Turkish Forum

Category: News

  • Turkey Wants U.S. ‘Balance’

    Turkey Wants U.S. ‘Balance’

    By ROGER COHEN

     

    Published: April 5, 2009
    cohen.190
    Roger Cohen

    LONDON — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is a man of brisk, borderline brusque, manner and he does not mince his words: “Hamas must be represented at the negotiating table. Only then can you get a solution.”

    We were seated in his suite at London’s Dorchester Hotel, where a Turkish flag had been hurriedly brought in as official backdrop. Referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the beleaguered Fatah leader and president of the Palestinian Authority, Erdogan said, “You will get nowhere by talking only to Abbas. This is what I tell our Western friends.”

    In an interview on the eve of President Barack Obama’s visit to Turkey, his first to a Muslim country since taking office, Erdogan pressed for what he called “a new balance” in the U.S. approach to the Middle East. “Definitely U.S. policy has to change,” he said, if there is to be “a fair, just and all-encompassing solution.”

    A firm message from Israel’s best friend in the Muslim Middle East: the status quo is untenable.

    How Hamas is viewed is a pivotal issue in the current American Middle East policy review. The victor in 2006 Palestinian elections, Hamas is seen throughout the region as a legitimate resistance movement, a status burnished by its recent inconclusive pounding during Israel’s wretchedly named — and disastrous — “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza.

    The United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization. They won’t talk to it until it recognizes Israel, among other conditions. This marginalization has led only to impasse because Hamas, as an entrenched Palestinian political and social movement, cannot be circumvented and will not disappear.

    Former Senator George Mitchell, Obama’s Middle East envoy, has expressed support for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. I think this should become a U.S. diplomatic priority because it is the only coherent basis for meaningful peace talks. Erdogan called Mitchell “perfectly aware and with a full knowledge, a very positive person whose appointment was a very good step.”

    The Turkish prime minister, who leads Justice and Development, or AKP, a party of Islamic inspiration and pragmatic bent, earned hero’s status in the Arab world when he walked out on the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a debate earlier this year in Davos. Any regrets?

    “If I had failed to do that, it would have been disrespectful toward myself and disrespectful of the thousands of victims against whom disproportionate force was being used,” Erdogan said. He alluded to the children killed in Gaza — 288 of them according to the United Nations special rapporteur — and asked: “What more can I say?”

    Erdogan, 55, urged Obama to become “the voice of millions of silent people and the protector of millions of unprotected people — that is what the Middle East is expecting.”

    He went on: “I consider personally the election of Barack Hussein Obama to have very great symbolic meaning. A Muslim and a Christian name — so in his name there is a synthesis, although people from time to time want to overlook that and they do it intentionally. Barack Hussein Obama.”

    I suggested that synthesis was all very well but, with a center-right Israeli government just installed, and its nationalist foreign minister already proclaiming that “If you want peace prepare for war,” the prospects of finding new bridges between the West and the Muslim world were remote.

    “Your targets can only be realized on the basis of dreams,” Erdogan said. “If everyone can say, looking at Obama, that is he is one of us, is that not befitting for the leading country in the world?”

    Dreams aside, I see Obama moving methodically to dismantle the Manichean Bush paradigm — with us or against us in a global battle of good against evil called the war on terror — in favor of a new realism that places improved relations with the Muslim world at its fulcrum. Hence the early visit to Turkey, gestures toward Iran, and other forms of outreach.

    This will lead to tensions with Israel, which had conveniently conflated its long national struggle with the Palestinians within the war on terror, but is an inevitable result of a rational reassessment of U.S. interests.

    I asked Erdogan if Islam and modernity were compatible. “Islam is a religion,” he said, “It is not an ideology. For a Muslim, there is no such thing as to be against modernity. Why should a Muslim not be a modern person? I, as a Muslim, fulfill all the requirements of my religion and I live in a democratic, social state. Can there be difficulties? Yes. But they will be resolved at the end of a maturity period so long as there is mutual trust.”

    The problem is, of course, that Islam has been deployed as an ideology in the anti-modern, murderous, death-to-the-West campaign of Al-Qaeda. But Erdogan is right: Islam is one of the great world religions. Obama’s steps to reassert that truth, and so bridge the most dangerous division in the world, are of fundamental strategic importance.

    Synthesis begins with understanding, which is precisely what never interested his predecessor.

  • U.S.-Turkish Relations: A Historic Era?

    U.S.-Turkish Relations: A Historic Era?

    Event Summary

    A positive, constructive relationship with Turkey has never been more important to Europe and the United States. Bordering Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Caucasus, Turkey also occupies the corridor between Western markets and the Caspian Sea energy reserves. A stable, Western-oriented Turkey en route toward EU membership would provide a growing market for exports, a source of needed labor, a positive influence on the Middle East, and a critical ally. An inward-looking Turkey, on the other hand, would be a disaster not only for the West but for Turkey itself.

    Event Information

    When

    Monday, April 13, 2009
    2:00 PM to 3:30 PM

    Where

    Falk Auditorium
    The Brookings Institution
    1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
    Washington, DC
    Map

    Contact: Brookings Office of Communications

    E-mail: events@brookings.edu

    Phone: 202.797.6105

     
    At the onset of what has recently been labeled by Turkey’s chief foreign policy adviser as a “historic era” in bilateral relations, President Barack Obama will visit Turkey in early April. Is the trip evidence that the once-fading relationship will be revived, and if so, will the stronger ties anchor Turkey decidedly toward the West?

    On April 13, the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) at Brookings will host a panel discussion on the future of U.S.-Turkish relations. Ömer Taşpınar, director of Brookings’s Turkey Project, will offer analysis and recommendations from his recent book, Winning Turkey (Brookings Institution Press, 2008). Soli Ozel of Istanbul’s Bilgi University will present the findings of a new report published by the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) entitled “Rebuilding a Partnership: Turkish-American Relations for a New Era – A Turkish Perspective.”

    Arzuhan Dogan Yalcindag, chair of TUSIAD, will make introductory remarks, and visiting fellow Mark Parris will moderate an audience question and answer session following the panelists’ remarks. 

    Participants

    Moderator

    Mark R. Parris

    Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy

    Introduction

    Arzuhan Dogan Yalcindag

    Chair, Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD)

    Panelists

    Ömer Taşpınar

    Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy

    Soli Ozel

    Bilgi University, Istanbul

  • New season with Obama visit

    New season with Obama visit

    Cultivating the seeds of a new spring: Obama’s visit to Turkey
    US President Barack Obama is expected tomorrow to address Turkey’s Parliament — the Parliament that rejected a government motion on March 1, 2003, to allow US troops to open up a northern front against Iraq from Turkey, thus leading to the reference to the “March 1 syndrome” when talking about the bilateral relationship of the two NATO allies.
    As a matter of fact, the address in itself can be read as a message of support and respect for Turkey’s parliamentary democracy, not to mention Obama’s planned tête-à-tête meetings with leaders of the opposition parties represented in Parliament, the members of which were elected in July 2007 through fully democratic means and thus are fully representative. Recalling May 2003 remarks by then-US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz may be more helpful in comprehending the significance of Obama’s choice to address Turkey’s democratically elected deputies.

    In a May 5 Pentagon interview with CNN-Türk, Wolfowitz told two Turkish journalists, Cengiz Çandar and Mehmet Ali Birand, that he was disappointed with the Turkish government’s actions. Wolfowitz told them he was less than thrilled with the performance of Turkey’s powerful military establishment during their discussions of whether to allow US troops into the country. The Turkish military “for whatever reason, did not play the strong leadership role in that issue that we would have expected,” he said.

    “Obama’s choice to address Parliament is in the best tradition of American democracy,” asserted Özdem Sanberk, a former Foreign Ministry undersecretary and an esteemed foreign policy analyst.

    Obama’s protocol counterpart, President Abdullah Gül, was appointed as the foreign minister of the 59th government only days after the March motion was rejected during his term in office as prime minister of the 58th government.

    Requirements of a strategic partnership

    For any two allies, having a strategic consensus on various issues that are subject to common interest is one thing, but calling their bilateral relationship a strategic partnership is another thing entirely.

    Actually, it has been almost a decade since the Turkish-US relationship was defined as a “strategic partnership” in September 1999 by then-President Bill Clinton, who also became the first ever US president to give a speech in Parliament in November 1999.

    At the end of 2004, many analysts said 2005 was the year during which bilateral relations between Turkey and the US needed to be redefined as to whether they were really as strategically beneficial as officials from both sides kept saying they were.

    It took longer than predicted for relations to reach a point befitting a strategic alliance in the eyes of the public, although in July 2006 the two countries signed a “Shared Vision and Structured Dialogue” document, which they said would boost what they described as the two nations’ “strategic partnership.”

    A Nov. 5, 2007 meeting between then-President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan apparently was a turning point in US-Turkish relations which, until then, had been plagued by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) problem.

    In December 2007, actionable intelligence provided by the US for Turkey’s ongoing air strikes against PKK locations in northern Iraq was warmly appreciated in Turkey at the highest level, with Gül paying an official visit to the US in early January 2008.

    It was asked at the time whether seeds for a new spring in the relations between Ankara and Washington had been sown and, if so, whether this spring would be a long one.

    Respectability and the Falklands

    In early March, visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, in a joint statement, “reaffirmed the strong bonds of alliance, solidarity and strategic partnership between the two countries.”

    “The commitment of both countries to the principles of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity enshrined in the Shared Vision and Structured Dialogue document agreed to in July 2006,” was equally highlighted in the statement as well.

    According to Sanberk, with Turkey assuming a multidimensional foreign policy approach, actual global challenges in the world render such a strategic partnership between the two key allies disadvantageous and risky.

    “Being a prestigious and respectable partner of the US is a much healthier position. We have a sufficient wealth of friendship for maintaining a healthy relationship, but if we ignore this wealth and resort to sumptuous definitions, we will burden each side’s shoulders with heavy responsibilities,” Sanberk told Sunday’s Zaman, adding that fulfilling such responsibilities might lead to high costs.

    The 1982 Falklands War is a good example for better understanding what Sanberk meant. During the brief, undeclared war fought between Argentina and Great Britain in 1982 over control of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and associated island dependencies, Argentine military planners had trusted that the US would remain neutral in the conflict, but, following unsuccessful mediation attempts, the US offered its full support to Great Britain, allowing its NATO ally to use its air-to-air missiles, communications equipment, aviation fuel and other military stockpiles on British-held Ascension Island, as well as cooperating with military intelligence.

    The Reagan administration then in effect trampled all over the Monroe Doctrine — James Monroe’s declaration of 1823 that the Western hemisphere was now closed to re-colonization by Europeans — as originally conceived, when it cheered for Britain rather than Argentina in the Falklands War.

    What led the US to such a position was its strategic partnership with Britain, Sanberk said, adding that neither Turkey nor the US would like to get dragged into such a position because of their relationship.

    “It is time for being realistic, and the time is also ripe for enjoying the benefits and virtues of frank speaking between the two ally countries, Turkey and the United States,” he said, stressing that Turkey and the US have the potential for maintaining “a very important relationship based on mutual respect,” without necessarily having a new joint driving concept for describing the nature of the relationship.

    “Respectability comes with democratic and economic success. The way for Turkey to gain respectability in Washington or other capitals doesn’t necessarily come from having strategic relations with America. However, it comes from Turkey becoming a country that is in constant development; that is able to protect the fragile segments of our society; that is respectful of freedom of expression, gender equality, minority rights and the environment; and that is a secular and democratic country with an open society,” Sanberk said, in remarks, again highlighting of the principles of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity mentioned in the joint statement by Babacan and Clinton, as well as to Obama’s choice to address Turkey’s democratically elected deputies.

    Spring and soul

    Since the government faced the military’s “e-memorandum” on April 27, 2007, which opposed the presidential candidacy of then-Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül by arguing that he was an Islamist, numerous articles in both the Turkish and foreign media have labeled the ongoing polarization and tension in the country as a battle for Turkey’s soul. Recently, they tend to label the current moves in Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy arena as “soul-searching.”

    Speaking of seeds for a new spring in relations between Ankara and Washington, Obama’s calendar wise timing for visiting Turkey is prosperous.

    For some, April is the most beautiful of months, and for some, it is May. But certainly April is “the cruelest month” for many, like poet T. S. Eliot (1888-1965), who described it at such in his famous poem “The Waste Land.”

    Turkey is surely not a “wasteland,” and the venue of Obama’s address in Ankara and his choice to address representatives of the will of Turkey’s peoples also shows where Turkey’s soul is.
    05 April 2009, Sunday
    EMİNE KART, ANKARA
  • Turkish Hopes High for Obama’s Visit

    Turkish Hopes High for Obama’s Visit

    By Utku Çakirözer
    Reporter, Milliyet
    Ankara, Turkey

    obama
    President Obama visits Turkey this weekend on his first overseas trip as U.S. president, and he sets a milestone by doing so: other U.S. presidents have always visited Ankara much later in their terms of office. This isn’t a coincidence or a tiny detail. It represents a significant shift in fundamental foreign policy priorities under the new U.S. administration. I believe there are two main reasons for Obama to choose Turkey: The necessity to increase security cooperation and to reshape the global image of the United States in the aftermath of the Bush era.

    Obama’s presidency has put many Turks on edge, especially those in government; there’s a general sense in Ankara that the more security-oriented U.S. Republican party appreciates Turkey’s importance more than the Democrats do. But Obama’s visit seems poised to dismiss that cliché; his pragmatism in international diplomacy, including public diplomacy, will put an early mark on his presidency as well as his administration’s foreign policy.
    Prior to his journey, Mr Obama underlined that his priority in foreign policy would be to deal with al-Qaeda terrorism and declared he would send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. But his plan will only be sustainable with the contribution of his NATO allies. Turkey, on the other hand, has NATO’s second-largest armed forces and has historically been a staunch ally to the U.S. in many peace and stability missions throughout the world (the only exception being the Turkish Parliament’s rejection in 2003 to allow U.S. troops to invade Iraq through Turkish territory.) Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, Turkey has been a permanent participant of that multinational force as well. After the talks in Ankara between Obama and the Turkish leaders, one can expect a visible increase in Turkey’s military and civilian presence in Afghanistan, with which Turkey had enjoyed a long history of friendly relations. Turkey can also help the U.S. in its efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

    Turkey can also play a crucial role serving as a main logistics hub for the implementation of Obama’s second priority in world affairs: Pulling the troops out of Iraq. Turkey’s government is already indicating support for potential U.S. use of Incirlik Air Base and the port of Mersin.

    Last year, Istanbul was the venue not only for Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s visit but also for the new round of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. So President Obama will also look for ways of cooperation with Turkey to deal with Iran’s nuclear program and the Middle East Peace Process.

    Mr Obama’s second reason to visit Turkey aims to deal with a much deeper problem. During the Bush administration, the very strong anti-American (or shall we say anti-Bush-policies) sentiments in Turkey have been an issue of deep concern for both capitals. According to Pew Center polls, America’s favorability rating in Turkey in recent years has fluctuated between 9 and 12 percent, far behind Russia, Iran and Syria. According to the latest polls during the electoral campaign, skepticism toward Obama was still higher in Turkey than it was in other European countries, and relatively few Turks believed that American foreign policy would improve under the new administration.

    In sharp contrast with the Bush administration’s preemptive diplomacy, there have been glimmers of hope for many Turks since Obama’s election. The president’s readiness to listen to allies and friends in world affairs, and his early decisions – pulling troops out of Iraq, closing the Guantanamo detention center, opening dialogue with Iran – are all good signs.

    But in order to leave this upsetting picture in the past and reshape the global image of his country, the president will need an ambitious public relations program in Turkey. In Ankara he will speak before the Turkish Parliament, a rare honor presented to visiting foreign leaders. In Istanbul, he will come together with young Turkish students in a meeting. Youth organizations throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia will also participate through videoconference. He might even use the forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations initiative (co-chaired by the Turkish and Spanish prime ministers), which will take place while he is in Istanbul, as a platform to reach out the Muslim world.

    So Turkey the Muslim country he promised to visit in the first 100 days of his presidency? Officials in both capitals try to downplay this, but the fact remains that Turkey is a country with a predominantly Muslim population. But Turkey is also the only constitutionally secular Muslim nation that has for decades been anchored to the Western institutions like NATO and EU. Turkey has been a link between East and West not only geographically but also culturally and historically. And certainly Turkey has demonstrated that there is a third way through which Islam and Western style democracy can coexist despite occasional ups and downs. This is the message that President Obama ought to emphasize in his visit to Turkey with global implications: that a clash of civilizations is not inevitable.

    Having said that, Turkish people want to hear the president’s view on where Turkey stands in the eyes of his administration. Stopping at Turkey in his tour to Europe is a clear sign that the president views this country as part of that continent, but Turks wonder whether he is willing to lobby in Europe, as one of his predecessors former president Bill Clinton did in the past, on behalf of Turkey’s most important political project: accession to the European Union. They also want to see Obama stand by their side in their struggle against terrorism. They want to see trust, partnership and confidence re-established in U.S.-Turkish relations. They want to see the new president take the lead in restoring peace, security and prosperity in the region they call home.
    Utku Cakirozer is a reporter for the Turkish newspaper Milliyet and a Hubert Humphrey Fellow at the University of Maryland.

    Posted by Utku Cakirozer on April 3, 2009 5:38 PM

    Comments (11)

    Frog2 Author Profile Page:

    Even if is the interest of the US to have Turkey anchored at the EU, it is not in the spirit that led to the creation of the EU.

    At first the EU was an association of Western Europe countries in the way to avoid another conflict among them, after two major wars that started there (WW1 and WW2.)

    The later expansion was (in my humble view!) a mistake.
    The EU should have its natural eastern borders where was the Iron Curtain.

    The hypothetic Turkey’s membership would justify the natural candidature of Israel for its historical and cultural roots in the Old Continent with, as a dowry, the Israel Palestinian conflict.
    Then would follow, say,Lebanon, the Maghrebian Nations (Algeria, Morrocco and Tunez) for being former European colonies and then the remnant African nations (except Ethiopia and Liberia that were never colonies)

    In an other hand, after Poland, why not Ukraine, Bielorussia and then Russia?

    And if Russia, why not the US ?Or China?

    The claim that the EU nations are white-people nations is unthrue. Get some ride to Paris, London or Berlin and keep a watch if people there are just white Christian ones!

    Turkey is in an undeniable great nation that deserve a special status vis-a-vis the EU.
    It is a cousin, an ally and a friend, but it is not part of inner familly neither are Israel, Russia and even the US…

    Thank you
    An average European.

    —————————————–

    April 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 5, 2009 12:43

    Turkey should admit the Armenian genocide, apologize for it, and move on. Even if such an admission is disingenuous. The western democracies are full of such hypocrisies, it will be accepted with few questions and everybody can move on.

    I lived in Adana as a teenager, from the age of 13 to 15. My father was stationed at Incirlik AFB.

    My friends and I spent time with our Turkish friends, mostly on the basketball court. We never argued about religion, genocide, oppression, none of that crap. At worst we disagreed on how many steps you’re allowed to take when doing a layup and how we Americans didn’t like the Turkish toilets.

    We were welcomed as friends, and not just as guests. So I have no problem with the people of Turkey becoming members of the EU

    These days I’m living and doing business in Bulgaria (software engineering), and for what it’s worth I know several people of ethnic Turkish ancestry here. I visit Istanbul on occasion for business, a vacation in Izmir is coming this summer and I’m looking forward to that 🙂

    So I have to say – it’s the ideologues and the demagogues who are running this conversation these days. I would like to see the Turkish people express their revulsion at the idea that religious authorities can censor the “outside world”, but at the same time I know how widespread software competency is in Turkey and how easily people will be able to get around this censorship.

    Time will tell. Turkey is facing pressures from the west to be more secular, and from the islamists to be more fundamentalist. I doubt many countries in Europe can understand that.

    I wish you well, Turkey. You have issues you must deal with, and you must dispose of false pride when it becomes a barrier to your progress. I think one day you will join the EU, hopefully soon, and I think it will be a good day when it happens.

    —————————-

    April 5, 2009 6:01 AM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 5, 2009 06:01

    It is doubtful that anything lasting can come out of such a meeting [aide from hot air a la G20] without the USA succeeding in the Palestine/Israel problem. The scene form Davos [under the tutalage of Mr. Ignatius] clearly indicates that Turkey’s Muslim majority wont permit this issue to be sidetracked. The rest is balderdash, for the USA is broke, is in wars opposed by the Muslim Majority and the USA does not take advise from foreigners.

    So another foto-opportunity after G20, NATO, and now Turkey — then coomes the problem the USA econopmy, the unwanted and expensive wars, and the military industrial complex.
    GOOD GRIEF!! sid Charlie Brown.

    —————————————————–

    April 4, 2009 3:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 15:53

    Whether the 1915 Armenian genocide (the killing of between a million and 1.5 million Armenian Christians) was more or less than 100 yrs ago is rather irrelevant.

    What is relevant is that the very term “genocide” was coined in 1944 to describe that particular Holocaust, and that Turkey has been aggressively trying to deny that Holocaust for the century since.

    Read the chapter concerning this genocide in Robert Fisk’s great book about the Middle East, and you will never forget what a genocide can be. It may not have equalled in NUMBERS the Holocaust of European Jews in the 30s and 40s, but in methods used it was even more barbaric (if that is possible) than Hitler’s Holocaust.

    I will respect Turkey when it steps forward, acknowledges the genocide, and speaks openly in acknowledging its shame. It is not enough to say, “oh, we were not alive when that happened, and none of the survivors are either.”

    ———————————————-

    April 4, 2009 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment

    Turkey is a country rich in tradition and history occupying a key position between Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. It is also relatively stable (for the region) and pragmetic. It is an important relationship for the US, and Obama does well in making this visit.

    Yet there is also the difficult history with Armenia, and the “genocide” resolution that Obama once promised to support would do much harm. I hope there is a bit of background diplomacy going on here. It would be nice if Turkey could acknowledge the Ottoman’s ethnic cleansing and offer a limited apology, providing sufficient cover for the US Congress to respond with a more limited resolution.————————–

    —————————

    April 4, 2009 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 13:55

    Whew so many thing to comment on and not enough space to do so.

    First Turkey is NOT less than 100 years old, unless you mean the republic of Turkey. Turkey itself was the center of the Ottoman Empire, which the Turks created from the Byzantine Empire.

    Turkey was not secular by people’s choice, it was a requirement by the UK and UN, as punishment for siding with the Axis Powers in WWI. Either they accepted the terms and put it in the new constitution, or they would partition it further into smaller states.

    As for the EU, it is a losing battle. The EU is a racists organization. It will only accept white christian countries. They will never accept a muslim majority country. I thought that they would include Kosovo, but they didn’t.

    Turkey would be smarter to stop trying to act like Europeans, and be proud of their heritage. If it is the wealth, that they want then they can forget it. Without oil, no western country is about to make a Muslim nation rich and prosperous.

    The Armenian genocide? Come on that was nearly 100 years ago. Are there even anyone alive now who lived through it? Why complain now, why didn’t anyone go after and try the leaders of the former Empire, like they did in Germany and Serbia?

    Look two things are not going to happen and everyone just needs to move forward: 1) The EU ain’t gonna allow any non-white non-christian country in its organization. 2) Turkey ain’t gonna apologize for something an old administration and empire did.

    ————————————–

    April 4, 2009 1:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 13:24

    Turkey has more of a history that is open to other Religions and peoples than other mid-east countries. The bigger cities have robust minority religious communities from the Jews in Istanbul and Christian Orthodoxy in Istanbul and other cities. Of course there are backward villages and towns (mostly in the far east) that are more fundamentalist but that is similar to the US.

    Turkey is a secular state with a primary Muslim population. Most of its citizens understand why Ataturk founded it as a Secular state and continue to support his blue print. Europe has its own issues with non-Christian cultures so it should deal with that prior to expecting Turkey to solve all of its problems overnight. Turkey is less than a century old and has a long way to grow, but Europe is much much older and dealing with the same issues.

    James

    ———————————————

    April 4, 2009 10:36 AM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 10:36

    The EU does not look kindly on prison officials fondly embracing the killers of Armenian intellectuals and journalists. The turks still resent other relgions

    ————————————-

    April 4, 2009 8:51 AM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 08:51

    In regards to the Kurds… The Kurds have to give-up claims to land within Turkey to end the violence; the cross-border incursions have been going both directions, with Kurdish fighters attacking within Turkey.

    As far as religious oppression and what Attaturk would think, I can’t tell you. However, I can tell you that the state has two seperate legal systems: one for religious judgements, and one for common law. It isn’t perfect, but it isn’t as bad as some would have you believe either.

    Turkey is one of the few countries left that illustrates that predominately Muslim countries need not be havens of despotism.

    ————————————

    April 4, 2009 7:20 AM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 07:20

    Whatever else people are using to resist Turkey’s membership in the EU, censoring the internet for religious reasons only plays into their hands.

    There is nothing an American president can do to influence the EU in your favor until you stop this religious oppression. I can only wonder how Mustafa Kemal would felt about this.

    ——————————–

    April 4, 2009 4:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment

    Posted on April 4, 2009 04:38

    The status of the Kurds needs to be addressed in Obama’s discussions with the Turkish leadership, though I have doubts about that happening.

    The Kurds in Iraq need to be guaranteed either autonomy or independence without Turkish troops invading them. Without this there may never be peace in Iraq. If the Turks are afraid of what their Kurdish minority will do if that happens, then there is a problem with the way they are treating the Turkish Kurds.

    April 4, 2009 3:17 AM | Report Offensive Comment

  • NATO talks on Rasmussen impact EU-Turkey relations

    NATO talks on Rasmussen impact EU-Turkey relations

    Summit chamber: Turkish President Abdullah Gul was not happy with the EU being brought up in NATO discussions (Photo: nato.org)

     

    VALENTINA POP

    04.04.2009 @ 21:52 CET

    EUOBSERVER / STRASBOURG – NATO on Saturday (4 April) named Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as its new secretary general, overcoming Turkish opposition during difficult talks which caused fresh tension in EU-Turkey relations.

    Turkish resistance to the Rasmussen nomination centered around his support for Danish media after newspapers published cartoons of Mohammed in 2006.

    The stalemate saw EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn suggest to Finnish state broadcaster YLE that Ankara may be unfit to join the EU because it does not respect freedom of speech.

    “This will surely raise questions amongst EU member states and citizens on how well Turkey has internalised such European values as freedom of expression,” Mr Rehn said.

    Politicians in the circle of German Chancellor Angela Merkel also attacked Turkey.

    “Whoever puts Islamic propaganda above the future of NATO and our European system of values, has nothing to look for in the EU,” Alexander Dobrint, the secretary general of Ms Merkel’s sister party, the Christian-Social Union, told German press.

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul did not take kindly to the remarks, calling the EU commissioner’s intervention “unfortunate” and “unpleasant” and warning that it woud increase anti-EU sentiment in Turkey.

    “This was a NATO, not an EU meeting and I shared this with European heads of state,” Mr Gul said at a press conference after the NATO summit in Strasbourg. “Although there are several European members of NATO, you can’t take a decision in the EU and impose it on NATO, these two can’t be linked.”

    The Turkish president explained that promises made by US President Barack Obama, rather than the veiled threats on EU accession, finally secured Ankara’s approval for the Danish appointment.

    Obama-brokered deal

    “I had a long bilateral meeting with Mr Obama which was very fruitful and our concerns were overcome and wishes respected. We then had a trilateral meeting with Mr Rasmussen,” he said.

    In return for backing down, Turkey is to get a newly-created post of deputy secretary general of NATO and several Turkish officers inside the alliance’s military command.

    For his part, the Danish PM took a conciliatory approach.

    “I made it clear I will reach out to the Muslim world and I will make sure we will co-operate closely with Turkey,” he told press in Strasbourg.

    Mr Rasmussen also pledged to look into Danish-based Kurdish TV station Roj TV, which Ankara wants off the air.

    “If Roj TV is involved in any terrorist activities, we will do everything to shut it down,” he said.

    Mr Rasmussen will go with Mr Obama to Ankara on Monday, where the pair will take place in a UN “Alliance of Civilisations” symposium on promoting inter-faith diaogue.

    Forty five-year old liberal finance minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen is to take over as the new Danish PM at home.

    Italian intermezzo

    Turkey’s hard bargaining saw some European leaders break wih protocol at the largely ceremonial 60th anniversary NATO summit.

    Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi spent 40 minutes talking on his cell phone with his Turkish counterpart in Ankara about the Rasmussen problem, causing him to miss the family photo and a minute’s silence for fallen NATO soldiers.

    The Italian leader was so absorbed on the phone he forgot to walk up the red carpet to his waiting co-hostess Angela Merkel, who eventually shrugged her shoulders and carried on with the ceremony.

    Asked later if the phone conversation had helped in any way, Turkish president Gul smiled and said that “[Mr Berlusconi] really wanted to get the result and worked very hard for it.”

    https://euobserver.com/news/27915

  • The Global Economic Crisis and Turkey

    The Global Economic Crisis and Turkey

    ch

    Friday 3 April 2009 09:00 to 10:00

    Location

     Chatham House, London

     Participants

    HE Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey

    The Prime Minister will discuss the global economic crisis and its effects on Turkey and will outline measures taken by the government to overcome the present crisis. HE Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been Prime Minister of Turkey since March 2003.

    The Prime Minister spoke in Turkish. The audio translation is available below.

    Click to Listen to the audio recording of this event.