Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Supporters of Syria Take Significant Steps, but No Endgame in Sight

    Supporters of Syria Take Significant Steps, but No Endgame in Sight

    Supporters of Syria Take Significant Steps, but No Endgame in Sight

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 67
    April 4, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    On April 1, Turkey hosted the second meeting of the Friends of Syria group, which produced mixed results as to the future of the Syrian uprisings. While the meeting lent some legitimacy to the opposition organized around the Syrian National Council (SNC) and warned President Bashar al-Assad not to miss a final chance for a political solution, it fell short of authorizing decisive actions that would coerce him to end the violent military campaign against the uprising and, more importantly, step down from power (Anadolu Ajansi, April 1).

    Given its proximity and the close relationship it had forged with Damascus in the preceding years, Ankara has been actively involved in the resolution of the Syrian crisis since the beginning of the uprising. After the failure of its final efforts to reach out to Assad diplomatically in the summer of 2011, Turkey’s position changed drastically. Since then, Turkey, in coordination with the Arab League and its Western partners, has been at the forefront of the international initiatives to solve the crisis by removing Assad from power. It has extended shelter to both the Syrian refugees and the opposition groups and strived to push the UN Security Council to authorize stronger action to address the impending humanitarian catastrophe. The inability to involve the UN Security Council in the crisis due to the Russian and Chinese vetoes prompted Turkey to explore alternative avenues (EDM, February 7).

    Although at one point the Turkish government came under growing international pressure to lead a military intervention into Syria, it resisted such calls and instead continued to explore other means to first alleviate the suffering of civilians and later to ensure Syrian regime change. In an effort to generate broader international momentum around these objectives, Turkey was instrumental in the formation of the Friends of Syria group, bringing together likeminded states, which held its first meeting in Tunis a month ago. However, as it facilitated this coalition acting in close concert with the Washington, Ankara also risked fundamental disagreements with the supporters of the Syrian regime, especially Tehran, which added one more element to the already complicated bilateral relations.

    In the weeks preceding the meeting, Turkey also worked hard to ensure that it would produce substantial outcomes. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, attending the nuclear summit in South Korea, discussed this issue with US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, hoping to change Moscow’s position by sending the message that Assad’s days are numbered and those who stand behind him will be doomed to lose (Hurriyet, March 28). On his way back home, Erdogan visited Iran and met with Iranian leaders, including the religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (www.haberturk.com, March 29). Erdogan’s appeal to his Iranian counterparts was hardly successful, as they gave no indications of a change in their position. Turkey also maintained its coordination with the Arab League, but the internal divisions among the Arab countries increasingly became apparent. While the Gulf states largely supported the Syrian opposition, Iraq has cautioned against overbearing action against Damascus and expressed its discomfort with Turkey’s activism by not inviting it to the Arab League meeting only days before the Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul (Haberturk, March 29).

    The game changer ahead of the Friends’ meeting was the six-point plan prepared by the UN/ Arab League joint special envoy Kofi Annan. After his diplomatic tour, Annan submitted his plan to the UN Security Council. The Annan plan foresees a cessation of violence, delivery of humanitarian assistance, withdrawal of heavy weaponry out of civilian areas, and political dialogue, but falls short of meeting the opposition’s demand for outlining a program for the transfer of power. Following a Security Council presidential statement giving full support to the plan on March 21, the Syrian regime also agreed to accept it on March 27 (www.aljazeera.com, March 28). Though Annan emphasized that the implementation will be the key, Assad’s move right before the Istanbul conference apparently sought to open some cracks in the coalition and thwart a harsh response.

    This development put Turkey in a difficult position, as it still operated under the assumption that changing the regime would be needed to solve the crisis. Erdogan raised concerns about Assad’s sincerity, arguing that he had failed to keep his earlier reform promises (Vatan, March 28). More importantly, Turkey questioned the six-point plan because it lacked a clear time table and enforcement mechanism in case of noncompliance (Sabah, March 31).

    Turkey also took a major step in advance of the Friends conference by convening the Syrian opposition groups in Istanbul, which sought to consolidate the opposition under one structure. By then, the disunity of the opposition groups had prevented a more decisive international support to the SNC. Although they achieved major progress in the way of eliminating differences of opinion, outlining a plan of action for national unity and consolidating their leadership structure, the withdrawal of the Syrian Kurds indicated the remaining divisions (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 28).

    The Istanbul conference produced mixed results. The participation of over 70 countries and several international organizations, despite the absence of Russia and China, was in itself a major success. In a lukewarm development, the participants recognized the SNC as a legitimate, though not the sole, representative of the Syrian people, and decided to treat it as an interlocutor in the conflict. Though the lack of a clear decision to arm the opposition or establish humanitarian corridors also fell short of the SNC’s expectations, the references to supporting the Syrian people’s legitimate right to defend themselves might open such a loophole. The participants still agreed to establish a fund, to be provided largely by the Gulf countries as well as some Western nations, to extend financial assistance to the Free Syrian Army and supply it with some communications equipment. Also important was a decision to establish a working group to monitor the arms embargo as well as to document violations of human rights, which might increase pressure on Assad and his backers. Though the meeting supported Annan’s plan, it also called on him to set a timeline for its implementation. Although Turkey and the Friends group assume that Assad’s end is inevitable, their progress in compelling Assad and his supporters to change their behavior has been far from impressive. It might be too early to tell the endgame in Syria.

    https://jamestown.org/program/supporters-of-syria-take-significant-steps-but-no-endgame-in-sight/
  • Turks and Azeris Alarmed that Tuvalu May Recognize Republic of Artsakh

    Turks and Azeris Alarmed that Tuvalu May Recognize Republic of Artsakh

    sassounian32

     

     

     

     

     

     

    March 16, 2012 was like any other day at the United Nations, when the representatives of Armenia and Tuvalu signed a joint declaration establishing diplomatic relations. Tuvalu is a tiny state in the South Pacific, much smaller than Manhattan, with a population barely over 10,000! Who would have thought that such a routine announcement would alarm Turkey and Azerbaijan?

     

     

     

    This news item would have been ignored by the world media were it not for the “acute” eyes of Ugur Ergan, the “astute” reporter of the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper. He brought Tuvalu out of its obscurity for a short while, making it the most talked about country in Turkish and Azerbaijani circles. Ergan quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Armenia had established diplomatic relations and offered tons of money to Tuvalu, so that it would be the first country to recognize Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh) as an independent state!

     

     

     

    Ergan further disclosed that Ankara is “disturbed” by Tuvalu’s possible recognition of Artsakh, suspecting that Armenia would do what Turkish officials have done for decades — buying political favors in return for lucrative gifts. They attribute to others what they routinely practice themselves. As the Holy Bible states, they see the splinter in someone else’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in their own eye!

     

     

     

    Even more alarmed were Azerbaijan’s officials who assumed that Tuvalu would shortly recognize Artsakh. Aydin Mirzazade, a Parliamentarian from the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, in an interview with reporter I. Isabalayeva, ridiculed Tuvalu’s readiness “to recognize any state, even a non-existent country, for a small amount of money.” Mirzazade understands well the practice of buying favors. It has been widely reported that Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister put his country’s immense petrodollars to “good use” last year by providing generous financial inducements to poor nations in exchange for their votes for a UN Security Council seat.

     

     

     

    Azerbaijan was following its elder brother’s, Turkey’s, footsteps at vote buying at the UN. Gareth Jenkins reported in the Eurasian Daily Monitor that the Turkish government had enticed to Istanbul the leaders of Tuvalu, Tonga, Nauru, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Fiji, Micronesia, and Samoa to secure their votes for Turkey’s membership in the UN Security Council. Those who have never heard of these Pacific islands should not feel embarrassed. Turkey’s former Deputy Prime Minister Abdullatif Shener had the honesty to confess: “I had never heard of the names of some of them before, but they all have a vote at the UN.” Turkey’s scheme succeeded. It gained a seat on the UN Security Council in 2008 by offering tens of millions of dollars to dozens of little-known countries in far-flung corners of the world.

     

     

     

    Yilmaz Ozdil, a more forthright commentator for Hurriyet, boldly countered Ergan’s report, confirming that Turkey was the first to offer “bribes” to Tuvalu and many others. Ozdil disclosed that, to obtain a seat on the UN Security Council, Turkey provided as kickbacks:

     

     

     

    — medicines to Angola, Ethiopia, Gambia, Sudan, and the Comoros;

     

    — trade center to Zimbabwe;

     

    — stables to Mauritania;

     

    — drinking water network to Niger;

     

    — water wells to Ethiopia;

     

    — school kits to Ghana;

     

    — field hospital to Sudan;

     

    — cattle-breeding technology to Mozambique and Mauritania;

     

    — electric grid to Benin;

     

    — smelting house to Gambia;

     

    — training schools to Eritrea, Togo, Lesotho, and Uganda;

     

    — police training to Guinea;

     

    — vaccines to Mali;

     

    — humanitarian assistance to Tanzania and Chad;

     

    — school to Congo;

     

    — sewer system to Liberia and Sierra Leone;

     

    — VIP minibus to Palau;

     

    — computers to Antigua;

     

    — wined and dined visiting Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, stuffed his pocket with gifts, and placed a private jet at his disposal to fly to Izmir;

     

    — donated soccer balls and pumps to Tuvalu.

     

     

     

    Another Turkish commentator, Deniz Zeyrek, wrote a hilarious column in the newspaper Radikal, headlined: “Tuvalu: give our soccer balls back.” To buy votes at the UN, Zeyrek reported that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu asked the visiting Tuvalu Prime Minister if his country needed anything. Tuvalu officials made a surprising request — that their children liked to play soccer, but had no balls. Turkey immediately dispatched to Tuvalu hundreds of soccer balls along with pumps. Tuvalu then complied with Turkey’s demand, supporting its bid to join the UN Security Council.

     

     

    Zeyrek concluded his article with the following sarcastic question: “Will Turkey now ask for its balls back, if Tuvalu recognizes Karabagh’s independence?”

  • Why Does Pres. Obama Torture Himself And Armenians Every April 24?

    Why Does Pres. Obama Torture Himself And Armenians Every April 24?

     

     sassounian3
    For some unknown reason, the President of the most powerful nation on earth feels compelled to put himself through a strange and unnecessary ritual every April 24. Weeks in advance of that date, Pres. Barack Obama orders his White House staff to scour the dictionary to come up with series of words other than genocide to describe the Armenian Genocide.
     
    For the fourth year in a row, the President’s resourceful aides have not disappointed him. For this year’s “Armenian Remembrance Day,” they have come up with a dozen words that describe the Armenian Genocide without using that specific term. When they ran out of substitute English words for genocide, the President’s hardworking wordsmiths turned to an Armenian term, “Meds Yeghern,” without providing its English translation (Great Calamity), so no one other than Armenians would understand what Pres. Obama is speaking about!
    Here are some of the words that the President’s men offered this year: ‘Atrocities,’ ‘brutally massacred,’ ‘marched to their deaths,’ ‘unspeakable suffering,’ ‘perished,’ ‘dark chapters of history,’ ‘what occurred in 1915,’ ‘facts of the past,’ ‘lives that were taken,’ ‘senselessly suffered and died,’ and finally, ‘the darkness of the Meds Yeghern.’ Anything but genocide!
    Engaging in verbal gymnastics on genocide is unacceptable and unbecoming of the office of the President of the United States. Could such deplorable efforts be explained as a feeble attempt by Obama to minimize his broken promises? As Presidential candidate, he repeatedly and solemnly pledged that he would recognize the Armenian Genocide. But when he became President, he hid behind insulting statements issued in his name year after year!
     
    In his last four annual statements, Pres. Obama avoided carrying out his campaign promises by claiming: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915. My view of that history has not changed.” But, he never bothered to tell the American public what exactly were his views in the past, what his views are today, and what happened in 1915! He cleverly downplays the significance of the Armenian Genocide by calling it “my own view of what happened in 1915.” Yet, on January 19, 2008, then presidential candidate Obama, seeking the Armenian community’s campaign contributions and votes, had no qualms to call these events by their proper name. Back then, he confidently stated that “the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view,” and promised that “as President,” he would “recognize the Armenian Genocide.”
     
    Sadly, Pres. Obama is not the only member of his administration who has not kept his campaign pledge on this issue. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two of the highest officials of the country, had made similar promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide when they were Senators and presidential candidates. While Vice President Biden has remained eerily silent, Mrs. Clinton has gone from being a proponent of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to its leading opponent. After becoming Secretary of State, she actively lobbied to defeat a proposed congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide!
    After four years of this senseless charade by the White House, the Armenian American community has two good reasons for asking Pres. Obama not to make any more statements on the Armenian Genocide.
     
    First, by breaking his word for four years in a row and playing verbal games with genocide, Obama has lost the moral standing to speak on this highly emotional and painful topic! How can the President of the United States lecture anyone around the world about human rights, democracy, and justice, when he himself has so crudely violated the trust of his own people and lost all credibility? He should stop torturing himself, his staff, and Armenians worldwide by not issuing insulting “Remembrance Day” statements. It makes no sense for Pres. Obama to issue an annual statement that Armenians don’t want, don’t like, and are offended by it!
    Second, another U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, has already acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in a Presidential Proclamation in 1981. The Armenian Genocide was also recognized by the House of Representative in 1975 and 1984, by the Justice Department in an official filing with the World Court in 1951, and by 42 U.S. states. Therefore, the Armenian community has no need to beg Pres. Obama or any other political candidate to recognize that which is already and repeatedly recognized. 
    Genocide is too sacred to be a subject of crass political trading. Those who acknowledge the undeniable fact of the Armenian Genocide do so, not as a favor to the victims, but to restore their own credibility and moral integrity!
  • Turkish Breakfast

    Turkish Breakfast

    A typical Turkish breakfast consists of cheese (beyaz peynir, kaşar etc.), butter, olives, eggs, tomatoes, cucumbers, green peppers, reçel (jam/marmalade; a preserve of whole fruits) and honey usually consumed on top of kaymak. Sucuk (spicy Turkish sausage), pastırma, börek, simit, poğaça and even soups can be taken as a morning meal in Turkiye. Perhaps more so than traditional breads such as pide, a crusty white loaf is widely consumed. A common Turkish speciality for breakfast is called menemen, which is prepared with roasted tomatoes, peppers, olive oil and eggs. Invariably, Turkish Tea is served at breakfast. The Turkish word for breakfast, kahvaltı, means “before coffee” (kahve, ‘coffee’; altı, ‘under’).415506 275184459215251 102386316495067 688400 1873354466 o1
  • Clinton Should Resign for Making Offensive Remarks on Armenian Genocide

    Clinton Should Resign for Making Offensive Remarks on Armenian Genocide

     sassounian31
    How many times can Secretary of State Hillary Clinton break her pledge and make insulting remarks on the Armenian Genocide before she is called a liar and forced to resign?
    Armenian-Americans are fed up with Mrs. Clinton and her boss Barack Obama who also has not kept his promises on the Armenian Genocide. And the problem transcends their views on the Armenian Genocide. The Obama Administration has failed the Armenian-American community on many issues, including cutting foreign aid to Armenia, not backing Artsakh’s right to self determination, and pressuring Armenia to sign a treaty with Turkey that runs counter to its national interests.
    In this column, we shall focus on Secretary Clinton, and address our displeasure with Pres. Obama policies later, in the context of the upcoming presidential elections.
    As U.S. Senator, Mrs. Clinton co-sponsored a resolution calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In 2006 and 2008, joining then Sen. Obama, she sent letters to Pres. George W. Bush, describing the Armenian Genocide as a “systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915…. The victims of the Genocide deserve our remembrance and their rightful place in history.”
    On January 24, 2008, as a Presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton declared in a written statement that the “horrible events perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians constituted a clear case of genocide. …Our common morality and our nation’s credibility as a voice for human rights challenge us to ensure that the Armenian Genocide be recognized and remembered by the Congress and the President of the United States.”
    After becoming Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton must have suffered a bout of total amnesia. During a January 26, 2012 Town Hall meeting at the State Department, she reversed her earlier characterization of “clear case of genocide,” to “a matter of historical debate.” While the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide remain unchanged, what must have changed is Secretary Clinton’s moral fortitude to tell the truth!
    Clinton’s distorted moral compass outraged the Armenian-American community. The Armenian Assembly of America sent a letter to Pres. Obama complaining about Mrs. Clinton’s “untenable” statement, and the Armenian National Committee of America asked the Secretary to retract her deeply offensive position, parroting Turkey’s revisionist view of the Armenian Genocide.
    On February 28, over 60 House members from both parties sent a joint letter to Mrs. Clinton, expressing their “deeply held concerns” regarding her January 26 statement “mischaracterizing the Armenian Genocide.” They urged the Secretary to disavow her “ill-considered statement” and reaffirm her previous commitment to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
    On February 29, Cong. Adam Schiff confronted the Secretary of State during her testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee. Recalling her earlier truthful statements on the Armenian Genocide, the Congressman bluntly asked: “Is there any question that you have that the facts of that tragic period between 1915 and 1923 constitute genocide? Do you have any different view on the subject now than you did as a U.S. Senator?” When Secretary Clinton responded with evasive and euphemistic answers, Cong. Schiff chided her: “This is, tragically, very much the line of the Turkish government!”
    In her March 1 response to the letters from the Armenian Assembly and ANCA, the Secretary once again used euphemisms to avoid the term Armenian Genocide, and urged “Armenia and Turkey to work together to address their shared history.” This is as morally repugnant as avoiding the term Holocaust and urging Jews to work out their differences with neo-Nazis!
    Mrs. Clinton’s March 1 letter also describes her 2010 visit to “the memorial at Tsitsernakaberd” in Armenia “as a sign of respect for those who lost their lives during this tragedy.” There are two misrepresentations in this single sentence: she refers to the Genocide as “tragedy,” and avoids calling the “Armenian Genocide Monument” by its proper name. Furthermore, the Secretary did not invite the international media to cover her “low profile” visit to the Armenian Genocide Monument, not to upset the “delicate feelings” of Turkish denialists; and to completely downplay the significance of the visit, the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan issued an imprudent press release, describing her brief stop at the “memorial” as “a private,” not official visit.
    If Secretary Clinton had made similarly offensive comments on the Holocaust, she would have been dismissed from her job on the same day. Armenian-Americans should demand no less. Fortunately, Mrs. Clinton has announced that she will be retiring at the end of this year. We say, goodbye and good riddance!
  • Turkey-Turkmenistan Ties Flourish in Economic Realm

    Turkey-Turkmenistan Ties Flourish in Economic Realm

    Turkey-Turkmenistan Ties Flourish in Economic Realm

    Turkey-Turkmenistan Ties Flourish in Economic Realm

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 50
    March 12, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov’s visit to Turkey on February 28-March 1, highlighted the evolving nature of the two countries’ bilateral relations, built around flourishing economic ties. Berdimuhammedov’s first foreign trip since his reelection on February 12 also provided an opportunity to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Turkish-Turkmen diplomatic ties since Turkmenistan’s gaining independence. With many cabinet members, officials and businessmen in his entourage, the visit also provided an opportunity to deepen the relations.

    Ankara’s official relations with Ashgabat have been largely carried out by President Abdullah Gul, who has paid four visits to Turkmenistan so far. His last official trip was in May 2011, during which he discussed ways to improve cooperation in energy, construction, transportation and communication. Berdimuhammedov also expressed his satisfaction with the accelerating pace of the bilateral ties and underscored that his country viewed Turkey as a strategic partner. For his part, Gul has been particularly interested in improving energy cooperation between the two countries (Anadolu Ajansi, May 31, 2011).

    During Berdimuhammedov’s visit, Gul showed the highest level of hospitality, underscoring the importance attached to developing bilateral ties. He decorated Berdimuhammedov with a state medal of honor, which crowned many agreements penned to bolster cooperation in trade, tourism, the fight against terrorism, training of diplomats, etc., in addition to various other business deals. Berdimuhammedov again reiterated that Ashgabat views its relationship with Ankara as strategically important, and Turkmenistan would welcome even a larger involvement of Turkish companies as his country works to rebuild its cities through numerous infrastructure investments. The Turkish-Turkmen Business Forum attended, by both leaders in Istanbul, allowed the parties to discuss specific projects (Anadolu Ajansi, February 29, March 1).

    Reflecting the high premium placed by Ankara on mutual economic relations, Turkey’s Economy Minister Zafer Caglayan has also frequented Ashgabat lately. Caglayan’s last visit was in January where he also attended the bilateral business forum and was received by Berdimuhammedov. During that visit, a protocol was signed within the context of the Turkish-Turkmen Intergovernmental Economic Committee, and the parties agreed to instruct their Central Banks to make necessary arrangements so that they could use their national currencies in bilateral commercial deals. Caglayan especially expressed his satisfaction with Turkmen officials’ welcoming attitude toward Turkish construction companies, adding that the latter won up to 90 percent of government construction tenders in Turkmenistan (www.haberturk.com, January 30, 2012).

    Nonetheless, although Turkey became a major trading partner for Turkmenistan, relations have yet to live up to the ambitious rhetoric. Turkey’s trade with Turkmenistan and Turkish-speaking countries, despite a two-fold increase in the last five years, still makes up only a small fraction of its overall trade. While the trade volume between these countries was $8.6 billion in 2011, it only accounted for three percent of Turkey’s overall trade volume. Turkmenistan ranked third after Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in Turkey’s overall trade with Turkic-speaking countries. While Turkey’s imports from Turkmenistan were worth $392.7 million, its exports totaled $1.5 billion (Anadolu Ajansi February 6).

    Turkey’s main economic activity with Turkmenistan and partly other Turkic-speaking countries has been in construction projects. Many of these countries have been working to rebuild, using the wealth generated by their energy riches. Turkmenistan has stood atop that list in recent years. For instance, in a development that marked the growing importance of Turkmenistan for Turkish contractors’ international operations, in 2010, Turkmenistan ranked number one on the list of tenders assumed by Turkish companies in around 50 countries. Of the total $20.3 billion in projects that Turkish firms undertook globally in 2010, they contracted on tenders worth $4.3 billion in Turkmenistan, followed by Libya, Iraq and Russia. To date, the total volume of projects undertaken by Turkish companies in Turkmenistan exceeded $23 billion, corresponding to about 10 percent of the Turkish firms’ operations worldwide (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19, 2011; July 25, 2011).

    With these statistics, Ankara has been Ashgabat’s chief trade partner, while Turkmenistan emerged as the main destination of Turkish investments in Central Asia. Most Turkish economic activity in Turkmenistan is carried out by small or medium scale enterprises. Established there by Turkish investors following Turkmenistan’s independence, some of these companies acted rather in an adventurous manner and took risks. While many of them lost their investments in the 1990s, the first comer’s advantage worked in favor of many others who later became important business actors.

    Granted, Turkish investors still encounter problems. One particular issue has been the difficulties in receiving payment for the projects they complete in Turkmenistan. In addition to inviting new investments to take advantage of attractive business opportunities in his country, Berdimuhammedov also promised to solve the payment problems. Representatives from some Turkish business associations raised questions about his sincerity, as similar promises in the past have not ended the controversy – current pending payments for completed projects are worth $1.3 billion (Hurriyet Daily News, March 2). However, other Turkish firms doing business in the country had been presenting a different picture about the causes of the dispute. A large group undertaking major infrastructure work to build 180 bridges in the country maintained that those that complete their project on time face no such problems (Cihan, February 14).

    Such high level contacts and flourishing economic ties highlighted the seamless political relations between Ankara and Ashgabad. Turkey was the first country to recognize Turkmenistan’s declaration of independence and also supported its decision to pursue neutrality in 1995. Following the euphoria of the early 1990s, the Turkish-Turkmen relationship was severely restricted during the later period of Saparmurat Niyazov’s (Turkmenbashi) reign (1991-2006). While his isolationist policy of neutrality was partly responsible for the deteriorating state of affairs, the negative experiences of some Turkish businessmen who went to the country early on also led to the cooling off of the relationship. With Berdimuhammedov’s policy of opening up, which also corresponded to a proactive foreign policy course pursued by the current Turkish government, there has been a visible increase in bilateral exchanges. With the latest trip, Berdimuhammedov has been to Turkey for a fifth time, and especially in the economic realm the progress has been remarkable. For its part, Turkey has been hoping to bolster ties with this energy-rich country, which provides a major avenue for Turkish business operations abroad, especially while the turmoil in the Middle East raises questions about the prospects of these markets.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-turkmenistan-ties-flourish-in-economic-realm/