Turkish Forum

Category: South Asia

  • Islam and democracy can – and do – coexist

    Islam and democracy can – and do – coexist

    logo_csmonitorJust look at successes in Indonesia and Turkey.

    By John Hughes

    from the May 8, 2009 edition

    Provo, Utah – Over the years American presidents have preached the power of freedom to the un-free nations of the world.

    In recent times, the focus has been on the Arab world, where democratic progress has been scant. President George W. Bush’s efforts – from candid speeches to Arab leaders to a costly war in Iraq – have yielded mixed results.

    President Obama is pursuing a different course, using a blend of personal charm abroad and efforts at home to burnish America’s image as a democratic example.

    Throughout all this, skeptics have argued that this is a lost cause, and that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

    So it is heartening to see the integration of democracy and Islam taking place in three huge countries whose Muslim populations make up somewhere between a quarter and a third of the world’s entire Muslim populace.

    Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population (205 million), is undergoing national elections that will strengthen its steady democratic progress. India, which has a minority population of some 150 million Muslims, is finishing up month-long elections for a nation of more than 1 billion people. Turkey, with a Muslim population of 77 million, is a working example of a secular democracy in a Muslim country.

    These examples may not offer a blueprint for the mostly undemocratic Arab world. But their success does offer welcome evidence that Islam and democracy can coexist, maybe even integrate.

    Indonesia’s emergence as a peaceful democracy is notable because its past has not always been free of violence or manipulation. When I worked as a correspondent in Indonesia in the 1960s, the Army put down a communist-triggered coup and wrought terrible vengeance across the Indonesian archipelago.

    Estimates of the death toll rose as high as 1 million people. My own estimate was about 200,000. An investigating commission reporting to President Sukarno listed 78,000 people dead – a dreadfully inaccurate figure that was offered up, a source told me, because “We gave Sukarno the figures we thought he wanted to hear.”

    Indonesia’s travail continued under the man who deposed him, General Suharto. Yet today, Indonesia has become a country of order and promise.

    India is currently conducting its 15th national election since achieving independence in 1947. Indians proudly proclaim the process to be the “world’s biggest exercise in democracy.” Though India is predominantly Hindu, the Muslims who live there tend not to vote as a religious bloc, but spread their votes across a multiplicity of parties with differing policies.

    Months ago, Mr. Obama said he wanted to make a major address in an Islamic capital early in his presidency. He hasn’t done that yet, but it is no surprise that he chose Turkey for his “the US is not at war with Islam” speech. Turkey has proved, as Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, once said, “that you can have a democracy in a Muslim-majority country.” In free elections, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has successfully maintained Turkey as a secular, free-market society since 2003.

    There have been spats between Turkey and the US. Turkey barred US forces from using its territory as a launching pad for the war against Saddam Hussein. Its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been a blistering critic of Israel over Gaza. But Obama’s visit was well received, and the US considers Turkey a useful potential interlocutor in the various challenges of the Middle East – a role that Turkey appears ready to assume.

    Though Indonesia, India, and Turkey, each in their different ways, present welcome examples of compatibility between Islam and democracy, it is often democracy molded to accommodate local cultures and customs. It is freedom, but not necessarily democracy as defined in Washington or the capitals of western Europe.

    John Hughes, a former editor of the Monitor, won a Pulitzer Prize in 1967 for his coverage of Indonesia. He writes a biweekly column for the Monitor Weekly.

    Source:  www.csmonitor.com, May 8, 2009

  • Turkey as a Ally in Obama’s Foreign Policy

    Turkey as a Ally in Obama’s Foreign Policy

    The Middle East Institute of Columbia University
    and
    SIPA Turkish Initiative

    Present


    “The Resurgence of Turkey as a Central Ally in Obama’s Foreign Policy”

    with

    54F1DAAD2C488B4F83C4791Fb
    Nicole Pope

    Former Turkey Correspondent for the French Daily Le Monde and the Co-author of “Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey”


    Thursday, April 23rd
    7:00 pm – 8:30 pm

    Columbia University International Affairs Building, Room 404 (Street level)
    420 West 118th street (at Amsterdam Avenue)

    Directions: 1 train to 116th street. Walk east through the campus to Amsterdam Avenue
    Campus map: http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/map/
    Zoomed map: http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/map/international_affairs.html

    Free and open to the public

    Refreshments and baklava will be served

    Obama recently made the first country visit of his presidency to Turkey. The strong parallels between Turkish foreign policy andObama’s new foreign policy appear to indicate a prominent role for Turkey in achieving major U.S. foreign policy objectives during the Obama administration.  Is Turkey indeed re-emerging as a central ally for the U.S.?

    Nicole Pope is a Swiss journalist and writer, based in Istanbul since 1987. She is co-author of “Turkey Unveiled: a history of modern Turkey” and worked for 15 years as Turkey correspondent for the French daily Le Monde. Her articles have also been published in numerous other international publications including The Economist, The International Herald Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Independent. Nicole worked for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad (1982-83) and in south Lebanon (1983-84). She has also lived in Tehran, Bahrain and Cyprus.


  • India-Israel Defense Relations Threatened by Scandal

    India-Israel Defense Relations Threatened by Scandal

    indianpmsinghMayank Bubna | 13 Apr 2009

    WORLD POLITICS REVIEW

    NEW DELHI, India — One of India’s biggest ever defense deals with Israel, worth $2 billion, hovered on the brink of collapse earlier this month after allegations of graft to the tune of $120 million surfaced. Indian Defense Minister A. K. Anthony was quick to deny the claims, while asserting that the government would take strict action against the Israeli company and the Indian middlemen involved should the charges be true. This was, however, the second blow to Indo-Israeli relations in a matter of days — the first being a controversial video produced by Israeli defense firm Rafael and shown at a recent arms expo that lampooned India’s Bollywood movie industry.

    The bad news came at a time when ties between the two countries could not have been stronger. In March, Israel officially overtook Russia to acquire the enviable position of India’s largest arms supplier. Now the deal involving the sale of surface-to-air missiles by Israel Aerospace Industries to the Indian government seems to have been jeopardized.

    India-Israel strategic relations have traditionally been defined around security. Prior to the 1990s, India regarded with skepticism military ties to a state founded around its religious identity. Struggling to deal with the growing menace of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, though, and impressed with Israel’s successes in wars against neighboring Arab nations, India has cultivated closer ties since then.

    The shift was also aided by weakening Indo-Russian relations, frayed in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Several problems have arisen in Indo-Russian bilateral defense cooperation since 1991, including but not limited to issues of spare parts provision, technical documentation and what one analyst called “scant respect for contractual obligations” — a reference to Russian delivery delays, property rights disputes and avoidable cost escalations.

    But if Israel has emerged as a partner of convenience in India’s efforts to diversify its arms procurement, the relationship has also presented potential problems. According to P. R. Kumaraswamy, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, restructuring India’s defense capabilities to facilitate purchases from Irael might be detrimental in the long run. “Israel does not export platforms, rather it only offers high-tech innovation upgrades,” he says, referring to Israel’s limited arms inventory. Technology is not as tangible as military hardware. Furthermore, India is incapable of a “complete military overhaul,” which according to Kumaraswamy would become necessary if India shifted completely from one major supplier to another.

    Another critical factor is the political costs of courting Israel. Domestically, politicians fear the loss of the Indian Muslim vote. Problems in Kashmir may be very different from and seemingly unrelated to the Palestine issue. But in an age of increasing globalization, many in India have strong sympathies for the Palestinian cause.

    Internationally, however, India stands to lose less. According to Kumaraswamy, it is “unfashionable” to speak of the Israeli factor as affecting Indo-Arab strategic ties. Arab apprehensions, if any, have usually been discussed only in private circles. Historically, Arab nations have grudgingly accepted Indo-Israel strategic relations, even as thousands of Indians continue to live and work in several Middle Eastern nations.

    Iran, too, has pursued an India policy independent of Israel. According to Kumaraswamy, Iran can afford to do this because there are “certain things that Iran can supply which Israel cannot, like energy security.” Israel’s strength lies in security cooperation, an area of collaboration where Iran has little to offer India.

    Yet, growing India-Israel cooperation could now be in peril, thanks to public outrage over the recent corruption allegations. While defense procurement fraud is hardly news to the Indian public, this most recent incident stands out for its dimensions. The largest previous scandal involved the sale of Swedish howitzers in the 1980s, in which several Indian ministers were alleged to have received about $12 million in kickbacks. The current Israel deal involves corruption charges amounting to 10 times this amount.

    Traditionally India has somehow brushed off these humiliations, managing to treat corruption as inevitable and therefore tolerated within the Indian political system. Whether this same sense of fatalism can help it endure this most recent crisis remains to be seen.

    Mayank Bubna is a freelance war correspondent and consultant. He is presently based in India.

    Source:  www.worldpoliticsreview.com, 13 Apr 2009

  • Interview transcript: Abdullah Gul

    Interview transcript: Abdullah Gul

    Published: April 8 2009 15:24 | Last updated: April 8 2009 15:24

    In an interview with Delphine Strauss in Ankara after Barack Obama’s visit, Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president spoke of his reaction to the US president’s initiatives and warned that European criticisms could pose a threat to western security interests. The following is a transcript of the interview

    What do you expect the impact of President Obama’s visit to be inside Turkey?

    Gul: First of all we were very happy because this is the first overseas visit – the first bilateral visit of the new US president – to our country and the fact that he has chosen Turkey and has chosen to address the Islamic world from the Turkish parliament made us very happy.

    We have seen that they realise the place of Turkey. I told him, take out a piece of paper and write down the priorities for US foreign policy. I’d also take a paper and write down the issues Turkey has been dealing with. You will not see such similarities with any other country in the issues they are dealing with.

    Of course the US is a superpower, so they have duties, but in this region we are one of the important countries. In this region, from Afghanistan to the Balkans, from energy security to the Middle East, from terrorism to nuclear disarmament, these are issues not only of interest to Turkey but to all of the world.

    Therefore the visit of the US president to Turkey was not only aiming at strengthening bilateral relations between the two countries but also of great relevance to regional and international issues.

    One of the most important messages Obama gave yesterday was his support for the talks going on between Armenia and Turkey. He also met yesterday evening with both foreign ministers. What is left to resolve before we see public steps on this issue?

    Gul: As I’m sure you know there have been efforts at normalisation from time to time between the two countries, but as you see these efforts accelerated after my visit to Armenia. This visit was a historical visit because this was the first time a Turkish president was in Yerevan and from that time on from telephone calls and other communications we have come to a certain mutual understanding on normalisation of relations. Through bilateral talks, I can say that we have reached a good understanding towards normalisation. In fact, after last summer there has been a new situation in the Caucasus. Everybody saw that these problems which we thought were frozen could immediately become big problems.

    Therefore we have started an initiative named Stability and Cooperation in the Caucasus. From this perspective the major problem in the Caucasus is the Karabagh question between Armenia and Azerbaijan, We wish that this problem is resolved so that a new climate emerges in the Caucasus, because in fact although this is a relatively small area it can become a wall between East and West or it can become a gateway.

    We are in a great effort to resolve these problems in the Caucasus and I believe that the year 2009 is a year of opportunity in that respect. And therefore I would like to invite everybody, beginning with the Minsk group, to multiply their efforts to come up with a solution.

    We heard from president Obama that a breakthrough in these talks could be very close. Are you saying we should not expect a public step forward before there has been progress in the Minsk group?

    Gul: I can say that there is a good level of understanding between the parties and goodwill on both sides

    There is a clear statement that partnership with Turkey is crucial to US policies in the region. What role exactly does the US want Turkey to play, for example, in Afghanistan?

    Gul: Frankly in this visit there was no concrete demand. Based on our understanding of our responsibility in that matter we have increased our efforts, our contributions, not only in terms of our military presence but also in our civilian activities.

    As you know we had the command of ISAF twice before and we will now take over the command of the forces in Afghanistan. There are other sides of our military activities but what’s more important is the civilian activities that we’re undertaking and I’ve shared this extensively in our Nato meeting. I’ve visited Kabul. I stayed there two days, I visited everywhere in that city and I saw that we cannot win people’s hearts and minds no matter how much we spend on the military side. I said before that the streets of Kabul are flooded with mud. People are walking there as if they are just floating on mud. We’ve now allocated $100m for asphalting streets in Kabul. We’ve almost finished the tender process and started actually preparing the roads. In a country where the girls are not allowed to go out in the street, we’ve open tens of schools for girls. In total we’ve opened hundreds of schools.

    You might have followed that five days ago we had the president of Afghanistan and Pakistan and also the general chiefs of joint staff [for meetings in Ankara]… This was very important… Our sole objective in this was to establish a working relationship between these institutions and it actually materialised.

    I have obtained in full the opinion of both of these presidents so that I can convey these views to the Nato leaders and to president Obama. I was very happy that I shared our assessments and the realities and the facts in a very open manner and I think it was of great service.

    Our foreign minister has visited all three regions in Afghanistan, many cities, with his wife. We are not leaders to go to Afghanistan and to visit our troops there in an isolated manner and come back. So the capacity of contribution in Turkey in those matters is very large. Why are we doing all of this? We are doing all of this for peace and stability and to expand our common values.

    I understand that as Turkey takes over command in Afghanistan that will involve increasing the numbers of troops. Is that correct?

    Gul: Yes, as I’ve said we’re increasing our military and civilian presence. The way in which we do these things, the military authorities are working on that.

    Do you have a sense of the numbers involved?

    Gul: This will certainly be an important contribution but there will not be any combat forces.

    Turkey has been very assertive in its foreign policy recently, for example making its objections to the appointment of Mr Rasmussen very clear. Is there a risk of all this antagonising its European partners?

    Gul: That shouldn’t be the case. Especially in a defence organisation like Nato, it is necessary that you discuss these matters in decision making mechanisms and come to a decision. Since 1952 Turkey has been the most active member of nato and a major contributor. During the cold war period Turkey spent its own resources for the defence of Europe. This should be appreciated.

    We have discussed [Rasmussen’s candidacy] with all of our partners over the phone and we had some questions and we shared our concerns and so our concerns are met.

    Now we must look to the future and we have to work all together in order to make the new secretary general successful.

    In fact concerning the points you have raised I am aware of some opinions from various circles and this is worrying.

    [Breaking in on translator in English] It’s very dangerous and making us disturbed.

    [Switching back to Turkish] You know for example even in the EU, some countries whose contributions are smaller may be blocking or vetoing some strategic issues which can be extremely important.

    In this present case, if a country has a significant and vital contribution to the organisation, if they have concerns, rational concerns on a concrete subject it is very natural that this should be listened to and responded to. So these points should not be underestimated.

    We neither engaged in blackmail nor did we have an irrational request. We acted in a rational logical and in a modern way within the compromise which is a European culture. And indeed in the end we came to an understanding. Therefore I am surprised to see comments of that nature coming from certain countries. I don’t find it terribly in line with the European spirit.

    There’s been a lot of speculation about exactly what guarantees given allowed Turkey to overcome its objections [to Rasmussen’s appointment]. Can you able to tell me how president Obama was able to convince you?

    Gul: I prefer not to communicate through newspaper headlines. We should look to the future. We should make Nato and the new Secretary General successful.

    One issue in particular is causing friction in Nato now – the difficulties over EU-Nato cooperation where of course Cyprus plays a part. Is this an issue where Turkey would be able to make some kind of gesture that would make the issue less sensitive?

    Gul: In fact if there’s going to be a gesture I think there should be a gesture to us, not from us… We make more contribution, a more strategic contribution and more sacrifice. Not others.

    This is very important. I was foreign minister for 5/6 years and at all of our meetings in Nato in the EU I have told my colleagues time and again that we have to solve this problem on time, as soon as possible because in the future it is likely to poison some more important and strategic issues.

    So the world is a very fragile place and there is a big potential for problems, there are big threats and there may be times when we need even stronger cooperation. This problem might hijack the huge issues and prevent us having a huge solidarity so therefore I used to warn all my colleagues, let’s solve this problem in a fair manner. I was warning them many times…

    You are right, it’s a problem in the EU. It’s a problem that the EU and Nato have not been having very healthy and full cooperation. But it’s not because of us. It’s because of the others.

    Are you worried that time is running out for talks to solve the Cyprus issue?

    Gul: We are very serious for a solution. We really wish this problem to dissolve – I’m not making propaganda, we proved this in 2004. We took the risk, we compromised, we challenged inside and we made sacrifices and the plan was put to a referendum on both sides. So Turks and Turkey said yes, the other side rejected.

    What else we can do? Anyway, that’s old, we start again and we have a full intention to reach a comprehensive solution over there. That’s why we have full support behind president Talat. We wish this problem to be over very soon. Once the problem is over we believe that Turkey, Greece and the whole of Cyprus can be another pillar in the EU with full cooperation. This is our real desire, this is our vision. Once, when it was not a joke, in 2004 we proved ourselves, so we have the credibility.

    Is it helpful for the US to intervene in support for Turkey’s EU bid – or the reverse?

    Gul: We do not ask them to do it. They’ve done these public declarations because of their strategic approach, and nobody should be disturbed by this, because in the end the decision regarding Turkey is the decision of members of the European Union and nobody will be making this decision under pressure. All member states made their own decision – by unanimity and of their own free will – to start membership negotiations with Turkey… This is not likely to happen under pressure. They have elaborated and studied the matter to see whether Turkey is an asset or not and they came to the conclusion that it’s probably an asset

    [The decline in domestic support for EU process] is not because its taking a long time. But some public statements coming from some member states are upsetting public opinion and undermining the credibility of those states. Because they are then in conflict with their own signatures, their own commitments. In the meantime the negotiation process is going on and Turkey is amending its laws and regulations and constitution to harmonise with the Community acquis… In any case we are going to continue with our reform process because these are our reforms and we want to do them ourselves.

  • Turkey in a Dialogue of Interests

    Turkey in a Dialogue of Interests

    Abdullah Iskandar      Al-Hayat      – 08/04/09//

     

    The Turks welcomed the stances announced by the new American President Barack Obama with much fanfare and support. The officials underlined the unity of stances and interests, while the press focused on the stardom of the guest and his ability to speak to the Turkish audience.

    This Turkish sense of pride at the renewal of the relations with the United States, following the setback caused by the rise of the Islamists to power, they who refused to have their country used in the invasion of Iraq, goes beyond the bilateral context to an identical analysis of and approach to the regional developments. This is based on the new American policy and the Turkish ability to cooperate with its goals.

    Obama came to Ankara, the capital of Ataturk and secularism, and to Istanbul, the capital where civilizations and religions meet, following two exceptional summits in Europe, the G20 economic summit and the NATO summit.

    He came fully aware of the depth of the problems facing his country on the ground, problems that are not solely confined to its image which hit an all-time low because of his predecessor’s policies. As in the G20 summit, where the United States was forced to concede to its partners over the measures to confront the financial crisis, it was also forced during the NATO summit to take their views and goals into account.

    Turkey, in this regard, presents the most prominent example of responsiveness to the new American approach given its potentials and geo-strategic position. The Justice and Development Party has successfully harmonized its Islamic roots and the secular system, overcoming the financial and economic crisis that rocked Turkey in the past to record high growth rates before the Turkish economy, like all others, succumbed to the latest crisis.

    In this sense, the party reconciled an Islamic regime with the requirements of democracy and wise economic management.  But Turkey is more advanced than other Islamic countries with similar successes, like Indonesia which was presented more than once as the first Muslim country from which Obama will potentially address Muslims.

    Turkey is superior to the other Islamic countries because it understands the dialogue of interests, not only the dialogue of religions. It is a full member of NATO and the only Islamic country to send forces to Afghanistan. Its troops are also deployed in south Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL in implementation of an international resolution. It almost sent forces and observers to Gaza as part of the efforts to solve the issue of the siege and the border crossings.

    In tandem with these military roles, Turkey also played the role of mediator in the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations and is prepared to resume these negotiations. It also played an important role during the Israeli aggression on Gaza. It is an important player in Iraq, given its ties to the Kurdish issue and its position as a neighboring state with common interests. Ankara also enhanced its political and economic relations with the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, so that it has become an important economic partner.
        
    In addition to this Atlantic and Arab role, Turkey overlooks a crescent of crises of interest to the United States, whether in the Caucasian region with its economic and political issues or in Iran where the nuclear program constitutes a source of anxiety for Ankara and Washington alike. Before all that, Turkey remains the eastern gate to Europe which supplies it with cultural diversity and reconciliation between religions.

    Thus Turkey has all the prerequisites of a perfect partner for the United States. This is why Obama chose to declare the principles of his policy on Turkish soil. With its regime, leadership, regional and economic relations, reconciliatory approach, and diverse historical background, Turkey embodies Obama’s goals and principles.

  • Pentagon unveils large cuts to defence budget

    Pentagon unveils large cuts to defence budget

    Tim Reid in Washington

    A contract to provide President Obama with a fleet of new helicopters that had been awarded in part to the British company Westland was scrapped last night amid swingeing cuts to the Pentagon’s weapons programmes. 

    Robert Gates, Mr Obama’s Defence Secretary, said he was scrapping the contract to build a new generation of presidential helicopters as part of a “fundamental overhaul” of America’s weapons programmes aimed at cutting costs and scaling back on some of the military’s biggest and most high profile projects.

    Mr Gates also recommended a halt in production of the F-22 fighter jet, part of his new strategy to shift America’s defence priorities away from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats the US faces from insurgents and terrorists in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The moves will face stiff resistance on Capitol Hill, where the defence industry has enormous resources and influence and where many congressmen and senators will fiercely defend the military manufacturers in their states because of the jobs they provide.

    Within minutes of Mr Gates’s press conference, and the unveiling of his $534 billion budget proposal, Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-22, warned of the huge layoffs if the fighter jet programme were ended. The defence Secretary said production of the jets, which cost $140 million each, would be halted at 187.

    The contract for a fleet of new “Marine One” presidential helicopters was awarded to the joint Italian/British venture AugustaWestland six years ago. Since then the contract for the VH71 helicopter, a 64ft (19 metre) aircraft that is meant to be able to deflect missiles and resist the electro-magnetic effects of a nuclear blast, has almost doubled in price to $11.2 billion (£7.7 billion), from its original price of $6.1 billion.

    Much of the current fleet of 19 presidential helicopters were built in the 1970s. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks it was decided that a faster and safer helicopter was needed. But in the current economic crisis, Mr Obama wryly noted last month that his current helicopter seemed “perfectly adequate”.

    The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon’s spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defence spending last year. But Mr Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

    Some of the Pentagon’s most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army’s $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernisation program would lose its armoured vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

    Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

    Source:  Times Online, April 7, 2009