Turkish Forum

Category: Ferruh Demirmen

  • Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    By Ferruh Demirmen

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walkout from the Gaza panel in Davos last week created quite a stir on the international scene. The walkout strained the Israeli-Turkish relations, and the direction the Turkish foreign policy is headed became a subject of debate.

     

    The occasion was a panel discussion on the Gaza crisis where two of the four panelists were Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres. During his talk Erdogan blamed Israel for the Gaza violence, and Peres passionately defended his country’s policy. The tempers became inflamed when the moderator refused to allow Erdogan sufficient time to reply to Peres. This brought the panel discussion to a breaking point, and the PM walked off.

     

    The prevailing sentiment in Turkey is that Erdogan was justified in his action. Upon return from Davos, the PM was welcomed as a courageous leader by his supporters in Istanbul. The Arab world, in particular Hamas, lauded Erdogan’s action. There were alarm signals from the American Jewish lobby and the Israeli media, the former warning that Turkey’s image was damaged and making a sarcastic reference to PKK. In the rest of the world, the reaction was one of bemusement,

     

    The substance

     

    In substance, it is difficult to disagree with Erdogan on his criticism of Israel on the Gaza crisis. While the Jewish state deserved sympathy for the plight of its citizens that came under rocket attack from Hamas militants, its response was grossly disproportionate. Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip created a humanitarian crisis in an area that was already reeling under a military lockdown. Some 1300 Palestinians lost their lives, as opposed to 13 on the Israeli side. Gaza’s industry was destroyed, and even schools, mosques, hospitals and a UN compound came under attack.

     

    The notion that a vastly superior military firepower was turned on a nearly defenseless population under siege, with graphic images of Palestinian civilians suffering and dying, was too much to bear for the world at large, in particular the Islamic world. Erdogan verbalized these sentiments.

     

    What made the Israeli action particularly offensive was that the military campaign appeared to be planned months in advance, and that Israel was timing its military campaign according to presidential turnover at the White House. Israel’s banning of journalists from the war zone also exacerbated anti-Israeli sentiments.

     

    The style

     

    Putting substance aside, the manner in which Erdogan handled himself in Davos was both right and wrong. To make sense of conflicting reports of the incident, this writer viewed the official webcast of the panel discussion. It is clear from the webcast that Erdogan was justified in protesting to the moderator.

     

    A cardinal rule in panel discussions is that the participants are allowed equal time. In this case, Peres was allowed to speak considerably longer than Erdogan.

     

    It is also a standard practice in panel discussions to allow a second chance to the speakers to respond to each other. There was no such provision in the panel discussion. Erdogan wrestled to get additional time to respond to Peres, the last speaker, but when the moderator cut him off after two minutes, the PM became visibly agitated. Turning red-faced, he stormed out.

     

    Because the other two panelists had talked shorter than both Erdogan and Peres, the moderator could have allowed Erdogan more time to respond, thereby preventing a diplomatic crisis.

     

    On the other hand, the PM could have chosen to remain calm, letting the audience judge the unfairness of the situation. His parting remark to the moderator, “For me, Davos is finished,” was unnecessary, and his rhetoric aimed at Peres, “You are older than me. Your voice is coming strong, this has to do with a guilty conscience.” … ”You know well how to kill,” were quite inappropriate. He had lost his temper.

     

    In diplomacy, there is no substitute for composure.

     

    In Ankara, retired Turkish diplomats who criticized Erdogan’s behavior in Davos also drew the PM’s ire, who called them “monsieurs” – a thinly disguised pejorative term.

     

    Some commentators in Turkish media compared the PM’s action to the bluster of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev when he, in a fury, took his shoe off and banged it at the table at a United Nations conference in 1960. The comparison, however, was off the mark.

     

    The motive

     

    Erdogan’s action raised some basic questions. What was the PM trying to accomplish by becoming the spokesman for Hamas when the Arab world is almost indifferent to the plight of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip?

     

    And if the PM was sincere in his humanitarian concerns over the Gaza crisis, why did he not raise similar objections to the killing fields in Darfur, and, for that matter, next-door Iraq?

     

    Erdogan twice welcomed in Ankara Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir – a radical Islamist – who has been accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. These are questions only the PM can answer.

     

    But there is little doubt that Erdogan’s stance in Davos was driven at least in part by domestic politics. Local elections are scheduled for March, and by embracing the staunchly Islamic-oriented Hamas, the PM calculated that he could boost his popularity with his Islamist base at home. His popularity, in fact, did receive a boost, at least temporarily.

     

    The rallying welcome the PM received at the Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning just after leaving the panel discussion was obviously planned in advance.

     

    Israeli-Turkish relations

     

    The larger issue with the Davos incident is whether it heralded a major shift in Turkey’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel. In press releases, both sides tried to downplay the significance of the event, claiming that the relations between the countries remained fundamentally strong.

     

    There is considerable truth in that assessment, as the two countries have long had close bilateral ties, from tourism to commerce to defense. The two countries also have shared common strategic interests, a point verbalized by Peres during his talk at the Turkish Parliament in November 2007. Both countries will want to continue the alliance.

     

    The alliance, however, will face challenges. Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization, and unless the organization becomes more moderate, a serious rift in the Israeli-Turkish alliance will be inevitable. Turkey’s relationship with the US and the EU will also be affected.

     

    There is also the concern, raised by the American Jewish lobby, but also by the Turkish Jewish community, that Erdogan’s pro-Hamas stance may stoke anti-Semitism in Turkey. The PM tried to allay this concern by stating that his quarrel is with the Israeli administration, not Jewish people.

     

    The problem with this argument is that his constituents in the Islamic camp may not make such distinction.

     

    Any rise in anti-Semitism in Turkey would be very unfortunate. Since the Ottomans welcomed Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century, Turks and Jews have lived in peaceful coexistence. The secular republic established by Kemal Atatürk bestowed full citizenship rights on Jews, as it did on other religious and ethnic groups.

     

    Conclusion

     

    In summary, a badly administered panel discussion was at the root of a bizarre incident in Davos. Although there will be challenges, Turkey and Israel should put the bizarre incident behind and move on. The Jewish state should use the Davos incident as a wakeup call from a friend for resolution of the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Turkey’s part, it should weigh carefully its association with Hamas. A lasting peace in the Middle East is far too important to let an emotionally charged panel discussion to be a distraction. On Erdogan’s part, he should learn how to control his anger in conflict situations.

     

    ferruh@demirmen.com

     

  • Memo to President Bush: A grim assessment of his legacy

    Memo to President Bush: A grim assessment of his legacy

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    Dear Mr. President:

    I am sorry that I am late writing this memo to you. It is not because of negligence on my part. Rather, I wanted to give you a week to recover from your successor President Obama’s inauguration speech.

    Remember Mr. Obama’s speech from the steps of the Capitol on January 20th ? “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” …. “Our founding fathers, … faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man … Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”

    And again: ” … our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, … our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” … “What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility.”… ” … we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas” … “We will restore science to its rightful place.”

    Do these sobering quotes mean anything to you, or are they just hollow phrases? However you view them, they were jibes at your presidency.

    On your return flight to Texas on that day, your aides expressed irritation at Mr. Obama’s jibes, but you remained silent. You probably did not care, reminiscing instead of the good old days, within reach again, chopping wood or barbequing at your ranch in Crawford, Texas.

    But now, about your legacy, Mr. President. In the waning days of your presidency you, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and your loyal image makers Karl Rove and Karen Hughes engaged in a spinning spree in the media to improve your legacy.

    But to no avail. No amount of spinning can erase the scars of eight years of disastrous administration under your leadership.

    You see, Mr. President, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.

    The fact that you left Washington with record-low job approval ratings says enough about your legacy. You don’t need media spinners to set the record straight.

    And the world opinion about you has been probably the lowest for any American president – certainly the lowest in memory.

    Why so? Do I need to remind you of your inattentive, cavalier attitude toward intelligence reports warning a possible major terror attack before 9/11, your excuses and fabrications to attack a far-away country that did not threaten America, the “shock and awe” you brought on to that country, with horrified children knocked out of their senses, the sheer devastation, the killings and maiming that followed, not only of American soldiers but also of innocent Iraqi civilians, the gruesome corpses strewn on the streets, families ruined and forced to flee the country for their safety, the “weapons of mass destruction” that were never found, and never were, the terrorists that were never there, the ruining and plundering of the art treasures of an ancient civilization?

    And the unlawful exposure of a covert CIA operative to cover up false evidence, the horror of Abu Ghraib, the torture and violation of the Geneva Convention at Guantanamo Bay, indefinite detention of suspects without habeas corpus, the infamous “extraordinary renditions,” widespread warrantless wiretappings on American citizens, and the politicization of the Justice Department?

    Did you know that the Bill of Rights also forbids cruel and unusual punishment?

    Is there a need to recall the huge rise in the number of the uninsured during your administration, the alarming shift in the federal budget (from $128 billion surplus to $482 billion deficit), the skyrocketing national debt (from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion), the soaring unemployment (2.6 million jobs lost in 2008 alone), the collapsed economy, and now the gathering clouds of a depression born out of greed and irresponsibility?

    We thought that the Enron energy scandal during your first term of presidency was a wake-up call for greed and dishonesty in a corporate world that ran amok in a regulatory vacuum, but we were wrong.

    Shall we recall the disrespect of science from evolution to stem-cell research under your watch, the opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the lowering of environmental standards, the callousness in the Hurricane Katrina scandal, and the disquieting decline in the prestige and moral standing of America abroad?

    Assuming you care, is this a record to be proud of? Is your conscience at peace?

    On reflecting on your presidency recently, you remarked that there were some “disappointments.” That is a very strange way to reflect, Mr. President. Considering the Orwellian turn of events for the worse, one would have expected that you expressed genuine sorrow, and possibly even remorse, instead. Surely, it would be too much to expect an apology from you.

    You also said that at times you had “fun.” Fun? Obviously you never appreciated the seriousness of your misdeeds.

    And please don’t pass the buck to others. Not to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or other underlings. Remember the adage: “The buck stops here.” You were the boss – the big boss. And you impishly proclaimed you are the ultimate “decider.”

    Not to overlook your accomplishments, Sir, you extended a helping hand to AIDS victims and the sufferers of the Darfur tragedy in Africa.

    And you certainly kept America safe from another terror attack. But did it have to be at the expense of liberty and civil rights at home? And is America any safer now? Could it be that, with the abuses and tortures that were committed, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were, in a sense, the breeding grounds for new terrorists?

    The estimated 1.5 million people that jubilantly braved the shivering cold on the National Mall on the Inauguration Day was as much a testimony to a new era of hope under a new president as it was a sign of relief seeing a failed president finally leave the White House. For the masses, your departure meant the end of a nightmare.

    Considering the widespread abuse of power in your administration, many wonder how you avoided impeachment.

    On that note, I myself wonder how you managed to be elected not just once, but twice as the President of the United States. Certainly, some things are beyond my comprehension, and I am humbled by that recognition.

    But you can be sure that, if President Obama messes up things as you did, I will be as much critical of him as I am of you. Nothing personal.

    As you settle in your new home in a wealthy community in Dallas, there will be some nice distractions, such as occasional interviews, speaking engagements, building your presidential library, and “writing” your memoirs. But whatever you do, Mr. President, your legacy will follow you.

    And there will be no escape from the judgment of history.

    On the light side, the world will miss your mental or linguistic clarity, came to be known as “Bushism,” such as “If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure,” that brought tears to eyes for millions.

    All that said, Mr. President, I wish you a happy retirement. But please pray and make atonement, day and night, for all the innocent souls, American and Iraqi, and other, that lost their lives because of your devious schemes over the senseless Iraq war. Atonement is simply being human. Also, consider becoming a church minister for the rest of life. Or lock yourself up in a convent for eternal salvation. Perhaps, just as He called on you to run for President years ago, God will be calling on you again.

    Respectfully.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • The Sarah Palin affair: World should breathe a sigh of relief

    The Sarah Palin affair: World should breathe a sigh of relief

    By Ferruh Demirmen 

    Anyone who thought that the U.S. 2008 Republican National Convention held in Saint Paul, Minnesota last September would be a dull event, got a big jolt of surprise when the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin walked onto the stage and delivered a rousing speech to a frenzied crowd. With gusto, a shrilly voice and an ever-present smile, amid catch phrases such as pit bull, lipstick, and hockey mom, she charmed and galvanized the Republican base – who had hardly heard of her, let alone know her. 

    It was the start of a political soap opera that lasted until the elections on November 4. It was quite entertaining to watch. 

    But beneath it all, lay the frightening possibility that this newly discovered political cheer leader, coming from nowhere, as it were, could one day be the President the United States, in effect the leader of the free world.  After all, the Presidential candidate Senator John McCain was 72 years old, and if he won the race and died or became incapacitated while in office, Palin was next in line to assume the presidency. 

    The fact that the elections, as they turned out, removed the possibility of Palin becoming the President, is something the world should feel very relieved about. 

    Who was Sarah Palin? A 45-year old governor of Alaska (population 670,000), ex-mayor of Wasilla (pop. 6,700), one-time runner-up for Miss Alaska, nicknamed “Sarah Barracuda,” with 5 children, married to a husband she calls “First Dude,” an ultra- conservative Republican, in fact an evangelist, and a shopaholic with a keen eye for expensive clothes and jewelry she could not afford. She was a moose hunter and a lifetime member of NRA (National Rifle Association). 

    She talked lavishly of love of country and family values (never mind that her unmarried teenage daughter was 5 months pregnant), who had put her life in “God’s hand,” called Iraq war “God’s plan,” the Alaska gas pipeline “God’s will,” and the eventuality of her moving to a higher office “God’s calling.” 

    All this foreshadowed the possibility that another anti-science, anti-progress, anti-environment president with a faith-based agenda could soon occupy the White House. It would be quite a trip from igloo to White House. 

    Amid slogans “Drill baby, drill,” she talked of “energy independence” ad nauseam as though she is the all-time visionary on energy. A compulsive talker, she had a habit of giving long-winded, often irrelevant answers to questions from the media. When things did not go her way, she blamed the media, and post-election, called McCain aides “jerks.” 

    What was most striking about her utterances were that they contained lots of sound bites but little substance. 

    Such idiosyncrasies are not too unusual for politicians, even for those running for high office. Politicians do not always come from the cream of the crowd. But there was something uniquely special about Governor Palin: She had no foreign policy experience, and this did not seem to bother her.  Her scant knowledge of the world made President George W. Bush look like a guru in international relations. 

    Palin was utterly unprepared to be Vice President, let alone President. She had never met a head of state, and she barely left her native Alaska. First time she got a passport was in 2007 when she visited US troops (Alaskan National Guard) in Kuwait and Germany. Her spokesperson said that she also visited Ireland. It was later discovered that the Ireland “trip” was a short refueling stop at the Shannon airport on return from Germany. 

    To boost her foreign policy credentials, Palin cited Alaska’s proximity to Canada and Russia. During a televised interview on CBS, she told a bewildered Katie Couric: “We have trade missions back and forth. We — we do — it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.” 

    It was a shocking performannce.

    To repair the damage, McCain’s staff gave her crash courses on foreign affairs and arranged a whirlwind tour of New York City and the UN to meet Henry Kissinger and a few world leaders. There were plenty of photo-ops. Incredulously, Kissinger endorsed her candidacy for the VP position. But her image did not recover.

    Lawrence Eagleburger, an ex-Secretary of State who strongly endorsed McCain’s candidacy, when asked during a radio interview whether Palin was prepared to assume presidency, his spontaneous response was: “Of course not.” It was a frank and bleak assessment. Realizing that he was talking about McCain’s running mate, Eagleburger subsequently qualified his assessment.

    Rumors, which she denied, circulated toward the end of the campaign that Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent. Someone suggested jokingly that she move to southern France so she can gaze southward and learn about Africa.

    In every humor there is an element of truth.

    Only McCain, a maverick himself, knows why, after meeting her only once, chose Palin as his Vice-Presidential mate. One would think that picking a VP running mate would require thorough vetting. Evidently what he though he needed was a cheer leader. McCain never admitted that he had made a big mistake. 

    Now that the presidential race is over, the world can breathe a sigh of relief that Sarah Palin will not be one heartbeat away from the presidency. The consequences of a wayward or dangerous U.S. foreign policy and its impact on world peace under her leadership, if it were to be, are discomforting to imagine. Considering her huge ego and high ambition, of course, Palin may return to the national stage in 2012 with a vengeance. Still, that is four years from now, and a lot can happen during that time. 

    But imagine for a moment, if the McCain-Palin ticket had won and by some accident Palin had moved to the White House in 2010, the following tete-a-tete conversation on world affairs taking place between Palin-the-President and Vladimir Putin, by that time the president of Russia again: 

    Putin: “Madam President, we in Russia took matters very seriously when two years ago the U.S. encouraged Georgia to send military troops to …” 

    Palin, interrupting: “No, Mr. President, Georgia would never do that. O.K., Georgia fought in our Civil War, hmm, in 18 …, well, whatever …, but that is all over now. Georgia now is a very peace-loving state in our great nation. I have never visited Georgia, but I know they grow delicious peaches there, and my First Dude and I sometimes have peach pie a-la-mode after moose chili. Also, …” 

    Putin, interrupting: “Madam President, when I said Georgia, I meant The Caucuses.” 

    Palin: “Well, of course, caucuses. We have no problem with caucuses. When the Republican Iowa caucuses were held in January 2008, you know I was not included in the selection process, but, like, God wanted me to serve my country and asked me to plow through the campaign, and … God knows, we never wanted to make trouble for Russia, you are our neighbor to our great state of Alaska.” 

    Putin: “Madam President, I was also going to raise our concern about the missile issue, but…” 

    Palin, interrupting, with a big smile: “Let’s talk about missiles, I mean, auw, mistletoes, at Christmas.” 

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen 

    Senator Barack Obama’s election as the next President of the U.S. has caused trepidation in many Turkish circles. How would his administration’s foreign policy toward Turkey be? Would Turkey’s relations with the U.S. improve or worsen?  Indeed, there are perils on the horizon, but better times cannot be ruled out. The imponderables suggest that a “wait and see” stance is prudent. 

    Harsh Reality 

    On the potential downside, the Armenian question weighs heavily in U.S.-Turkey relations. Turks are understandably concerned that the Obama administration would recognize the so-called Armenian genocide. As most U.S. politicians who have been at the receiving end of generous campaign contributions from the Armenian lobby, Obama, as U.S. senator, supported Armenian genocide claims. He made this clear during Senate confirmation hearings of U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Armenia Richard Hoagland two years ago, and again early this year when he called for passage of Armenian genocide resolutions H.Res.106 & S.Res.106 in the Congress. He was influenced and counseled on this subject by none other than Samantha Power, an ardent proponent of Armenian “genocide.”

    Samantha Power holds the dubious distinction of being a non-Armenian and a virulent Turk-hater at the same time. The loose-mouthed lady of supposed scholarly reputation disgraced herself last March when she called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.” She had to resign as adviser to Senator Obama. Not surprisingly, Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) strongly endorsed (probably in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status) Senator Obama’s candidacy.

    The Armenian issue became more ominous for Turkey when Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. As a U.S. senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden gave support to all Armenian genocide claims since they first came to the U.S. Senate floor in 1990. Biden urged President Bush to use the word “genocide” in his proclamations, and was an enthusiastic sponsor of the Senate Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106) in 2006. In early 2008, Senator Biden renewed his call for Congressional recognition of the resolution, and in July of this year he reiterated his commitment to have Armenian “genocide” officially recognized by both the American and Turkish governments.

    Also looming on the horizon is a Democrat-controlled Congress, with Nancy Pelosi as the House Speaker and John Kerry (unless appointed as the Secretary of State) at the helm of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The combination of Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress augers a vexatious turn of events for Turkey as far as the Armenian issue. Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora will find that the confluence of events in their favor had never been better.

    Of course, there will also be geostrategic issues to consider, and the Obama administration may have second thoughts about recognizing a trumped-up allegation that would further sour an already-fragile relationship between the U.S. and Turkey – caused mainly by Iraq war. According to a June 2008 poll, only 12 percent of Turkish people have a favorable view of the U.S. – a historic low. With Turkey’s proximity to Russia, the Middle East and Central Asia, and its strategic location as an energy corridor, it would seem myopic from U.S. national security point of view to further alienate Turkey.

    In fact, just before the elections the Obama-Biden camp issued a foreign policy statement in which reference was made to strategic value of Turkey for U.S. interests. This suggests that Obama and Biden, as President and vice-President, might moderate their positions on Armenian “genocide.”

    A most likely scenario is that the Obama administration would spurn the Armenian lobby’s efforts to recognize Armenian “genocide” while remaining passive to Congressional initiatives to pass such a resolution. This would give the administration a diplomatic “cover” – a poor one at that – to disassociate itself from the genocide controversy.

    Disservice to History

    Such turn of events would still be regrettable. Surprisingly, Turks are generally content if official declarations from foreign sources relating to 1915 events do not use the word “genocide.” Hence the sigh of relief when, on April 24 every year, the U.S. presidents issue a declaration commemorating the 1915 events without referring to “genocide.” Such declarations do disservice to history, however, and are nearly as condemnatory of Turks as the use of the word “genocide.” Turks should demand fairness and disclosure of full facts.

    President Bush’s declarations, for example, have referred to “mass killings of as many as 1.5 million Armenians,” grossly exaggerating the number of Armenian victims. His declarations ignore the cause of the tragic events (Armenian rebellion) and the massacre of a half a million Moslems at the hands of armed Armenian gangs. Senator John McCain, while refraining from using the word “genocide,’ has taken a similar position on the Armenian issue. Such declarations imply that the sufferings and death of Moslems at the hand of Armenian gangs were somehow inconsequential.

    Before issuing commemorative declarations on the 1915 events, it would behoove President-elect Obama – and the members of the Congress for that matter – to listen to such eminent scholars as Bernard Lewis, Turkkaya Ataov, Justin McCarthy and Eric Feigl – to name a few – and hear the other side of a controversial issue. A one-sided condemnation of historical events, no matter how-oft-recited by propaganda, and no matter how-well-wrapped in campaign contributions, does not serve history. Nor does it serve the cause of human rights. History cannot be re-created by legislative or executive fiat.

    Equally important, it is long overdue for the Turkish government, and Turks in general, to be more proactive and aggressive in disseminating historical truth on the Armenian issue. If foreign politicians such as Obama and Biden, among others, have been misinformed on the subject, the Turkish government and Turks bear a good deal of responsibility. By default, the matter has been left pretty much to Armenia and the Armenian lobby to exploit. The dire consequences have been much too evident. Historians on the Armenian side do not even wish to debate with their Turkish counterparts.

    Iraq War and Cyprus

    The occupation of Iraq, spearheaded by neocon philosophy, has generated enormous tension between the U.S. and Turkey. The war has not only created violence and turmoil in a neighboring country, it also destroyed much of the bilateral trade (oil included) between Iraq and Turkey and seriously threatened the territorial integrity of Iraq. In this connection, Turks do not recall kindly the proposal made by Senator Biden in 2006 that Iraq be partitioned into three autonomous regions under a loose federation. His proposal was met with much disappointment in Turkey.

    Turks also view with much suspicion President Bush’s cozy relation with Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, with Masoud Barzani, a tribal leader, being a frequent guest at the White House and treated like a head of state. Ironically, the relatively “peaceful” Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq is where the PKK terrorists have recently gained strength. Within the past few years PKK attacks against the Turkish territory have become more frequent and more daring. These events have raised doubts in Turkey about the sincerity of President Bush to fight terrorism when terrorists do their dirty deed under the banner of PKK.

    Many in Turkish circles wonder whether the Bush administration is harboring clandestine intentions involving an independent Kurdistan at the expense of the territorial integrity of Turkey. Some have gone so far as suggesting that eventually the U.S. may have to make a choice between the Kurds and Turks.

    Such suspicions, if unchecked, could tear apart the long-held partnership between the U.S. and Turkey. Turkey’s membership in NATO could also be put on ice.

    There are signs that the Obama administration would reverse this ominous trend. First, unlike Bush, who favors an open-ended withdrawal, Obama favors a quick (but orderly) withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, the pre-election foreign policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, noting that the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq had helped revive the PKK threat against Turkey, identified close relationship with Turkey as being in U.S. national interest. It was also noted that the Obama administration would lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity. These are very hopeful signs.

    On Cyprus, Turks are somewhat apprehensive about the Obama administration’s stance. The concern arises from Biden’s close ties to the Greek and Greek-Cypriot lobbies, his support ,

    as U.S. senator, of the 1974 U.S. weapons embargo against Turkey, and Obama referring to Turkish troop presence on the island as “occupation.” The pre-election policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, however, also calls for a negotiated settlement on Cyprus based on the principle of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, giving hope for an unbiased approach.

    In a broader context, Obama’s multilateralism and emphasis on diplomacy, as opposed to Bush’s unilateralism and saber rattling, would help regional stability and bolster U.S.-Turkey relations.

    In summary, the Obama administration holds both perils and hopes for Turkey, and for U.S.-Turkey relationship. The imponderables abound, and a prudent stance is “wait and see.” But both countries should look forward to a closer partnership in a renewed spirit without the mistakes of the last eight years.

    ferruh@demirmen.com

  • TRANSFORMATION AT TDN

    TRANSFORMATION AT TDN

    Dear Turkish Forum readers,

     

    The article, “The new ‘moderate’ Turkey” By Robert Ellis (August 15, 2008) published in Turkish Forum recently reminded me of an incident similar to the one he experienced. At the end of his article Ellis notes that, although he had been a frequent commentator on Turkish affairs at Turkish Daily News (TDN) since 2005, he was declared “persona non grata” by TDN’s editor after he had written an article critical of Turkey’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) in Los Angeles Times last March.

     

    I, too, was given the same treatment by TDN less than 2 years ago.

    What attracted TDN’s ire, in my case, was an article, “After the French vote: Those crocodile tears,” I had published in TDN in late October 2006. About a month afterwards, another article I sent to TDN was summarily rejected without explanation. The timing coincided with the reshuffling of TDN’s management, with Eyüp Can Sağlık appointed as the new Executive Editor. Until that time, I had been an unpaid guest commentator at TDN, having some 40 articles published under my name since 2000. Sağlık is the husband of Elif Şafak, the Turkish activist-novelist adored by the Armenian lobby.

    In the October 2006 article, written in the immediate aftermath of the French Parliament’ s infamous decision to criminalize denial of Armenian “genocide”, I chastised European and Turkish politicians as well as a certain “intellectual cabal” in Turkey for their hypocrisy on the genocide issue. Although I did not cite names, it was obvious to those familiar with the subject that Şafak was included in the “intellectual cabal.” Like my earlier TDN articles on the Armenian issue, my criticism of the “intellectual cabal” must have hit nerves in the Sağlık-Şafak couple. So, when Sağlık took over at TDN, he found a golden opportunity to silence me.

    Thus came to an end a voice at TDN that had steadfastly defended Turks and Turkey against defamation by Dashnakian propagandists. A month later, ex-Ambassador Gündüz Aktan, another pro-Turkish voice on the Armenian issue, also left TDN.

     

    The censorship Ellis and I suffered at TDN raises the question as to whose interests TDN is serving. Whatever its mission, and contrary to its high-minded claim, TDN does not welcome free expression of opinion. I am not surprised that Ellis was declared “persona non grata” because of his article critical of AKP. After the new leadership took over in late 2006, the newspaper has been publishing op-ed pieces by staff and guest writers openly in sympathy with AKP’s Islamic-oriented regime. These writers – the Second Republicans – oppose any nationalistic sentiments and try to undermine Turkey’s securalist regime. In fact, secularists and those espousing Turkishness are treated almost with contempt. One dimwit, an op-ed writer, is a proponent of faith-based “Intelligent Design.”

     

    TDN is also sympatethic toward Armenian claims of “genocide.” In an August 25, 2008 editorial, editor David Judson issued a public apology because TDN had “mistakenly” added the word “alleged” in front of “genocide” in a recent op-ed by a Diaspora Armenian. A reader from Canada had protested that the original text did not contain “alleged.” The editor took the disclaimer to heart and apologized. The editor went on to explain that the newspaper, in fact, frowns upon the the term “so-called genocide.” Instead, the sanctioned term is “alleged genocide.”

     

    Such hair-splitting of words could be ignored as pathetic sophomorism, except that it underlies a pro-Armenian tilt on the part of TDN. The editor claims that this stance represents “enlarged mentality.” Views sympathetic to Armenian position are expressed not only by Armenian writers, but also by Turkish journalists. Surely, rarely do these opinion articles spell out the word “genocide” – at least not yet – but the implication is that the onus of history is on Turks.

     

    Months ago, I wrote a letter to TDN’s editor to protest my censorship and criticise the newspaper’s editorial policy. I challenged him to publish my letter, which he refused. He invited me to consider writing at TDN again, whıch I declined.

     

    The new identity of TDN came into being after the newspaper became part of the Dogan Media Group. How, exactly, the newspaper turned from an objecive, independent English-language Turkish newspaper to a pro-Islamic (pro-AKP), pro-Armenian media outlet is an intriguing question. As far as the pro-Islamic tilt, the appointment of Sağlık as the Executive Editor undoubtedly had a lot to do with it. Sağlık, educated in the U.S. as a protege of Fethullah Gülen, was brought in to TDN as a Trojan horse to do the clergyman’s bidding. Before Sağlık came to TDN, he and his wife Şafak were affiliated with Zaman, Gülen’s flagship newspaper in Turkey. Şafak has recently resumed her writings in Zaman.

     

    Other recruits close to AKP and Gülen include Cengiz Çandar and Mustafa Akyol. In addition to being a columnist, the latter acts as the deputy editor and vets articles submitted for the op-ed page. Akyol also writes in the AKP-controlled Star, and his articles appear on Gülen’s website on the Internet. It is a close-knit group under the effective stewardship of Sağlık.

     

    As for TDN’s pro-Armenian tilt, it is safe to assume that the Sağlık-Şafak mindset and Editor-in-Chief David Judson’s own personal bias are what drove TDN in that direction. With its “enlarged mentality,” the newspaper has lost much of its true Turkish identity. The irony in this transformation is that, while a nominally Turkish newspaper welcomes pro-Armenian views, Turks abroad face enormous obstacles to have their own views publıshed in foreign media because of ingrained anti-Turkish bias.

     

    The most lamentable aspect of TDN’s new identity, however, lies in its influence on English-speaking foreign readership who seek news and opinions about Turkey. Few readers are probably aware that the newspaper is an unofficial mouthpiece of the pro-Islamic Turkish government. Opinions and letters from readers critical of AKP are hardly, if ever, published.

     

    Likewise, the newspaper’s coverage of the Armenian issue plays into the hands of foreign entities that are intrinsically anti-Turkish. A good example is the Hrant Dink murder. The senseless and tragic murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and activist Hrant Dink in January 2007 in Istanbul was widely condemned, and correctly so, in Turkey. Killing of every innocent human being deserves strong condemnation. TDN, however, went much further. With “We are all Hrant Dink” banners splashed across, and the op-ed writers mourning Dink’s death day after day, in pious detail, the newspaper inflamed passions. Sağlık promised that, if he had a son, he would name him Hrant. (A promise he did not keep).

     

    Little did it occur to the foreign readers that none of these mourners expressed a genuine regret when many other Turkish intellectuals, prominenly in the footsteps of Kemal Atatürk, were similarly and tragically murdered. Nor did the mourners bother to invoke the memory of more than 40 Turkish diplomats that years ago fell victim to ASALA terror.

     

    Washington D.C. is one place where TDN is well read for information about Turkey. There is little doubt that TDN’s coverage of the Dink murder provided fuel and ammunition for the ensuing anti-Turkish media onslaught spearheaded by ANCA (Armenian National Committee of America), as well as a U.S. Senate resolution (S.Res. 65) introduced by Senator Joe Biden. The resolution, passed in the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee in March 2007, was highly critical of Turkey. In the process, the real reason why Dink was prosecuted under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code was ignored.

     

    Nor was any concern expressed in foreign circles for other Turkish intellectuals, including a 92-year old Sumerologist, that were prosecuted under the same penal code.

     

    For those interested, I will be glad to forward a copy of my October 2006 article in TDN. Here is an excerpt:

    “It is not what these “intellectuals” say, but rather what they do not say, that matters. In their statements, writings, interviews and fiction work alluding to the 1915-1918 tragic events, they invariably depict Turks as the villains and Armenians as the victims, leaving out the perfidious acts of armed Armenian guerillas joining the enemy ranks and the death and sufferings of innocent Turks and Kurds at the hands of these gangs. Their one-sided recounting of the 1915-1918 events at times becomes nauseating.

    None of them has ever bothered telling the world about the carnage of Azeri civilians in the Khojaly Massacre only 14 years ago.”

    Ferruh Demirmen

    ferruh@demirmen.com