US midterm elections reset lobby dynamics for Turkey

US midterm elections reset lobby dynamics for Turkey
Font Size: LargerSmaller
Thursday, November 4, 2010
ÜMİT ENGİNSOY
ANKARA - Hürriyet Daily News

Barack Obama (L) and John Boehner (C) are the two faces of America's divided government — the humbled Democrat president and the triumphant Republican House leader. Boehner, House speaker-in-waiting, has good working ties with Turkish diplomats. AP photo
A more Republican-leaning Congress brought by Tuesday's midterm elections in the United States is a mixed blessing for the future of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, diplomats and analysts said Thursday.
"We eventually got rid of the Californian gang, and it's good," said one Turkish diplomat privately, referring to campaign losses for both Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Howard Berman, who were known to be hostile to Turkey. California has a large Armenian community.
Pelosi will cede her post to the present Republican minority leader, John Boehner, with whom Turkish diplomats have good working relations.
Berman, the pro-Armenian chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will also be replaced by a Republican, likely Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Ethnic Turks win office
Two Turkish-Americans were victorious on Nov. 2 in their campaigns for office, according to the Turkish Coalition USA Political Action Committee, or TC-USA PAC. The winners, Jay Karahan and John Alpay, two of five Turkish-Americans running for office in the 2010 elections, represent a young but growing interest among the Turkish-American community in civic activism, TC-USA PAC said. Karahan was re-elected by a wide margin to his position as Presiding Judge of the Harris County Criminal Court 8 in Houston, Texas. Alpay, an attorney and community activist in San Clemente, California, was elected as Area 3 Trustee for the Capistrano Unified School District, one of the largest districts in the state. "We are extraordinarily proud that Judge Karahan and John Alpay were judged by their constituents yesterday and found to have the qualities necessary to be a public servant," said Lincoln McCurdy, treasurer of the TC-USA PAC. "But we are just as proud of all five candidates for investing time and money on campaigns to help bolster the Turkish-American community’s presence in American civic life. They represent the first significant step in a long journey for Turkish-American activism, setting the stage for the eventual election of a Turkish-American to national office," McCurdy said.
The changes affecting Turkey mirrored the trend across the country, as Tuesday's midterm elections dealt a massive upset to Democratic President Barack Obama, with the opposition Republicans regaining the control of the House of Representatives, Congress' lower chamber. The Democrats managed to keep their control in the Senate, Congress' upper chamber, but their formerly comfortable majority diminished.
For Turkey, however, the so-called Armenian lobby remains strong in both houses of Congress. For example, Republican Representative Mark Kirk of Illinois, a leading sponsor of the "Armenian Genocide" resolution in the House, won his election bid to the U.S. Senate in Illinois, filling the seat once held by Obama.
Also in a hotly contested race, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, an "Armenian Genocide" resolution co-sponsor, won re-election, as did the same bill's other co-sponsors, Senators Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, and Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York.
In the House, all major pro-Armenian lawmakers were re-elected, with the exception of George Radanovich, a Republican from California, who previously announced his decision not to run again.
In the 1990s, Turkish diplomats dealing with the United States had a motto: "Democratic presidents and Republican Congresses,” since Republicans were less concerned about Turkey’s human rights history.
The situation in Turkey, however, has changed in the last 15 years or so. Whereas Turkey was once a loyal ally of the United States, it now has its own independent foreign policies and initiatives, particularly in the Middle East, including rapidly improving ties with Iran and Syria and a worsening relationship with Israel. As such, many U.S. conservatives, especially in the Republican Party, are upset with Turkey.
Lame-duck sessions
The new Congress to be elected Tuesday will take office Jan. 3, and any congressional sessions between now and the New Year are called "lame duck" sessions. There is a slight chance two important things could happen for Turkey during the lame-duck sessions. First, there has been no U.S. ambassador in Ankara for more than three months. Obama's ambassadorial nominee for Ankara, Frank Ricciardone, has so far failed to win Senate confirmation as prominent Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has effectively blocked Ricciardone’s nomination.
Ricciardone can at best be confirmed in the Senate's lame-duck sessions beginning in mid-November on the condition that Brownback lifts his veto. Brownback was elected governor of Kansas on Tuesday and will leave his Senate job at the end of the year.
If Brownback were to lift his hold on Ricciardone – despite there being no sign of such intent – and the Senate confirmed Ricciardone, the latter could take his job in Ankara. However, if Brownsback does not lift his veto and the Congress does not vote for Ricciardone, the Ankara envoy’s seat will remain vacant at least until the new Congress is convened in January.
Secondly, Turkey is also concerned about a vote on the "Armenian genocide" resolution pending in the House of Representatives during the lame-duck season.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs narrowly approved the "genocide" bill in March, and the resolution is awaiting a possible vote on the House floor. U.S. Armenians are seeking a vote on the resolution in one of the lame-duck sessions, but Obama's administration is standing resolutely against this bill.
Many Republicans are ultimately angry about Ankara's rapprochement with Iran and the new hostile relationship between Turkey and Israel; if this situation continues, they could take hostile action against Turkey.
Moreover, if pro-Armenian deputies do not bring forth a “genocide” resolution bill during the lame-duck sessions, they could conceivably reintroduce such a bill after Jan. 3. Many Republicans, angry with Turkey, could back these bills.

How an Armenian beauty Araksi Cetinyan became first Miss Turkey in 1925

ko
-----Original Message-----Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:41 PM
Subject: Fwd: Araksi Çetinyan was the 1st Miss. Turkey 1925

How an Armenian beauty Araksi Cetinyan became first Miss Turkey in 1925
Submitted by Armen Hareyan on 2010-10-31

It is unimaginable to picture an Armenian becoming Miss Turkey, but it is more difficult to believe that the first Miss. Turkey was an Armenian beauty Araksi Cetinyan, especially when the pageant was held just few years after the Armenian genocide.
Indeed, today's Hurriyet, one of the top Turkish newspapers in English language, is running an interesting story about how the first beauty queens where chosen in the Turkish Republic and how an Armenian lady became the Republic's first beauty representative. The debate, amid which the first Miss Turkey was chosen, was very tense.
Araksi Çetinyan was the 1st Miss. Turkey
The debate was tense not because of Araksi's Armenian origine, but because of the times and the people's attitude toward women in Turkey. According to the researcher on the subject "the general public thought it immoral to hold events showcasing women so openly," writes Hurriyet. "The first title went to Araksi Çetinyan, an Armenian Turk, in 1925, while Keriman Halis won both the Turkish and international titles in 1932," the newspaper writers.
The first beauty pageant was held in Istanbul in 1925 and Araksi von it.
“Despite the establishment of the Republic, the approach based on seeing everyone as an Ottoman subject was maintained. It was not her Armenian identity but her Ottoman identity that was more important. That’s why there was no problem in giving Çetinyan the right to represent Turkey,” said Feza Kürkçüoğlu, who is currently conducting a study on the subject.
The second contest for the title Miss. Turkey took place in 1929 at the call of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He was the reformer that aimed to create a modern Turkey. Nearly 125 young women participated in the pageant. Araksi entered the contest, but finished the third. Feriha Tevfik was the winner of the second contest

Over 90% of ANCA backed Congressional candidates win mid-term elections

Over 90% of ANCA backed Congressional candidates win mid-term elections
November 3, 2010 - 11:29 AMT 07:29 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Over 90% of the Congressional candidates backed by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) prevailed in Nov. 2 hard-fought mid-term elections.
“We join with Armenian Americans from across the country in congratulating the winners of these elections from both parties, and look forward to working constructively with the new members and leaders of Congress,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “We are especially proud of our community’s pivotal role in the outcome of several key races, including Mark Kirk’s victory in Illinois, Barbara Boxer’s win in California, Harry Reid’s triumph in Nevada, and, of course, Mike Grimm’s defeat of Representative Michael McMahon.”
Five out of the six Senators endorsed by the ANCA emerged victorious, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). The only ANCA backed Senate candidate to lose was Russ Feingold (D-WI), a perennial cosponsor of Armenian Genocide legislation.
On the House side, ANCA endorsed 158 candidates in 31 states. Of this total, 152 were incumbents, of which, as of 2:00 am on November 3rd, only seven were reported to have lost their re-election bids. Each of the six non-incumbents endorsed and backed by the ANCA won their elections, including, most notably Michael Grimm, who, with the energetic support of ANCA activists in New York, unseated Armenian Genocide Resolution opponent Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY).
Among the key winners were Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA), who will likely be the House Majority Leader, and Thaddeus McCotter, who is also set to remain in the Republican leadership. House Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who received an A+ rating and was endorsed by the ANCA, survived a strong challenge by Republican Anna Little.
Members of Congress who have worked against Armenian American priorities and were defeated, include: Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), and John Spratt (D-SC). Rep. Gerry Connolly, who voted and spoke against the Armenian Genocide Resolution in committee this past March, remains in a tight race that appears, headed for a recount.
As a result of these elections, the Democratic majority in the Senate will narrow, and the U.S. House will shift from Democratic to Republican control, moving leadership of key committees, including Foreign Affairs and Appropriations, into the hands of GOP chairmen.

Hrant Dink’s murderer may go unpunished

Hrant Dink’s murderer may go unpunished
November 03, 2010 12:53
Ogun Samast, a Turkish ultra-nationalist who killed Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on January 19, 2007, may be released due to the recent reforms in the Turkish judicial system.
The new amendments to the relevant laws limit terms of custody. Specifically, persons charged with grave crimes can be in custody for up to three years, and ones charged with minor crimes, up to one year.
The amendments were approved on March 23, 2005, and are to be in effect until Dec. 31, 2010.
Due to the amendments Ogün Samast, as well as Dogu Perincek and Veli Kucuk, may be released.
At the request of Ogun Samast’s lawyer his case was referred to the Istanbul juvenile court, as Ogun Samast was considered a juvenile delinquent when he murdered Hrant Dink.
News from Armenia - NEWS.am

Armenians Have Strong, Legitimate Claim for Reparations

English Armenian
Home
News
Armenia
International
Turkey
Azerbaijan
Russia
Georgia
Iran
Europe
Middle East
United States
Javakhk
Karabakh
Politics
Community
Arts & Culture
Commentary
Opinion
Letters
Editorial
Columns
By Any Means
People & Places
Critics' Forum
My Turn
Capital Perspectives
Three Apples
My Name is Armen
Living in Armenia
Heghinar's Corner
Videos
Friday, October 29th, 2010 Posted by Asbarez Staff
Print
Armenians Have Strong, Legitimate Claim for Reparations
BY ALFRED DE ZAYAS
The Armenian Weekly published this week the full text of the comments given by Prof. Alfred de Zayas (Geneva School of Diplomacy) via videoconference on Oct. 23 at the UCLA conference titled ‘Genocide and Then What? The Law, Ethics, and Politics of Making Amends,’ hosted by the International Human Rights Law Association. We present his remarks below:
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Armenians have undoubtedly a strong and legitimate claim to receive reparation from Turkey for the material and moral injury that accompanied the genocide perpetrated between 1915 and 1923.1 Bearing in mind that there is no prescription in international law in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity, the Armenian entitlement for reparation has certainly not lapsed. Therefore, it is only normal that Armenians should continue to press their demand for reparation in the form of restitution of their cultural and religious heritage, including churches and monasteries, compensation for destroyed property as well as for the immense moral suffering endured, and a measure of satisfaction in the form of an official apology from the government of Turkey and recognition of their status as victims of genocide. This right to the various levels of reparation can and should be invoked by the survivors of the descendants of the Armenian Genocide both in Armenia and in the Diaspora.
The norms of international law, which I shall briefly outline, are fairly clear. Nevertheless, these norms are not always self-executing and may require legislative action in order to identify the specific legal basis and establish the proper forum where claims for restitution and reparation may be adjudicated. What is most needed is the political will of governments throughout the world to ensure that appropriate legislative and judicial measures are taken in order to implement the applicable norms of international law. For this political will to materialize, it is necessary to mobilize civil society in all countries, to educate through the universities, high schools, and the media, and to appeal to the overarching principle of human dignity from which all human rights derive. To discriminate among victims of genocide is unacceptable and entails in itself a separate and distinct violation of human dignity.
Now, the principle of reparation for violations of international law is not a new normative development attributable to the work of the League of Nations, or of the United Nations, or of the International Law Commission. The obligation to make reparation for violations of international law is a general principle of law as referred to in Article 38, Paragraph 1c of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Already the Permanent Court of International Justice stated in its 1928 Judgment in the Chorzow Factory Case2: “It is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of the law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation.”
Similarly, Article 31 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, which essentially reflect pre-existing international law, stipulates that “the responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.”
Article 34 stipulates further that “full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation or satisfaction, either singly or in combination.”
More concretely, in the Armenian case where enormous destruction was visited on the cultural heritage of thousands of years, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property of 19543 and its protocols give us guidance.
Among other general principles of law that apply in the context of the obligation to make reparation are the principle of “good faith,” the prohibition of “unjust enrichment,” the rules on “estoppel,” and the principle “ex injuria non oritur jus,” which provides that no rights can be derived from a prior violation of law. Bearing in mind that genocide and crimes against humanity are the most grievous offences against international law, it is obvious that the murderer cannot keep the fruits of the crime. International ordre public or public order imposes this conclusion.
Some will object that the Chorzow Factory Case Judgment, the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property, the Genocide Convention, and the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility are all subsequent to the Armenian Genocide and that therefore they cannot be applied retroactively. This is wrong. Not only is it a fallacy in international law, but also a red herring intended to distract attention from the core issues and to undermine the Armenian entitlements.
The fact is that the Armenian claims did not arise with these instruments and judgments, but were already in existence in 1915 and were recognized internationally in Article 144 of the Treaty of Sevres of 1920, which was signed by the representatives of the Sultan but not ratified after the Kemalist revolution. The non-enforcement of Article 144 does not mean that the entitlements did not exist, but rather that the use of force by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk prevented the implementation of applicable norms of international law.
Law, ladies and gentlemen, is not mathematics. And the norms—as good as they may look on paper—are certainly not equivalent to their enforcement. On the other hand, the non-enforcement of norms, even for a prolonged period of time, does not detract from their validity. And you should not be discouraged because of the reluctance of some journalists and politicians to endorse your claims. It is your right to continue pressing the claims until they are satisfied.
As far as compensation is concerned, Article 36 of the Articles on State Responsibility4 stipulate the obligation of a state “to compensate for the damage caused…insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution.”
As far as satisfaction is concerned, Article 37 stipulates that “The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by the act insofar as its obligation cannot be made good by restitution or compensation. Satisfaction may consist in an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality.”
In this connection it is useful to recall that in 1993, President Bill Clinton issued an apology5 to the people of Hawaii for the crimes and abuses committed in connection with the overthrow of the legitimate government of the Hawaiian queen 100 years earlier, in 1893. Similarly, on Feb. 13, 2008 the prime minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, issued an apology to the Aborigines of Australia for the injustices visited upon them. It should be noted that the title to huge areas of Australia has been returned to the Aborigines, who are now administering these territories in cooperation with Australian authorities. Thus, even “historical inequities” can be partly redressed provided that there be a modicum of good will. Indeed, over the past decades the various governments of Germany have issued countless apologies to the governments and peoples of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, etc. in connection with the Holocaust. Germany has also made meaningful reparation in the form of both restitution and compensation to the survivors of the victims of the genocide.
In obtaining reparation, the Armenians should also appeal to international solidarity and to the erga omnes obligation not to recognize the effects of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Article 10 of the United Nations Draft Declaration on the illegality of population transfers of August 1997 stipulates: “Where acts or omissions prohibited in the present Declaration are committed, the international community as a whole and individual States, are under an obligation: (a) not to recognize as legal the situation created by such acts; (b) in ongoing situations, to ensure the immediate cessation of the act and the reversal of the harmful consequences; (c) not to render aid, assistance or support, financial or otherwise, to the State which has committed or is committing such act in the maintaining or strengthening of the situation created by such act.”6
Of particular relevance to the Armenians are the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the General Assembly in its Resolution 60/147 of Dec. 16, 2005.7 Section VII, Paragraph 10 of the Basic principles stipulates: “Remedies…include the victim’s right to the following as provided for under international law: (a) Equal and effective access to justice; (b) Adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered; (c) access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms.”
Section IX, Paragraph 15 stipulates: “Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered.”
Paragraph 16 stipulates: “States should endeavour to establish national programmes for reparation and other assistance to victims.”
Paragraph 17 stipulates: “States shall, with respect to claims of victims, enforce domestic judgements for reparation against individuals or entitles liable for the harm suffered and endeavour to enforce valid foreign legal judgements for reparation in accordance with domestic law and international legal obligations. To that end, States should provide under their domestic laws effective mechanisms for the enforcement of reparation judgments.”
Paragraph 19 stipulates: “Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred.”
Paragraph 20 stipulates: “Compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage as appropriate and proportional to the violation and the circumstances of each case…such as “(a) physical or mental harm; (b) lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits; (c) material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential; (d) moral damage; (e) costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services and psychological and social services.”
Section XI is of particular relevance. Paragraph 25 stipulates: “the application and interpretation of these Basic Principles and guidelines must be consistent with international human rights law and be without any discrimination of any kind or on any ground, without exception.”
Another significant United Nations document that gives support to the Armenian claims is the report of the Independent Expert Sergio Pinheiro, known as the United Nations Principles on Housing and Property Restitution, or simply as the Pinheiro Principles.8
Principle 2 stipulates clearly: “All refugees and displaced persons have the right to have restored to them any housing, land and/or property or which they were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived, or to be compensated for any housing, land and/or property that is factually impossible to restore as determined by an independent, impartial tribunal.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I could continue citing norms of hard law and soft law that apply to or are of particular relevance to the case of the Armenian Genocide. Suffice it to say that international law is on the side of the Armenians.
Another issue is that of implementation, and you know better than anyone else what an uphill battle it has been to obtain recognition of the historicity of the genocide. Here again the United Nations can strengthen your claim through its increasing insistence on the right to truth9, including historical truth. This may be a right de lege ferenda, but a right that you can already invoke in the form of pertinent United Nations resolutions.
I do not underestimate the obstacles before you in obtaining reparation for the injuries suffered in connection with the Armenian Genocide. One problem is that of non-self-executing international norms. This is why Austria and Germany have adopted laws related to the restitution of objects to victims, as has the United States in the form of its Law on Restitution for the World War II internment of some 120,000 Japanese-Americans and Aleuts.
It is the responsibility of politicians to propose such legislation in Congress, e.g. to make Armenian claims against Turkey justifiable in United States courts. The United States has adopted the Federal Alien Tort Claims Act pursuant to which Jewish claimants have been able to obtain redress.
Before finishing this short introduction, I should mention the possibility of entrusting the United Nations with the responsibility of administering a Fund for Victims of the Armenian Genocide and their Descendants. Already the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights administers several funds, e.g. for the Victims of Torture, and this experience would provide a blueprint for an Armenian United Nations Fund.
I thank you for your attention.
Alfred de Zayas is a professor of international law in the Geneva School of Diplomacy in Switzerland. He has served as senior lawyer in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and as secretary of the Human Rights Committee. To learn more, visit http://www.alfreddezayas.com/.

Lenin gave Mountain Ararat to Ataturk as gift

Lenin gave Mountain Ararat to Ataturk as gift
10:09 • 01.11.10
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Russian Marxist revolutionary, communist politician and leader of 1917 October Revolution in Russia, gave Mountain Ararat to the founder of the Turkish state Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as a gift, writes Financial Times in article about Armenia and its scenic nature. Referring to Armenia being the first state to officially adopt Christianity and the sufferings St Gregory Illuminator had to endure in Khor Virap, the newspaper writes: "'The seventh-century monastery of Khor Virap now stands above the pit where Gregory languished for 13 years. It is a popular postcard, the church framed against the snowy backdrop of Mount Ararat, where the Ark came to rest, with a foreground of vines purportedly planted by Noah himself. Ararat, the supreme symbol of Armenia, now lies across the border in Turkey, the gift of Lenin to Ataturk in 1921."


Tert.am

Armenian Araksi Çetinyan - first Miss Turkey

18:01 01/11/2010 » SOCIETY
Armenian Araksi Çetinyan - first Miss Turkey
The first “Miss Turkey” title went to Araksi Çetinyan of Armenian descent, in 1925 at a contest in Istanbul’s iconic Beyoğlu Emek theater, Turkish Hurriyet Daily News says. Thus, the Armenian girl not only won the title but also came to break the stereotype with the general public thinking it immoral to hold events showcasing women so openly.While rarely viewed as a triumph for gender equality in today’s world, the contests of the 1920s and 1930s were devoid of the catwalks and bikinis of contemporary Miss World pageants, researcher Feza Kürkçüoğlu, who is currently conducting a study on the subject, recently told the Hürriyet Daily News.“Despite the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the approach based on seeing everyone as an Ottoman subject was maintained. It was not her Armenian identity but her Ottoman identity that was more important. That’s why there was no problem in giving Çetinyan the right to represent Turkey,” said Kürkçüoğlu.
Source: Panorama.am