Author: Aylin D. Miller

  • Seoul to Transfer Tank Technology to Turkey

    Seoul to Transfer Tank Technology to Turkey

    In a first for the nation, Korea will transfer tank technology, including that of the homegrown next-generation XK-2 Black Panther tank, to Turkey. The technology transfer fee will be US$400 million.

    The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DPAP) and Hyundai Rotem on Tuesday announced Korea and Turkey signed an agreement whereby Korea will transfer the technology to Turkey by April 2015, and Turkey will produce about 200 next-generation tanks based on it.

    In Turkey, a ceremony was held to celebrate the signing of the agreement, attended by Korean and Turkish dignitaries including Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül.

    Korea will transfer technologies for tank engines, transmissions, automatic gun loading devices, gun barrels and gun shells — technologies which Hyundai Rotem and the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) have accumulated by developing K-1, K-1A1, and XK-2 tanks over the past three decades.

    During the initial stage, Korea will supply Turkey with about half of the necessary tank components. Turkey will develop a fire control system for precision shooting on its own.

    According to DAPA, Korea will be paid $400 million as the technology transfer fee, including production costs for four prototype tanks and components, and expenses for about 20 Korean engineers.

    Hyundai Rotem won the bidding, being selected by Turkey as the preferable bidder in June last year by defeating rival companies from Germany, a country well -known for its tradition of producing top-notch tanks.

    Rotem signed the final contract with Otokar, a Turkish tank manufacturer.

    (englishnews@chosun.com )

  • Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer works to define cultural domination on states’ foreign or domestic affairs in “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. With some examples, Shaffer is explaining this event us. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”1Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making. Some Muslim countries have Anti-American people as behavioral. But these states make alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see incongruent actings between states policies and people behaviors.
    Iran – Playing Politics with Islamic Style

    Samuel Huntigton’s thesis bases on idea that culture has main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees Huntigton’s thesis. Shaffer says that culture is main mechanism for diplomatic relations. Shaffer interprets culture as specific culture of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about Islam effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act. They looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals. They understood Islam effection as strong as nuclear weapons. But this is not a physical thing, this is an ideology. And they speeches to newspapers, politic journals a subject that has a title as “Do Muslim countries act differently than Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand, Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also, human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human. The state action is like people’s actions. State is big form of human and human is small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.

     

    Shaffer’s Caspian perspective has common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islam effection after from the Soviet Union. And now they have Islamic perspective on their state affairs. But Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asia area as Islamic effection zones. But it is not totally like that. Today these countries are secular except Iran.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is important in this area according to Shaffer’s idea. After the collapsing of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime to other neighbor states. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory, Iran plays for exporting their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Shaffer is true for this event. Iran wanted to export their regime to other states. But American or Western scholars’ view point is different. They are looking as totally Islamic system to Iran. They say about Iran that they are working for Islamic fundamentalism. But Iran’s Islamic mind is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or others, we can see normal, laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an influence circumstance but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.”
    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. And most telling of these policy preferences are Iran’s support for Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.2FinalCulture may be material interest of regime survivability. Islam is more likely to affect policy under conditions that see greater domestic and personnel influences on foreign policies.Mehmet Fatih OZTARSU
    Qafqaz University Law Faculty
    International Relations

    By these events, Iran’s state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran is a multiethnic state. Shaffer Gives information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Azerbaijani groups. The majority of the residents of Iran’s northwestern provinces which border the country of Azerbaijan and they are Azerbaijani. But Iran’s relations bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows their ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is good example for Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. This is an example for cultural combines. (Brenda Shaffer)

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these happenings, Azerbaijan supported Chechnya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basis role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their helping system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. It bases on security alliance.

     

    Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany or Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asked question : “What does the Koran have to say a foreign policy question?”

    If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction. (Shaffer)

    The USA wants an enemy for their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world’s countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy for regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islam. 3

    The USA’s fans defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA is patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know workings of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

    ———————————————————————
    1 Dogu Bati Journal – 26
    2 Karabagh conflict begin in the late 1980. And Armenia attacked to legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.
    3 Politic Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies.

     

  • Azerbaijan Hospitality – Part II

    Azerbaijan Hospitality – Part II

    By Nick Nwolisa. Original can be read here.

    Azerbaijan hospitality can not to be reduced to only good gestures shown to foreigners or limited to having to be entertained by the assorted varieties of cuisines the Azerbaijanis has to offer (read Azerbaijan Hospitality – Part I); the Azerbaijan hospitality encompasses and embraces a people total way of living, its specificity is in the area of its acceptability of people from diverse cultural, religious beliefs and origins. (more…)

  • Istanbul bombing does little to deter British holidaymakers

    Istanbul bombing does little to deter British holidaymakers

    Holiday companies say bookings to Turkey remain stable, despite Sunday night’s double bombing in Istanbul’s residential district of Gungoren.

    Fears over a slump in tourism appear to be wide of the mark, as tour operators have reported little concern from British holidaymakers.

    Last week Telegraph Travel reported that Turkey has overtaken Spain as Britons’ most popular tourist destination, with holidaymakers keen to avoid expensive breaks within the eurozone.

    And it appears that Sunday’s bombing – described by Turkish authorities as a “terror” attack – has so far done little to halt that trend.

    Eastern Mediterranean specialists Kosmar claimed that it had not received a single call from concerned customers, while bookings remained steady.

    “People know they have to take care and be vigilant wherever they are,” said Ruth Hilton, a Kosmar spokeswoman. “Terrorism is a risk throughout the world.”

    A statement from TUI said that neither Thomson or First Choice have seen any “adverse impact” on sales to Turkey.

    Meanwhile, Thomas Cook said that, although it was still early, there had been no worried callers. The tour operator said that it will be offering the same advice as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

    The FCO website makes special mention of Sunday’s attack, which left 17 dead and more than 150 injured, while commenting that the risk of terrorism in Turkey is “high”, with targets including tourist areas. However, its advice is identical to that offered on other popular holiday spots such as Spain and Morocco.

  • Turkey torn between court hearing and terrorist attacks

    Turkey torn between court hearing and terrorist attacks

    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Maria Appakova) – This is a difficult time for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, what with the Constitutional Court considering banning his governing AK Party for alleged anti-secular activities, and bomb attacks in Istanbul killing 17 people hours before the court opened.

    More than 70 AKP members, including President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, could be banned from political activities for five years. Most of the leading figures in AKP, including Erdogan, are former members of three earlier Islamist parties that were closed down by the Constitutional Court.

    Both the court hearing and the terrorist attacks are a result of Turkey’s attempts to reconcile secularism as advocated by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, with the religious inclinations of a considerable part of Turkish society.

    Similar dynamics are at play in neighboring Middle Eastern countries, where Islamic morals vie with Western-style globalization.

    “We have been fighting terrorism for 30-35 years, and we will continue fighting until we win,” Erdogan said when visiting the Gungoren neighborhood in Istanbul, where two explosions killed 17 and wounded over 150 people late on Sunday.

    “Today is a day for unity,” the prime minister told hundreds of people who chanted, “Allahu Akbar,” God is Great.

    It was the best imaginable support for Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which stands accused of anti-secular activities. Behind the case is the army, a staunch advocate of secularism.

    But it will be difficult for the Constitutional Court to ban the ruling party, whose leaders include the prime minister and the president. One could even suspect that the explosions had been staged to strengthen the case for the prosecution.

    No one has so far claimed responsibility for the explosions, which have as usual been blamed on the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It is said that the explosives used were similar to those used by Turkish Kurds, but spokesmen for the PKK have denied involvement.

    This is strange, for the Kurds are usually quick to announce their involvement in such terrorist attacks. Further doubts about the bomb’s provenance have been raised by the Turkish security services, who say this is the first case they have seen of a double terrorist attack, when the first bomb is exploded to attract more victims – ordinary people, medics and police – for a second explosion.

    Such chain explosions are usually staged in the Middle East, particularly Israel, the Turkish law-enforcement agencies say, adding that al-Qaida, which claimed responsibility for a series of terrorist attacks in Istanbul in November 2003, could also be involved in these explosions.

    Turkey’s stabilizing role in the region (it has recently become very active in the Middle East, and is even mediating the talks between Israel and Syria and between Iran and the United States) makes it a natural target for al-Qaida. But it may lose that role if the Constitutional Court bans Erdogan’s party.

    The country is divided between supporters of the secular regime, mostly the Istanbul elite, and advocates of Islamic tradition, mostly common people in the provinces.

    AKP has been a link between them, giving those for whom religion is a way of life a right to honor their traditions. It even allowed women students to wear the hejab (Muslim headscarf) at universities, a step that many secularists see as a direct challenge to Ataturk’s vision. Supporters of the change counter that Erdogan did only what his voters expected of him.

    Despite the country’s loyalty to Islamic traditions and the considerable influence of religion on secular life, the Turkish premier has managed to maintain warm relations with the West, notably the European Union and the United States. Washington has even praised Ankara.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in late June: “Sometimes when I’m asked what might democracy look like in the Middle East, I think it might look like Turkey.”

    Turkey is also promoting relations with the EU, although its dream of EU membership is so far only a dream.

    If Erdogan were forced to resign and his party pushed into a crisis, it would destroy the fragile balance in the country. The politically moderate prime minister could be replaced with Islamist radicals supported by al-Qaida. This would be bad news not only for Turkey, but also for the many Middle Eastern countries that harbor hopes of moving along Erdogan’s “third path,” combining Islamic and local traditions with European values.

    The Turkish prime minister will not necessarily lose his post, because the Constitutional Court might limit AKP’s punishment to a fine. And even if the Justice and Development Party were banned, all AKP members of the Turkish parliament would automatically become independent deputies, and so keep their seats. They would be free to form a new group under a different name.

    Only a score of deputies could be banned from political activities for five years, but the party would still have a majority in parliament.

    At the worst, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul would lose their posts and the country will have to hold early elections, which the renamed party might win.

    AKP won a landslide victory in 2007, taking some 47% of the vote. Latest polls suggest it could easily repeat or even outdo that success, even if Erdogan is temporarily forced out of the limelight.

    The generals may lose the case against AKP. But then, the move could be just a warning to Turkish Islamists not to take actions that could undermine the country’s secular principles.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

  • Road to nowhere

    Road to nowhere

    AC Grayling
    guardian.co.uk,
    Tuesday July 29 2008

    From Turkey to Germany to the States, religious people are intent on taking us back to the middle ages

    I enjoyed the subtlety of the Guardian’s page 13 layout yesterday. It was the first page of the international section, and it contained two stories, the first about legal moves in Turkey’s constitutional court to disband the country’s ruling AKP party on the grounds that it is threatening Turkey’s secularist constitution, the second about complaints by Polish holidaymakers who find the nudity on German “free body culture” beaches disgusting.

    To the alert eye the connection is direct. Admirers of the Catholic culture of Poland will assuredly be delighted by its success in making the unclothed human frame an object of disgust. Admirers of Islamic culture will be delighted to find that Turkish Islamists are encouraging more women to hide that automatic trigger of unbridled male lust, the tresses on the female head.

    These are tips of icebergs. In fact the influence of religious attitudes in distorting and limiting aspects of human life, even to the extent of perverting, imprisoning and poisoning them at the extremes, is too well known to require rehearsal. It was against the domination of life by religion that Mustapha Kemal Atatürk acted, founding a secular republic which sought to move religion from “the realm of the state to the realm of belief” – which is how Turkey’s current deputy prosecutor, Omer Faruk Eminagaoglu, puts it in explaining the basis of the case against the AKP, which has – even by the admission of some of its own MPs – been conducting a non-too-subtle yet hypocritically disavowed campaign of re-Islamicisation.

    The worshippers of Brian’s sandal everywhere are tireless and persistent in their efforts to recapture the world for dogma. In America the creationists and so-called “intelligent design” votaries expend vast sums and energy on trying to drag us back into medieval times. Islamists have never left them – except of course in freely using today’s technology to further their aims. Cherry-pickers all, the Brian-sandalistas want it all: they want the rest of us to think and act as they prescribe, and to make us do it by the means that infidel thinking has produced: for example, religious freakery is all over the internet like a rash.

    If the Brian-sandalistas cannot succeed by direct assault, they will do it by constant nibbling and encroachments: prayers in American publicly-funded schools, headscarves in Turkish publicly-funded universities, a little bit of anti-evolutionary biology there, a little alcohol ban there – and if that doesn’t work, they try more robust means. So it goes: creep creep, whisper, soothe, murmur a prayer with the kids in assembly, ecumenicalise, interfaith-schmooze, infiltrate, subvert, complain, campaign, scream, threaten, explode.

    The asymmetry is stark. Secularists say, “believe whatever nonsense you want, but keep it to yourself and act responsibly”. The Brian-sandalistas say, “believe what we want you to believe and act as we say”. The psychopaths among them say, “believe what we want you to believe and act as we say or we will kill you”. Meanwhile the residue of attitudes and practices once foisted on everyone by the zealous still dog and bedevil us, as witness the poor benighted Catholic Poles suffering at the sight of what – you have to larf – they presumably believe God created.

    There is nothing trivial about the problem in Turkey; and the problem in Turkey is the problem for the world at large. It is about boundaries, about the place of religious belief in the public domain, its effects on individual lives, and its effect on public policy. The history of “the west” is in essence a history of secularisation, and most even of those who decry what they see as its imperfections would not willingly be without the huge advances it has wrought in scientific, social and political respects. Think: if the clocks could be turned back as the Brians want, the English would be ruled by two people: The Queen and Rowan Williams.

    You might be tempted to think that would be an improvement on Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, and preferable to Cameron and his friends from his house at Eton. But what if, say, Hizb ut-Tahrir got its way – it wants the Caliphate back, and by the logic of its outlook, a worldwide one. The ambition of the faiths – once they have finished warring with us and each other – is, remember, infinite by definition: and even one mile in the direction of any of their various paradises-on-earth would be a hell for all but those running the journey.