Turkish Forum English

Tag: Arab Spring

  • Turkey awaits the Arab Spring

    Turkey awaits the Arab Spring

    By M K Bhadrakumar

    The Arab Spring has apparently had no impact whatsoever on Europe’s entrenched views on Turkey. This much becomes clear from the annual report of the European Commission (EC) on Turkey issued in Brussels on Wednesday. The report took stock of Turkey’s reform program in terms of its membership bid of the European Union (EU) and roundly censured the country over human rights and its increasingly acrimonious spat with Cyprus.

    Conceivably, the EC report mummifies for a long time Turkey’s EU bid, which has spluttered in the past year or two. To add insult to injury, the EC gave the green light to two of Ottoman Turkey’s “grandchildren” in the Balkans – Serbia and Montenegro – on their respective aspirations to join the European club.

    Recent months have been a heady period for Turkey, which has convinced itself that the new Middle East taking shape in the upheaval of the Arab Spring would find it irresistible as a role model, and that the Western world would inevitably be compelled to revise its opinions and view Turkey in an altogether new light as the torchbearer of enlightenment in the Muslim world.

    Wednesday’s EC report comes as a reality check. The more things seemed to change, the more they remain the same. The EC report chastised Turkey about the lack of freedom of expression, women’s rights and freedom of religion as falling below accepted standards in the liberal democracies of Europe. It estimated that the shortfalls continued to disqualify Turkey from joining the EU.

    In a scathing reference, the EC report said, “In Turkey, the legal framework does not yet sufficiently safeguard freedom of expression. The high number of legal cases and investigations against journalists and undue pressure on the media raise serious concern.”

    Worn-out lens
    The harsh criticism by the EC comes as an embarrassment when the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been riding the wave of the Arab Spring in the Muslim Middle East and exhorting the Arab world to follow Turkey’s unique example of combining or reconciling – depending on one’s point of view – Western-style liberal democracy with Islam.

    During his recent visit to Cairo, an assertive Erdogan crossed the Rubicon of Islam and gave audacious advice to the Egyptian people about the virtues of secularism – at a juncture when the Muslim Brotherhood is surging in that country and could be at the threshold of entering the corridors of power.

    Curiously, the EC report has been received with ennui in Turkey. As prominent editor Murat Yetkin put it, “The truth is that fewer and fewer people in Turkey care about what the EU is saying on the country day by day.” Yet, Turkey’s Minister for Europe, Egemen Bagis, responded polemically to the EC report and alleged that the human-rights record of many EU member countries couldn’t be “half as good as Turkey’s”.

    He said the EC report was simply out of focus:

    Although the report tries to take an objective and balanced picture of Turkey, we think that the camera used by the commission is old with a worn-out lens and the lens needs to be changed, as the picture has taken lots of blurred parts and the camera seems to be zooming on the false points.

    Bagis maintained for the record that Turkey would not be detracted from its chosen path of an EC-membership bid. However, he added the caveat that “full membership is Turkey’s only goal, no other goals can be accepted”. Turkey bristles at the “privileged partnership” that has been mooted by France and Germany as an alternative to regular membership.

    Objectively, the EC report is fair and balanced. It commends the Erdogan government for initiating civilian supremacy over the military, is supportive of his agenda to draw up a new constitution and even praises Turkey’s economic policies. On the other hand, it flags Turkey’s poor record of individual liberty and civil rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression, women’s rights and the erosion of the autonomy of regulatory bodies. “Significant further efforts are required to guarantee fundamental rights in most areas.”

    However, these European perspectives don’t surprise Turkey. The common perception in Turkey is that Brussels keeps coming up with excuses for not admitting Turkey into what is essentially a Christian club. The EC decision to encourage the membership bid by Serbia and Montenegro and to leave Turkey’s accession hanging will only reinforce the grouse of “cultural” discrimination toward Turks.

    The latest EC report may also have shifted the goal posts by introducing a new template, namely, Turkey’s latest acrimonious rift with Cyprus, which erupted over gas deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The report criticized Turkey for its strong reaction to the recent gas drilling by Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean and for carrying the rift to a potential flashpoint by starting its own seismic exploration in the region under a Turkish naval presence. It demanded that Turkey should make progress in normalizing relations with Cyprus and avoid “any kind of threat, source of friction or action that could damage good neighborly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes”.

    Evidently, the new assertiveness in Turkey’s regional policies is not going down well in European opinion. In addition to Turkey’s showdown with Cyprus, European countries have been urging Ankara to address the tensions in its relations with Israel, but Erdogan has been in no mood to listen, and the rupture with Israel happens to be the one issue that has probably overnight made him a hero on the Arab street, while it has cost Turkey virtually nothing.

    Europe always took with a pinch of salt Turkey’s claims to play a leadership role in its surrounding regions. It sidelined Turkey’s swagger in the Balkans in the project over the disbandment of Yugoslavia; more recently, France initially didn’t even invite Turkey to the conclave discussing the Western intervention in Libya, although Arab countries were invited.

    Tunisia surges
    Most certainly, Europe (especially France) will ignore Turkey’s claim for any leadership role in Syria or the Levant, leave alone in the Maghreb region. The vocal supporter of Turkey’s regional leadership of a democratic Middle East happens to be Saudi Arabia and it has a special interest in doing so. French President Nicolas Sarkozy went to the Caucasus recently and put down Turkey rather harshly in an unwarranted display of derision.

    The paradox, as the EC report implies, is that Turkey’s own exciting reform program has ground to a virtual halt in the recent past, while Erdogan has been exhorting the Middle East to reform. Thoughtful Turkish commentators realize this contradiction. One of Turkey’s most respected political observers, Sedat Ergin, drew attention to this in a column this week titled “The problem of fine-tuning policies on Syria”.

    Ergin wrote, “As soon as the winds named ‘Arab Spring’ started blowing, [Turkey] took the stance supporting the demands for change and democracy.” Turkey’s choice, he argued, was and is essentially correct, but a contradiction nonetheless arises when Turkey expresses such robust opinions favoring democratic reform. Ergin pointed out:

    The Syrian regime’s actions against the opposition groups coincide with a time when Peace and Democracy Party [Kurdish political party] members are being subjected to mass arrests, when elected deputies are kept in jails and when the space for the Kurdish political movement to operate within democratic bounds is being entirely constricted in Turkey.

    Credit must be given to Erdogan that such frank discussions on the Kurdish problem are possible at all in today’s Turkey, whereas, before his advent to power, the Kurdish problem itself used to be forbidden terrain for public discourse. All the same, the past two years have been more or less barren, and Erdogan was even regressive on the democratization front despite being so advantageously placed in Turkish domestic politics.

    Erdogan needs to pay heed to the EC report when it gently underscores that Turkey is neglecting to do its own homework while immersed in espousing the cause of democratization in the Middle East. Out of the 35 chapters of the EU’s Acquis Communautaire that Turkey is expected to comply with to gain membership, negotiations have begun on only 13 chapters in the entire period since 2005 when the accession talks began under Erdogan’s stewardship.

    The EU, it increasingly appears, was actually the driving force behind Erdogan’s democratization program, and today the disconcerting reality is that Turkey may be losing interest in the EU membership project. A leading Turkish columnist, Semih Idiz, summed up the mood:

    Turkish-EU membership talks are currently at a standstill, with little prospect of being revived soon … EU is not something the majority of Turks look to with confidence or enthusiasm anymore … The average Turk is aware of the obstacles strewn on Turkey’s path … Put another way, the “EU stick” simply does not work anymore … because the “EU carrot” is not enticing for Turkey anymore, especially at a time of turmoil in Europe itself.

    Indeed, Turkey’s resounding success as an economic power-house during Erdogan’s rule and the crisis shaking the European economies do present contrasting pictures that are misleading public opinion that Turkey could as well do without EU membership. No doubt, the EU’s political leverage on Turkey is diminishing.

    If so, where will a fresh impetus for reform come from? The Turkish official claim is that the government has an innate urge to reform the country, no matter the EU membership bid. But that isn’t a convincing enough argument. So, could it be from the Arab Spring, which, ironically, Erdogan is charioting abroad?

    As Tunisia heads for an historic poll on October 23 to elect an assembly that would frame a new constitution, Islamist leader Rachid Ghannouchi stole a march over Erdogan by fielding as candidate for the Ennahda party in the capital, Tunis, a woman who does not wear a head scarf. Even after nearly nine decades of constitutional rule, Turkey has not reached a comparable point.

    Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

  • Arabs are rewriting their own narrative

    Arabs are rewriting their own narrative

    By Rami G. Khouri

    The Daily Star

    I had the pleasure this week of speaking at the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at Tufts University on a panel titled “Continuing Tensions in the Levant.”

    The panel made me realize two related things. First, all major players in the Middle East – the Arab states, Israel, Turkey, Iran, the European Union and the United States – are undergoing major changes in regional relationships. The Arab citizen revolts across the region continue to drive epic developments, making this a major moment of historic change that involves more than the mere replacement of authoritarian regimes by more democratic systems.

    Second, given the changes under way, it is time perhaps to put an end to the use of the term “Levant” or “Levantine,” because the historical lineage of this term is being invalidated by the Arab revolts. The “Levant” term recalls an era when Europeans were enchanted with our region, dealt with it in colonial and Orientalist fashions, and devised terminology that reflected the subordinate role that our region played in relation to the more powerful and advanced Europeans. The “Levant” refers to the region to the east where the sun rises, while the “Middle East” similarly gives our countries a label that reflects the view from Europe and the United States.

    I suggest we declare the death of the “Levant” label because the citizen revolts across much of the Arab world capture the fact that Arab citizens are now in the very early stages of rewriting their own history and crafting their own national narratives. The region where they are acting deserves to be called something reflecting this fact, namely the “Arab world.” If one is talking about the wider region that also includes non-Arab Iran, Turkey and Israel, the “Middle East” will probably stay in use for a long time. However, “Western Asia” is perhaps equally useful, balancing as it does the prevalent East Asia, Central Asia and South Asia designations that are merely geographic and not linguistically quasi-colonial.

    The fact that Arab men and women are fighting for their rights as citizens and human beings is the central drama of the moment across the Arab world, but this is likely to spill over and influence the roles and relationships of non-Arab states in the region. The most significant ones in my mind are the following:

    First, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council states have behaved in novel ways in the past year, shedding their traditional reticence and low-key foreign policy style in favor of more daring moves. Four of the GCC states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar) have moved their troops or provided military aid around the region (in Bahrain and Libya), some have withdrawn their ambassadors from Damascus, and some have confronted Iran openly. All this is very unusual for GCC states, suggesting they are beginning to act on their own volition, rather than relying on foreign intervention while acting as as protectorates of foreign powers.

    Second, Turkey for several years has expanded its profile and adopted more robust policies across the Middle East. It has sought to enhance its national interests while expanding its sphere of influence in the Arab region, and this in different ways in its relations with Arabs, Iran and Israel.

    Third, Iran for its part is one of the big losers from the current Arab revolts, as its various attempts to develop more influence in the region fall victim to the other changes under way. Its export of the Islamic revolutionary spirit of 1979 has been deflated by the fact that Arabs have taken the lead in challenging their own regimes. Iran’s challenge of Israel has been taken over much more credibly by Turkey. Iranian allies Syria and Hezbollah face new problems in view of the unpredictable situation in Syria. And the Arab quest for democratic freedoms makes the Iranian theocratic and top-heavy governance system deeply alien to Arab populist aspirations.

    Fourth, Egypt is slowly reviving its traditional role as a leading Arab power, both as a trend-setter in domestic changes in the region and as a leader in speaking out against Israeli policies. The successful mediation of the Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange is only the latest sign of this, coming right after Israel formally – and unusually – apologized to Egypt for killing several Israeli soldiers in Sinai.

    Fifth, Israel is increasingly isolated and challenged in the region. Some three decades ago Israel counted Iran, Turkey and Egypt as strategic allies or close partners. Today, its relations with all three are much more difficult. Egypt’s evolution in recent months suggests that a more democratic Arab world will see foreign policies that are harder on Israel because they reflect Arab public opinion. Israel’s greater isolation is coupled with more frequent mentions of Israel, apartheid and sanctions in the same breath.

    The exact impact of these and other changes to come are hard to identify now, and in some cases they will include new forms of short-term sectarian or ideological strife within and between countries. This is the nature of momentous and historic change, but in due course the benefits of democratic governance will far outweigh the price to be paid in the transition period.

    Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

    A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on October 15, 2011, on page 7.

    via THE DAILY STAR :: Opinion :: Columnist :: Arabs are rewriting their own narrative.

  • Arab Spring Sees Turkish-Iranian Rivalry Take a New Turn

    Arab Spring Sees Turkish-Iranian Rivalry Take a New Turn

    Arab Spring Sees Turkish-Iranian Rivalry Take a New Turn

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 186

    October 11, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s decision to host a NATO early warning radar in the US-led missile defense program continues to reverberate, especially for its relations with Iran. High ranking Iranian officials repeatedly criticize not only Turkey’s cooperation with the United States on the missile shield, but also Ankara’s recent foreign policy initiatives. These include the Turkish government’s efforts to set a model for the transformation of the regional countries in the wake of the Arab Spring, Ankara advocating a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem, or its increasingly assertive position on Syria.

    The decision on radar deployment apparently was a tipping point for Iranian officials, who now vocally criticize Turkey on a myriad of issues (EDM, September 20). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a live TV interview that Iranian officials told their Turkish counterparts it was wrong to grant such permission and it would not benefit Turkey , October 5). Major-General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, the military advisor to the Iranian supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also maintained that Turkey had recently committed various strategic mistakes and would pay a heavy price if it failed to change course (Hurriyet, October 9). The Deputy Head of Iran’s Armed Forces’ Joint Chiefs of Staff Brigadier-General Massoud Jazayeri joined the wave of protest and urged Turkey to rethink its long-term strategic interests and side with Muslim nations instead of the West (www.presstv.ir, October 10).

    Iranian officials criticize Turkey on a range of issues of substantial importance. First, Iranian leaders increasingly label the missile shield as a project that is designed to boost Israel’s security against a counter-attack from Iran in case Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, considering that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan repeatedly rebuff such claims, which were also raised by Turkish opposition parties, it appears that the Iranian campaign is driven by a concern to discredit Turkey in the eyes of regional countries.

    In order to contextualize Iran’s accusations against Turkey, it might be useful to recall Erdogan’s recent criticism of Israel’s nuclear program. As late as last week, Erdogan continued his recent criticism of Israel, going as far as arguing that he saw Israel as a threat to the region and surrounding countries, because it possessed the atomic bomb. Moreover, Erdogan raised a related criticism, when he pointed to the double standards of world powers: while Iran came under international scrutiny because of its nuclear program, there had been a lack of comparable debate on Israel’s nuclear weapons (Anadolu Ajansi, October 5). Iranian officials’ lambasting of Turkey through manipulative accounts, despite Erdogan’s staunch position on Israel at the expense of harming relations with the West, reveals their intent and approach toward Turkey.

    Iranian officials have recently expressed differences of opinion on the Palestine issue. Erdogan’s stance on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians has not necessarily contributed to forging common ground with Iran. Erdogan devoted a large portion of his address at the UN General Assembly last month to the rights of the Palestinians, supporting their bid for recognition. While Turkey has invested a great deal of political capital advocating a two-state solution in international venues, Khamenei, in a recent address at an international conference on the Palestinian Intifada, labeled this formula as tantamount to capitulation to the demands of “Zionists.” Rejecting the Palestinians’ bid for statehood at the UN, Khamenei argued that any solution based on the recognition of Israel’s right of existence would threaten the stability and security of the Middle East. Describing Iran as the greatest defender of the Palestinians, Khamenei criticized other regional powers that maintain close relations with Washington , October 1).

    Moreover, Turkish-Iranian divergence exists in an undeclared rivalry for regional leadership over the Arab Spring. For some time this rivalry was only evident in the realm of speculation by analysts. While Iran has been working to put its imprint on the regional transformation, by labeling the popular uprisings as an “Islamic awakening,” Turkish government sources or analysts close to the government have highlighted how Turkey’s democratic and capitalist model inspired the Arab revolutions. Perhaps in the first ever direct affirmation of this rivalry, Rahim-Safavi criticized Erdogan’s recent visit to the region. In Cairo, Erdogan stressed a secular-democratic form of government, which seems to have angered the Iranian leadership, sparking their more direct confrontation with Turkey.

    A related area of tension is over competing positions on the Syrian uprising. Faced with the continuation of the Baath regime’s violent campaign to suppress the popular uprising, Turkey has progressively downgraded its ties with Damascus, as well as providing shelter to the Syrian opposition. Turkey’s imposition of sanctions might also negatively affect Damascus’s direct ties to Tehran. Iran, viewing the maintenance of the current regime in Syria as vital to its penetration to Lebanon and Palestine, has grown anxious over Turkey’s policy on Syria, again reflected in Rahim-Safavi’s reactions.

    Some common themes are emerging in Iranian views on Turkey. First, there is a continuous and sustained reaction to Turkey, and it is worth noting that the mounting criticism of the country came from the religious leadership and the Revolutionary Guards. Second, Iranian officials work hard to present Ankara’s recent foreign policy initiatives as simply following the dictates of the US, in order to sustain their oft-repeated argument that they are the only genuine independent power in the region.

    Finally, there is a deliberate attempt to discipline Turkey by sending harsh messages as to how the country should behave. It is unclear whether this rhetoric reflects self-confidence on the part of the Iranian leadership or anxiety over Turkey taking an anti-Iranian position and siding with the US, which might lead to Iran’s isolation in the region. The Iranian side appears ready to exploit economic ties if necessary, in an effort to discipline Turkey. They daringly refer to Turkey’s gas purchase contracts with Iran as well as Ankara’s plans to boost the bilateral trade volume to $20 billion, going as far as sending veiled threats that Ankara might suffer if it fails to reverse its current position and accommodate Iranian concerns.

    https://jamestown.org/program/arab-spring-sees-turkish-iranian-rivalry-take-a-new-turn/

     

  • U.S. Ties to Turkey Face New Strains

    U.S. Ties to Turkey Face New Strains

    By JAY SOLOMON in Washington and MARC CHAMPION in Istanbul

    WASHINGTON—Escalating tensions in the Mediterranean are complicating the U.S.-Turkey alliance at a time when President Barack Obama views Ankara as central to helping the U.S. manage the Middle East’s political upheavals.

    WO AH322 USTURK G 20111007174808

     

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton privately has pressed Turkish officials to back off from their threats to send warships to waters around Cyprus in a dispute over energy deposits, according to U.S. officials. The top American diplomat cautioned that any escalation could jeopardize U.S. interests in the Mediterranean, as the gas fields are being jointly developed by Cyprus and Houston-based Noble Energy Inc.

    U.S. officials also are concerned by Turkish threats to deploy naval vessels to accompany flotillas headed to the Palestinian territories, which could heighten the potential for a military conflict between Turkey and Israel, both close U.S. allies. American diplomats have worked to broker a rapprochement between Turkey and Israel, but officials in the White House and State Department acknowledge the rift could endure.

    Some strategists in Washington and Europe are calling on the Obama administration to lay down stricter red lines in the Mediterranean, by using more aggressive diplomacy and the U.S. Navy. This is seen as crucial for guarding against any miscalculations by Turkey, Israel or Cyprus, though they acknowledge such steps could anger Ankara.

    “I don’t think the Turks are intent on starting hostilities, but you never know what can happen in this environment,” said Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. He added that Washington needs to be up-front with Ankara and tell them that if conflict breaks out between Turkey and Israel, “We’ll choose Israel.”

    Turkish officials stressed in interviews they aren’t seeking a war with either Cyprus or Israel, and said Turkey has been forced to take action to guard against provocative steps by others. “Look, nobody wants any disasters here. We are aware of the situation,” said a senior Turkish official.

    Mr. Obama has cultivated Turkey as a major strategic partner since coming into office in 2009. White House officials say the U.S. president speaks regularly with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to coordinate on the political transformation in the Middle East and North Africa. And the Obama administration hailed Ankara’s decision last month to house a North Atlantic Treaty Organization radar facility, which is focused on Iran’s long-range missiles.

    “Turkey is a NATO ally, a great friend and a partner on a whole host of issues,” Mr. Obama said prior to a meeting with Mr. Erdogan last month.

    Still, the deepening dispute between Turkey and Cyprus over energy exploration has placed Washington squarely in the middle.

    Tensions flared last month when the Cypriot government announced that Noble Energy would begin drilling for gas in its Exclusive Economic Zone. Ankara doesn’t recognize Cyprus’s government and said the energy exploration undercuts prospects for a United Nations-backed process aimed at reunifying the island. Cyprus was divided into ethnic-Greek and Turkish enclaves in 1974, after Turkey invaded the island following a Greece-inspired coup.

    In recent weeks, Turkey has dispatched naval vessels into this economic zone, including frigates and gunboats, according to senior Cypriot officials. They said these moves are a violation of international law and aimed at intimidating Cyprus and preventing Noble from moving ahead with developing the gas fields. Cyprus’s government is calling on the U.N, U.S. and European Union to increase pressure on Ankara to pull out of Cypriot waters.

    “The gravity of the problem stems from the threats that are being voiced, nearly daily, by the Turkish leadership,” said Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, in an interview.

    Turkish officials said the international community should be focused on the Cypriot actions, which they believe are aimed at undermining the U.N. talks.

    More recently, Turkey also began exploring for energy deposits in Cypriot waters. “We just need to make a point… to show the Greek Cypriots that they don’t own the whole island,” said the Turkish official.

    Continuing tensions between Turkey and Israel are also undercutting U.S. efforts to stabilize the Middle East. Once close allies, Turkey and Israel have been locked in a growing war of words in the wake of Israel’s military action last year against an international aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip. The operation killed eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish-American.

    For months, the Obama administration has worked to ease tensions between Israel and Turkey. But the process broke down after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government refused to apologize to Ankara for the flotilla deaths. Turkey cut military ties with Israel and downgraded diplomatic relations, saying it would use its navy to protect future aid flotillas headed toward Gaza.

    On Friday, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davatoglu reiterated that threat, but specified that it applied to Turkish vessels in international waters.

    Some Turkey analysts believe Mr. Erdogan is bluffing. But there are increasing fears that the Turkish leader, now among the most popular in the Muslim world, could have staked a position that will be hard to back away from. And they note that Washington would be likely be dragged into any conflict.

    “At some point, the U.S. is going to have to say: This rhetoric is too much,” said Henri Barkey, a Turkey scholar at Lehigh University.

    Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com and Marc Champion at marc.champion@wsj.com

  • Who are Middle East’s most influential women?

    Who are Middle East’s most influential women?

    From Rima Maktabi, CNN

    An International Women's Day protest in Ankara, Turkey, in March 2011
    An International Women's Day protest in Ankara, Turkey, in March 2011

    An International Women’s Day protest in Ankara, Turkey, in March 2011

    STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    Tell us which women from the Middle East inspire you most

    Do you admire women artists, activists, politicians or business leaders?

    Arab Spring has given some women a chance to shine more than ever

    Istanbul, Turkey (CNN) — Whether it’s as activists or politicians, artists or business leaders, women in the Middle East are stepping into the spotlight as never before.

    Some stereotypes still need to be challenged; domestic violence, illiteracy and conservative views continue to fuel a gender gap in many part of the region.

    However, women are now proving their worth in most walks of life.

    ‘Saudi Women Revolution’ makes a stand for equal rights

    This month, Inside the Middle East focuses on a few women leading the charge: Iraqi political activists, Saudi artists, Turkish footballers and the renowned Egyptian author and feminist, Dr. Nawal Sadawi.

    We meet two Baghdadi women — one a human rights activist and the other a blogger — facing the challenges of trying to rebuild their shattered country and making sure the key decisions are not left solely to the men.

    We know we have missed many inspirational women and would like your help

    Revolution signals new dawn for Egypt’s women

    Meanwhile in Istanbul, the base for this month’s show, Turkey’s first female film director Cahide Sonku — adorns the wall of the Istanbul Modern Art Museum, which is celebrating Turkey’s women artists.

    The exhibition “Dream and Reality” highlights the changing position of women in Turkish society through paintings and videos by women artists over 150 years.

    But we know we have missed many inspirational women and would like your help.

    Who do you think are the Middle East’s most influential women?

    The woman who wants to be Egypt’s first female president

    Are you inspired by Saudi’s women drivers campaigning for equal rights? Or by the Lebanese fashion designer Reem Accra? By the women who slept out in Tahrir Square for nights on end during Egypt’s revolution? By Turkey’s former prime minister Tansu Ciller?

    Comment below to help us find the female stars of the Middle East.

    via Who are Middle East’s most influential women? – CNN.com.

  • The Istanbul Statement

    Ghassan Charbel

    With the announcement of the founding statement establishing the Opposition National Council, the Syrian crisis has entered a new phase that is both more difficult and more dangerous. This conclusion can be reached by examining the factions that have come under the broadest umbrella declared by the opposition since the outbreak of the protests. It is also significant that the announcement was made in Istanbul, or in other words, in a country that neighbors Syria, and a country that until recently, was a close ally of the Syrian regime to an extent at which it was thought that a permanent coalition between the two countries had existed.

    This same conclusion can be reached by evoking a key paragraph in the statement that said, “The Syrian National Council is a frame for the Syrian revolution both inside and outside the country. It provides the necessary support for the realization of the aspirations of our people for the overthrow of the regime, including its head, and establishing a civil state without discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion or political beliefs…The Council is open to all Syrians who adhere to the principles and goals of the peaceful revolution”.

    It is clear from the statement that the declared framework is not interested in negotiating with the regime nor does it anticipate any steps for reforms to be taken by the latter. The goal it has set forth is clear, namely, to topple the regime, all its symbols included. This means that any wager on a third way through negotiation that would entail coexisting with the regime has been abandoned, even if the latter should agree to sacrifice the domination of the Baath Party and the security services over the state and society. In this sense, this part of the statement represents a favorable response to the slogans raised by the protesters, slogans that have become ever more radical and belligerent since the authorities resorted to the excessive use of force in their crackdown on the demonstrations.

    A close look at what the Syrian authorities have achieved in the past six months reveals the significance of the move that Istanbul witnessed yesterday.

    Immediately after the protests first broke out, the authorities sought to apply the lessons learnt from other arenas in the Arab Spring. The regime thus barred the opposition from holding any permanent and safe sit-ins, i.e. a kind of a Tahrir Square that could attract young people and the media. The regime also prevented the protesters from controlling any city that would play the role of the Syrian protests’ equivalent of Benghazi, i.e. hosting a transitional national council. The Syrian authorities also thwarted any deterioration in border regions through which aid of all kinds could have been smuggled to the protesters. In another respect, the regime, through its relations with Russia, China and other countries, has managed to preclude a resolution in the Security Council condemning its actions, a resolution that could possibly facilitate any Western or international sanctions against the regime. By contrast, the opposition was confused and nonplussed, and this was clear through the series of the conferences it has held. Over six months, a certain equation emerged on the ground that indicates a protracted conflict is afoot: Neither are the protests capable of overthrowing the key symbols of the regime, nor is the regime able to put an end to the protests.

    The move in Istanbul may not have important or rapid repercussions on the outcome of the ongoing confrontation on the streets of Syrian cities and towns, but its foreign implications should not take long to emerge. It is no secret that some countries that wanted to go further in their condemnation of the Syrian authorities, had spoken of the opposition’s lack of a recognized rallying frame. Here, the Istanbul statement may represent an opportunity for these countries to go further and endorse comprehensive change in Syria. This applies to some Arab and Islamic countries, and also to countries outside the region.

    If it received broad international recognition, the Syrian National Council would be better equipped to address the Arab League, the United Nations and the world. Similarly, it would be better able to demand protection for the protesters by ‘putting into effect certain articles in international law”. Here, it is worth keeping a close lid on Turkish steps in the upcoming period of time. What is certain is that the confrontation in Syria is heading towards a more crucial and foreboding chapter than what we have seen in recent months.

    via Dar Al Hayat – The Istanbul Statement.