Flawed View of Turkey's History Published in Boston Globe April 1, 2002 It does not take to be an expert in international relations to see at first glance the biased and historically flawed nature of the March 25 Op-Ed article "US should press Turkey on terrorism". Allegations in the article are devoid of historical accuracy and full of gross distortions of historical facts. Ataturk did wage a war - one of independence - not against the Greek and Armenian minorities in Turkey, but against Greece, whose army had occupied Western Turkey with a view to annexing it to Greece. Likewise, Turkish intervention in Cyprus was necessitated by a coup attempt by the Greek Cypriots to annex Cyprus to Greece with an ethnic cleansing campaign aimed at the Turkish Cypriot community. As such, the intervention was materialized with the motive of self-defense and based on the provisions of the Agreement of Guarantee that were signed by Turkey, Great Britain and Greece in Zurich in 1960 as part of an arrangement that led to the foundation of Cyprus as a federal state. What has been referred to as the so-called Armenian genocide in the article was in fact a deportation of the Armenians away from the war zone, where they had collaborated with the invading Russian troops and perpetrated acts of violence against the Turkish villages in Southeastern Turkey during the World War I. Both sides suffered losses during the intercommunal warfare, which were worsened by the contagious diseases prevalent at the time and the scarcity of food and medicine. Unfortunate as these losses were, they can not be called a genocide. MEHMET N. EZEN Turkish Consul General New York *** Be Fair or Get off the Air! The Genocide Factor, 4-part series, Is Biased Against Turks. It Advances Armenian Allegations Of Genocide As Facts. TO: Public Broadcasting System (PBS) Dear Mr. President, The subject TV-series deliberately misrepresents the events of WWI in Eastern Anatolia vis-a-vis Armenians. This 4-part series seems to be little more than a thinly veiled, Turkey-bashing, racist production, presenting Armenian allegations of genocide as historical facts, totally ignoring •Turkish views • Turkish suffering • Armenian terrorism (then and now, in Anatolia and in America and elsewhere) • The role of Armenian church in cultivating and financing terrorism, • Roles of imperialist powers of the time to ethnically cleans the Turks, using Armenian nationalists, • Armenian rebellions, • Armenian atrocities committed under Russian uniforms, • Armenian atrocities committed under French uniforms, • Courts (Malta & Istanbul) acquitting the Ottoman officials, • Statements signed by 70 historians in 1985 contradicting Armenian allegations of genocide •Statements signed by 300+ Turkish scholars in 2001 contradicting Armenian allegations of genocide • Large body of Ottoman archives, as well as British & American Archives contradicting Armenian allegations of genocide (see for example, a new book out this week, www.stjohnpress.com, "Armenia: The Great Deceit. Secrets of A 'Christian' Terrorist Nation".) The Armenian allegations are carefully packaged into otherwise undisputed Jewish Holocaust and other undisputed genocides like Rwanda, Cambodia, and others, and truth is deliberately misrepresented in this "package deal", designed to dupe the unsuspecting viewer into believing that "Armenian allegations must be true, since they are mentioned in the same TV series with the undisputed truth of Jewish Holocaust". We urge you and your colleagues to do the right thing: Either be fair and include responsible opposing views for the benefit of your unsuspecting viewers, Or get off the air, until you remove the Armenian allegation contained in your series. Peace, Ergun KIRLIKOVALI Turkish Forum California *** Distortion of Turkish History "If the allegations against the Turks were true, the Greek Patriarchate and the Armenian Patriarchate wouldnot be found in Istanbul" TO: BOSTON GLOBE April 8, 2002 Theodore G. Karakostas's distortion of Turkish history is a quintessential example of the fraud perpetrated by Armenian "hate merchants" since 1890 ("US should press Turkey on terrorism," op ed, March 25). As the son of Armenian and Syrian Orthodox parents, I have devoted my life to educating my country of the true events of Ottoman Turkey and the suffering of all the peoples of a land ravaged by a world war. Karakostas evidently never learned about the revolutionary paramilitary groups that since 1865 were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Turkish civilians and military forces. The highest levels of government achieved by Armenians, Greeks, and the Jews was another fact he overlooked. If the allegations against the Turks were true, the Greek Patriarchate and the Armenian Patriarchate would not be found in Istanbul. The Jewish and Syrian Orthodox religious entities would not be found there, either. Karakostas's name begins with a Turkish syllable, as does my name, as do 85 percent of Armenian family names. These are but a few of the facts Karakostas and your newspaper will not print because this is Boston. Edward Tashji Director of Public Affairs Federation of Turkish American Associations New York

Unfortunately, the Israelis and the Arabs went at each other's throats more violently than ever. Arab youths blew up themselves in crowded Israeli places to kill and injure as many Jews as possible, and prime minister Ariel Sharon brought the war to Palestinian population in a very harsh way. An ugly war is now going on there. Stung by the intense reaction of the European and Arab states, President Bush announced on April 4, that he would send Secretary of State General Powell to Israel to try to resolve the conflict.

Here comes the question as to whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solvable at all. When two groups fight, their conflict may be resolved by a third party, if both groups want a solution. If one group wants a solution, but the other group does not, then there is no possibility of peace. It usually takes one side to start a war, but it takes two sides to make peace. If the group that wants peace is unable to get it, because its opponent does not want it, it has only one good option: It must defeat its opponent group completely and absolutely and deprive it of any means and resources of continuing the conflict. If it cannot do that, it is condemned to keep on fighting.

After WWII, the UN divided the British mandate called Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews and created the new state of Israel. Turkey was one of the first states recognizing Israel. Palestinian Arabs and other Arab states objected violently to this new state and declared war on it. The fact that the Arab side representing a population of 100 millions was defeated by the Jews totaling barely 2.5 millions, terribly humiliated the Arabs. I discussed in past articles the reason of this defeat. The Arabs tried a few more times to eliminate Israel, but each time they were again defeated. In the 1970's Egypt had enough of this conflict and President Sadat made peace with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt assassinated him for doing that. All the Arab states, except Egypt and Jordan, refused to accept Israel's right to exist. After the formation of the Islamic Republic, Iran too joined the Arab states in refusing to recognize Israel. It did more: it supported and managed several groups of Palestinian Arabs in organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that actively opposed any peace movement or process between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

During the last decades the Palestinians were led by Yasser Arafat. Since the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the U.S. started to talk to him and tried to broker a peace between him and the Israelis. But each time peace seemed to be close, the groups led by Iran somehow torpedoed it . Thus, Arafat did not control Hamas and Hezbollah, still the United States tried to broker peace with him. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the Israelis under prime minister Barak, made a very good proposal , that Arafat did not accept. That was a big mistake. After that, the frustrated and disgusted Israelis elected Ariel Sharon, who, as expected, started the war.

How can anyone stop this war? The United States may lean on Israel and might succeed in having Sharon evacuate the occupied Arab lands, but will not have the power to prevent new Palestinians to blow themselves up in order to kill more Israelis. Actually, on April 8th, it does not look like even prime minister Sharon will listen to President Bush. The only theoretical way to stop the carnage would be to physically separate the Arabs from the Jews and keep them separated. I don't know whether this is practically feasible. There are many Israeli settlements right inside the Arab lands. These settlers go back and forth into Israel proper. It would be very difficult to keep ill-willing Arabs away from them.

There are many Palestinians who do not want war, but the Hamas and Hezbollah people make sure that the conflict goes on, because the Chief Priests in Iran want them to fight until Israel is destroyed. The Israelis are just as divided. There are Israelis who are willing to live next door to a peaceful Palestinian State and there are Israelis who believe that the entire land , including the Arab lands, really belong to them, because the Bible gave them those lands. The latter are now on the driver's seat, and their man, Sharon, is systematically destroying everything that the Palestinians have so far built in preparing themselves to become a state. The suicide bombers certainly terrorize the population. They strike at bus stations, cafes, pizza parlors, just to kill or maim common people. In response, the Army destroys Palestinian police stations and the like and kills a few more people in the process. But there has never been a massacre.

The recent statement by the Turkish prime minister Bulent Ecevit that Israel has been committing "genocide" against the Palestinians is an enormous falsehood and a monumental political blunder. Ariel Sharon certainly acted very harshly against the people who produced the suicide bombers, but he did not commit any massacre, let alone a genocide. Israel has been a good military and political ally of Turkey, and certainly did not deserve such treatment. This shows again that the sickly prime minister of Turkey should finally resign and permit a full-time real prime minister to take his place. He is reported to be making many smaller blunders, such as calling the president of Afghanistan "The General Director of Afghanistan" and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair " The Foreign Minister of England" Of course his earlier blunder in creating an economic crisis in Turkey and causing the value of the Turkish Lira to suddenly drop by 40 % has been his biggest blunder. None of the Turkish columnists agreed with the prime minister. They criticized him for his blunder.

I believe that the war with Saddam Hussein could not wait until the Israeli-Palestinian problem is resolved. That resolution perhaps will take several more years. Reuel Marc Gerecht in Wall Street Journal (4-8-02) writes that only war can burn out suicide bombers among Palestinians. That is precisely what Sharon is giving to them right now, against the demands of the U.S. President. Michael B. Oren, also in Wall Street Journal (4-9-02), writes that the U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been governed by two rationales: (1) Israeli reprisals could interrupt the flow of Arab oil to the West and (2) would drive moderate Arab states into Soviet -- later, Islamic radical -- spheres. Thus the U.S. has always tried to rein in Israel. However, none of the feared scenarios ever happened. The U.S. policies did not produce peace, they produced the very wars they aimed to prevent. Thus , Mr. Oren's title was "Don't Hold Israel Back" . Since, President Bush cannot really prevent Israeli-Palestinian fighting now, he must decide whether he should plan to attack Iraq in spite of the trouble in Israel or postpone the whole Iraq war and take the risk of a Saddam with developed weapons of mass destruction.

The views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of ATAA.

Has Bernard Lewis Fallen Short?
Bruce Fein-Bernard Lewis' smartly written best seller, "What Went Wrong," reads like an unfinished Beethoven symphony. The Middle East maven deftly discredits excuses for the region's gloomy switch from history's locomotive to its dilapidated caboose. What disappoints is Lewis' decrescendo in which vacuity substitutes for constructive advice. Thus, Lewis platitudinously preaches: "If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination; perhaps from a new Europe reverting to old ways, perhaps from Russia, perhaps from some new expanding superpower in the East. If they can abandon grievances and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies, and resources in a common creative endeavor, then they can once again make the Middle East in modern times as it was in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, a major center of civilization. For the time being, the choice is their own."

With all due respect for Lewis' deserved brilliance, doesn't that coda bespeak more intellectual flab than tautness? Where is the evidence that Palestinian suicide bombers are spreading like an infectious disease to the streets of Cairo, Damascus, Beirut or Mecca? Indeed, Arab League members either vocally or tacitly support terrorist suicides in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And they are prepared for ruthless action against religious extremism aimed at their respective police states. Emblematic was Syrian President Hafez Assad's grisly massacre of tens of thousands at Homa. Further, the prevailing Middle East culture of hate and wretchedness, rage and self-pity, penury and degradation has hit rock bottom, with no room for a downward spiral. It is because so many in the Middle East have nothing more to lose, either materially or spiritually, that they are willing or even eager to forfeit their lives at the drop of a hat to wreak vengeance on Israel or the United States.

Is alien domination of the Middle East a plausible concern for earthbound statesmen? Lewis speculates that a new Europe might return for a second edition of colonial supremacy. But the EU seems frightened by its own shadow. It left the Balkans mess largely to the United States. Ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan. Its unmuscular military profile is further atrophying. Its much ballyhooed rapid reaction force remains embryonic. It bellows loudly but carries a microscopic stick in Palestine.

Lewis also selects a resurgent Russia as a candidate for bestriding the Middle East like a colossus. But the Russian military and economy are in shambles. Its soldiers are unable to pacify Chechnya. Its backward technology slumbers. It cannot afford its present nuclear arsenal. Corruption is rife. And its influence in the Middle East oscillates between slim and none. In sum, a Russian Bear in the area seems chimerical for as far as the eye can see.

Lewis' third candidate for Middle East domination seems equally fanciful: a new, expanding superpower in the East. Japan's economy has been in a tailspin for more than a decade, and its population grows daily more geriatric than soldier-like. Its no-war clause in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution enjoys popular enthusiasm. Japan's major worries and grievances are with Russia, North and South Korea, and China. The Middle East is denied even honorable mention.

China has historically shunned foreign adventurism. It has never displayed enthusiasm for retracing the steps of Mongol icon Genghis Khan. China's interests are far closer to home. It covets Taiwan; minor border disputes with Russia, Vietnam and India persist; and, islands in Southeast Asian waters disturb relations with China's neighbors in the region. Its Islamic Uigur community chronically pricks its side. In light of the foregoing, to think that China might make an unprecedented dash to the Middle East to sit atop its desolation is to cross the line from prophecy to hallucination.

The United States seems the most probable alien dominator aiming to keep its cornucopian economy amply fueled with oil and gas. That was nine-tenths of the explanation of the Persian Gulf War. A fortiori regarding the current presence of United States forces in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Professor Lewis inexplicability declines to explore an American suzerainty in the Arab-Muslim-Persian world.

The celebrated author commands unexcelled wide and deep understanding of the Middle East. But his recipe for a new birth of indigenous Middle East greatness and luster seems jejune. He schoolmarmishly lectures its people to stand above grievances and jealousies; to hang together for the common good; to play the Good Samaritan; in other words, to act more like angels and less like humans.

But ever since Genesis, human conflict and misery has predominated because human nature is disinclined to follow Lewis' lofty exhortations. The task of the educator and statesman is to craft institutions and incentives that will thwart or blunt congenital rivalries and vaulting ambitions. That is what adds octane to their knowledge and enables them to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Otherwise, they seem as irrelevant as Glendower's empty boasting in Shakespeare's King Henry IV-PartI:

Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them."

Constitutional scholar attorney Bruce Fein is a syndicated columnist, TV commentator and an ATAA Adjunct Scholar.

The Case for a Turkish Peace Plan
By Albert Nekimken, Special for The Turkish Times-The Tunisian was correct. Osama bin Laden was wrong. On April 5, Turkish Parliamentary speaker Omer Izgi met with Tunisian President Zine Al Abidine bin Ali, who suggested that Turkey should take a leading role in resolving the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians based on its close ties with both the U.S. and Israel. Ali omitted the Palestinians, who would likely be skeptical of Turkish participation for those same reasons. However, on the same day as this meeting in Tunis, Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit made a public, headline-grabbing statement in Ankara in which he accused Israel of committing "genocide" against the Palestinians through its current military action in the West Bank. Ecevit partially retracted his statement the next day-after a heated reaction from the Jewish lobby in Washington and consultations with his own Foreign Ministry, which reminded him of the many important agreements that were in place between Turkey and Israel. Even so, Ecevit insisted that he had intended mainly to express the frustration of the Turkish public, as evidenced by anti-Israel protest demonstrations that were occurring around the country. Although intended as a retraction, Ecevit may have succeeded in establishing his credentials with the Palestinians for the role envisioned by the Tunisian president.

Tunisia gave refuge to Arafat and the PLO after General Sharon expelled them from Beirut in an earlier chapter of the struggle between them that continues today. Tunisians understand that Turkey has a unique, and as yet unfulfilled, role to play as heir to the Ottoman Empire that once encompassed all of the lands in dispute, as well as by virtue of the Turkish Republic's own struggles during the modern period with virtually all of the issues at stake between Israel and the Palestinians.

In early videotape, Osama bin Laden justified his terrorism as an effort to repair the damage to the Islamic community that occurred when Kemalist Turkey abolished the Caliphate and, in his view, left Muslims everywhere adrift. This was bin Laden's answer to the question, "What went wrong?," that Bernard Lewis describes as the central preoccupation of Ottomans during the last two hundred years of the Empire as it slowly declined in wealth and power in relation to the Western powers. Bin Laden is wrong in believing that a restoration of the caliphate would ipso facto restore Muslims to their former prominence in the world, but his proposal has the merit of focusing attention on the pivotal role of Turkey in effecting a solution to the current friction along what Samuel Huntington calls a "fault line" between two civilizations.

Ironically, bin Laden hopes as well to overturn the Saudi monarchy, which he considers corrupt, at the same time that the Bush administration is attempting to promote the Saudi peace plan. As the title of Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan's April 6 article in the Washington Post suggests-"Why Israel Must Stop The Terror"-neither Saudi Arabia nor any other Arab country can, unfortunately, match Turkey's unique stature in the role of peacemaker. The ambassador credits the impasse between Israel and Palestine to "the insane policies of [Israel's] leader" and ends with a series of oversimplifications, inaccuracies and deceptions. The much promoted Saudi peace initiative asks nothing of the Palestinians, while insisting that Israel make its citizens more convenient targets for terrorists. He implies that the dispute between the antagonists is merely one of territory and borders, forgetting that, in 1967, when those borders were last in place, Israel was attacked from all sides-even though there was no occupation and there were no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Also, between 1948 and 1967, there was no initiative to establish a Palestinian state, despite the lack of any obstacle to do so. The Saudi plan, however sincere, which was endorsed by the Arab community in Beirut, has no credibility at all from Israel's point of view.

In contrast, Prime Minister Ecevit's statement regarding the situation, albeit ill-advised for the use of wrong terminology and, as such, protested rightly by Turkish opinion makers, civil society, including Turkish American organizations, also included a suggestion that there were "elements" in the Arab world that were undermining (and perhaps colluding in) the destruction of the Palestinian Administration (PA) because the PA threatened to create a democratic Arab alternative to the dictatorships and theocracies that exist elsewhere in the region. Only a Turk, representing arguably the only democratic, Islamic country in the world, could make such a comment in public.

In fact, only Turkey has experience in coping with all of the critical issues at stake between Israel and the Palestinians, which include:

1. Living with terrorist attacks against civilians;
2. The struggle for territorial integrity against foreign powers and domestic militants;
3. The struggle between secularism and religious fundamentalism;
4. The long-term effort to overcome hate and integrate potentially separatist minorities;
5. The role of the military in forming government policy;
6. Providing economic development and water.

Turkey shares with Israel the painful experience of coping with terrorist attacks on civilians and, while neither country has found a panacea, Turkey can share what it has learned regarding what works, and what does not work. Turkey has walked in Israel's shoes.

Turkey shares with the Palestinians the long struggle for independence from foreign powers that would have preferred a weak, docile, client state within untenable borders. It also understands the struggle with internal militants that are dedicated to undermining the integrity of the state.

Turkey shares with Israel the problem of reconciling religious fundamentalism with modernism and Westernization within the framework of a democratic, secular state-which is what the Palestinians profess to want to create. Turkey shares with Palestinians the challenge of preventing religion from being perverted by fundamentalists who are unable and unwilling to compromise, and who profess to speak for all Muslims, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Turkey's own solution is far from complete and not a total success, but it represents a great advance over what most other Muslim nations have been able to achieve in this area.

In a region where hatreds have been nurtured over centuries, Turkey has much to teach Israel and Palestinian Arabs. Despite the continuing insistence of Armenians worldwide to force Turkey to admit to having committed genocide against them, (which Turks resist as an inaccurate allegation based on historic and legal grounds), they are patiently participating in a framework of efforts at reconciliation, including better relations with the country of Armenia, as well as the Armenian diaspora around the world. Perhaps more significant, Armenians with Turkish citizenship enjoy the same rights as other citizens. Similarly, despite the long years of military struggle, terrorism-both within Turkey and abroad-and lost opportunities, Kurds enjoy the benefits of Turkish citizenship, hold public office, and are largely integrated into mainstream society.

Turkey shares with Israel the challenge of finding the correct role for the military in society and the formation of government policy. In both countries, the military is considered the most important guarantor of the modern state, despite misgivings about its ability to dominate political debate-and its potential for making serious mistakes. Just as Prime Minister Sharon is held accountable for disasters that occurred under his authority during the invasion of Lebanon, so Kenan Evren and his former military government are being held increasingly accountable for the mistake of supporting fundamentalist Islamic elements in Turkey as a means of strengthening society's dislike of communism and what the military perceived as communist-oriented trends. In retrospect, the error of this policy is being identified as the source of many of the country's problems today.

Turkey shares with the Palestinians the difficult task of imposing civilian control over the military (and paramilitary) when the quality of civilian leadership is weak. The military tends to overstep traditional roles given in democratic regimes when there is no credible civilian authority to impose a strong civil framework.

Finally, Turkey offers the benefit of its experience-its errors as well as its successes-in economic development. Turkey's lack of oil and the wealth that oil provides its Arab neighbors reduces its economic profile, but it has ample water resources in the eastern region of the country, which may prove in the future to be more valuable than oil. More important, Turkey has offered to sell water to Syria, Israel, Palestine and the Gulf states.

Unfortunately, because of the country's lack of oil, its recurring financial crises and its diplomatic difficulties with European Union, Turkish diplomats have been inhibited from fulfilling the role that Turkey could and should take in the Middle Eastern peace process. In some respects, Turks are too modest.

At an academic meeting recently, I met a professor of Pakistani origin named, "Mustafa Kemal Pasha." He explained that his name reflected his family's admiration for Mustafa Kemal in liberating Turkey from its would-be colonial masters. Turks need to make a new effort to inspire such admiration today. They owe it to themselves, their Ottoman heritage, and to their troubled neighbors.

Albert Nekimken is a political consultant and can be reached at anekimken@cox.rr.com

2002:The Critical Year for Turkey
By Mehmet Ali Birand, Special to the Western Policy Center-The year 2002 is-and will continue to be-full of challenges for Turkey. The country's 70-year-old economic and political systems are being debated, old taboos are being broken, and long-accepted dogmas are being abandoned.

It is time that both those governing Turkey and those that are governed set aside their old belief systems and adapt to the winds of change that started to blow through Turkey in 2001, especially after the onset of the country's economic crisis and the mounting emphasis on fulfilling IMF and EU criteria.

This is not an easy thing to do. The transformation process is putting pressure on Turkish society and, as the pressure builds, it makes life increasingly difficult for some. It is inevitable that reconciliation efforts and attempts to find compromises will cause tension.

However, as Turkey passes through this transition phase, it is fortunate to be led by a three-party coalition that is taking the needed strides forward despite the fact that the parties represent people of different worlds. The Nationalist Action Party is conservative and skeptical of EU accession, while the centrist Motherland Party and the euro-socialist Democratic Left Party are pro-EU.

The changes may not be happening as quickly as needed, but the coalition is making them without going for one another's throats.

These transformational issues requiring immediate attention have converged to make 2002 one of the most critical years in Turkey's history.

From Turkey's perspective, the most important challenge is ending the economic crisis by faithfully executing economic reforms that have been designated in conjunction with the IMF. These reforms have to be implemented to the letter if the economic recovery is to proceed. This is what the Turkish people, and domestic and foreign investors, are expecting.

A malfunctioning watch has been repaired. Now, everyone wants to see if it is going to work correctly. Just one step backwards will give the impression that the measures are, in effect, window-dressing. If this is the case, Turkey will revert to its old ways.

There is enormous pressure for such a reversion. A return to the status quo is the desire of some reactionary segments of society and some people in political circles that are tempted to use budgetary sources for their own political gain, as was the case in the past.

However, Turkey is grasping its last chance to escape from this vicious cycle. It is either going to modernize its economic system by giving market forces room to maneuver, or it is going to sink into a swamp of high inflation and foreign debt from which it will never emerge.

Another critical benchmark is the December EU summit, where the EU is going to pass out Christmas presents. Ten candidate countries, including Cyprus, will receive membership packages. Two other candidates, Romania and Bulgaria, will be given roadmaps to membership.

The only candidate left standing will be Turkey, which has yet to start membership discussions. Turkey must implement the Copenhagen criteria before these proceedings can begin. If it fails to do so, it will miss the EU's last expansion train and will have to wait 10 to 15 years for another expansion process to begin.

The longer Turkey remains excluded from the EU, the more the government's drive to reform will diminish, and Turkish society will be deeply disappointed.

Cyprus and the Aegean issues constitute another critical matter with respect to Turkish-EU relations. Cyprus is the key to Turkish-Greek relations. This problem has to be solved by fall 2002.

There are two possible scenarios. The desirable scenario will be a formula, agreed to by both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, which will allow both sides to simultaneously attain EU membership status within one state. This scenario will transform the Aegean into a sea of peace, allowing the traditional enmity between Turkey and Greece to dissipate. A new relationship between the countries will begin, to everyone's benefit.

The disastrous scenario will be a failure to find a solution to the Cyprus problem. As a result, while southern Cyprus becomes an EU member, northern Cyprus will be excluded from the process as it becomes mired in the Turkish-EU relationship. This will be felt not only in Cyprus, but also in the Aegean region as a whole. Ankara's strides toward the EU will falter, and Turkish-Greek relations will again become tense.

This scenario should not be allowed to happen. Turkey, Greece, and both Cypriot communities share responsibility in making sure it does not.

Turkey and Greece have to stop watching from the sidelines and should become directly involved in helping to find a Cyprus solution. Both will be affected significantly by the outcome in Cyprus. Therefore, they should emulate the actions of Karamanlis and Averoff in Greece and Menderes and Zorlu in Turkey, who took the necessary steps in 1960 to create the independent state of Cyprus.

Until December 2001, pressure was brought to bear on Rauf Denktash, who then made concessions and opened the way for direct discussions with Glafcos Clerides. Now it is Clerides' turn.

Greek Cypriots have to refrain from flipping the calendar back to the years before 1974. They have to ignore the past and accept the conditions that exist today. Denktash's proposal for a partner state formula with a weak federal structure has to be closely considered as a way of facilitating a Cyprus solution.

If the Greek diaspora wants the Aegean to become a sea of peace, it has to encourage Clerides to seek a settlement based on the island's realities. It should not let him be held hostage by the Greek Cypriot opposition. This is a historical opportunity that cannot be thrown away.

Another issue that will make its mark in 2002, especially with regard to the Kurdish problem, will be Turkey's implementation of constitutional reforms relating to democracy and human rights. Important strides have been taken to this end, but efforts to put these new laws into effect have to continue this year.

Important changes will also be made this year to laws governing political parties and elections.

The relationship between Turkey and the United States took on new meaning after September 11. Washington's partnership with Turkey, which took hold particularly during President Clinton's second term, has been augmented.

For the first time, Turkey has proved in a clear and forthright manner that it can be a trusted U.S. ally. The U.S. has also provided clear gestures indicating that Ankara holds a unique place in the region.

The year 2002 may also be marked by an important testing of the Turkish-U.S. relationship with respect to Iraq. Turkey cannot remain neutral on the Iraq issue. Despite the risks involved, it has to lend full support to Washington's handling of Baghdad.

This will be the correct stance to take, both in terms of the relationship Turkey has developed with the U.S. and in terms of the benefits for Turkey if a democratic Iraq without Saddam at the helm, no longer facing international sanctions, emerges.

Turkey is the most stable, democratic, secular country in the Islamic world. If it meets the challenges it faces in 2002, this will be beneficial not only for Turkey, but also for its neighbors and the United States.

Istanbul-based Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand anchors a news broadcast on CNN-Turk and is a syndicated columnist for the Turkish newspapers Posta, Hurriyet, Milliyet, and Turkish Daily News. He has written books on the Cyprus dispute and Turkish-Greek relations.

The EU Hype:Ticket to Riches? Or Just a Bill of Goods?
By Ilyas Botas, Special to The Turkish Times-Many years ago, there was a joke making the rounds in Turkey: A nouveau-riche woman walks into a clothing-material store and asks to see some Europe-made cloth. The clerk spreads a sample on the counter and says, "Madam, this is the finest English cloth we have." The woman turns up her nose at it and sneers, "yes, yes, but don't you have any European cloth?" (Bunun Avrupalisi yok mu?)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.Today, the ardent Turkish Europhiles, those who strive to be more Catholic than the pope and those sycophants who try to be more royalist than the king, are portraying EU membership as a sine qua non for Turkey's future. Recently, when a high-ranking Turkish general expressed misgivings about the EU, the Euro zealots demanded the immediate lynching of this fellow. Off with his head, they said. EU membership is the best thing that could happen to Turkey since doner kebap, or at least since Constantinople became Istanbul, they said. The "Manifest Destiny" of Turkey is in the EU and anyone who doubts this, is a Neanderthal, they said. Raise doubts and you are immediately branded public enemy number one by this gang, who seem to be acting as shills employed by colonial viceroys like Karen Fogg and Gunter Verheugen.

Europe is fine and dandy. But there is just a slight problem here. To date, not a single Turkish Euro advocate has explained in detail, the benefits that will be showered upon the Turkish nation if she were to join this much-vaunted EU. Is this EU membership manna from heaven, or is it pie in the sky? God only knows. Mesut Yilmaz, Turkey's EU transition meister, certainly does not. He seems to be more befuddled than the rest of us hoi polloi. At least the rest of us know what we want. If EU membership is a do or die decision for Turkey, why hasn't a single "expert" presented the public with a cost/benefit list? Are these experts afraid of the good sense of the common people, or are they just as confused as Mesut Yilmaz? This issue seems to be a no-brainer: Just tell us what the nation will gain by membership, and what price for this gain. And please, we would rather that the explanations come from sources other than master illusionists and smoke-and-mirror artists.

EU proponents cite that some 70% of Turks favor joining this club, but here's the rub: There are lies; there are damnable lies; then there are statistics! Exactly how many of that 70% can cite what benefits will be accrued by Turkey in joining the EU? I've tried to follow this EU deal as best I could, and still, I can't tell if EU membership is a bane or a boon for Turkey. Had the pollster bothered with my opinion, my answer would have been that I haven't the foggiest. (No pun on Karen Fogg)

When the "experts" do not deign to provide us with detailed costs/benefits of EU membership, it only goes to remind us of the duplicity of the politicians who promised "two keys plus a green card for everyone." If Suleyman and his wunderkind, Tansu, passed out these goodies, I sure didn't get mine. The condescending attitude of these we-know-what's-best crowd, further reminds us of the politician who, when asked to enunciate his agenda, replies, " I will bring you the best of everything." (herseyin en iyisini getirecegiz, herseyin en guzelini yapacagiz) Enough already! Give us the particulars! We're capable of sorting it out.

The dearth of detailed discussion on the good and the bad of EU membership engenders suspicions: By design, the Euro zealots seem desperately to want the average poor Turk to believe that within two minutes of Turkey's entry into the Euro club, he will become as rich as a German in Dusseldorf. Or at least he will be able to pack up with his family and move to Amsterdam for the good life on Easy Street (lukus hayat.) This is the Grand Illusion - for the sake of propriety we won't call it the Big Lie. And if perchance, the Turkish politicians are regarding an EU entry as a safety valve which they can use to send, say, ten or fifteen million poor people to Europe, they had better think again.

The EU rules are not written in granite. Ahead of Turkey are eleven countries on the candidates list. The pie gets ever smaller. Already, Greece has practically milked the Euro cow dry. By the time Turkey joins, there won 't be much in the way of subsidies. If and when Turkey joins, the rules on the right of free movement may be rescinded. In another couple years, the EU roster will contain many more taking members than giving members. It's no secret that Germany, the sugardaddy of Europe, has been grumbling about its huge burden of the EU budget. At the other end, the takers have no intention of giving up their acquired rights and cherished subsidies. Belgians have a higher per capita income than Germans. But just try to get them to forgo their EU largesse and see how far you get. The Brits are still undecided if the EU is a good idea. Recently, Maggie Thatcher in no uncertain terms, made clear her displeasure with this Euro club.

No need to delve here into issues of political reform, more democratization etc. These things are possible without the EU; witness the United States.

The U.S. was doing pretty good long before a united Europe was a just a gleam in the eyes of Jean Monnet. By the time Turkey's wise men lead us into the Euro paradise, this organization may have ceased to exist. Or it may have broken up into smaller blocs. Lest all of the above be taken as an argument against Turkey's joining the European Union, it ain't necessarily so. Rather, it is more of a call for debate on the pros and cons of the matter. We eagerly await for someone to list the rewards that will come to Turkey via EU membership. Mesut Yilmaz is a lost cause, but what about the economy wizard, Kemal Dervis? If Mr. Dervis will not enlighten us, then who will? God forbid, not Mehmet Ali Birand, I hope.

The author can be reached at nbotas@bellatlantic.net

Who Needs the Arabs?-We can win by being winners
By Barbara Lerner, National Review, April 2, 2002-Polls show Americans are clear about the need to strike Saddam Hussein before he attacks us with weapons of mass destruction. But when it comes to means, clarity vanishes in the fog of "conventional wisdom" endlessly recycled by Western pack journalists. That wisdom is summed up in the self-defeating non sequitur that could be heard, hourly, on every newscast in America as Vice President Cheney toured the Middle East: To make war on Iraq - repeat after me - "We need Arab allies." There are two main problems with this journalistic cliché: first that it isn't true, and second that it's against our interests. Pack journalists offer four reasons for it: because without Arab allies, we'd be at war with the whole Muslim world; because we need military bases in Arab lands; "stability in the Middle East"; and Arab oil. All four are false.

Take military bases. To defeat Saddam, we need secure bases in friendly countries - close enough to Iraq to help us launch and supply our forces. Pack journalists maintain that only Arab lands can provide them. Nonsense; look at a map. There, on Iraq's northern border, sits Turkey - as staunch a NATO ally as Britain, because when it comes to terrorism, Turkey's interests are the same as ours. Muslim terrorism comes in three main varieties, and responsible Turks hate them all. Islamic religious terrorism is a threat to everything the secular Turkish Republic stands for. Nationalist terrorism of the every-tribe-must-have-a-separate-state variety is an equal threat. In the 1990s, Turkey fought a long, tough war against the Kurdish separatists of the PKK, a terrorist group responsible for thousands of Turkish deaths. And, of course, Turkey fears Saddam's weapons of mass destruction too. That's why Turkey joined us in the Gulf War and lent us Incirlik air base. It's why she'll help again, without making us compromise our interests or our principles. She has only three reasonable requirements: this time, finish the job; make no deals with Iraqi Kurds that might reignite Kurdish separatism; and please, make this war less damaging to the Turkish economy than Gulf War I was.

Why, if this good news is true, do we hear nothing of it? Why does our press ignore Turks? Partly, it's tradition. Alleged human-rights abuses aside, the Western press has ignored Turkey for decades. Partly, it's taste. All those hard-working, increasingly well-educated, pro-Western Muslims, making economic progress and maintaining a Turkish form of democracy - boring. Arabs, by contrast, offer a transgressive feast - millions of illiterate, impoverished Muslim victims of Western imperialism. And then, too, there's the ever popular "peace process." Besides, Arab leaders are eager to offer dramatic sound bites about the "catastrophes" an attack on Iraq will provoke; the Turks offer nothing comparable. The Teddy Roosevelt of the Middle East, Turkey speaks softly but carries a big stick. A nation of 66 million, she has long had universal male conscription, and an officer corps selected on the basis of rigorous merit standards. Some think it is the biggest, best army in the world, next to ours - and it will be behind us, when we're ready. Until then, Turks won't put civilian lives at risk by poking verbal sticks in Saddam's eye.

Well and good for our launch-and-supply paths from the north, you say, but don't we need another ally to give us comparable bases in the south? Yes, we do, and we have one, but it's a secret. Arab propaganda has succeeded in making it not just unmentionable, but unthinkable. Well, let's break the taboo: Israel is close enough to Iraq's southern flank to provide excellent bases for our forces. "But, but, but," conventional wisdom splutters: "We can't do that. It would turn the 'Muslim world' against us." But of course, the Arab world is not the Muslim world - much less its rightful spokesman. And Turkey will not turn against us if Israel is in our coalition. The Turks already work closely with the Israeli military: They've been doing it for years, because the terrorists who menace Israel menace them too. Turkey has big problems with Syria and Iraq - but she has no quarrel with Israel or America, and none with Turkish citizens who are Jews or Christians. Turks of both faiths worship freely in this overwhelmingly Muslim country, and suffer no discrimination. So, too, do millions of loyal Turkish Kurds who eschew the path of separatism.

Still, all Arab states will be outraged if we use Israeli bases, and we can't have that, can we? That would vitiate another pack journalist's cliché: our need for "Stability in the Middle East." This, too, is false, and contrary to our interests. Stability here means the maintenance of the status quo in all the corrupt, despotic Arab states that repress and impoverish their subjects. Arab despots need it; it's what keeps them in power, and they maintain it in ways that hurt us. They use their government-controlled presses to spew forth a constant stream of hate propaganda, blaming all their failures on America and Israel, and they export Arab subjects whose violence can't be controlled, even in the police states they run. Omar Abdul Rahman, the man behind the first Trade Towers attack, is one such export; Osama bin Laden is another. Yasser Arafat, too - he and his Palestinians have been kicked out of half a dozen Arab states. And, of course, there are thousands of less famous Arab exports abroad, busily fomenting new attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other "Stans," not to mention in India, Chechnya, Georgia, the Philippines, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. From an Arab despot's perspective, this makes sense: better blood in the streets of Kashmir, New York, and Jerusalem, than in Cairo, Riyadh, and Damascus. But we have no stake in helping despots avoid reform by diverting their people's rage onto us. Far better, for us, to see the Arab world destabilized than to stand helplessly by and watch Arabs destabilize the rest of the world, as they do today.

That brings us to reason four, Arab oil. What if Arab rulers retaliate by refusing to sell to us? Relax. This is 2002, not 1973. The Arab stranglehold on the oil we need is long gone. Much of our oil today comes from countries eager to sell us more, as Russia is. And when we take Iraq, we'll put a very big oil spigot in friendly hands. There could be a temporary supply disruption while we do that, but other Arab states will make up for it, like it or not. As Rich Lowry rightly insists, their need to sell oil exceeds our need to buy it. They have no other industry, and nothing else worth exporting. To get the cash they need to sustain their shaky tyrannies, they must sell their oil to somebody - and there's nothing to stop those somebodys from reselling it to us, at a nice profit. Bottom line? A temporary spike in prices, but no lasting economic damage.

It's time to stop genuflecting to the Arabs, compromising our interests and principles on the absurd assumption that we can't do whatever we need to do - attack Iraq, defend Israel, support freedom in Iran, and openly acknowledge the manifest superiority of the Turkish model for all Muslim nations - without Arab blessings. Afterwards, relations may well improve since, as bin Laden himself put it, "People naturally prefer the strong horse," i.e., everybody loves a winner. We are the winners; let's act like it. We deserve to win, and so do our natural coalition partners: Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Christians who believe in freedom, progress, and tolerance. Let's all pray together that President Bush knows it too, and will act on it, boldly, and soon.

Lerner is a freelance writer in Chicago. The views expressed above belong to their author and they do not necessarily reflect the views of ATAA or The Turkish Times.

Ermeni iddiasi ve Atatürk'le ilgili Büyük Yalan
By Mustafa Yildirim, Turkistan Bulteni, 5 Mart 2002-Avrupalilar, Ermeni soykirimi iddialarina da-yanak olarak Atatürk'ün bu soykirimi kabul eden bir ifade verdigine dair büyük bir yalanla desteklediler.

AB'nin kararina utangaçça karsi çikan TBMM de, karari kinayan rektörler de bu yalana deginmediler. Ve böyle yapmakla bu kuyruklu yalani dolayli olarak kabul etmis oldular.

Oysa bu yalan yillar önce de, Ermeni teröristin yargilandigi Orly katliami davasinda yinelenmisti. O zaman, Türkkaya Ataöv, bu yalani kanitlariyla birlikte sergileyen bir Ingilizce Rapor yazmisti. "A 'Statement' wrongly attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" yani "Yanlis olarak M.Kemal Atatürk'e atfedilen sözler" adli rapor, Ankara Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi tarafindan 1984 yilinda ayrica kitap olarak yayinlanmistir. Kitapta yalanin belgerinin tipki kopyasi da bulunmaktadir. Kitap yaban ellerde Türkiye'yi karalayan yayinlara karsi bilimsel bir belge oldugundan Ingilizcedir. O günlerde, Türkiye'de aydin geçinenlerin Ermeni tezlerini, bu denli destekleyeceklerini, Avrupa-lilarin oyunlarina alet olacaklarini bilselerdi herhalde Türkçe olarak da yayinlarlardi. Iyi de olurmus, baksaniza bilim kurumlari adina açiklama yapanlar bile ne haldeler?

Yalan sundan ibarettir:

1) Fransiz Paul du Véou, 1938'de yayinlanan "Le Désastre d'Alexandrette" adli kitabinin dip notunda "Mustafa Kemal Istanbul'da 27 Ocak 1920'de çiktigi mahkemede Ermeni katli-amindan Osmanli Devleti'ni sorumlu tutan bir açiklama yapmistir" diye yazmis.

2) Amerikan vatandasi Ermeni Katolik Papazi Nesliyan, 1951 yilinda yayinlanan "Les memoires de Mgr. Jean Naslian" adli kitabinda bu yalani yinelemis.

3) Ermeni yazar Leon Sürmeliyan, bir kitaba (1976) yazdigi ön sözde "Türk hükümeti ve basini Mustafa Kemal Pasa'nin 28 Ocak 1919'da Harb Divani'nda verdigi ifadeyi unutuyor" diye yazmis.

Böylece yalan oradan oraya aktarilarak yayilmis ve içine girilesi Avrupa'nin parlamentosu'nda belgeye geçmis.

Oysa yalan ne denli açik degil mi? Hakkinda idam fermani kesilmis olan Mustafa Kemal kalkip, Ocak 1920'de Istanbul'a gidiyor ve Divan-i Harb'de ifade veriyor. Bu palavrayi pek yerinde görmeyen bir baskasi tarihi hemen bir yil öne aliyor.

Avrupa'nin ve Amerika'nin tarihçileri Türklerin tarihçilerinden daha iyi olduklarina göre inan gitsin!

Oysa Istanbul sikiyönetim mahkemelerinde konusan bir Mustafa Pasa vardir. Ayni mahkemenin resiligini yapan ve nice yurtseveri, bu arada Ermeni'leri katlettigi ileri sürülerek bir çok görevliyi astiran, kursuna dizdiren, 1919-1920 dönemi Divani Harb reisi, Nemrud Mustafa Pasa.

Bu yalana karsi çikanlar da, Ermeni yazarlar olmustur. Guerguerian, Papaz Nesliyan'a hatiralarini yayinlanmadan önce düzeltmesini önermistir. Papaz, bu düzeltmeyi yapmamis. Kitap bu yalanla birlikte 1960'da Ermeniceye çevrilmis. Guer-gurian, bu yalani beyrut'ta yayinlanan Massis Weekly (1967)'de ortaya koymus.

Ermeni yayinci Tasçiyan, Boston'da yayinlanan Massis (1982) adli haftalik dergide, "Çagdas Türkiye'nin kurucusu M. Kemal'in Harb Divani'nda ifade verdigini .. gösterir herhangi bir kanit yoktur," diye yalani sergilemistir.

Öncelikle üniversite yöneticileri, sonra meclis üyeleri ve hepsinden önce Disisleri yetkilileri bu isi ne denli ciddiye aliyorlar? Türk bilim adamlarinin Ingi-lizce, Fransizca bilimsel yayinlarini neden görmezden geliyorlar? Neden onlara danismadan afaki açiklamalar yapiyorlar! Ermeni yazarlar ikna olmuslar ama Türkleri inandirmak zor daha mi zorlasti?

Bu isler bir varolma davasidir. Bu dava mahkemelerde görülmektedir, gelecege yönelik taleplerin alt yapisini olusturmaktadir. Mahkeme konusu olan davalar, tarihe birakilacak "think tank" isi degildir. Devlet varligini ilgilendiren dava ise tarihe hiç birakilamaz. O dava açiklikla savunmayi gerektirir.

Egemenlige yönelmis kararlar ise, kinamakla, ayiplamakla, "aman incitmeyelim, bizi almazlar" anlayisiyla degerlendirilemez. Bagimsizlik savasi günlerinde, olanaklarin en dar oldugu, saldiri cephesinde çatlaklar olusturmanin en yasamsal önemede oldugu günlerdeki su degerlendirme yapilirken, egilip bükülme ya da tarihe birakma görülmemistir:

"Islam ve Islam olmayan Türk yurttaslari arasinda hiçbir ayirim yapmiyoruz. Böylece Rumlarin ve Ermenilerin düsmanla birlikte yurt hainligi yapmadiklari sürece kaygilanacaklari bir durum yoktur. Düsmanca iftira atanlarin büyük abartmalari disinda, Ermenilerin göçürülmesi isi kesinlikle su gerçege dayanmaktadir.

Rus ordusu 1915'de bize karsi büyük saldirisini basalattigi sirada çarlik güdümünde bulunan Tasnak Ermeni komitesi, savasan birliklerimizin gerisindeki Ermenileri ayaklandirmisti. Düsmanin sayi ve araç üstünlügü karsisinda çekilmek zporunda kaldigimiz için kendi-mizi iki ates arasinda kalmis görüyorduk. Lojistik (ikmal) ve rarali (destek) konvoylarimiz acimasizca öldürülü-yor ve yollar bozuluyor ve Türk köylerinde terör sürdürülüyordu. Bu cinayetleri isletenler ve yanlarina eli silah tutabilen bütün Ermenileri alan çeteler, silah, cephane ve yiyecek saglanmasini, büyük devletlerin baris döneminde kendilerine kapi-tülasyonlarin kazandirdigi imti-yazlardan yararlanarak bu amaç dogrultusunda, büyük stoklar olusturduklari Ermeni köylerinde yaparlardi.

Ingiltere'nin baris döneminde ve savas alanindan uzak Irlanda'ya uygun gördügü uygulamaya ilgi göstermeyen dünya kamuoyu, Ermeni halkin göçürülmesi konusunda almak zorunda kaldigimiz karar için bize karsi tutarli bir suçlamada bulunamaz. Mustafa Kemal - TBMM Baskani "

Bu açiklama, Philadelphia'da yayinlanan Public Ledger gazetesinin yönelttigi sorulara karsilik olarak 25 Subat 1921'de yapilmistir. Görülüyor ki, bu tür davalar, "kabul edilemez" gibi, yumusak, sözde karsi çikislari kaldirmaz. Apaçik yalanlara dayanan kararlari alanlarla iliski kurmak, hele ortaklik içine girmek ve bu yalanlari yayanlari muhatap kabul edip, temsilcilikler açma-larina göz yummak, tarihe birakilacak, basit ve bagislanabilir bir hata degildir!

1. A 'Statement' Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Türkkaya Ataöv, A.Ü. S:B.F. Basin Yayin Yüksek Okulu Basimevi, Ankara, 1984, 2. Paris, Editions Baudiniere, 1938, s.121, 3. Atatürk'ün Kurtulus Savasi Yazismalari II, Mustafa Onar,

T.C. K. Bakanligi Y. 1995, s.240
Bu yaziyla ilgili düsüncelerinizi sota@wanadoo.nl adresine gönderebilirsiniz.