"Armenians should learn to come to terms with their history"
"The question is neither denial nor revisionism. It is the need to look at the historical facts objectively"
Published in the Ottowa Citizen, Canada, July 19, 2002
Re: An overlooked outrage, July 11.

The Citizen certainly has all the right to appreciate and praise a film by a distinguished and successful Canadian film director.

When it comes to passing judgment beyond the film, on the tragic events in history which are of a highly controversial nature, it should be the responsibility of the journalist to be objective and knowledgeable.

It is totally wrong to state that Armenian claims are neglected. On the contrary, they are grossly exaggerated and regrettably, constantly nourished with distortions and half truths so much so that the hatred they instilled in young minds led to the murdering of 42 innocent Turkish diplomats and officials as well as many others in 15 years by the Armenian terrorists some seven decades after the tragic events of the First World War.

Three of these terrorist attacks took place in Ottawa, killing a Turkish military attaché and a Canadian security official, paralyzing another Turkish diplomat for the rest of his life and seriously wounding a Turkish ambassador, between 1982 and 1985. One should talk of "an overlooked Armenian terrorism" nourished by stories based on misinformation and distortion of facts. Media should certainly approach this sensitive and delicate issue with more care.

The question is neither denial nor revisionism. It is the need to look at the historical facts objectively, without a bias, and make an honest and fair assessment. After all, what sort of genocide is this where the Turkish Muslim losses were more than two million, far more than the Armenian losses?

Turks and Armenians have to live side by side as geography dictates. They lived together peacefully for so many centuries. Reconciliation is a must and sooner or later it will be achieved. The way to that is not one-sided, unfair and unsubstantiated incriminations.

Armenians should also learn to come to terms with their history. Only then the way to reconciliation will be opened and the future can be built to the benefit of both nations.

Erhan Ogüt,
Ottawa Ambassador Embassy of Turkey

Turkey's National Policy on Cyprus
TO: The Editor - Financial Times
Sir, Judy Dempsey ("The Turkish question," July 19) highlights the "unpredictability" of Turkish politics. In all this apparent "unpredictability", however, one thing in Turkey is quite predictable: its national policy on Cyprus.

From the beginning, Turkey has pursued a policy on Cyprus based on the peaceful coexistence of the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. This is why Turkey waited patiently for 11 years (1963-1974) while the Greek Cypriots agitated, conspired and shed blood in order to annex the island to Greece. When Turkey finally took action in July 1974 to prevent a wholesale massacre of Turkish Cypriots, following the Greek junta's coup d'etat, it did so after all avenues for a diplomatic solution had been exhausted and Cyprus stood at the threshold of a new tragedy.

Turkey has since supported all efforts aimed at a political settlement in Cyprus. Yet there are vital areas in which Turkey could not ask the Turkish Cypriot people to make a sacrifice, that is their security and sovereign quality with the Greek Cypriots in a new partnership; safeguards against a return to the status quo ante (the pre-1974 period); and the maintenance of the Greco-Turkish balance over the island. This consistent policy enjoys the support of the Turkish public opinion, the Parliament, and all major political parties, and, hence, can withstand the vicissitudes of Turkish domestic politics.

Sincerely,
Guler Koknar
Executive Director
Assembly of Turkish American Associations

Amb. Marcoullis speaks only for Greek Cypriots
July 21, 2002, Letters to the Editor - The Washington Times
3600 New York Ave. NE Washington, D.C. 20002
Erato Kozakaou Marcoullis ostensibly speaks for all Cypriots in comparing Nicosia to Berlin before the wall ("A time for change in Cyprus," Commentary, 7/21/02). Clearly, the ambassador speaks only for Greek Cypriots. How else to explain "The people of Cyprus are forced to mark, for yet another year, a sad anniversary full of painful memories…. Etc." when in Northern Cyprus the people were celebrating the same anniversary as the day of salvation?

The ambassador would have your readers believe that Turkey woke up one morning and decided to invade Cyprus. Turkey intervened as a last resort to prevent genocide of all Cypriot Turks by the terrorist Nikos Sampson who declared himself president after a Greek-engineered coups took over the government in 1974. The intervention was fully sanctioned under the Cypriot constitution.

It is indeed time for change in Cyprus but change will not come if representatives of Cyprus deny reality and ignore the existence of a fully functioning Turkish Republic of Cyprus.

Sincerely,

Ali F. Sevin
Washington D.C.
( Mr. Sevin is a former President of ATAA.)

Another insult by Henry Kissinger
1981 was the 100th Anniversary of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's birthday. American Turkish Society in New York had invited Henry Kissinger to be the main speaker at a luncheon honoring the greatest leader of the twentieth century, thanks to Ahmet Ertegun's good relations with the famous Jewish-American. And Henry spoke for an hour, talked about the world situtation from his perspective, but did not utter a word about Ataturk.. We all waited, waited to hear something from the great statesman about the creator of Modern Turkey, whose message to the world was PEACE... There was not a word. We were all shocked, I am sure including Ahmet Ertegun...

Well… 21 years later, Henry Kissinger's soccer analysis appeared in today's New York Post, July 7, 2002, a newspaper known to be not a fan of Turkey. The great Kissinger talks about THE NEW WORLD (CUP) ORDER. In it, the great statesman talks about the World Cup 2002, describes the accomplishments of Japan and Korea.. than goes on about England.. and Germany.. Brazil.. in the full page article, there is not a word about the Turkish national team, which won the 3rd place... and better yet, won the hearts of millions of soccer fans around the world… And evidently except Henry Kissinger. Towards the end of his article, Kissinger states that in the quarter and semi finals and the final, exactly eight goals were scored in the regulation time and, of these five by Brazil and two by Germany. He does not mention that the eight goal was scored by the Turkish National. Why can't the old man accept the fact that the Turkish team was one of the best?

I call upon all the Turkish Associations in the US and around the world to write to Kissinger and the New York Post and ask WHY?

Regards.

Yuksel Oktay
New York - July 7, 2002