The slow pace of reforms and lack of progress on freedom of expression are expected to be the main issues of contention in Turkish-EU relations in the coming weeks, in addition to Cyprus
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.
Monday, January 5, 2009
No winners only losers in Lebanese war
Yüksel Söylemez for TDN Sunday, September 3, 2006
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?
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
The Middle East
Orhan Kilercioğlu for TDN
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Since the end of Ottoman control, the energy-rich Middle East has always been involved in some kind of trouble. Blood and tears continue to dominate the region. Although the area seemed to be in constant chaos before the dissolution of the Soviet state, even those days seem like the good old ones today.
After the founding of the Israeli state in 1948, the lack of any dialogue between the Israel and Arab worlds, the stances adopted by some countries against Israel, and religious, political and economic factors have resulted in what we see today. Iran and Syria in particular exhibited a very hostile attitude towards Israel and secretly channeled money and support to certain groups that fought the Jewish state. These countries, which refrained from directly confronting Israel, both gained time and utilized opportunities to strengthen their regional standing.
If we ignore the huge destruction Israel wrought on Lebanese infrastructure, we can easily say they failed to achieve their objectives in the recent offensive. Israel suffered serious losses, and for the first time since 1967 came face-to-face with serious resistance.
It is obvious that things are changing in the region. With the gradual deployment of U.N. troops in southern Lebanon, Israeli forces have begun to pull out. This shows Israel does not want to escalate things any further and is trying to find enough time to heal its wounds.
We have also seen that the number of countries regarding Israel as the enemy has increased since the start of the latest offensive. The huge human tragedy that Israel caused in Lebanon played a huge part in this change.
On the other hand, the support given to Hezbollah by some countries has caused serious problems for Israel.
One must also keep in mind the fact that despite its promise to bring democracy and peace to the country, the United States has up until now failed to stabilize Iraq.
The United States seems determined not to pull its troops out of Iraq until it has achieved peace in the country. Meanwhile, public order is plummeting with every passing day. All signs point to a deepening civil war in Iraq. If this happens, the entire region may be pulled into this quagmire.
Iran and Syria seem to be enjoying the current troubles in the region, believing them to be in their interest. Iran, which recently announced the fact that it has no intention of halting its nuclear program, seems to be overconfident. Why is it so confident? It is the fourth largest oil exporter in the world. It believes the United Nations cannot afford to impose serious trade restrictions. The policies of Russia and China, both permanent U.N. Security Council members, confirm this.
Additionally, no one should view Iran as just another Iraq. The United States and the West in general know this. The United States is aware of how much things may escalate if a mistake is made.
All signs point to the perception that the region is on the eve of a huge crisis. Compared to the past the dangers Israel faces have increased considerably. It needs to produce clever and persuasive policies to win over the international community.
As usual, Turkey is trying its best to remain isolated from all the tragedy happening around it.
In conclusion, the huge crisis in the Middle East constitutes a clear and present danger. Hate, ambition and interests need to be put aside for our own good.
Summary of turkish Newspaper columns sep 2006
Summaries of selected opinions from the Turkish press on September 4 ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Erdoğan's statement, the PKK and Lebanon:
Radikal's Murat Yetkin yesterday commented on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's recent statement that “the military is not somewhere to sit and unwind” in response to a person who interrupted his speech, shouting, “Mr. Prime Minister, we don't want to see any more martyrs' funerals.” According to Yetkin the prime minister's statement could backfire. In a parliamentary group meeting of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül gave a speech to convince deputies to vote for a resolution allowing troop dispatch to a U.N. force in Lebanon. Yetkin says, contrary to a failed resolution to allow the U.S. military to use bases in Turkey to attack Iraq in 2003, the Lebanon resolution is likely to be ratified in Parliament for a number of reasons. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's objection to troop dispatch has unified his opponents within the AKP. In addition, unlike the Iraq decision, there is a U.N. resolution, and the AKP would not want to further strain ties with the United States. However, the issue of Lebanon has become a major theme in domestic politics within the context of the increased deaths of Turkish soldiers by Kurdish terrorists in the East. The slogan “Troops not to Lebanon but to Kandil” in Iraq, the hideout of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). No matter how strongly Gül insists that the PKK and Lebanon are two separate problems, the public will not perceive it as such. This is why, according to Yetkin, the negative reaction evinced by the prime minister's statement that the military is not a place to “sit and unwind” is natural. Yetkin maintains that the statement might receive an adverse reaction within the AKP as well. Although the statement is not powerful enough to change the expected outcome of the Lebanon vote, it will definitely become a headache for Erdoğan during the rough EU process, presidential elections and increasing separatist violence in the East.
Troops should be dispatched:
Sabah's Aslı Aydıntaşbaş yesterday said if Parliament passes the government resolution on deploying troops to the U.N. Lebanon force, Turkish soldiers would set foot in the Middle East, which was ruled by the Ottomans for centuries, for the first time since the Turkish Republic was founded. Aydıntaşbaş supports the idea of troop dispatch, saying that U.N. involvement in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict has certain benefits for Turkey. For one thing, instability in the region poses a potential threat to Turkey, which, with aspirations to become a regional power, cannot turn its back on regional problems. Only weak states are introverted. Troop deployment would bring prestige to Turkey and a say on regional issues. In addition, all sides involved welcome Turkish troops in southern Lebanon. Opinionated and isolationist circles opposed to sending troops according to Aydıntaşbaş are doing so simply for the sake of opposition. Overall, sending troops is more advantageous than staying out, Aydıntaşbaş concludes.
As millions starve:
Cumhuriyet's Oktay Akbal yesterday said in his column that Israel had no right to attack Lebanon. Beirut was torn apart, with schools, hospitals, bridges, roads and other facilities ruined by the Israeli attack in addition to thousands killed and maimed.
Akbal states that now a fund-raising campaign to rebuild Lebanon is in place, until another Israeli attack that might be triggered by an order from the Bush administration. At the same time, millions are starving in Africa. According to Akbal the United Nations is simply not functioning to serve its raison d'etre, to end hunger in the world and promote world peace. However, the so-called “civilized” world will one day have to answer for genocide in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
Final situation on the Middle Eastern front:
Yeni Şafak's Ali Bayramoğlu yesterday wrote about the troop-dispatch resolution. Bayramoğlu, like most other writers, assumed that the resolution would be ratified with no difficulty. However, Bayramoğlu says no other country has discussed troop deployment so vehemently as Turkey because the discussion has turned into an issue of domestic politics. Since none of the political parties in Turkey has a regional or global political analysis known to the public, they have to be populist or cunning at best. At the same time, the Turkish public is aware of the fact that it is a nation combining Eastern and Western aspects at the same time. Any international crisis along the West-East axis immediately turns into a matter of domestic politics. Sending troops to Lebanon in the Turkish context is much more than sending troops to the U.N. force. Bayramoğlu maintains this is the reason behind the fierce discussions on the subject here. This is positive in the sense that it shows an increased level of knowledge of and interest towards world politics, but on the other hand it obscures the real issue. The possible outbreak of a crisis with Iran would deepen the clash to include Turkey. This is the real problem, and any other discussion on sending troops to Lebanon makes no sense.
This does not have to be our fate:
Milliyet's Derya Sazak yesterday wrote about the recent lives lost to Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorism. The grieving parents' cries at funerals were heartrending. At the same time, they were different from the traditional reactions of families of soldiers killed by the PKK. A mother who lost a son said: “I sent my son to the army. Did I send him for you to kill him?” The father said: “My son did not fight in the Anafartalar or Çanakkale War. He was not martyred. They put him into an ambiguous war.” Sazak also quoted an army general who said, “Terrorism has been Turkey's fate for years.” Sazak said although it is true that blood and tears have set on Turkey like a nightmare, terrorism is not the fate of Turkey. The way to avoid that fate is to produce rational and peaceful solutions and avoid the trap of those forces pushing Turkey into the Middle Eastern quagmire through Lebanon. For Sazak, the Lebanon crisis is part of a plan to leave Turkey in chaos and clashes against Kurdish citizens in the country's southeast. Sazak called on Parliament to vote against the troop dispatch resolution.
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Erdoğan's statement, the PKK and Lebanon:
Radikal's Murat Yetkin yesterday commented on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's recent statement that “the military is not somewhere to sit and unwind” in response to a person who interrupted his speech, shouting, “Mr. Prime Minister, we don't want to see any more martyrs' funerals.” According to Yetkin the prime minister's statement could backfire. In a parliamentary group meeting of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül gave a speech to convince deputies to vote for a resolution allowing troop dispatch to a U.N. force in Lebanon. Yetkin says, contrary to a failed resolution to allow the U.S. military to use bases in Turkey to attack Iraq in 2003, the Lebanon resolution is likely to be ratified in Parliament for a number of reasons. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's objection to troop dispatch has unified his opponents within the AKP. In addition, unlike the Iraq decision, there is a U.N. resolution, and the AKP would not want to further strain ties with the United States. However, the issue of Lebanon has become a major theme in domestic politics within the context of the increased deaths of Turkish soldiers by Kurdish terrorists in the East. The slogan “Troops not to Lebanon but to Kandil” in Iraq, the hideout of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). No matter how strongly Gül insists that the PKK and Lebanon are two separate problems, the public will not perceive it as such. This is why, according to Yetkin, the negative reaction evinced by the prime minister's statement that the military is not a place to “sit and unwind” is natural. Yetkin maintains that the statement might receive an adverse reaction within the AKP as well. Although the statement is not powerful enough to change the expected outcome of the Lebanon vote, it will definitely become a headache for Erdoğan during the rough EU process, presidential elections and increasing separatist violence in the East.
Troops should be dispatched:
Sabah's Aslı Aydıntaşbaş yesterday said if Parliament passes the government resolution on deploying troops to the U.N. Lebanon force, Turkish soldiers would set foot in the Middle East, which was ruled by the Ottomans for centuries, for the first time since the Turkish Republic was founded. Aydıntaşbaş supports the idea of troop dispatch, saying that U.N. involvement in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict has certain benefits for Turkey. For one thing, instability in the region poses a potential threat to Turkey, which, with aspirations to become a regional power, cannot turn its back on regional problems. Only weak states are introverted. Troop deployment would bring prestige to Turkey and a say on regional issues. In addition, all sides involved welcome Turkish troops in southern Lebanon. Opinionated and isolationist circles opposed to sending troops according to Aydıntaşbaş are doing so simply for the sake of opposition. Overall, sending troops is more advantageous than staying out, Aydıntaşbaş concludes.
As millions starve:
Cumhuriyet's Oktay Akbal yesterday said in his column that Israel had no right to attack Lebanon. Beirut was torn apart, with schools, hospitals, bridges, roads and other facilities ruined by the Israeli attack in addition to thousands killed and maimed.
Akbal states that now a fund-raising campaign to rebuild Lebanon is in place, until another Israeli attack that might be triggered by an order from the Bush administration. At the same time, millions are starving in Africa. According to Akbal the United Nations is simply not functioning to serve its raison d'etre, to end hunger in the world and promote world peace. However, the so-called “civilized” world will one day have to answer for genocide in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
Final situation on the Middle Eastern front:
Yeni Şafak's Ali Bayramoğlu yesterday wrote about the troop-dispatch resolution. Bayramoğlu, like most other writers, assumed that the resolution would be ratified with no difficulty. However, Bayramoğlu says no other country has discussed troop deployment so vehemently as Turkey because the discussion has turned into an issue of domestic politics. Since none of the political parties in Turkey has a regional or global political analysis known to the public, they have to be populist or cunning at best. At the same time, the Turkish public is aware of the fact that it is a nation combining Eastern and Western aspects at the same time. Any international crisis along the West-East axis immediately turns into a matter of domestic politics. Sending troops to Lebanon in the Turkish context is much more than sending troops to the U.N. force. Bayramoğlu maintains this is the reason behind the fierce discussions on the subject here. This is positive in the sense that it shows an increased level of knowledge of and interest towards world politics, but on the other hand it obscures the real issue. The possible outbreak of a crisis with Iran would deepen the clash to include Turkey. This is the real problem, and any other discussion on sending troops to Lebanon makes no sense.
This does not have to be our fate:
Milliyet's Derya Sazak yesterday wrote about the recent lives lost to Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorism. The grieving parents' cries at funerals were heartrending. At the same time, they were different from the traditional reactions of families of soldiers killed by the PKK. A mother who lost a son said: “I sent my son to the army. Did I send him for you to kill him?” The father said: “My son did not fight in the Anafartalar or Çanakkale War. He was not martyred. They put him into an ambiguous war.” Sazak also quoted an army general who said, “Terrorism has been Turkey's fate for years.” Sazak said although it is true that blood and tears have set on Turkey like a nightmare, terrorism is not the fate of Turkey. The way to avoid that fate is to produce rational and peaceful solutions and avoid the trap of those forces pushing Turkey into the Middle Eastern quagmire through Lebanon. For Sazak, the Lebanon crisis is part of a plan to leave Turkey in chaos and clashes against Kurdish citizens in the country's southeast. Sazak called on Parliament to vote against the troop dispatch resolution.
Some basic Lebanon facts
Cengiz Aktar for TDN
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
The matter of sending troops to boost the U.N. force in Lebanon caused a bigger stir than it deserved.
UNIFIL won't fight:
In the last article, I had noted that the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was an undisclosed peace enforcement operation. I had written that Resolution 1701's articles 8 and 11 clearly note this fact and that the difference of emphasis was due to the failure to base the force on the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7, which would have tied the hands of the warring sides and the international community.
The United Nations' Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) presented a draft on the “rules of engagement” for UNIFIL to all U.N. members on Aug. 19. The document says UNIFIL is allowed to “assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related material and use forceful means, including deadly force, to do so.”
The confusion lessened somewhat after the rules of engagement were published by the media, but the main issue now is how the UNIFIL command will interpret the use of deadly force.
The UNIFIL is similar to the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) operation in Bosnia. UNPROFOR did not have much use and just stood by as Serbs killed tens of thousands of Bosnians and Croats. Things deteriorated so much that its abbreviation gave the inspiration for it to be described as the “Force Protecting United Nations.”
Additionally, in order to get an idea about the United Nations' prestige among Hezbollah supporters, one can just take a look at the treatment accorded Secretary-General Kofi Annan on his last trip there. The United Nations is seen as a neutral interlocutor by neither Lebanon nor any other Arab country. It is known as a body guided by the United States and the West in general. This is due to both the unwillingness and inexperience of Arab and Muslim countries when it comes to multilateral policies and relations and to the United Nations' somewhat biased and somewhat ineffective presence in the region.
In conclusion, the U.N. force will not get involved in clashes, not because it lacks any clear rules on its duties but because it is a U.N. force.
Will it do any good for Lebanon?
As a result, the troops will protect themselves first and foremost and will not get involved in clashes. UNIFIL will not disarm Hezbollah nor will it be able to prevent weapons and ammunition from being smuggled into the country. It will only help in the reconstruction of the buildings and infrastructure destroyed by Israeli bombs. The contribution of the U.N. force to the Palestinian issue will be a huge zero.
U.S. efforts to encourage the maximum number of countries to take up the gendarmerie duties neither they nor Israel can do will not amount to anything because the force in question is a U.N. force.
At the end of the day neither Lebanon nor Palestine nor Israel nor the wider Middle East will profit from this operation in any tangible way in terms of permanent peace.
What are Turkey's interests?
If we put the brotherhood and heroism stories aside, the only things left are the theses that our country's influence will be felt in the region and will be praised by the United States and the European Union. The expectation and agendas of the United States and the EU are very different. The United States sees us as a local gendarme, while the EU emphasizes Turkey's secular/Muslim identity.
At an EU meeting at the end of August, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Portugal promised to give troops to the force. Bulgaria is still considering. Despite the constantly noted military importance of Turkey, it wasn't invited to attend this meeting. It is said that French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi called Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and asked for troops for the force.
Is it possible for the EU, which is remembered by the United States only when financial assistance is on the agenda and is ignored otherwise, to fill the gap? Even though this new role will not become real very soon, the tremendous loss of prestige suffered by the United States may provide an opportunity for the EU. The possibility of Turkey finding a place for itself in this context seems like the best prospect. If there is to be a permanent peace in the Middle East one day, it won't be through the confrontation approach tested since 1948 but rather through the “soft power” of the EU based on economic integration and dialog. Our country's regional weight, which currently is largely an illusion, can become fact through its EU membership.
There is a claim that by sending troops to Lebanon we will mend our relations with the EU. Turkey is sending troops to the EUFOR force in Bosnia, led by the EU. This did not help, nor did it hurt, our EU process. The same is true for UNIFIL.
As of today, Hezbollah continues to refuse to release the two Israeli soldiers it kidnapped. Israel refuses to disclose the maps of the cluster bombs it used in Lebanon nor has it ended the blockade of the Lebanese coast. Lebanon says it is impossible for it to introduce a stringent inspection mechanism on its border with Syria, which is cited, without names, in Resolution 1701 as the major transit point for weapons going to Hezbollah. This picture won't change with the deployment of UNIFIL.
September 5th motion
Cüneyt Ülsever for TDN Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Today is truly a very important day.
In the last few years, Turkish foreign policy seems to have been dominated by the word “motion.”
We have been debating the March 1 motion, when Turkey rejected U.S. troop deployment in our country, for more than three years. We still haven't done a factual profit and loss assessment of that decision. We still can't agree on whether it was good or not.
No matter what the decision is today on the Sept. 5 motion, we will be discussing its repercussions for some time. I am sure that we will fail to reach any concrete agreement on this one, either.
The fact is that the issue we are debating is not something whose results can be foreseen and is not based on objective criteria.
Our Parliament today will take a subjective decision whose consequences and profit and loss analysis cannot be reached with objective criteria.
There are two main opinions on the “sending troops to Lebanon” issue.
1-- There are those who argue “this matter has nothing to do with us.” They don't want us to get involved.
2-- Those who want Turkey to have a say in the new Middle East being shaped want Turkey to contribute troops.
In terms of realpolitik, these two opinions contradict each other.
Some of those who concentrate on the humanitarian side of the issue oppose Turkey sending troops because they fear they will come in harm's way. There are also those who concentrate on the same thing and come to the conclusion that something must be done to stop the ongoing bloodshed in Lebanon.
Ignorant people on both sides accused one another of “treason” in order to gain support.
I am an individual who tries to look at issues from a realpolitik perspective.
There is a humanitarian side to almost all international issues, but I personally believe they unfortunately play little or no part in the decision-making process.
That's why I personally believe:
1-- Those who think “this matter has nothing to do with us” should realize that whether we like it or not, Turkey will be pulled into this matter and in fact is being pulled right now. Those who did not want to send troops to Iraq for the same reason must have realized the fact that Turkey did not escape from the “Iraq matter” and has suffered significant financial losses due to it.
2-- I personally believe Turkey should play the region's “imperial state.” Not only my opinion but also history, geography, culture and human capital are forcing Turkey to become an influential country in the Middle East.
I believe Turkey needs to take an active part in the war of “re-division” that it cannot stop or prevent. I believe Turkey's strength prevents it from having the luxury of becoming a bystander in the 21st century. I fear even if it wants to remain on the sidelines, Turkey's strength will result in other countries with imperialistic ambitions in the region (e.g., Iran) not allowing it any rest.
I reserve my right to like or not like the decision Parliament will take, but no matter what it is, we should not take a stance that is insulting to the other side. The biggest mistake we could commit would be to attack each other on an international issue.
I hope the decision our Parliament makes today will benefit us all.
Today is truly a very important day.
In the last few years, Turkish foreign policy seems to have been dominated by the word “motion.”
We have been debating the March 1 motion, when Turkey rejected U.S. troop deployment in our country, for more than three years. We still haven't done a factual profit and loss assessment of that decision. We still can't agree on whether it was good or not.
No matter what the decision is today on the Sept. 5 motion, we will be discussing its repercussions for some time. I am sure that we will fail to reach any concrete agreement on this one, either.
The fact is that the issue we are debating is not something whose results can be foreseen and is not based on objective criteria.
Our Parliament today will take a subjective decision whose consequences and profit and loss analysis cannot be reached with objective criteria.
There are two main opinions on the “sending troops to Lebanon” issue.
1-- There are those who argue “this matter has nothing to do with us.” They don't want us to get involved.
2-- Those who want Turkey to have a say in the new Middle East being shaped want Turkey to contribute troops.
In terms of realpolitik, these two opinions contradict each other.
Some of those who concentrate on the humanitarian side of the issue oppose Turkey sending troops because they fear they will come in harm's way. There are also those who concentrate on the same thing and come to the conclusion that something must be done to stop the ongoing bloodshed in Lebanon.
Ignorant people on both sides accused one another of “treason” in order to gain support.
I am an individual who tries to look at issues from a realpolitik perspective.
There is a humanitarian side to almost all international issues, but I personally believe they unfortunately play little or no part in the decision-making process.
That's why I personally believe:
1-- Those who think “this matter has nothing to do with us” should realize that whether we like it or not, Turkey will be pulled into this matter and in fact is being pulled right now. Those who did not want to send troops to Iraq for the same reason must have realized the fact that Turkey did not escape from the “Iraq matter” and has suffered significant financial losses due to it.
2-- I personally believe Turkey should play the region's “imperial state.” Not only my opinion but also history, geography, culture and human capital are forcing Turkey to become an influential country in the Middle East.
I believe Turkey needs to take an active part in the war of “re-division” that it cannot stop or prevent. I believe Turkey's strength prevents it from having the luxury of becoming a bystander in the 21st century. I fear even if it wants to remain on the sidelines, Turkey's strength will result in other countries with imperialistic ambitions in the region (e.g., Iran) not allowing it any rest.
I reserve my right to like or not like the decision Parliament will take, but no matter what it is, we should not take a stance that is insulting to the other side. The biggest mistake we could commit would be to attack each other on an international issue.
I hope the decision our Parliament makes today will benefit us all.
Turkish Newspaper Columns
Summaries of selected opinions from Turkish newspapers on September 3 ANKARA - Turkish Daily News Monday, September 4, 2006
Soldiers had the last say:
Radikal's Murat Yetkin in yesterday's column said he was informed by Foreign Ministry sources that despite the government's request for Turkish troops to be deployed closer to locals, it was the Office of the Chief of General Staff and the Foreign Ministry bureaucracy that had the final say on the Lebanon troop deployment proposal that was submitted to Parliament on Saturday.
He said the same sources said the proposal aimed to minimize the risk posed by clashes to Turkish troops.
The aid Turkey may give to UNIFIL was categorized under three headings.
1-- Naval vessels to patrol the eastern Mediterranean region;
2-- Providing logistical support to allies by allowing them to use Turkish ports and airports; and
3-- Training the Lebanese army.
Those who support troop dispatch:
Cumhuriyet's Oral Çalışlar on Sunday wrote about Turkey's decision to send troops to Lebanon as part of a U.N. force there.
Çalışlar recalled that Parliament on March 1, 2003 voted down a government resolution allowing U.S. ships and planes to use bases in Turkey to attack Iraq. To this day, some who supported backing the U.S. attack against Iraq have claimed the rejection cost Turkey dearly. Proponents of aiding the United Stats in Iraq say Turkey's decision alienated it from the region. It is because of that rejection that it can't intervene in the emerging process of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Çalışlar says Turkey made the right decision staying away from the chaos in Iraq. Turkey was protected from the reaction and anger from the Arab world and was praised for the attitude symbolizing dignity as it rejected billions of dollars offered by the United States. Turkey has also increased its influence in the region by not taking sides in the Iraq war, Çalışlar contends.
Çalışlar, however, admits that the situation in Lebanon -- troop deployment under the United Nations -- is quite different from the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Çalışlar says -- although he is opposed to sending troops to Lebanon in principle -- drawing a parallel with the situation in Iraq as most opponents of sending troops to Lebanon do is unfair and wrong.
Although reckless gun owners might get angry:
Hürriyet's Oktay Ekşi yesterday wrote about a recent decision of the state-owned gun producer MKEK to cancel a marketing plan to sell guns with long-term payment options after drawing much reaction from the media and civil society organizations against private gun ownership.
Ekşi said that for the first time a folk singer who fired shots into the air with an unlicensed gun was fined YTL 12,000 for his crime. In addition, an investigation was started for having violated the law on firearms. Ekşi called on other prosecutors to do the same. Ekşi also noted that about 600 people annually are killed by bullets fired at weddings or other celebrations. According to Ekşi stricter gun control laws could be the only way to prevent deaths caused by stray bullets.
The Lebanon debate:
Zaman's Ahmet Selim yesterday called on all sides to employ a peaceful and calm manner in discussions about the country's fate. Recent debates on whether Turkey should contribute troops to strengthen a U.N. force in Lebanon are overly sensitive. However, according to Selim both opponents and proponents share the same concerns. Both sides are worried about Turkey's future in the Middle East and its problem with Kurdish separatists. The Kurdish state in Iraq will become increasingly independent. This is why Turkey should have allowed the United States to use military bases in Turkey when attacking Iraq, according to Selim. However, experiencing that feeling of regret should not be a part of the debates on the Lebanon force. Everyone should understand the seriousness of the situation and act responsibly when discussing dispatch of troops to Lebanon.
Towards Iran:
Daily Milliyet's Melih Aşık yesterday wrote about the recent violence in Iraq. In his opinion, clashes in Iraq have long transformed into an outright civil war, with more than 300 deaths within the past week and over 1,000 in the past month. Iraq is likely to be separated into three parts, according to Aşık. The Kurds there are closer to establishing a fully independent state. The United States, as it works to disintegrate Iraq, is preparing to hit Iran. President George Bush's latest statements against Iran's nuclear ambitions clearly show that the United States is determined to attack Iran, Aşık said.
Aşık refers to those who support the idea that sending troops to Lebanon would protect Turkey from danger in the Middle East and that for this reason Turkey should go with the U.S. flow in Lebanon. Aşık disagrees with this idea, saying that once Turkey is dragged into the Lebanese quagmire it will be hard to get out. In addition, a United States that would like to separate Turkey cannot be a reliable and honest ally.
The ‘lynch operator':
Sabah's Umur Talu yesterday wrote about the statement of a police chief praising a lynching attempt in Istanbul. Four young people who demonstrated against the dispatch of Turkish troops to Lebanon as part of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) were kicked and punched by bystanders. Eventually the security forces managed to drag the bloodied demonstrators to a police station. In a statement that came shortly after the incident, Cerrah had told the press: “Unfortunately, they are university students. There is a lot of reaction against such people in society these days. It is a nice reaction.” According to Talu, Cerrah's praise was not a Freudian slip but rather a confession of Turkey's state tradition that often disregards the supremacy of law. Cerrah's statement was by no means an accident. Talu says the opposition party, and even the former chief of general staff, praised for his democratic stance, had either kept silent in similar incidents or even praised some past events. Everybody in Turkey has a part of Cerrah inside them, according to Talu.
All parties should stand behind Lebanon decision
Semih İdiz for TDN Thursday, September 7, 2006
Following a period of acrimonious debate, the Turkish Parliament on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly (340 to 192) to give the government the authorization to send troops to Lebanon with a view to helping the efforts to stabilize the situation there.
For those following it closely the whole experience was a major point in favor of Turkish democracy, given that many European governments do not need such parliamentary authorization to partake in foreign military missions.
In the case of Turkey, however, no government can act on its own and send troops abroad or admit foreign troops on national territory without authorization from Parliament.
It was also interesting to note that there was not a repeat of the vote of a few years back, when the government failed to get the authorization from Parliament to allow U.S. forces into Turkey in order for them to stage an invasion of Iraq from the north.
Many deputies from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) voted against their own government's bill then, much to the surprise of the public at large, which had considered it a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass despite a number of maverick AKP deputies.
This time only six AKP deputies voted against the government's bill. Prime Minister Erdoğan can also boast that his government's bill was accepted by most of his deputies, even though there was no binding party decision for everyone to vote in favor of it.
This is in stark contrast to the situation within the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), which took a binding party decision that all its deputies should vote against the bill. In other words no one could vote for it even if they believed in its merits.
In fact most analysts agree that the CHP did not come out of this whole episode with enhanced prestige, since it made it clear from the way it was approaching the issue from the very start that its main objective was to hit out at the government in any way it could, and this topic was just another convenient device for doing so.
Otherwise there was not much talk among members of the party, who include retired ambassadors, about the crisis in the Middle East and what Turkey could do to help efforts to stabilize the situation. Most were engaged in crass demagoguery designed to sway the public by means of scare tactics with open suggestions that the government was callously throwing Turkish troops into the fire.
Many analysts are speculating that the CHP's popularity declined further as a result of the somewhat mercenary approach it displayed on this issue. Others, however, argue that the points by the party made should nevertheless have been made so that the public got the whole picture about what was involved in this mission.
In the meantime, Turkish military sources have been reported in the press as saying that in the estimation of the Turkish Armed Forces, the mission is not as dangerous as the opposition has been making it out to be. At least no more dangerous for Turkish troops than say their mission in Bosnia was, given that the Serbs were referring to the Bosnians they were massacring as Turks.
The crux of the problem is whether Turkish troops will be forced to try and disarm Hezbollah, as foreseen by U.N. resolutions, and in doing so engage in lethal firefights. However it is clear from the press that few of the countries that are sending forces to Lebanon are willing to fight, no doubt much to the chagrin of Israel and the United States.
Another issue centers on the question of whether Hezbollah would be so foolhardy as to provoke Israel to again visit disproportionate brutality on Lebanon, and in doing so kill U.N. forces, as it has already done with impunity.
The fact is that the whole world is watching Lebanon now, and so it would indeed be foolish for either side to be provocative, thus branding themselves as “enemies of peace.”
Especially given the fact that the reputation of both sides has been severely tarnished as a result of what they caused in an already turbulent part of the world. So while this negative expectation vis a vis Hezbollah and Israel is not an impossibility, it nevertheless does not appear probable at this point.
None of this does away with the continuing uncertainty surrounding Lebanon. It is incumbent on all parties in Turkey to respect the decision of Parliament and provide the moral support Turkish forces will need in carrying out this important and difficult mission.
As to whether it was good for Turkey to get involved in this mission or not, it is time that will tell, not a bunch of rabble-rousing politicians putting the horse before the cart and trying to arrive at premature conclusions in a bid to gain political points.
Following a period of acrimonious debate, the Turkish Parliament on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly (340 to 192) to give the government the authorization to send troops to Lebanon with a view to helping the efforts to stabilize the situation there.
For those following it closely the whole experience was a major point in favor of Turkish democracy, given that many European governments do not need such parliamentary authorization to partake in foreign military missions.
In the case of Turkey, however, no government can act on its own and send troops abroad or admit foreign troops on national territory without authorization from Parliament.
It was also interesting to note that there was not a repeat of the vote of a few years back, when the government failed to get the authorization from Parliament to allow U.S. forces into Turkey in order for them to stage an invasion of Iraq from the north.
Many deputies from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) voted against their own government's bill then, much to the surprise of the public at large, which had considered it a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass despite a number of maverick AKP deputies.
This time only six AKP deputies voted against the government's bill. Prime Minister Erdoğan can also boast that his government's bill was accepted by most of his deputies, even though there was no binding party decision for everyone to vote in favor of it.
This is in stark contrast to the situation within the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), which took a binding party decision that all its deputies should vote against the bill. In other words no one could vote for it even if they believed in its merits.
In fact most analysts agree that the CHP did not come out of this whole episode with enhanced prestige, since it made it clear from the way it was approaching the issue from the very start that its main objective was to hit out at the government in any way it could, and this topic was just another convenient device for doing so.
Otherwise there was not much talk among members of the party, who include retired ambassadors, about the crisis in the Middle East and what Turkey could do to help efforts to stabilize the situation. Most were engaged in crass demagoguery designed to sway the public by means of scare tactics with open suggestions that the government was callously throwing Turkish troops into the fire.
Many analysts are speculating that the CHP's popularity declined further as a result of the somewhat mercenary approach it displayed on this issue. Others, however, argue that the points by the party made should nevertheless have been made so that the public got the whole picture about what was involved in this mission.
In the meantime, Turkish military sources have been reported in the press as saying that in the estimation of the Turkish Armed Forces, the mission is not as dangerous as the opposition has been making it out to be. At least no more dangerous for Turkish troops than say their mission in Bosnia was, given that the Serbs were referring to the Bosnians they were massacring as Turks.
The crux of the problem is whether Turkish troops will be forced to try and disarm Hezbollah, as foreseen by U.N. resolutions, and in doing so engage in lethal firefights. However it is clear from the press that few of the countries that are sending forces to Lebanon are willing to fight, no doubt much to the chagrin of Israel and the United States.
Another issue centers on the question of whether Hezbollah would be so foolhardy as to provoke Israel to again visit disproportionate brutality on Lebanon, and in doing so kill U.N. forces, as it has already done with impunity.
The fact is that the whole world is watching Lebanon now, and so it would indeed be foolish for either side to be provocative, thus branding themselves as “enemies of peace.”
Especially given the fact that the reputation of both sides has been severely tarnished as a result of what they caused in an already turbulent part of the world. So while this negative expectation vis a vis Hezbollah and Israel is not an impossibility, it nevertheless does not appear probable at this point.
None of this does away with the continuing uncertainty surrounding Lebanon. It is incumbent on all parties in Turkey to respect the decision of Parliament and provide the moral support Turkish forces will need in carrying out this important and difficult mission.
As to whether it was good for Turkey to get involved in this mission or not, it is time that will tell, not a bunch of rabble-rousing politicians putting the horse before the cart and trying to arrive at premature conclusions in a bid to gain political points.
An airport vigil and its rainbow of risk
David Judson for TDN Friday, September 8, 2006
Some days are orange. The announcement from every corner of the airport echoes each five or 10 minutes: “This is a security announcement by the Department of Homeland Security. The risk threat level has been raised to level orange. Please report any suspicious packages, bags or behavior to...” This rainbow of risk is not something I fully understand. But I am learning.
I am headed from Washington, D.C., to California on a hastily purchased one-way ticket. And it turns out this, in and of itself, is an indicator of risk. Why would someone want to take a one-way trip to California? I arrived early for the 3:30 p.m. flight. Circumstances being what they are, I am grateful to be moved to the 6:30 p.m. plane without a fine. It's a good thing I am at Dulles International Airport. For without question, this has become the best airport in the world from a passenger's perspective.
I have not always felt this way. I developed a deep relationship with this facility in the years I lived in Washington. I hated Dulles International. There was nothing to eat but fast food. No place to sit but the plastic benches. I used to use a hotel lobby five minutes away by taxi when delayed. But in the interim since my residency here, they built a new terminal. It's fantastic.
This wonder begins with the technology. In recent years all of us have become accustomed to metal detectors, the removal of shoes and belts. But at the end of the line for passengers who like me are in the category of suspicion, there is an even more remarkable technology. I am sure you have seen those bathtubs with the jacuzzi jets down the side. Imagine a vertical version, a sort of stainless steel shower with jacuzzi jets right, left and center. You enter this device and it locks behind you, half the jets spew air while the remainder suck it in. I exit from this sniff and spit engineering and can only compliment the inspector. “This is really cool,” I tell him. “Oh yes, this our newest machine,” the uniform explains with pride.
Later, there is a more conventional metal detector and of course the shoes and belt come off. My new acquaintance empties my backpack. He swabs the insides with a patch of moist fabric and places the bit of rag in what looks to me like a microwave oven. We wait for it to cook and resume our conversation.
“Do you have any liquids?” the uniform asks. “No, the hair gel stayed behind,” I explain. He looks at my thinning white hair. “Looks to me like your need for hair gel is a long time gone,” he jokes. I attempt to laugh at this bit of mirth. He's in charge, after all. And the day is orange.
Once discharged, I proceed to the new “B” terminal. There was nothing like this in my day. There are restaurants and shops and book stores stretching to either end of the long terminal. And let's face it, I have ample time to explore them all.
“The risk level has been raised to level orange,” the loudspeaker exclaims as I order ahi tuna sushi at “Harry's.” This is the first time I have seen a sushi menu at an airport. And it's cheap: $10.95. Can't get a kaşarlı tost for that price at the Istanbul airport. I allow myself a vodka martini. The server (no waiters left in this country) offers me a second, but I resist. “Level orange, better not push it,” I explain. The server nods knowingly and brings me my check while I finish the olive. Time to move on.
A few steps onward I discover a massage stand, the kind with the backless chairs that have you lean forward into a bifurcated face plate. The two masseuses are idle. Hey, it an orange day and I have nothing else to do. I order the half-hour shoulder treatment. The masseuse is deep into my left shoulder when the loudspeaker crackles again. I expect to be once more reminded of the security risk rainbow. But no. “Attention, the Catholic mass begins in 15 minutes,” an authoritative voice advises. I've seen many an airport with a non-denominational chapel or a Muslim mescit. But this is the first time I learn of formal services.
“It's Saturday, I thought they only had masses on Sunday,” I muse to the massage girl. “Probably an airplane crash. They always have services when a plane crashes,” she volunteers. We move on to my left shoulder. The therapy session ends. Again I walk.
There is a book store next to where the faithful are assembling for mass. In the window is a book with the title “Seven Steps to Perfect Happiness.” There is also a new novel on intrigue in Washington by a senator I once knew well. The senator never had an original thought in her life. The book seems to confirm this situation is unchanged. It's ghost-written. The third choice is a work entitled, “Why Do Men Sleep After Sex?” It's clear I won't find anything interesting to read in this bookstore on this orange day in this perfect airport. I turn my attention to the shops.
The Smithsonian gift shop is interesting. There are orange spacesuits with a NASA logo. Kind of looks like the fashion in Guantanamo. I think of a number of children who might enjoy the gift of an orange space suit adorned with NASA logos, they come in all sizes. But at $55 I decide this would be an indulgence. I exit the gift shop.
I spy a “Fox News” shop. So, this news network known for its conservative views now has a retail chain. The wall of televisions delivering Fox News informs me that the massage girl is probably mistaken. No word of any plane crash. There are magazines for sale and I learn that Paris Hilton is to become a rock star. And then I see yet another intriguing machine. It is the “International Newspaper” automat. It vaguely resembles an automatic banking machine. First you select a country on the electronic menu then you select the newspaper of choice. The screen explains that in exchange for a $5 charge to your credit card, it will print any of more than 250 newspapers in 10 minutes. I scroll through the menu to Turkey. There is no “Referans,” but there is the flagship “Hürriyet.” This is worth a try. I surrender American Express. The 10 minute advisory proves optimistic. Printing Hürriyet takes a half hour. But I am in no rush. I receive Sunday's Hürriyet, printed on double-sided photocopy paper of about 75 percent scale. It is a little after 5:00 p.m. here on the East Coast of the United States. A little after midnight in Turkey. I suspect I am the first reader to learn from Murat Bardakçı of the Ottomans' 19th Century execution of its own governor in a failed attempt to bring peace to Lebanon 150 years ago.
My curiosity has consumed more time that I thought. So I rush to Gate 52 with the pages of the newspaper in hand. But it turns out a hurricane named “Ernesto” has wrought havoc on air traffic in much of the country. I have at least another hour to wait. My already foul mood grows darker. The wait seems endless. I find a bench. The loudspeaker echoes again with its nerve-wracking message:
“The risk threat level has been raised to level orange. Please report any suspicious packages, bags or behavior...”
Some days are orange. The announcement from every corner of the airport echoes each five or 10 minutes: “This is a security announcement by the Department of Homeland Security. The risk threat level has been raised to level orange. Please report any suspicious packages, bags or behavior to...” This rainbow of risk is not something I fully understand. But I am learning.
I am headed from Washington, D.C., to California on a hastily purchased one-way ticket. And it turns out this, in and of itself, is an indicator of risk. Why would someone want to take a one-way trip to California? I arrived early for the 3:30 p.m. flight. Circumstances being what they are, I am grateful to be moved to the 6:30 p.m. plane without a fine. It's a good thing I am at Dulles International Airport. For without question, this has become the best airport in the world from a passenger's perspective.
I have not always felt this way. I developed a deep relationship with this facility in the years I lived in Washington. I hated Dulles International. There was nothing to eat but fast food. No place to sit but the plastic benches. I used to use a hotel lobby five minutes away by taxi when delayed. But in the interim since my residency here, they built a new terminal. It's fantastic.
This wonder begins with the technology. In recent years all of us have become accustomed to metal detectors, the removal of shoes and belts. But at the end of the line for passengers who like me are in the category of suspicion, there is an even more remarkable technology. I am sure you have seen those bathtubs with the jacuzzi jets down the side. Imagine a vertical version, a sort of stainless steel shower with jacuzzi jets right, left and center. You enter this device and it locks behind you, half the jets spew air while the remainder suck it in. I exit from this sniff and spit engineering and can only compliment the inspector. “This is really cool,” I tell him. “Oh yes, this our newest machine,” the uniform explains with pride.
Later, there is a more conventional metal detector and of course the shoes and belt come off. My new acquaintance empties my backpack. He swabs the insides with a patch of moist fabric and places the bit of rag in what looks to me like a microwave oven. We wait for it to cook and resume our conversation.
“Do you have any liquids?” the uniform asks. “No, the hair gel stayed behind,” I explain. He looks at my thinning white hair. “Looks to me like your need for hair gel is a long time gone,” he jokes. I attempt to laugh at this bit of mirth. He's in charge, after all. And the day is orange.
Once discharged, I proceed to the new “B” terminal. There was nothing like this in my day. There are restaurants and shops and book stores stretching to either end of the long terminal. And let's face it, I have ample time to explore them all.
“The risk level has been raised to level orange,” the loudspeaker exclaims as I order ahi tuna sushi at “Harry's.” This is the first time I have seen a sushi menu at an airport. And it's cheap: $10.95. Can't get a kaşarlı tost for that price at the Istanbul airport. I allow myself a vodka martini. The server (no waiters left in this country) offers me a second, but I resist. “Level orange, better not push it,” I explain. The server nods knowingly and brings me my check while I finish the olive. Time to move on.
A few steps onward I discover a massage stand, the kind with the backless chairs that have you lean forward into a bifurcated face plate. The two masseuses are idle. Hey, it an orange day and I have nothing else to do. I order the half-hour shoulder treatment. The masseuse is deep into my left shoulder when the loudspeaker crackles again. I expect to be once more reminded of the security risk rainbow. But no. “Attention, the Catholic mass begins in 15 minutes,” an authoritative voice advises. I've seen many an airport with a non-denominational chapel or a Muslim mescit. But this is the first time I learn of formal services.
“It's Saturday, I thought they only had masses on Sunday,” I muse to the massage girl. “Probably an airplane crash. They always have services when a plane crashes,” she volunteers. We move on to my left shoulder. The therapy session ends. Again I walk.
There is a book store next to where the faithful are assembling for mass. In the window is a book with the title “Seven Steps to Perfect Happiness.” There is also a new novel on intrigue in Washington by a senator I once knew well. The senator never had an original thought in her life. The book seems to confirm this situation is unchanged. It's ghost-written. The third choice is a work entitled, “Why Do Men Sleep After Sex?” It's clear I won't find anything interesting to read in this bookstore on this orange day in this perfect airport. I turn my attention to the shops.
The Smithsonian gift shop is interesting. There are orange spacesuits with a NASA logo. Kind of looks like the fashion in Guantanamo. I think of a number of children who might enjoy the gift of an orange space suit adorned with NASA logos, they come in all sizes. But at $55 I decide this would be an indulgence. I exit the gift shop.
I spy a “Fox News” shop. So, this news network known for its conservative views now has a retail chain. The wall of televisions delivering Fox News informs me that the massage girl is probably mistaken. No word of any plane crash. There are magazines for sale and I learn that Paris Hilton is to become a rock star. And then I see yet another intriguing machine. It is the “International Newspaper” automat. It vaguely resembles an automatic banking machine. First you select a country on the electronic menu then you select the newspaper of choice. The screen explains that in exchange for a $5 charge to your credit card, it will print any of more than 250 newspapers in 10 minutes. I scroll through the menu to Turkey. There is no “Referans,” but there is the flagship “Hürriyet.” This is worth a try. I surrender American Express. The 10 minute advisory proves optimistic. Printing Hürriyet takes a half hour. But I am in no rush. I receive Sunday's Hürriyet, printed on double-sided photocopy paper of about 75 percent scale. It is a little after 5:00 p.m. here on the East Coast of the United States. A little after midnight in Turkey. I suspect I am the first reader to learn from Murat Bardakçı of the Ottomans' 19th Century execution of its own governor in a failed attempt to bring peace to Lebanon 150 years ago.
My curiosity has consumed more time that I thought. So I rush to Gate 52 with the pages of the newspaper in hand. But it turns out a hurricane named “Ernesto” has wrought havoc on air traffic in much of the country. I have at least another hour to wait. My already foul mood grows darker. The wait seems endless. I find a bench. The loudspeaker echoes again with its nerve-wracking message:
“The risk threat level has been raised to level orange. Please report any suspicious packages, bags or behavior...”
Weeping and going to Lebanon
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI Wednesday, September 6, 2006
With thousands of Turks demonstrating in the streets of Ankara against the country joining in a U.N. peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon, the Turkish Parliament convened early from summer recess on Tuesday at the request of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government.
Excluding the AKP, all groups in Parliament united, for a change, in condemning the government's move as an unnecessary move that could pull this country into the Arab-Israeli quagmire.
The recent sharp increase in separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) related violence was extensively used in arguments by the opposition spokesmen as a demonstration of the failure of the ruling AKP to act on national issues while pressing hard the ruling deputies to approve the request to dispatch troops for Lebanon.
The Parliament, the opposition underlined, should have been summoned by the government from summer recess to discuss what's happening in the country's fight against terrorism, rather than being called in for a special Parliamentary session to dispatch troops and thus try to appease the United States and the Israelis.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the top brass of the AKP, however, assured the deputies of the ruling party hours before the key vote that if Turkish troops were asked to disarm Hezbollah, Turkey would immediately withdraw from southern Lebanon. Despite all the warnings from the opposition that since Turkey was placing its troops under U.N. command the assurances by the premier would mean nothing in practice, the AKP deputies voted en masse to approve the government's authorization request.
Of course, neither the concept nor the scope of yesterday's authorization motion was similar to the one Parliament rejected on March 1, 2003. In the 2003 vote deputies opposing the government's request to open Turkish territory to the use of the United States in attacks on Iraq stated that before Turkey could make such a move, there was need for a U.N. Security Council resolution that would provide international legitimacy to the coming war. Besides, the Iraq war was related directly with Turkish security and the deputies were acting more in line with the widespread anti-war sentiments of the Turkish public, which wisely succeeded in seeing even then that the United States did not have an exit strategy and that post-war Iraq would pose a greater security risk to Turkey than it ever had done under Saddam Hussein.
Whereas this time there was a Security Council resolution calling on countries to contribute troops to an international U.N. peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon. That is, regarding international legitimacy, the U.N. resolution was there.
Another difference from the March 1, 2003 vote was the approaching elections. Probably the AKP deputies who previously defied pressure from the government and rejected the motion in 2003, are now acting so as not to upset their party leader in the fear that he may not place them on Parliamentary election lists in the polls to be held in November next year at the latest. In contrast, at the time of the March 1 vote the Parliament had been elected only few months previously in November 2002 and Erdoğan himself had just reached parliament through a February by-election in Siirt.
Still, our talks with AKP deputies on Tuesday indicated that despite the U.N. resolution providing international legitimacy to a Turkish troop contribution, they were trying to find some other legitimating elements to support their “yes” vote, because most of them were voting “yes” under pressure from Erdoğan, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül and other heavyweights of the ruling party. On an individual basis, however, they did not want to see Turkey involved in an operation that could eventually turn into playing the role of Israel's gendarmerie.
That is, while the opposition mostly acted with a simple understanding of just opposing the government, the AKP deputies were acting very much in line with that old saying describing a young bride leaving her parents' house and moving to her new house: Weeping and going.
Internet site fights online banking fraud
ADANA Friday, September 8, 2006 TDN
In the hope of preventing others from making the same mistakes, victims of Internet banking fraud have founded a Web site, www.sanalbankamagdurlari.com, on which over 800 victims share their problems and pass on warnings to others.
Cem Polatoğlu, founder of the Web site, told the Anatolia news agency that the victims who have been “robbed in virtual environment” have the goal of coming together to find a solution to their problems. A victim himself, Polatoğlu stated that online fraud has reached “frightening levels.”
The Web site was opened in December, 2005 with subscriptions to the site increasing ever since, Polatoğlu said: “There have been 831 people who have allowed their names to be disclosed [on the site]. … We estimate that the number of our members is well above 10,000.”
Stating that their catch phrase is “We didn't get robbed, the bank did. We want our money back,” Polatoğlu added: “The banks didn't take the necessary precautions. They are still not taking them. Nowadays banking services are performed by e-signature in many other countries. In Turkey this system is not widespread. $500 million has been transferred from victims' accounts to Russia this year as part of this virtual fraud system … due to the banks' mistakes, because no one writes down their passwords in e-mails anymore.”
In the hope of preventing others from making the same mistakes, victims of Internet banking fraud have founded a Web site, www.sanalbankamagdurlari.com, on which over 800 victims share their problems and pass on warnings to others.
Cem Polatoğlu, founder of the Web site, told the Anatolia news agency that the victims who have been “robbed in virtual environment” have the goal of coming together to find a solution to their problems. A victim himself, Polatoğlu stated that online fraud has reached “frightening levels.”
The Web site was opened in December, 2005 with subscriptions to the site increasing ever since, Polatoğlu said: “There have been 831 people who have allowed their names to be disclosed [on the site]. … We estimate that the number of our members is well above 10,000.”
Stating that their catch phrase is “We didn't get robbed, the bank did. We want our money back,” Polatoğlu added: “The banks didn't take the necessary precautions. They are still not taking them. Nowadays banking services are performed by e-signature in many other countries. In Turkey this system is not widespread. $500 million has been transferred from victims' accounts to Russia this year as part of this virtual fraud system … due to the banks' mistakes, because no one writes down their passwords in e-mails anymore.”
An open letter to the Christian Democrats of the EU
AYŞE ÖZGÜN for TDN Sunday, September 10, 2006
Before we even had a chance to reel after the recent vote in the Turkish Parliament, suddenly the decision came from the EU Parliament that Turkey had to acknowledge having committed genocide against the Armenians, the Suryanis and the Pontus...
I have a request for the EU Parliamentarians, and I hope that they will consider it seriously.
Both my good friend, the beautiful Turkish pop singer Gülben Ergen (who is four months pregnant with a baby boy), and I cannot eat cheese. Not only are we unable to eat cheese, we cannot bear to so much as sit at a table bearing a dish of cheese, be it as a huge lump, sliced or grated.
When we order our food at a restaurant, we ask the waiter and the chef to wash their hands thoroughly before attending to the preparation of our cheese-free order. Neither Gülben nor I buy cheese at a supermarket for our husbands' consumption. We both swear that by doing so, we also keep rats and mice away from our households.
Now as the EU Parliament is looking for ways to keep Turkey away from their union, why couldn't they ask Turkey to pass legislation whereby each major municipality is obliged to have at least four totally cheese-free restaurants? Furthermore, why shouldn't the EU say that unless this law is passed, Turkey will have no chance of becoming a member?
My dear friend Gülben and I were talking about this very issue the other day at a sea-side restaurant on the Bosporus, when I spotted a crumbly piece of white cheese floating idly on the water.
“Look Gülben. Isn't that a piece of cheese?”
“It certainly is, Ayşe Hanım.”
Before asking the waiter to remove and dispose of the offending item, we began thinking again about our cheese-free idea and who would be the most likely candidate to bring forth this resolution in the EU Parliament.
“How about the Green Party?” asked Gülben.
“No, they wouldn't.”
“Why not?”
“Because they are the ones who come here the most often to consume it as a delicacy. Why would they want to deprive themselves of that pleasure? No they won't do it.”
“Well, who will then?”
“I know, the Christian Democrats will.”
“Why would they want to? Don't they come here and eat cheese too?”
“Yes they do, but we serve it to them in the form of a desert called ‘höşmerim' so they don't know what it really is. Now if they were to learn that höşmerim is nothing but a sort of cheesecake, they'd be so upset they'd prepare the resolution.”
“Ayşe Hanım! You're so smart, it's an amazing plan. Let's send an e-mail to the Christian Democrat EU members."
“Better than that, Gülben, I am going to write about it in my column next Sunday.”
Before we even had a chance to reel after the recent vote in the Turkish Parliament, suddenly the decision came from the EU Parliament that Turkey had to acknowledge having committed genocide against the Armenians, the Suryanis and the Pontus...
I have a request for the EU Parliamentarians, and I hope that they will consider it seriously.
Both my good friend, the beautiful Turkish pop singer Gülben Ergen (who is four months pregnant with a baby boy), and I cannot eat cheese. Not only are we unable to eat cheese, we cannot bear to so much as sit at a table bearing a dish of cheese, be it as a huge lump, sliced or grated.
When we order our food at a restaurant, we ask the waiter and the chef to wash their hands thoroughly before attending to the preparation of our cheese-free order. Neither Gülben nor I buy cheese at a supermarket for our husbands' consumption. We both swear that by doing so, we also keep rats and mice away from our households.
Now as the EU Parliament is looking for ways to keep Turkey away from their union, why couldn't they ask Turkey to pass legislation whereby each major municipality is obliged to have at least four totally cheese-free restaurants? Furthermore, why shouldn't the EU say that unless this law is passed, Turkey will have no chance of becoming a member?
My dear friend Gülben and I were talking about this very issue the other day at a sea-side restaurant on the Bosporus, when I spotted a crumbly piece of white cheese floating idly on the water.
“Look Gülben. Isn't that a piece of cheese?”
“It certainly is, Ayşe Hanım.”
Before asking the waiter to remove and dispose of the offending item, we began thinking again about our cheese-free idea and who would be the most likely candidate to bring forth this resolution in the EU Parliament.
“How about the Green Party?” asked Gülben.
“No, they wouldn't.”
“Why not?”
“Because they are the ones who come here the most often to consume it as a delicacy. Why would they want to deprive themselves of that pleasure? No they won't do it.”
“Well, who will then?”
“I know, the Christian Democrats will.”
“Why would they want to? Don't they come here and eat cheese too?”
“Yes they do, but we serve it to them in the form of a desert called ‘höşmerim' so they don't know what it really is. Now if they were to learn that höşmerim is nothing but a sort of cheesecake, they'd be so upset they'd prepare the resolution.”
“Ayşe Hanım! You're so smart, it's an amazing plan. Let's send an e-mail to the Christian Democrat EU members."
“Better than that, Gülben, I am going to write about it in my column next Sunday.”
Sept. 11 is the day the 21st century began
by Cüneyt Ülsever for Turkish Daily News
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
This week is the week of Sept. 11.
I have been noting the same opinion since Sept. 12, 2001: Sept. 11 is the day when the 21st century truly began. The same day when World War III, which is the battle of the “re-allocation of resources,” began with technologies and strategies unique to it. World War I was the first battle of the re-allocation of resources. World War II was just the continuation of the first one. The new one is merely the continuation of World War II, which was left unfinished.
No matter what Turkey thinks, Sept. 11 is also the day when it became involved in this battle.
Let's just assess this incredible day by citing statistics.
The Hürriyet daily on Sept. 11, 2006, listed the following figures about Sept. 11.
Budget the U.S. Congress allocated for fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq: $432 billion
Estimated losses of airline companies: $40 billion
Number of troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan in the past five years: 1.35 million
Number of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq: 145,000
Number of U.S: troops killed in Iraq: 2,662
Number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan: 272
Milliyet daily cites the following shocking figure, “180,000 people died in the last five years.”
The war against terrorism started by the United States and its allies five years ago after the Islamist terrorist organization al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington directly resulted in the deaths of 62,000 people, with 118,000 people killed indirectly.
Close to 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Why were 180,000 people killed in the past five years? Why was $500 billion spent?
OK. Incompetent neocons are governing the United States and are adhering to a mad ideology, but don't these figures mean anything?
Yaman Törüner published a very important article in Milliyet on Sept. 9, 2006. I took the figures from there.
1-- Some 21.6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves are in Saudi Arabia, 14 percent in Canada, 9 percent in Iraq, 8.1 percent in the United Arab Emirates, 8 percent in Kuwait, 7.4 percent in Iran, 6.4 percent in Venezuela, 4.9 percent in Russia, 2.4 percent in Libya, 2 percent in Nigeria and 1.9 percent in the United States.
2-- The world's biggest oil consumer is the United States with 20.1 million barrels of oil a day. China comes second with 5.6 million barrels, Russia 2.8 million, Germany 2.6 million, India, 2.2 million and France and Canada 2.1 million barrels each.
3-- China purchased 7 percent of the world's oil production, 25 percent of aluminum and steel produced, 33 percent of iron or coal and 40 percent of cement in 2003. China's production is increasing, and the world is consuming more Chinese goods every day. For example, 40 percent of furniture purchased in the United States comes from China.
4-- Between 1982 and 1992, the U.S. economy grew by an average of 3.3 percent a year while China's grew by 9.5 percent. China is growing three times as fast as the United States.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
This week is the week of Sept. 11.
I have been noting the same opinion since Sept. 12, 2001: Sept. 11 is the day when the 21st century truly began. The same day when World War III, which is the battle of the “re-allocation of resources,” began with technologies and strategies unique to it. World War I was the first battle of the re-allocation of resources. World War II was just the continuation of the first one. The new one is merely the continuation of World War II, which was left unfinished.
No matter what Turkey thinks, Sept. 11 is also the day when it became involved in this battle.
Let's just assess this incredible day by citing statistics.
The Hürriyet daily on Sept. 11, 2006, listed the following figures about Sept. 11.
Budget the U.S. Congress allocated for fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq: $432 billion
Estimated losses of airline companies: $40 billion
Number of troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan in the past five years: 1.35 million
Number of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq: 145,000
Number of U.S: troops killed in Iraq: 2,662
Number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan: 272
Milliyet daily cites the following shocking figure, “180,000 people died in the last five years.”
The war against terrorism started by the United States and its allies five years ago after the Islamist terrorist organization al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington directly resulted in the deaths of 62,000 people, with 118,000 people killed indirectly.
Close to 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Why were 180,000 people killed in the past five years? Why was $500 billion spent?
OK. Incompetent neocons are governing the United States and are adhering to a mad ideology, but don't these figures mean anything?
Yaman Törüner published a very important article in Milliyet on Sept. 9, 2006. I took the figures from there.
1-- Some 21.6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves are in Saudi Arabia, 14 percent in Canada, 9 percent in Iraq, 8.1 percent in the United Arab Emirates, 8 percent in Kuwait, 7.4 percent in Iran, 6.4 percent in Venezuela, 4.9 percent in Russia, 2.4 percent in Libya, 2 percent in Nigeria and 1.9 percent in the United States.
2-- The world's biggest oil consumer is the United States with 20.1 million barrels of oil a day. China comes second with 5.6 million barrels, Russia 2.8 million, Germany 2.6 million, India, 2.2 million and France and Canada 2.1 million barrels each.
3-- China purchased 7 percent of the world's oil production, 25 percent of aluminum and steel produced, 33 percent of iron or coal and 40 percent of cement in 2003. China's production is increasing, and the world is consuming more Chinese goods every day. For example, 40 percent of furniture purchased in the United States comes from China.
4-- Between 1982 and 1992, the U.S. economy grew by an average of 3.3 percent a year while China's grew by 9.5 percent. China is growing three times as fast as the United States.
Saturday, September 9, 2006
The findings of the third Transatlantic Trends 2006 report, conducted in 13 countries annually by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, are striking for Turkey.
byGILA Benmayor for Turkish Daily News
The findings of the third Transatlantic Trends 2006 report, conducted in 13 countries annually by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, are striking for Turkey.
According to the poll's results, the Turkish public is “cold” about its old allies. It does not trust them or share the same views. Only 44 percent of Turks believe in the importance of NATO, the lowest percentage of all surveyed. Again, Turkey has the lowest percentage of citizens positive about the United States, with 20 percent.
According to the survey support for European Union membership is sliding along with the standoffish tendency towards NATO and the United States.. The rate of EU supporters fell to 54 percent from 73 percent in 2004.
Meanwhile, support for Iran is climbing.
This is the most crucial finding of the survey.
The number of people who have positive feelings toward Iran is highest in Turkey, at 43 percent. While 78 percent of Europeans replied “yes” to the question of whether Iran's nuclear disarmament should be supported, only 34 percent of Turks believe that efforts to obstruct Iran's nuclear ambitions should continue.
Support for a military intervention in Iran is at 10 percent.
Based on these numbers, the fund makes the evaluation that Turkey is cooling towards the United States and the EU and is positive about Iran.
There must be a number of reasons for Turkey to slide East from West in its preferences.
I can immediately cite one example: a draft report on Turkey released earlier this week by European Parliament rapporteur Camiel Eurlings filled with ridiculous ideas.
It is impossible for the report in question, reflecting the views of countries against Turkey in the European Parliament, not to encounter feelings of rage in Turkey. At the end of the day, it is true that there are increasingly more feelings of distrust and suspicion towards the West in Turkey, but if we take a look at the survey findings it becomes apparent that some ideological views have also influenced the outcome.
Anti-Western sentiment in Turkey is climbing, but are anti-Turkish views increasing in Europe?
Most certainly they are.
According to the same survey, those positive about Turkish membership in the EU have consistently dropped in the past few years, falling to 21 percent in 2006 from 30 percent in 2004. Slovakia, Holland, Germany and Spain are most negative about Turkey's EU membership. In Spain, which has until now always supported Turkey's membership in the EU, the number of individuals opposing Turkish membership has gone up by 14 percent, a rise worthy of concern.
Turkey is rapidly turning away from the West, and the rate of those who do not want us in Europe is rising.
When one looks at this picture, the call for intercultural dialogue made jointly by Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül and his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in Istanbul two days ago unfortunately seem to be meaningless.
Albania for 1 euro:
Earlier this week I had the opportunity to listen to a speech by Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, who is currently on a visit to Turkey and having meetings in Ankara and Istanbul, at a luncheon held at the Foreign and Economic Relations Commission (DEİK). Berisha had served as Albania's president between 1992 and 1997 and is a well-equipped political leader who can speak several foreign languages.
In addition he is a successful cardiologist, perhaps the reason behind his looking in great shape despite his 77 years.
Berisha's foremost priority as the new prime minister is to modernize his country and integrate it into the global economy. For this purpose he launched the “Albania for 1 euro” campaign with his young and well-trained advisors.
The campaign is based on selling unused public land, power stations, old factories and similar facilities that are no longer in operation to foreigners for a symbolic price of 1 euro. I gathered from his speech that Berisha's campaign is apparently working and the amount of foreign investment in Albania has been boosted.
Directionless Turkey
Turkısh Daıly News
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Two years ago Turks had confused minds. The majority of them saw their future in a club that they privately believed wanted their country to disintegrate (even to be destroyed) out of historic hostility. Today, they are more confused. They may be sliding away from the West and towards the East, at least in theory; however, in reality their slide is directionless.
byBurak Bekdil
Two years ago Turks had confused minds. The majority of them saw their future in a club that they privately believed wanted their country to disintegrate (even to be destroyed) out of historic hostility. Today, they are more confused. They may be sliding away from the West and towards the East, at least in theory; however, in reality their slide is directionless.
Three recent opinion surveys illustrate a visible swing from the West towards the East:
1 -- The latest Eurobarometer survey found only 44 percent of Turks thought EU membership would be a good thing for Turkey, compared to 55 percent last autumn and 66 percent last spring.
2 -- The Transatlantic Trends Survey 2006 revealed that Turks feel twice as warm towards Iran as they do towards the United States. That survey puts Turkish support for EU membership at 54 percent, down from 73 percent two years earlier.
3 -- According to pollsters Taylor Nelson Sofres; (a) 72 percent of Turks blame the Lebanon war on Israel (compared to 59 percent even in Lebanon); (b) excluding Israel and Lebanon, 64 percent then blame the war on the United States (compared to a world average of 34 percent); and (c) 44 percent of Turks sympathize with Hezbollah in the Israel-Lebanon war, while only 10 percent sympathize with Israel.
There is empirical evidence that supports the findings of all three surveys. Anti-American, anti-Israeli (not necessarily anti-Semitic) and anti-European behavior has never been this visible and, more importantly, this apolitical. That is, these sentiments of antipathy are no longer limited to the extremist ideologies of the 1970s (radical Islam and many variants of the ultra-left). These days, Turkey's streets are not safe for the subjects of this hatred.
So if not to the West, quo vadis Turkey?
“Eurasianism,” these days one of the many umbrella terms that bring together nationalists and most of the ultra-left (Maoists, Marxists, Leninists and even Trotskysts), looks like an impossible dream, just like its post-Bolshevik Revolution version, pan-Turkism, was. Only a “crazy Turk” would believe in the possible resurgence of Enver Pasha's ambitions in the lands that are today, in real-politik terms, more Soviet/Russian, Chinese, Shia and even U.S. than Turkish.
Could Turkey, then, see any prospects at the western end of the emerging eastern axis of Russia, Iran, (perhaps India) and China? True, politics has always made strange bedfellows, but are Iran and Russia viable targets for strategic partnership, as Gen. Tuncer Kilinç, former head of the National Security Council, proposed four years ago? Could Kilinç have prophesized so precisely at a time when all the others were too busy polishing the idea of a European future? Equilibrium suggests not.
The justification for the proposed Turco-Persian alliance is often based on (a) common religion; (b) a peaceful past as evinced by the fact that the Turkish-Iranian border has remained unchanged since the 1639 Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin (the Treaty of Zuhab); (c) Iran's helping hand in Turkey's fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK); (d) increasing economic cooperation, including a major energy supply line from Iran.
All the same, (a) Turkey's ruling elite are Sunni and since the advent of Islam, the Shia and Sunnis have only allied against “infidels,” otherwise fighting bloody wars, as they still do; (b) the peaceful past is a myth, as evinced by a full-scale war in 1733 when the Persians fought to take Baghdad from the Ottomans; the Zand Dynasty's attack on Ottoman Basra in 1775, an invasion which lasted until 1821 when another war broke out and lasted till 1823; an 1840 conflict over the control of what is today Iran's Khorramshar; Iranian support in 1930 for Kurdish uprisings and subsequent dispute over the border; and finally the alleged killings of Turkish intellectuals by cells operated by Mullah Tehran in attempts to “export” his regime; (c) Iran's fight against the PKK is only conjectural, since the Tehran regime systematically harbored the PKK before it noticed Kurdish separatism threatened its own security too; (d) an eastern neighbor with nuclear weapons is more of a threat for Turkey than a trading partner and a steady supplier of natural gas and crude oil.
It is true that Turkey's (mostly economic) relations with Russia have developed exponentially. But this is in essence a trade partnership rather than a strategic alliance. There is still deep mutual distrust among the security apparatus of both states, despite some thawing since Cold War times.
A good majority of Turks physically or sentimentally sympathize with Russia's own PKK, the Chechen terrorists. It is still fresh in many memories, that hot July day when thousands of Turks were mourning over coffins wrapped in the Crescent and Star --soldiers killed by the PKK -- bigger crowds were holding funeral prayers in absentia in several Turkish cities for Shamil Basayev, the legendary Chechen terrorist commander.
Turks are in a bizarre state of mind, they are allies with the United States but they see Washington as their biggest security threat (see various public opinion polls), and they hate Americans. They want to join the European Union but they suspect a European gambit to destroy their country. Their military is their most-trusted institution that at the same time carries out “deep” cooperation with the Israeli military. Some see Russia as a hope but most of them sympathize with those who kill Russian children. Some see Iran as a potential partner, but the Persian state appears on top of their National Security Council's threat paper. Their government's genes are truly Islamic but it shyly courts what most of them see as the Satan (see Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's “let's-mend-the-fences” smiles at the White House next month).
Turks' “pro-eastern” sentiments are a reality, but they are not necessarily “pro-eastern” in ethos; they are more “reactive,” than truly pro-eastern. The Crescent and Star may seem to be sliding away from the West and drifting to the East, but in fact it is sailing towards the unknown waters of “directionlessness.”
Yeditepe University's fountain of youth
Saturday, September 16, 2006
ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
Yeditepe University will host a unique event on Sept. 17 featuring the debut of the much-anticipated first age-defying product from the COSMO 7 series: Pharma 7 Lasman.
As modern medicine advances, the world's population is living longer and anti-aging cosmetics are now more important than ever. Pharma 7 Lasman, developed by the Yeditepe University Faculty of Pharmacy, promises to “return you to your youth in 28 days.”
With bio-activators that stop the aging of the skin, the total skincare system consists of a skin cleanser, day cream, night serum and eye serum. What makes Pharma 7 different is that it repels 94.6 percent of damaging solar radiation. Not only that, but unlike competitors' products that last for only two or three hours, Yeditepe University's product remains effective for up to 12 hours.
Scientists at the Yeditepe laboratories used components based on modified snake venom to help fight crows' feet and fine lines around the eyes.
At the product's unveiling, speeches will be made by Professor Dilek Demir Erol and the university's founder, Bedrettin Dalan. Activities during the day-long event will include exhibitions of paintings by Billur Cöbek, jewelry from Renan Tümer and artwork from Sevgi Çağal as well as concerts by Deniz Seki and DJ Cenk Erdem.
ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
Yeditepe University will host a unique event on Sept. 17 featuring the debut of the much-anticipated first age-defying product from the COSMO 7 series: Pharma 7 Lasman.
As modern medicine advances, the world's population is living longer and anti-aging cosmetics are now more important than ever. Pharma 7 Lasman, developed by the Yeditepe University Faculty of Pharmacy, promises to “return you to your youth in 28 days.”
With bio-activators that stop the aging of the skin, the total skincare system consists of a skin cleanser, day cream, night serum and eye serum. What makes Pharma 7 different is that it repels 94.6 percent of damaging solar radiation. Not only that, but unlike competitors' products that last for only two or three hours, Yeditepe University's product remains effective for up to 12 hours.
Scientists at the Yeditepe laboratories used components based on modified snake venom to help fight crows' feet and fine lines around the eyes.
At the product's unveiling, speeches will be made by Professor Dilek Demir Erol and the university's founder, Bedrettin Dalan. Activities during the day-long event will include exhibitions of paintings by Billur Cöbek, jewelry from Renan Tümer and artwork from Sevgi Çağal as well as concerts by Deniz Seki and DJ Cenk Erdem.
TL banknotes to be in circulation in 2009
ANKARA
Friday, September 15, 2006
The word “new” on the New Turkish Lira (YTL) banknote, in circulation since Jan. 1, 2005, will be eliminated. Turkish lira (TL) banknotes will be in circulation starting Jan. 1, 2009, financial sources said on Thursday.
According to the Anatolia news agency, the TL banknotes will have different shapes and sizes to prevent forgery.
Meanwhile, financial authorities plan to issue TL 200 banknotes when the TL replaces the YTL in 2009. This project is subject to confirmation. Officials said further studies are continuing on the new TL 200 banknotes.
Turkey omitted six zeroes from the Turkish Lira on Jan. 1, 2005 to make the YTL, which went into circulation on the same date. New banknotes worth 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 YTL were issued, and the kuruş was reintroduced for denominations under YTL 1.
Friday, September 15, 2006
The word “new” on the New Turkish Lira (YTL) banknote, in circulation since Jan. 1, 2005, will be eliminated. Turkish lira (TL) banknotes will be in circulation starting Jan. 1, 2009, financial sources said on Thursday.
According to the Anatolia news agency, the TL banknotes will have different shapes and sizes to prevent forgery.
Meanwhile, financial authorities plan to issue TL 200 banknotes when the TL replaces the YTL in 2009. This project is subject to confirmation. Officials said further studies are continuing on the new TL 200 banknotes.
Turkey omitted six zeroes from the Turkish Lira on Jan. 1, 2005 to make the YTL, which went into circulation on the same date. New banknotes worth 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 YTL were issued, and the kuruş was reintroduced for denominations under YTL 1.
‘Don’t play to voters over Turkey’
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Ömer Sabancı, head of the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD), leveled criticism at some European politicians whom he said abused Turkey's European Union membership for political gain.
“It has become a new trend among some European politicians to engage in politics against Turkey for short-term political gains,” he was quoted as saying during a meeting in the northwestern Anatolian province of Bursa. Sabancı was apparently referring to recent remarks by French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy -- a front-runner ahead of next year's presidential election in France -- who has insisted that there is no place for Ankara in the 25-member bloc, arguing instead for a privileged partnership. “This is the same case with many members of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee,” Sabancı said. The European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee approved a strongly worded and highly critical report on Turkey.
In an address to European politicians Sabancı said it was not ethical to have an opinion about a country they haven't seen and don't know much about.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Ömer Sabancı, head of the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD), leveled criticism at some European politicians whom he said abused Turkey's European Union membership for political gain.
“It has become a new trend among some European politicians to engage in politics against Turkey for short-term political gains,” he was quoted as saying during a meeting in the northwestern Anatolian province of Bursa. Sabancı was apparently referring to recent remarks by French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy -- a front-runner ahead of next year's presidential election in France -- who has insisted that there is no place for Ankara in the 25-member bloc, arguing instead for a privileged partnership. “This is the same case with many members of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee,” Sabancı said. The European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee approved a strongly worded and highly critical report on Turkey.
In an address to European politicians Sabancı said it was not ethical to have an opinion about a country they haven't seen and don't know much about.
European Council meeting in Gaziantep
For two years Republican People’s Party deputy Abdülkadir Ateş has been president of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
by GILA Benmayor Saturday, September 16, 2006
For two years Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy Abdülkadir Ateş has been president of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
Ateş, who at one point served as tourism minister, is from the city of Gaziantep.
He suggests that PACE hold its next meeting on the Middle East, scheduled for this autumn, in Gaziantep.
Gaziantep is one Turkey's most interesting cities in the eyes of Westerners.
One of the leaders of the “Anatolian Tigers,” it has been shown as an example with its economic dynamism.
It is the first city where an EU Information Office was opened.
In addition, it boasts a museum displaying mosaics found in the world-known ancient city of Zeugma.
Therefore, the suggestion from Ateş has been well-received at PACE.
About 60 members of PACE headed to Gaziantep at the start of last week.
I was among those who flew to Gaziantep at Ateş's invitation.
The meeting was held at the Gaziantep Chamber of Commerce. The building witnessed foreign languages such as French and Russian perhaps for the first time in its history. The first session of the meeting turned into a platform of discussion on Turkey's European Union membership with guests asking why Turkey acted “reluctantly” in realizing the reforms.
They question and at the same time they share experiences from their own accession process, such as Adrian Severin, Romanian parliamentarian and former foreign minister.
I do hope that my friends in Gaziantep benefited from the Severin's speech, for what he said is indeed very important for a country acceding to the European Union.
Severin said the people of Romania were happy about the pressure applied by the EU to pass the reforms, because they did not feel that politicians would pass reform laws in absence of such external forces.
Commenting on Turkey's membership, he said: “Europe can only become a global actor in the true sense of the world with Turkey's membership. However, Turkey should not be made into a buffer zone between Europe and the East, but a natural extension of Europe.”
It really makes a lot of sense to listen to these findings from Gaziantep. For if you ask me, Gaziantep, with its dynamic economy, efforts at establishing brands and innovation and with its copy of Sabah published in English specially for the meeting, is already like a natural extension of Europe.
A Turkish production in Hollywood:
“East Side Story” was first staged by the Istanbul State Opera and Ballet five years ago.
Adapted by choreographer Aysun Aslan from Metin Kaçan's book “Ağır Roman” and scored by Fahir Atakoğlu, it is a work reminiscent of the unforgettable "West Side Story."
I remember thinking to myself, “It should definitely be staged in Europe,” when I watched it two years ago.
It wonderfully illustrated life in the less-known low-income districts of Istanbul such as Dolapdere.
On Aslan's initiative with a contribution from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, “East Side Story” was staged in the United States at the end of August at Hollywood's Ford Amphitheatre.
The play attracted the attention of the U.S. audience and received good reviews.
The Los Angeles Times depicted the play as a “remarkably courageous production.”
The success of the Istanbul State Opera and Ballet team -- which was staging a performance abroad for the first time -- in the heart of the entertainment world, is worthy of congratulations.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Is Turkey drifting?
Gündüz Aktan - Turkish Daily News
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The fact that the deterioration of Turkey's relations with the United States and the European Union has come about as a result of an accumulation over time may affect our foreign policy permanently. This trend may strengthen if the United States and the EU gradually distance themselves from Turkey. However, it cannot be said that the present level of public anger, doubt and hostility has reached the point of no return.
The deterioration is a consequence of the buildup of negative developments. The U.S. attack on Iraq without securing a transatlantic agreement and the subsequent deterioration in French-U.S. relations may provide an example in that respect. The harsh criticism made by the political and academic elites of both sides, coupled with the media's efforts to involve the public in the argument, resulted in the coolness being transformed into a serious crisis.
New opportunities of cooperation, like the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon or efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, are needed for a rapprochement. Early on it became obvious that reminders made of the French help in the United States' War of Independence and the U.S. saving France in World War II did not really help matters.
That's why we should not exaggerate the nostalgic importance of the United States protecting Turkey against the Soviet Union during the Cold War or Turkish troops fighting side-by-side with their American counterparts in Korea.
The trust felt towards the United States was hurt by the massacre of civilians in Tal Afar and Fallujah, putting bags over the heads of Turkish soldiers and the Abu Ghraib incident. The attitude of certain segments of society with religious sensitivities, including the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, were hurt by Israel's indiscriminate targeting of civilians and civilian targets during its attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas.
However, the biggest problem Turkey currently faces is the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the possibility of division. This huge existential problem is directly linked to Kurdish independence in northern Iraq and Kirkuk because of the PKK. The matter of sending troops to Afghanistan and Lebanon became a huge issue because of the failure to prevent the continued presence of the PKK in northern Iraq. In this respect, we see that Turkey's domestic and foreign policy problems are interlinked.
The new map of the Middle East by Ralph Peters may be unimportant. However, serious academic groups in the United States have been discussing the Wilsonian principle of self-determination for the past decade as a solution to the world's current problems. Iraq is seen as a test case. In this state of affairs the doubts created by the U.S. failure to act against the PKK in northern Iraq become the main factor that harms the relations. This may also be the point where the mending can begin. In this respect Turkey can respond to any gesture made by the United States with one of its own. Public diplomacy can be effective only after that.
The reason the relations with the EU are deteriorating is the failure of some EU countries to create the political will in favor of our membership and even the strange determination some display against our membership. The EU's insistence on the implementation of certain reforms before the first stage of the negotiations, before 2009, has resulted in some suspecting that they aim to strengthen the separatist Kurdish movement before rejecting Turkey's membership. On that point, the problems associated with the United States and the EU merge.
On the other hand, Turkey is threatened with the partial or total suspension of the negotiations if the demands of the Greek Cypriots, who were made members despite their opposition to a solution on the island, are not met. If the EU allows its relations with Turkey to weaken just because of the matter of opening ports and airports, which is nothing compared to the earth-shattering events taking place all around the world, it will be committing a huge strategic mistake.
The improvement of our relations with the EU necessitates it overcoming the doubts about our membership due to religious differences, and this in turn entails an enormous revolution of mentality on their part. In other words, remedying the EU dimension of the said deterioration seems harder.
Still, having only one foot strongly anchored in the West may decrease the possibility of the drift
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The fact that the deterioration of Turkey's relations with the United States and the European Union has come about as a result of an accumulation over time may affect our foreign policy permanently. This trend may strengthen if the United States and the EU gradually distance themselves from Turkey. However, it cannot be said that the present level of public anger, doubt and hostility has reached the point of no return.
The deterioration is a consequence of the buildup of negative developments. The U.S. attack on Iraq without securing a transatlantic agreement and the subsequent deterioration in French-U.S. relations may provide an example in that respect. The harsh criticism made by the political and academic elites of both sides, coupled with the media's efforts to involve the public in the argument, resulted in the coolness being transformed into a serious crisis.
New opportunities of cooperation, like the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon or efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, are needed for a rapprochement. Early on it became obvious that reminders made of the French help in the United States' War of Independence and the U.S. saving France in World War II did not really help matters.
That's why we should not exaggerate the nostalgic importance of the United States protecting Turkey against the Soviet Union during the Cold War or Turkish troops fighting side-by-side with their American counterparts in Korea.
The trust felt towards the United States was hurt by the massacre of civilians in Tal Afar and Fallujah, putting bags over the heads of Turkish soldiers and the Abu Ghraib incident. The attitude of certain segments of society with religious sensitivities, including the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, were hurt by Israel's indiscriminate targeting of civilians and civilian targets during its attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas.
However, the biggest problem Turkey currently faces is the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the possibility of division. This huge existential problem is directly linked to Kurdish independence in northern Iraq and Kirkuk because of the PKK. The matter of sending troops to Afghanistan and Lebanon became a huge issue because of the failure to prevent the continued presence of the PKK in northern Iraq. In this respect, we see that Turkey's domestic and foreign policy problems are interlinked.
The new map of the Middle East by Ralph Peters may be unimportant. However, serious academic groups in the United States have been discussing the Wilsonian principle of self-determination for the past decade as a solution to the world's current problems. Iraq is seen as a test case. In this state of affairs the doubts created by the U.S. failure to act against the PKK in northern Iraq become the main factor that harms the relations. This may also be the point where the mending can begin. In this respect Turkey can respond to any gesture made by the United States with one of its own. Public diplomacy can be effective only after that.
The reason the relations with the EU are deteriorating is the failure of some EU countries to create the political will in favor of our membership and even the strange determination some display against our membership. The EU's insistence on the implementation of certain reforms before the first stage of the negotiations, before 2009, has resulted in some suspecting that they aim to strengthen the separatist Kurdish movement before rejecting Turkey's membership. On that point, the problems associated with the United States and the EU merge.
On the other hand, Turkey is threatened with the partial or total suspension of the negotiations if the demands of the Greek Cypriots, who were made members despite their opposition to a solution on the island, are not met. If the EU allows its relations with Turkey to weaken just because of the matter of opening ports and airports, which is nothing compared to the earth-shattering events taking place all around the world, it will be committing a huge strategic mistake.
The improvement of our relations with the EU necessitates it overcoming the doubts about our membership due to religious differences, and this in turn entails an enormous revolution of mentality on their part. In other words, remedying the EU dimension of the said deterioration seems harder.
Still, having only one foot strongly anchored in the West may decrease the possibility of the drift
Awful developments in the North Cyprus
Those who have read my articles on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus know that I don’t approve of the policies followed by the Denktaş family. I was the first person in the media to describe their policy as 'no solution is the solution.'
Cüneyt Ülsever - Turkish Daily News
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Those who have read my articles on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) know that I don't approve of the policies followed by the Denktaş family. I am the first person in the media to describe their policy as “no solution is the solution.”
However, there have been certain developments on the island that I cannot accept.
Undemocratic means have been used to get rid of the Denktaş family.
According to newspapers, Democrat Party (DP) leader Serdar Denktaş, who was pushed out of the coalition after the recent political confusion in the KKTC, said that Justice and Development Party (AKP) deputy leader Şaban Dişli played a part in the transfer of deputies from his party and the Republican Turks Party (CTP) to form the Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖDP) and added that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's name was also mentioned.
According to claims, the same political games played in Turkey are now being repeated in the KKTC.
Religion and politics, always kept separate in the KKTC, are now bound together. KKTC Religious Affairs head Ahmet Yönlüer's initiative is resulting in a religion-politics coalition on the island. According to claims, Yönlüer is trying to found a party like the AKP. According to an even more worrying claim, Yönlüer offered DP deputies $ 600,000 in order for them to leave their party.
The KKTC costs Turkey $1 million a day. As a result, Turkey has some say in what goes on there. For example, Turkey usually tries to influence elections in the KKTC. On the other hand, Turkey never abandons the KKTC even though this means the future of 72 million people is put at risk for only 200,000.
However, if the above claims are right, Turkey has never before intervened in the KKTC's national will so blatantly.
Turkey has always tried to turn the KKTC into a smaller version of itself. On the other hand, the people on the island try to protect some of the values left on from the British colonial era.
Top of these values comes democratic will. For the Turks on the island, democracy means much more than it does to Turks in Anatolia. The Turks on the island never used to mix religion with politics, unlike us.
They could always differentiate between being competitors and being enemies. Even though they may fight each other during elections, this never spoils friendships.
Secularism has always been the governing system on the island.
The religious affairs director never had powers outside his office.
However, now we are hearing from sources, besides Serdar Denktaş, that Yönlüer has become deeply involved in the political scene in the KKTC.
He has close contacts with all the politicians and is trying to persuade them to quit their parties and join new ones. What's even worse is the claim that money has been changing hands.
For many years, the KKTC was governed by the principle “no solution is the solution.” However, the means to rid the island of this should not be undemocratic or immoral.
Expert blasts AKP gov’t for ‘anti-American’ policies
Cagaptay’s remarks are seen as further evidence of widening gap between Erdoğan and pro-Israeli groups in the US
ÜMİT ENGİNSOY Monday, September 18, 2006
WASHINGTON - Turkish Daily News
A leading expert on Turkey has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government of steering the country away from pro-U.S. and pro-Western policies, also suggesting that an election victory for the ruling party “might well turn Turkey into an unrecognizable country, somehow democratic, superficially secular, and definitely not Western.”
Analysts said that remarks by Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank here, was an indication of a widening gap between Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) and pro-Israeli groups in the U.S. capital.
“The AKP experience in Turkey shows that, once in government, Islamist parties bring about change in unexpected ways,” Cagaptay said. “The AKP's foreign policy is scratching away the Turks' sense of national identity, while infusing Turkish society with a strong sense of Muslim nationalism. In the rift between the West and the Muslim world, Turkey is fast approaching the tipping point at which ‘the cat will not walk back.'”
He was addressing a Sept. 14 hearing titled “Is There a Clash of Civilizations? Islam, Democracy, and U.S. Middle East and Central Asia Policy” at the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations.
The AKP won a landslide victory in Turkey's November, 2002 general elections, obtaining an overwhelming majority in parliament. Turkey faces two critical elections next year, a parliamentary vote for the next president in the spring and new legislative polls in the fall.
Cagaptay said that Turkey had followed a quite predictable foreign policy, cooperating enthusiastically with Washington in the Middle East and the Balkans, aligning itself with Israel and keeping at arms length from radical neighbors such as Iran and Syria, before the AKP came to power.
“Today, though, the picture looks much different. U.S.-Turkish relations are strained on almost all Middle East issues. From their views of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to dealing with Iran and Syria, the United States and Turkey have developed vastly disparate positions since the AKP's rise to power,” he said.
Blaming the AKP for the Turkish Parliament's refusal to allow U.S. forces to use Turkish territory on the eve of the 2003 Iraq war, Cagaptay said: “The AKP's anti-American rhetoric has caused a shift in Turkish public opinion towards the United States, while the party has pursued rapprochement with Muslim states in the Middle East. Accordingly, Turkish and U.S. views of the region have diverged significantly.”
He particularly criticized Erdoğan for pursuing close ties with Iran and Syria, two U.S. foes in the Middle East.
“While the AKP has pursued a policy of rapprochement with Syria and Iran, Turkish attitudes toward the United States have soured significantly,” Cagaptay said.
He said Washington was also partly responsible for the deteriorating ties. “Some of the blame lies with Washington. The United States's unwillingness to take action against the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq is a source of frustration. Lately, Turkish casualties resulting from PKK attacks have been mounting at a rate close to that experienced by U.S. forces in Iraq. The civilian carnage in Iraq itself has added to the Turkish frustration.”
Cagaptay criticized the AKP government's position on Israel. “The AKP is also alienating Turkey's other traditional ally in the region, Israel. A good example came earlier this year when Erdoğan invited the leader of Hamas' military wing, Khaled Mashal, to Ankara, despite criticism from the West and pro-Western Turks. The AKP continues to defend the visit, keeps contacts with Mashal, and opposes Western efforts to isolate Hamas,” he said.
“Will secular, Western-minded Turks, long unable to provide a captivating political message, successfully challenge the AKP [in the elections], and will the United States support such an initiative? If not, a second AKP government might well turn Turkey into an unrecognizable country, somehow democratic, superficially secular, and definitely not Western,” Cagaptay said, summing up his presentation.
Sources here said that Cagaptay's colleagues at the Washington Institute shared his views on the AKP government's policies.
Earlier other Washington experts -- including Frank Gaffney, director of the right-wing think tank Center for Security Policy, and Michael Rubin, a specialist with the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) -- had been vocal in their accusations of anti-secular and anti-Western policies from Erdoğan and his government.
Both Gaffney and the AEI's experts publicly are known as pro-Israeli neoconservatives, or foreign policy hawks particularly on Middle Eastern matters. The Washington Institute also is known for its pro-Israeli position, but many of its experts are Democrats who hardly can be associated with the neoconservative movement.
“The bottom-line is that many U.S. Jewish groups are increasingly frustrated with Erdoğan and his government,” said one analyst here.
Erdoğan and his aides strongly reject criticism that they are seeking to steer Turkey away from the West, saying that Ankara's progress toward full European Union membership -- that gained momentum during the AKP tenure -- is solid evidence that they are continuing with the country's Western orientation.
ÜMİT ENGİNSOY Monday, September 18, 2006
WASHINGTON - Turkish Daily News
A leading expert on Turkey has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government of steering the country away from pro-U.S. and pro-Western policies, also suggesting that an election victory for the ruling party “might well turn Turkey into an unrecognizable country, somehow democratic, superficially secular, and definitely not Western.”
Analysts said that remarks by Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank here, was an indication of a widening gap between Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) and pro-Israeli groups in the U.S. capital.
“The AKP experience in Turkey shows that, once in government, Islamist parties bring about change in unexpected ways,” Cagaptay said. “The AKP's foreign policy is scratching away the Turks' sense of national identity, while infusing Turkish society with a strong sense of Muslim nationalism. In the rift between the West and the Muslim world, Turkey is fast approaching the tipping point at which ‘the cat will not walk back.'”
He was addressing a Sept. 14 hearing titled “Is There a Clash of Civilizations? Islam, Democracy, and U.S. Middle East and Central Asia Policy” at the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations.
The AKP won a landslide victory in Turkey's November, 2002 general elections, obtaining an overwhelming majority in parliament. Turkey faces two critical elections next year, a parliamentary vote for the next president in the spring and new legislative polls in the fall.
Cagaptay said that Turkey had followed a quite predictable foreign policy, cooperating enthusiastically with Washington in the Middle East and the Balkans, aligning itself with Israel and keeping at arms length from radical neighbors such as Iran and Syria, before the AKP came to power.
“Today, though, the picture looks much different. U.S.-Turkish relations are strained on almost all Middle East issues. From their views of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to dealing with Iran and Syria, the United States and Turkey have developed vastly disparate positions since the AKP's rise to power,” he said.
Blaming the AKP for the Turkish Parliament's refusal to allow U.S. forces to use Turkish territory on the eve of the 2003 Iraq war, Cagaptay said: “The AKP's anti-American rhetoric has caused a shift in Turkish public opinion towards the United States, while the party has pursued rapprochement with Muslim states in the Middle East. Accordingly, Turkish and U.S. views of the region have diverged significantly.”
He particularly criticized Erdoğan for pursuing close ties with Iran and Syria, two U.S. foes in the Middle East.
“While the AKP has pursued a policy of rapprochement with Syria and Iran, Turkish attitudes toward the United States have soured significantly,” Cagaptay said.
He said Washington was also partly responsible for the deteriorating ties. “Some of the blame lies with Washington. The United States's unwillingness to take action against the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq is a source of frustration. Lately, Turkish casualties resulting from PKK attacks have been mounting at a rate close to that experienced by U.S. forces in Iraq. The civilian carnage in Iraq itself has added to the Turkish frustration.”
Cagaptay criticized the AKP government's position on Israel. “The AKP is also alienating Turkey's other traditional ally in the region, Israel. A good example came earlier this year when Erdoğan invited the leader of Hamas' military wing, Khaled Mashal, to Ankara, despite criticism from the West and pro-Western Turks. The AKP continues to defend the visit, keeps contacts with Mashal, and opposes Western efforts to isolate Hamas,” he said.
“Will secular, Western-minded Turks, long unable to provide a captivating political message, successfully challenge the AKP [in the elections], and will the United States support such an initiative? If not, a second AKP government might well turn Turkey into an unrecognizable country, somehow democratic, superficially secular, and definitely not Western,” Cagaptay said, summing up his presentation.
Sources here said that Cagaptay's colleagues at the Washington Institute shared his views on the AKP government's policies.
Earlier other Washington experts -- including Frank Gaffney, director of the right-wing think tank Center for Security Policy, and Michael Rubin, a specialist with the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) -- had been vocal in their accusations of anti-secular and anti-Western policies from Erdoğan and his government.
Both Gaffney and the AEI's experts publicly are known as pro-Israeli neoconservatives, or foreign policy hawks particularly on Middle Eastern matters. The Washington Institute also is known for its pro-Israeli position, but many of its experts are Democrats who hardly can be associated with the neoconservative movement.
“The bottom-line is that many U.S. Jewish groups are increasingly frustrated with Erdoğan and his government,” said one analyst here.
Erdoğan and his aides strongly reject criticism that they are seeking to steer Turkey away from the West, saying that Ankara's progress toward full European Union membership -- that gained momentum during the AKP tenure -- is solid evidence that they are continuing with the country's Western orientation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)