Hasaka, Lattakia, Edlib and Aleppo Governorates- The Turkish families on Thursday started visiting their relatives in Syria through the border crossing points of al-Salama and Jarabulus in the northern province of Aleppo.
Deputy Chairman of Aleppo Municipality’s Executive Bureau Abdul-Kader Jazmati underlined that the Syrian-Turkish relations acquire special importance through the joint ties between the two friendly peoples.
He added that the family meetings express the deep and strong relations connecting the two countries.
Deputy Governor of the Turkish province of Kilis Eren Arslan said the mutual visits contribute to boosting and deepening relations between the two peoples, hailing progress and development of the Turkish-Syrian ties.
Head of the border section in Aleppo Ali al-Sheikh said that nearly 12000 visitors of the Turkish families will visit their relatives in Syria, among them 7000 visitors through Bab al-Salama border point while 5000 visitors through Jarabulus.
About 4164 Turkish Citizens are expected to enter from the Syrian-Turkish border point of ‘Ras Al-In’-‘ ceylanpinor’ to celebrate Eid Al-Adha with their relatives in Syria, according to Brigadier Zaki Bistti, the Director of Ras Al-In’ region, about 600 kilometers from Damascus.
Bistti, in a statement, referred to the measures taken by Hasaka Governorate and the Turkish Urfa Council as to facilitate the movement of the Turkish Citizens visiting their relatives in Hasaka Governorate. Mr. Ilker Ozerk Ozcan, the Governor of Ceylanpinor, referred to the annual increase in the number of visitors who pay a 48 visit to Syria during Eid periods.
About 936 Syrian Citizens from Hasaka Governorate paid a visit during the last Eid Al-Fitr to their relatives in Turkey across the Syrian-Turkish border point of ‘Ras Al-In’-‘ ceylanpinor’. ‘Bab Al-Hawa’ Crossing Point at Edlib Governoerate, 330 kilometers from Damascus, witnessed the crossing of thousands of Turkish Citizens as to celebrate eid Al-Adha, with their relatives in Syria.
Latakia’s ‘Kasab’ Crossing Point, 348 kilometers from Damascus, also registered a crowded movement across the Syrian-Turkish borders as for the families to spend the joyful Eid Al-Adha feasts together. Engineer Khalid Al-Ahmad, the Governor of Edlib, cited the importance of such visits declaring that 86 projects are being carried out on the Syria-Turkish borders.
Antioch Governor, Mehmet Celaleffin Lekesiz, asserted that such exchanged visits among the relatives on both sides of the borders would open wide prospects for tourist, economic, and trade cooperation relations between Syria and turkey. Lekesiz referred to the positive effect of cancelling visa-entry, Which increased the number of visitors from a million and 126 thousand during the first 10 months of last year to 2 million and 260 thousand visitors.
The Turkish families expressed happiness over visiting Syria and exchanging congratulations with their relatives.
Syrian citizens of al-Hasaka today entered Turkey through al-Qamishli-Nussibyn border point to exchange congratulations of Eid al-Adha with their relatives in Turkey.
Muallem said relations between Turkey and Syria were example to other countries of the region.
Sunday, 14 November 2010 15:37
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem said on Sunday that relations between Turkey and Syria were strategical.
Speaking at a meeting with a delegation of Syrians who function as voluntary envoys of Syria abroad, Muallem said Syria’s relations with Turkey was strategical in every area. “As talks are underway on politics, relations in economy also progress,” he said.
Muallem said relations between Turkey and Syria were example to other countries of the region.
Israel and Syria were close enough to reach a breakthrough in their relation after Turkey supported talks between the two countries in Istanbul in 2008, but the talks came to a complete halt after Israel attacked the Gaza strip in the same period, a newspaper reported on Saturday.
Israel captured the Golan Heightsin the 1967 war
Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister who was a key adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, in 2008, told visiting delegations of European politicians in Istanbul that the three countries were close to finalize a breakthrough talks, but efforts fizzled into thin air as Israel attacked the Gaza Strip in December 2008, the UAE-based The National reported.
According to Davutoglu, the indirect talks between the Israelis and Syrians about the future of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war, proceeded well in 2008.
The phone call was to take place at 11 o’clock
Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister
Davutoglu said that he was at the time was residing in a hotel to shuttle between two hotels where the Syrian and Israeli delegations resided.
“We wanted to have the fifth round in the same hotel, and the sixth one on the same corridor,” he said.
The three countries were planning to have a joint meeting in Istanbul on December 29, 2008, he added.
“Only one word” was needed for a joint statement, he said. Two days before the planned meeting, a phone call was to occur between Olmert and Erdogan to finalize the last details.
“The phone call was to take place at 11 o’clock” on December 27, he said. “At 10.30, Israel attacked Gaza. They killed 148 people in one hour.”
Erdogan expressed his disappointment of Olmert, who had not mentioned the planned attack on Gaza during the visit.
In January 2009, Erdogan angrily stormed out of a panel debate with Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.
The Turkish-Israeli relations were further severed after Israeli soldiers killed nine Turkish activists on the aid-flotilla ship, Mavi Marmara, bound to Gaza in late May, 2010.
In October, the political and military leadership in Ankara passed a revision of the so-called National Security Policy Document, also known as the Red Book, covering Turkey’s main policy guideline of domestic and foreign threats, and referred to the regional “instability” created by Israel.
Davutoglu made it clear that his country was not ready to let the flotilla issue rest.
“What if nine NGO members had been killed by Iran?” he asked. “There must be justice in international relations. No one attacks Turkish citizens.”
George W Bush, the former US president, has launched his memoirs and given a series of interviews, which provide fascinating insights into his views on foreign powers, among them Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister.
By Andy Bloxham
On Tony Blair:
He compared Mr Blair to Winston Churchill and disclosed that, on the eve of the war in Iraq, the British PM was willing to risk bringing down the Government to push through a vital vote. He cites Mr Blair’s “wisdom and his strategic thinking as the prime minister of a strong and important ally”, adding: “I admire that kind of courage. People get caught up in all the conventional wisdom, but some day history will reward that kind of political courage.”
On British and European public opinion:
The former president was frank about the lack of weight he attached to how he was thought of in the UK both while he was in power and since he left it, saying: “It doesn’t matter how people perceive me in England. It just doesn’t matter any more. And frankly, at times, it didn’t matter then.” He said: “People in Europe said: “Ah, man, he’s a religious fanatic, cowboy, simpleton.” All that stuff… If you believe that freedom is universal, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people take courageous measures to live in a free society.”
On Saddam:
“There were things we got wrong in Iraq but that cause is eternally right,” he said. “People forget he was an enemy, he had invaded countries, everybody thought he had weapons of mass destruction, it became clear that he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. What would life be like if Saddam Hussein were [still] in power? It is likely you would be seeing a nuclear arms race.” He also adds that Saddam disclosed his reasons for pretending to have WMDs when he could have avoided war were because “he was more worried about looking weak to Iran than being removed by the coalition.”
On Afghanistan:
“Our government was not prepared for nation building. Over time, we adapted our stratedy and our capabilities. Still, the poverty in Afghanistan is so deep, and the infrastructure so lacking, that it will take many years to complete the work.”
On Iran:
“A government not of the people is never capable of being held to account for human rights violations. Iran will be better served if there is an Iranian-style democracy. They play like they’ve got elections but they’ve got a handful of clerics who decide who runs it.”
On China:
He believes its internal politics will stop it being a superpower economy to rival the US for many years. “China, no question, is an emerging economy. China has plenty of internal problems which means that, in my judgment, they are not hegemonistic. They will be seeking raw materials.”
On Syria:
Mr Bush recounts an incident when Israel’s then-prime minister Ehud Olmert called him to ask him to bomb what Mossad agents had discovered was a secret nuclear facility in Syria. He said no but Israel destroyed it without warning him. Telling the story appears to signal his displeasure at not being told.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8119227/George-W-Bush-memoirs-foreign-powers-and-Tony-Blair.html, 09 Nov 2010
ISTANBUL // There was only one more word to be sorted out for an agreement on a joint statement by Turkey, Israel and Syria, only one more telephone call to make. But then, on a Saturday in December 2008, it all fell apart.
Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister who was a key adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, in 2008, was deeply involved in Turkey’s efforts to facilitate indirect talks between Israel and Syria. Last week, Mr Davutoglu described to a visiting delegation of politicians from the European Parliament in Istanbul how tantalisingly close the three countries came to reaching a breakthrough before the talks broke down as Israel attacked the Gaza Strip in December 2008.
Mr Davutoglu’s account not only sheds light on what went on behind the scenes in 2008. It also helps to explain why Turkey, a rising power in the Middle East that regards itself as a natural mediator for many conflicts in the region, finds it so difficult to trust its long-time partner Israel. Turkish-Israeli relations suffered a further blow earlier this year when Israeli soldiers killed nine Turkish activists on a ship leading a flotilla that carried aid for Gaza.
“We are ready to work for the Middle East peace process,” Mr Davutoglu told the delegation. “But we will not forget the flotilla issue.”
Mr Davutoglu spoke in response to an appeal by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leading Green deputy in the European Parliament, that Turkey put the flotilla incident behind it and resume its role as mediator.
Indirect talks between Israelis and Syrians about the future of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war, proceeded well in 2008, Mr Davutoglu said. At the time, he was using one hotel in Istanbul as a base to shuttle between two other hotels in the city, where the Syrian and the Israeli delegations resided. “We wanted to have the fifth round in the same hotel, and the sixth one on the same corridor,” Mr Davutoglu said.
When Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister at the time, visited Ankara in December 2008, negotiations gathered pace. The three countries were planning to have a joint meeting in Istanbul on December 29, 2008, Mr Davutoglu said. “Only one word” was still to be ironed out for a joint statement, the foreign minister said. Two days before the planned meeting, a phone call between Mr Olmert and Mr Erdogan was to finalise the last details.
“The phone call was to take place at 11 o’clock” on December 27, Mr Davutoglu said. “At 10.30, Israel attacked Gaza. They killed 148 people in one hour.”
The war in Gaza led to the abrupt end of the tripartite talks and threw Turkish-Israeli relations into a crisis. Mr Erdogan has said he was disappointed by Mr Olmert, who had not mentioned the planned attack on Gaza during his visit to Ankara days earlier, according to both sides. In January 2009, Mr Erdogan angrily stormed out of a panel debate with Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.
This year, the flotilla incident brought relations to the breaking point, according to a book about Mr Davutoglu’s foreign policy.
In the book Hoca, or Teacher, in a reference to Mr Davutoglu’s former post as a university professor, Gurkan Zengin, a Turkish journalist, describes a dramatic meeting between the Turkish foreign minister and Hillary Clinton, his US counterpart, immediately after the attack on the flotilla on May 31.
In the meeting in Washington, Mr Davutoglu told Mrs Clinton that Turkey wanted Israel to immediately release the Turkish citizens arrested on the aid ships. Otherwise, Ankara would take some “very harsh decisions”, according to the book. “What kind of decisions?” Mrs Clinton said. “If our citizens are not freed, we will sever all diplomatic ties with Israel,” Mr Davutoglu replied. “Clinton was speechless,” Zengin writes in his book.
The break in ties was avoided, but Turkey still insists that Israel will have to apologise for the attack before relations can return to normal. Israel has rejected that demand. As a consequence, relations are still frozen, and there are signs that the lack of trust stemming from the 2008 Syrian episode and the fall-out from the flotilla attack is hardening into a permanent confrontation.
Last month, the political and military leadership in Ankara passed a revision of the so-called National Security Policy Document, also known as the Red Book, Turkey’s main policy guideline covering domestic and foreign threats. According to news reports, the document refers to the regional “instability” created by Israel.
Turkish officials declined to comment on the contents of the Red Book, saying the document was confidential. But in his meeting with the European Greens in Istanbul, Mr Davutoglu made it clear that his country was not ready to let the flotilla issue rest.
“What if nine NGO [non-governmental organisation] members had been killed by Iran?” he asked. “There must be justice in international relations. No one attacks Turkish citizens.”
Turkey is not wavering in the slightest from its pro-European course. Nevertheless, as a trading nation with a dynamic economy that is the living proof of the fact that Islam, a secular political landscape and a parliamentary democracy are indeed compatible, it has in recent times rediscovered its Arab neighbours. Rainer Hermann reports
One of the success stories of Turkey's new foreign policy is Syria. In 1998, the two neighbours stood on the brink of war. Today, their economic and political ties are close
There was one good thing about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Lebanon: although it increased tension prior to the publication of the indictment by the special international tribunal into the murder of Rafiq Hariri, it also demonstrated that in the Arab world, Iran can now really only be sure of the support of Shiites. In Beirut and during his trip to South Lebanon, Ahmadinejad was almost exclusively cheered on by Shiites; Sunni Muslims in the Arab world, on the other hand, viewed his visit to Lebanon with considerable disquiet.
There are many reasons why Iran’s influence in the Arab world has passed its zenith. One of them is the circumstances that surrounded Ahmadinejad’s re-election in June 2009 and the bloody crackdown on protests. Another is the growing influence of Turkey.
Last July, Khalil Shikaki’s Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research discovered that 43 percent of all Palestinians consider Turkey to be their most important foreign policy ally, ahead of Egypt at 13 percent and Iran at only 6 percent. Support for Turkey in the West Bank and in Gaza is virtually the same.
In Lebanon, Ahmadinejad did not succeed in reversing this trend. Shortly before his arrival in Beirut, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was back in Damascus for another meeting with President Bashar al-Assad. In the race for the post of prime minister in Iraq, both these men support the secular Shiite Iyad Allawi, while the powers that be in Iran prefer Nouri Maliki.
In addition to the matter of Iran, Erdogan and Assad spoke about opportunities for reviving the peace process. Assad made it clear that indirect talks with Israel could only be restarted if Turkey were to act as mediator.
Turkey is a “success story” in the Middle East
Up until ten years ago, Turkey was not a player in the Middle East, despite the fact that it shares borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. It was a quiet neighbour. Today, the state that succeeded the Ottoman Empire is a popular go-between and trading partner. For the states and societies of the Middle East, Turkey – with its dynamic economy and practical evidence that Islam, a secular political landscape and parliamentary democracy are indeed compatible – is a “success story”; it has become a “soft power”.
Up until ten years ago, Turkey was not a player in the Middle East, despite the fact that it shares borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Today, the state that succeeded the Ottoman Empire is a popular go-between and trading partner, writes Rainer Hermann
There are heated debates in the West as to whether Turkey is currently just rediscovering the Middle East or whether it is actually returning to it and – if this is indeed the case – whether it is abandoning its foreign policy orientation towards the West. These questions were recently addressed at a conference in Istanbul organised by the Sabanci University, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and the Robert Bosch Foundation.
One of the conclusions reached at the event was that although Turkey has adopted a new, active foreign policy, it has not abandoned its pro-European, pro-Western course. Nor has it shifted the main lines of its foreign policy. The policy of opening up towards its neighbours in the Middle East is much more a matter of diversifying its diplomacy and increasing prosperity in Turkey by tapping into new sales markets.
Foreign policy in the service of trading interests
Turkey’s former foreign policy was based on security considerations and the priority of territorial integrity. Its new foreign policy, on the other hand, is in the service of Turkey the trading nation and seeks to guarantee security and safeguard borders by increasing prosperity. Sükrü Elekdag, one of the best-known ambassadors in the country’s old diplomatic guard, often liked to say that Turkey always had to be ready for “two-and-a-half wars”, i.e. wars against Greece, Syria and the PKK.
New diplomacy: Turkey's current foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has formulated a "policy of no problems" towards all neighbours, the aim of which is to maximize cross-border trade
In sharp contrast to this, Turkey’s current foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has formulated a “policy of no problems” towards all neighbours, the aim of which is to maximize cross-border trade. With the exception of Armenia, this policy has worked so far.
Turkish foreign policy is more than just classic diplomacy, it is trade policy. It is above all Turkey’s new, up-and-coming middle class – the backbone of the ruling AKP – that is benefitting from the new, economy-based foreign policy of Turkey the trading nation.
The industrial cities of Anatolia, which have been dubbed the “Anatolian tigers”, are eyeing as yet unexploited market opportunities in neighbouring countries. While their entrepreneurs are also trading with Europe, they are increasingly focussing their efforts on the Middle East because of Europe’s restrictive Schengen visa policy, which also hits entrepreneurs and investors. This is why they support the visa-free zone which Turkey has established with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
One of the success stories of Turkey’s new foreign policy is Syria. In 1998, the two neighbours stood on the brink of war. Today, their economic and political ties are close. The Turkish-Syrian rapprochement went hand in hand with a cooling of relations with Israel. This process had already begun under Erdogan’s predecessor, the left-wing nationalist Bülent Ecevit, who accused Israel of “genocide” against the Palestinians. That being said, Erdogan visited Israel as recently as 2005; two years later, Israeli President Shimon Peres addressed the Turkish parliament.
Khalil Shikaki's Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research discovered that 43 percent of all Palestinians consider Turkey to be their most important foreign policy ally, ahead of Egypt at 13 percent and Iran at only 6 percent. Pictured: a Turkish national flag at a Hamas rally
Turkey’s policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is very different to that of the EU. While both advocate a peaceful resolution to the conflict and a two-state solution, they are talking to different players. Turkey accuses European diplomacy of ignoring reality because it is only talking to Fatah and boycotting Hamas. The Turkish reasoning is that there cannot be a peaceful solution without the involvement of Hamas. This is why Turkey is trying to pull Hamas into the political “mainstream”.
The differences of opinion between Turkey and the West are particularly blatant when it comes to Iran. While the West is toughening its sanctions against Iran, Turkey is developing its trade with the Islamic Republic.
Although Turkey has adopted a new, active foreign policy, it has not abandoned its pro-European, pro-Western course – that is the conclusion reached at at a conference in Istanbul organised by the Sabanci University, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and the Robert Bosch Foundation. Pictured: the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Turkey, Guido Westerwelle and ahmet Davutoglu
Last June, Turkey voted against harsher sanctions in the UN Security Council. Unlike the West, Turkey believes that the only way to normalise Iran is to normalise relations, which involves trade and diplomacy. Turkey is familiar with the kind of bazaar mentality that is needed for negotiations with Iran. For fear of destabilizing the region, neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Turkish Republic has ever supported rebellions in Iran. For centuries, the safeguarding of a regional balance of power has been more important than the pursuance of a foreign policy based on ideology. This is why Turkey’s sympathy with the dissident “green” movement is only modest.
Just like the EU, Turkey only plays a secondary role in the Middle East behind the United States. At the end of the Cold War, however, it correctly identified the shifting of the tectonic plates in world politics and now, as a modern, self-confident, trading nation, wants to grasp the opportunities that are arising. Turkey still has its sights set on Europe. But the door to Europe remains locked and so this newly self-confident nation is pursuing its own interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.
(DP-News-Sana)
