Category: America

Persistent Anti-Americanism in Turkey: External or Internal Causes?

By Soner Cagaptay and Yurter Ozcan
July 29, 2009

Over the past years, some analysts have suggested that George W. Bush’s unpopular administration spawned the high levels of anti-Americanism in Turkey. Referring to this phenomenon as “anti-Bushism,” however, discounted the rise of anti-Americanism in Turkey and implied that the country’s adverse view of the United States would change with a new administration. Unfortunately, two recent polls suggest otherwise. Despite the new faces in Washington — policymakers who have gone out of their way to embrace Turkey and its citizens — anti-Americanism persists across Turkish society.

Enduring Anti-Americanism
A poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project reveals that President Barack Obama’s election has led to significant improvement in America’s standing in the world, including in European and Muslim-majority countries; France and Indonesia, for instance, witnessed increases in U.S. popularity from 42 percent to 75 percent and 37 percent to 63 percent, respectively, between 2008 and 2009. Turkey, however, is a rare exception to this trend. According to Pew, the U.S. favorability rating in Turkey in 1999-2000 was 52 percent, but then sharply dived to 30 percent in 2002, 15 percent in 2003, and 12 percent in 2008. In 2009, with the advent of the Obama administration, there has been only a minimal increase of 2 percent in U.S. favorability in Turkey, from 12 to 14 percent.

Despite the U.S. administration’s full support for Turkey’s EU membership, continuous assistance against PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) terror attacks, and diplomatic outreach through very successful and well publicized trips to Turkey by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, Turkish public opinion is divided on the new U.S. president: 45 percent say they have confidence in Obama, while 46 percent say they do not (as reported by the World Public Opinion survey, a project run by the ARI Foundation and the INFAKTO Research Workshop of Istanbul) The Pew poll also found that Obama’s trip to Turkey and subsequent speech to the Turkish nation had little measurable impact on Turkey’s view of the United States or of Obama himself.

U.S. Image Recovering Elsewhere
According to the World Public Opinion survey, many nations, including European allies that were critical of the United States during George W. Bush’s term, now say that the United States is playing a primarily positive role in the world: a majority in France (52 percent) and Britain (58 percent), a plurality in Germany (44 percent), nearly half in Mexico (49 percent), and a large majority of Kenyans (81 percent), Nigerians (70 percent), South Koreans (68 percent), and Taiwanese (61 percent). According to the Pew poll, in all but three — Poland, Russia, and Israel — of the twenty-four countries surveyed, America’s image improved after President Obama took office.

Turkey Remains among Those Most Critical of the United States
U.S. foreign policy. According to World Public Opinion survey, Turkey is top among nations that say that U.S. foreign policy is playing a mainly negative role in the world (72 percent), ranking higher than Pakistan (69 percent), Egypt (67 percent), Iraq (53 percent), Russia (49 percent), and China (41 percent). A large number of Turks (45 percent) also believe that the United States is generally not cooperative with other countries, a view shared by other Muslim-majority nations, including Egypt (62 percent), Iraq (58 percent), and Pakistan (54 percent). Seventy-six percent of Turks see the United States as hypocritical for promoting international laws for other countries but neglecting to apply the same rules to itself (down slightly from 81 percent in 2008). In addition, 86 percent of Turks say the United States abuses its power in forcing Turkey to comply with its agenda (unchanged from 2008), while 86 percent believe America uses the threat of military force to gain leverage over other countries.

According to Pew, the United States is viewed as an enemy by 77 percent of Palestinians, 42 percent of Pakistanis, and 40 percent of Turks. It is interesting to note that Russia, a traditional U.S. rival, is less hostile with 21 percent.

In a significant break from the past, the following two categories suggest that Turkey’s negative sentiments toward U.S. efforts have now gone beyond mere differences with foreign policy issues and now affect Turks’ view of the United States as well as U.S. citizens.

The United States as a country. According to Pew, Turkey is among nations with a highly unfavorable view of the United States as a country (69 percent), together with the Palestinian Territories (82 percent), Pakistan (68 percent), and Jordan (74 percent). Interestingly enough, countries such as Russia (44 percent) and China (46 percent) have more favorable view of the United States.

The American people. According to Pew, a majority of people in seventeen out of twenty-four nations have a favorable view of Americans. Negative views of American people, however, appear in Turkey (14 percent), Pakistan (20 percent), and the Palestinian territories (20 percent), where little change has occurred in recent years.

Policy Implications
Combined with historical data, these new polls show that anti-Americanism might be becoming an internalized component of Turkish society, and that anti-Americanism in Turkey does not relate to specific U.S. administrations. The reshuffle in U.S. foreign policy — placing Turkey higher up on the agenda and jumpstarting the strained bilateral ties — has not produced its intended effect on the Turkish public. While Washington continues to do its share to win Turkish hearts and minds, public attitudes toward the United States will change only if Ankara adopts more positive rhetoric.

For the U.S. image in Turkey to improve, the Turkish government needs to take ownership of U.S.-Turkish ties. In this regard, Turks need to hear from their government that the United States is their friend, supporting Turkey’s EU membership and helping them against the PKK — astoundingly, most Turks believe the United States is actually supporting the terrorist group — and that Turks share values, institutions, and interests with America. The United States might be doing all the right things for Turkey, but Turkey’s perception of America will not improve until Turkish government officials stress what the United States is doing for the Turkish people. Only positive domestic rhetoric that brings home U.S. policies will dispose Turks more favorably toward the United States.

Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute. Yurter Ozcan is an Institute research assistant in that program.

July 29, 2009
The World Is Tilted

Soner Cagaptay and Ata Akiner
Hurriyet Daily News
July 29, 2009

Tom Friedman is right, the world is flat. New communication technologies and globalization have created a flat world, erasing most social and political inequalities among nations. However, in this flat world, there is a new trend: from Italy and Turkey to Russia, Iran and China, where the governments control the media and the new communication tools, the world is tilted in favor of governments. What is more, this tilted world is not so equal, especially when it comes to politics.

Take Italy and Turkey, for instance. Both are democracies. Yet in both countries, the governing parties control much of the media, often distorting political debate in their favor.

In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who was a powerful media mogul when he entered politics, today controls much of the Italian media. According to Reuters, Mr. Berlusconi holds sway over 90 percent of Italy’s broadcast media through his private media holdings and by exercising political power over the state television networks. It should not come as a surprise that Italy was rated as “partly free” in Freedom House’s 2009 survey — in “Western Europe” only Turkey shared this ranking with Italy.

Mr. Berlusconi’s power over the media allows him shape the debate in favor of his government, as well as escape scandals that could finish him off politically. Mr. Berlusconi wins elections despite all odds and despite the shifting-sands nature of Italian politics. In Italy, the world of politics is tilted.

In Turkey, too, where the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan happens to be a close friend of Mr. Berlusconi, control over the media helps the ruling party shape the political debate in its favor. Since 2002 when the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, came to power, the government has used legal loopholes to confiscate ownership of independent media and sell it to its supporters. In 2002, pro-AKP businesses owned less than 20 percent of the Turkish media; today pro-government people own around 50 percent.

The AKP’s new found control over the media is not without consequences. A review of the newspapers and networks reveals a split country. AKP-affiliated media reports on Turkey as a perfect country, if not for the serious allegations of coup plots against the government. Meanwhile, media unaffiliated with the AKP portrays an imperfect country wrought with corruption and ineffective governance. The media divisions, among other reasons, have caused Turkey to be cut in half, split between AKP’s supporters and opponents. Still, as long as the AKP maintains control over half of the Turkish media, it will enjoy strong support. In Turkey, the world of politics is tilted.

Then, there is Russia, an effective single-party state. Russian leader Vladimir Putin, a close friend of Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Berlusconi, runs a state in which all media, with the exception of a few independent outlets, belongs to pro-government businesses or is in the hands of the Russian state. To put things in perspective, of the 26,000 newspapers, 16,500 magazines, 1,400 radio stations and 2,200 TV stations in Russia, the number of independent media outlets is in the single digits. Russian authorities regularly raid independent media offices and arrest journalists. Sometimes, even this is not enough: the flag bearer of Russian opposition Novaya Gazeta has tragically lost four journalists in the past eight years under mysterious circumstances.

This near absolute control over the media has allowed Putin to consolidate power in ways previously unthinkable in Italy and Turkey. United Russia, Mr. Putin’s party, regularly wins landslide victories in elections, most recently pulling in almost three-quarters of the electoral support in the 2007 Russian legislative election. Analysts often ask why Russia is unable to produce an effective political opposition to Mr. Putin. The roots of this problem lie in Mr. Putin’s monopoly over the Russian media: the more tilted the political world in favor of a government, the more the ruling parties can consolidate their power, ultimately preventing any opposition from gaining support. Mr. Putin must make his friends jealous for in Russia, the world of politics is almost irreversibly tilted.

Then, there is authoritarian Iran and China, where the world of politics is so tilted it cannot even be scaled. In these countries, the government controls not only traditional media, such as newspapers and TV networks, but also new tools of communication, such as the internet and cell phone communication.

When demonstrators took to the streets in the aftermath of Iran’s recent presidential elections alleging electoral fraud, the government blacked out media access and shut down the web and cell phone networks, effectively cutting Iran off from all media sources. Briefly, the internet and cell phones allowed the Iranian demonstrators to organize. However subsequently, the government’s ability to shut down the internet and cell phone communications provided the kiss of death for the anti-government protests, preventing the demonstrations from growing — in Iran, the world is sharply tilted in favor of the regime.

The same story repeated itself in a more perfect form during the recent riots in China’s East Turkestan (Xinjiang) region. Soon after the riots began, the government shut down internet access in the Uygur province, ending the demonstrators’ hope of using the web to organize. This step was followed by a total shut down of cell phone communications, including text messaging; isolating East Turkestan from the rest of the world -in Turkestan, the new world is so tilted that the Uygurs cannot even see beyond it.

The flat new world is better off in many ways compared to the world of the past. Yet, ironically the same forces that are flattening the world can also tilt it, empowering authoritarian states, and allowing undemocratic trends to take roots in democratic societies. In the 21st century, one hopes that the world is not only flat, but also, and more importantly, that it is also even.

Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute. Ata Akiner is a research intern in that program.

July 29, 2009
WASHINGTON D.C Protest

Uighur People Of WASHINGTON D.C

WASHINGTON D.C
Location:
In front of the White House
Lafayette Park (1608 H Street NW)
Time:
12pm-5pm
Date:
July 28
Contact: UAA
202-349-1496
202-349-4192
Info: .org/forum/showthread.php?t=16365

July 27, 2009
Fetullah’s Missionaries vs. Kurdish Lobbyists

Dr.Aland Mizell is with the MCI, [email protected]

A New Kind of Lobbyists: Kurdish Lobbyists versus Turkish Muslim Missionaries Lobbyists in the USA (Gulen’s Missionaries)

Kurdishaspect.com – By Dr.Aland Mizell

There is an old phrase that says ten people who speak make more noise than a hundred thousand who are silent. For many years in the United States, Armenian lobbyists and Greek lobbyists were more effective than Turkish ones. The American and European Union publics have always taken the opposite position on issues related to Turkey, such as on the Armenian genocide, Cypriots issues, Kurdish issues and human rights, among others. However, lately this leaning has changed. Today Fethullah Gülen has taken advantage of American and Western democracy to use its strengths for his own good trying to change the Western and the American image of Turkey. In other words, Gülen is trying to defeat the Western and American culture with their own weapon of democracy turning it against them. For example, lobbying in democratic systems is the right to influence legislations, a right that is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government to address their need. Therefore the protection assumes that people should be involved in the decision-making process that will affect them. It is a political fact that the American capitalist system of government is one which relies on lobbying within the American traditional political system. It is considered a political value and thus legitimates manipulating the government as well as Congress for achieving a political, economical, cultural, or social view. This kind of political system allows for its weakness of being manipulated by lobbyists and interest groups. The ideas of lobby legitimacy and legality of lobbyists are rational as long as they serve the interest of the American people. By contrast, the Gülen lobbyists serve an ideology that wills to rule the world and thus does not serve the American people’s interest but instead jeopardizes American national security, interests, and subsequently world peace. Gulen’s followers offer scholarships targeting minorities, especially African – American college students who want to study in Turkey. His supporters use the race card to target African Americans because of the historicity of slavery, and they claim that Islam does not welcome slavery and that there is no racism under the tenets of Islam. Using that rationale to recruit Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and other minorities in the USA, Gülen also notices that the African- American community is on the rise in its place in the American society. However, back in early 90s during his first trip to USA, Gülen claimed that America would be destroyed by the African – Americans. Now, however, racial dynamics have changed, particularly solidified by the election of President Obama.

Since Gülen is exiled to the USA from his home country because of its charge that he attempted to overthrow the secular government of Turkey, Gulen’s community in the USA takes a more active role in lobbying activities, spurred by his presence. Of course before the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) with its Muslim government came to power, Gülen did not get support from the Turkish secular government. Rather, his movement was under scrutiny by a government operating under Ataturk’s secularism. But today under the Islamic AK Party the relationship is different because President Gull and Prime Minister Endogen publically called Gulen’s followers “Ottoman soldiers” who go everywhere.

A rational person will ask what kind of history does Gülen teach at his schools? The Turkish government gives more than 3 million in endowment grants to leading American universities trying to buy academic freedom from the dark passage of the Armenian genocide. According to most historians, Armenians were massacred in a deliberate extermination of program by the Ottoman Empire during World War II. So at his schools Gülen teaches revisionist history by giving grants to many leading universities in the United States to ensure that they also teach a revisionist history that this genocide never happened, that fewer Armenians died, and those did because the Armenians first revolted against the Turks, resulting in a tragic civil war. Also according to his revisionist history, Turks never denied Kurdish rights; it is all the Kurds’ fault. Turks never did anything wrong, because the Ottoman Turks were angelic and sinless, the most peaceful empire. As such, it should be established, he argues, once again, this time not by using the sword but by using the pen. The pen would include lobbying activities carried out by an independent civil society of organizations such as NGOs, taking advantage of democracy in its freedom of speech and celebration of equality, trapping the unsuspecting in interfaith dialogues under the face of tolerance although he himself is not the most tolerant person, and using, in addition to interfaith dialogues, Turkish cultural centers, Turkish cultural associations, the Rumi forum, the Niagara Foundation, business associations, the Interfaith Institute, cooking classes, newspapers, a television station, magazines, and Hollywood. In addition, he has infiltrated the U.S bureaucracy, the CIA, the FBI, NSA. Other key tactics are using high profile people as spokespersons, such as Bill Clinton, holding conferences to promote his ideas, although he never invites the opposition who will object his position to these conferences. Further, every year he brings his followers from Turkey and Central Asian countries to study as undergraduate and graduate students in the USA and directing them to receive scholarships at the prestigious universities to disseminate their Islamic mission. Gülen knows that they cannot achieve these goals in Turkey. They can only be achieved under the Western and American democratic systems. Gülen has opened more than 90 charter schools in almost every state in the USA. One wonders why? What kind of history do they teach? What is their purpose? The list of schools follows:

Arizona

Schools Operated by Daisy Education Corporation

Sonoran Science Academy-Tucson    Middle-High School    2325 W Sunset Rd., Tucson, AZ 85741

Sonoran Science Academy-Tucson    Elementary School 2325 W Sunset Rd., Tucson, AZ 85741

Sonoran Science Academy-Broadway Kindergarten – Grade 8    6880 E Broadway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85710

Sonoran Science Academy-Phoenix Kindergarten – Grade 10 4837 E McDowell Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85008

Daisy Early Learning Academy    2325 W Sunset Rd., Tucson, AZ 85741

Davis Monthan Air Force Base *Opening 2009*

Arkansas

Lisa Academy

Lisa Academy-North

California

Magnolia Science Academy 1    Magnolia Science Academy 2

Magnolia Science Academy 3

Magnolia Science Academy 4

Magnolia Science Academy 5

Magnolia Science Academy San Carlos

Momentum Middle School

Bay Area Technology School (Bay Tech)

Pacific Technology School-San Juan

Pacific Technology School-Santa Ana

Colorado

Lotus School for Excellence

Florida

Orlando Science Middle School

River City Science Academy

Sweetwater Branch Academy

Stars Middle School

Georgia

Fulton Science Academy

Technology Enriched Accelerated Charter High School

Illinois

Science Academy of Chicago

Chicago Math and Science Academy Secondary School

Indiana

Operated by Concept Schools, Inc.

Indiana Math and Science Academy

Louisiana

Abramson Science and Technology

Maryland

Chesapeake Science Point

Massachusetts

Pioneer Charter School of Science

Missouri

Brookside-Frontier Math and Science School

Brookside Charter and Day School

Nevada

Coral Academy of Science-Las Vegas

Coral Academy of Science-Reno Secondary School

Coral Academy of Science- Reno Elementary School

New Jersey

Bergen Arts and Science Charter School

Paterson Charter School for Science and Technology

Tuition Schools

Pioneer Academy of Science

Ohio

Operated by Concept Schools, Inc.

Horizon Science Academy-Cincinnati

Horizon Science Academy-Cleveland

Horizon Science Academy-Cleveland

Horizon Science Academy-Cleveland

Horizon Science Academy-Columbus

Horizon Science Academy-Columbus

Horizon Science Academy-Columbus

Horizon Science Academy-Dayton

HORIZON SCIENCE ACADEMY – DENISON

HORIZON SCIENCE ACADEMY –

HORIZON SCIENCE ACADEMY – TOLEDO

Noble Academy-Columbus

Noble Academy-Cleveland

Oklahoma

Schools operated under the Cosmos Foundation, TX.

Dove Science Academy-OKC Secondary

Dove Science Academy-OKC Elementary School

Dove Science Academy-Tulsa

Tuition school affiliated with Raindrop Turkish House

Bluebonnet Learning Center of Tulsa

Pennsylvania

Truebright Science Academy

Tuition School:

Snowdrop Science Academy

Texas

Operated by The Cosmos Foundation

Harmony Science Academy-

Harmony School of Science-Austin

Harmony Science Academy-North Austin

Harmony Science Academy-Beaumont

Harmony Science Academy-Brownsville

Harmony Science Academy-Bryan/College Station

Harmony Science Academy-Dallas

Harmony Science Academy-Dallas

Harmony Science Academy- El Paso

Harmony Science Academy-Fort Worth

Harmony Science Academy-Grand Prairie

Harmony Science Academy-Houston

Harmony School of Excellence-Houston

Harmony School of Innovation-Houston

Harmony School of Science-Houston

Harmony Science Academy-Northwest

Harmony Science Academy-Laredo

Harmony Science Academy-Lubbock

Harmony Science Academy-San Antonio

Harmony Science Academy-Waco

Texas Gulf Institute Career Center Adult

Riverwalk Education Foundation, Inc.

School of Science and Technology

School of Science and Technology-San Antonio

School of Science and Technology-Corpus Christi

Tuition schools affiliated with Raindrop Turkish House

Bluebonnet Learning Center of Houston

Bluebonnet Learning Center of Dallas

Bluebonnet Learning Center of El Paso

Utah

Beehive Science and Technology Academy Secondary School

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Career Academy

Sun Tzu, a famous Chinese philosopher said, “Those who do not know the plans of competitors cannot prepare alliances. Those who do not use the local guides cannot take advantage of the ground.’’ Gülen knows who his enemy is and knows how to manipulate and take advantage of the ground. I believe the Kurds could do the same thing as long as they stop giving petty excuses and blaming each other for political reasons. The Kurds must be united for their common good; otherwise they will lose this opportunity as well soon. If they are not active now, when will they be? The Kurds have more reasons to be active. Why cannot the Kurds be active like Gulen’s missionaries are? Kurds have gone through so many atrocities, and much injustice, cruelty, oppression, and denial of the right to live like the rest of humanity. Once in his State of the Union address to the Mexican people in 2007, President Felipe Calderon said, “Mexico does not stop at its border; wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” This should be true for all the Kurds as well. The region of Kurdistan does not stop at its border; wherever there is a Kurd, there must be a Kurdish region. Wherever Kurds go, whatever they do, they should represent the Kurdish culture and interests. Every Kurd should bring a Kurd from the home country to the West or to America because in the home country they are being blocked by the regimes, so we need to encourage them to expatriate Kurds so they can speak for Kurdistan freely. One of the way Kurds will be more successful in terms of lobbying is for Kurdish students who study in the West or in the USA at least is to write essays. It should be a requirement that they should chose topics that relate to Kurdish social, political, economical, and cultural issues. Also, professors could give them opportunities to present their essays to classroom. Kurdish students will have an audience, and I believe they can make a friend and even make friends with the professors, inviting them to their houses, telling the story of oppression and cruelty, particularly how they emigrated to the USA or to the West, because most of the Kurd have good testimonies to tell the West and Americans to win them, to encourage them to be on their side, unlike many other immigrants, and thus an advantage the Kurds have over the others. Mr. Qubat, the Kurdish representative in Washington, D.C., gives a petty excuse. He wrote in his blog, “Much has been written of late in newspapers across Kurdistan about the Kurdish lobby, or lack thereof. Before we start analyzing whether or not one exists, we should take a step back and ask ourselves if we know what one is or not! We should also stop comparing ourselves to the Jewish lobby or the Armenian Lobby, as these lobbies have been active in the U.S. for well over half a century” I would like to remind Mr. Qubat and other Kurds that it is true that the Jewish lobby has deep roots in American politics and has been here for many decades, but Gulen’s missionaries came in 1999 after the Kurds. A large group of the Kurds came to the USA during he first Gulf War although some came before that. How many Kurdish institutes do they have in the U.S? How many Kurdish cultural centers are there in the USA? How many Kurdish conferences have been held in the USA? How many grants have been given to professors to study the Kurdish history and languages? How many Kurdish students have been brought from the Kurdish region to study in the U.S.A., so that they could be one of the lobbyists? How many Kurdish TV channels have opened in the USA? How Many Kurdish NGOs has been formed in the USA? How many NGOs have been set up to help the Kurdish people in Kurdistan? How many annual Kurdish day parades are held? How many times have Kurds invited dignitaries, professors, and law officers to dinner or to parties to introduce the Kurdish history and cultures as well as narratives of oppression, cruelty and injustice? How many professors, legislators, or civic leaders have taken trips to the Kurdish regions? How many Kurdish professors teach in the top ten American universities? How many times Kurds have used high level officials to perpetrate their ideology, such as the former President Bill Clinton, the former Secretary of the States Madeline Albright? It is true that everything needs money. Surely the Kurdish regional government has enough oil money to fund those areas that I mentioned. Gulen also did not get any support from the government, but only from the people who follow him. Former President Clinton said that pessimism is an excuse for not trying and a guarantee for a personal failure. It is important for Kurds to direct their anger and frustration towards problems, not toward each other and to focus their energies on answers not excuses. A unity of feeling and thought are essential among the Kurdish people’s strength; any disintegration of political and cultural moral unity may lead to weakness. Kurdish people should never make the differences of thought and opinion a means of conflict. Kurds should not tolerate the separation of the Kurdish people into camps that destroys their unity. Does tolerance of political and cultural division mean closing one’s eye to the Kurdish nation’s extinction? Politics is the art of managing a country’s affairs in ways that please the people, protect them from oppression, and rules them based on justice for all. Good politicians are the ones who are characterized by adherence to the superiority of laws and grant rights to the people based on their merit, not based on kinship or obligation even giving them delicate job to manage without their experience or ability. Laws should be effective all the time everywhere and for everyone, and those enforcing the law should administer in a just, kind, and equal way to all so that the public will have trust in them and be secure with them. One cannot speak of good government where these qualities do not exist.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. Kurds must work hard to lobby making sure the people are taking these rights seriously. One of the most important things that destroys the Kurds as a people is that they are simple minded toward those who would deceive them while pretending to be their friends. Kurds should not believe every promise and should not be misled by everyone who gives advice with a smile. For example, Gülen wants to solve the Kurdish problem within the Islamic context, which means he is using Islam to justify his means, saying Islam forbids racism and that we are all Muslim regardless of our race, color, etc. but at the same time, he will argue that God has chosen the Turkish people to carry the banner and represent true Islam. His followers never dare to talk about the Kurdish question. Thanks to the European and Kurdish Diaspora pressing Turkey to recognize that there is a Kurdish nation, Kurds are not “mountain Turks” but they are Kurds. Also, the Diaspora helped Turkey for the first time ever recognize that there is a Kurdish problem that needs to be solved. For a long time Gülen and government officials were silent and denied that there is such a Kurdish problem.

There is another trap waiting for Kurds, which is the Islamic card. Gülen is already using it to recruit many Kurds to his movement. The Islamic regime’s treatment of the Kurds will not be any different from previous regimes’ treatment of them. Under the previous regimes Kurds did not have problems as long as they denied that they were Kurds and this factor will be the same under the Islamic regime. As long as you do not say, “I am Kurd,” you are welcomed with no problems. Today in Turkey the Kurdish Parliamentarians were democratically elected by the Kurdish people and given a victory, but the Muslim administration is not happy and is using intimidation to attack and put the Kurds in jail one by one, charging them in court, financially and spiritually harassing the Kurds trying to lower their morale, so that they will give up. They are using many kinds of tactics to justify their means. Purposefully working on a plan to bring in the Kurds, Gülen wants his circles to discuss the Kurdish issues rather than Europeans or any other scholars. If today Kurds are somehow known in the international arena is it because Kurdish lobbyists have carried out many important activities concerning Kurdish issues. Because many of Kurds who moved to West were already older and had a hard time integrating into the Western culture, it is important to bring the younger generation into the political arena. The Kurdish government should fund the lobbyists, so that they can focus on doing lobbying. Kurds should work together, not just individuals. The Kurdish problem in Syria should be same problem as that of the Kurds in Turkey or Iraqi Kurds. I believe nothing is impossible for the Kurdish people to accomplish; there are always ways that lead to everything; if Kurds have enough will, they should always have sufficient means, not excuses.

Dr.Aland Mizell is with the MCI, [email protected]

July 27, 2009
TURKEY RISING GLOBAL POWER

Size matters

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

SONER CAGATAY

There are three categories of countries in international politics: global powers that can afford to do nearly everything they want; small and weak states that need to latch on to large states to protect their interests; and middle-sized states, which, though they are not powerful enough to shape global affairs by themselves, wield international influence through alliances and by building regional constituencies.

For a long time, Turkey was in the category of small states, attaching its foreign policy unequivocally to that of the United States. Over the past decade, under the rule of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, Turkey has graduated to the class of middle-sized states. On July 15, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognized this development, calling Turkey an “emerging global power.” But what are the parameters of Ankara’s middle-sized power status? Now that it is in a new league of states, should Turkey attempt life without America, or does Ankara still need Washington?

Turkey not only has NATO’s second largest military, but also is a new member of the G-20. What is more, thanks to the AKP’s activist foreign policy, Turkey wields influence across many regions, from the Middle East to the Eastern Mediterranean, and Central Asia. Ankara stands at a historic juncture and possesses the ability to shape politics beyond its borders if it pays attention to the two following parameters.

First, Turkey can maintain its newfound global role only if it builds international constituencies. To this end, Ankara needs to project its political message and soft power in a consistent way. If Ankara vacillates overseas, its newfound international influence will wane.

So far, Ankara has struggled in this regard. Take China, for example. Turkey voiced strong criticism of the Chinese crackdown against the Uyghurs in early July, but has avoided taking a stance on the Tibet issue. Ankara will need to stand for human rights for both Muslim Uygurs and Buddhist Tibetans alike if it is to become a credible force in world politics. In this regard, Turkey should not only guard its existing constituencies, such as the Uygurs, but also reach out to and build new ones, such as the Tibetans. As a middle-sized power in global politics, Turkey needs to prove that its heart beats for Muslims and non-Muslims, and Turks and non-Turks, with the same strength.

Along the same vein, Turkey needs to project its soft power consistently in the Middle East. In this regard, too, Ankara has not had a perfect record. When Hamas emerged victorious in the 2006 Palestinian elections, Ankara voiced support for Hamas’ electoral victory in the name of democracy. Yet in the aftermath of the June 2009 elections in Iran, amidst widespread allegations of vote rigging, Ankara did not side with democracy, but instead congratulated Ahmadinejad on his “electoral victory” even as Iranians were being shot in the streets of Tehran. If Turkey aims to wield influence in the Middle East by promoting itself and its values, such as democracy, it should do so for both Palestinians and Iranians.

The second parameter to ensure Turkey’s middle-sized power status is maintaining an alliance with a global power. This will help Ankara protect its interests in areas of the globe beyond its reach, as well as in organizations where it could be dwarfed by larger powers.

This is where Ankara’s relationship with the United States comes in. Fortunately, Turkey no longer is a foregone conclusion in Washington’s mind. But Ankara’s newfound importance in Washington should not be interpreted as the time for Turkey to conclude its long alliance with America. Like all middle-sized countries, Turkey can protect its interests better when allied with a global power. Take Turkey’s European Union, or EU, process, for instance. Turkey would not be in accession talks with the EU today if not for Washington’s continued backing.

In a similar fashion, Washington’s assistance to Turkey matters inside NATO. Ankara’s position in this alliance, which includes other middle-sized powers larger than Turkey, would be weaker if it were isolated. Turkey’s ties to Washington, in this respect, are essential. Washington’s motto in NATO, “Never leave the Turks alone,” best explains the United States’ utility to Turkey in NATO, as does Turkey’s access to U.S. military technology, a perk of its NATO membership.

To be sure, the benefits of Turkey’s relationship with the United States are mutual. Just as Turkey profits from its relationship with a global power, Washington needs the new Turkey in many places, such as Afghanistan and the Middle East. This new rapport requires adult thinking on both sides, and will soon be tested as Washington withdraws troops from Turkey. This test will happen regardless of whether or not the U.S. pulls its military out of Iraq through Turkey, and the question is whether the two sides will act as mature partners.

Far from looking for a life without America, Turkey should be looking for an upgraded relationship with the United States. Turkey has become a middle-sized power, size matters, and Ankara’s challenge is to step up to the plate.

=======================

* Regional trend: Turkey’s rise

Turkey is continuing along its ascendant path, in line with STRATFOR’s expectations. The priority for Turkey is to expand its power in the Middle East, beginning with Iraq, where the United States is taking a step back from day-to-day security operations and where Turkey is taking a step forward in managing the country’s rival factions. The Turks are counting on Iraqi energy to boost Ankara’s profile in the region as a major east-west energy transit hub. But with Iraq bogged down in sectarian feuds, Turkey has its work cut out in trying to bring its own version of order to the country. The Turks will continue building relations with key Iraqi politicians, but will also take a more nuanced approach in dealing with the Kurds, using less military coercion and more political and economic persuasion. By playing on Kurdish fears of encirclement by Iraqi Arabs, the Turks will aim to persuade the Kurds that Turkey can guarantee Kurdish political and economic security, as long as the Kurds play by Turkey’s rules – which include abandoning any separatist ambitions. Recognizing the problems the United States is encountering in its Iran strategy, the Turks will be careful to maintain a healthy relationship with Tehran. The time may not be ripe for Iran to seriously engage the West, but Turkey is positioning itself to become a mediator in this long-standing dispute. Once Turkey reaches beyond the Middle East, the road gets rougher. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party is attempting a complex balancing act between the East and West in trying to create the geopolitical space for Turkey’s expansion. Ankara sees itself as an independent player and has no interest in becoming a pawn in the ongoing U.S.-Russian struggle over Eurasia. Thus, Turkey must flirt with multiple options and act as unpredictably as possible in conducting its foreign affairs so that it does not permanently breach relations with either side. To this end, Turkey will entertain deals on non-Russian energy routes like the Nabucco pipeline and push for EU membership to keep one foot in the West, but will also work closely with the Russians on energy and defense deals to avoid trouble with Moscow and keep its Russian-chaperoned negotiations with Armenia alive. Turkey is likely to encounter the most resistance to its resurgence in former Soviet territory. The Turkish government continues to push a pan-Islamic and pan-Turkic agenda to raise its profile among Turkic-speaking peoples in the Caucasus and Central Asia, but a number of these post-communist regimes – Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, in particular – are extremely wary of Turkey’s intentions and increasingly Islamist branding. This simmering backlash could give Russia additional leverage in countering Turkey’s regional rise.
__._,_.___

July 22, 2009
Aliyev and Sarksyan Meet in Moscow

Aliyev and Sarksyan Meet in Moscow

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 139

July 21, 2009

By: Saban Kardas

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev met his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarksyan in Moscow on July 17 in their latest round of reconciliation talks. Turkey has closely followed the talks between the two presidents, facilitated by the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, hoping that the resolution of the Karabakh issue might also facilitate Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.

The meeting was the sixth between Aliyev and Sarksyan since their first meeting in June 2008. As one of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group, Russia accelerated its peacemaking efforts toward finding a solution to the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Medvedev hosted the two presidents in Moscow for a second time in November 2008, and since then the two leaders have met in Zurich, Prague and St. Petersburg (Trend News, July 17).

The meeting came in the context of growing international interest. Other major actors had also expressed their support for this mechanism, hoping that it might facilitate a solution. The presidents of Russia, France and the United States issued a statement during the G8 summit in Italy the previous week, and urged all sides to step up their work toward the resolution of the remaining differences on Karabakh, on the basis of the principles outlined in the 2007 Madrid agreement (www.osce.org, July 10).

Representatives from the other two co-chairs of the Minsk group and the OSCE representatives were also in Moscow. On July 17, the Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and his Armenian counterpart Edward Nalbandyan met with the Minsk group co-chairmen Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia), Bernard Fassier (France) and Matthew Bryza (United States), as well as the OSCE Chairman’s Special Envoy Andzey Kasprzyk. The Azeri and Armenian presidents also held bilateral talks, and later the ministers as well as the co-chairs joined them. The following day, the leaders held trilateral talks with the participation of Medvedev.

No documents were signed at the meeting and no official statement was issued. Medvedev’s spokesperson told reporters that the parties had a chance to discuss in detail the remaining issues. He added that he is optimistic that “it will be possible to settle the Karabakh conflict in the foreseeable future.” According to Armenian diplomatic sources, the presidents instructed their foreign ministers to work in close cooperation with the Minsk group co-chairs to organize a high-level meeting on Karabakh in the fall. The co-chairs of the Minsk group reiterated their support for the ongoing talks. They added that they would continue their contacts in the region. The two presidents might meet again in September, they added (Trend News, ITAR-TASS, www.ntvmsnbc.com, July 18).

On July 20, Mammadyarov said that some progress was achieved in Moscow. He added that the parties agreed on some principles of a possible solution, but that further work was required on the precise details. He maintained that both sides were working toward a schedule for withdrawal of the Armenian forces from the occupied Azeri territories. Once this is achieved, it will be possible to discuss other issues such as the repatriation of refugees, the rebuilding of the region and determining the status of Karabakh. However, he ruled out independence for Karabakh by saying “whatever its status, Karabakh will remain part of Azerbaijan” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, July 20).

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the head of the E.U. troika delegation visiting the region, said in Yerevan that the E.U. supported the Minsk group’s activities and was ready to assist in the implementation of an agreement. However, in implicit defiance of Mammadyarov’s statements, Nalbandyan said that the “return of any territories to Azerbaijan was not discussed in Moscow.” He also added that Armenia did not officially endorse the Madrid principles (ANKA, July 20; Trend News, July 21).

Despite the contradictory accounts from Yerevan and Baku, it appears that the removal of Armenian forces from the occupied Azeri territories has been on the agenda for some time. Prior to the meeting in Moscow, Aliyev had explained the details of the plan to a Russian TV station (www.cnnturk.com, July 8). According to the Turkish press, the two presidents in fact discussed the specifics of Armenian withdrawal from the occupied Azeri territories, even including the deployment of international forces. Whereas, the Armenian side insisted on Russian forces, the Azeris requested Turkish troops. Turkey reportedly expressed its readiness to send troops, if the parties agreed on such a solution (Zaman, July 19). However, no official Turkish diplomatic source has corroborated this proposal.

Turkey has been supportive of the process led by the Minsk group and Russian initiatives. Ankara reportedly plans to contribute to the initiatives of the Minsk group through a new round of contacts with Baku and Yerevan. Nonetheless, currently the earliest direct talks between Yerevan and Ankara to discuss Turkish-Armenian normalization are scheduled in September at the U.N. General Assembly (Sabah, July 20).

After intensive diplomatic traffic between Turkey and Armenia, which resulted in the announcement of a roadmap for normalization in April, Ankara had to slow down the process to satisfy concerns in Baku. During his visit to Baku in May, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan underlined clearly that Ankara would not proceed with its Turkish-Armenian rapprochement before a solution over the Karabakh issue could be achieved. Although Ankara came under criticism for stalling its dialogue with Yerevan, diplomatic sources maintain that secret talks between the two countries are continuing (EDM, June 30).

Commenting on these recent developments, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu denied that Turkish-Armenian normalization was stalled. He said that “[Turkish-Armenian and Azeri-Armenian] processes would affect each other positively.” Though declining to set a date on the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border, he expressed his hope that positive developments might take place before the end of the year (Hurriyet Daily News, July 20).

Erdogan took a very clear position, saying that he will maintain his support for Azerbaijan over the Karabakh dispute. It would be difficult for him to step back from this, given the enormous costs of such a move to his popularity at home and in Baku. Therefore, before taking any steps to revitalize its relations with Yerevan, Ankara hopes that the recent initiatives could produce at least partial progress between Baku and Yerevan.

https://jamestown.org/program/aliyev-and-sarksyan-meet-in-moscow/

July 21, 2009