Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • George Mitchell Visits Ankara

    George Mitchell Visits Ankara

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 40
    March 2, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    On February 25 and 26 George Mitchell, President Barack Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, visited the Turkish capital of Ankara on his second tour of the region to discuss the future of peace initiatives in the area. Mitchell’s visit is to be followed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on March 2. Mitchell held meetings with Turkish officials, including President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, and discussed Turkey’s contributions to the peace process, as well as bilateral issues between Turkey and the United States.

    Although Mitchell had been expected to go to Turkey during his first visit to the region, he was unable to do so, according to the American Embassy in Ankara, because of technical reasons and scheduling issues. Turkish sources critical of the governing Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) Middle East policies maintained that the postponement might have been a rebuke by Washington for Turkey’s pro-Hamas policies during the Gaza conflict and its aftermath, especially Erdogan’s confrontation with Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos. Foreign Ministry officials denied those speculations, saying that the visit would take place in the future (Milliyet, January 31).

    The trip and the surrounding circumstances offer signs of a thawing of relations between Turkey and the United States. Statements from American diplomats with regard to Mitchell’s visit to Ankara emphasized Washington’s appreciation of Turkey’s prior diplomatic efforts. U.S. Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey told reporters that Turkey had played a key role in many crisis spots in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Jeffrey also emphasized that Washington supported these initiatives and was willing to seek coordination with Ankara (Anadolu Ajansi, February 25).

    Following his meetings in Ankara, Mitchell told reporters that Washington viewed Turkey as a key partner for Obama’s peace efforts in the Middle East. “As an important democratic nation with strong relations with Israel, [Turkey] has a unique role to play and can have significant influence on our efforts to promote a comprehensive peace in the Middle East…. It is important for us now to look forward and to work together to build a secure, prosperous future for all of the people of this region.” Mitchell also reaffirmed Washington’s support for Ankara’s efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace and two-state solution (Anadolu Ajansi, February 26; Today’s Zaman, February 27).

    Foreign Minister Babacan had a telephone conversation with Clinton ahead of the Gaza donors’ conference. They reportedly had a warm conversation, and Clinton expressed her support for Turkey’s leading role in the region. The two politicians will meet during the conference in Egypt; and Clinton may visit Ankara following the conference, but an exact date for the trip has yet to be confirmed (Hurriyet Daily News, February 26).

    The Turkish media’s coverage of recent developments appears to support the government’s arguments that the new administration in Washington may not be troubled by the recent course of Turkish diplomacy in the Middle East. Following Turkey’s harsh criticism of Israeli policies and its departure from transatlantic consensus on controversial issues, Western observers have been debating whether Turkey was “lost” to the West and, if so, who lost it. One line of criticism maintains that the AKP government’s growing orientation toward the Middle East and its independent foreign policy are a result of its roots in Islamist politics. Therefore they argue that through its pro-Hamas attitude, Turkey has lost its neutrality and can no longer play a mediating role in Israel’s problems with its neighbors.

    Other observers instead refer to the misguided U.S. policies during the Bush administration, which alienated Ankara along with many other allies, as the major reason for the occasional divergence of positions. Moreover, they point to a determination on the part of Ankara to pursue a more autonomous foreign policy that better reflects Turkish national interests. Regarding Turkey’s policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict, they maintain that Israel’s excessive use of force mobilized social groups across the political spectrum, and Ankara’s criticism of Israel cannot be reduced to the AKP’s parochial ideological orientation.

    The AKP government too has been seeking to present its policies in the Middle East as driven by the country’s national interests and reflective of a broader consensus in society. The declared American approval of Turkey’s role in the Middle East seemingly supports the AKP’s previous arguments about the correctness of its stance. It still remains unclear, however, how far Washington will go along with Turkey’s leadership role in the region.

    A major driving theme of the Turkish government’s policy during the Israeli offensive in Gaza was its argument that Hamas should be part of any attempt to find a solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Erdogan repeatedly stressed that he would be a major advocate of the Palestinians in international forums (EDM, January 5). During Mitchell’s discussions in Ankara, he was again told by Erdogan that exclusion of Hamas from U.S. initiatives would not be realistic. Erdogan noted that since Hamas came to power, Turkey had encouraged it to follow more peaceful policies and claimed that Hamas had made some progress in that regard. Erdogan asked the United States to approach all parties from an equal distance and respect Hamas as an elected government (Cihan Haber Ajansi, February 26).

    By sending signals that it is ready to coordinate with Turkey’s diplomatic initiatives, Obama’s foreign policy team is showing that it is prepared to cooperate with regional allies and will take their interests into account. Whether it will also take their opinions into account, however, is quite another issue. The extent to which Washington is willing to negotiate with Hamas as a shareholder in the Middle East peace process and reconstruction of Gaza may also provide a real test of how far it appreciates Ankara’s new foreign policy orientation.

    https://jamestown.org/program/george-mitchell-visits-ankara-ahead-of-gaza-reconstruction-summit-mends-fences-with-turkey/

  • 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 given the ability to evaluate study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. .

    LET’S HAVE FUN !!!
    Recall Congress !!!!

    The stock market gave its first internal sell signal sometime in 1998 when the Lowery Reports selling pressure line crossed above the buying pressure line. This meant the sellers were in control. Since Price to earnings ratio’s were at an all time high and about 24 years since the start of the last major bear market my internal clock set off all kinds of alarms. The external sell signal came on March 10, 2000 when the Clinton Administration went after Microsoft as a red herring to forget Al Gore’s problem of money laundering with the Chinese in his bid for the presidency. Microsoft’s did not contribute to either party so they were a prime candidate. That act was the pin that burst to dot.com bubble and the real start of the major bear market that we are in today. This is when I started selling all big cap stocks for the next 6 years.
    I have now been in this business one way or another for over 50 years. During that time I have read, heard and experienced many challenges. My noggin is a mishmash of facts, figures and clouded forms that only take shape when the right message enters my pea pod brain.
    I have been try to write this letter for a week now, but the write words escaped me because inside I knew I was wrong even though I hated to admit it. That is why I am keeping the title of this letter that you see above.
    The fact is that we are in serious trouble. I spend more time than most reading about the Federal Reserve. I have written in the past that the Chairman and his board can do anything they want to protect or improve our economy.
    Dr Bernanke has a habit of foreshadowing possible future events. One should always take note of his speeches. His most famous one was when he spoke about combating a possible deflating economy. He said that he would fly over the country in a helicopter dropping dollar bills. The press mocking him gave him the nickname “Helicopter Ben”.
    The first clue we were I trouble was when the Congress passed the rebates early in 2008 without much of a debate. Our representatives had been fighting, clawing, spitting and chewing each other to tiny bits. Now they were pals? Then came TARF and BARF for the banks, we had to bail out the big guys. With type of news the dollar should sink and gold go to 2000.
    So President Obama wanted a bailout bill real fast, 800 pages of pork and long term goodies that will cost us about $100 trillion dollars before we are through. I personally felt an outrage that our leaders did even to bother to read it. Seven democratic Congressmen voted against it and 3 Republican Senators voted for it.
    Then I saw a picture of Tim Geithner, our new Secretary of the Treasury. He was being groomed to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve. While others got squashed for not paying their taxes , he slid through that political barrier. Why I asked myself. Maybe because we are really in deep trouble and our politicians are scared? They know something we don’t? THEN HIS PICTURES CAME BACK TO HAUNT ME. He never smiles. He has sharp eyes like a falcon seem the pierce the air. The grey squirrels on the ground know the feeling when they spot the silhouette coming at them. His eyes are of fear, incomprehensive astonishment of how bad are system is. As a former President of the all powerful Federal Reserve Bank of NY and the only permanent member of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) as Vice Chairman, his ivory tower office could not see the little bits and pieces crumbling around him. His full blown ideas of how to save our banking system deflated along with our economy. We are in a world wide debt crisis. European banks were leverage more than ours. Each bubble bursting is deflationary because all those excess inventories have to be worked off. The credit cards are the next one- Senator Dodd where are you with an new Usury law? Supported by Lobbyist (Bribers)?
    So in the Panic of 1907 when JP Morgan was the unquestioned leader and closed several banks and merged several others with out a peep from Washington or in New York City, today we face the same from DR Ben. This time we are finding out a little bit at a time. Chinese water torture. That is why President Obama has been bad mouthing the economy instead of trying to prop it up. Is he preparing us for something even worse?
    We won’t have a depression because Dr Bernanke did his doctorate on the great depression and how to avoid making the same mistake. Believe me, every central banker his worth had read it and underlined it. But we all have to change our habits and thinking. Stocks are dead meat. They are a source of cash. Need money? Sell some stock. Debt instruments are now the game. Corporate bonds have first call on a company’s assets. Then preferred stockholders come next. If anything is left over the common stock holders get the crumbs off the table. By the way – there all kinds of studies being promoted that T Bills have outperformed the market over a 20 year period, timing your stock purchase in very important.
    Now my friend; do not despair. Losses in stocks can be carried forward (so far at the printing) so that gains can be offset by losses
    Let me show you. Corporations that are solvent and viable will want to demonstrate this by reducing their debt. They can buy some back in the open market, or they can call the entire debt issue in and retire it. This is an excellent option in a deflationary economy. For us as investors finding those bonds or preferred’s selling below the call price could put us in what Obama calls the rich class. I mean if you are going over $250,000 you might as well go big time.
    Now is the time for all our politicians to back up the President. When the President presents his list of programs to be canned because they are outdated and pure pork and do not really contribute to the economy the Congress must back him up. Those that refuse to cut wasteful projects must be recalled. There might have been better ways, but this the one he chose. Failure to back him could send us down even faster. Consider this war-an economic war. Those who balk are traitors. They are traitors in a time of need. During the next two years if it obvious that some programs are not working then they should be stopped. If they refuse to admit failure then we can boot them all out in two years and rescind these acts. Being a registered Republican, these are not easy words to write, but we are at a defining moment in our history and I feel we must show unity or else we won’t be able to sell any bonds to finance these expenditures.
    By the way, this economy stinks world wide. The consumer is tapped out and if we don’t watch it as a country we will be too. We could be running into a debt brick wall a few years from now. I sure hope not. Cash is King!
    Today I would not own any money market funds except U S Government funds. There are too many funds and you don’t know where the next bankruptcy will come from. There has already been one fund that “broke a dollar”, but that was quickly made up. Cold hard cash is good, because later on you will be able to pick up tasty bargains at tremendous discounts
    I would also look at preferred stocks. They have second call on a corporation’s assets right after the bond holders. You have to be choosy. I prefer AMERCO Pfd A which is the holding company for U-Haul Trailer Company. It is listed on the NYSE and trades just under 20. The yield is just over 10% and 85% is tax free and they quarterly. You have an added protection in that they have a covenant for dividend in arrears. They must make up any dividends in arrears before they can resume regular payments. Here is the kicker. The call price is $25, if you paid 20 or under you stand to make over 30% gain. This is important because I believe any corporations will go all out to reduce their debt burdens. This will instill consumer confidence and support the common stock.
    So those of you who feel beaten down in a mutual fund here is a long term solution to your problem.
    It is important that you look around your own area and check out local companies. As an individual living in the community corporate officers like to brag at parties etc and just by common sense deduction and no inside information you might yourself a solid winner.
    ` Remember – never give up – there is a light at the end of the tunnel – it may be a pen light from here , but the close we get the brighter it shine. They economy will rebound, but the growth will be more subdued and the price to earnings ratio’s will keep contracting until this market is completely over sold and undervalued.
    These are formidable times which require much discussion. My last letter I tried to cover too much at one time so I will write more often , and try to limit my topic.
    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.

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Geopolitical Diary: The Turkish and Iranian Balance of Power
    February 27, 2009Turkish President Abdullah Gul announced on Thursday that he will make a one-day trip to Iran on March 10 to attend the Economic Cooperation Organization summit. While the summit aims to improve economic and commercial relations among the member states, the leaders will also discuss bilateral relations and regional issues. Of the two items on Gul’s agenda, his bilateral meetings with the Iranians hold far more interest for STRATFOR than anything that the summit will generate.

    Both Turkey and Iran are on the rise. Until relatively recent times, both have been contained by various forces, most notably Iraq and the Soviet Union. Between the end of the Cold War and American defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, however, many restrictions on the power of both states evaporated. Both Turkey and Iran are looking for wider roles in their region. Both have grand imperial pasts. Both have ambitions. And both are somewhat oddballs in the world of geopolitics.

    Most nations are oriented around a piece of flat, core territory where the nationality was not just born, but has entrenched itself. For France, Germany and Poland, that core is their respective portions of the Northern European Plain. The core territory of the United States is the coastal Atlantic strip east of the Appalachians. Argentina is centered on the bountiful flatlands around Buenos Aires. The defining territory of China comprises the fertile regions between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers.

    Such flatness is critical to the development of a nation because the lack of internal geographic barriers allows the dominant culture to assimilate or eliminate groups that would dilute or challenge its power. Additionally, plains regions tend to boast river systems that allow thriving agricultural, transportation and trade opportunities that mountainous regions lack. Very few states count mountains as their core simply because mountains are difficult to pacify. It is very easy for dissident or minority groups to root themselves in such regions, and the writ of the state is often weak. Consequently, most mountainous states are defined not by success but by failure. Lebanon, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Laos come to mind.

    Turkey and Iran are different. Their core lands are mountainous regions — the Anatolian Peninsula for Asia Minor and the Zagros Mountains of Persia. Even though the Turks are not original descendants of their their Anatolian power base, they were able to secure their central lands when they swept in as conquerors a millennium ago and have since destroyed or assimilated most of the natives. The Persians ruled through a dizzyingly complex system of interconnected elites that succeeded in instilling a common Persian culture that extended somewhat beyond mere ethnicity, all while keeping the base of power in the Persians’ hands.

    But that is where the similarities end. As these two states both return to prominence, it is almost inevitable that Turkey that will fare better than Iran, simply because the Turks enjoy the advantage of geography. Anatolia is a plateau surrounded by water on three sides and enjoys the blessing of the Golden Horn, which transforms the well-positioned city of Istanbul into one of the world’s best — and certainly most strategically located — ports. Turkey straddles Europe and Asia, the Balkans and the Islamic world, the former Soviet Union and the Mediterranean Basin. The result is a culture not only incredibly aware of international events, but one steeped in trade whether via its land connections or —by virtue of being a peninsula — maritime trade. Unsurprisingly, for a good chunk of the past 2,000 years, Anatolia — whether under the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines or most recently under the Turks themselves — has been at or nea r the center of human development.

    By comparison, Iran got shortchanged. Although Iran has water on two sides, it has a minimal maritime tradition. Its plateau is a salt desert. The Caspian Sea is landlocked and boasts no major population centers aside from Baku — the capital of another country with a hostile ethnic group. The Persian Gulf coast of Iran is not only lightly populated, but it is easy for powers on the gulf’s southern coast to block Iranian water access to the wider world. While Anatolia has a number of regions that are well watered — even though it does not have many rivers — Persia is predominately an arid region.

    The Turks also enjoy demographic advantages. Only one-fifth of Turkey’s population is non-Turkish, while roughly half of Iran is non-Persian. Iran requires a large army simply to maintain rule at home, while Turkey has the relative freedom to expend resources on power projection tools such as an air force and navy. The difference shines through in their respective economies as well. Despite having nearly identical populations in terms of size, Iran’s economy is only two-fifths the size of Turkey’s. Even in the battle of ideologies, Turkey retains the advantage. The Arab majority in the region prefer Turkey — a fellow Sunni power — to take the lead in managing regional affairs, whereas Shiite Persian Iran is the historical rival of the Arab world.

    Iran may be junior to Turkey in a geopolitical contest, but Iran is still a power that Turkey has to take into consideration. In a major historical reversal, the Iranians have regained influence over Iraq with the rise of a Shia-dominated government that they had lost to the Turks in the mid-1550s, bringing the two powers closer into contact. When two expansionary powers interact closely — as Turkey and Iran are now — they can be either driven to conflict or come to an understanding regarding their respective spheres of influence. In the present day, there are probably more causes for cooperation than conflict between Ankara and Tehran. Iran’s westward expansion gives Turkey and Iran good reasons to cooperate in order to contain Iraq’s Kurdish population in the north. Moreover, Turkey’s bid to become a major energy transit state would improve significantly through a better relationship with Iran.

    Given this dynamic, Gul’s upcoming trip to Iran is likely to be the first of many. The Turks and the Persians have much to sort out on the bilateral level as each seeks to expand their geopolitical influence.

    Tell Stratfor What You Think

    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    © Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.

  • Religious Freedom Still Tenuous in Turkey

    Religious Freedom Still Tenuous in Turkey

    Religious Freedom Still Tenuous in Turkey

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 38
    February 26, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    A Turkish court ruled in favor of an Alevi family requesting exemption for their daughter from attending religious lessons in primary school. The ruling highlights the state of religious freedom, as well as the demands of the Alevi community, in Turkey (Anadolu Ajansi, February 24).

    The lawsuit by the girl’s family argued that the religious instruction was against their will and contradicted their religious and philosophical convictions. The plaintiff claimed that by insisting on compulsory religious education, the authorities violated Article 24 of the Turkish constitution regulating freedom of religion and compulsory religious education. The lawsuit also maintained that the student had experienced inner conflicts in this class and faced the risk of failing her classes.

    The defendant, the Muratpasa District governorship, repeated Turkey’s position. Based on a 1990 decision, Turkish authorities claim that exemption from compulsory religious education applies only to Christian and Jewish students. Since Alevism is considered a branch of Islam, Alevi students cannot request the exemption.

    The court based its ruling on Article 24 of the constitution, and Article 9 of the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It ruled that those laws protected everyone’s religious freedom. The court also noted that Turkish regulations had granted exemptions to non-Muslim groups and those families that do not subscribe to any religious beliefs. The court ruled that “irrespective of whether they [the parents] subscribe to any religion, their request for exemption of their child from compulsory religious instruction needs to be considered under the freedom of religious beliefs… [and] since the continuation of the current practice will cause irrevocable harm [to the child], a moratorium is being issued unanimously.”

    The family lawyer claimed that “the ruling establishes a precedent” for other families seeking similar exemptions. Alevi groups pressing for the abolishment of compulsory religious education also welcomed the decision (www.cnnturk.com, February 24). Turkish courts had previously ruled in favor of parents seeking an exemption for their children from compulsory religious education in about eight cases. In a 2007 verdict the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Turkey in a similar case and found that the existing exemption procedures did not provide protection to parents (www.alevihaberajansi.com, September 10, 2007). The Turkish authorities objected to those decisions and denied that they established a precedent (Radikal, October 11, 2007). The Ministry of Education is reportedly preparing to challenge the Antalya court decision (Takvim, February 25).

    The latest case highlights the contradictions in Turkey’s practice of religious freedom. Although Turkey does not have an official religion, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) and the Ministry of Education follow Sunni Islam, particularly the Hanefi branch, in religious services and education in schools. Given their differences from and historical problems with Turkey’s Sunni majority, the Alevis have been among the main critics of the religious establishment in Turkey.

    For decades their demands have fallen on deaf ears, and despite the governing Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) initiatives to reach out to the Alevi communities and improve their conditions, most Alevis believe that their demands are not being met. Partly out of frustration and partly because of the inner divisions within the Alevi community, leading Alevi groups organized a “Grand Alevi Rally” in November. Their demands included the abolishment of compulsory religious classes in high schools; the recognition of Alevi praying houses (Cemevleri) as places of worship; turning the Madimak Hotel, where 37 Alevis lost their lives during a Sunni protest in 1993, into a museum; and the abolishment of the Diyanet (EDM, November 17).

    Since that rally, partial progress has been achieved only with regard to the Madimak hotel issue. Although the hotel has not been converted to a memorial museum, the kebab house there has now been vacated and the Culture Ministry will open a facility in the same place, in which the victims will be remembered (Radikal, February 13). Alevis’ demands for the abolishment of the Diyanet will possibly never be realized, as the Turkish establishment views the Diyanet, which has become a major part of the state bureaucracy, as a barrier against any sort of religious extremism. Although some Alevi groups would prefer a reorganization of the Diyanet or Alevi representation within the body, these demands are also unlikely to be fulfilled. Alevis eventually may have Cemevleri recognized as houses of worship, but that will not come easily. The AKP government prefers to view the Alevis as a cultural group and is worried that giving them separate representation in the Diyanet or recognizing Cemevleri might create a perception that Alevism is distinct from Islam. Instead, the AKP claims to be converting the Diyanet into an institution independent of all mezheps (schools of Islamic law), which the government feels should satisfy the Alevis (Yeni Safak, December 29).

    The reaction of Turkish authorities to the recent ruling also indicates that overcoming the compulsory religious education requirement will be a struggle for the Alevi community. Another major education-related demand concerns the information about Alevism in Turkish schoolbooks. Alevis used to claim that their role in Turkish history was only partially mentioned in textbooks and that in some cases the books contained stereotypical information about their beliefs. Despite some revisions in recent years and the inclusion of Alevism in religious instruction books as a mystical interpretation of Islam (tasavvuf), Alevi associations are unsatisfied with the progress (Aksam, September 16, 2007; Sabah, October 2).

    This case highlights one of the ironies of religious freedom in the Turkish Republic, which professes to be secular. On the one hand, the government seeks to control religious activities in the country through the Diyanet and enforce compulsory religious instruction, to the discomfort mainly of the Alevi community. On the other hand, it uses the principle of secularism to suppress expressions of religious demands from the Sunni community, as in the case of the headscarf ban. Although it claims to be working to expand everyone’s religious freedom, the AKP government has failed so far to satisfy the demands of either group. It might be time to consider the two groups in the same light.

    https://jamestown.org/program/religious-freedom-still-tenuous-in-turkey/

  • Will it Strengthen U.S.-Turkish Relations?

    Will it Strengthen U.S.-Turkish Relations?

    Will the Closure of Manas Airbase Strengthen U.S.-Turkish Relations?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 35
    February 23, 2009
    Saban Kardas

    The Kyrgyz parliament’s vote to close down Manas Airbase puts at risk supply routes for international forces operating in Afghanistan shortly after the U.S. decision to bolster the American military presence in Afghanistan (EDM, February 20). The attempts to find alternative routes in the wake of this controversial decision highlight the strategic cooperation between Turkey and the United States and the role Turkey could play in maintaining a supply route for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

    Referring to some Russian and American experts, the Turkish press has speculated that the United States may try to find another base in Central Asia to compensate for the loss of Manas. Given the growing Russian influence in the region and the declining credibility of the United States following the Russo-Georgian war in the summer of 2008, however, they claim that the United States would have a hard time securing a new base agreement. If the Americans fail to convince Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to accept U.S. requests, according to the Turkish press, the United States then would request a military base in Turkey’s Black Sea town of Trabzon (Hurriyet, February 19; Evrensel, February 20; Yeni Safak, February 20).

    As the speculation mounted, the question of whether the United States had indeed knocked on Turkey’s door was raised to Metin Gurak, the spokesman of the Turkish military, during his weekly press briefing on Friday, February 20. Gurak stressed that as of the briefing Turkey had received no such request (Ihlas Haber Ajansi, February 20).

    The same day, U.S. military sources announced that they had been able to secure the cooperation of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to allow transportation of non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan through their territories (AFP, Friday 20). In a development that apparently lends support to the Turkish press reports, Retired Air Force General and chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, told 6 News, a private Turkish news station, that although the decision of the Kyrgyz parliament would not disrupt U.S. operations, it would make maintaining the supply routes more inconvenient and possibly more expensive. Noting that Manas was used mainly for refueling purposes, he emphasized that other bases in the Middle East, including in Turkey, could also host refueling tankers but with more operational costs involved. Myers said that the United States was seeking its NATO allies’ support and emphasized his belief that Turkey and the United States would maintain their constructive cooperation in Afghanistan (Star, February 20).

    Indeed, since the beginning of military operations in Afghanistan following September 11 and the subsequent launch of international stability operations, Turkey has provided military assistance to the U.S.-led coalition, in both the context of the transatlantic alliance and Turkish-American strategic ties. During the initial operations leading to the fall of the Taliban regime, the United States used Turkish airspace and Incirlik Airbase for the campaign, although Turkey did not deploy combat troops. Turkey has also actively participated in the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and commanded this NATO mission for two terms.

    Can Turkey offer Trabzon? Analysts maintain that Trabzon offers many advantages in terms of its key location, which allows access to Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and Caucasus theaters; and therefore it is reportedly of interest to U.S. military planners. However, Turkey has previously declined American requests for setting up a base in Trabzon. Following the fall of Manas, the U.S. may press with a renewed proposal, but it is unlikely that the Turkish government would make such a politically risky decision. Also, Trabzon is one of the Anatolian cities where nationalist feelings and anti-Americanism run high; and, short of drastic U.S. actions to restore the deteriorating American image in Turkey, stationing U.S. personnel in the area might be a politically bad decision.

    Therefore, claims about possible requests concerning an airbase in Trabzon might be exaggerated. Nonetheless, it is the case that as Afghanistan emerges as a major issue on the agendas of NATO and the Obama administration, Turkey is coming under pressure about its role in Afghanistan. Diplomatic sources believe that during his conversations with the Turkish prime minister and president, President Obama might have requested his counterparts to commit more Turkish troops or other forms of military contributions to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (EDM, February 19).

    Subsequent developments support such a conjecture. NATO defense ministers met in Poland in an informal meeting on February 19 and 20 to discuss the agenda for the next summit in April. They welcomed the U.S. decision to raise troop levels but underscored the need for civilian contributions to be boosted as well (www.nato.int, February 20). Upon his return to Turkey from the meeting, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul told reporters that he had had a chance to discuss Turkey’s contributions with its alliance partners. Noting that Turkey’s direct aid to Afghanistan amounted to $200 million, he said that Turkey assisted in the training of the Afghan military and police. Gonul also said that he had met separately with the Afghan and American defense ministers and discussed ways in which Turkey’s contributions might be increased (www.trt.net.tr, February 21).

    In addition to Turkey’s possibly increased role in Afghanistan, Turkey is one of the major exit routes for U.S. planes withdrawing troops from Iraq (Hurriyet Daily News, February 23). These developments have an element of irony. The Turkish Parliament’s refusal to allow American forces to use Turkish territory to launch the northern front against the Iraqi Army in 2003 led many to claim that the Turkish-American relationship would go south. Soon after the fall of Baghdad and in a mood of triumph, some even speculated that the United States might punish Turkey by closing down the Incirlik base as part of its plans to relocate military bases worldwide. Only a few years after the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns began, the United States had to abandon many of its positions in its new-found allies and might be requesting the use of Turkish territory.

    The Kyrgyz parliament’s decision highlights both the importance of having a long-term and reliable ally in an area of strategic importance to U.S. interests and the mutual dependence between Turkey and the United States.

    https://jamestown.org/program/will-the-closure-of-manas-airbase-strengthen-u-s-turkish-relations/

  • AKP’s Confrontation with the Dogan Group

    AKP’s Confrontation with the Dogan Group

    A New Episode in the AKP’s Confrontation with the Dogan Group

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 34
    February 20, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Dogan media group (DMG), a conglomerate of various media companies owned by Dogan Holding, was fined on February 18 for tax evasion and accounting irregularities for the period from 2003 through 2006. DMG has been ordered to pay a total of TL 826.2 million ($484.3 million)—132.9 million in overdue taxes, 693.2 million ($407 million) in penalties, and a special irregularity fee of TL 165,000 ($97,000). DMG has 30 days to pay the fine or appeal the decision (Anadolu Ajansi, ANKA, February 19; Today’s Zaman, February 20).

    Soon after receiving the notice, DMG group announced that the fine “will be noted in Turkish finance history as the greatest injustice imposed on a company.” DMG maintains that the alleged unpaid taxes concerned the sale of some of its shares of the company to the German Alex Springer group in 2007. Negotiations for the sale began in 2006 and ended in early 2007. According to the DMG, under the Turkish Commercial Code the sale was finalized in 2007 and it acted in conformity with Turkish regulations and paid the taxes as of 2007. DMG claims that the tax authorities decided that “the sale took place in 2006 and that the resulting tax had to be paid the same year.” Since DMG believes that this is illegal, it will challenge the allegations in court. “We are committed to unmasking the true intentions and vindictiveness that rests behind this illegal and unconscionable fine,” according to the company (Hurriyet Daily News, February 19).

    The incident immediately sparked a nation-wide controversy. Supported by the main opposition party, the Dogan group launched a campaign to present this decision as a form of political punishment by the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that the DMG-controlled media was using freedom of the press to advance their bosses’ commercial interests. Since this is not the first public confrontation between the Dogan group and the AKP government, the harsh statements coming from both sides on February 19 might presage a new war of words in the Turkish political scene.

    In early September the group confronted the government over allegations of fraud raised by German prosecutors against a charity organization established by conservative Turks living in Europe. Deniz Feneri e.V. allegedly channeled donations to private corporations in Turkey, most notably to the Kanal 7 TV network, which is owned by close allies of the AKP. The media outlets critical of the government featured the German indictment in their headlines. DMG newspapers and TV stations led this campaign, which questioned the involvement of Erdogan’s associates and the government’s silence about this and other accusations of corruption. Erdogan took on the fight, warning the DMG publicly about the consequences of its coverage, and claimed that the Dogan group was trying to take revenge for the government’s earlier refusal to help its business interests (EDM, September 11).

    The Dogan group denied the allegations and accused the government of suppressing freedom of the press. Statements by Erdogan that he could reveal some documents proving inappropriate requests made by the Dogan group were interpreted by the DMG as blackmail to quash any allegations about AKP politicians and pro-AKP businesses and media outlets (Radikal, September 9).

    Following a war of words, including personal attacks, between Erdogan and Aydin Dogan, chairman of the Dogan group, a de facto truce was thought to have been reached when the two met at a wedding reception (www.habervitrini.com, October 25). Meanwhile, the investigation of various Dogan group companies, which predated the confrontation in September, continued; and the current showdown over alleged tax fraud has reheated this controversy. Both sides have returned to their entrenched positions, leveling more or less the same accusations against each other.

    Startled by the DMG’s charges, the Ministry of Finance released a statement defending its decision and arguing that the penalties levied on Dogan were based on careful investigation. The statement also criticized the DMG’s attempts to misrepresent the case and said that the Ministry would seek legal recourse for the DMG’s defamation campaign (Anadolu Ajansi, February 19). A statement from the AKP also noted that the investigation had started long before the conflict between Erdogan and Dogan and that Erdogan had not requested this tax examination. Noting that some AKP deputies were also being investigated on different charges, the statement claimed that the DMG was not being discriminated against (www.ntvmsnbc.com.tr, February 19).

    In its response to these statements, however, the Dogan group questioned the sincerity of the other investigations and maintained that by constantly scrutinizing various companies in the group over a long period of time, the government was seeking to intimidate the group’s independent reporting (Cihan Haber Ajansi, February 19).

    Regardless of the final ruling on the fraud allegations, this incident is likely to deepen political divisions. The critics will continue to view Erdogan’s aggressive attitude as yet another indication of his authoritarian leadership style and disrespect for democracy. Moreover, it will strengthen their belief that the AKP is intent on using state power to silence opposing views and consolidate the position of his own cronies in business and the media. Government circles will continue to present it as yet another victory against vested business interests, which have traditionally acquired their wealth through political influence.

    As an earlier EDM report concluded, however, this episode once again shows “the continuing paucity of impartial news coverage that has not been filtered through, and frequently distorted by, Turkish media owners’ political preferences and perceived business interests.” It is an example of how public attention can be diverted away from more pressing economic and social issues (EDM, September 11).

    https://jamestown.org/program/a-new-episode-in-the-akps-confrontation-with-the-dogan-group/