Tag: Recep Tayyip Erdogan

12th president of Turkey

  • AKP: Whither Turkey?

    AKP: Whither Turkey?

    Ziya Meral and Jonathan Paris | March 09, 2010

    Recent arrests and the questioning of top military commanders over an alleged plot to create chaos in Turkey have many in the international media and elsewhere wondering if the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, which came to power in 2002, is spearheading an Islamist takeover.

    Can these arrests be seen as the latest act of a once seemingly Western-friendly AKP government on a mission to fulfill its Islamist ambitions? Current tensions between Israel and Turkey and major new initiatives in Turkish foreign policy toward once-shunned states in the Middle East seem to point to the same concerns of a Turkey turning her face from West to East.

    Although the genuine concerns of foreign observers and Western governments need to be addressed, predicting the future of Turkey from its changing foreign policy without an awareness of the domestic context results in problematic conclusions. A blinkered perspective explains why most foreign commentators have misread how and why the AKP came into power and how it maintained growing support from Turkish society, at least until 2009.

    The AKP generated broad support not because it claimed roots in an Islamist movement but because its pro-EU, pro-foreign investment, pro-democracy and pro-reform policies have attracted votes not only from its natural base of conservatives, but also from liberals, leftist groups, marginalized ethnic groups such as Kurds and even non-Muslims. All attempts by the Kemalist elites of the Turkish state and the armed forces to undermine the AKP’s coveted position through orchestrated social campaigns and politicized judicial efforts have led to wider support for AKP at home and abroad as a victim of anti-democratic power structures.

    However, the March 2009 local elections recorded only a 39 percent victory for the AKP, a significant drop from its 47 percent majority in the previous election in 2007. In retrospect, the AKP began losing its momentum in 2008 when it became perceived as a party that seeks to fill the pockets of its own supporters and punish anyone who stands in the way. In other words, the Turkish public was reacting to AKP in the same way it reacted to the other established parties that the AKP defeated in 2002.

    Efforts to regain AKP’s image of reform after the 2009 elections initially resulted in a burst of renewed excitement, particularly over promises to address the Kurdish issue and the problems faced by the Alevis, a religious and ethnic minority group of some 10 million, as well as proposed democratic changes to the current military-friendly Constitution.

    Yet, the AKP failed to implement any of these initiatives. Its silence over the closure of the Kurdish party, DTP, and subsequent arrests of Kurdish politicians lost it credibility as more and more voters realized that the AKP’s democratic vision lacked substance.

    Meanwhile, on the economic front, unemployment soared to a record high while the AKP publicly maintained the patently unsupportable argument that the global economic crisis had bypassed Turkey because its banks were soundly managed and capitalized. It is no surprise that currently AKP’s support hovers around 34 percent, a record low for the party.

    The rise and slippage of the AKP reveals much about the mood in Turkey that is often overlooked. Whenever the AKP achieved significant steps towards EU accession, economic growth, foreign investment, democracy and human rights, it gained broad popular support. When the AKP slowed down on reform and relapsed into power games and autocracy, it lost votes.

    The AKP’s volatile popularity reflects where Turkish society is today: Europe-looking, yearning for more democracy and economic liberty and, at the same time, trying to maintain a conservative culture and strong national identity. The greatest portion of the society wants a meaningful engagement with the world, not a return to an isolationist Islamist state. A study done by Sabancı University in 2009 found that the ratio of Turks who want Shariah Law in Turkey went down to 10 percent from 26 percent ten years earlier in 1999.

    The Kemalist elites have never been able to reflect the country’s reality outside of the golden triangle of Istanbul-Ankara-İzmir. By insisting on a peculiar type of secularism and national identity, they have alienated large sections of the Turkish society. That is why all of their attempts to treat Turkish society like a herd that will hand power back to them have not worked.

    Today, for the first time since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, a military coup looks impossible. The armed forces and the old elites now know that they are not any longer a law unto themselves. Turkish society has discovered its voice and has become the primary engine behind reform and progress.

    If this reading of the deeper social and political tensions in Turkey is correct, then recent changes in Turkish foreign policy cannot be seen simply in terms of a religious re-orientation of the country or an aggressive Islamist policy. Turkey must be understood on its own terms as a country which is evolving towards a stronger democracy that wants to be a proactive and independent actor in the world.

    Where this will take Turkey and what this will mean for United States-European Union-Turkey relations and stability in the Caucasus and the Middle East are open questions. That is why Turkey needs close support from the U.S. and EU more than ever before to ensure a soft landing.

    Ziya Meral is a London-based Turkish analyst and a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge. Jonathan Paris is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.  This essay was previously published in Hurriyet. Reuters Pictures.

  • Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

    Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

    15contractors CA1 articleLarge

    From Left: United States Air Force; Robert Young Pelton; Mike Wintroath/Associated Press; Adam Berry/Bloomberg News

    From left: Michael D. Furlong, the official who was said to have hired private contractors to track militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Robert Young Pelton, a contractor; Duane Clarridge, a former C.I.A. official; and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive.

    By DEXTER FILKINS and MARK MAZZETTI
    Published: March 14, 2010

    KABUL, Afghanistan — Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States. The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

    While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

    It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

    Moreover, in Pakistan, where Qaeda and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, the secret use of private contractors may be seen as an attempt to get around the Pakistani government’s prohibition of American military personnel’s operating in the country.

    Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

    Even in a region of the world known for intrigue, Mr. Furlong’s story stands out. At times, his operation featured a mysterious American company run by retired Special Operations officers and an iconic C.I.A. figure who had a role in some of the agency’s most famous episodes, including the Iran-Contra affair.

    The allegations that he ran this network come as the American intelligence community confronts other instances in which private contractors may have been improperly used on delicate and questionable operations, including secret raids in Iraq and an assassinations program that was halted before it got off the ground.

    “While no legitimate intelligence operations got screwed up, it’s generally a bad idea to have freelancers running around a war zone pretending to be James Bond,” one American government official said. But it is still murky whether Mr. Furlong had approval from top commanders or whether he might have been running a rogue operation.

    This account of his activities is based on interviews with American military and intelligence officials and businessmen in the region. They insisted on anonymity in discussing a delicate case that is under investigation.

    Col. Kathleen Cook, a spokeswoman for United States Strategic Command, which oversees Mr. Furlong’s work, declined to make him available for an interview. Military officials said Mr. Furlong, a retired Air Force officer, is now a senior civilian employee in the military, a full-time Defense Department employee based at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

    Network of Informants

    Mr. Furlong has extensive experience in “psychological operations” — the military term for the use of information in warfare — and he plied his trade in a number of places, including Iraq and the Balkans. It is unclear exactly when Mr. Furlong’s operations began. But officials said they seemed to accelerate in the summer of 2009, and by the time they ended, he and his colleagues had established a network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan whose job it was to help locate people believed to be insurgents.

    Government officials said they believed that Mr. Furlong might have channeled money away from a program intended to provide American commanders with information about Afghanistan’s social and tribal landscape, and toward secret efforts to hunt militants on both sides of the country’s porous border with Pakistan.

    Some officials said it was unclear whether these operations actually resulted in the deaths of militants, though others involved in the operation said that they did.

    Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would often boast about his network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan to senior military officers, and in one instance said a group of suspected militants carrying rockets by mule over the border had been singled out and killed as a result of his efforts.

    In addition, at least one government contractor who worked with Mr. Furlong in Afghanistan last year maintains that he saw evidence that the information was used for attacking militants.

    The contractor, Robert Young Pelton, an author who writes extensively about war zones, said that the government hired him to gather information about Afghanistan and that Mr. Furlong improperly used his work. “We were providing information so they could better understand the situation in Afghanistan, and it was being used to kill people,” Mr. Pelton said.

    He said that he and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive, had been hired by the military to run a public Web site to help the government gain a better understanding of a region that bedeviled them. Recently, the top military intelligence official in Afghanistan publicly said that intelligence collection was skewed too heavily toward hunting terrorists, at the expense of gaining a deeper understanding of the country.

    Instead, Mr. Pelton said, millions of dollars that were supposed to go to the Web site were redirected by Mr. Furlong toward intelligence gathering for the purpose of attacking militants.

    In one example, Mr. Pelton said he had been told by Afghan colleagues that video images that he posted on the Web site had been used for an American strike in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan.

    Among the contractors Mr. Furlong appears to have used to conduct intelligence gathering was International Media Ventures, a private “strategic communication” firm run by several former Special Operations officers. Another was American International Security Corporation, a Boston-based company run by Mike Taylor, a former Green Beret. In a phone interview, Mr. Taylor said that at one point he had employed Duane Clarridge, known as Dewey, a former top C.I.A. official who has been linked to a generation of C.I.A. adventures, including the Iran-Contra scandal.

    In an interview, Mr. Clarridge denied that he had worked with Mr. Furlong in any operation in Afghanistan or Pakistan. “I don’t know anything about that,” he said.

    Mr. Taylor, who is chief executive of A.I.S.C., said his company gathered information on both sides of the border to give military officials information about possible threats to American forces. He said his company was not specifically hired to provide information to kill insurgents.

    Some American officials contend that Mr. Furlong’s efforts amounted to little. Nevertheless, they provoked the ire of the C.I.A.

    Last fall, the spy agency’s station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, wrote a memorandum to the Defense Department’s top intelligence official detailing what officials said were serious offenses by Mr. Furlong. The officials would not specify the offenses, but the officer’s cable helped set off the Pentagon investigation.

    Afghan Intelligence

    In mid-2008, the military put Mr. Furlong in charge of a program to use private companies to gather information about the political and tribal culture of Afghanistan. Some of the approximately $22 million in government money allotted to this effort went to International Media Ventures, with offices in St. Petersburg, Fla., San Antonio and elsewhere. On its Web site, the company describes itself as a public relations company, “an industry leader in creating potent messaging content and interactive communications.”

    The Web site also shows that several of its senior executives are former members of the military’s Special Operations forces, including former commandos from Delta Force, which has been used extensively since the Sept. 11 attacks to track and kill suspected terrorists.

    Until recently, one of the members of International Media’s board of directors was Gen. Dell L. Dailey, former head of Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the military’s covert units.

    In an e-mail message, General Dailey said that he had resigned his post on the company’s board, but he did not say when. He did not give details about the company’s work with the American military, and other company executives declined to comment.

    In an interview, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top military spokesman in Afghanistan, said that the United States military was currently employing nine International Media Ventures civilian employees on routine jobs in guard work and information processing and analysis. Whatever else other International Media employees might be doing in Afghanistan, he said, he did not know and had no responsibility for their actions.

    By Mr. Pelton’s account, Mr. Furlong, in conversations with him and his colleagues, referred to his stable of contractors as “my Jason Bournes,” a reference to the fictional American assassin created by the novelist Robert Ludlum and played in movies by Matt Damon.

    Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would occasionally brag to his superiors about having Mr. Clarridge’s services at his disposal. Last summer, Mr. Furlong told colleagues that he was working with Mr. Clarridge to secure the release of Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, a kidnapped soldier who American officials believe is being held by militants in Pakistan.

    From December 2008 to mid-June 2009, both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Clarridge were hired to assist The New York Times in the case of David Rohde, the Times reporter who was kidnapped by militants in Afghanistan and held for seven months in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The reporter ultimately escaped on his own.

    The idea for the government information program was thought up sometime in 2008 by Mr. Jordan, a former CNN news chief, and his partner Mr. Pelton, whose books include “The World’s Most Dangerous Places” and “Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror.”

    Top General Approached

    They approached Gen. David D. McKiernan, soon to become the top American commander in Afghanistan. Their proposal was to set up a reporting and research network in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the American military and private clients who were trying to understand a complex region that had become vital to Western interests. They already had a similar operation in Iraq — called “Iraq Slogger,” which employed local Iraqis to report and write news stories for their Web site. Mr. Jordan proposed setting up a similar Web site in Afghanistan and Pakistan — except that the operation would be largely financed by the American military. The name of the Web site was Afpax.

    Mr. Jordan said that he had gone to the United States military because the business in Iraq was not profitable relying solely on private clients. He described his proposal as essentially a news gathering operation, involving only unclassified materials gathered openly by his employees. “It was all open-source,” he said.

    When Mr. Jordan made the pitch to General McKiernan, Mr. Furlong was also present, according to Mr. Jordan. General McKiernan endorsed the proposal, and Mr. Furlong said that he could find financing for Afpax, both Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pelton said. “On that day, they told us to get to work,” Mr. Pelton said.

    But Mr. Jordan said that the help from Mr. Furlong ended up being extremely limited. He said he was paid twice — once to help the company with start-up costs and another time for a report his group had written. Mr. Jordan declined to talk about exact figures, but said the amount of money was a “small fraction” of what he had proposed — and what it took to run his news gathering operation.

    Whenever he asked for financing, Mr. Jordan said, Mr. Furlong told him that the money was being used for other things, and that the appetite for Mr. Jordan’s services was diminishing.

    “He told us that there was less and less money for what we were doing, and less of an appreciation for what we were doing,” he said.

    Admiral Smith, the military’s director for strategic communications in Afghanistan, said that when he arrived in Kabul a year later, in June 2009, he opposed financing Afpax. He said that he did not need what Mr. Pelton and Mr. Jordan were offering and that the service seemed uncomfortably close to crossing into intelligence gathering — which could have meant making targets of individuals.

    “I took the air out of the balloon,” he said.

    Admiral Smith said that the C.I.A. was against the proposal for the same reasons. Mr. Furlong persisted in pushing the project, he said.

    “I finally had to tell him, ‘Read my lips,’ we’re not interested,’ ” Admiral Smith said.

    What happened next is unclear.

    Admiral Smith said that when he turned down the Afpax proposal, Mr. Furlong wanted to spend the leftover money elsewhere. That is when Mr. Furlong agreed to provide some of International Media Ventures’ employees to Admiral Smith’s strategic communications office.

    But that still left roughly $15 million unaccounted for, he said.

    “I have no idea where the rest of the money is going,” Admiral Smith said.

    Dexter Filkins reported from Kabul, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

  • BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION, KAHIRE BASININDA IKTIBASEN YAYINLANDI     Pulat Tacar [tacarps@gmail.com]

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

    Alon Ben-Meir

    Senior Fellow at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs

    Posted: March 9, 2010 05:09 PM

    Tam boyutlu görseli göster

    Reassessing the Genocide Resolution

    Once again, as has happened every spring for years running, the debate over whether the ethnic clashes against the Armenians in the break up of the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide has made it into the US political arena for Congress to weigh in. The recent resolution adopted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs-to officially recognize actions against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks-has less to do with the US government’s pursuit of historical accuracy, than political theater that has come at a strikingly inopportune time.

    Genocide is a serious label, and requires not only moral authority from those who use it but a deep comprehension of the historical context in which these events occurred. Armenians have every right to demand official inquiries about the terms and conditions in which hundreds of thousands of their ancestors were killed, but this is not the task of US Congress, who has neither the moral standing to codify armed clashes of a century ago without proper inquiry nor the right to be selective about human rights offenses for political points. Every effort should be made by President Obama and the remaining House Representatives to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.

    Beyond the very serious damage that such a resolution could inflict on US-Turkish relations, should it pass the full House, congressional interference at this juncture could severely erode the very moral argument used justify the resolution. Turkey and Armenia have only recently concluded two protocols calling for closer ties, open borders, and most importantly, the creation of a commission to examine the historical evidence of the tragic events. Not only will this vote undermine the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia, but it threatens the US-Turkish relationship at a time when Turkey is playing a critical role aiding the US and the Middle East peace process.

    Sadly, this resolution was politicized at the outset, thereby diminishing much of its moral tenet. Had the purpose been for the US to champion human rights and officially condemn any large scale atrocities in times of war, then why was there no debate about massacres in Sudan, Rwanda, Algeria or the Balkans? The fact that it was supported by a powerful lobby and sponsored by many members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Committee Chairman Howard Berman from California, and Donald Payne and Albio Sires from New Jersey, each of whom represent relatively large Armenian constituencies, takes this debate out of the moral realm and into the political one. Beyond this matter, Howard Berman and the Foreign Relations Committee failed to address the pressing issues behind what such a resolution would invite forth, mainly the land disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the issue of reparations for descendants of the victims, none of which can be treated in isolation. However large the political benefit these members of Congress may garner this election year by pushing this resolution, it is not in US interests, as the end result will hurt the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process and severely undercut Turkish-US cooperation should it come to fruition. Such a serious resolution requires the application of the highest moral review and investigation, not a politically convenient act which is considered an insult to Turkish identity. If genocide was in fact committed, it should be left to an international investigative tribunal, not politicians who need to be reelected every two years.

    Turkey has been a loyal friend of the United States for more than a half century, and continues to support American efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is a modern secular democracy, and has made great strides in remaining open and progressive. Why then should the United States Congress hold the descendants of the Ottomans responsible for the deeds of their fathers perpetrated a century ago? Since Turkey vehemently rejects the term genocide, what judgment should then be passed, and by whom, that will not tarnish the present generation of Turks? This generation had nothing to do with past events and, in fact, condemns the atrocities committed during that heinous war, regardless of who the perpetrators were. What then gives the United States’ House of Representatives the moral authority to pass judgment, when domestic political interest shamelessly dominates their motives? The argument against the resolution by the full House should be based on moral grounds, and the members must not act as judges and jurors when Turkey and Armenia have agreed to establish their own joint committee to unravel what in fact happened.

    At a time when America still suffers from a lagging global image after years of hawkish foreign policy and two ongoing wars, the United States Congress must support what Turkey and Armenia have agreed to do to resolve their conflict and help facilitate a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute. Even the Jewish lobby, in the wake of a series of diplomatic rifts between Turkey and Israel, acted quietly in favor of the Turks, resulting in a close margin in the vote. As much as Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent statements have not fared well with the Israeli public, the Israeli diaspora is keen on maintaining the strategic nature of its relationship with Turkey as well as Turkey’s relationship with the West.

    But more importantly, the Turkish government, who acted out fervently against the US government following the resolution, must come to grips with the separation of power in the United States. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have come out strongly against the resolution — albeit last minute — yet they cannot control the votes or the agenda of Congress. Under no circumstance should Prime Minister Erdogan cancel his upcoming visit to the US, as he should use this opportunity to present his case and prove that Turkey is capable of handling the disputes with Armenia without US congressional intervention.

    It is by no means certain that this misguided resolution taken by Pelosi and Berman will pass in the full House should it come to a vote. Furthermore, it is unlikely these sponsors will even bring the resolution to the floor unless they are certain it has a substantial chance to pass. This represents a keen opportunity for Democrats and Republicans alike to find a common area of interest and work in unison for the best interests of the US, Turkey, and the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

  • SPANISH PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    SPANISH PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    news.am
    March 11 2010
    Armenia

    The motion on Resolution on Armenian Genocide was introduced to
    Spanish Parliament. The sponsors of the document are representatives
    of Republican Left of Catalonia and three MPs of Initiative for
    Catalonia Greens.

    They also proposed to include in the resolution a provision that
    Spanish Government supports Armenia-Turkey normalization process and
    calls EU to back Yerevan-Ankara dialogue.

    February 26, the Catalonian Parliament, unanimously voted for the
    Armenian Genocide approval.

  • A Nation of Conspiracies

    A Nation of Conspiracies

    TURKEY2

    The article which states ” In the first, the AKP is a party of religious deception that seeks to bring all elements of the government under its control. Its hidden goal is the eradication of the secular state, the wrenching of Turkey from the West, and, ultimately, the imposition of Islamic law.”.

    Regards
    AHMET SUEbR  [klmaf@hotmail.com]

    President, TASAA (Turkish Society of Augusta and Aiken):

    • WALL St JOURNAL
    • MARCH 13, 2010

    Coup plots and growing extremism. Why the West can’t ignore Turkey’s paranoia

    • By CLAIRE BERLINSKI

    Last fall, having observed that few women in Istanbul took martial-arts classes, I conceived the idea to work with local instructors on creating a women’s self-defense initiative. My project met with initial enthusiasm, particularly among women concerned with the high rate of domestic violence in Turkey. But other martial arts instructors in the city grew uneasy, sensing a plot to swindle them out of their small pieces of the martial-arts pie. Istanbul quickened with lunatic rumors that the initiative was a conspiracy to disparage the other instructors’ martial prowess and steal their students. Martial-arts cliques consumed themselves with plotting and counter-plotting. Secret tribunals were held, covert alliances formed, poison-pen letters sent, friends betrayed. I gave up in disgust.
    No one familiar with the prominent role of conspiracies and paranoia in Turkish social and political life will be surprised. Last month, more than five dozen military officers were arrested and charged with plotting a coup. The detained stand accused of planning to bomb mosques and down Greek fighter jets as a pretext for toppling the government. Whether it is true, I don’t know. But either way, the country is drowning in persecutory theories.

    Turkey’s strategic and economic significance to the West is massive—and American-Turkish relations took a turn for the worse earlier this month when a U.S. congressional committee recommended the full House of Representatives take up a vote on a resolution condemning the slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide.
    OB HS982 Bitter D 20100303221515
    Turkey is a rarity in the Middle East, a democracy with a secular constitution. It has the second-largest army in NATO; it provides a crucial energy route to Europe. The Incirlik air base is a crucial staging point for the US military. Turkey has made a sizable contribution to the coalition forces in Afghanistan. It has a seat on the U.N. Security Council, and could be a vital diplomatic partner—or a vexed antagonist—to America throughout the Middle East and Islamic world.

    The West, understandably, is concerned about the trouble in Turkey. Particularly disturbing is the growing anti-Israel animus of Turkey’s foreign policy and its growing intimacy with the most extremist regimes and parties of the Islamic world. Turkey’s trade with Iran is galloping. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the first international figure to host Hamas. He has called for the expulsion of Israel from the U.N. while offering diplomatic support for the denial of genocide in Darfur.

    Turkey has seen three military coups in the past half century—by definition, you can’t have a coup without a conspiracy. The military, which conceives itself as the guardian of Turkish democracy and secularism, has intervened, most recently in 1997, to unseat prime ministers who have veered too far off the secular rails.

    The ruling Justice and Development Party, known as the AKP, came to power in 2002. Its senior figures rose from the ranks of virulent—and banned—Islamist parties, but the AKP claims to be moderate.

    Almost everyone in Turkey subscribes to one of two conspiracy narratives about this party or its antagonists. In the first, the AKP is a party of religious deception that seeks to bring all elements of the government under its control. Its hidden goal is the eradication of the secular state, the wrenching of Turkey from the West, and, ultimately, the imposition of Islamic law. In this narrative, the specter of the sect leader Fethullah Gülen, who has undefined ties to the party and has taken exile in Utah, arouses particular dread. His critics fear he is the Turkish Ayatollah Khomenei; they say that his acolytes have seeped into the organs of the Turkish body politic, where they lie poised, like a zombie army, to be awakened by his signal.
    The second version holds that the AKP is exactly what it purports to be: a modern and democratic party with which the West can and should do business. Mr. Gülen’s followers say the real conspirators are instead members of the so-called Deep State—what they call a demented, multitentacled secret alliance of high-level figures in the military, the intelligence services, the judiciary and organized crime.
    TURKEY1
    Neither theory has irrefragable proof behind it. Both are worryingly plausible and supported by some evidence. But most significantly, one or the other story is believed by virtually everyone here. It is the paranoid style of Turkish politics itself that should alarm the West. Turkey’s underlying disease is not so much Islamism or a military gone rogue, but corruption and authoritarianism over which a veneer of voter participation has been painted.

    The system does not look too undemocratic on paper. Turkish political parties are structured, in principle, around district and provincial organizations. There is universal suffrage, but a party must receive 10% of the vote to be represented in Parliament. Party members elect district delegates, district presidents and board members. Yet Turkish prime ministers have near-dictatorial powers over their political parties and are not embarrassed to use them.
    It is the​party members, not voters, who pick the party leader. Members of Parliament enjoy unlimited political immunity, as do the bureaucrats they appoint. The resulting license to steal money and votes is accepted with alacrity and used with impunity. Corruption and influence peddling are the inevitable consequence. Business leaders are afraid to object for fear of being shut out.
    TURKEY3
    Conspiracies flourish when citizens fear punishment for open political expression, when power is seen as illegitimate, and when people have no access to healthy channels of influence. They give rise inevitably to counterconspiracies that fuel the paranoia and enmity, a self-reinforcing cycle. Throughout Turkey is the pervasive feeling that no one beyond family can be trusted.
    The common charge that the AKP is progressively weakening the judiciary and the military is objectively correct, as is the claim that this concentrates an unhealthy amount of power in the hands of the executive branch. Yet the prime minister and his intimates insist that their actions are defensive. “For 40 years, they have kept files on us. Now, it is our turn to keep files on them,” AKP deputy Avni Doğan has said.

    Their enemies voice the same worldview. “When you look at Turkey today, it is as if the country has … fallen under foreign occupation,” the leader of the opposition CHP party Deniz Baykal has said.
    Paranoia is inevitably also grandiose. When the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed up the recent resolution to describe the massacre of Armenians in the First World War era as a genocide, Suat Kiniklioglu, the spokesman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish Parliament, explained Turkey’s outrage thus: “I think the Americans would feel that same if we were to pass a resolution in our parliament talking about the treatment of [native] Indians in this country.”
    Mr. Kiniklioglu speaks fluent English; he has spent years in the West. Yet he is blind to the most obvious of facts about American culture: No one in America would give a damn.
    Meanwhile, discussion of Turkey’s most serious social and economic problems—corruption, poverty, unemployment, and a legal system held in contempt even by its attorneys—has been eclipsed. Reports of economic miracles under the AKP have, as everyone now understands, been exaggerated by statistical legerdemain. This is all too easy to do, because Turkey has one of the largest underground economies in the world, worth somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of the country’s GDP. Every major economic sector in Turkey is largely off-the-record. No one can say confidently whether these sectors are growing or shrinking, and even officially, Turkey now has the second-highest rate of unemployment in Europe. This is hardly the mark of an expanding middle class.
    Among the most serious of Turkey’s problems, ignored in the constant din of mutual accusations, is the grave seismic risk to Istanbul. The city’s position on a highly active fault line and the prevalence of shoddy construction make it not only possible but probable that it will be the world’s next Port-au-Prince. The death and displacement of half a million Turks in an earthquake would clearly be the end of any hope of stability and peace in this region.
    The failure to prepare for this predictable event is a betrayal of trust, like so many the Turkish people have suffered. Each deepens the paranoia. Each citizen believes that to survive, he must lie and conspire. Everyone assumes everyone else is lying and conspiring against him because he himself is lying and conspiring.
    Turkish Ambassador Namik Tan recently said that the West “must understand that in this region, two plus two doesn’t always equal four. Sometimes it equals six, sometimes 10. You cannot hope to understand this region unless you grasp this.”
    Psychiatrists are typically advised to attempt to form a “working alliance” with the paranoid patient, avoid becoming the object of projection, and provide a model of non-paranoid behavior. This is also sound advice in diplomacy.
    But paranoia is known to be a particularly intractable disorder. Those who experience it do not trust those trying to help them. The West should keep this, too, in mind, for the paranoid spiral here could easily do what spirals are known to do: spin out of control.

  • THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    Dmitry Babich

    RIA Novosti
    15:44 09/03/2010
    Moscow

    A resolution on the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire, passed
    by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations, has raised a real
    storm in international diplomacy.

    Feverish diplomatic activity and apparent hesitations of the
    U.S. administration are a clear sign that Turkey’s foreign policy
    influence has grown.

    The committee’s resolution is non-binding and it is not clear if it
    will be placed before the whole house, but Turkey has already recalled
    its ambassador to Ankara for consultations, while U.S. Secretary of
    State Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, has asked
    the Congress not to take up this delicate matter now.

    When, in 1915, 1.5 million Armenians “disappeared” as a result of the
    action undertaken by the Young Turks’ government, Turkey and Armenia
    froze all contacts with each other. It was only last year that signs
    of thawing first became manifest, and in the fall of 2009 the sides
    agreed to establish diplomatic relations. This was viewed as a success
    for the Turkish leadership, both the prime minister and the president.

    Will now a final “thaw” be postponed again?

    That is not likely, although Turkish politicians are certain to take
    advantage of the situation to improve their standing.

    It is very likely that the current scandal will only boost the prestige
    of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Not so long ago,
    he was the first politician in Turkish history to challenge the
    military, saying he uncovered a military plot initially scheduled
    for 2003. Before that, Erdogan made out a successful case for the
    Palestinians as Muslim brothers, harshly criticizing Israel for
    its Gaza Strip operation. During the U.S. Iraqi campaign, Turkey
    never allowed American troops to pass through its territory, forcing
    Washington to invade Iraq only from the south.

    Now the ambiguous position the U.S. has maintained for years on the
    Armenian genocide, which helped Washington to draw Turkey into NATO,
    is beginning to backfire against U.S. interests. This is a good
    lesson for all, and it is not limited to the events of 1915. There
    are other examples. The Western mass media are still keeping silent
    about anti-Armenian violence in Baku in 1989-1990. Most reports
    mention only that Soviet troops were introduced into the city.

    The reason for such selective memory in American and West European
    media is understandable: it is simple to place the blame on Moscow,
    forgetting all about previous events. At that moment, the troops
    sent by Moscow saved the lives of thousands of Armenians and other
    “Russian speakers” in Baku. Even many Russian media find the subject
    of the violence in Baku unpopular and almost forbidden. Some say this
    could lose Russia advertising contracts and lead to conflicts with
    influential people.

    “I do not know what has to be done to get the mass media throughout
    the world to highlight those events,” says political analyst Andronik
    Migranyan, a member of Russia’s Public Chamber. “Will Armenia itself
    have to carry out PR campaigns to make things change?”

    The point is that the events of 1915 and those of the 1980s in Armenia
    and Azerbaijan do not concern only Armenians; they concern everyone.

    The anti-Armenian violence in Baku came after an inhumane expulsion
    of Azerbaijanians from Nagorny Karabakh, followed by the Khodzhala
    tragedy that shocked the world. People must remember everything,
    because destruction of human life cannot be forgotten or remembered
    selectively. Otherwise, diplomatic embarrassments like the present
    U.S.-Turkish spat may become regular.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not
    necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

    =======================================\

    Dmitry Babich
    Dmitry Babich graduated from the Journalism Department of Moscow State University. From 1990-1996, he worked as a correspondent and senior parliament correspondent in Komsomolskaya Pravda, which was at the time a respected Russian daily newspaper with a circulation of up to 20 million. He the covered politics for the TV-6 television channel for three years before becoming head of the international department of the weekly newspaper Moscow News. While he was working at Moscow News, Dima won a prize from ITAR-TASS for developing Russian-Ukrainian information exchange following a series of reports from Ukraine. He joined Russia Profile as a staff writer at the beginning of 2004.

    ======REPONCE FROM ERGUN KIRLIKOVALI ===============================

    ergunk

    Re:  “ The Armenian Genocide: A Case Of Selective Memory”,  By Dmitry Babich, RIA Novosti, Moscow, 9 March 2010, (produced below for your convenience – the undersigned thanks www.TurkishForum.com.tr for bringing this anti-Turkish, anti-Azeri, andti-Muslim artcile to my atention, giving me a chance to respond.)

    THE BOGUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    Dear Editor,

    So this is what Journalism Department of Moscow State University produces:  cockeyed look at world events to promote Russian interests at all costs.  Here is a writer who will shamelessly complain about selective memory while “practicing” it.

    Did you read any lines about Azeris killed by Armenians above?

    Did you see any remorse about Khodjaly exterminations of Azeris (genocide?) by Armenian thugs using Russian advisors and weapons?

    Any word about the mass killings of Azeris in Karabagh by Armenian soldiers and paramilitaries under the command of Russian “advisors”  using Russian tanks?

    Azeris were killed by Armenians toting Russian Mosins in 1893 and Russian Kalashnikovs in 1993?  Both under the leadership of Russian “advisors”.  What has changed in the hundred years, other than the model of the murder weapon?

    How about Armenian aggression in the seven rayons (provinces) surrounding Karabagh?  Why is he silent about that?  Isn’t that pure aggression and persecution?

    Most dramatic of all, perhaps, is the embarrassing silence of the Russian writer (and I use the term loosely) about the million or so Azeri refugees bracing, made homeless by the Armenian thugs toting Russian rifles, bracing for the 18th scorching summer after 17th freezing winter endured in leaky tents with little food or medicine.  Is this how a Russian “journalist” sees events?  Through the prism of selective memory?

    Just like those biased promoters of a bogus genocide who will…

    a) remember Morgenthau’s falsified reports but not Bristol’s or Hubbard’s eyewitness reports;

    b) remember the long-discredited lie of 1.5 million dead Armenians, but not the Paris Peace Conference report dated 29 March 1919 declaring the number “…more than 200,000…” from which the current lie had originated;

    c)  remember the Armenian dead (about 200,00 according to Paris Peace Conference of 1919) but not more than 524,000 Muslim, mostly Turkish dead;

    d) remember 24 April as the start of a fake genocide, but not the fact that 24 April was nothing more than the Ottoman Guantanamo when the known Armenian terrorists, insurgents, and spies and their suspected accomplices, were arrested for questioning, some of whom were later released;

    e) remember Turkish retaliations but not the Armenian revolts that started them, the biggest one of all being the Van rebellion of April 1915 which was the 9/11 of the Ottoman Empire when Armenian killed more than 40,000 of thei Muslim neighbors and turned the city over to the invading Russian armies;

    f)  remember Dink, but not Arikan, and 70 other the Armenians killed since 1973;

    g)  remember Armenia Tereset (temporary resettlement of 1915) but not the facts that Armenians backstabbed their own country at a time when the motherland was under brutal foreign invasion in the West (Dardanelles by the French, and Anzacs, in the East (by Russians and Armenians), in the South (by the British in Sinai, Palestine, and Mesopotamia);

    h)  remember Armenians who were resettled because of their treasonous activities and revolts but not the Crimean Tatars (Turks) who were deported in cattle wagons to Kazakhstan, or Meshketian Turks to Uzbekiastan, or Koreans or Ukranians or Chechens or tens of millions of others  to  distant deserts and barren plains of Central Asia and icy regios of Siberia, who met worse tragic end, if such a thing is possible,  at the hands of their brutal Russian handlers… and many more (too long to list here)

    i)  remember to quote the Armenian commentator Andronik today but not the Armenian terrorist Andranik of last century who ruthlessly murdered many non-combatant, unarmed Muslims, mostly Turks, after torturing them in unspeakable manners;  or those other Armenian terrorists like Dro, Aram, and thousands of others who were trained and supported by the Russians all along the way;

    Russians are the last people on earth to talk about selective memory or persecution of defenseless ethnic people.

    Sincerely,   Ergün KIRLIKOVALI
    President-Elect, ATAA
    ergun@cox.net
    9741 Irvine Center Drive
    Irvine, CA 92618-4324 , USA
    Cell: (949) 878-1186