In a meeting with representatives of the Jewish community of S. Petersburg, Russia, Turkish consul Mahmet Chinar and vice-consul Ozgyun Talyu agreed on a cultural exchange that will see new exhibits at museums in each country.
Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi Menachem Pewzner, the city’s chief rabbi, and Jewish community chairman Mark Grubarg hosted the meeting at S. Petersburg’s Great Choral Synagogue.
Source: chabad.org, July 17, 2008
By Peter Hannaford
Published 7/22/2008
Mozart’s music gets around a lot, but never before in Saudi Arabia where it was recently on the program of a first-ever concert of European music to be performed in the desert kingdom. Not only that, the German quartet was playing before an audience composed of both men and women in the same hall.
In Saudi Arabia’s carefully gender-segregated society, the event was unprecedented. This came on the heels of King Addullah’s call for an interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews — this in a country where conducting religious services other than Islamic can land one in prison.
The king followed through with his call, first by convening in June a group of 500 Muslim scholars — Sunni and Shiite — in Mecca to exchange views about interfaith dialogue. The conference closed with an endorsement of such a dialogue.
This led to King Abdullah’s invitation to 200 Muslim, Christian and Jewish clerics to meet with him last week in Madrid to discuss areas where all could find common ground. While this meeting produced no breakthroughs, it was not intended to. Spain was chosen for the meeting site because, from the 8th to the 13th century, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived more-or-less in harmony there.
The conference reflects Abdullah’s own growing moderation in the face of terrorist attacks on Saudi soil four and five years ago. While he has considerable support for moderation of Saudi Arabia’s austere Wahhabist version of Islam as well as liberalizing some social customs, he also has critics among hard-line clerics within his country, so he must move with some care.
Abdullah discussed his idea for the interfaith initiative with a group of visiting Japanese scholars last spring. He said his goal would be “to agree on something that would maintain humanity against those who tamper [with] religions, ethics and family systems.” He told them he had discussed his ideas with Pope Benedict XVI.
In Saudi Arabia major decisions are made by consensus, developed cautiously. King Abdullah, with a strong base of tribal support, is well positioned to take such initiatives and to gradually introduce reforms in Saudi society.
MEANWHILE, MODERATE VOICES in Islam are beginning to speak out elsewhere. In Late May, several thousand Indian Islamic clerics and madrassa teachers met in New Delhi for an Anti-Terrorism and Global Peace Conference. The major event was the issuance of what has been called the world’s first unequivocal fatwa against terrorism. The fatwa states, “Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth, spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes.” The fatwa was developed at Darul Uloom Deoband, the world’s second largest Islamic seminary which controls thousand of Islamic seminaries in India. The fatwa was validated with pledge by the approximately 100,000 people at the conference.
Other Muslim groups are speaking out against Islamist terrorism. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, with 20 million members worldwide, routinely takes the position that there is nothing in the Koran to justify violent jihad in modern times.
In Britain, which tends to handle matters pertaining to its Muslim minority with kid gloves, the government is developing a plan to send imams into schools to teach students that extremism is wrong and to emphasize citizenship and multiculturalism.
In Pakistan, an idea of a Turkish Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gulen, himself steeped in the Sufi tradition of introspection, has materialized in the form of seven schools in Pakistan cities. There, Turkish teachers dispense a Western curriculum of courses, in English, from math to science to literature. They also encourage the maintenance of Islam in the schools’ dormitories. In a country with a weak public school system which competes with many hard-line madrassas, the Turkish schools have found a strong following.
While suicide bombings may capture the attention of the evening news’s cameras, the forces of moderate Islam are finally beginning to emerge vocally and in numbers.
Peter Hannaford is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger.
Source: The American Spectator, 22.07.2008
Turkey stood a good chance to get a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said late on Tuesday in New York. Babacan flew the U.S. to lobby for his country’s UN bid. (UPDATED)
Babacan met U.N. General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim and the representatives of countries from Africa Union, Arab League and Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in New York.
His visit aimed to get the support of as many countries as possible for Turkey’s getting a non-permanent membership at the Security Council, Babacan told reporters at a reception held in honor of the representatives of some countries in New York.
Babacan said he desired to meet and exchange views with permanent representatives of various countries prior to such election, adding the election for such seat would most probably take place in October.
“We think that Turkey deserves this seat after nearly half a century. We believe we will be a very active and contributing country when we become a member to U.N. Security Council,” he said.
Babacan told participants of the reception that Turkey believed the importance of U.N.’s undertaking a more effective role, and added that Turkey believed that U.N. could contribute more to security, peace and development of the world, the state-run Anatolian Agency reported.
He also said Turkey contributed to development and prosperity of the world both in its region and in different places of the world, adding Turkey could make great contributions in U.N. Security Council.
“That’s why I am in New York. I will tell what Turkey is doing, our reform process and our contribution to peace and security in Middle East, Balkans and other places of the world,” he was quoted by Anatolian Agency as saying.
Kerim, who also attended the reception, said Turkey was a very important country both for U.N. and in its region, adding Turkey was a constructive actor.
He also said Turkey undertook role in Middle East dialogue as well as crisis management in Balkans; it was a connection between Europe and Asia, and a part of Europe-Atlantic integration.
Turkey was an example for developing countries with the reforms it fulfilled, he added.
Turkey wanted a more effective, influential, representative and functional U.N., Babacan told Kerim during their face-to-face meeting earlier on Tuesday.
Babacan also told Kerim that Turkey backed “dialogue” in settlement of disputes, and assumed an approach “embracing every one, not excluding them”.
The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.
Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election.
Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.
MELIH ASIK’IN KOSESINDEN
Tepki çağrısı!
Fransız Le Figaro gazetesinde Erdoğan – Sarkozy görüşmesiyle ilgili bir haber: Fethiye Temiz (florida)
“Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a demande a Nicolas Sarkozy, au cours d’un entretien, dimanche matin. Ouverture de chapitres, reaction ‘coordonne’ des 27 et en concertation avec Ankara en cas d’interdiction par la justice du parti au pouvoir AKP.”
Tercümesi:
“T.C. Başbakanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, bu pazar Nicolas Sarkozy ile yaptığı gorüşmede AB adaylığı çerçevesinde öngörülen başlıkların açılmasını ve AB’nin 27 ülkesinin AKP kapatıldığı takdirde Ankara ile koordineli (eşgüdümlü) şekilde tepki göstermelerini istedi.”
* * *
Yani… Başbakan, Fransa ve AB’yi kendi ülkesinin yargı kararına tepki göstermeye çağırmış… Herhalde cumhuriyet tarihinde bir ilk…
Jul 21 2008 By Tim Lewis
AN AIRPORT mix-up lead to a family boarding the wrong plane and taking a 12-hour round trip to Turkey.
The couple and daughter, from Llanishen in Cardiff, were supposed to be spending seven days in Lanzarote this week.
But at the Thomson check-in desk at Cardiff Airport they were given the wrong boarding passes and sent to the wrong departure gate.
They boarded a flight – thinking they were going to the Spanish island – but soon found themselves in Bodrum Airport, Turkey.
Charlie Coray, 47, said: “We checked our suitcases in and were handed back some boarding cards and told which gate to go to.
“At 5am on a Sunday morning all you do is make sure your boarding passes are safe in your pocket and you are going to the correct gate.
“We just presumed we had been given the right boarding passes and told the right gate, just like anyone else would.”
Mr Coray said there was nothing to indicate where the flight was heading and the family immediately all fell asleep when on board.
The first they knew of the problem was when they woke up as the plane was landing.
He added: “Everyone just started to panic. The stewards were all running around trying to work out what had gone wrong.
“From then on we were just totally shell-shocked.
“It was chaos. Our daughter was getting upset and we were trying to find people in the airport who spoke english to explain what happened.”
The Corays had to get the same plane back to Cardiff and last night stayed in a hotel while the company involved tries to arrange an alternative.
A spokesman for Servisair, the company who dealt with the check-in and gate boarding for Thomson, said: “We apologise profusely for the error and we are doing everything we can to try and get the family to where they want to be.
“Slip ups at the check in desk such as this are a very rare occurrence and we do not want this sort of thing to happen again.”
If Washington were to pursue a military solution in its efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program, Turkey – the only NATO country bordering Iran – must be a part of its planning. Likewise, if the United States and its European allies were to implement tighter economic sanctions against Iran, Ankara would have to play a key role because much of Iran’s trade with Europe goes through Turkey.
On the surface, Turkey seems to be on board with the West regarding Iran. But the Turkish position on Iran today looks much like the Turkish position regarding the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003. The specific factors that led to Ankara’s decision to oppose the war are re-emerging, building opposition to American plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, either through sanctions or military measures.
In 2003, the Turkish public had little awareness about the approaching Iraq war. At that time, the United States was using Turkey’s Incirlik air base to bomb Saddam Hussein’s air defenses. At the same time, Ankara was paralyzed by its internal struggle to preserve secularism within the government. If you read Turkish papers published back then, you would not guess that the United States was about to occupy one of Turkey’s neighbors and forever change their neighborhood.
Five years later – déjà vu. Turkey is once again stricken with political paralysis over the battle between secularists and the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP. As a result, there is almost no coverage in the Turkish media on foreign policy issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Domestic tensions make it impossible for that issue to penetrate the debate. Perhaps Turks won’t even notice until Iran actually detonates a bomb.
Another similarity between today and the events of 2003 is that the AKP government is playing both sides to get away with doing nothing. As it negotiated with U.S. diplomats in 2003 about a joint front against Saddam, the AKP voiced antiwar rhetoric at home. Moreover, days before the war began, the AKP’s trade minister went to Baghdad to sign a multibillion-dollar trade deal with Saddam. In the end, the AKP-dominated Turkish Parliament voted to keep Turkey out of the war.
Now, once again, the AKP is playing both sides to shirk responsibility. While opposing U.S. military action, the party continues to spout its official line: “Turkey wants a nuclear-free Middle East.” Albeit a good start, this policy implies that Israel’s nukes are as much a problem as Iran’s would be – a stance that absolves Ankara from any real political obligations toward Europe and the United States on Iran. Moreover, at a time when the West is imposing sanctions, the AKP has signed a memorandum of understanding to invest $3.5 billion in Iran’s South Pars gas field – a move eerily similar to 2003.
Another similarity is America’s failure to communicate with the Turks. In 2003, Turkish officials expected, in vain, that Secretary of State Colin Powell would come to Ankara to promise that the war against Saddam would not break up Iraq and create an independent Kurdish state.
Today, seasoned diplomats in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot tell from one day to the next how America is planning on dealing with Iran. And like in 2003, Ankara is waiting with crossed fingers for a high-level American statesman to explain Washington’s plans.
There is, however, one difference between 2003 and 2008: the role of the Turkish military. In the run-up to the Iraq war, bickering between the Turkish government and the military complicated matters for the United States. Neither the AKP nor the military wanted to be responsible for making the decision for their country to go to war. This thinking proved to be a fatal mistake for the military, rendering it irrelevant in Washington and powerless in Turkey.
After dropping out of the foreign policy debate in 2003, the military lost popularity, as was seen in the July, 2007 elections. Today it is in disarray.
This leaves the AKP in charge of major decisions regarding Iran. The AKP opposes both a military solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as well as non-military measures like strong economic sanctions. As a result of the AKP’s rapprochement with Tehran since 2003, the official line in Ankara is that “Turkey’s economic interests in Iran are too important to sacrifice.”
The latest American overture to Ankara, supporting Turkish efforts against the Kurdistan Workers Party, has not sufficed to change the government’s attitude. While Washington has allowed Turkey to target PKK terrorist camps in northern Iraq, Tehran, as a favor to Turkey, has upped the ante with Washington by actually bombing such camps.
If the United States was betting on Turkish cooperation against Iran, it might as well plan to navigate around the looming iceberg. It might already be too little too late for Washington to count on Turkey on Iran.
Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of “Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk?”
