Much as there can be personal likes or dislikes between world leaders there is one prime factor that determines the level of bilateral relations between countries: this is the convergence or divergence of political and economic interests.

Harping on medieval history, the Turks claim that their Ottoman ancestors gave the French ‘the most privileged state’ status under the terms of capitulations as early as 1535. The same year, the French dispatched Jean de la Forest as their first ambassador to Constantinople. Nevertheless, it took almost two hundred years for the Ottomans to reciprocate with sending their own envoy to Paris: The Ottoman Empire government appointed its first ambassador Yirmisekiz Mehmet Çelebi to France in 1721.

Nowadays, economic relations between the two countries are not insignificant. Currently 1.366 French companies are operating in Turkey. France ranks 10th country in terms of number of foreign companies operating in Turkey. In the years 2002-2015, French direct investments to Turkey have reached 6.759 billion US dollars. France ranks 10th in terms of foreign direct investments.

Beyond trade, Erdogan envisions the biggest role for Turkey: to become the region’s ‘law and order provider’. “There are also measures that we can take together … against terrorist organisations” Erdogan told Macron at the said videocall (2 March 2021), insinuating at his fervent desire to eliminate the PKK freedom fighters. The Turkish President added that Turkey and France ‘can contribute significantly to stability and peace in Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East and Africa’.

However, in practical terms Erdogan offered nothing: he did not mention anything on the fate of more than a dozen French teachers at Istanbul’s Galatasaray University whose work permits have been held up and who face the threat of expulsion due to last year’s diplomatic spat.

Recently, the Turkish leadership has been uttering some conciliatory words towards the EU in view of the latter’s summit later in the month. The European Council meeting is due to discuss further sanctions on Turkey as a reaction to Ankara’s provocative exploration moves in Greek and Cypriot waters. Such a big decision was postponed  at the last European Council meeting (10-11 December 2020). Erdogan’s overture to Macron targets at weaning France from the hardline ‘in-favour-of-sanctions club’ where Greece and Cyprus stand and placing it within the moderates’ camp where Germany, Italy and Spain exhibit reluctance on the prospect of further antagonizing Turkey. The latter block’s cautionary stance has been explained by their significant commercial interests in Turkey and its anticipation that any measures leading to a Turkish economic crisis would, in turn, severely harm the European banking sector.

To be sure, sanctions or no sanctions, the Turkish leadership has over the last few years shown excessive zeal in promoting an assertive and expansionist foreign policy aimed at establishing a regional Pax Turca in the entire region that Erdogan mentioned in his videocall to Macron. It is highly unlikely that it will back down, for whatever reason, from this long-term goal.

The Western alliance launched the air attack campaign which lasted for 79 days and nights – it started on 24 March 1999 – without the due authorisation by the UN Security Council. Obviously, the unauthorised air raids were in direct breach of international law: NATO was not in any conceivable way threatened by the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) to warrant a self-defence response.

‘Humanitarian intervention’ was NATO’s brand name for the massive air raid on the rump FRY. The Brussels headquartered alliance referred to the protection of the Albanian minority – residing mostly in Kosovo – from the federal Yugoslav army ‘onslaught’. But how humanitarian was NATO’s intervention? Here are the ‘humanitarian effects’ of the almost three-month long air raids: between 489 and 528 civilians killed on top of about one thousand members of the Yugoslav Security Forces. The bombings destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations. Modest estimates put the value of the immediate material damage inflicted at around $35 billion. This figure does not include the tremendous loss of future production capacity as a result of the obliteration of the country’s industrial base by NATO’s bomber jets. Twenty one years later, NATO has not compensated a single billion for this immense catastrophe. (Interested in learning excruciating details of this untold story? Browse the book entitled Crime in War, Genocide in Peace: The Consequences of NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 authored by three professors: Vladislav Jovanovic, Slobodan Petkovic & Slobodan Cikaric, www.slglasnik.com, Belgrade 2012).

A single extract from the afore-mentioned book would suffice (pp. 14-15):

Regrettably, it was not only that political and military leaders of the major NATO Members were absolutely unscrupulous in committing aggression … but they also totally disregarded their moral duty following the aggression, to provide assistance in the identification and rehabilitation of the contaminated areas, funding for overcoming the created [sad] situation and compensation to the victims or their families for their loss, traumatic experience and covering of medical treatment expenses. Instead of showing at least minimum solidarity with the innocent victims, NATO leaders are watching quite indifferently, from the heights of their invulnerability, how Russian experts specializing in demining and decontamination are assisting, at their own cost, the clearance of some contaminated areas. (Vladislav Jovanovic: NATO Aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Depleted Uranium)

As it happens Russian humanitarian aid to Serbia is not a desultory affair: early in April of the current year, the Russian Ministry of Defence dispatched 87 military virologists and doctors, special and protective equipment as well as sixteen pieces of military equipment to assist in the fight against coronavirus. The aid warranted eleven Il-76 flights to Serbia. Two Russian medical teams stayed on in the Serbian capital, where the most difficult epidemiological situation has developed, whilst five more were sent to the cities of Nis, Kikinda, Valevo and Chupria. President Vucic, whose party opposes NATO membership, thanked the Russian president, for volunteering this valuable aid at the height of the Covid-19 lock down.

Next Sunday, June 21^st, Serbia goes to the polls. The country’s future relations with NATO form part of these general elections’ foreign and defence policy agenda on which the battle for power is fought. Belgrade has a twenty-one year old unsettled bill in US dollars – undoubtedly an eleven digit figure – to claim from the unscrupulous Western alliance.

In less than a year time (May 2021) the Cypriot voters will also go to the polls for parliamentary elections. The island republic’s relations with NATO has also been part of the Cypriot national debate. The issue is complex; equally historically loaded. It was NATO-member Turkey which invaded Cyprus in 1974 using NATO weaponry. The US arms sales embargo imposed on Turkey in the aftermath of the invasion was so short-lived that amounted to a mockery. Like in the case of NATO air strikes on Serbia, Ankara failed to pay the billions in compensation for damages and war crimes committed by its invading troops in Cyprus. Not to mention NATO’s complete failure to reign in Turkish continuous trouble making in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. So much so that an exacerbated French Ministry of Defence had to put out a no-word-mincing statement: there is a Turkey time bomb within NATO, let’s face it, otherwise we fool ourselves!                                            

By 2020, the confrontation between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean and in the Mediterranean at large, saw the Greek Minister of Defense speak about possibility of military conflict with Turkey.(i) This statement by the Greek Minister of Defense came a few hours after the Turkish President held a press conference in Ankara with Fayez Al Sarraj, Prime Minister of the UN-recognized National Accord Government based in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.(ii) Erdoğan said that Turkey and Libya would proceed with oil exploration and drilling in Greece’s contested maritime space in the eastern Mediterranean(iii), adjacent to Crete and now claimed by Libya aided and abetted by Ankara as it kept challenging Athens. Turkey had begun its military and political involvement in the civil war in Libya while confronting the Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian involvement in North Africa against a Turkish presence and the ideological influence of the Muslim brothers and manipulated by Erdoğan’s Islamist ideology. Just a few weeks earlier, there had been confrontations between Greek and Turkish forces on the border in Thrace.(iv) Thousands and thousands of real and imaginary refugees and other irregular migrants from the Middle East at large, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, moved to Turkey and planned on entering Europe. Having encouraged them to move to the Greek border, Ankara is seeking to entice those manipulated unfortunate souls to step into the European Union. In its confrontation in Cyprus, Turkey paved over the entry point in northern Cyprus in favor of entering the republic to the south.

Some years earlier, the war in Syria had seen thousands of refugees going to primarily Germany and Sweden. This development gave Erdoğan a chance to blackmail Europe to receive aid and status recognition and drawing concessions regarding Ankara’s relations with the European Union. For decades, Turkey had tried to be admitted into the European club. The EU, in trying to avoid conflict with Turkey, had already admitted Greece in 1980 and promised future admission to Turkey as to avoid conflicts in the area. Both Athens and Ankara have been long standing members of NATO but that membership has not lessened the confrontation between the two countries. Neither has it mitigated Turkey’s contemporary attempt to revise power relations with its Greek neighbor.

The Arab-Israeli conundrum receives the bulk of interest in Europe and North America, and of course the Islamic world, as the Jewish state’s legitimacy has always been challenged at some level or another. The European, and especially Italian relations to North Africa and the Middle East and inevitably to Mediterranean security have been historically linked in the mind of the European public and political parties to the wars between Israel and its neighbors. What are overlooked in the European political world are the other conflicts in the Middle East. For example, the partition of Cyprus, the confrontation between Turkish and Greek worlds which overlaps with contentious maritime borders, potentially rich with oil and gas in the Aegean Sea and off the shores of Cyprus. Sectarian conflicts in the Middle East are also relevant, as Shii, Sunnis and other radical Islamists in the Sunni world challenge the social fabric and political systems of individual states such as Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

Italy with specific strategic interests is, arguably, the European country with the most important role in the Mediterranean. The fall of Gadhafi in 2011 after an internal revolt aided and abetted by France and other powers against the desires of the Italian government brought a power vacuum that allowed hundreds of thousands of African, Middle Eastern and Asian illegal immigrants moving successfully to the European continent through Italy. The Syrian civil war added even more impetus to these catastrophic migrations that have brought the European Union to a point of delegitimization in the eyes of many European citizens. In the recent past, the government of Silvio Berlusconi, had been successful in supporting the Gadhafi regime so as to stop illegal immigration in exchange for Italian development aid and of course purchase of Libyan oil.

Historically Italy’s main state-owned oil company, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, ENI, successfully entered the international oil and gas markets from the 1960s onward. Its total revenues never matched those of companies such as Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Total or British Petroleum (BP); all the same, the company itself came to play a big role in Italian daily and political life. It does so to this day. It serves Italian strategic needs very well. The Italian gas and oil markets have always been characterized by long term national policies, because of the vulnerable economic position of Italy as it lacks natural resources. Following the Chernobyl disaster, Italy did away with nuclear energy in the 1980s. In this regard, the rhetoric about renewable energy in the country has not been matched by policies. By 2019, ENI was drilling offshore Cyprus for gas and oil, challenged by Turkey.(v) In early 2020, both Italian ENI and French energy giant Total announced the suspension of their drilling programme in Cyprus waters allegedly because of the corona virus crisis. However, not a few are those who believe that the real reason is the Turkish bullying.

The energy power game was also seeing at this time the entry of another player, Israel, with the plan to build a gas pipeline from the Israeli controlled seabed in the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe via Cyprus and Greece. The East Med pipeline has already received European support with the European Commission designating it as a project of common interest.

As in many European nations, Italy relies heavily on revenues derived from the taxation of energy consumption and highway tolls. The Italian transportation industry has been faced with a lot of challenges and its contribution to environmental degradation and pollution is not to be underestimated. In the last decade, the government has pushed forward policies to motivate the population to purchase more environmentally sound cars. However, it looks like it will take some generations before the adoption of non-polluting cars. All the same, Middle Eastern conflicts have influenced the price of oil in markets all over the world, and have been exploited politically by states in conflict such as Iran vs Saudi Arabia. As many oil producing nations encounter political problems, such as those in Venezuela, industrially advanced states – Italy is one of them – have to be very careful about managing and resolving international conflict. International conflict and instability in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea present a challenge to any Italian government and even to the military organization to which Rome belongs, in this case, NATO. The politics of oil and gas, became less problematic as by 2020, the price of these commodities had collapsed in the international market while the United States had become the largest producer of oil. But in no way did this relatively positive development lessened the need for alternatives to fossil fuels for environmental considerations.

Whilst Turkey and Greece are members of NATO, the policies of the current Turkish government continue to be very confrontational toward Athens and Nicosia. Current relations between Washington and Ankara are becoming ever more problematic because of overlapping conflicts in the Mideast such as the Syrian civil war, the confrontation between Israel and its Arab neighbors and the rise of the Islamic State. A development that took important political significance was the acquisition of Russian anti-aircraft missiles S400 by Ankara over and above the objections of Washington.

Turkey’s acquisition of sophisticated Russian military hardware was, by 2020, an indicator of a successful Russian re-entry into the politics of the area, after the demise of the Soviet Union, as Moscow’s involvement into the Syrian and Libyan civil wars foreshadowed another chapter in the great power conflicts in the Mediterranean. While the United States, under the presidency of Donald Trump, had stated that the US administration was committed to withdraw from conflicts in the area, the reality on the ground showed that the US was still heavily involved in the security of the region. Among other reasons, was the decades old confrontation between Iran and the United States as the radical Mullahs of Tehran had successfully entered the Near-East, especially Iraq and Syria, directly challenging US interests in the area, threatening Israel with genocide and challenging very subtly both Russia and Turkey for hegemony in the region. (vi) In fact, by 2020, American military commanders involved in anti-Islamic terrorism campaign in Africa (vii) were mentioning the possibility and inclination toward an American involvement in Tunisia as its border with Libya was becoming even more challenging for international security.(viii)

The great power game was already witnessing the entry of China in the region through Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative that saw, on paper, a revival of the Silk Road and the systematic expansion of Beijing’s commercial interests in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.(ix) The entry of China added an ever greater dimension to the theory of the balance of power in the study of international relations. If anything, it confirmed and strengthened the ideas of neo-realism in international affairs and challenged idealism and globalization as harbingers of peace and conflict resolution in the world. What stood out was the inability of Italy to act as a great power in the Mediterranean and even more the European Union as its policies for peace and cooperation seemed to be totally irrelevant to the power conflicts in the region.

(i) Paul Antonopoulos, “Greek Defense Minister: Turkey’s behavior is aggressive but our powerful Armed Forces are deterrent,” Greek City Times, June 5th, 2020, https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/06/05/greek-defence-minister- turkeys-behaviour-is-aggressive-but-our-powerful-armed-forces-is-a-deterrent/.
(ii) Ibid.
(iii) Ibid.
(iv) Steven Brown, “Tensions soar as Turkish troops invade Greece occupying piece of land on contested border” Express, May 22, 2020, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1285915/turkey-Greece-invade-contested-border- world-war-3-latest-ww3-news.
(v) “Our work in Cyprus,” ENI, https://www.eni.com/en-IT/global-presence/eurasia/cyprus.html.
(vi) Sina Azodi and Giorgio Cafiero, “Idlib is a stress test for Iranian-Turkish relations,” Atlantic Council, March 17, 2020, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/idlib-is-a-stress-test-for-iranian-turkish-relations/.
(vii) U.S. Army Africa Public Affairs, “USARAF commander engages Tunisian Land Forces army chief,” United States Army Africa, May 13, 2020, https://www.usaraf.army.mil/media-room/pressrelease/29481/usaraf- commander-engages-tunisian-land-forces-army-chief.
(viii) Jared Szuba, “US commander suggests sending military trainers to Tunisia after Russia sends aircraft to Libya,” Al-Monitor, June 1, 2020, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/us-commander-send-military- trainers-tunisia-russia-libya.html.
(ix) Andrew Chatzky and James McBride, “China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 28, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative.

However, according to many experts and analysts, it is unlikely that the current dialogue can cardinally change the situation on the Korean peninsula. The United States are an important participant in this process. Their position will largely influence on how far South Korea’s President Mun Zhe Ying will go with his peace-making intentions. During the election campaign, he announced his plans to normalize relations with North Korea. However under pressure from White House, he could do little.

Moreover, certain analysts believe Trump′s administration intentionally refuses to search for compromise. Instead, Washington accuses North Korea and flexes its muscles escalating tension in the Asian-Pacific region.

Evidently, “nuclear bludgeon” in the hands of odious North Korean leader Kim Jong Un threatens international stability. At the same time, as paradoxical as it may sound, Washington’s policy provoked Pyongyang to develop its own nuclear weapon program. The historical record speaks for itself: the American leadership uses military force to topple objectionable regimes in total neglect of international law. In reality, the tragic examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya motivated the North Korean ruling elite to resort to the development of nuclear weapons as a unique way of deterrence.

Pasqual Bonifas, Director of the French Institute for International and Strategic Studies is of the above opinion. To the French analyst’s mind, Kim Jong Un is apprehensive of the destiny of Saddam Hussein as well as of that of Muammar Qaddafi.

Certain sober Western politicians point to sensible pragmatism. The call for the necessity of dialogue with Pyongyang comes not just from countries not so friendly to the US but importantly from the camp of very devoted allies of Washington. In particular, Zigmund Gabriel, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs warned President Donald Trump against warlike declarations aimed at North Korea.

“The European experience should not be underestimated. We are like somnambulists entered First World War because the governments of the countries of conflict had refused dialogue. The war began as people neglected diplomacy. At present, war rhetoric is becoming more critical. This is alarming. I am much worried about Trump′s words that the US military is ready to solve the North Korean problem with fire and fury”, Gabriel emphasized.

However that may be, to organize the Olympiad in Pyeong Chang in these conditions can be really dangerous. The Austrian Head of the Olympic Committee and the French Minister of Sport warned that their teams would refuse to take part in the Olympic Games if the host country could not guarantee safety for their delegations. Everyone can understand the West European sport officials: competing in conditions of furious fight of nuclear powers is not such a bright perspective. The International Olympic Committee with its head Thomas Bach looks like a stillborn organization unable to say anything reasonable.

As top leaders fail make decisions consolidating peace in the region, ordinary citizens have been in panic. According to the South Korean Ministry of Sport, no more than half of Olympiad Games’ tickets have been sold so far: the lowest index in the history of the modern Olympic movement. Diplomatic representations of most European nations “recommended insistently” their citizens to refrain from going to Pyeong Chang. South Korean officials are alarmed as the Olympiad budget will not be compensated.

If high rank officials from the International Olympic Committee have no courage to correct their own mistakes, the Olympiad in Pyeong Chang would hit hard the Olympic movement’s reputation. Competing with no spectators is the worst that young sportsmen and sportswomen can expect. Reason calls for the relocation of the forthcoming Winter Olympic Games to another country.

Few years ago, Germany as well as France launched their candidacy to organize the 2018 Winter Olympiad. These two countries could became “reserve field” for the Olympic movement. These European countries’ developed social, sport and transport infrastructure allows for the XXIII Winter Olympic Games to be held on high standards.

Small EU member states have neither enough power nor influence to impact radically the policy of this quasi-state entity. Their statements against the anti-Russian sanctions, or, conversely, their demands for cessation of all communication with Moscow do not have much impact on policy makers in Brussels.

But on the other hand, we know that second tier politicians in many countries of the world express ideas that power cannot or do not want to voice. In the same way smaller states can come forward with policy proposals, which subsequently will be considered as official Brussels policy.

Estonia and Slovakia almost simultaneously made consequential political statements about Russia. Estonian President Kirsti Kaliulayd said in an interview with the BBC that the sooner the relations between Russia and the Western countries become normal, the better. At the same time, the Estonian President declared that she would be pleased if good relations prevail with Moscow. She added, however, that Russia is too ‘unpredictable’. On the direct question whether she considers Russia a “hostile state”, Kaliulayd unequivocally replied “no.”

Andrey Danko, the Speaker of the Slovak Parliament, accuses other countries that officially they come forward for Russia’s containment, but in fact they do not stop cooperation with Moscow. “I see that, contrary to sanctions, the trade between Russia and EU member states is thriving. There are a lot of representatives of US companies in Russia,” he said during the recent 137th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in St. Petersburg. According to Danko, in relations with Moscow “we missed many things, because we wanted to differ from the Russians. But we need a Slavic reciprocity, as well as cooperation in the economic sphere”.

It is equally interesting to note that in neighboring Austria, the conservative Austrian People’s Party won the recent elections. The country’s last Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurtz heads the winner party. Kurtz stands for the abolition of sanctions on Russia. In another neighboring country the Czech Republic, Andrei Babish has won the parliamentary elections. He is suspected of wanting “to orient the Czech Republic (and at the same time Central Europe) towards Moscow, forcing it to “turn away from Brussels and Washington.” Thus Prague’s rapprochement with Moscow becomes very likely. In addition, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is frequently accused of being “pro-Russian,” and he is also against sanctions on Russia.

Of course, all the statements about the need for the resumption of dialogue and the abolition of sanctions against Russia are due not to a disinterested love of Russia and not to “Slavic reciprocity”. Sanctions harm all European countries, but Central and Eastern Europe, due to geographical proximity and tuned Soviet-era ties, suffers more. Among the EU member states due to sanctions on Russia, Cyprus suffered especially badly: exports to Russia for the period 2014-16 dropped by 34, 5%. Very significant losses were suffered by such countries as Greece (-23, 2%) and Croatia (-21%). Only Ukrainian politicians are able to harm their own economy and citizens, as they hope that the current war or a new revolution will absolve them from responsibility. In other European countries, the situation is different. Warsaw officially welcomes the new sanctions on Russia imposed by the United States, but it is not in a hurry to toe the line.

If the EU intends to continue to be the unifying force, its leading countries Germany and France should make a univocal statement. It is high time for it. The fact remains that smaller European countries are increasingly proposing to abolish sanctions and are ready to resume full-fledged cooperation with Russia. They are waiting from Berlin and Paris for very concrete statements as well as actions toward this direction.

The latest chemical attack in Khan Shayk Hun, in Syria’s Idlib Governorate reportedly caused the deaths of at least seventy civilians and possibly injured more than two hundred. The reported chemical weapons attack took place on the 4^th of April.

The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had informed that the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism was gathering and analysing information from all available sources, and would be prepared to deploy a team at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking at the Security Council emergency meeting on the day after the attack (5 April 2017) Syria’s permanent representative to the UN directly accused certain Security Council permanent members. He said that some Council members ‘had made statements today that proved unequivocally that Syria was the victim of two aggressions:  first, an attack by the Council’s permanent members; and second, a proxy attack by armed terrorist groups operating under their instructions.

Mr. Mounzer Mounzer added: Both seemed to have an appetite for fabricating information and rejected all false claims and allegations that the Syrian army had used chemical weapons in Khan Shayk Hun.  The Government did not possess such weapons in any form, he stressed declaring:  We have never used them and we will never use them.

He emphasized that while Syria had worked with OPCW and honoured all its obligations under the Convention, some Council members, as well as Turkey, continued to levy false against Damascus, in addition to blackmailing Syria and its allies, obstructing peace talks and ending all prospects for a political solution to the crisis — even if children paid the price.  Recalling his country’s expression of concern over possession of chemical weapons by terrorist groups during last March talks in Geneva, he also drew attention to more than 90 letters that the Syrian Government had addressed to the Council, the Joint Investigative Mechanism and other bodies, containing documented evidence that Da’esh (ISIS) possessed toxic chemicals obtained from Turkey.

The Syrian representative pointed out that in this regard the real beneficiaries of the use of chemical weapons were the very countries that had advocated regime change for long years.

Mr. Mounzer placed squarely the responsibility on the former colonial power of Syria. He pointed the finger to France, in particular, as being responsible for a number of barbaric massacres in Syria last year, as well as the recent air strike in Deir ez-Zor which had claimed the lives of many civilians.

It is not an unfair inference to suspect France, seconded by the UK and the US, as the prime non-movers – or in other words breaks – to the international process of thorough investigation of the latest chemical weapons attack in Syria.

In addition, the refusal of the OPCW and the rest of the international bodies to examine the evidence provided by Damascus on Ankara’s aiding and abetting chemical attacks by ISIS in Syria does not bode well for the prospects of achieving peace in the troubled Arab country. Neither does it bode any better for Turkey’s credibility in the talks aimed at achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

If anything Turkey’s feeding of ISIS with toxic chemicals in order to attack civilian Syrian population proves one more time that Ankara is not just only a dishonest broker as far as regional conflicts are concerned but that Turkey’s government should be investigated and punished for yet another committed war crime …