Turkish Forum » Main Issues

9/11 and the 9-Year War

Büyükataman — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:10:33 +0000

By George Friedman | September 8, 2010

It has now been nine years since al Qaeda attacked the United States. It has been nine years in which the primary focus of the United States has been on the Islamic world. In addition to a massive investment in homeland security, the United States has engaged in two multi-year, multi-divisional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, inserted forces in other countries in smaller operations and conducted a global covert campaign against al Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups.

In order to understand the last nine years you must understand the first 24 hours of the war — and recall your own feelings in those 24 hours. First, the attack was a shock, its audaciousness frightening. Second, we did not know what was coming next. The attack had destroyed the right to complacent assumptions. Were there other cells standing by in the United States? Did they have capabilities even more substantial than what they showed on Sept. 11? Could they be detected and stopped? Any American not frightened on Sept. 12 was not in touch with reality. Many who are now claiming that the United States overreacted are forgetting their own sense of panic. We are all calm and collected nine years after.

At the root of all of this was a profound lack of understanding of al Qaeda, particularly its capabilities and intentions. Since we did not know what was possible, our only prudent course was to prepare for the worst. That is what the Bush administration did. Nothing symbolized this more than the fear that al Qaeda had acquired nuclear weapons and that they would use them against the United States. The evidence was minimal, but the consequences would be overwhelming. Bush crafted a strategy based on the worst-case scenario.

Bush was the victim of a decade of failure in the intelligence community to understand what al Qaeda was and wasn’t. I am not merely talking about the failure to predict the 9/11 attack. Regardless of assertions afterwards, the intelligence community provided only vague warnings that lacked the kind of specificity that makes for actionable intelligence. To a certain degree, this is understandable. Al Qaeda learned from Soviet, Saudi, Pakistani and American intelligence during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and knew how to launch attacks without tipping off the target. The greatest failure of American intelligence was not the lack of a clear warning about 9/11 but the lack, on Sept. 12, of a clear picture of al Qaeda’s global structure, capabilities, weaknesses and intentions. Without such information, implementing U.S. policy was like piloting an airplane with faulty instruments in a snowstorm at night.

The president had to do three things: First, he had to assure the public that he knew what he was doing. Second, he had to do something that appeared decisive. Third, he had to gear up an intelligence and security apparatus to tell him what the threats actually were and what he ought to do. American policy became ready, fire, aim.

In looking back at the past nine years, two conclusions can be drawn: There were no more large-scale attacks on the United States by militant Islamists, and the United States was left with the legacy of responses that took place in the first two years after 9/11. This legacy is no longer useful, if it ever was, to the primary mission of defeating al Qaeda, and it represents an effort that is retrospectively out of proportion to the threat.

If I had been told on Sept.12, 2001, that the attack the day before would be the last major attack for at least nine years, I would not have believed it. In looking at the complexity of the security and execution of the 9/11 attack, I would have assumed that an organization capable of acting once in such a way could act again even more effectively. My assumption was wrong. Al Qaeda did not have the resources to mount other operations, and the U.S. response, in many ways clumsy and misguided and in other ways clever and targeted, disrupted any preparations in which al Qaeda might have been engaged to conduct follow-on attacks.

Knowing that about al Qaeda in 2001 was impossible. Knowing which operations were helpful in the effort to block them was impossible, in the context of what Americans knew in the first years after the war began. Therefore, Washington wound up in the contradictory situation in which American military and covert operations surged while new attacks failed to materialize. This created a massive political problem. Rather than appearing to be the cause for the lack of attacks, U.S. military operations were perceived by many as being unnecessary or actually increasing the threat of attack. Even in hindsight, aligning U.S. actions with the apparent outcome is difficult and controversial. But still we know two things: It has been nine years since Sept. 11, 2001, and the war goes on.

What happened was that an act of terrorism was allowed to redefine U.S. grand strategy. The United States operates with a grand strategy derived from the British strategy in Europe — maintaining the balance of power. For the United Kingdom, maintaining the balance of power in Europe protected any one power from emerging that could unite Europe and build a fleet to invade the United Kingdom or block its access to its empire. British strategy was to help create coalitions to block emerging hegemons such as Spain, France or Germany. Using overt and covert means, the United Kingdom aimed to ensure that no hegemonic power could emerge.

The Americans inherited that grand strategy from the British but elevated it to a global rather than regional level. Having blocked the Soviet Union from hegemony over Europe and Asia, the United States proceeded with a strategy whose goal, like that of the United Kingdom, was to nip potential regional hegemons in the bud. The U.S. war with Iraq in 1990-91 and the war with Serbia/Yugoslavia in 1999 were examples of this strategy. It involved coalition warfare, shifting America’s weight from side to side and using minimal force to disrupt the plans of regional aspirants to gain power. This U.S. strategy also was cloaked in the ideology of global liberalism and human rights.

The key to this strategy was its global nature. The emergence of a hegemonic contender that could challenge the United States globally, as the Soviet Union had done, was the worst-case scenario. Therefore, the containment of emerging powers wherever they might emerge was the centerpiece of American balance-of-power strategy.

The most significant effect of 9/11 was that it knocked the United States off its strategy. Rather than adapting its standing global strategy to better address the counterterrorism issue, the United States became obsessed with a single region, the area between the Mediterranean and the Hindu Kush. Within that region, the United States operated with a balance-of-power strategy. It played off all of the nations in the region against each other. It did the same with ethnic and religious groups throughout the region and particularly within Iraq and Afghanistan, the main theaters of the war. In both cases, the United States sought to take advantage of internal divisions, shifting its support in various directions to create a balance of power. That, in the end, was what the surge strategy was all about.

The American obsession with this region in the wake of 9/11 is understandable. Nine years later, with no clear end in sight, the question is whether this continued focus is strategically rational for the United States. Given the uncertainties of the first few years, obsession and uncertainty are understandable, but as a long-term U.S. strategy — the long war that the U.S. Department of Defense is preparing for — it leaves the rest of the world uncovered.

Consider that the Russians have used the American absorption in this region as a window of opportunity to work to reconstruct their geopolitical position. When Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, an American ally, the United States did not have the forces with which to make a prudent intervention. Similarly, the Chinese have had a degree of freedom of action they could not have expected to enjoy prior to 9/11. The single most important result of 9/11 was that it shifted the United States from a global stance to a regional one, allowing other powers to take advantage of this focus to create significant potential challenges to the United States.

One can make the case, as I have, that whatever the origin of the Iraq war, remaining in Iraq to contain Iran is necessary. It is difficult to make a similar case for Afghanistan. Its strategic interest to the United States is minimal. The only justification for the war is that al Qaeda launched its attacks on the United States from Afghanistan. But that justification is no longer valid. Al Qaeda can launch attacks from Yemen or other countries. The fact that Afghanistan was the base from which the attacks were launched does not mean that al Qaeda depends on Afghanistan to launch attacks. And given that the apex leadership of al Qaeda has not launched attacks in a while, the question is whether al Qaeda is capable of launching such attacks any longer. In any case, managing al Qaeda today does not require nation building in Afghanistan.

But let me state a more radical thesis: The threat of terrorism cannot become the singular focus of the United States. Let me push it further: The United States cannot subordinate its grand strategy to simply fighting terrorism even if there will be occasional terrorist attacks on the United States. Three thousand people died in the 9/11 attack. That is a tragedy, but in a nation of over 300 million, 3,000 deaths cannot be permitted to define the totality of national strategy. Certainly, resources must be devoted to combating the threat and, to the extent possible, disrupting it. But it must also be recognized that terrorism cannot always be blocked, that terrorist attacks will occur and that the world’s only global power cannot be captive to this single threat.

The initial response was understandable and necessary. The United States must continue its intelligence gathering and covert operations against militant Islamists throughout the world. The intelligence failures of the 1990s must not be repeated. But waging a multi-divisional war in Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. The balance-of-power strategy must be used. Pakistan will intervene and discover the Russians and Iranians. The great game will continue. As for Iran, regional counters must be supported at limited cost to the United States. The United States should not be patrolling the far reaches of the region. It should be supporting a balance of power among the native powers of the region.

The United States is a global power and, as such, it must have a global view. It has interests and challenges beyond this region and certainly beyond Afghanistan. The issue there is not whether the United States can or can’t win, however that is defined. The issue is whether it is worth the effort considering what is going on in the rest of the world. Gen. David Petraeus cast the war in terms of whether the United States can win it. That’s reasonable; he’s the commander. But American strategy has to ask another question: What does the United States lose elsewhere while it focuses on the future of Kandahar?

The 9/11 attack shocked the United States and made counterterrorism the centerpiece of American foreign policy. That is too narrow a basis on which to base U.S. foreign policy. It is certainly an important strand of that policy, and it must be addressed, but it should be addressed through the regional balance of power. It is the good fortune of the United States that the Islamic world is torn by internal rivalries.

This is not dismissing the threat of terror. It is recognizing that the United States has done well in suppressing it over the past nine years but at a cost in other regions, a cost that can’t be sustained indefinitely and a cost that could well result in challenges more threatening than a rising Islamist militancy. The United States must now settle into a long-term strategy of managing terrorism as best as it can while not neglecting the rest of its interests.

After nine years, the issue is not what to do in Afghanistan but how the global power can return to managing all of its global interests, along with the war on al Qaeda.

Blair postpones book party at Tate Modern

Tolga Çakır — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:09:32 +0000

(Reuters) – Former premier Tony Blair has postponed a party at the Tate Modern art gallery celebrating the launch of his autobiography because of threats from protesters, his office said on Wednesday.

Anti-war demonstrators had planned to disrupt the reception on Wednesday evening and a group of celebrated artists including Tracey Emin and Vivienne Westwood had called on the gallery to cancel the “disgraceful” event.

Blair has also been forced to cancel a signing session for “A Journey” at a bookstore in central London.

“It has been postponed for the same reason as the book signing,” a spokesman for Blair said.

“We don’t want to put our guests through the unpleasant consequences of the actions of demonstrators.”

At the weekend, protestors hurled eggs and shoes at the former prime minister during a promotional event in Dublin.

Blair, prime minister for Labour between 1997 and 2007, led Britain into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In particular, the occupation of Iraq by Western coalition forces was widely opposed and contributed to a dive in Blair’s popularity.

Emin, Westwood and musician Brian Eno, were among figures from the arts world who wrote a letter to the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday to voice their concern about the Tate Modern event.

“It is disgraceful that the Tate is being used for this purpose,” they said.

(Reporting by Matt Falloon; Editing by Steve Addison)

The Reuters

ARMENIAN HISTORIANS URGE NOT TO VISIT AKHTAMAR ON SEPTEMBER 19

Büyükataman — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:17:43 +0000

Liana Yeghiazaryan

“Radiolur”
06.09.2010 17:06

A number of Armenian intellectuals from the History Institute of the
Armenian National Academy of sciences have issued a statement today,
according to which Turkey will demand an expensive reimbursement from
the Armenian side in exchange for the conduct of the liturgy at the
St. Cross Church of Akhtamar. Director of the History Institute Ashot
Melkonyan is confident that there only one way out of this slippery
situation – we should not support the Turkish show by visiting Akhtamar
on that day.

The Turkish side is trying to present the demonstration of the cross
to the public and the conduct of the liturgy at St. Cross Church as
an expression of goodwill towards Armenia and the Armenian people. The
Turkish side also wishes to involve 5-6 thousand people in the event.

Rumors say the Armenian-Turkish border is going to be opened for
three days. Armenian historians are assured, however, that Turkish
thus wants to reach certain objectives, which are anti-Armenian.

“We have no desire to participate in the recurrent Turkish show. This
is true mockery. It would take half an hour to install the cross
on the dome. I think there can be no second opinion here,” said
Ashot Melkonyan, adding that “we are the masters of our Akhtamar
and we will have a lot of opportunists to conduct liturgies there,
and we should not do it under the Turkish flag waving and the face
of Mustafa Kemal there.”

Director of the Oriental Studies Institute Ruben Safrastyan says the
show organized by Turkey is a simple deceit. According to him, the
decision of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin to boycott the mass
at St. Cross has made many citizens refuse from the idea of leaving
for Van.

“I think the majority of Armenians say ‘no’ to this show. We should
understand that the Shariat prohibits renovating a Christian Church
and installing a cross on it. Besides, the political situation in
Turkey should be taken account of. 75% of the Turkish citizens are
active Muslims, and the government will not go against them. Actually,
they are deceiving,” he said.

Armenian historians are confident that e Tukrey is doung that step
to resist the anti-Turkish wave expected to raise on the occasion
of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. According to the
statement, Turkey had to do this under the Lausanne Treaty of 1923.

The statements calls on every Armenian, who respects his national and
religious dignity, to refrain from visiting Akhtamar on that day to
avoid becoming a tool in the hands of the foreigners in this dirty
and anti-Armenian game.

__._,_.___

Assyrian Genocide Scholar in New Zealand

Büyükataman — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:11:07 +0000

Assyrian International News Agency AINA
Sept 4 2010

Auckland (AINA) — Assyrian genocide scholar Sabri Atman, director of
the Seyfo Genocide Research Center, presented a lecture on August 26
at the Assyrian Nineveh Association. In his lecture Mr. Atman outlined
the Turkish genocide of Assyrians in World War One, in which 750,000
Assyrians (75%) were killed by Turks and Kurds between 1915 and 1918.
He also discussed other genocides and pogroms of Assyrians.

The lecture also included a documentary film on the Genocide which
included interviews with individuals that lived during 1915 and
onwards and their experience and the horror they went through during
events carried out against them by the Ottoman Turks, Kurds and
Persians in WWI.

The Assyrian Youth Group, along with the Assyrian Nineveh Association
and the Assyrian community in Auckland, joined Sabri Atman at One Tree
Hill on Saturday, September 4. At this prominent location in Auckland,
Assyrian and New Zealand flags were raised. Signs reading “Never Again
1915,” “We Will Never Forget Simele 1933″ and “Hands Off Mor Gabriel”
were held by the participants.

There are about three thousand Assyrians living in New Zealand, based
in Auckland.

Mr. Atman began his genocide awareness tour in early July in the
United States of America, then he came to Australia for the unveiling
of the Assyrian Genocide Monument in Fairfield (AINA 8-7-2010,
8-30-2010). From Australia he came to New Zealand will continue his
tour in Greece, Israel, Syria, Sweden, Switzerland, and Armenia for
the remaining of the year. Mr Atman’s aim is to travel to many
countries to educate Assyrians and raise awareness for the recognition
of the Assyrian Genocide.

The next stop in Mr. Atman’s tour is Athens, where he will demand the
recognition of the Assyrian Genocide from the Greek government.

Rena Shlemun contributed to this report.

MP’s talks over Leeds United fan deaths in Turkey

haluk — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:08:19 +0000

Leeds MP Fabian Hamilton

An MP has held talks with a Turkish diplomat in an attempt to get justice for two Leeds United fans who were murdered in the country 10 years ago.

Chris Loftus, 35, and Kevin Speight, 40, were killed in Istanbul on the eve of Leeds’ Uefa Cup semi-final against Galatasaray on 5 April 2000.

Four men were convicted of involvement in the murders but were bailed pending an appeal which has still to be heard.

Leeds MP Fabian Hamilton* said his talk with the Turkish ambassador went well.

He said: “I was impressed at how articulate he was and how concerned he was that this particular case is a running sore in Anglo-Turkish relations.

“It’s something that he wants to see put to bed, not just for the sake of the relationship between our two countries but he was very concerned and expressed a lot of concern about the families of the victims.”

Wreaths laid

Mr Hamilton hopes Turkey’s aspiration to join the European Union could be used as leverage to get progress in the long-delayed case.

He said the recently-appointed ambassador said the Turkish government could not directly interfere in judicial proceedings.

“But I pointed out to him that Turkey is an aspiring member of the European Union and we do want Turkey to join the European Union, all political parties here in great Britain are in favour,” he said.

“But this issue has to be resolved because it’s symptomatic of a judicial system that is not working fairly and transparently.”

Mr Hamilton has campaigned for justice alongside the men’s families.

In April about 300 fans joined them to mark the 10th anniversary of the deaths by laying wreaths at Leeds United’s Elland Road ground.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11220754, 7 September 2010

* “New Jewish ministers and the Miliband rivalry” by Jessica Elgot, The Jewish Chronicle, May 14, 2010

ORGANIZATION OF ISTANBUL ARMENIANS – CALIFORNIA

Büyükataman — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:50:58 +0000

ISTANBUL ERMENI DERNEGININ SALON ACILISI

Assyrian, Greek Organizations Condemn Genocide Monument Vandalism

Büyükataman — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:27:23 +0000

Assyrian International News Agency AINA
Sept 4 2010

(AINA) — A number of Melbourne’s Assyrian and Hellenic organizations
issued a joint statement today condemning recent acts of vandalism
against two Sydney memorials dedicated to the Assyrian Genocide and
the Assyrian Levies (AINA 8-30-2010). The six signatories included two
Greek federations and a number of Assyrian political, social and
cultural organizations. The six signatories to the letter affirmed
their opposition to all acts of vandalism and voiced a call for
worldwide recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian-Greek
Genocide.

The statement follows:

We the undersigned Melbourne-based Assyrian and Greek organizations
express our deep concern at recent events which have seen two Assyrian
memorial sites vandalised. Sydney’s Assyrian Genocide Monument
(recently dedicated by the Assyrian Universal Alliance) and the
Assyrian Levies Plaque (dedicated by the Assyrian Levies Association)
were both vandalised with physical damage and the painting of
anti-Assyrian profanities in the preceding week.

Both the mentioned monuments stand in tribute to millions of
Assyrians, Armenians and Pontian-Greeks who were ruthlessly murdered
in a calculated campaign of extermination by the Ottoman Empire.
Historians have termed this the first genocide of the twentieth
century. The Assyrian-Australian community, like other communities
residing in Australia, is entitled to remember these victims of
genocide with dignity and without hindrance from vandals. We
explicitly condemn the vandalism of the monument and memorial plaque
and call upon the relevant authorities to investigate the matter
hastily.

While the perpetrators of both these incidents are as yet unknown, and
police investigations are continuing, it is clear from the content of
the vandalism, on the Assyrian Genocide Monument in particular, that
those involved hold a strong level of enmity towards the Assyrian
people.

The struggle for the recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian and
Pontian-Greek Genocide is a continuing one. The historical truth of
the genocide is not in question, as suggested by the forces of
genocide denial. The school of scholarly evidence is overwhelming. In
fact, the world’s leading group of genocide scholars, the
International Association of Genocide Scholars has affirmed that the
Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian-Greek was indeed perpetrated by the
Ottoman Empire during its dying days. This recognition is in addition
to dozens of federal, state and local governments around the world who
have also recognized the Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian- Greek
genocide.

We renew our call for worldwide recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian
and Pontian-Greek Genocide. In particular, we call upon the Australian
federal government, in addition to state governments, to join their
counterparts around the world and add their voice to truth and justice
by recognising the genocide.

We the undersigned organisations extend our support to all
organizations that have contributed to the Assyrian Genocide
recognition movement, affirm our rejection of acts designed to insult
the memories of those who were murdered and condemn any attempt to
distort the truth of the Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian Greek
Genocide.

Australian Assyrian Arts and Literature Foundation
Federation of Pontian Associations of Australia
Panepirotic Federation of Australia
Assyrian Democratic Movement
The Popular Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Council
Beth-Nahrin Cultural Club

By Joseph Haweil

Police sergeant faces sack over brutality

Tolga Çakır — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:22:30 +0000

A police sergeant is facing the sack after being caught on CCTV injuring a woman by pushing her into a cell.

Sgt Mark Andrews was filmed dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, across the floor of the police station in Wiltshire before shoving her into the cell.

CCTV footage captured her lying on the floor for a minute before struggling to get up with blood pouring from a head wound.

Former soldier Sgt Andrews, 37, was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm after a trial at Oxford Magistrates Court earlier this summer. He will be sentenced on Tuesday and is expected to lose his job. The case was brought after another officer at Melksham station reported his behaviour to a supervisor.

It happened in July 2008, when Ms Somerville was arrested after being found asleep in her car. She was detained for failing to provide a sample for a breath test. Then aged 57, she was thrown in the cell at Melksham police station after being grabbed in the station lobby by custody sergeant Andrews.

CCTV footage shows Andrews coming back into the cell after she gets to her feet and calls for help before another person comes to check her and paramedics are called. She was taken to Royal United Hospital in Bath and needed stitches in a gash above her eye.

ITN

Top Three Armenian Church Leaders Boycott Turkish Show in Akhtamar

Büyükataman — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:54:10 +0000

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

The Turkish scheme of luring Armenian Church leaders to participate in a religious show at Holy Cross (Sourp Khach) Church on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, backfired last week.

The heads of three Hierarchical Sees of the Armenian Church — in Armenia, Lebanon, and Jerusalem — will neither attend nor send representatives to the celebration of Divine Liturgy at Holy Cross Church on September 19. All three turned down the invitation of Archbishop Aram Ateshyan, Deputy Patriarch of the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey.

Catholicos Aram I of Cilicia, headquartered in Antelias, Lebanon, was the first to announce that he would boycott the Sept. 19 ceremonies. In this regard, the Catholicosate announced: “In an attempt to convince the European Union and UNESCO that Turkey safeguards the cultural heritage of its occupied lands, the Turkish government restored the Holy Cross Armenian Church, but instead of keeping it as a church, transformed it into a museum.” It described the ceremonies orchestrated by Turkey as “an attempt to obscure its consistent policy of denying the Armenian Genocide and the rights of its survivors.”

The Holy See of Etchmiadzin, on the other hand, had initially announced that it would send to Akhtamar two high-ranking clergymen. In an earlier column, this writer had expressed the wish that Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, would reconsider his decision. Last week, after the Turkish government broke its promise to place a cross atop the Holy Cross Church, the Catholicos, as expected, withdrew Etchmiadzin’s participation from the Sept. 19 ceremonies.

The third Hierarchical See, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, had initially decided to dispatch to Akhtamar Archbishop Aris Shirvanian, Director of Ecumenical and Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Patriarchate’s Holy Synod. When questioned about his planned attendance, Archbishop Shirvanian told this writer on Sept. 5 that in line with the decision of Holy Etchmiadzin, he would not participate in the church service, because of Turkey’s refusal to install a cross on the dome of the Holy Cross Church.

All three church leaders now have a unified position on this issue. They are to be commended for their decision not to support a political show sponsored by the Turkish regime, under the guise of a religious ceremony!

Regrettably, the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey, the fourth Hierarchical See of the Armenian Church, is still planning to participate in the Sept. 19 show, despite the fact that the Turkish government lied to Deputy Patriarch Aram Ateshyan, and refused to restore the promised cross on the church’s dome. The Governor of Van made the ridiculous claim that the Turkish state did not have the technical means to lift the 400 lb. cross to the top of the church. All those who bought airline tickets and booked hotel rooms, misled by Turkey’s false promises, should promptly cancel their trip, demand a refund and an apology from Turkish authorities for their deceptive bait and switch tactics!

Even though Archbishop Ateshyan is a hostage of the Turkish regime and therefore does not have the freedom to take independent decisions, he risks losing all credibility with Armenians worldwide and all three Hierarchical Sees, should he go ahead and celebrate Mass in what Turkish officials describe as the “Akdamar Memorial Museum!” He should threaten not to show up at the Holy Cross Church on Sept. 19, unless Ankara installs the promised cross. Turkish officials would have to take his threat seriously, because without him there would be no religious ceremony. His absence would turn Turkey’s expected propaganda coup into a public relations nightmare!

The last important actor in the Sept. 19 “extravaganza” is the Armenian government. While large segments of the public in Armenia have reacted strongly against Ankara’s once a year church service in the Holy Cross “museum,” little has been heard from Yerevan officials on this subject. Last month, the Armenian Foreign Ministry announced that it has not received an official invitation from Turkey. It is generally assumed that Armenian officials would refuse to participate in such a scandalous show, particularly after Ankara tricked Armenia’s leaders into signing the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, without any intention to ratify them.

Just as the Turkish government inadvertently protected Armenia’s interests by refusing to ratify the Protocols, this time around, Ankara is causing Armenians to refrain from participating in this charade by breaking its promise to place a cross atop the Holy Cross Church!

Pakistan Keeping Flood Aid From Christians

Büyükataman — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:52:13 +0000

Government agencies and Muslim relief organizations in Pakistan have been denying aid to thousands of Christians left homeless by the recent monsoon floods, say Christian sources in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

Aid agencies have been delivering food, clothing, building supplies and hygiene kits in an effort to prevent outbreaks of water-borne disease as the flood waters begin to recede.

But the Pakistan Christian Congress says the afflicted Punjab region is a “hotbed” of Islamic extremist organizations that view Christians as infidels, and local officials who fear the extremists have been barring Christians from tent camps set up for flood victims.

Christians comprise about 2 percent of Pakistan’s 175 million people and have come under attack in the past from extremists who accuse them of blasphemy, CNSNews reported.

Open Doors USA President Carl Moeller, whose organization has been working in Pakistan, said: “The only place with aid for many is their local mosque, which places Christians in an extremely vulnerable situation. Some are flatly denied assistance while others are told to vacate the region or convert to Islam. Imagine giving up your faith in order to feed your starving children.”

Anglican Bishop Humphrey Peters of Peshawar in Pakistan said: “We are sure that some countries will come forward with aid packages, but hardly anything will reach the minority Christians.”

Christian organizations are urging Christians around the world to send aid to groups that will help Christians or at least ensure that they are not left out of aid distribution.

Pakistan Christian Congress President Nazir Bhatti said governments and organizations can distribute some of their aid to Christians through groups such as the Catholic aid agency Caritas or the Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

Bishop Peters’ diocese has already set up four relief camps for hundreds of flood-stricken Christians and members of the Hindu minority, according to CNSNews.

Meanwhile criticism of aid efforts is coming from non-Christian sources as well. The Lahore-based Daily Times said in a recent editorial: “Reports about systematic discrimination in aid distribution are utterly disgraceful. If we want to progress as a nation, we need to close the doors on our prejudices. For far too long we have let religious bigots call the shots.”