Category: Middle East & Africa

  • Turkey’s Erdoğan and the Zenith of Hypocrisy

    Turkey’s Erdoğan and the Zenith of Hypocrisy

    By Steven Simpson

    Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is once again engaging in his favorite political pastime – Israel-bashing.

    Late last month at a U.N. convention held ironically to promote religious tolerance, Erdoğan lambasted Israel by calling Zionism “a crime against humanity.”  Indeed, Erdoğan even outdid the biggest anti-Israel institution in the world – the United Nations – which in 1975 passed its infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution.

    But Erdoğan’s continuous contempt for Israel shows the arrogance and hypocrisy of Turkey.  For if there has ever been a country in the Middle East guilty of committing crimes against humanity, it is Turkey.  Indeed, next to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, 20th-century Turkey ranks right up there when it comes to massacres, rapes, expulsions, and rapine perpetrated against ethnic and religious minorities – namely Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds.

    Before documenting Turkey’s crimes against other people, it should first be noted that today’s Turkey has for all intents and purposes become an Islamic republic in everything but name only.  The so-called “Turkish-Israeli” alliance has been in tatters since Erdoğan came to power in 2003.  Aside from veering Turkey on an Islamist course – and cause – the Turks (even with Obama’s “apology tour” that began in Turkey back in 2009) remain extremely anti-American.  This writer back in 2010 documented Erdoğan’s democratic ascent to power, his ideology and goals, and what an Islamist Turkey means to America, Israel, and the West in general.

     

    Regrettably, Israel allowed herself to once again be verbally slapped down by the vitriolic and sanctimonious Erdoğan.  With Erdoğan’s latest diatribe, all Israel could weakly say was “that it was a sinister and mendacious comment.”  America, fearful of losing its only Muslim NATO “ally,” also was quite quiet when it came to Erdoğan’s latest bombastic tirade.

     

    Ironically, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was on his way to Turkey to meet with officials when Erdoğan had his latest verbal apoplectic attack against Israel.  Though the mainstream media made it out that the U.S. was furious with Erdoğan, Kerry simply called the comments “objectionable.”  Indeed, Erdoğan upbraided Kerry when Kerry had apologized for being late to a dinner with the Turkish prime  minister after holding talks with Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu.  Mr. Kerry had commented to the prime minister that he had held lengthy discussions with Mr. Davutoglu.  An irritated Erdoğan then acerbically stated to Kerry that they “must have spoken about everything so there is nothing left for us to talk about.”  Kerry meekly responded “that there’s a lot to talk about.”  However, it remains unknown what the two actually discussed, and if Kerry raised any objections to Erdoğan’s statements on Israel, no one has yet reported on the event.

     

    This now leaves us with Erdoğan’s hypocrisy in lecturing Israel about supposed “war crimes” and leads us to actual war crimes perpetrated by Turkey during the 20th century – crimes that still go on today against the Kurds.  It is a record that not only has caused oceans of blood to be spilled, but still has repercussions felt to this day.

     

    Probably the most well-known war crime that Turkey engaged in was the slaughter – if not genocide  – perpetrated against the Armenians in the first two decades of the 20th century.  In fact, the Turks were already slaughtering Armenians in the late 19th century in what has come to be known as “the Hamidian massacres.”  Estimates of the slaughter range from hundreds of thousands to millions.  In any event, Turkey has consistently and constantly denied that such crimes against the Armenians took place.  Turkey is so sensitive to the charge of genocide that when the U.S. Congress in 2010 finally passed a resolution condemning this crime, Turkey threatened “serious consequences” to the “partnership” between America and Turkey.  Ironically, Barack Obama, who had the audacity to say back in 2007 that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” sought to stop the congressional resolution on the Armenian genocide.

     

    Continuing with Turkish war crimes, and the hypocrisy of the neo-Ottoman crypto-Sultan Erdoğan, there were the massacres and expulsions of the Greeks from their ancestral homelands.  This is another Turkish crime against humanity that is little-known, and even less spoken or written about.  “The Pontian Genocide” took place between the years of 1916 and 1922.  Again, estimates vary in the casualty rate, but the slaughter could have been as close to 1,000,000 Greeks killed.  This doesn’t even take into account the surviving 1.5 million Greeks who lived in Asia Minor (Anatolia) for millennia before being expelled by the Turks to European Greece during this era.

     

    Finally, there are the Kurds.  If there was ever an authentic Middle Eastern minority of Muslims that deserves a nation-state, it is the Kurds.  While Islamist governments in Iran and Turkey (as well as the Arab world) talk about “Islamic solidarity” when it comes to the so-called “Palestinians,” there is not even a syllable of talk regarding the plight of the Kurds.  The Kurds have been killed and suppressed by Arab, Persian, and Turk for centuries, all of whom see the legitimate aim of the Kurds to establish their own state as a threat to the status quo of continuous Arab, Persian, and Turkish imperialism.

     

    While the Kurds are spread out over Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, it has been in the last country that the Kurds have basically been written out of history by the Turks.  The Turkish quest to deny any semblance of a Kurdish existence has been so bizarre that Turkey even banned the Kurdish language during the years 1983-1999 and routinely referred to them as “mountain Turks.”  To this day, Turkey routinely crosses the Syrian and Iraqi borders to fight against “Kurdish terrorists.”

     

    This background on Turkish war crimes is just a brief sketch of the brutal actions that Turkey has committed over the decades (if not centuries).  The next time the arrogant, bellicose, and venomous Erdoğan along with his fellow Islamists lectures Israel about “crimes against humanity,” they should look in the mirror and admit to true war crimes.

     

    Indeed, Israel – and America, for that matter – would do history a great justice if they reminded Turkey in the strongest language possible, of the Turks’ bloody crimes against their own minorities, instead of sitting back and allowing Turkey to pontificate about Israel’s nonexistent “crimes against humanity.”  Continued silence will only strengthen bullies and thugs like Erdoğan, lend credence to his outlandish slander, and allow Turkey to continue to rewrite history in its own image.

     

    Steven Simpson has a B.A. in political science with an emphasis on Middle Eastern studies, as well as a Master’s Degree in library science.  Aside from contributing to the American Thinker, he has contributed in the past to such publications as the Canada Free Press, P.J. Media, Front Page Magazine, and the Gatestone Institute.  He can be reached at [email protected].

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/turkeys_erdogan_and_the_zenith_of_hypocrisy.html#ixzz2OG3ldSHs

  • Iran Cautious of Turkey’s Kurdish Approach

    Iran Cautious of Turkey’s Kurdish Approach

    A view of Palangan village in Kurdistan province, about 660 km (412 miles) southwest of Tehran, May 11, 2011. (photo by REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl) Read more:
    A view of Palangan village in Kurdistan province, about 660 km (412 miles) southwest of Tehran, May 11, 2011. (photo by REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl)

    By: Bayram Sinkaya Translated from ORSAM (Turkey).

    ORİJİNAL YAZIYI TÜRKÇE OKUYABİLİRSİNİZ

    For some time Turkey has been searching for ways to solve its Kurdish issue under the label of “the solution process.” Despite the optimism generated by this label, both the government and the Peace and Democracy Party [BDP] (along with other elements of parliament’s Kurdish wing) have shown prudence. One reason for this cautious optimism is Ankara’s concern that power brokers who do not want Turkey to solve this issue might sabotage the process. Many insist that no country in the region, or anywhere in the world for that matter, would like to see Turkey prosper after solving the Kurdish issue. Turkey’s most frequently mentioned adversary is Iran.

    ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

    Summary :

    Tehran is reluctant to support Turkey’s efforts to reach a resolution with the Kurds, fearing that such a settlement could exacerbate the conflict between Iran and its own Kurdish residents, writes Bayram Sinkaya.

    Publisher: ORSAM (Turkey)

    Original Title:

    Why Doesn’t Iran Want Turkey to Solve its Kurdish Issue?

    Author: Bayram Sinkaya

    First Published: March 16, 2013

    Posted on: March 20 2013

    Translated by: Timur Goksel

    Categories : Turkey   Iran   Security

    For a while now it has been alleged that Iran is in alliance against Turkey with the PKK [Kurdistan Workers Party] — or at least with PKK leaders such as Cemil Bayik, who is said to be close to Iran. We remember how many listed Iran among the possible culprits of the Paris murders. Is Iran really against Turkey resolving the Kurdish issue?

    The first theory is a classic one, and posits that solving the Kurdish issue will empower Turkey. Therefore Iran, which sees Turkey as a regional rival, would not want it to gain more power by resolving the Kurdish issue.

    But wouldn’t a strong and prosperous neighbor that has solved this problem contribute positively to Iran as well? Isn’t that why Iran backed Turkey’s accession to the EU and its democratic openings? Stability, economic growth and peace in Turkey’s east would certainly be felt in Iran’s restive northwest, which has been living through similar problems for many years.

    Another theory is that if Turkey makes progress in solving the Kurdish issue through democratic means, it might put the authoritarian Iranian government — which also has a significant Kurdish population — in a tough spot. Iranian Kurds who see Turkish Kurds making gains might well exert pressure to achieve the same rights. This is why Iran would not want Turkey to solve the Kurdish issue through democratic means, it is claimed. While there may well be some truth to this claim, one has to admit that Iran’s Kurdish issue and the phase it has come to differ from what Turkey has experienced. For example, Iran supported the demands of Kurds in northern Iraq to form a federation, immediately recognized the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG] without hesitation and quickly developed relations with the region.

    Perhaps Iranian leaders won’t be uncomfortable with Turkey solving its Kurdish issue but will rather worry about the Turkish approach to a solution. The “solution process” now means the withdrawal of about 4,000 PKK militants from Turkey. Where will these militants go with their guns? Northern Iraq, Iran and Syria are the places that first come to mind.

    Another question that has to be answered is what these militants will be doing after they leave Turkey. Will they sit on a mountaintop waiting for the process to be completed? Certainly not. A PKK that suspends its operations in Turkey is most likely to support the armed struggle of the Iranian Kurds and fight against Iran, or to go to Syria to boost and consolidate the gains of the Kurdish people there.

    The PKK fighters’ withdrawal from Turkey with their guns will gain time for Turkey in the solution process. But Iranian officials have serious fears that the PKK will join with the Iranian Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) to focus on the struggle against Iran. Those fears may explain the recent wave of arrests of Iranian Kurdish politicians. It is reported that this wave of attacks is the most comprehensive since 2008. The fact that these arrests have come at the same time as the solution process in Turkey cannot be a coincidence.

    In a nutshell, the solution process linked to the PKK’S withdrawal from Turkey is disturbing Iran. This is not because of Iran’s concern with democratization or the empowerment of Turkey, but because of its worry that the PKK fire could ignite its territory.

    via Iran Cautious of Turkey’s Kurdish Approach – Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East.

  • The Israel-Turkey-Greece Triangle

    The Israel-Turkey-Greece Triangle

    Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (L) and his Greek counterpart, Dimitris Avramopoulos, watch a military parade at the Defense Ministry in Athens, Jan. 10, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Yiorgos Karahalis ) Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/03/israel-turkey-greece-relations-improve-gas-cooperation.html#ixzz2O9qvK1BW
    Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (L) and his Greek counterpart, Dimitris Avramopoulos, watch a military parade at the Defense Ministry in Athens, Jan. 10, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Yiorgos Karahalis )
    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/israel-turkey-greece-relations-improve-gas-cooperation.html#ixzz2O9qvK1BW

    By: Jean-Loup Samaan for Al-Monitor

    Earlier this month, the navies of Israel, Greece and the United States gathered to conduct a two-week joint military exercise. This operation, named “Noble Dina,” was launched in 2011 and has since then been conducted each year. It can be seen as one of the various indicators that Israel and Greece are in the process of strengthening their bilateral ties. Indeed, for the last three years, both countries have moved closer to each other.

    About This Article

    Summary :

    Jean-Loup Samaan writes that the Israel-Turkey split is not really grounded in substance but rather in the personal ties of their leaders, and that a thaw may be in the works.

    Author: Jean-Loup Samaan

    It all started through various high-level visits at the level of presidents, prime ministers and defense ministers. In 2010, former Greek Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou visited Jerusalem and signed a cooperation memorandum. The following year, Israel defense Minister Ehud Barak and his Greek counterpart, Panos Beglitis, went further by passing a security cooperation agreement. Meanwhile, the Greek parliament approved the purchase of Israeli bomb-precision upgrade kits, which cost $155 million for 400 systems.

    The Israel-Greece rapprochement is not only visible in the military realm but also in other sectors such as tourism, culture, education and trade. Prior to the Papandreou visit of 2010, there were around 150,000 Israeli tourists each year coming to Greece. For 2012, they were estimated to reach 400,000. Furthermore, since late 2011, Israel has been working closely with Greece and Cyprus in the extraction of the newly found natural gas reserves in the Southeastern Mediterranean. The discovery of these reserves in the exclusive economic zones of Israel, Cyprus and Greece has generated a new area of cooperation for the three countries. Israeli Energy Minister Uzi Landau talked in 2010 of “an axis of Greece, Cyprus and Israel, and possibly more countries, which will offer an anchor of stability.”

    With regards to the gas reserves in the Mediterranean, this huge project is valued at 10 billion euros ($13 billion), so far mostly funded by Israel. Experts evaluate that it will take about six to seven years to complete. On the long haul, for Israel, Greece may become a hub through which it could transport and export gas supplies to Europe and the Balkans. This Israel-Greece-Cyprus initiative has logically triggered strong opposition from Turkey, which does not recognize the government in Nicosia and objects to the claims of the Greek Cypriot Administration over the gas reserves in the south of the island. Ankara responded by conducting air and sea military drills close to the area of the planned project and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu threatened that Turkey would take appropriate measures if the three countries were to go on with the project. This has been denounced by Israel as “gunboat diplomacy.”

    This is where the logic of Israel-Greece starts to unfold: this rapprochement clearly grew in earnest following the degradation of Israel-Turkey relations. The rift between Ankara and Jerusalem became palpable after Israel’s Cast Lead operation in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 and Prime Minister Erdogan’s strong condemnation of Israeli military adventurism. Turkey then decided to put a halt to its mediation efforts between Israel and Syria. The split got worse a year later with the crisis of the Mavi Marmara flotilla. On May 31, 2010, the Israeli military shot and killed nine Turkish citizens who were on board the “Freedom Flotilla” that was heading toward the Gaza Strip. Since then, political dialogue between both countries is in a deadlock, with Israel’s government refusing to apologize for the clash over the Turkish flotilla and the authorities of Turkey blocking not only bilateral cooperation but Israel-NATO cooperation as well.

    It is in this specific context that Israel-Greece relations have been improved. True, the Israelis and the Greeks emphasize that cooperation did not come out of the blue in 2010, that the first bilateral economic agreement was written in 1992 and the first military agreement in 1994 — in fact before the one between Israel and Turkey. Still, this move has all the features of a classic balance-of-power move by Israel vis-à-vis Turkey. Noticeably, the Greek-Israeli military exercises in the last years have taken place close to Turkish borders and, needless to say, they engendered major concerns in Ankara. This logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not without embarrassment for the Greeks who want to see more than bitter politics in the rapprochement. In fact, it is in the interest of neither Greece nor Israel to confine their rapprochement to a move to counterbalance Turkey.

    Athens is not so keen on using its Israeli policy to antagonize Ankara: The new Greek prime minister, Antonis Samara visited Turkey this month to commit his country to the enhancement of the relationship with its historical rival. Specifically Samara, along with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan pledged to double their annual trade over the next three years.

    Meanwhile even though Israelis might have been tempted to use their Greek policy to counter Turkey’s strategy and to proclaim it as a long-term strategic realignment, decision makers are eventually aware that in no way can Greece provide them with the kind of strategic reach Turkey was providing. Not only is Greece enduring a financial crisis that is eroding its military capabilities, but it never had the type of leverage Turkey enjoys in the Middle East and that Israel crucially needs today.

    In fact, after three years of euphoria on the rapprochement with Greece, Israeli diplomats and officers are toning down the idea of geopolitical shift or the one of a zero-sum game. In reality, diplomats in Jerusalem and the military in Tel Aviv are eager to fix the partnership with Turkey. This reflects how the Israel-Turkey split is not really grounded in substance but rather in the personal relationship of its leaders.

    In the last months, there have been numerous signs that both countries may be in the process of restoring their political relations. Several high-level meetings have taken place, including the heads of intelligence in Cairo. Besides, far away from the political upheaval, bilateral trade did not really suffer and its volume is in fact at its highest level in history.

    All in all, this means that the speculation over Israel-Greece rapprochement should be treated with caution due to the strategic limitations of the bilateral relations as well as to the clear need of both countries to avoid portraying it as a zero-sum game vis-à-vis Turkey.

    Jean-Loup Samaan is a researcher in the Middle East Department of the NATO Defense College. His current research projects include the Israel-Hezbollah stand-off since the 2006 war, the Syrian civil war and its impact on the region as well as the evolution of regional security system in the Gulf.

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/israel-turkey-greece-relations-improve-gas-cooperation.html#ixzz2O9qWaVEV

  • Nigeria: Trade Between Nigeria and Turkey Now $2bn-Turkish Investor

    Nigeria: Trade Between Nigeria and Turkey Now $2bn-Turkish Investor

    INTERVIEW

    The ECOWAS- Turkish export products fair is scheduled to hold in Lagos next week. Mr. Yavuz Zemheri is an executive member of the association of investors and businessmen of Turkey and Nigeria. He said the fair has huge economic relevance for the country as Turkey imports 90 percent of its sesame need from Nigeria. It’s basically about bringing the whole of the West African sub region and Turkey to Nigeria. Over 150 companies from different sectors comprising of machineries, household appliances, textile, technology and many more are coming from Turkey. This fair also gives opportunities for people who want to partner with Nigerian businessmen, as is it also open for those who want to invest their businesses in Nigeria. The fair is also going to be an opportunity for small scale investors in Nigeria to key into some of the business ideas that other business men and women from the Diaspora will be coming with.

    Why did you choose Nigeria as the first country to host this exhibition in West Africa?

    Nigeria is the largest and biggest market on the African continent. It has a very large population and Nigeria is a very popular country in Africa and it is also the leading country in Africa especially the ECOWAS region.

    Nigeria is the hub of African business opportunities so it was clear we had to start from Nigeria. From here we can go on to Ghana and then to other African countries. But for now Nigeria has huge potentials which it is yet to realize and utilize well. Nigeria is West Africa and so we had to partner with ECOWAS to be able to achieve this.

    Do you think people will be quick to conclude that Nigeria is a market for substandard goods from foreign countries? And would it be right to say Turkey is towing the same line?

    It would be absolutely wrong and a grievous misconception for anyone to think that Nigeria is a dump site for any commodity. Interestingly in our association, we have Nigerian members as we are not only working for Turkish businessmen. Again, talking about substandard products, it depends on the country because anyone can testify that Turkish products are of European quality. The prices are of course higher than Chinese products and at the same time lower than European prices. These days, people are complaining about Chinese products and we know what it could mean for business so we are certain that we would bring in quality products to this fair because in the near future we do not want to have complaints about Turkish products so we are nipping it in the bud to avoid such cases in future.

    via allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Trade Between Nigeria and Turkey Now $2bn-Turkish Investor (Page 1 of 3).

    More: http://allafrica.com/stories/201303200383.html

  • ISTANBUL: Rebels pick US citizen as Syrian prime minister

    ISTANBUL: Rebels pick US citizen as Syrian prime minister

    BY BEN HUBBARD

    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Ghassan Hitto, the Syrian opposition's newly elected interim prime minister, center right, and head of the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces Mouaz al-Khatib, center left, and other members seen during a meeting in Istanbul, Read more here:
    Ghassan Hitto, the Syrian opposition’s newly elected interim prime minister, center right, and head of the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces Mouaz al-Khatib, center left, and other members seen during a meeting in Istanbul,
    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/19/3295208/rebels-pick-us-citizen-as-syrian.html#storylink=cpy

    ISTANBUL — The man chosen to head the Syrian opposition’s new interim government is a Syrian-born American citizen who has spent decades in the United States working for technology companies and advocating for various Muslim causes.

    Members of the opposition Syrian National Coalition elected Ghassan Hitto in a vote early Tuesday to head an administration they hope will provide an alternative to President Bashar Assad’s regime and help coordinate the fight against his forces.

    “The new government will work from the starting point of complete national sovereignty and the unity of the Syrian land and people, which can only by achieved through continued determination to topple Bashar Assad, his regime and all its pillars,” he said in a speech in Istanbul.

    Much remains unknown about the body that Hitto will lead, including how many ministers it will have and if it will receive enough support to project its authority inside Syria, where it is supposed to set up operations.

    The head of the coalition, Mouaz al-Khatib, threw his support behind the new body, and the head of the coalition’s military leadership, Gen. Salim Idris, did the same Monday before the results were announced.

    But the new government could find it difficult to become the top rebel authority in Syria. A patchwork of rebel brigades and local councils has sprung up in areas seized from government forces, many of them struggling to provide services and running their own security, prisons and courts.

    Hundreds of loosely affiliated rebels groups are involved in the civil war against government forces, and they are unlikely to submit to an outside authority unless it can provide them with aid such as arms and ammunition.

    Due to his many years in the United States, Hitto is little known inside Syria and even among some members of the mostly exile coalition.

    Coalition member Salah al-Hamwi, who is in charge of the coalition’s local councils in Hama province, said he had worked with Hitto to deliver aid and was impressed that he had left his life in the U.S. to use his skills for Syria.

    “He has the mind of an accountant, not an emotional mind, so he is very good at analyzing what needs to be done,” he said.

    Others in the coalition complained of his selection.

    Veteran opposition figure Kamal al-Labwani said he suspected Hitto had been put in place by larger political powers, like Qatar, which has heavily financed the opposition, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

    He also said he as a coalition member never got to meet or question Hitto before his election.

    “I wanted to ask him what the women in Daraya wear and what’s the population of Homs?” he said, suggesting that Hitto was out of touch with Syria.

    “I wanted to ask him how many years he’s lived in Syria,” he said. “He left when he was young.”

    Hitto won 35 of the 48 votes cast by the coalition’s 63 active members.

    In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland welcomed Hitto’s election, saying the U.S. was aware of his aid work.

    “This is an individual who, out of concern for the Syrian people, left a very successful life in Texas to go and work on humanitarian relief for the people of his home country,” she said.

    She added: “We’re very hopeful that his election will foster unity and cohesion among the opposition.”

    Hitto’s many years abroad and fluent English could facilitate his efforts to win international support for his government. He called on the international community on Tuesday to grant his government Syria’s seats at the Arab League and the United Nations.

    Hitto was born in Syria’s capital of Damascus in 1963 and moved to the United States as a young man, where he earned double bachelors’ degrees from Purdue University and an MBA from Indiana Wesleyan University, according to the coalition.

    He worked for IT companies and advocated for a number of Muslim causes. After 9/11, he helped found the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which provides legal support to Arabs, Muslims and Asians. He also helped run an Islamic private school in Garland, Texas. Its website describes it as a place “where knowledge, faith, academics and character meet!”

    Hitto is a member of Syria’s Kurdish ethnic minority, though he is not considered a representative of the community, which has not joined the coalition.

    He is married to a teacher and has four children.

    In a speech to a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2012, he spoke of his son, Obaida, who was applying to law school when “he made up his mind … to help the people of Syria.” His son has since been in the embattled city of Deir al-Zour, shooting videos to post online.

    The elder Hitto left Texas late last year to move to Turkey, where he helped run the coalition’s aid program to Syria.

    In the video of the Fort Worth rally, posted online in September, Hitto criticized Assad’s regime for deploying its army to suppress political protests while not sending it to take back the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967 and later annexed.

    “They were faced with live bullets, with tanks, with soldiers, an army that did not bother to fire a single bullet to claim or to attempt to reclaim its own occupied land for 42 years,” he said.

    Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper contributed reporting from Washington.

    via ISTANBUL: Rebels pick US citizen as Syrian prime minister – World Wires – MiamiHerald.com.

  • Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?

    Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?

    Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?

    Moushira KHATTAB

    The Turkish system of government has often been nominated as a model for the Arab Spring countries, particularly by political Islamists. For the past decade, Turkey has been governed by the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP). However, the AKP describes itself as a conservative-democrat party that fully accepts Turkey’s secular system of government, which managed to carry the country from the brink of bankruptcy to a successful economy ranking 15th globally in terms of GDP.

    Erdoğan was welcomed as a hero when he visited Egypt in early 2012, the first post-revolution visit by a head of government. He dropped a bombshell when he declared that he is in favor of a secular regime despite being a Muslim, much to the chagrin of Egyptian Islamists who have not yet developed their vision for the welfare and development of the Egyptian people.

    Two years after the Egyptian awakening, ordinary citizens still do not appear to be a priority for the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, the lack of a charismatic, unifying leader or a common national aspiration, such as Turkey’s EU ambitions, has left the country in unprecedented polarization.

    Both countries bear witness to a similar struggle for equal rights for women. In Egypt’s case, the story is one of both success and frustration. Despite gradual advancements, women continue to be marginalized in both countries. Issues pertaining to women’s rights or empowerment were not a significant part of the debate in the run-up of Turkey’s 2011 parliamentary elections, just as they were widely disregarded in Egypt’s post revolution elections.

    Political Islam is on the rise in the Middle East. Women in both Turkey and Egypt fear that their quest for equal rights will be derailed and their achieved rights threatened. Egyptian women were the first to get the taste of its impact. Two years into the Arab Spring, reality for women has been sobering.

    The dynamics of the revolution have produced a very complex situation for women, as the rise of conservative political Islam puts the breaks on Arab women’s struggle for equal rights. Although they emerged as a formidable active voting bloc of nearly 23 million people, Egyptian women were systematically ignored by political parties and candidates, both Islamist and liberal, during the parliamentary and presidential elections. Women were also marginalized during the process of drafting the Constitution.

    The post-revolution Islamist Constitution seriously threatens to relegate the status of women and widen the gap even more between Turkish and Egyptian women. Article 10 of this Constitution is the sole article that identifies women as a distinct group. However, it does not establish any rights for women. Furthermore, the state’s responsibility to guarantee equality between men and women was removed altogether.

    On the other hand, Egypt’s post-revolution Constitution assigns a greater role for religion. “Principles” of Shariah remain the source of legislation. Article 219 interprets article two by effectively turning “principles” into the more restrictive “provisions,” which can vary according to the personal conviction of clerics who will have the final word over the laws that translate such broad terms. It gives a non-elected and non-judicial body authority over the legislature and democratically elected bodies.

    The cause of women has been an issue since the outset of the revolutions and the “spring” has unfortunately turned into an autumn for women, or a spring without flowers. Two years into the Arab Spring, it is evident that Islamic conservatism limits women’s role in public life.

    Egyptian women need to use their formidable voting power and political activism in order to maintain and build on their gains until they achieve their inalienable rights. Moreover, they will benefit if the ruling Islamists were guided by the Turkish example.

    Will the Egyptian Islamists, who view Turkey as a model in economic development, consider Turkey a model in women’s rights? What’s more, will Turkey continue to be a model, or will the pressure toward more Islamization make Egypt’s Islamists the model, instead?

    *Ambassador Moushira Khattab is the Former Egyptian Minister of Family and Population. This article was originally published in the Winter 2013 issue of Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ). This one is an abbreviated version of the piece.

    via CONTRIBUTOR – Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?.