Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkey’s Energy Minister Pressures Nabucco Partners

    Turkey’s Energy Minister Pressures Nabucco Partners

    Turkey’s Energy Minister Pressures Nabucco Partners

    Publication: Volume: 6 Issue: 75
    April 20, 2009 02:19 PM
    By: Saban Kardas

    On April 17 Turkey’s Energy Minister Hilmi Guler, attended a meeting on the future of the Turkish energy sector where he highlight the need to invest in renewable energy resources and diversify its hydrocarbon supplies. In that context, Guler sent important messages to Turkey’s Nabucco partners. Asked about the current standing of the Nabucco project, he said that draft intergovernmental and host government agreements had been conveyed to Ankara’s partners. “We told them that if we receive their response this month, we are ready to sign the agreement in June…we have full confidence that we can conclude the project, provided that our partners respond to the letter promptly” (www.haberturk.com, April 17).

    During the past fortnight Guler has repeatedly stressed this point. On various occasions, he expressed Turkey’s dissatisfaction with the slow pace of progress and tried to pressurize its European partners. Satisfied with the results of the Budapest Summit in January, where the EU supported the Nabucco project by earmarking 250 million Euros ($324 million) to help the consortium secure loans, Turkey wanted to fast track the process. Noting that Turkey was the driving force behind the project, Guler argued that the Europeans were preoccupied with small details and if Ankara took charge, the project would be completed within three years. He contended that the Europeans have finally realized that Turkey could not be reduced only to a “transit country” (Radikal, February 1).

    By mid-March, however, the EU debated reducing funds allocated for Nabucco and removing it from its priority energy projects, before eventually deciding to maintain the project. Guler said that even if the EU were to drop its financial backing, it would not affect the scheduled progress of Nabucco:

    “The Nabucco project will be concluded under any circumstances. Just as we finished the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Shah Deniz project and the Turkey-Greece interconnector, we will also finish this project. The credit issue can be considered as a detail. There will be alternatives and we will discuss them with our partners” (www.cnnturk.com, March 19).

    However, despite his powerful rhetoric, Guler failed to address how Turkey will generate the necessary funding in the midst of the global economic crisis. Guler was assuming that as long as a consensus existed on the political-strategic level, the remaining problems over financing could easily be resolved. As the subsequent developments showed, that consensus cannot be taken for granted.

    The declining commitment of the European partners was obvious and Guler’s statements also reflected those changes. On April 12, he again criticized the attitude of the Nabucco partners, which he repeated within different platforms. According to Guler, in their initial responses to Turkey’s draft proposals, its partners raised issues which had already been agreed. To avoid such problems, and accelerate the process, Guler sent the Europeans a letter requesting that they “submit to Turkey what they all agree on and sign on to it” (Anadolu Ajansi, April 12).

    Funding problems aside, questions about how to supply Nabucco are far from settled, which has a direct bearing on any evaluation of the project by investors. The declining European interest in Nabucco has already forced Azerbaijan -the only country to commit gas to the project- to reconsider exporting through Russia. A related political challenge has been posed by the tensions between Turkey and Azerbaijan, caused by Baku’s discomfort surrounding Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, which might ignore its concerns. Although Guler ruled out the negative implications of the Turkish-Azeri frictions for the Nabucco project, uncertainty over Baku’s plans further complicates the investor climate, delaying a European response to Turkey’s draft proposals.

    Against this background, the haste with which the Turkish government is seeking to move the process forward might be an indication of an underlying sense of nervousness about the fate of the project. Ankara appears impatient to secure European commitment to the Nabucco project and start without further delay. It has blamed its European partners for the current stalemate in the negotiations.

    On the other hand, the Turkish government rarely acknowledges its own part in these delays, such as the covert threat to use the Nabucco as a bargaining chip to accelerate Turkey’s stalled EU accession process, or its insistence on privileged access to gas transiting its territory to serve domestic demand, or its futile efforts to include Russia in Nabucco. No matter how justified Turkey might be on these issues, the government might have miscalculated the potential damage caused by its bargaining tactics (Taraf, March 3). Turkey’s aggressive rhetoric about becoming an energy hub may alienate some of its Nabucco partners.

    Nor has Ankara appreciated the complexity of energy geopolitics in general or the discussions taking place inside the EU. Turkey mainly acted on the assumption that given its strategic location it could dictate terms to Brussels, forgetting that Nabucco had to compete with other rival projects to receive European backing (EDM, March 4, 5, 16). Likewise, Turkey hoped that the U.S. administration might support the project. But as Obama’s European trips showed, Washington does not enjoy the leverage over major EU members ascribed to it by Ankara. It is unclear when a European response will emerge, but it could disappoint the Turkish government.

     http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34882

  • Has Turkey Traded Genocide for Karabakh?

    Has Turkey Traded Genocide for Karabakh?

    gul-and-sargsyan-in-frame-sept-2008With Turkish / Armenian negotiations reaching a peak, the focus of attention is moving from the wider debate to petty bickering over who said this and who said that, the inevitable outcome of a process in which a country’s leaders discuss fundamentals of agreements with their international counterparts then hide the truth from their domestic audience. The Armenian negotiating parties, President Sargsyan and MFA Nalbandian, have unashamedly deceived the Armenian public with respect to their year-long negotiations on Karabakh and Genocide. Today, they would have the Armenian public believe that Turkey has suddenly introduced pre-conditions for opening the border, an untrue statement and particularly alarming as it came immediately after discussions with the US President in Turkey, which surely must have led to a common understanding between Turkey, Armenia and the US. True, the Turkish side did change its position after Obama’s trip to Turkey and re-introduced Karabakh as a pre-condition. But in contrast to Armenia, Turkish reports on its position have been consistent, in Ankara, in Baku and in Yerevan.

    Turkey resolutely denies that the hostilities involving the slaughter of Armenians in the early 20th century amounted to Genocide and each year it spends considerable resources to defend its position, especially in the US. This year Turkey’s leaders spent several months and went to extraordinary lengths to avoid US recognition, realizing the new US President and most of his senior administration supported Armenia’s claim of Genocide. That is understandable from a Turkish perspective. But it is disturbing that the Armenian negotiating parties have not added their voices to the Armenian lobby for the US to recognize Genocide, but understandable, as US recognition would put a stop to the plan they have been doing all they can to keep from the Armenian public. Sargsyan and Nalbandian have been ‘warming to the Turkish proposal to establish a commission of historians’ and they have said so on several occasions, not for the good of the Armenian Republic, but in pursuit of personal gain.

    On April 6th and 7th, Turkey was host to the US President, first in Ankara then in Istanbul, hailed as the highlight of Obama’s European tour. Several weeks prior to the Obama visit, Turkey announced that it had removed the Karabakh issue from its list of pre-conditions for opening the Turkish / Armenian border, seemingly infuriating Azerbaijan, but clearly a tactical move to demonstrate Turkish acquiescence in a ‘warming relationship’ with the Armenian administration and part of Turkey’s concerted effort to avoid what seemed to be an inevitable US Genocide recognition. The Obama trip went according to plan with the US and Turkey singing each others praise. But for Armenia, whilst Obama confirmed his personal position had not changed, he avoided using the word Genocide.

    Armenia’s MFA Nalbandian decided not to travel to Ankara to meet with US President Obama on the 6th April as planned, but he eventually managed to find time on April 7th in Istanbul. He returned to Yerevan bristling with confidence of an imminent border opening and assuring the Armenian public that he and his President would do nothing to jeopardize a possible US recognition of Genocide. In fact, they had already done their damndest to jeopardize a possible US recognition of Genocide, they had announced that negotiations with Turkey were developing well and they anticipated an early opening of the Armenian / Turkish border – possibly in April. Under these circumstances it would have been confrontational for Obama to talk about Armenia’s ‘Genocide’ in Turkey and he would have been blamed for spoiling the Turkish – Armenian reconciliation process.

    Nalbandian had barely finished his press conference in Yerevan, when Turkey announced in Ankara, Baku and Yerevan that it was to re-introduce Karabakh to the border-opening list of pre-conditions, a seemingly provocative move, especially after the Obama visit and only two weeks prior to a much anticipated 24th April Obama declaration on Genocide in the US. The Turkish move completely contradicted Nalbandian’s statement, plus many such Nalbandian statements in the run-up to Obama’s trip to Turkey. Sargsyan responded in Yerevan, accusing Turkey of suddenly introducing hitherto unknown pre-conditions, although pre-conditions have been known and documented throughout the nearly year-long negotiation process, and neither Sargsyan nor his Minister of Foreign Affairs had ever explained in Armenia how they had been resolved. However, the ‘newly introduced pre-condition’ did not dampen Sargsyan’s enthusiasm and he re-confirmed he would be travelling through the newly opened border on his way to watch football in Turkey this October.

    From this somewhat implausible chain of events, it is presumably to be believed that President Gul had a change of heart after negotiations between President Obama and Armenia’s MFA Nalbandian; that he decided to slap the well-intentioned face of his most powerful strategic ally by revoking on this critical and most sensitive of issues. If true, that would surely invoke US recognition of Armenia’s Genocide on the 24th.

    Of course not, Turkey’s President Gul would never concede on the Genocide issue, knowing that 90 percent of the Turkish population is opposed, and at a time when his ratings had plummeted in a keenly contested democratic election. The conclusion can only be that Obama left Turkey thankful and relieved that Turkey and Armenia had agreed to resolve the Genocide issue between them, through Turkey’s commission of historians, or some other such mechanism. Armenia’s President Sargsyan is on record as saying he has no ambitions with regard the historic Armenian lands in the eastern part of Turkey, so only the Karabakh issue needs to be resolved for him to travel through the border in October this year, and Bryza’s opinion is that Karabakh will soon be resolved.

    Armenia’s former President Kocharian has been preparing his deal on Karabakh for several years, held back firstly by the lack of an acceptable Azerbaijani compensation package, and secondly his nerve to commit to the deal, knowing he would face the backlash from an angry Armenian public. Kocharian waited his time and supported Sargsyan as his successor on the understanding that Sargsyan, when President, would go through with the agreement he dare not sign.

    However, in the same way that Turkey would never withdraw its support from Azerbaijan with regard Karabakh, Azerbaijan is equally committed to supporting Turkey on Genocide. In July 2008, seeing that Sargsyan was determined to finalize the Kocharian deal on Karabakh, the Azerbaijani / Turkish allies joined forces and threw Genocide into the equation, knowing the self-imposed illegitimate Sargsyan regime would jump at the chance of adding to the package of compensation it was demanding in return for one of Armenia’s very few state assets left after Kocharian’s eight years of pillaging – Karabakh.

    In August 2008, the Georgia conflict prompted Moscow to force the pace of negotiations, so Medvedev dangled a $500 million carrot; then the World economic crisis presented the opportunity for the US to throw a billion or so more dollars into the pot, conveniently facilitated by the World Bank and the IMF. Now half the World is on tenterhooks, waiting the next episode in this most unsavory Caucuses conflict resolution saga, which is due this 24th April in New York.

    The Kocharian / Sargsyan Karabakh ‘Ace’ has already been played several times with the EU and PACE to chock up the illegitimate Sargsyan Presidency. Soon it will be played for the last time, to draw massive compensation in return for a beneficial agreement for Azerbaijan on Karabakh and for a Turkish commission of historians to finally eliminate Armenia’s claims of Genocide.

    Turkey and Azerbaijan will have solved their longstanding problems with Armenia, the US will have been relieved the burden of Genocide recognition, Russia will see additional political clout and economic benefits in the Caucuses, and the Sargsyan / Kocharian regime will have a compensation package worth several billion dollars.

    The vast majority of Armenians will be hoping that the US president stands by his promise and formally recognizes the Armenian Genocide this 24th April; in the longer term it will be beneficial to all parties concerned. Otherwise the Kocharian / Sargsyan regime will be having to cope with the backlash in Armenia, after having sold Armenia down the river with their ‘Karabakh / Genocide Deal’.

  • Turkey and Armenia Delay Re-opening the Border

    Turkey and Armenia Delay Re-opening the Border

    Turkey and Armenia Delay Re-opening the Border

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 74
    April 17, 2009 02:27 PM Age: 5 min
    Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Home Page, Turkey
    By: Saban Kardas

    On April 16 Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan attended the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Foreign Ministers Council in Yerevan. Following his BSEC meetings, Babacan discussed the recent developments between Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan. President Barack Obama’s historic visit to Turkey earlier this month had triggered media speculation that Ankara would deepen its rapprochement with Armenia despite Yerevan’s differences with Baku. Some claimed that Turkey might announce the re-opening of its border with Armenia during Babacan’s visit to Yerevan (Wall Street Journal, April 2). However, political realities have since diminished expectations for a rapid breakthrough.

    Concerned that it might lose its leverage on Armenia as a result of any thaw in Ankara-Yerevan relations, Baku raised objections. Moreover, the prospects that Turkey might “betray” Azerbaijan generated domestic uproar against the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, with opposition parties and civil society organizations organizing activities to demonstrate support with their Azeri brethren (EDM, April 9). As a result, Ankara took steps to reassure Baku that any Turkish-Armenian normalization would not come at the expense of Azerbaijan (EDM, April 10). After fast-tracking the negotiations with Armenia over the past year, the process has now stalled.

    Armenia’s President Sarksyan further fuelled discussions within Turkey when he reportedly claimed that the border might re-open before his visit to the country in October (www.ntvmsnbc.com, April 10). Responding to Sarksyan’s remarks, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan clarified Turkey’s position by stating that unless a solution was found on the Karabakh issue, Turkey would not take additional steps toward opening the border (Radikal, April 11).

    Babacan told reporters on his way to Yerevan, that Turkey was seeking a comprehensive solution to regional problems. He said that efforts to normalize relations must connect the process between Turkey and Armenia with Yerevan’s ties with Baku. “We do not say, let’s first solve one problem and solve the other later,” Babacan added (Today’s Zaman, April 17). 

    Babacan’s remarks served to reiterate Turkey’s position that the re-opening of the border with Armenia must be linked to the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial issues, which he also repeated during his meetings in Yerevan. Babacan held talks with Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, part of which was also attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He had separate discussions with Lavrov and Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Mahmud Mammad Guliev on regional issues (Anadolu Ajansi, April 16). Although the Turkish media claimed that Babacan, Sarksyan, Nalbandian and Lavrov also held a joint meeting, this was denied in an April 17 statement issued by Turkey’s Foreign Ministry (www.trt.net.tr, April 17).

    The Turkish press reported that during his closed talks with Sarksyan, Babacan said that Ankara will not take any steps that might disappoint Baku. The parties also agreed that the Turkish-Armenian negotiations would continue at political and technical levels. Moreover, Babacan reasserted Turkey’s continued support for the parallel talks between Sarksyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (Hurriyet, April 17).

    Speaking to reporters in Yerevan, Guliev repeated Azerbaijan’s position that Ankara needs to protect Baku’s interests while conducting its rapprochement with Armenia. Any progress, in his view must be conditional, based on Yerevan’s cooperation in talks over Karabakh. The Armenian side, however, has resisted attempts to link the two sets of talks. Responding to a question during the BSEC press briefing, although he expressed his hope that the border might be opened soon, Nalbandian noted that no agreement was reached. He also said that the current negotiations for the resolution of the Karabakh dispute was being carried out within the framework of the Minsk process (www.cnnturk.com, April 16). 

    The AKP government places considerable value on Turkish-Armenian diplomacy, which it views as part of its overall policy to resolve problems with its neighbors. The re-opening of the border and the normalization of relations with Armenia will have a symbolic foreign policy meaning for the AKP, showing that its “multi-dimensional” theme justifies closer ties with all of Turkey’s neighbors, rather than only prioritizing the Middle East. Indeed, a settlement of the disputes with Armenia will help Ankara remove the Armenian “genocide” claims from the table in its relations with the United States.

    Despite an internationally favorable environment for the AKP’s policies, however, the re-opening of the border will be challenging. Ankara postponed such a politically risky decision, hoping that in the meantime it will alleviate Azerbaijan’s concerns. Indeed, since the beginning of the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, Ankara’s calculations have hinged on the assumption that it could convince Azerbaijan’s government to resolve its own problems with Armenia -removing Baku’s veto. However, Azerbaijan appears determined to resist pressures to remove its objections, unless Armenia relaxes its position on Karabakh.

    Recognizing that both Washington and Moscow remain significant players in the region, Ankara also seeks their support as leverage on Yerevan. Yet, as Turkey attempts to buy time to remove Baku’s objections, it risks jeopardizing Armenia’s commitment to the talks. The stalling of the process “has left Armenian politicians and pundits questioning the wisdom of further overtures to the Turks” (EDM, April 14). Against this background, the recent agreement between Yerevan and Tehran to construct a railway connecting Armenia to Iran’s Persian Gulf was interpreted by the Turkish media as Yerevan’s “Plan B” (Hurriyet, April 16). Through such projects Armenia could ease the economic consequences of the Turkish-Azeri embargo, which might undermine one of Ankara’s arguments that Yerevan badly needs normalization with Turkey in order to secure access to the outside world.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-and-armenia-delay-re-opening-the-border/

  • Sargsyan – A Year of Deception

    Sargsyan – A Year of Deception

    Armenia’s President Sargsyan convened a Friday 10th April news conference to celebrate his first year in office, when he labored for two hours and forty minutes articulating rehearsed answers to sixty prepared and vetted questions from dozens of hand picked state-backed news reporters. The answers did not always match the questions, but his general drift was to hail his amazing achievements, especially the wonderful way in which he has dealt with the burdens of the externally imposed crisis.

    Not surprisingly, one of the most keenly followed topics was the Armenian / Turkish negotiations, to which Sargsyan explained that he and his MFA Nalbandian could have possibly been mistaken. Local and international press agencies have been busy reporting Sargsyan’s calculation that talks may end in failure – “because the Turks are now adopting a different position and trying to set preconditions”.

    .

    It is surprising that after so many months of this Sargsyan subterfuge, the numerous news organizations still prefer to steer clear of Sargsyan’s continued deceit of the Armenian public. His statement completely contradicts the actual truth, presumably an attempt to salvage some credibility from his despicable misdealings with this most sensitive issue and in the process, wrongfully accusing his Turkish counterparts of changing their position.

    The nearly year long Sargsyan / Nalbandian program of deceit has been comprehensively reported through a string of articles on khosq. In particular, 22 weeks ago the “Karabakh /Genocide – The Final Countdown” article included links to how Eduard Nalbandian continued his efforts to Establish Turkey’s Long-Awaited Independent Commission and how he Derided those Countries which have Already Recognized Genocide, with complete contempt to the Armenian cause.
    20 weeks ago the “Karabakh/Genocide – The Deception” article linked to a diplomatic source who said Armenia was to announce the establishment of a Joint Committee of Historians to study the events of 1915. Sargsyan later stepped back from the ‘Genocide Commission’ by saying: first, let our joint border be opened and diplomatic relations constituted, then we can establish commissions, sub-commissions and sub-sub-commissions for any issue. He then re-manoeuvred to say the formation of a commission to investigate the Armenian Genocide is unnecessary and he referred to an “Intergovernmental Process”, which can be established later. Sargsyan’s compliance with another of Turkey’s conditions is also on record, he has publicly announced that he has no ambitions with regard lands in the eastern part of Turkey, and it is well known that he is pursuing his ‘Karabakh Deal’ with equal enthusiasm and in the same deceptive manner.

    Turkeys President Gul, Prime Minister Erdogan and MFA Babacan, in total contrast to persistent lies from senior representatives of Armenia’s illegitimate regime, have been absolutely consistent with regard their requirements to open the Turkish / Armenian border, which to repeat includes: 1) resolution of the Genocide issue; 2) Armenia withdraws claims to lands in the eastern part of Turkey, and; 3) the Karabakh issue be resolved under agreement with Azerbaijan. Turkey did withdraw the Karabakh issue from its list for a short period in early 2009, plainly a temporary measure to de-link Karabakh from the sensitive Genocide issue in an understandable effort to dissuade US President Obama from saying the ‘G’ word in the period leading up to Armenia’s 24th April Genocide Memorial Day. That danger has no doubt now been resolved in Turkey’s favour, with backing from the Armenian regime, including a Nalbandian meeting and a Sargsyan telephone discussion with Obama during his 6th / 7th April trip to Turkey. Turkey has since re-established the link with its close Azerbaijani ally and put the Karabakh requirement back on the table.

    Through the past months the Armenian regime has repeatedly intimated to the overseas audience that they are ready to comply with Turkey’s demands to open the border, whilst at home Sargsyan and Nalbandian have been feeding repeated untruths to the Armenian public. The process has been well documented by the Turkish and other international media organizations, but Armenia’s state-backed press fails its readers by simply presenting regime untruths verbatim. There should be no doubt that when the 24th April has passed and Obama has not uttered the ‘G’ word, Sargsyan and Nalbandian will return to the pursuit of their self-serving ambitions with Turkey and Azerbaijan, irrespective of the better interests of the Republic and its people – starting with establishment of the commission of historians.

    The alternative is to lose the massive compensation package promised – by Turkey, Azerbaijan, the US, Russia and the EU, a loss which Armenia’s bandit regime will not stomach.

    Bruce Tasker
    Independent Analyst

  • Chief of the Turkish Army Redefining the Political Role of the Military

    Chief of the Turkish Army Redefining the Political Role of the Military

    Chief of the Turkish Army Redefining the Political Role of the Military

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 72
    April 15, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s Chief of the General Staff, General Ilker Basbug, delivered a speech at the War Academies Command in Istanbul on April 14 addressing several issues including civil-military relations, national identity, the role of religion, and the fight against terrorism. In a two-hour speech broadcast live on nine TV stations, Basbug tried to erase the image of the military being opposed to religion. He underlined the need to recognize sub-national cultural identities, reiterated his support for the secular and democratic regime in Turkey, drew a distinction between terrorists and innocent civilians and called for a more healthy civil-military relationship (www.tsk.mil.tr, April 14).

    Many of the phrases used by Basbug, such as “the people of Turkey” or “terrorists are human beings too,” were considered as “firsts” for the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF), and interpreted as a marked shift in the military’s position on social and political problems. In a symbolic gesture, the TAF opened a press briefing to journalists known for their fierce criticism of the military’s interference in politics, signaling its willingness to reach out to broader sections of Turkish society (Turkish daily, April 15).

    For some Turkish analysts, this represents the military’s attempt to adjust to the recent drastic changes within Turkish politics and society. Its new leadership realizes that although elements within the Turkish military interfered in the presidential election through the April 27, 2007 memorandum, it was unable to prevent the election of Abdullah Gul. The AKP’s victory in the July 2007 general elections demonstrated that the Turkish society opposed such military interference in the political process. Moreover, the alleged involvement of a growing number of serving and retired military officers in the ongoing Ergenekon investigation has undermined the popularity of the military, further tilting the balance in favor of civilians, which increased the pressure on the TAF to redefine its position on civil-military relations (Hurriyet, April 14).

    Nonetheless, Basbug is known as an outspoken commander whose leadership style does not restrict him to the military, and has strong opinions on the key challenges facing the country (EDM, August 15, 2008). Basbug regularly holds consultation meetings with journalists, academics and intellectuals, which is consistent with his approach and visionary outlook. He regards tackling broader social problems as a self-declared duty.

    In this context, Basbug set the tone at the outset of his speech: “I will address the issues of civil-military relations, the fight against terrorism, democracy and secularism from an academic perspective.” He quoted international philosophers and writers as well as the works of Turkish scholars, and referred to scientific studies to support his arguments. Rather than offering an exclusively military-security perspective, he presented a sociological analysis of these issues. On terrorism, for instance, Basbug called for studying its root causes and understanding why militants join terrorist organizations.

    Although the moderation of the military leadership is welcomed by civilians and is viewed as a sign of the normalization of Turkish democracy, it has allegedly weakened Basbug’s image and authority amongst the officer corps. The arrests of several military personnel, in addition to retired high ranking military commanders, in the previous wave of the Ergenekon investigation caused disquiet inside the Turkish military. Military officers expected Basbug to state publicly his stance on Ergenekon and the overall role of the Turkish military (Hurriyet, April 14).

    Despite his extensive coverage of civil-military relations during his address, Basbug made no direct comment on the Ergenekon investigation. He indicated that he might hold a separate press conference to present his opinions on current issues (www.cnnturk.com, April 14). Basbug’s speech received a mixed reaction from Turkish analysts, partly reflecting his cautious approach based on his awareness of often contradictory expectations. For some, the speech heralded a new era. They found Basbug liberal and supportive of a pluralist democracy. Similarly, some argued that his remarks signaled the TAF might be preparing to support an amnesty for the PKK terrorists. Critics alleged Basbug’s speech was only a compilation of previous statements on these issues and contained nothing new. However, they conceded that there was a shift in the way the military communicates with the public. Basbug adopted moderate language and avoided any hint of confrontation with the political authorities (www.kanaldhaber.com.tr, April 14; Milliyet, Radikal, Hurriyet, Taraf, April 15).

    Basbug’s speech revealed the limits on further civil-military reform. He was keen to reassert the interests of the TAF and protect its privileged position. Despite recognizing the constitutional restrictions on the military and acknowledging the supremacy of the government, he called on politicians to consult the military and respect its autonomy. He expressed support for democracy and sought to reach out to the conservative sections of society, while claiming that two smear campaigns were underway against the TAF. One led by those criticizing the TAF using the pretext of promoting democracy, and a second from those seeking to mobilize religious opposition against the military. In particular, Basbug reiterated his ardent opposition to “religious communities” (cemaat), and their growing social, economic and political power. Finally, despite his recognition of Turkey’s cultural diversity, he insisted on protecting the nation-state from globalization. Basbug claims to approach controversial issues from a sociological perspective, while some of his uncompromising views contradict trends within Turkish society.

    https://jamestown.org/program/chief-of-the-turkish-army-redefining-the-political-role-of-the-military/

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Over 300,000 readers
    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth, while providing needful income, is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the global financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. I first evaluate situations on a fundamental basis and then I confirm them on a technical basis. In the past this has been reasonably successful.

    A History Lesson to Be Relearned?
    In the darkest days of the great depression Socialism first started to creep into our form of government. It seemed that Capitalism had failed and the educated elite were experimenting with Communism. They were called “pinkos” and Senator Eugene McCarthy would go on a boozed-up onslaught of slander against them 20 years later.
    The point I am trying to make is that socialism does not work. It stifles creativity and tries to create a classless society to be governed by fat and nasty bureaucrats who consider the rest of the population as meager.
    Capitalism is not dead. What our leaders failed to do was to properly supervise the so-called “new debt instruments”. The robber barons of the 19th century are the hedge fund operators of today. A bail out is a way of covering up for one’s mistakes. (I thought bail out meant getting out of jail.) All we are doing is supporting a bunch of losers. When giant corporations sink, it stings like a nest of hornets, but some of the strong always resurface. A couple of great bankruptcies will be remembered for decades if not centuries. We have been conscious of wealth creation, but not how we have fashioned it.
    In my last letter I noted that the market had turned up. I did not expect the voracious rally that ensued. I did have cold feet and urged caution because with no “uptick rule” the shorts were caught in a massive squeeze, which sent prices soaring into outer space. I now believe that the market has bottomed, but the popular average may not have.
    I wrote in my November 25, 2007 letter that markets top out stock by stock. Now the reverse is happening. The small and mid-capitalized stocks are bottoming and firming up. The large capitalized stocks are the last to surrender their gains. This is because the sellers of smaller stocks seek safety in larger companies. It is the greed factor and they just can’t wait patiently on the sidelines.
    As I recently looked back over my previous letters I was impressed, and yes, even proud of my stock and market calls. I was equally surprised at most of my political comments. Some were so bad they were downright funny. Jay Leno would have a ball reading them. So, I want to apologize for being a bad politician, but I suspect that some of my regular readers don’t take my political comments too seriously. I hope.
    FDR called economists “economic royalists” but Spiro Agnew (remember him?) had a few choice phrases that could be applied today. (Spiro, you were 40 years too early.) Try “netering nabobs of negativism” or better yet an “effete corps of impudent snobs”.
    This is a brand new ball game, with new players, new managers, and new owners. The new game is how to avoid paying taxes legally. We are going to be taxed from hither to yon. Some old stand-bys might go bye-bye. Home mortgage deductions? Many charities will probably have to prove they really provide a service.
    If you belong to a major denominational church with a solid history of service I can not think of better place to contribute. You get to watch your money while earning a deduction.
    Preferred stocks with a qualified dividend selling below its call price will provide you with an 85% TAX DEDUCTION. A preferred yielding 10% means an 8.5% tax-free return to you. A municipal bond yielding that much is heading for the sewer. I would only buy municipal bonds if you plan to hold on to them for at least two years. Muni traders do not like to buy back what they have dumped on you.
    Don’t do any business that depends upon the government of a country that is a dictatorship. Dictators run it for themselves, not for you. In the United States, the House has the real power. They vote on the budget. Your local congressman might be in favor, but the other 400 odd members can be against it. If the house does not pass it, forget the senate even considering it. Remember that the public believes the Congress is really “the pits”, EXCEPT their own Congressperson.
    I tend to favor Canadian Stocks right now. The Canadians stand proud and tall and have not wallowed in the same mud we have. They have companies that are well managed, with extremely low valuations and healthy dividends. I believe the Newalta Corp (Nasdaq NWLTF), which I have mentioned at a higher price, has now bottomed.
    One of the many truisms in this business is that most past performers do not participate in the next bull market; they become a source of funds for buys of smaller companies. One of the reasons for this is that large corporations find it more difficult to change direction, just as it takes a giant super-tanker 20 miles to change course.
    Mutual funds are really in a tough bind. They mostly all own the same stocks and, since they have chased the individual investors to the sidelines, they have no one to sell to. If they have too much redemption they can legally distribute stock instead of cash. This is another reason why the popular averages might be making new lows, while the general market has bottomed.
    In March of 2000 the NASDAQ Index was 5132 and today it is around 1652. In the same time period the S & P 500 Index was at 1553.11 and today it is in the 856 area. This is a graphic example of when governments fail to supervise the financial markets. Much damage has been done, but no one has stepped forward with concrete proposals to stop the slaughter.
    Our guilt is not going unpunished. At the G-20 just completed in London, President Obama agreed on international “high standards” for the regulation of “Systemically Important” companies to be sponsored by a new global Financial Stability Board (FSB). The United States will be just one of the 20 chairs on the FSB board. Whatever the consensus is with the other central bankers from the G-20 nations in respect to any regulations put forth, our Federal Reserve and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) will then impose them on our economy. (Does the US Senate have to ratify this? I think not.) What our Congress has to do is re-introduce the safeguards put in place in the 1930’s and modernize them so that we will never have to suffer this ignominious affrontage again. To regain our regal throne we must set out standards once again higher than others, so that all nations will again trust us.
    We must adapt to new philosophies. We buy a home to live in and enjoy our surroundings. We must buy a home that we can afford – not on a wing and a prayer.
    We must learn to save. Cash is king.
    Any corporation that has accepted funds from the Government is dead meat – at least for 5 years- maybe 8.
    We buy stocks because they have a useful product, provide a useful service, and pay a handsome dividend with the expectation of further increases.
    The stock market has bottomed, but all that means right now is that the slide is basically over with.
    The President has taken a big political and economic gamble. For this to work he must have the backing of the Democrats in Congress. He could get BUSH-WHACKED!
    Gillian Tett, an award-winning reporter for the Financial Times writes about the Gold Standard Debate Roars linked here: [email protected]. Many responsible investors believe that this is the way to solve our financial crisis. The four-decade experiment with a fiat currency based upon governments being credible is being pushed to its limits. The US reserve of gold is so small, relative to its monetary base, that a price of $6,000 an ounce would be needed to reintroduce a gold standard. To implement that standard in Japan, China and the US, the price would be more than $9,000.
    “But what this debate does show is just how much cognitive dissonance-and utter uncertainty- continues to stalk the markets. It might seem almost unthinkable to propose a return to a gold standard, in other words. However, the key point is that the last 18 months have already produced a stream of unimaginable events,” she writes.
    So while we have this crisis, I do not see gold collapsing far from these levels of $900- unless we find a viable cheap energy substitute.

    Cheerio !!! Monday, April 13, 2009

    Richard C De Graff
    256 Ashford Road
    RER Eastford Ct 06242
    860-522-7171 Main Office
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    [email protected]

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.