Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Science gives way to religious dogma in Turkey

    Science gives way to religious dogma in Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    The recent censorship of the Darwin story in the “Science and Technology Journal,” published by The Scientific and Technological Research Council (Tübitak) of Turkey, caused consternation in the scientific community in Turkey and beyond. Tübitak is the leading government agency established to advance science and technology in Turkey.

    The censorship, first time of its kind in Tübitak’s 46-year history, was an event that would shame any respectful scientific organization.

    The making of a scandal

    The event started innocuously enough when the chief editor of the journal, Dr.  Çiğdem Atakuman, decided to commemorate Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday by running a 16-page cover story on the scientist’s life and his theory of evolution in its March edition. Unesco, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, had declared 2009 as the Year of Darwin.

    By established protocol in Tübitak, Atakuman had the authority to decide on the contents of the journal. But when Prof. Dr. Ömer Cebeci, a vice-president and member of the governing Science Board, found out about the Darwin article while it was at the press, the article and the photograph of Darwin on the cover page were peremptorily removed.

    A revised March edition, missing 16 pages and one week late, was issued, and Atakuman was verbally fired from her editorial position (“re-assigned”). The cover page was replaced with one dealing with global climate change.

    What Tübitak did not realize was that its actions were a recipe for a scandal.

    Condemnation

    The reaction from various quarters in Turkey and abroad was swift. Academics and students from various universities in Turkey gathered in front of the Tübitak building in Ankara to protest the censorship. Amid calls for the resignation of the Science Board, other academics, journalists, nongovernmental organizations and opposition politicians condemned Tübitak’s action. Turkish media gave wide coverage to the incident, and newspapers abroad weighed in.

    Tübitak was caught in a storm it had not expected.

    Voices of concern came from the Royal Society in London, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), EU politicians, and other foreign sources. Bloggers wasted no time on the Internet to chime in.

    Science versus dogma

    What lay at the core of these criticisms, and rightly so, was that science was being subjugated to the dictates of religious dogma. Darwin’s theory of evolution, while it forms one of the building stones of modern science, is incompatible with Islamic faith that man was created by God.

    Data suggest that only 25 percent of Turks believe in evolution, some, including the education minister Hüseyin Çelik, associating it with atheism. Turkish theologians generally reject the idea that man evolved from lower beings.

    There is, of course, a similar quandary with the Christian and Jewish faiths, but in the Turkish case Islamic teachings never stood in the way of evolutionary science. The academics and scientists managed to separate or reconcile evolution and Islamic faith, and the government did not interfere. They were free to practice and teach science including the theory of evolution.

    That was in keeping with the secular fabric of the republic as established by Kemal Atatürk.

    Tübitak itself featured Darwin many times in its journal in the past, and the event passed without any incident.

    Islamic wind

    The changeover in Tübitak’s stance on science, in particular the theory of evolution, is no accident. After the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in November 2002, the government has undertaken a relentless campaign to undermine secular education in Turkey. Elements of Islam have been injected into the educational system in various degrees, and religious schools have been promoted. Evolution has been relegated to second status in favor of creationism.

    The government has implemented its Islamic policy through laws, regulations and partisan appointments (in some cases in “acting capacity’). The result is a highly politicized educational system from bottom up, including the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).

    The shift in Tübitak is part of this politicization process. Beginning in January 2004, when the current president of the Science Board, Prof. Dr. Nüket Yetiş, was appointed in acting capacity, most members in senior administration resigned or were forced out. Amendments made to Tübitak’s charter in August 2008 gave the government substantial control over the institution.

    Also in August 2008 Yetiş, whose appointment had previously been vetoed by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, was appointed as the president of Tübitak by President Abdullah Gül. Yetiş reportedly has ties to Islamists.

    Of the 12 members of the Science Board, 10 received their appointments during the AKP government.

    So, at the core of the Darwin scandal was political pressure coming from the AKP.

    Damage control

    To remedy the embarrassment, Tübitak issued a statement denying censorship of the Darwin article and attributing the incident to “miscommunication.” It said there would be a special issue of the magazine later in 2009 covering Darwin.

    A press release issued by Atakuman in reply, giving a detailed account of the events, however, left no doubt that censorship had taken place. Atakuman noted that after the incident she was reprimanded by Cebeci, her boss, in his office for pursuing a “provocative” subject in a “sensitive environment” – meaning the AKP rule.

    Tübitak would be hard put to explain why the Darwin article was provocative.

    Stung by criticism, the government, despite its well-known opposition to evolution, claimed it had played no role in the incident. Surprisingly – and perhaps not surprisingly – YÖK, the council overseeing higher education, declined to comment.

    More fallout

    What is most disconcerting about the Darwin incident is that it may stunt independent thinking and hinder science in Turkey. Science can only advance if it is free of ideology and religious dogma. Darwin’s theory of evolution is an integral part of science, and it must be disseminated, argued and researched without outside interference. Tübitak should promote, not hinder, such efforts.

    It is no surprise that Prof. Dr. Tahsin Yeşildere, Head of the Association for University Lecturers, commented that “Turkish science is in the hands of anachronistic brains who hold it in contempt,” while Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, called the Darwin incident an example of “cultural corruption and . . . intellectual dishonesty.”

    Nor is it a surprise that some EU politicians expressed disquiet, pointing out that the incident was a blatant violation of freedom of thought and scientific independence. Le Monde commented that Islamic groups in Turkey were waging war against Darwin.

    Turkey’s prospect to join the EU, already shaky, will no doubt be affected.

    What is also ironic, and disturbing, is that the Darwin censorship has taken place in a country that had benefited from Atatürk’s vision. Atatürk observed, eloquently, that “Science is the true guide in life.”

    A disquieting thought

    It has been 84 years since America had its bizarre “Scopes Trial” (“Monkey Trial”) in a Tennessee court. The trial was portrayed by some as a titanic struggle between good and evil, when in fact it was about truth and ignorance, or about light and dark.

    Is it possible that Turkey may soon have its own “Scopes Trial”? That would be most unfortunate. But if the AKP, with its Islamic agenda, continues to meddle with science, it may come to that.

    [email protected]

  • Turkish Economic Stimulus Package Foresees Temporary Tax Cuts in Automotive and Other Sectors

    Turkish Economic Stimulus Package Foresees Temporary Tax Cuts in Automotive and Other Sectors

    Turkish Economic Stimulus Package Foresees Temporary Tax Cuts in Automotive and Other Sectors

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 50
    March 16, 2009 12:49 PM
    By: Saban Kardas

    The Turkish government announced a comprehensive economic stimulus package on Friday. The decision comes against the background of deteriorating economic indicators that signal a serious recession and mounting pressure from market players for the government to act swiftly to alleviate the crisis. Industrial production showed a record decline in January, falling 21.3 percent from the previous year (www.tuik.gov.tr, March 9). Accompanying drops in capacity utilization and growth figures and the rapid devaluation of the Turkish lira further exacerbated concerns about the economy.

    The International Investors Association of Turkey (YASED) published the results of a recent survey conducted among its members. Investors shared pessimistic expectations for the Turkish economy in 2009 and anticipated a recovery only in 2010. Among the measures they expected to be taken were the introduction of an urgent economic package and the conclusion of a loan agreement with the IMF (www.yased.org.tr, March 11).

    The government previously had maintained that the Turkish economy was better equipped than that of other countries to deal with the global financial crisis and would be able to survive the storm. The government therefore adopted a reluctant attitude toward negotiations with the IMF and sought to address the crisis with its own methods. It previously introduced three smaller packages, which did not satisfy expectations. Until now the most serious measure adopted by Ankara to avoid a recession was the decision made by the Central Bank in February to lower its benchmark interest rates to a record low of 11.5 percent. This move, however, was not sufficient enough to address the mounting economic problems in Turkey (Hurriyet Daily News, March 12).

    The government appears to have acknowledged that irrespective of the Turkish economy’s strengths, shrinking world markets and the resulting contraction in foreign and domestic demand remain the main challenges and that more serious measures are needed to stimulate the economy. On March 13 the government announced a package of economic measures amounting to 5.5 billion Turkish liras ($3.2 billion). The package will introduce temporary tax cuts for three months in the housing, home appliances, and automotive sectors. The new regulations will lower the private consumption tax rates (OTV) on the automotive sector and remove the OTV completely on home appliances, while the value added tax (VAT) on apartments over 150 square meters (1,614 square feet) in size will be lowered from 18 to 8 percent. The package also foresees measures to boost exports by allocating an additional 500 million liras ($296 million) to Eximbank, a state-owned bank geared to supporting exporters (Anadolu Ajansi, March 13). Pending cabinet approval, the package is expected to be put into force within the week (Anadolu Ajansi, March 15).

    The new tax regulations seek to stimulate domestic demand in Turkey’s leading industries. Industry Minister Zafer Caglayan explained the details of the reduction of the OTV on motor vehicles and said that it might be implemented as early as Monday. For automobiles with engines of up to 1,600 cubic centimeters, OTV will be reduced from 37 percent to 18 percent, and for vehicles with engines of between 1,600 and 2,000 cubic centimeters, it will be reduced from 6o percent to 40 percent (Anadolu Ajansi, March 15).

    The representatives of major automobile producers had been expecting the government to make such a decision for some time, and overall they welcomed this development. They noted, however, that although the package might relieve the sector’s problems temporarily by helping reduce the current inventory, it would be insufficient alone to solve the structural demand-side problems of the sector. Representatives from other economic areas also pointed out that given the three-month time limit on the tax cuts, the package would fall short of expectations and fail to stimulate the economy in the long run. Representatives of the housing sector noted that since only 5 percent of Turkey’s total real estate consisted of homes of more than 150 square meters, reducing the VAT on property was not likely to have a major effect. The VAT on houses with fewer than 150 square meters is already 1 percent (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 13).

    In a related development, Turkey held direct talks with the IMF after a long break. Although the market players believe that an agreement with the IMF is urgently needed to restore confidence in the Turkish economy and reduce the volatility in financial markets, the government balked at such an accord. Turkey maintained that the conditions set forth by the IMF were “unacceptable” and against the country’s national interests, and indefinitely suspended direct talks with the IMF (EDM, January 29; February 18).

    The IMF announced last week that it had forwarded new proposals to Turkey regarding three issues that had caused disagreements, and Economy Minister Mehmet Simsek said that the IMF had acted more flexibly toward Turkish sensitivities. The reports boosted the markets, helping the lira regain its strength after hitting an all-time low against the dollar (www.yurthaber.com, March 12). A Turkish delegation led by Simsek attended the G-20 Summit in London, where they met with IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn and First Deputy Managing Director John Lipsk. Upon his return to Turkey, Simsek told reporters that Turkey and the IMF had agreed on consultations and to exchange opinions on the new offer. Noting that Turkey and the IMF had an agreement of principle, Simsek stated that Turkey had taken the IMF’s benchmarks into account in introducing its own package and would be mindful of the medium-term financial implications of such short-term measures (Cihan Haber Ajansi, March 15).

    It remains unclear how Turkey will finance the stimulus package, especially with further tax cuts; and a growing budget deficit set to increase this year. Nor is it clear at this stage whether incentives on consumption alone can really boost the economy without complementary measures to improve consumers’ income or decrease unemployment. Following local elections at the end of March, Turkey might finally go ahead and conclude the IMF loan agreement. With the IMF concerned about maintaining budgetary discipline and business circles seeking a more comprehensive economic recovery package, it is difficult to see how the government will find a middle road that will satisfy both parties.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-economic-stimulus-package-foresees-temporary-tax-cuts-in-automotive-and-other-sectors/

  • 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 financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. 

    March 10, 2000 the stock market topped out.

    March 10, 2009 the stock market bottomed. 

    This does not mean it is going to run back up. The leaders of past bull markets do not lead the charge in new bull markets. This bear market has been the second worst in our history and probably the worst ever in other countries. It will be 5, 10, maybe 15 years before the averages make new highs- that is, if they do not change the components too much. Stocks bottom when the future looks the bleakest. So I believe we are near or at the bottom of a major cycle. It is a market of stocks not a stock market.

                 I have written that the market has bottomed, but the recovery is going to be long and painful for some. We have to institute new global regulations and retrain ourselves to be more frugal. We buy a home because we love it and want to live in it, not to turn a quick profit. We buy a stock because the company has a good product, provides a necessary function for the good of the community, and over a period of time will grow.

                Countries and consumers are tapped out. The ratio of household debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose from 66% in 1997 to 100% in 2007. We are not alone. In the United Kingdom it was an even bigger jump.

                In the US the overall debt reached 350% of GDP. Only 85% is private. This figure was 180% in 1980. The next bubble to burst will be credit cards and then, if we are unlucky, we will have a debt implosion. Individuals and corporations will do their best to reduce debt. They will be shut out from borrowing because of the massive borrowing the US Government will have to do. This will be true for many other countries also.

                Today there is a debate between Socialists and their foes that want less government intervention in their daily lives. I believe the truth lies in the middle. We can not be all things to all people. In the past we have borrowed on the future and it is now pay back time. We have to downsize our dreams and expectations or we could find ourselves in the same straight jacket that the Germans found themselves in 1930’s. The American spirit is that of a “can do will try for it” attitude. Today, while you are reading this letter, there is someone trying to figure out a cheaper source of energy. Until the discovery is achieved we will have a slow recovery. I believe that day will come from an area we least expect. Have faith.

                    With a slow recovery major corporations will wallow in the mud. Medium size companies that can move and change quickly and do not have a built in bureaucracy will become the new leaders. It has been my observation that the pinnacle of leadership lasts about 10 years. That leadership is attained because the new hires believe in the company. Later hires join because of the name and it’s safety. Competitors multiply and the growth rate slows down. As Andrew Carnegie was fond of saying “shirt sleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” can apply to this corporate sequence.

                If you want to participate in this new bull market you must change your thinking. The averages mean nothing today. The market is made up of individual securities. You will want to know how your stock is doing. Not the market. Some stocks are going to drift lower because they are still over priced or because they have had a good run in the past and accounts are now overloaded with a past leader. These stocks should be sold. Taking a loss is really a good deal. First you limit your loss and you have given yourself liquidity. Liquidity means you have constant funds for your next purchase. The losses you accumulate can be used to reduce your taxes by $3,000 per year. This applies, as of 3/10/2009, before Obama changes the system. 

                Now lets say you have taken $25,000 in losses. Smile! You have just set yourself for the future. I am not referring to the next 8 years of  $3,000 worth of deductions. Let’s say two years from now that you have taken $20,000 gains in various trades and you face a monster tax bite. You can now use the remainder of your tax loss carried forward, which could be $19,000. Now your tax bite is only $1,000. This is why taking a loss is smart. More money has been lost by investors not doing a trade because of “taxes”.

                Now initially in this new market preferred stocks that have the 85% tax credit should do well, especially if it is selling below its call price. If they call it from you, you stand to make a gain. Corporate debt that is selling below par of strong companies will represent good value. Companies that hired a key person for the future while others have been downsizing is a big tip off.

                Gold is an investment for caution. The President’s strategy is to have a little inflation to support the housing market. Incidentally, the European Union and world leaders are debating over what should happen.  Some of the foreign politicians that carry a big stick are as follows: Wen Jiabao, 66, the Chinese prime minister who is under fire at home because he “put the brakes on too fast”. Angela Merkel, 54, the Chancellor of Germany who favors a “new global constitution” for financial markets. Nicolas Sarkozy, 54, President of France who regards himself as de facto leader of Europe given Gordon Brown’s domestic, political, and economic woes and Angela Merkel’s cumbersome coalition.  Gordon Brown, 58, UK prime minister who was the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and believes he is ideally equipped to tackle the crisis. He will host the Group of 20 summit of industrial and developing nations in London on April 2.

                Central bankers include the following: Jean-Claude Trichet, 66, President, European Central Bank who believes politicians and central bankers must do their utmost to shore up economic confidence. Zhou Xiaochuan, 61, Governor, Peoples Bank of China who has held that position since 2002 and is considered a principal supporter of faster market reforms. Fluent in English he can hold his own among economists. A sleeper is Mario Draghi, 61, Chairman, Financial Stability Forum and governor, Bank of Italy who is a US educated economist, former Goldman Sachs executive, and a respected transatlanticist.

                Regulators of note are: Adair Turner, 53 of the UK. Sheila Blair, 54 Chairman of the FDIC. Mary Shapiro, 53, Chairman of the SEC.

                Economists include: Robert Shiller of Yale. Montek Singh Ahuwalia, 65, Deputy Chairman, Indian Planning Commission. Robert Zoellick, 55, President, World Bank. Pascal Lamy, 61, who is Director General of the WTO. Paul Volcker, 81, Chairman, Economic Advisory Board. Fed Chairman in 1979-1987. He warned early and powerfully about subprime mortgages. Paul Krugman, Professor at Princeton University and columnist, NY Times. He has carved out a niche as the democrats’ liberal conscience. Then we have Leszek Balcerowicxz, 62, Professor of economics, Warsaw School of Economics.  

                Bankers to watch are: Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman Sachs chief executive. Jamie Dimon, 52, Chairman of JP Morgan. Stephen Green, 60, Chairman of HSBC since 1962. He has voiced strong views about the need for reform of banking.  A lay preacher and author of a book about reconciling religion with free markets, he has criticized the industry’s excesses during the boom along with Peyton Patterson, Chairman, President, and Chief Financial Officer of NewAlliance Bank.  

                At the top of the list is President Barack Obama, 47, the revues on his economic rescue plan are mixed, but much detail is awaited.  In the meantime, the president is pressing ahead with radical domestic reform agenda encompassing healthcare, the environment, and education. As promised, it has a strong whiff of both audacity and hope. Then we have Ben Bernanke, 55, Chairman of the US Federal Reserve who is a scholar of the Great Depression. He has knowledge of measures that the central banks can use at times of great crisis and he has had ample opportunity to put his theories into effect, using an expanding range of tools too try to arrest the slide.”

                With this list of partial names one can see that this is a global problem; global problems need global answers. This will take time and patience. This is why I recommend the sales mentioned above and a hefty cash position. Sure, the market is trying to bottom, but the prudent way in the 21st century is to wade in step by step. One should also check in with a professional – like me.

     Cheerio !!!

    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.

     

     

    This analysis is courtesy of the Financial Times and this assessment is by Lionel Barber, editor.  March 11,2009 page 7

  • Human Rights in Turkey: Old Wine in a New Bottle?

    Human Rights in Turkey: Old Wine in a New Bottle?

    Human Rights in Turkey: Old Wine in a New Bottle?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 47
    March 11, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkish media coverage of the “U.S. State Department’s 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” highlights how human rights issues might fall victim to domestic political discussions and strategic calculations. As in previous years the 2008 report on Turkey, despite identifying the progress achieved by the Turkish government, also emphasized the areas in which serious problems remained. Among other issues, the report referred to the rise in documented cases of torture, unlawful killings by security forces, poor conditions in prisons, interference in judiciary independence, limitations on the freedom of expression, restrictions on non-Muslim groups, violence against women, child marriages, and corruption (www.state.gov, February 25).

    Turkey’s mainstream media outlets that are critical of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), especially those controlled by the Dogan Media Group (DMG), covered the report more extensively than in previous years. In particular, they highlighted parts of the report that condemned the government’s activities that allegedly contravened freedom of expression and created an environment of self-censorship for the media. Indeed, the report cited Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s lawsuits against journalists and cartoonists, his row with the DMG, and the fact that several large companies owning news agencies had instructed their journalists not to criticize the government for fear of losing business.

    Attention to the report in the Turkish media has as much to do with its timing and the ongoing political discussions in the country as it does with the report’s intrinsic merits. The AKP government has been engaged in a fight with the DMG, which is unlikely to ease anytime soon (EDM, February 20). Against this background, the report’s criticism of certain practices provided much-needed ammunition to the DMG’s struggle against the government. The DMG used the report to make a case that the group’s own criticisms of government policies were not a result of parochial business interests but rather were objective assessments. Even liberal columnist Mustafa Akyol, a supporter of Erdogan, concluded that “the prime minister needs a moment of reflection and self-criticism. He needs to soften his rhetoric and rationalize his focus” (Hurriyet Daily News, March 5).

    In response, Erdogan maintained that the heavy dose of censure in the report was a result of “an international campaign” by certain circles. Without naming the DMG, he was implying that the media group was behind this campaign. “I will ask Hillary Clinton about the report,” Erdogan added, referring to his forthcoming meeting with Clinton on March 7 (Taraf, March 1).

    It is no surprise that Erdogan’s attitude came under attack. Sedat Ergin claimed that the report had been prepared a long time before the recent tax row, and Erdogan’s accusation of an “international campaign” by the DMG was simply nonsense (Milliyet, March 6). Likewise, Burak Bekdil noted that Erdogan had continuously preferred to ignore the DMG’s critical news coverage by claiming that the DMG’s critical viewpoint was in line with that of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). Arguing that the correctness of the DMG’s stance was affirmed by the report, Bekdil maintained that the organization followed a neutral line. Bekdil then sought to ridicule Erdogan, saying, “Apparently, the CHP partisans have not only infiltrated the DMG but also crossed the Atlantic and successfully penetrated the U.S. State Department” (Hurriyet Daily News, March 4).

    During his private meeting with Clinton (EDM, March 9), Erdogan indeed raised this issue. According to Hurriyet, the flagship publication of the DMG, Clinton said that references to democracy, freedom of the press, and human rights reflected the high value Washington placed on these institutions; and she added that freedom of the press was an essential part of democracy (Hurriyet, March 7; Vatan, March 8).

    Other media outlets concluded, however, that Clinton had failed to challenge Erdogan on this issue forcefully. In an interview with CNNTurk, Clinton confirmed that she had discussed the report with Erdogan. Noting that such reports were prepared annually, Clinton said, “I fully understand…no politician ever likes the press criticizing them…overall…we think that Turkey has made tremendous progress in freedom of speech and freedom of religion and human rights, and we’re proud of that” (www.cnnturk.com, March 8). This tacit support for Erdogan was strongly criticized by The Washington Post, which wrote that Clinton had put economic and strategic interests before human rights advocacy and undermined the State Department’s efforts in this area (The Washington Post, March 10).

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, in an interview with NTV, attributed the publicity about the report to efforts by the DMG, without naming it, and noted that it was not a major item during the Erdogan-Clinton meeting. He went on to say that “The State Department too could make a mistake. This is not a report written by Clinton herself; it was written by lower-ranking officials, and there is no need to make a big fuss about it” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 8).

    The controversy over the coverage of the report shows how the commitment to human rights on the part of Turkish political actors remains tenuous. When it suits their agenda, they do not hesitate to benefit from coalitions they built with worldwide human rights and democracy advocacy networks to exert pressure on their opponents. When international criticism works against their interests, however, they denounce other groups’ resorting to similar tactics of using international leverage and label them as insignificant, or manipulated.

    https://jamestown.org/program/human-rights-in-turkey-old-wine-in-a-new-bottle/

  • Turkish-American “Strategic Partnership”: On the Way to Rejuvenation?

    Turkish-American “Strategic Partnership”: On the Way to Rejuvenation?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 45 March 9, 2009 01:42 PM Age: 3 hrs Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Foreign Policy, Turkey, Home Page, Featured By: Saban Kardas

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) greets Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan (Photo: EPA)

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Ankara on Saturday, the highest-level direct contact between the administration of President Barack Obama and the Turkish government so far, highlighted the value each side places on sustaining the Turkish-American partnership. In addition to her meetings with President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Clinton met with Foreign Minister Ali Babacan after which the two held a press briefing and made a joint statement about strengthening the bilateral relationship. Clinton also visited Ataturk’s mausoleum in Ankara and appeared on a popular show on the private NTV channel.

    The joint declaration stated that the parties “reaffirmed the strong bonds of alliance, solidarity, and strategic partnership…as well as the commitment of both countries to the principles of peace, democracy, freedom, and prosperity enshrined in the Shared Vision and Structured Dialogue document agreed to in July 2006” (www.turkey.usembassy.gov, March 7).

    Clinton had a chance to discuss a wide range of issues with Turkish officials including the Middle East peace process, Iraq, Afghanistan, energy security, the global financial crisis, terrorism, developments in the Balkans and the Caucasus, Turkey’s EU membership process, and the Cyprus problem. The continuing discussions on using Turkish territory as a possible route for US troops leaving Iraq reportedly occupied the major part of Clinton’s agenda during her private discussions with Erdogan and other Turkish officials (ANKA, March 8). In response to a question about Turkey’s possible role in the U.S. withdrawal plans, Clinton noted that the process was still in its initial phases and Washington would maintain discussions with Turkey on the subject. Babacan repeated his earlier remarks on the issue, emphasizing that talks at the technical level were already underway and that Turkey had a constructive approach to the subject (Anatolian News Agency, March 7).

    Another major item discussed was Turkey’s contributions to resolving conflicts in the region. Clinton reiterated American appreciation of Turkey’s role with regard to the Palestine issue and the indirect talks between Syria and Israel. Both sides said that they would work together to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable peace in the region. Likewise, Clinton expressed her country’s support for the process of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia that Ankara initiated. Clinton also noted that Washington found Gul’s visit to Iran this week important (Sabah, March 8). Although some Turkish sources speculated that Gul might have carried messages from Washington to Tehran (Hurriyet, March 9), this has yet to be confirmed officially.

    Overall, statements from both sides stress that the two parties had useful discussions and found mutual ground on issues of common concern, which might herald a new era in Turkish-American relations. Achieving consensus on strategic matters aside, a major roadblock in Turkish-American relations has been the public animosity toward the United States and how to reverse the anti-Americanism that became strongly engrained in the Turkish body politic during the Bush years. Cognizant of these challenges, the American side did its best to appeal to the Turkish people, as reflected in Clinton’s appearance on a TV show targeting female viewers (EDM, March; www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 7).

    Likewise, Clinton capitalized on Obama’s vision of change to emphasize that Turkish-American relations were entering a new phase. She announced that Obama would visit Turkey in a month. A White House official said that Obama’s trip “will be an important opportunity to visit a NATO ally and discuss shared challenges,” adding, “It will also provide an opportunity to continue the president’s dialogue with the Muslim world” (www.cnn.com, March 7). It is not yet known, however, whether the speech Obama had promised to deliver in a Muslim capital during his first 100 days in office will be given in Ankara or in the capital of another Muslim country. Given the positive feelings of the Turkish people toward Obama’s election as president (EDM, November 7), the visit might indeed help improve the deteriorating American image in Turkey.

    A similar move in public diplomacy concerns attempts to diversify bilateral relations on the societal level. The joint statement announced that a new program called “Young Turkey/Young America: A New Relationship for a New Age” would be launched. It would establish ties between emerging young leaders from both countries “to develop initiatives that will positively impact people’s lives and invest in future ties between the leadership of [the] two countries” (www.turkey.usembassy.gov, March 7).

    The Turkish side was apparently satisfied with the trip. Speaking on the private NTV channel, Babacan said, “Turkish-American relations have entered a new phase … Our foreign policy priorities are completely in line with each other. In the new phase, the focus is on consultation and cooperation.” Underlining Turkey’s willingness to work together with the United States as partners, Babacan added, “Clinton emphasized Turkey as a strategic partner. She accentuated this more powerfully than the previous administration, and the new administration is aware of Turkey’s importance.” Nonetheless, Babacan debunked the overly optimistic expectations that Clinton’s visit indicated that Obama might not use the word “genocide’ in his Armenian Memorial Day address in April, This possibility was not completely off the table, he said (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 8).

    In the 1990s, under the Bill Clinton presidency, the Turkish-American relationship flourished in many areas and came to be called a strategic partnership. The Iraq War and ensuing developments turned “strategic partnership” into an oxymoron to describe Turkish-American relations. Despite efforts to save the relationship from further deterioration, disagreements between Ankara and Washington were difficult to bridge. The 2006 Shared Vision document, which the Babacan-Clinton joint statement referred to, for example, outlined a framework of close cooperation and structured dialogue to regulate bilateral relations. It was not put into practice, however, and relations hit a low point in 2007, when Washington criticized the Turkish government for its silence on anti-Americanism in the country and Ankara censured Washington’s inactivity toward PKK terrorism. This time, there appears to be a more solid basis for rejuvenating the partnership: strong references to the 2006 document after a long break are coupled with both sides’ carefully worded statements, which take each other’s sensitivities into account, and a determination to address problems through dialogue without playing blame games. With political will on both sides, it is not be wrong to assume that finally they may not only “talk the talk” but also “walk the walk.”

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-american-strategic-partnership-on-the-way-to-rejuvenation/

    Sphere: Related Content

    <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> THE FOLLOWING LINKS WILL TAKE YOU TO THE DUES AND DONATIONS PAGE
    https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/2009/02/14/2009-yili-uye-aidatlari-ve-bagislariniz/
    Turkish Forum — Biz Kimiz? — Bize Ulaşın — Projelerimiz — Yardımlarınız

    Hakkımızda (About Us) | Kayıt Ol (Subscribe) | Bize Yazın (Contact Us) | Bağışlarınız (Donations) | Güncelle (Update)

  • A Race to the Bottom for Turkish Democracy

    A Race to the Bottom for Turkish Democracy

    Bickering Between Erdogan and Baykal: A Race to the Bottom for Turkish Democracy?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 42

    March 4, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    The quality of political discussions in Turkey is hitting the bottom as local elections, slated for March 29, approach. Although candidates will be running for municipal posts, the aggressive campaigning by political parties has turned the election race into a national referendum on the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s performance in power (EDM, December 3). The importance attached to the election results has, in turn, heightened the debate between not only the mayoral candidates but also party leaders, leading to an exchange of harsh verbal attacks. The latest row in this war of words was between Deniz Baykal, the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the AKP and the current prime minister.

    Determined to win a decisive victory in the municipal elections, Erdogan’s AKP began the election marathon earlier than its rivals. Talking to large crowds at election rallies, Erdogan challenged the leaders of the opposition parties and accused them of being afraid to go to the people. In response, Baykal and Devlet Bahceli, the leader of the Nationalist Action Party, started to appear in election meetings organized by their parties. Bahceli rejected Erdogan’s charges and maintained that his party was always in harmony with the people. He claimed, moreover, that Erdogan was using the state’s resources, including planes and helicopters, to mobilize support for his own party’s candidates (Milliyet, March 2). Similar charges against the government are being made by other parties as well, as the AKP’s use of state resources puts opposition candidates at a disadvantage (Radikal, February 24; EDM, February 2).

    In the last week of February, the bickering between Erdogan and Baykal took a confrontational and nasty turn, with both leaders using very harsh words. Baykal maintained that the crowds Erdogan talked to were brought together by state resources, and he invited Erdogan to a TV debate so that they both could discuss everything openly. Erdogan declined the invitation and challenged Baykal to meet people on the ground (ANKA, February 22).

    Against this background, at an election rally on February 28, Baykal lambasted Erdogan’s indifference to criticism and maintained that by constantly bashing the opposition and the media in the election rallies, Erdogan avoided talking to the people about the real economic and social problems. Baykal also maintained that although his party had used a cooperative approach and proposed a package of suggestions about how to deal with the economic crisis in response to Erdogan’s earlier challenge, Erdogan ridiculed Baykal and simply responded to him by saying “mind your own business,” implying that Baykal would never come to power. Baykal went on to say that “this demeanor is maganda style. This is not the demeanor expected from a prime minister… We are used to seeing the elegance, kindness, and respect of past leaders. This kulhanbeyi style, this maganda style may look good on Erdogan [as a person], but it does not look good on [Erdogan as] the Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic.” In addition to his use of the words maganda (a pejorative term in Turkish to describe crass, rude and uncultured persons) and kulhanbeyi (rowdy), Baykal quoted a popular Turkish saying to disparage Erdogan: “You have become a prime minister, but you could not become a man (adam). You will hardly become a man, because you don’t know what you are talking about. You say one thing today, quite another thing tomorrow” (www.nethaber.com, February 28).

    Speaking at his own party’s rallies in other towns on Sunday, Erdogan said that although he knew very well how to respond to Baykal, his code of ethics and upbringing would not allow him to use such words in office. He said that he would remain a gentleman and seek redress in the courts. Maintaining a polemical tone, however, Erdogan says that after he quits politics, he might respond to Baykal with similar language. “My nation chooses a real man as its prime minister,” Erdogan added (Cihan Haber Ajansi, March 1; Aksam, March 2).

    On March 2 Erdogan’s attorneys filed defamation lawsuits against Baykal and Mustafa Ozyurek, the speaker and chief accountant of the CHP, who also used the word maganda during a press conference on February 27 to describe Erdogan’s conduct. The attorneys maintained that Ozyurek “aimed to attack Erdogan’s personal rights and [make] completely erroneous accusations of the most insulting nature” that could not be considered freedom of speech (Anadolu Ajansi, March 2; Today’s Zaman, March 3).

    Responding to these developments in an address to the CHP’s parliamentary group, Baykal defended his remarks and maintained that he had not insulted Erdogan personally in any way. Citing several instances in which Erdogan had insulted him and others, Baykal said that although Erdogan had sued him several times in the past for minor things, he himself had avoided resorting to the courts as a means of resolving their disputes. He noted that he had only criticized the prime minister’s behavior and words and would continue to do so as long as Erdogan acted in a this manner. Referring to Erdogan’s words that he would watch his deportment as long as he was prime minister, Baykal added that his reaction to Erdogan might have served a purpose after all by reminding the prime minister of his responsibilities in office (www.cnnturk.com, March 3).

    This case of bickering between Erdogan and Baykal is neither the first nor the last one. The history of Turkish political life is rich in similar episodes of political leaders engaging in a war of words against each other. This recent row, however, perhaps more than any previous one, amounts to a race to the bottom for Turkish democracy. The entire election campaign has been dominated by calls for duels, charges of corruption, and mutual accusations about the leaders’ demeanor—all overshadowing substantive public deliberation on political issues. It is, moreover, ironic that local election campaigns are being hijacked to such a great extent by national political considerations and populism. Regardless of which party wins the next elections, Turkish democracy might being the biggest looser.

    https://jamestown.org/program/bickering-between-erdogan-and-baykal-a-race-to-the-bottom-for-turkish-democracy/