Turkish Forum

Category: Iran

  • Turkey can bridge the US-Iran divide

    Turkey can bridge the US-Iran divide

    By Manik Mehta, Special to Gulf News
    Published: August 03, 2008, 23:35

    Turkey’s relations with the US went through a rollercoaster, last October, when the US Congress passed a resolution on Armenia, describing the killings of Armenians during the First World War in the Ottoman empire as “genocide”. This had angered Istanbul which was already riled by the war in Iraq from where the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) launched attacks on Turkey.

    However, US-Turkish relations considerably improved, particularly after the warm welcome to Turkish President Abdullah Gul during his visit to Washington earlier this year. The ensuing strategic cooperation between the two sides is a manifestation of what Gul called a “new chapter” in bilateral relations.

    Although Turkish public opinion is unfavourable against the US, the strategic cooperation has, meanwhile, resuscitated the relationship between the two Nato partners. Kurdish nationalism is Ankara’s Achilles’ heel; it has brought Turkey closer to Iran which has its own Kurdish problem and has found a common cause with Turkey. Additionally, both sides have a vibrant trading and economic relationship.

    While critics fear that closer Turkish-Iranian ties will have ramifications for US-Turkish relations, others see an opportunity. Turkey’s close ties with Iran should be used to persuade the latter to renounce its nuclear programme which is causing a lot of concern to the US and, particularly, Israel which has been the target of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s belligerent outbursts.

    US-Turkish contacts have recently intensified on Iran’s nuclear programme. President George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, met Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan in July in Ankara – just before Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki arrived in Turkey – to send, apparently, a carrot-and-stick message on Iran’s nuclear programme. Subsequently, US and Iranian representatives met, for the first time in three decades, at the six-nation meeting in Geneva to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Indeed, Mottaki sounded unusually conciliatory, even calling the presence of Undersecretary of State William Burns, the third senior-most American diplomat, at the talks as “a new positive approach”. Turkey has apparently played a quiet role in Mottaki’s moderate reaction which was a far cry from Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric. Though glaring fundamental differences between the two will persist, an atmospheric improvement, with some help from Turkey, could bring both sides on “talking terms”.

    Iran’s testing of two separate rounds of long-range ballistic missiles in early July has also unnerved not only the United States and Israel, but also the Gulf Arab states. The missile firing was intended to send different messages to different audiences. The missile tests warn the West that Iran, which has strengthened its presence in the Strait of Hormuz, could target oil shipments from the Arabian Gulf ports and deal a crippling blow to the Western and also the oil-driven Arab economies.

    They were also aimed to silence Iran’s domestic critics, frustrated with the regime’s ruinous economic policies, by whipping up nationalist fervour and take the wind out of the critics’ sail.

     

    Rapprochement

    According to some American strategists, Turkey would be willing to bring about the rapprochement between the US and Iran, and thus prevent a military conflict. On the other hand, the hardcore Iranian leadership would prefer making concessions on the nuclear issue to Muslim Turkey rather than directly to the US.

    Indeed, some Americans argue that by allowing it a face-saving withdrawal, Iran could be persuaded to eventually abandon its nuclear programme. The Iranian people desperately want an end to the West-backed sanctions against their country which is treated like a pariah at every international venue because of their unpopular regime.

    Indeed, the regime knows this and also the fact that it will not be able to stop for long the tide of public disenchantment with its dogmatic attitude. This is a good time for the US to take more Turkish help and resolve the stalemate with Iran.

    Manik Mehta is a commentator on Asian affairs.

    Source: Gulf News, August 03, 2008

  • Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer works to define cultural domination on states’ foreign or domestic affairs in “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. With some examples, Shaffer is explaining this event us. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”1Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making. Some Muslim countries have Anti-American people as behavioral. But these states make alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see incongruent actings between states policies and people behaviors.
    Iran – Playing Politics with Islamic Style

    Samuel Huntigton’s thesis bases on idea that culture has main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees Huntigton’s thesis. Shaffer says that culture is main mechanism for diplomatic relations. Shaffer interprets culture as specific culture of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about Islam effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act. They looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals. They understood Islam effection as strong as nuclear weapons. But this is not a physical thing, this is an ideology. And they speeches to newspapers, politic journals a subject that has a title as “Do Muslim countries act differently than Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand, Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also, human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human. The state action is like people’s actions. State is big form of human and human is small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.

     

    Shaffer’s Caspian perspective has common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islam effection after from the Soviet Union. And now they have Islamic perspective on their state affairs. But Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asia area as Islamic effection zones. But it is not totally like that. Today these countries are secular except Iran.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is important in this area according to Shaffer’s idea. After the collapsing of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime to other neighbor states. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory, Iran plays for exporting their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Shaffer is true for this event. Iran wanted to export their regime to other states. But American or Western scholars’ view point is different. They are looking as totally Islamic system to Iran. They say about Iran that they are working for Islamic fundamentalism. But Iran’s Islamic mind is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or others, we can see normal, laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an influence circumstance but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.”
    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. And most telling of these policy preferences are Iran’s support for Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.2FinalCulture may be material interest of regime survivability. Islam is more likely to affect policy under conditions that see greater domestic and personnel influences on foreign policies.Mehmet Fatih OZTARSU
    Qafqaz University Law Faculty
    International Relations

    By these events, Iran’s state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran is a multiethnic state. Shaffer Gives information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Azerbaijani groups. The majority of the residents of Iran’s northwestern provinces which border the country of Azerbaijan and they are Azerbaijani. But Iran’s relations bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows their ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is good example for Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. This is an example for cultural combines. (Brenda Shaffer)

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these happenings, Azerbaijan supported Chechnya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basis role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their helping system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. It bases on security alliance.

     

    Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany or Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asked question : “What does the Koran have to say a foreign policy question?”

    If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction. (Shaffer)

    The USA wants an enemy for their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world’s countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy for regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islam. 3

    The USA’s fans defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA is patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know workings of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

    ———————————————————————
    1 Dogu Bati Journal – 26
    2 Karabagh conflict begin in the late 1980. And Armenia attacked to legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.
    3 Politic Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies.

     

  • Isolated Armenia leans on Iran

    Isolated Armenia leans on Iran

    By Robin Forestier, BBC News, Yerevan

    Deep in the cellar of the Noy Brandy factory in Yerevan, Armenia, there is a pungent, but not unpleasant

    Noy Brandy's wine-tasting sessions are popular with Iranian tourists

    smell of ageing, fortified wine.

    On an upturned wooden cask sit a dozen glasses, and a bottle of 1944 sherry. The company’s wine-tasting sessions are popular with tourists and most of them, according to tour guide Anna, come from Iran.

    “Ten metres underground, they think Allah is out of range,” she smiles. “They don’t want to taste the wine, they want to drink it.”

    Across town, Omid Mojahed is one such Iranian looking for more than just a taste of Armenia. He is a 28-year-old student and an entrepreneur at heart.

    He spends most of his time away from his books, working on his businesses, which include a travel agency working exclusively in the Iranian market.

    “In summer I think that 90% of tourists are Iranian. Armenia is so close by and has attractive things – cafes and nightclubs, and beautiful Lake Sevan.”

    Omid has also just opened a Persian restaurant, catering for locals as well as Iranian expats, keen for some home cuisine.

    Gathered at the bar around a smoking pipe, a group of Iranian students are relaxing after their exams.

    Twenty-year-old Mehdez explains that Armenia is popular with thousands of young people who cannot get a place in Iran’s over-subscribed higher education system.

    “I chose to study in Yerevan because it’s an easier situation. Here we have more freedom,” she says.

    “But of course anything that we do here, we can do in Iran – just not in public.”

    Geographic isolation

    Part of that freedom includes an increasingly liberalised economy, and that makes Armenia attractive to foreign investment.

    The Armenian capital is hardly an international economic powerhouse, but there are signs that Iranian investors sense an opportunity.

    On one street, many of the stores are Iranian-run. One of them is owned by Muhammad Rahimi.

    Muhammad Rahimi benefits from Armenia's dependence on Iran

    He started trading household goods 10 years ago. Business, he says, gets better and better. Practically every item he sells – from pots and pans to air-fresheners – has been imported from Iran.

    Like many of his compatriots, Muhammad benefits from Armenia’s geographical isolation.

    War with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh in the 1990s led to the closure of its borders with Azerbaijan and an unsympathetic Turkey.

    That leaves landlocked Armenia looking towards Georgia to the north, and Iran to the south.

    “Georgia, economically, is worse than Armenia,” says Alexander Iskandarian, director of the Caucasus Media Institute.

    “But Iran has a population of 70 million and it has oil and gas. It’s rich by regional standards, so you should have normal relations with them. It’s dangerous not to do so.”

    Yet trade turnover between the two countries remains modest, at just $200m (£100m) a year, according to the economic department at the Iranian embassy.

    US disapproval

    That has not stopped the United States from expressing concern about Armenia’s ties with its neighbour. Those ties include the new Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, frequent bilateral talks and state visits, not to mention a sizeable Armenian minority in northern Iran.

    In this year’s Country Reports on Terrorism, the US state department said warming relations between the two countries made Armenia “reluctant to criticise publicly objectionable Iranian conduct”.

    The little country courts the Americans, Europeans and Russians. It is a difficult balancing act to follow.

    But Armenia’s unique relationship with the regional power – Iran – is one it cannot afford to abandon.

    Iranian students say they enjoy more freedom in Armenia

    Moreover, the two countries are united by a shared sense of isolation from the rest of the world.

    “Let’s not forget that Armenia is in a virtual blockade. We attach great importance to our relations with Iran. One can choose one’s friends but not one’s neighbours,” says Armen Movsisyan, Armenia’s minister of energy.

    For those Iranians who have chosen to make a home in Armenia, geopolitics may not be foremost in their minds, but they are equally as pragmatic as the politicians.

    “I’m no expert in international relations. All I know is we always had good relations with Armenia and that’s why I like working here,” says the trader Muhammad Rahimi.

    Back in his restaurant, Omid Mojahed has no plans to leave while the going is good.

    “Everything will be okay for me here, that’s why I prefer to stay,” he says.

    “I like Armenian people, and it’s difficult for me to want to leave my friends. When you come to Yerevan for a month, you will stay in Yerevan forever!”

    Source: BBC, 24 July 2008

  • Mediation between Armenia and Turkey would be a multi-dimensional gain for Iran

    Mediation between Armenia and Turkey would be a multi-dimensional gain for Iran

    /PanARMENIAN.Net/ While Turkey has intensified its mediation efforts in the Middle East, Iran has volunteered to take on a similar challenge to break the ice between Ankara and Yerevan.

    “The possibility of such an initiative by Iran is highly optimistic,” Arif Keskin, a specialist on Iran at the Eurasian Strategic Research Center, or ASAM. Explaining that a possible mediation would be a multi-dimensional gain for Iran, Keskin said this is what has likely driven the country to make such an attempt. “Iran is the sole country rescuing Armenia from its isolation within the region. Armenia is currently under geopolitical siege, surrounded by countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan with whom it has long-standing problems.”

    “For Iran, Armenia has major strategic importance as well,” he said. “Iran wants to establish good relations with non-Turkish elements in the region, especially with Armenia. Its Azeri minority is a major concern. Therefore to alienate Turkey from Azerbaijan through an Armenian-Turkish reconciliation would be to its benefit,” he said.

    “Iran could not solve the problems between Turkey and Armenia. Moreover it is not clear how sincere Ankara is for a rapprochement with Yerevan. The establishment in Turkey does not want any change in bilateral relations,” he said. “Previous mediation efforts by Iran between Azerbaijan and Armenia resulted in Baku’s losing territory. It is disputable how impartial Iran can be, or to whose advantage it would work. It is unlikely that it would defend the Turkish thesis against Armenia,” he said.

    “Iran wants to give the message to the West that it can act within their parameters, that it is a stability factor in the region, not vice versa,” said Keskin. He said, however, that the initiative raises many questions in terms of Turkey. “I do not think that it was Ankara who asked for such a move from Iran. Turkey is disturbed by the depth of Iran-Armenia relations. Therefore it is definitely Iran’s own initiative.”

    According to Keskin, the Turkish government has to explain itself publicly in terms of its recent relations with Iran. “It is not just this mediation effort. Let’s take Ahmedinejad’s planned visit for example. What could Turkey gain from the visit of such a radical figure? Sure AKP (Justice and Development Party) would have gains in domestic terms. But it is a very risky visit otherwise,” he added, the Turkish Daily News reports.

  • Ahmadinejad in Turkey next month

    Ahmadinejad in Turkey next month

    President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is expected to pay an official visit to Turkey at the invitation of his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul.

    The visit would take place late in August and diplomatic sources in Ankara have declared that a date for the visit will be set soon, Turkish Daily reported on Friday.

    During the meeting agreements would be signed to further strengthen economic ties between the two neighboring countries.

    In May, Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Turkish State Minister Kursad Tuzmen said the two countries have the potential to turn into major economic powers in the world.

    The Turkish state minister said that the trade volume between the two countries could reach U.S. $20b by the end of 2011.

    (Source: Press TV)

  • HURRIYET ENGLISH: Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    HURRIYET ENGLISH: Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    July 25, 2008

     

    Compiled by Sonay Kanber , ATAA Research Associate
    E-mail: assembly@ataa.org     
    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    Turkey is willing to normalize its relations with the neighboring Armenia, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said late on Thursday.

    Turkey wanted to create an atmosphere of dialogue with Armenia, Babacan told a press conference in New York.  

    “Turkish president, prime minister and foreign minister sent letters to their Armenian counterparts after recent elections in Armenia, and these letters aimed to open a new door of dialogue with the new (Armenian) administration,” he was quoted as saying by the Anatolian Agency.

    As a signal of efforts to revive relations between the two countries, Turkish and Armenian officials held a series of secret meetings in the capital of Switzerland on July 8. This meeting Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s proposal for “a fresh start” with the goal of normalizing relations with Turkey and opening the border.

    Sargsyan also invited Turkish President Abdullah Gul to watch a football match between the two country’s national teams on Sept 6 to mark “a new symbolic start in the two countries’ relations”. Turkey has been evaluating this invitation.

    Although Turkey is among the first countries that recognized Armenia when it declared its independency, there is no diplomatic relations between two countries as Armenia presses the international community to admit the so-called “genocide” claims instead of accepting Turkey’s call to investigate the allegations, and its invasion of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory despite U.N. Security Council resolutions on the issue.

    The foreign minister said that Turkey’s aim was to have zero problems with its neighbors. “Naturally, we are also expecting some concrete steps from the other party,” he said. [link to article]
    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Turkey Lobbies for Council Membership

    He is actually in New York City to lobby for Turkey’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

    Turkey would work hard till the last minute to secure a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, Babacan told at the conference, adding there was a lot of hope for Turkey to attain a non-permanent seat at the Council.

    “However, it is important to work hard till the last minute to secure a non-permanent seat,” Babacan said.

    “It is likely that the election for the non-permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council would take place in October 2008. We would attend the U.N. General Assembly meetings in September with Turkish President Abdullah Gul. Both President Gul and I would have many bilateral talks. We would continue lobbying for Turkey’s non-permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council,” Babacan said.

    The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.

    Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.

    Turkey would need the votes of 128 countries out of a total of 192 countries in order to be elected as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

    Babacan also said he saw the appointment of Alexander Downer, Australia’s former foreign minister as the new U.N. special representative for Cyprus, as an important signal that the organization would more closely and seriously deal with the Cyprus problem.

    “The U.N. should intervene in settlement of Cyprus problem,” he also said. He added Turkey wished wish that comprehensive talks would be launched in Cyprus soon. [link to article]

    IHT:  Turkey’s broadening crisis

    Turkey is facing a domestic political crisis that not only threatens the country’s internal stability but could weaken its ties to the West and exacerbate instability in the Middle East.

    In February, the Turkish public prosecutor forwarded a 161-page indictment to the Constitutional Court that calls for the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, to be closed down and for 71 of its leading politicians, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, to be banned from politics for five years. The indictment charges that the party violated secularism, a fundamental principle enshrined in the Turkish Constitution. The Constitutional Court starts final hearings in the case on Monday.

    While the evidence is flimsy, most Turks, including leading members of the AKP, expect that the Constitutional Court, a bastion of secularism, will vote to close the party. Indeed, the AKP has already begun to make preparations for its dissolution.

    Closing the AKP will not eliminate the party as an important force in Turkish political life. The party will simply re-emerge under a new name, as its predecessors Refah and the Virtue Party did when they were banned. However, closure would likely have a number of damaging side effects.

    One would be in Turkey’s relations with the Middle East. Under the AKP, Turkey has emerged as an important diplomatic actor in the region – as its successful effort to act as a broker in peace talks between Israel and Syria recently underscored. Without the AKP, Turkey’s active diplomatic engagement in the Middle East is likely to diminish and the United States would lose an important partner in trying to stabilize this volatile region.

    Another unwanted side effect would be in Turkey’s relations with its Kurdish minority. The AKP enjoys strong support among the Turkish Kurds. In elections last summer the party doubled its support in the Kurdish areas of the Southeast. If the AKP is closed, the main beneficiary is likely to be the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has been conducting terrorist attacks against Turkey from sanctuaries in Northern Iraq. Moreover, the main Kurdish party, the Democratic Society Party, is also likely to be closed. Thus the Kurds would have no political vehicle to express their interests except through the PKK.

    In addition, Turkey’s rapprochement with Iraq could lose valuable momentum, while the hand of those forces in Turkey pushing for stronger military action against the PKK in Northern Iraq is likely to be strengthened. This could lead to an escalation of tensions between Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq, undercutting American efforts to promote better ties between the two entities.

    Finally, closure of the AKP is likely to increase strains in Turkey’s relations with the European Union. Opponents of Ankara’s EU membership will use the closure as a pretext to intensify their opposition, while supporters will find it harder to make the case for Turkish membership.

    At the same time, banning the party could undercut efforts to promote reform and democracy in the Middle East. Many moderate Islamists in the Middle East are likely to see the party’s closure as proof that it is impossible to achieve their political goals by democratic means and could turn to more radical solutions.

    So far the United States has avoided taking sides, expressing support for both secularism and democratic processes. However, given the negative strategic consequences likely to flow from the closure of the AKP, the Bush administration should encourage the Turks to find a compromise before the crisis does untold damage to Turkey’s democratic credibility and international reputation and further complicates Ankara’s prospects for EU membership.

    If, after all that, the AKP is still closed, the United States should avoid taking punitive measures. That would only strengthen the hand of the hard-line nationalists and further weaken Turkey’s ties to the West. Instead, American officials should continue to nudge Turkey toward bolder reforms that will strengthen internal democracy and bolster the qualifications for EU membership. In the long run, this is the best way to ensure the emergence of a stable, democratic Turkey closely anchored to the West.

    F. Stephen Larrabee, co-author of “The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey,” holds the corporate chair in European Security at the RAND Corporation. [link to article]
     
    AFP:  Cyprus leaders discuss peace talks plan

    NICOSIA (AFP) – Rival Cypriot leaders met on Friday aiming to set a date for peace talks to end the island’s 34-year-old divide, with the Turkish Cypriots hoping for a deal by the end of this year.

    President Demetris Christofias, a Greek Cypriot, and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat met at the UN-controlled Nicosia airport in the buffer zone amid hopes both sides will announce a September start for full peace talks.

    On Thursday Talat said he wanted intensive negotiations.

    “Our objective is to reach a settlement in a short time… I believe we can make it by the end of 2008,” he told Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

    “Starting from September, we have four months… This much time is sufficient. It can be extended a little bit if necessary, but resolving the Cyprus question in a short time must be our primary objective.”

    The international community remained cautious ahead of Friday’s meeting, but the United States and Britain have both boosted diplomatic links with the two sides.

    The lack of a Cyprus settlement is viewed as a major stumbling block to Turkey’s European Union ambitions.

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wants direct negotiations to start soon, and he has named Australia’s former foreign minister Alexander Downer as his special envoy for Cyprus.

    Downer, 56, is expected to be present if a renewed peace initiative is launched in earnest.

    An agreement between Christofias and Talat, both regarded by the international community as “pro-settlement,” is seen as the best chance for peace since a failed UN reunification blueprint in April 2004.

    On July 1 they agreed in principle on single citizenship and sovereignty in a reunified island and vowed to meet on July 25 for a “final review” of preparatory negotiations before launching peace talks proper.

    Christofias has warned against outside pressure for a quick-fix settlement, saying it would only backfire, and has refused to accept deadlines or restrictive time frames.

     

    He was elected president in February on a platform of reviving reunification talks which went nowhere under his hardline predecessor Tassos Papadopoulos.

     

    Initial euphoria at the prospects of a settlement dampened as both sides found the going sluggish at the committee level over the sensitive issues of property, territory, sovereignty and security.

     

    Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops occupied its northern third in response to an Athens-engineered Greek Cypriot coup seeking enosis, or union with Greece.

     

    Thousands of Greek Cypriots living in the north fled south and Turkish Cypriots fled north, with both communities abandoning property.

     

    Displaced Greek Cypriots outnumbered Turkish Cypriots by about four to one — roughly the same proportion as the 1974 population.

     

    The Turkish Cypriots nationalised Greek Cypriot land and property and most of it was distributed to Turkish Cypriots displaced from the south and to settlers from Turkey.

     

    The two leaders reached a landmark agreement on March 21 to begin fully fledged peace talks after four years of virtual stalemate following the 2004 rejection of a UN peace plan by the Greek Cypriots.

     

    They met again in May and decided to review progress made by the technical committees.

     

    The Greek Cypriots say real progress at the committee stage must be achieved if face-to-face talks are to have any chance of success, while the Turkish Cypriots say any difficulties can be resolved at the negotiating table. [link to article]

    REUTERS:  Turkish court convicts former Kurd party head- agency
     
    ISTANBUL, July 24 (Reuters) – A military court on Thursday sentenced the former leader of Turkey’s main pro-Kurdish party to one year in jail for evading military service by deception, state-run Anatolian news agency said.

    Nurettin Demirtas had resigned as leader of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) in April to do his military service, which he had previously avoided on health grounds.

    Prosecutors had accused him of using fake health reports to avoid being called up.

    “The air force military court sentenced the former DTP leader Nurettin Demirtas to one year in prison for ‘seeking to avoid military service by deception’,” Anatolian said.

    No further details were immediately available.

    Military service usually lasts about 15 months in Turkey and is obligatory for all able-bodied Turkish men. Turks who dodge military service usually receive stiff punishment.

    Prosecutors, who say the DTP has links with the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group, were seeking a 2-5 year prison sentence for him. He had rejected the charges.

    Demirtas is not a member of parliament but was elected head of the party last November. A new leader has been elected since he stood down in April.

    The DTP is facing a Constitutional Court case brought by prosecutors seeking its closure over alleged links to the PKK. The party rejects the charges.

    The PKK took up arms against the state in 1984 with the aim of creating a Kurdish homeland in southeast Turkey. Some 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict. (Reporting by Daren Butler, editing by Mary Gabriel) [link to article]
     
    AP:  Turkish stretch of railway linking Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan launched
     
    The presidents of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan have launched the construction of the Turkish stretch of a railway linking their nations.
     
    The US$600 million rail line will connect the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, with the eastern Turkish city of Kars, via the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

    The project is one of several linking oil-rich Azerbaijan and Central Asia with Turkey and European markets while bypassing Russia.

     

    A groundbreaking ceremony in Kars Thursday marked the start of the 50 mile (76 kilometer) Turkish section of the 110 mile (180 kilometer) railroad.

     

    “We are launching the iron Silk Road,” Turkey’s Abdullah Gul said. “It will link China in Asia to London.”

     

    The Silk Road was an ancient Asian trading route. The railway will be operational in 2011. [link to article]

    XINHUA: Turkey’s free trade volume increases in first half of 2008

    ANKARA, July 25 (Xinhua) – Trade volume in Turkey’s free zones increased 12 percent in the first half of 2008 compared with the same period of 2007, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported on Friday.

    Turkey‘s trade volume reached 13.3 billion U.S. dollars in this period, according to the report.

    The report said that trade volumes in the first half of 2008 were 3.2 billion dollars in Istanbul Leather Free Zone, 2.05 billion dollars in Aegean Free Zone, and 1.9 billion dollars in Istanbul Ataturk Airport.

    According to figures released by Foreign Trade Undersecretariat, trade volume of Istanbul Leather Free Zone was 3.06 billion dollars, while it was 2.1 billion dollars in Aegean Free Zone and 1.6 billion dollars in Istanbul Ataturk Airport in the first six months of 2007.

    Highest trade volume was recorded with OECD and EU countries with 4.9 billion dollars in the first half of 2008.

    Trade volume with 25 EU-states was 4.03 billion dollars, and 932.2 million dollars with OECD countries.

    Free zones take place within borders of a country, but regulations regarding customs, tax, foreign exchange, price, quality and standards are not applied in these zones. [link to article]

    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Turkey seeks support of UN’s Ban for Council seat

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan asked U.N. Secretary General to support the country’s bid for a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, as he continued his lobby efforts in New York.

    Babacan met Ban in New York late on Wednesday.

     

    The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.

     

    Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.
    The two also discussed Cyprus and Iraq in their meeting, as Babacan reiterated Turkey’s parameters for a solution in the Cyprus issue, the state-run Anatolian Agency reported.

     

    Ban said he closely monitored Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Iraq, and added his visit was a successful one.

     

    Erdogan paid earlier this month an official visit to Iraq to boost mutual political and economic relations, as the first Turkish prime minister to visit the neighboring country after 18 years.

     

    Babacan also held talks with the representatives of Jewish establishments in the United States, and informed them on the election procedure on non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the agency added. Jewish lobby traditionally are among the biggest supporters of Turkey.

     

    The representatives also told Babacan that they were closely following Turkey’s policies on Iran’s nuclear works.

     

    Turkish foreign minister also had meetings with representatives of Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in New York. The representatives told Babacan that they appreciated Turkey’s efforts for establishment of a prosperous Middle East. [link to article]

    XINHUA:  Iranian president to visit Turkey late August

    ANKARA, July 25 (Xinhua) — Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to pay a visit to Turkey next month at the invitation of his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, Turkish Daily News reported on Friday.

    Ahmadinejad’s potential visit has been on the agenda for a longtime but could not be finalized due to both the international crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and Turkey’s presidential and general elections that took place last year, according to the report.

    The two neighboring countries have boosted economic, trade, energy and security ties in recent years and the energy ministers of the two sides recently signed a preliminary agreement on transferring Iranian natural gas through Turkish territory and allowing Turkish companies to develop three Iranian natural gas fields in southern Iran.

    A couple of documents focusing on economic relations would be signed during the presidential visit, the report added.

    Turkey‘s close energy and trade ties with Iran are not welcomed by the United States, which argues that they would encourage Iran not to cooperate with the international community to solve the nuclear program issue.

    Turkey, on the other hand, says that its close ties with Iran allow it to dispatch the international community’s message to Tehran as openly as possible.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said earlier that Turkey has no formal mediation mission but described the country’s role as “one that is, in a sense, consolidating and facilitating” the negotiations between Iran and the six major powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

    Babacan will meet his Iranian counterpart Manuchehr Mottaki next week in Tehran on the eve of the summit of non-aligned countries. [link to article]