Category: Turkey

Human Security

“Human Security” From Liberal Perspective: Is It a Comprehensive Model?

Res. Assist. Dr. Cansu Güleç ARAS MEF University

Classical liberal ideas were built on the concepts of equality, rationality, freedom and property. In the 18th century, Locke from England, David Hume and Adam Smith in Scotland, Montesque and Voltaire from France and Kant from Germany were the leading liberal thinkers. As an international theory that explained international politics and foreign policy, Liberalism emerged after the First World War. Names like Woodrow Wilson, Hobson, David Mitrany, Karl W. Deutsch, Michael Doyle, Francis Fukuyama, Stanley Hoffmann, Robert O. Keohane are among the most important representatives of liberal thought in international relations. According to Liberalism, world peace might occur with the residence of political and economic liberal norms at both national and international levels; the increase of interdependence and interaction; the international cooperation that carried out under the leadership of intergovernmental organizations; and the protection of human rights and governance. In security studies, the concept of human security is one of the most important concepts of the post-Cold War era that has been scholarly disputed. Indeed, the ethnic and religious-based conflicts after the Cold War led to evolution of the concept “national security” and the increase of the concerns about individual security in international relations. Since then, there have been attempts to “deepen and widen” the concept of security from the level of states to individuals. In that sense, the concept of “human security” considers human being as the reference object of security as well as it places the threats against human beings on the agenda. On the other hand, the mentioned concept objects the monopoly of the state in ensuring security through featuring the actors like international organizations and civil society. Accordingly, the concept of security will be discussed within the scope of liberal theory in this paper. Following the historical evolution, the conceptualizations about human security will be put forward. In addition, the criticisms toward the concept of human security will be analyzed. Finally, the evaluations regarding implementation and execution of human security will be discussed.

Key words: Security Studies, Liberalism, Human Security, Globalization

LİBERAL BAKIŞ AÇISIYLA “İNSAN GÜVENLİĞİ”: KAPSAYICI BİR MODEL Mİ?

ÖZET

Klasik liberal düşünce, eşitlik, rasyonellik, özgürlük ve mülkiyet kavramları üzerinde inşa edilmiştir. 18. Yüzyılda, İngiltere’den Locke, İskoçya’da David Hume ve Adam Smith, Fransa’dan Montesqueu, Voltaire ve Almanya’dan Kant önde gelen liberal düşünürler olmuşlardır. Liberalizmin uluslararası politika ve dış politikayı açıklamaya yönelik bir uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi olarak görülmesi ise I. Dünya Savaşı sonrasında ortaya çıkmıştır. Woodrow Wilson, Hobson, David Mitrany, Karl W. Deutsch, Michael Doyle, Francis Fukuyama, Stanley Hoffmann, Robert O. Keohane gibi isimler liberal düşüncenin uluslararası ilişkilerde önemli temsilcileri arasındadır. Liberalizme göre dünya barışı; siyasi ve ekonomik liberal normların ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde yerleşik hale gelmesi, karşılıklı bağımlılığın ve etkileşimin artması, devletlerarası teşkilatların öncülüğünde gerçekleştirilecek uluslararası iş birliği, yönetişim ve insan haklarının korunmasıyla gerçekleşebilir. Güvenlik çalışmalarında insan güvenliği kavramı ise, etrafında pek çok kuramsal tartışmanın döndüğü Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemin en önemli kavramlarından biridir. Zira, Soğuk Savaş sonrasında ortaya çıkan etnik ve dini temelli çatışmalar “ulusal egemenlik” kavramının evrim geçirmesine ve bireyin güvenliğine yönelik endişelerin, uluslararası ilişkiler gündemine yerleşmesine neden olmuşlardır. Söz konusu dönemden itibaren, güvenlik çalışmaları hem “genişlemeye” hem “derinleşme” ye uğramıştır. İnsan güvenliği, hem güvenliğin referans nesnesi olarak insanı kabul etmiş, hem de insana yönelik tehditleri gündeme taşımıştır. Öte yandan kavram, güvenliğin sağlanmasında uluslararası örgütler ve sivil toplum kuruluşları gibi aktörlere de çeşitli roller biçerek devletin bu alandaki tekeline karşı çıkmaktadır. Bu bilgiler ışığında, bu çalışmada liberal teori kapsamında güvenlik kavramı ele alınacak ve “insan güvenliği” kavramının genişleyen ve derinleşen güvenlik anlayışı ile beraber söz konusu teorik çerçevede nasıl yorumlandığı incelenecektir. Ortaya konulan tarihsel gelişimin ardından, insan güvenliğine yönelik belirsizliğin giderilmesi için yapılan kavramsallaştırmalar ortaya konulacaktır. Bununla beraber, insan güvenliği kavramına yönelik eleştiriler de analiz edilecektir. Son olarak, insan güvenliğinin hayata geçirilmesi ve yürütülmesine yönelik değerlendirmeler ortaya konulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Güvenlik Çalışmaları, Liberalizm, İnsan Güvenliği, Küreselleşme

INTRODUCTION

Security is an ambiguous concept and it is very open to different comments which include different dimensions. The actors in international relations usually consider the capabilities and the intentions of a possible rivals while making threat assessments, but it is also difficult for them to qualify and articulate the level of security. It can be argued that security consists of multiple elements some of which are shared by all actors and some of which are specific to a particular actor at a particular time.

The actors in international environment such as states, individuals, international organizations and many others have a number of values. These values may include physical safety, economic welfare, autonomy, psychological well-being, and so on.1 It is argued that security points to some degree of protection of values acquired, and it has much in common with power or wealth. However, while wealth measures the amount of a nation’s material possessions and power is regarded as the ability to control the actions of others, security, in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.2

It can be claimed that the end of the Cold War has created an opportunity that the concept of security will be broadened, redefined or reconstituted. In that era, the definition of security as “the absence of existential threats to one state emanating from another” has been criticized by many reasons. First of all, the state is no accepted as the sole subject of security. Social, ethnic, religious minorities, individuals or humankind have been considered as objects that have security needs. Secondly, it has been argued that the attention devoted to the physical, territorial or political dimension of security is misplaced under conditions of complex interdependence. Other aspects are seen as significant in security terms which include economic resources, stability and institutions.3 Therefore, the narrowness of the military state-centric agenda was considered as politically and normatively problematic for those seeking to expand the concept of security.

The rise of intra-state conflicts, societies’ fear of immigration, environmental problems and the acceleration of the HIV/AIDS epidemic demonstrated that traditional understanding of security was unable to meet the challenges of the post- Cold War era.4 In that sense, the concept of “human security” is one of the most

1 David A. Baldwin, “The Concept of Secuirty”, Review of International Studies ,23, (1997): 13.
2 Arnold Wolfers, “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Dec., 1952): 484-485.
3 Horald Müller, “Security Cooperation”, in Handbook of International Relations, Walter Carlsneas and others (ed.), (London: SAGE Publications, 2013), 607.
4 Barru Buzan and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of Security, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),187.

important concepts of the post-Cold War era that has been scholarly disputed. Indeed, the ethnic and religious-based conflicts after the Cold War led to evolution of the concept “national security” and the increase of the concerns about individual security in international relations. Since then, there have been attempts to “deepen and widen” the concept of security from the level of states to individuals. In that sense, the concept of “human security” considers human being as the reference object of security as well as it places the threats against human beings on the agenda. On the other hand, the mentioned concept objects the monopoly of the state in ensuring security through featuring the actors like international organizations and civil society.

Accordingly, the concept of security will be discussed within the scope of liberal theory in this paper. Following the historical evolution, the conceptualizations about human security will be put forward. In addition, the criticisms toward the concept of human security will be analyzed. Finally, the evaluations regarding implementation and execution of human security will be discussed.

THE LIBERALIST PERSPECTIVE OF SECURITY

The Liberalist perspective has its roots from the 18th century enlightenment, and as a tradition in political theory, it takes individuals as its units of analysis. In early 20th century, especially after the WWI, liberalism reached prominence in international politics. On the other hand, there emerged periods when liberalism was under its most severe attack particularly in the 1930s. The dominant narrative in International Relations field was that Realism routed liberalism after World War II and liberalism had little to say about security. Nevertheless, liberal scholars continued to challenge realism in the 1950s and 1960s. Some continued to argue for conceiving the units of world politics as individuals rather than states. In 20th century, liberalism’s focus on increasing security by international law and organizations continued as well.

Names like Woodrow Wilson, Hobson, David Mitrany Karl W. Deutsch, Michael Doyle, Francis Fukuyama, Stanley Hoffmann, Robert O. Keohane are among the most important representatives of liberal thought in international relations. According to Liberalism, world peace might occur with the residence of political and economic liberal norms at both national and international levels; the increase of interdependence and interaction; the international cooperation that carried out under the leadership of intergovernmental organizations; and the protection of human rights and governance.

The theoretical point of origin for liberalism is the individual rather than as state. Liberal theory has paid particular attention to the state as the institution defined by its ability to make individuals secure. By treating state action as a function of individual beliefs and interests, the state is seen as instrumental to the purposes of individuals. Individual influence on states and on security is mediated through groups and institutions within and across states. Individuals can create, sustain, and destroy

institutions and thereby enhance or degrade national and international security.5 Beside the individuals, a number of collectivities are the focus of analysis. Firstly states, but also corporations, organizations and associations are examples of these actors. Individual influence on states and on security is mediated through groups and institutions within and across states. Individuals can create and sustain institutions that may create conditions under which states will be more cooperative to their mutual benefit.6

Liberals regards international institutions as actors that have feedback effects by deepening cooperation among states. The institutions whose global development policy discourse and programmes are analyzed in order to advance the arguments made about liberal perspective of security and development debate. The Western based institutional actors such as United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the European Commission (EC), the World Bank and the are emphasized as being at the core of global governance networks linking conflict and security.7 Accordingly, the security is regarded as an interdependent issue in which economic interactions provide greater gains for the countries. Moreover, international institutions take a global stance on the environment, terrorism, epidemics, disasters as the only practical basis for coping with those problems.8

One area of liberalism has developed arguments about democracies bearing on security cooperation. Beginning with Immanuel Kant, there has been a claim that democracies can behave differently than non-democracies in world affairs. Today, the emphasis on “democratic peace theory”, the notion that democracies are naturally peaceful among themselves. Accordingly, while democratic governments readily go to war with undemocratic ones, they do not plan for possible wars with each other since they do not see each other as threatening.9 Some analysts claim that combining democracy and an open economy and society produces this result. Others believe that democracies are more transparent in policies and policy making than non-democracies which makes for less suspicion, rivalry and conflict among them. According to another claim, democratic politics assumes compromise and the peaceful resolution of disputes through discussion. This brings dealings with other democracies in turn.10

5 John M. Owen IV, “Liberalism and Security”, 9780190846626-e-33?result=1&rskey=033iMn (2010).
6 Ibid.
7 Melita Lazell, “Liberalism(s) and the Critical Securitization of Development Debate”, Globalizations, 13:4
8 Patrick Morgan, “Security in International Politics: Traditional Approaches”, in Contemporary security studies, Alan Collins (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 27.
9 Morgan, “Security in International Politics: Traditional Approaches”, 28.
10 Ibid.

As it can be understood from these various forms of liberal understanding, the notion of security as a basic concept is applied in analysis of policy decisions via putting multiple dimensions. In sum, the main descriptors might be used for making assumptions from different perspectives of realist and liberal traditions.

Table 1. Different Security Concepts

Tradition	Form of Security	Focus	What is at risk?	Threats to Security
Realist-based	National	State	Sovereignty, territorial integrity	Other states and non-state actors
Liberal -based	Human	Individuals, mankind, human rights, rule of law	Survival, human development and governance	State itself, natural catastrophe and change

Source: P. H. Liotta, “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security”, Security Dialogue vol. 33, no. 4, (December 2002): 475.

Although there are many counter arguments and criticisms against it, liberalism as a tradition in security studies continues to make contributions since its emergence during the Enlightenment. Liberalism seeks to guide to international security insofar as individuals and the groups they organize affect or, at a maximum, erode states.11 One of its branches concerns the democratic peace and related research on democratic advantages in international cooperation. In addition, through globalization, societal needs for security transcend the traditional realm of territorial integrity and extend to transnational issues, from organized crime to migration, all of which lead to demands for enhanced security. Responses require contributions from non-state actors if effective regulation is to be achieved. They are partially based on the normative commitment to “human security” with the individual as core subject of entitlements to security – an offspring of liberal normative theory.12 The concept of human security

11 Owen IV, “Liberalism and Security”.
12 Horald Müller, “Security Cooperation”, 619.

represents deepening and widening of the traditional notion of national security which is regarded as protection of state sovereignty and territorial integrity from external military threats.

THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN SECURITY

In traditional understanding, the concept of security is defined as protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states from external military threats. This is a realistic approach that based on national security. Accordingly, states are viewed as the only referent object of security, which needs to be protected. This approach dominated security understanding especially during the Cold War period.13 Nevertheless, the Realist School of security thought has been challenged by many thoughts after the end of the Cold War on the ground that it does not provide sufficient understanding to the contemporary changes and challenges.

Particularly, since the end of the Cold War, the subject matter of security studies has undergone both a “widening” and a “deepening.” The “widening” aspect of security has included consideration of non-military security threats, such as environmental scarcity and degradation, the spread of disease, overpopulation, migration, mass refugee movements, nationalism, economic and financial crises. The “deepening” aspect of security included the consideration of the security of individuals and groups, rather than focusing narrowly on external threats to states.14 In that framework, “human security” is containing common security, global security, cooperative security, and comprehensive security. The discussion of this concept encourages policymakers and scholars to think about international security as something more than the military defense of state interests and territory.15

Even though the concept of Human Security does not have a universally agreed upon definition, there are some elements shared by all definitions of Human Security. These include a shift to the individual as the referent object of security. In addition, the definition of a security threat has been regarded as a threat to the quality of life of individuals. In other words, human security is about security for the people rather than of states.16 Also, the role of non-state actors has been recognized as agents for the assure of security. Finally, the importance of security has been shifted away from the traditional and exclusive concern with military and armed conflict. In that sense,

13 Amitav Acharya, “Human Security”, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014): 449.
14 Rolad Paris, “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall 2001): 97.
15 Ibid., 87.
16 Amitav Acharya, “Human Security”,449.

traditional, and Realist conceptions and practices of security has started to be criticized.17

Although Human Security is treated as contested concept, the original formulation is conducted by UNDP with the publication of the Human Development Report of 1994. According to the UNDP, the potential threats to Human Security can be classified under seven central categories: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security.

⦁ Economic security requires an assured basic income-usually from productive and remunerative work, or in the last resort from some publicly financed safety net.

⦁ Food security means that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. This requires not just enough food to go round. It requires that people have ready access to food-that they have an “entitlement” to food, by growing it for themselves, by buying it or by taking advantage of a public food distribution system.

⦁ Health security means guaranteeing a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles.

⦁ Environmental security means protecting people from the short-term and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature and deterioration of the natural environment.

⦁ Personal security requires protecting people from physical violence, whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals or sub-state actors, from domestic abuse and from predatory adults.

⦁ Community security means protecting people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence.

⦁ Political Security means ensuring people live in a society that honours their basic human rights, and ensuring the freedom of individuals and groups from government attempts to exercise control over ideas and information. 18

17 Matt McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security”, Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, (2002): 279.
18 UN Human Development Report 1994, 24-32.

Table 2. Types of Human Security and Root Causes

TYPE OF INSECURITY
ROOT CAUSES

Economic insecurity
Persistent poverty, unemployment, lack of access to credit and other economic opportunities

Food insecurity
Hunger, famine, sudden rise in food prices

Health insecurity
Epidemics, malnutrition, poor sanitation, lack of access to basic health care

Environmental insecurity
Environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural disasters

Personal insecurity
Physical violence in all its forms, human trafficking, child labour

Community insecurity
Inter-ethnic, religious and other identity-based tensions, crime, terrorism

Political insecurity
Political repression, human rights violations, lack of rule of law and justice

Source: UN Human Development Report 1994, 24-25.

UNDP proposed a concept of “human development” which focuses on building human capabilities to confront and overcome poverty, illiteracy, diseases, discrimination, restrictions on political freedom, and the threat of violent conflict. Accordingly, “every human being counts, and every human life is equally valuable. That universalism is at the core of the human development concept.”19

The 1994 Human Development Report highlighted two major components of human security. One is “freedom from fear” and the other one is “freedom from want”. “Freedom for fear” focuses on reducing the human costs of violent conflicts through measures such as a ban on landmines, using women and children in armed conflict, child soldiers, child labor, and small arms proliferation, the formation of an International Criminal Court, and promulgating human rights and international humanitarian law. From this perspective, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions are the ‘core elements’ of the doctrine of human security. “Freedom from want” view is closer to the original UNDP formulation. It underlines the ability of individuals and societies to be free from a broad range of non-military threats, such as poverty, disease, and environmental degradation. On the other hand, both components agree that human security is about security of the individuals rather than states and protecting people requires going beyond traditional principles of state sovereignty.20

Furthermore, the Human Security is considered as an inter-disciplinary concept that has some important features: “people-centered, multi-sectoral, comprehensive, context-specific, and prevention-oriented”.

⦁ As a people-centered concept, human security places the individual at the center of analysis,

⦁ As a multi-sectoral concept, it includes causes of insecurity relating for instance to economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security.

⦁ As a comprehensive concept, it stresses the need for cooperative and multi- sectoral responses that bring together the agendas of those dealing with security, development and human rights.

⦁ As a context-specific concept, human security acknowledges that insecurities vary considerably across different settings and as such advances contextualized solutions that are responsive to the particular situations they seek to address.

19 Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018 Statistical Update, 7.
20 Amitav Acharya, “Human Security”, 495-496.

⦁ As a prevention-oriented concept, it introduces a dual focus on protection and empowerment. Protection includes strategies, set up by states, international agencies, NGOs and the private sector. It recognizes that people face threats that are beyond their control (such as natural disasters, financial crises and conflicts). Thus, human security requires protecting people in a systematic, comprehensive and preventative way. Empowerment, on the other hand, aims at developing the capabilities of individuals and communities to make informed choices and to act on their own behalf. Empowering people enables them to find ways and to participate in solutions to ensure human security for themselves and others.21

The concept of Human security also points out the difference between “threat” and “vulnerability”. Firstly, a threat is considered as identifiable, often immediate, and requires an understandable response. For instance, military force has traditionally been sized against threats in order to defend a state against external aggression, to protect national interests and to enhance state security. Secondly, a threat is either clearly visible or commonly acknowledged. On the other hand, a vulnerability is often only an indicator, often not clearly identifiable, often linked to a complex interdependence among related issues, and does not always suggest a correct or even adequate response. Lioatta states that “while disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, terrorism, narco-trafficking, political repression, and environmental hazards are at least somewhat related issues and affect the security of states and individuals, the best response to these related issues, in terms of security, is not at all clear. Even though Canada emphasized the relevance of human and environmental security to ‘high politics’ and attempted to restructure its armed forces to meet these challenges, the relevance of state-centered military forces for addressing or ‘solving’ non- state-centered issues is questionable.”22

Moreover, a vulnerability is not clearly perceived, understood, and almost a source of debate. According to Liotta “…as a result of the 11 September 2001 attacks it is correct to suggest that the USA is vulnerable to terrorism in ways never previously understood or commonly acknowledged. Despite the USA’s isolated physical geography in relation to Europe, Asia, and the Greater Near East, its citizens are now vulnerable in ways never directly experienced before. Terrorism has become both a driving force and a critical uncertainty in security decisions.”23

It is argued that with the rise of new issues around the world which encompass both widening and broadening aspects of security, a threat-based security dilemma is going along with the rise of various vulnerability-based survival dilemmas in contemporary

21 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs United Nations, Human Security in Theory and Practice Application of The Human Security Concept And The United Nations Trust Fund For Human Security, (2009): 7-8.
22 Liotta, “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security”, 478-479.
23 Ibid.

world.24 These shifts in the balance of threats and vulnerabilities require new strategies with more inclusive structures, missions, and budgets.

THE DEBATE ABOUT HUMAN SECURITY

Although Human Security has brought new actors and issues to the security agenda, it has also seen as problematic for a number of reasons. Most of these criticisms treat Human Security as a policy agenda, while many others are more critical of the main assumptions which Human Security is founded upon. For critics of human security, the concept is too broad to be analytically meaningful or useful as a tool of policy- making.

Accordingly, there are two problems that limit the usefulness of the human security concept for practitioners of international politics. Firstly, the concept lacks a precise definition. Existing definitions of human security encompass everything from physical security to psychological well-being, which provides policymakers with little guidance in the prioritization of competing policy goals. Second, the idea of human security holds together a coalition of states, development agencies, and NGOs. As a unifying concept for this coalition, human security lacks precision, and thus encompasses the diverse perspectives and objectives of all the members of the coalition. This ambiguity diminishes the concept’s usefulness as a guide for policymaking.25

Another criticism is concerned with Human Security as a security policy agenda. According to this critique, it is difficult to see how the Human Security approach could be “operationalized” particularly within present configurations of power and decision- making processes. In that sense, the work and implementation of Human Security are being questioned. Accordingly, setting the individual as the referent object of security causes some problems which Human Security sought in part to address. In that framework, the problem is the inability of Human Security to address adequately issues of identity if individuals constitute the set referent object of security. Accordingly, considering individuals as the referent object of security does not always represent the best means of understanding a particular situation of insecurity or redressing it. Issues of identity and ethnic difference may be ignored by a Human Security approach that effectively abstracts individuals, particularly if founded upon broadly universalized Western principles. For these critics, the reference object of

24 Ibid., 481.
25 Roland Paris, “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2
(Fall 2001): 88.

security should be determined by the context in which a number of actors come to be threatened.26

Another area of concern related to Human Security is around the question “how it would allow for the adjudication between competing claims and objectives”. For example, much of the deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is caused by shifted cultivators and landless peasants, who cut down virgin tropical forest in order to sustain their families in the short term. In cases such as this, where different components of Human Security, such as environmental and economic, appear in opposition, whose security is to be addressed, and which types of concerns have priority? While the solution to both problems in this case may be related, judging between competing security claims may allow for an inability to create security.27

Furthermore, the fact that Human Security is concerned with its universalism and its foundation on Western values is also being questioned. The link between Human Security and universalism is made explicitly in the UNDP’s Human Development Report of 1994. In that report, Human Security is described as a “universal concern’’. Thus, the general description of security in the Human Development Report regard security as the same for people everywhere. This universalism is related with the question of identity, particularly collective identity and difference. Additionally, Human Security is predicated upon a Western conception of the importance of democracy and, of greater concern, a commitment to free market economics, which potentially underestimate the questions of identity and difference.28

Buzan also remains skeptical about human security, because it does not differentiate its agenda from that of human rights as regarding the referent object as the individual or humankind as a whole. According to him, this causes the danger that security is taken to be the desired end.29

Newman claims that human security is normatively attractive, but analytically weak concept. For him, human security brings questions about the relationship between the individual and the state and about state sovereignty. Traditionally, state sovereignty and sovereign legitimacy rest upon a government’s control of territory, state independence and recognition by other states. The international legitimacy of state sovereignty rests not only on control of territory, but also upon fulfilling certain standards of human rights and welfare for citizens. As a result, the sovereignty of states that are unwilling or unable to fulfil certain basic standards may be at risk. The

26 Matt McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security”, Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, (2002): 280-81.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., 283.
29 Barry Buzan, “A Reductionist, Idealistic Notion that Adds Little Analytical Value”, Security Dialogue, 35(3), (2004): 369–370.

use of military force for human protection purposes is the powerful example of this concept.30

According to some arguments, human security discourses are used as a justification to intervene other states. For example, the USA invaded Iraq through adopting human security discourse. Therefore, some perception of human security might be a tool to intervene in internal affairs of developing countries and impose Western values. Finally, human security is intertwined with the responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention. For example, the international community intervened in Libya, but not Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. According to this critics, human security promotes national security and power politics because the discourse to fulfill human security and human rights mainly depends on great powers.31

CONCLUSION

In the first half of the 20th century, world wars killed thousands of people, and left whole continents in devastation. During the Cold War, proxy wars killed thousands of people, and the world feared that a nuclear war would cause complete annihilation of the world. In the early 21st century, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have killed thousands of people again. Although there was no major war after 1945, minor wars and terrorist attacks may continue to kill thousands of people.32 Under these circumstances, there emerged a number of intellectual debates regarding the security in International Relations, its scope and dimensions as well.

It can be argued that human security is distinguished by three elements: its focus on the individual and human being as the referent object of security; its multidimensional nature; its universal or global scope, applying to states and societies of the North as well as the South. In addition, the concept of human security has been influenced by some developments: the rejection of economic growth as the main indicator of development and the accompanying notion of ‘human development’ as empowerment of people; the rising incidence of civil wars and intra-state conflicts involving huge loss of life, ethnic cleansing, displacement of people within and across borders, and disease out-breaks; the impact of globalization in spreading transnational dangers such as terrorism and pandemics; and the Post-Cold War emphasis on human rights and humanitarian intervention. The latter involves the principle that the international community is justified in intervening in the internal affairs of states accused of gross violation of human rights. This has led to the realization that while the concept of national security has not been rendered irrelevant, it no longer sufficiently accounts

30 Edward Newman, “A Normatively Attractive but Analytically Weak Concept”, Security Dialogue, 35(3), (2004): 358-359.
31 Hawre Hasan Hama, “State Security, Societal Security, and Human Security”, Jadavpur Journal of International Relations 21(1), (2017): 16-17.
32 Joshua S. Goldstein and Jon C. Pevehouse, International Relations (10th Edition), (Pelgrave, 2014), 85.

for the kinds of danger that threaten the societies, states, and the international community.33

In conclusion, human security needs opportunities for creative synthesis and theoretical eclecticism. Liberal perspective might help the understanding of how human security can be promoted through interdependence, democracy and international institutions with its emphasis on non-state actors like international institutions and multinational corporations. However, it is also essential to put some insights about how human security notions are promoted by global power channels. Furthermore, the shifts in the global relations can help prospects for human security understanding. Otherwise, the concept will continue to be criticized by academics who carry out security studies due to the uncertainties regarding the definition and scope of human security.

33Amitav Acharya, “Human Security”,451.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acharya, Amitav. “Human Security”, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Baldwin, David A. “The Concept of Secuirty”, Review of International Studies, 23,
(1997): 5-26.

Buzan,Barry. “A Reductionist, Idealistic Notion that Adds Little Analytical Value”, Security Dialogue, 35(3), (2004): 369–370.

Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Goldstein, Joshua S. and Jon C. Pevehouse, International Relations (10th Edition).
Pelgrave, 2014.

Hama, Hawre Hasan. “State Security, Societal Security, and Human Security”,
Jadavpur Journal of International Relations 21(1), (2017): 1-19. Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018 Statistical Update.
Lazell, Melita. “Liberalism(s) and the Critical Securitization of Development Debate”, Globalizations, 13:4 (2016): 361-376.

Liotta, P. H. “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security”, Security Dialogue, 33(4), (2002): 473–488.

McDonald, Matt. “Human Security and the Construction of Security”, Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, (2002): 277-295.

Morgan, Patrick. “Security in International Politics: Traditional Approaches”, in Contemporary security studies, Alan Collins (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Müller, Horald. “Security Cooperation”, in Handbook of International Relations, Walter Carlsneas and others (eds.). London: SAGE Publications, 2013.

Newman, Edward. “A Normatively Attractive but Analytically Weak Concept”, Security Dialogue, 35(3), (2004): 358-359.

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs United Nations, Human Security in Theory and Practice Application of The Human Security Concept and The United Nations Trust Fund For Human Security, 2009.

Owen IV, John M. “Liberalism and Security”, 1.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-33?result=1&rskey=033iMn . 2010.

Paris, Rolad “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall 2001): 87-102.

UN Human Development Report 1994.

Wolfers, Arnold. “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Dec., 1952): 481-502.

November 7, 2021

100 YEARS AGO

100 YEARS AGO – April 23, 1920

Guran Tatlıoğlu

April 23, 1921

At the end of the First World War in 1918, the Ottoman Empire was defeated with Germany, the victorious states, England, France and Italy, greece and various regions of Turkey Had occupied, including Istanbul and Izmir. As the chief occupier of The Greek armies in Western Anatolia, bi r many villages, towns and cities settled, seized the rule of these places. Greek soldiers began persecution of the indigenous Turkish people with the cooperation of local Greeks and Armenians, raped women and girls, tortures, tattoos, tresers and the killings became commonplace.

The people were exhausted and tired. After years of wars and defeats, he was hopeful, tired and poor. Devlet management had become a problem to ensure public order, where it collapsed. Gangs were made in an environment like this. Some of them were intended to fight against the occupying forces, oppose the occupation, rebelled to the Istanbul government that approved the occupation. Some of the gangs were just bandit – with raids in this chaotic environment – aimed at stealing and enriching what they could steal from locals with threats – and to enrichthem. Another group was commissioned by the Istanbul government to oppose resistance to the invading insurgents. In the country, some of the sultan’s supporters were divided into two, and some wanted the patronage of Britain, the most powerful state of the time , some of which was the American mandate. Mustafa Kemal and his friends were fighting an independent Turkey and China against them.

The parliament in Istanbul, which lived for 50 days after the Mondros agreement, was dissolved by padishah on December 21, 1918. In 1920, after a year’s break, it was revealed that Mustafa Kemal would convene a parliament in Ankara and the Ottoman Assembly reopened in January 1920. The parliament, which could live for months, was disbanded by British occupying forces on 16 March 1920 , where MPs were arrested and deported to the island of Malta. Finally, on April 23, 1920, the Turkish Grand National Assembly was opened in the honor of Mustafa Kemal. The land government had decided that fighting the occupying forces could only be successful with the regular army .

Susurluk, Mustafa Kemal Pasha , Bandirma, Manyas, Balikesir and Bursa regionagainstthe occupying forces, from the end of the war from 1918, Kuvvay-ı Milliye name under the name local Circassian Ethem is of particular importance among the groups that make guerrilla movements.

Circassian Ethem was born in Bandirma in 1880. The salum was the youngest of Mr. Ali’s son, from the shallow Circassian neck. Two b-and-a-half brothers, Reşit and Tevfik Beyler, graduated from Harbiye in 1901 ve 1902 and joined the army of Osmanl. The other two brothers Ilyas and Nuri Gentlemen died fighting with Greek gangs. Mr. Ali did not want Ethem to join the army. However, Ethem came to Istanbul from Bandirma illegally and entered suvari little Zabit School in Bakirkoy ( Petty Officer School). The Balkan war also collided in the Bulgarian country and was awarded medals for its usefulness . The secret organization of the Ottoman Empire, led by Ashraf Birdbasi in the First World War, is a guerrilla in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan under the command of The Organization – Isusa he was involved in his wars and wounded. That’s why he had returned to the country.

15 M in 1920 after the Greek army’s invasion of Izmir, Circassian Ethem in order to protect the homeland kuvvay – i Seyyariye under the name of guerrillaa platoon and i Start the fight against the Greek troops. At the time, Circassian Ethem’s platozeleri stood in someplaces for the greek army to advance or pass. So he helped win the time needed to establish the national army .

Co-operative Istanbul government Prime Minister Damat Ferit Pasha , to prevent the National Liberation War, armed and equipped and kuvva- the head of the division called The Gods The gendarmerie major, who was circassian, brought Ahmet Anzavur. He started a major rebellion against the National Liberation forces in the Marmara region. This riot movement called the”Anzavur Rebellions” soon spread from Biga to Balikesir. He posed enough threats to endanger the National Liberation Movement.

The Ankara government has mandated Circassian Ethem to quell this insurgency. Ethem, who has 5,000 horse-drawn water power, has suppressed this rebellion . Gerede and Yozgat riots, which were the threat of the national movement of the time, also suppressed the Incubators of Circassian Ethem at the request of Mustafa Kemal. Circassian Ethem, meanwhile, caught and punished greek and pro-Istanbul eteas and the bandits that robbed the people. The person who decided to execute them immediately without allowing the rebels to be tried – in a sense, a regular army necessary for an illegality and a confederate zionic war. due to the establishment of themas, ankara government has been at odds. He refused his offer to join thearmy. He defected to greek incubators. He was sent to Izmir and then to Germany for treatment by the Greekscoured . He was charged with treason and enteredthe 150s list. Years later, whenhe was 150,he didn’t return the idea that he had not committed a crime with a crime. He leftthe world in 1950, alongside a relative in Jordan.

Xx

      At the end of the First World War, the Batin Anatolia, Kuvvay-I Milliye – National Forces- the region that entered our position when the movement began ,includingvillages ) was as follows ;

   Turkish Greek Armenian Jewish

Bandirma 46119 11.703 4030 –

Erdek 11.143 20.815 186 252

Gönen 43. 472 1480 48 –

Edremit 39,906 – – 46

Bale 29. 043 1113 – –

Burhaniye 23.100 215 – –

Quince 3.215 18.052 – –

Balikesir 158.380 2.129 2.682 –

Izmir 111.486 87.497 12.857 24.403

(Selek 1, 180 appendix 1)

This List Susurluk is not seen. Susurluk Çerkez Ethem ve Anzavur Force Between Tan MuhareIronChen Ethem’in Susurluk’ta Greek Occupied to the commander Delivered OlmaSi ve Anzavur’s Susurluk’a up Come ve Susurluk Sulta, SultanMeadow’in British Has Borasit Mine Reason With The Turn aroundemde Importance carries. Theirurluk’ta Estimated Information Brat Türk people yanısıra, bir Quantity Rum, Borasit in the mine Running 60 Armenian Family – 200’e Close Armenian Population – ve Az Amount Of Jewish available idi. Greeks Butşatlığı – Cemetery – Is would be said. Jewish is My father learned ( Tüccardan HScientific Efendi). Grandpa (Helvaci zade Mehmet EfEndi Muteber bir Job adamı idi. Grandpa ve Drool tahın hEleven factory, Bread Furnace ve Wholesale ve parakende Groceries Containing bir Job Instead ve Sizeable bir Farm sahipTi. 1902 Born the Drool in his youth Susurluk’ta bir From the Jew French Lessons aldığın, Teacher işyerine gelip of this Gave he’d say.. Grandpa ve Drool Greek from the invasion of After their Starting Kuvvay-ı Milliye To the transaction Façade behind Kelly ve This troops yiywill ve For help they were found.. Greek Occupied Commander Family punish Internalin Droolı 18 Years old While, Same Case the Other Several young AboutBut Prisoners Got, Ago In Bandirma bir Salt in the warehouse tutuklamış. Sonra Givesit Island Over Atina’already it’svkedilmişler ve AtinaOf Two Years Khumalo VI. Konstantinos Military hastaneWithoutof maidship ve süpürgecilik they had it done.. Salvation War After their Free bırakılmışlar ve Again Girit Over Türkiye’ye They’re here.. Dedemin Salvation War in the Façade Rest Services Reason With Old Türkçe Written Gazi Mustafa Kemal Signed Weightı the bir İstiklal Medal available.

Inthe final years of the First World Harbinin the vicinity, the Greek and Armenian riot movements beganto sprout. For example, the Armenian church in the center of the city in Bandirma pa-apazI Avadis church sermonsthat the civilized and infortifiable Armenian nation owns this land – now that the time of this he said he was coming, that God wantedit to be. Toros, a teacher of the Armenian primary school in the Armenian church, described himself as a warfighter of independence. Pharmacist Istepan expressed his longing for the national flag. In addition to provoking the Armenian people, they were abetting armenians fleeing the Ottoman army and allowing them to join the Armenian gangs. Organization-i Mahsusa (Turkish Secret Organization) Bursa’s Ibrahim Bey entered into the ranks as an agent .In August 1917 he caught the bflours, with documents the crimes were substantiatedin court and they were executed.

Upon the Greek army’s invasion of Izmir,the native Greeksof Bandirma built the Greek flag Zafer Tak, thinking that Greek forces would come to Bandirma and beganto wait for them . Along with many places in the Marmara divide, there were scout arms led by “Mavri Mira” for Bandirma Rum schools. Until he was 20, Greek youth were joining them. Pictures of Yunan prime minister andnizelosin the city and Greek flags were the original. Ottoman hücluster remedywasnot. In Bandirma, theaskeri and the property management were incapable of greek aggression.

Kara Hasanfor 200 people in the area to disrupt security in Biga, Edincik and circassian bandit Deli Şükrü, Karacabey Çambaz Hakki, Anzavur, Biga’da Çerkez Sefer Bey, In Balikesir, the bandit’s troops attached to The Drama’s Riza Bey were causing their movements . Bandirma, Gönen, Susurluk Bdetained, edremit and ayvalik was made possible to make the journey as soonas there was no robbery. Therewas always a French warship in B andanma. The French-run B-m-Izmirsaw this as a fact for the protection of the railway.

In addition to the Circassian and Turkish bandit gangs, the Greek thug was oneof the reasons for the deteriorationof security . Local Greek gangswere mostly active around Erdek, Bandirma and Marmara Island, where they persecuted the local Muslim people. These gangs were joinedbyYunanpeople from the island of Sisam, who wore native Greek dresses .

With the coordination of opposing movements and the purpose of implementing a general policy, the inter-congressional conventions were to be convened . Sivas Congress on July 23, 1919, First Balikesir Congress on July 26, Erzurum Congress closed on August 7 th n azilli, August 16 Alaşehir and 18 days Then the Sivas Congress convened. These congresses were the basis of mustafa kemal pa’n’n’n’nnational state establishmenttargets.

  After the occupation of Izmir, Circassian Ethem Gönen, Manyas,Balikesir and Bandirma n, probably the villages of Çerkez in Susurluk Sultanmeadow, Aziziye and Demirkapi villages and Borasit madeni’s work by summoning the Circassians he knew, formed a unity of 2,000 people. Later, this union reached 5,000 people. They set up a defensive line in Salihli,where the first Birdçubaşı Ashref Bey’s farm is located. The Farm Organization – was the center of The Mahsusa. They then provided important services in suppressing internal disturbances and riots, initially in the Marmara region. But these Circassian Ethem forces were commanded on their own, in a sense the disdemeanor procession. They’re also involved in thefat ma and persecution movements. Kisishand and social relations were processed according to the tribal rules of the Circassians. Duzce, Konya,and Yozgat rebels played a role in the raid. It is also known that when they enter a house under the pretext of looking for weapons, women go hand-to-hand to crates and jewelry – and they’re not goingto be able to get into the house. Since there was no military force in Ankara, they were cherished.

One of themoments of pre-em events in the region is the cherkez Ethem , Anzavur Ahmet çhorse. Anzavur ahmet was one of the branchesof the Circassians who settled in Biga in Marmara Bolgesi, he was in service as a gendarmerie man in his youth, followed by eşkiya. He participatedin the follow-up of Cakircalı, who was derived between Aydin and Ödemiş and eliminatedin the early years of legitimacy. So he went up to the gendarmerieand went up to the regimental captaincy. Some corruption was referredto the nedenide dispenser . Anzavur Milli Mücadele’s most buddhist days becamea source of unrest and crow’s wand . He was ignorant and conservative. He was a tally, a gang maker with no laws and no order. He completedhis gang with the release of the prison-bound inmate- the first time he’s been convicted of murder. With the support of the British and the palace, it has sparked riots and posed serious dangers where the occupying authorities wanted it. At one point, izmit mutasarrafghina, an office between the governor’s office and the prefecture, was appointed.

Anzavur’s matings beganon September 21, 1919. He showed up after the Sivas Congress. Greek troops coming from Izmir had not yet reachedthe rebel zone. I. On November 2, 1919, susuren enteredthe Susuriaand Gönen on November 12, 1919, in what is called the Anzavur rebellion. Girı Susurluk, Manyas, Ulu abat, Kirmastı ( Mustafa Kemeal Pasha), Gönen sides allaa. In the villages and towns he occupied, hegatheredpeople in mosques- the squares, the military service ,the soldiers should return to their hometowns – or join him, Kuvvay- he declared that I Milliye had “Alliance and Terakki” bandits, that they would be erased, that there was no sultan’s consent to stand up to the Greeks.

    Kazim Özalp’s 61st division in Balikesir and The 56th Division of Bursa’s Bekir Sami Bey with horsemen and pedestrian soldiers and threethousand national forcerle on November 15, anzavur’u susurluk around thevicinity. He pulled from the field with 30 dead. He was forced to clash November 16/17 . It’s afairymoment. 1.Anzavur resultedin his defeat in everye-kmeat. 2.The so-called Anzavur movement began on February 16, 1920. This movement, which began in Biga, spread rapidly to Gforeen, Susurluk, Kirmasti and Bandirma. Gönenliler 200-strong Governor Rahmi Bey joined forces and made a defense. Rahmi bey, Mufti, Mayor and many people from the people were killed. Bandirma commander, who is circassian, Yusuf Izzet Pasha was withdrawnto Bursa. Anzavur completely dominated the area where he was found. He entered Bandirma easily because of his native businessmen. Anzavur is everywhere, “The Koranin my chest, faith in my heart, horse in thestadium,i have dedicatedmy commitment to working for religion. O people, comebehind my back. Caliph army, Kuvvay-I will ruinthe Milliye bandit. Kuvvay-I will establish Muhammadiye , Mustafa Kemal is a traitor” he was walking aroundtherek. He had his back on the sultan and the Greek forces.

On April 15, 192,the National forces – Circassian Ethem forces- defeated the anzavur and Gavur Imam forces, who are alleged to have been for 5,000 people, in the Tashbridge area between Susurluk Kirmasti . The forces weretight-knit. The rebels took refugeon British ships in Bandirma and Karabiga. They foughtthe National forces around Adapazari for a while. Circassian Ethem clearedthe area from the rebels . He processed coffee tables in Bandirma. Circassian Ethem and his older brother Tevfik Bey set up the gallows in towns and subordinated many rebel men. A week later, on April 23rd, the Turkish Grand National Assembly was openedin Ankara. This success of Circassian Ethe m made him a very important person, respected , in the absence of the milli army . Circassian Ethem’s defeat of the Anzavur and Gavur Imam forces is an important pointof Kurtuluş Savaşı. If otherwise it was Padisah and the Occupy forces gained great morale, the establishment of a regular army would have been too late.

Since thebandirma was on the coast of marmara, the Straits were considered to be the statusquo and hhad not been underthe full dominance of an internal power. It was more of a town where the National Forces mentioned it. Sometimes Anzav wasthe scene of the attackby British soldiers going to the port after the abduction of the Akbas ammunition. The Greek birlikleri, who entered Balıkesir with the “Zafer March” campaign launched on June 22, 1920, added a bfor a while to recover. The Greek Commander, who is confident that Turkish troops were disbanded, went to help theb-altitudes in Balikesir. Thessaloniki, Dedeağ hungry, and the soldiers they brought from Iskeçe, on July 2, 1920 at 5:00 a.m. by taking ships to the ports of Bandirma and Erdek, isgal these places he did. They didn’t meet enme in Bandirma. He has developed operationsin the direction of Karacabey and Susurluk . Greek Commander-in-Chief Paraskevopulos arrived in Nanisma on July 5th, three days after the invasion, while Greek Kyreg tantdha konstantin arrivedin B on July 6th. (Aybek, 173-174)

When Circassian Ethem came to Ankara after the appointment to bathe the Yozgat rebellion, he was greeted and compensated by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, after the Yozgat rebellion wasstirn. When he returned to Ankara with his forces, Circassian Ethem bey and his brothers, ” with theg-showsmade to them in Ankara, even in the capital of Anatolia, Honor and the men who have power are knitted… Ethem and his brothers were right to consider themselves masters of national revolution.. According to the thoughts, the whole national Anatolian presence was livingwith the force of their rifles of parliament and the Government ” (Sener,53)

The conflict with the Ankara government has grown after proposals to join thenational military and rejected proposals for arabulupeople. On December 27, 1920,Mustafa Kemal telegraphedto Colonel Ismet Beye, commander of the BatFront, and Refet Bey, commander of the Southern Front, who said: “I don’t know what you’re doinghere. ” (Balikesir mebusu Vehbi, Saruhan mebusu CelalBayar, Ethem’s abeyi Saruhan Mebusu Reşit Bey, Formershir mebusu Eyup Sabri, Antep mebusu Kılıç Ali ( the advice board covering theanswer)- The Kuuvvayi-ı Seyyare work can no longer be solved through peace and politics the work and the problem has been resolvedby force less. There is noneed to inform Parliament of the final phase of this- and that’s not the first timewe’ve been able to do so. If we succeed, there isno doubtthat the Assembly will approve of what we do. We have enough documents and evidence to prove that we are entitledto”. (Sener, 106)

Mustafa Kemal Describes the situation in the 543-547.ci of Nutuk; “The masters, Kutahya, the decision of the delegation to the deputy and the need for the prey of the delegation to communicate the needfor the front line commanders against the rebel Etem and his brothers to act on the operation against the rebel Etem and his brothers I ordered it.

The masters- the military of the operation, the capulsion and the state of the state, the unjust children of this to beg the ransom to the mountains, who think it is a thuggery. Trace the whole Turkish homeland with their charlatans, clamors, and the Turkish nation’s Grand National Assembly with them, the inadequacy, the unjust and any enemy These brothers, who have enough pests and private medicine storing their stobs, have the utmost strength and istin their hands, including the enemies they have. in our historyof inkilap, recording as an exemplary muessire, was seen as essential “…

When the board was a guest of Kütahya’da Circassian Ethem, on December 29, 1920, Ethem was drawn to hisroom, and when the nervouserwas too corrupt, he told parliament that he was full of heavy accusations. sent; “Thereis no way to continue fighting in these wastes . Even though you’ve been in constant meetings for a year – the biggest job you’ve done in the time – it’s been to increase your own foodto 300-400 liras . I think you’ve been informed of the sedition that’s been in the army for months , butwith a secret session, you’ve had the courageto resolve and prevent them … Hü k ümet members are a member of each of them who have sacrificed your holy grev to your personal interests by being sycophantsto each of them.. ” (Ethem, 176) wrote. Circassian Ethem later stated in his memoir that he regretted sending this telegram.

Mustafa Kemal continues in Nutku (Speech, 545);

” Masters, in this telgramnesty, a delusion called the protest name, was indeed drawn to the parliament rial and readto parliament in a trial. The elfaz and phrase used in this – so galiz and so biedeba – once it was read , could not tolerate reading and using it again. I don’t see such a despicable delusion, and i don’t seeit as a must-have in your presence. With this delusion, insulting the individuals of the mebus, the legitimacy of the Assembly of the National was violated, and izzet Pasha delegation was demandingthe release of the movement to Istanbul.”

Circassian Ethem forces 2326 militias – 200 of them infantry- 159. The exact presence of the regiment was 4650 people, 6 machine guns, 4 guns. There have been clashes with Western Front Commander Ismet and The Southern Front commander, Refet Be. The national army, meanwhile, wonthe Victoryof I. On January 11, 1921, the Greek army was finally withdrawn from the defeat.

There were three options for Circassian Ethem ; To surrender to the army, to choose freedom by climbing the mountain and to fight, to seek refuge in the Greeks. Mr. Ethem sends his brothers and his aide, Mr. Sami, to meet with the Greeks. Cut the fire is signed. He seeks asylum for the Greeks. The Yunans accept his terms . First, his brothers Reşit and Tevfik Gentlemen take refuge. As for their health, he decides to take refuge. 25 officers and 700 troops moveto the Greek side. Others are released.

Mr. Ethem cannot carry out any kind of asylum. He is drawnto the mountain with his elite 50-strong contingent. Manyas , Stirdirgı- Susurluk mountain villages stay for a while and friendsand friends are forced to stay in the Greek kuvetts due to the forced conditionsof housing is found. They deal with Alexander, the Greek Governor from Susurluk, through an Armenian interpreter in the village of Bir Yoruk . They cometogether to Susurlu. In the government mansion of Susurluk – now the site of the statue of Ataturk, the flag pole and the c.E.moon garden – Circassian Ethem surrenders to the Greek commander. His friends are leftin their village with their guns. His brother Tevfik Bey, who came to the susur, governor Alexander, Tevfik Bey’s escort officer Yorgiyadis, Şevket Bey and a few friends together with Circassian Ethem Susurluk At the station (opening December 16, 1912) theysayto move to Izmir by taking the train on a day in late February 1920.

The Borasit mine in Susurluk, which has a very important place in Turkish Economic History until the First World War and beyond, was established on October 29, 1923, in The Republic of Turkey. faced many difficult problems in terms of production, transportation, and management. He changed hands a couple of times. But despite all the problems, he continued to exist. He then made new agreements with the Republican government. Borax, which was placed in buckets with the air lineof the Borasit Mine, was on its way to Omerköy station. The thick steel rope, which provides this air line 4.5 km long, was usedto close the Dardanelles during the First Düya war.

Resources;

Kemal Ataturk; Lecture I,II, Turkish Revolutionary History Institute,Istanbul, 1960

Selcuk Aybey; Salvation at the End of the Barrel,Istanbul, 2006

Circassian Ethem; My memories, the prepared; Nermin Taylan; Our Books,Istanbul, 2014

Sabahattin Selek; National Struggle I,II,Formal Publications,1982

Cemal Şener; Circassian Ethem Event,Any Publications,Istanbul,1986

Nurer Ugurlu; Kuvayi Seyyariye,Formal Publishing House,Istanbul,2007

October 26, 2021
Townshend

General Charles Townsand – 1918

British General Charles Townshend and Turkish regional governor Halil Kut and unidentified officers after the fall of Kut

There is nothing that the Turk desires more ardently than to be friends with us. The price he asks is not exorbitant. It is no more than the heritage of every free-born nation. And the Turk is not a man to accept slavery or dependence. To him death is nothing if the alternative is dishonor. And whether as individuals or as a nation, the Turks will die fighting.

I had this in mind early in October 1918. I conceded the necessity of keeping the … passage of commerce all over the world, I emphasized the need for keeping the frontiers of Turkey in Europe as they had been settled and defined.

The bundling of Turkey “bag and baggage” out of Europe did not appeal to me either as a just proposal or as a practical possibility. The Turk fought his way into Europe centuries ago. He fought his way to the gates of Vienna itself. When finally the forces of Christendom united against him and pressed him back a little, he consolidated his position and stayed where he was for many a prosperous and proud generation. … Those of us who cast stones at the Turk should beware lest we damage our own frail house of glass.

The Turk has had to deal with turbulent … peoples, and his way of dealing with them had the merit of strength at least.

If the atrocities were totaled on either side of an account, we should find that many of the so-called Christian nations were deeper in bloodshed and guilt than the champion of Islam.

After the fall of Kut, I was taken in battle and became a prisoner. In October, 1918, I was released without condition, save that mine was the task of bearing proposals to my own government for a peaceful settlement and the deliverance of thousands of men from bloodshed and weary struggle.

October 17, 2021
UBI & the COVID-19 pandemic

Has the COVID-19 pandemic increased support for Universal Basic Income? What social policies have governments implemented to cope with the economic effects of the pandemic? In this webinar, we’ll answer these questions while analysing GEF’s brochure on social policy responses to COVID-19.

About the event

“The Unconditional Basic Income is a periodic cash transfer granted to all members of a political community, without work requirement nor means-testing, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society”.

During this event, we’ll put UBI on the spotlight as a driving solution to tackle poverty and income inequality and other problems in a changing world.

We will also review GEF brochure on social policy responses to COVID-19, which examines the social policy reactions to the Covid-19 crisis in a dozen different European countries.

Context

The COVID-19 crisis continues to change the way we live our lives, and how social services continue to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable. This crisis will affect how governments plan their future responses to social emergencies, and UBI could be one effective way to do it.

This event is part of our knowledge community ‘A welfare state of the 21st century’. The Green European Foundation has been working on this issue for several years with the aim of opening a debate on UBI across Europe. We are now joining forces with other social actors to give this effort a broader scope.

As the debate continues, we too would be interested in expanding our analysis to include new information and additional countries.

Speakers

• Valerija Korošec, PhD in Postmodern Sociology. She is a representative of Slovenia in the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) and the European Network for the Fair Sharing of Working Time.
• Natalie Bennet, Green member of the House of Lords in the UK. Former leader of the Green Party of England and Wales from 2012 to 2016. She previously spent 20
years working as a journalist, (the Bangkok Post, The Times, and the Guardian Weekly)
• Simo Raittila, Coordinator of the Finnish think tank Visio and a PhD student in Sociology at the University of Helsinki. In 2018 he worked on last-resort social assistance register research at Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland.

Moderation:
Hannes Mehrer. Coordinator of the Basic income working Group of the German Green party and of the Green Network of UBI supporters.

Practicalities

Date and Time: October 19th (17:00-18:00)
Audience: The webinar is free and open to the general public.
Registration: Please register in advance via this link.
https://survey.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0vnlbynAXaKUtVQ

This event is organised by the Green European Foundation with the support of Transición Verde and with the financial support of the European Parliament to the Green European Foundation. The European Parliament is not responsible for the content of this event.

October 16, 2021
Forgotten aspects of the Greek war on the Turks

There are many forgotten aspects of the Great War of 1914. One is the fact that Britain violated Greek neutrality because the Greek government resisted its pressure to join its war on Germany and Ottoman Turkey, and then invaded neutral Greece, overthrew its government, and installed a puppet government which declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Britain then lured Greece into a fatal military adventure in Anatolia in order to impose a punitive treaty on the Turks and to advance its Imperial interests in the region. This produced a Greek tragedy of immense proportions whilst at the same time generating a powerful Turkish nation out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. No wonder such a disastrous policy and turn of events is seldom talked about in the West or examined by its historians.

Britain’s Great War of 1914

The character of Britain’s Great War on the Ottoman Empire was largely responsible for the Greek war on the Turks. It is possible that there could have been a local Greek/Ottoman war if the events of 1914 had not generated a world war but it would have been an entirely different affair, much more limited in scope and duration. It certainly would not have resulted in the catastrophe it did.

The catastrophe was inherent in the nature of Britain’s Great War on Germany and the Ottoman State… Source:(https://drpatwalsh.com/2021/09/07/the-great-war-and-the-great-idea-megali-forgotten-aspects-of-the-greek-war-on-the-turks/)

Forgotten Aspects of the Greek War on Turkey 1916 – 1922″, & VIDEO:”The Great War and the Great Idea (Megali)

October 15, 2021
Russia’s Chelyabinsk hosted the II Forum of the Heads of Regions of the SCO Member States

On Septemper 29, Chelyabinsk, a Russian city in the South Urals has become a platform for hosting the II Forum of the Heads of Regions of the SCO Member States. The decision was made after the Declaration at the XX Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Dushanbe was signed.

The Forum’s Plenary session was moderated by Alexander Kalinin, President of OPORA Of RUSSIA. The participants of the event discussed the mechanisms for implementing the Program for the Development of Interregional Cooperation of the SCO Member States.

According to Alexander Kalinin, the Forum is gaining its momentum and is becoming an increasingly popular platform.

“The importance of the Forum was noted in the final declaration of the SCO summit, which was recently held in Dushanbe and was dedicated to the twentieth anniversary of the organization. Today, it is very important to develop interregional cooperation between the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. After all, these are direct contacts between various regional authorities and businesses of the SCO member states. This makes it easy to build joint projects, removing all sorts of barriers to economic development. The key to success is the joint work of the government, business and citizens of our countries. The Forum contributes to this in every way, ”said Alexander Kalinin.

Delegations from China (Chongqing city, Shandong province and Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region) and Pakistan (Sindh, Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Punjab) took part in the forum via videoconference.

Representatives of Uzbekistan (Navoi region), Kazakhstan (Turkestan, North Kazakhstan and Akmola regions), the Kyrgyz Republic (Issyk-Kul region), Tajikistan (Sughd region) and India joined the event in online and offline formats.

The participants of the Plenary session discussed the ways to increase the efficiency of cooperation within the Forum and projects of the regions of the SCO countries. They also shared their experience in the development of foreign economic activities in their regions. The result of the Forum was an agreement to consolidate efforts in fighting the pandemic consequences and to increase cooperation in such spheres as agriculture, international security as well as culture, education and international diplomacy.

October 11, 2021