Turkish Forum English

Tag: Politics

  • BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS,

    BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS,

    AZERBAIJAN: BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS, STEPS UP ANTI-WESTERN RHETORIC
    Shahin Abbasov 12/04/09

    Azerbaijani officials have taken aim at the West in recent weeks, in what some analysts believe could be an attempt to secure Russia’s support for a Baku-friendly settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

    The most surprising proposal in recent days to come out of Baku was a call for Russia to reestablish a military presence in Azerbaijan; Russian troops departed the country in 1993, and no mention had been made, until now, about their possible return.

    On November 26, MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev proposed that Azerbaijan should join the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Moscow-dominated military pact, and allow Russia to establish a military base in Azerbaijan. Hasanguliyev, a leader of the United Popular Front of Azerbaijan Party, presented the idea as a trade-off for Russian recognition of “Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh.”

    Although Baku’s national security strategy, approved in 2007, clearly defines “pursuing Euro-Atlantic integration” as a diplomatic priority for Azerbaijan, Hasanguliyev and others now complain that Baku has received little from the West in exchange for its interest in closer ties. Georgia’s own experience with the Atlantic Alliance suggests that Azerbaijan would never gain NATO membership, Hasanguliyev contended. Baku has not applied to join the Brussels-based military alliance.

    Representatives of the government and the governing Yeni Azerbaijan Party have not disavowed Hasanguliyev’s statement. Moreover, the statement appears to be part of a trend. At a November 20 conference in Baku organized by the presidential administration’s Center for Strategic Research, the United States and European Union came in for heavy criticism for their alleged failure to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Russia, which mediates the talks along with France and the United States, escaped censure. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    The pressure recently put on Armenia and Turkey to sign protocols on rapprochement “has never happened on the Karabakh issue,” charged Novruz Mammadov, head of the presidential administration’s Foreign Policy Department. Such an imbalance could lead to changes in Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, he suggested. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    Mammadov went on to accuse the West of ingratitude for Azerbaijan’s cooperation with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The lack of economic assistance for the $1 billion Mammadov says Azerbaijan lost from the 2008 economic crisis shows that “the West forgot us and helped Armenia,” he said.

    Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Ziyafet Askerov went a step further: Since force has been shown to be more effective than international law — a reference to the 2008 Georgia-Russia war and recognition of Kosovo — “the Karabakh conflict [could] be solved by the Azerbaijani army,” he threatened. “US foreign policy has become a hostage of the Armenian lobby,” he added.

    Discontent over Western criticism of the trial of two Azerbaijani bloggers – “Western media wrote more about the bloggers’ trial than about the Karabakh conflict since it began,” Novruz Mammadov claimed – and perceived NATO ingratitude for the 90 Azerbaijani peacekeepers serving in Afghanistan has added to the chill.

    Baku analysts are divided over the cause of this rhetoric.

    Azerbaijan’s irritation that more progress has been made on rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey than with the Karabakh peace process, now in its 15th year, could be driving Baku’s criticism of the West, believes Elhan Shahingolu, director of the Atlas Center for Political Research. “After the Turkish-Armenian protocols, Azerbaijan feels itself isolated and needs fast progress on the Karabakh issue,” Shahinoglu said.

    Russia’s absence from the criticism of the Karabakh mediators indicates that Baku hopes that “increased volumes of gas supplies and wider economic cooperation” mean that “Moscow would help in the Karabakh conflict,” Shahinoglu added. Annual trade turnover between Azerbaijan and Russia currently stands at $2.5 billion.

    After a November 24 meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at which the Karabakh conflict was discussed, an upbeat Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev declared that “if every country would have such relations as exist between Russia and Azerbaijan, there would be no problems in the world,” news agencies reported.

    Another political analyst, Zafar Guliyev, believes that more than the Karabakh conflict stands behind Baku’s anti-Western statements. An uptick in Western criticism of Azerbaijan’s democratization and human rights record – particularly the recent sentencing of two youth activists to prison terms — could play a role, too, he said. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    As Baku sees the West start to stick its neck out on such issues, the Azerbaijani government feels obliged to nudge it back into place, Guliyev noted. “In 2009, the Western powers and Turkey undertook efforts to reinforce their positions in the South Caucasus, and it is likely that some forces in the Azerbaijani government are concerned that the balance between the West and Russia [in the region], which always helped Baku to maneuver, could be broken,” Guliyev said.

    Both experts, however, believe that the rhetoric does not signal an official foreign policy line. The comments “so far” are “more muddled and emotional statements than a defined concept,” noted Guliyev.

    Shahinoglu, who opposes closer ties with Moscow, also believes that Baku is unlikely to change horses in mid-stream. “Azerbaijan has been pursuing Euro-Atlantic integration for more than 15 years and such abrupt changes now would not deliver anything positive,” he said.

    Editor’s Note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance correspondent based in Baku. He is also a board member of the Open Society Institute-Azerbaijan.

    Posted December 4, 2009 © Eurasianet

  • Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey after meeting

    Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey after meeting

    The White House

    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release
    December 07, 2009


    Oval Office

    1:25 P.M. EST

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I want to extend the warmest of welcomes to Prime Minister Erdogan.  I’m glad that I, personally, and the American people have a chance to reciprocate the wonderful hospitality that was extended to me when I visited Turkey in April.

    As I said when I had the great honor of addressing the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, I am strongly committed to creating the best possible relationship between Turkey and the United States.

    Turkey is a NATO ally, which means that we are pledged to defend each other.  There are strong ties between our countries as a consequence of the Turkish American community that has been established here.  We have had the opportunity to work together during this recent financial crisis, given Turkey’s role as a member of the G20.  And given Turkey’s history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role I think in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.

    During the course of our discussions here, we’ve had the opportunity to survey a wide range of issues that both the United States and Turkey are concerned about.  I thanked Prime Minister Erdogan and the Turkish people for their outstanding contributions to stabilizing Afghanistan.  We discussed our joint role in helping Iraq achieve the kind of independence and prosperity that I think has been advanced as a consequence of the election law finally being passed over the weekend.

    We discussed issues of regional peace, and I indicated to the Prime Minister how important it is to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capacity in a way that allows Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy but provides assurances that it will abide by international rules and norms, and I believe that Turkey can be an important player in trying to move Iran in that direction.

    And we discussed the continuing role that we can play as NATO allies in strengthening Turkey’s profile within NATO and coordinating more effectively on critical issues like missile defense.

    I also congratulated the Prime Minister on some courageous steps that he has taken around the issue of normalizing Turkish/Armenian relations, and encouraged him to continue to move forward along this path.

    We reaffirmed the shared commitment to defeat terrorist activity regardless of where it occurs.  I expressed condolences to the Prime Minister and the Turkish people for the recent terrorist attack that was taken there and pledged U.S. support in trying to bring the perpetrators of this violence to justice.

    And finally, I complimented the Prime Minister for the steps that he’s taken, often very difficult steps, in reintegrating religious minorities and ethnic minorities within Turkey into the democratic and political process, and indicated to him that we want to be as supportive as possible in further steps that he can take, for example, assuring the continuation of the Halki Seminary and addressing the vital needs of continuing the ecumenical patriarchy within Turkey.

    Over all, just to summarize, I am incredibly optimistic about the prospect of stronger and stronger ties between the United States and Turkey that will be based not only on our NATO relationship, our military-to-military relationship, our strategic relationship, but also increasing economic ties.

    And one of the concrete outcomes of this trip is to follow through on discussions that I had with both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul in Turkey to stand up a strategic working group around economic issues and improving commercial ties.  That will be launched with the participation of Secretary of Commerce Locke and our U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk, along with Turkish counterparts.  And we think that there is enormous potential for us to grow trade and commercial ties between the two countries.

    Turkey is a great country.  It is growing in influence around the world.  And I am pleased that America can call Turkey a friend, and I’m pleased that I’m able to call Prime Minister Erdogan personally a friend.  I’m grateful for his trip here and look forward to many years of collaboration with him to observe both the prosperity of the American people and the Turkish people.

    Thank you.

    PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN:  (As translated.)  Thank you very much.  I’m very grateful for the hospitality that both myself and my delegation have been shown since our arrival here.  And I would like to once again express my thanks for that hospitality.

    The fact that the President visited Turkey on his first overseas trip and that he described and characterized Turkish-U.S. relations as a model partnership has been very important for us politically and in the process that we all look forward to in the future as well.  And important steps are now being taken in order to continue to build on our bilateral relations so as to give greater meaning to the term “model partnership.”
    Of course, there are many sides to the development of this relationship — be it in the economic area, in the areas of science, art, technology, political areas and military areas.

    We have also appointed two people from our side to act as counterparts in order to liaise with their American counterparts to continue on this process.  Those two people are the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan; and the Minister of State responsible for economic affairs, Mr. Zafer Caglayan on the Turkish side.  I do believe that this group is going to work to take the Turkish-American relations forward, not just in the economic area, but in all areas in general.

    We, of course, have — we take joint steps on regional issues.  This is in the Middle East, in Iraq, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program.  We continue to have joint activity in Afghanistan, and the Turkish armed forces have taken over the command of the forces there for a third time with the additional support that we have sent to Afghanistan in the last couple of months.  And there are steps that we have taken with respect to training activity and other activities in the context of provisional reconstruction teams, and we continue on that.  We’ve had an opportunity to continue discussing those issues during our visit here.

    Another important area, of course, is energy.  Turkey is a transit country for energy issues.  And the agreement has been signed for Nabucco and we are ready to take some important steps with respect to Nabucco.

    We continue to talk with Azerbaijan.  I do believe that positive progress will be made in this area.  In addition to Azerbaijan, of course, there is the importance of companies like Statoil, Total, and British Petroleum and others.

    We have also discussed relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is of great importance.  This is important in the context of Turkish-Armenian relations.  We have discussed the Minsk Group and what the Minsk Group can do — the United States, Russia, and France  — to add more impetus to that process.  I can say that to have more impetus in the Minsk process is going to have a very positive impact on the overall process, because the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia is very much related to these issues.  As the administration in Turkey, we are determined to move forward in this area.

    Another important issue with respect for us in Turkey is the fight against terrorism.  And there was a statement that was made in this very room on the 5th of November 2007, which was very important in that context, because at the time we had declared the separatist terrorist organization as the common enemy of the United States, Turkey, and Iraq, because terrorism is the enemy of all mankind.

    Our sensitivity and response to terrorism is what we have displayed when the twin towers were hit here in the United States.  Wherever a terrorist attack takes place our reaction is always the same, because terrorism does not have a religion — a homeland.  They have no homeland, no religion whatsoever.

    We have also had opportunity to discuss what we can do jointly in the region with regard to nuclear programs.  We as Turkey stand ready to do whatever we can to ensure a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in our region.  And we stand ready as Turkey to do whatever we can do with respect to relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, because I do believe that, first and foremost, the United States, too, has important responsibility in trying to achieve global peace.

    And we, too, must lend all kinds of support that we can in our regions and — in our respective regions and in the world in general in trying to achieve global peace, because this is not the time to make enemies, it’s the time to make friends.  And I believe that we must move hand in hand towards a bright future.

    Thank you once again.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.

    All right, where’s Ben Feller?  There you are.

    Q    Thank you sir.  I’d like to ask you briefly about a domestic issue, that being the economy, heading to your speech tomorrow.  Do you support the use of federal bailout money to fund job creation programs?  Is that an appropriate use of that money?  Is that something that you plan to support tomorrow?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  You know, Ben, it would be a mistake for me to step on my speech tomorrow by giving you the headline today.

    Q    Not that big a mistake.  (Laughter.)

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  But let me speak generally about what we’ve seen.  On Friday we got the best jobs report that we’ve gotten in a very long time.  And it significantly beat expectations.  At minimum, it showed that for all practical purposes, we’ve stopped losing jobs.  And that’s consistent with the fact that in the third quarter we saw the economy grow.

    My first job when I came into office was to make sure that we got the financial crisis under control and that we tried to limit the devastating effects that it was having on the real economy.  We have had a very tough year, and we’ve lost millions of jobs.  But at least now we are moving in the right direction.

    What my speech tomorrow will focus on is the fact that having gotten the financial crisis under control.  Having finally moved into positive territory when it comes to economic growth, our biggest challenge now is making sure that job growth matches up with economic growth.  And what we’ve seen is, is that companies shed jobs very quickly, partly induced by the panic of what was happening on Wall Street, and they are still tentative about hiring back all those people who were laid off.  Also what we’re seeing is some long-term trends where companies are becoming so efficient in terms of productivity that they may feel that they can produce the same amount of goods or services without as many employees.

    So those present some particular challenges, given the fact that we lost over 3 million jobs just in the first quarter of this year before any of the steps we took had a chance to take effect.

    With respect to TARP specifically, I think you saw stories today and you’ve seen stories over the last several weeks that TARP has turned out to be much cheaper than we had expected, although not cheap.  It means that some of that money can be devoted to deficit reduction.  And the question is are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP — for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending — that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?

    And I will be addressing that tomorrow.  But I do think that, although we’ve stabilized the financial system, one of the problems that we’re still seeing all the time — and I heard about it when it was in Allentown just this past week — was the fact that small businesses and some medium-sized businesses are still feeling a huge credit crunch.  They cannot get the loans that they need to make capital investments that would allow them to then expand employment.  And so that’s a particular area where we might be able to make a difference.

    Is there somebody in the Turkish delegation that wants to call on a reporter?

    Q    Mr. President, is there any new and concrete U.S. action plan for disarmament and the elimination of the PKK terror organization in northern Iraq?  Thank you, sir.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, what the Prime Minister and I have discussed is coordinating closely in dealing with the problem of the PKK.  We have stated before and I have reaffirmed since I came into office that the United States considers PKK a terrorist organization, and that the threat that it poses not only in Turkey but also in Iraq is one that is of deep concern.  And as NATO allies, we are bound to help each other defend our territories.  More broadly, I think that it is important for us to have a consistent position with respect to terrorism wherever it takes place.

    So we discussed how we can coordinate militarily.  I will tell you that with respect to the issue of the PKK, I think that the steps that the Prime Minister has taken in being inclusive towards the Kurdish community in Turkey is very helpful, because one of the things we understand is, is that terrorism cannot just be dealt with militarily; there is also social and political components to it that have to be recognized.

    With respect to Iraq, I think the degree to which the Kurdish population within Iraq feels effectively represented within the central government in Baghdad, to the extent that we can resolve some long-term pressing issues like Kirkuk, the more I think that Kurds will recognize that their interests are not in supporting any kind of military activity but rather in working through conflicts politically, in a way that allows everybody to be prosperous.  And that’s the kind of process that we would encourage.

    Okay?  Thank you very much, everybody.  Happy holidays.

    END
    1:45 P.M. EST

  • Erdogan resists US calls for Iran sanctions

    Erdogan resists US calls for Iran sanctions

    Erdogan15

    By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 43 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has failed to persuade the prime minister of Turkey of the need for sanctions against Iran.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (REH’-jehp TY’-ihp UR’-doh-wahn) stressed at a press conference following his White House meeting, that persuading Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions should be left to diplomacy.

    He said that he expressed Turkey’s willingness to mediate negotiations between Iran and the West. But he also criticized current sanctions against Iran as being ineffective because of loopholes for Western goods to reach the Iranian market.

    The Obama administration may seek new sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, where Turkey currently votes as a non-permanent member.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking more help in the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama praised Turkey for its “outstanding” contributions there.

    Speaking in the Oval Office after a private meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Obama said Turkey’s commitments have helped bring stability to Afghanistan. Turkey took over the rotating command of the NATO peacekeeping operation in Kabul last month and doubled its number of troops to around 1,750. However, it has resisted repeated U.S. requests to send its troops on combat operations.

    Last week, Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops be sent to Afghanistan. The administration expects its allies to provide up to 10,000 reinforcements.

    Obama also expressed his condolences for a recent terrorist attack in Turkey, and said the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to defeat terrorism “regardless of where it occurs.”

    At least five Turkish soldiers were killed and several others wounded in an ambush Monday in central Turkey. Authorities have not identified the attackers but Kurdish and leftist militants are active in the area.

    Monday’s meeting between the two leaders comes at a time of rising Turkish influence in the Middle East and Central Europe. Before leaving for Washington, Erdogan said Turkey has already contributed the “necessary number” of troops in Afghanistan, and that Turkish military and police will train their Afghan counterparts and press ahead with health, education and infrastructure projects there.

    Turkey’s participation in the Afghan mission carries enormous symbolic importance because it is the only Muslim country working with U.S. troops to beat back the resurgent Taliban and deny al-Qaida a sanctuary.

    More broadly, however, the United States would like Turkey to use its sway as a regional power and Muslim majority ally to help solve some of America’s trickiest foreign policy problems. But the two sides disagree on many of the important issues.

    Turkey has sought to become a mediator for the United States with Iran and Arab countries, but it is unclear whether the Obama administration is eager for Ankara to play that role. The two sides disagree on sanctions against Iran and the Obama administration is uneasy about recent Turkish disputes with Israel.

    Greater friction is looming as the Obama administration intensifies pressure on Iran to end its nuclear ambitions. A U.S. push for sanctions at the U.N. Security Council, where Turkey currently sits as a nonpermanent member, will force Ankara to choose between a NATO ally and an important neighbor.

    The two allies also will need to navigate the perennial issue of an annual U.S. statement on the World War I-era massacre of up to 1.5. million Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Breaking a campaign pledge, Obama has refrained from referring to the killings as genocide, a term widely viewed by genocide scholars as an accurate description.

    The Obama administration has said it is wary that the sensitive issue could upset talks that could lead to reconciliation and a reopening of the border between Armenia and Turkey. It remains unclear how the administration will handle the issue in the future, especially if talks between Turkey and Armenia falter.

    Tensions have eased over cooperation in Northern Iraq. Turkish complaints about a lack of U.S. help in rooting out Kurdish militants launching attacks on Turkey from Iraq loomed over Erdogan’s White House visit with former President George W. Bush in 2007.

    Since then Turkey has boosted trade in the region and improved ties with members of the Kurdish minorities living on both sides of its border with Iraq.

  • When Islamist foreign policies hurt Muslims

    When Islamist foreign policies hurt Muslims

    Turkey’s government and leader bash the West for transgressions while absolving anti-Western regimes of their sins. This hurts ordinary Muslims from Darfur to Chechnya to Iran.

    By Soner Cagaptay

    December 7, 2009

    What is an Islamist foreign policy, exactly? Is it identifying with Muslims and their suffering, or is it identifying with anti-Western regimes even at the cost of Muslims’ best interests? Turkey’s foreign policy under the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government demonstrates that far from protecting Muslims and their interests, it is the promotion of a la carte morals — bashing the West and supporting anti-Western regimes, even when the latter hurts Muslims.

    AKP leader and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is scheduled to meet today with President Obama in Washington. This is a chance for Obama, who visited Ankara in April in a charm offensive to win Turkish hearts, to have a discussion with Erdogan about Turkey’s ill-conceived foreign policy, which is bad for the West and for Muslims.

    Since coming to power in 2002, the AKP has dramatically changed Turkey’s foreign policy. The party has let Ankara’s ties with pro-Western Azerbaijan, Georgia and Israel deteriorate and has started to ignore Europe. Meanwhile, the AKP has built ties with anti-Western states such as Sudan while making friends with Ankara’s erstwhile adversaries, including Russia, Iran and Syria, and positioning itself as Hamas’ patron.

    It wasn’t always this way. After casting its lot with the United States in 1946, Ankara collaborated with the West against the communist Soviet Union, Baathist Syria and Islamist Iran. When communism ended, Ankara worked to spread Western values, including free markets and democracy, in the former Soviet Union, becoming close with pro-Western Azerbaijan and Georgia. Turkey also developed a close relationship with Israel, based on shared values and security interests.

    The AKP has now turned Turkish foreign policy on its head — bashing the West for transgressions and absolving anti-Western regimes of their sins.

    A comparison of the AKP’s Israel and Sudan policies helps define Turkey’s Islamist foreign policy. Since coming to power, the AKP has not only built a close political and economic relationship with Khartoum but also defended Sudanese leader Omar Hassan Bashir’s atrocities in Darfur.

    Last month, Erdogan said: “I know that Bashir is not committing genocide in Darfur, because Bashir is a Muslim and a Muslim can never commit genocide.” What? The International Criminal Court indicted Bashir and has called for his arrest for war crimes in the Darfur conflict, in which 300,000 Sudanese — mostly Muslims — have died.

    The AKP’s Sudan policy stands in stark contrast to its Israel policy. At a World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January, Erdogan chided Israeli President Shimon Peres, Jews and Israelis about the Gaza war, for “knowing well how to kill people.” Erdogan then walked off the panel. Days later, he hosted the Sudanese vice president in Ankara.

    This is an ideological view of the world, guided not by religion but by a distorted premise that Islamist and anti-Western regimes are always right even when they are criminal, such as when they are killing Muslims. And in this view, Western states and non-Muslims are always wrong, even when they act in self-defense against Islamist regimes.

    Such an a la carte morality in foreign policy is also apparent in the AKP’s approach to Russia. Russian violence in Chechnya continues, yet the AKP seems not to be bothered by the Chechen Muslims’ suffering. Despite Russia’s northern Caucasus policies, the rapport between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Erdogan and commercial ties have cemented Turkish-Russian ties. Russia has become Turkey’s No. 1 trading partner, replacing Germany.

    The ties between Ankara and Moscow come at a cost to the West and its allies. During Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, the AKP did not stand with Tbilisi, sacrificing traditional Turkish support for Georgia in favor of commercial relations with Russia. The party is also working with Russia in building South Stream, a pipeline that undermines the Nabucco pipeline that would have connected Azerbaijan to the West, abandoning both Azerbaijan and Europe.

    Another example of this harmful foreign policy is the government’s stance on Iran’s nuclearization, a crucial issue for the West. In October, Erdogan defended Iran’s nuclear program, saying that the problem in the Middle East is Israel’s nuclear capacity rather than Iran’s program. Earlier that month, he called Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad his friend and dismissed the leaders of France and Germany.

    Far from helping the West, the AKP’s foreign policy is challenging its regional interests, and this is also bad for Muslims. When Iranian demonstrators took to the streets in June to contest the election outcome, the AKP rushed to the defense of Ahmadinejad’s regime, congratulating him on his “electoral success” while pro-Ahmadinejad forces were beating peaceful protesters.

    Instead of supporting Western values, the AKP and its Islamist foreign policy undermine such values and the West, which in turn hurts ordinary Muslims from Darfur to Chechnya to Iran.

    Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of “Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who Is a Turk?”

    Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
  • USA PRIVATE (AMERIKA OZEL)

    USA PRIVATE (AMERIKA OZEL)

    Note, I think they have the procedural items in affect to the point that they can ALL say they didn’t vote FOR the raise….I think the way it works that if it comes up in committee and no negative action is taken on it, it automatically goes into effect.

    GRRRRRRRRRR….! I’m MAD AND YOU WILL BE TOO!

    Your U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700

    and $5,300 raises.

    1.     They voted to not give you a S.S. cost of living raise in

    2010 and 2011.

    2. Your Medicaid premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years

    and you will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife

    3.     Over 2-yrs The  House & Senate each get

    $10,000 raises (of our hard-earned money)


    4.     Do you feel SCREWED?

    5.    WILL your cost of drugs – doctor fees – local taxes – food,

    etc., increase?  You better believe they will!
    WILL THEIRS…NO WAY . They have a raise and better benefits. Why care about you? You never did anything about it in the past. We’re obviously too stupid or don’t care. No offense; just making a point!

    6. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you? SURE – about as much as Boehner, Hastert, Gingrich, and let’s not forget DeLay!!! Grrrrr

    SEND THE MESSAGE– You’re FIRED.
    IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE SITTING CONGRESS AND Up to 1/3 OF THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.

    MAKE SURE YOU’RE STILL MAD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND TELL THEIR REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW UP.

    IT’S TIME!!!!!!!

    JUST DO IT!

  • FETULLAH GULEN SCHOOL NETWORK

    FETULLAH GULEN SCHOOL NETWORK

    Recent (Nov. 30) article on the dealings of Gulen network with U.S. public schools.

    Charter school controversy prompts audit of state board

    Education » Charter school’s alleged ties to Muslim preacher give rise to audit of school governance

    By Kirsten Stewart

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    Updated: 11/30/2009 11:53:49 PM MST
    fetullah
    Questions about a charter school’s supposed ties to Turkish Muslim preacher Fethullah Gülen have prompted legislative auditors to more broadly scrutinize charter school governance in Utah.

    The legislative probe comes after the State Charter School Board issued preliminary results from its own investigation, clearing Beehive Science & Technology Academy of allegations that it exists to advance and promote Islamic beliefs but flagging the school for poor fiscal management.

    The board has given the Holladay school until Dec. 31 to remedy a $337,000 deficit or face closure. Last week, to help shave costs, Beehive principal Frank Erdogan resigned.

    But it’s the Charter School Board’s financial oversight that’s the focus of this new legislative probe, “particularly a state loan fund that charter schools are able to access,” said Auditor General John Schaff, who declined to divulge further details.

    Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, said he called for the audit after learning from a constituent about Beehive’s “unusual financial dealings.”

    Founded and financially supported by a group of Turkish-American scholars, Beehive advertises itself as a public charter school offering seventh through 12th graders a foundation in math and science.

    Earlier this year, a former teacher and parent pointed to questionable financial transactions and hiring practices as proof of the school’s covert ties to Fethullah Gülen, a preacher and educator living in Pennsylvania and founder of the Gülen movement, an international network of schools, universities, banks, TV networks and newspapers.

    Some see Gülen as the modern, nonviolent face of Islam. In Turkey, however, the private nature of his “civic society” has aroused suspicion. Gülen was forced to leave Turkey in 1998 on charges he was working to overthrow the secular government.

    Charter schools are tuition-free, tax-funded public schools, which means they must be non-sectarian.

    And while the Charter School Board found no proof of Beehive funneling state dollars to the Gülen movement, tax filings show the school has been propped up with interest-bearing loans from Turkish American heads of charter schools outside Utah. Two loans also came from executives at the non-profit Accord Institute in Tustin, Calif., which contracts with Beehive on curriculum design and teacher evaluations.

    Beehive apparently also tapped a revolving, low-interest loan fund administered by the State Office of Education to pay for $184,000 in building upgrades. Schools must apply for the money, but the Charter School Board has no control over it, according to board chairman Brian Allen, who says he welcomes legislative scrutiny if it means improving charter schools.

    “I think they’re watching how we handle Beehive to see if there are other tools we need to have in our toolbox to help us do our job better,” Allen said.

    The board has asked Beehive to document the terms of its private loans. In addition, the school must devise a plan for paring expenses.

    Original projections for 2009 showed the school $33,000 in the red. But outstanding loans coupled with high rent payments have opened a $337,000 hole in the school’s $2 million budget, according to documents obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune through an open records request.

    The school has renegotiated its lease and laid off several staffers. Erdogan, the school’s principal, was among those who voluntarily resigned.

    For the time being, academic dean Omer Odabasoglu will serve as acting principal, said Erdogan, who believes Beehive will survive its temporary budget woes.

    kstewart@sltrib.com