Category: Regions

  • `Ice warrior’ poised to repel rise of Islamic rule in Turkey …. Jon Swain

    `Ice warrior’ poised to repel rise of Islamic rule in Turkey …. Jon Swain

     
    From The Sunday Times, August 3, 2008

    As a result, Turks know the commander of the armed forces has the
    fate of their nation in his hands every bit as much as any elected
    prime minister.

    So the appointment of a new chief of the general staff is always a
    closely monitored event. Seldom have Turks watched more closely than
    at this moment.

    The next chief of the armed forces is being chosen this weekend at
    the end of a tumultuous week. Two terrorist bombs exploded last
    Sunday night in Istanbul, killing 17 people, including five children
    whose bodies were riddled with shrapnel.

    Erdogan makes unity plea after bombings

    Turkey managed to step back from the brink of political chaos last
    Wednesday after the country’s highest court rejected an application
    to close the governing party on the grounds that it was seeking to
    introduce Islamic laws in violation of the secular constitution. Even
    so, a majority of the judges found the party guilty of eroding
    secularism.

    Adding to the crisis, two senior retired generals are in jail pending
    charges of involvement with a group dedicated to overthrowing the
    government.

    To choose a new armed forces supremo and make other senior military
    appointments, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, is chairing a
    meeting of the supreme military board at army headquarters in Ankara,
    the capital.

    The meeting started on Friday and will last four days. The name of
    the general who is to be promoted to the top job will be announced
    when it ends tomorrow.

    He is widely expected to be General Ilker Basbug, commander of the
    army, who is called in military circles the “ice warrior” because he
    has a reputation for being calm and pragmatic.

    Sandhurst-trained Basbug, 65, will have the top job for the next two
    years. He is a formidable military figure and an ideological
    hardliner who will ensure that Erdogan’s government – which was
    elected last year with 47% of the vote but is mistrusted by the
    military, which sees itself as guardian of a secular society – walks
    a narrow political line.

    For these reasons Basbug is almost certainly not the general Erdogan
    would choose to promote. The outgoing chief of the general staff,
    General Mehmet Yasar Buyukanit, was also a hardliner but he was
    impulsive and could be outmanoeuvred by the prime minister.

    “Erdogan will find Basbug is a much more formidable opponent than his
    predecessor. He is a lot more subtle,” said a military source.

    The prime minister has the constitutional authority to oppose
    Basbug’s appointment – this authority has been invoked in the past
    but has almost always backfired – and Erdogan knows last week’s
    dramatic events have left him politically vulnerable.

    “Erdogan is wary of Basbug and would have preferred to have appointed
    someone else, but I’d be very surprised if he would be stupid enough
    to try to stop Basbug. This is no time to upset the armed forces’
    hierarchy,” said the military source.

    Last Wednesday Erdogan narrowly survived legal moves to ban him and
    the president Abdullah Gul from politics and to close his governing
    party on the grounds that they were steering the country towards
    Islamic rule.

    After three days of deliberations, the 11 judges of Turkey’s
    constitutional court decided against an indictment accusing the
    Justice and Development party (AKP) of pursuing an Islamic agenda and
    undermining Turkey’s secular constitution.

    The court punished Erdogan’s party for its Islamic tilt by cutting in
    half its public funding for next year, but a verdict against the AKP
    had been widely expected.

    The court had already overturned AKP efforts to lift a 1989 law that
    banned women from wearing Islamic headscarves in universities.

    Erdogan’s secularist opponents, who dominate the military and
    judiciary, claim his policies mask plans to make Turkey more like
    Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    In Turkey, the military has traditionally had multiple pressure
    points on the civilian government, through the chief of the general
    staff’s weekly meetings with the prime minister and president, and
    through the twice-monthly meetings of the national security council.

    Manipulating the civilian government, sometimes through thinly veiled
    threats
    , is a subtle art that Buyukanit was not good at.

    However, Basbug is expected to be more effective in influencing
    Erdogan’s government without giving the prime minister the excuse to
    complain he has come under undemocratic pressure. Basbug is known for
    well-crafted public statements that do not alienate the government.

    The decision of the constitutional court not to ban Erdogan and his
    party clears the way for the prime minister to pursue democratic
    reforms and his goal of European Union membership. As a prerequisite
    for membership, the EU has demanded a reduction in the military’s
    influence in Turkish politics.

    Erdogan is expected to start work on a new constitution, but the
    court’s verdict has served notice that it and the military will be
    watching his party closely for any signs of Islamic activity and he
    will have to be careful how he goes about constitutional reform.

    If he tries to go too far there is no doubt, regardless of the EU’s
    disapproval, that Basbug and the military will come down hard, just
    as the armed forces have in the past.

    Turkey calls itself a democracy but the military has always hovered
    in the wings. Military coups have removed elected governments from
    power three times in the past 50 years.

  • Obama is not the right candidate if you are focused on Turkish issues.

    Obama is not the right candidate if you are focused on Turkish issues.

    REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS  –  

    From: aynur heller [aynurheller@yahoo.com]

     

    REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS

     

    Speaking of Obama, I’d like to share my experience with you. 

    Probably some of you have already experienced the same thing with Obama as I have.

    I sent him two letters in the last past 6 months concerning Turkey’s dilemma

     “the so-called genocide” .

     

    However, two days ago, finally, I received a mail from him telling me how important his presidency would be for this country and asking me to support him by my contributions for his campaign by Aug.30th  not mentioning anything on the genocide issue and nothing about Turkey, no concerns or whatsoever. All he is showing me is the ways of payment and he needs the money by Aug. 30th.

     

    I figured this might give you or – Obama supporters- a little hint as to what kind of president he would be for US and what steps we, as the Turkish Americans, can take towards Turkey’s problems with him. It is outrageous!

     

    Aynur

     

    Subject: Republicans Vs. Democrats

    I am writing under my fiancee’s name, who is Turkish.  My name is Jeff and I am not Turkish but am very much in tune with issues facing Turkey today.  She shares posts with me and I am often floored by the inane and ridiculous arguments that are made.  Especially when it comes to Democrats vs Republicans. 

    Let’s start off by saying this;  The United States is a democratic country.  Turkey is a democratic country.  Democrats are a democratic party and guess what?  Republicans are a democratic party.   Some of you can’t seem to comprehend that. 

    The US Democrat party has notoriously not supported Turkey in a political stance, on the Armenian issue and in military positioning.  The Republicans have.  The democrats have produced great Americans and political leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (hates Turkey, loves Armenians), Ted Kennedy (drunkard murderer) and many more people that have no integrity (Bill Clinton).

    Let me pose this question to you.  Who do you think was the greatest American PresidentAbraham Lincoln?  Republican.  Ronald Reagan?  Republican. 

    JFK?  Did not even complete a term in office  Bill Clinton?  Made a mockery of the greatest office in the world. 

    Ok ok…. I know some of you are thinking “What about Nixon?”  Well he was an amazing leader who I think went insane. 

    The point is this… The fact that any of you are supporting the Democrat’s cause amazes me.  Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to get Congress to recognize the Turkish / Armenian issue as a genocide.

    How can a foreign country condemn another for something that occurred  nearly one hundred years ago when that country was not even a country?

    Turkey is a great and beautiful country and in some ways as diverse as the US. 

    Stop giving in to what the media feeds you and start really looking at the track record of our elected officals.

    Thanks for reading.

    Jeff Martens  

  • Senate Confirms U.S. Envoy To Armenia

    Senate Confirms U.S. Envoy To Armenia

     

     

     

     

     

    Monday 4, August 2008
    AP

    The U.S. Senate confirmed the Bush administration’s nominee as ambassador to Armenian after a delay by lawmakers who were unhappy with White House policies on the country.

    Lawmakers had delayed consideration of Marie Yovanovitch’s nomination to Armenia in a dispute over the U.S. refusal to label as genocide the World War I-era killings of huge numbers of Armenians. The issue had come up in the nominee’s confirmation hearings.

    Armenian-American groups have sought to force the adminsitration to change its policy on the Armenian killings. The administration has avoided the word genocide out of concern of alienating its ally, Turkey.

    Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed, an event widely viewed by genocide scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, saying the toll has been inflated, and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.

    In August, the White House withdrew its nomination of career diplomat Richard Hoagland after Democratic Senator Robert Menendez held up his confirmation through a Senate procedure.

    Hoagland’s predecessor, John Evans, reportedly had his tour of duty in Armenia cut short by the administration because, in a social setting, he referred to the killings as genocide. Armenian-American groups sought to prevent Hoagland’s nomination unless he made a clear statement affirming the genocide.

  • A Major Political Test for Iraq

    A Major Political Test for Iraq

    Published: August 4, 2008

    Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk has been a political tinderbox-in-waiting that was largely ignored as war-fighting took precedence. Now that violence is way down, Iraqi leaders have no excuse not to peacefully decide the city’s future. Their failure to do so has already raised tensions and could further shred Iraq’s fragile social fabric — and unleash more bloodshed.

    Kurds who run the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan should not be allowed to unilaterally annex Kirkuk, which they regard as their ancient capital but is also home to Turkmen and Arabs. They were promised a referendum in the Iraqi Constitution, but no durable solution can result without the participation of all groups. Overconfident Kurds and their American supporters have not been looking seriously for compromise.

    The problem came to a head two weeks ago when Iraq’s Parliament passed a law again postponing a referendum on Kirkuk (it was supposed to be held by the end of 2007). The law contained a measure diluting Kurdish power in the area’s provincial council.

    The Kurds believe the referendum will endorse making Kirkuk and surrounding areas part of Kurdistan — giving them more oil revenue and furthering their goal of independence — while Turkmen and Arab leaders want the city to stay under the central government.

    Kurdish parliamentarians boycotted the session, resulting in the election law being declared unconstitutional. Another session on Sunday dissolved without reaching a quorum; lawmakers were to try again on Monday.

    The problem is not just with the Kirkuk referendum. If the Kurds continue to hold the election law hostage, provincial elections now expected in early 2009 will also be stymied. These elections are crucial to Iraq’s political stability and reconciliation efforts because they will give minority Sunni Arabs a chance to be in government for the first time since they boycotted the 2005 elections. Sunnis who played a key role fighting with American forces against Iraqi insurgents are already embittered by the failure of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government to hire enough of them for promised security jobs.

    Compromises on Kirkuk are theoretically possible, but only the U.N. seems to be seriously trying to find one. That’s baffling, since no one, other than the Iraqis, has more vested in keeping the lid on violence and on tension with Turkey and Iran than the United States.

    Iraqis proved their post-Saddam political wheeling-and-dealing skills when they adopted budget, amnesty and provincial powers laws earlier this year. It’s worth testing whether horse-trading on the crucial but deadlocked oil law and other contentious issues like minority rights and redistribution of powers could produce a Kirkuk deal all ethnic communities could live with.

    If Iraqi leaders cannot settle the matter, they might consider putting Kirkuk and its environs under United Nations administration as was done with Brcko after the Balkan wars. The imperative is to ensure that Kirkuk’s future is not drawn in blood.

     

  • Top of the Agenda: China Border Attack

    Top of the Agenda: China Border Attack

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    – China border attack in Xinjiang highlights Olympic terror threat.
    – Zawahiri rumors swirl; Pakistani Taliban denies reports.
    – Zuma hearings open in South Africa.
    – Attacks in Mogadishu break fragile calm.
    Top of the Agenda: China Border Attack

    Chinese state media report this morning that sixteen policemen have been killed in an attack on an outpost (Xinhua) in Xinjiang province in western China. Officials billed the incident, in which two assailants reportedly used grenades and knives, as a terrorist attack (BBC).

    The attack highlights unrest in Xinjiang province, where some in the large Uighur Muslim community accuse the Chinese government of imperialist governance. A new CFR.org Backgrounder gives an in-depth look at political tensions in the province.

    The incident also raises concerns about disruptions to the Beijing Olympic Games, which begin in four days. Local activist groups and Western human rights watchdogs have seized on the games to protest Chinese government positions on an array of issues, from the Tibet region to Chinese business interests with a Sudanese regime accused of rampant abuses in Darfur. The Guardian reports on a blog that Chinese officials are increasing security measures ahead of the games. The New York Times surveys the views of experts on the terrorist threat posed by various groups during the Olympics.

    Background:

    – This Backgrounder profiles the main Islamist separatist group in China’s Xinjiang region, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement.

    – This Backgrounder looks at the many issues on which activist groups have used the Olympics to apply pressure to the Chinese government.

  • Turkey can bridge the US-Iran divide

    Turkey can bridge the US-Iran divide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Rapprochement

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

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

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

    Manik Mehta is a commentator on Asian affairs.

    Source: Gulf News, August 03, 2008