Category: Kazakhstan

Turkey looking at EU alternative

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

WASHINGTON – Turkey is no closer to membership in the European Union now than when it first applied in 1959 and instead it is looking eastward to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization out of total exasperation, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The SCO is comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Turkey, which is a long-standing member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, still holds out faint hope of joining the E.U.

The reality, however, is that fellow NATO members Germany, France and Greece have opposed Ankara’s membership, even though Turkey can ship its products duty-free to E.U. nations under a prior arrangement but people sending the products still need to file for a visa.

Turkey hopes to allow its citizens to enter into E.U. countries under the Schengen Treaty, which allows E.U. members to travel among the E.U. member countries without a visa.

“There is one issue that has been on top of our agenda still pending to be resolved,” said Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Minister for E.U. relations, “the Schengen visa preventing the free travel of Turkish citizens.”

“It is not fair,” he said. “Turkey is the only E.U. candidate country, whose citizens are still subject to visas. Turkey is the only country that had formed a Customs Union with the E.U. without becoming a member. The products of Turkish businessmen can freely flow into the Union, but the owners of those products cannot freely travel.”

Bagis said that Turkey still seeks membership. However, the E. U. “actually wants to forget us. We are not the ones that are undecided – the European Union is. Whereas, if they would just reveal their true intentions to us, we would be at ease. We could just look after our own business and go our own way. The European Union needs to stop stalling us.”

Turkey’s total exasperation recently was exhibited by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“I told Russian President (Vladimir) Putin, ‘You should include us in the Shanghai Five and we will say farewell to the European Union.’”

Separately, Erdogen let his feelings be known that the SCO “is better and more powerful, and we have common values with them. We told them ‘if you say come, we will.’ Pakistan wants to join, as does India. They have also made requests. We could all join together. In terms of population and markets, the organization significantly surpasses the European Union in every way.”

Some observers believe Erdogan is using the SCO as leverage to get into the E.U. Others aren’t so sure. They point to the fact that Erdogan has made such statements in the past.

Given the E.U.’s economic problems, Erdogan may be looking to the developing markets such as China and India for future opportunities. Turkey’s membership would especially be an asset to China and Russia, which would have greater access to Western technology as a result of Turkey being a NATO member.

For Turkey, this arrangement also would be of political benefit since it would be able to reassert its influence in a fast-expanding market of Central and East Asian countries, where Turkey under the Ottoman Empire asserted great influence.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.

via Turkey looking at EU alternative.

February 11, 2013
Once again on the issue of construction of Rogun Hydroelectric Power Plant

Over the past few years the attention of wide circles of international community, respected environmental organizations, experts of research centers in many countries engaged in studies of water management construction, riveted to the persistent efforts of Tajikistan on reanimation of the project on construction in the headwaters of Amu Darya of the complex of structures of Rogun Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) with the capacity of 3600 MW.

Previously it has been repeatedly noted that the construction project of Rogun HPP carries significant and massive technological, social, environmental and socio-economic risks and dangers, which is why its implementation induces justified opposition and objection of respected International Organizations and eminent experts, as well as countries in downstream ofAmu Darya.

It is primarily due to the following main factors. First of all, these include the technical project solutions for construction of Rogun HPP that do not meet current requirements and has been developed during the Soviet era, 35-40 years ago, with the distinctive feature of the period of pursuing gigantomania, and based on outdated standards, construction norms and rules that fall short of current requirements of ensuring the construction of hydraulic structures that are safe in all respects. This was repeatedly stated by the eminent professionals and experts.

Large-scale problems and accidents encountered by the builders of large HPPs built in the last few decades (“Three Gorges” in China, “Sayano-Shushenskaya HPP” and “Boguchanskaya HPP” in Russian Federation, large HPPs in South America, etc.) led to a reasonable conclusion that the standards and requirements that apply at present to such hydro facilities have dramatically changed and this caused in many cases the revision, suspension or even rejection of projects on their construction.

Besides, already during the engineering of Rogun HPP project Soviet specialist could not find adequate technical solutions for a number of major issues that remained unresolved. These include, in particular, measures to offset the inevitable effects of filtration and impact of a huge mass of water on a strong (more than100 metersthick) layer salt that lies at the base of the dam, as well as the high mobility of rock masses in the area of construction. Since then problems only worsened, as evidenced by the crash and complete destruction of a temporary bridged Rogun dam in 1993, as well as several other subsequent accidents.

Secondly, the project incorporates the construction of the dam with unprecedented in the world practice height of335 metersin the rock mass with repeatedly confirmed seismicity of 9-10 points on the Richter scale.

The construction site of Rogun HPP is situated in relatively newly formed mountain ranges of Vakhsh tectonic fault, an integral part of the chain of regional Southern Tian-Shan and Hissar-Kokshaalsk faults. The seismicity of these zones is the highest inCentral Asia, with the repeated cycles in the form of regular earthquakes up to 10 points. Such earthquakes, that occurred inTajikistanin the first half of last century, claimed in total the life of more than 100,000 people. It is suffice to recall the earthquake in 1911 of more than 9 points, which led to the formation of Usoy natural landslide dam andLakeSarezwith the capacity of 20 billion cubic meters of water.

This region is entering the stage of high seismic activity. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are up to eight earthquakes recorded weekly in the Pamir-Hindi Kush mountain range, which includes the Rogun HPP construction cite. A strong earthquake occurs inTajikistanevery four year and devastating one – every 10-15 years. Based on data analysis, some experts predict that over the next ten years one should expect strong destructive earthquakes in this mountain range. This is also confirmed in research studies by seismologists, including Tajik scientists.

In addition, construction of such a huge dam would require moving and disposing of 80 million cubic meters of soil, which, along with the 14 billion tons of water reservoir, will create additional pressure on the mountain. This will increase seismic vulnerability of the region, and one can surely predict that construction of the Rogun HPP will increase frequency and intensity of earthquakes in this area.

What would be the consequences of destruction of such a HPP caused by earthquake or human factor? Scientists and engineers estimate that dynamic pressure of 14 cubic kilometers of water trapped in the reservoir is capable to create giant waves – the so-called man-made tsunami – with more than100 metersin height, rushing down to theVakhshRiverat a speed as high as 500 km/per hour. It can completely destroy the Nurek dam, all other HPPs and hydro sites along the Vakhsh cascade and can flood the towns of Nurek, Sarban, Kurgantyube and Rumy. Moreover, while continuing its destructive movement, the flood wave would demolish dozens of towns and villages inTajikistan,UzbekistanandTurkmenistan, causing to incalculable consequences and death of many hundreds of thousands of lives.

Thirdly, the Rogun HPP Project poses a long-term and irreversible threat to environment of the region as well as in the socio-economic sphere.

Construction of a gigantic HPP would break delicate ecological balance in the region, having a devastating impact on water resource management and environmental situation. The formation of a water reservoir of 14 cubic kilometers will require a significant limitation of theVakhshRiverflow for at least 8-10 years, which will disrupt long-term water flow regulation in the region and increase water deficit up to a disastrously high level.

The construction of the HPP would completely disrupt the structure of natural water flows by decreasing the water flow sharply during the growing season and increasing water feed in the autumn-winter period, which will result in severe water scarcity, drought in summer time, as well as disastrous winter floods for downstream state of theAmu Darya.

A hydrological regime change of the Amu Darya River will also increase channel losses, which makes up to 15% in low-water period, accelerate the drying of downstream lakes and wetlands, emergence of new salt marshes and saline takyr surfaces, which would become major sources of salt transposition to adjacent farmlands, reducing soil fertility and crop yields on the ground. As a result, this will worsen environmental disaster of theAral Sea, which has a global impact.

It will also completely destroy economic basis of production and the prevailing modus vivendi way of more than 10 million people living in the Amu Darya downstream oasis inUzbekistanandTurkmenistan, who will be doomed to drought, hunger, and eventual displacement.

It is estimated that direct economic loss of the downstream countries, including Uzbekistan, resulting from the construction of Rogun HPP, make up more than $ 20 billion with no state willing to compensate. Additional economic and social problems will emerge as a result of forced displacement of people suffering from water shortage, causing sharp social instability to increase in the region.

As a result, total economic damage from this project is unquantifiable, and how, in what currency and what numbers the suffer and misery of millions of people could be estimated?

It is obvious that the construction of such dam contradicts not only to technical standards, economic logic, but also to the common sense, in general.

Precisely these threats from construction of Rogun HPP station are causing legitimate concerns of the international community and wide range of international organizations, such as United Nations, International Commission on Large Dams, World Water Council, International Union for Protection of Nature, as well as members of the European Parliament, Parliaments of the United States, Belgium and other countries, scientific and research centers of Japan, USA, the Netherlands, South Korea and other states.

As result of broad discussion of the problems associated with this project at various levels in the United Nations bodies, international scientific-practical forums and conferences, implemented over past few years, brought an understanding and clear formulation of principal position of the international community on necessity of carrying out of in-depth objective independent international expertise of this project.

It should be noted that opinion of independent experts goes inline with the norms of the international law in the field of transboundary water resources management. A number of UN conventions, such as The United Nations Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes of September 18, 1992; The 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Uses of International Watercourses, adopted by the UN General Assembly on May 21, 1997, are clearly defining the requirements for compulsory consideration of interests of all parties, located in zone of influence of transboundary water facilities, before taking decisions on elaboration of the projects associated with a transboundary effect.

Moreover, The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, which entered into force in 1997, envisages a full accounting of environmental consequences from construction of such facilities, and implementing of in-depth assessment of their impact with attraction of all interested parties.

Taking into account the opinion of international organizations and structures, and on the basis of international law, the World Bank decided in 2010 to conduct an independent international expertise of the project of construction of Rogun hydro-power station and provided USD 20,0 million for its implementation. A number of European firms from France, Switzerland and other countries are involved in this studies and its completion is expected at the first quarter of 2013.

In its turn, the government of Tajikistan took commitments in 2010 not to carry out construction works on Rogun hydro-power station’ site until the completion of independent technical, economic, social and environmental impact assessment from. At the same time Tajikistan pledged to the International Monetary Fund to stop campaign on forcible fund-raising from the population to finance the project of construction of Rogun hydro-power station.

However, unfortunately, at the present time it must be noted that, regardless of its commitments to the World Bank and IMF, the Tajik side is continuing to implement its “idee fixe”, unilaterally grossly violating the achieved agreements to prevent construction works at Rogun hydro-power station.

Numerous facts indicate that Tajikistan, in hidden from the international community, is carrying out behind closed doors a wide range of works on construction cite, which was started in the 1970s. At the present time massive construction works are being carried out on the site of Rogun HPP, its constructional drainage tunnels, turbine hall, quarries and other facilities of the station.

Both, the Tajik authorities have been actively attracting foreign contractors (fromRussia,Ukraineand other countries) to carry out works on designing the Rogun HPP facilities.

At the same time the Tajik side has been making contracts for supplies of equipment, components and materials needed for launching the first phase of the plant. Particularly, so far the equipment for launching the first power unit has been procured, produced and delivered. Shortly production of equipment for the second unit is to be finished and preparation for delivery is underway.

Along with allocation of significant budget funds for the last several years (more than USD 200 million annually), Tajikistan in violation of its obligations before the IMF has lately enhanced the compulsory sale of Rogun shares to the population despite harsh financial conditions of majority of people in the country.

All these actions are taken under enormous pressure of the Tajik leadership who recently claimed “that who against Rogun project is the enemy of the Tajik nation”.

Natural question arises – what is final objective of the construction or Rogun HPP, why despite numerous objections and violating all norm of international law,Tajikistanhas been trying to complete in accelerated paces the first stage of the plant?

The answer is clear – their final objective is to complete the first stage of the plant and put the World Bank and the entire international community in front of the fait accompli and thus legalize that which is actively opposed by the expert community and international structures.

Distorting the real situation, misleading and hiding the real works from the world community, the Tajik side has been trying to win time and finish the started works, to cross the line of no return when international experts will have to put up with the fait accompli of completed Rogun HPP.

At the same time the Tajik side through the controlled media and experts on payroll has been irresponsibly speculating, completely distorting facts and arguments of international experts, manipulating figures with a view to convince the people of Tajikistan that there is no alternative to the construction of Rogun HPP.

Thereby they have been trying to distort the real state of affairs and use all possible and impossible means to accomplish their goal which is construction of the Rogun HPP while ignoring all catastrophic risks and dangers which this project may entail.

One should stress that many of international experts and neighboring countries of Tajikistan located in the lower reach of the Amudarya river have been proposing a reasonable alternative which might address the problem of a reliable power supply to Tajikistan at a significantly less cost and time not creating a large-scale man-made, ecologic, social and economic threats for both Tajikistan and its neighbors. That alternative is the construction of a number of small scale hydropower plants. Considering this alternative has been one of the most important directions of the World Bank activities.

Following conclusions can be made from the aforesaid:

First. It is not normal when the Tajik side has been continuing the construction of the Rogun HPP ignoring numerous warnings and recommendations of international experts and specialists gravely violating its commitments on suspending all civil works until the completion of the World Bank expert examination.

Second. The policy adopted and pursued by the Tajik and which is based on covert continuation of the construction of the Rogun HPP may entail the gravest and unpredictable consequences impossible to mitigate. It cannot be ignored.

Pravda Vostoka, July 12, 2012

July 16, 2012
Tony Blair and the £8million tax ‘mystery’

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a complicated web of companies and paid just a fraction in tax, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a complicated web of companies. Photo: Getty

By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter

Official accounts show a company set up by Mr Blair to manage his business affairs paid just £315,000 in tax last year on an income of more than £12 million. In that time, he employed 26 staff and paid them total wages of almost £2.3 million.

The accounts provide the strongest evidence yet of the huge sums generated by Mr Blair through his various activities since quitting Downing Street in June 2007.

He runs a business consultancy – Tony Blair Associates – which has deals with the governments of Kuwait and Kazakhstan among others and is a paid adviser to JP Morgan, an American investment bank, and to Zurich International, a global insurance company based in Switzerland. Mr Blair makes a further £100,000 a time from speeches and lectures while also presiding over a number of charities including a faith foundation.

Mr Blair has previously been criticised for cashing in on contacts made in Downing Street and these accounts will likely add to those concerns.

The documents also reveal that in the two years until March 31 last year, Mr Blair’s management company had a total turnover of more than £20 million and paid tax of about £470,000.

The scale of Mr Blair’s finances are shown in accounts lodged by Windrush Ventures Limited, just one of a myriad of companies and partnerships set up by the former prime minister. Windrush Ventures Ltd’s “principal activity” is the “provision of management services” to Mr Blair’s various other interests.

The accounts for the 12 months to March 31 were lodged with Companies House in the week between Christmas and New Year and made publicly available for the first time last week. Previously the accounts have contained almost no information because Windrush was classified as a small company. This time auditors appear to have been obliged to divulge more information because of the amount of money being handled.

The accounts show a turnover of £12.005 million and administrative expenses of £10.919 million, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of just over £1 million, on which Mr Blair paid tax of £315,000. The tax was paid at the corporate tax rate of 28 per cent.

Of those expenses, £2.285 million went on paying 26 employees at an average salary of almost £88,000. Windrush Ventures also pays £550,000 a year to rent Mr Blair’s offices in Grosvenor Square, a stone’s throw from the US embassy in Mayfair in central London and a further sum of about £300,000 on office equipment and furniture. But those costs amount to a little more than £3 million, meaning almost £8 million of “administrative expenditure” is unexplained in the accounts.

It is not known from the accounts what happened to that huge sum.

Tax specialists who have studied the accounts have told The Sunday Telegraph that the tax paid in 2010 of £154,000 and £315,000 in 2011 appears low because costs have been offset against the administrative costs, which remain largely unexplained.

One City accountant, who did not wish to be named, said: “It is very difficult to see what these administrative costs could be. It is a very large amount for a business like this. I am sure it is legitimate but it is certainly surprising.

“The tax bill of £315,000 is explained by the large administrative costs that are being treated as tax allowable.”

Richard Murphy, a charted accountant who runs Tax Research LLP and has studied Mr Blair’s company accounts, said: “There is about £8 million which we don’t know where it goes. That money is unexplained. There is no indication at all why the administration costs are so high. What has happened to about £8 million which is being offset against tax?”

There is no suggestion that Mr Blair’s tax affairs are anything other than legitimate. His accounts are audited by KPMG, one of the world’s biggest accountancy firms. Mr Blair presides over 12 different legal entities, handling the millions of pounds he has received since leaving office. Another set of companies, which are run in parallel to Windrush Ventures, are called Firerush Ventures and appear to operate in exactly the same, oblique way.

The money paid into Windrush Ventures Ltd largely comes from Windrush Ventures No. 3 Limited Partnership, which appears to be where money is deposited before being spread around other companies, ultimately in Mr Blair’s ownership. The limited partnership does not have to disclose publicly any accounts allowing its activities to remain secret.

Mr Murphy said last night: “It is in the limited partnership where things really happen. But that is the one Mr Blair keeps secret. We don’t know how much money is in the LP. It is completely hidden. The question is why is Tony Blair running such as a completely secretive organisation?”

A spokesman for Mr Blair said last night: “The Windrush accounts are prepared in accordance with the relevant legal, accounting and regulatory guidance. Tony Blair continues to be a UK taxpayer on all of his income and all of his companies are UK registered for tax purposes.”

The spokesman added that the accounts did not relate to any of Mr Blair’s charitable activities, which raised money separately as independently registered charities.

The spokesman chose not to explain what happened to about £8 million of administrative expenses.

www.telegraph.co.uk, 07 Jan 2012

January 9, 2012
Analysis: Turkey helps pull the rug from under Nabucco

By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
Houston, Texas

Judging from the press reports, one would not know it, but Turkey, the presumed supporter of the Nabucco gas project, recently helped kill the project.

It was not to be so. After all, the Nabucco project was designed not only to supply natural gas to the EU from the Caspian region and the Middle East, but also help Turkey meet its domestic needs. The intergovernmental agreement signed in Ankara amid media publicity in July 2009, followed by parliamentary seal of approval in March 2010, gave all the indications that Turkey would stand by the project.

Turkey’s BOTAS was one of the 6 partners that developed the project. The Vienna-based NIC (Nabucco International Company) represented the consortium formed by the partners. The 3,900 km-long pipeline’s planned destination was Baumgarten in Austria.

Not that the project was ideal for Turkey (). But compared to its rivals ITGI (Italy-Greece Interconnector) and TAP (Trans-Adriatic Pipeline), not to mention a host of “exotic” Black Sea options flagged by Azerbaijan, it was the most mature and most comprehensive gas pipeline project to connect Turkey and the EU to the supply sources to the east. Strategically it deserved Turkey’s support. It was the only project among its rivals that aimed to transport Azeri as well as non-Azeri gas. Turkmen gas was a high-priority objective.

Surely, with its ambitious design capacity of 31 billion m3 (bcm)/year, Nabucco was under stress. What was holding the project from implementation was the lack of feed (throughput) gas. The feed gas problem caused delays in the project, and the capital costs soared (up to EUR 14-15 billion by most recent estimates). The Azeri Shah Deniz-II gas was identified as the initial start-up gas as from 2017-2018.

But Azerbaijan, that owned the gas, and the Shah Deniz consortium that would share and produce it, were non-committal about supplying gas. That meant major headache for Nabucco. Turkmen gas input required the cooperation of Azerbaijan, and would be added to the gas stream at a later date.

In the meantime, the rival projects ITGI and TAP emerged. Like Nabucco, these also counted on Shah Deniz-II gas for throughput. A winner-take-all pipeline contest was in the works.

Still, Nabucco had a good fighting chance. On October 1, 2011, NIC submitted its proposal to the Shah Deniz consortium tabling transport terms. The rival projects ITGI and TAP did the same. A high-stakes waiting game would then start, during which the Shah Deniz consortium would pick the winner.

The spoiler project

All that changed when BP (British Petroleum), at the last minute before the October 1 deadline, came up with a new, “in-house” project: SEEP (South-East Europe Pipeline). It was a shrewd move, and immediately caught the attention of the Shah Deniz consortium – where BP is the operator and a major (25.5%) stake holder. The Azeri partner SOCAR, in particular, quickly warmed up to BP’s proposal.

Instead of building a new pipeline across the Turkish territory, SEEP envisioned the use of BOTAS’ existing network (with upgrades) in Turkey and construction of new pipelines and their integration with existing interconnectors past Turkey. Azeri gas would be the feed gas. The destination would still be Austria, but the cost would be much less than that of Nabucco.

Nabucco had come under threat.

Behind the scenes

Events behind the scenes further undermined Nabucco. On October 25 Ankara and Baku signed an intergovernmental agreement in Izmir in western Turkey. Details released to the press were sketchy, but one of the accords reached was to use initially BOTAS’ existing network in Turkey, and later build a new pipeline when needed, to ship Shah Deniz II gas to Turkey and the EU. Starting in 2017 or 2018, of the total 16 bcm gas to be produced annually from the Shah Deniz-II phase, Turkey would receive 6 bcm, and the rest 10 bcm would be shipped to the EU.

Azerbaijan would be the direct seller of gas to the EU, with Turkey being a mere bridge or transit route.

No mention was made of Nabucco, ITGI, TAP, or SEEP in the press release, but the footprints of SEEP were unmistakable.

Demise of Nabucco

Still worse news followed. On November 17, during the Third Black Sea Energy and Economic Forum held in Istanbul, SOCAR chief Rovnag Abdullayev announced that a new gas pipeline, which he named “Trans-Anatolia,” would be built in Turkey from east to west under the leadership of SOCAR. The new pipeline would deliver Shah Deniz II gas to Turkey and Europe.

Azerbaijan and Turkey had already started working on the pipeline project, he said, and others could possibly join later. The planned capacity was at least 16 bcm/year –large enough to absorb all future Azeri exports after depletion of Shah Deniz II.

While not stated so, the announcement made Nabucco effectively redundant. The announcement was an offtake from the Izmir agreement, and signaled a surprising, 180-degree turn on the part of Turkey on Nabucco.

Turkey’s energy minister Yildiz Taner tried to put the best face in the press by claiming that Trans-Anatolian would “supplement” Nabucco, while the NIC chief Reinhard Mitschek expressed his “confidence” in Nabucco.

More recently SOCAR’s Abdullayev maintained that Nabucco was still “in the race,” and NIC started the pre-qualification process for procurement contractors.

For all these business-as-usual pronouncements, however, there was little doubt that Nabucco had received a fatal blow. If Trans-Anatolia, dedicated to Shah Deniz II gas, is built, Nabucco will lose its start-up gas, and with it the justification for a new infrastructure across Turkey.

Without synergy from the Azeri gas, a full-fledged Nabucco project dedicated solely to Turkmen gas will also have a virtually zero chance of implementation.

Nabucco, in its present form, was dead. (See also . A much-modified, “truncated” version of Nabucco, starting at the Turkey-Bulgaria border, may well emerge, however.

Conclusion

With Nabucco frozen in its tracks, the geopolitics of energy in Turkey and its neighborhood has changed dramatically ). What is surprising is that Turkey assisted in undermining a project that it had long supported. It was a project that encompassed both Azeri and Turkmen gas. To reduce its dependence on Russia for its gas exports, Turkmenistan has been eager to ship its gas to the West.

Azerbaijan, apparently viewing Turkmen gas exports to the West a threat to its own gas exports, has been reluctant to cooperate with Ashgabat on this issue.

Turkey acceded to the aspirations of the Azeri brethren, while ignoring those of the Turkmen brethren. Over the past year, as the EU delegates approached repeatedly Ashgabat for Turkmen gas (vis-à-vis a TCGP or Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline), Turkey chose to stay on the sidelines. This was a strategic mistake.

Both Baku and Ashgabat could benefit from a synergy between the Azeri and Turkmen gaz exports, and Turkey could use gas from both sources to enhance its energy security. Being pro-active on TGCP and nudging Azerbaijan in that direction would have been a wise move for Turkey. On balance, there is little doubt that on the gas issue Azerbaijan has played its cards well – perhaps too well!

ferruh@demirmen.com

December 24, 2011
Kazakh Diaspora in Turkey

Posted on November 8, 2011 by ok4u2bu

Over 20 thousand Kazakhs live in Turkey today. The Kazakh diaspora in Turkey originates from the migration wave of 1930, when 18 thousand Kazakhs moved to India and Pakistan, and later in 1952 they moved to Turkey. The migration was caused by different reasons: political, economic and religious.

The majority of Kazakh immigrants live in Istanbul.

Back then they had to choose between the USA and Turkey, and they chose the latter due to the similarity of culture and traditions of Turkey and Kazakhstan.

Turkish government helps the immigrants assimilate by providing them with land, housing and cattle, granting citizenship, and releasing them from military service for a 5-yeear-period.

This professor of history, born in Turkey, belongs to an intellectual elite of the diaspora. He represents the third generation of his family which lives in this country.

At first he studied programming but his wrestle with question of where Kazakhs came from and where they go to, made him turn to history.

His wife is from India. They have three daughters and a son, who have to attend Kazakh language classes to be able to speak it. Unfortunately, by this time most Kzakhs living in Turkey have forgotten it.

Lunch time.

Kazakh friends. This woman is 77.

This mosque was built by Kazakhs in 1975.

Names of the leaders of the migration are inscribed on this stele.

On the way to the elder’s house.

This man was born in 1921. He says that when they were young, they were brave and it helped them survive at those difficult times.

He also wrote a book where he described the migration of Kazakhs to Turkey.

This villa belongs to a Kazakh, whose grandfather migrated to Turkey in 1953.

In one of the letters written by the grandfather, the man read about precious stones left in Kazakhstan, which he later found.

His first business was plastic materials production, then he began producing paper building materials and so on and so forth.

His villa reminds him of the lifestyle they have in Kazakhstan.

He was presented with a normand’s tent and decorated it with hand-made souvenirs from Mongolia and China.

In this tent they celebrate holidays, such as wedding days of his children or birthdays…

Elders.

This musician travels around Turkey and European countries and plays traditional Kazakh music together with his band.

When Kazakhs moved to such cities as Ankara and Izmir, they developed a new industry there – dressing skin and tailoring leather goods.

Some Kazakhs have their own tailoring shops…

… like this family.

This woman sews and embroiders bedclothes for newly weds.

This man is a lawyer and his wife is a dentist. They visit Kazakhstan as often as they can.

This woman has been making national ornaments for 17 years.

And 90-year-old man sends his best regards to Kazakhstan and people who live there now.

Location: Turkey

December 10, 2011
Turkey seeks to institutionalize relations with Turkic republics

CEREN KUMOVA / AYDIN ALBAYRAK, ANKARA

President Abdullah Gül gives a speech at an international meeting to mark the 20th year of the independence of Turkic republics.

As the 20th anniversary of independence arrives for the Turkic republics, Turkey is reviewing its connections with the countries it deems “brothers,” looking for a more institutionalized touch that speaks more to the mind than to the heart.

Although these countries, namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, have traditionally held priority of place amongst Turkey’s bilateral ties with other countries, the arrival of the 20th anniversary of their independence has prompted Turkey to review its long-standing policy toward them. What has been accomplished between the countries, popularly claimed to be “different states of the same nation,” in these 20 years is a clear indication that it might be high time for Turkey to build on the strong ties, but with solid accomplishment that speaks for the pledges.

Turkey has been reviewing its policy in a way that looks to balance ties with regard to past issues to give birth to solutions, Turkish officials told Sunday’s Zaman on the sidelines of an international meeting Turkey hosted in celebration of the anniversaries. These statements confirm the obvious fact that in spite of the great importance Turkey attaches to its Turkic brothers, relations with these countries have not always evolved into solid cooperation; to the contrary, the ties have loosened due to Turkey’s naïve and mistaken conviction that they can be maintained without much effort because of the historic and ethnic ties. Now Turkey seems to be aligning its foreign policy in a way that would close the gap and revive old partnerships.

Twenty years ago when the Turkic states acquired their independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkish political leaders were quite enthusiastic about the prospects this new state of affairs offered Turkey: The first initiatives towards the region were mainly based on emotions, in the process of which, Turkey emerged as a protective elder brother, which caused drawbacks over the long-run when the role was too much to deliver. Twenty years later, it is all the more clear for Turkey that it may not actually be the right way to build lasting relations, as for some time now the motivation behind relations between the “brotherly” countries has progressively evolved into a system where the interests of the parties involved are more important than emotions.

As a result, cooperation between the Turkic countries has increasingly gotten better, although some problems still persist between these countries themselves, as a result of which the Nakhchivan Agreement was signed between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, while the two others, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, remained outside, on Oct. 3, 2009. The agreement paved the way for the foundation of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States (CCTS), which became operational at a summit in 2010 in İstanbul, laying the groundwork to hopefully put the council on a more solid track.

The next step in the council meetings is scheduled for Astana, where ministers of economy come together on Oct. 13, followed by another meeting of foreign ministers on Oct 21. Also that month the heads of the Turkic states will meet at the first get-together of the CCTS, proving that the long-desired institutionalization may now be under way for the Turkic republics and Turkey.

Emotions cause for past disappointments

Since the countries enjoyed a close bond and a common world vision without much effort from either side, heartfelt expectations sometimes melted into disappointment — a feeling Turkey is trying to eradicate by putting affairs on solid ground to foster political, economic, cultural and social ties between the states.

The international meeting held in Turkey earlier this week on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the independence of the Turkic republics is a clear indication that the countries are eager to come together on the diplomatic track and alternative avenues, define problems and look for solutions to existing issues. “Turkey’s dream in the ’90s of forming an economic union with the newly emerged Turkic countries did not come true,” Halil Akıncı, secretary-general of the CCTS and a former ambassador, noted as he co-chaired a session during the Ankara meetings of Oct. 5 and 6. Akıncı added that the formation of institutional bodies between the states makes it easier to track progress and ensures that problems do not only get “whined about” but are put on an agenda to be solved. “Past issues stemmed from over-emotional reactions between the Turkic republics; it is high time we emerge from that,” Akıncı stated at an evaluation session on Thursday.

The Turkic Council, Akıncı noted, would initially deal with economic progress but continue with a second phase concerning the cultural and educational fields. To this end, Akıncı said a common history book would be published, presenting the shared history of the republics and that a Turkic Academy would be founded to study the culture of the Turkic republics. “The 20 years of relations between Turkic states have been fruitful,” commented Bülent Aras, chairman of Center for Strategic Research (SAM), a research body founded under the umbrella of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, in a quick interview with Sunday’s Zaman on the margin of the meeting. “There is a great tendency for cooperation, and steps we cannot downplay have been taken,” Aras noted but admitted that the current level of developments between the states was not enough. “We have developed a fresh perspective in our relations; more cooperation is sure to come in the future,” Aras added, hinting that Turkey is indeed changing its attitude toward the Turkic republics.

Obstacles

The bonds between the six states are also affected by a complex interwoven web of relations with each other, as well as with other parties, which have a claim on the dynamics of the region. The last instance of a dispute between Turkey and its major Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, erupted in 2009 when Turkey tried to normalize relations with Armenia through outlining a roadmap that would make the dysfunctional border between the neighbors operational again. However, Azerbaijan lashed out at the possibility of normalization before a solution is found to the Armenian occupation of a number of Azeri enclaves around Nagorno-Karabakh, which is why Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in the first place.

In the case of waiving visa requirements between Azerbaijan and Turkey, it was Iran that intervened and blocked the prospect, saying that it would ask to benefit from the same privilege if Turkey was given the green light.

An additional debate that usually comes up on the economic sidelines between the nations concerns energy prices, since Turkey is the buyer and transporter of large amounts of Azeri natural gas.

Touching on difficulties facing Turkic states in their quest for better cooperation, Mehmet Seyfettin Erol, a professor of international relations at Gazi University in Ankara, told Sunday’s Zaman in an interview that under the surface, there was much to be considered for relations to evolve to the desired level. Hailing the establishment of the CCTS, founded with the Nakhchivan Agreement, which is “the best move Turkey has ever made in Central Asia,” Erol stated most plans to increase cooperation have remained at their initial stages due to a large number of obstacles.

Lamenting difficulties the Turkic republics face in their diplomatic connections, Erol added that Turkey could only improve relations through deeply rooted diplomatic tracks, which necessitate more institutionalization from all ends. Although the academic stressed that the states wanted more institutionalization, he noted the current level of ties remained at the initial phase of intentions and should be backed by solid plans to move on to the next phase.

His words were confirmed by Dr. Aydar Amrebaev, deputy director of the Kazakhstan Institute for World Economy and Politics (IWEP), at the Thursday session of the international meeting, as he spoke of the problems within the Turkic states. “There are no representatives from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. As the Turkic world, we need to solve the problems of the Caspian region,” Amrebaev stated. Not only Amrebaev but also Associate Professor Bulat Sultanov, director of the Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Research, underlined that relations should be handled on an equal basis, implying that Kazakhstan has no need of aid from Turkey but needs cooperation in many fields, including defense and security.

www.sundayszaman.com, 09 October 2011

October 10, 2011