto
Nov 18, 2008

YEREVAN, 18.11.08. DE FACTO. "Nagorno-Karabakh will come to recognition
sooner or later. Karabakh will not return within Azerbaijan",
Konstantin Zatulin, the deputy Chairman of Russia’s State Duma
Committee on CIS Affairs, Director of the Institute of CIS Studies,
stated in the course of a news conference held at the Novosti Press
Center today.

According to Zatulin, Azerbaijanis are also aware of the fact. However,
in his words, the Azerbaijani politicians cannot exceed the established
limits.

Nevertheless, presenting, in his words, Russia’s official stand,
Zatulin noted that Russia was not ready to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s
independence, especially taking into consideration that Armenia
had not done it yet. "However, my own stand is as follows: it is
possible not to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh de jure as much as one
likes, however, it de facto exists", Konstantin Zatulin noted. At
that, in Konstantin Zatulin’s words, no one can prove that nations’
right to self-determination yields priority to territorial integrity’s
principle.

Zatulin is sure that the final word rests with people, if they
consistently display their will.

OSCE MG: CESSION OF KARABAKH SECURITY ZONE POSSIBLE ONLY IN CASE OF ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.11.2008 14:49 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The people of Nagorno Karabakh should be guaranteed
a secure life, said the French Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group.

"Presently, security [still jeopardized by Baku] is guaranteed by
the Armenian armed forces and the defense army of Nagorno Karabakh
Bernard Fassier told a news conference in Yerevan.

For his part, U.S. Co-chair Matt Bryza said that the Moscow declaration
envisages military and economic security but not disarmament.

According to Russian mediator Yuri Merzlyakov, the disputed territories
around Nagorno Karabakh comprise the security zone, cession of which
is possible only in case of adequate safeguards.

The NKR security zone includes the Aghdam, Fizuli, Kelbajar, Zangelan,
Jabrail, Lachin and Kubatly regions.

MATTHEW BRYZA: "THE KARABAKH CONFLICT WILL BE SETTLED SOON. I HOPE IT WILL HAPPEN NEXT YEAR"

Today.Az
tics/49001.html
Nov 14 2008
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with OSCE Minsk group co-chair from the United States
Matthew Bryza.

– After the recent war in Georgia you said that it will influence the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict in the sense that some differences
must be settled with Russia. Have these differences been settled?

– I think yes, President Medvedev, I think, has showed that he can
play and has already played a positive role. On the other hand,
Russia fulfills, though not completely, these functions, signed
by Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy. It means that the situation is
improving related to relations between Georgia and Russia but they
are still bad. However, President Medvedev has already made his
positive contribution.

– Have the prospects of the Karabakh conflict settlement improved,
considering the recent events?

– I think they have improved as all parties are aware that the conflict
should be settled and that this conflict requires attention. It should
be settled and there is a potential for that. And I feel there is a
good environment between the Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan. This
also depends on the extent the two leaders feel trust and respect
towards each others. This is normal and this is an issue of relations
between people.

– When is the next meeting of Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia
expected? Can it occur by the end of this year?

– We do not know. This is possible, but I think that this will
happen in early next year. But, I would repeat that we do not know,
as this issue depends on my current visit. I will fly directly to
Yerevan today. Let’s see the reaction of President Sargsyan. Then
tomorrow I will be in Khankendi and we will be holding talks there. If
everything is normal, the meeting will also be held between the Foreign
Ministers. The meeting between presidents will take place in case of
positive results.

– Is it possible to state in connection with the completion of
elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan that favorable perspectives have
been created for the conflict settlement in the next five years?

– Yeah, I even hope that it will happen next year.

ACCORDING TO STEPAN DEMIRCHIAN, PRIMARY TASK OF ARMENIA SHOULD BE INVOLVING KARABAKH AS PARTY IN NEGOTIATIONS

Noyan Tapan

Nov 14, 2008

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 14, NOYAN TAPAN. "It was reasserted in the Moscow
Declaration that the settlement of the Karabakh conflict should
be within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group and in a peaceful
way. The negative aspect is that Karabakh did not participate in the
Declaration’s signing," the leader of People’s Party of Armenia (PPA),
member of the Armenian National Congress (ANC) Stepan Demirchian
stated at the November 14 press conference. In his words, today the
primary task of Armenia in the Karabakh problem should be making
Artsakh a party in the negotiations. As for the Madrid principles,
S. Demirchian said that it will be possible to make detailed judgements
about these principles only after their declassification. However,
it is clear from the information that the opposition has received so
far that the Madrid principles give cause for some concern. "We are
against unilateral concessions," the PPA leader said.

By his forecast, no rapid solution to the conflict can be expected
in the coming months.

Speaking about the criminal case opened against 7 opposition political
figures in connection of the March 1 events, S. Demirchian considered
it as false. "It was not a coup attempt. People began to gather
near the French embassy after they had been subjected to violence
in Liberty Square where they were legally expressing their protest
against the rigged election," S. Demirchian said.

DO NGO-S RUIN OUR COUNTRY?

Panorama.am
18:57 11/11/2008

The environmental non governmental organizations are concerned with
the recent opinions round their mission in the country, especially
after publication of "Green store purchasing country" article. In
this regard environmental NGO-s and NGO-s in general collected in a
round table meeting to discuss their mission and role.

"This is not the first time ecological NGO-s are blamed to ruin
the country being financed by international organizations. That
article is just a reason for us to gather and to discuss our role,"
says Inga Zarafyan, the President of "EcoLur" information NGO. The
representatives of the NGO-s expressed their concerns on not providing
information to them.

Artsrun Pepanyan, the head of public relations department of the
Ministry of Environmental Protection says that the Ministry has always
supported the NGO-s and has taken them into account.

PASSPORTS WILL BE GIVEN WITHIN FIVE DAYS

A1+
[08:56 pm] 11 November, 2008

>From now on, the citizens of Armenia will be able to get their
passports within five business days, deputy head of the Police,
Colonel Gevorg Mheryan informed the journalists today. Mheryan also
coordinates the activity of the passport and visa department.

"If the citizens are told that changing the passports will take longer,
or if they are demanded additional payments, I ask and require that
they call me immediately. My phone numbers are written on the walls
of each and every deparment", he said.

It is noteworthy that the Government is processing a draft decision
that if the citizen wants to get the passport during one business day,
he has to pay 20 000 AMD, and 10 000 AMD for getting it within four
business days.

TURKEY BETWEEN EAST AND WEST
Ragan Updegraff

Foreign Policy In Focus

Nov 11 2008

Turkey has long aligned itself with Western powers, dating back
to Ottoman participation in the Concert of Europe. It’s currently
a member of the Council of Europe, the Organization for European
Economic Cooperation (OEEC), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO). Many Turks view accession to the European Union (EU) as the
capstone to its longstanding ambition to be recognized as a modern
European power. Others in Turkey, however, are leery of EU-inspired
democratization schemes and wonder if admission is indeed worth the
cost of the ticket.

If the accession partnership between the EU and Turkey ultimately
falters, Turkey could well end adrift, isolated, and more sympathetic
toward Russia, Iran, and possibly China. Long the most eastward player
among Western powers, Turkey could well reposition itself as the most
western power among a loose bloc of Eastern players.

Turkey — like Spain, Greece, and the Balkan states before it —
must democratize further to successfully emerge from accession
negotiations with a membership offer, but internal politics and
frustrated relations with Europe threaten to imperil the process. In
early November, the European Commission released its annual report
on Turkey’s progress toward accession. The report criticizes the
slow pace of Turkish reforms and problems with their implementation,
while highlighting the lack of compromise and political dialogue
among Turkey’s political parties.

When Turkey became an official candidate for membership at the Helsinki
summit in December 1999, an avalanche of reforms soon followed in
order to meet criteria required for accession talks to begin. Reform
continued unabated following the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP)
landslide victory in the 2002 elections, and in October 2005, Turkey
officially commenced accession negotiations. Following the Helsinki
summit, however, the steam driving the reform revolution dissipated,
causing the accession process to sputter.

Although such reform fatigue is perhaps inevitable — much like the
exhaustion that sets in after the first third of a marathon race —
the slow pace has seemed to take Turkey off the accession track and
imperil Turkey-EU relations. Growing resentment of European demands,
returning problems with Cyprus and the Kurds, and a revamped Turkish
nationalism have all contributed to muting the hopeful ebullience
of the early years of the reform process. While the AKP’s recently
proposed third national program to accelerate accession is designed
to reignite the process, many within and outside the party still seem
largely ambivalent. Turkey’s relations with Europe and the United
States — and by extension Turkey’s future as a stable democracy
allied with the West — thus remain largely up in the air.

Significance of the Accession Process Turkey is lured by the prospects
of EU membership for both historical and economic reasons. Its
founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who modernized the country along
European lines, aspired to see it recognized as a European power. The
Europe that transfixed Ataturk is no longer an imperial collection
of states but rather a thriving economic market. But the pending
relationship between the EU and Turkey isn’t simply economic. Amidst
the wreckage of World War II, Europe radically transformed itself
into a post-national union, with an overwhelming commitment to
participatory democratic institutions and the strongest human
rights regime in modern history. Through accession, aspiring member
countries must not only adopt EU political norms but, in doing so,
undergo political transformation parallel to that taken by Europe
after the Second World War. Thus, EU accession is as much a major
domestic process as it is a cementing of external relations.

As Turkey undertakes the reforms needed to meet criteria needed for
EU accession eligibility, its citizens face heady questions about the
direction in which to take their country. At one end of the spectrum
are Europhiles, who wish to see Turkey enter the EU and move closer
to international norms of human rights and democratic governance. At
the other end are Euroskeptics, who are less keen to see their country
make the sacrifices to sovereignty that EU membership requires. Most
Turks fall somewhere in between these two extremes. The Euroskeptics
oppose reforms they see as diminishing the state’s police power in
dealing with ethnic and religious minorities, political dissenters,
and other elements that "threaten the solidarity" of the Turkish
nation-state. Euroskeptics are also leery of reducing the power of
the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) and the judiciary, both bastions of
the old elite. Whereas Europhile Turks largely support continued and
improved relations with Western powers, many Euroskeptics, sometimes
called Asianists, are starting to look to emerging powers in the East
with which to build future relations. Hurt feelings over a failed
accession process could push Turkey closer to these non-Western powers,
something that neither Europe nor the United States desires.

Building Positive Relations Yet some European leaders seem determined
to push Turkey further eastward. Both French President Nicolas Sarkozy
and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have expressed support for a
"privileged partnership" for Turkey in lieu of full membership. From
similar arrangements the EU has made with other Mediterranean
countries, it is clear that such an offer would in no way carry
as much diplomatic leverage as full membership. At this point,
such second-class membership represents backtracking from earlier
European pledges.

Turkey-EU relations have been further soured by Turkey’s failure to
abide by its commitment to open its ports to Cyprus. As a result, in
2006, the European Council suspended eight of the 35 policy chapters to
be successfully negotiated if Turkey is to become a member, and ruled
that no chapter can be closed until Turkey reverses its position on
Cyprus. Negotiations focus on the candidate’s adoption, implementation,
and enforcement of EU policies. After unanimously closing a chapter,
the European Council decides that an acceding country’s policies are
adequately in line with those of the EU. Only upon closure of all
35 chapters will a treaty be executed to finalize Turkey’s accession
into the EU. So far only one chapter, science and technology, has been
closed. The EU’s suspension of chapters has no effect in preventing
Turkey from moving forward with legislation, especially in those
policy areas where negotiations are expected to be difficult. However,
the suspension has deeply offended many Turks and remains a source
of political ill will on which Turkish politicians frequently harp.

In the meantime, EU politicians should remain positively consistent
in their positions on Turkish membership, assuring full accession
if it successfully meets the accession criteria. In recent months,
Europe’s position on this point has improved. In June, the French
Senate rejected a law that would have required Turkish membership to be
submitted to referendum. Also, France’s turn with the EU presidency has
resulted in the opening of two more chapters of EU policy — company
law and intellectual property law — and an expressed hope that two
more, information society and media and free movement of capital,
will be opened at the European Summit in December. France also created
goodwill in November, when its Senate struck down a bill to make it
illegal to deny claims of Armenian genocide. Much can also be said of
gestures like Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s
celebration of iftar — the breaking of the Ramadan fast — with
Turkish politicians in Istanbul this September. Another encouraging
factor in EU-Turkey relations is that Turkish attitudes toward Europe
seem to have improved following the attempt by anti-democratic forces
to close the AKP this past March. Right now, support for EU membership
is at its highest level since 2005.

Turkish politicians need to stay focused on the accession process
and eschew verbal confrontations with EU politicians. Sadly, this
is something neither Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan nor Foreign
Minister/EU Chief Negotiator Ali Babacan has succeeded in doing. At
a meeting of the EU troika in Brussels this past September, Erdogan
lambasted the EU for double standards and intimated that Turkish
membership was solely up to the Europeans. In fact, Turkey has much to
do if it is to meet the political and economic criteria for membership,
and such claims do little to assuage very real concerns in Europe about
Turkey’s lackluster human rights regime. Many EU citizens are also
skeptical of the EU’s already stretched economic capacity to absorb
less affluent member states, and a smaller group has reservations
about Turkey’s Muslim identity.

While the xenophobia of the latter is difficult to address, Turkish
politicians can certainly do more to alleviate the concerns of
reluctant Europeans. To begin, Turkey could send a powerful message
to assuage reservations about its treatment of religious minorities by
re-opening the Halki Greek Orthodox seminary the state has kept closed
for some time. Both Greece and Cyprus would approve of such a simple
gesture. In Cyprus, Turkey should strengthen fledging alliances with
Greek Cypriots to build support for a bicommunal solution, as well
as look for and publicize foreign policy positions it shares with
Europe, such as criticism of ally Uzbekistan for the Andijan massacre
in 2004. Turkey would do well to work with Europe to devise mutually
beneficial energy solutions, in particular the construction of the
Nabucco pipeline, to supply Europe with natural gas from Central
Asia. The Nabucco pipeline is vital for European energy independence
from Russia. The Turkish government should also bolster support for
Europe within Turkey, highlighting the rewards of membership while
debunking baseless rumors about the costs of membership that have
ranged from mandates to remove images of Ataturk from public buildings
to outlawing the selling of kokorec (Turkish tripe) on the streets.

U.S. Interests in Turkey Turkey’s AKP-led government, having survived
a recent court case attempting to close it down for anti-secular
activities, will be expected to move forward with its newly drafted
third national program. However, as the only political party in
power with a pro-EU position, the AKP has little incentive to push
for reforms with which it disagrees or put it at political risk. At
the moment, opposition political parties protest even the smallest,
most cosmetic of reforms, and too often the accession process is used
as a pawn in internal political gamesmanship.

The AKP, for its part, has lost the support of many liberal reformers
who have come to doubt its sincerity and/or competence in moving
Turkey toward liberal democracy and eventual EU membership. Thus,
implementation of the party’s third national program will be a test
for the party, as well as the Turkish public, although significant
progress will not likely be made on the reform package until after
local elections in March 2009.

As Turkey struggles to position itself somewhere between Europhilia
and Euroskepticism, the United States must continue to support Turkish
accession into the EU. For its part, it should ignore neoconservative
efforts to undermine the AKP, meanwhile doing all it can to improve
its own relations with Turkey, mainly through encouraging dialogue
between Turkey and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) The more
the Turkish government works directly with the KRG, the less likely
the United States will be caught in disputes between the two. Any
convergence of interests arrived at through talks between Turkey
and the KRG is to the benefit of the United States. Further welcome
is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent praise of Turkey’s
efforts to build a regional alliance in Central Asia, after a period
of initial resistance to the initiative resulting from its exclusion of
the United States and the EU. Turkey as an EU member would be valuably
cemented to the West, serving as an important bridge to Central Asia
as well as a potential peacemaking force in the Middle East.

Barack Obama’s presidential win offers further opportunity to
strengthen relations with Turkey. As a function of his opposition
to the Iraq War and his message of "change," the president-elect
enjoys popularity in Turkey akin to the popularity with which former
President Bill Clinton was met on his visit following the 1999
earthquakes. Obama’s promise to restore good relations with Turkey
is eagerly received by many Turks, though not without caveats. Many
Turks are leery of Obama’s position on the Armenian massacres of 1915,
and his recognition of them as genocide would badly damage U.S.-Turkey
relations. Also feared are Vice President-Elect Joe Biden’s previously
expressed plans for a tripartite division of Iraq, which Turkey
believes would empower the KRG and possibly foment calls for a united
and independent Kurdistan. However, if Obama treads carefully on the
Armenian issue, and supports a regional solution to terrorist efforts
of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), which involves Turkey and
the KRG as well as Baghdad, the next administration has a tremendous
possibility to rebuild relations that the Iraq War badly damaged.

Ragan Updegraff is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, a
freelance writer and observer of Turkish politics. You can find more
of his work in his blog, Turkish Politics in Action.

–Boundary_(ID_WsULQOYwsO7nyVDPelCLlA)–

TURKISH MINISTER SAYS HIS REMARKS ON MINORITIES MISUNDERSTOOD

Hurriyet
Nov 11 2008
Turkey

Turkish National Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul said on Tuesday
he was misunderstood when he questioned whether there would be
today’s nation-state if Greeks and Armenians continued to live in
Turkey. (UPDATED)

"If Greeks continued to live in the Aegean and Armenians continued
to live in many places in Turkey, I wonder whether there would be
today’s nation-state," Gonul said as he emphasized the importance of
last century’s population exchange between Turkey and Greece in his
speech at the Turkish embassy in Brussels.

"I don’t know how to tell you about the importance of this
exchange. But if you look at the old balances, the importance of this
would very clearly arise," he added.

Turkish media quoted Gonul on Tuesday as saying he had been
misunderstood. The defence ministry declined to comment.

The 1923 Exchange of Populations between Greece and Turkey involved
some two million people, most forcibly made refugees and de jure
denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia, in a treaty
promoted and overseen by the international community as part of the
Treaty of Lausanne.

The exchange took place between Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox
religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of
the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.

INDIA-ARMENIA FRIENDSHIP MATCH

Hindu
Nov 12 2008
India

CHENNAI: The All India Chess Federation is organising an India-Armenia
friendship tie in New Delhi from November 30 to December 2. The event,
being held for the first time is fully funded by the Ministry of
Youth Affairs and Sports.

According to a press release, the Armenian men’s team is the reigning
Olympiad champion and that aside, the country has a great chess
tradition and culture. The three-match team event will feature under-21
players. The Chief Arbiter will be FIDE Arbiter Gopakumar from Delhi .

The Indian team will be headed by the World junior champion GM
Abhijeet Gupta (2580) and has World U-16 Champion B. Adhiban (2439),
latest Grandmaster S. Arun Prasad (2530), IMs Deep Sengupta (2441)
and G. Rohit (2457). IM Vishal Sareen is the coach.

The Armenia side comprises GM Grigoryan Avetik (2513), GM Adriasian
Zaven (2561), IM Melkumyan Hrant (2541) and FM Ter Sahakyan Samvel
(2495).