Category: Regions

  • The Crisis in Turkey / Buyukelci Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    The Crisis in Turkey / Buyukelci Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    As the closure case against the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) is moving towards a verdict in the Constitutional Court, the Turkish political agenda has become even more complicated with the arrest of a number of prominent individuals allegedly associated with a coup plot against the government. Although the JDP was able to win a decisive victory in the July 2007 elections following a serious dispute over the election of a new president, Turkish society has become even more polarized during the past year and tension is rising in an alarming manner. The gravity and implications of the crisis had been examined by Bulent Aliriza, the Director of the CSIS Turkey Project. Mark Parris, former Ambassador to Turkey in 1997-2000, who is currently a Visiting Fellows at Brookings Institution, then provided a commentary.

    —————————–

    Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    ABD’ nin Ankara eski Büyükelçisi Mark Parris’ in Türkiye ile ilgili bir değerlendirmesi özet olarak Türk medyasında yer almıştı. Bugün, Cumhuriyet Gazetesinde yayımlanan ve bu konuda daha detaylı bilgi içeren Ergin YIldızoğlu’ nun köşe yazısını aşağıda gönderiyorum. Yabancı dili ingilizce olanlar, arzu ederlerse, aşağıdaki linkten M.Parris’ in konuşmasını kendi sesinden dinleyebilirler. Saygılar,
    Bedii Nezih Oz

    ERGİN YILDIZOĞLU

    Mark Parris Ne Diyordu?

    ABD’nin eski Ankara Büyükelçisi Mark Parris’in, Türkiye’deki siyasi krizle ilgili yorumları geçen hafta medyaya yansıdı. İlgiler daha çok, Parris’in Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin kararına ilişkin adeta bir tarih veren öngörüsü üzerinde odaklandı. Ama Türkiye’den döndükten sonra Stratejik ve Uluslararası Çalışmalar Merkezi’nde (CSIS) yaptığı ilginç konuşmanın içeriği, sanırım, yeterince irdelenmedi. Haberin üzerinden yaklaşık bir hafta geçmiş olmasına karşın konuşmada ilgimi çeken noktaları sizlerle paylaşmak istiyorum.

    Mark Parris Türkiye’ye, bir ABD – AB ortak kuruluşu olan Atlantik Konseyi’nden bir heyetin parçası olarak gelmiş. Türkiye’de olup bitenleri anlamak, büyük olasılıkla etkilemek amacıyla gelen bu heyetin diğer üyeleriyle birlikte Türkiye’de yaygın temaslarda bulunmuş. Parris, dönüşünde CSIS’de yaptığı ve basında aktarılan toplantıdaki (kuruluşun web sitesinden dinlemek olanaklı) yaklaşık 20 dakikalık sunuşunda ve izleyen “Soru-Cevap” bölümünde, özellikle üç noktaya yaptığı vurgunun çok önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum: AKP’ye yönelik eleştiriler, “3. Güç” dediği bir yapılanmaya ilişkin saptamalar, Türkiye’de siyasetin içinde askerin rolünün artacağına ilişkin beklenti.

    AKP başarılı olamadı

    Parris’in AKP’ye, ikinci dönemi bağlamında yönelttiği eleştiriler oldukça kapsamlı. Bunlardan en önemlileri şöyle: AB sürecini canlandıramadı, anayasayı değiştiremedi, varlığından kaygı duyulan İslamcı gündemin/projenin (“agenda” sözcüğünü kullanıyor) keskin yanlarını törpüleyemedi, tüm ülkenin başbakanı olamadı. Nihayet yolsuzluk sorunu AKP grubunu da etkisi altına aldı.

    AB sürecinin aksamasının tek sorumlusunun AKP olmadığını, AB’nin değişen tutumunun süreci fiilen öldürdüğünü göz önüne alırsak, Parris’in, aslında AKP’nin kendisinden istenenleri veremediğinden yakındığını düşünebiliriz. Bence daha önemli eleştiriler AKP’nin toplumda birleştirici olamadığına, dolayısıyla bölücü olduğuna, yolsuzluklara bulaştığına ilişkin saptamalarda yatıyor. Böylece Parris, diplomatik bir dille, AKP’nin meşruiyeti üzerine bir soru işareti koyuyor. Dahası, sermaye sınıfı ve Batı yanlısı liberal seçkinlerle AKP arasındaki ilişkinin bozulmasına yaptığı gönderme, AKP’nin Batı yanlısı tutumunun, liberal demokrat olma iddialarının hakikiliğine ilişkin kaygıların bir yansıması olarak görülebilir. Bu saptamalara karşılık konuşmasında sık sık Tayyip Bey’i övmesini, “Yeri doldurulamaz” demesini “Hatalarından öğrenmiyor” saptamasıyla birlikte okuyunca, aklıma efsanevi Kızılderili Şefi Jeronimo’nun “Beyaz adam çatal dillidir” sözleri geldi, ister istemez.

    ‘3. Güç’e dikkat

    Bence, konuşmada çok az yer verilmekle birlikte, Parris’in karşı karşıya olan güçleri sıralarken bir “3. Güç”ten söz etmesi çok önemli. Parris, bugünkü kriz içinde, Tayyip Bey’den yana tutum alan bu “3. Güç”ün sivil güvenlik güçleri, istihbarat örgütleri içinde çok etkin olduğunu ve kendi savcılarına sahip olduğunu söylüyor. Diğer bir deyişle Parris, devlet içinde, şiddet organlarında ve yasama içinde, kaynağı belirsiz (“biz bile bilmiyoruz” demeye getiriyor) karanlık bir güç var diyor. Bu gücün “cemaat” olduğu artık herkesin malumudur. Öyleyse Parris, bu güce işaret ederken “cemaat”in etkisiyle, devletin elindeki şiddet tekelinin parçalanmaya başladığını da söylemiş oluyor. Böylece, Parris, devlet içinde bir “tırmanan darbe” (devleti ele geçirme) olgusuna dikkat çekmiş olmuyor mu?

    Askerin siyasi rolü artacak

    Bence, Parris’in, askerin siyasi etkisi artacak öngörüsü, AKP’yi destekleyerek akıllarınca “militarizme karşı” mücadele ettiklerini hayal eden şaşkın liberallerin üzerinde şok etkisi yapmalıdır. Tabii duyduklarını anlayacak kadar akılları kaldıysa. Parris son dönemde en “aklıselim” yorumların ordu üst kademesinden geldiğine inanıyor. Parris’e göre, önümüzdeki dönemde, “asker-siyasetçi” olarak nitelediği bir kategorinin sivil siyaset içindeki rolü özellikle, Özkök gibi emekli komutanların aracılığıyla artacak. Yine Parris’e göre ordu üst kademesinin, asker siyasetçilerin, sivil siyaset içindeki etkisinin artmasıysa, AKP’yi geriletmeye çalışanlara karşı mücadele eden güçleri daha da güçlendirecek, onlar için bir nevi koruyucu etken olacak. Bu da “başkalarını” düş kırıklığına uğratacak gibi görünüyor.

    Tam bu noktada Parris’in; “Taraflar bir çıkış yolu bulamazlarsa uçuruma birlikte yuvarlanacaklar”, “Ancak görünürde bir taviz verme ya da anlaşma eğilimi yok”. “Birileri bu sorunu çözmeli” yorumu üzerinde düşünmeye başlayabiliriz. Düşünürken benim aklıma, İngiltere dış politikasının önemli düşünce kuruluşu Chatam House’dan Fadi Hakura’nın, bir saptaması geldi “Erdoğan ve AKP’ye ne olursa olsun, Türkiye, ideologların geçmiş dönemdeki kavgalarının biriken küllerinden doğacak yeni bir tarz siyasetin eşiğinde” (17/07/08). Hımm.

    erginy@tr.net

  • U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION TO HOLD HEARING ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN AZERBAIJAN

    U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION TO HOLD HEARING ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN AZERBAIJAN

    234 Ford House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515-6460
    Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Chairman
    Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Co-Chairman
    For Immediate Release
    www.csce.gov
    Media Contact: Lale Mamaux
    202.225.1901
    July 24, 2008

    (Washington, D.C.) Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) and Co-Chairman Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), will hold a hearing entitled, “Human Rights and Democratization in Azerbaijan.” The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 29 at 3:00 p.m. in room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

    Azerbaijan has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and plays a pivotal role in diversifying sources of energy. A moderate Muslim country, Azerbaijan enjoys good relations with the United States. On human rights, however, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe have numerous concerns, including freedom of the media, political prisoners and the conduct of elections.

    With an upcoming presidential contest in October, Azerbaijan has an opportunity to hold an election that meets OSCE commitments, as well as implement other reforms. The hearing will examine the state of human rights and democratization in Azerbaijan and discuss how U.S. – Azerbaijan cooperation could help promote advances.

    WITNESSES

    The Honorable David Kramer, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

    His Excellency Yashar Aliyev, Ambassador, Republic of Azerbaijan

    Mr. Chris Walker, Director of Studies, Freedom House

    **Additional witnesses may be added

    The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency that monitors progress in the implementation of the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords. The Commission consists of nine members from the United States Senate, nine from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce.

  • Turkish American Solidarity with Turkish Cypriots

    Turkish American Solidarity with Turkish Cypriots

    assembly@ataa.org

    July 20, 2008, Washington DC – From early morning, over 45 Turkish Americans braved an Aegean-like sun and 100 degrees to gather in front of the Turkish Embassy and show solidarity with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) on Turkish Cypriot Independence Day.
     
    Organized by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), with the leadership of President-Elect and local attorney Gunay Evinch and coordinated by Georgetown University Fulbright graduate Sonay Kanber, nine local Turkish American groups participated in a tremendous show of Turkish American unity and solidarity.
     
    About 30 Greek demonstrators, supposedly members of the newly formed, Greek ultranationalist Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA), strolled in at around 2pm, as Metropolitan Police sent them to the other side of the street.  The Greek demonstrators replicated decades-old allegations and hatred.  Screaming for the removal of Turkish and UNFICYP peacekeepers (there since 1963), CANA was quick to forget the ethnic cleansing and genocide that occurred against Turkish Cypriots between 1960 and 1974.
     
    What was clearly abundant at the CANA demonstration was the anti-Turkish, anti-Muslim and, surprisingly, anti-immigrant slurs of Greek demonstrators.  Turkish Americans responded, “No Enosis – No Racism!”
     
    Turkish Americans were the first to come, and last to leave, saluting the Turkish Cypriots for their sheer determination, strength, infatigueability, and independence with cheers, dance and song.
     
    Remembering the Victims
     
    We acutely remember that in the 1960s, Cypriot Minister of the Interior Polykarpos Yorgadjis conducted rallies in support of the extermination of Turkish Cypriots, declaring, “There is no place in Cyprus for anyone who is not Greek, who does not think Greek, and who does not constantly feel Greek.”  Yorgadjis created the “Akritas Plan” to achieve enosis (joining of Greece and Cyprus) by stripping Turkish Cypriots of all their rights, hamleting them, and then killing them.  Finally, in 1963, then-Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios III unilaterally declared the constitution “dead and buried”.
     
    UN peacekeepers, as in the case of Bosnia in the 1990s, were utterly ineffective, and in 1974 the Turkish Republic was forced to intervene under the London-Zurich Accords to stop the ethnic killings and topple the Greek Junta.
     
    Since the proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983, Turkish Cypriots have endorsed the 1992 UN Set of Ideas, 1994 UN Confidence Building Measures, and the 2004 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan Comprehensive Settlement Plan.  The Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of the Annan Plan by 70%, while the Greeks voted against it by 80%.  Still, the EU accepted a divided island, while the Turkish Cypriots continue to face alienation and embargos.  Efforts to ease the isolation of Northern Cyprus have been lead by Turkey and the United States.
     
    In closing remarks, ATAA President-Elect Evinch thanked the Turkish American participants and stated:”Today, while we celebrate the self-determination of Turkish Cypriots, we also honor the victims of Enosis.  Throughout northern Cyprus there are mass graves of Turkish Cypriots massacred between 1960-1974.  There is a memorial at every mass grave.  The memorials bare the names and ages of the victims.  They are mostly senior citizens, mothers and children.  The truth shall always prevail in the end.”

  • Turkey to mediate Iran-West talks

    Turkey to mediate Iran-West talks

    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) – On his way back from the inconclusive Geneva talks between Tehran and the Iran Six over the disputed Iranian nuclear program, Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili stopped in Ankara and held talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan.

    Babajan, who also met with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki that same day, flew to Washington after the talks ended.

    Tehran, which must reply to the Iran Six proposals offering the required amount of enriched uranium and state-of-the-art technology to Iran in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities by August 2, must accept the offer or face all-out political isolation.

    “We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that (sanctions) track,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her first comments after Washington broke from its usual policy and joined nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva on Saturday.

    Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly barred President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from making any decisions on the national nuclear program. On July 23 Ahmadinejad, who was obviously taken aback by Western demands, said Iran would not deviate by one inch from its nuclear program.

    It is therefore unclear whether Ankara will manage to save the situation and find a compromise.

    Turkey has already said it would not take part in official talks, and that its main objective was to tone down the negotiators’ positions. It would be an understatement to say that Ankara and Tehran can profit from an alliance.

    Turkey, which is still on track to become a member of the European Union, wants to score additional points, while Iran is playing for time. And no mediator can join the talks overnight.

    Ankara wants Iran to assist in solving the Kurdish problem in Iraq, while Tehran would like to pump natural gas to Europe via Turkey. Moreover, Turkey is ready to mediate peace talks between Israel and Syria. Iran wants to mediate negotiations between Turkey and Armenia and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, another South Caucasian state patronized by Ankara.

    The concerned parties will be unable to compromise on the Iranian nuclear program unless they heed the interests of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

    A regional conference could be convened to discuss the Iranian nuclear program, enabling everyone to speak their mind on the issue, while the United States and the EU would deal with Israel.

    Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit recently said Iran would be unable to solve its nuclear problem without the support of regional states, and that Tehran should also pay attention to their interests.

    Each time the international community starts discussing the Iranian nuclear program, the Arab world reiterates its support for Tehran’s right to develop civilian nuclear facilities. This ambiguous stand implies that the Iranian nuclear program may have military implications.

    Washington still prefers to negotiate separately with Arab countries. On July 21, Rice met in the UAE with the foreign ministers and other officials of the six Arab monarchies of the Gulf, namely, Bahrein, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, briefing them on the nuclear stand-off with Iran.

    Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns was scheduled to brief Rice on the results of the July 19 Geneva talks involving chief EU foreign policy negotiator Javier Solana and Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, during her stay in Abu Dhabi and to assess prospects for subsequent negotiations with Tehran.

    Joint U.S.-French-British naval exercises in the region are strong evidence that Iran may face political and economic isolation.

    Washington is now pursuing a more active policy with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, because it does not want the next administration to tackle this issue. Most importantly, major European powers, namely Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, have also started getting tough on this issue.

    Consequently, Ankara will have trouble mediating the talks between Iran and the West. More to the point, the outcome and the long-term situation in Iran will still depend on Tehran.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. 

  • Turkey and Kyrgyzstan Sign Agreement on Military Aid

    Turkey and Kyrgyzstan Sign Agreement on Military Aid

    Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek, 24 July / corr. Trend News R.Meshedihasanli / The governments of Kyrgyzstan and Turkey signed in Ankara an agreement on free military aid and the Kyrgyz Defense Ministry and the Turkish General Headquarters signed a protocol to grant financial aid to the Kyrgyz Armed Forces.

    Abilov, the Kyrgyz Plenipotentiary Ambassador to Turkey, and Major General Alpaslan Erdogan, the head of defense planning and resource management department of the Turkish General Headquarter, signed these documents.

    Within the framework of these international agreements, the Turkish Government issues grant in the amount of 1,312,425 the Turkish liras (more than $1mln) to the Kyrgyz Government, which will be directed to the assistance in development of bilateral relations between two countries,” The Kyrgyz Defense Ministry told Trend News.

    Source: news.trendaz.com, 24.07.08

  • France seeks better security and defense ties with Turkey

    France seeks better security and defense ties with Turkey

    Thursday, July 24, 2008

    In a move to repair defense and military ties, Paris dispatches a high-level ambassador to Ankara to inform Turkish officials of Sarkozy’s newly announced White Book. ‘Turkey is one of the few countries that we have chosen to present our new defense and security strategies to,’ says D’Aboville

    SERKAN DEMİRTAŞ/Analysis
    ANKARA – Turkish Daily News

    A top French diplomat yesterday brought Turkish officials up to date on the recently published White Book on defense and security strategies, a move that is being interpreted as Paris’ intension to seek to mend damaged bilateral ties in the military field.

    “Turkey is a very important country for us. Turkey is one of the few countries that we have chosen to present our new defense and security strategies to,” Benoit D’Aboville, chief advisor at the National Audit Office, told the Turkish Daily News yesterday.

    Turkey and France have experienced bitter times in recent years after Paris recognized the 1915 deaths of Armenians as genocide and tried to pass a law punishing the denial of the genocide. The harshest reaction came from the Turkish military, which still affects bilateral military ties. Turkey excluded French companies from defense procurement tenders and even closed its airspace to French military aircraft.

    D’Aboville admitted that there were still some difficulties in bilateral military ties but said the two countries have an excellent cooperation in NATO, especially in the operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia and in Kosovo. “Our troops are working together in some very dangerous zones in Afghanistan,” he said. Turkey and France rotate the command of the NATO’s ISAF mission in Kabul.

    On June 17, French President Nicholas Sarkozy unveiled the White Book, a blueprint for France’s short term and strategic planning in the field of domestic and foreign security, detailing new threats stemming from globalization, introducing new structures to better organize and better finance its cost. Another dimension of this security understanding is France’s full participation in the structures of NATO, after nearly four decades of its withdrawal from the alliance’s military command.

    Return to NATO

    “In fact, we have not much need to return to NATO,” a high-level French diplomat said. “But President Sarkozy considers NATO as a family and he believes that France should be side by side with the other members of the family,” the diplomat added.

    However, Paris has not yet officially announced its decision to return to NATO. There are a number of countries which welcome Paris’ intension, according to diplomats. “Our return will let our officers get better positions in the command structures. Nothing more. We’re already very active and efficient within NATO. More than 4,000 French troops are serving for the alliance, which makes 10 percent of all 29 countries’ contributions,” another diplomat added

    No need for approval

    A French return to NATO has been on Turkey’s agenda for some time as well. According to unconfirmed reports in the Turkish press, Ankara was seeking to bargain with Paris to allow the latter’s full participation in NATO in return for compromises such as less resistance to Turkey’s bid to join the European Union.

    Turkish diplomats never confirmed such intensions but some academics strongly advised it to the government. “I think Turkey should veto a French return. France recently decided to put Turkish entrance in the EU to a referendum. Therefore Turkey should show that it also has some cards to play,” Çağrı Erhan, an academic and foreign relations expert said.

    But according to French diplomats, there will be no process of approval in the NAC, the highest decision-making body of the alliance, if France decides to fully return. Furthermore, a French diplomat stated that there was no uneasiness on the Turkish side on a French return to the alliance. “Why would Turkey be against of it?” a diplomat asked.

    “We have not heard of any uneasiness from Turkish diplomats on our full return to NATO,” a French diplomat said. “Such a thing would only make French taxpayers happy.”

    Source: Turkish Daily News, July 24, 2008