Category: Authors

  • The Furious Passage of Tayyip Erdogan

    The Furious Passage of Tayyip Erdogan

    From PoliGazette January 30, 2009. “The furious passage of Tayyip Erdogan,” by Robert Ellis.

    The Furious Passage of Tayyip Erdogan

    By Robert Ellis

    Turkey’s prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan, is not a man who brooks being contradicted and a panel debate on the Gaza war at the World Economic Forum was no exception. What was hoped to be a bridge-building exercise to ameliorate Erdogan’s harsh criticisms of Israel’s incursion into Gaza and support for Hamas has turned out to be a public relations disaster.

    Erdogan delivered his own presentation in a forceful tone, calling for Hamas to be included in the solution and expressing Turkey’s willingness to be included in the process. However, after Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, had made his presentation, Erdogan responded with a tirade against Peres but was reminded by the moderator of a time limit. Erdogan pushed the moderator away, rose to his feet and left the stage, declaring he did not think he would be coming back to Davos, because he had not been allowed to speak.

    The reaction has not been long coming. This morning AJC, the American Jewish Committee, issued a statement calling Tayyip Erdogan’s attack “a public disgrace” and “gasoline on the fire of surging anti-Semitism”. Furthermore, last week AJC and four other American Jewish organizations sent a letter to Erdogan, expressing concern over the current wave of anti-Semitism in Turkey, and Erdogan’s outburst has done nothing to allay these fears.

    Unfortunately the Turkish prime mnister has a track record of shooting himself in the foot, which, if the sport became an Olympic discipline, would guarantee him a number of gold medals. (more…)

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Annual Forecast 2009: War, Recession and Resurgence
    January 29, 2009 | 1730 GMT Editor’s Note: Below is the introduction to Stratfor’s Annual Forecast for 2009. There also is a printable PDF of the report in its entirety and a report card of our 2008 forecasts highlighting where we were right and where we were wrong. All sections of the forecast are available on our homepage under the 2009 Annual Forecast Special Reports page.

    The year 2009 will be complicated. A new U.S. administration is dealing with a politically and militarily complex war. Russia has stopped merely flexing its muscles and is working to secure its position in the spotlight on the global stage. An economic recession is casting a pall over much of the world. These three trends, which will dominate events in 2009, are related to the three broad forecasts Stratfor made at the beginning of 2008.

    Full Print Version
    Annual Forecast 2009 PDF
    2008 Examined
    2008 Annual Forecast Report Card
    Annual Forecast 2009: Hindsight and Errors
    2009 Annual Forecast Sections
    Annual Forecast 2009: Major Global Trends: Recession, Russia, The Jihadist War
    Annual Forecast 2009: The Middle East
    Annual Forecast 2009: Europe
    Annual Forecast 2009: East Asia
    Annual Forecast 2009: Latin America
    Annual Forecast 2009: Sub-Saharan Africa
    Related Special Topic Page
    2009 Annual Forecast
    In our 2008 Annual Forecast, we predicted that the U.S.-jihadist war would wind down and the groundwork would be laid for a drawdown of American forces from Iraq. As 2009 begins, there is the U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement that enables the United States to first reduce its visible presence and ultimately remove most of its forces. Furthermore, the American focus on the jihadist conflict has shifted from Iraq to the Afghan-Pakistani border region, but the conflict itself has become far more diffused.

    Though the war in Iraq is over in a strategic sense, it is still sufficiently unsettled to allow Iran to stir up violence in Iraq. Tehran would do this not merely to twist the lion’s tail, but to reap sizable security concessions from the new American administration; the only way Washington could avoid making such concessions would be to leave more troops in Iraq longer. Part of Iran’s confidence stems from the U.S. focus on the Indo-Pakistani conflict next door. India is convinced, and rightly so, that the Pakistanis have failed to contain their own radical Islamists. Yet the war in Afghanistan requires Pakistani supply lines and cooperation. Which puts the Americans in a quadruple bind: The United States needs the Iranians not to demand more from it in Iraq, the Indians not to seek revenge for the Mumbai attacks and so destroy any hope of Pakistani cooperation, the Russians to help establish an alternative supply route for NATO troo ps in Afghanistan to pressure the Pakistanis, and the Pakistanis to break with 30 years of policy and go after their own. It is a Gordian knot, and in 2009, it is part of a single interconnected conflict.

    Within the Russian element of the jihadist conflict is the second aspect of our forecasts, again both for 2008 and 2009. In 2008, Stratfor predicted that Russia would take advantage of the U.S. preoccupation in Iraq to reassert power throughout its near abroad. It did this in all of Russia’s border regions, using a mix of financial, economic, military, political, social and — above all else — intelligence tools. The event of the year for this prediction was Russia’s August invasion of the former Soviet state — and U.S. ally — Georgia, amply demonstrating Moscow’s resurrected military power.

    As 2009 begins, Russia’s window of opportunity remains fully open, despite the change in American administrations. The Obama administration is not making the U.S. military more capable of resisting Russia’s surges in 2009, but instead is shifting forces from one theater (Iraq) to another (Afghanistan). Russia’s focus for the year is clear: use a variety of less overt measures to consolidate its control of the most valuable piece of the former Soviet empire — Ukraine.

    Finally, against these two building — and in part interlocking — crises, the global backdrop is remarkably different from 2008.

    In 2008, we explained how strong oil prices and Asian exports were creating a new pool of global capital located in the Gulf Arab states and China. This was most certainly the case — China and Saudi Arabia had amassed cash reserves of approximately US$2 trillion each. But as we explained in the 2008 forecast, this generation of wealth was not a transfer of economic power. Rather than go their own way, these states invested nearly all of their money back into the United States, both dollarizing the broader economy and greatly supporting the American financial architecture. All that cash certainly helped mitigate the damage of the global recession that boiled forth in September.

    And boil forth it certainly did. As 2009 begins, the world is experiencing its first truly global recession in a generation, and the coming year will be riddled with its ancillary effects. For example, credit crunches will greatly constrain economic activity the world over, banking collapses will be a key feature in European developments, mass protests due to closing factories could plague East Asia, and weak commodity prices will threaten economic and political stability in a host of resource-exporting countries.

    Underlining all aspects of the recession will be a single, undeniable fact. The dollarization of the global economy that began so torrentially in 2008 will reach a fever pitch in 2009 as a variety of investors — private, government, American and foreign — pour their resources into the American market. They will do this first to escape the volatility that resides elsewhere in the world, and later to ride the U.S. recovery out of the recession.

    Tell Stratfor What You Think

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

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    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

  • Turkey and the IMF Take a Break to Review Remaining Disagreements

    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: 19
    January 29, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    After 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

    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.

    [email protected]

  • 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?

    Is the Russian-Led Consortium Trying to Overcharge Turkey for Its First Nuclear Power Plant?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 16
    January 26, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey 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/