Category: World

Why We Eat More From ‘Small’ Packages

What does size “small” mean anymore? When it comes to packaged foods, not much. At McDonald’s and KFC, for instance, a small soda holds 16 oz. At Wendy’s, meanwhile, order a small drink, and you’ll get 20 oz. This discrepancy in portion size — along with the fact that standard portion sizes, as defined the government, are so wildly inconsistent with what Americans typically eat — is contributing to a lot of consumer confusion, according to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research. And that confusion may be driving our tendency to overeat and become obese.

The two authors, Nilufer Aydinoglu at Koc University in Istanbul and Aradhna Krishna at University of Michigan, contend that food size labeling has a significant impact not only on how much food people think a package holds, but also on their actual consumption as well as their perception of how much they ate. That is, when a large size package of food is labeled as “small,” people will think it contains less food, and they’ll eat more of it unknowingly. (More on Time.com: Figuring Out Food Labels)

To test that theory, the researchers conducted a series of experiments. One of them involved two packages of nuts, one clearly containing more nuts than the other. To some participants, the packages were presented as “small” and “medium” in accordance with their actual contents; to others, the labels were reversed, and the larger portion was labeled small. As the researchers predicted, the mislabeling caused people to underestimate how many ounces of nuts were contained in the medium-sized bag when it was labeled small; it also led people to underestimate how much they ate out of those bags, even while they ate more nuts from “small” bags than from “medium” sized ones. (More on Time.com: Top 10 Most Dangerous Foods)

Interestingly, the size effect didn’t work in the other direction: when small bags were labeled “medium,” it didn’t cause people to overestimate actual size or consumption. That may have something to do with people’s wishful thinking when it comes to food, the authors write:

… two conﬂicting goals are salient for consumers when making food consumption decisions: the hedonic goal of taste enjoyment (and possibly the urge to eat more) versus the more utilitarian goal of maintaining good health (and psychosocial motives of body image and self-presentation). In an effort to reconcile these conﬂicting goals, consumers may be inclined to respond to incoming information selectively to minimize guilt while satisfying their hedonic urges. Accordingly, they may be automatically more willing to believe a label that professes an item to be smaller (vs. larger) in the range one can associate with that item. Thus, a small size item mislabeled as “large” (or “medium”) is less likely to be believed by consumers than a large size item mislabeled as “small” (or “medium”).

In other words, we’re eating with our eyes closed. It’s no secret that portion sizes have increased astronomically in the past few decades — the average bottle of Coca-Cola held 6.5 oz. in the early 1960s, but the bottle you buy at the store these days is about 20 oz. (a size that contains 65 g of sugar, by the way) — yet even though the bigness of our food is plainly visible, we tend to see only what we really want to see. Or, rather, what the manufacturer wants us to see. And it’s not just food manufacturers; clothing makers also like to downsize their products through labeling — marking a true size 12 down to a 10, for instance — because it makes people feel thinner and more likely to buy. (More on Time.com: Video: Huge Fast Food)

“An implication of our results is that consumers can continue to eat large sizes that are labeled as smaller and feel that they have not consumed too much,” the study’s authors said in a statement. “This can result in unintended and uninformed over-consumption, which is clearly ridden with significant health ramifications, and size labels could be contributing to the rampant obesity problems in the United States.”

via Guiltless Gluttony: Why We Eat More From ‘Small’ Packages – TIME Healthland.

November 18, 2010
ACI’s Airport Exchange in Istanbul: ‘National governments have little interest in aviation’
Airport Exchange 2010 in Istanbul brought together a broad church of industry luminaries to address the more pressing issues of the air transport sector. From regulatory issues and Single European Sky to modernisation and charging models, the event was billed as “a series of individually tailored conferences addressing the critical issues affecting the air transport sector”.

Organised by ACI Europe and ACI Asia, Airport Exchange 2010, was held in Istanbul from 04 to 06-Oct-2010 and attended by some 1000 delegates, covered 20 topics over five conferences.

Five of the topics for review were: Regulatory Issues; SES/SESAR and Airports; How to Address Current Obstacles to Airport Development, Modernisation and Expansion; Market Regulation; and Airport Charges: Innovative Charging Models.

The opening address of the Airport Operations conference was delivered by President ofACI Europe and Chief Operating Office for the Schiphol Group, Ad Rutten. He addressed extensively Apr-2010’s volcanic ash cloud in Europe and presented a diary of events that catalogued the day-by-day development of the crisis. Up to 80% of airspace was closed, 100,000 flights cancelled and 9.5 million passengers could not travel. EUR250 million in revenue was lost by European airports, which did not benefit from the EUR450 million fuel cost savings made by airlines, to offset their EUR1.3 billion operating loss.

“National governments have little interest in aviation”

Mr Rutten argued there were three clear lessons from the crisis:
1. National governments appear to have little interest in supporting aviation;
2. Implementing the Single European Sky is an immediate and urgent priority;
3. Aviation is essential to the life of Europe’s citizens and businesses.
He suggested an eight-point follow-up plan to be implemented by the EU including: the establishment of a steering task force of three commissioners; regular meetings of transport ministers; a crisis coordination cell; and acceleration of SES II. He put four questions for further discussion:
- Who should be responsible for taking care of stranded passengers, airports or airlines?
- Who will take the costs, such as parking charges, for stranded aircraft?
- Which entities are primarily responsible in terms of decision making?
- Should airports have a greater coordination role and what opportunities, but also burdens, could this role bring to airports?
The first working session of the Airport Operations conference covered the subject of regulation.

Dr Holger Schultz – CEO of Airsight, a consultant to air traffic service organisations – reviewed the EASA study on the implementation of provisions contained in ICAO Annex 14 on Aerodromes in the EASA member states. His damning summary was that the legal framework and transposition is very heterogeneous and partly inconsistent; that authorities are understaffed; that certification requirements vary from “nothing” to “highly sophisticated”; that there is a wide range of variations at almost all aerodromes; and that awareness of the handling of deviations is limited at some aerodromes with a significant difference in handling between member states.

Let’s go for business class

Corporate Legal Counsel Aviation at the Schiphol Group and Vice-Chair of ACI Europe’s Single European Sky Steering Group, Ilona Crommentuijn, concluded the session by asking whether European airports are taking an “economy class” or “business class” approach to what she described as “the Single European Sky aircraft”. Pointing to the existing regulatory framework, the “pillar” of airport capacity and ATM airport performance she concluded that European airports have already “boarded” the Single European Sky aircraft, and that ACI Europe’s SES Steering Group is taking care of the interests of the European airports. She ended with the plea, “Let’s go for business class!”

Thorsten Astheimer of Fraport’s Air Traffic Solutions Division spoke on the same issue in the third working session on SES/SESAR and Airports. He argued today’s situation in European air traffic could be summed up as follows:
- European airspace is already close to saturation in some regions and society’s demand for mobility is growing;
- Despite the growing demand many large hub airports are already operating close to their capacity limit;
- The highly fragmented airspace over Europe is resulting in limited capacity, delays and high costs for airlines and passengers;
- The legal framework may be highly different from state to state (and airport to airport);
- Only a system-wide approach can overcome the blocking issues in Europe.
How to Address Current Obstacles to Airport Development, Modernisation and Expansion

The session “How to Address Current Obstacles to Airport Development, Modernisation and Expansion” was the first in the Airport Development and Environment conference and contained contributions from Thomas Brehmer, Director Air Traffic Management for Germany’s Hochtief Airport and Hochtief AirPort Capital; Feride Gokalp, General Manager of Turkey’s TAV Construction; and Curtis Grad, CEO ofAirport International Group (AIG), the operator, manager and developer of Jordan’sQueen Alia International Airport.

5% of 2% = not a big emission contribution from airports

Mr Brehmer, who focused on developing airports’ sustainably, stated that growth in aviation should be moderated by the costs of mitigation of environmental impact and that transparency is required to initiate market mechanisms. Airports are contributing to an (environmental) solution but it is a joint problem that can only be engaged in cooperation. He reiterated that aviation’s emissions are around 622 million tons of CO2 annually, about 2-3% of the man-made total, and that the contribution of airports is just 5% of that.

He stressed that in the newly industrialised and emerging economies, growth will be almost double of developed countries’ GDP in the coming years and that, consequently, it is airport operators within these economies that will come under the microscope.

Mr Gokalp’s presentation focussed on the extension and modernisation of Ataturk Airport in the host city of Istanbul. New investments in 2010 add up to EUR30 million out of a total investment to date of EUR197 million under the PPP model, enabling the airport to handle 27.5 million passengers. However, no clue was offered as to TAV’s position on the need for a third Istanbul airport. Turkey’s Prime Minister went on to announce subsequently (30-Oct-2010) that another airport could be constructed in Istanbul “in the near future”, one of many such announcements that often amount to little.

Curtis Grad also spoke about new development at the Queen Alia airport, where USD750 million is being invested in a 100,000sqm state-of-the-art terminal due for completion in 1Q2012. He detailed three major challenges facing AIG: the limited flexibility for innovation or commercial optimisation; the requirement to build atop a live and dynamic airport site; and capacity constraints coupled with rapid traffic growth. The airport is experimenting with new concepts and operators during the construction period and with retail agreements it is moving away from flat, area-based rents, to a concession format with minimum guarantee and percentage of gross revenues.

Market Regulation: Delivering Regulation that Truly Reflects the Market

The session on Market Regulation: Delivering Regulation that Truly Reflects the Market was the third working session of the conference on Economic and Market Regulation, and featured presentations from Carmine Bassetti, head of Airports for India’sGMR; Tim Hardy, BAA Director for Airside; and Carlos Madeira, Vice President of ANA Aeroportos de Portugal.

Mr Bassetti posed the question: “Can the airport business, in the scope of a single till model, be considered sustainable/attractive in the future?” In the course of a comprehensive presentation he concluded that it depends on the price paid for the airport asset. The closer to RAB (regulatory asset base) value the more secure the investment is and easier for the regulator to incentivise the investor/operator to do better.

If, instead, the price paid for the airport asset is in the high range (a lot more than RAB), then the investment becomes risky and the investor will have to place hope in the regulator to better remunerate the investment.

For an investor, he maintained, the dual till and no till approaches are certainly more incentivising because they allow market-related returns on commercial non-aeronautical investments.

Uncertain certainty

Tim Hardy dealt with airport slots and asked: “Is there a need to review the EU Slot Regulation in light of new market developments?” His answer, which might have been the title of an album by the rock band Oasis was, “Yes … maybe”. He went on to explain that there are concerns about the current regime, but there may be a case for a “do nothing” option if amendments being considered would make the system worse, therefore “do nothing” remains a fall-back option.

Other important features of his presentation were:
- The slot coordinator should be constitutionally independent of airline, airport andANSP interests;
- Slot misuse is a major problem and new measures to address this would be strongly supported (by BAA);
- The acquisition of slots by general and business aviation (GA/BA) is not supported (by BAA). Business aviation/GA are at their most effective making use of under-used infrastructure, not occupying space in congested airports;
- Ownership/acquisition of slots by non-airlines is not supported;
- Are they slots or a “right to operate”?
- Secondary trading is not to be restricted as it encourages market fluidity.
Competition in a EUR34 billion market

Carlos Madeira concerned himself with the topic of ground handling and the revision of the Council Directive 96/67/EC, asking: “What should be the priorities?”

In a highly valuable technical presentation (see chart 1 below for an example) he described the evolution of the European airport ground handling industry in some detail, stating that it will continue to grow, driven by “air traffic evolution” and that the business is becoming more complex in order to satisfy different clients’ requirements. The global ground handling market is now estimated to be worth EUR34 billion, from EUR26 billion in 2003. The market share of independent ground handlers (as opposed to airlines and airports) has risen from 25% to 45% in that period.

Chart 1: Overview on types of liberalisation already achieved

Source: Presentation, Carlos Madeira

But a reduced number of large international players is trying to reshape the industry. Just eight of these players, led by Swissport – which is being sold by Ferrovial – control 15% of the industry.

For many players, the ground handling activities are less profitable than other business areas.

He concluded by saying that ANA sees no compelling reason to revise Council Directive 96/67/EC, which is proposed in order to (gradually) increase competition in the handling market and to clarify and simplify a number of provisions.

However, in case such a revision takes place, some points could and should be clarified and/or improved. For example, ANA believes an additional effort should be made to ensure that the existing directive is fully implemented in all member states. Also, passenger airports shouldn’t be subjected to market experiments in the ground handling industry “just because it’s nice to make a few changes from time to time”.

Airport Charges: Innovative Charging Models

Airport Charges: Innovative Charging Models was the fourth and final session of theEconomic and Market Regulation conference, and featured presentations from Nazareno Ventola, Planning and Control Director of Bologna Airport in Italy; Dr Richard Sharp, Director of Jacobs Consultancy; and Alberto Baldi, Planning and Control Manager of SEAAeroporti di Milano.

Fun for airlines

Nazareno Ventola – after pointing out the traffic growth at Bologna in 2010, with more than a little help from Ryanair – dealt with the “myth” and “reality” at Italian airports. The myths include claims that airports with an average EBITDA of 30-40% are the “rich and fat” part of the air transport market chain and that airport charges are too high and costs out of control. The realities are that a high operating margin is essential to finance necessary infrastructure development and that, in Italy, airport charges have been frozen since 2001 and have therefore decreased in real terms.

The new Italian economic regulation agreement’s reference rule is the ‘Delibera Cipe 38/2007, which was approved in 2008 and which is aimed at the pre-financing of urgent infrastructure investments for those airport managing bodies that expressly request it. But as the result of a complex process, with multiple subjects involved at different stages, only a small number of agreements (eg Pisa, Naples and Apulia airports) have been put in place. The basic principles of the new system include: price cap on regulated services; charges must be consistent with actual costs (operating, depreciation, capital); incentives linked to quality and environmental performance; and the introduction of a “hybrid till” system.

Mr Ventola described the whole charging procedure as it works now as “fun – for the airlines” and concluded that the world is changing and that the new paradigm is “deregulate!”.

Airport-driven hub

Milan’s Alberto Baldi focused on charging strategies for an airport catering to legacy and low-cost carriers and spent some time on the new competitive scenario of the “airport-driven hub” or new generation hub, where the airport operator encourages the establishment of competitive connections between network carriers and LCCs and provides ad hoc infrastructures and organisational devices to facilitate those connections.

He also pointed to airport alliances as an effective competitive response to the evolution of the sector as some international examples show, such as AdP-Schiphol and the East Asia Airport Alliance.

He added that SEA is working on the creation of a North of Italy airport system that aims at taking new market opportunities by the integration of different airports.

He concluded by stating that charging systems depend on regulatory models and that current regulation is based on the principle that “airport = monopoly”. There are many ways of integrating legacy carriers and LCCs such as new generation hub models and airport alliances. The boom of LCCs is deeply changing the air transport market (certainly true of Italy) and airports should re-think their traditional business model. Legacy and low-cost carriers can coexist at the same airport in an integrated model.

Finally, Richard Sharp touched on a similar theme: “How can a single defined pricing strategy for an airport accommodate charges for low cost carriers?” Referring to the “big stick”, the EU’s Airport Charges Directive, he opined that no policy needs to be entirely cost based or follow a single method or rule, but that it should be “systematic‟; not discriminate; follow what an airport actually does rather than an idealised model that the airport cannot live up to; and be capable of being supported by evidence if required.

Six times the utilisation of a scarce resource

Mr Sharp pointed to an example from Bristol Airport, UK. A typical regional airline is achieving three turnarounds per day with 80 seats and a 60% load factor, thus carrying 288 passengers, while an LCC has six daily turnarounds with 85% load factor on 160 seats, thus carrying 1928 passengers, which he describes as “over six times the utilisation of a scarce resource”.

Answering the question, “What makes a justifiable charge?”, he stated that the key criteria are:
- That it has credible economic justification;
- That it best promotes airport development, the long-term interests of passengers and the wider public interest.
For example, it reflects:
- Viability of airport;
- Competitive position;
- Opportunity to develop greater number and greater range of services;
- Efficiency of use;
- Promotion of cost effective capital expenditure.
Also, can they survive the scrutiny of airlines and the regulator and be implemented?

He concluded:
- A charges policy supports the overall strategy for developing the airport and provides a means for defending the airport’s position;
- There are a number of features of low-cost traffic which suggest that charges should be lower;
- Costs are one consideration for setting charges but not necessarily the only fair approach;
- There are a range of potential tools for an airport to use in support of reasonable commercial objectives;
- The ideal solution may not help you if you are not able to implement it;
- ”Everyone gets some of what they want – no one gets all of what they want‟.
November 16, 2010
Turkey stands by ambassador to Austria after controversial remarks

Both Turkey and Austria play down any tension in their bilateral ties after the Turkish ambassador’s critical comments regarding integration problems. Diplomatic sources say withdrawing the ambassador is out of the question, and Austria has not asked Ankara to do so

Turkey has no intention of withdrawing its ambassador to Vienna after his controversial but personal remarks about Austrian attitudes toward immigrants caused a stir in the country, diplomatic sources said Thursday.

“The removal of the ambassador is out of the question,” sources who wished to remain anonymous told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review. “This is not on the agenda.”

Austria was disappointed by comments from Turkish Ambassador Kadri Ecved Tezcan but did not ask Turkey to withdraw the Turkish envoy, Austria’s Ambassador to Ankara Heidemaria Gurer told the Daily News. “Our foreign minister yesterday night [Wednesday] stated this clearly on TV,” she said.

The Turkish envoy was summoned to the Austrian Foreign Ministry early Wednesday to explain his remarks, while Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu spoke twice on the phone with his Austrian counterpart.

Diplomats, however, played down any tension in Turkish-Austrian ties due to the controversy created by the ambassador’s remarks and said it was too early to judge the current state of relations as a “diplomatic crisis.”

In Strasbourg, Davutoğlu said the ambassador had expressed his personal opinion.

“From the very beginning of the interview, our ambassador declared that the views expressed were his personal views and he was trying to reflect his own experiences with the Turkish community,” said the foreign minister.

“The Turkish-Austrian relationship is deep-rooted and based on mutual respect with an established tradition.”

Before the beginning of the interview with Austrian daily Die Presse, Ambassador Tezcan asked the journalist if he preferred that he reply to the questions as a diplomat – which he said would be boring – or as someone who has been living in Vienna for a year and with contacts with the 250,000 Turks living in Austria.

The journalist said he would prefer the second. Tezcan said in the interview that Austria was pushing people of Turkish origin into ghettos instead of learning to live with them and benefiting from their skills, media reports noted.

Turkish diplomatic sources told the Daily News that Ankara was bringing the issue of integration to the attention of Austrians, something that was also discussed when Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger visited Ankara last month.

“The ambassador was expressing the feelings of the Turkish community and giving messages by engaging in self-criticism,” sources said.

Austria ‘disappointed’ by critical comments

The ambassador’s critical comments caused a stir in Austria.

“First of all we are disappointed by the fact that the ambassador suggested that international organizations in Vienna should withdraw their headquarters from Vienna,” said Ambassador Gurer.

“Then the ambassador made a personal attack on the Austrian ministries of the Interior and Foreign Affairs. He also made derogatory remarks concerning the Social Democratic Party in Austria. We also did not like his generalizing statement on the hostile attitude of Austria toward foreigners,” she said.

Austria’s displeasure was conveyed to the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

Austria to hold integration conference next year

Integration issues are frequently discussed in countries such as Austria and Germany, which both have sizeable Turkish populations. Turkey complains that the immigrant Turkish community, which came to Germany and Austria as guest workers in the 1960s and the 1970s, is not provided with the opportunity to fully integrate and instead faces discrimination.

In Ankara, Spindelegger told a joint news conference with Davutoğlu that the way Turks generally lived in Austria was affecting the image of Turkey in his country. The governments and publics of Austria, Germany and France are not very favorable to Turkey’s accession to the European Union.

Turkey says a distinction between assimilation and integration should be clearly made.

“Integration is a social responsibility that helps multi-cultural societies live in respect and in a legal system,” Davutoğlu told the same conference. “But assimilation means destroying a culture, something that cannot be accepted.”

Austria has plans to hold an integration conference in early 2011.

Excerpts from Tezcan’s interview

In the interview, Tezcan criticized Interior Minister Maria Fekter for her tough stance on illegal immigrants. “What she stands for doesn’t conform to a liberal, open mindset,” Tezcan said, adding the same was true for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“Turks are happy, they don’t want anything from you,” he said. “They just don’t want to be treated like a virus.”

Tezcan also said that if he were the head of a Vienna-based international organization he would not stay in the city. He added that Austria had no business telling women whether or not to wear headscarves. “If there’s the liberty here to swim in the nude, then there also should be the liberty to wear a headscarf.”

Hürriyet

November 11, 2010
THY to launch direct İstanbul-Washington flights

Turkey’s flag carrier Turkish Airlines (THY) will begin direct flights between İstanbul and Washington, D.C. on Nov. 6.

Eight congressmen, including William Delahunt and Jean Schmidt, will be on the first THY flight to take off from Washington, D.C. The congressmen will be received by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and are scheduled to have several meetings.

THY has daily flights to New York and flies to Chicago six days a week. It will have three flights a week to the US capital.

November 9, 2010
Iran says nuclear talks could be held in Turkey

Iran is ready to hold talks with the major powers concerned about its nuclear program “as soon as possible” and Turkey may be the best venue for negotiations, its foreign minister said on Sunday.

It was the strongest signal yet of Iranian interest in reviving talks that stalled a year ago, leading to tighter international sanctions against Iran over its refusal to curb its nuclear work and make it more accessible to U.N. inspections.

“We have told our Turkish friends that we are in agreement with regard to holding these talks in Turkey,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference.

Many countries are concerned that Iran is developing a nuclear industry in order to be able to produce nuclear weapons, something the Islamic Republic denies, saying it only seeks nuclear energy and other peaceful applications.

The eight-year-old stand-off has the potential to ignite a regional arms race and degenerate into a wider Middle East conflict. Israel and its main ally, the United States, do not rule out a pre-emptive strike to stop Iran, which rejects the Jewish state’s existence, from getting the bomb.

The “P5+1” powers — the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany– have offered talks on November 15-17 in Vienna, an approach welcomed by Iran but not formally agreed to.

Iran has sent mixed signals over a resumption of talks.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed the sanctions as no more effective than a “used handkerchief.”

He has demanded the six powers state whether they come to the table as Iran’s friend or foe, and that they express their opinion of Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal — topics Western diplomats have said are irrelevant to the main issue in talks.

A senior Ahmadinejad aide said that even if Iran does agree to the talks it will not negotiate about its nuclear program — which would be a non-starter for the powers [ID:nLDE69U035].

But Mottaki was upbeat. “Consultations are under way, they are on the right track,” he said.

“We are hopeful that the time and the agenda and content of the talks will soon be agreed upon by both parties and that both parties will start the talks as soon as possible.”

TURKEY READY

The Turkish foreign ministry said Mottaki had been in touch to suggest holding talks there. “We said to Iranian officials that as Turkey we are ready to do our best in that regard. But there is no decision yet regarding the exact timing and place of the talks,” an official said.

A spokesman for Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said she was aware of Mottaki’s comments, “but we have not yet received an official proposal from Iran in this regard.

Reuters

November 7, 2010
Arabs Look to Istanbul

Turkey and the Arab World

Turkey is not wavering in the slightest from its pro-European course. Nevertheless, as a trading nation with a dynamic economy that is the living proof of the fact that Islam, a secular political landscape and a parliamentary democracy are indeed compatible, it has in recent times rediscovered its Arab neighbours. Rainer Hermann reports

One of the success stories of Turkey's new foreign policy is Syria. In 1998, the two neighbours stood on the brink of war. Today, their economic and political ties are close

There was one good thing about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Lebanon: although it increased tension prior to the publication of the indictment by the special international tribunal into the murder of Rafiq Hariri, it also demonstrated that in the Arab world, Iran can now really only be sure of the support of Shiites. In Beirut and during his trip to South Lebanon, Ahmadinejad was almost exclusively cheered on by Shiites; Sunni Muslims in the Arab world, on the other hand, viewed his visit to Lebanon with considerable disquiet.

There are many reasons why Iran’s influence in the Arab world has passed its zenith. One of them is the circumstances that surrounded Ahmadinejad’s re-election in June 2009 and the bloody crackdown on protests. Another is the growing influence of Turkey.

Last July, Khalil Shikaki’s Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research discovered that 43 percent of all Palestinians consider Turkey to be their most important foreign policy ally, ahead of Egypt at 13 percent and Iran at only 6 percent. Support for Turkey in the West Bank and in Gaza is virtually the same.

In Lebanon, Ahmadinejad did not succeed in reversing this trend. Shortly before his arrival in Beirut, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was back in Damascus for another meeting with President Bashar al-Assad. In the race for the post of prime minister in Iraq, both these men support the secular Shiite Iyad Allawi, while the powers that be in Iran prefer Nouri Maliki.

In addition to the matter of Iran, Erdogan and Assad spoke about opportunities for reviving the peace process. Assad made it clear that indirect talks with Israel could only be restarted if Turkey were to act as mediator.

Turkey is a “success story” in the Middle East

Up until ten years ago, Turkey was not a player in the Middle East, despite the fact that it shares borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. It was a quiet neighbour. Today, the state that succeeded the Ottoman Empire is a popular go-between and trading partner. For the states and societies of the Middle East, Turkey – with its dynamic economy and practical evidence that Islam, a secular political landscape and parliamentary democracy are indeed compatible – is a “success story”; it has become a “soft power”.

Up until ten years ago, Turkey was not a player in the Middle East, despite the fact that it shares borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Today, the state that succeeded the Ottoman Empire is a popular go-between and trading partner, writes Rainer Hermann

There are heated debates in the West as to whether Turkey is currently just rediscovering the Middle East or whether it is actually returning to it and – if this is indeed the case – whether it is abandoning its foreign policy orientation towards the West. These questions were recently addressed at a conference in Istanbul organised by the Sabanci University, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and the Robert Bosch Foundation.

One of the conclusions reached at the event was that although Turkey has adopted a new, active foreign policy, it has not abandoned its pro-European, pro-Western course. Nor has it shifted the main lines of its foreign policy. The policy of opening up towards its neighbours in the Middle East is much more a matter of diversifying its diplomacy and increasing prosperity in Turkey by tapping into new sales markets.

Foreign policy in the service of trading interests

Turkey’s former foreign policy was based on security considerations and the priority of territorial integrity. Its new foreign policy, on the other hand, is in the service of Turkey the trading nation and seeks to guarantee security and safeguard borders by increasing prosperity. Sükrü Elekdag, one of the best-known ambassadors in the country’s old diplomatic guard, often liked to say that Turkey always had to be ready for “two-and-a-half wars”, i.e. wars against Greece, Syria and the PKK.

New diplomacy: Turkey's current foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has formulated a "policy of no problems" towards all neighbours, the aim of which is to maximize cross-border trade

In sharp contrast to this, Turkey’s current foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has formulated a “policy of no problems” towards all neighbours, the aim of which is to maximize cross-border trade. With the exception of Armenia, this policy has worked so far.

Turkish foreign policy is more than just classic diplomacy, it is trade policy. It is above all Turkey’s new, up-and-coming middle class – the backbone of the ruling AKP – that is benefitting from the new, economy-based foreign policy of Turkey the trading nation.

The industrial cities of Anatolia, which have been dubbed the “Anatolian tigers”, are eyeing as yet unexploited market opportunities in neighbouring countries. While their entrepreneurs are also trading with Europe, they are increasingly focussing their efforts on the Middle East because of Europe’s restrictive Schengen visa policy, which also hits entrepreneurs and investors. This is why they support the visa-free zone which Turkey has established with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

One of the success stories of Turkey’s new foreign policy is Syria. In 1998, the two neighbours stood on the brink of war. Today, their economic and political ties are close. The Turkish-Syrian rapprochement went hand in hand with a cooling of relations with Israel. This process had already begun under Erdogan’s predecessor, the left-wing nationalist Bülent Ecevit, who accused Israel of “genocide” against the Palestinians. That being said, Erdogan visited Israel as recently as 2005; two years later, Israeli President Shimon Peres addressed the Turkish parliament.

Khalil Shikaki's Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research discovered that 43 percent of all Palestinians consider Turkey to be their most important foreign policy ally, ahead of Egypt at 13 percent and Iran at only 6 percent. Pictured: a Turkish national flag at a Hamas rally

Turkey’s policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is very different to that of the EU. While both advocate a peaceful resolution to the conflict and a two-state solution, they are talking to different players. Turkey accuses European diplomacy of ignoring reality because it is only talking to Fatah and boycotting Hamas. The Turkish reasoning is that there cannot be a peaceful solution without the involvement of Hamas. This is why Turkey is trying to pull Hamas into the political “mainstream”.

The differences of opinion between Turkey and the West are particularly blatant when it comes to Iran. While the West is toughening its sanctions against Iran, Turkey is developing its trade with the Islamic Republic.

Although Turkey has adopted a new, active foreign policy, it has not abandoned its pro-European, pro-Western course – that is the conclusion reached at at a conference in Istanbul organised by the Sabanci University, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and the Robert Bosch Foundation. Pictured: the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Turkey, Guido Westerwelle and ahmet Davutoglu

Last June, Turkey voted against harsher sanctions in the UN Security Council. Unlike the West, Turkey believes that the only way to normalise Iran is to normalise relations, which involves trade and diplomacy. Turkey is familiar with the kind of bazaar mentality that is needed for negotiations with Iran. For fear of destabilizing the region, neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Turkish Republic has ever supported rebellions in Iran. For centuries, the safeguarding of a regional balance of power has been more important than the pursuance of a foreign policy based on ideology. This is why Turkey’s sympathy with the dissident “green” movement is only modest.

Just like the EU, Turkey only plays a secondary role in the Middle East behind the United States. At the end of the Cold War, however, it correctly identified the shifting of the tectonic plates in world politics and now, as a modern, self-confident, trading nation, wants to grasp the opportunities that are arising. Turkey still has its sights set on Europe. But the door to Europe remains locked and so this newly self-confident nation is pursuing its own interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Rainer Hermann

© Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung/Qantara.de 2010

Translated from the German by Aingeal Flanagan

Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de

,

November 7, 2010