* The West can learn a lot from Ankara's perspective and democratic successes.
By Helena Cobban, The Christian Science Monitor
Obama should value Turkey's views on regional affairs. He may not be ready yet to go along with all the advice he receives from the AKP government in Ankara. But Ankara has much valuable experience that it can share with its NATO ally. .....................
As President Obama looks for partners in the Muslim world, he should consider listening to the government of Turkey as much as he listens to Egypt's president. He could learn a lot from Turkey about how a smart Islamist party can be a valued participant in a democracy.
Turkey, a NATO ally, has been ruled since 2002 by a moderate Islamist party – the Justice and Development Party (AKP) – that has proved its commitment to democracy and pluralism at home and to an active, nearly always nonviolent, engagement in diplomacy abroad. And that's why the record of the AKP in Turkey is so compelling. .................... for Full Text please see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Identity and Terror in Western European Muslim Diasporas
By Sedat LACINER
The increasing trend of extremism among the Muslim diaspora youth and its role in terrorism lure great interest in the Western World. Researches and area surveys clearly demonstrate that terrorism and radicalization find more advocates among the Muslim youths compared to their parents' time. We should accept that it is really difficult to understand this trend for the West because, contrary to their parents, the new generation Muslims are relatively growing up in a wealthier and more stabilized environment. They are richer and more educated than their parents were. Most of them are citizens of the countries where they live in and have more rights compared with their parents. The question at this point is that if they do not have any serious economic and political problem with the country they live in so why the problems in other countries like Palestine or Iraq, where they have never lived before, cause great damages in their personality and lead them into extremism and terrorism. Why was not the Palestine issue so important for the parents to become extremist or terrorist in the past and why has the same problem played a great role in making extremist their sons and daughters? At this point we encounter with the "identity' issue. Without understanding of Muslim diaspora identity of the young people and their parents, it would be difficult to understand the roots of the extremism among the Muslims living in the West.The identity of an individual or/and a society could be described as their roots. What a root for a tree is is the same for an individual and a society. If individuals have problems with their cultural, religious, ethnic or family roots it is very difficult for them to enhance their identities on a healthy and balanced base. If a root (past, family of a religion, culture etc.) has been abandoned and if that individual or society is being transformed to a new culture, religion, understanding, economic system etc. or all of them at the same time then a new identity must be constructed on new roots. In another word, soul of human must be nourished from a powerful source. If we left a source, we have to find a new and more powerful one. That's why converts are normally more radical than the others. Converts must legitimate their new choice of life, and he/she makes great efforts to find the good sides of new religion or culture he/she has entered. It is almost impossible to give a meaning to human life in the emptiness. And it is easier for meaningless lives to be thrown to very extreme points. The meaningless of the life and lack of strong identities have big role in the recent radicalization of diaspora Muslim youth. Although immigrant parents came from severe poverty, political crises or even war and conflicts, they had strong ties with their motherland countries. The first immigrants were not educated people yet they were aware of that they were immigrants and the host country was still a foreign country for them. They were grateful to the host country and they made all possible efforts not to harm the neighboring people and the state in the new country. They may even love and embrace the host country more then their motherland country but they were aware of that they were Algerian in France, Turk in Germany or a Moroccan in Netherlands. Most of them could not speak the host country's language. For instance in Germany, a significant number of Turkish immigrants spoke only Turkish and had no serious contact with the Germans living around. However, contrary to expectations, these people were happy without speaking German language or living under Turkish culture at the heart of Germany. They were not in clash with German cultures and never questioned bad sides of German traditions or culture. The most they felt homesick, they missed their family if they came alone. Even the ghetto life they live in protected them from a clash of cultures and granted them time to explore the new culture and might adopt it step by step in enough time. The strong Turkish culture imported to Germany gave them a shield before the German culture and retained them from confusion and deep problems. Their Turkish and Muslim identity may even became stronger when they came to Germany. Some of them went regularly to mosques and some others became more nationalist. Contrary to the expectations most of them have not been inclined to violence and as long as the conditions do not force them they have kept away from violence or extremism. The basic reason for this relatively peaceful result was that the old immigrants knew their exact role in the new country and they were not forced to transform faster than they were able to. Different from their children, the first immigrants choose the country they lived in. Another factor in keeping individuals away from violence and extremism and in protecting strong identities is his/her homeland country's power of supporting national identity.If the homeland is continuously humiliated from the cultural, economic and political aspects by the host country or host culture and if the motherland state or culture can not defend itself, the individual immigrants develop a self defense system. Individual immigrants generally have two options under such circumstances: They fully accept the superiority of the host country and behave like a "slave' or they strongly oppose the host country's political, economic or cultural power hood. Of course it is not necessarily has to be resulted in violence. For instance, in the United Kingdom, most of the first generation Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and the other migrants from Britain's formerly exploited countries (colonies) are excessively passive and peaceful people.In summary, contrary to general opinion, if immigrants have strong ties with their home country, they will not necessarily have problems in their host country. Its meaning is that Turks in Germany for instance do not have to create any threat for Germany from the point of security though they do not speak German language or they are not fully integrated to the host country. Just an opposite, "Turkish cultural wall' surrounding them may protect them from becoming a threat or being exposed possible threats.The big gap in the rate of crimes between the first generation and the next generations proves our thesis. The crime rate among the Turkish people in Germany, who can speak only Turkish, is less than the ones who can also speak of German besides to Turkish language. Moreover the crime rate has been increasing among the second and third generations who can not speak Turkish or their Turkish is deteriorated. Of course we don not mean that the integration of the Turks into the German society increases the crime rates among the Germany Turks. Here the problem is more, rapid, hurried, impetuous and unprepared integration efforts than the normal one. Unfortunately the host countries perceive the homeland's culture as the most important rival for integration of new comers, and try to replace their own culture with their culture by weakening the cultural, ethnic, religious and/or sectarian roots of the immigrants. For example in Germany, German language courses are much more important than protection of immigrant's mother tongue and culture. It is actually the case in almost all Western European countries. The Western European states and local authorities are very enthusiastic to teach immigrants German, English or French. As a result of this policy some German Turks speak German language better than the Germans, yet they naturally cannot change their ethnicity and remain a Turk speaking perfect German. The new language may open new channels of dialogue with the new culture yet the new culture cannot provide what the motherland country provides them. By this way they can learn the new country's language better but they can not be a true German as the host country dreamed so. A Turkish can not be a good German by forgetting his own language and learning German. It must not be expected from him to be a good Germany-originated-German but we should expect from them to be a good Germany Turkish (or German Turk) man or woman. A good Germany Turk on the other hand should German and Turkish cultures very well. If a Turkish immigrant is not part of Turkish culture, he/she does not know to be part of any other cultural identity. Some radical Western European politicians directly defend forceful assimilation by arguing that all immigrants have to accept the host country's culture and rules because they live there. This thesis is debatable:
First the second and third generation did not choose to live in a diaspora. Their parents came there and the children had to live in these countries. The second and third generations even born in diaspora and they have no country to return back. Second, all forceful integration attempts (assimilation) will cause great reactions and will weaken real integration process. Worst of all forceful integration attempts weaken the cultural identities of the immigrants and will make them weaker before extremists and terrorists who are already wait to abuse the immigrants' problems with the host countries. Therefore a powerful but voluntary relationship must be established between the host country and the immigrants. The immigrant must adhere to host country with his own will without feeling any force on himself about cultural issues. In this process the traces of his/her own culture will be lost day by day but will never be zero. The way followed in the West Europe to integrate the Muslim immigrants today is the most dangerous one.
Firstly the immigrants are completely seen as "foreigners', as "aliens'. In fact most of the immigrants are now citizens of the host countries. The second and third generations were born in the "host country' and have no country to go. Nevertheless the Western literature speaks about them as if they are aliens there. So the problem they caused or they are thought to be caused is still seen as foreign problems. In this situation it became a priority to abolish all the values of the immigrants and replace them with the new country's values. The worse thing is that this approach continuous in the cases of second and third generations. Even the people who are citizens of the host country for almost three generations are still being evaluated as the foreigners thus they are not supposing the host country as their true homeland and invigorate the feeling of imaginary homeland. Similarly the Western states' alienist approach towards the immigrant citizens and their families do not allow the Muslim citizens to feel the host country as true homeland country. Though they are citizen of the host country they do not really feel that the state is their own state. When the states cannot establish a strong link with its Muslim citizens, the radical groups step in and try to abuse the aloneness of the Muslim diaspora people. Inadequate imams play a crucial role in this process. "Lost souls' of the Muslim diaspora search a way to resist the State and the "unjust world'. They search something to enjoy their identity. They search a way to find their great roots. The inadequate and radical district imams give all the answers they ask. Imams say that they are part of a greater nation - Islam. Radical so called imams also remind them that the past Islamic history is full of victories against the West. They say "the unjust Western period will be ended and the Muslim young people can be part of the "victory' against the West. Thus the diaspora Muslim young people have a cause nourishing their identities. Families are with these young people at this point. They are completely alone but the radical imams and friends. Most of the time father and son go different mosques or imams in this process. So father cannot help his son. Thus the gap between father and son widens and the son reaches a point where he accuse his own father and family of being ignorant and even "slaves' of the West. The high rate of illiteracy among the first generation immigrants also worsens the communication between the family and their children. Thus the young man is exposed to the badly effects of the radicals without family or state help. In addition, the host countries' policies regarding the Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan issues and anti-Islamic radical politicians' provocations against the Muslim minorities increase anger among these young people. Moreover, the young man realizes more and more the anti-Islamic factors in the "host' society. The cartoon crisis in Denmark for instance radicalized more the Muslim diaspora youth in Western Europe. All kind of polarization between Islam and the West make them more radical and actually hopeless. They think that there is no way to persuade the West about Islam but violence. They do not know how to combat against the West's "unjust policies' and the desperately needed prescription comes from the radical so-called imams and other extremist Islamists. * Need for Co-operation with Motherland Culture The healthiest way to prevent the unwanted results is making cooperation with the homeland Muslim countries. Firstly the methodology in struggling against extremism and violence tendencies among the diaspora Muslims should be based on voluntarism and the strategy must be implemented hand by hand by the both (host and motherland) of the countries. The most important thing is that mother tongue must not be perceived as a difficulty to integrate the immigrants into the host country. The second language (host country's language) must be taught not by forcing but only by providing some advantageous. By this way possible resistance will be decreased. A family project could be also vital to help the Muslim diaspora youth. The motherland country could play an important role in police-family co-operation against extremism and terrorism. Most of the families of the extremist young people in these countries are helpless in saving their children and need the police help. However they know very little how they can help their children. We mean that Muslim families are ready for any kind of co-operation to save their children from bad expositions of the religionist extremists. The mosques in the West are almost footloose and inefficient persons are very easily occupying the imam positions. The host countries must be in touch with the institutions of the homeland countries and develop common projects regarding the religious institutions with the homeland countries. Here again we encounter with important problems. Especially Germany has perceived Turkey's interest to Turkish Community in Germany as an intervention to its own sovereignty. While in the past the German authorities were calling all the German Turks as only "the Muslims of Germany", after 9/11 they began to use less the word of "Muslim". However the relationship with Turkey on immigrant and Muslim Turkish and Germans is still very low.
In the British case, the mosques were left to the ignorant imams in the name of multi-culturalism. UK with help of Pakistan or/and Turkey could standardize the Muslim religious institutions in the country. Shortly the West host countries do not see the Muslims in their countries from themselves and look at them as a "foreign/alien' component of the society. After 11 September 2001 this point of view transformed to a more hostile view. Instead of any improvement, this lead the relations to more deteriorate and worse forms. Most of the German, English, French and other West Europe countries' politicians hope for the help of the accelerated integration, but actually it is an assimilation not an integration and cause big resistance and reaction among the Muslim minorities. Whereas forceful and rapid integration can also only destroy or severely damage the old culture but unfortunately it can not constitute a new one. As a result of this policy a person type neither a German nor a Turkish has emerged. Its meaning is that the previous peaceful identity is dismantled, the individuals remain without an identity and encounter with political and moral risks. If the person in this position encounter with unemployment or another kind of economic, criminal or political problematic situation it will become very difficult for him to come back again to his normal life and he will transform to a risky person for his environment. In this process the most dangerous thing is the break of the families. In the initiatives of so accelerated and imposed-integration, the first victim is the family institution. Between the parents for whom it is very difficult to cut ties with the old culture and their children an artificial difference emerges. Especially when the youth coming from the French or German speaking environment they do not want to speak of their own language in their home, and thus the ties between Turkish language/culture and the youth weaken and ultimately break.
As a result the second and third generation children and young people are not nourished by their own culture whereas they can also not find mother loads from the culture of Germany or of the country they are living in. For the parents to solve the problems of their children surrounding by the street culture is very difficult and the government also does not present any institution or tool for help to solve these problems.
Consequently the immigrants' children are abandoned to justice of the streets with no strong identity or family/society/state support. It must never be forgotten that the main factor in a successful integration is volunteerism. To speed up this process, the governments must look for more accelerate ways of increasing the volunteerism of integration. If you want to harvest of two generations in one generation, the process may be reversed although it seems as accelerated.
Any intervention to convert the identities is resulted badly in most of the time. Although the degree changes both of the individual and society perceive the intervention to their identity as an assault. That is the reason why we emphasize on the issue of volunteerism. A person must internally change, and only this change may live longer. As last word, the prevention of the immigrants in the West from violation and terror is only possible if these countries call off the perception of these people, who are in the same time citizens of these countries, as foreigners. The problems will be passed over when the London do not see any difference among the citizens of Pakistan, India and white English men, when the Berlin government sees the Turkish population as its real and equivalent citizens, and when France accepts its North African citizens as true French citizens with their all differences.
slaciner@gmail.com
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
The increasing trend of extremism among the Muslim diaspora youth and its role in terrorism lure great interest in the Western World. Researches and area surveys clearly demonstrate that terrorism and radicalization find more advocates among the Muslim youths compared to their parents' time. We should accept that it is really difficult to understand this trend for the West because, contrary to their parents, the new generation Muslims are relatively growing up in a wealthier and more stabilized environment. They are richer and more educated than their parents were. Most of them are citizens of the countries where they live in and have more rights compared with their parents. The question at this point is that if they do not have any serious economic and political problem with the country they live in so why the problems in other countries like Palestine or Iraq, where they have never lived before, cause great damages in their personality and lead them into extremism and terrorism. Why was not the Palestine issue so important for the parents to become extremist or terrorist in the past and why has the same problem played a great role in making extremist their sons and daughters? At this point we encounter with the "identity' issue. Without understanding of Muslim diaspora identity of the young people and their parents, it would be difficult to understand the roots of the extremism among the Muslims living in the West.The identity of an individual or/and a society could be described as their roots. What a root for a tree is is the same for an individual and a society. If individuals have problems with their cultural, religious, ethnic or family roots it is very difficult for them to enhance their identities on a healthy and balanced base. If a root (past, family of a religion, culture etc.) has been abandoned and if that individual or society is being transformed to a new culture, religion, understanding, economic system etc. or all of them at the same time then a new identity must be constructed on new roots. In another word, soul of human must be nourished from a powerful source. If we left a source, we have to find a new and more powerful one. That's why converts are normally more radical than the others. Converts must legitimate their new choice of life, and he/she makes great efforts to find the good sides of new religion or culture he/she has entered. It is almost impossible to give a meaning to human life in the emptiness. And it is easier for meaningless lives to be thrown to very extreme points. The meaningless of the life and lack of strong identities have big role in the recent radicalization of diaspora Muslim youth. Although immigrant parents came from severe poverty, political crises or even war and conflicts, they had strong ties with their motherland countries. The first immigrants were not educated people yet they were aware of that they were immigrants and the host country was still a foreign country for them. They were grateful to the host country and they made all possible efforts not to harm the neighboring people and the state in the new country. They may even love and embrace the host country more then their motherland country but they were aware of that they were Algerian in France, Turk in Germany or a Moroccan in Netherlands. Most of them could not speak the host country's language. For instance in Germany, a significant number of Turkish immigrants spoke only Turkish and had no serious contact with the Germans living around. However, contrary to expectations, these people were happy without speaking German language or living under Turkish culture at the heart of Germany. They were not in clash with German cultures and never questioned bad sides of German traditions or culture. The most they felt homesick, they missed their family if they came alone. Even the ghetto life they live in protected them from a clash of cultures and granted them time to explore the new culture and might adopt it step by step in enough time. The strong Turkish culture imported to Germany gave them a shield before the German culture and retained them from confusion and deep problems. Their Turkish and Muslim identity may even became stronger when they came to Germany. Some of them went regularly to mosques and some others became more nationalist. Contrary to the expectations most of them have not been inclined to violence and as long as the conditions do not force them they have kept away from violence or extremism. The basic reason for this relatively peaceful result was that the old immigrants knew their exact role in the new country and they were not forced to transform faster than they were able to. Different from their children, the first immigrants choose the country they lived in. Another factor in keeping individuals away from violence and extremism and in protecting strong identities is his/her homeland country's power of supporting national identity.If the homeland is continuously humiliated from the cultural, economic and political aspects by the host country or host culture and if the motherland state or culture can not defend itself, the individual immigrants develop a self defense system. Individual immigrants generally have two options under such circumstances: They fully accept the superiority of the host country and behave like a "slave' or they strongly oppose the host country's political, economic or cultural power hood. Of course it is not necessarily has to be resulted in violence. For instance, in the United Kingdom, most of the first generation Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and the other migrants from Britain's formerly exploited countries (colonies) are excessively passive and peaceful people.In summary, contrary to general opinion, if immigrants have strong ties with their home country, they will not necessarily have problems in their host country. Its meaning is that Turks in Germany for instance do not have to create any threat for Germany from the point of security though they do not speak German language or they are not fully integrated to the host country. Just an opposite, "Turkish cultural wall' surrounding them may protect them from becoming a threat or being exposed possible threats.The big gap in the rate of crimes between the first generation and the next generations proves our thesis. The crime rate among the Turkish people in Germany, who can speak only Turkish, is less than the ones who can also speak of German besides to Turkish language. Moreover the crime rate has been increasing among the second and third generations who can not speak Turkish or their Turkish is deteriorated. Of course we don not mean that the integration of the Turks into the German society increases the crime rates among the Germany Turks. Here the problem is more, rapid, hurried, impetuous and unprepared integration efforts than the normal one. Unfortunately the host countries perceive the homeland's culture as the most important rival for integration of new comers, and try to replace their own culture with their culture by weakening the cultural, ethnic, religious and/or sectarian roots of the immigrants. For example in Germany, German language courses are much more important than protection of immigrant's mother tongue and culture. It is actually the case in almost all Western European countries. The Western European states and local authorities are very enthusiastic to teach immigrants German, English or French. As a result of this policy some German Turks speak German language better than the Germans, yet they naturally cannot change their ethnicity and remain a Turk speaking perfect German. The new language may open new channels of dialogue with the new culture yet the new culture cannot provide what the motherland country provides them. By this way they can learn the new country's language better but they can not be a true German as the host country dreamed so. A Turkish can not be a good German by forgetting his own language and learning German. It must not be expected from him to be a good Germany-originated-German but we should expect from them to be a good Germany Turkish (or German Turk) man or woman. A good Germany Turk on the other hand should German and Turkish cultures very well. If a Turkish immigrant is not part of Turkish culture, he/she does not know to be part of any other cultural identity. Some radical Western European politicians directly defend forceful assimilation by arguing that all immigrants have to accept the host country's culture and rules because they live there. This thesis is debatable:
First the second and third generation did not choose to live in a diaspora. Their parents came there and the children had to live in these countries. The second and third generations even born in diaspora and they have no country to return back. Second, all forceful integration attempts (assimilation) will cause great reactions and will weaken real integration process. Worst of all forceful integration attempts weaken the cultural identities of the immigrants and will make them weaker before extremists and terrorists who are already wait to abuse the immigrants' problems with the host countries. Therefore a powerful but voluntary relationship must be established between the host country and the immigrants. The immigrant must adhere to host country with his own will without feeling any force on himself about cultural issues. In this process the traces of his/her own culture will be lost day by day but will never be zero. The way followed in the West Europe to integrate the Muslim immigrants today is the most dangerous one.
Firstly the immigrants are completely seen as "foreigners', as "aliens'. In fact most of the immigrants are now citizens of the host countries. The second and third generations were born in the "host country' and have no country to go. Nevertheless the Western literature speaks about them as if they are aliens there. So the problem they caused or they are thought to be caused is still seen as foreign problems. In this situation it became a priority to abolish all the values of the immigrants and replace them with the new country's values. The worse thing is that this approach continuous in the cases of second and third generations. Even the people who are citizens of the host country for almost three generations are still being evaluated as the foreigners thus they are not supposing the host country as their true homeland and invigorate the feeling of imaginary homeland. Similarly the Western states' alienist approach towards the immigrant citizens and their families do not allow the Muslim citizens to feel the host country as true homeland country. Though they are citizen of the host country they do not really feel that the state is their own state. When the states cannot establish a strong link with its Muslim citizens, the radical groups step in and try to abuse the aloneness of the Muslim diaspora people. Inadequate imams play a crucial role in this process. "Lost souls' of the Muslim diaspora search a way to resist the State and the "unjust world'. They search something to enjoy their identity. They search a way to find their great roots. The inadequate and radical district imams give all the answers they ask. Imams say that they are part of a greater nation - Islam. Radical so called imams also remind them that the past Islamic history is full of victories against the West. They say "the unjust Western period will be ended and the Muslim young people can be part of the "victory' against the West. Thus the diaspora Muslim young people have a cause nourishing their identities. Families are with these young people at this point. They are completely alone but the radical imams and friends. Most of the time father and son go different mosques or imams in this process. So father cannot help his son. Thus the gap between father and son widens and the son reaches a point where he accuse his own father and family of being ignorant and even "slaves' of the West. The high rate of illiteracy among the first generation immigrants also worsens the communication between the family and their children. Thus the young man is exposed to the badly effects of the radicals without family or state help. In addition, the host countries' policies regarding the Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan issues and anti-Islamic radical politicians' provocations against the Muslim minorities increase anger among these young people. Moreover, the young man realizes more and more the anti-Islamic factors in the "host' society. The cartoon crisis in Denmark for instance radicalized more the Muslim diaspora youth in Western Europe. All kind of polarization between Islam and the West make them more radical and actually hopeless. They think that there is no way to persuade the West about Islam but violence. They do not know how to combat against the West's "unjust policies' and the desperately needed prescription comes from the radical so-called imams and other extremist Islamists. * Need for Co-operation with Motherland Culture The healthiest way to prevent the unwanted results is making cooperation with the homeland Muslim countries. Firstly the methodology in struggling against extremism and violence tendencies among the diaspora Muslims should be based on voluntarism and the strategy must be implemented hand by hand by the both (host and motherland) of the countries. The most important thing is that mother tongue must not be perceived as a difficulty to integrate the immigrants into the host country. The second language (host country's language) must be taught not by forcing but only by providing some advantageous. By this way possible resistance will be decreased. A family project could be also vital to help the Muslim diaspora youth. The motherland country could play an important role in police-family co-operation against extremism and terrorism. Most of the families of the extremist young people in these countries are helpless in saving their children and need the police help. However they know very little how they can help their children. We mean that Muslim families are ready for any kind of co-operation to save their children from bad expositions of the religionist extremists. The mosques in the West are almost footloose and inefficient persons are very easily occupying the imam positions. The host countries must be in touch with the institutions of the homeland countries and develop common projects regarding the religious institutions with the homeland countries. Here again we encounter with important problems. Especially Germany has perceived Turkey's interest to Turkish Community in Germany as an intervention to its own sovereignty. While in the past the German authorities were calling all the German Turks as only "the Muslims of Germany", after 9/11 they began to use less the word of "Muslim". However the relationship with Turkey on immigrant and Muslim Turkish and Germans is still very low.
In the British case, the mosques were left to the ignorant imams in the name of multi-culturalism. UK with help of Pakistan or/and Turkey could standardize the Muslim religious institutions in the country. Shortly the West host countries do not see the Muslims in their countries from themselves and look at them as a "foreign/alien' component of the society. After 11 September 2001 this point of view transformed to a more hostile view. Instead of any improvement, this lead the relations to more deteriorate and worse forms. Most of the German, English, French and other West Europe countries' politicians hope for the help of the accelerated integration, but actually it is an assimilation not an integration and cause big resistance and reaction among the Muslim minorities. Whereas forceful and rapid integration can also only destroy or severely damage the old culture but unfortunately it can not constitute a new one. As a result of this policy a person type neither a German nor a Turkish has emerged. Its meaning is that the previous peaceful identity is dismantled, the individuals remain without an identity and encounter with political and moral risks. If the person in this position encounter with unemployment or another kind of economic, criminal or political problematic situation it will become very difficult for him to come back again to his normal life and he will transform to a risky person for his environment. In this process the most dangerous thing is the break of the families. In the initiatives of so accelerated and imposed-integration, the first victim is the family institution. Between the parents for whom it is very difficult to cut ties with the old culture and their children an artificial difference emerges. Especially when the youth coming from the French or German speaking environment they do not want to speak of their own language in their home, and thus the ties between Turkish language/culture and the youth weaken and ultimately break.
As a result the second and third generation children and young people are not nourished by their own culture whereas they can also not find mother loads from the culture of Germany or of the country they are living in. For the parents to solve the problems of their children surrounding by the street culture is very difficult and the government also does not present any institution or tool for help to solve these problems.
Consequently the immigrants' children are abandoned to justice of the streets with no strong identity or family/society/state support. It must never be forgotten that the main factor in a successful integration is volunteerism. To speed up this process, the governments must look for more accelerate ways of increasing the volunteerism of integration. If you want to harvest of two generations in one generation, the process may be reversed although it seems as accelerated.
Any intervention to convert the identities is resulted badly in most of the time. Although the degree changes both of the individual and society perceive the intervention to their identity as an assault. That is the reason why we emphasize on the issue of volunteerism. A person must internally change, and only this change may live longer. As last word, the prevention of the immigrants in the West from violation and terror is only possible if these countries call off the perception of these people, who are in the same time citizens of these countries, as foreigners. The problems will be passed over when the London do not see any difference among the citizens of Pakistan, India and white English men, when the Berlin government sees the Turkish population as its real and equivalent citizens, and when France accepts its North African citizens as true French citizens with their all differences.
slaciner@gmail.com
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Sunday, 31 May 2009
‘Main Forces in Agreement to Solve Kurdish Issue’
Interview with Sedat LACINER by Yonca Poyraz DOGAN from Today's Zaman
Sedat Laçiner, a senior analyst at the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), has said Turkey has never been so close to a solution to the Kurdish issue, but he is cautious because of fears about attempts by the outlawed terror organziation, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), in cooperation with the deep state, to harm the process.
“If the PKK and the Ergenekon gang do not sabotage the process, we are close to a solution,” he said, adding that the police have been rounding up PKK supporters in raids throughout the country.
Sedat Laçiner, a senior analyst at the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), has said Turkey has never been so close to a solution to the Kurdish issue, but he is cautious because of fears about attempts by the outlawed terror organziation, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), in cooperation with the deep state, to harm the process.
“If the PKK and the Ergenekon gang do not sabotage the process, we are close to a solution,” he said, adding that the police have been rounding up PKK supporters in raids throughout the country.
President Abdullah Gül recently signaled that steps would be taken to resolve the long-standing Kurdish issue, which he described as Turkey's primary problem. He said elements of the state, civilians and the intelligence community were talking to each other “more openly and frequently.”
In the midst of this talk of peace, a recent loss of six Turkish soldiers in a land mine trap in Hakkari province, along the country's border with Iraq, has been attributed to the PKK.
For Monday Talk, Laçiner interprets the meaning of Gül's remarks in addition to explaining the difficulties of having a “state within state” and how this has blocked the government's initiatives regarding the Kurdish issue.
Q - What is your evaluation of President Gül's recent statement indicating that the long-standing Kurdish issue is Turkey's primary problem?
SL: "When former President Süleyman Demirel said he recognized the Kurdish reality, the earth was shaken, only because he said he recognized it. At the time, even using the word “Kurdish” posed a problem. Now we have reached a point that the president can say the Kurdish issue is the most important problem of the country, more important than inflation, terrorism, education and health. This is a revolutionary development. In this case, people will ask what is being done to resolve it. And we see that the government is trying to address the issue."
Q - What is being done?
SL: "Indeed, the government had intentions in its first term to address the issue. But it had neither the knowledge nor the experience, let alone courage, to address it properly. We at USAK presented reports to the government on the issue, and some organizations conducted similar studies and presented them to the government as well. However, the most important problem was that even if some of the state's institutions -- such as the intelligence department, some subunits of the intelligence department, the police, the military and ministers and bureaucrats -- were of the same opinion and agreed upon an action plan, they could not implement it."
Q - Why?
SL: "Because there was no consensus in the state, and there was a lack of trust among the elements of the state. The situation was that the government did not trust the state and the state did not trust the government. One initiative was annulled by the other. And we can understand this situation better since military coup plans of the past have recently been revealed. In that kind of an environment, the government did not have enough courage to resolve the Kurdish issue. Every step forward they took meant taking two steps back."
Q - What has changed now that the government seems to be taking up the issue in a more determined manner?
SL: "The investigation into Ergenekon has contributed greatly to intimidating illegal, gang-type organizations in the state. We started to see that no matter what their rank, people are being held accountable for their crimes. In Turkey, we had in the past seen prime ministers and ministers tried in courts but had not seen generals being tried at all. So manipulative forces within the state have been intimidated, and with that, a consensus has started to form in the state, no matter how differently the military and the government view the Kurdish issue. When there are thousands of terrorists and armed people on the mountains, no one should be able to prevent a solution to the problem, regardless of what their views are on the issue. What can prevent attempts to stop terrorists? What's wrong with a Kurdish-language television station? These taboos have been broken."
Q - And you believe the military agrees with the government on this.
SL: "These taboos have been broken following an agreement with the military. TRT 6 (The Turkish Radio and Television Corporation's [TRT] Kurdish station) does what the military cannot do. We have to realize that Roj TV has done what the PKK has not been able to do. It is sad that Turkey is only now, in 2009, able to use this tool -- quite late. Such a television station should have been established in 1994. The president saw this development, the agreement between the military and the government, and became elated, so he commented on the matter.
‘State within state should be eliminated’
‘State within state should be eliminated’
Q - What are the plans on how to handle the Kurdish issue?
SL: "The government and military see that there should be measures to prevent people from going to the mountains and joining the PKK and that there should be measures to provide opportunities to bring terrorists down from the mountains. There should be steps in the social and economic arenas to develop eastern and southeastern Turkey.
Q - Are there other reasons why the president is so optimistic about a resolution to the Kurdish issue?
SL: "Yes. We see that the PKK does not give any hope to people who realize that they cannot get anywhere by following the PKK's ideas. They see that when there are deaths in the fight against the PKK, martyred soldiers are mostly Kurds themselves. International businesses withdraw from the region because of the terrorism problem. So again the victims are the Kurds of the region because there is no economic development and they die because of the conflict."
Q - After the president expressed his optimism about the Kurdish issue, he faced a court case. Is this a coincidence?
SL: "Here we see the strong position of the judiciary."
Q - Stronger than the military's?
SL: "Yes. First of all, force commanders change every few years. Secondly, military men are bred from average citizens who are transformed into members of the armed forces during their military education. In Turkey, members of the judiciary come from a certain class. This elite class emerged with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, like the Republican People's Party (CHP). This class has produced members of the academia as well. So the universities, the judiciary and civilian bureaucracy are indeed stronger than the military, and these institutions are more influential."
Q - The president is now facing a trial. Do you think the government feels weaker in resolving the Kurdish issue?
SL: "This will be the case until the state within the state is eliminated. This struggle will continue until there is a drastic change."
Q - Can you elaborate on this idea of “drastic change”?
SL: "Either this government will be replaced by one friendlier to the elements of the deep state, or the government will emerge a winner. In other words, either the state or the government will win this struggle. We are witnessing a process of wearing down the government. In the near past, we have had a case against the ruling party; today, we have a case against the president. The shadow state -- or deep state -- will continue to use the media and the judiciary. And we should not underestimate the role of the media."
Q - How so?
SL: "The Turkish media, especially the mainstream, have traditionally applauded the military interventions in Turkey. They even prepared grounds for military coups. We see that the media has again been active in supporting the military. In other words, they blame the military, the generals, for being passive and for not being able to intervene more directly in government affairs. In fully democratic societies, we would see the opposite: the media would support freedom."
‘PKK Playing a Game’
Q - We recently read about PKK leader Murat Karayılan's statements regarding a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue, but in the weeks that followed, there was a deadly attack in Hakkari. Is Karayılan the leader of the PKK or not?
SL: "Karayılan is not sincere in his message. While he was issuing this message, there was another deadly attack in Lice. He said he did not know about the attack and that he was sorry. This is not acceptable. If he does not know about such attacks, then he is not the leader of the PKK. If he is the leader, then he is a liar. The recent attacks are the PKK's response to the peace process. The state has shown that it is the Democratic Society Party (DTP) that it can talk to in the process and that there is no place at the table for the PKK. As a result, the PKK has gotten angry and ill tempered and commits more crimes. The PKK aims to draw the public to a more nationalist and hard-line stance and to force the government to step back. This is the PKK's usual tactic when there are hopes for peace because this is how it can survive: not by resolving the conflict but by continuing to fight. In that sense, the PKK is not similar to the ETA (a Basque separatist terrorist organization) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA), both of which have been able to keep their promises. On the contrary, the PKK prefers to play a game with Turkey. It is likely to increase its attacks in the coming days because it realizes that it is about to be finished. And let's not forget that some deep state elements in Turkey are in collaboration with the PKK to frustrate the government and eventually support a new pro-deep state government."
Q - Leaders of the pro-Kurdish DTP have condemned the attacks and adopted a pro-solution stance. Do you think there is a power struggle between the PKK and the DTP?
SL: "The DTP is not comfortable being under the domination of the PKK. However, the PKK has its men in local DTP governments and punishes the people who do not conform to PKK demands. There is the Kurdistan Democratic Confederation (KCK) the PKK has formed and through which it controls everyone, be they in nongovernmental organizations or in the PKK. The security forces have been conducting operations against the KCK in recent weeks so those elements can be captured because the government wants to talk with DTP members who can say no to the PKK."
Q - How do you interpret CHP leader Deniz Baykal's recent pro-solution approach?
SL: "Baykal is late, but he has caught the ropes at a good time. He has spoken of an amnesty if the PKK agrees to a cease-fire. This is good. If the PKK and the Ergenekon gang do not sabotage the process, we are close to a solution. In fact, we have never been so close to a solution to the Kurdish issue before. TRT's Kurdish broadcasts continue 24 hours a day, the opposition is asking for private television channels to go on air in Kurdish -- and this is likely to happen soon -- town names will be reverted to their original Kurdish names, economic support to the region continues and so on. Baykal's recent stance is helpful, too."
Q - And what would you say about the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)?
SL: "Naturally, they are more nationalistic, but they have been acting responsibly. For example, they did not try to prevent Kurdish broadcasts. The party does not act in support of hard-line Turkishness and therefore does not sabotage the process."
---
Sedat Laçiner, expert on international security and Turkish foreign policy
Laçiner is the director of the International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), an Ankara-based think tank.
Sedat Laçiner, expert on international security and Turkish foreign policy
Laçiner is the director of the International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), an Ankara-based think tank.
Having received degrees from Ankara University, the University of Sheffield and King's College London, he has taught Turkish foreign policy, international relations and international security courses at Bilkent University in Ankara, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Başkent University and the National Police Academy Security Studies Institute in Ankara since 2001.
Together with İhsan Bal, he authored “Ethnic Terrorism in Turkey and the Case of the PKK: Roots, Structure, Survival, and Ideology” in 2004. He also authored “Irak Küresel Meydan Savaşı ve Türkiye” (The Iraq War and Turkey) and co-authored “Türkiyeli Avrupalı, Türkiye'nin Üyeliğinin AB'ye Olası Etkileri” (Europe with Turkey, the Possible Impacts of Turkey's EU Membership) in 2004.
01 June 2009, Monday
YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN İSTANBUL
Together with İhsan Bal, he authored “Ethnic Terrorism in Turkey and the Case of the PKK: Roots, Structure, Survival, and Ideology” in 2004. He also authored “Irak Küresel Meydan Savaşı ve Türkiye” (The Iraq War and Turkey) and co-authored “Türkiyeli Avrupalı, Türkiye'nin Üyeliğinin AB'ye Olası Etkileri” (Europe with Turkey, the Possible Impacts of Turkey's EU Membership) in 2004.
01 June 2009, Monday
YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN İSTANBUL
Sunday, 26 April 2009
The First Genocide of the 20th Century: Herero Genocide
* First genocide of the 20th century. German Southwest Africa 1904-1908: Genocide of Hereros.
* The German military commander, General Lothar von Trotha, ordered the Herero people to leave Namibia or be killed. Herero were massacred with machine guns, their wells poisoned and then driven into the desert to die.
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE
Turkish PM Erdogan: Obama's Armenian Statement is Unacceptable
Monday, 27 April 2009
* Obama's April 24 statement is an 'unacceptable interpretation of history,' says Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, warning that Turkey is not a country which can be 'flattered and then fooled'.
ANKARA - "We regard the statement concerning the 1915 events as an interpretation of history that does not reflect the truth and is thus unacceptable," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said yesterday."We are saddened that the issue is being persistently exploited and many politicians are trying to win votes out of the controversy over the 1915 events" he added.Apparently referring to Obama's earlier remarks underlining Turkey's importance in efforts for peace in the region and around the world, Erdogan also said, "Turkey is not a country that can be flattered and then fooled.
"Obama, as widely expected, refrained from calling the World War I-era killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide, referring to them as "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century" and using the Armenian phrase "Meds Yeghern," which is often translated as "Great Calamity," twice in his message.Obama, who said during his election campaign that the killings amounted to genocide, stated in the message that his view on the issue has not changed and that his "interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."President Obama did not mention Turkish and other Muslim killings by the Armenian militants. At least more than 520.000 Ottoman Muslims were massacred by the Armenian nationalist groups in order to establish an Armenian state.
The decision not to use the word 'genocide' is both a result of Obama's desire not to harm efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations after a 15-year hiatus and a recognition of Turkey's importance as a US partner in achieving several foreign policy goals in the region.Armenian-American groups, which heavily campaigned for Obama's endorsement of the genocide claims, expressed deep disappointment, saying, "The president chose to allow our nation's stand against genocide to remain a hostage to Turkey's threats."
Turkey is a key partner for the US administration in achieving many key US foreign policy goals, ranging from Iran's nuclear program to the stabilization of Afghanistan. Many have expressed concern that any reference to the g-word in the April 24 message would cause a road accident in the Turkish-US cooperation to achieve the mutual foreign policy goals and could come as a setback to Turkish-Armenian efforts to normalize relations.But although he avoided the word genocide, Obama's use of Meds Yeghern, said analysts, was almost equally harmful. The phrase is used by Armenians to refer to the World War I events and some comments in the Turkish media said the use of it was identical to call the killings genocide. Dr. Sedat Laciner, head of the Ankara-based Turkish think tank USAK, argued "Obama spoiled everyhing he tried to build in his Turkey tour".
Turkish PM Erdogan said history should not be a tool to attain domestic political goals and insisted that historical questions should be left to historians.
"Turkish-Armenian relations will be normalized, historical matters will be enlightened and the road will be paved for peace if countries that have nothing to do with the issue stop getting involved," he told a meeting of his Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
Turkey and Armenia announced on Wednesday that they reached an agreement on a framework to normalize ties, strained over a number of disputes, including the genocide row. Obama said he strongly supported the efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize their relations.Armenians say 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic campaign in eastern Anatolia, while Turkey vehemently rejects the claims of genocide, saying the killings came as the Ottoman Empire was trying to quell civil strife and that Muslim Turks were also killed in the clashes. Most of the Armenians in the East rioted against the Istanbul Government and supported occupying Russian forces against the Ottoman Armies. The Government decided to move the Armenian population from war theatre to Syria province (tehcir - resetlement decision).
Erdogan complained that he had not even received a reply from Armenia to his 2005 proposal to set up a joint committee of historians to study the events.
* PRESIDENT GUL: EVERYONE'S PAIN MUST BE SHARED
On Saturday, President Abdullah Gul, speaking in Bulgaria, said there were points in Obama's statements and said the Turks, who perished at the hand of rioting Armenians should also be remembered:
"Hundreds of thousands of Turks and Muslims also died in 1915. Everyone's pain must be shared," he said.
The Foreign Ministry echoed his remarks, saying the statement's perception of history was "unacceptable" and appealed for an impartial study of the conflict.Obama visited Turkey in early April and urged Ankara to repair ties with Armenia. Turkish officials have said any new attempt in the US Congress to brand the killings genocide could damage US-Turkish ties.Turkey and Armenia have been holding closed-door talks since September. The process is criticized by the nationalist opposition at home and criticism is growing as Azerbaijan, part of whose territory is under Armenian occupation over a dispute on Nagorno-Karabakh, is protesting reconciliation between its ally, Turkey, and Armenia. Almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territories have been under Armenian occupation. Armenia also does not recognise Turkey's national borders and calls eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia.
"Obama's statement shows that efforts to please outsiders by giving concessions are not yielding any result," main opposition leader Deniz Baykal said on Saturday. "And we have managed to alienate Azerbaijan, too," he added."Looking at the entire statement, one will see that it is unacceptable," Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli said of Obama's statement. "If the US sacrifices Turkey for the sake of Armenian votes, everyone, including most notably Armenia, will have to suffer the consequences."
Monday, 27 April 2009
Journal of Turkish Weekly
* Obama's April 24 statement is an 'unacceptable interpretation of history,' says Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, warning that Turkey is not a country which can be 'flattered and then fooled'.
ANKARA - "We regard the statement concerning the 1915 events as an interpretation of history that does not reflect the truth and is thus unacceptable," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said yesterday."We are saddened that the issue is being persistently exploited and many politicians are trying to win votes out of the controversy over the 1915 events" he added.Apparently referring to Obama's earlier remarks underlining Turkey's importance in efforts for peace in the region and around the world, Erdogan also said, "Turkey is not a country that can be flattered and then fooled.
"Obama, as widely expected, refrained from calling the World War I-era killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide, referring to them as "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century" and using the Armenian phrase "Meds Yeghern," which is often translated as "Great Calamity," twice in his message.Obama, who said during his election campaign that the killings amounted to genocide, stated in the message that his view on the issue has not changed and that his "interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."President Obama did not mention Turkish and other Muslim killings by the Armenian militants. At least more than 520.000 Ottoman Muslims were massacred by the Armenian nationalist groups in order to establish an Armenian state.
The decision not to use the word 'genocide' is both a result of Obama's desire not to harm efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations after a 15-year hiatus and a recognition of Turkey's importance as a US partner in achieving several foreign policy goals in the region.Armenian-American groups, which heavily campaigned for Obama's endorsement of the genocide claims, expressed deep disappointment, saying, "The president chose to allow our nation's stand against genocide to remain a hostage to Turkey's threats."
Turkey is a key partner for the US administration in achieving many key US foreign policy goals, ranging from Iran's nuclear program to the stabilization of Afghanistan. Many have expressed concern that any reference to the g-word in the April 24 message would cause a road accident in the Turkish-US cooperation to achieve the mutual foreign policy goals and could come as a setback to Turkish-Armenian efforts to normalize relations.But although he avoided the word genocide, Obama's use of Meds Yeghern, said analysts, was almost equally harmful. The phrase is used by Armenians to refer to the World War I events and some comments in the Turkish media said the use of it was identical to call the killings genocide. Dr. Sedat Laciner, head of the Ankara-based Turkish think tank USAK, argued "Obama spoiled everyhing he tried to build in his Turkey tour".
Turkish PM Erdogan said history should not be a tool to attain domestic political goals and insisted that historical questions should be left to historians.
"Turkish-Armenian relations will be normalized, historical matters will be enlightened and the road will be paved for peace if countries that have nothing to do with the issue stop getting involved," he told a meeting of his Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
Turkey and Armenia announced on Wednesday that they reached an agreement on a framework to normalize ties, strained over a number of disputes, including the genocide row. Obama said he strongly supported the efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize their relations.Armenians say 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic campaign in eastern Anatolia, while Turkey vehemently rejects the claims of genocide, saying the killings came as the Ottoman Empire was trying to quell civil strife and that Muslim Turks were also killed in the clashes. Most of the Armenians in the East rioted against the Istanbul Government and supported occupying Russian forces against the Ottoman Armies. The Government decided to move the Armenian population from war theatre to Syria province (tehcir - resetlement decision).
Erdogan complained that he had not even received a reply from Armenia to his 2005 proposal to set up a joint committee of historians to study the events.
* PRESIDENT GUL: EVERYONE'S PAIN MUST BE SHARED
On Saturday, President Abdullah Gul, speaking in Bulgaria, said there were points in Obama's statements and said the Turks, who perished at the hand of rioting Armenians should also be remembered:
"Hundreds of thousands of Turks and Muslims also died in 1915. Everyone's pain must be shared," he said.
The Foreign Ministry echoed his remarks, saying the statement's perception of history was "unacceptable" and appealed for an impartial study of the conflict.Obama visited Turkey in early April and urged Ankara to repair ties with Armenia. Turkish officials have said any new attempt in the US Congress to brand the killings genocide could damage US-Turkish ties.Turkey and Armenia have been holding closed-door talks since September. The process is criticized by the nationalist opposition at home and criticism is growing as Azerbaijan, part of whose territory is under Armenian occupation over a dispute on Nagorno-Karabakh, is protesting reconciliation between its ally, Turkey, and Armenia. Almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territories have been under Armenian occupation. Armenia also does not recognise Turkey's national borders and calls eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia.
"Obama's statement shows that efforts to please outsiders by giving concessions are not yielding any result," main opposition leader Deniz Baykal said on Saturday. "And we have managed to alienate Azerbaijan, too," he added."Looking at the entire statement, one will see that it is unacceptable," Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli said of Obama's statement. "If the US sacrifices Turkey for the sake of Armenian votes, everyone, including most notably Armenia, will have to suffer the consequences."
Monday, 27 April 2009
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Turkish Prime Minister's Grandfather Killed by Armenians in 1916
* By Seyfi Tolun, Turkish Weekly
Turkish historian Cezmi Yurtsever argues that grandfather of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish Prime Minister, was massacred by the Armenian militants in 1916.
Mr. Yurtsever from Cukurova Strategic Research Center (Adana) said "the Prime Minister should speak the facts. He should declare his grandpa's story.Yurtsever, who gave a lecture in Seyhan Culture Center, said he found the documents about Mr. Erdogan's grandfather in the official archives:
"I saw about 50 million documents in the Ottoman Archives. In 1916 Armenians and Greeks occupied Trabzon and Rize provinces. There were local resistance groups againsthe Russian occupying forces and around the Russian bases in these regions. Mr. Prime Minister's grandpa Magatli Recep (Recep from Magat) joined the local resistance and defense movement as a member of one of the significant families in these regions. He was killed in these events. Prime Minister knows the background of the Armenian issue best. Time is not to be quiet. He should speak the realities."
Historian Cezmi Yurtsever also told the journalists that he could not understand US President Obama's 1,5 million Armenian figure for the 1915 events.
He further continued:
"The British and American intelligence declared before that the maximum Armenian lost could be 600.000. This is the intelligence spies' exaggerated figure. I do not understand how a US President, Obama, mention the number of 1,5 million. He makes a grave mistake. If Mr. Obama saw the Ottoman archives he could not mention such a fantasy figure.
Monday, 27 April 2009
By Seyfi Tolun, Turkish Weekly
Turkish historian Cezmi Yurtsever argues that grandfather of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish Prime Minister, was massacred by the Armenian militants in 1916.
Mr. Yurtsever from Cukurova Strategic Research Center (Adana) said "the Prime Minister should speak the facts. He should declare his grandpa's story.Yurtsever, who gave a lecture in Seyhan Culture Center, said he found the documents about Mr. Erdogan's grandfather in the official archives:
"I saw about 50 million documents in the Ottoman Archives. In 1916 Armenians and Greeks occupied Trabzon and Rize provinces. There were local resistance groups againsthe Russian occupying forces and around the Russian bases in these regions. Mr. Prime Minister's grandpa Magatli Recep (Recep from Magat) joined the local resistance and defense movement as a member of one of the significant families in these regions. He was killed in these events. Prime Minister knows the background of the Armenian issue best. Time is not to be quiet. He should speak the realities."
Historian Cezmi Yurtsever also told the journalists that he could not understand US President Obama's 1,5 million Armenian figure for the 1915 events.
He further continued:
"The British and American intelligence declared before that the maximum Armenian lost could be 600.000. This is the intelligence spies' exaggerated figure. I do not understand how a US President, Obama, mention the number of 1,5 million. He makes a grave mistake. If Mr. Obama saw the Ottoman archives he could not mention such a fantasy figure.
Monday, 27 April 2009
By Seyfi Tolun, Turkish Weekly
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Russia Dupes Azerbaijan?
By Sedat LACINER
It was obvious that nothing would be the same in the Caucasus, after the war in the region between Russia and Georgia in August of last year. During the war, the Georgian leader acted frantically with the backing of the US. Without asking anyone, including its neighbor Turkey, Georgia threw itself into Russia’s line of fire. As a result, Georgia was divided into three separate regions, whilst Azerbaijan and Armenia were almost left gasping for breath. When the pipeline flow was cut off, Azerbaijan felt Russia breathing down its neck, like some unseen monster in a nightmare. More importantly, Azerbaijan took note of the US and Turkey’s inaction. In other words, the US and Turkey could not protect Georgia from Russian invasion; thereby a strong message was sent to Baku.
Meanwhile, Turkey’s ill-timed suggestion regarding the establishment of a ‘Caucasus Platform’ was possibly the worst move the country could have made. Turkey suggested this to Moscow without comprehensive negotiation with either the US, or the regional states. It can be interpreted as a manifestation of Turkey’s fear of Russia. In fact, it is very normal to be afraid of a country which tries to solve its problems with hard action. In this regard, Turkey was relatively successful in overcoming the crisis in terms of Turkish-Russian relations, for it did not turn into a conflict as some people anticipated. However, in terms of the Caucasus, Turkey lost most of its public support in the region. Especially after the case of Georgia, which was separated into three parts, Azerbaijan would now seem to be thinking that following a foreign policy of just relying on the West is a mistake, and has even thought of transferring some of the energy lines to Russia and Iran.
Turkey could not properly respond to the concerns of Azerbaijan, or could not eliminate them. On the other hand, Russia did not stand by idly. They had found suitable grounds in Baku as well. Pro-Russian Azerbaijanis, effectively the remnants of Soviet Russia, were acting in a hostile fashion towards Turkey. These ‘secret’ groups would sometimes riot, but in the current climate they had difficulty in acting overtly. Hostility towards Turkey in Azerbaijan has been gradually increasing and has become much more visible in the past few months. The restrictions on Turkish TV series, the arguments that Turkish language would erase Azerbaijani language have been promoted as if they were solely innocent cultural arguments.
One more thing to remember is that Aliyev does not rule the country by himself. The major families in the country share the power and some of them do not take their power just from domestic sources, but have direct organic links with Moscow and receive its support. Some of them are even now in the highest posts of the Azerbaijani state.
According to the recent rumors rising from Azerbaijan, a pro-Russian person who is at the top of the state organs, made a secret meeting with governors and other high level people in the country and ordered them to take anti-Turkish actions. In line with these directions, the governors would close down Turkish firms, associations and schools in the country; eventually every firm will be closed down. In other words, Turkey would be gradually excluded from the country, without drawing anyone’s attention. Initially, I do not know whether the rumors are true or not. However, according to the phone calls and e-mails I have recently received from Azerbaijan, this campaign was started a long time ago. Indeed I have been receiving at least one e-mail almost every day from Azerbaijan, all of them adding up to the fact that the campaign is being conducted seriously.
In light of these conditions, it can be said that the Turkish-Armenian convergence was a golden opportunity for anti-Turkish people in the Azerbaijani society. Furthermore, Russia is closely monitoring all recent developments. Russia has one foot in Yerevan and the other in the diaspora. Russia seems to support the Turkish-Armenian convergence; because Russia is a country that knows very well the limits of the Dashnaks (ultra-nationalist Armenian party) and Armenia. Moreover, it is again Russia that holds Armenians’ puppet strings. In addition all news concerning the convergence between the US and Russia is exaggerated when it is transmitted to Azerbaijan. When the news reaches Baku, it is mixed with anti-Turkish comments and delivered in certain newspapers. Within the framework of these events, Turkey is accused of betrayal. In addition, the argument that Azerbaijan must look towards Russia is clearly advocated.
Russia tries to control Azerbaijan by utilizing a mix of hard and soft policies. While Russia makes attempts to monopolize Azerbaijani gas on the one hand, it also does not hesitate to openly threaten Baku.
One of the other striking developments regarding Baku is the assassination of General Rail Rzayev, commander of the Azerbaijani Air Force. According to the Russian media, Rzayev opposed the purchase of Russian-produced MIG military jets, and he convinced Aliyev to do the same. The commander was killed by one shot from a weapon of unknown brand. It has been proven that the assassination was carried out by a professional sniper. According to some of the news agencies, Rzavey was killed by the Armenian Secret Service, while others claim other secret services are responsible for the assassination. Moreover, some believe that this killing could be considered as Russia’s warning to Aliyev. It is said that “Now, Aliyev, who seems to forget how talented Russia is, more clearly understands the situation.” If it is taken into consideration that this is the most significant assassination since the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the timing gains importance. At a time when Armenia and Turkey are growing closer, a top level Azerbaijani general was assassinated by secret hands. All these developments can not be mere coincidence.
***
As stated above, Russia tries to control Azerbaijan with a mix of hard and soft policies. In this context it is also trying to create hostility between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Some Azeri newspapers and politicians say that Turkey betrayed Azerbaijan. Therefore, Azerbaijan should not disregard Russia in the current climate. Moscow host Aliyev on 16 April. Although Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan clearly stated that “the borders will not be opened until Turkey and Azerbaijan reconcile”, criticism against Turkey is becoming more pointed day by day. Baku Government behave as if it knows nothing about Turkish-Armenian talks, although Turkey informs the Baku in detail in all steps of the negotiations. Turkey has given clear assurances to the Azeris that Turkey will not open the borders till Armenian withdrawal from the Azeri territories.
In this regard, why is Azerbaijan reacting harshly?
Why is Azerbaijan responding with harsh attacks instead of establishing a direct dialogue with Ankara?
What does Azerbaijan demand from Turkey, but does not receive?
Or, is Azerbaijan looking for an excuse to distance itself from Turkey?
Does Azerbaijan not want to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue?
I am afraid that all of these scenarios may be true. As I previously tried to explain, Russia is trying to tear Azerbaijan away from Turkey. In light of this, most Azerbaijani statesmen, including Aliyev, are uncertain of the current situation. Also, they are ambivalent about the problem solving process in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to one argument, it is not possible to save Karabakh and the occupied Azerbaijani territories via step by step improvements. Armenians must withdraw their forces at once, all other options cannot be considered as solution. Baku knows that a full withdrawal is not possible in near future and therefore tries to prevent any partial improvement in Karabakh issue. Azerbaijan can wait some more years while Armenia isolates itself by insisting on Karabakh and other occupied Azeri provinces. Occupation clearly prevents integration of Armenia with the rest of the world. Armenia as a result of the Karabakh occupation cannot join any regional integration projects and neither the U.S. nor the EU (even the Russians) can help Armenia in the way that they wish to be helped. Azerbaijan, as a victimized country in the region, gains diplomatic superiority and Armenia pushes back against energy-rich Azerbaijan. That’s why Azeri statesmen are not happy with Turkey’s efforts to solve Karabakh Issue. Azerbaijan needs some more time, they think Armenia will have to leave the occupied lands in less than 10 years. However Turkey does not want to lose time, and Turkey’s attempts to solve the problem anger the Azerbaijanis.
***
Actually, the signs are not very good for Turkey-Azerbaijan relations.
Azerbaijan is also going down the road of playing Russia against the other power, as do the Central Asian Republics, when faced with difficulties.
However, the road could be its end.
To open and close the land borders is easy for Turkey; such decisions do not have to be permanent. However, after moving away from Turkey and the West and relying on Russia, Azerbaijan could have a lot of trouble following a consistent foreign policy.
It is clear that Turkey and Azerbaijan are struggling to improve their relations and create a ‘win-win’ situation. In this direction, Turkey has never shied from giving. Turkey supported Azerbaijan when it was not rich and did not export energy; also Turkey still strongly supports Azerbaijan now. However, when Azerbaijan gives Russia the rights to its energy corridors, which are key to its independence, even Turkey cannot save Azerbaijan. Baku should take right lessons from the 2008 Georgia-Russia War.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3138/russia-dupes-azerbaijan-.html
Meanwhile, Turkey’s ill-timed suggestion regarding the establishment of a ‘Caucasus Platform’ was possibly the worst move the country could have made. Turkey suggested this to Moscow without comprehensive negotiation with either the US, or the regional states. It can be interpreted as a manifestation of Turkey’s fear of Russia. In fact, it is very normal to be afraid of a country which tries to solve its problems with hard action. In this regard, Turkey was relatively successful in overcoming the crisis in terms of Turkish-Russian relations, for it did not turn into a conflict as some people anticipated. However, in terms of the Caucasus, Turkey lost most of its public support in the region. Especially after the case of Georgia, which was separated into three parts, Azerbaijan would now seem to be thinking that following a foreign policy of just relying on the West is a mistake, and has even thought of transferring some of the energy lines to Russia and Iran.
Turkey could not properly respond to the concerns of Azerbaijan, or could not eliminate them. On the other hand, Russia did not stand by idly. They had found suitable grounds in Baku as well. Pro-Russian Azerbaijanis, effectively the remnants of Soviet Russia, were acting in a hostile fashion towards Turkey. These ‘secret’ groups would sometimes riot, but in the current climate they had difficulty in acting overtly. Hostility towards Turkey in Azerbaijan has been gradually increasing and has become much more visible in the past few months. The restrictions on Turkish TV series, the arguments that Turkish language would erase Azerbaijani language have been promoted as if they were solely innocent cultural arguments.
One more thing to remember is that Aliyev does not rule the country by himself. The major families in the country share the power and some of them do not take their power just from domestic sources, but have direct organic links with Moscow and receive its support. Some of them are even now in the highest posts of the Azerbaijani state.
According to the recent rumors rising from Azerbaijan, a pro-Russian person who is at the top of the state organs, made a secret meeting with governors and other high level people in the country and ordered them to take anti-Turkish actions. In line with these directions, the governors would close down Turkish firms, associations and schools in the country; eventually every firm will be closed down. In other words, Turkey would be gradually excluded from the country, without drawing anyone’s attention. Initially, I do not know whether the rumors are true or not. However, according to the phone calls and e-mails I have recently received from Azerbaijan, this campaign was started a long time ago. Indeed I have been receiving at least one e-mail almost every day from Azerbaijan, all of them adding up to the fact that the campaign is being conducted seriously.
In light of these conditions, it can be said that the Turkish-Armenian convergence was a golden opportunity for anti-Turkish people in the Azerbaijani society. Furthermore, Russia is closely monitoring all recent developments. Russia has one foot in Yerevan and the other in the diaspora. Russia seems to support the Turkish-Armenian convergence; because Russia is a country that knows very well the limits of the Dashnaks (ultra-nationalist Armenian party) and Armenia. Moreover, it is again Russia that holds Armenians’ puppet strings. In addition all news concerning the convergence between the US and Russia is exaggerated when it is transmitted to Azerbaijan. When the news reaches Baku, it is mixed with anti-Turkish comments and delivered in certain newspapers. Within the framework of these events, Turkey is accused of betrayal. In addition, the argument that Azerbaijan must look towards Russia is clearly advocated.
Russia tries to control Azerbaijan by utilizing a mix of hard and soft policies. While Russia makes attempts to monopolize Azerbaijani gas on the one hand, it also does not hesitate to openly threaten Baku.
One of the other striking developments regarding Baku is the assassination of General Rail Rzayev, commander of the Azerbaijani Air Force. According to the Russian media, Rzayev opposed the purchase of Russian-produced MIG military jets, and he convinced Aliyev to do the same. The commander was killed by one shot from a weapon of unknown brand. It has been proven that the assassination was carried out by a professional sniper. According to some of the news agencies, Rzavey was killed by the Armenian Secret Service, while others claim other secret services are responsible for the assassination. Moreover, some believe that this killing could be considered as Russia’s warning to Aliyev. It is said that “Now, Aliyev, who seems to forget how talented Russia is, more clearly understands the situation.” If it is taken into consideration that this is the most significant assassination since the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the timing gains importance. At a time when Armenia and Turkey are growing closer, a top level Azerbaijani general was assassinated by secret hands. All these developments can not be mere coincidence.
***
As stated above, Russia tries to control Azerbaijan with a mix of hard and soft policies. In this context it is also trying to create hostility between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Some Azeri newspapers and politicians say that Turkey betrayed Azerbaijan. Therefore, Azerbaijan should not disregard Russia in the current climate. Moscow host Aliyev on 16 April. Although Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan clearly stated that “the borders will not be opened until Turkey and Azerbaijan reconcile”, criticism against Turkey is becoming more pointed day by day. Baku Government behave as if it knows nothing about Turkish-Armenian talks, although Turkey informs the Baku in detail in all steps of the negotiations. Turkey has given clear assurances to the Azeris that Turkey will not open the borders till Armenian withdrawal from the Azeri territories.
In this regard, why is Azerbaijan reacting harshly?
Why is Azerbaijan responding with harsh attacks instead of establishing a direct dialogue with Ankara?
What does Azerbaijan demand from Turkey, but does not receive?
Or, is Azerbaijan looking for an excuse to distance itself from Turkey?
Does Azerbaijan not want to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue?
I am afraid that all of these scenarios may be true. As I previously tried to explain, Russia is trying to tear Azerbaijan away from Turkey. In light of this, most Azerbaijani statesmen, including Aliyev, are uncertain of the current situation. Also, they are ambivalent about the problem solving process in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to one argument, it is not possible to save Karabakh and the occupied Azerbaijani territories via step by step improvements. Armenians must withdraw their forces at once, all other options cannot be considered as solution. Baku knows that a full withdrawal is not possible in near future and therefore tries to prevent any partial improvement in Karabakh issue. Azerbaijan can wait some more years while Armenia isolates itself by insisting on Karabakh and other occupied Azeri provinces. Occupation clearly prevents integration of Armenia with the rest of the world. Armenia as a result of the Karabakh occupation cannot join any regional integration projects and neither the U.S. nor the EU (even the Russians) can help Armenia in the way that they wish to be helped. Azerbaijan, as a victimized country in the region, gains diplomatic superiority and Armenia pushes back against energy-rich Azerbaijan. That’s why Azeri statesmen are not happy with Turkey’s efforts to solve Karabakh Issue. Azerbaijan needs some more time, they think Armenia will have to leave the occupied lands in less than 10 years. However Turkey does not want to lose time, and Turkey’s attempts to solve the problem anger the Azerbaijanis.
***
Actually, the signs are not very good for Turkey-Azerbaijan relations.
Azerbaijan is also going down the road of playing Russia against the other power, as do the Central Asian Republics, when faced with difficulties.
However, the road could be its end.
To open and close the land borders is easy for Turkey; such decisions do not have to be permanent. However, after moving away from Turkey and the West and relying on Russia, Azerbaijan could have a lot of trouble following a consistent foreign policy.
It is clear that Turkey and Azerbaijan are struggling to improve their relations and create a ‘win-win’ situation. In this direction, Turkey has never shied from giving. Turkey supported Azerbaijan when it was not rich and did not export energy; also Turkey still strongly supports Azerbaijan now. However, when Azerbaijan gives Russia the rights to its energy corridors, which are key to its independence, even Turkey cannot save Azerbaijan. Baku should take right lessons from the 2008 Georgia-Russia War.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3138/russia-dupes-azerbaijan-.html
Monday, 20 April 2009
Turkish PM: Turkey Not To Open Borders With Armenia Until Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Solution
Turkish Weekly
Monday, 20 April 2009Turkish Prime Minister Receb Tayyip Erdogan stated that his country will not open borders with neighbor Armenia until long-lasting Karabakh conflict is solved, RIA Novosti reported."Contacts between Turkey and Armenia are still lasting to normalize bilateral relations," Erdogan said while commenting on both country officials' holding private negotiations in Switzerland within two years. Turkey and Armenia are seeking to normalize the relations severed in 1993.Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Yerevan on Sept. 6, 2008 upon the invitation of his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisyan to watch an Armenia-Turkey football match.
Efforts have been made to normalize ties between the two countries ever since Armenian-Turkish ties have been severed since 1993 due to Armenia's claims of an alleged genocide, and the country's occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands.Armenia and the international Armenian lobby assert that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against the Armenians living in Anatolia in 1915. In an effort to win the support of the international community, the Armenian lobby has increased its propaganda in several countries and a number of governments already now recognize the Armenian genocide."However, opening our borders (with Armenia) is connected with settlement of the Karabakh issue. We will not open the borders, if the issue on the Azerbaijani occupied territories is not solved," local media quoted the Turkish premier.The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group - Russia, France, and the U.S. - are currently holding the peace negotiations.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Trend News Agency
Monday, 20 April 2009Turkish Prime Minister Receb Tayyip Erdogan stated that his country will not open borders with neighbor Armenia until long-lasting Karabakh conflict is solved, RIA Novosti reported."Contacts between Turkey and Armenia are still lasting to normalize bilateral relations," Erdogan said while commenting on both country officials' holding private negotiations in Switzerland within two years. Turkey and Armenia are seeking to normalize the relations severed in 1993.Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Yerevan on Sept. 6, 2008 upon the invitation of his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisyan to watch an Armenia-Turkey football match.
Efforts have been made to normalize ties between the two countries ever since Armenian-Turkish ties have been severed since 1993 due to Armenia's claims of an alleged genocide, and the country's occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands.Armenia and the international Armenian lobby assert that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against the Armenians living in Anatolia in 1915. In an effort to win the support of the international community, the Armenian lobby has increased its propaganda in several countries and a number of governments already now recognize the Armenian genocide."However, opening our borders (with Armenia) is connected with settlement of the Karabakh issue. We will not open the borders, if the issue on the Azerbaijani occupied territories is not solved," local media quoted the Turkish premier.The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group - Russia, France, and the U.S. - are currently holding the peace negotiations.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Trend News Agency
Rasmussen and Ahmadinejad: Any Difference?
View: Dr. Sedat LACINER
Journal of Turkish Weekly, 4 February 2006
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen tends to justify all his 'mistakes' by 'freedom of expression'. Denmark first allowed the Roj TV to broadcast from Denmark to the Middle East though it was well-known that Roj TV was the PKK's propaganda channel and it was encouraging violence in the Middle East. The security reports clearly show that the Roj TV is financed by the PKK's drug and human trafficking money. It is argued that the terrorist organization uses the 'TV channel' for its money laundering businesses. One of the members of the Roj TV managers is the high-ranked PKK (Kadek) militant. When Turkey asked Denmark to closed down the PKK's channel, as United Kingdom and France did previously, Rasmussen argued that Denmark was a free country and the Government could do nothing to limit the 'freedom of expression'.
Rasmussen not only allowed the PKK's TV channel to broadcast from Denmark but also considered it as a respectful media body acceptable to all international press meetings in Denmark. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted harshly against allowing the PKK terrorist organization's Roj TV into the hall where a joint press conference was to be held in Denmark. The host, Prime Minister Rasmussen, who gave permission to this PKK TV channel, appeared alone before press members and created an interesting crisis. According to the Turkish side there was no difference between the PKK's Roj TV and the Al Qaeda's propagandas. As Journal of Turkish Weekly we asked the Danish authorities if Turkey allows an Islamist extremist TV channel encouraging violence in Denmark and in Europe, could it be considered by Denmark in terms of 'freedom of expression'.
And now the cartoons crisis erupted and Rasmussen says it is matter of 'freedom of expression' principle: The cartoons, some of which depict Islam's Prophet Hz. Muhammad as a terrorist, were first published in September 2005 by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. On 20 October 2005, the ambassadors from the Muslim countries in Copenhagen, including Turkish and Bosnian ambassadors, complained to Danish PM and searched for co-operation to prevent an international crisis. Almost all of the ambassadors were aware of the freedom of expression principle, however they also knew that the timing was awful for such a crisis. Interestingly Danish PM refused to make any co-operation. Even Rasmussen rejected to meet with the ambassadors. When the crisis has been erupted and as a result of the tension the Danish firms have faced bankruptcy in the Middle East and North Africa regions, Rasmussen has changed his mind. He has met with the Muslims ambassadors and he has made anything possible to persuade the Arab and Muslim countries. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which had rejected to apologize before has also changed the mind and the newspaper apologized from the Muslims on 31 January 2006. So, how about the freedom of expression? Why have both Rasmussen and the newspapers changed the mind? If they apologized 4 months ago, or Rasmussen met with the legal representatives of the Muslim world, would the 'freedom of expression' principle damaged? Or is money more important than the principles? Are collapsing Danish firms more important than more than 1 billion Muslims' religious feelings?
* Matter of Principle or Double-Standard?
When Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly denied Holocaust, no one in the Western world showed any 'tolerance' towards Mr. Ahmedinejad. All American and European newspapers (including many Turkish and Muslim newspapers) blamed Ahmadinejad, and many named him 'crazy' or 'mad'. German Chancellor Angela Merkel likened Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler. We, as Journal of Turkish Weekly also accused Ahmadinejad of increasing the tension in the region. None of us considered Ahmadinejad's 'different ideas' in the frame of freedom of expression. The Western media in particular was so sensitive in respecting the Jewish victims' memories. We also respect the Jewish people's memories. Turkey, different from all of the continental European countries, has the cleanest record in terms of Holocaust and protecting the Jewish people. Turkey was the only continental European country who refused to handle its Jewish citizens to the Nazi Germany. As a result, the sensitiveness of the European and American press in protecting the Jewish memories make us happy. However the same sensitiveness should be shown to the living Muslims around the world. If you say that there was no Jewish genocide during the Second World War, you would be found yourself before a European court. However even if you implement a systematic campaign of slander against more than 1 billion Muslims, no European court could punish you. It is unfortunate that journalists and politicians all around the world think that they have all the right to insult and humiliate the Muslims, because there is no compensation for the damages given to the Muslims. You cannot insult the Christians, Jewish, even the Hindus, but you can insult the Muslims, their holly book and Prophet.
We share the same world, and we have to respect each other. We have to be very sensitive for not deepening the religious and civilizational biases. The only thing we need is some sort of empathy with the other nations and religions.
Now millions of Muslims are on the street demonstrations against Denmark, Norway, France and Germany. The drawings have sparked protests in countries including Indonesia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building, The French Embassy was the next target. Hundreds of Palestinians turned out for protests on Saturday. In Gaza City, demonstrators hurled stones at a European Commission building and stormed a German cultural center, smashing windows and doors. Protesters also burned German and Danish flags, and called for a boycott of Danish products. The demonstrators in Turkey accused Denmark for insulting their holiest things. Angry demonstrators took to the streets in Denmark and Britain on Saturday, signaling a ratcheting up of tensions among European Muslims. In London, several hundred demonstrators gathered under heavy police security outside Denmark's embassy, shouting slogans to protest the publication of the drawings. The picture in Pakistan, Arab countries, Iran and in many other Muslim countries is not so different than the above. Not only the people protest the caricatures, but also the Muslim leaders condemned the publishers and Denmark and called Rasmussen to apologize. Turkey's conservative and leftist leaders, who have very little in common, have agreed on the issue.
The Muslim peoples had serious doubts about the West's sincerity and goodwill. The Palestinian Issue, Lebanon, Bosnian Genocide, Tragedy in Chechnya, Armenian Occupation in Azerbaijan, Iraq and Afghanistan occupations deepened the humiliation of the Muslim peoples and the Muslim victimization. Osame Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda and other violent extremists have abused this ground. It is unfortunate that Rasmussen's Denmark and the European newspapers played a role in deepening the prejudices between the East and West as Al-Qaeda has been playing till now. And it is unfortunate that it is really difficult to see any difference between Iran's Ahmedinejad and Denmark's Rasmussen. Both men are idealist but short sighted. They have no vision. Both are ego-centric. Both thinks that they defend the principles, yet both ignore the others' holly principles.
Osame Bin Laden aimed to unite all of the Muslims against the Christians. He did anything possible to abuse the problems between two religions. Laden has failed in starting a civilizational war. Most of the Muslims, particularly the Euro-Muslims and Turkey Muslims consider Osame Bin Laden as a terrorist. However Rasmussen's Denmark, Norway and some other countries are more successful than Osame Bin Laden in making the Muslims and Christians to conflict.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat LACINER: President, Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO-USAK) & Young Global Leader 2006.
Journal of Turkish Weekly
4 February 2006
www.turkishweekly.net
Journal of Turkish Weekly, 4 February 2006
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen tends to justify all his 'mistakes' by 'freedom of expression'. Denmark first allowed the Roj TV to broadcast from Denmark to the Middle East though it was well-known that Roj TV was the PKK's propaganda channel and it was encouraging violence in the Middle East. The security reports clearly show that the Roj TV is financed by the PKK's drug and human trafficking money. It is argued that the terrorist organization uses the 'TV channel' for its money laundering businesses. One of the members of the Roj TV managers is the high-ranked PKK (Kadek) militant. When Turkey asked Denmark to closed down the PKK's channel, as United Kingdom and France did previously, Rasmussen argued that Denmark was a free country and the Government could do nothing to limit the 'freedom of expression'.
Rasmussen not only allowed the PKK's TV channel to broadcast from Denmark but also considered it as a respectful media body acceptable to all international press meetings in Denmark. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted harshly against allowing the PKK terrorist organization's Roj TV into the hall where a joint press conference was to be held in Denmark. The host, Prime Minister Rasmussen, who gave permission to this PKK TV channel, appeared alone before press members and created an interesting crisis. According to the Turkish side there was no difference between the PKK's Roj TV and the Al Qaeda's propagandas. As Journal of Turkish Weekly we asked the Danish authorities if Turkey allows an Islamist extremist TV channel encouraging violence in Denmark and in Europe, could it be considered by Denmark in terms of 'freedom of expression'.
And now the cartoons crisis erupted and Rasmussen says it is matter of 'freedom of expression' principle: The cartoons, some of which depict Islam's Prophet Hz. Muhammad as a terrorist, were first published in September 2005 by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. On 20 October 2005, the ambassadors from the Muslim countries in Copenhagen, including Turkish and Bosnian ambassadors, complained to Danish PM and searched for co-operation to prevent an international crisis. Almost all of the ambassadors were aware of the freedom of expression principle, however they also knew that the timing was awful for such a crisis. Interestingly Danish PM refused to make any co-operation. Even Rasmussen rejected to meet with the ambassadors. When the crisis has been erupted and as a result of the tension the Danish firms have faced bankruptcy in the Middle East and North Africa regions, Rasmussen has changed his mind. He has met with the Muslims ambassadors and he has made anything possible to persuade the Arab and Muslim countries. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which had rejected to apologize before has also changed the mind and the newspaper apologized from the Muslims on 31 January 2006. So, how about the freedom of expression? Why have both Rasmussen and the newspapers changed the mind? If they apologized 4 months ago, or Rasmussen met with the legal representatives of the Muslim world, would the 'freedom of expression' principle damaged? Or is money more important than the principles? Are collapsing Danish firms more important than more than 1 billion Muslims' religious feelings?
* Matter of Principle or Double-Standard?
When Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly denied Holocaust, no one in the Western world showed any 'tolerance' towards Mr. Ahmedinejad. All American and European newspapers (including many Turkish and Muslim newspapers) blamed Ahmadinejad, and many named him 'crazy' or 'mad'. German Chancellor Angela Merkel likened Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler. We, as Journal of Turkish Weekly also accused Ahmadinejad of increasing the tension in the region. None of us considered Ahmadinejad's 'different ideas' in the frame of freedom of expression. The Western media in particular was so sensitive in respecting the Jewish victims' memories. We also respect the Jewish people's memories. Turkey, different from all of the continental European countries, has the cleanest record in terms of Holocaust and protecting the Jewish people. Turkey was the only continental European country who refused to handle its Jewish citizens to the Nazi Germany. As a result, the sensitiveness of the European and American press in protecting the Jewish memories make us happy. However the same sensitiveness should be shown to the living Muslims around the world. If you say that there was no Jewish genocide during the Second World War, you would be found yourself before a European court. However even if you implement a systematic campaign of slander against more than 1 billion Muslims, no European court could punish you. It is unfortunate that journalists and politicians all around the world think that they have all the right to insult and humiliate the Muslims, because there is no compensation for the damages given to the Muslims. You cannot insult the Christians, Jewish, even the Hindus, but you can insult the Muslims, their holly book and Prophet.
We share the same world, and we have to respect each other. We have to be very sensitive for not deepening the religious and civilizational biases. The only thing we need is some sort of empathy with the other nations and religions.
Now millions of Muslims are on the street demonstrations against Denmark, Norway, France and Germany. The drawings have sparked protests in countries including Indonesia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building, The French Embassy was the next target. Hundreds of Palestinians turned out for protests on Saturday. In Gaza City, demonstrators hurled stones at a European Commission building and stormed a German cultural center, smashing windows and doors. Protesters also burned German and Danish flags, and called for a boycott of Danish products. The demonstrators in Turkey accused Denmark for insulting their holiest things. Angry demonstrators took to the streets in Denmark and Britain on Saturday, signaling a ratcheting up of tensions among European Muslims. In London, several hundred demonstrators gathered under heavy police security outside Denmark's embassy, shouting slogans to protest the publication of the drawings. The picture in Pakistan, Arab countries, Iran and in many other Muslim countries is not so different than the above. Not only the people protest the caricatures, but also the Muslim leaders condemned the publishers and Denmark and called Rasmussen to apologize. Turkey's conservative and leftist leaders, who have very little in common, have agreed on the issue.
The Muslim peoples had serious doubts about the West's sincerity and goodwill. The Palestinian Issue, Lebanon, Bosnian Genocide, Tragedy in Chechnya, Armenian Occupation in Azerbaijan, Iraq and Afghanistan occupations deepened the humiliation of the Muslim peoples and the Muslim victimization. Osame Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda and other violent extremists have abused this ground. It is unfortunate that Rasmussen's Denmark and the European newspapers played a role in deepening the prejudices between the East and West as Al-Qaeda has been playing till now. And it is unfortunate that it is really difficult to see any difference between Iran's Ahmedinejad and Denmark's Rasmussen. Both men are idealist but short sighted. They have no vision. Both are ego-centric. Both thinks that they defend the principles, yet both ignore the others' holly principles.
Osame Bin Laden aimed to unite all of the Muslims against the Christians. He did anything possible to abuse the problems between two religions. Laden has failed in starting a civilizational war. Most of the Muslims, particularly the Euro-Muslims and Turkey Muslims consider Osame Bin Laden as a terrorist. However Rasmussen's Denmark, Norway and some other countries are more successful than Osame Bin Laden in making the Muslims and Christians to conflict.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat LACINER: President, Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO-USAK) & Young Global Leader 2006.
Journal of Turkish Weekly
4 February 2006
www.turkishweekly.net
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Thursday, 9 April 2009
‘Terrorism Supporter’ to be the Secretary General of NATO
by Sedat Laciner
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
NATO has started to take on new roles, especially after the Cold War period, among which combating international terrorism is its first priority. The expansion of NATO’s operation area from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan is also a new development NATO is operating among religiously and ethnically diverse populations from numerous regions. Hence, the Organization’s operation locations — at an equal distance from all religions and cultures — is of the utmost importance in accomplishing its mission. NATO is currently preparing to welcome its new secretary general, and Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the lead, among the other strong candidates, in consideration for this post.
The US, Germany, and other significant NATO members have already asserted their support for Rasmussen. Moreover, Denmark has been conducting lobbying campaigns in support of its prime minister. Yet, since Rasmussen has an unfavorable record in combating terrorism and in conducting dialogue between civilizations, he is the worst candidate for the NATO or any organization of this kind:
Copenhagen Is Broadcasting ‘Terrorist TV’
First, Rasmussen tolerated the PKK’s (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) activities in Denmark, and gave permission to the terrorist organization launching a television channel in Copenhagen: Roj TV, perceived as a culture channel by the Danish authorities, which enhances the so-called suppressed Kurds’ language and culture. However, to ignore the close relations between Roj TV and the PKK, one should be blind or malicious.
The TV channel repeatedly broadcasts PKK terrorists to the screen. Moreover, most of these terrorists are well known — some are leaders of the Organization or even suspects on Interpol’s wanted list.
Moreover, the TV channel calls Kurdish people to perform acts of violence and terrorism against Turkey every day. Despite the fact that inciting violence is banned by the EU and Danish law as well, Denmark did not take any measures to discourage this persistent malice.
Turkey has warned Denmark on the matter numerous times. Not only Turkey, but also the United States (US) has pointed to dubious relations between Roj TV, Mesopotamia TV and the PKK and called for the channel to be shut down. Addressing a letter to Danish Justice Minister Lene Espersen, the Washington administration asked for PKK TVs, Roj TV and Mesopotamia TV, broadcasting from the Danish capital, Copenhagen, be immediately banned. The letter included US experts’ remarks as to which Roj TV contents violated Danish laws and
which ones were considered permissible by the freedom of speech. The US letter stressed it was inappropriate for Denmark to allow a TV channel banned by France and Britain to continue to broadcast from its territory and requested the properties of the PKK linked Roj TV and Mesopotamia TV be confiscated. The Danish newspaper, Berlinske Tidende, made the US letter its leading report and wrote the letter put Danish Premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen into a difficult situation. Yet the Rasmussen Government did not take these warnings seriously, only postponing the solution by saying, “The police are investigating the issue,” or “our judges are going to focus on the matter.” Rasmussen and Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller did not respond to the questions pertaining to the US letter. Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen from the Danish Social Liberal Party harshly criticized Rasmussen. Noting the letter which came in a period of close cooperation between Denmark and US was very significant, Mr. Petersen said the problem should have been solved before the US got involved and Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to Copenhagen and tension in bilateral relations should have been thereby precluded.
The Turkish prime minister Erdogan was meeting with Rasmussen as he tours European capitals in November 2005 to discuss the prospects of Turkey's EU membership bid. However when Mr. Erdogan realized that Danish authorities let the PKK-backed Roj TV’s correspondent to attend the Erdogan-Rasmussen joint press conference at Rasmussen's office Erdogan declined to take part in the briefing. Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen said he regretted that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan didn't attend a joint press conference and further said it was a ``basic principle that no government should in any way influence the freedom of the media,'' adding that ``precisely the principle of freedom of speech is absolutely fundamental as far as EU membership goes. It's crucial that applicant countries 100 percent fulfill the political criteria, including freedom of expression.'' At this point we should ask Mr. Rasmussen, can Turkey allow an Al Qaida TV station in Ankara. If a radio station encourages Danish people to violence can Denmark defends that station in the name of freedoms?
Former Turkish Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek harshly criticized his Danish counterpart Lene Espersen in 2007 acusing Denmark of allowing terrorist broadcasting. The Danish official said his ministry is awaiting documents from Turkey to initiate legal proceedings over the TV channel, but Turkish minister Cicek answered that documents proving links between the channel and the PKK have been sent to Denmark several times already.
The terrorist relations between Roj TV and the PKK were obvious and the Danish government did not need any clues to figure out this connection. MED TV, the first channel established by the PKK, was banned by the British television authority ITC in 1999. The terrorist organization then moved its TV channel to France, under the name “MEDYA TV.” However, the France did not welcome the channel either, and it was closed down by the court after a short period of broadcasting.
The PKK moved to Denmark after the UK and France and found a government willing to help its cause. While Roj TV was broadcasting from Denmark, it was banned in Germany due to its terrorist roots. German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble delared that the station’s broadcasting in Germany was banned as of June 19, and in announcing the ban the Interior Ministry said Roj TV was a mouthpiece of the PKK, which has been outlawed in Germany and has used terrorist methods against civilians and officials.
The PKK’s reaction to Germany’s stance was to kidnap German mountain climbers in Turkey. However, Germany did not yield to the PKK’s blackmailing and insisted on its decision on banning the TV channel. Indeed, the PKK is labeled in Danish law as a “terrorist organization” as it was by the US, the EU, the UK, Germany, and Turkey. Yet, Rasmussen continued to protect the terrorist organization’s activities by tolerating them. Thus, the PKK and its branches have freely carried out their activities in Denmark as if it was a civil society organization.
Now, the prime minister of this government, who has turned a blind eye towards terrorism, and is even seen as a supporter of terrorism, is preparing to be the head of NATO which regards combating terrorism as one of its primary missions. If Rasmussen becomes the Secretary General of NATO, this could possibly affect numerous NATO policies, especially those related to combating terrorism. Moreover, this could lead many countries including but not limited to Turkey, to question their confidence in the Organization’s policies.
Cartoon Crisis
Rasmussen’s stance during the “Cartoon Crisis” is another fact which makes him a weird figure for the Secretary General of NATO.
Just after the release of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30th, which picture Muslims and their prophet as terrorists, Turkey warned Denmark to be aware of the incoming danger. Ambassadors of ten Muslim countries pioneered by former Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Denmark sent a signed petition to the Prime Minister Rasmussen to protest the events. The ambassadors asked for a meeting with Rasmussen to evaluate the crisis and call for the peace atmosphere.
Turkey aimed to bring the representatives of the Muslim countries in Copenhagen and the Denmark Government together during that crisis. However, Rasmussen did not appraise Turkey’s good will and his government implied that they did not need Turkey’s mediation on the issue. Rasmussen rejected the meeting request rudely. The caricature crisis spread to all Muslim countries as a result, and more radicals like Iran became dominant in anti-Denmark campaigns gradually, yet decisively. Whilst Denmark’s interests started to be damaged from these campaigns, Rasmussen declared that he personally condemned the caricatures, yet, he continued to evaluate the issue within the context of freedom of speech. His management of crisis was not only unsuccessful but also was narrow sided. Rasmussen ignored dialog and underestimated Turkey and its soft power. Today, for many Muslims, Denmark is a country which insulted their Prophet.
Is not the Rasmussen’s taking post going to disrupt NATO’s operations in Afghanistan while the perception toward Denmark is highly problematic among the Muslim countries?
Turkey’s EU Membership
Rasmussen’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership on the ground that Turkey has a different cultural-religious background is the third reason which damages Rasmussen’s image in the eyes of Turkey and Muslim countries. For Rasmussen, who seems as if he does not make religion based politics, Turkey does not have a place in the EU.
Rasmussen had a significant role in Denmark’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership as contrary to the stance of other countries in the Northern Europe.
He in 2005 said that European Union politicians must listen to citizens who oppose Turkish membership in the bloc and argued "many Europeans are uncertain about the perspective of Turkish membership. We must discuss it openly and frankly". In the words of the AP, "resembling to Europe’s fanatical rightist politicians, Rasmussen became a problematic figure who discourages Turkey on the way to the EU membership" and he called all of the Turkey opponents to unite against Turkish membership. It is obvious that main reason for his opposition to Turkey is the Turks' different religion.
The Prime Minister Rasmussen also chose to support Turkey’s opponents in almost all issues whenever Turkey had a disagreement with other countries. His behavior towards Turkey was scorning and perception of Turkey for Rasmussen was “an Eastern country waiting at the EU’s door.” Since he has been opposing Turkey’s EU membership as the first Muslim country to be in the EU, it is not hard to guess to what extent Rasmussen would damage the relations between the NATO and other Muslim countries.
***
Indeed, it is like a bad joke…
While we were happy for getting rid of the Bush administration, Danish version of Bush is preparing to be the head of NATO during the Obama presidency.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
NATO has started to take on new roles, especially after the Cold War period, among which combating international terrorism is its first priority. The expansion of NATO’s operation area from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan is also a new development NATO is operating among religiously and ethnically diverse populations from numerous regions. Hence, the Organization’s operation locations — at an equal distance from all religions and cultures — is of the utmost importance in accomplishing its mission. NATO is currently preparing to welcome its new secretary general, and Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the lead, among the other strong candidates, in consideration for this post.
The US, Germany, and other significant NATO members have already asserted their support for Rasmussen. Moreover, Denmark has been conducting lobbying campaigns in support of its prime minister. Yet, since Rasmussen has an unfavorable record in combating terrorism and in conducting dialogue between civilizations, he is the worst candidate for the NATO or any organization of this kind:
Copenhagen Is Broadcasting ‘Terrorist TV’
First, Rasmussen tolerated the PKK’s (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) activities in Denmark, and gave permission to the terrorist organization launching a television channel in Copenhagen: Roj TV, perceived as a culture channel by the Danish authorities, which enhances the so-called suppressed Kurds’ language and culture. However, to ignore the close relations between Roj TV and the PKK, one should be blind or malicious.
The TV channel repeatedly broadcasts PKK terrorists to the screen. Moreover, most of these terrorists are well known — some are leaders of the Organization or even suspects on Interpol’s wanted list.
Moreover, the TV channel calls Kurdish people to perform acts of violence and terrorism against Turkey every day. Despite the fact that inciting violence is banned by the EU and Danish law as well, Denmark did not take any measures to discourage this persistent malice.
Turkey has warned Denmark on the matter numerous times. Not only Turkey, but also the United States (US) has pointed to dubious relations between Roj TV, Mesopotamia TV and the PKK and called for the channel to be shut down. Addressing a letter to Danish Justice Minister Lene Espersen, the Washington administration asked for PKK TVs, Roj TV and Mesopotamia TV, broadcasting from the Danish capital, Copenhagen, be immediately banned. The letter included US experts’ remarks as to which Roj TV contents violated Danish laws and
which ones were considered permissible by the freedom of speech. The US letter stressed it was inappropriate for Denmark to allow a TV channel banned by France and Britain to continue to broadcast from its territory and requested the properties of the PKK linked Roj TV and Mesopotamia TV be confiscated. The Danish newspaper, Berlinske Tidende, made the US letter its leading report and wrote the letter put Danish Premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen into a difficult situation. Yet the Rasmussen Government did not take these warnings seriously, only postponing the solution by saying, “The police are investigating the issue,” or “our judges are going to focus on the matter.” Rasmussen and Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller did not respond to the questions pertaining to the US letter. Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen from the Danish Social Liberal Party harshly criticized Rasmussen. Noting the letter which came in a period of close cooperation between Denmark and US was very significant, Mr. Petersen said the problem should have been solved before the US got involved and Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to Copenhagen and tension in bilateral relations should have been thereby precluded.
The Turkish prime minister Erdogan was meeting with Rasmussen as he tours European capitals in November 2005 to discuss the prospects of Turkey's EU membership bid. However when Mr. Erdogan realized that Danish authorities let the PKK-backed Roj TV’s correspondent to attend the Erdogan-Rasmussen joint press conference at Rasmussen's office Erdogan declined to take part in the briefing. Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen said he regretted that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan didn't attend a joint press conference and further said it was a ``basic principle that no government should in any way influence the freedom of the media,'' adding that ``precisely the principle of freedom of speech is absolutely fundamental as far as EU membership goes. It's crucial that applicant countries 100 percent fulfill the political criteria, including freedom of expression.'' At this point we should ask Mr. Rasmussen, can Turkey allow an Al Qaida TV station in Ankara. If a radio station encourages Danish people to violence can Denmark defends that station in the name of freedoms?
Former Turkish Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek harshly criticized his Danish counterpart Lene Espersen in 2007 acusing Denmark of allowing terrorist broadcasting. The Danish official said his ministry is awaiting documents from Turkey to initiate legal proceedings over the TV channel, but Turkish minister Cicek answered that documents proving links between the channel and the PKK have been sent to Denmark several times already.
The terrorist relations between Roj TV and the PKK were obvious and the Danish government did not need any clues to figure out this connection. MED TV, the first channel established by the PKK, was banned by the British television authority ITC in 1999. The terrorist organization then moved its TV channel to France, under the name “MEDYA TV.” However, the France did not welcome the channel either, and it was closed down by the court after a short period of broadcasting.
The PKK moved to Denmark after the UK and France and found a government willing to help its cause. While Roj TV was broadcasting from Denmark, it was banned in Germany due to its terrorist roots. German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble delared that the station’s broadcasting in Germany was banned as of June 19, and in announcing the ban the Interior Ministry said Roj TV was a mouthpiece of the PKK, which has been outlawed in Germany and has used terrorist methods against civilians and officials.
The PKK’s reaction to Germany’s stance was to kidnap German mountain climbers in Turkey. However, Germany did not yield to the PKK’s blackmailing and insisted on its decision on banning the TV channel. Indeed, the PKK is labeled in Danish law as a “terrorist organization” as it was by the US, the EU, the UK, Germany, and Turkey. Yet, Rasmussen continued to protect the terrorist organization’s activities by tolerating them. Thus, the PKK and its branches have freely carried out their activities in Denmark as if it was a civil society organization.
Now, the prime minister of this government, who has turned a blind eye towards terrorism, and is even seen as a supporter of terrorism, is preparing to be the head of NATO which regards combating terrorism as one of its primary missions. If Rasmussen becomes the Secretary General of NATO, this could possibly affect numerous NATO policies, especially those related to combating terrorism. Moreover, this could lead many countries including but not limited to Turkey, to question their confidence in the Organization’s policies.
Cartoon Crisis
Rasmussen’s stance during the “Cartoon Crisis” is another fact which makes him a weird figure for the Secretary General of NATO.
Just after the release of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30th, which picture Muslims and their prophet as terrorists, Turkey warned Denmark to be aware of the incoming danger. Ambassadors of ten Muslim countries pioneered by former Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Denmark sent a signed petition to the Prime Minister Rasmussen to protest the events. The ambassadors asked for a meeting with Rasmussen to evaluate the crisis and call for the peace atmosphere.
Turkey aimed to bring the representatives of the Muslim countries in Copenhagen and the Denmark Government together during that crisis. However, Rasmussen did not appraise Turkey’s good will and his government implied that they did not need Turkey’s mediation on the issue. Rasmussen rejected the meeting request rudely. The caricature crisis spread to all Muslim countries as a result, and more radicals like Iran became dominant in anti-Denmark campaigns gradually, yet decisively. Whilst Denmark’s interests started to be damaged from these campaigns, Rasmussen declared that he personally condemned the caricatures, yet, he continued to evaluate the issue within the context of freedom of speech. His management of crisis was not only unsuccessful but also was narrow sided. Rasmussen ignored dialog and underestimated Turkey and its soft power. Today, for many Muslims, Denmark is a country which insulted their Prophet.
Is not the Rasmussen’s taking post going to disrupt NATO’s operations in Afghanistan while the perception toward Denmark is highly problematic among the Muslim countries?
Turkey’s EU Membership
Rasmussen’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership on the ground that Turkey has a different cultural-religious background is the third reason which damages Rasmussen’s image in the eyes of Turkey and Muslim countries. For Rasmussen, who seems as if he does not make religion based politics, Turkey does not have a place in the EU.
Rasmussen had a significant role in Denmark’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership as contrary to the stance of other countries in the Northern Europe.
He in 2005 said that European Union politicians must listen to citizens who oppose Turkish membership in the bloc and argued "many Europeans are uncertain about the perspective of Turkish membership. We must discuss it openly and frankly". In the words of the AP, "resembling to Europe’s fanatical rightist politicians, Rasmussen became a problematic figure who discourages Turkey on the way to the EU membership" and he called all of the Turkey opponents to unite against Turkish membership. It is obvious that main reason for his opposition to Turkey is the Turks' different religion.
The Prime Minister Rasmussen also chose to support Turkey’s opponents in almost all issues whenever Turkey had a disagreement with other countries. His behavior towards Turkey was scorning and perception of Turkey for Rasmussen was “an Eastern country waiting at the EU’s door.” Since he has been opposing Turkey’s EU membership as the first Muslim country to be in the EU, it is not hard to guess to what extent Rasmussen would damage the relations between the NATO and other Muslim countries.
***
Indeed, it is like a bad joke…
While we were happy for getting rid of the Bush administration, Danish version of Bush is preparing to be the head of NATO during the Obama presidency.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Full Text of US President Barack Obama's Speech to Turkish Grand National Parliament
Full Text of President Barack Obama's remarks to the Turkish Grand National Parliament on Monday, as provided by the White House (6 April 2009)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mister speaker, madam deputy speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.
This is my first trip overseas as president of the United States. I've been to the G-20 summit in London, and the NATO summit in Strasbourg, and the European Union summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message to the world. And my answer is simple:
Evet — yes.
Turkey is a critical ally.
Turkey is an important part of Europe.
And Turkey and the United States must stand together — and work together — to overcome the challenges of our time.
This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. And I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk's life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.
This future was not easily assured, it was not guaranteed. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future.
You freed yourself from foreign control, and you founded a republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world. And there is a simple truth to this story:
Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice.
Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.
Now, my country's democracy has its own story. The general who led America in revolution and governed as our first president was, as many of you know, George Washington. And like you, we built a grand monument to honor our founding father — a towering obelisk that stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington's name. I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from all across the world who offered their own tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found. And one of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few simple words:
"So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries."
Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures. It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey's freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself into the NATO Alliance. Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul.
Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation in science and research. The ties among our people have deepened, as well, and more and more Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our borders. And as a basketball fan, I've even noticed that Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good basketball games.
The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue, and that's to be expected — no two nations do. But we have stood together through many challenges over the last 60 years. And because of the strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger and the world is more secure.
Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges: An economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men and women and children; strains on our energy supply and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons; and the persistence of tragic conflict.
These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace. This much is certain:
No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I've carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That is the message that I delivered when I had the privilege of meeting with your president and with your prime minister. That will be the approach of the United States of America going forward. Already, America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis.
Now, this past week, we came together to ensure that the world's largest economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressures of protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again. As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to serve prosperity for our people. The president and I this morning talked about expanding the ties of commerce and trade. There's enormous opportunity when it comes to energy to create jobs. And we can increase new sources to not only free ourselves from dependence of other energies — other countries' energy sources, but also to combat climate change. We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas. This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free. So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union. We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of both Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in trans-Atlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith — it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more. Now, of course, Turkey has its own responsibilities. And you've made important progress towards membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it's good for EU membership, but because it's right for Turkey.
In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You've lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station. These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static — they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens. I say this as the president of a country that not very long ago made it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be president of the United States. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard. Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past.
The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans. Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive. We've already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It is a cause worth working towards. It speaks to Turkey's leadership that you are poised to be the only country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South Caucasus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long. Advancing peace also includes the disputes that persist in the Eastern Mediterranean. And here there's a cause for hope. The two Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission.
The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation. These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after issue, we share common goals. In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear:
The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as president of the United States. We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome long-standing passions and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace. The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey.
Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel's quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. So now, working together, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you've done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen their own institutions.
We must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel's security concerns are legitimate.
The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, as I made clear in Prague yesterday, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons, least of all Turkey. You live in a difficult region and a nuclear arm race would not serve the security of this nation well. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for an ever-more powerful tool of destruction. Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. We want them to engage in the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. But Iran's leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people. So both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe haven for terrorists. I know there were differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within my own country, as well. But now we must come together as we end this war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader region. As I've already announced, and many of you are aware, the United States will remove our combat brigades by the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, Turkey, and all Iraq's neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security. Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al-Qaida terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK.
There is no excuse for terror against any nation.
As president, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK or anyone else. These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq's Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity and democracy for the Kurdish population here inside Turkey.
Finally, we share the common goal of denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al-Qaida terrorists plot further attacks. That's why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. That's why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side not only of security, but also of opportunity and the promise of a better life. Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now we must achieve our goals together.
I appreciate that you've offered to help us train and support Afghan security forces and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before. I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can:
The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people. I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism.
We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.
The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.
Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people. There's an old Turkish proverb: "You cannot put out fire with flames" America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together. I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples come together. They wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another. But I believe here is what they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide — this is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.
I am honored to stand here with you — to look forward to the future that we must reach for together — and to reaffirm America's commitment to our strong and enduring friendship.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you."
Thursday, 19 March 2009
IMF Deputy Managing Director: World Economic Crisis Drags Armenia into Recession
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 52, March 18, 2009 11:27
By: Emil Danielyan
The global economic crisis is taking an increasingly heavy toll on Armenia, forcing its government to devalue the national currency, cut budgetary spending, and seek hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance. With no end to the worldwide downturn in sight, the Armenian economy looks set to contract this year for the first time since the turbulent early 1990s.
The economy was on course to expand at a double-digit rate for the seventh consecutive year, when stock markets in the United States, Europe, and Russia began collapsing last September. The ensuing sharp fall in the international prices of commodities such as non-ferrous metals (Armenia's largest single export) and a drop in the ........................................................................
Source: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34719&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=03607c4429
By: Emil Danielyan
The global economic crisis is taking an increasingly heavy toll on Armenia, forcing its government to devalue the national currency, cut budgetary spending, and seek hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance. With no end to the worldwide downturn in sight, the Armenian economy looks set to contract this year for the first time since the turbulent early 1990s.
The economy was on course to expand at a double-digit rate for the seventh consecutive year, when stock markets in the United States, Europe, and Russia began collapsing last September. The ensuing sharp fall in the international prices of commodities such as non-ferrous metals (Armenia's largest single export) and a drop in the ........................................................................
Source: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34719&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=03607c4429
Monday, 9 March 2009
New hope for alignment of civilian-military relations in Turkey
Efforts to normalize civilian-military relations in Turkey, a candidate for membership in the European Union, have been revitalized by the planning of a two-day meeting in Brussels between April 2 and 3 to discuss the issue in the context of the EU's enlargement.
* By Lale SARIIBRAMOGLU
In addition to the Turkish participants, representatives from other EU candidates Croatia and Macedonia will take part in the meeting funded by the EU Commission in cooperation with Dutch-based think tank the Centre for European Security Studies (CESS).
Turkish academics and retired military officers are expected to participate in the Brussels meeting, organized in an effort to brainstorm ways for candidate countries to gain democratic control of their armed forces, one of the most important aspects of the acquis communautaire, with which nations must comply if they are to join the EU.
In a related effort to install curricula on security studies at Turkish universities, a workshop was jointly organized in Ankara by Bilkent University and CESS on Dec. 15-16 of last year, in which academics from 16 Turkish universities participated. A follow-up course for the workshop's participants is scheduled for this summer in Ankara, aimed at continuing these efforts of developing security studies as an academic field in Turkey.
There has been a push to promote discussion on military relations in unofficial forums in an attempt to bring balance to civilian-military relations in Turkey. In 2004 efforts were strained when an initiative for civilian-military alignment by CESS and the Ankara-based Eurasia Strategic Research Center (ASAM) -- now closed -- failed after Turkish generals declined to participate in the project due to the politically powerful Turkish Armed Forces' (TSK) strong opposition to the work.
Today the TSK's status of privilege and autonomy in Turkey stands as one of the most important hurdles to Ankara's democratization. The EU emphasized this problem once again in its progress report on Turkey released on Nov. 5 of last year in its chapter dealing with civilians' lack of oversight of security forces.
Recalling that the TSK has continued to exercise significant political influence via formal and informal mechanisms, the report noted that no change has been made to the TSK Internal Service Law and the Law on the National Security Council (MGK): "These define the role and duties of the Turkish military and grant the military wide room to maneuver by providing a broad definition of national security. No progress has been made on enhancing civilian control over the gendarmerie when engaged in law enforcement activities. The 1997 EMASYA secret protocol on security, public order and assistance units remains in force unchanged. The protocol allows military operations to be carried out for internal security matters under certain conditions without a request from the civilian authorities."
Similarly the same report noted that there has been no progress made on strengthening parliamentary oversight of the military budget and expenditures. The parliamentary Planning and Budget Committee reviews the budget for the Ministry of Defense, but the report noted: "However, extra-budgetary funds are excluded from parliamentary scrutiny. The Defense Industry Support Fund (SSDF), from which most procurement projects are funded, is still an extra-budgetary fund."
The workshop in Ankara at Bilkent University in December of last year and the planned Brussels meeting in April are being held against this background of serious deficiencies existing in the alignment of civilian-military relations in Turkey.
Emphasis on educating civilians on security affairs
When the CESS-ASAM-organized project to enable democratic control of the armed forces failed in 2004 due to too much emphasis on the military side of the equation, organizers reacted by shifting their focus to the equally important issue of educating Turkish civilians on domestic security matters.
One of the organizers of the new initiative, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, told Today's Zaman that they are focusing on the development of security studies at Turkish universities since there are too few Turkish civilian experts on security issues -- ones with comprehensive understanding of all things related, from military doctrine to military budgetary issues, as well as intelligence, internal security and energy security.
Security issues, in general, have always been in the hands of the TSK, discouraging civilian input and preventing those with any power from designing security policies.
In that sense, the Bilkent-CESS initiative will mark an important breakthrough in educating Turkish civilians, said an EU diplomat in Ankara, as it starts at an academic level to discuss security matters while aiming to progress towards normalizing civilian-military relations in Turkey.
Bilkent has long been teaching about security issues within its international relations department, but it has not tackled the issue as a separate discipline. Those working on the new project by Bilkent and CESS are hoping to clear that way for Turkish universities with international relations or sociology curriculums to open security studies departments, establishing an academic examination of this sensitive subject.
Meanwhile, in the Brussels meeting scheduled for the beginning of April, civilian-military relations in the EU in the course of its enlargement will be discussed. Candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia will participate in conferences about how civilian-military relations can be addressed, while comparisons will be made among EU member-nations on how they ensure democratic control of their armed forces.
A report released by CESS last July, edited by Anne Aldis and Margriet Drent, titled "Common Norms and Good Practices of Civil-Military Relations in the EU," outlines several areas that a candidate nation should focus on for the democratic control of their armed forces.
Thus the Brussels meeting will mark a fresh start for policymakers in countries seeking accession to the EU, especially regarding their understanding as to which reforms in civilian-military relations are expected of their nations.
The later and second stage of CESS-EU project is aimed at enabling journalists and scholars to track the progress candidate countries are making toward accession. Third is a project regarding public opinion and the defense budget, which is most often linked to insufficient transparency since the general public lacks the high level of expertise necessary to understand budgetary issues.
A legislature's reliability to mediate public opinion depends on a parliament's formal powers but also on its members' crucial expertise and will to exercise their political rights, the CESS report noted.
* By Lale SARIIBRAMOGLU
In addition to the Turkish participants, representatives from other EU candidates Croatia and Macedonia will take part in the meeting funded by the EU Commission in cooperation with Dutch-based think tank the Centre for European Security Studies (CESS).
Turkish academics and retired military officers are expected to participate in the Brussels meeting, organized in an effort to brainstorm ways for candidate countries to gain democratic control of their armed forces, one of the most important aspects of the acquis communautaire, with which nations must comply if they are to join the EU.
In a related effort to install curricula on security studies at Turkish universities, a workshop was jointly organized in Ankara by Bilkent University and CESS on Dec. 15-16 of last year, in which academics from 16 Turkish universities participated. A follow-up course for the workshop's participants is scheduled for this summer in Ankara, aimed at continuing these efforts of developing security studies as an academic field in Turkey.
There has been a push to promote discussion on military relations in unofficial forums in an attempt to bring balance to civilian-military relations in Turkey. In 2004 efforts were strained when an initiative for civilian-military alignment by CESS and the Ankara-based Eurasia Strategic Research Center (ASAM) -- now closed -- failed after Turkish generals declined to participate in the project due to the politically powerful Turkish Armed Forces' (TSK) strong opposition to the work.
Today the TSK's status of privilege and autonomy in Turkey stands as one of the most important hurdles to Ankara's democratization. The EU emphasized this problem once again in its progress report on Turkey released on Nov. 5 of last year in its chapter dealing with civilians' lack of oversight of security forces.
Recalling that the TSK has continued to exercise significant political influence via formal and informal mechanisms, the report noted that no change has been made to the TSK Internal Service Law and the Law on the National Security Council (MGK): "These define the role and duties of the Turkish military and grant the military wide room to maneuver by providing a broad definition of national security. No progress has been made on enhancing civilian control over the gendarmerie when engaged in law enforcement activities. The 1997 EMASYA secret protocol on security, public order and assistance units remains in force unchanged. The protocol allows military operations to be carried out for internal security matters under certain conditions without a request from the civilian authorities."
Similarly the same report noted that there has been no progress made on strengthening parliamentary oversight of the military budget and expenditures. The parliamentary Planning and Budget Committee reviews the budget for the Ministry of Defense, but the report noted: "However, extra-budgetary funds are excluded from parliamentary scrutiny. The Defense Industry Support Fund (SSDF), from which most procurement projects are funded, is still an extra-budgetary fund."
The workshop in Ankara at Bilkent University in December of last year and the planned Brussels meeting in April are being held against this background of serious deficiencies existing in the alignment of civilian-military relations in Turkey.
Emphasis on educating civilians on security affairs
When the CESS-ASAM-organized project to enable democratic control of the armed forces failed in 2004 due to too much emphasis on the military side of the equation, organizers reacted by shifting their focus to the equally important issue of educating Turkish civilians on domestic security matters.
One of the organizers of the new initiative, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, told Today's Zaman that they are focusing on the development of security studies at Turkish universities since there are too few Turkish civilian experts on security issues -- ones with comprehensive understanding of all things related, from military doctrine to military budgetary issues, as well as intelligence, internal security and energy security.
Security issues, in general, have always been in the hands of the TSK, discouraging civilian input and preventing those with any power from designing security policies.
In that sense, the Bilkent-CESS initiative will mark an important breakthrough in educating Turkish civilians, said an EU diplomat in Ankara, as it starts at an academic level to discuss security matters while aiming to progress towards normalizing civilian-military relations in Turkey.
Bilkent has long been teaching about security issues within its international relations department, but it has not tackled the issue as a separate discipline. Those working on the new project by Bilkent and CESS are hoping to clear that way for Turkish universities with international relations or sociology curriculums to open security studies departments, establishing an academic examination of this sensitive subject.
Meanwhile, in the Brussels meeting scheduled for the beginning of April, civilian-military relations in the EU in the course of its enlargement will be discussed. Candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia will participate in conferences about how civilian-military relations can be addressed, while comparisons will be made among EU member-nations on how they ensure democratic control of their armed forces.
A report released by CESS last July, edited by Anne Aldis and Margriet Drent, titled "Common Norms and Good Practices of Civil-Military Relations in the EU," outlines several areas that a candidate nation should focus on for the democratic control of their armed forces.
Thus the Brussels meeting will mark a fresh start for policymakers in countries seeking accession to the EU, especially regarding their understanding as to which reforms in civilian-military relations are expected of their nations.
The later and second stage of CESS-EU project is aimed at enabling journalists and scholars to track the progress candidate countries are making toward accession. Third is a project regarding public opinion and the defense budget, which is most often linked to insufficient transparency since the general public lacks the high level of expertise necessary to understand budgetary issues.
A legislature's reliability to mediate public opinion depends on a parliament's formal powers but also on its members' crucial expertise and will to exercise their political rights, the CESS report noted.
Turgut Ozal Period in Turkish Foreign Policy: Ozalism?
Author: Sedat LACINER, PhD
ABSTRACT
This study examines the factors underlying the Özalist approach, such as Özal’s personality, the 1980 coup and the isolation of Turkey, the economic boom, change in the socio-economic structure, globalisation of the Turkish economy and finally Kurdish separatism. A special emphasis will be laid on the ideological background of Özalist foreign policy, with a view to demonstrating the close relationship between Özal’s Ottomanist foreign policy and his domestic approach and its translation to foreign policy.
KEYWORDS: Turgut Özal, Turkish Foreign Policy, Ideology, Kemalizm, EU, Turkey
Full Text article
ABSTRACT
This study examines the factors underlying the Özalist approach, such as Özal’s personality, the 1980 coup and the isolation of Turkey, the economic boom, change in the socio-economic structure, globalisation of the Turkish economy and finally Kurdish separatism. A special emphasis will be laid on the ideological background of Özalist foreign policy, with a view to demonstrating the close relationship between Özal’s Ottomanist foreign policy and his domestic approach and its translation to foreign policy.
KEYWORDS: Turgut Özal, Turkish Foreign Policy, Ideology, Kemalizm, EU, Turkey
Full Text article
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
USAK Photos
USAK Pictures
U.S.A.K. Garden
Suslu Sokak, No. 2, Mebusevleri, Tandogan, Ankara, Turkey, 0090 312 212 28 86
U.S.A.K.
International Strategic Research Organization, Ankara
