Turkish Forum

Category: Turkey

  • Websites to continue to be banned in Turkey- transportation minister

    Websites to continue to be banned in Turkey- transportation minister

     

     

     
    Websites will continue to be banned as long as they post content inappropriate for Turkish families, a Turkish minister said Wednesday.

     
    “Practices are needed to protect young people and the public at large from harmful material online,” the Turkish Daily News (TDN) quoted Transportation Minister Binali Yildirim as speaking at the international CeBit Information Technology Summit in Istanbul on Wednesday. 
     
    “Law 5651 sees as appropriate the establishment of precautions against material that might hurt children, youth and families. If these precautions are not enough, then the law sees a Website ban as necessary,” he said.
     
    Turkey is listed together with Tunisia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Iran and Vietnam, as the “black listed” countries that implement government censorship controls.
     
    Turkey’s internet activity sensitivities relate particularly to terror, respect for religion, the founder of modern Turkey, Ataturk, and pornography, and while similar sensitivities are in place in most countries around the world, clear differences between censorship and freedom of speech are apparent, as control mechanisms are widely implemented as a way of curbing abuse.
     
    Turkey has blocked access to over a thousand Internet sites since 2007. 
     
    The purpose of the law was not to actually shut down Websites but was to “encourage the appropriate use of the Internet for the betterment of society,” he added.
     
    “The spirit and purpose of the law is to make civil society and public administration work together and thus keep the bans to as low a number as possible, bringing precautions to the forefront,” he was quoted by TDN as saying.
     
    Yildirim said it was necessary for the Internet Security Directorate and the Internet Board to work together very closely in establishing content harmonious with the public good.
     
    He said the use of the Internet was rapidly increasing, as the 4 million users recorded in 2002 had grown to 33 percent of Turks using the Internet today.
     
    “In six months, every household in Turkey will have access to the Internet; it is up to us to provide them with the education and equipment needed,” he said.

  • Georgia’s conflict and Iran and Turkey

    Georgia’s conflict and Iran and Turkey

    Georgia’s conflict and Iran and Turkey
    By Rayyan al-Shawaf
    Commentary by
    Tuesday, September 09, 2008

    Although the Russo-Georgian military clash is over, its ramifications will be felt for a long time, especially as the political crisis between the two countries remains unresolved. In the Middle East, two major countries, Turkey and Iran, have been directly affected by the recent events. While Turkey stands to lose should Russia and Georgia fail to resolve their differences, Iran stands to win.

    An embattled Russia cornered by the West would never forgive NATO member Turkey; as a result, Russian-Turkish relations would plummet and Russia might even stop providing Turkey with natural gas. In casting about for allies, Russia would find a similarly isolated Iran to be amenable to giving the two countries’ ties a strategic dimension, but only in return for political and economic concessions. Thus, the Russo-Georgian crisis may ironically change the balance of power in the Middle East.

    Both Russia and Iran have become increasingly alarmed with the West’s attempts to bypass them in the quest for oil. Moscow wanted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, the world’s second longest, to pass through Russia. That way, Russia would not only benefit financially, but also be able to exert some control over the supply of oil to the West, much as it does with the longest pipeline in the world, the Druzhba, which flows from southeast Russia to Europe. During its invasion of Georgia, Russia pointedly demonstrated that it can threaten the BTC pipeline, and that, as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently put it, “Russia is a nation to be reckoned with.”

    Meanwhile, Iran, most of whose oil flows to Asia, has long sought to lay oil pipelines to the West, a desire more often than not frustrated by Western sanctions. By supporting Russia in its current confrontation with the West, Tehran may have secured a future economic and political payoff. This would be especially true should Iran have extracted from Russia a commitment to devise a common oil strategy vis-a-vis the West.

    However, even without this possibility, there are several indicators of the benefits that may accrue to Iran as a result of its pro-Russian policy. For example, Iranian (and Syrian) requests for a sophisticated missile defense system are being taken seriously in Moscow, much to the chagrin of the United States and Israel. When one remembers that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant – built with Russian support – is slated to begin operation in 2009, it becomes apparent that Iran may be on the verge of radically enhancing its regional and international position.

    Even as Iran makes a bid for regional power status, Turkey has almost by accident emerged as the country that could hold the key to solving the Russo-Georgian crisis. Indeed, Turkey is exceptionally well-positioned to be mediator, a role it is already playing with some success between Syria and Israel, and to a lesser extent between Iran and the West. Russia is Turkey’s biggest trading partner, and Turkey is dependant on Russian natural gas. At the same time, Turkey maintains strong economic and military ties with Georgia, which aspires to join NATO, of which Turkey is a strategic member. Turkey cannot afford to allow its relations with Russia to deteriorate – they have already been strained by the passage of American ships through the Bosphorus on their way to the Georgian port of Batumi – but neither can it shun the West’s call for supporting Georgia. As a result, mediating the current conflict is not only a role that could propel Turkey into the limelight as a major regional player, but also a necessity insofar as Turkish politico-economic imperatives are concerned.

    If Turkey meets the challenge, there may even be added benefits. Turkish-Armenian relations could thaw, which would be of great significance to the oil and natural gas industry. The most direct overland route for an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Turkey would begin in Azerbaijan and pass through Armenia. Yet no such pipeline has ever been constructed due to political instability: Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war over Nagorno-Karabakh and remain at loggerheads, while Turkey’s border with Armenia has been closed since 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan.

    With the Russo-Georgian clash illustrating the vulnerability of Georgia, through which the BTC pipeline passes, Armenia’s importance has increased. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, on a groundbreaking visit to Yerevan last week for a Turkish-Armenian soccer match, spoke about the need for the countries of the Caucasus to work together to enhance stability. To that end, Turkey has called for the creation of a regional cooperation group comprising Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    The trajectory of the Russo-Georgian conflict during the next few months could be critical in determining what happens in the Middle East. If mediation succeeds in bringing the two sides together and defusing the crisis, Russia will not find it necessary to turn to Iran. If the successful mediation is Turkish, then Turkey will have demonstrated a unique ability to bring stability to the Caucasus, broker Syrian-Israeli peace talks, and mediate between Iran and the West.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, Russia’s ties to the West and Turkey will inevitably deteriorate. Facing diplomatic isolation and possibly even sanctions, Russia may forge a strategic alliance with Iran, thereby drastically increasing Iranian influence in the Middle East.

     

    \\\ a freelance writer and reviewer based in Beirut. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.is

    #

  • DEMOCRATS HAVE NEW STRATEGI – Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

    DEMOCRATS HAVE NEW STRATEGI – Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

    Selahattin Dogan <falcon08723@yahoo.com>

    DEMOCRATS HAVE NEW STRATEGI

    Something to think about when you vote.
     

    Windfall Tax on Retirement Income
     

     Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you’re so darn stupid that we’re going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That’s what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below……………

     Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.  In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren’t going to believe this.

     Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profi ts (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas , it is true – all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

     T his w o man is frightening.
     She quotes…’ We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn’t Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.’  ( I am not rich, are you)

    When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
    ‘We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated  12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as ‘Americans’.’  (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. &a mp;nb sp; ‘Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it’.  

    Send it on to your friends. I just did!! This lady is out of her mind and she is the speaker of the house!
  • RADIO CANADA AND SO CALLED REGION OF KURDISTAN

    RADIO CANADA AND SO CALLED REGION OF KURDISTAN

     

    DOSTLAR RADIO KANADAYI E-MAIL YAGMURUNA TUTUNUZ

    SASIRMIS KISILER TURKIYEYI KAFALARINDAN BOLMUSLER BILE

    E-MAIL ADRESLERINI ASAGIDA BULACAKSINIZ

    TURKISHFORUM

    ——————————

    Radio Canada’dan yazdigim mesaja gelen ikinci yanit..
    MeltemB

    From: Pierre Champoux Pierre.Champoux@RADIO-CANADA.CA
    Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:19 PM
    To: Meltemb
    Cc: Ombudsman de Radio-Canada Ombudsma@RADIO-CANADA.CA
    Subject: Rép. : Misguided map on your site
    Sir,
     
     
    We agree with you: Kurdistan is not a country and should not be labelled as such on our maps.
    This is why I just made sure that the text below these maps would now state that it represents the “region” known as Kurdistan, a region that spans across turkish, iraki and iranian frontiers.
     
    Thank you very much for your time.
     
     
    Pierre Champoux
    Director, Information
    Internet and Digital Services
    Radio-Canada
     
    >>> Ombudsman de Radio-Canada 10/06/08 12:17 pm >>>

    Sir,
     
    I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. It is the customary practice of Radio-Canada’s Office of the ombudsman to share letters of complaint with th relevant programmers, who have the right to respond first to criticism. I have therefore shared your e-mail with director Pierre Champoux. If this response is not satisfactory, you can contact this office again, the ombudsman’s mandate is to act as an appeal authority.
     
    Regards
     
    Julie Miville-Dechêne
    Ombudsman, Services français
    Société Radio-Canada
    www.radio-canada.ca/Ombudsman

    >>> “Meltemb” <meltem@earthlink.net> 06/10/08 11:57 >>>

    Madame Miville-Dechene,
     
    At least in two different links on your website, you have posted a map which shows half of Turkish Republic as Kurdistan. It is a shame that a media establishment which should be unbiased, you posted this misguided map, since there is no such country named “Kurdistan” especially within the borders of the Turkish Republic!
     
    I demand that you either remove this map or the Kurdistan label.
     

     

     
    Thank you.
     
    Meltem Birkegren
    Ft Lauderdale, FL-USA
    __._,_.___

  • The Turkish alliance Anti-terrorist efforts and dividends

    The Turkish alliance Anti-terrorist efforts and dividends

    Tulin Daloglu
    Tuesday, October 7, 2008

     
    Last week, the House stumbled before passing the bailout bill. But in the end, its way was eased by the overwhelming bipartisan approval of the Senate, which gave Treasury Secretary Hanry Paulson what he wanted, more or less. Whether it’s the best solution to the financial crisis is open to debate. Clearly, there is a kind of connection between the war in Iraq and the tumultuous markets. In this election season, the $600 billion already spent in Iraq and the ongoing $10 billion a month being spent there is under increased scrutiny.
     
    But historically, the financial cost of a military action has never affected American will on the battlefield. “The antiwar people in Vietnam constantly talked about how much it was costing,” said John Mueller of Ohio State University at a recent event at the Brookings Institution. “But it’s basically blood that matters, actually being killed.” As the loss of American lives in Iraq significantly declined since the surge, Mr. Mueller argued, Americans’ approval or disapproval becomes less relevant; the people are able to tolerate it. “And so it may very well be that John McCain is right when he says we can stay there 100 years,” Mr. Mueller said. “Basically, if Americans aren’t being killed, no one cares in the least where they are.”
     
    The key issue about the war is neither the monetary cost nor whether or not going to war was the right decision. There is no bringing back the more than 4,000 American lives or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost. Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain differ on how they would end the war. Neither of their plans can assure the outcome. But the other countries of the region have no choice but to bear the burdens that the war has created there.
     
    Turkey, for example, is a NATO ally of the United States – which has been attacked by Kurdish separatist terrorists who have found safe heaven in Iraq. Last week, the PKK once again attacked a Turkish border post, killing 15 Turkish soldiers. The funerals were held all over the country and broadcast live on Sunday, marking the end of Eid in this Muslim country and bringing together hundreds of thousands to pray for those lost in the attack. Such funerals have been seen in Turkish living rooms for more than 15 years now. Turks are fed up with this war; more than 30,000 of their people have been lost, and there is no end is in sight.
     
    Occasionally, there are arguments about the cost of fighting terrorism. If there were peace, that money could be spent in the Kurdish areas, where the PKK attacks most often. It’s the same as the American arguments about what the money spent in Iraq could have funded. The Turkish state surely has not always fought the separatist Kurdish terrorists with the right tools. They refused to acknowledge the Kurdish reality for too long. Yet if this trouble were to require solely domestic solutions, the situation could be less discombobulated today.
     
    Historically, the Western powers wanted to build an independent Kurdistan from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire – and that continues to haunt modern Turkey. Vahit Erdem, a member of the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), told me in a recent interview in his Turkish Parliament office that the initial U.S. intention was to establish an independent Kurdish state. “But in time they saw it would create more trouble in the region than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, [and] the U.S. changed its position,” Mr. Erdem said. “Now it sincerely supports Iraqi territorial integrity. In the beginning, they were – frankly – not supporting it.” Turkish public opinion has not yet been convinced, though.
     
    Now, as the region watches the U.S. presidential election, it isn’t clear which candidate would be more sympathetic. Both candidates have pros and cons. But it’s clear that while the debate in Ankara focuses on stabilizing Iraq, continued cross-border PKK attacks on Turkey raise the possibility that Turkey will launch a major incursion into Iraq in pursuit of PKK terrorists. While the United States calls for restraint, it launches raids into Pakistan’s tribal beltway for the same reason: to pursue terrorists that carry attacks into Afghanistan. This is an incredible double standard. It would be wise for the United States to physically go after the PKK terrorists in the Iraqi territories.
     
    While an independent Kurdistan will not be built by a rogue Kurdish terrorist group, a possible Turkish offensive which may not be limited to air strikes will halt Turkey’s accession talks with the European Union and strain its relationship with the United States. Then Turkey will be totally lost.
     
    While it will take years to stabilize Iraq, the United States needs Turkey for the foreseeable future to protect its national interests.
     
    Tulin Daloglu is a free-lance writer
  • TURKEY SEARCHES FOR A PLAN B AFTER PKK ATTACK

    TURKEY SEARCHES FOR A PLAN B AFTER PKK ATTACK

    By Gareth Jenkins

    Monday, October 6, 2008

     

    The large death toll in the recent attack by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) on a Turkish military outpost close to the border with Iraq has dealt a major psychological blow to the Turkish government and severely damaged the prestige of the Turkish military, which has long been arguing that the PKK is a spent force.

    On the afternoon of October 3, a large force of PKK militants, probably several hundred strong (Hurriyet, October 4), attacked a Turkish military outpost in the village of Aktutun (Bezele in Kurdish), approximately 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) from Turkey’s border with Iraq. On October 4 the Turkish General Staff (TGS) announced that 15 Turkish soldiers had been killed in the attack and 23 wounded. Another two soldiers were missing and presumed dead. The TGS put the PKK death toll at 23 (TGS Press Statement NO: BA – 42 / 08, TGS website, www.tsk.mil.tr). On October 6 the PKK issued a statement claiming to be in possession of the corpses of the two missing soldiers (Agence France Presse, October 6).

    The Turkish death toll was the highest in a single incident since June 2004, when the PKK returned to violence after a five-year ceasefire. On October 5 hundreds of thousands of Turks took to the streets across Turkey for the funerals of the soldiers whose bodies had been recovered. Turkish newspapers devoted pages to photographs of weeping mothers and inconsolable little children clinging to coffins draped with the Turkish flag. The photographs left little doubt that almost all of the dead, most of them conscripts performing their military service, came once again from the rural and small-town poor of Anatolia, who have borne the brunt of Turkey’s 24-year-old war with the PKK.

    For most Turks, the emotional trauma was exacerbated by a sense of shock. In recent months, the Turkish army’s casualties have tended to come in ones and twos, mostly as the result of remote-controlled mines. As a result, many Turks had finally begun to believe the repeated statements by their politicians and generals that the PKK was in retreat; not least as a consequence of the frequent Turkish air raids against PKK camps and bases in northern Iraq.

    On October 5, in one of the most detailed press briefings ever given by a serving member of the Turkish high command, Deputy Chief of Staff General Hasan Igsiz told journalists that the military units in Aktutun had successfully repulsed what he claimed was a PKK attempt to overrun the outpost (Radikal, Milliyet, Vatan, October 6).

    From a purely military perspective, there is an element of truth both in Igsiz’s assertion of a military success and the TGS’s claims that the air raids against the PKK camps and mountains in northern Iraq have forced the organization onto the defensive and reduced its operational capabilities inside Turkey. Ever since it resumed its insurgency in June 2004, however, the PKK has essentially been waging a psychological rather than a military war, using violence as part of a campaign of psychological and emotional attrition in the hope of eventually convincing the Turkish authorities that the organization cannot be destroyed by military means and that the only solution is to enter into a political dialogue. From this perspective, the attack on Aktutun was undoubtedly a major victory for the PKK.

    It is also unlikely to have been a coincidence that the attack occurred only a few days before the Turkish parliament is due to convene on October 8 to renew the one-year mandate allowing the Turkish military to conduct cross-border operations against the PKK in Iraq. The PKK will undoubtedly now feel that it has demonstrated to both its supporters and its enemies that the cross-border raids have failed to destroy it.

    For many Turks, some of the details of the firefight provided by Igsiz have also raised questions about the military’s capabilities. Igsiz claimed that the Turkish military’s thermal imaging equipment first picked up the presence of PKK militants moving toward the Turkish border at 5:00 A.M., triggering an artillery bombardment of their suspected positions and forcing them to launch their attack during daylight. Yet, even though the Turkish military was able to call in reinforcements, including additional commando units, two F-16s, and four helicopter gunships, the firefight still continued through the afternoon and into the evening, when the surviving PKK militants were apparently able to withdraw under cover of darkness (Radikal, Milliyet, Vatan, October 6).

    Perhaps more damagingly for the TGS, the assault of October 3 was the 38th time the military outpost in Aktutun had been attacked by the PKK in the last 20 years, resulting in the deaths of 44 soldiers, most recently on May 9 when six Turkish soldiers were killed (Milliyet, Hurriyet, May 10). Videos taken by the PKK and subsequently posted on the YouTube video-sharing website reinforce how vulnerable the outpost was to attack. They show militants deployed on the surrounding hills firing from heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, and mortars into what is clearly, in military terms, an indefensible position (www.youtube.com). On October 5 Igsiz admitted that a decision had been made in 2007 to relocate the outpost but that its implementation had been postponed because of what he claimed were insufficient funds. It is an explanation that is unlikely to satisfy many Turks. On October 5 Igsiz announced that five particularly vulnerable outposts, including Aktutun, would now be relocated to more defensible positions (Anadolu Ajansi, October 5).

    In addition to severely damaging the prestige of the TGS, the attack on Aktutun has also left the civilian government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with a dilemma. When he heard of the attack, Erdogan cut short an official visit to Central Asia and returned to Turkey, vowing to do whatever was necessary to eradicate the PKK (NTV, October 4). On October 4 Turkish warplanes once again bombed suspected PKK targets in northern Iraq (TGS Information Note No. BN – 91/ 08 of October 5, www.tsk.mil.tr). More air raids can be expected in the days and weeks ahead. The problem for both Erdogan and the TGS is that after the attack of October 3, many Turks will need a lot of convincing that such measures are having any impact.