Category: Turkey

  • Why Turkey belongs to the EU

    Why Turkey belongs to the EU

    Sigurd Neubauer
    Friday 27 March 2009 – 07:30

    With its geographical location, at the crossroads of an East-West and North-South axis, Turkey has played a dominating geopolitical role from the days of the Ottoman Empire to the present. In recognition of Turkey’s strategic position, President Harry S. Truman was quick to incorporate Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As the alliance is celebrating its 60th anniversary, Turkey is again at a crossroad. This time, the choice facing the Turkish Republic is whether Ankara should continue its path towards becoming a full fledged member of the European Union, or if Turkey should adopt a “neo Ottoman” foreign policy brokering conflicts between Israel and Syria and between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Beyond its broad foreign policy implications, Turkey is also facing a significant internal identity crisis where traditional urban pro-Western elite are being challenged by a new and emerging conservative bourgeoisie originating from the Anatolian heartland. At the center of this power struggle, is the current ruling Islamic Development Party (AKP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vis-à-vis the Turkish military establishment.

    Turkey’s powerful generals have long seen themselves as the “guardians” of secularism as they adhere to the principals of “Kemalism,” laid out by the Republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). “Ataturk,” or “father Turk,” as his people called him, emerged on the political stage during the vanishing days of the Ottoman Empire. During these turbulent times, as pockets of Turkish populated settlements were threatened by increasing nationalism in the various regions of the empire, the young and ambitious army officer, Mustafa Kemal, was to become one of the most notable military leaders and statesmen of his generation.

    Transition from Empire to Republic

    From a small principality on the frontiers of the Islamic world at the turn of the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire became the most powerful state in the Islamic world stretching from central Europe to the Indian Ocean under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Following the long wars of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire declined as a world power in favor of the European mercantile powers. By the mid 18th century, what was left of the once mighty empire became known as the “sick man of Europe.” Despite countless reforms of the civil and bureaucratic structure, Ottoman political life continued under European tutelage.

    Recognizing Turkey’s state of decay, Ataturk envisioned a strong, independent, and secular republic. According to noted Ataturk biographer, Lord Kinross: “Ataturk differed from the dictators of his age in two significant respects: his foreign policy was not based on expansion but on retraction of frontiers; his home policy on the foundation of a political system that could survive his own time.” Some of the republic’s early reforms were instituting a constitutional parliamentary system in 1923, followed by the introduction of the Swiss Civil Code in 1926. From a legal perspective, the Swiss Civil Code replacing traditional Sharia laws was an important step in the direction of westernization of personal, family, and inheritance laws. Other significant changes promoted by the Kemalists were adopting the Latin alphabet, western numerals, weights and measures, and gender equality.

    Military and Democracy

    The political system during the early Kemalist era remained a one party state, where no legal opposition was active until after World War II. Turkey has since come a long way in its democratization effort, despite brief military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980. Each time, the generals provided important exit guarantees that enhanced the military’s position, yet civilian control of the Republic has prevailed, as Turkey has become a competitive multiparty system.

    With the reelection of the AKP in 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has secured his base as he openly challenges Turkey’s ancient regime, on a verity of issues from the headscarf ban to, as the only NATO ally, inviting Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Istanbul. The notion that “Turkey has to follow an integrated foreign policy and cannot have priority with the EU at the expense of its relations with the Middle East—as advocated by senior AKP officials—is a clear break with Kemalist foreign policy. Yet at this critical juncture, it is important for Europe to fully embrace Turkey. Because of its strategic location and economic ties to continental Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region, Turkey can fully complement the EU on a variety of issues from trade to security. In particular, Turkey can provide the European markets access to rich energy resources from the Middle East and Eurasia.

    The battle for Eurasia

    On the other hand, the Turkish government has shown increasing frustration, not only with U.S. policies towards the Middle East but also with the EU’s refusal to seriously consider its bid. Should Europe fail to embrace Turkey, this could be a fatal push of Turkey into the Russian orbit. Despite historical mistrust, Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey’s largest trading partner. By taking advantage of cooling relations between Ankara and Washington, Moscow is determined to expand its sphere of influence over the black sea region and Eurasia. Through an aggressive trade and investment policy, Russia skillfully outmaneuvered the United States by closing its airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

    In the great powers struggle for influence, Turkey is an indispensable piece, too precious for the West to lose. Instead of remaining a “Christian Club,” the European Union should overcome its historical fear of “the Turks” and recognize that as a NATO member, Turkey will prioritize its ties with the United States and the West; as an EU member, Turkey will continue to cherish democracy, liberalism, and secularism. Europe turning its back on Turkey could be the nail in the coffin for an occidental oriented foreign policy and a secular national identity.

    Source: The Diplomatic Courier (USA), 25-03-2009

  • “Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

    “Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

    By Sedat LACINER

    NATO has started to take on new roles, especially after the Cold War period, among which combating international terrorism is its first priority. The expansion of NATO’s operation area from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan is also a new development NATO is operating among religiously and ethnically diverse populations from numerous regions. Hence, the Organization’s operation locations ”at an equal distance from all religions and cultures” is of the utmost importance in accomplishing its mission. NATO is currently preparing to welcome its new secretary general, and Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the lead, among the other strong candidates, in consideration for this post.

    The US, Germany, and other significant NATO members have already asserted their support for Rasmussen. Moreover, Denmark has been conducting lobbying campaigns in support of its prime minister. Yet, since Rasmussen has an unfavorable record in combating terrorism and in conducting dialogue between civilizations, he is the worst candidate for the NATO or any organization of this kind:

    * Copenhagen Is Broadcasting “Terrorist TV’

    First, Rasmussen tolerated the PKK’s (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) activities in Denmark, and gave permission to the terrorist organization launching a television channel in Copenhagen: Roj TV, perceived as a culture channel by the Danish authorities, which enhances the so-called suppressed Kurds’ language and culture. However, to ignore the close relations between Roj TV and the PKK, one should be blind or malicious.

    The TV channel repeatedly broadcasts PKK terrorists to the screen. Moreover, most of these terrorists are well known some are leaders of the Organization or even suspects on Interpol’s wanted list.

    Moreover, the TV channel calls Kurdish people to perform acts of violence and terrorism against Turkey every day. Despite the fact that inciting violence is banned by the EU and Danish law as well, Denmark did not take any measures to discourage this persistent malice.

    Turkey has warned Denmark on the matter numerous times. Not only Turkey, but also the United States (US) has pointed to dubious relations between Roj TV and the PKK and called for the channel to be shut down. Yet the Rasmussen Government did not take these warnings seriously, only postponing the solution by saying, “The police are investigating the issue,” or “our judges are going to focus on the matter.”

    The terrorist relations between Roj TV and the PKK were obvious and the Danish government did not need any clues to figure out this connection. MED TV, the first channel established by the PKK, was banned by the British television authority ITC in 1999. The terrorist organization then moved its TV channel to France, under the name “MEDYA TV.” However, the France did not welcome the channel either, and it was closed down by the court after a short period of broadcasting.

    The PKK moved to Denmark after the UK and France and found a government willing to help its cause. While Roj TV was broadcasting from Denmark, it was banned in Germany due to its terrorist roots. The PKK’s reaction to Germany’s stance was to kidnap German mountain climbers in Turkey. However, Germany did not yield to the PKK’s blackmailing and insisted on its decision on banning the TV channel. Indeed, the PKK is labeled in Danish law as a “terrorist organization” as it was by the US, the EU, the UK, Germany, and Turkey. Yet, Rasmussen continues to protect the terrorist organization’s activities by tolerating them. Thus, the PKK and its branches have freely carried out their activities in Denmark as if it was a civil society organization.

    Now, the prime minister of this government, who has turned a blind eye towards terrorism, and is even seen as a supporter of terrorism, is preparing to be the head of NATO which regards combating terrorism as one of its primary missions. If Rasmussen becomes the Secretary General of NATO, this could possibly affect numerous NATO policies, especially those related to combating terrorism. Moreover, this could lead many countries including but not limited to Turkey, to question their confidence in the Organization’s policies.

    * Cartoon Crisis

    Rasmussen’s stance during the “Cartoon Crisis” is another fact which makes him a weird figure for the Secretary General of NATO.

    Just after the release of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30th, which picture Muslims and their prophet as terrorists, Turkey warned Denmark to be aware of the incoming danger. Ambassadors of ten Muslim countries pioneered by former Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Denmark sent a signed petition to the Prime Minister Rasmussen to protest the events. The ambassadors asked for a meeting with Rasmussen to evaluate the crisis and call for the peace atmosphere. Turkey aimed to bring the representatives of the Muslim countries in Copenhagen and the Denmark Government together during that crisis. However, Rasmussen did not appraise Turkey’s good will and his government implied that they did not need Turkey’s mediation on the issue. Rasmussen rejected the meeting request rudely. The caricature crisis spread to all Muslim countries as a result, and more radicals like Iran became dominant in anti-Denmark campaigns gradually, yet decisively. Whilst Denmark’s interests started to be damaged from these campaigns, Rasmussen declared that he personally condemned the caricatures, yet, he continued to evaluate the issue within the context of freedom of speech. His management of crisis was not only unsuccessful but also was narrow sided. Rasmussen ignored dialog and underestimated Turkey and its soft power. Today, for many Muslims, Denmark is a country which insulted their Prophet.

    Is not the Rasmussen’s taking post going to disrupt NATO’s operations in Afghanistan while the perception toward Denmark is highly problematic among the Muslim countries?

    * Turkey’s EU Membership

    Rasmussen’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership on the ground that Turkey has a different cultural-religious background is the third reason which damages Rasmussen’s image in the eyes of Turkey and Muslim countries. For Rasmussen, who seems as if he does not make religion based politics, Turkey does not have a place in the EU.

    Rasmussen had a significant role in Denmark’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership as contrary to the stance of other countries in the Northern Europe. The Prime Minister also chose to support Turkey’s opponents whenever Turkey had a disagreement with other countries. His behavior towards Turkey was scorning and perception of Turkey for Rasmussen was “an Eastern country waiting at the EU’s door.” Resembling to Europe’s fanatical rightist politicians, Rasmussen became a problematic figure who discourages Turkey on the way to the EU membership.

    Since he has been opposing Turkey’s EU membership as the first Muslim country to be in the EU, it is not hard to guess to what extent Rasmussen would damage the relations between the NATO and other Muslim countries.

    ***

    Indeed, it is like a bad joke

    While we were happy for getting rid of the Bush administration, Danish version of Bush is preparing to be the head of NATO during the Obama presidency.

    slaciner@gmail.com

    Sedat LACINER: BA (Ankara), MA (Sheffield), PhD (King’s College, London University)

    ***
    Translated by Dilek Aydemir, USAK
    Language Edit by Kaitlin MacKenzie, USAK

    Source: Journal of Turkish Weekly, 26 March 2009

  • Turkey, Europe and the Islamic World

    Turkey, Europe and the Islamic World

    HE Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey will deliver a lecture on

    “Turkey, Europe and the Islamic World”

    Date: Thursday, 2 April 2009
    Time: 17:30 pm

    Venue: University of Oxford,
    Sheldonian Theatre
    Broad Street,
    Oxford,
    OX1 3AZ

    Entry is by ticket ONLY. Please register your interest via our website to obtain your ticket.
    www.pronet.org.uk/turkishpm.html

    Media enquires please contact ali.arslan@biznet-uk.org.

    Please note this event is organised by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

  • Hope for opening borders

    Hope for opening borders

     
     

    [ 25 Mar 2009 14:25 ]
    Yerevan-APA. Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian took positive position in the settlement of the relations with Turkey, APA reports quoting Novosti Armenia.

    The Minister stated that they had conducted many negotiations to open the borders between the two countries and normalize the relations.
    “I hope that we will regulate the relations, establish diplomatic cooperation and open the borders soon,” he said.
    There is not any diplomatic relation between the two countries at present and the borders have closed since 1993.
    Progress in the relations between the sides started after the visit of Abdullah Gul to Yerevan for watching the match between Armenian and Turkish football teams on September 6, 2008.

  • President Points To Progress on Economic Efforts

    President Points To Progress on Economic Efforts

    obama2He Says Budget Is Key to Recovery

    slideshow topVideoPH2009032402942Full News Conference: ObamaPresident Obama held a prime-time news conference Tuesday addressing the economic recession, his administration’s recovery strategy, and other current events during the first 60 days of his presidency. » LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYERslideshow bot

    By Michael D. Shear and Scott Wilson Washington Post Staff Writers
    Wednesday, March 25, 2009; Page A01

    President Obama sought to reassure Americans last night that his administration has made progress in reviving the economy and said his $3.6 trillion budget is “inseparable from this recovery.”

    After sprinting through his first months in office, Obama is now facing heightened criticism from Republicans, who have called his blueprint irresponsible, and from skeptical Democrats who have already set about trimming back his top budget priorities.

    Obama came into office amid lofty expectations and the worst economic crisis in generations, and he succeeded in pushing through a $787 billion stimulus and launching expensive plans to revive the banking system.

    Last night, against a backdrop of a broad national anxiety that the economy may still be failing, he attempted to recalibrate the high hopes to more closely fit the challenges he said lie ahead.

    Although he spoke sharply once in response to Republican criticism, Obama struck a tone of common purpose throughout his second prime-time news conference, urging the country to be patient as he works on issues as divergent as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the malign impact of lobbying in Washington.

    “We haven’t immediately eliminated the influence of lobbyists in Washington,” he said from the East Room of the White House. “We have not immediately eliminated wasteful pork projects. And we’re not immediately going to get Middle East peace. We’ve been in office now a little over 60 days.

    “What I am confident about is that we’re moving in the right direction.”

    Throughout the evening, Obama returned repeatedly to his belief that patience and determination will win out, declaring that the “whole philosophy of persistence, by the way, is one that I’m going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come as long as I’m in this office. I’m a big believer in persistence.”

    Asked about congressional efforts to chip away at his main facets of his agenda, Obama gave no indication that he would need to abandon core principles.

    “We never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. . . . I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows.”

    During the 55-minute news conference, Obama faced no questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, or terrorism. Instead, the president focused consistently on his administration’s efforts to boost the economy, presenting his first budget proposal as the critical and most far-reaching step in that process.

    In a statement earlier in the day, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Obama’s budget “may be the most irresponsible piece of legislation I’ve seen in my legislative career. It’s an irresponsible plan that only makes the crisis we’re in worse. But when it’s all said and done, I think it’s time for a do-over.”

    Responding with his most partisan comment of the evening, Obama said his Republican critics should look to their own history with the federal budget, accusing them of having “a short memory” when it comes to deficits.

    “As I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion annual deficit from them,” he said.

    Obama’s appearance came on the same day that lawmakers grilled Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke for hours about their knowledge of the AIG bonus payments and lectured the officials for not preventing them.

    And shortly before the president took to the lectern, Democrats in Congress were preparing to make sharp cuts to the budget plan he was seeking to rally Americans to support.

    Repeating that he, too, was angry about the bonuses, Obama tried to tamp down the populist anger that has consumed much of Washington in the past 10 days.

    “The rest of us can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit,” he said. “. . . When each of us looks beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other — that’s when we succeed.”

    Obama’s comments last night — delivered in a calm and measured tone — were a departure from his emotional declarations of outrage last week that helped speed anti-AIG legislation through the House. He called on the public to “look toward the future with a renewed sense of common purpose, a renewed determination.”

    Asked why he waited several days to publicly express his frustrations after finding out about the AIG bonuses, he coolly said: “It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.”

    The White House announced yesterday that the president will meet with the leaders of some of the nation’s largest banks Friday. A White House official said Obama will “reiterate his belief that getting the economy back on track will require an understanding that each of us must look beyond our own short-term interests.”

    During the news conference, Obama defended his efforts, announced by Geithner earlier in the day, to seek broad new authority to oversee companies like AIG in the same way that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. can take control of struggling banks.

    “It is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse,” he said.

    The question-and-answer session also served to continue Obama’s direct-to-the-public lobbying effort on behalf of his budget. He will take his case to Capitol Hill today when he meets with Democratic senators.

    The news conference was the culmination of more than a week of aggressive public outreach for his policies. Last week, Obama traveled to California for two town hall meetings aimed at persuading Americans to support his plans. He also appeared on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.”

    “We’ve put in place a comprehensive strategy designed to attack this crisis on all fronts,” Obama said last night. “It’s a strategy to create jobs, to help responsible homeowners, to restart lending and to grow our economy over the long term. And we are beginning to see signs of progress.”

    Obama said that “almost every single person” who has examined the nation’s long-term budget problem has concluded that the government must find a way to reduce health-care costs. He argued that his proposal will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

    “This is hard,” he said later. “The reason it’s hard is because we’ve accumulated a structural deficit that’s going to take a long time. . . . The alternative is to stand pat.”

    Most of the questions focused on the economy. But Obama also waded briefly into foreign policy just days before his first trip to Europe as president.

    Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said: “The status quo is unsustainable.” Binyamin Netanyahu, the incoming Israeli prime minister, has been deeply skeptical of the idea of creating a Palestinian state, but Obama indicated that the administration will press him to rethink that position. “We are going to be serious from Day One in trying to move the parties,” he said.

    On a day that his secretary of homeland security announced tougher measures aimed at enhancing security along the border with Mexico, Obama pledged to monitor the increasing drug violence in that country that threatens to spill into the southwestern United States.

    “If the steps that we have taken do not get the job done, then we will do more,” he pledged. In addition to securing the border against incoming threats, he also promised to work hard to “make sure that illegal guns and cash aren’t flowing back to these cartels.”

    Asked whether race had played a role in public policy discussions during his first months in office, he said the novelty and “justifiable pride” among Americans from his being the first black president had lasted only a day.

    “Right now, the American people are judging me exactly the way I should be judged,” he said, offering as examples his efforts to improve lending, increase jobs and get the economy working again.

    Asked about stem cell research, Obama acknowledged the need for moral and ethical standards to guide scientific issues and said he is satisfied that his new rules allowing greater research are consistent with such standards.

    But he said he would be willing to shift his views if scientists determine that adult stem cells can be as useful as those created from embryos.

    “I have no investment in causing controversy,” he said. “I am happy to avoid it if that’s where the science leads us.”

    Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each had four prime-time news conferences from the East Room during their eight years in office, according to Martha Joynt Kumar, a professor of political science at Towson University. Obama has already held two in little more than two months in office.

    Obama has been criticized for relying heavily on a teleprompter, even for short speeches and brief appearances. Last night, the teleprompter was moved to the back of the room, out of sight of the cameras.

    Staff writers Michael A. Fletcher, Karen DeYoung and Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

  • Now ‘Big Brother’ targets Facebook

    Now ‘Big Brother’ targets Facebook

    Minister wants government database to monitor social networking sites

    By Nigel Morris, deputy political editor

    Wednesday, 25 March 2009

    Millions of Britons who use social networking sites such as Facebook could soon have their every move monitored by the Government and saved on a “Big Brother” database.

    Ministers faced a civil liberties outcry last night over the plans, with accusations of excessive snooping on the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

    The idea to police MySpace, Bebo and Facebook comes on top of plans to store information about every phone call, email and internet visit made by everyone in the United Kingdom. Almost half the British population – some 25 million people – are thought to use social networking sites. There are already proposals under a European Union directive – dating back to after the 7 July 2005 bombs – for emails and internet usage to be monitored and added to a planned database to track terror plots.

    But technology has moved on in the past three years, and the use of social networking sites has boomed – so security services fear that that has left a loophole for terrorists and criminal gangs to exploit.

    To close this loophole, Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister, has disclosed that social networking sites could be forced to retain information about users’ web-browsing habits. They could be required to hold data about every person users correspond with via the sites, although the contents of messages sent would not be collected. Mr Coaker said: “Social networking sites, such as MySpace or Bebo, are not covered by the directive. That is one reason why the Government are looking at what we should do about the intercept modernisation programme because there are certain aspects of communications which are not covered by the directive.”

    In exchanges with the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Tom Brake, he insisted: “I accept this is an extremely difficult area. The interface between retaining data, private security and all such issues of privacy is extremely important. It is absolutely right to point out the difficulty of ensuring we maintain a capability and a capacity to deal with crime and issues of national security – and where that butts up against issues of privacy.”

    Facebook boasts 17 million Britons as members. Bebo, which caters mainly for teenagers and young adults, has more than 10 million users. A similar number of music fans are thought to use MySpace.

    Moves to include the sites in mass surveillance of Britons’ internet habits has provoked alarm among MPs, civil liberties groups and security experts.

    Mr Brake said: “Plans to monitor our phone and email records threaten to be the most expensive snooper’s charter in history. It is deeply worrying that they now intend to monitor social networking sites which contain very sensitive data like sexual orientation, religious beliefs and political views. Given the Government’s disastrous record with large IT projects and data security, it is likely that data will leak out of every memory stick, port and disk drive when they start monitoring Facebook, Bebo and MySpace.”

    Isabella Sankey, policy director at Liberty, said: “Even before you throw Facebook and other social networking sites into the mix, the proposed central communications database is a terrifying prospect. It would allow the Government to record every email, text message and phone call and would turn millions of innocent Britons into permanent suspects.”

    Richard Clayton, a computer security expert at Cambridge University, said: “What they are doing is looking at who you communicate with and who your friends are, which is greatly intrusive into your private life.”

    Chris Kelly, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, said yesterday that it was considering lobbying ministers over the proposal, which he called “overkill”.

    A Home Office spokeswoman said the Government was not interested in the content of emails, texts, conversations or social networking sites. She added: “We have been clear that communications revolution has been rapid in this country and the way in which we collect communications data needs to change so law enforcement agencies can maintain their ability to tackle terrorism and gather evidence.”

    The Independent