Tag: AKP

  • Turkish party endorses Erdogan’s ‘example’ for Islamist democracies

    Turkish party endorses Erdogan’s ‘example’ for Islamist democracies

    By Gul Tuysuz and Yesim Comert, CNN
    October 1, 2012 — Updated 0151 GMT (0951 HKT)
    121001123544 turkey recep tayyip erdogan story top
    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his wife Emine salute the audience during a congress of his party on Sunday.

    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    • Recep Tayyip Erdogan re-elected AKP party chairman
    • “We have shown that … a Muslim population can have … democracy,” he says
    • Leaders of Egypt, Iraqi Kurdistan are in attendance at rally
    • Critics accuse Erdogan of authoritarian tendencies, citing arrests of journalists and rivals

    Istanbul (CNN) — Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was re-elected chairman of his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, at a boisterous party rally Sunday attended by throngs of supporters as well as foreign leaders.

    At the AKP party congress, Erdogan once again sought to cement the role of the AKP not only as a party that has reshaped Turkish politics but also as a role model for regional democratic Islamist movements in the wake of the Arab Spring.

    In a two-and-a-half-hour speech, delivered in front of an adoring crowd of party delegates, Erdogan detailed his party’s achievements after nearly a decade in power, while also laying out a road map for what his role could be in the future.

    “We have shown, both at home and abroad, that a country with a Muslim population can have a thriving and advanced democracy,” said Erdogan, who called the AKP a “conservative democratic party.”

    “This understating that we have put forth has gone beyond our borders and has practically become an example to all Muslim countries,” he announced to an audience that included Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy as well as Massoud Barzani, head of the Kurdistan regional government in Iraq.

    Few answers in Syria

    Erdogan, who won his party’s chairmanship for the third time on Sunday with 1,421 votes, has reached the AKP’s term limit. What his role will be after that has been the source of much debate in Turkey.

    Erdogan told delegates that he will continue to serve and that, “This is not a goodbye but a pause in the notes of a song.”

    “One of the most important aspects of the convention was the message that the prime minister is not going anywhere,” Suat Kiniklioglu, a former AKP parliamentarian and director of the Strategic Communication Center based in Ankara, wrote in an e-mail to CNN.

    “Instead he will try to become a president who can maintain his party affiliation, or will try to change the system into a presidential or semi-presidential system,” he wrote.

    Kurdish conflict escalating, report says

    Turkish critics regularly accuse Erdogan of authoritarian tendencies, citing the arrests of scores of journalists and hundreds of political rivals in recent years. Some commentators have warned that a presidential system could weaken democracy in Turkey.

    “This was mainly about consolidating his own power and thickening the cement on which his party stands on,” Yavuz Baydar, a columnist for the newspaper Today’s Zaman, said in an interview with CNN.

    “He does not take for granted that he needs a broader base to become a fully empowered president. Either he will seek a more reformist base or he will go more conservative, omitting ‘democrat’ from ‘conservative democrat,’ ” said Baydar.

    Refugees languish in squalor at Turkish border

    The AKP’s internal constitution was amended during the party congress to allow parliamentarians who have already served three terms — such as Erdogan — to be re-elected after sitting out an election cycle.

    The party congress also led to the appointment of a slew of new names to the central coordination committee of the AKP. Some political analysts said the choice of appointees signaled Erdogan appeared to be making overtures to the conservative side of the political spectrum, ahead of municipal elections next October.

    However, one notable change included the removal of Erdogan’s interior minister from one of the AKP’s top leadership councils.

    Interior Minister Idris Naim Sahin’s hawkish stance towards Turkey’s long-simmering Kurdish conflict has sparked controversy both within the AKP and throughout Turkey.

    “As of today, we want to turn to a blank page and write in it with our Kurdish brothers. We want to protect that page from terror and make it a new page of peace and brotherhood,” said Erdogan.

    His remarks echoed themes of previous speeches, when Erdogan’s government launched a series of reforms aimed at relaxing cultural restrictions on Kurds in Turkey. As part of what was described as the “democratic opening,” the Turkish state established a Kurdish-language TV channel for the first time and eased bans on Kurdish language education in schools.

    But the peace overtures have failed to bring an end to an insurgency that has claimed the lives of more than 30,000 people over the last three decades. Over the last year, violence has spiked in predominantly Kurdish southeastern Turkey to deadly levels unseen in more than a decade.

    After winning numerous elections since his party first swept to power in 2002, Erdogan appears to have a popular mandate under Turkey’s constitution, which was written by a military junta in the 1980s.

    A new constitution could conceivably expand rights for Turkey’s restive Kurdish minority. But that process has stalled amid disagreements with opposition political parties, who accuse the AKP of trying to rewrite the constitution unilaterally.

  • IPI decries censorship at Turkish political party convention in Ankara

    IPI decries censorship at Turkish political party convention in Ankara

    IPI decries censorship at Turkish political party convention in Ankara

    Dissident newspapers, television channels prevented from covering event

    By: Steven M. Ellis, IPI Senior Press Freedom Adviser

    6cdc434b5b

    Turkey’s prime minister and the leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), Recep Tayyip Erdogan, throws carnations to supporters as he enters the hall during his party congress in Ankara on Sept. 30, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Murad Sezer

    VIENNA, Oct 1, 2012 – The International Press Institute (IPI) and its affiliate, the South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO), today condemned reported instances of censorship by Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) related to the party’s Congress yesterday in Ankara.

    Hürriyet reported that the party barred dissident newspapers and television channels from covering the event, including daily newspapers Cumhuriyet, Sözcü, Aydınlık, Evrensel, Birgün, Yeniçağ and Özgür Gündem, and broadcaster İMC TV. Other sources told IPI the broadcaster Ulusal Kanal was also barred from the convention.

    The AKP also reportedly prevented Habertürk TV from broadcasting a program in which journalist Utku Çakırözer, Cumhuriyet’s Ankara representative, was to offer live commentary from the convention hall on Saturday, the night before the convention took place.

    A source told IPI that an adviser to AKP Vice President Hüseyin Çelik threatened to cancel an appearance by Çelik on the channel if it broadcast Saturday’s program with Çakırözer. The source added that Habertürk TV acceded to the demand to cancel the broadcast with Çakırözer after the adviser produced a copy of a document prohibiting Cumhuriyet journalists from entering the empty convention hall on Saturday or during the convention on Sunday.

    IPI’s Turkish National Committee issued a statement yesterday on behalf of the Freedom for Journalists Platform (GÖP), an umbrella group representing local and national media organisations in Turkey.

    “The news that reporters and journalists from some press organs are not allowed to enter the AK Party’s Congress is very worrying,” the group said.

    “Monitoring this historical event of the ruling government party on the spot and transferring it to its readers and viewers are primary duties of news media.

    “We have previously protested the accreditation limitations at other institutions. But now, it is very disappointing that the same accreditation is being applied by a political party whose existence depends on democracy.

    “We wish to believe that necessary steps will be taken to correct this decision which will raise doubts among the journalists who will enter the congress.”

    via IPI International Press Institute: IPI decries censorship at Turkish political party convention in Ankara.

  • Turkey’s Erdogan flaunts democratic credentials in Muslim world

    Turkey’s Erdogan flaunts democratic credentials in Muslim world

    * Regional leaders among thousands attending party congress

    * Erdogan says Turkish democracy is example for Muslim world

    * Erdogan vows more pluralist constitution

    By Jonathon Burch

    ANKARA, Sept 30 (Reuters) – Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan trumpeted Turkey’s credentials as a rising democratic power on Sunday, saying his Islamist-rooted ruling party had become an example to the Muslim world after a decade in charge.

    Addressing thousands of party members and regional leaders at a congress of his Justice and Development (AK) Party, Erdogan said the era of military coups in the nation of 75 million people was over.

    He vowed to forge a more diverse constitution and turn a new page in relations with Turkey’s 15 million Kurds, in a speech lasting almost two and half hours and meant to chart the AK Party’s agenda for the next decade.

    “We called ourselves conservative democrats. We focused our change on basic rights and freedom,” Erdogan told thousands of cheering party members at the congress in a sports stadium in the capital Ankara.

    “This stance has gone beyond our country’s borders and has become an example for all Muslim countries.”

    Leaders including Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev and Masoud Barzani, president of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region, were among the guests.

    Under Erdogan’s autocratic grip, the AK Party has won three consecutive landslide election victories since 2002, ending a history of fragile coalition governments punctuated by military coups and marking Turkey’s longest period of single-party government for more than half a century.

    Per capita income has nearly tripled in that time and Turkey has re-established itself as a regional power, with its allies seeing its mix of democratic stability and Islamic culture as a potential role model in a volatile region.

    “Turkey has shown the bright face of Islam,” Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’s leader in exile, told the congress. “Erdogan, you are not only a leader in Turkey now, you are a leader in the Muslim world as well.”

    But critics denounce Erdogan’s authoritarian style, accusing him of stifling dissent and using the courts to silence his enemies. They also say he has failed to bring any hope of an end to a 28-year-old conflict in the mainly Kurdish southeast.

    via Turkey’s Erdogan flaunts democratic credentials in Muslim world | Reuters.

  • EN-TR: Syria violence: Turkey’s Erdogan calls for end to bloodshed – YouTube

    EN-TR: Syria violence: Turkey’s Erdogan calls for end to bloodshed – YouTube

    The Turkish Prime Minister tells thousands of supporters at a rally in Ankara:”History will not forgive those tyrants!” Read more about what is happening in Syria here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/syria/

  • Letter to The Honorable Abdullah Gül, President of the Republic of Turkey

    Letter to The Honorable Abdullah Gül, President of the Republic of Turkey

    9 September 2012

     

    The Honorable Abdullah Gül

    T.C. Cumhurbaşkan

    06689 Çankaya

    Ankara

     

    Dear Mr. President,

    Would you allow me to show my concern about maintaining your well-deserved prestige and to tell you that your star which, until now, has shone so brightly, risks being dimmed by the most shameful and indelible of stains.

    You have passed healthy and safe from the troubles pertaining to your rise to the presidency. You seem to have won over the hearts of the citizens. But what filth this wretched “Syria Affair” has cast on your name and the name of your country. The government of Turkey, in primary collaboration with the government of the United States of America, has dared to attempt to destroy the duly constituted government of Syria. In that process it has funded, encouraged and armed a motley gang of terrorist killers that include numerous members of Al-Qaeda and other recognized terrorist groups. The Hatay region of Turkey is being used as a staging area for attacks on a neighboring country, a country that until recent months had enjoyed great favor with Turkey. Hatay, perhaps the most enlightened, peaceful region in Turkey, now is under occupation by gangs of terrorist killers. The people are regularly accosted on the streets by these ruffians, and asked if they are Alevites. You will be next, they are told. The shops and restaurants are being ripped off by these foreign mercenaries. Send the bill, to Tayyip, they say, He sent for us. And rather than protect the citizens the police turn a blind eye. What is going on, Mr. President? Who is ruling this country?

    Many innocent Syrian people, including my wife’s uncle in Damascus, have been murdered by this assembled-in-Turkey terrorist machine. Moreover, the good citizens of Hatay are daily threatened by this scum that the government of Turkey has organized, of course with the help of the CIA, proven by history to be experts in unspeakably violent subversions. This lawless behavior, indeed a crime against the Syrian people, and a war crime in terms of the Geneva Conventions, is the supreme insult to all truth, all justice, all morality and all religion. Now Turkey is willingly sullied by this filth. History will record that it was under your presidency that this crime against humanity was committed. Something must be done Mr. President.

    As these government and foreign operatives have dared to drag the reputation of Turkey through the filth of deceit, lies and murder, so shall I dare. Dare to tell the truth, as I swear to tell it, since the normal channels of the media and the Turkish justice system have failed so miserably to do so. My duty as a good citizen is to speak, and not become an accomplice to this murderous travesty of justice. My nights would otherwise be haunted by the spectre of innocent men, women and children, not so far away, suffering the most horrible tortures of war.

    And it is to you Mr. President, that I shall proclaim this truth, with all the revulsion that an honest man can summon. Knowing your integrity, I am sure that you do not know the truth. If you did, you would have long ago taken action against this blatant attack on Turkish sovereignty. The ruling power is complicit in this attack. And the opposition is hopelessly divided and incompetent. So to whom if not you, the first magistrate of this country, shall I reveal the vile baseness of those who are truly guilty, the ones steeped in innocent blood up to their elbows.

    As you know, Mr. President, the problem has always been Turkey. Blessed with abundant natural resources, an edenic environment for agriculture, waters teeming with fish, vast olive groves overlooking the sea, a winning warm water climate, the land nexus between east and west, Turkey has always been a target. And being a target is most uncomfortable and always susceptible to treachery.

    Since the death of the founder of modern Turkey, who tossed the imperialist occupying powers into the sea, Turkey has been in a state of decline, particularly regarding its susceptibility and submission to western interests. First it was Communism! Communism! Communism! And a nervous America needed an Islamic green buffer zone against godless Russia. So Turkey said Yes! Yes! Yes! Please forgive us for not joining all you western imperialists in World War II. Please allow us to become a “green zone.” And  please, please, please take some incredibly fertile land from our agricultural heart in Çukurova, eight kilometers east of Adana. And of course build your airbase, said Turkey, but please like us and respect us. So America built its airbase in the fertile heart of Turkey. And that was the beginning of America’s close relationship—meaning CIA involvement—with Turkey. Vital rural education programs were abandoned lest those evil Communists infiltrate. And in the villages, ignorance remained. And the politicians knew it. And the plunder began. And today, Mr. President, the headquarters for this foul deed being done to Syria, the Syrian people, and the Turkish people is at Incirlik Air Base. What goes around, comes around, Mr. President.

    At the root of it all is one man, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the head of the AKP ruling party and the prime minister of the Republic of Turkey. A man of bombast, scowls and ill-humor, he seems not to like anyone. It’s the strangest thing, Mr. President, to observe his grin when visiting the White House in Washington DC. And then the pain that comes to his face when he returns to his native land. He came to power in a landslide election in 2002 that was repeated four years later. Could it have something to do with the lack of education in the provinces, Mr. President? Since he came to power he has relentlessly embarked on a policy to divide and weaken the republic. I am sure you have noticed this, Mr. President. Haven’t you?

    Who is this man? Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great?

    I suspect American hamburgers and hotdogs, Mr. President. For he and his ilk are of them. And now, during these days of tragedy, there are no longer any secrets, Mr. President.

    Who is this prime minister who so disparages, dismisses, defames and divides, to wit:

    • What head of government would jail the senior officers and the command and general staff of a nation’s armed forces and within months enter a de facto war against its hitherto peaceful neighbor, Syria?
    • What head of government would actively solicit the entry into its country of known terrorists?
    • What head of government would defy the will of the people as expressed by the existence of a parliament by arming known terrorists at the behest of a foreign power, i.e., the United States of America?
    • What head of government would jail many hundreds of students for protesting their desire for a free education? Some are sentenced to as much as an eight year imprisonment for being members of a “terrorist” organization because they wore traditional poşhu headscarves.
    • Who is this prime minister of a secular, democratic, equal rights espousing country who:
    • In Istanbul 2010 International Women’s Day, opined to a conference of representatives of women’s organizations that women are not equal to men. His wife sat stoically on the dais.
    • On International Women’s Day, 2008 encouraged women to have three and even better, five, children each.
    • On 16 August 2008, called martyred (killed in action) Turkish soldiers “kelle”, a derogatory expression likening them to heads of cattle.
    • In 2011 changed the name of the Ministry for Women and Family to the Ministry of Family and Social Policies thus further effacing and disparaging women.
    • In 2011 on International Women’s Day, he was asked why honor killings had increased 14 fold since 2002 under his regime. In bizarre logic, the prime minister said the enormous increase was because more murders were being reported, thus apparently both praising and loathing improved administrative procedures.
    • After the Turkish Air Force with the help of American “intelligence” from drone observation aircraft bombed and killed 34 innocent Kurdish citizens on 28 December 2011 in Uludere, the prime minister announced his opposition to abortion preposterously likening it to rape. He thus deflected attention from the massive loss of life caused by the Turkish military.  No viable explanation has yet been given.
    • In 2011, in a gross demonstration of his Taliban state of mind, the prime minister ordered the destruction of The Statue of Humanity by the acclaimed sculptor Mehmet Aksoy. The statue stood in Kars on the Armenian border. The prime minister called the statue dedicated to Turkish-Armenian peace, “ucube,” a “freak.”
    • And now, in primary collusion with agents of the United States of America, the prime minister and his oh-so-willing underlings have launched an illegal, unconstitutional aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic, a sovereign nation. Can they have so soon forgotten the international crime and human disaster that such illegal recklessness brought to the innocent Iraqi people? Have they so quickly become emboldened to disregard the will of the Turkish people who so courageously chose not to collaborate with the western rape of Iraq in 2003?
    • And now, in primary collusion with agents of the United States of America, the prime minister and his oh-so-willing underlings have launched an illegal, unconstitutional aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic, a sovereign nation. Can they have so soon forgotten the international crime and human disaster that such illegal recklessness brought to the innocent Iraqi people? Have they so quickly become emboldened to disregard the will of the Turkish people who so courageously chose not to collaborate with the western rape of Iraq in 2003?
    • Has he forgotten the many historical foreign connivances of America? Has he forgotten the murderous campaigns of subversion that featured ruthless CIA involvement? Has he forgotten the American CIA killer-puppet Pinochet? Has he forgotten the destabilizing bombings, the tortures, the disappearances of pregnant women who were executed after giving birth, their children re-engineered for the “new” Argentine society? Has he forgotten the School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, Georgia, a state terrorist training camp? How about the KUBARK program, the CIA how-to-do-it interrogation manual, the book that destroys victims’ minds? Deep, disorienting shocks, day and night jumbled, electroshock, humiliation, silence, noise, sensory deprivation, the slow destruction of brains, has he remembered any of this? And now Turkey has the very same type of organization teaching assassination, sabotage and terror. Mr. President, in times like these we must remember our Nietzsche: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”
    • Has he forgotten Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1959-present), Congo (1960), Cambodia (1961-73), Brazil (1965), Argentina (1976), Indonesia (1965), Vietnam (1961-74), Laos (1961-73), Cambodia (1961-73), Greece (1946-81), Chile (1973), Afghanistan (1979-present), El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua (1980s), Grenada (1983), Turkey (1980-present), Agfhanistan (1979-89) (2001-present) and Iraq (1991-present)? These are all victims of terror American style.
    • Has he forgotten the human wreckage caused by these American assaults? Surely he remembers the horror that America brought to Turkey in 1980, the torture, the mass imprisonment, the executions? Has the prime minister not had his fill of the criminal antics of the USA and its CIA? Most of humanity has, Mr. President? Have you?

    And now Syria, a new horror brought to the Syrian people courtesy of Turkey and America.

    And of course, the not-so-secret planning that turns out to be so terribly fatal. Earlier this year, General Dempsey, David Petraeus, now the CIA capo, and Hillary Clinton came to town, and came to down, and still come to town. A typical American foreign policy team, one civilian and two generals. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Mr. President, American foreign policy has shrunken to its bare essentials: military muscle-flexing and threats. Culturally insensitive and hopelessly hypocritical, it relies on force alone. In between these American visits the Turkish foreign minister feverishly visited Washington. Their cartoonish visits are insulting to Turkey. Meanwhile, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Mu’ammar al-Khaddafi Human Rights Award winner for 2010, soon after the award ceremony ended commenced raining bombs on al-Khaddafi’s head. He then proceeded (like Hillary Clinton) to celebrate his former host’s murder by evisceration via sodomy with various sharp instruments. Then he turned his invective on his former Syrian friend, Bashar al-Assad. How seductive must be the eye-popping smiles of that most incompetent, amoral American secretary of state.

    The deep and treacherous pockets of Saudi Arabia and America’s other military stooge, Qatar, would provide the financing of their fellow Arab neighbor’s demise. In violation of its constitution Turkey now provides a safe haven for the so-called Free Syrian Army, a collection of mercenaries and terrorists dredged up by the collective intelligence services of Turkey, the USA, Israel, and any other western jackals that want some of the action. How does such a safe haven in Hatay differ from the safe haven provided to the PKK in Iraq? Make no mistake, Mr. President, the Free Syrian Army is the equivalent in every way of the America-financed mujadhideen, the “freedom fighters” of the 1980s war in Afghanistan. And venal Turkish businessmen, having been denied projects in Iraq due to governmental blundering, rub their hands together anticipating post-war reconstruction contracts in Syria.

    And lately, again the CIA visited Turkey in the form of its boss, the military man, the general, David Petraeus, a man who as an honorable West Point cadet swore to not lie, cheat or steal, all of which he now does with wanton abandon for his country. Who would not say that this man has not become a monster? And the day after Petraeus left, the prime minister suddenly became a latter-day Mehmet the Conqueror shouting that “In a short time we will go to Damascus and God willing pray in the Emevi mosque.” And a day later 25 soldiers were exploded into very small pieces carrying ammunition in an armory in the middle of the night in Afyonkarahisar. A minister blamed God. The commanding general blamed the media. As usual, all explanations were garbled. As usual, the circumstances are highly suspicious. As usual, an investigation is pending. Chaos, chaos, always the chaos.

    Isn’t this all this a disgusting business, Mr. President?

    Of course, Mr. President, all the posturing about meetings and speeches are hoaxes. This rape of Syria was cooked long ago in Washington. How so? On 20 August 2012 a car bomb exploded in downtown Gaziantep. Warnings had been issued weeks ago that this would. But despite this “intelligence,” the car bomb was carried by a flat-bed truck and offloaded in front of the police station. So much for being alert. Nine people were killed, scores injured. But suddenly something spilled out of a blacker-than-black bag. It seems that three American neo-con think tanks (the Brookings Institute, the America Enterprise Institute and the War Studies Institute) had figured it out in advance months ago at a Washington DC conference. It was attended by representatives from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. First it was called a “scenario,” later a “plan,” then, amazingly, it wasn’t called anything. It just disappeared, never to be mentioned again.

    What’s the difference? Well, hundreds of generals and other senior staff officers remain jailed because of a laughable military coup “scenario” called “Sledgehammer” (Balyoz). This cartoon involved bombing mosques and shooting down Turkish planes. The so-called evidence was slathered across on the front page of so-called newspapers like Taraf, Mr. President. Hundreds of senior officers were arrested, Mr. President! A mammoth investigation and round-up ensued. The army’s command and general staff was purged. But about the American bomb “scenario?” Nothing! The story ran in the press for one day. After that a great silence has prevailed. Why, Mr. President? No arrests. No investigation. No questions. And soon thereafter the CIA’s David Petraeus came to town again, this time peddling another deceitful scheme. How disgusting, Mr. President.

    And guess what familiar names surround the think-tank bomb fiasco? Richard Perle of the 1980 Turkish military coup infamy, Eric Edelman and Douglas Feith, neo-con diplomatic thugs from the recent Bush regime. It all smells to the highest of heavens, Mr. President.

    This is the plain truth, Mr. President, and it is terrifying. It will leave an indelible stain on your presidency. I realize that you may have no direct power over this issue, that you may be limited by the Constitution and your entourage. You have, nonetheless, your duty as a man, which you will recognize and fulfill. As for myself, I have not despaired in the least of the triumph of the right and justice. I say with the most vehement of conviction: truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it. Today is only the beginning, for it is only today that the positions have become clear: on one side, those who are guilty, who do not want the light to shine forth, who crave war and power, on the other hand, those who seek justice and peace and eschew the disgusting laws of the jungle.

    Yes, Mr. President, truth is on the march. The full deception is apparent. And now the Turkish government stands alone in the eyes of the world as a deceiver par excellence. A conniver for the base interests of its American boss. A subversive conspirer who illegally arms, quarters and trains secret terror forces, and by doing so subverts its own constitution. How can this not be treason, Mr. President?

    Mr. President, when the truth is buried underground by lies and deceptions and subterfuges, it grows and builds up so much force that the day it explodes it blasts everything with it. We shall see whether we have been setting ourselves up for the most resounding of disasters. Sadly, it seems clear that Turkey is well along its own road to perdition.

    Today, the endgame now rages inside and outside Turkey. The dangers to the nation and its citizens are clear and present and deadly. And all these dangers lay bare the full deceit of the plan. All is now in plain sight, particularly the vastness of the crimes.

    Herein follows some of the international laws and agreements possibly broken by this violent, criminal cabal organized and directed by the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and The State of Qatar, among others. These are the laws and statutes possibly breached by this vile bunch, headquartered in Istanbul and Incirlik Air Base in Adana. And whose international terrorist militants who are trained and staged in the Hatay region in southeastern Turkey. Of course, there are other higher level operators far distant from Turkey that can easily be traced through the nefarious deeds of their hired henchmen. We know who they are, and where they are, Mr. President. Their list of offenses is long and grievous, Mr. President, particularly for a nation whose government takes great pride in its religious piety.

    I accuse this monstrous cabal of possible crimes against the following standards of civilized behavior.

     

    CRIMES AGAINST MANKIND

    Realizing that the Republic of Turkey is the sole operator within your jurisdiction, I nevertheless accuse all the above mentioned parties and their agents of committing the crime of naked, treacherous aggression, of committing crimes against peace, of committing crimes against humanity, and of committing war crimes against the Syrian people of catastrophic proportions. These grave offenses are described in greater particularity as follows:

    The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey

    Declaration of State of War and Authorization to Deploy the Armed Forces

    Article 92.

    1. The power to authorize the declaration of a state of war in cases deemed legitimate by international law and except where required by international treaties to which Turkey is a party or by the rules of international courtesy to send Turkish Armed Forces to foreign countries and to allow foreign armed forces to be stationed in Turkey, is vested in the Turkish Grand National Assembly.
    2. If the country is subjected, while the Turkish Grand National Assembly is adjourned or in recess, to sudden armed aggression and it thus becomes imperative to decide immediately on the deployment of the armed forces, the President of the Republic can decide on the mobilization of the Turkish Armed Forces.

     

    United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314: Definition of Aggression

    Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.

     

    Charter of the United Nations

    Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression

    Article 40.

    In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

     

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    Article 20.

    1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
    2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

     

    Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
    The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

    The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

    (a) Crimes Against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

    (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

    (c)Crimes Against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

    Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

    Note: the above provisions were codified as legal principles by the International Law Commission of the United Nations.

     

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (2nd part)

    Article 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

    1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

    2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

    3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

     

    Article 51. Protection of the civilian population

    1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

    2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

    3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

    4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

       (a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

       (b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

       (c)  Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

    5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

    (a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

       (b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

    6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

    7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

    8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

     

    Article 52. General protection of civilian objects

    1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

    2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.

    3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

     

    Article 57. Precautions in attack

    1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

    2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

    (a) Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

    (i) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

         (ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

     

    The Nuremberg Principles

    These principles define a crime against peace as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing.”

    Mr. President, these are grievous, heavy offenses. I well realize that some, in particular the government of the United States, may consider them to have become “quaintly” obsolete. But that is not the opinion of the overwhelming majority of mankind and its nations. I have hitherto considered the Republic of Turkey to be among those nations advocating the primacy of the rule of law. Unfortunately, given the current situation, I am no longer so sure.

    Finally, I must turn to another aspect of morality, the concept of divine justice. Because of the outrageous hypocrisy of the accused parties these are the most disgusting and egregious of charges, Mr. President.

     

    CRIMES AGAINST GOD

    I accuse these Turkish ringleaders and their murderous operators, these so-called Muslims who take such great public pride in proclaiming their faith while reviling the faith of others, in particular, the Alevites, I accuse these blatant hypocrites of sinning against the word of God as revealed by his esteemed prophet, Muhammad, as proscribed by the following verses of the Holy Koran:

    Sura 4:92 that says “It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer.”

    Sura 4:93 that says “He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell forever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will lay his curse upon him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.”

    Sura 5:60 that says “Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God? Those whom God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these, and they have strayed farther from the right path.”

    Sura 49:11 that says “Do not defame one another…”

    Only God can judge them. And God will do it in God’s good time. But in the meantime, while these so-called Muslims and their non-Muslim supporters, advisors, financers and protectors still live in this world so should they be compelled to adhere to the laws of this world else we all become like them, demons and monsters.

    I realize that this letter is long. But so is the list of transgressions against humanity by the current Turkish government and its enablers. I have but one passion, Mr. President, the search for light, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My protest is simply the cry of my very soul.

    With my deepest respect, Mr. President,

     

    James (Cem) Ryan, Ph.D.

    Founder, West Point Graduates Against the War

     

     

     

    PS. With apologies and thanks to Emile Zola who would surely understand.

     

    Cc.  International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, The Hague, The Netherlands

     

  • Ten Years of AKP Leadership in Turkey

    Ten Years of AKP Leadership in Turkey

    Nothing epitomizes the great political changes in Turkey over the course of the last decade than a seemingly minor media item reporting that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his wife Emine Erdogan attended a private iftar dinner (the ritual meal breaking the Ramadan fast each evening) by the invitation of the current Turkish Chief of Staff, General Necdet Özel, at his official residence. It was only a few years earlier that the military leadership came hair trigger close to pulling off a coup to get rid of the AKP leadership. Of course, such a military intrusion on Turkish political life would have been nothing new. Turkey experienced a series of coups during its republican life that started in 1923. The most recent example of interference by the military with the elected leadership in Turkey took place in 1997 when Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan sheepishly left office under pressure amounting to an ultamatum, outlawed his political party, and accepted a withdrawal from political activity for a period of five years in what amounted to a bloodless coup prompted by his alleged Islamic agenda. Unlike the prior coups of 1960, 1971, and 1980 when the military seized power for a period of time, the 1997 bloodless coup was followed by allowing politicians to form a new civilian government. Really, looking back on the period shortly after the AKP came to power in 2002 the big surprise is that a coup did not occur. We still await informed commentary that explains why. For the present, those that value the civilianization of governance can take comfort in the receding prospect of a future military takeover of Turkish political life, and this iftar social occasion is a strong symbolic expression of a far healthier civil-military relationship than existed in the past.

    Richard Falk

    1628f8d219db3da4feba7694377ecdc7
    Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He initiated this blog partly in celebration of his 80th birthday.

     

    Improving Turkish Civil Military Relations

     

    Somewhat less dramatic, but not less relevant as a sign of this dramatic turn, is the remembrance that shortly after the AKP initially gained control of the government in 2002, it was much publicized that the wives of the elected leaders were not welcome because they wore headscarves at the major social gathering of top military officers at its annual Victory Day Military Ball held at the end of summer in Ankara with much fanfare. A similar issue arose a few years later when ardent Kemalists insisted that Abdullah Gul should not be allowed to serve as Turkey’s president because his wife’s headscarf supposedly signaled to the world that he did not represent the Turkish secular community in the European manner associated with the founder of the republic, Kemal Atatürk.

     

    Recent court testimony by the former Turkish Chief of Staff, Hilmi Özkök,  confirms what many had long suspected, that there existed plans in 2003-2004 supported by many high ranking military officers to overrule the will of the Turkish electorate by removing the AKP from its position of governmental leadership and impose martial law. Such grim recollections of just a few years ago should help us appreciate the significance of this recent iftar dinner between the Erdogans and Özels as a strong expression of accommodation between military institutions and the political leaders in Turkey. Such an event helps us understand just how much things have changed, and for the better, with respect to civil-military relations.

     

    We can interpret this event in at least two ways. First, indicating a more relaxed attitude on the part of the military toward Turkish women who wear a headscarf in conformity to Islamic tradition.  Although this sign of nomalization is a definite move in the right direction, Turkey has a long way to go before it eliminates the many forms of discrimination against headscarf women that continue to restrict their life and work options in unacceptable ways from the perspective of religious freedom and human rights. Secondly, and crucially, these developments show that the armed forces seems finally to have reconciled itself to the popularity and competence of AKP leadership. This is significant as it conveys the willingness to accept a reduced role for the military in a revamped Turkish constitutional system, as well as exhibiting a trust in the sincerity of AKP pledges of adherence to secular principles that include respect for the autonomy of the military. This latter achievement is quite remarkable, a tribute to the skill with which the Erdogan in particular has handled the civilianization of the Turkish governing process, and for which he is given surprisingly little credit by the international media, and almost none by the Turkish media. Such an outcome was almost inconceivable ten years ago, but today it is taken so for granted as to be hardly worthy of notice.

     

    In 2000 Eric Rouleau, Le Monde’s influential lead writer on the Middle East and France’s former distinguished ambassador to Turkey (1988-1992), writing in Foreign Affairs, emphasized the extent to which “this system [of republican Turkey], which places the military at the very heart of political life” poses by far the biggest obstacle to Turkish entry into the European Union. Indeed, Rouleau and other Turkish experts believed that the Turkish deep state consisting of its security apparatus, including the intelligence organizations, was far too imbued with Kemalist ideology to sit idly by while the secular elites that ran the country since the founding of the republic were displaced by the conservative societal forces that provided the core support to the AKP. And not only were the Kemalist elites displaced, but their capacity to pull the strings of power from behind closed doors was ended by a series of bureaucratic reforms that have made the National Security Council in Ankara a part of the civilian structure of government, and not a hidden

    and unaccountable and ultimate source of policymaking.

     

    Continuing Political Polarization Within Turkey

     

    At the same time, despite these accomplishments of the AKP, the displaced ‘secularists’ are no happier with Erdogan leadership than they were a decade ago. (It needs to be understood, although the available language makes it difficult to express, that the AKP orientation and policy guidance has itself also been avowedly and consistently secularist in character, although the leaders are privately devout Muslims who steadfastly maintain rituals of prayer and fasting, as well as foregoing alcohol, their political stance on these issues is not different than that of their opponents. Indeed, quite unexpectedly, Erdogan in visiting Cairo after the 2011 Tahrir uprising urged the Egyptians to opt for secularism rather than Islamism.) Those that identify with the opposition to the AKP, and that includes most of the TV and print media, can never find a positive word to say about the domestic and foreign policy of the AKP, although the line of attack has drastically shifted its ground. A decade ago the fiercest attack focused on fears and allegations that the AKP was a stalking horse for anti-secularism. The AKP was accused of having ‘a secret agenda’ centered on an Islamic takeover of the governing process, with grim imaginings of ‘a second Iran’ administered strictly in accordance with sharia. The current unwavering critical line of attack, in contrast, is obsessed with the unsubstantiated belief that Erdogan dreams of being the new sultan of Turkey, dragging the country back toward the dark ages of authoritarian rule. It is odd that the same opposition that would have welcomed a coup against the elected leadership a decade ago now seems so preoccupied with a fear that the far milder AKP is incubating an anti-democratic project designed to destroy Turkish constitutional democracy and end the civil rights of the citizenry.

     

    There are certainly some valid complaints associated with Erdogan’s tendencies to express his strong, and sometimes insensitive, personal opinions on socially controversial topics ranging from abortion to the advocacy of three children families. He needlessly made an offhand remark recently that seemed an insult directed at Alevi religious practices. As well, there are journalists, students, and political activists in fairly large numbers being held in Turkish prisons without being charged with crimes and for activities that should be treated as normal in a healthy democracy. And there are also many allegations that Erdogan is laying the groundwork to become president in a revised constitutional framework that would give the position much greater powers than it now possesses to the distress of opposition forces. In my judgment, on the basis of available evidence, Erdogan is opinionated and uninhibited in expressing controversial views on the spur of the moment, but not seeking to enthrone himself as head of a newly authoritarian Turkey.

     

    This persisting polarization in Turkey extends to other domains of policy, perhaps most justifiably in relation to the unresolved Kurdish issues, which have violently resurfaced after some relatively quiet years. It is reasonable to fault the AKP for promising to resolve the conflict when it was reelected, and then failing to offer the full range of inducements likely to make such a positive outcome happen. It is difficult to interpret accurately the renewal of PKK violence, and the degree to which it is viewed by many segments of Turkish elite opinion as removing all hope of a negotiated solution to this conflict that has long been such a drain on Turkey’s energies, resources, and reputation. The ferocity of this latest stage of this 30 year struggle is not easily explained. To some degree it is a spillover of growing regional tensions with the countries surrounding Turkey, and particularly with the Kurdish movements in these countries, especially Iraq and Syria. There is also the strong possibility that elements of the Kurdish resistance see the fluidity of the regional situation as a second window of opportunity to achieve national self-determination. The first window having been slammed shut in the early republican years by the strong nation-building ideology associated with Kemalist governance of the country.

     

    Also serious is some deserved criticism of Turkey’s Syrian policy that charges the government with an imprudent and amateurish shift from one extreme to the other. First, an ill-advised embrace of Assad’s dictatorial regime a few years ago followed by a supposedly premature and questionable alignment with anti-regime Syrian rebel forces without knowing their true character. Ahmet Davutoglu’s positive initiatives in Damascus were early on hailed as the centerpiece of ‘zero problems with neighbors,’ an approach that his harshest critics now find totally discredited given the deterioration of relations, not only with Syria, but with Iran and Iraq. Again such criticism seems greatly overstated by an opposition that seizes on any failure of governing policy without considering either its positive sides or offering more sensible alternatives. Whatever the leadership in Ankara during the last two years, the changing and unanticipated regional circumstances would require the foreign policy establishment to push hard on a reset button. Mr. Davutoglu has done his best all along to offer a rationale for the changed tone and substance of Turkish foreign policy, especially in relation to Syria, which I find generally convincing, although the coordination of policy toward Syria with Washington seems questionable.

     

    In the larger picture, there were few advance warnings that the Arab Spring would erupt, and produce the uprisings throughout the region that have taken place in the last 20 months. Prior to this tumult the Arab world seemed ultra-stable, with authoritarian regimes having been in place for several decades, and little indication that domestic challenges would emerge in the near future. In these conditions, it seemed sensible to have positive relations with neighbors and throughout the Arab world based on a mixture of practical and principled considerations. There were attractive economic opportunities to expand Turkish trade, investment, and cultural influence; as well, it was reasonable to suppose that Turkish efforts at conflict mediation could open political space for modest moves toward democracy and the protection of human rights might be an appropriate context within which to practice ‘constructive engagement.’

     

    Foreign Policy Achievements

     

    It should also be pointed out that from the outset of his public service the Turkish Foreign Minister has been tireless in his efforts to resolve conflicts within an expanding zone of activity and influence. There were constructive and well organized attempts to mediate the long festering conflict between Israel and Syria with respect to the Golan Heights, encouragement of a reconciliation process in former Yugoslavia that did achieve a diplomatic breakthrough in relations between Serbia and Bosnia; he made a notable effort to bringing conflicting powers in the Caucasus together; bravest of all, was the sensible effort to bring Hamas into the political arena so as to give some chance to a negotiated end to the Israel/Palestine conflict; and boldest of all, in concert with Brazil, was a temporarily successful effort in 2010 to persuade Iran to enter an agreement to store outside its borders enriched uranium that could be used to fabricate nuclear weapons. These were all laudable objectives, and creative uses of the diplomacy of soft power, and to the extent successful, extremely helpful in reducing regional tensions, and raising hopes for peace. Even when unsuccessful, such attempts bold and responsible efforts to find ways to improve the political atmosphere, and to find better diplomatic options than permanent antagonism, or worse, threats or uses force to resolve conflicts and enhance security.

     

    These various initiatives helped Turkey become a major player in the region and beyond, a government that almost alone in the world was constructing a foreign policy that was neither a continuation of Cold War deference to Washington nor the adoption of an alienated anti-Western posture. Turkey continued its role in NATO, persisted with its attempts to satisfy the many demands of the EU accession process, and even participated militarily, in my view unwisely, in the failed NATO War in Afghanistan.  Fairly considered, the Davutoglu approach yielded extraordinary results, and even where it faltered, was consistent in exploring every plausible path to a more peaceful and just Middle East, Balkans, and Central Asia, as well as reaching into Africa, Latin America, and Asia, making Turkey for the first time in its history a truly global political presence. His statesmanship was widely heralded throughout the world, and quickly made him one of the most admired foreign policy architects in the world. In 2010 he was ranked 7th in the listing of the 100 most influential persons in the world in all fields (including business, culture, politics) that is compiled periodically by Foreign Policy, an leading journal of opinion in the United States. Turkey had raised its diplomatic stature throughout the world without resorting to the usual realist tactics of beefing up its military capabilities or throwing its weight around. It s increasing global reach has included opening many embassies in countries where it had been previously unrepresented. This raised stature was acknowledged in many quarters, especially throughout the Middle East where Erdogan was hailed as the world’s most popular leader, but also at the UN where Turkey played an expanding role, and was overwhelmingly elected to term membership on the Security Council.

     

    It should also be appreciated that Turkey has displayed a principled commitment to international law and morality on key regional issues, especially in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The Syrian mediation efforts were abandoned only after Israel’s all out attack on Gaza at the end of 2008, which also led to Erdogan’s famous rebuke of the Israeli President at the Davos World Economic Forum. This refusal to ignore Israel’s defiance of international law undoubtedly contributed to the later confrontation following Israel’s commando attack on the Mavi Marmara flotilla of peace ships in international waters on May 31, 2010 that were carrying humanitarian assistance to the unlawfully blockaded civilian population of Gaza. Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish nationals in the incident, which caused a partial rupture of relations between the two countries that has not yet been overcome, although Turkey has adopted a most moderate position given the unprovoked and unlawful assault on its ship and passengers, seeking only an apology and compensation for the families.

     

    There were other special Turkish international initiatives, none more spectacular than the major effort to engage with Somalia at a time when the rest of the world turned its back on an African country being written off as the worst example of ‘a failed state.’ Not only did Turkey offer material assistance in relation to reconstructing the infrastructure of governance. It also more impressively ventured where angels feared to tread: organizing a high profile courageous visit by the Turkish prime minister with his wife and other notables to Mogadishu at a time when the security situation in the Somalia capital was known to be extremely dangerous for any visitors. Such a show of solidarity to a struggling African nation was unprecedented in Turkish diplomacy, and has been followed up by Ankara with a continuing and successful engagement with a range of projects to improve the economic and humanitarian situation in this troubled country. In a similar spirit of outreach, Turkey hosted a UN summit on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in May 2011, and formally accepted leadership responsibility within the UN to organize assistance to this group of states, considered the most impoverished in the world.

     

    More recently, Mr. Davutoglu together with Ms. Erdogan visited the Muslim Rohingya minority in the western Myanmar state of Rakhine that had been brutally attacked in June by the local Buddhist majority community claiming that the resident Muslims were unwanted illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and should leave the country. Bangladesh officially denied such allegations, insisting that the Rohingya people had been living in Myanmar for centuries. This high level Turkish mission delivered medical aid, displayed empathy that could only be interpreted as a genuine humanitarian gesture far removed from any calculations of national advantage, and above all, conveyed a sense of how important it was for Turkey to do what it can to protect this vulnerable minority in a distant country. Mr. Davutoglu made clear universalist motivations underlay his official visit by also meeting with local Buddhists in a nearby town to express his hope that the two communities could in the future live in peace and mutual respect. This trip to Myanmar is one more example of how Turkey combines a traditional pursuit of national advantage in world affairs with an exemplary citizenship in the wider world community. It is this kind of blend of enlightened nationalism and ethical globalism that gives some hope that challenges to the world community can be addressed in a peaceful and equitable manner.

     

    Surely, Turkey as is the case with any democracy, would benefit from a responsible opposition that calls attention to failings and offers its own alternative policy initiatives, while being ready to give those in authority credit for constructive undertakings and achievements of the government. Unfortunately, the polarized and demoralized opposition in Turkey is strident in its criticism, bereft of the political imagination required to put forward its own policies, and lacking in the sort of balance that is required if its criticisms are to be respected as constructive contributions to the democratic process. It is especially suspect for the most secularized segments of Turkish society to complain about an authoritarian drift in AKP leadership when it was these very social forces that a few years earlier was virtually pleading with the army to step in, and hand power back to them in the most anti-democratic manner imaginable.  Instead of taking justifiable pride in the great Turkish accomplishments of the last decade, the unrestrained hostility of anti-AKP political forces is generating a sterile debate that makes it almost impossible to solve the problems facing the country or to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available to such a vibrant country. It needs to be appreciated that Turkey viewed from outside by most informed observers, especially in the region, remains a shining success story, both economically and politically. Nothing could bring more hope and pride to the region than for the Turkish ascent to be achieved elsewhere, of course, allowing for national variations of culture, history, and resource endowments, but sharing the commitment to build an inclusive democracy in which the military stays in the barracks and the diplomats take pride in resolving and preventing conflicts.