Tag: genocide

The Death of Turkey’s Democracy

-I no longer recognize Turkey, the country where I was raised and spend most of my time when I am not teaching in the U.S.
MAKALENİN İNGİLİZCESİ VE TURKCESİ ASAGİDADİR

PULAT TACAR, TURKISHFORUM DANISMA KURULU, BUYUKELCI(E)

The Death of Turkey’s Democracy
“I no longer recognize the country where I was raised.”
By DANI RODRIK

Ultra-nationalist supporters holding a banner identifying the “real” villain in the Ergenekon affair: “The plot will be foiled, America will lose, Turkey will win.”

I no longer recognize Turkey, the country where I was raised and spend most of my time when I am not teaching in the U.S.
It wasn’t so long ago that the country seemed to be taking significant strides in the direction of human rights and democracy. During its first term in government, between 2002 and 2007, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) worked hard to bring the country into the European Union, to reform its legal regime, and to relax restrictions on Kurds.
But more recently, the same government has been responsible for a politics of deception, dirty tricks, fear, and intimidation that couldn’t present a sharper contrast to its rhetoric on democracy. Several Turkish intellectuals abroad who have expressed critical views have told me they are afraid to return to Turkey. Eavesdropping has reached such levels that even housewives refrain from chatting about “sensitive” matters on the phone.
The AKP government has launched massive, politically motivated court cases against its opponents. Most glaring are the hundreds of current and retired military officers, lawyers, academics, and journalists who have been charged with membership in an armed terror organization, dubbed “Ergenekon,” which aims to destabilize and topple the AKP government.

Associated Press
Ultra-nationalist supporters holding a banner identifying the “real” villain in the Ergenekon affair: “The plot will be foiled, America will lose, Turkey will win.”

Pursued by a group of specially appointed prosecutors, and loudly cheered by AKP-friendly and AKP-controlled media, these Ergenekon trials make a mockery of due process. They are based on indictments full of inconsistencies, rely on anonymous informants of questionable credibility, and evince systematic prosecutorial misconduct. The evidence behind the charges ranges from the insubstantial to the blatantly manufactured. The main purpose of the prosecutions seems to be to discredit the accused and keep them under detention for as long as possible.
My personal wake-up call came in February when retired General Cetin Dogan, my father in law, was arrested in a parallel case. Mr. Dogan, an outspoken critic of the AKP, was charged with being the leader of an elaborate coup plot to overthrow the newly elected government in 2002-2003. The documents backing the charges, produced as usual by an anonymous informant, were full of anachronisms, discrepancies, and mistakes, raising serious questions about their authenticity. None of this derailed the government. Prosecutors ignored all indications of forgery, a government-controlled scientific body produced a patently misleading report lending support to the charges, and the pro-AKP media launched a vicious campaign of character assassination against Mr. Dogan. Mr. Erdogan and his circle joined in the chorus of attacks while denigrating judges that would dare rule in favor of the defendants. Mr. Dogan was kept for months in jail pending trial, along with tens of other active-duty and retired officers, despite the absence of credible evidence and obvious signs of fabrication.
Inexplicably, many supposed Turkish democrats and liberals have made common cause with the AKP government and have acted as cheerleaders for these cases. Their hope seems to be that the Ergenekon trials will bring the so-called “deep state”—clandestine networks of the military and their civilian allies—to account. There is little doubt that Turkey’s pre-AKP secular order featured strong anti-democratic undercurrents. But the AKP government has shown little interest in uncovering actual crimes or bringing real culprits to justice. Even though some of the Ergenekon suspects may be guilty of transgressions, they have been indicted not for specific, demonstrable offences, but for nebulous or fictitious crimes unlikely to result in convictions in a fair trial. Moreover, in these and other cases the government engages in exactly the kinds of activities that the liberals decry and want to bring to justice.
Consider some other examples. Despite considerable evidence that senior members of the police were, at a minimum, guilty of gross negligence in the murder of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in January 2007, none of the policemen have been prosecuted. It is not a coincidence that some of these same police officials have led the Ergenekon investigations. A distinguished chief state prosecutor has been imprisoned on trumped-up charges of being a member of the Ergenekon network, even though he was one of the few prosecutors courageous enough to go after the military gendarmerie’s intelligence branch, a stronghold of the deep state, during 1998-1999. His real crime: Investigating religious orders connected to the AKP. Despite clear indications that the police and prosecutors have been involved in the planting of or tampering with evidence against Ergenekon suspects, there have been no attempts to explain, let alone investigate, the misconduct.
Given the trail of wrongdoings the AKP is leaving behind, it will likely do whatever it takes to avoid losing power in next summer’s elections. Sadly, Mr. Erdogan’s inclination will be to raise the temperature a few notches higher, both domestically and internationally (see its recent rapprochement with Iran, or its brinkmanship against its old friend Israel).
It’s clear now that Turkey is no longer the liberalizing, emerging democracy under the AKP that it was only a few years ago. It’s time the U.S. and Europe stopped treating it as such—both for their own sakes, and for the sake of the Turkish people.
-Mr. Rodrik is the Rafiq Hariri professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
*******************************************************
Türkiye Demokrasisinin Ölümü

DANI RODRIK, Harvard Üniversitesi Uluslararası Siyasi Ekonomi Bölümü Profesörü.

İngilizceden çeviren: Çimen Turunç Baturalp (The Wall Street Journal)

Büyüdüğüm ve Amerika’daki hocalığımdan arta kalan bütün zamanımı geçirdiğim ülkeyi, Türkiye’yi artık tanıyamıyorum. Ülkenin demokrasi ve insan haklarında dev adımlarla ilerliyor gibi görünmesinin üzerinden çok fazla zaman geçmedi. Hükümetin 2002 ile 2007 yılları arasındaki ilk döneminde Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) ülkeyi AB’ye götürebilmek ve Kürtler üzerindeki kısıtlamaları gevşetebilmek için çalışmıştı.
Ama son zamanlarda aynı hükümet kendi demokrasi söylemi karşısında bundan daha keskin bir zıtlık sergileyemeyeceği ölçüdeki kirli oyunların, korku ve sindirme politikalarının sorumlusu haline geldi.
Eleştirel görüşlerini açıkça ifade etmiş olan yurtdışındaki birçok Türk entelektüeli bana Türkiye’ye dönmekten korktuklarını söylüyorlar. Gizli dinlemeler öyle boyutlara ulaşmış ki ev kadınları bile telefonda “hassas” konularda sohbet etmeye çekinir olmuşlar.
AKP hükümeti muhaliflerine karşı çok sayıda, siyasi motivasyonlu dava başlattı. En çok göze batan davalılar “Ergenekon” adı verilen ve ülkeyi karıştırarak AKP hükümetinin düşmesini sağlamak amacıyla kurulmuş silahlı bir terör örgütünün üyesi oldukları iddiası ile suçlanan yüzlerce emekli ve muvazzaf subay, avukat, akademisyen ve gazeteci oldu. Özel olarak atanmış bir grup savcı tarafından yürütülen ve AKP dostu, AKP tarafından kontrol edilen bir medyanın sevinç çığlıkları ile desteklenen bu Ergenekon davaları asıl süreçle alay etmektedir. Bu davalar genellikle tutarsızlıklarla dolu ithamlara dayanmakta, güvenilirlikleri tartışmalı adı meçhul ihbarcılara inanıldığını ve sistematik savcılık suiistimallerinin varlığını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Suçlamaların dayandırıldığı kanıtlar, hayali olanından kabaca kurgulanılanına kadar gider. Savcılığın asıl amacı sanki itham edilenlerin itibarını düşürmek ve onları mümkün olduğu kadar uzunca bir süre gözaltında tutabilmektir.

Çetin Doğan hakkındaki suçlamalar
Beni kişisel olarak uyandıran alarm, şubat ayında kayınpederim, emekli Orgeneral Çetin Doğan, paralel bir dava için tutuklandığında çaldı. AKP’ye karşı sesi gür çıkan bir muhalif olan Doğan, 2002-2003 yılında yeni seçilmiş hükümeti devirmek için özenle hazırlanmış bir darbe planının lideri olmakla suçlanıyordu. Suçlamalara temel olan belgeler, her zaman olduğu gibi adı meçhul bir ihbarcı tarafından üretilmiş, orijinalliğine ilişkin ciddi kuşkular uyandıran zamanlama hataları, çelişkiler ve yanlışlarla doluydu. Bunların hiçbiri hükümeti yolundan çevirmedi. Savcılar sahteciliğin tüm belirtilerini görmezden geldiler, hükümetin kontrolündeki bilimsel bir kuruluş suçlamalara destek veren açıkça yanıltıcı bir rapor üretti. Ve AKP yanlısı medya, Doğan’a karşı çirkin bir karalama kampanyası başlattı. Erdoğan ve çevresi bir yandan sanıkların lehine karar almaya cesaret edebilen hâkimlere iftiralar atarken bir yandan da saldırılar korosuna katıldı. Doğan, mahkemeyi beklerken onlarca muvazzaf ve emekli askerle birlikte, güvenilir deliller olmamasına ve sahteciliğin açık işaretlerine rağmen aylarca hapishane de tutuldu. Anlaşılmaz bir biçimde bu mesele birçok sözde Türk demokratı ve liberalinin ortak davası haline geldi ve bu insanlar bu davaların amigoluğunu yapar oldular. Herhalde Ergenekon davalarının derin devlete, yani ordu ve sivil müttefiklerinin kurduğu gizli ağlara hesap soracağı ümidini taşıyorlardı. Türkiye’nin AKP öncesi laik düzeninin güçlü antidemokratik eğilimlerin işaretlerine sahip olduğuna dair pek kuşku yoktur. Ama AKP hükümeti asıl suçların ortaya çıkarılması ve gerçek suçluların adaletin önüne getirilmesi konusuna pek fazla ilgi göstermedi. Bazı Ergenekon zanlıları ihlallerden dolayı suçlu da olabilirler. Ama bu kişilerin somut, kanıtlanabilir suçlar yerine, bulanık, kurmaca suçlarla itham edilmeleri adil bir mahkeme sonucuna ulaşma olasılığını yok etmektedir.
Dahası hükümetin kendisi bu ve diğer davalarda, liberallerin lanetlediği ve yargının önüne getirmek istediği türden faaliyetlerin tıpatıp aynısına girişmiştir. Başka örneklere bakalım. Yüksek rütbeli polislerin Ermeni gazeteci Hrant Dink’in Ocak 2007’de öldürülmesi olayında en azından, büyük ölçüde ihmallerinin olduğuna dair hatırı sayılır miktarda kanıt bulunmasına rağmen bu polislerin hiçbiri yargılanmadı. Aynı polislerin bazılarının Ergenekon soruşturmasını da yürütmüş olmaları bir tesadüf değildir. Saygın bir cumhuriyet savcısı, uydurma suçlamalara dayanılarak Ergenekon ağı üyesi olduğu iddiasıyla tutuklandı. Bu savcı 1998-1999 arasında derin devletin kalesi sayılan jandarma haberalma dairesinin üstüne gitmeye cesaret gösterebilen çok az sayıda savcıdan biriydi. Gerçek suçu, AKP ile bağlantısı olan tarikatları soruşturmaktı. Polis ve savcıların Ergenekon sanıkları aleyhine kanıtlarla oynanmasına karıştıklarını gösteren somut işaretler olduğu halde görevini kötüye kullanılmasına ilişkin, bırakın bir soruşturma yapılmasını, herhangi bir açıklama bile gelmedi.
Geride bıraktığı haksızlıkların izlerine bakılarak gelecek yaz yapılacak seçimlerde AKP’nin gücünü kaybetmemek için elinden geleni ardına bırakmayacağı söylenilebilir. Ne yazık ki Erdoğan’ın eğilimi hem iç hem de dış siyasette harareti birkaç derece arttırmak yönünde olacaktır. (Son günlerde İran’la yakınlaşması veya eski dostu İsrail’e karşı gerilim politikası.)
Şu açıktır ki Türkiye artık daha birkaç yıl önce AKP yönetiminde liberalleşen, gelişen demokrasi değil. Artık ABD’nin de Avrupa’nın da ona sanki öyleymiş gibi davranmaktan vazgeçmesinin zamanı geldi. Hem kendi hem de Türk halkının selameti adına…

July 2, 2010
Ottoman Past Shadows Turkish Present

Ankara’s turn against the U.S. on some crucial issues reflects centuries of power plays

By ANDREW MANGO

At its height in the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire stretched from the gates of Vienna to the Indian Ocean. It was the greatest military power in the world. It was also a successful administrator, ruling a multitude of ethnic and religious, settled and nomadic communities—from the Unitarian Hungarians to the Iraqi Turkmen—with great tolerance.

The Bridgeman Art Library‘The Conquest of Belgrade by Sultan Suleyman I,’ a 16th-century depiction of an Ottoman victory.

The Ottoman experience, which forms part of the historical memory of Turkey’s present-day rulers, teaches them that in order to secure what they have, they must outsmart friends and foes alike, learning how to use them rather than be used by them—and how to turn danger into profit.

It’s crucial to keep Turkey’s history in mind today, as the alliance between Turkey and the U.S. appears to grow shakier, primarily over the Middle Eastern policy of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His finger-wagging rhetoric against Israel since its air strikes on Gaza in 2009, culminating in his endorsement of the Turkish Islamic activists who tried to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, did not help U.S. efforts to restart the Middle Eastern peace process. Mr. Erdogan’s ill-timed revival of an old proposal to swap enriched uranium with Iran, followed by his decision to vote in the Security Council against the imposition of further sanctions, served only to increase the threat of conflict.

After the failure of the Ottomans’ attempt to capture Vienna at the end of the 17th century, which revealed their technological backwardness, their main concern was to save the empire from collapse.

They did so for more than two centuries, and achieved periods of prosperity, by exploiting the rivalries of their enemies. The exploitation ran both ways. The European Great Powers made use of Turkey (the name they used for the Ottoman Empire) against each other, as well as to profit from the empire’s vast trading opportunities. At times the Europeans incited the Christian, and later Arab and Albanian, communities to rise against their Ottoman rulers, but nationalists within the empire also invited foreign support.

Turkey’s past has provided other lessons. First, national interests trump friendships, however long-established. From the 16th century to the end of the 18th, the French and the Ottomans had a common enemy in the Habsburgs. As a result, the French disregarded Christian solidarity and sent military contraband to the Turks. Then, when Napoleon defeated the Austrians, he invaded Ottoman Egypt. The Sultan’s government saw that the revolutionary liberty proclaimed in France was a cloak for imperialism. The British supported the Ottomans, first against the French and then against the Tsars’ expansionism, until the beginning of the 20th century when, faced with the threat of a militaristic Germany, Britain wrote off the Ottoman Empire to recruit Russia into the Triple Entente with France. British friendship, like that of the French, the Turks concluded, was fickle.

AlamyMustafa Kemal Atatürk.

Second, divide your enemies. Sultan Abdülhamid II (who ruled from 1876 to 1909) preserved Ottoman rule in Macedonia and the Arab lands for 30 years by pitting the Bulgarians against the Greeks, and threatening Britain and France with the specter of Islamic solidarity.

Third, be realistic: Avoid adventures at all costs and know your limitations. The empire which Abdülhamid had kept together was destroyed in 10 years by the Young Turks, who took over in 1908. They were politically naive but power-hungry young officers, who thought that the institution of a constitutional monarchy would reconcile the conflicting nationalities in the Ottoman Empire. Their one-size-fits-all constitutionalism did unite the various ethnic communities of the empire, but it united them against the Turks, who were then gradually converted to a defensive nationalism of their own. Foreign states that had acquired a privileged position in Ottoman possessions launched preemptive strikes, catching the Young Turks off-balance. In a last desperate gamble, the leaders of the Young Turks propelled their country into World War I on the side of Germany. The jihad, a holy war they proclaimed against the Allies, showed that Islamic solidarity was a myth: Indian Muslims, French Muslim Senegalese and Algerians, and the Tsar’s Tatar subjects fought in the armies of their imperial masters.

Mustafa Kemal (who later took the surname of Atatürk—Father of the Turks) learned from the mistakes of his predecessors. In 1919, at the age of 38, he became the leader of the Turkish national resistance against the Allies’ plans to partition what was left of Turkey. A successful commander who had won his spurs in Gallipoli, and an even better politician, he believed that to hold its own against the West, Turkey had to become part of it. Atatürk played off the major Allies one against the other, and convinced them all that an independent Turkish nation-state was perfectly compatible with their interests. As a result, he had to fight only the Greeks and the Armenians.

Atatürk did not believe in nonalignment: He used alliances where it suited him. In 1934 he became a founder of the Balkan Pact with his western neighbors and erstwhile foes, and, three years later, of the Saadabad Pact with Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, whose Hashemite rulers had fought against Atatürk when he commanded Ottoman forces in Syria during World War I. The Saadabad Pact disproves the myth that Atatürk turned his back on the Middle East. But he knew that the key to progress lay elsewhere: in the West, the center of the universal human civilization he was determined to join. His was not an either/or foreign policy. He cultivated the friendship of the Soviet Union and, at the same time, drew nearer to Britain and France.

Atatürk’s slogan was “Peace at home and peace abroad.” Peace was the key to rebuilding a ruined country and of spreading modern knowledge among its illiterate peasant population. When peace abroad came crashing down with the outbreak of World War II soon after Atatürk’s death, his successor Ismet Inönü managed to keep Turkey out of the hostilities. He used delaying tactics to resist Winston Churchill’s pressure to enter the war on the side of the Allies. He neutralized local nationalists who thought that by joining Germany, Turkey could realize the Young Turks’ dream of creating an empire of Turkic-speaking peoples. Inönü’s tactics raised the hackles of the Allies, but the outbreak of the Cold War came to his aid as he sought support to resist Stalin’s expansionism. The proclamation of the Truman Doctrine in 1947, promising help to Greece and Turkey against the Soviets, ended Turkey’s brief period of isolation and marked the beginning of the American Alliance.

Critics of Turkey today, who complain that the country has drifted away from the West and toward the Middle East, forget that when Turkey sought the security of NATO membership at the beginning of the Cold War, Britain tried to foist on it a role in making the Middle East safe against Soviet subversion, and counter-proposed that Turkey join a Middle East Defense Organization. The leaders of the Democrat Party, who took over from Inönü after Turkey’s first free elections in 1950, saw off that effort by sending troops to Korea and earning U.S. support for Turkey’s NATO membership.

The Bridgeman Art LibrarySultan Bayezid II, who welcomed Jews exiled from Spain.

Turkey’s U.S. alliance soon came under strain. In 1964, when the Greek Cypriots denounced the constitution under which their island had achieved independence four years earlier and attacked their Turkish neighbors, President Lyndon Johnson sent a letter to Ankara, warning that if Turkey intervened, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization guarantee would not apply and NATO weapons could not be used. Inönü, who had returned to power after the hapless Democrat Party leader Adnan Menderes had been ousted by the military (and subsequently hanged), retorted: “If there is to be a new world, so be it! Turkey will find a place in it.”

The Johnson letter raised a wave of anti-Americanism in Turkey, which was given added impetus as student radicalism spread from France to Turkey in 1968. In 1974, when Turkey finally landed troops, and Cyprus was divided along lines that have persisted to this day, the U.S. Congress forced an unwilling administration to impose an arms embargo on Turkey. America, the Turks concluded, was an unreliable ally.

The embargo had two unintended consequences. Turkey developed its own defense industry (using the main U.S. technology under license), and gradually began acquiring (largely U.S.-designed) weaponry from Israel. Turkey had been prompt to recognize Israel, the first Muslim state to do so, on the simple grounds that diplomacy had to recognize reality. But relations were discreet and slow to develop. Israel had from the outset a number of Turkish admirers. A leading Turkish secularist journalist famously called it “a republic of reason.”

It would be silly to claim that Turkey is free of anti-Semitism, but relations between Turks and Jews have been amicable more often than not, since the Ottoman Sultans welcomed Jews expelled from Spain. While anti-Semitism was largely absent, envy of prosperous Christians and Jews was ever-present and peaked during World War II, when a discriminatory capital levy despoiled Christians and Jews alike of most of their wealth. Paradoxically, at the same time, Turkey welcomed a host of German Jewish academics and artists. The insecurity caused by the capital levy led to a mass emigration of Turkish Jews to Israel soon after the creation of the state. But the emigrants bore little animosity toward the country where they and their ancestors had lived and prospered for centuries.

Today, Turkish and U.S. interests have diverged on a number of issues. They coincide on Iraq, whose unity Turkey wants to promote, lest Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites compromise their neighbors’ stability as they fight each other. They differ on Syria, which is a promising destination for Turkish exports and investments, and above all on Iran, which Turkey neither fears nor particularly likes, but with which it hopes to develop profitable economic ties.

View Full Image

CorbisA map of the Turkish empire, circa 1600.

The European Union no longer needs the Turkish security shield, and its electorate, particularly in a period of recession, resists the idea of Turkish membership and the prospect of the free circulation of labor. Russia, no longer a threat, is becoming Turkey’s most important economic partner. The EU still takes more than 40% of Turkish exports and is the country’s main source of investments and tourists, but the prospects of growth lie elsewhere—in trade with producers of oil and gas, which Turkey lacks, including Russia, the Arab countries and Iran.

Turkey has also changed. Its economy, which earns it a place in the G-20, has survived the crisis well, and is growing at a rate second only to China’s. Social change has brought power to conservatives, who dominate the government. But just as Turkish secularists are split between authoritarian and liberal followers of Atatürk, so too Turkish conservatives include fundamentalists (who manned the flotilla to Gaza) and the upwardly mobile followers of the preacher Fethullah Gülen (long resident in Pennsylvania) who want to engage with the modern world.

Finally, there is the unpredictable personal element in political leadership. Mr. Erdogan started as a shrewd calculator of the national interest. Domestic difficulties and a perception of his country’s growing importance seem to have bred in him a desire to cut a figure on the world stage. The lesson of the disasters brought about by the Young Turk adventurers have inspired Turkey’s careful and wise foreign policy. Friends of Turkey can only hope that the same lesson does not have to be learned again.

—Andrew Mango is the author of “Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey” and “From Sultan to Atatürk.”

July 2, 2010
US Supreme Courts Final Decision on Aiding PKK Terrorism
TURKISH FORUM WELLCOMES THE DECISION AND THANKS TO THE US SUPREME COURT

THE US SUPREME COURT RULES:

Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton. HLP sued the United States claiming that providing lobbying, public relations, legal services and other types of assistance to the PKK &LTTE terrorist organizations were freedom of speech protected by the US Constitution.

With a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed, holding freedom of speech does not include materially assisting a group listed as a terrorist organization by the US Department of State. The Supreme Court further held that it is not an excuse or defense that a person did not have knowledge of whether a group he/she was assisting is on the Terror List or whether his/her assistance to such group would further the terrorist acts of the group.

The United States Supreme Court ruling also noted that: “It is not difficult to conclude as Congress did that the “taint” of such violent activities is so great that working in coordination with or at the command of the PKK and LTTE serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

==================================================================================

PKK & Tamil Tiger advocates in U.S. using ‘Freedom of Speech’ right amounts to Aiding Terrorism – US Supreme Court rules

Tue, 2010-06-22 14:25 — editor
Daya Gamage – US National Correspondent Asian Tribune

Washington, D.C. 22 June (Asiantribune.com):

The United States Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts delivering the court’s majority decision Monday, June 21 giving a final blow to advocates of terrorism/separatism of Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and Turkey’s PKK who use American soil said: “under the material-support statute, plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic. They may speak and write freely about the PKK and LTTE, the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights and international law. They may advocate before the United Nations.” But they may not coordinate the speech with those groups on the US terrorist list.”

And drawing a distinction between assisting the group and simply speaking on their behalf, the Chief Justice said, “We in no way suggest that a regulation of independent speech would pass constitutional muster.”

The First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech under the US Constitution does not protect humanitarian groups or others who advise foreign terrorist organizations, even if the support is aimed at legal activities or peaceful settlement of disputes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a case that weighed free speech against national security, the court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a federal law banning “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations. That ban holds, the court said, even when the offerings are not money or weapons but things such as “expert advice or assistance” or “training” intended to instruct in international law or appeals to the United Nations.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion upholding the Material Support statute as applied even to peacemakers. He noted that Congress and the executive branch had both concluded that even benign support like this can benefit terrorist organizations by giving them an air of legitimacy, or allowing such organizations to use negotiations to stall while they regroup from previous losses. What’s more, Roberts said, allowing such peaceful advocacy would undermine U.S. relations with allies, like Turkey, which is in a violent struggle with the PKK. It is vital in this context, he said, not to substitute “our own judgment” for that of Congress and the executive branch. The material support statute, he noted, is a “preventive measure — it criminalizes not terrorist attacks themselves but aid that makes the attacks more likely to occur,” and in this context the government “is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its conclusions.”

The law barring material support was first adopted in 1996 and strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks. It was amended again in 2004.

The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.
The law, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, does not require any proof the defendant intended to further any act of terrorism or violence by the foreign group.

This litigation concerns 18 U. S. C. §2339B, which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” Congress has amended the definition of “material support or resources” periodically, but at present it is defined as follows:

“The term ‘material support or resources’ means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

In full, 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1) provides: “Unlawful Conduct.—
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowl¬edge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization . . ., that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity . . .,

Plaintiffs in this litigation are two U. S. citizens and six domestic organizations: the Humanitarian Law Project HLP) (a human rights organization with consultative status to the United Nations); Ralph Fertig (the HLP’s president, and a retired administrative law judge); Nagalingam Jeyalingam (a Tamil physician, born in Sri Lanka and a naturalized U. S. citizen); and five nonprofit groups dedicated to the interests of persons of Tamil descent.

Plaintiffs claimed that they wished to provide support for the humanitarian and political activities of the PKK and the LTTE in the form of monetary contributions, other tangible aid, legal training, and political advocacy, but that they could not do so for fear of prosecution under §2339B.

As relevant here, plaintiffs claimed that the material support statute was unconstitutional on two grounds:

First, it violated their freedom of speech and freedom of association under the First Amendment, because it criminalized their provision of material support to the PKK and the LTTE, without requiring the Government to prove that plaintiffs had a specific intent to further the unlawful ends of those organizations. Second, plaintiffs argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
Both arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court.

The case is directly connected to Sri Lanka because the Humanitarian Law Project was representing two U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) one of which is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) which claimed during its 26-year armed struggle for a separate independent nation in the north and east of Sri Lanka as the ‘sole representative of the Tamil People’. The outfit was militarily defeated May 2009 within the borders of Sri Lanka eliminating the entire Tamil Tiger leadership but has energized a section of the West-domiciled Tamil Diaspora floating an organization called Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam to diplomatically lobby to achieve ‘self-determination’ for the Sri Lanka Tamil minority (12%), meaning a separate independent state of Eelam.

A meeting of the World Tamil Forum was held recently in London which advocated an economic blockade of Sri Lanka citing war crimes, human rights abuses, genocide against minority Tamils and other atrocities. It was addressed by British Foreign Secretary Miliband and graced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The inaugural meeting of the Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam was held in Philadelphia convened by its provisional held Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran a Sri Lanka-born naturalized US citizen who has a law practice in New York.

The Government of Sri Lanka and its overseas diplomatic representatives in the West have to figure out how to prevent a ‘Kosovo-type situation’ emerging in the international arena which can gather support for the ‘cause’ the proponents of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam seeking.

It is in this context that Sri Lanka which is faced with this challenged overseas from the remnants of the Tamil Tigers who are connected to the Humanitarian Law Project which challenged some provisions of the ‘Material Support Law’ which was rejected by the US Supreme Court on Monday.

Following are salient sections of the Supreme Court ruling:

(Begin Excerpts) (d) As applied to plaintiffs, the material-support statute does not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

(1) Both plaintiffs and the Government take extreme positions on this question. Plaintiffs claim that Congress has banned their pure political speech. That claim is unfounded because, under the material-support statute, they may say anything they wish on any topic. Section 2339B does not prohibit independent advocacy or membership in the PKK and LTTE. Rather, Congress has prohibited “material support,” which most often does not take the form of speech.

And when it does, the statute is carefully drawn to cover only a narrow category of speech to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.

On the other hand, the Government errs in arguing that the only thing actually at issue here is conduct, not speech, and that the correct standard of review is intermediate scrutiny, as set out in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377. That standard is not used to review a content-based regulation of speech, and §2339B regulates plaintiffs’ speech to the PKK and the LTTE on the basis of its content.

Even if the material-support statute generally functions as a regulation of conduct, as applied to plaintiffs the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message. Thus, the Court “must [apply] a more demanding standard” than the one described in O’Brien. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 403

(2) The parties agree that the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order, but plaintiffs argue that this objective does not justify prohibiting their speech, which they say will advance only the legitimate activities of the PKK and LTTE. Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. Congress rejected plaintiffs’ position on that question when it enacted §2339B, finding that “foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” §301(a), 110 Stat. 1247, note following §2339B.

The record confirms that Congress was justified in rejecting plaintiffs’ view. The
PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of their violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means.

Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways. The record shows that designated foreign terrorist organizations do not maintain organizational firewalls between social, political, and terrorist operations, or financial firewalls between funds raised for humanitarian activities and those used to carry out terrorist attacks. Providing material support in any form would also undermine cooperative international efforts to prevent terrorism and strain the United States’ relationships with its allies, including those that are defending themselves against violent insurgencies waged by foreign terrorist groups.

(3) The Court does not rely exclusively on its own factual inferences drawn from the record evidence, but considers the Executive Branch’s stated view that the experience and analysis of Government agencies charged with combating terrorism strongly support Congress’s finding that all contributions to foreign terrorist organizations—even those for seemingly benign purposes—further those groups’ terrorist activities. That evaluation of the facts, like Congress’s assessment, is entitled to deference, given the sensitive national security and foreign relations interests at stake.

The Court does not defer to the Government’s reading of the First Amendment. But respect for the Government’s factual conclusions is appropriate in light of the courts’ lack of expertise with respect to national security and foreign affairs, and the reality that efforts to confront terrorist threats occur in an area where information can be difficult to obtain, the impact of certain conduct can be difficult to assess, and conclusions must often be based on informed judgment rather than concrete evidence. The Court also finds it significant that Congress has been conscious of its own responsibility to consider how its actions may implicate constitutional concerns.

Most importantly, Congress has avoided any restriction on independent advocacy, or indeed any activities not directed to, coordinated with, or controlled by foreign terrorist groups. Given the sensitive interests in national security and foreign affairs at stake, the political branches have adequately substantiated their determination that prohibiting material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel, and services to foreign terrorist groups serves the Government’s interest in preventing terrorism, even if those providing the support mean to promote only the groups’ nonviolent ends.

It simply holds that §2339B does not violate the freedom of speech as applied to the particular types of support these plaintiffs seek to provide.

(e) Nor does the material-support statute violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of association. Plaintiffs argue that the statute criminalizes the mere fact of their associating with the PKK and the LTTE, and thereby runs afoul of this Court’s precedents. The Ninth Circuit correctly rejected this claim because §2339B does not penalize mere association, but prohibits the act of giving foreign terrorist groups material support. Any burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of association caused by preventing them from supporting designated foreign terrorist organizations, but not other groups, is justified for the same reasons the Court rejects their free speech challenge.

Plaintiffs want to speak to the PKK and the LTTE, and whether they may do so under §2339B depends on what they say. If plaintiffs’ speech to those groups imparts a “specific skill” or communicates advice derived from “specialized knowledge”—for example, training on the use of international law or advice on petitioning the United Nations— then it is barred.

Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted §2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism.

One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the PKK and LTTE: “[F]oreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.”

Plaintiffs argue that the reference to “any contribution” in this finding meant only monetary support. There is no reason to read the finding to be so limited, particularly because Congress expressly prohibited so much more than monetary support in §2339B. Congress’s use of the term “contribution” is best read to reflect a determination that any form of material support furnished “to” a foreign terrorist organization should be barred, which is precisely what the material-support statute does. Indeed, when Congress enacted §2339B, Congress simultaneously removed an exception that had existed in §2339A(a) for the provision of material support in the form of “humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in” terrorist activity. That repeal demonstrates that Congress considered and rejected the view that ostensibly peaceful aid would have no harmful effects.

We are convinced that Congress was justified in rejecting that view. The PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. “The PKK’s insurgency has claimed more than 22,000 lives.” The LTTE has engaged in extensive suicide bombings and political assassinations, including killings of the Sri Lankan President, Security Minister, and Deputy Defense Minister. (End Excerpts)

The United States Supreme Court ruling also noted that: “It is not difficult to conclude as Congress did that the “taint” of such violent activities is so great that working in coordination with or at the command of the PKK and LTTE serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

– Asian Tribune –
June 24, 2010
Turkey forced Israeli to blink–’freezes’ $56 billion defense deals
İlgi cekici bir analiz
asagida sunulmakta
Pulat Tacar

Posted on June 21, 2010 by The Editors
Turkey has the leverage of financial pressure and it is surely using it on Tel Aviv. Israelis understand the concept of money, and Ankara is pushing all the right buttons, hitting them hard where it matters. The question being asked in diplomatic circles is, will the financial pressure on the military industrial complex of Israel force a change in Mr. Natenyahu’s policy towards the Palestinians? Israel has never had to face this sort of economic pressure in its history. The US and Western Europe cannot make up $56 billion and other ongoing losses. Will it force Tel Aviv to pause and think? The Israeli military is hard pressed to find alternate places to get information on Iran. The fiasco with the Turks is costing them a lot of money at a time when they are facing international approbation.

Turkey is reported to have frozen at least 16 arms deals with Israel worth an estimated $56 billion

Contracts were suspended after the Israeli government refused to apologize for the May 31 killing of nine Turks

Just a matter of time before Ankara officially froze all defense deals with Israel

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has warned that Ankara would not rule out breaking off diplomatic ties if three demands — an international probe, a public Israeli apology and lifting the three-year-old blockade on Gaza — are not met.

“If the United States cannot be relied upon to pressure Israel on meeting these demands, Ankara will have to find some lever to do so itself,” the U.S.-based global security consultancy Stratfor observed in an analysis Tuesday.

“One such lever may be military and intelligence cooperation, which Israel has historically relied upon.

In all probability, there will be intense pressure on the government of Mr. Natenyahu to crawl back on the steadfast positions that it has taken. Israeli has already loosened the embargo, and if President Obama is to place additional pressure, the military will force Mr. Natenyahu to retreat, apologize, and work it out with the Turks. The change in two intelligence chiefs within a few weeks have raised eyebrows in Turkey. First the Afghan President removed the Pro-Indian chief of the Afghan Intelligence Services (RAMA), and the Turks appointed the 42 year old Hakan Fidan who has been a close adviser to Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. Hakan Fidan was named chief of the Milli Istihbarat Teskilati, Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, known as MIT. Both are considered the architect of Erdogan’s expansionist policy, for several years. Hakan Fidan is viewed with deep suspicion by Israel for several reasons, one of which is that he was formulated the uranium transfer deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran proposed in May. Turkey voted against the sanctions on Iran.

TEL AVIV, Israel, June 18 — Turkey is reported to have frozen at least 16 arms deals with Israel worth an estimated $56 billion, including missile projects and upgrading combat aircraft and tanks, in a major escalation of its confrontation with the Jewish state.

The Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman reported Friday that the contracts were suspended after the Israeli government refused to apologize for the May 31 killing of nine Turks when Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-flagged vessel carrying humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip.

There was no official confirmation of the report in either Israel or Turkey. But relations between the two former allies have been crumbling since Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ferociously denounced Israel’s invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip Dec. 27, 2008.

The Israeli daily Haaretz quoted defense ministry sources as saying it was probably just a matter of time before Ankara officially froze all defense deals with Israel.

On Monday, state-run Israel Aerospace Industries, flagship of the Jewish state’s defense industry, and Elbit Systems ordered all their engineers, flight instructors and other employees based in Turkey to return home.

Haaretz said the 16 projects being frozen include a $5 billion contract for 1,000 Merkava Mark III main battle tanks designed by Israel Military Industries — the Israeli army is equipping with Merkava Mark IV models — a $50 million upgrade of Turkey’s M-60 tanks, an $800 million deal for two Israeli patrol aircraft and an Airborne Warning and Control System jet.

Turkey was also planning a $625.5 million deal for 54 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom strike aircraft to be upgraded to Phantom 2020 standard, and a $75 million program to upgrade 48 of the air force’s 87 Northrop F-5/F-5B fighter-bombers as lead-in trainers.

Relations nosedived in October 2009 when Turkey canceled Israel’s participation in NATO air exercises. Turkey complained that IAI had delayed delivery of six of 10 Heron long-range unmanned aerial vehicles ordered by the Turkish military in a $185 million 2005 contract.

Last April, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that the Israel defense ministry froze the sale of advanced military platforms to Turkey because of mounting anti-Israeli rhetoric from Erdogan’s government.

The ministry’s foreign defense assistance and export procurement department also decided to review all Turkish requests for military equipment on a case-by-case basis.

Turkey has been a major importer of Israeli military hardware and defense expertise since the two countries signed a military cooperation pact in 1996.

That landmark alliance between the two major non-Arab military powers in the Middle East dramatically changed the region’s strategic landscape.

Israeli pilots trained in Turkey and, according to some reports, Israel set up intelligence-gathering stations on Turkey’s borders with Syria and Iran.

In the past, the Turks had preserved military cooperation with Israel, particularly the arms deals and joint exercises that formed the core of their strategic alliance, even when treatment of the Palestinians stirred widespread anger among Turkey’s overwhelmingly Muslim population.

But the May 31 killings, and Israel’s dogged refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the bloodletting, has incensed the Turkish nation.

The Financial Times quoted Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, as saying Ankara could be forced to sever all ties with Israel, although he stressed: “We don’t want this to go to that point.”

The unraveling of military links, including intelligence-sharing that Israeli leaders valued extremely highly because of Turkey’s proximity to Iran, underlined the seriousness of the current confrontation.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said he does not trust Israel to carry out an impartial review of the May 31 incident, rather than be subjected to an international investigation.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has warned that Ankara would not rule out breaking off diplomatic ties if three demands — an international probe, a public Israeli apology and lifting the three-year-old blockade on Gaza — are not met.

“If the United States cannot be relied upon to pressure Israel on meeting these demands, Ankara will have to find some lever to do so itself,” the U.S.-based global security consultancy Stratfor observed in an analysis Tuesday.

“One such lever may be military and intelligence cooperation, which Israel has historically relied upon. Turkey has already downgraded cooperation and rumors have surfaced that Israeli intelligence operatives may be expelled from a radar post on Turkish soil near the border with Iran.” (UPI)

AS IF anticipating its next capitulation, government spokesmen told the media that in addition to ending economic sanctions on Gaza, Israel is now considering permitting the EU to station inspectors at its land crossings into Gaza.

That is, Israel is considering a move that will constitute a first step towards surrendering its sovereign control over its borders.

According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Jerusalem Post

The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that Tel Aviv has not yet felt the full effect of the Gaza flotilla. According to the newspaper, Israel will soon face more flotillas, even if the departure of ships from Lebanon is being delayed for now as a result of pressure by the U.S. and EU on Beirut.

The Harretz says that the showdown has forced Israel’s hand. “The cabinet’s decision Sunday to ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip means, for the most part, an end to the siege on Hamas’ rule in the territory. And it’s more than a victory on points for Hamas and the Turkish government. It’s a genuine achievement for what is described as the muqawama (the resistance ) – the radical alliance of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and recently also Turkey”.

Haaretz feels that Israel will face a lot more pressure. “On the strategic level, all the bad effects of the flotilla have not been accounted for yet. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority reversed its decision to hold municipal elections, fearing that the Israeli interdiction of the flotilla would boost Hamas’ popularity. On the border with the Gaza Strip, the Rafah crossing is open most of the time because Egypt did not want to look like it was collaborating with Israel. Hamas, meanwhile, believes that it has found new strategic depth in the form of Turkey; the group’s behavior over the past three years had completely lost it support in Cairo.

For all these reasons, we must assume that Israel will soon face more flotillas, even if the departure of ships from Lebanon is being delayed for now as a result of pressure by the United States and European Union on Beirut.” Jerusalem Post.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Terror Scare Back in Tel Aviv?

Filed under: Current Affairs | Tagged: Hakan Fidan, Turkish-Israeli relations

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

One Response

Levo, on June 21, 2010 at 11:52 pm Said:

Turkey may be the only nation capable of rehabilitating the (unofficially) rogue nation of Israel!

Turkey asserted itself as the new sherriff in town and tiny Israel will have to take notice from now on. It will be far more difficult for Israel to have a free hand in massacering defenseless Palestinian civilia
June 23, 2010
Wait and See Game for Turkey’s Enforcement of UN Sanctions on Iran
Dorian Jones | IstanbuL

21 June 2010

Photo: AFP

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flashes the V-sign for victory as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan looks on after the Islamic republic inked a nuclear fuel swap deal in Tehran (File Photo – 17 May 2010)
Related Articles
Turkey Troops, Kurdish Rebels Clash Near Iraq Border

US Defense Secretary: Europe Pushing Turkey ‘Eastward’

Israel Moves to Repair Relations With Turkey
This month, Turkey voted against the United Nations Security Council’s fourth round of sanctions against Iran. With Turkey’s Islamic rooted government increasing its economic ties with Iran in the past few years, fears are arising that the pivotal Western ally is in danger of swinging eastward because of resistance in Europe to its bid for membership of the European Union.

Despite growing international tensions over Iran’s nuclear energy program, the Turkish government has forged ahead with energy deals with Iran, expanding its dependency on energy with the nation.

These deals put Turkey in a precarious situation: to enforce or not to enforce the UN sanctions imposed on its neighbor Iran.

Turkey has long been seen as a bridge between East and West. But its belief that sanctions are ineffective and that there are dangers in pushing the Islamic republic into a corner is likely to change its relationship with Western nations.

Earlier this month Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu expressed concern over the existing sanctions against Iran.

AP

“Turkey and Iran’s trade volume is around $10 billion,” he says. “And it can rise to $30 billion if sanctions are lifted.”

Iran’s energy resources are seen as important by Ankara to break its dependency on Russian energy.

Iran expert Gokhan Cetinsayar of Sehir University says that in addition to its dependency on gas, there are other trade initiatives with Iran that are economically key to Turkey.

“75,000 trucks going on between Turkey and Iran every year,” said Cetinsayar. “Now there are energy deals. You know how important the Iranian natural gas and all other agreements and initiatives are economically important for Turkey.

With large families usually depending for their livelihoods on cargo trucks, its estimated as many a million Turkish people depend on Iranian trade.

With its increasing economic ties with Iran, there are growing fears that Turkey will balk at enforcing the UN sanctions against Iran.

Turkish foreign minister spokesman Burak Ozugergin says Turkey has already paid a heavy economic price for UN policies with another of its neighbors, Iraq.

“At the beginning of the 90’s, the Turkish volume of trade with Iraq was around the 15 to 20 percent mark of our total volume of trade. The next year, after the imposition of sanctions, this trickled down to almost zero,” said Ozugergin. “Money is not everything. But at least if it did work then we might be able to say to our public, ‘look it was for a good a cause.’ But can we really honestly say that looking back? For Iran again we don’t think it will help to solve the nuclear issue and perhaps may work against it.”

The new sanctions on Iran are expected to cut into the present $10 billion trade volume. It could possibly undermine its energy policy as well. But political scientist Nuray Mert of Istanbul University say some western nations may now not be able to depend on Turkey.

“I was inclined to think that at the end of the day Turkey will join the club when it comes to realization of these sanctions,” she said. “But nowadays I can see the government is planning to avoid these sanctions. Because now we have Turkey signing a lot of economic agreements, against the policy of sanctions.”

For now Turkey has remained circumspect over enforcing new sanctions. One foreign ministry official said “you will have to wait and see.” Analysts say Iran would probably reward any breaking of sanctions with lucrative energy deals. But the political cost could be high because of Turkey’s aspirations for joining the EU. The coming weeks will see Ankara facing a difficult a choice.
June 22, 2010
Turkey’s Hollow Prize

Freedom’s Edge

Turkey’s Hollow Prize

Claudia Rosett, 06.18.10, 11:21 AM EDT

Washington’s Woodrow Wilson Center dishonors its own public service award.

Canada Free Press
June 19 2010

By Claudia Rosett Friday, June 18, 2010
– Forbes

It’s time Congress pulled the plug on Washington’s taxpayer-subsidized
Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, which has turned
itself into a global joke. With Turkey’s leaders coquetting as the new
best bedfellows of Iran and embracing the terrorists of Hamas, the
Wilson Center has just bestowed its `Public Service’ award on Turkey’s
foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu.

In tandem with rewarding Davutoglu for catalyzing `the development of
Turkey’s foreign relations,’ the Wilson Center also honored a Turkish
business tycoon, Ferit Sahenk, with its Woodrow Wilson Award for
Corporate Citizenship. The two winners received their prizes at a
banquet held Thursday evening at the plush Four Seasons Hotel in
Istanbul.

In a June 8 press release the Wilson Center’s president, former
congressman Lee Hamilton, explained that Davutoglu and Sahenk had been
chosen because `These two leaders personify the attributes we seek to
honor at the Woodrow Wilson Center.’ I mean no insult to Sahenk’whose
prizeworthy business skills I don’t question’but it’s hard to escape
the conclusion that the chief attributes the Wilson Center has just
sought to honor in Istanbul are antagonism toward American values
(Davutoglu) and enormous amounts of money (Sahenk).

Created in 1968 by an act of Congress, the Wilson Center describes
itself on its website as a `nonpartisan institute,’ a `living,
national memorial’ to President Woodrow Wilson, charged with
`symbolizing and strengthening the fruitful relations between the
world of learning and the world of public affairs.’ Functioning as a
`public-private partnership,’ the Wilson Center in recent times has
been receiving roughly one-third of its yearly operating funds from
the U.S. government (in other words, from U.S. taxpayers). Thus
credentialed by Congress and anchored in federal subsidies, it
attracts the rest of its money from a global array of public and
private sources. Its current annual expenses are budgeted at more than
$37.3 million.

Housed on prime real estate, just blocks from the White House, the
Wilson Center occupies, ironically enough, a lavishly appointed
eight-story wing of the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building. It
has a big vestibule with polished granite and marble floors, some of
Wilson’s words chiseled in stone, and multiple levels of roomy offices
and meeting rooms, ample armchairs, a cafeteria and a private library.
All this is supposed to serve the Center’s aim `to shed the light of
the timeless on the timely.’

>From this perch, with atrocious timing, the Wilson Center last August
invited Davutoglu to receive its public service award this June, `in
recognition of his lifelong service to the Turkish public.’

This is a bizarre spin on Davutoglu’s major role in steering the
Turkish state away from its former democratic allies such as the U.S.
and Israel and toward its current collaboration with the tyrannies of
Syria and Iran, and the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hamas. Author of
a treatise titled `Strategic Depth,’ proposing a sweeping rethink of
Turkish policy, Davutoglu has been a core player in Turkey’s
increasingly anti-Western slant since Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and his Islamic AK Party won power in 2002. In May 2009
Davutoglu became foreign minister. Since then, Turkey’s shift toward
Iran has achieved warp speed.

In recent weeks Turkey’s leaders have backed a flotilla led by a
terror-linked Turkish foundation, IHH, aiming to break Israel’s
blockade against weapons reaching Iranian-backed terrorists in Gaza.
Last month Turkey tried to deflect new sanctions on Iran, partnering
in Tehran on a farcical uranium swap proposal with Brazil’s President
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (winner last year of the Wilson Public
Service award) and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (candidate for
next year’s Wilson award?). This month, in the United Nations Security
Council, Turkey, along with Brazil, spurned the U.S. and voted against
new sanctions on Iran.

In all this Davutoglu has been a prime player, at one point likening
the deaths of eight weapons-wielding Turkish `peace activists’ in the
terror-linked Gaza flotilla to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that
killed thousands of innocents in the U.S.

These were just some of the offenses cited by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D.,
N.Y.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South
Asia, in a June 15 letter urging Lee Hamilton to rescind the Wilson
Center award to Davutoglu. Describing Turkey’s foreign policy under
Davutoglu as `rife with illegality, irresponsibility and hypocrisy,’
Ackerman highlighted Turkey’s continuing denial of the 1915 Armenian
genocide and its current backing for both the genocidal regime in
Sudan and the Holocaust-denying regime in Iran.

Apparently that’s all OK with the Wilson Center, where `our
nonpartisan work’ seems headed these days toward the global surrender
of any principles whatsoever. A press officer there explained in an
email this week that `Awardees are not chosen for their political
views.’

But it seems they are sometimes chosen for their fundraising
potential. On that score, the spokeswoman in the same e-mail wrote
that `These Awards Dinners have been critical for helping to raise
some of the funding the Wilson Center needs.’ She continued, `In 2009,
the Center identified Istanbul as an international city where a
fundraising event of this kind would be viable.’

Davutoglu’s co-honoree in Istanbul Thursday evening, Ferit Sahenk,
happens to be one of the wealthiest men in Turkey. Head of the Dogus
Holding business conglomerate founded by his father, Sahenk shows up
on the Forbes list of World Billionaires with a net worth of $2.1
billion.

With the Wilson Center giving Sahenk its Award for Corporate
Citizenship, have Sahenk or any of his Turkish cohorts pledged money
to the Wilson Center? When I asked that question of the Center on
Thursday afternoon, apparently no one could say , despite 12
`development’ workers listed on the staff. I was passed along to
another spokeswoman, who said she would look into it, but `People have
to jump through hoops to get this information.’

The way the Wilson Center puts it, Congress has been urging them `to
raise more funding from private sources.’ Another way of looking at
it, however, is that with Congress continuing to pour in money, the
Wilson Center has been able to leverage its congressionally created
and subsidized status into an ability to raise additional tens of
millions all over the map’but to keep growing, it wants yet more.
Among the top donors listed in the Center’s 2008-09 annual report,
chipping in amounts for that period ranging from $100,000 to $2.5
million apiece, are several that are themselves funded by U.S. tax
dollars. These include the U.S. Agency for International Development,
the U.S. State Department and the United Nations Development Program
(which receives hundreds of millions annually from the U.S.
government).

Other top donors include: George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the
Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Exxon
Mobil Corporation, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
Embassy of Mexico, Brazil’s Grupo EBX , South Korea’s LG Electronics,
the Fellowship Fund for Pakistan and `Anonymous.’ United Airlines is
listed as `The Official and Exclusive Airline Sponsor of the Woodrow
Wilson Awards and the Woodrow Wilson Center.’

Now comes the Davutoglu award, with its message that the Wilson Center
in bestowing its favors is willing to treat even the most flagrantly
anti-American views (and deeds) as irrelevant, while collecting money
around the globe. Why should Congress keep fueling this morally blank,
misleading and venal exercise with millions of American tax dollars?

June 22, 2010