Turkish President Storms Off Stage At Davos
January 29, 2009Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rushed off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland during a debate with Israel President Shimon Peres
Category: Authors
-
Poor Richard’s Report
-
Turkey and the IMF Take a Break to Review Remaining Disagreements
Turkey and the IMF Take a Break to Review Remaining Disagreements
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 19January 29, 2009By: Saban KardasAfter 18 days of intense negotiations on a new financial package, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission failed to reach an agreement with Turkey and left Ankara on Tuesday. Mehmet Simsek, the minister of state responsible for the economy, told reporters on Monday that the talks had briefly been halted and would resume “after the removal of some disagreements on remaining issues.” On Tuesday Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the talks would continue after a 10-day break (Hurriyet Daily News, January 27).
Since Turkey’s previous $10 billion standby loan agreement came to an end in May, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has resisted pressure from Turkish business circles, investors, and international financial/economic institutions to sign a new accord. Although the global financial crisis further heightened the urgency for an IMF program to inject additional funds and ensure trust in the markets, the government preferred to stall the negotiations, because it was reluctant to accept constraints on public spending before the coming elections. It has remained optimistic that it can weather the global crisis with its own resources (EDM, December 10).
The decision to put the talks on hold came as a surprise. On January 25 the governor of the Central Bank, Durmus Yilmaz, estimated that Turkey would have a foreign financing gap of around $30 billion this year and called on the government to sign the letter of intention before the local elections slated for March. His remarks about the progress in the negotiations and his emphasis on ensuring fiscal discipline were interpreted as strong signals that an agreement might soon be reached. Markets responded to Yilmaz’s remarks with stock prices increasing the next morning. When the news about halting the talks arrived, however, stocks fell (Anadolu Ajansi, January 25; ANKA, January 26).
News of an agreement had been expected before Erdogan and Simsek left for Davos to attend the World Economic Forum (WEF). In the meantime, there have been questions about the standing of the Turkish-IMF talks and whether Turkey could postpone an agreement until after the local elections in March.
Disagreements over fiscal regulations and public-sector reforms were the major cause of the deadlock in the talks. Simsek said that although the government did not want to postpone an agreement until the elections, talks on some mid- and long-term structural reforms would continue. According to experts, differences of opinion persist on several issues: local administrations; reform of state-owned enterprises; and the requirements for “financial rule,” which is the IMF’s new criterion for financial discipline. Although the IMF and the Turkish treasury have held workshops about how to define this concept, it remains a mystery to many. One expert claimed that this new requirement included stringent regulations on the budgetary deficit, the interest-free budget surplus, and the ratio of debt stock to the gross national product. These demands will probably require the introduction of new legislation that might limit political influence on economic decisions and curb government spending (www.haberturk.com, January 28; Sabah, January 28).
Some observers argue that although Simsek did his part in the negotiations, the talks hit a point at which Erdogan needs to be convinced (Milliyet, January 28). The likely constraints on the government demanded by the IMF appear to irritate Erdogan. Before leaving for Davos, he asked the IMF not to bring in new conditions for Turkey. Erdogan criticized the IMF for introducing new issues into the continuing negotiation process and reopening issues to which Turkey had already responded. Erdogan warned that this attitude increased Turkey’s concerns and sensitivity and asked the IMF to take Turkey’s unique conditions into account and stop treating it like any other country in the world (ANKA, January 28).
These remarks reflect Erdogan’s belief that Turkey needs to invest to create more jobs in order to cushion the effects of the crisis. He evidently thinks that the IMF’s demands for increasing taxes, tightening the budget, and freezing government spending will limit investments and exacerbate the effects of the crisis on the Turkish people.
Talks between the IMF and Turkey over the new loan agreement continued in Davos. Parallel to the meetings between the Turkish and the IMF teams, Erdogan met IMF Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky on January 28. Following the meeting, both Erdogan and Lipsky told reporters that they had had a fruitful discussion and would resume the talks after the 10-day break (Anadolu Ajansi, January 29).
Meanwhile, WEF President Klaus Schwab described Turkey as the top country in its region, noting its strategic location on energy routes and recently heightened diplomatic profile. Schwab said that Turkey’s recent structural reforms would help it emerge from the global crisis much stronger than before (Anadolu Ajansi, January 28).
Other experts also believe that Turkey is much stronger and better equipped to deal with the global crisis than it was with past economic crises. It was noted at a conference that the AKP government’s previous structural reforms might be paying off, particularly because the banking sector was now in good shape and the government had been relatively successful in reducing public debt, easing the inflation rate, and boosting public and foreign direct investments (Today’s Zaman, January 29).
Nonetheless, most economists have draw attention to the contraction in the Turkish economy. Since the economy is integrated closely into world markets, it is vulnerable to the adverse effects of the crisis. Stagnation in global markets harms Turkish export industries such as textiles and the automotive industry. Consequent drops in industrial production and the utilization of capacity led to a shrinking of the Turkish economy toward the end of 2008, and the growth rate is likely to drop in 2009. Yilmaz urgently called for an IMF accord to avoid liquidity problems and improve credit conditions (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 28).
It will be interesting to see how long Erdogan will resist such pressures and insist on driving “a tough bargain” with the IMF.
https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-and-the-imf-take-a-break-to-review-remaining-disagreements/
-
Memo to President Bush: A grim assessment of his legacy
By Ferruh Demirmen
Dear Mr. President:
I am sorry that I am late writing this memo to you. It is not because of negligence on my part. Rather, I wanted to give you a week to recover from your successor President Obama’s inauguration speech.
Remember Mr. Obama’s speech from the steps of the Capitol on January 20th ? “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” …. “Our founding fathers, … faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man … Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
And again: ” … our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, … our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” … “What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility.”… ” … we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas” … “We will restore science to its rightful place.”
Do these sobering quotes mean anything to you, or are they just hollow phrases? However you view them, they were jibes at your presidency.
On your return flight to Texas on that day, your aides expressed irritation at Mr. Obama’s jibes, but you remained silent. You probably did not care, reminiscing instead of the good old days, within reach again, chopping wood or barbequing at your ranch in Crawford, Texas.
But now, about your legacy, Mr. President. In the waning days of your presidency you, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and your loyal image makers Karl Rove and Karen Hughes engaged in a spinning spree in the media to improve your legacy.
But to no avail. No amount of spinning can erase the scars of eight years of disastrous administration under your leadership.
You see, Mr. President, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.
The fact that you left Washington with record-low job approval ratings says enough about your legacy. You don’t need media spinners to set the record straight.
And the world opinion about you has been probably the lowest for any American president – certainly the lowest in memory.
Why so? Do I need to remind you of your inattentive, cavalier attitude toward intelligence reports warning a possible major terror attack before 9/11, your excuses and fabrications to attack a far-away country that did not threaten America, the “shock and awe” you brought on to that country, with horrified children knocked out of their senses, the sheer devastation, the killings and maiming that followed, not only of American soldiers but also of innocent Iraqi civilians, the gruesome corpses strewn on the streets, families ruined and forced to flee the country for their safety, the “weapons of mass destruction” that were never found, and never were, the terrorists that were never there, the ruining and plundering of the art treasures of an ancient civilization?
And the unlawful exposure of a covert CIA operative to cover up false evidence, the horror of Abu Ghraib, the torture and violation of the Geneva Convention at Guantanamo Bay, indefinite detention of suspects without habeas corpus, the infamous “extraordinary renditions,” widespread warrantless wiretappings on American citizens, and the politicization of the Justice Department?
Did you know that the Bill of Rights also forbids cruel and unusual punishment?
Is there a need to recall the huge rise in the number of the uninsured during your administration, the alarming shift in the federal budget (from $128 billion surplus to $482 billion deficit), the skyrocketing national debt (from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion), the soaring unemployment (2.6 million jobs lost in 2008 alone), the collapsed economy, and now the gathering clouds of a depression born out of greed and irresponsibility?
We thought that the Enron energy scandal during your first term of presidency was a wake-up call for greed and dishonesty in a corporate world that ran amok in a regulatory vacuum, but we were wrong.
Shall we recall the disrespect of science from evolution to stem-cell research under your watch, the opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the lowering of environmental standards, the callousness in the Hurricane Katrina scandal, and the disquieting decline in the prestige and moral standing of America abroad?
Assuming you care, is this a record to be proud of? Is your conscience at peace?
On reflecting on your presidency recently, you remarked that there were some “disappointments.” That is a very strange way to reflect, Mr. President. Considering the Orwellian turn of events for the worse, one would have expected that you expressed genuine sorrow, and possibly even remorse, instead. Surely, it would be too much to expect an apology from you.
You also said that at times you had “fun.” Fun? Obviously you never appreciated the seriousness of your misdeeds.
And please don’t pass the buck to others. Not to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or other underlings. Remember the adage: “The buck stops here.” You were the boss – the big boss. And you impishly proclaimed you are the ultimate “decider.”
Not to overlook your accomplishments, Sir, you extended a helping hand to AIDS victims and the sufferers of the Darfur tragedy in Africa.
And you certainly kept America safe from another terror attack. But did it have to be at the expense of liberty and civil rights at home? And is America any safer now? Could it be that, with the abuses and tortures that were committed, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were, in a sense, the breeding grounds for new terrorists?
The estimated 1.5 million people that jubilantly braved the shivering cold on the National Mall on the Inauguration Day was as much a testimony to a new era of hope under a new president as it was a sign of relief seeing a failed president finally leave the White House. For the masses, your departure meant the end of a nightmare.
Considering the widespread abuse of power in your administration, many wonder how you avoided impeachment.
On that note, I myself wonder how you managed to be elected not just once, but twice as the President of the United States. Certainly, some things are beyond my comprehension, and I am humbled by that recognition.
But you can be sure that, if President Obama messes up things as you did, I will be as much critical of him as I am of you. Nothing personal.
As you settle in your new home in a wealthy community in Dallas, there will be some nice distractions, such as occasional interviews, speaking engagements, building your presidential library, and “writing” your memoirs. But whatever you do, Mr. President, your legacy will follow you.
And there will be no escape from the judgment of history.
On the light side, the world will miss your mental or linguistic clarity, came to be known as “Bushism,” such as “If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure,” that brought tears to eyes for millions.
All that said, Mr. President, I wish you a happy retirement. But please pray and make atonement, day and night, for all the innocent souls, American and Iraqi, and other, that lost their lives because of your devious schemes over the senseless Iraq war. Atonement is simply being human. Also, consider becoming a church minister for the rest of life. Or lock yourself up in a convent for eternal salvation. Perhaps, just as He called on you to run for President years ago, God will be calling on you again.
Respectfully.
ferruh@demirmen.com
-
Is the Russian-Led Consortium Trying to Overcharge Turkey for Its First Nuclear Power Plant?
Is the Russian-Led Consortium Trying to Overcharge Turkey for Its First Nuclear Power Plant?
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 16January 26, 2009By: Saban KardasTurkey is continuing to debate the construction of its first nuclear power plant in Akkuyu, Mersin. After the tender was launched in March 2008, 13 foreign and local companies purchased documents. All but one, however, failed to submit an offer, because they did not have sufficient time to prepare the necessary documentation. The government did not respond to their call for extending the September 2008 deadline; and only one consortium, a joint venture of Russia’s state-run Atomstroyexport, Inter RAO, and the private Turkish company Park Teknik submitted a bid (EDM, October 10).
Although many within the energy sector called for the cancellation of the tender, the AKP government went ahead with the plans. The sole bidder submitted its offer to the Turkish government; and, upon technical evaluation, the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) concluded in December that the proposal met the necessary criteria.
On January 19 the Energy Ministry opened the sealed letter with the offer, which also included the price. This was the third and final stage of the tender process. Energy Minister Hilmi Guler announced that the consortium had offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the electricity it would sell to Turkey. In the coming days, the state-run Turkish Electricity Trading and Contracting Company (TETAS) will evaluate the proposal and present a report to the cabinet for final approval (Dogan Haber Ajansi, January 19).
Under the bid, the consortium would build “four units of the Russian VVER-1200 pressurized water reactors that generate 1,200 megawatts of electricity each.” The plant would produce around 4,800 megawatts of electricity per year. Since the Turkish government must commit itself to buying electricity from the company for 15 years, it would be paying $86.3 billion for 415.5 billion kWh during that period (Hurriyet Daily News, January 20).
Turkey is considering the construction of nuclear plants as a source of clean and cheap energy and as a means for reducing energy dependency. By 2020 it seeks to produce 8 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants and increase that amount to 20 percent by 2030 (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 20).
The price of electricity is a crucial factor. Earlier, Turkish officials had said that they expected the consortium to make a reasonable offer. Some observers had predicted a price offer in the vicinity of 12 to 15 cents. Many observers found the price excessive, arguing that 21.16 cents per kWh was above market prices. Experts and representatives from the energy sector noted concerns about a price that was almost four times higher than the current rates in the Turkish market, which varied from 4 cents to 14 cents. Some described it as the world’s most expensive electricity generated at a nuclear plant, arguing that the world average was around 10 to 15 cents per kWh. Others noted that Turkey had cancelled another tender for the construction of a coal-fired power plant, because even the anticipated 14.7 per kWh had been found too expensive. Turkey also is investing extensively in natural gas power plants, which reportedly produce electricity for around 7 to 10 cents per kWh (Referans, January 20; Today’s Zaman, January 20).
The chairman of the Electricity Producers Association, however, cautioned that although the price was high, it was also important to remember that this tender model was a first in the world. Under this model, the private sector was assuming all the risks for such a large-scale investment, which might account for why the offer turned out so high. A board member of the Chamber of Electrical Engineers, however, said that since there was no competition, the chamber deemed the tender illegal and incompatible with Turkey’s national interests (ANKA, January 20).
The same day, the consortium submitted another letter with a revised price. Since the 21.16 cents was offered in September, the company said it wanted to adjust the price, reflecting changes in the world economy and energy costs (www.cnnturk.com, January 19). Guler avoided commenting on the amount but said that there was no obstacle to renegotiating the price. TETAS, however, concluded that the rules regulating the tender prohibited submission of revised
, because a new price would in essence constitute a new offer. On a TV show the same night, Guler said that the revised letter had been rejected (Anadolu Ajansi, January 19).The Turkish press speculated that in its report to the cabinet, TETAS would probably suggest rejecting the consortium’s offer (Vatan, January 21). Responding to questions on this subject, Guler told reporters that the tender process was proceeding well, and a cancellation was not on the agenda (Anadolu Ajansi, January 23).
The government is keen on building nuclear power plants to diversify Turkey’s energy sources, and plans for the construction of two more plants are also underway. For obvious reasons, environmentalist groups have opposed Turkey’s nuclear energy projects since the beginning. Even the representatives of the energy sector continue to question the government’s policy on nuclear energy, in particular its hasty approach. Moreover, as Turkey is seeking to reduce its dependence on Russian gas, which accounts for 35 percent of Turkey’s electricity production, it would be ironic to award the tender to a Russian company. The government’s disregard of the global financial crisis and insistence on proceeding with these costly projects is also a cause of concern (Today’s Zaman, January 20).
Guler continuously emphasizes that although Turkey is looking to increase its use of hydroelectric and renewable energy sources, it does not have the luxury to ignore nuclear energy. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether the government will be able to realize Turkey’s nuclear energy ambitions, which have been thwarted for decades. As things stand, most observers see little chance that the cabinet will approve the Russian offer for the Akkuyu plant. In the unlikely event that the cabinet does endorse the Russian offer, Turkey will most probably bargain to decrease the price before it signs the final agreement.
The government, however, might have learned some lessons from its handling of the project so far. Preparations are reportedly under way to streamline the nuclear energy policy. As a first step, it would push for revising the Nuclear Tender Law. Since the current law prevents opening a second tender, allowing flexibility on that score would be the first rule to change. Also, the current competition model, which discourages many possible contenders from participating, is likely to be amended. Instead of a free market model of private companies undertaking construction, a model based on greater public involvement is likely to be considered (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 21).
https://jamestown.org/program/is-the-russian-led-consortium-trying-to-overcharge-turkey-for-its-first-nuclear-power-plant/
-
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION?
Last articles on the cost of universities have generated considerable interest on elementary, middle, and high school education. I wrote four articles on this subject since the beginning of these LETTERS. I want to summarize them here for the benefit of new readers.
The aim of education in Turkey at the time of Ataturk was (a) to acquire modern knowledge, to learn to think analytically and (b) to acquire a modern conception of the world.( The problem with the Conception of the World will be discussed in an other article) According to the self-taught Eric Hoffer, the purpose should be to produce “learning” people, not “learned” people. As we will see, the U.S. does not achieve any of the two aims of the Ataturk era that were the same as European aims.
American public schools are the way they are because of the teaching method of John Dewey. Around
1900 large numbers of European peasants were immigrating to the U.S. Most of them were illiterate and did not speak English. It was a big task to train them and to convert them to useful citizens. The American Public Education System was “redesigned” for a specific purpose to meet this challenge. This job was given to the philosopher John Dewey (1850-1952) who became the most influential man in Public Education., in fact, he was called “The Father of American Education”. Dewey wanted to make education “child-centered”. In his book “The School and Society“ [The University of Chicago Press, Second Edition, 1915] he said, “The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no obvious social gain in success there at. Indeed almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of the term….” He obviously did understand that learning is a purely individual mental process and there is no such thing as a collective learning. That apparently troubled him, because he believed in the supremacy of the society over the individual and all the other socialist failed ideas that eventually carried the socialist countries of the 20th century to destruction.
In practice, “Child-centered Education” meant that no theoretical (conceptual) knowledge was given to the child. He/she was taught practical (concrete) knowledge in form of so-called class projects, which would develop his/her “social spirit”. Thus, in stead of teaching systematically history, geography, physics, and chemistry, the teacher might, for example, talk about the preparation of woolen textiles, she can give children bits of information on the raising of sheep, the parts of the country, where sheep are raised, etc. The child sees and feels this material as part of his/her life. Hence the term, “child-centered”. Thus, the childen never get any comprehensive and systematic knowledge of history, geography, physics, chemistry, or what ever.
This system has very grave consequences. Ayn Rand, in her book “The new Left –The Anti-Industrial Revolution” [Signet books (1971) pp. 152-204] made an enlightening analysis of the Dewey System.. She said, “The perception of reality, the learning of facts, the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, are exclusively individual capacities; the mind is an exclusively individual “affair”; there is no such thing as a collective brain”. Sacrificing one’s knowledge and truth to any social pressure is what we call a lack of intellectual integrity. Thus, “the goal of the Dewey system is to stunt,, stifle, and destroy the child’s capacity to develop “intellectual integrity. Dewey encouraged learning by memorizing instead of learning by understanding.
Dewey’s system produced millions of Americans who have much practical knowledge, but are unable to think conceptually. The fact that “Johnnie can’t read” is a normal result of this system. After the Russians launched
the Sputnik, there was a revue of U.S. Education. In the 1980’s “The National Commission on Excellence in Education” was created. Their finding called “A Nation in Risk – An imperative in Education Reform” was published in 1983. It said “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well viewed it as an act of war.” Twenty six years passed since that report and nothing has changed. In competition with European and Japanese kids, ours can’t measure up. We cannot hope to stay as a superpower with an education like that. We should get rid of the Dewey system. Why isn’t anything ever done about it? It is inconceivable that a superpower that sends a man to the moon and back, may be unable to fix its own public education. It reminds me of “Brave New World”. (See Appendix) The governments under the influence of Business may not want a smart citizenry who would not swallow all the advertising garbage and would be easier buyers. Anyway, enough hard-minded kids will learn to think in spite of Dewey. Those are feeding the universities plus the foreign students who were taught to think. That deal was probably still adequate 26 years ago but it is no more valid. Business has changed. Things have gotten high-tech. Computers have invaded our country. Brave New World or not, the Dewey System must go!
To get rid of the Dewey system there are a number of things that must be done:
(1) A new curriculum must be written for the entire country for classes 1 – 12. that should be as strong as the French and Japanese curriculums that emphasize the teaching of thinking and philosophy in 12th grade.
(2) The influence of local ignorant school boards on this curriculum must be definitely prevented.
(3) The Department of Education must prepare yearly examination questions for all high schools and devise a cheat-proof way of using them that does not show the identity of the student to the grader of the paper.
(4) The schools must be judged by the percentage of successes and failures, and failing schools must be closed. Same, teachers must be judged by their success in educating their pupils.
If these things are done, U.S. Public schools can be brought to the level of European schools. Unfortunately,
to do the above four measures, one must act federally. But education is a job reserved to the states. Here, there are constitutional difficulties. These measures cannot be done without changing the constitution, and we know how difficult that is. If this nation does not want to keep on deteriorating under the stupid Dewey system and eventually crumble like the Ottoman Empire and the USSR, its Congress would find ways of fulfilling the above four conditions.
The new President-Elect Obama has campaigned on a platform of change. Education should be on top of his list, and here is a tough problem that requires his unusual authority and capabilities. I wish him much success.
A P P E N D I X
B R A V E N E W W O R L D
Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World” was a utopia first published in 1932. It described a society existing “700 years after Ford”, that produced its people, not by sex, but by mass incubation of human eggs (??). The society consisted of four working classes and a master class. Each class was prepared differently in the incubators., giving less intelligence to the working classes.
The TIME editor that prefaced the TIME edition of “Brave New World” in 1963 found that ”Life has imitated Huxley’s art” and many unusual ideas of the book have already been applied. Today we are going to add another one to that list.
………………………………………………………………………………………….
To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com
-
Poor Richard’s Report
Turkey: EU Must Remove Obstacles To Membership — Official
January 24, 2009Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Jan. 24 that several EU countries should stop blocking Turkey’s possible membership in the European Union, KUNA reported. Babacan said, “There are influential countries inside the EU who want to undermine Turkey’s membership.” Turkey has finalized only 10 of the 35 required chapters for EU accession. Eight accession chapters were suspended because Turkey refused to allow Greek Cypriot ships to enter Turkish ports.Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
© Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.