European children fighting for PKK, claims former ROJ TV chief

Denmark: European children fighting for PKK, claims former ROJ TV chief

Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende continues to publish more information about ROJ TV and the PKK. Their most recent report reveals that the PKK is using children-fighters. Pictures taken by former ROJ-TV director, Manouchehr Zonoozi, show youth, the youngest of which is supposedly 14-16, and Zonoozi claims, he saw children in the camps as young as 8-9.

Putting aside the issue of using children as soldiers, Zonoozi makes another very interesting claim. He says that most children in the camps come from Iran or Europe, and don’t have their parents with them.

The youngest get school education, the older ones are trained in using weapons, fighting and Kurdish history, with emphasis on the PKK and the movement’s founder, Abdullah Öcalan.

“In an asylum camp in Iraq, I met a Syrian-origin Kurdish family. They were looking for their daughter, who fled to the PKK. But the PKK didn’t want to give her back to the family. I was really upset at that,” says Manouchehr Zonoozi.

May 26, 2010

Algerian Genocide Committed by France

Genocide against Algerian Identity

1. Overview
According to the Algerian documents, between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians died during the Algerian War of Independence.[1] Algerians argue that the massacres should be named as genocide and France must apologise to the Algerians. Arab states and many Muslim countries, including Turkey, back the Algerian claims. However the French do not accept the claims. According to the French side, the number of killed Algerian civilians is about 350.000, but not more "France's Alledged Algerian Genocide". French Foreign Ministry responded to Algerian President Abdulaziz Bouteflika's call to France to repent for what France perpetrated in Algeria during the colonial period, by relegating such historical inquiries to historians' "France Left Algerian Genocide to Historians Again"

Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika said that French colonization of his country was a form of genocide.[2][3] In memoirs, some French officers have described torture of Algerians during the war. Edouard Sablier, for instance, one of the soldiers who took part in the repression, later described the situation: "Everywhere in the towns there were camps surrounded by barbed wire containing hundreds of suspects who had been arrested… Often, when we set out to inspect an isolated hamlet in the mountains, I heard people say, 'We should punish them by taking away their crops'."[4] A paper called Ohé Partisans, published by the French Trotskyists, described Sétif as an “Algerian Oradour”. Oradour was a French town where the Nazi occupiers had murdered over 600 people, including children..

Some Algerian intellectuals argue that the number of genocide against the Algerian people is not one but many. Prof. Dr. Ali Al-Hail for instance says "French constituted numerous genocides against the Algerians" - The French Definition of 'Genocide'. Similarly, Abdulkerim Gazali, editor of the Algerian newspaper La Tribune, likens France's occupation of an independent and sovereign Algeria to Nazi Germany's occupation of many European countries and claimed this was racism "Algerian Genocide - Algerian History

However France has never accepted its responsibility in tortures and massacres in Algeria. Paris says that the past should be left to historians. French President Jacques Chirac, upon harsh reactions to the law encouraging the good sides of the French colonial history, made the statement, "Writing history is the job of the historians, not of the laws." According to Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, "speaking about the past or writing history is not the job of the parliament."[5]

The Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika said in a speech in Paris on 17 April 2006 that "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions".[6]

2. History

Algeria first became a colony of France in 1830. When in 1954 the Algerian people rioted against the French colonial rule, the French dispatched 400,000 troops to pacify the anti-colonial uprising.[7] The French colonial forces launched an air and ground offensive against several eastern cities, particularly Setif and Guelma, in response to anti-French riots. The crackdown lasted several days and according to the Algerian state left 45,000 people dead YouTube Video - "Algerian Genocide by France" European historians put the figure at between 15,000 and 20,000.[8] French attacks continued not only in Algerian territories but in France as well. The Paris massacre of 1961 was the most vivid example: On October 17 the French police attacked an unarmed demonstration of Algerians, who demanded the freedom of their country from French colonial rule. How many demonstrators were killed is still unclear, but estimates range from 32 to 200 people. The incident had not been officially confirmed until 1999.[9][10] The Algerian newspaper Liberté was seized by the Police on 19 October 1998, presumably in connection of an article about these events.[11]

There were executions and widespread arrests during the War of Independence. "Villages were bombed from the air and a town was shelled from a cruiser at sea. The attacks were more or less random. The point was not so much to punish the original rioters as to teach the whole Muslim population to know their place. Settlers set up their own unofficial death squads and killed hundreds of Muslims. German and Italian prisoners of war were released to take part in the massacre".[12]

As Le Monde Diplomatique put it, "as France celebrated victory in Europe on 8 May 1945, its army was massacring thousands of civilians in Sétif and Guelma - events that were the real beginning of Algeria’s war of independence."[13] Bouteflika also urged the Paris Government to admit its part in the massacres of 45,000 Algerians who took to the streets to demand independence as Europe celebrated victory over Nazi Germany in 1945.[14] French authorities then responded by playing down the comments, urging "mutual respect" French Foreign Minister Barnier told Algeria in an official visit to make a common effort to search history "in order to establish a common future and overcome the sad pages". Giving interview to El Vatan, an Algerian newspaper, Barnier said that "Historians from two sides must be encouraged to work together. They must work on the common past".[15]

After a war which ended in Algeria's independence in 1962, eight million Algerian residents were deprived of French nationality and hundreds of thousands of pieds-noirs (French who settled in Algeria and were re-patriated at the end of the war) were forced "home" to a place which was not home.

3. Commentary

Ahmed Ben Bella also argues that the French committed a genocide against the people and Algerian culture: "Algeria's indigenous population was decimated in the early years of French settler colonial rule, falling from over four million in 1830 to less than 2.5 million by 1890. Systematic genocide was coupled with the brutal suppression of Algerian cultural identity. Indigenous Algerians were French subjects, but could only become French citizens if they renounced Islam and Arab culture. A ruthless policy of acculturation followed, and the remaining Algerians were forced to cease speaking their native Arabic and use the French of their colonial masters instead. The indigenous Muslim population of Algeria was not permitted to hold political meetings or bear arms. They were subjected to strict pass laws that required indigenous Muslim Algerians to seek permission from the colonial authorities to leave their hometowns or villages."[16]

Abdulkerim Gazali, editor of the Algerian newspaper La Tribune, likened France's occupation of an independent and sovereign Algeria to Nazi Germany's occupation of many European countries and claimed this was racism.[17]

4. Recent developments

Algeria called on France to apologize in 2005 for crimes committed during the colonial era.[18] Amar Bakhouche, speaker of the Algerian Senate, similarly reacted that France did not apologize for massacres it committed in Algeria.[19]

The archives in France on the issue have been kept closed until now. The French collected all documents regarding the massacres and genocide. For many, the closed archives are another sign of the Genocide in Algeria. Amar Bakhouche, the speaker of Algerian Senate, reacted against the fact that France keeps the archives related to that period closed. He said the greatest majority of archives related to that period were brought to France and they were kept closed. "They are not open for French and Algerians. We urged to immediately open them for public", he said.[20]

In response to the action of the French parliament, making it an offense to deny the supposed Armenian genocide, the Turkish parliament is drafting a bill to make it illegal to deny that the French committed genocide in Algeria.[21] Turkish party leaders, including CHP, MHP, BBP and ANAP called France to recognise 'Algerian genocide'.


5. References


^ Wars of the World Algeria Independence France 1954-1962

^ BBC News Algeria leader in French hospital

^ The Scotsman Algerian leader calls colonisation 'genocide'

^ Socialist Worker Algeria — the war didn’t end in 1945

^ Zaman Online France in Favor of So-Called Genocide Resorts to Historians

^ The Scotsman Algerian leader calls colonisation 'genocide'

^ Al-Ahram Weekly Ahmed Ben Bella: Plus ça change

^ Al Jazzeera [1]

^ The Washington Post Back Issues A 1961 Massacre of Algerians in Paris - When the Media Failed the Test

^ Al-Ahram Weekly Bullets in the water

^ When the Seine was full of bodies

^ Socialist Worker Algeria — the war didn’t end in 1945

^ Le Monde Diplomatique Massacre in Algeria

^ Al Jazzeera [2]

^ Diplomatic Observer PARIS' GAME TURNS AGAINST DUE TO ALGERIA

^ Al-Ahram Weekly Ahmed Ben Bella: Plus ça change

^ Turkish Weekly Algeria Asks France to Recognize Algerian Genocide

^ Turkish Weekly France's Alledged Algerian Genocide

^ Diplomatic Observer PARIS' GAME TURNS AGAINST DUE TO ALGERIA

^ Diplomatic Observer PARIS' GAME TURNS AGAINST DUE TO ALGERIA

^ NTV-MSNBC Turkish parliamentary committee drafts law on Algerian genocide

By Sedat LACINER

Great Bluffing On Cyprus

Prof. Dr. Sedat LACINER

Cyprus question presents a role like a litmus paper in Turkey and EU relations. It is possible to see the future of these relations by looking at Cyprus... If our hypothesis is right, it is clear that Turkey would never be a member of the EU. It is because European countries nearly ignored Turkey and violated international law publicly on Cyprus issue.

Since 2003 Annan Plan, Turkey has always acted in the accordance with the principle of to be a cut above. She said “yes” most of the proposals of international community and tried to the best of her ability to achieve peace and a “united Cyprus”.

As it will be remembered during UN (Annan) Plan Referenda on April 2004, while Turkish community approved the plan with a majority of 65 % vote, Greek Cypriot community rejected and said “no” to the united Cyprus with a overwhelming majority of 76 %.

It is also known that, before the referenda the EU and the US had made such promises; “If Turks vote “yes” in the referenda, isolation will be lifted and Turkish Cypriot community will be rewarded”. However, it appears that the rewarded side has been Greek Cypriots rather than peace-demanding Turkish community. Greek Cypriots has been accepted as a full EU member as if they were the unique and legal representatives of the island.

As a result of this, number of Greek states within the EU has been raised to two and Cyprus question has been evolved into an EU question. The EU accepted the Cypriots in the union by numerous wangles by manipulating international law. For one, they have violated their own principle by accepting a country which experiences border problems. It is also disregarded that Cyprus Republic had been established as a Turkish-Greek Cypriot state. Thus, while northern part of the island has been regarded as an EU land, Turkish community on this land has not been regarded as EU member.

Moreover, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkey has been put in an “invader” position. Furthermore, on behalf of the EU, Brussels has forced Turkey to recognize Greek Cypriot Administration, which Turkey does not recognize. As a result, while Christians of the island become a part of the EU, Muslims were left outside. In addition, not only Turkey is wanted to be left outside of the EU but also wanted to be punished via Cyprus issue.

Turkey has called the EU’s bluff

Today, Turkey clearly sees that; Cyprus issue is at the ultimate point of our patience. The sea is over... There is neither other concession to be given nor another place to go. The EU has to make its decision. On the one hand, they would follow a realist and cordial full membership negotiation process with Turkey. On the other hand, they would frankly outspeak their real feelings. In Mevlana’s words, they would rather be seen as they are or be as they already are. It is clear that, one of the most important they would show their policy change is the Cyprus issue. Turkey, with her last action, does not leave a space to manoeuvre to the EU.

Firstly, Davutoğlu made a harsh speech like an ultimatum as he was appointed as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. By continuing his attitude Davutoğlu also pointed a possible referendum for unifying island. Those were followed by Prime Minister Erdoğan’s strong declarations as; “Greek Cypriots should not expect to be taken into account by Turkey as a party. We will never seat at the same table with them”.

Prime Minister also stated that they would not even recognize the EU Presidency of Greek Cypriots.

Road to Independency

Up to now Greek Cypriots were in comfort. All steps have been expected to be taken by Turkey. It was explicitly told to Turkey that “if you wish to continue full membership negotiations, you have to recognize Cyprus first”. Now, Turkey is counter-striking and calling the EU’s bluff in that sense.

If Turkey resists on her stand, this process would even pave the way for independency of TRNC. Besides it is also seen that, in the last ten years Turkey has been making preparations for this independence mainly by trying to solve water and electricity problems of the Northern part of the island.

More importantly, Turkish government has tried -and still trying- its best to solve an untouched problem of the island; the property question. Those policy actions would also bring Greek Cypriots, who has never give a signal of change, into line. As the possibility of separation gains power, Greek Cypriots would stand up from comfortable EU seat and come to the negotiation table. However, it can be said that it is still early to make such kind of predictions before seeing Brussels reply to Turkey’s policy actions.

21 July 2011, Thursday
Star daily

Translated from Turkish by Cigdem BILEZIKCI

Turkey as a 'Companion' not a 'Model' to the Middle East

Mehmet Yegin, USAK Center for American Studies

The situation in the Middle East is getting complicated with the spread of the societal movements to Yemen, Bahrain and Libya. It became more difficult to follow the developments in all these states. Yet, the attention shift to the uneasy countries should not cause losing the track of successful movements to overthrow the symbol names. The central concern is not the change of the names but the change of whole system. Thus, the international community that endorsed the democratic demands of the streets should also endorse them during the democratization process. In this regard, particularly Egyptian democratization process is crucial since it have the potential to influence the others.


The US Perspective

The US does not want to lose one of its crucial allies in the region. Egypt is vital in the regional balances and with its geostrategic position. Thus, the US understandably wants a transition that preserves its alliance with Egypt. The US was successful about nation building in Germany and Japan but it is hard to say the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the US is unpopular among the masses in Egypt, its role in Egyptian democratization mostly relies on its relations with the Egyptian Army.

The formal links between the US and Egypt relies on the aid provided by the US and the military relations. Thus, most of the experts in the US are pointing the US military aid as a crucial leverage and oppose the idea to cut it off. Regarding the concerns for the stability in the country and keeping the Islamists in control the US regard the army as the guarantor of the transition. Therefore, despite the democracy promotion ideal, there is a tendency to heavily rely on the Egyptian Army in the post-Mubarak term.


The Role of Army and Muslim Brotherhood

The position of the army is crucial from the beginning of the protests. It is a major actor and is not eager to give up its privileged position in both political and economic spheres over night. Nevertheless, the army cannot act without the consent of society either. Thus, the Egyptian people should be careful in this process. For instance, asking for a military coup against Mubarak when he refused to step down signals a dangerous approach. The military assuming power for a secure transition is not a true path for democratization. This would further consolidate the tutelary position of the army in Egypt and prolong the transition to democracy. There are abundant cases for this situation.

Army may west an important role in the transition about security. A temporary government should be established with bringing all parties in Egyptian political spectrum. This may be a name whom all parties may agree on or a group of people as representatives of different groups. This coalition should not exclude Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as an important actor in opposition. It should be underlined that MB is not demanding a chief or privileged role after Mubarak, at least immediately. This is an important chance to integrate a major opposition group to the system and raise moderate voices among the group members.


Turkey as a 'Companion' not a 'Model' to the Middle East

Talking about democratization in the Middle East, the eyes are turning to Turkey again as a model in the region. Most of the experts underline secular nature of Turkey with its Muslim population. They also think that the Justice and Development Party can be a model for the Muslim Brotherhood as well. Thus, they offer Turkey as model for Egyptian democratization.

Nevertheless, Turkey is not in claim to be a model for the countries in the Middle East. And Turkey is not eager to intervene in the domestic matters of other countries either. Turkey established relations with the countries in the Middle East in equal terms and wants to maintain this balance. On the other hand, as seen in the cases for facilitation and mediation, Turkey will not turn its back to the countries that ask for help and support.

Turkey may share its experiences with those countries asking for support. Turkey may be a companion for the Middle Eastern countries since both are in a democratization process. Turkey enjoys high popularity in the Middle East. According to TESEV Poll, Turkey enjoys a favorable image with 75% in general in the Middle East. Besides, 72% of Egyptian people have a favorable perception towards Turkey. Thus, an institutionalized interaction among Turkey and the countries in the region may inspire the fellow countries not to copy but to develop their own models. This interaction may push Turkey to see the democratic deficiencies of the country and work hard for reforms as well. In short, both sides may win out of such interaction towards democracy.

Too Early to Talk about a Middle Eastern Revolution?

Gamze Coşkun, USAK Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies

With the New Year, the Middle Eastern societies appealed the attention of the world public opinion with their actions which might change the fate of the whole region. The social uprisings started from Tunisia and spread over many countries of the region such as Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya. The authoritarian leaders, the dictators, who were not even imagined to be collapsed with the help of public pressure have started to stand down and renounce their positions.




Many made various comments and different forecasts on these movements. However, it is seen that there is confusion on how to name these public actions. There are two main arguments on the conceptualization of these social uprisings. Some calls these actions as social movement, while some others prefer to name them as revolution from the beginning. The preferred term draws the road map of how to define the issue. At this point, in order to avoid such incomprehensibility, it would be much appropriate and healthy to describe the events going on in the Middle East after theoretically defining the concepts of revolution and social movement.



Concerning the Social Sciences literature, it would not be right to use the concept of revolution to define any kind of attacks against an established order or seizure of power. What is more, it is not proper to use the term revolution for military coups and anticolonial struggles either. Revolutions aim to establish a new moral and material world or order.[1] And this is the main point which separates revolutions from social movements. Revolution is also a deliberate process, and this project has a leader or vanguard acting within the framework of a certain ideology. It brings about the change of the dominant ideology as well as that of the state and class structures, and it is a bottom-up process. For example, Samuel P. Huntington defines revolution as a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values and myths of a society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership and government activities and policies.[2] In another perspective, Lenin says revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and exploited. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order.[3]



Different theorists put forward different arguments while describing revolutions. While many of them agree on that revolution must have a leader and ideology, some others like Theda Skocpol considers the issue from a different angle. For instance, by stating that he shares the idea of Revolutions are not made. They come, Skocpol points out that revolutions are not successful and effective thanks to their leaders who acts in line with an ideology but with the contribution of the efforts of differently situated and differently motivated groups groups not operating even under the shared rubric of a revolutionary ideology.[4] In this regard, leader and ideology are not seen so important at least during its stages of development. The leader and ideology become the influential power mostly following the collapse of the existing regime.[5] Yet all in all, all these theorists reach a consensus on that revolutions come into being with a structural and ideological stark change in the state system.



Many academicians assume that social unrest and dissolution occur because of rapid modernization and this will be followed by revolution. However, as Skocpol and Charles Tilly express that the mass, lower-class participants in revolution cannot turn discontent into effective political action without autonomous collective organization and resources to sustain their efforts.[6]



The process which ended or newly started with the stepping down of the leaders surely began as the people who were uncomfortable with the system took action. Economic inequalities, pressure of the regime, search for reform, change and democracy as well as various structural and international factors triggered these movements. Furthermore, it is seen that the leaders of these movements have not been the ones who act within the framework of a certain ideology but the peoples themselves.



It is not possible to call the incident as revolution while the events in Tunisia and Egypt have not been finalized yet and nearly the same political situation is maintained further than the absence of a certain ideology and leader. Other than that even if a full fledged democratic system could be established, it would not be easy to talk about a revolution in the strict sense at the end of the process as there would not be a radical change in the state structure, ideology and institutions. In contrast to the consensus reached on 1789 French, 1917 Russian, 1911-1949 Chinese and 1979 Iranian revolutions, the revolutionary characteristic of incidents in the Middle East could possibly remain disputed.



In short, with no doubt, the Middle Eastern region entered into a new phase. However, it is not possible to predict the future of the region and direction of these movements from now.A very new situation is expected to emerge in the region, yet calling the upcoming but still nonexistent situation as revolution would be too early. The framework we draw for the explanation of the issue is the precondition of a strong analysis. And a healthy analysis would come after an appropriate and healthy approach to the issue.

The Democrat ‘Sultan’ of Kazakhstan

Gülay Kılıç, USAK Center For Eurasian Studies

“Today, without dramatizing the situation in those years, I openly declare you that in the beginning of the 1990’s, we were on the edge of a cliff.” This sentence was uttered by Nursultan Nazarbayev ten years after the declaration of independence of Kazakhstan. In the 1990’s, Kazakhstan was suffering an economy which was on the verge of bankruptcy, an insufficient infrastructure, a deficiency of expert staff (the expert management group in Kazakhstan migrated to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union), and a governmental structure that was about to collapse. There were other factors which made the adverse conditions in the country even more serious during that period.

Almost all of the former Soviet regions have experienced similar problems and a transition period which was never experienced before. As a country which takes place among the other countries that show a maximum effort to overcome this period, Kazakhstan is at the forefront in several fields. Kazakhstan owes its success to its people in the first place and then to Nursultan Nazarbayev. Under the difficult conditions of the post-independency period, Nazarbayev not only started both the economic and politic structuring processes, but also ensured unity and solidarity in the country. The civil wars and ethnic conflicts which stirred the countries of the region did not reveal in Kazakhstan. As a matter of fact, Kazakhstan is a country that harbors approximately 130 nations from 45 different religions. Nazarbayev is the leader who has inspired the spirit of unity and solidarity to Kazakhstan.

Nazarbayev is a leader who is successful not only in the domestic politics, but also in the foreign policy. Today, Kazakhstan differs from the other countries in the region in terms of its stabilized foreign policy. For example, CICA (Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia) which was founded upon the initiative of Nazarbayev, is brought to the agenda today as one of the important organizations. CICA can be described as the Asian OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). CICA is an organization founded by Nursultan Nazarbayev; it fills an important gap in Asia and draws the countries together which could not be assembled by the efforts of other international organizations previously. On the other hand, Kazakhstan has implemented a considerably stabilized foreign policy against the West and Russia.

Nazarbayev played an important role also in the recovery process of Kazakhstan economy. However, at this point, we must not disregard the fact that Kazakhstan is a rich country with regards to its natural resources. While reconstructing its political structure, Nazarbayev has always aimed at making Kazakhstan a regional power. In short, since its independency, Nazarbayev’s efforts made on behalf of Kazakhstan cannot be underestimated.

Nazarbayev’s endeavors made also with respect to the nuclear security which lately became a subject frequently discussed throughout the whole world cannot be ignored. Kazakhstan’s leadership in the matters of the nuclear security and peace is very important, since during the Soviet Union era it was a country which possessed a considerable amount of nuclear power. It is Nazarbayev who has assigned his country to carry out this mission. During the foundation stage of CICA, Kazakhstan relinquished its nuclear power for the sake of the constitution of an organization which is founded to set a good example for the whole world. Nazarbayev received a great support from his people who had suffered a lot by the reason of the nuclear tests, and he was appreciated by the other countries and organizations, the United Nations (UN) coming in the first place. Nazarbayev went down in history as the first leader who has voluntarily relinquished the nuclear weapons, and in 2010, he received the fruits of his efforts made for the world peace by bringing in his country the Chairmanship of OSCE. Nazarbayev took very important steps also for OSCE and managed to attract the attention of the whole world to the region. After an interval which lasted 11 years long, Kazakhstan held the OSCE Chairmen Summit for the first time and gave acceleration to the activities of OSCE which was trying to carry on its operations within a structure almost totally inactivated. With regards to the world security issues and the solution of the regional problems, the country has incorporated the four basic principles -namely confidence, tradition, transparency and tolerance- into the structure of OSCE.

Undoubtedly, the most important name behind all achievements of Kazakhstan is Nazarbayev.


Referendum Discussions and Nazarbayev’s Position

Nazarbayev became the President who was given a broad authority within the framework of the 1995 constitution which was accepted by popular vote. In the constitution it had been stated that “the same person should not be elected as President more than twice in a row.” However, with the new regulations which were implemented in 2007, this rule has been invalidated for Nazarbayev.

Lately, the presidential election which will be held in 2012 became a current issue in the country. The discussions with respect to a possible referendum regarding the extension of Nazarbayev’s term of office came to the forefront upon the petition started by the non-governmental organizations. Previously, the President of the Kazakhstan Central Election Commission Kuanduk Turgankulov had announced that if 200 thousand signatures are collected, referendum would be held in March, 2011. On 12th of January, 5 million signatures which were collected during the petition were submitted to the Election Commission. Both the petitions and the referendum which is supported by certain parties are aimed at the cancellation of the 2012 elections and the extension of the Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s term of office by way of referendum (until 2020) without calling an election.

If the elections are held in 2012, most probably, Nazarbayev will stand for the election and he will be reelected. The most important point regarding the elections is the protection of the political culture of the society. Nazarbayev has vetoed the proposal for the referendum for the good of Kazakhstan’s future. However, the Kazakhstan Parliament and the Senate did not give up their attempts with regards to the realization of the referendum.

The critics in the West and especially in the United States argue that Kazakhstan cannot be ruled by Nazarbayev forever. Until today, Nazarbayev has acted prudentially and has implemented many projects in the interest of the country. If he continues his prudential approach with respect to the referendum which is today a current issue and persistently vetoes the proposal, he will be standing behind a decision that has a vital importance for the population of Kazakhstan. Existence of Kazakhstan in the future is closely related to its social and political culture. If the political culture is undermined, the results will be unavoidable. The elections are very important both for the people of Kazakhstan and the country’s international prestige.

Today, the “choices of the population” may not seem very important in a country which has announced its independence only 20 years ago, but in 20 years as of today, its importance will come into prominence. On the other hand, as a country that has undertaken the Chairmanship of OSCE, Kazakhstan should not compromise the universal values; in order to prove and sustain its power, it should develop and root its political culture as much as possible. If the previous political culture of Kazakhstan and its short history as an independent country are taken into consideration, a serious criticism cannot be performed with respect to matters such as the human rights and freedom in the country.

However, it is an undeniable reality that in the country serious steps with regards to development are not taken. Today, the measures which are necessary to be taken in the long run are being implemented by Nazarbayev. As a country which plans to be the leading country in Asia, in order to avoid a future chaos, Kazakhstan should protect its political culture and aim at increasing its speed of development.


*A short version of this op-ed is first published on Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review.

The Difference of Turkey

Prof. Dr. Sedat LAÇİNER

Turkey, a country which has been criticized for an ‘axis shift’ until as recent as a couple of months, is now almost worshipped as a model country. It is presented as if it was the natural and should-be- model for the Middle East. The same critics can now point at Turkey as a good example. Should or can Turkey be a model for the Middle East? What is its difference and what can be its contribution to the region?

Multiplicity in the economy

At a closer look, Turkey’s economical multiplicity, which also sets the foundations of her democracy, seems to be its primary difference from Arabs, Iran and Russia. Turkey’s economy is quite pluralistic both in terms of its products and actors in economy. It is able to produce may be millions of different products considering that many economies in the Middle East is more than % 80 dependent on a single product (petroleum or gas), even in Russia the dependency on petroleum is over % 70. In Turkey however neither, textile or tourism nor automotive can solely dominate the economy. It is possible to refer to a balanced distribution. Similarly unlike Arabs, Iran and Russia, the economy is not in the hands of a few families, or a political group. Although with also the presence of the very wealthy, Turkish economy is supported by tens of millions of people.

We are a very productive people. Anybody with a bit of capital sets up a kiosk around a corner or establishes a manufacturing plant. This multiplicity is the assurance for both the Turkish wealth and Turkish democracy. In a society with such a balanced and self growth, it is not possible for a single party or democracy to dominate the country on its own.

Turkish Islam and Turkish Secularity

A second area Turkey can set an example, religion-politics relations. The understanding, which we may call the ‘Turkish Islam’ or ‘Turkish secularism’, is a living proof of possibility of the co-existence of needs of modernity and basic principles of Islam. With Turkey’s evolution from the militant secularism to an understanding of moderate secular state, the difference of Turkish Islam from the others appears more distinctly.

Turkish Islam doesn’t radicalize the people nor does it encourage the religious towards violence. More importantly it rescues Islam from being a stagnant religion of 1400 years ago to be a functional religion that renew itself in the face of modern problems. As a matter of fact, Turkey, in history, had undertaken such a function as to continue a relatively urban Hanafi tradition it used to follow. With the rise of self-confidence of republic in the face of religion, Turkish Islam once again starts to assume the roles it is expected to perform both in the country and in the region.

On the other hand, when Iran is considered, Shiism, like a strict ideology, both radicalizes the regime inside and aggravates the conflicts of sects in the region. Similarly the Saudi Vahabism and some other movements become to be the source of radical Sunnism. The bonds between the religion and modern life, in the relatively secular Arab countries such as Egypt and Syria, seem to have seriously been severed. It seems like the salaats that are performed or Koran listened to have no applicable constructive effect on the individual and the society. The religious rituals, without being noticed, have become parts of Arab folklore or some kind of shields against change in the hands of the masses fighting against the difficulties of the modernity (unemployment, urbanisation, isolation, not being able to democratize)

The Turk Who Can Say No

The third important and distinguishing attribution of Turkish ‘modal’ is its unique self-confidence and honorable stance in front of the West. No matter how unfair we may be to ourselves, Turkey is a country which, behind its discreet and pragmatic presence, can stand up for its rights and take them and challenge all the world shall it be necessary. Republic’s pacifist foreign policy is full of such examples. For example Cyprus Peace Operation is a real challenge. From Armenian problem to EU relations, Turkey has an honor that surprises West and East alike.

Turkey, putting ABD through multiple shocks in March 1st memorandum, could insist on what it thinks to be right at the expense of isolation in the discussions about the embargo towards Iran. Mavi Marmara and ‘One Minute’ crisis are the evidences of Turkey’s principled and honorable stance.

It is obvious that Turkey has courage and self-confidence way beyond its power. And this self-confidence rises by the day. It should not be expected from an Arab to perceive this easily and act accordingly in a short period of time. Because the recent history of Arabs is full of examples of abasements.

Even in the Palestine issue alone, the Arabs have been abased several times. The Arab leadership was quite harsh towards its own people yet as much tame in foreign relations. As a result of all these, there appeared ‘a type of Arab who cannot say no’ on legal grounds.

The Arabs, who could not seek their rights on legal grounds, spread around their abasements with organizations such as El Kaide, Hezbollah and Hamas. Thus Turkish self-confidence can be distinguished here, too, from the region. Turkey, when necessary, defends its rights at the risk of war while trying, as much as possible, not to get entangled in terror and violence. As a consequence, the Turkey- West relationship is, unlike Arabs’ yielding relations and Iran’s relations full of enmity, a relationship between equals. If Turkey makes it into the EU as a full member state, it will proceed to be the hope for the relationships of East and West from Palestine to Iraq or Lebanon to Afghanistan almost all of which are failing.

We will continue to observe these differences, which are real national wealth of Turkey, in the next article.

 Translated by Çisil Okant

26 February 2011

Values, Hopes and Fears

* Yavuz BAYDAR, Today's Zaman

“The European Union must rethink its relations with the Muslim world at its doorstep, beginning with accepting Turkey, whose membership would help usher the continent from the small-mindedness [Orhan] Pamuk describes. I’m not sure booming Turkey’s still interested; keep someone at the door long enough and that person will turn away. But a union with Turkey in it would not have responded to the Arab awakening with such tiptoeing awkwardness.”

The truth is knocking at the door.

The quote above, by Roger Cohen, a columnist with The New York Times, is just another reminder of this.

The tough reality in the Arab world has come as proof of what has been argued for deaf and blind EU circles for a long time.

Whether Turkey is an inspiration or a model for the tsunami of change that hit the old Arab regimes is an issue that is bound to be discussed more as events unfold, but one thing is already clear:

What happened so far has without a shadow of a doubt exposed the major differences in the nature of relations between the West and Turkey.

As my colleague, Sedat Laçiner, argues in a powerful article published in the Star daily yesterday, it is not a relationship based on inferiority before the powerful nations in the West, nor is it based on venomous enmity like the one between Iran and the West.

“It is a relationship between equals,” writes Laçiner and concludes more or less like Cohen:

“If Turkey can become a full member of the EU, it will continue to become a hope for West-East relations that are collapsing in places such as Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon.”

When Nicolas Sarkozy visits Turkey for the first time as a statesman, the hope is that he will at least leave with this seemingly tiny but crucial detail that will define global events in the new decade. He can be helped to discover a number of hints and clues in Turkey’s present reality, such as examples of better governance based on respect for what people expect and demand, a self-confidence of the citizenry over a predictable future and, as a basis for all of this, an economy that fulfills almost all of the Maastricht criteria (which many EU members still fail to meet).

Then there’s all this talk about religion. Pamuk, Cohen and many others are simply saying this:

Throw your old, misleading glasses into the dustbin because the reality they show is thoroughly distorted.

By insisting on looking through them you are also further feeding into the “us and them” mentality, putting more bricks in the wall of intolerance.

The reality is far from the nonsense uttered lately by politicians such as Franco Frattini, Italy’s foreign minister. What is taking place in the Maghreb or the Mashreq has little to do with religion. If anything, its role so far has been limited to helping a new renaissance of morality, and lighting the flames of justice and human dignity. The role of religion is in the deep background; what really matters for all those gravely discontented masses is a decent life, a free vote, an end to corruption and thievery, and a fair share of prosperity.

It is obvious that the masses involved in the Arab unrest somewhere in the explosive fury have had an idea of what is called a “silent revolution” in Turkey. They have felt it concretely by the Turkish products entering their poor markets, successful openings of Turkish schools here and there, openly challenging Israel’s anti-humanitarian mindset against Palestinians when no other Arab statesman dared to come close to doing so, and perhaps most of all, the glitter and glamour of a “new Turkey” depicted in enormously popular TV series.

If a predominantly Muslim nation such as Turkey can manage to prosper in a democratic milieu, turning into a pivotal power for globalism, this cannot go unnoticed by the average citizen in the Arab world. They have certainly found a lot of food for thought in the fact that a political party stemming from a rather radical Islamist background has managed to evolve from within and move into the political center, with a determination to evolve the entire “hard” system based on tutelage, while keeping a broad voter base on free will. From their perspective it is an amazing experiment that aims for a fine merger between religion and modernity.

A new world is in the making.

The closer key states such as Egypt get to achieving a representative democracy, the more it will trigger unrest and change in other locations.

This is only the beginning, and it is all irreversible. Parts of the “old” EU may continue to build their policies upon fear, but for the others, Turkey -- with its experience and wisdom -- should be the gate to a new world based on hope and respect.

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=236580

25 February 2011
Today's Zaman

Have You Seen Didem Yaman?

Didem YAMAN

Didem Yaman (31)

PhD student at University of Otago, Dunedin, cannot be reached after the Christchurch eartquake on February, 22.

We could not get any solid information about her location neıther from the Christchurch Police Department, nor the Red Cross or any hospital at Christchurch. Didem and her friend were last seen leaving the house at 1/38 Patten St Avonside, Christchurch (an inner suburb of Christchurch) to walk to the city about lunch-time on the day of the earthquake (earthquake was just before 1pm).

Since she is one of the 226 missing people, her family and relatives in Turkey and her friends in New Zealand are awaiting some information about her.

Please check the link about her below, which was put down by her friends in Dunedin, New Zealand.

http://christchurch-2011.person-finder.appspot.com/view?first_name=&id=christchurch-2011.person-finder.appspot.com%2Fperson.2196666&last_name=&query=Didem+Yaman&role=seek

If you saw her or any type of record about her in a hospital, police department or Red Cross please contact us:

Contact in New Zealand:

Gamze O'Neill

+64 3 453 3290

+64 21 1165 447

+64 27 5222 381


Contacts in Turkey

Gurol Baba

Tel: +90 533 446 42 89

E-mail: gurolbaba@gmail.com

International Strategic Research Organization, Ankara, Turkey

Tel: +90312 212 2886

E-mail: merkez.usak@gmail.com

It is Impossible to Understand Sarkozy’s Policy on Turkey

Gizem YELDAN (JTW)

ANKARA- French President Nicholas Sarkozy pays a formal visit to Turkey on February 25. However, he is acting like this was a reluctant visit made by force.

The Foreign Ministry says Sarkozy will meet President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan concerning G-20 issues, Turkey's EU accession process and the issue of Cyprus.

Sarkozy will stay in Ankara only few hours and use the his title ‘G20 Chairman’ rather than ‘President of France’ this is unusual and unacceptable.

According to International Stratagic Research Organization (USAK)’s General Coordinator, Prof. Sedat Laciner, these kinds of visits are made with purpose of developing relations between countries. However, this awkward visit will damage relations instead of enhancing them.

“A disappointment occurred in Turkey. Under these circumstances, maybe if Sarkozy would not have come, he would contribute more to Turkish-French relations. To a certain extent, we may understand that Sarkozy does not want Turkey as a member of European Union, but Sarkozy’s opposition of Turkey has already exceeded the EU dimension. Sarkozy, almost in every respect, is acting like he had a personal hostility against Turkey. That is difficult to understand”, Laciner said.

France blocks Turkey’s talks with the EU on five chapters which are directly related to accession.

25 February 2011

Why Does Russia Support Karzai?

Habibe Özdal, USAK Russia and Black Sea Studies

Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited Moscow last month for the first bilateral summit between the two countries in two decades. The last official visit from Afghanistan to Moscow at the presidential level was during the era of Mohammad Najibullah when the Soviet Union withdrew forces. During his visit, Karzai invited Russia to rebuild Soviet-era facilities in Afghanistan.


"We want to give a new start to vital projects that were begun very long ago", Karzai, on his second visit to Moscow in six months, said at a news conference with President Dmitry Medvedev after their talks at the Kremlin.


The recently negotiated projects included the Salang Tunnel in the Hindu Kush Mountains as well as hydroelectric power facilities in Kabul and Baglan provinces, a customs terminal, and a university in the Afghan capital. During the joint declaration Russia expressed its readiness to participate in priority economic projects in Afghanistan, some of them dating back to the Soviet era. Current projects can be evaluated as a tool for broader Russian politics on Afghanistan, which have a long history and mainly relay on the idea that Russia is seeking to increase its influence in Afghanistan.


Karzai has turned to Moscow because Washington is displeased with Karzais moves to accelerate reconciliation with the Taliban, while his step challenges the United States regional strategies. On the other hand, Karzai is making persistent efforts to particularly develop ties with Russia, including military cooperation, so as to reduce his dependence on the U.S. by the 2014 timeline. Speaking to the graduates of the Kabul Military Academy, Karzai said that if Americans did not speed up the implementation of the program to supply armed forces, the task would be carried out by other countries. The Russian president expressed readiness to help the Afghan armed forces. Moreover, the White House has withdrawn support for Karzai also because the Barack Obama administration blames him for the drug-based economy and corruption.


As a result, Russia appears as an actor that is playing an increasingly larger role in the country and is gradually expanding the range and intensity of its engagement.


Why Afghanistan matters for Russia


First of all, the U.S. increased its existence in the Central Asia via military bases an act that Russia has perceived as coming at the expense of its security. However, after a while, Russian thinking has adjusted to the reality that the United States and its allies could not easily contain the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan. It can be said that by 2009, Russian leaders started to become concerned that the Obama administration might suddenly withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, which could result in Russia alone having to deal with the threat that a resurgent Taliban would pose to Central Asia and Russia itself. Russias internal conflicts, which have been continuing since the 1990s, coupled with its memories of the Chechen War and the USSRs experience in Afghanistan, mean the Kremlins sensitivity on rising Islamic radicalism might be better understood. Accordingly, Moscow decided to help the U.S. put together the Northern Distribution Network, a re-supply route that facilitates the overland transit of non-lethal goods from Europe to Afghanistan.


Moreover, the U.S. presence in the region is not the solution since it is only a military existence. Indeed, regarding Obamas decision in December 2009 to beef up the U.S presence in Afghanistan, from 33,000 to more than 60,000 troops, very few Afghans view the proposed increase as anything but a disaster. Considering that When Afghans look at the U.S. troops, they see killers, Afghans are citing the presence of U.S. forces as part of the problem rather than the solution.


Secondly, for the Kremlin, two main threats emanating from Afghanistan are drug traffic and terrorism. Russia sees the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan as a top priority since Afghanistan is the world's leading opium producer. Russia, which deals with demographic problems regarding alcohol and a low birth rate, is now facing the new, challenging issue of drug problems, especially with its young population.


Thirdly, while Moscow supports the U.S./NATO position in Afghanistan, it nevertheless tries to differentiate Russia from the West in ways that Moscow hopes will boost its standing in the eyes of Karzais administration in Kabul. While Obama-Karzai relations are at a low ebb, Russian policy has sought to emphasize Moscows long-term interest in a stable Afghanistan.


The Kremlin, by taking advantage of the tension between the Obama government and Karzai, is boosting cooperation with Afghanistan and strengthening its position as the pre-eminent actor in regional affairs.


In other words, Russia is appearing to cooperate with Western actors in Afghanistan, such as the U.S. and NATO, while also taking initiatives to strengthen its position sometimes in expanse of the U.S. since it has its own national interest which drives the Kremlin to take an active role in Afghanistan.



* This comment is first published at Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

The Lack of Policy Entrepreneurship in Turkey-EU Relations

Mustafa Kutlay, USAK Center for EU Studies



After experiencing a ‘golden age’ between 1999 and 2005, Turkey-EU relations plunged into deadlock in the post-2005 period. Many domestic and international factors contributed to the worsening of bilateral relations. On the European side, the failure of Constitutional reform, the problems emerged from the 2004 enlargement and the global financial crisis’ impact on Eurozone occupied the central agenda. On the Turkish side, the political turmoil in the pre and post 2007 general elections, the antagonizing Presidential elections and the ubiquitous Cyprus question automatically downgraded the importance of the EU in the eyes of Turkish policy-makers. Turkey’s changing foreign policy priorities, both as a reason and result of the tightening relations with the EU, also transformed the dynamics of Turkey-EU relations.


Having acknowledged the abovementioned structural factors, nevertheless, there are actor-level problems as well. Arguably, over the last five years, the structural factors have been heavily underlined. As a result, the importance and problem-solving potential of policy entrepreneurs are overlooked. In this context, the actor-level problems were set aside and constructive policies’ role in revitalizing the relationship was significantly underestimated.


Egemen Bagis: A man swimming against the tide?


One of the fundamental shortages in Turkey-EU relations is the lack of policy entrepreneurship on both sides. From Turkey’s point of view, a full-time negotiator at the ministerial level was appointed two years ago. Turkey's first exclusive Chief Negotiator and Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Bagis, has devoted much ado in order to overcome the long-lasting misperceptions and prejudices. In these two years, 25 laws and 108 secondary legislations had been prepared and entered into force within the framework of the EU harmonisation process. The institutional footing of the Secretariat General for the EU Affairs (EUSG), the governmental body responsible from the coordination of the EU process, was strengthened. Mr. Bagis paid 76 official visits abroad, including Brussels. The EUSG under the directorship of Egemen Bagis appointed Deputy Governors in Turkey’s 81 provinces with the aim of increasing public awareness with regard to the EU and Turkey-EU relations.


So far seems so good and nobody should underestimate the success of Mr. Bagis. In an environment that the most influential European leaders are openly against Turkey’s EU bid and overwhelming majority of the general public in European capitals are hostile towards new enlargement wave, it would be unrealistic to expect policy entrepreneurs to solve all kind of structural problems. Nevertheless, we need to accept that many opportunities were missed.


Missed opportunities


Chief Negotiator is assumed to be a policy entrepreneur that has the skills and experience in mediating the parties and improving bilateral relations. There are mainly two characteristics of policy entrepreneurs, which are ‘coordinative’ and ‘communicative’ roles. In terms of the first one, the policy entrepreneur is expected to coordinate the domestic interest groups around a common agenda so as to create nation-wide synergy. In our case, it refers to the unifying capacity of Chief Negotiator to converge different interest groups around the EU membership target. Arguably, EU membership is one of the most suitable common denominators for creating consensus between right-wing (dominated by the ruling party) and left-wing political strata (lead by main opposition party). The Chief Negotiator, however, did not adequately take advantage of this opportunity. Instead the EU process was used as a political instrument to tame the opposition groups. The overpolitization of the EU process in domestic politics partially exacerbated the political polarization in the country. Yet, with the help of an inclusive coordinative strategy, the EU target would have served as an instrument for dialogue and societal synergy. If the Chief Negotiator’s ‘above the politics’ position would have been used more effectively, the bilateral relations may be better managed.


Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water


The other characteristic of policy entrepreneur is communicative role. By this, the communication abilities of the entrepreneur with the outsides are underlined. In this context, the Chief Negotiator’s ability to communicate with Turkey’s European counterparts is emphasised. It is a fact that Mr. Bagis travelled frequently to European capitals and established close contacts with local interest groups. Undoubtedly, they were influential in shaking out the dusts of historical misperceptions and prejudices. Nevertheless, it is hardly possible to evaluate them as part and parcel of a comprehensive communication strategy, calculated and implemented in terms of country-specific communication problems.


Over the last couple of years, the generalizations have turned out to be the currency in Turkey-EU relations. Most of the Europeans think that “Turks are Muslims, Muslims are fundamentalist and fundamentalism is bad. So they should be excluded from the European project” In a similar vein, most of the Turks assume the EU as a monolithic bloc that is against Turkey’s membership. Hence, most of the time, both parties have thrown the baby out with the bath water! The political elite, the Chief Negotiator inter alia, did not do too much to change this over caricaturization of anti-Turkish sentiments in Europe. No comprehensive communication strategy, project or plan was put into implementation, for example, to understand the specific root-causes of anti-Turkish motivations in Germany, France and Austria. As a result, the rhetoric dethroned reality and the white-black dichotomy triumphed in the reciprocal ‘blame game’.


In summary, the existing deadlock in Turkey-EU relations does not satisfy most of the integrationists in Turkey and in the EU. We can underline many structural obstacles for the existing stalemate. Especially, the political, ideational and economic turmoil in the EU occupies the central agenda. Nevertheless, there is still a large room for policy entrepreneurs to manoeuvre. Turkey’s Chief Negotiator is one of these policy entrepreneurs. Obviously, his team did many things in cleaning Turkey’s European path. Yet, they need to work harder in terms of ‘coordinative’ and ‘communicative’ strategies. Both Turkey and the EU must put emphasis on these issues in order not to throw the baby out with the bath water!


* This comment is first published at Todays Zaman.

P 5+1 and Iran in Vicious Circle of Negotiations

Arzu Celalifer Ekinci, USAK Middle Eastern and African Studies Center

Another round of inconclusive negotiations between Iran and P 5+1 (the UN Security Council’s 5 permanent members and Germany) was held in Istanbul last week.

While the expectation about the result of Istanbul talks was not so high, this meaningless vicious circle of negotiations is overwhelming. Needless to say that the Iranian nuclear crisis is the best example of how such a technique issue could turn out to be a long lasting thorny political case.

It is really difficult to understand why the parts of this crisis insist on same inoperative demands, policies and pre-conditions rather than getting to the root of problem. This is very well known that the main problem among diverse of the crisis is the mutual trust problem. World’s major powers are concerned about the military dimension of Iranian nuclear activities and try to prevent Iran going nuclear. So for, for many in West, only solution to this widely discussed problem is a halt to enrichment activities of Iran. On the other hand Iran who has the main goal of "independent uranium enrichment" does not trust in Western countries and claim that the major powers’ intention is not dialogue or solution, but to deprive Iran from its legitimate rights. Besides in order to secure itself, Iran looks for as much as concessions that could be taken from Western countries.

Now what do we know about the result of latest Istanbul negotiations? Before anything else we know that it failed to produce any agreement or significant movement toward a compromise. In Iran’s words “the talks focused on creating common ground for cooperation”. Just God knows what it means! In major powers’ word this was not a conclusion they hoped for and it became clear that the Iranian side was not ready to negotiate unless others agreed on Iran’s preconditions.

As it was assumed before the negotiations, Iran had some demands. And after imposing two major demands as precondition, the talks deadlocked. Iran has made it clear that they will not give any concession about their inalienable right of enriching uranium. Therefore they demanded recognition for Iran’s right to enrich uranium. In addition they expect the world powers to lift the UN Security Council’s sanctions and abandon their dual track policy of diplomacy and pressure.

In return P5+1 countries were united in opposing these preconditions and they insisted that first, Iran must show its goodwill by taking confidence-building measures. They reiterated that their proposals -including a modified version of swap formula- were still in effect, but at first Iran has to choose to open talks without preconditions.

Well this process had faced nonsense barriers which consist of preconditions before. For example the Bush government who insisted on suspension of all enrichment activities before any negotiation. And as is seen this time, it is Iran’s turn to set preconditions. That’s for sure because much has changed in the nuclear dynamics between Iran and the West over the past years. It is necessary to underline that this change is a result of miscalculated policies and preconditions of the West.

Today Iran has the capacity of enriching uranium to 20 % and they also declared that they have the capacity of producing their own nuclear fuel rods. Well, this is the outcome of miscalculated policies. Right, Iran is more motivated and stronger than the past years in nuclear stage, but one need to remind Iran that preconditions act as barriers and deadlocks more than solutions.

Moreover, expecting West to lift the sanctions in a time that they believe the rounds of sanctions have begun to hurt Iran, will be nothing more than an extreme optimism. They believe that Iran’s increased isolation combined with a retrogressive economy suffering from fourth round of UN Security Council resolutions have begun to show its impact. That’s why they did not panic after the latest inconclusive negotiations. If one remind the parallel tactics such as cyber-attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, espionage activities and assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists it will be better understood that why the Western countries were relax. They did not expect the preconditions because they know that their alternative tactics to slow down the pace of Iranian nuclear program plus sanctions have worked. So this result provides them more time for talks. On the other hand, while expectations for the Istanbul talks had been low, in general 5+1 officials and many analysts hailed the unanimity of the six powers as significant achievement. Therefore if even they did not get anything concrete at the end of talks, they were satisfied about displaying a common stance which will be a message for future negotiations.

Consequently, it is obvious that the result of two days negotiations was indeed "nothing". Even if there were some agreed points nothing concrete was on the table at the end of talks. But at least neither Iran nor P5+1 closed the door for further negotiations. They did not set a date for the next round of the negotiations, but at least we must be happy that the diplomatic channels are still open and still there is a hope for a solution in the next rounds of that vicious circle. Who knows, may be one will come with the idea that this process needs a new breath and out-dated policies and initiatives do not work anymore! This is a significant criticism for both sides. As mentioned above, first both sides have to solve their mutual trust problem, later on they can move toward a win-win game based on the two sides' relative satisfaction.

A Historical Perspective for Obama's Re-election

Mehmet Yegin, USAK Center for American Studies

The United States is still struggling with the economic recession. The Bush administration wrecked the economy which played quite an important role in the election of a Democrat president. Nevertheless, the U.S. could not leave the crisis behind with its new administration. Actually, the numbers are slightly better but the recovery is taking place at a slow pace. The voters underlined its inadequacy in the midterm elections by giving control of the House to the Republican Party. They may do the same for the Oval Office in 2012 as well.


The economy holds the top of the list as the most important problem of the country. According to a Gallup poll conducted on Jan. 7-9, 29 percent of Americans responded that the most important problem in the country is unemployment and 26 percent gave the answer of the economy in general. Thus, the main concerns pertain to the economy and this situation may continue for some time. Last week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the recovery for the job market may take four or five years. From past experiences we know that the U.S. electorate tends to punish the incumbent presidents for bad economic performance and reward for their successes. Hence, the continuance of the current economic situation may end with a disaster for the Obama administration in the 2012 presidential elections.


In the parliamentary systems, the incumbent prime ministers may avoid the responsibility for economic failure in the coalition governments by blaming the other partners. Nonetheless, in the U.S., with the presidential system, the West Wing is almost always the clear address to be blamed for economic crises. U.S. voters punish the presidents in the elections even if the economic problems resulted from factors that are not under presidential control. For instance, the increased inflation during the Carter administration was mostly due to OPECs increase in the oil price but as the president he paid the price by losing the elections in 1980.


George H. W. Bush is another example for such punishment. Bush promised in 1988 that even in the case of repeated Congress pushes for taxes he would say, Read my lips: no new taxes. Yet, in order to cope with the budget deficit he had to break his pledge. According to the 1992 National Election Survey, seven out of 10 thought that the economy got worse during the Bush administration. In addition his opponent Bill Clinton campaigned heavily on the economy with his famous phrase, Its the economy, stupid! In the end, Bush lost his second chance to be elected despite closing the stage of the Cold War and ending the Vietnam trauma along with the Gulf War as foreign policy successes in his term. The Obama administration may face the same result with the delay of economic recovery. And the next president may well enjoy the recovered economy for reelection in 2016.


In the U.S., electoral behavior scholars suggest retrospective voting about the performance on economy. But there are examples of prospective voting as well. In short, the voters punish the incumbent for a bad economic performance but they also reward the presidents when they are successful. There are two major examples of this situation: the reelections of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. In the 1984 election campaign, Reagan reminded voters of the economic situation and reiterated the question that he wanted the voters to ask themselves before making their choice: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? And the majority of the voters responded to the question with Yes, which played an important role in defeating his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale. Clinton, in his first term, succeeded in upturning the economy. As Alvarez and Nagler pointed out, the perception of economic success played quite a significant role in Clintons reelection whereas in their hypothetical bad economic performance scenario he would have clearly lost the election to Bob Dole.


Is the economy, in short, the sole determinant of elections? Of course not! Economy is a vital factor but it is not the only or always dominant one. For instance, in the 2004 presidential elections the dominant issues were terrorism and moral values. The Sept. 11 trauma was still influential in that Bin Laden threats were increasing the security concern and the mission accomplished speech of the incumbent pointed to Bush as the better protector. Besides, the concerns on same-sex marriage and Bushs appeal to born-again Christians provided a mobilization of voters in favor of him. Thus, in the 2004 presidential elections economy performance was subordinated to the perceived performance about providing security against the threats to the country and identity.


Thus, in the case of threat, the voters primarily may evaluate the candidates for security reasons. Yet, at least for now there is not such a big threat posed to the U.S. Moreover, the public concern for terrorism is almost nonexistent. Thus, the economy seems to be the dominant theme in the 2012 elections. In retrospective or prospective terms the economy is a vital factor for the U.S. electorate. This is not simply because the Americans just think about their pockets. Indeed, Americans are mostly voting for the general well-being of the nation rather than their individual economic situation. But in either way the economy seems to play a significant role in the next presidential elections. Can the economy block the second term chances of the Obama administration? Yes, it can!

* This comment is first published in Hurriyet Daily News.

Ethnic Violence Raising Alarms in Russia

Habibe Ozdal, USAK Center for Eurasian Studies

Russia has recently experienced multidimensional ethnic violence in the capital. The turmoil began in southern Moscow on Dec. 6 with the death of Yegor Sviridov, a 28-year-old fan of Spartak Moscows football club who was killed in a brawl with migrants from Russia's North Caucasus region, according to authorities. Five days later, about 5,000 nationalists and football hooligans clashed with Moscow police. The confrontation took place in Manezh Square, outside the Kremlin, and led to the arrests of 65 Spartak fans and more than 1,000 people, including members of both groups. Recent data shows that during 2010 there were more than 350 such violent incidents which resulted in the killing of 36 people. The number of incidents and killings indeed suggest that recent violence in Moscow is not coincidental and has nothing to do with sport. It is rather very much linked to the rising nationalistic and racist trend in the country.


As he often does, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once again lashed out at the liberal intelligentsia and blamed corrupt police officers for the release of a murderous North Caucasian gang for an all-too-obvious bribe, while Medvedev Tweeted that everything was under control.


The Russian government described the recent clashes in a very simplistic way, but the reality says otherwise; this is because recent, racially motivated violence reflects a real social problem in the country that has the potential to seriously disturb the stability of the Russian Federation in the long, if not short run. Russia, with its 140 million people, consists of almost 180 different ethnic communities. The latest violence based on ethnic difference draws attention by its extent. Indeed, similar incidents usually happen on a small scale in the forms of a specific murder and do not usually turns into protests as in this case. There are different explanations for the recent incident. For some, the protests reflect popular revolt at the regimes corruption and ineptitude. According to the head of the Moscow police department, migrants are responsible for 70 percent of the crime in the city. From this standpoint, it is said by Russian analysts that cultural norms and public behavior are quite different between people of Slavic origin and newcomers from the mountains, which leads to the incredible combination of social, legal, ethnic, and cultural conflict.


According to them, on top of this combination comes the horrifying corruption of Russian governmental and law enforcement officials. From this point of view, recent protests were a call for security services to take necessary steps to solve the Caucasian Problem. What all this expresses is that there a fixed view of otherness in Russia toward the people from the Caucasus region, and it seems like the Russian government is having a very difficult time dealing with it.


There is also another argument that these events are social conflicts rooted in the reality of life in Russian cities where money can buy everything while many young people find themselves without clear prospects for the future, due to poverty and anger. This can make sense especially if we consider that the Russian economy is still unable to provide prosperity for the masses among whom unemployment is rampant. From this standpoint, the basic argument usually used to explain racism and xenophobia in Europe could be the case for Russia as well. With a much more diverse, complex and problematic Russia, this can create much heavier burdens if the people of Slavic origin start facing similar attacks in the regions where they are in a minority.


Russia's Security Dilemma


From 1991 onward, the Russian government had two options to maintain unity in the multiethnic Russian Federation:


The first was the main understanding of the Boris Yeltsin era, which initially offered the regions as much sovereignty as they could swallow. But the Chechen War became the main obstacle for such a policy. Since then, the freedom promised by Yeltsin has been gradually replaced by authoritarian policies which strengthen the Kremlin over the regions, especially during Putin term.


The second was the governed democracy understanding that Putin has started to apply. However this policy paved the way for a type of government to the government that controls the country by force. As a result, the Kremlin has not only failed to bring stability to the country, but also raised the question of whether Kremlin has legitimacy in some parts of the federation. Therefore, the lack of public support for the Kremlin in those republics has raised the perception of threats to Russias stability in the eyes of policy makers in Moscow. All these mean that Russia, especially under Putin, has created a dilemma in which the more Moscow has sought stability, the more it has become an instable country.


Whatever the reason or the explanation is, it seems that racial and ethnic hate crimes are a growing problem in Russia and have the potential to create more trouble for the multiethnic federation of Russia. This is a new political challenge that the Russian elite and the Kremlin will have to deal with in the foreseeable future. The most crucial part of the problem is the acknowledgement of its gravity because without this, any solution would be insufficient.


Moreover, it is vitally important to control ethnic tensions in Russia, since it has the potential to threaten the unity of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, previous instances of state-society tension, which has continued since the 1990s between the Kremlin and the North Caucasus, could turn into inter-society tension that would then be very difficult to control. It seems that developing a successful policy for a young and multinational Russia is significantly important in controlling the rising nationalism targeting ethnic citizens.

Tunisia: Spark of Civil War or Urge for Change?

Gamze Coşkun, USAK Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies

There is a general belief that citizens of Middle Eastern countries are all suppressed, so accustomed to the policies of their governments and lacking a tradition of rising up against authority. Nowadays, one of these countries’ citizens are challenging this common understanding/prejudice: the Tunisians.

Tunisia, considered a police state in which rallies and riots normally do not take place, has been struggling with public unrest for more than a week. The protests started in Sidi Bouzid and directed attention to economic but in particular unemployment problems plaguing Tunisia. That the state has neglected its citizens’ social and economic needs became more apparent with the recent developments.

Being one of the first countries in the region to open up its markets to the global economy, its economy dealt with the 2009 global economic crisis well according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists. However, it seems the country was unsuccessful in lowering the unemployment rate and generating new jobs for educated newcomers.

The country’s economy is highly dependent on the European Union, Tunisia’s main export partner. The economy has proven fragile because it relies on foreign investment. This is in addition to its inability to create new job opportunities.

With its popular touristic places, beaches and desert, one of Tunisia’s foremost income sources is tourism, which along with textiles and agriculture establishes the main driving forces behind the country’s economy. In this respect, it is hard to say that these sectors provide new jobs for new graduates entering the labor market. The economy, mostly based on exports to the EU and the aforementioned low-skill sectors, does not draw a reliable and sustainable economic portrait. With this economic strategy, it is for sure that the balance between job seekers with a high education and employment opportunities will not be reached in the near future.

Another important problem is the lack of transparency, which limits protection for new local investors and in turn leads to weak entrepreneurship. Therefore, it poses another obstacle to job creation.

There also seems to be a corrupt system in which Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his cronies reap the benefits. President Ben Ali, who came to power in 1987, was re-elected in 2009 for a fifth term by getting 89 percent of the vote and defined protestors as a “minority of extremists” who act against the interests of the country. However, considering the data and the driving force behind the protests -- unemployment -- it is questionable that the unemployed people can be seen as a minority within the country. Although the Tunisian economy grew by 3.8 percent last year, the unemployment rate, which is around 14-15 percent according to official data, could not be reduced.

The patronage system common to most Arab countries and Ben Ali’s loss of connection with the people of Tunisia corrupts the system as well. What is more, Ben Ali silences the opposition and restricts human rights within the country. Tunisian media are strictly controlled. The regime is obsessed with controlling information and applies heavy censorship on the Internet as well. Therefore, bribery, favoritism and injustice apparently rule the country.

There is also obvious misdistribution and unequal development between the cities. While many cities sparkle with luxurious hotels and malls, golf and thalasso spa centers, many others, such as Sidi Bouzid, are not included in the models of development and distribution. The southern parts of the country receive very little in terms of social services and infrastructural support while the north becomes relatively wealthier, mostly thanks to tourism.

An economic miracle?

The country is always considered a miracle in the region in economic terms. If the economic progress was this high, what happened to the money flowing into the country then? Many people think the money fills the pockets of Ben Ali and his family.

As a consequence of all these pitfalls of the Tunisian economic system, public reaction culminated with the protests spreading from one city to another, although it is not common to see rallies in Tunisia. First, educated young people and their hopelessness became apparent with grief-stricken suicides. Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old university graduate, set himself on fire on Dec. 17, 2010, accelerating the unrest within the society. Unable to find a job, Bouazizi sold fruits and vegetables from a street stand that was then confiscated by police because it lacked a state license. It was the first recent outcry of the unemployed youth of Tunisia. Tension increased when another jobless young man, Lahseen Naji, electrocuted himself. Following these incidents, Ramzi al-Abboudi killed himself over unpaid debts. This then led Sidi Bouzid and surrounding towns to start a riot against the government.

On Dec. 29, President Ben Ali announced a cabinet reshuffle. The minister of communication was replaced with the former youth and sports minister and the religious affairs minister with the trade minister. However, it is questionable how effective this cabinet reshuffle will be. Are the unemployed youth interested in these replacements? The protests obviously did not aim to make a change in the cabinet but in the problematic system.

All in all, all these developments show that Tunisia needs new kinds of policies which will take the needs and demands of the population into consideration as well as leave space for criticism and tolerating public dissent. A viable strategy needs to be planned and followed in order to integrate the country’s excess human capital. It is debatable whether all these can be achieved in the Ben Ali period; however, all these protests are hoped to bring a positive economic revolution within Tunisia.

Note: This op-ed is first published at Today's Zaman.