Category: Regions

Israel Apologises For Gaza Flotilla Raid

According to Sky news The Israeli Prime Minister has apologized for a raid on a Gaza flotilla which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish activists.

Benjamin Netanyahu announced the restoration of normal diplomatic relations with Turkey and expressed regret during a phone call with his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

President Barack Obama helped arrange the call shortly before leaving Israel.

In a statement released by the White House said, Mr Obama said: “The United States deeply values our close partnerships with both Turkey and Israel, and we attach great importance to the restoration of positive relations between them in order to advance regional peace and security.

“I am hopeful that today’s exchange between the two leaders will enable them to engage in deeper cooperation on this and a range of other challenges and opportunities,” he added.

The flotilla incident severely harmed ties between the once-close allies. Turkey withdrew its ambassador from Israel, and diplomatic ties and military cooperation were greatly scaled back.

Mr Netanyahu said the “tragic results” were not intentional and Israel “expressed remorse” for the loss of life. He cited “operational mistakes”.

The nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed aboard the Turkish-flagged ship Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010, after passengers resisted a takeover by Israeli naval commandos.

The flotilla was en route to Gaza in an attempt to bring international attention to Israel’s blockade of the Palestinian territory.

At the time, the former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry, Alan Baker, said it was tragic that lives had been lost, but there was no need for an apology.

March 22, 2013
The EU’s non-negotiations with Turkey

The EU’s negotiations, or rather non-negotiations with Turkey, turned out to be tricks, jeopardising the EU’s reputation and respectability. What the Germans and others don’t seem to realise is that they expect more from Turkey than they do from themselves, writes Dr. Petra Erler.

Dr. Petra Erler is managing director of the European Experience Company GmbH in Potsdam and served as Head of Cabinet of the former EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen in Brussels.

This article was translated from German.

“In the enlargement negotiations, Chapter 19 on social policy deals with all questions regarding the adoption of EU law by applicant countries in this area, ensuring that future member states fully comply with Community law.

For several years now, the progress of negotiations has clearly depended on applicant countries having to meet so-called opening benchmarks, in other words specific requirements formulated by the EU.

Anyone wishing to delay the negotiations or set the bar extremely high has to get creative with regard to these opening benchmarks, as in the case of Turkey and Chapter 19.

Unlike other chapters, this chapter is not being blocked for political reasons. Opening this chapter would thus send a strong signal of the willingness of both sides to advance Turkey’s accession process. However, it is precisely this willingness which seems to be lacking.

Trade union rights

In chapter 19, the EU requires Turkey to comply with ‘EU standards’ as well as conventions no. 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) before accession talks can begin. These conventions include important trade union rights concerning, inter alia, the right to organise and the right to strike.

At first glance, one is tempted to genuinely thank the Commission and the member states leading the negotiations for addressing this important issue and thus also influencing the situation in Turkey for the better. After all, only a minority of Turkish workers are organised in trade unions.

On second look, however, one begins to wonder what exactly is meant by “EU standards”. A closer look at the Commission’s screening report on Turkey shows that this actually refers to articles 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter, which have not yet been ratified by Turkey.

Sobering comparison with EU member states

Anyone who concludes from this that all EU members have ratified the articles mentioned would be mistaken. Spain and Germany have issued statements on this. Four other member states have not made commitments to all sections of these articles.

There’s also the issue of the revised European Social Charter which was implemented in Turkish national law in 2007. Although this revised Charter has long been signed by ten EU member states including Germany, it has not yet been ratified, let alone implemented.

With regard to the ILO conventions, it could be argued that once a state has entered into international obligations it must fully comply with these obligations. One has to agree with that, and the ILO has indeed criticised Turkey for the poor implementation of the conventions mentioned above.

ILO criticises right to strike in Germany

However, the ILO has expressed serious criticism as to the German understanding of who is allowed to strike and who is not. So what are the factors that define an EU standard? Moreover, why is this addressed under the section “adoption of the acquis” rather than in the part covering the political criteria? And why is the full implementation of these important rights considered the basis of the negotiations rather than the result?

Don’t the Germans and others realise that they demand more from Turkey than they do from themselves? Or is simply that no one bothered to address the issue, relying blindly on the Commission, which is probably more than willing to consider the enforcement of international treaties as Community law. Did all this happen on purpose? Was it designed as a provocation?

As it happens, Turkey did not complain and complied with the EU requirements. The legislative provisions were critically revised and updated in 2012 by the social partners. By consensus.

And once again Brussels is not satisfied.

It is a lesson for all those obliged to conduct negotiations they do not wish to have or doing so without paying attention. No one seems to care that such tricks jeopardise the EU’s reputation and respectability.

via The EU’s non-negotiations with Turkey | EurActiv.

March 22, 2013
Belgium or Iran, Where’s The Nuclear Threat? Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”

Are Turkey, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy Nuclear Powers?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Region: Europe

Theme: Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: Nuclear War

[This article was originally published by Global Research in February 2010 under the title: Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States” ]

According to a recent report, former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson confirmed that Turkey possesses 40-90 “Made in America” nuclear weapons at the Incirlik military base.(en.trend.az/)

Does this mean that Turkey is a nuclear power?

“Far from making Europe safer, and far from producing a less nuclear dependent Europe, [the policy] may well end up bringing more nuclear weapons into the European continent, and frustrating some of the attempts that are being made to get multilateral nuclear disarmament,” (Former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson quoted in Global Security, February 10, 2010)

“‘Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike?…

Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?…

Germany’s air force couldn’t possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?…

Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands — and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them.” (“What to Do About Europe’s Secret Nukes.”Time Magazine, December 2, 2009)

The “Official” Nuclear Weapons States

Five countries, the US, UK, France, China and Russia are considered to be “nuclear weapons states” (NWS), “an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”. Three other “Non NPT countries” (i.e. non-signatory states of the NPT) including India, Pakistan and North Korea, have recognized possessing nuclear weapons.

Israel: “Undeclared Nuclear State”

Israel is identified as an “undeclared nuclear state”. It produces and deploys nuclear warheads directed against military and civilian targets in the Middle East including Tehran.

Iran

There has been much hype, supported by scanty evidence, that Iran might at some future date become a nuclear weapons state. And, therefore, a pre-emptive defensive nuclear attack on Iran to annihilate its non-existent nuclear weapons program should be seriously contemplated “to make the World a safer place”. The mainstream media abounds with makeshift opinion on the Iran nuclear threat.

But what about the five European “undeclared nuclear states” including Belgium, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands and Italy. Do they constitute a threat?

Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey: ”Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”

While Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities are unconfirmed, the nuclear weapons capabilities of these five countries including delivery procedures are formally acknowledged.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five so-called “non-nuclear states”, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watchdog (IAEA), the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

By the recognised definition, these five countries are “undeclared nuclear weapons states”.

The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five “non-nuclear states” are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Does this mean that Iran or Russia, which are potential targets of a nuclear attack originating from one or other of these five so-called non-nuclear states should contemplate defensive preemptive nuclear attacks against Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey? The answer is no, by any stretch of the imagination.

While these “undeclared nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case of “double standards” by the IAEA and the “international community” is a understatement.

Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base

The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .

.(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Germany: Nuclear Weapons Producer

Among the five “undeclared nuclear states”, “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.

While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads (made in America) and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. Moreover, The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile.

Germany imports and deploys nuclear weapons from the US. It also produces nuclear warheads which are exported to France. Yet it is classified as a non-nuclear state.

March 22, 2013
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, 20^th-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 20^th 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 20^th century. In fact, the Turks were already slaughtering Armenians in the late 19^th 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 ssimusa@hotmail.com.

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

March 22, 2013
Guest post: Turkey to the rescue?

By Timothy Ash of Standard Bank

Greek Cypriots must be thinking that with friends like these (the EU and Russia, both seeking to extract their pound of flesh for any bail-out), who needs enemies?

Well, what if Cyprus begins to think outside the box, and what if it goes to its erstwhile enemy, Turkey, for assistance?

How about this: Turkey provides €7bn in assistance, saving Cypriot savers from the chop in exchange for Cyprus agreeing to the terms of the 2004 Annan peace plan for the unification of the island.

In return for its cash, Turkey would get agreement on the peace plan it backed back in 2004 and which was supported then by two thirds of Turkish Cypriots in an island-wide referendum. Admittedly, it was rejected by three quarters of Greek Cypriots but this was in no small part due to the intransigence of the then Papadopoulos administration.

By so doing, Turkey would save a very big chunk of the substantial aid (and significant military spending) it pumps into northern Cyprus every year, and the north would gain access to EU structural funds. Turkey would also remove a big Achilles heel in terms of its own EU accession bid, stalled by disagreement over the divided island.

Turkey would win huge international kudos for doing the right thing by helping a neighbour in need. And it would send a clear message to some of its foes in core continental Europe that Turkey has indeed matured and is worthy of a place at the heart of Europe – though after developments this week I am not sure that Europe would be worthy of Turkey.

Any financial assistance could be backed by stakes in the Cypriot banks – although, as the Russian banks seem to be indicating, these may offer little value given the holes in their balance sheets.

Peace and unification on the island could then perhaps open up the energy reserves south of the island for joint exploration by Cypriot (Turkish and Greek) and Turkish companies. Remember here that perhaps Turkey’s biggest current strategic priority is to reduce its dependency on energy imports, which cost the country around $55bn a year, and in 2012 came in larger than the country’s current account deficit (equal to 6 to 7 per cent of GDP).

For Turkey, €7bn is relatively small change, equivalent to just over 1 per cent of GDP, especially when set against the “peace dividend” which could come with the unification of the island, progress on EU accession and the associated “feel good factor” for the economy and business more generally, alongside the potential energy dividend. The Turkish treasury has ample funds in its cash reserves and could easily tap markets for an injection into Cyprus, perhaps borrowing under a new Cyprus-Turkey friendship bond programme, for which the likely cost would be only 4 to 4.5 per cent at most. The US would no doubt be happy, as it would remove one further regional dispute in a tricky region, and it would also counter talk of Russia moving its naval base in Syria to Cyprus in exchange for a bail-out.

In times of crisis, you really find out who your friends are. The hope is that the neighbours will rally around. On the Kurdish problem, prime minister Erdogan seems willing to take a (huge) gamble for peace. The current crisis in the Republic of Cyprus could present a similar opportunity for peace and prosperity for both sides.

Timothy Ash is head of emerging markets research ex-Africa at Standard Bank. A version of this post was issued as a note to clients on Thursday.

via Guest post: Turkey to the rescue? | beyondbrics.

March 22, 2013
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)

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.

March 21, 2013