Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, March 12, 2009
IStanbul apartments make great alternatives to hotels
Istanbul Lofts, a serviced apartment building in the Beyoglu district of Istanbul, is set to provide luxury and hotel comfort to the travelers planning to visit Istanbul.
"Increasingly travelers to Istanbul and around the world are seeing the great advantages of fully-serviced apartment living and therefore are demanding more than just a hotel room. At very reasonable prices, they are able to get spacious and flexible accommodation options.
A luxurious experience at a superior location and the comfort of an apartment rather than staying at a hotel is more appealing to many visitors. Rental apartments offer more personal space than regular hotel rooms. And, this is increasingly preferred specifically by travelers that plan to stay in the city startign from several weeks and up to a few months. Travelers that come to the city only for a few days still mostly prefer to stay at hotels due to easier check in options and more alternatives.
There are now many property management companies in Istanbul that rent a wide range of apartments starting from very cheap student housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms to high end Istanbul apartments, villas and lofts with Bosporus view.
Istanbul apartments are relatively cheaper compared to other global citiies that have similar populations and there are many different neighborhoods in the city center where a cheap aparmtent could be within a few minutes if walking distance from a prime neighborhood. There are several websites that offer a wide range of Istanbul apartments for rent at no fees. They are worth a look if you are in need of an Istanbul apartment for rent in the near future. If the right apartment is found, they are usually great alternatives to hotels at rather cheaper prices.
We will post some links soon for those who need to find a furnished Istanbul apartment for rent.
Monday, January 5, 2009
EU parliamentarians set to slam Turkey over reforms
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News Saturday, September 2, 2006
Members of the European Parliament are set to debate on Monday a report slamming the slow pace of reform, a warning to European Union hopeful Turkey before the EU Commission is to release a highly critical assessment of Turkish progress in October.
In a sign of increasing EU pressure on Ankara to do better, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn has also sent a letter to Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül, criticizing Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) as restricting freedom of expression. Rehn lamented that the pace of reform has slowed down in Turkey and asked in his letter for a revision of the controversial article, which the EU blames for numerous trials against intellectuals, journalists and activists for expressing peaceful views, daily Referans reported yesterday.
The report at the European Parliament, due to be debated on Monday at the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, praised recent acquittals of academics prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" under Article 301, but cited concerns over cases such as that of Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink, who was given a suspended six-month jail term under the same article for remarks pertaining to an alleged genocide of Armenians by the late Ottoman Empire.
The report and Rehn's warning come as Turkey and the EU brace for a showdown over Cyprus. With Turkey refusing to open its ports and airports to traffic from EU member Greek Cyprus, many see a crisis inevitable in the coming weeks and months. Turkey says it will not open its ports and airports unless the EU moves to fulfill its pledge of easing isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. The European Parliament report, penned by Dutch politician Camiel Eurlings affirmed EU calls for Turkey to remove its refusal to implement an agreement with the EU opening its sea and air ports to Greek Cypriot traffic, Reuters said.
Other problematic areas are freedom of expression, the rights of religious minorities, corruption, and violence against women. "The European Parliament ... regrets the slowing down of the reform process," the draft report said, according to Reuters, highlighting what it called "persistent shortcomings" across a range of areas.
Legally, the European Parliament must give its assent to any state joining the bloc but has never sought to veto any past accession. However, it has been effective in pressuring EU hopefuls to speed reforms in previous enlargement rounds.
A forthcoming law aimed at protecting religious minorities did not go far enough, the report added, whereas a law passed in June increasing the number of crimes classified as terrorism could undermine recent advances in human rights, it said. Progress on reforms was lacking in other areas including civil-military relations, law enforcement, women's and trade union rights and the independence of the judiciary, it said.
Ankara has denied that the pace of reform has slowed since last October and is expected to call Parliament back from its summer recess two weeks early in mid-September to push through a latest package of reforms.
No winners only losers in Lebanese war
It was correct to predict that there would be no winners but losers all round in the futile 35-day Lebanese war between Israel and Hezbollah, with the Lebanese people, who neither needed nor deserved the war, losing the most. Contrary to the proclamations of President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israel, there were no outright, seemingly clear-cut winners. The leader of Hezbollah, who also claimed victory, now admits that had he known the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers would trigger a war, he "would not have ordered it."
Israel's stated aim, in its self-defense, was to destroy Hezbollah once and for all. In this Israel fell immeasurably short of its target. By fighting against the growing influence and political power of Iran in the Middle East, Israel was engaging in a proxy war with Iran. It far from fulfilled her purpose. In fact the war proved to be counterproductive. Instead of gaining prestige, Israel lost both at home with the Israeli public and more so abroad in the international community. Israel has created more enmity, hate and criticism against itself in the Arab and Islamic world.
As many analysts believe, Israel lost the 35-day war both on tactical and strategic grounds. From the tactical point, Israel lost the fighting ground. The collective and communal punishment operation against the Lebanese people was far from justifiable and was a true tragedy. Israel faced a strong and effective resistance from Hezbollah beyond its expectations: Well trained, well equipped "invincible" Israeli troops had to retreat from Bint Cbeil, which was considered the hub of Hezbollah terror. Israel's image and belief of invincibility have now been reduced to hearsay.
All this added together does not mean that Hezbollah gained a military victory against the Israeli army, either, though the Hezbollah militia stopped, or at least slowed down, the Israeli advance from south Lebanon northwards. This is accepted as a strategic gain for Hezbollah as much as an advantage for Iran and Syria. It is reported that the prestige of Hezbollah has increased amongst the Lebanese people from 58 percent before the war to 80 percent afterwards, which is a strategic advantage for Hezbollah and an apparent strategic disadvantage for Israel for the future.
Israel may have theoretically based its tactics on the fact that the Sunni Lebanese together with Maronite Lebanese Christians would rise against the Shia Hezbollah, blaming them for the destruction of south Lebanon. This theory did not materialize as it was a tactical error of judgment. Israel's collective punishment operation by deliberately destroying civilian life and property and infrastructure as well as military targets united the Lebanese people rather than dividing them as it was designed to do. The result as seen in the immediate aftermath is that Israel lost not only regionally but also globally in the tactical sense.
Of course only time will tell, once the dust has settled, who really won and who really lost in absolute terms in the long run, or what kind of balances will emerge in tomorrow's Middle East from its present rubble and chaos. On the ground no military gain is visible for Israel or Hezbollah after so much destruction and human and material loss. Neither side reached their strategic goal of severely wounding or destroying each other. Israel could not even secure its stated objective, in its own words the cause of the war, the safe return of the two Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah did not secure the release of the Lebanese held in custody in Israeli prisons.
Resolution 1701 of the U.N. Security Council has fallen on hollow ground and is another witness that neither of the warring parties gained anything tangible except a piece of paper with no value or advantage to either side. Now a new Security Council resolution is being sought with some teeth in it.
The big neo-colonial plan was to turn tiny and helpless Lebanon into Israel's satellite and thereby isolate Syria. Historically in the eyes of Syria, Lebanon has always been part of Greater Syria and Israel's big plan was intended to recreate the civil war of the '70s. This 35-day war, as described by the Guardian on July 20 was, to paraphrase, another chapter created by the colonial mind. If so, there will be no end soon. It may be correctly described as a war of independence against colonialism because there are resistance movements like Hamas and Hezbollah with the support of the Arab masses in the Middle East. This is the reason the terrorist label, which has been affixed to the resistance by the Hezbollah militia, is now being questioned.
As the expected quick victory failed to materialize, there is now much soul-searching in Israel. No visible success does not mean defeat for both sides but rather a time for respite and reflection. Israel's existence in the Middle East is a historic fact of life that Hamas and Hezbollah one day have to recognize.
This uncalled for waste of a war may give some useful lessons in hindsight to both sides, such as that violence and force breed nothing but greater violence. Brute force provokes counter reaction, terror multiples itself geometrically with counter terror. There is no alternative but to sit and talk, and talk about two-way concessions, learn to give and take for the sake of peace and security.
The two sides must be looking into what happened in those 35 days of killing and destruction in which they only succeeded in creating rubble and ruin, over of which they can only feel shame, not pride. Both sides should start by apologizing to each other that it was a mistake, more than a mistake, a frenzy, an aberration. Let's hope that out of the ashes can come a new start for a fresh beginning. As I suggested recently in this column, this futile war may create a "catharsis" for inspiration, and why not?
Clinton Foundation's Istanbul visit
Gila Benmayor for TDN
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Istanbul is attracting a lot of visitors these days. Apart from the six republican senators and their wives who spent the last weekend in Istanbul, there were the multitudes, which came to watch the Formula 1 races, and some members of the Clinton Foundation. The foundation members, unlike the rest, came to Istanbul on business, not pleasure. Before writing about who they met with, I would like to provide some information on what this foundation does.
As you all know, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, after leaving the White House, did not lose his interest in what was happening around the world. Through his foundation, he takes a keen interest in various issues around the world, especially those involving education and health. The Clinton Foundation initiated a campaign, “Clinton Climate Initiative,” in early August. The initiative, known as CCI, aims to combat global warming. There are various causes behind global warming. However, the main cause is the greenhouse emissions from large cities. According to statistics, 75 percent of the harmful greenhouse emissions come from these large cities. One of those who first noted this danger and emphasized the importance of taking measures to prevent it was London Mayor Ken Livingstone. Livingstone founded the “Large Cities Climate Leadership Group.” The group, which wants to cooperate with the 22 large cities around the world including Istanbul, signed an agreement with the Clinton Foundation. The third partner of this cooperation agreement is the U.S. Green Building Council.
The concept of “Green Building” is not well known in Turkey. Buildings that are built on proper land and use the minimum amount of water and electricity are categorized and environmentally-friendly and in other words “green.”
This council has a member in Istanbul. She is civil engineer Dr. Duygu Erten who returned to Turkey after working in the United States for 17 years. A “green building” Erten built in Los Angeles came first in a competition. Consequently, the first person the Clinton Foundation and the Green Building Council visit when they came to Istanbul was naturally Erten. So, what did the Clinton foundation do in Istanbul? Who did they speak to?
They first asked for a meeting with Istanbul Mayor Kadir Topbaş. However, his schedule was too busy and the meeting didn't happen. Istanbul Greater Municipality Environmental Protection Bureau Director İbrahim Demir agreed to meet with representatives of the Clinton Foundation and the Green Building Council. We don't exactly know what was discussed behind closed doors. We don't know whether Istanbul will join this global initiative to combat greenhouse emissions. I personally expect the Istanbul Greater Municipality to release a statement on the matter.
One must note one fact.
Turkey, just like the United States, did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.
According to my information, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) is a little confused about the protocol and has no clear strategy. I wonder whether the Istanbul Greater Municipality can join such an initiative without Ankara. If it can, it will prove it is truly a global city.
Şahin: Cabinet will decide if no agreement
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Şahin said on Friday that if there was no agreement after an arbitration council report was released on possible wage increases for public servants, the government would decide between the two alternatives it had presented to the unions.
Speaking at a press conference Şahin said despite the fact that total inflation for the past four years had been 46.2 percent, public servants had received wage increases amounting to 72.2 percent, dismissing claims by unions that the government was ignoring them.
The government offered two alternative proposals to the unions earlier this week. One was 2.5 percent plus 2.5 percent for high earners and 4 percent plus 4 percent for low earners. The other was 2.5 percent plus 2.5 percent for all and a YTL 20 plus YTL 20 adjustment payment. The unions rejected both alternatives.
He cited a study by the Turkish Public Workers' Labor Union (Kamu-Sen) that said almost half of public servants owned houses, noting that there had been a huge increase in the purchasing power of state employees in the past few years.
If the government had agreed to union demands to increase the minimum public servant wage to around YTL 1,000 per month, it would have resulted in an added burden of YTL 15 billion, which would have necessitated serious curtailing of investment and debt payment.
He said the lowest public servant wage after the increase in July 2007 would be YTL 775, noting that this 13.6 percent increase was considerably higher than the projected 2007 inflation rate of 4 percent.
Şahin said the average public servant wage increase would be 10.7 percent. “I wish we had the opportunity to do more, but if we did more, we would have had to take money from Turkey's other needs.” He said the economic stability program the government was implementing had to continue.
When asked about the unions' intention to demonstrate over the failure of the wage negotiations, Şahin said they were free to do whatever they wanted within the boundaries of the law. “Turkey is a democratic and free country.”
He said one confederation had announced its intention to call for a strike, adding, “I find this a very unfortunate statement because according to the Constitution, public servants don't have the right to go on strike.”
He called on public servants and unions to act responsibly. “Don't fall victim to provocations. You have children. We don't want to see legal measures taken against public servants,” he said.
The talks between unions and the government took place between Aug. 15 and 30 and ended in failure, with both sides accusing each other of not having approached the matter with good intentions. Unions said they would be taking to the streets to win support, while Şahin warned the unions and public servants against committing illegal acts.
After a failure to reach a deal, the wage increase will be taken up by the reconciliation board headed by the president of the Supreme Arbitration Board (YHK). Four academics will make up the remainder of the board, which will issue a decision in five days. If both sides agree to the decision, then the result will be presented to the Cabinet as a memorandum of understanding. If the sides don't agree to the board's decision, then all chapters of the negotiation will be presented to the Cabinet, which has the final say.
Ostrich policies and rhetoric
Yusuf KANLI for TDN
Saturday, September 2, 2006
According to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Turkey doesn't have the luxury of not contributing troops to the U.N. stabilization force for Lebanon because "backing away from our responsibilities would be a betrayal to our history, our future and the high aspirations of our nation."
That is, according to Erdogan, if parliamentarians convening on the government request to approve a decree authorizing it to dispatch an unspecified number of troops (mostly logistics units) to Lebanon for a one-year period (naturally renewable at the end of that period) decide to "betray" Turkish history and say "No, we do not want to send our sons to a war that is not ours" or instead say "It's none of our business to question the wisdom of our leader. If he says we should not betray our history and send troops to Lebanon, he must know something, we have to fulfill his expectation and say yes to the decree."
What kind of logic is that? How can we say that Parliament has decided on the issue of its own free will if the prime minister has already qualified any "no" vote as a betrayal to Turkish history? This "those who don't share my point are traitors" attitude can bring no benefit to anyone. Erdogan must realize that.
Whereas the prime minister was right in the rest of his assessments in his address to the nation on Thursday night. Most certainly we cannot act like an ostrich and believe that since we have buried our heads in the sand and cannot see around us, people around us won't see us as well. Turkey is not a lone island in the wilderness. We cannot act with an understanding that if we shut our doors to all the evils in our region we will not be affected by them. On the contrary, Turkey is a major player of the region, its former ruler. It shares an immense cultural and historical heritage with the peoples of the Middle East and the Caucasus as well as the Balkans. It's nothing but normal for Turkey to have interest in what's going on in the former Turkish territories. Unlike the Americans, we have an awareness of the sensitivities, cultural peculiarities and behavioral patterns of the peoples of these lands and indeed, we may contribute much to the resolution of the existing problems all through this geography.
How? Can Turkey contribute to a resolution of problems merely by dispatching troops under the U.N. beret? Of course, if there is a need, Turkey should not back away from sending its troops and contributing to the consolidation of peace. However, can Turkey indulge in a more active and "reasonable" foreign policy based on the "interests of Turkey" rather than "loyalty to the United States" or "Islamic solidarity" or "neo-Ottoman" designs?
As a regional power, Turkey must perhaps contribute troops to a U.N. peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon. Perhaps, tomorrow Turkey may feel compelled to contribute troops to a stabilization force to be deployed in some other part of the area. No one is saying that Turkey should ignore its obligations or act in isolationist fashion.
But isolationism should be avoided not only when we are asked to contribute troops to an international force. This country must remember that isolationism -- particularly in the area of democratic understanding --along with rising nationalism and Islamist rhetoric may create more problems than military isolationism. Europe has been complaining for some time "Where is Ali Babacan?" Many people have forgotten that we have a young economy minister who was also assigned by the government as the chief EU negotiator. They forget Babacan not because they have amnesia but because Babacan is not doing anything that would merit remembering him.
Turkey is losing the EU train. A possible crisis with Europe over the Cyprus ports and airports issue on the one hand and a failure to legislate and implement promised reforms on the other are poisoning the climate. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and other articles written with the same primitive mentality have become a pain in the neck for everyone who would like to see the expansion of freedoms and liberties in this country.
Can we expect that Erdogan will one day remember the need for this country to start acting like a member of the European family of nations?
This country needs a mental reform, and that, unfortunately, cannot be legislated overnight with the parliamentary majority of the ruling party. For that we need to have a concerted national effort