Can Armenia’s decision be a way forward?

  http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=can-armenia8217s-decision-be-a-way-forward-2010-04-23

 Friday, April 23, 2010

Around April 24, the Remembrance Day of the tragic events of World War I, emotions in the Spring season of the resurrection are high on the both Turkish and Armenian sides.

The Armenian coalition government of President Serge Sarkisian halted the ratification process of the protocols Thursday, injecting even more stress into the process. Although the Armenian leadership has given signals in recent times that they might make such a move, the announcement of a pause in the ratification process still came as a surprise.

The Turkish officials took the halting notification rather calmly. During Thursday, when the announcement came from the coalition parties in Yerevan, the Turkish officials were pretty relaxed while explaining the Turkish government's take on the unfolding events. The Turkish officials stated that the decision to freeze matters was for Armenia to make. "We do not take a position on the decision negatively or positively,” said one official. "If the Armenian administration can handle the process, let them handle it."

According to one school of thought, the Armenian government's halting of the process is a way to show off for its audience both inside Armenia and in the worldwide diaspora. Before April 24, the Armenian government wanted to prove that it is serious about getting rid of the process.

Another school of thought, voiced by one of the leading Armenian-American opinion makers who wanted to stay anonymous, argues for an immediate stop to the protocols.

"The Armenian government knows what it is doing, as the Turkish government knows what it is doing," the expert said, who continued by arguing that the protocols are not going anywhere and that Armenia should just withdraw its signature from them without any hesitation.

"Because all that was needed to be done," the Armenian writer argued, "was to open borders and exchange diplomats between the countries." And later on, other steps would have followed.

Anthony J. Barsamian, chair of Public Affairs for the Armenian Assembly of America, said: “Armenia came to the table in good faith and extended a hand toward normalization with Turkey. Unfortunately, Turkey came to the table with preconditions which now has resulted in frustrating the process.”

Cengiz Aktar, head of European Union Relations Department at Bahçesehir University and who is known to be pretty straightforward on the issues related the historic relationships between Turkish and Armenian people, said that with this halt, the Armenian government declares that they are not in a mood to step forward on the Karabakh issue.

Such a declaration would change U.S. President Barack Obama's mind not to utter word of genocide, even if he decided he would have just done so before Armenia's latest declaration. If Obama says genocide, Aktar argues, "That would mean sacrificing the relationship with Turkey, which is impossible."

Obama will not use the word of genocide in his yearly statement on April 24, the general expectation in Washington goes.

Another part of this year's puzzle is the low number of co-sponsors on the both Houses of the Congress for different versions of bills, which urge the U.S. president to call the 1915 events a genocide. There are about 140 signatures that have been collected in the House of Representatives this year – which is a surprisingly lower number than the 200 some signatures of past years. In the U.S. Senate as well, the numbers of co-sponsors are down sharply this year when comparing with the past years.

One of the reasons of this lower reception from American lawmakers could be to give more chance for the normalization process, a Turkish official speculated. This explanation encloses a flawed argument which is to claim that the U.S. lawmakers ever think about international affairs when they decide to vote on a bill.

The other reason for the low reception could be the increasing Turkish presence in America.

It is really remarkable to see that the visibility of the American-Turkish presence across the U.S. land increasing rapidly. A lot of Turkey-centered talks are being conducted in various Washington think tanks, and there is almost always a packed audience for such discussions. The Fethullah Gülen Movement has also added a whole new avenue to this Turkish presence in various states in America. The Gülenists organize ever-more events, and there is growing number of the grassroots organizations of this movement that host senators and congressmen for their fundraising events.

It should not belittled: the Armenian coalition partners decided for a freeze, not for an end to the process. On the contrary, the Armenian leaders repeatedly stated in last months that they are not happy with their counterparts' efforts in Turkey and the Turkish Parliament should do more and fast.

The Armenian government and diaspora openly applied to April 24 this year to pressure on Turkey for the ratification without making any gestures on the Karabakh issue. The U.S. administration also backed the Armenian position and stayed firm throughout recent months to show their "anger" with the Turkish administration in various channels. At the end, it became clear, Turkey is not moving ahead, unless there is tangible advancement on the Karabakh issue, in spite of the pressure.

One of the most plausible criticism about the current White House in Washington is that this administration usually go between the idealistic and realistic postures so quickly and unexpectedly. Run up to the April 24, the Obama administration, without much consideration over the possible repercussions of nationalistic uproar in Turkey, urged the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, ideologically or emotionally to ratify protocols hastily, in a time, when the AKP administration wounded badly by the colossal domestic fights and various democratic openings within Turkey. The U.S. administration, was too busy to see that for the Turkish administration, compromising over the ratification process was too much to ask and could be a lethal along with trading the brotherly relationships with Azeris for better relationships with Armenia.

It can now be said that the U.S. administration might adapt a more realistic protocols policy after April 24.

Both sides, the Armenian and Turkish leaderships, proved that they have enough courage to have come forward to talk over some tough issues and historic grievances in recent years. Many courageous steps have been taken by the leaders and much ground covered lately in both communities in regard to empathizing with each other. This proves that there is some kind of a long healing process underway as well between the two communities.

Did the leaders of the both countries come to the table a couple of years ago to just show off and "play for their interests" as one Armenian expert put it, or there is some more courage till to the end.

Times like this play a great litmus a test to prove for either.

 

7 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - Richard Murphy 2010-04-25 17:57:53		To andrew: Turkiye has no obligation toward Armenia. It takes two to tango. If Armenians do not want to tango, Turkiye will not beg them.

Guest - bakayan 2010-04-24 23:55:30		also, I totally agree with Anthony.. Turkey came with pre-conditions which they werent supposed to

Guest - bakayan 2010-04-24 23:50:55		this is could be a way forward? I dont think so.. this whole thing is going to collapse.. armenians and turks will never come to terms.. sad

Guest - bakayan 2010-04-24 23:46:37		this is could be a way forward? I dont think so.. this whole thing is going to collapse.. armenians and turks will never come to terms.. sad

Guest - Murat 2010-04-24 15:21:57		The ball was in Turkey's corner. For some reason, and rightly, they expected some movement on Karabag issue though it was never an official precondition. It never happened and without it there is almost no chance TBMM will ratify any protocols. There is actually little Erdogan can do. Armenians knew this too well, but for their own reasons waited a miracle to happen and for Turks to totally decouple Karabag and Azeris from all this. No way. After all, protocols are for regional peace and stability. There will be none until Armenians face the consequences of their invasion of a neighbor.

Guest - andrew 2010-04-24 10:40:07		to the writer of this column you have it all wrong turkey never intended to carry out its obligation of the treaty this is clearly shown by your leader. he thinks he is the new tallat pasha he is angry controlling and trying to act like dictator. but most of allhe thinks he is right who is he fooling himself or the world.himself yes but the world he is not they are looking watching how he is reacting and acting.. one last thing i know you will not publish this because you cannot.you are hurriet only in name in reality just a bigmouth for your dictatorial regime armenian papers put on the comments straight away when will you be able to do that

Guest - B. Baronian 2010-04-24 02:10:26		Only time will tell what happens as I do not think a solution or peace proposal can be simply imposed by the great powers. Only the parties directly involved can find a solution and then only if there is a willingness on their part to face the facts for what they really are

Turkey: 'There is no deadline for Iran'

     http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-there-is-no-deadline-for-iran-2010-04-16

     Friday, April 16, 2010

By convening one of the largest international summits Washington, D.C., has ever seen, U.S. President Barack Obama proved that he could be a leader. By all measures, he had not proved to be one before.

The apparent success of the International Nuclear Security Summit was, however, due by and large to its uncontroversial targets. The goals of the summit were basically to prevent a terrorist group or groups from gaining access to nuclear weapons. So dozens of countries’ legal administrations signed the communiqué at the summit, without much disagreement.

I was at the convention center to follow the summit, without knowing how much the meetings would be restricted. None of the bilateral meetings that took place on the sidelines of the summit had a segment for a quick Q and A. Everyone ended up being thankful for whatever they could squeeze out of the diplomats from the participating countries.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s meetings with Armenian President Serge Sarkisian and U.S. President Obama were likewise heavily restricted; there was very little information available on the meetings through some diplomatic sources and the White House readouts.

Among more than a dozen of the readouts on Obama’s bilateral meetings, only the readout on the Obama-Erdoğan meeting sent from the White House attached a picture; Obama is seen with a dead-serious face as opposed to Erdoğan’s smiling posture.

The Turkish delegation was in Washington for the nuclear security summit, but the sideline meetings with Sarkisian, Obama, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian weighted the visit. The Turkish-Armenian normalization process, in addition to Iran’s nuclear program as well as the partly strained U.S.-Turkey relationship following the “genocide” row in early March, were the main issues discussed.

By Tuesday, Erdoğan made it clear through media interviews and statements that Turkey opposes the sanctions against Iran at this time. And by Thursday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also declared, following my question during a press conference before he departed for Brazil, that Turkey does not have a deadline for the talks with Iran.

“One of the most dangerous things in a process like this is to give a deadline. It is not the right course of action,” Davutoğlu said. “If one wants to manage the psychology of the process, one must avoid deadlines. Therefore, we do not say that this should happen at this time, and that should happen at that time."

Turkey does not see itself bound to the American deadline, which has been repeatedly stated as the “end of this spring” – though it is not clear that the spring deadline would be attainable by the U.S. administration anyway.

According to some good sources in Washington, Saudi Arabian officials have already been shown the “sanctions package” that Davutoğlu reproachfully stated, in a speech in the U.S. capital, that the Turkish administration has not yet been shown, even though his country sits on the United Nations Security Council.

According to one important source in Washington, the Saudis asked the Americans to bring the sanctions to the Security Council after May, when the Lebanese government will finish its chairmanship of the council. It is well known that Lebanon, along with Turkey and Brazil, likely will say “no” if a vote is held on sanctions against Iran.

Ian Lesser, a well-known Turkey expert at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, said the meetings between Obama and Erdoğan “have not produced much in terms of the bilateral relationship.” Lesser added that “there is a stark difference when it comes to the view of the utility of the sanctions on the parts of the two governments.” And he hinted that it will be an interesting journey to watch when or if the sanctions reach the U.N. Security Council and to see how the positions will be taken.

One of the of the most visible foreign affairs deputies from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, told me within the last couple of months that “at the end of the day, Turkey will take the side of the West against Iran, if the voting day comes to the Security Council.”

During the last week, the leadership of the AKP displayed its decisiveness, in terms of being in the opposition against the position that favors sanctions, by making some strong economical points as well as other political ones.

It must be noted: Obama still has not ruled out the diplomatic solution, including the one that is currently being developed and was briefly discussed by the U.S., Brazilian and Turkish leaders during the summit. However, the U.S. is not as patient as the Turkish administration would like it to be.

The Israeli lobby in the U.S. Congress, with a letter signed by three-quarters of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, urging the Obama administration to stand with U.S. ally Israel, is pressing hard to change Obama’s position in regard to Israel.

It is not only from Congress that Obama is receiving heavy pressure; in the international arena, the Germans and the French have been more aggressive lately in pursuit of heavier and faster sanctions against Iran. Just as Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley stated last Wednesday during a press conference, the U.S. administration thinks it has already spent more than a year trying to find a diplomatic solution for the Iranian problem and nothing is moving “behind the curtain.” Now it seems Turkey is where America was a year ago.

The climate in Washington says that unless Turkey and other countries that want to work more on a diplomatic solution find that hidden diplomatic solution sometime soon, the U.S. and Turkey might have a clash over bigger problems than they do today.

There is, of course, always the Russian and Chinese opposition and it would require creative thinking on the part of the Obama administration to create such a magic solution that could both assure the Israelis enough so they will not attack Iran and assemble sanctions that are soft enough to cajole Russia and China into supporting them. It is a very a narrow line to walk.

The Turkish-Armenian track

On the Armenian-Turkish track, even though Turkey tried hard to give an impression in Washington that the normalization process is continuing, one needs to put in extra effort to see anything progressing for a while.

Both Erdoğan and Mr. Murat Mercan, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Turkish Parliament, a committee in charge of the ratification of the protocols, have repeatedly ruled out any move unless there is a positive step on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

In response to this expectation, Armenian President Sarkisian, following the meeting with Erdoğan, went to visit Woodrow Wilson’s tomb in the National Cathedral and told members of the gathered Armenian representatives that: “Turkey cannot speak in the language of preconditions with Armenia and the people of Armenia. We simply will not allow it.”

Ross Vartian, the executive director of the U.S.-Armenian Public Affairs Committee, said “Armenia’s patience is not unlimited” with regard to the ratification of the protocols. And he recalled that both the Armenian and the U.S. view on the Karabakh issue are the same, and that view does not link the protocols with the Karabakh issue.

In the coming weeks, relations between the U.S. and Turkey will continue to be dominated by these two massive impasses.

 

3 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - Ferdinand 2010-04-18 23:32:58		Hammad Sethi is 100% Correct.

Guest - Max Gonzales 2010-04-18 18:06:03		What is going on in this world, how come no one is questioning the Israeli Nuclear Program,..... We should all have world with free nuclear, but I disagree that we are allowing one to have (Israel) and telling the other one you cannot have it (Iran) Shame on you people, shame on you,,, how come we lecture our kids on to be fair when we ourselves are NOT

Guest - Hammad Sethi 2010-04-18 13:29:11		America is the biggest thug in the world and Americans cannot afford to lose this status. Iran really is no threat to anybody in the presence of a Mighty Terrorist Thug such as the USA. The USA just wants to make it clear to all the Muslims that it can ensure the safety and security of the (tiny terrorist) Israel no-matter what it does to Muslims and Muslim Governments cannot do anything about it and that Muslim Life, Honour and Property does not mean anything. The USA wants all Muslim countries to know that it can step on any Muslim country's sovereignty and Muslims cannot do anything about that. Iran is the only Muslim country that stands up against this tyranny and the USA has officially threatened to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Iranian Muslims. The USA keeps Muslim world divided and enslaved with threat of violence, and economic blackmail and it is for us Muslims to beat them back with the help of Muslim Unity and determination.

The nuclear security summit and Namık Tan resumes his post

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-nuclear-security-summit-and-namik-tan-resumes-his-post-2010-04-09

   Friday, April 9, 2010

U.S. President Obama will be hosting an unprecedented nuclear security summit in Washington on April 12 and 13. Obama, after passing health care reform in Congress, received a big boost in his standing. And after this historic achievement, he now wants to go on a roll by building international consensus on a variety of nuclear non-proliferation issues, as well as he is hoping to find some solidarity among the international actors against Iran's misbehavior.

In the last couple of weeks, the Obama administration has signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, with the Russians to cut both countries' nuclear arsenals by one-third.

The Obama administration also released its New Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, last Tuesday, and declared to the world that he is radically narrowing down the conditions under which the U.S. could use nuclear weapons.

Obama spelled out his “nuclear dream” almost a year ago in Prague for the first time. In that speech, Obama said he would work to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the U.S.'s National Security Policy and eventually work to fully eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth, even though he will probably not see such a goal realized in his life.

In both of these cases, START and NPR, Obama has been criticized by the left and right on the domestic political spectrum. The liberals think that already Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama did not go far enough (such as Michael Levi). And the conservatives think that Obama is weakening the country by putting too many constraints on its biggest deterrence policy (like Tunku Varadarajan.)

On the other hand, Obama is realistic enough to see that he needs two-thirds of a majority of the Senate to ratify international treaties such as START, and it means that as long as he does not secure some of the Republican support, however big the promises he wishes to extend to world, he will end up failing at home.

The nuclear security summit that will start on Monday also stems from another goal that was set in Prague a year ago by Obama, which was to do more to prevent nuclear arsenals from falling into the hands of non-state actors.

Turkey will be attending the summit as well, but not because it has much to say on the topic, but because it sits at the U.N. Security Council and its proximity to Iran.

While the Turkish Prime Minister visibly increased his anti-sanctions posture recently, according to the latest reports, China and Russia have been moving slowly to support some kind of sanctions against Iran. The final version of the sanctions will not be tough or as “biting” as America or more importantly like Israel wishes to see, according to experts. Still it looks like we are headed to a voting day at the U.N. Security Council this spring.

Will there be a bilateral meeting?

While it took some time for the prime minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdoğan, to make his decision to participate in the summit, following this decision to visit, the Turkish side expected to secure a “bilateral” meeting with Obama. When the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced that Obama would have a one-to-one meeting with the president of Armenia, Serge Sarkisian, but not with Erdoğan, it felt like another cold shower for the Turkish delegation that is gearing up to leave for Washington.

I reached a senior White House official after Gibbs announced that there would be no meeting bilaterally or trilaterally with Turkey. The senior official, who wanted to stay anonymous, confirmed the no-meeting news but added that "[they] expect the president will have a chance to talk with PM Erdoğan as they will be seated next to each other at one of the events."

Namik Tan, who was recalled after the resolution of "genocide" passage at the key House Committee last month, returned to Washington Tuesday night, and had some meetings at the White House the next day.

Mr. Tan, during his meeting in the White House, along with other issues, raised the issue of “bilateral” meetings as well, but the reaction he received from the White House was the same reaction that I received from the senior White House official a day before.

Though I must add, the Turkish diplomats believe that there will be a “bilateral” meeting between Obama and Erdoğan at the end, even though the current ambiguity is a bulky annoyance.

The meeting between the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Armenian leader Sarkisian is already agreed on, but still the parties are working on the details.

Erdoğan recently sent his special envoy, Mr. Feridun Sinirlioglu, to Erivan to deliver a letter. According to people who know the developments first hand, the “meetings in Erivan went well."

The Turkish administration also believes that "there are some hopeful signs in terms of reaching a some kind of understanding over the Karabakh issue" with Armenia. The reaction from Armenians is not the same. Instead, the Armenian side insists that the Karabakh issue was not even addressed before and during the signing of protocols last year, according to daily Radical.

Different Armenian officials have constantly given the same message with the backing of the U.S. and many other European countries in recent months, which is that they already did enough work for the protocols and rest is up to the Turkish administration. "It is impossible to ratify protocols before April 24," says the Turkish side, while the Armenian diaspora is increasing pressure and lobbying the White House in run up to the April 24.

‘Nuclear option’ for genocide?

From various discussions in circles in Washington recently, there is another option being implied to handle the issue of “genocide” in Turkey. I would call this “thinking” the “nuclear option” and it basically suggests Turkey consider what would happen if it changes its official view of the 1915 events, which it does not see as genocide currently. This option is not valid before the 24 April apparently, but can be put into perspective in times to come.

Omer Taspinar, director of the Turkey Program at the Brookings Institution, a Washington based think tank, gave one of the most “straight” talks of this option in Washington at the Gulenist Rumi Forum last week. Taspinar suggested that Turkey has not compromised yet as Armenia did during the “normalization process.” According to Taspinar, Turkey should come to terms with regarding to the events of 1915 as well.

Taşpınar also predicted in a phone conversation later on that, "there is a 99 percent chance that, this year like the last year, President Obama will cite the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia and avoid using the word of genocide while he will give his annual Armenian Remembrance Day statement on April 24."

 

4 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - Harry Garifallidis 2010-04-12 16:24:51		@ guest MARK, yes indeed MARK, some of us do know the reason(s) why the mighty US of A nuked Japan. I believe it was the bombing of Pearl Harbor, signifying the declaration of war between Japan and the mighty US of A. However, the point one should consider is that the mighty US of A did not have to detonate nuclear weapon(s) over populated areas (cities) to convince Japan to surrender. They could have detonated them over unpopulated areas and still yield the same unconditional surrender from Japan. Failing to do the latter, and God only knows why, resulted in the brutal and immediate death/murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Furthermore, countless thousands suffered and perished for many years thereafter due to the after-effects of radiation. Now this is what I call GENOCIDE. Surely it advanced American knowledge of the effects of nuclear radiation on innocent civilians. Remember, Americans are the ONLY race that has ever done this in the World’s history. It’s a matter of perspective isn’t it? Best regards, Harry Garifallidis, Canada

Guest - MARK 2010-04-12 08:26:23		@Sethi-Do you know why the USA used a nuclear bomb on Japan. In case your history eludes you the Japanese attached the USA without provocation killing thousands at Pearl Habor. The use of the bomb saved many Americans lives. And, it would be done again in a heartbeat if we are attacked. And just who are we blackmailing and threatening? Furthmore, we will support whatever nation we feel is in our best interest just like all other nations. So, why don't you just attended to your own business and know what you are talking about before chastizing others.

Guest - Hammad Sethi 2010-04-10 23:34:00		What gives an international thug like the USA the right to lead the world in nuclear affairs? USA is the only country that used nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country, thus murdering hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians and causing endless suffering to a nation. USA can terrorise other nations, it can subjugate other nations through threat of violence and economic blackmail, but it does not have the moral high ground to lead the world. USA has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. First these thugs should stop supporting the (tiny terrorist Israel) in the Middle East, and the (Mighty Beggar India) in Kashmir, apologise to Muslim world starting from the Spanish Inquisition all to way to Afghanistan, before they start lecturing the world about morals and nuclear safety.

Guest - antoine 2010-04-10 19:30:10		erivan??? are you serious, it's like some british journalist reffering to india as british raj in it's articles in this day and age in some respected newspaper. actually it's YAREVAN and not erivan.

Embattled Vatican

   http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=embattled-vatican-2010-04-02

   Friday, April 2, 2010

Child abuse scandals are engulfing the Catholic Church in Europe. And the reports that argue Pope Benedict XVI did not do enough about those sexual abuse claims in the past raise even more tension and questions about how bad the institution of accountability is within the Vatican and whether it can ever be transparent.

The pope gathered 24 bishops from Ireland to listen to how they handled the child abuse cases in their territory in mid-February. The Vatican meeting came two months after the Murphy Commission Report, which investigated crimes by pedophile priests. Some of the report's conclusions said the church in Ireland implemented a policy of "don't ask, don't tell," and "obsessively concealed child abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese from 1975 to 2004."

Sylvia Poggioli, from National Public Radio, or NPR, said, "The Murphy Report came just seven months after another investigation revealed chronic beatings, rapes, near starvation and the humiliation of 30,000 children in schools and orphanages — all run by the Catholic Church in Ireland."

Another effect of these unraveling and ugly stories across Europe is that it mounts a lot of pressure on the Pope himself. There are many different arguments on how much he knew about these scandals, especially while he was cardinal, and when he knew about them. Many now accuse him openly that he, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, did not come out as frank as he was supposed to.

According to John Allen, a senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, "The Pope isn't just part of the problem, but also an important part of the solution" in his op-ed published in the New York Times. Allen argues that the current Pope Benedict started the “zero tolerance” policy for such complaints since he became the pope and after Pope John Paul II put Cardinal Ratzinger and his office in charge of the abuse complaints in 2001. Allen said, "He began to talk much more openly about what he described as 'filth' in the Catholic Church, and became much more aggressive about prosecuting abusers."

The experts who follow the Vatican closely argue that one of the biggest problems of the ongoing situation is “bishops.” During the last several decades, many bishops connected to these scandals, with their limitless discretion, took no action or moved very slowly to tackle the problem while complaints piled up. How will the Vatican step forward to bring new accountability measures for bishops is the real problem, according to some religious experts. And whether the pope will be able to investigate and fire bishops, will determine how serious the Vatican is about solving this epidemic and relieve the victims.

If there will be any formal policy put in place to instruct bishops by the Vatican will be an important follow-up to watch, Allen argues, after this episode ends. Though, according to the latest tally so far, five Irish bishops already gave letters of resignation to the pope, and resignations of two of them already are accepted.

So far, the list of countries in which the scandals first appeared are in Europe. And when one knows that two-thirds of the members of the Roman Catholic Church live in the Southern hemisphere such as Latin America, Asia and Africa, then the picture becomes even grimmer for those regions with mostly under-developed countries.

It would be naive to think that this epidemic is only limited to European countries but not other parts of the globe. However, the issues with the judiciary or cultural loyalty and respect to the elders, such as priests of the churches, could veil such cases from coming to light. When illiteracy and poorness are also taken into consideration, one would imagine how difficult it would be to bring law suits, prepare independent studies and or file complaints against one of the most well-organized and powerful institutions of a country, the Roman Catholic Church.

While the Vatican is going through one of its most significant crises in recent history, expecting a resignation from the Pope is useless. It is almost impossible because the Pope is perceived as more of a father figure in the Catholic Church, not a CEO that can held be accountable following such a failure episode. Pope Benedict XVI, who also served as bishop and cardinal in the past, and appeared less than concerned for such complaints in the 1990s according to many accounts, should have had his share of responsibility, under the normal circumstances.

David Gibson, a papal biographer, who has been following Pope Benedict XVI since his years as a Cardinal stated in an interview recently that “popes don't resign.” It has never happened since the 14th century and there is no mechanism to put pressure on the pope currently, he concludes. That is why it is so panicking to the Vatican for these complaints to get closer to the Pope Benedict, himself.

The Vatican City is being ruled by elective monarchy. In this system the pope takes all the power which is combined with legislative, executive, and judicial forces. It is an absolute monarchy with no independent judiciary, and is certainly not a democracy. There is neither a strong branch to oversee the executive power, the pope, nor any other independent watchdog to open investigations by itself.

Not having independent judiciary, and other branches to oversee the executive power bring corruption, and it brings corruption everywhere in the world.

There are strong arguments over some of the constitutional changes that are put forward by the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, that they might also work to lessen the Constitutional Court's independence even further.

I think the Vatican can be a good example of different kind of corruption when the branches cannot monitor each other healthily. It is because how "God" wanted it to be, Vatican would argue, any criticism over their current absolute monarchy.

Not sure how the AKP would explain possible damages that would do to the independence of the judiciary with some of its constitutional changes.

 

7 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - dr p 2010-04-05 14:06:23		@brian: in the us, the priests were all classified as paedophiles even though many of the victims were adolescents and older; nambla aside, it's a lot easier to go after paedophiles than gays, but the predators fit both descriptions.

Guest - Zonkey 2010-04-04 20:52:09		There's already enough evidence to arrest Ratzinger for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Useful for him that he can continue to masquerade as a Head of State and so enjoy immunity. Whilst this is a disgrace I can only hope that it forces so called Catholics to examine their own conscience and decide the day of kneeling before frock wearing virgins should be consigned to their own very dark history.

Guest - Brian 2010-04-03 20:40:51		It is true what Gitch says regarding celibacy. It is a perversion of human nature, but this isn't the answer to the problem. A priest who is a normal man would have an affair with a woman (as has happened many times, or a gay priest will have secret affairs with other gay people) But this is different. These men are pedophiles. It is a fact that pedophiles are attracted towards professions and activities that give them easy access to children. These perverts have been discovered not just in the church, but in schools, scout troops, junior swimming clubs, football clubs, etc. The rule is, NEVER allow your children to be with any unknown adults without you or someone you trust being present. As fot the Catholic Church in Ireland, it is a rotten and disgraced organisation and wish it never existed. "Organised religion is the greatest trick the devil ever played on mankind"

Guest - donha 2010-04-03 17:36:32		National will? Like Erdogan often states.

Guest - Vigge 2010-04-03 11:21:38		The issue of course has to be dealt with in a fully transparent manner. Bring all of out in the open light, disusss it in an open manner and from there decide how to proceed to avoid such horrible crimes to occur again in the future. We saw a similar case a couple of years ago in Turkey with some kind of sect leader who mollested young girls (and the mother who was smiling at the pictures) but since Muslims are not organized in the same way, with Popes etc, it does not become more than an isolated event. However, the religious authorities (regardless religion) has to do everything in their power to stop this abuse in the name of religion, regardless if it is sexual abuse as for the catholics or terror and violance for the Muslims.

Guest - mir 2010-04-03 01:06:08		it is easter.. let 'his holiness' enjoy the day.. dont spoil it for him

Guest - Gitch 2010-04-03 00:33:19		It doesn't take a genius to know that if the Catholic Church only let these guys get married ... YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS!