Turkish Forum

Month: October 2008

  • AGBU Europe Organizes Conference on Turkish-Armenian Heritage at EU Parliament

    AGBU Europe Organizes Conference on Turkish-Armenian Heritage at EU Parliament

    October 10, 2008 · No Comments

    Via the AGBU Europe blog:
    AGBU Europe organizes an important conference at the European Parliament, entitled: “A Journey of Cultural Rediscovery: Armenian Heritage in Turkey.
    This conference is organized under the aegis of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 and will take place on Thursday November 13, 2008 from 9.30am to 1.00pm.
    …
    A journey of rediscovery is now underway in Turkey. After many decades in which the very memory of the Armenian presence in Anatolia had disappeared from public consciousness, opinion leaders and the general public are beginning to rediscover the country’s Armenian heritage.
    …
    This conference aims to highlight the process of rediscovery underway and to illustrate it through the work of some of the individuals involved. It will show how much is to be gained by joining in this public conversation in Turkey and internationally and by helping to rediscover and salvage what previous generations have passed on to us.
    The program will feature a number of leading intellectuals and EU diplomats, including:
    Michael Leigh, Director General, European Commission Directorate General for Enlargement;
    Fethiye Cetin, Author, My Grandmother;
    Osman Köker, historian, creator of the exhibition “My Dear Brother;”
    Patrick Donabedian, Professeur, Université de Provence;
    Vahe Tachdjian, historian, Zentrum für Literatur-und Kulturforschung, Berlin;
    Ara Sarafian, historian;
    Cem Özdemir, MEP; and
    Ulrike Dufner, Director of the Istanbul office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
    To register, please click here. Note that access to the Parliament will not be possible without advance registration and the audience will have access to English, French and Turkish language translations of the proceedings.
    Registration deadline is November 4, 2008

  • Cultural Influences on Politics in Caspian

    Cultural Influences on Politics in Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer who is an American thinker works to define cultural domination on foreign or domestic affairs of states in the “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. Shaffer is explaining this event via some sharp examples. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”. Samuel Huntigton’s thesis follows an idea that culture has a main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees thesis of Huntington and creates new approaches about conducts of civilizations and state actions. Shaffer says that culture was a main mechanism to diplomatic relations. Also she interprets culture as specific subject of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about strong Islamic effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act and looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals who have an extraordinary situation over the people. As a result they understood Islamic effection as strong as nuclear weapons against to the world. But this is not a physical danger, this is an ideological spread. Their speeches to newspapers and political journals which had a title as “Do Muslim countries have a different outlook against Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human as a big organism. State actions have similarities with people actions. State is a big form of human and human is a small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.[1]

    Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making; some Muslim countries have an anti-American approach as behavioral. But these are making alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see inharmonious dimensions between state policies and people behaviors. Caspian perspective of Shaffer has a common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islamic effection after from the Soviet Union. Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asian people as Islamic effected nations but it is not totally true if we looked at historical and contemporary situations. Also today these countries are secular except Iran.

    Iran – Politics with Islamic Style

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is an important country in this area as ideological mechanism according to idea of western scholars. After the collapse of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime for other neighbor states via some absolute ways. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory Iran plays to export their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Western idea is true about activities of this country. But common outlook to Islamic countries of American or Western scholars is different. They agree Islam as a common political tool among all Muslims. Example, Iran works to create an Islamic governing system for all Muslim countries. But Islamic mind of Iran is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or Tunis, we could see normal or laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an effective circumstance about this issue but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.” But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow)

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. An interesting point about is that Iran supports Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.[2] With these events, Iran state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran was a multiethnic state. We give information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Turkmens, Kurds and Azerbaijani groups. Largest minority Azerbaijanis live in northwestern provinces of Iran which bordered with Azerbaijan. Relations of Iran bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows her ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is a good example to explain Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. It can be an example for cultural combines if western scholars wanted to define their issue. But it cannot be an absolute example about regional cultural alliences subject.

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these circumstances Azerbaijan supported Chechenya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basic role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their support system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. Shaffer and other western scholars can not define this reality.

    Final

    Culture may be a certain material of regime survivability. Islam can be an effective reason to influence state system and people behavior like speeches of western scholars. Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany and Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asks question : “What does the Koran has to say a foreign policy question?” If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction.

    The USA wants an enemy to rebuild their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy to regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy establishment. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islamic effection on politics.[3]

    Fans of the USA defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base. Main question should be about Western classification about cultural conflicts. There are too many problems about this thesis.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA isa  patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know works of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

     

    [1] Arnold Wolfers, Behavior of States, Dogu Bati Journal – 26, Istanbul 2003

    [2] Karabagh conflict borned in the late 1980. Armenia attacked to the legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.

    [3] Political Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies, Dogu Bati Journal 2003

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU

    Baku Qafqaz University

    International Research Club (INTERESCLUB)

  • TDN: A clear and almost-present danger: ethnic conflict

    TDN: A clear and almost-present danger: ethnic conflict

    TDN den bir yazi.

    Thursday, October 9, 2008
    MUSTAFA AKYOL
      BELFAST – When you stroll down the streets of this city, you see how painful and enduring an ethnic conflict can be. Despite the recent peace process, which brought an end to the decades-old war between Catholics and Protestants, the bitterness is still very much alive. There are “peace walls” in around 80 different spots of Belfast, which divide the neighbors who abhor each other simply for who each other are. In order to avoid the stones thrown off the walls, some houses are protected with barbed wires.
      Much can be read from the murals on the walls. In a Protestant neighborhood, these eye-catching paintings tell how horrible the Catholics, and even Catholicism itself, is. “There will be no peace in Ireland,” Oliver Cromwell reportedly once said, “until the Catholic Church is crushed.” What is shivering is that this historical quote from the 17th century is very much relevant to our day in the minds of the radical Protestants of North Ireland.
     
    Turkishess vs Kurdishness?:
      The mood is not too different on the other side of the wall. Catholic neighborhoods are full of murals that denounce “British imperialism” or plates that honor their brethren who were killed by British bullets. My taxi driver, whose Catholicism is as unmistakable as his strong Ulster accent, tells me how “those Protestant killers” tormented his community for decades.
      Sometimes people, especially secularists, interpret the case of Northern Ireland as a “religious conflict” — a relic from the pre-Enlightenment age where religion mattered too much. But actually it is a secular conflict in which the apparently religious identity is in fact an ethnic one. A famous joke summarizes it all: Somebody in North Ireland responds to a survey question about religious affiliation by declaring himself an atheist. “Would that be a Protestant atheist,” comes the insistent reply, “or a Catholic atheist?” It is really ethnicity that divides here, not theology.
      Much more needs to be said about North Ireland, to be sure, but I will just focus on what is relevant for Turkey. The drama in the former case points to a very important lesson: Ethnic conflict can well arise in a modern and wealthy nation. This is crucial, because for decades, the Turkish intelligentsia, especially the political left, argued that the problem in Turkey’s Southeast was that the region was not modernized and developed enough. The terrorism of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, they argued, was a result of the pre-modern “feudal” social structure of the Kurdish populace.
      But the truth was quite the opposite. In fact the PKK was, and still is, a very “modern” organization. It is actually a revolt against not just the Turkish state, but also the Kurdish tradition. The recent news story on CNN International by reporter Arwa Damon, which has caused great uproar in the Turkish media saying it whitewashes the PKK, is actually right on the mark: This terrorist group is also a “progressive” one, which claims to “liberate women” and transform the society. Yet, of course, while it is “liberating” women from the male-dominated Kurdish culture, it is turning them into apparatchiks of a rigid ideology. Traditional obedience out; modern servitude in.
      Which brings us to a sobering fact: Modernity is not always a good thing. All totalitarians, from Hitler to Stalin, were modernizers. So even are most radical Islamists: They use modern means to achieve a modern political program. And, of course, all nationalists are a part of modernity. Nationalism is actually a product of modernity itself. Until the 19th century, the most important identity for most people, was religion. In Turkish lands, for example, the question “Who are you?” would be given a common answer: “Thank God, I am a Muslim.” With modernity came Turkishness and Kurdishness, and the conflict between them.
     

    No easy way out:
      What this means is that Turkey will not be able to solve its Kurdish question by simply modernizing itself. Better infrastructure or “education” in the Southeast are good goals in themselves, but they will not resolve the ethnic problem. The PKK was founded by university graduates who became more ethnically conscious precisely thanks to that education. While their fathers were calling themselves “Muslims” first, they started to call themselves “Kurds” and “revolutionaries.”
      This also means that the Kurdish question will be the most fatal one for Turkey in the next few decades. The secularist-Islamic divide, the other main axis in this country, will be softened by the advancement of modernity: Conservative Muslims are actually becoming more and more like the secularists in the way they live. (Even their ways of corruption are becoming very similar.) But the ethnic consciousness in society is rising in a very dangerous way. After every act of terrorism by the PKK, Kurdish neighborhoods in big cities become targets of rage. Thank God nothing horrible has happened yet. But it might, and the PKK is deliberately provoking it.
      In the past, right-wing hotheads in Turkish streets could be rallied only against the “infidels” — which could include the unorthodox Alevis too. But now, Kurds are becoming the main targets. For that they are not fellow Muslims anymore; they are a distinct ethnic group.
      The only way out of this dilemma can be to retain the good aspects of tradition, such as the sense of Muslim fraternity, while embracing the good aspects of modernity, such as liberal democracy. Whether Turkey will be able to that is the million-dollar question.
    © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

  • As Turkey and Armenia inch toward reconciliation both sides talk the talk,but can they walk the walk?

    As Turkey and Armenia inch toward reconciliation both sides talk the talk,but can they walk the walk?

    by Amberin Zaman
    ANKARA — When Turkey’s president,
    Abdullah Gül, took the plunge on September 6 and became the first ever Turkish leader to set foot in Armenia, few were immune to the significance of the moment. Even Turkey’s determinedly frosty diplomats began to thaw as they observed their president sitting next to his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sargsyan (albeit behind bulletproof glass) at the World Cup pre-qualifier football match pitting Turkey against Armenia. There were a few hisses and boos when the Turkish national anthem was played. But overall the Armenian fans that filled the stadium were on their best behavior (even after Turkey won the match 2-0.)
    Full report:

  • Websites to continue to be banned in Turkey- transportation minister

    Websites to continue to be banned in Turkey- transportation minister

     

     

     
    Websites will continue to be banned as long as they post content inappropriate for Turkish families, a Turkish minister said Wednesday.

     
    “Practices are needed to protect young people and the public at large from harmful material online,” the Turkish Daily News (TDN) quoted Transportation Minister Binali Yildirim as speaking at the international CeBit Information Technology Summit in Istanbul on Wednesday. 
     
    “Law 5651 sees as appropriate the establishment of precautions against material that might hurt children, youth and families. If these precautions are not enough, then the law sees a Website ban as necessary,” he said.
     
    Turkey is listed together with Tunisia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Iran and Vietnam, as the “black listed” countries that implement government censorship controls.
     
    Turkey’s internet activity sensitivities relate particularly to terror, respect for religion, the founder of modern Turkey, Ataturk, and pornography, and while similar sensitivities are in place in most countries around the world, clear differences between censorship and freedom of speech are apparent, as control mechanisms are widely implemented as a way of curbing abuse.
     
    Turkey has blocked access to over a thousand Internet sites since 2007. 
     
    The purpose of the law was not to actually shut down Websites but was to “encourage the appropriate use of the Internet for the betterment of society,” he added.
     
    “The spirit and purpose of the law is to make civil society and public administration work together and thus keep the bans to as low a number as possible, bringing precautions to the forefront,” he was quoted by TDN as saying.
     
    Yildirim said it was necessary for the Internet Security Directorate and the Internet Board to work together very closely in establishing content harmonious with the public good.
     
    He said the use of the Internet was rapidly increasing, as the 4 million users recorded in 2002 had grown to 33 percent of Turks using the Internet today.
     
    “In six months, every household in Turkey will have access to the Internet; it is up to us to provide them with the education and equipment needed,” he said.

  • EU too divided to solve frozen conflicts, Azerbaijan says

    EU too divided to solve frozen conflicts, Azerbaijan says

    EU too divided to solve frozen conflicts, Azerbaijan says

    VALENTINA POP

    Today @ 09:25 CET

    EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Oil and gas-rich rich Azerbaijan, home of another frozen conflict with its neighbouring Russian ally Armenia, does not consider the EU as a feasible peace broker in the region, Azeri deputy foreign minister Araz Azimov has said.

    “The European Union is a powerful economic and political union of states, but in terms of acting in a united way, the EU is not there yet, especially in an environment that changes rapidly. The EU it is not able to act in an instrumental way”, Mr Azimov said on his expectations of possible EU involvement in finding a solution for the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

    The senior official made the comment at a conference organized in Brussels by the European Policy Center on Wednesday (8 October).

    The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which still occupies the Azeri region of Nagorno-Karabakh, is currently mediated by the so-called Minsk group, created by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1992 and headed by France, Russia and the United States.

    Other members of the Minsk group include Belarus, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Turkey as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan themselves.

    “In the Minsk group there is a majority of EU countries and we do take their position into account. We need the EU’s influence as an international actor, but we don’t think the EU is a feasible partner in the Minsk group,” Mr Azimov explained.

    The EU’s special representative to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, Peter Semneby, confirmed that the bloc “remains supportive of the work of the Minsk group” but didn’t see as probable any change in terms of the EU joining the body as a full participant in its own right.

    He dismissed the idea that the EU was unable to respond “forcefully” and “united” to crisis situations however, considering that in the recent war in Georgia it proved “very much able” to show “political will” in brokering a ceasefire agreement and in quickly deploying an observer mission on the ground.

    Mr Semneby noted that it is the first European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) mission deployed on former Soviet union territory, designed to “stabilize the situation” after an “acute war.”

    EU role unclear

    The status of the EUobservers remains unclear if Russians are to pull back by 10 October from the security zones and not granting them access into the two separatist enclaves, Azerbaijan’s Mr Azimov countered.

    “I think Russians will withdraw from the buffer zones, because they have no interest to stay. The six points [of the 8 September ceasefire agreement] will be implemented more or less, but then what will happen with South Ossetia and Abkhazia?” he asked.

    “The main lesson of 08/09 is that the stability of the region is put under a big question mark, while separatist movements are being further promoted,” the Azeri diplomat said, adding that it will be important what happens in Geneva on 15 October, when diplomatic talks are scheduled on the status of the two Georgian breakaway regions, whose independence has been only recognized by Russia and Nicaragua.

    Mr Azimov spoke of the need for the EU to reconfigure its approach to Azerbaijan and start implementing the existing mechanisms from a 2006 energy partnership, not just talk about how important his country is for the bloc’s energy security.

    Azerbaijan is not aiming, like Ukraine or Georgia, to become a member of the EU, but could very well imagine “common areas for trade, economy, transport,” he explained, “as far as is procedurally possible without entering the membership discussion.”

    West loses influence in Caucasus

    While the Azeri minister talked about his country’s ability to “balance” between its close ally US, but also Russia and Iran, emphasising “stability” and “political responsibility,” Mustafa Aydın from the University of Ankara bluntly said that the region has dropped the whole idea of democratisation and Euro-Atlantic integration following the Russian invasion of Georgia.

    “There is no talk of democratisation in the Caucasus any more. If authoritarianism worked in Russia, why not in the Caucasus as well? All the countries, including Turkey, have adopted a careful rhetoric towards Moscow, with ‘stabilisation’ being the key-word,” Mr Aydin said.

     

    Vladimir Socor from the NGO the Jamestown Foundation and a long time expert on the region said the “EU is by far not matching Russia in soft power in Azerbaijan” and the wider region.

    The conflict in Georgia damaged the confidence of investors in the Caucasus energy corridor – the only direct link the EU has with the oil and gas-rich Caspian countries without passing through Russia – he explained.

    He talked of the need for the EU and US to subsidise pipelines such as the planned Nabucco gas pipeline, which would bring Caspian gas to the European markets.

    Nabucco sweetener criticised

    Mr Socor criticised the incipient idea in the outgoing Bush administration to re-route Nabucco through Armenia instead of Georgia as a “sweetener” for getting an agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Mr Azimov reassured the audience that such plans are not realistic, since a part of the project passing through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey is already built.

    He stressed that the government in Baku still supports the project, “but it shouldn’t be the only one caring about Nabucco,” calling on the EU to step up efforts to build the pipe.