Assuntos que não morrem: o genocídio armênio perpetrado pelos turcos

25.04.2009Clarín.comEl Mundo

Obama se aleja de Bush y apoya la denuncia del holocausto armenio

00:00

El presidente, sin embargo, no usó la palabra genocidio. Eso provocó polémicas.

Por: WASHINGTON. AP, AFP Y CLARIN.

El presidente norteamericano Barack Obama respaldó ayer la denuncia por la masacre de "1.5 millones de armenios" a manos del Imperio Otomano. De ese modo modificó la actitud negacionista permanente sobre esa tragedia que caracterizó a su antecesor George W. Bush. Turquía aún hoy no reconoce ese episodio, niega que hayan muerto 1,5 millones de personas y no tiene relaciones diplomáticas con Armenia.
El mandatario lo hizo al conmemorarse el 24 de abril el 94 aniversario del holocausto de ese pueblo. Pero Obama no usó la palabra genocidio con lo que traicionó una pública promesa que había formulada en plena campaña electoral cuando aseguró que de llegar a la Casa Blanca llamaría de ese modo a lo que en la práctica fue el primer genocidio del Siglo XX.
"Hace 94 años comenzó una de las mayores atrocidades del siglo veinte. Cada año debemos recordar al millón y medio de armenios que fueron masacrados o enviados a su muerte en los días finales del Imperio Otomano", dijo Obama en un comunicado.
Recomendó luego que Armenios y turcos "encaren los hechos de ese pasado como parte de sus esfuerzos para avanzar", en alusión a las negociaciones para encarar un mapa de ruta que permita la reanudación de los vínculos diplomáticos binacionales. Turquía, además, mantiene cerradas las fronteras desde 1993 en solidaridad con su aliado Azerbaijan. La razón fue la guerra librada con Armenia que recuperó el dominio del enclave de Nagorno Karabaj.
La ausencia del término Genocidio irritó a los armenios de todo el mundo. La web en inglés Asbarez Post (www.asbarez.com) que refleja las opiniones de la diáspora y de Armenia en general, trató de traidor a Obama en su principal titular.
El enojo es porque se sostiene que el presidente norteamericano, quien recientemente hizo una visita oficial a Turquía, al no elevar como genocidio el episodio lo "convierte en una mera cuestión política que puede ser negociada", según dijo el presidente del Comité Armenio Norteamericano (ANCA) Ken Kachikian.
Turquía ha exigido que los armenios cesen con su campaña de reconocimiento internacional del crimen como condiciones para encarar las negociaciones. Pero Erevean lo ha rechazado. También rechazó la formación de una comisión propuesta por Ankara con intelectuales de los dos países que revisen lo que sucedió en esos años.
Erevan sostiene que la documentación es vasta para que no haya dudas sobre el hecho. Para muchos armenios la propuesta de Turquía tiene los mismos tonos desagradables que el presidente iraní Mahmud Ahmadinejad le formuló a Israel para investigar el Holocausto del pueblo judío, oferta que escandalizó al mundo y elevó una ola de repudios contra el jefe de Estado persa.
Fuentes diplomáticas de Erevan dijeron que no es solo el tema del genocidio el que separa a los dos países. También el del futuro del enclave de Nagorno. Ese territorio perteneció históricamente a Armenia pero José Stalin lo cedió de modo inconsulto a Azerbaijan. Cuando acabó la Unión Soviética los armenios lanzaron la guerra que les permitió recuperarlo.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/04/25/elmundo/i-01905235.htm

Pode a islamização ser entendida como democratização?

'Islamization' of Turkey: Not what you would think

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Mustafa AKYOL

  One of the popular themes of the recent years is whether Turkey is being “Islamized.” People ask, and fear, about the change in Turkish society under the incumbency of the conservative AKP (Justice and Development Party) government. The suspicion ranges from extravagant conspiracy theories about the “hidden Taliban-like face of the AKP” to the more reasonable concerns about the rise of moral conservatism in public life. Fellow TDN Mehmet Ali Birand, with whom I agree on many matters, touched upon the latter issue in his successive pieces about “the gradual Islamization of our daily lives.” I bet many readers have found his observations compelling.

I do, too – at least to an extent. But I also think that the “Islamization” he is speaking about is a result of – and not a threat to – Turkey's democratization. The majority of Turkish society has always been quite religious – a phenomenon that has been pushed out of the public square since the early decades of the Republic. The secular elite claimed to know what is right for society and dominated the whole political and social power centers. Now this is changing. The majority, with its values and lifestyles, is coming to the fore.

Meet the real ‘Islamization':

I call this “normalization,” but if you wish, you can prefer that more alarming term. But let me underline the crucial difference between this sort of “Islamization,” and the more famous one envisioned by the founders of the Islamist ideology. The latter's project was to impose Islamic religiosity to the society by using the powers of the state. One of the key architects of that doctrine was Sayyid Abul Ala al-Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-i-Islami, which is a powerful, and quite radical, political party in Pakistan. Maududi suggested that the classical Islamic duty “to promote virtue and combat vice” was the duty of the state. (Whereas you can say that the same duty actually belongs to the individuals and the community, and should be done by preaching and proposing, not imposing.)

From that premise, “Maududi deduced that the Islamic state must be totalitarian, akin to the communist or fascist states.” (The quote is from Abdelwahab El-Affendi, whose newly reprinted book, “Who Needs An Islamic State?,” masterfully explains why Islamism is not a good idea from a Muslim point of view). That sort of Islamization — which has been in practice in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban — is simply tyranny, and has no justification what so ever.

The “Islamization” in Turkey, on the other hand, is something totally different. For it comes not from a state that imposes religion, but from a society that is breaking the bonds of an authoritarian state that has suppressed religion.

One of the wisest comments I have seen on this was from the Atlantic Monthly's senior correspondent, Robert D. Kaplan. In a December 2004 piece titled “At the Gates of Brussels,” he wrote the following:

“The re-Islamization of Turkey through the rejuvenation of the country's Ottoman roots was going to happen anyway; Atatürk's republican-minded secularization had simply gone too far. The only question was whether this retrenchment from Kemalism would take a radical or a moderate path. Erdoğan's political leanings suggest the latter. Europe should seize the opportunity.”

Exactly… Turkey was not going to remain forever as a country that pretends as if it has nothing to do with Islam. “Atatürk's republican-minded secularization” was a product of the zeitgeist of the early 20th century, during which religion was seen by most intellectuals as a myth that should die out as societies modernize. That's why most Kemalists considered religion as “an obstacle to progress.” But times have changed. Like the “statism” principle of Atatürk, which was a product of the economic trends in the 30's, the ultra-secularist Turkish laïcité does not cope with contemporary realities. It needs to be updated. (Not destroyed! Actually a secular, not a secularist, state is a crucial legacy of Atatürk, and a prerequisite of democracy, that we should keep. But we need to understand that religiosity in society does not threaten the secularity of the state or “progress”.)

Getting the facts right:

Turkey's hard-line Kemalists see such views as either evil-intended tricks or, at best, naïveté. They have been indoctrinated to believe that religion is a dangerous virus, and it must be constantly kept at bay by authoritarian measures. (Alas, they never consider the possibility that religious believers might be radicalized precisely because of that secular authoritarianism.) If they allow religion to flourish in society, the Kemalists rather think, it will soon dominate everywhere. The “Islamization” will go on until we became yet another Islamist tyranny.

But all of these are presumptions – and they are not supported by facts. The facts, on the contrary, show that the popular religiosity in Turkey is civil in nature and its aim is not to create an Islamic order. Survey after survey confirms that. Last week, the daily Star, Turkey's fifth top-selling newspaper, revealed a social study that it has carried out by interviews with 4.524 people from all around Turkey. The results reveal that only 7 percent of the Turkish society is in favor an Islamic state. But it also turns out that 48 percent of the society see religion as moral a guide for social conduct. Meanwhile, 43 percent said religion is only a private matter.

The “Islamization” we are speaking about in Turkey corresponds to the emergence of that 48 percent of the society, which believes that religion should have a role in their daily lives. The early republican ideal was to make everybody accept that religion should remain private. But societies never fully conform to such trials of social engineering. They rather create their own destiny in very complex ways. Turkey is doing the same thing with its “Islamization.” It is doing just fine.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=99071

Turquia, Kosovo e islamismo

Why Turkey recognized Kosovo

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

İlter TÜRKMEN

The bloodiest fighting of the post-Cold War era happened during the dividing-up process of Yugoslavia. The independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina and finally Montenegro were recognized one by one. Kosovo had not been part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but an independent region attached to Serbia, like Tatarstan and Chechnia were in Russia.  Consequently, it had had no right to separate from Serbia in principle.

However, the Serbian massacres and atrocities in Kosovo to put down the independence movement in 1999 forced NATO to intervene by air operations. Serbian forces that were forced to retreat were replaced by a U.N. administration and NATO force. In addition, the UN Security Council decision of June 10, 1999 granted Kosovo the right to autonomy and self-determination, as it also put UN members under the obligation to respect the hegemony and territorial integrity of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in other words, today's Serbia.

The passion for independence:

A lot has happened since 1999. The passion for independence in the U.N.-protected Kosovo grew stronger each day, helping to spread the belief that Kosovo could no longer be abandoned to Serbia's hegemony. Serbia was pushed more and more into international isolation. In the end, the U.S. and the EU became convinced that Kosovo inevitably had to become an independent state under U.N. supervision. They were also hoping that the attraction of full EU membership would be enough to remove the edge of Serbian resistance to this decision.

A committee lead by the special U.N. envoy and former Finnish President Marti Ahtisaari prepared a plan for the transformation of Kosovo into an independent state under international supervision. However, when Serbia rejected this plan despite the interference of Ahtisaari and of other U.N. representatives, the U.S. and some EU countries gave Kosovo the green light to take the initiative to declare its independence. Following the declaration of independence on Feb. 17, the U.S., some EU countries and Turkey recognized the new state while Serbia, Russia, China, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Greek Cyprus refused to recognize Kosovo's independence.

Even if the independence of Kosovo were to be recognized by a great number of states, it still cannot join the U.N. at this stage, for the Security Council cannot accept new members without a General Assembly recommendation. China and Russia will be able to exercise their veto rights, which means that Kosovo has to wait for a long time to acquire the full independence status. Its economy is fragile in spite of the $ 2 billion aid it has received since 1999. It's rate of poverty and unemployment is as high as 40 percent, but it's potentially rich in lead, zinc, cobalt, silver and gold mines, and has the second largest lignite reserves in Europe. 

Iraq, Cyprus and Karabagh:

Almost all of the states that are reluctant to recognize Kosovo have problems with separatist movements or potentially dangerous minorities. As for Greek Cyprus, supported by Greece, it fears that Kosovo's independence will set a precedent for the Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus (TRNC). What pushed Turkey into being among the first to recognize Kosovo despite the risk of starting a long-term tension in its relations with Serbia? Could it be largely due to the fact that it would constitute a precedent for northern Cyprus? I don't think so, for the balances that surround the Cyprus issue vary greatly from those of Kosovo.

On the other hand, Kosovo's independence could really set a precedent for the possible independence of north Iraq or that of upper Karabagh. Turkey's urgency to recognize Kosovo probably originated from the fact that Muslims make up the majority of the Kosovo population and that the number of people of Kosovan origin living in Turkey is almost greater than that of Kosovo's population, apart from the increasing economic relations with Kosovo and the fact that the Kosovo Turks also want an independent Kosovo. Time will show if this decision will entail some complications or not in the future.

The translation of İlter Türkmen's column was provided by Nuran İnanç. (nuraninanc@gmail.com)

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/editorial.php?ed=ilter_turkmen

A Turquia tem poder?

O autor do artigo abaixo tem razão, os estrategistas turcos padecem de ilusão de grandeza e poder. Não percebem que a importãncia política da Turquia decorre da sua proximidade com o Ocidente e sempre que se afasta do Ocidente se enfraquece.

 

Why Turkish 'strategists' are unmistakably wrong

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Orhan Kemal CENGIZ

  Something has been on my mind for a while but I do not know how I can put it in my column without risking provoking a prosecution under article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.

    How did I start to think about it? We have thousands and thousands of “strategists” who appear on television whenever a military matter is on the agenda. They keep talking about the future —what is going to happen and other things— of the region and of Turkey if such and such happens or does not happen, and so on. They comment on U.S. operations, on the possible military operations of Turkey and other actors. But I can not help thinking that what these people (most of whom are retired military personnel) are saying most of the time is far from reality. I am not a strategist and I do not know anything about military operations but my intuition tells me, from the gut level, that most of these “strategists” analyses are unmistakably wrong. These thoughts started to run in my mind again now that the cross-border operation into Iraq has become a “concrete” option since the National Assemblies resolution to this effect. When our “strategists” talk about an Iraqi operation it seems to me that they are analyzing a single tree without realizing the huge forest which has thousands and thousands of these trees. “We will get into Iraq and we will take out these bloody terrorists. Of course there are some important details. For example, we should consider how far we should go, whether we should only fight against terrorists or if we should also destroy their supporters.” It is that simple! Can it be? I do not think so. Before going into the details the Iraq case, let me try to explain why Turkish “strategists” are generally (there are of course brilliant exceptions) prone to make a wrong analysis. Strategy, I believe, can only be based on understanding the situation thoroughly and making a right assessment of some relevant factors, including, but not limited to, yourself, the opponent, and the terrain which can be understood as the surroundings. To make all this analysis successfully your perception should not be impaired by any illusion. You must have a keen understanding of reality, an understanding that requires you to be free from all kinds of psychological and mental distortions.

Emotions versus reality

I think what made some historical strategists great was their unbreakable attachment to reality. Hannibal, Alexander, Napoleon, and Fatih were amazing strategists, because, first of all they were able to see the things as they really were. When it comes to our “strategists” though, we see a bunch of people whose understanding of what is going on is heavily distorted by their mindset. They are nationalists, they see things through emotionally clouded lenses, their assessment of Turkey's role and power is fundamentally wrong (because they do not understand that Turkey's power comes from its being a bridge, being a democracy, from its potential to become an EU member, and its being an ally of the West and so forth) and they take it for granted, not considering that this power may increase and decrease according to the steps that Turkey takes. Their understanding of the root causes of some problems, like the Kurdish question, is far from reality. They do not have the habit of a realistic assessment of the past's mistakes. When it comes to an Iraq operation, in my opinion, if it goes beyond a deterrence and turns into actual invasion, as some of these brilliant “strategies” think is the most viable option, it would spell disaster for Turkey. It will make the Kurdish problem unsolvable and will create chaos. The outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) will use civilians as a shield by hiding themselves among them. Turkey will appear in the eyes of international public opinion as a brutal and aggressive power that attacks civilians and oppresses Kurds wherever it finds them. Turkey, when it gets into Iraq, will eventually confront Iraqi Kurds, and possibly more than the PKK militants. Actually some of these “strategists” are already talking about the necessity of punishing Iraqi Kurds for their help and support to the PKK. Basically they are talking about a full scale war. We will get into Iraq and we will teach a lesson to Iraqi Kurds as well as destroying PKK operatives and then we will get out easily!Unfortunately, everyone contributes to this emotional buildup and the Turkish people are taken to a point where nothing but an invasion can bring emotional catharsis! But the price of this emotional catharsis is so high. The PKK wants to isolate Turkey from the rest of the world. They want to make sure that only weapons and violence will talk. And our “brilliant strategists” are just about to give the PKK what it wants: Chaos!

  * Orhan Kemal Cengiz can be reached at orhan.kemal@tdn.com.tr.

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

O Patriarcado Ecumênico e o governo da Turquia

CORTE NEGA TITULO DE "ECUMÊNICO" A PATRIARCA ORTODOXO

A Suprema Corte turca confirmou hoje, que o líder espiritual da Igreja Ortodoxa no mundo, o Patriarca Bartolomeu II, que vive e trabalha em Istambul, não tem o direito de receber o titulo de "patriarca ecumênico".

"O patriarca esta em território turco e deve ser sujeito as leis turcas. Por essa razão, não existe base legal para reivindicar o titulo de ecumênico" _ afirma a sentença da Suprema Corte.

A sentença se apóia no fato de _ com base no Tratado de Lausanne, de 1923, que regulariza o status das minorias na Turquia _ o Patriarcado Ortodoxo, bem como a Igreja Católica e outras religiões, não terem um status jurídico reconhecido.
Do ponto de vista turco, o titulo "ecumênico" tem um valor político internacional.
Em contrapartida o Patriarcado Ortodoxo sustenta que o titulo "ecumênico" só tem valor religioso no seio da Igreja Ortodoxa, onde o Patriarca Ecumênico de Constantinopla é considerado "primus inter pares", entre os demais patriarcados do Cristianismo Oriental.

Mais sobre a Turquia

Um dos editoriais do Financial Times na internet intitula-se "Diga não, sr. Erdogan!". Erdogan é o primeiro-ministro da Turquia, e diga não é uma ordem para que ele desista de ser o presidente da república. O mundo é mesmo muito divertido, um jornal inglês faz um editorial pedindo que o primeiro-ministro da Turquia desista de ser presidente, numa eleição já ganha, uma vez que o presidente é eleito pelo parlamento, e o partido do primeiro -minitsro é sempre o maior, o sr. Erdogan só não será o presidente se não quiser. Mas esperemos que não porque o Financial Times não queira. Talvez porque o exército não queira. O partido do sr. Erdogan é um partido com tendências islâmicas, ele mesmo tem tendências islâmicas, mas que segundo o FT ele conseguiu controlar. O temor do FT e do exército é que ele indo para a poresidência abra espaço para que um radical islâmico assume o poder, ou mesmo que ele aceite que um radical islâmico seja eleito presidente, pressiona-se para que o escolhido seja um defensor do estado laico mesmo que não de oposição. O temor do exército é o mesmo. Como esperamos que as armas sejam apenas as do militares, isso significa que quem pode derrubar o governo caso a ordem do Financial Times não seja cumprida é apenas o exército. Será? Não, o FT representa a opinião do mercado, pobre Turquia, entre a manu militari, a mão invisível do mercado, e a mão de Deus que não é a do Maradona. A União Européia e os EUA atacaram os militares pela posição golpista, mas também são contra um governo islâmico, mas ficaram com o nhemnhem democrático para não dar bandeira até que haja um governo claramente islâmico. Que Alah tenha piedade dos turcos!

A Turquia está escolhendo o que significa ser turco!

Por incrível que pareça a Turquia neste momento está escolhendo o que é ser turco. Numa ação tipicamente latino-americana, as Forças Armadas da Turquia lançaram um manifesto alertando o país que a Turquia é um Estado secular e assim deve permanecer. As Forças Armadas consideram uma ameaça ao país qualquer manifestação religosa pública que vise associar o islamismo ao Estado. Isso significa inclusive vetar candidatos a presidente que defendem uma retomada do papel do islã nas instituições estatais. O primeiro-ministro respondeu que os militares estão subordinados ao primeir-ministro e não podem se manifestar contra o governo, ou se posicionar a respeito das eleições presidenciais. De fato, o conflito está em curso, a resolução dele determinará o caminho da Turquia para a União Européia, quanto menos trcos foram, quanto menos islâmicos forem, maiores serão as oportunidades de serem europeus. Para renascer como europeus, os turcos devem morrer como turdos. Mais místico impossível.