Turkish Forum

Category: Middle East

  • Daily Press Briefing – March 24, 2014

    Daily Press Briefing – March 24, 2014

    Daily Press Briefing – March 24, 2014

    03/24/2014 06:57 PM EDT

    Marie Harf

    Deputy Spokesperson
    Daily Press Briefing

    Washington, DC

    March 24, 2014

    QUESTION: Do you have a comment on the downing of a Syrian jet apparently —

    MS. HARF: Yes.

    QUESTION: — in the Syrian airspace yesterday by the Turkish?

    MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we’ve been following the issue closely. We have been in close contact with our Turkish counterparts – I would remind you, NATO allies – regarding the incident. We are committed to Turkey’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We note that the Turkish Government has been fully transparent about the rules of engagement it is operating under since the Syrian Government shot down a Turkish aircraft in 2012. The Turkish Government in this case said its forces only fired after the Syrian military aircraft violated Turkish airspace and after repeated warnings from Turkish authorities. Obviously, the Government of Turkey is looking into the incident more, but we are talking to them and will remain in contact with them.

    QUESTION: So to the best of your information, do you have any independent information that it was actually shot down over Syrian airspace or Turkish airspace?

    MS. HARF: Where it was actually shot down, I don’t have specific information about that, but as I said, the Turkish Government said it only fired on the aircraft after it violated Turkish aircraft – or, excuse me, airspace, and was repeatedly warned by the Turkish Government not to do so.

    QUESTION: Are you concerned that any escalation might involve all other NATO allies, considering that you have some sort of a pact with Turkey?

    MS. HARF: Well, I think it’s a little soon to sort of take this more broadly. I would note that I don’t think Turkey has asked for anything yet in terms of NATO. Obviously, we’re talking to them about how to move forward here, but again, I think it’s too soon to sort of draw broader characterizations about what might happen next.

    QUESTION: And finally, Brahimi said that he doesn’t see Geneva II reconvening anytime soon. Do you have any comment on that?

    MS. HARF: Well, we have obviously been working with the special representative quite closely. We want – all want Geneva – the Geneva process, I would say, to reconvene when we can make progress. And up until this point, we’ve seen the Syrian regime not come to the table as a party that wants to make progress here. So I know he’s working on it to see if and when we can reconvene this and how, to see if we can move this diplomatic process forward.

    QUESTION: So you said that Turkey has been fully transparent about the rules of engagement? What does that mean, exactly?

    MS. HARF: That it has operated under since the Syrian Government shot down a Turkish aircraft in 2012.

    QUESTION: Right, but —

    MS. HARF: So I think what it means, without knowing all the specifics here, is that, for example, it repeatedly warned —

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. HARF: — the Syrian aircraft not to violate its airspace. It only then took action. That’s what I think rules of engagement refers to here.

    QUESTION: Right. Right. But the rules of engagement, are they public? You don’t have —

    MS. HARF: I can check.

    QUESTION: Is that what that means in terms of —

    MS. HARF: Or do we mean transparent with the United States? I don’t know.

    QUESTION: Well, transparent – I mean, maybe you’d like to see —

    MS. HARF: I’ll check.

    QUESTION: — the Turkish Government tweet the rules of engagement or perhaps put them on Facebook or YouTube or something like that.

    MS. HARF: I would note here that there have been more tweets from Turkey since the government blocked it than there were before.

    QUESTION: So can we just —

    MS. HARF: Which is an interesting, I think, signal to people that try to clamp down on freedom of expression that it doesn’t work and isn’t the right thing to do.

    QUESTION: Are you helping in this?

    QUESTION: So —

    MS. HARF: Hold on. We’ll – let me finish Matt.

    QUESTION: So do you have any additional comment on the Twitter ban? When Erdogan announced that he was going to do this, he said now every – he didn’t care about international reaction and now the world would see the power of the Turkish Republic.

    MS. HARF: Well, I think what the world saw was the number of people inside Turkey tweeting about what they thought about it being blocked there.

    QUESTION: Well, could I ask you what you think —

    MS. HARF: Yes.

    QUESTION: — about the power of the Turkish Republic since they have failed so dramatically to enforce this ban?

    MS. HARF: We have conveyed our serious concerns over this action directly to Turkish authorities, both from here and on the ground. Obviously, we support freedom of expression in Turkey and everywhere else. We oppose any action to encroach on the right to free speech, and continue to urge directly the Turkish Government to unblock its citizens’ access to Twitter and ensure free access to all social media platforms —

    QUESTION: Right, but —

    MS. HARF: — so they can see what you and everyone else tweets.

    QUESTION: Right, but what does it say to you, if anything, about the power of the Turkish Republic?

    MS. HARF: In what respect?

    QUESTION: The fact that they’ve tried to ban it and it hasn’t worked. I mean, is this the kind of thing that you want to see a NATO ally doing or boasting about —

    MS. HARF: No.

    QUESTION: — beforehand, and then —

    MS. HARF: No.

    QUESTION: — failing miserably at it?

    MS. HARF: Well, the second part – clearly, we think it’s good that people inside Turkey are still able to express themselves, but that doesn’t mean that it should be blocked. I wasn’t trying to give that statistic —

    QUESTION: Okay.

    MS. HARF: — in terms of saying that it’s an acceptable action.

    QUESTION: So you’re —

    MS. HARF: No, clearly this is not an action we think the Turkish Government should take. We’ve told them that directly. We will continue to tell them that directly. There’s no place in a democracy for this kind of clamping down on people’s right to free speech. There’s just not.

    QUESTION: Okay. And so you would encourage people in Turkey to defy – to continue to defy the prime minister’s ban. Is that —

    MS. HARF: I’m not going to go that far, but I – what I will say is it’s important for people all over the world to hear what the Turkish people have to say.

    QUESTION: Do you see any connection between the Twitter issue and the downing of the plane, the Syrian plane, perhaps that Mr. Erdogan is trying to export his —

    MS. HARF: Not at all.

    QUESTION: — local issues? You don’t see that?

    MS. HARF: Not at all. No, not at all.

    QUESTION: Are you helping the Turks in breaking the blockade?

    MS. HARF: Is the United States Government?

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. HARF: No, not to my knowledge. We’ve been in contact with Twitter and with the Government of Turkey about this, but to my knowledge, no, we are not. But we’ve said very clearly to the Turkish Government that this is not acceptable and that we do not think they should be able to block their citizens’ access to these kind of social media platforms.

    QUESTION: Mm-hmm. And —

    QUESTION: Just to clarify, Marie, you – I asked this question last week, that whether United States Government is involved with this case in the —

    MS. HARF: With Twitter?

    QUESTION: In this dispute between the Twitter and the Turkish Government in terms of the legal process, and you said no. Still the case? Still —

    MS. HARF: Well, I don’t think I said no; I think Jen said no. But we saw over the weekend, I think, some more actions being taken, right? So I’m not sure exactly how you asked the question last week, but what I can say is that we have been in contact with Twitter and separately with the Government of Turkey to talk about the fact that people should not have their access blocked to Twitter.

    QUESTION: So it is a legal dispute right now, and that maybe – I mean, Turkish Government is pursuing this ban, and they took several additional measures during the weekend to stop the people to use Twitter, like DNS ban, et cetera.

    MS. HARF: Which we think is an encroachment on their citizens’ freedom of expression, and we don’t think that it should be continued.

    QUESTION: You are in contact with the Twitter in terms of legal dispute or —

    MS. HARF: I’m not say in terms of any – I don’t know the legal – the specific legal aspect you’re referring to. We are in touch with Twitter, yes, broadly speaking. I don’t know exactly what that contact is like, but I don’t know if the legal – if that’s an internal Turkish matter, I’m not exactly sure, but we’ve been in contact with both Twitter and the Turkish Government.

    QUESTION: I mean, because Twitter is represented by the lawyers right now in Turkey, and there will be maybe case against —

    MS. HARF: I don’t have more details on any legal action that may or may not be happening in Turkey. I just don’t have those details. What we’ve said is separate and apart from that. People should be able to express themselves freely, whether it’s on Facebook or Twitter or whatever – Flickr, Tumblr, whatever people want to use – and that governments should not encroach on their – they shouldn’t block access for their citizens to do so. I don’t have a lot more information.

    QUESTION: Yeah, but —

    QUESTION: What about Instagram?

    MS. HARF: And Instagram too.

    QUESTION: Yeah, the problem —

    QUESTION: Not Instagram.

    QUESTION: Not – (laughter). Don’t play favorites now, Marie.

    MS. HARF: I am not. I am not on Instagram, but —

    QUESTION: The problem, the Turkish Government is trying to get some information about some users, specific users who are tweeting against the government and —

    MS. HARF: What I’m saying is that we oppose the Turkish —

    QUESTION: And the Twitter – and my question – okay. My question is —

    MS. HARF: Yes.

    QUESTION: — Twitter assured to Turkish Twitter accounts users that they will not disclose any private information.

    MS. HARF: That would be a question for Twitter, not for me.

    QUESTION: Yeah. But are you supporting this stand of Twitter against Turkish Government?

    MS. HARF: That’s not something that I should take a stand on. I don’t think that’s something that the company, Twitter, can decide on its own.

    QUESTION: Because —

    MS. HARF: What we have said is that governments should not block access for their citizens.

    QUESTION: Yes. But at the same time it’s a privacy question – not only freedom of expression, but the people are also trying to protect their privacy —

    MS. HARF: Again, that a question that’s —

    QUESTION: — and the Turkish Government is trying to get the information of all of the users.

    MS. HARF: That’s a question, I think, is better addressed to Twitter, who controls that issue. What I am saying is people’s freedom of expression should not be blocked by their own government.

    QUESTION: So no comment about the privacy?

    MS. HARF: I don’t have more for you than this – for you on this case than that.

    QUESTION: Okay.

    MS. HARF: I’m happy to check with our folks and see if there’s more.

    QUESTION: Right.

    MS. HARF: I just don’t think I’ll have more.

    QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Please.

    And another question about the jet incident.

    MS. HARF: Yeah.

    QUESTION: Are you concerned that this confrontation between Turkey and Syria can turn into a more broader confrontation just before the elections, because —

    MS. HARF: Well, I think that’s the question Said just asked, and what I said was it’s a little too early to make sweeping characterizations about what may come from this. Obviously, we know there was a situation here where the Turks repeatedly warned the Syrians before taking action. I don’t think I want to probably draw broader conclusions about what will happen going forward.

    QUESTION: No, I’m – my question wasn’t related NATO that Said asked in terms of the NATO involvement. Beyond the NATO involvement, are you encouraging the parties to deescalate the tension?

    MS. HARF: I mean, we’re certainly in contact with the Turkish Government here on this issue. I’m not – I mean, in terms of the parties, you’re talking about the Assad regime?

    QUESTION: No, the parties – NATO ally, Turkey. Because there will be an election this week —

    MS. HARF: Right.

    QUESTION: — and the main —

    MS. HARF: I’m not seeing the connection here.

    QUESTION: The main opposition party urged to not do any military intervention, military – I mean, unilateral military action against Syria just before the election, to use a populist tool just before the election. So this is the concern of the main opposition party and other parties in Turkey.

    MS. HARF: I think I probably don’t have much comment on internal Turkish politics or how they may or may not respond —

    QUESTION: It stirs an international crisis.

    QUESTION: Well, are you encouraging the Turks to kind of remain calm and not escalate the situation?

    QUESTION: Yes.

    MS. HARF: I’m not sure how they – I mean I’m not sure there’s even talk of escalation here. I’m happy to check with our folks and see. To my understanding, it was a limited situation. I haven’t heard that there is escalation here.

    QUESTION: Is —

    MS. HARF: I’m happy to check with our team. We’re still talking to the Turks to get the facts about what happened here, but I, quite frankly, haven’t heard talk that people are worried about that.

    QUESTION: So – because my question is related to another religious site within Syria belonging to Turkey. This is a Turkish territory, 35 kilometers from Turkish broader within Syria, and it’s under threat some groups, ISIS and other radical al-Qaida-affiliated groups. And some cabinet members, Turkish cabinet members, even urged not to do anything to provoke Turkey for any unilateral military action, for example. This is another concern for Turkey to be part of the unilateral military action within Syria. So only – not only the jet, but this is another risk for Turkey to involve with Syria in terms of this kind of military action.

    MS. HARF: Well, I don’t have any, in terms of that specific question, any details for you on that. Again, I think I’ll let the Turkish Government speak for what their response will or won’t be here. As I said, we’ve talked to them, we’ve gotten the facts of what’s happened here, and if there’s more to share tomorrow, I’m happy to.

    QUESTION: Marie, a question that is on Syria.

    MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

    QUESTION: There are report that 600,000 Syrians have applied for asylum in Europe and the United States. Could you tell us the portion of that that is being sought with the United States?

    MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer, Said. Let me check with our folks and see. I don’t have the numbers.

    QUESTION: Just one more question on the Syrian jet.

    MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

    QUESTION: You said we’ve established the facts and multiple warning were issued, I guess.

    MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. By the Turkish Government.

    QUESTION: How – yeah. How did you establish that? Did they share any information with the State Department?

    MS. HARF: The Turkish Government?

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. HARF: With the United States Government they did. I don’t know if it was us or with the Defense Department, but —

    QUESTION: Yeah. But they shared, like, intelligence information about the incident?

    MS. HARF: I don’t know if it’s intelligence they told us. They warned the Syrians multiple times. I don’t know the details of exactly what that —

    QUESTION: Yeah. But how did you verify what they actually conveyed to you?

    MS. HARF: I can check with our folks and see.

    QUESTION: Were you in touch with them in real time during the incident?

    MS. HARF: I don’t know. I’m happy to check. It might be – and it might be the Department of Defense, but I’m happy to check with them.

    QUESTION: So did you —

    MS. HARF: I just don’t know.

    QUESTION: Did you say that these pieces of information were verified, or you’re not sure?

    MS. HARF: We have no reason to believe that it’s not accurate, correct. Yes.

    QUESTION: Okay. But —

    MS. HARF: And I’m happy to see if there are more details about how we verified it, correct.

    QUESTION: I wanted to ask one more.

    QUESTION: No, no. One more on Syria.

    MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

    QUESTION: News reports said that the U.S. Administration has finished its review on its policy towards Syria and decided not to intervene militarily and not to provide the opposition with sophisticated arms and not to allow Saudi Arabia to provide this kind of arms.

    MS. HARF: I’m not sure those reports are true. I haven’t seen them, but I haven’t heard those reports. In terms of the first, we’ve always said all options except for boots on the ground are on the table. Happy to check with our team, but it’s my understanding, as we’ve talked about in here, that this is an ongoing discussion of what policies we should undertake in Syria. I’m happy to check and see if there’s been some decisions made, but to my knowledge there haven’t been.

    QUESTION: Is there any review?

    MS. HARF: As I said – we went over this, I think, ad nauseam one day, but there’s constantly a review of our policy in Syria. We are constantly looking at options, what we could do, what more we could do, how we could influence the situation. That’s ongoing, yes. But to my knowledge, there hasn’t been some sort of major decision on what we will or won’t do.

    QUESTION: Can you check on this, please?

    MS. HARF: I’m happy to.

    QUESTION: Thank you.

  • SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN: For the First Time in History, Israel Suspiciously Closes All Embassies and Consulates Worldwide…

    SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN: For the First Time in History, Israel Suspiciously Closes All Embassies and Consulates Worldwide…

    'srael' flag(DiscloseTV) — In the video below as well as some articles around the internet we see that for the first time in history, Israel is closing all it’s embassies and consulates worldwide. I agree with DAHBOO here, the timing, the events going on across the globe, the missing Malaysia flight and the potential for this plane that is missing since March 9th possibly being used in a terrorist attack, all indicate that Israel is bringing their people back home where they can be protected, no matter what they claim is the “official” reason.

    Israel recently threatened to “destroy” those that would attack them and a move like this, a historical move, could very well mean that Israel expects World War III to break out and is acting accordingly.

    Something huge is coming… be prepared.

    (The Jerusalem Post) — Foreign Ministry’s workers committee declared a full-fledged strike on Sunday, closing the ministry and all the country’s embassies and consulates around the world for the first time.

    The strike is the latest development in a nearly two-year-old work dispute that the workers declared for improved salaries and work conditions.

    Seven months of mediation efforts exploded on March 4 when the workers rejected a Finance Ministry proposal.

    The workers then resumed crippling labor measures that had been put on hold during the mediation period.

    A number of high-profile visits to Israel were canceled as a result of the measures, as well as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s planned trip to Mexico, Colombia and Panama next month.

    In addition, Pope Francis’s planned visit in May is in doubt because of the strike measures.

    A statement put out by the workers committee said that the workers declared an “indefinite” strike “in protest of the employment conditions for Israeli diplomats and because of the draconian decision by the Treasury to cut the workers’ salaries.

    “Today, for the first time in Israel’s history, the Foreign Ministry will be closed and no work will be done in any sphere under the ministry’s authority,” the statement read.

    www.redflagnews.com,

  • Latest Report :‘Trigger-happy’ Israeli army and police use reckless force in the West Bank

    Latest Report :‘Trigger-happy’ Israeli army and police use reckless force in the West Bank

    Bilal Tamimi being attacked by an Israeli soldier at a protest in Nabi Saleh in May 2013.
    Bilal Tamimi being attacked by an Israeli soldier at a protest in Nabi Saleh in May 2013.

    Israel has killed dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years showing a “callous disregard for human life,” a report by Amnesty International stated.

     

    The report, released on Wednesday and entitled Trigger-happy: Israel’s Use of Excessive Force in the West Bank, documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands “who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life”.

     

    Israeli forces have displayed a callous disregard for human life by killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, including children, in the occupied West Bank over the past three years with near total impunity, said Amnesty International in a report published today.

     

    Here is the report :

    The report, Trigger-happy: Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank, describes mounting bloodshed and human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) as a result of the Israeli forces’ use of unnecessary, arbitrary and brutal force against Palestinians since January 2011.

    In all cases examined by Amnesty International, Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life. In some, there is evidence that they were victims of wilful killings, which would amount to war crimes.

    “The report presents a body of evidence that shows a harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces in the West Bank,” said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International.

    “The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers – and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy.”

    Deaths and injuries

    Amnesty International has documented the killings of 22 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank last year, at least 14 of which were in the context of protests. Most were young adults under the age of 25. At least four were children.

    According to UN figures, more West Bank Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in 2013 than the total number killed in 2011 and 2012 combined. Forty-five were killed in the past three years.

    Peaceful protesters, civilian bystanders, human rights activists and journalists are among those who have been killed or injured.

    In the last three years at least 261 Palestinians, including 67 children, have been seriously injured by live ammunition fired by Israeli forces in the West Bank.

    An astonishing number of Palestinians in the West Bank – more than 8,000, including 1,500 children – have been wounded by other means, including rubber-coated metal bullets and the reckless use of tear gas, since January 2011. In some cases documented, victims have also died as a result of their use.

    “The staggering numbers of wounded provide a sobering reminder of the relentless daily danger faced by Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank,” said Philip Luther.

    Several victims were shot in the back suggesting that they were targeted as they tried to flee and posed no genuine threat to the lives of members of Israeli forces or others. In several cases, well-armoured Israeli forces have resorted to lethal means to crack down on stone-throwing protestors causing needless loss of life.

    Investigations 

    More than a year later, the findings of investigations by the Israeli authorities into a number of suspected unlawful killings have yet to be revealed.

    “The current Israeli system has proved woefully inadequate. It is neither independent nor impartial and completely lacks transparency. The authorities must conduct prompt, thorough and independent investigations into all suspected instances of arbitrary and abusive use of force, especially when resulting in loss of life or serious injury,” said Philip Luther.

    “A strong message must be sent to Israeli soldiers and police officers that abuses will not go unpunished. Unless those who commit violations are held to account unlawful killings and injuries are bound to continue.”

    Protests

    In recent years, the West Bank has seen continuing protests against the prolonged Israeli occupation and a litany of related repressive policies and practices. These include the ever-expanding unlawful Israeli settlements, the 800km-long fence/wall, forcible house demolitions, forced evictions, Israeli military checkpoints, roads reserved for use by Israeli settlers from which Palestinians are excluded and other restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the OPT.

    Protests are also held against the detention of thousands of Palestinians and in response to Israeli military strikes in Gaza and the killing or injury of Palestinians in protests or during arrest raids.

    Arms transfers

    Amnesty International is calling on the Israeli authorities to instruct their forces to refrain from lethal force, including the use of live fire and rubber-coated bullets, except when strictly necessary to protect lives. They must also respect the right of Palestinians to peaceful assembly.

    It urges the USA, the European Union and the rest of the international community to suspend all transfers of munitions, weapons and other equipment to Israel.

    “Without pressure from the international community the situation is unlikely to change any time soon,” said Philip Luther.

    “Too much civilian blood has been spilled. This long-standing pattern of abuse must be broken. If the Israeli authorities wish to prove to the world they are committed to democratic principles and international human rights standards, unlawful killings and unnecessary use of force must stop now.”

    Case study: A child killed for protesting

    In the West Bank, the tragic consequences of Israel’s policy of supressing Palestinian protest have become a familiar story.

    Samir Awad, a 16-year-old boy from Bodrus, near Ramallah, was shot dead near his school in January 2013 while attempting to stage a protest with friends against Israel’s 800km-long fence/wall, which cuts through their village. Three bullets struck him in the back of the head, the leg, and shoulder as he fled Israeli soldiers who ambushed his group. Witnesses said the boy was directly targeted as he ran away.

    Malik Murar, 16, Samir’s friend who witnessed his killing, told Amnesty International:“They shot him first in the leg, yet he managed to run away… how far can an injured child run? They could have easily arrested him… instead they shot him in the back with live ammunition.”

    Amnesty International believes Samir’s killing may amount to extrajudicial execution or a wilful killing, which is considered a war crime under international law.

    “It’s hard to believe that an unarmed child could be perceived as posing imminent danger to a well-equipped soldier. Israeli forces appear in this and other cases to have recklessly fired bullets at the slightest appearance of a threat,” said Philip Luther.

    Under international law, the police and soldiers enforcing the law must always exercise restraint and never use arbitrary force. Security forces may only resort to the use of lethal force if there is an imminent risk to their lives or the lives of others. Israel has repeatedly refused to make public the rules and regulations governing the use of force by army and police in the OPT.

    Israeli soldiers have a long history of using excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank extending back to at least the first Intifada in 1987.

     

    The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers – and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy.–

                                                                           Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International.
  • “10,000,000 dollars is not enough”

    “10,000,000 dollars is not enough”

    10,000,000 dollars is not enough

    A new recording of a phone call between Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and his son Bilal has been leaked last night.

    In the alleged recording, Erdoğan and his son are discussing the amount of the bribe to be taken from a businessman named Sıtkı Ayan. Erdoğan finds the offered 10 million dollars insufficient, and instructs his son not to accept unless Ayan provides the amount he promised.

    Sıtkı Ayan is the owner of SOM Petrol, a London-based corporation that owns oil and gas wells in various countries and turns over billions of dollars every year. Turang Transit Transportation, also owned by Mr. Ayan, was awarded the government contract to build a $11.5 billion pipeline to transport natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan to Europe. The investment was subsidised by the government, and the corporation was held exempt from VAT and various other taxes and duties.

    According to the whistleblowers who leaked the call, Mr. Ayan pays regular bribes to Prime Minister Erdoğan, just like the “other businessmen”.

    Transcript:

    Bilal Erdoğan: Mr. Sıtkı came yesterday, saying he couldn’t do the transfer properly, that he currently has about 10 or so (million dollars), that he can give it whenever we want…
    Tayyip Erdoğan: No no, don’t you take it.
    Bilal Erdoğan: No I won’t, but I don’t know what we’ll do now.
    Tayyip Erdoğan: No, don’t take it. If he’s going to bring what he promised, then let him bring it. If not, then no need. Others can bring it, so why can’t he, huh? What do they think is? But they are falling now, they’ll fall on our laps, don’t you worry.
    Bilal Erdoğan: OK, daddy.

    Click here to listen to the recording (in Turkish):

    Alternative link: watch?v=4GZBw369nEM

  • Turkey and Iran’s Growing Alliance

    Turkey and Iran’s Growing Alliance

    Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan’s visit to Iran last month symbolized a pivot toward Tehran and a shift in Ankara’s Middle East foreign policy. Declaring a desire to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with Iran in combating terrorism, and driven by Turkey’s evolving policy toward Syria, Erdoğan’s trip highlighted Ankara and Tehran’s tendency to pursue mutual interests when their paths cross. This is significant in terms of its implications for the Syrian conflict and for the region’s landscape, as both countries have the ability to influence the course of future events throughout the Middle East.

    History of Turkish-Iranian Ties

    Turkish-Persian history was characterized by centuries of rivalry, which remains the case today as both powers seek to shape the Middle East consistent with their respective visions. The Turkish Republic oriented itself toward the West (and away from the Middle East) throughout the 20th century; Iran was therefore not a central focus of Turkey’s Cold War foreign policy. However, the Iranian revolution of 1979 did create tension, as Turkey’s ruling secular elite viewed Iran’s post-revolutionary regime as a menace. This perception was in part fueled by Ankara’s belief that Tehran sponsored terrorist groups in Turkey with the intention of exporting the Islamic revolution to neighboring countries. In turn, Iran’s post-1979 political order viewed Turkey as a threat to Iran’s post-revolutionary objectives, given its membership in NATO and secular ideology.

    As Western powers and Sunni Arab states united behind Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran had to pick its battles conservatively, therefore Tehran did not pursue a confrontational policy toward Turkey. At the same time, Turkey (which viewed the former Soviet Union and Iraq as graver threats than Iran) maintained a neutral position during the eight year war. This enabled both countries to preserve the status of their relationship and created options for each toward the other in the future.

    Following the Gulf War relations began to thaw as Ankara and Tehran pursued cooperative measures to address the ‘Kurdish question’, which threatened both states’ territorial integrity. Bilateral relations blossomed after Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) rose to power in 2002. Iran welcomed the rise of an Islamist order in Turkey that stressed the importance of improving Turkey’s relations with its Middle Eastern neighbors. Over the past decade Turkish demand for Iran’s energy resources and Iran’s desire for reliable trading partners in light of the imposition of Western sanctions motivated the two states to enhance bilateral economic and business relations. Between 2000 and 2011 bilateral trade increased from $1 billion to $16 billion, and between 2002 and 2011 the number of Iranian firms based in Turkey increased from just over 300 to more than 2,000.

    Despite this, regional politics limited the extent to which the rapprochement could develop. For example, as Erdoğan evoked the Palestinian cause in various corners of the Arab world, Tehran viewed this as a threat to Iran’s role as the main state sponsor of anti-Israel movements (such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad). Since then Turkey has been jockeying for influence in the region and Iran has continued to perceive this as a threat to its own influence.

    The Impact of the Syrian Crisis on Bilateral Relations

    The Syrian conflict brought unprecedented tension to the Turkish-Iranian relationship. Following its commencement in 2011, Turkey assumed that Bashar al-Assad would suffer a fate similar to that of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak and Moammar Gaddafi. Ankara soon abandoned efforts to broker a negotiated settlement between the Syrian government and the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated opposition, and by late 2011, Turkey aggressively sponsored the armed rebellion. Viewing Assad’s ouster as inevitable, Turkey tried to establish itself as a post-Assad Syria’s closest ally.

    Syria has been Iran’s closest Middle Eastern ally since the Iranian revolution (Syria being the only Arab state to support Iran in the Iran-Iraq war). The Iran-Syria alliance has largely influenced the regional landscape ever since. Thus, Turkey and Iran became opposing stakeholders in Syria once Turkey decisively sided with anti-government forces. In recent years, Iranian officials have accused Turkey of sponsoring Salafist jihadist currents in Syria while Turkish officials have maintained that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) receives support from Iran. At Davos last month, Turkey and Iran’s foreigner ministers exchanged swipes at each other about the Syrian crisis’ sectarian dimensions.

    Apart from generating approximately 600,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey, enduring bombings and inflamed sectarian tension within its own Alawite/Alevi communities, the most damaging effect of the Syrian crisis on Turkey has been its demonstration of the limits of Turkish power in the Middle East. Prior to the Arab Awakening, the ‘Turkish model’ was hailed across the region as a prototype for blending moderate Islamic politics in a democratic framework. Numerous polls found that Erdoğan was the most popular political leader on the Arab street. But his anti-Assad stance was maintained long after it became clear that Assad was not going anywhere, which prompted many in the region to perceive the AKP as a pan-Sunni Islamist force intent on empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. As the Syrian conflict became a regional crisis, the AKP’s “zero problems with neighbors” approach to foreign policy lay in tatters.

    Ankara’s evolving Syria strategy has become more focused on the economic and security threats posed by continued conflict in Syria. Turkey must address the menace posed by foreign Salafist jihadist militants that have established a presence on both sides of the Turkish-Syrian border, and the ongoing financial burden of meeting the Syrian refugees’ needs in Turkey. Within this context, Turkey has an interest in pursuing more cooperative relations with Iran, which shares its concerns about al-Qaeda’s footprint in Syria and other corners of the Arab world, while supporting international efforts to negotiate peace in Syria.

    Regardless of how the conflict between the Assad regime and its enemies unfolds, it is likely that al-Qaeda-linked groups will maintain a presence in areas of Syria, including villages situated several miles south of the Turkish-Syrian border. Recent developments in western Iraq also indicate that Anbar province may become the new hub for such al-Qaeda-linked militias, as the Assad regime maintains an upper-hand in Syria’s bloody stalemate. Either way, with a growing al-Qaeda influence across the Levant, Turkey and Iran have every reason to continue their effort to enhance a security partnership as economic ties deepen.

    Turbulence Rekindles an Old Friendship

    Turkey now looks to Iran as a partner that can help Ankara mitigate the risks posed by the Syrian crisis, despite their divergent political aims in the conflict. This cooperative dynamic was underscored by Turkey’s insistence that Iran participate in Geneva II, despite opposition from other governments and elements within the Syrian rebellion.

    Economic factors unrelated to Syria are also driving this realignment. Erdoğan traveled to Iran with his ministers for economy, energy and development in the hope of pursuing lucrative contracts in the aftermath of sanctions being loosened on Iran. Tehran expects bilateral trade to increase from $20 to $30 billion next year. Ankara also views the potential opening of Iran to the West as a strategic opportunity to reduce the impact of Turkey’s own economic challenges, which threaten to reduce the AKP’s grip on power in an election year.

    The extent to which the two states can re-establish a deep partnership will remain limited by NATO’s military platform in Turkey and other regional issues where Ankara and Tehran’s interests diverge. The ultimate question will be whether the two countries’ common ground will outweigh their areas of disagreement, and to what extent other players in the region — such as Israel and Saudi Arabia — will influence the future of Turkish-Iranian relations.

    In the longer term Tehran knows that Turkey will play a key role in building potential bridges between Iran and the West. Ankara knows that if it seeks greater influence within all corners of the Arab world, including Shia populations, a cordial relationship with Iran is important. Additionally, as a resource poor country, Turkey will continue to value an energy partnership with Iran. Thus, while the regional landscape remains complex and in motion, Turkey and Iran have more to gain than lose by continuing to build stronger ties.

    Daniel Wagner is CEO of Country Risk Solutions, Senior Advisor with Gnarus Advisors, and author of the book “Managing Country Risk”. Giorgio Cafiero is a research analyst with CRS based in Washington.

    Reprinted with permission from Eurasia Review.

  • Turkey’s Wrong Turn

    Turkey’s Wrong Turn

    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    Goturrr

    Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was in Brussels last week seeking to repair relations with Europe, but the first place to look for a solution is within himself. Once hailed as the leader of a model Muslim democracy, he has created a political disaster at home, transforming Turkey into an authoritarian state that poses dangers not just for itself but for its allies in NATO, including the United States.

    The latest turmoil has its roots in a political war between Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party and his former close allies who follow Fethullah Gulen, a moderate Islamic scholar who lives in Pennsylvania. The tensions erupted into the open last month with a corruption probe that led to the resignation of four government ministers and threatened to ensnare Mr. Erdogan’s family. The prime minister called the probe a “coup attempt” and blamed a “secret organization” within the judiciary and police directed by the Gulen movement and serving “foreign powers” like the United States and Israel. The government has since purged hundreds of police officials and prosecutors and sought to assert control over the judiciary. It also drafted legislation expanding the government’s power to appoint judges and prosecutors, further breaching judicial independence, and has prevented journalists from reporting freely. All the while, Mr. Erdogan has spewed endless conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric, even hinting at American treachery and suggesting that the American ambassador might be expelled.

    The probe and Mr. Erdogan’s reaction may well be politically motivated. There are important local elections in March. But Mr. Erdogan should be insisting that the probe be fair and transparent, not trying to derail it. His ruthless ways and his attempt to crush dissent are not new, as the crackdown against demonstrators during protests last June showed. Such actions trample on democratic reforms demanded by the European Union as part of Turkey’s bid for union membership, which may be more in peril than ever, and are increasingly at odds with the ground rules for NATO members.

    Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, was right when he said in Brussels that the Europeans must demand that Turkey return to the rule of law. The Obama administration also needs to send a strong message about the damaging course Mr. Erdogan is pursuing. Whether Turkey nurtures its hard-won democracy, which has contributed to its impressive economic growth, or turns authoritarian is as critical to regional stability and to its NATO allies as it is to Turks.

    A VERSION OF THIS EDITORIAL APPEARS IN PRINT ON JANUARY 28, 2014, IN THE INTERNATIONAL NEW YORK TIMES.