Turkish Forum

Category: Saban Kardas

  • Turkey and Brazil to Explore Oil in the Black Sea

    Turkey and Brazil to Explore Oil in the Black Sea

    Turkey and Brazil to Explore Oil in the Black Sea

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 100
    May 26, 2009 09:43 AM Age: 12 hrs
    Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Home Page, Energy, Turkey, Latin America
    By: Saban Kardas

    On May 20-23 Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visited Turkey. Bilateral economic ties were an important element on da Silva’s agenda, who was accompanied by government ministers and leading businessmen. The visit highlighted the prospects for improving cooperation between the two emerging economies, which complements Ankara’s efforts to diversify its economic and political relations.

    During his first day in Istanbul, da Silva met Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss bilateral relations (ANKA, May 20). The following day, he participated in the Turkish-Brazilian Business Council organized by Turkey’s Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEIK). In his address, he said that the two countries had failed to realize their full potential for cooperation. Noting that each county offered unique opportunities, he urged the business community to explore further investment opportunities. Miguel Jorge, Brazil’s Minister of Development, Industry & Foreign Trade, also noted that although the trade volume between the two countries quadrupled since 1999 and had reached $1,5 billion, this was still unsatisfactory. The Turkish Minister of Finance Mehmet Simsek and the head of Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB), Rifat Hisarciklioglu, also suggested both economies were “rising stars” within the global economy. They highlighted many areas for enhancing economic ties including energy, construction, automotive, household appliances and tourism (www.deik.org.tr, May 21).

    In an interview with the Turkish press, da Silva described the current low-key status of the bilateral relationship as absurd, and called on prompt action to reverse this trend. He added that multi-billion dollar economic investment plans, will ensure continued growth within the Brazilian economy and facilitate its rapid recovery from the global financial crisis. He noted that after coming to power, he prioritized strengthening the country’s relations with South America, and then launched new initiatives focused on Africa and Asia. He presented his contacts with Turkey as an extension of those efforts. Before arriving in Ankara, da Silva had also visited China and Saudi Arabia as part of the same tour (Hurriyet Daily News, May 21, 22).

    In Ankara da Silva met his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, and agreed to boost bilateral trade (www.cankaya.gov.tr, May 22). The most tangible result of his visit was in the energy sector. Following their meeting, Gul and da Silva announced that the state-owned petroleum companies, Turkey’s TPAO and Brazil’s Petrobras, signed an agreement for the exploration of oil in the Black Sea, a project estimated to be worth $800 million. Petrobras, which has invested $130 million in Turkey since 2006, will provide an additional $300 million by 2010. The TPAO will also earmark $500 million for offshore drilling (Anadolu Ajansi, May 22).

    The Turkish government has hoped that the hydrocarbon reserves beneath the Black Sea might meet its growing energy requirements and reduce its dependence on imports. In recent years, the TPAO has stepped up its oil and gas exploration drilling in several sites in the Black Sea, through joint projects with international companies (EDM, June 17, 2008). The experience of Petrobras in offshore drilling plays an important role in Turkey’s decision, while the Brazilian government views this investment as a step toward asserting itself as a major global player.

    Jorge Zelada, Petrobras’s international business director, said that they decided to take a risk and invest in oil exploration. He added that based on the initial prognoses, they are hopeful about finding oil (Sabah, May 22). According to the TPAO’s estimates, there are 10 billion barrels of oil and 1.5 trillion cubic meters of gas in the Black Sea. The TPAO plans to conduct drilling in different sites in collaboration with Petrobras and ExxonMobil over the next three years. If the results are positive, oil production might begin by 2017 (Hurriyet, May 23).

    Turkey and Brazil’s prospects for developing an energy partnership transcend fossil fuels. To achieve energy independence, Turkey has considered investing in alternative energy sources. Given Brazil’s leading role in bio-diesels, joint investments in ethanol-based fuels was also on the agenda. De Silva proposed that Turkey and Brazil might collaborate in agriculture, to produce ethanol in Africa (Radikal, May 23).

    The Brazilian delegation was also keen to promote closer aviation cooperation. One representative from Brazil’s aircraft producer Embraer confirmed that they were already in contact with Turkish firms to access this market. Although the head of Turkish Airlines said that they currently had no joint projects with Embraer, he did not rule out such future options (Dunya, May 21). Jorge also explained that Brazil will welcome projects in which both countries can produce jets jointly (Today’s Zaman, May 22).

    Both countries are major powers within their respective regions, and as emerging economies, their markets offer lucrative business opportunities. Equally important, given their location, they also provide access to the surrounding markets. However, although they have attracted foreign investments, their level of bilateral trade remains low. To sustain their economic growth and reduce the impact of the global financial crisis, both countries are seeking to penetrate new markets. In particular, Turkey wants to sign a free trade agreement with Mercusor to eradicate the duties on Turkish exports to South America, which has been long delayed. President Gul and the representatives of the Turkish business sector, solicited President da Silva’s assistance to conclude this deal. If de Silva can accelerate these negotiations and ensure that the deal is concluded in time for Erdogan’s visit to Brazil next year, it will mark a significant achievement for the Turkish government.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-and-brazil-to-explore-oil-in-the-black-sea/

  • Controversy Erupts over Proposed De-Mining of the Turkish-Syrian Border

    Controversy Erupts over Proposed De-Mining of the Turkish-Syrian Border

    Controversy Erupts over Proposed De-Mining of the Turkish-Syrian Border

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 98
    May 21, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The Turkish parliament began debating a controversial bill last week to clear and destroy mines along the border with Syria. A private contractor plans to carry out the de-mining and secure the allocation of the cleared area for its agricultural use. The bill once again exposed divisions between the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the opposition parties, as well as within the ruling party. The prospects that the tender might be awarded to foreign and especially Israeli companies, alarmed opposition parties, which have argued that the proposed legislation is another indication that the AKP is betraying Turkish national interests.

    Following its ratification of the Ottawa Convention on the destruction of anti-personnel mines (APM’s) in 2003, Turkey pledged to destroy its existing stockpiles and those already placed along its borders. According to the Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, Turkey has since destroyed 43 percent of its 2,690,929 APM’s and plans to remove the remainder by 2010. Moreover, there are currently around 981,790 APM’s deployed along its borders and in strategic locations. The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) has started mine-clearing operations within some provinces (ANKA, May 17).

    Around two-thirds of the 900,000 APM’s on Turkey’s borders are located on the Turkish-Syrian border. The finance and defense ministries supported the view of the Turkish military authorities that the best option was to sub-contract the de-mining of the border. Under that tender, to be conducted in accordance with the Public Procurement Law, the company awarded the mine-clearing rights will be required to complete its work within five years. Moreover, it will have the right to lease cleared areas belonging to the treasury for agricultural use for up to 44 years (Today’s Zaman, June 24, 2008; www.cnnturk.com, May 3). The management of underground resources, such as oil and minerals, is not covered by the tender. The Turkish petroleum company TPAO plans to explore drilling for oil in this area (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 18).

    The plan to sub-contract the clean-up project to private companies has long been featured on the government’s agenda. The MHP and CHP opposition parties expressed concern that foreign companies, especially Israeli firms, might become involved in the project. An earlier tender was canceled by the council of state owing to such objections. The government has delayed parliamentary discussions on a revised bill, which is intended to provide a more solid legal framework to conduct the project (www.rotahaber.com, March 17, 2008). Since it has also come under increasing pressure to meet the deadline set by the Ottawa Convention, the bill was finally presented to parliament last week, prompting heated discussion.

    The opposition parties raised several objections. They claimed that allowing foreign companies to operate on Turkey’s borders might pose a threat to its national security. Consequently, they demanded that the TSK should be given the sole responsibility for mine-clearing. Moreover, they alleged that the TSK also harbored reservations over the bill. In their defense, government officials referred to “classified” correspondence with the TSK in which the latter expressed a preference for sub-contracting to private companies. Equally, they noted the military’s concerns had been incorporated into the draft bill. According to the government, land required for ensuring border security will not be leased to the contractor (Anadolu Ajansi, May 14). However, those statements failed to satisfy the opposition, who argued that the government had misled the public. One CHP representative invited the TSK to issue a statement clarifying its stance on the bill. He also called for its withdrawal, saying that if approved in parliament, the party will refer the issue to the constitutional court (Anadolu Ajansi, May 18).

    Moreover, some opposition deputies claimed that the wording within the bill indicates it was drafted to favor awarding the tender to Israeli companies. They alleged that this proved the hypocrisy of the AKP’s foreign policy, given Erdogan’s earlier anti-Israeli rhetoric (ANKA, May 16). In response, the Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek denied that this was intended, and said fourteen companies were currently in competition for the tender. He added that although there are no Turkish companies specializing both in mine-clearance and agriculture, some might consider forming consortiums with foreign partners to compete for the tender (www.cnnturk.com, May 13). Although Simsek did not disclose the identity of any company involved, one Turkish daily said that it had obtained the list of contenders which included companies from Britain, Croatia, Denmark, France, Israel, Russia, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States (Today’s Zaman, May 17).

    In addition, many opposition deputies, including those from the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society, demanded that the areas designated for mine-clearance should be distributed locally, in order to benefit the rural economy. Simsek, however, contends that such redistribution might result in the inefficient use of agricultural land, and therefore the government prefers to lease it en masse. Many AKP parliamentarians also share the opposition’s concerns (www.nethaber.com, May 16). Owing to these objections, the government has been unable to rapidly pass the bill in parliament.

    Moreover, given the continued controversy over the possible involvement of Israeli firms, the conservative press favoring the AKP has also joined the rising criticism of the bill (Yeni Safak, May 20). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan held a hastily convened closed door meeting to allay the concerns of the AKP deputies. In a bid to reassure them that bill adequately protected Turkish national interests, Erdogan allegedly claimed that “the controversy was a product of the opposition parties, trying to wear us down through their unfair accusations” (Hurriyet Daily News, May 20).

    The heated discussion surrounding the bill reveals that concern over national security remains high on the domestic political agenda. Across the political spectrum there is sensitivity to any initiative that might imply an infringement of the country’s territorial integrity. The presence on Turkish soil of foreign capital or troops, can easily be manipulated to garner opposition against any effort to develop closer ties with the outside world.

    https://jamestown.org/program/controversy-erupts-over-proposed-de-mining-of-the-turkish-syrian-border/
  • Opposition Rejects Gul’s Call for Consensus on the Kurdish Question

    Opposition Rejects Gul’s Call for Consensus on the Kurdish Question

    Opposition Rejects Gul’s Call for Consensus on the Kurdish Question

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 96
    May 19, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul sparked another debate on the Kurdish question, following his recent statement that he is hopeful that a peaceful solution to the Kurdish problem might be imminent. Yet, Gul’s call to address the Kurdish question within the context of improving the country’s democratic practices, encountered resistance from an opposition increasingly skeptical about his policies.

    Gul has played an active role in pushing for a democratic solution to the Kurdish issue. In early May, he held discussions with the leaders of the opposition parties. Last week, he maintained that there was a “historic opportunity” before the country to solve the Kurdish issue, adding that Turkey should exploit this opportunity. He called on the opposition parties to play a constructive role toward its resolution (www.ntvmsnbc.com, May 9). Gul’s remarks came amidst reports that the government was working on a new plan to achieve a breakthrough on the Kurdish question. Earlier, the PKK’s acting leader Murat Karayilan, also called for new initiatives and claimed that its views had also changed (EDM, May 7).

    The opposition parties criticized Gul for leaving the meaning of “historic opportunity” open to interpretation. The leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), Deniz Baykal, argued that the government’s policies have thus far failed to quell the PKK’s violent campaign. Baykal maintained that the search for a solution, especially the discussions over a general amnesty, was imposed externally. He alleged that the United States and other powers were pressuring Turkey to solve the Kurdish problem, and that President Gul and the government simply responded to this coercion (www.showtvnet.com, May 12). Devlet Bahceli, the leader of the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), also lambasted Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, arguing that the projects currently under consideration might betray the country’s national interests. “For what reason are Gul and the government asking us to contribute? What is the common ground on which they agreed?” Bahceli asked (Milliyet, May 13).

    Before his departure for Syria on May 15, Gul told reporters that “there are comprehensive and a well-intentioned effort in Turkey… the country is an open society, and very lively and civilized debates are taking place” (www.nethaber.com, May 15). During his three-day visit to Syria, Gul held a discussion with Turkish journalists in Damascus where he further clarified his opinions on how to resolve the Kurdish question (Zaman, Aksam, Todays’ Zaman, May 18).

    Those present interpreted Gul’s meaning of “historic opportunity” to involve a combination of domestic, regional and global factors to facilitate solving the issue. First, Gul argued that a consensus already exists within the state, both on the need as well as the means to address the Kurdish question. “I have been part of the state machinery for 10 years. I am optimistic more than ever. There is a new consensus and close coordination between the civilian and military branches.” He also pointed to the PKK and pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) incrementally rescinding their demands for an independent state in south-eastern Turkey.

    In addition to these positive domestic developments, Gul also believes that global and regional factors currently favor addressing the Kurdish issue. He points out that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Northern Iraq is actively cooperating with Turkey, while global actors are also promoting the search for a solution. These factors create a unique historical opportunity, which he considers that Turkey must seize immediately.

    Gul avoided engaging in a polemic with the leaders of the opposition parties, but indirectly responded to their criticisms. He described the Kurdish issue as a deep-rooted problem that goes beyond daily politics and argued that all political actors are stakeholders in its resolution. Gul noted that the responsibility for finding the solution cannot be left to the government alone, and that all political parties should contribute constructively.

    Gul’s comments in Syria, far from answering questions, served to reignite the debate on his vision for a solution. The representatives of the pro-Kurdish DTP welcomed Gul’s remarks. Although they wanted more detail on Gul’s plans, they commended him for making a valuable effort. Such discussions, DTP sources maintained, might provide the basis for debating more concrete proposals (ANKA, May 18). Yet, the representatives of the MHP and CHP harshly condemned Gul. One CHP official criticized Gul for keeping his views so vague and argued that as the head of state, he must openly inform the public (www.ntvmsnbc.com, May 18). An MHP spokesman said Gul was acting as the proxy of the government in seeking to solicit opposition approval for policies agreed behind closed doors (ANKA, May 18).

    Gul has attempted since his election to shape the country’s domestic and foreign policies, as in the case of the Kurdish issue and rapprochement with Armenia. However, according to his critics, this role goes beyond his presidential functions. Gul legitimizes his active involvement in politics by presenting his actions as “non-partisan” and claims that he acts as a unifying figure to promote solutions to urgent national problems. However, he has failed to achieve a consensus among the opposition over the government’s policy on the Kurdish issue. The opposition still views him as an extension of the government, while fearing that his efforts to resolve this issue might undermine the territorial integrity of the country. Gul and the government are unlikely to gain the full backing of the opposition parties, unless these concerns are adequately addressed.

    https://jamestown.org/program/opposition-rejects-guls-call-for-consensus-on-the-kurdish-question/

  • Turkey Adopts a More Cooperative Position on Nabucco

    Turkey Adopts a More Cooperative Position on Nabucco

    Turkey Adopts a More Cooperative Position on Nabucco

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 94
    May 15, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    According to a senior EU official a new deal has been struck between Turkey and the EU paving the way to sign the intergovernmental agreement for the Nabucco project in Ankara on June 25. The breakthrough was reportedly made possible by Turkey dropping its uncompromising negotiating position and offering an unconditional acceptance of the EU’s terms. In particular, Turkey relinquished its demand to purchase 15 percent of the gas transit at discounted prices (The Guardian, May 11). Although positive statements emerged from the EU summit in Prague last week, lending credibility to this report, the Turkish side has rebuffed claims that a concrete deal has been reached.

    In response to questions about the story in the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Taner Yildiz, ruled out such a deal: “We should not interpret this [story] as yes or no… Negotiations are still under way.” Yildiz added that President Abdullah Gul was in charge of conducting the negotiations for the intergovernmental agreement, and he was not aware of any date being set on signing the agreement (Referans, May 12).

    One Turkish daily cited an unnamed BOTAS official who refuted the claim that Turkey had abandoned its demand for 15 percent. The same source claimed that Turkey’s demand does not directly relate to the consortium building the Nabucco pipeline, and the negotiations on Nabucco would continue in May (Yeni Safak, May 13). Before departing for Baku, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted to these reports, and added that the process remains ongoing (www.aktifhaber.com, May 13).

    Although it remains unclear whether a finalized deal on the negotiations is imminent, it is certain that positive developments in the Nabucco project have occurred. Senior Turkish officials familiar with the negotiations, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that groundbreaking progress had been achieved -though denying reports that all the conditions or a date had been agreed. In particular, Turkey wants a clause inserted into the intergovernmental agreement to allay its concerns and protect its energy security. “The Turkish side is hopeful that the issue will be solved at the end of the two rounds of discussions before the end of May, leaving enough time for preparations for the signing ceremony” (Hurriyet Daily News, May 13).

    Technical developments appear to be equally positive. Following the Prague summit, the Nabucco consortium announced that engineering teams from the partner countries have launched detailed engineering work on the pipeline route (Milliyet, May 13). A more promising sign is the recent change in the management of Turkey’s energy policies, following the Cabinet reshuffle earlier this month. This has raised expectations that stronger political leadership will ensure avoiding earlier mistakes. Turkey’s hard bargaining position and its misguided policies were considered to be an effort to stall or delay the conclusion of the Nabucco project (EDM, April 24, 27). Inside Turkey, this problematic policy is now increasingly attributed to Turkey’s former energy minister Hilmi Guler, whose insistence on making Turkey an energy hub created a stalemate in the negotiations with the Nabucco partners (Sabah, May 14).

    In addition to the appointment of a new energy minister, Taner Yildiz, who is considered more competent on energy policy, recent developments indicate that President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan are paying closer attention to Turkey’s energy policies. Moreover, it is argued that since the foreign ministry has increasingly become part of the negotiations, a more realistic stance has been adopted in Turkey’s energy policies (Hurriyet Daily News, May 13). Erdogan and Gul’s political leadership and their high profile involvement might boost Turkey’s credibility and facilitate the conclusion of the Nabucco process.

    Gul represented Turkey at the EU energy summit in Prague last week, which followed his attendance at an earlier summit in Sofia in April. In Prague, he tried to reassure the Nabucco partners of Turkey’s reliability by emphasizing how much Ankara was aware of its responsibilities in the transportation of Caspian and Middle Eastern hydrocarbon resources to Europe. Noting that Turkey acted responsibly in the management of other pipelines on its territory Gul added, “we will demonstrate the same sense of responsibility, even more, in the case of the Southern Gas Corridor and Nabucco, which are of higher strategic importance. Turkey has the highest level of determination and political will to realize the Nabucco project.” Gul noted that Turkey’s energy policy is based on harmonizing its own search for diversifying its suppliers and transportation routes with the EU’s attempts to ensure energy security (Hurriyet, May 9).

    Erdogan is actively complementing the perspective outlined by Gul. Energy related issues constituted a major part of Erdogan’s portfolio during his recent trip to Baku (EDM, May 14). Yildiz said that Ankara and Baku will continue their negotiations on prices for Azeri gas flowing through Turkey (Milliyet, May 15). Erdogan then visited Poland where he delivered an important message on Turkey’s position over energy transportation. He said that “Turkey is a transit and consumer country… As a transit country, we will always be ready to render our help available to Nabucco: there is no doubt on that. The route and diversification of supplies are very important. Turkey is pursuing a cooperative approach on all of these issues” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 14).

    Gul and Erdogan’s recent statements suggest that Turkey might be revising its policy of asserting itself as an energy hub at the expense of producer countries and end users. Instead, it is using its position as a transit country as leverage to request additional concessions. Thus, the Turkish leadership is sending signals that it has adopted a more realistic role in Nabucco, which might provide a solid basis to achieve a common position between Turkey and the EU in energy cooperation. Though they continue to emphasize Turkey’s search for security as part of its new energy policy, they are being more careful not to exaggerate their demands.
    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-adopts-a-more-cooperative-position-on-nabucco/

  • Merkel and Sarkozy Call for Privileged Partnership Angers Turkey

    Merkel and Sarkozy Call for Privileged Partnership Angers Turkey

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 92
    May 13, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy reignited the debate on Turkey’s place within Europe by questioning the wisdom of Turkey seeking full membership of the European Union. Attending a meeting in Berlin, the two leaders emphasized their objection to the EU’s enlargement to include Turkey, arguing that any misguided expansion might endanger its operational effectiveness, and that it should stop making empty promises to Turkey. They instead reiterated their support for “privileged partnership” as an alternative framework to regulate Turkish-EU relations (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, May 10).

    Sarkozy is known for his frequent objections to Turkey’s membership. Before his election in 2007, he spoke against the country’s accession and instead proposed an alternative partnership through his Mediterranean Union project. Due to objections from Turkey and other EU member states most notably the UK, Sarkozy dropped the idea, which enabled the creation of the Mediterranean Union as a separate organization -which Turkey also joined (EDM, July 15, 2008).

    Although he has since softened his rhetoric and avoided blocking Turkish-EU accession negotiations during the French presidency of the European Union, Sarkozy has remained Turkey’s most vocal opponent. For instance, when President Obama tried to promote Turkish-EU accession talks during his recent European trip, Sarkozy immediately dismissed these comments as an unwarranted intervention in European affairs, and led other likeminded states to mobilize resistance against Turkey (Hurriyet, April 7).

    Merkel shares similar views on Turkish-EU relations. Nonetheless, her policies have been tempered by the coalition partnership with the Social Democrats, who hold more positive views on the issue. However, Merkel uses electoral considerations and her conservative grassroots’ discomfort with Turkey to justify her objections. Referring to the upcoming European elections in June, Merkel said: “It is right that we say to people [during the campaign]… our common position is: a privileged partnership for Turkey, but no full membership” (Hurriyet Daily News, May 11).

    Sarkozy does not hide the role electoral politics play in shaping his position on Turkey. Indeed, he has accelerated his objections to Turkish accession ahead of the European election campaign. He is advocating that the EU considers the creation of a common platform with Turkey, perhaps including Russia, to regulate economic and security relations (Hurriyet Daily News, May 6).

    Inside the EU, the Franco-German position is countered by the member states more sympathetic to Turkey and the representatives of the EU institutions. Portugal’s President Anibal Cavaco Silva, while currently visiting Turkey reiterated his country’s support for Turkish accession, noting the many benefits it would bring to the EU (Anadolu Ajansi, May 12). Last week, Finland’s Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, also ruled out a privileged partnership, and reaffirmed Helsinki’s commitment to bring Turkey into the EU as a full member (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 8). A statement from the office of the EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn, responded swiftly to the statements by Sarkozy and Merkel, saying that the decisive factor from the commission’s perspective was Turkey’s fulfilment of the membership criteria (ANKA, May 11).

    Although Merkel and Sarkozy’s views on Turkey were well known, their recent statements surprised many within Turkish domestic politics. Some Turkish dailies labeled this development, particularly Merkel’s remarks, as “shocking” (Milliyet, May 11). Deniz Baykal, the leader of the main opposition party, called their statements “rude, harsh and negative” and argued that since they were made during the ongoing membership talks, they should be taken as a sign of disrespect toward Turkey. Baykal also criticized the government’s failure to take action to protest more forcefully against this development (Anadolu Ajansi, May 12).

    In reacting to calls to downgrade the Turkish-EU relationship, officials in Ankara have highlighted three points. They have restated Turkey’s position that privileged partnership is unacceptable, and maintain that since the EU has initiated membership talks, it must honor this commitment. Shortly after assuming his post last week, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu stressed this argument. Noting that he would revitalize the stalled membership process, Davutoglu expressed his discomfort over speculation on privileged partnership. Offering Turkey other alternatives short of full membership would betray Turkey and also undermine the EU’s own values, Davutoglu contended (Yeni Safak, May 9). In his reaction to the Merkel-Sarkozy statement, President Abdullah Gul also echoed Davutoglu, arguing that European leaders had agreed on membership negotiations with a unanimous decision, which still legally binds all member states (www.cnnturk.com, May 12).

    Turkish officials maintain that European politicians are using the debate about its future membership as a tool calculated to achieve domestic political gains. Gul suggested that the Merkel-Sarkozy remarks reflected “short-term thinking,” caused by a lack of strategic vision on the part of some European leaders (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 12).

    Turkish leaders emphasize their commitment to the membership process, and say they will do more to conclude the negotiations successfully. Following a cabinet meeting, the state minister and government spokesman Cemil Cicek, told reporters that the government will take further steps to implement domestic reforms. This will involve preparing a new constitutional amendment package in consultation with the opposition. Cicek added that the government will shortly forward a draft law to parliament, which will reorganize the under-secretariat for the European Union in order to streamline reforms (www.cnnturk.com, May 12).

    The Turkish government seeks to counteract objections to membership by reminding the EU of its commitments to the accession process, and by downplaying those objections -attributing them to short-term calculations. The government implicitly believes that if the discussions on Turkey are conducted on the basis of the contractual framework of the accession process, it may de-legitimize European objections to Turkey. However, it fails to appreciate that its track record on domestic reforms is far from satisfactory. Despite promises to revitalize the membership process in 2009, little has been accomplished (EDM, January 12, 20). Although it might be justified in calling on its EU partners to fulfil their promises, the Turkish government must acknowledge that it is time to deliver on domestic reforms.

    https://jamestown.org/program/merkel-and-sarkozy-call-for-privileged-partnership-angers-turkey/

  • Turkey Debates the Village Guard System

    Turkey Debates the Village Guard System

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 90
    May 11, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    In last week’s bloodbath at an engagement party, masked gunmen armed with assault rifles killed 44 people including the bride and the groom in a small village in Turkey’s southeastern province Mardin. As the country debated the causes of this carnage, attention shifted to an evaluation of the village guard system. Since some of the victims and alleged assailants were members of the system, calls for its dissolution or reform have been raised by the opponents of Turkey’s counter-terrorist policy. The security bureaucracy and nationalist forces have reacted quickly to defend this institution.

    Turkey first developed the village guard system to quell the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Local men were recruited as a paramilitary force to both protect themselves and aid the security forces fighting PKK militants in south-eastern Turkey. Village guards’ familiarity with the terrain, as well as the local language and dialects were important assets, and this helped to enhance the operational capability of the Turkish security forces. Moreover, by putting tens of thousands of tribesmen on the government’s payroll, the Turkish state sought to co-opt these and create revenues to address the root causes of joining the PKK (Terrorism Focus, October 1, 2008).

    Village guards, numbering around 90,000 at the height of the PKK’s campaign, are currently around 58,000-strong. Although the system began as a temporary measure, it has become an integral part of Turkey’s security apparatus. The guards, however, have frequently been criticized for their alleged involvement in criminal activities or human rights abuses. According to Interior Ministry records, village guards were the target of over 5,200 criminal investigations and as a result 853 guards were arrested for various crimes (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 8). A recent report released by the Human Rights Association revealed that between January 1992 and March 2009 village guards committed various human rights violations, including forced evacuation, burning villages, kidnapping and rape. In the last seven years guards have killed 51 people and wounded 83 (ANKA, May 9).

    The Mardin incident occupied Turkey’s agenda last week, reigniting the debate over the village guards. So far, around 10 suspects including some village guards have been arrested, but the exact motivation behind the attack is still unknown. Explanations range from a feud between the families involved, to the social structure in the region which is based on feudal relations and the dominance of religious orders. In this context, the decayed village guard system has been advanced as a possible cause of the incident (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 8).

    The Interior Minister Besir Atalay raised expectations that the government might consider reform. After noting that some village guards were among both the victims and assailants, while the weapons used in the attacks belonged to the guards, Atalay told reporters that the ministry was saddened by their involvement and was evaluating the situation (Cihan Haber Ajansi, May 6). President Abdullah Gul also noted that if the shortcomings of the village guard system caused the attacks, then the government would take the necessary steps (Hurriyet Daily News, May 7).

    The main opposition party Republican People’s Party (CHP), and the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) called for a parliamentary investigation into the killings in Mardin. The Parliament’s Human Rights Investigation Commission formed a sub-commission, scheduled to visit the region later this week to conduct an investigation into the incident (Anadolu Ajansi, May 7).

    The pro-Kurdish DTP put a large part of the blame on the village guard system, arguing that had the state not armed these people, the carnage would not have occurred. As part of its overall opposition to Turkey’s policies on the Kurdish question, the DTP was an ardent critic of this system, demanding its dissolution. DTP deputies are campaigning for a parliamentary inquiry into this system, alleging that the village guards have become a criminalized network, and have undermined the social fabric and individuals’ psychological health in the region (ANKA, May 6).

    However, the defenders of the system are against any attempt to reduce the causes of the Mardin attack to the weaknesses of the village guard system. A representative from the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) argued that the village guard system had served important functions in combating terrorism and it should be preserved (Anadolu Ajansi, May 6).

    A spokesman for the Turkish military, Brigadier-General Metin Gurak defended the village guards during his weekly press briefing. He said that it would be unwise to hold the entire institution responsible (Milliyet, May 8). Interior Minister Atalay supported this view and defended the village guards. Though noting that the government will take into account the criticism of the guards, Atalay added that the dissolution of this institution was not on the agenda (www.cnnturk.com, May 9).

    The deputy prime minister and government spokesman Cemil Cicek, also supported the system, arguing that it had emerged out of necessity and these conditions remained. Cicek added: “It is necessary to avoid hasty conclusions. If some of them are involved in wrongdoing, then necessary action will be undertaken… It is wrong to attack the entire institution, because of the recent incident” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, May 10).

    The debate on the village guard system is likely to continue and the opponents of Turkey’s anti-terrorism policy will repeat their demands for its dissolution. However, many security experts regard it as a necessary counter-terrorist tool and argue that Turkey will need this institution as long as the PKK remains active. Since the government and the Turkish military appear to share this view, and PKK terrorism is unlikely to end soon, a partial reform of this system may be more realistic rather than its complete dissolution.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-debates-the-village-guard-system/