Turkish Forum

Month: December 2008

  • WHAT THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT MUST STRAIGHTEN UP – 2

    WHAT THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT MUST STRAIGHTEN UP – 2

    Turkey is a “laic” republic. Laic is not the same thing as “secular”. Turkey has no national religion. Its constitution does NOT say that “Turkey’s religion is Islam”, although 98 % of its people are Muslim. Religion and state affairs are sharply separated and religion has no place in the public realm. The Shariah part of the Koran discussing relations of people with other people, like polygamy, for example, is outlawed in Turkey and replaced by laws borrowed from European states. This is a situation that exists in no Islamic country. Therefore women are emancipated and have about equal rights with men, just like in the United States..

    I have never heard in history that any state may want to change the constitution of its ally., because if it does that, it is no longer its ally. President Bush cooked a “Greater Middle East Project” (GMEP) to be applied to Turkey and to all Islamic countries. Turkey would be a model for them, but not the laic Turkey, but a mildly Islamic Turkey. The Islamic countries do not like Turkey and do not want to be like it. They do not want to get rid of the Shariah. So they did nothing.

    In Turkey, after the voters fired in 2002 a coalition of incompetent and corrupt people, a religious party promised to abide by the laic constitution and was elected as the ruling party. They had some economic success. They eventually increased their votes to 46 %. Once they were entrenched, they began to Islamize the country. The Ataturk followers were alarmed.

    Their prime minister Recep Tayiyp Erdogan likes the GMEP because he too would like to Islamize Turkey.. When he comes to Washington, he is all smiles, at home he does not do anything without asking Washington, so the U.S. considers him a “Puppet regime”. But at Home, he propagandize sharply against the U.S. and he is one of the reasons why pro-American vote in Turkey is still 12 %, the lowest in the World.

    The Obama government must disown and abolish GMEP and reinstitute respect for the Turkish constitution. This would also pull the rug from under the feet of Mr. Erdogan.

    I think right now the most important problem between U.S. and Turkey is the PKK problem. Obama would understand that it is unacceptable that an ally protects terrorists in areas it is domineering and allows them

    to attack Turkish targets. This is clearly a casus-belli. These are one of President Bush’s deeds that disregards all laws of common decency, like breaking the Geneva Convention and the Westphalia Treaty and permitting torture.

    The next U.S. Secretary of State, before starting her own program, will have to correct first President Bush’s misdeeds.

    If the PKK problem is resolved, Turkey can be again a reliable, real ally.

    R e n a i s s a n c e  o f  R e p u b I i c a n  P a r t y

    George W. Bush let his party be hijacked by Evangelical Christians, in spite of the separation of Church and State in our Constitution. He made a lot of decisions on religious grounds. Evangelicals propagated some of their ideas as Republican ideas. He broke the Geneva Convention, the Westphalia Treaty and allowed torture. When he wanted to do anything, like listening to phones, he always stepped out of the legal area.

    For the political process to work properly in the United States, we have now a large and strong Democratic Party. We must also have a strong Opposition party. If the Republican party got too small and too weak, it cannot be a good opposition. Therefore, the Republicans must shake themselves up, get rid of Bush’s illegal ballast, and then make their new program.

    In the past the Republican party was known to be pro business. That is al right, if it does not also mean “against the people”. Exporting a computer trouble-shooter job to India may lower the computer cost a little bit, but messes up the life of a highly specialized and knowledgeable technical man. He may not be able to find another good job for a long time, or may accept a much lower salary. The party must adopt a new nick name such as “The People’s Party” and must try to live up to it.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

    To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to [email protected] with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

  • Armenian Foreign Minister Visits Turkey

    Armenian Foreign Minister Visits Turkey

    Armenian Foreign Minister Visits Turkey, Reaffirms Determination for Dialogue

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 5 Issue: 228
    December 2, 2008 01:47 AM Age: 25 min
    Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Armenia, Turkey
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia continue to take steps toward resolving their problems through diplomatic channels. High-level meetings coinciding with international gatherings have become an ordinary development, showing the confidence and progress gained so far.

    Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian visited Turkey on November 24 to discuss the details of Armenia’s assumption of the rotating presidency of the Organization of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). During his trip to the BSEC’s permanent secretariat in Istanbul, Nalbandian also had dinner with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan. The two ministers discussed the progress in Turkish-Armenian talks, which had been taking place at lower levels since the historic meeting between the presidents of the two nations in Yerevan and the trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in New York in September (Anadolu Ajansi, November 24).

    Nalbandian emphasized that there were no major obstacles to the normalization of bilateral relations and called for “opening a new page.” He repeated the Armenian position that diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia should be resumed without any preconditions and that Turkey should open the border. Babacan emphasized that Turkey sought a permanent solution with Armenia. He noted the importance of settling the Karabakh dispute and called for accelerating the Armenian-Azeri dialogue (Milliyet, November 25; Today’s Zaman, November 30).

    Nalbandian was asked by Turkish journalists, “What makes you so optimistic, despite the fact that the parties are maintaining their positions?” He responded by saying that negotiations were continuing on a “constructive, sincere, and open” basis. He noted that the momentum for solution was there and the parties should take advantage of it (Zaman, November 25). Reflecting the same spirit, Babacan said that all three parties should make the best use of the window of opportunity made possible by the trilateral dialogue. “If the window is closed, it may be difficult to reopen it,” said Babacan (Hurriyet, November 26).

    The intention to normalize relations is definitely there, but why did Babacan emphasize the need for urgency? On the Armenian side, there is definitely a desire to end the severe economic problems caused by negative relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. It hopes to settle bilateral disputes and open the country to the outside. Nonetheless, Sarkisian’s approach in favor of a diplomatic solution has increasingly come under criticism by nationalist forces at home and from the Armenian diaspora (EDM, November 25). Failure to deliver acceptable solutions might alienate those elements supporting dialogue.

    On the Turkish side, uncertainty about the incoming American administration’s policy on the Armenian issue create an urgency to address the problem. If Turkey can resolve the bilateral problems through diplomatic dialogue with Armenia, it could successfully undermine the Armenian diaspora’s efforts to influence the Obama administration against the Turkish interpretation of the Armenian genocide (Radikal, November 25).

    Nalbandian and Babacan decided to maintain high-level meetings between the foreign ministers with the participation of Azerbaijan whenever possible. Commending Turkish President Abdullah Gul for his “wise” decision to visit Armenia in September, Nalbandian announced that Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian would travel to Turkey in October 2009 to attend the next soccer game between the national teams of the two countries (Hurriyet, November 25). Diplomatic sources also disclosed that Nalbandian had invited Babacan to attend the next BSEC ministerial meeting scheduled to be held in Yerevan in April 2009. Although the Turkish side has not officially accepted the invitation, observers expect Babacan to attend this meeting (Zaman, November 27).

    A new occasion for holding talks between Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia might be provided by another international gathering later this week. The foreign ministers of Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan will be attending the forthcoming Ministerial Council meeting of the OSCE in Helsinki on December 4 and 5.

    The involvement of Azerbaijan is becoming increasingly crucial for Turkey’s own rapprochement with Armenia (Anadolu Ajansi, November 25). For Ankara, having Azerbaijan on board is crucial because it seeks to obtain approval from Baku for Turkey’s normalization with Armenia, such as opening the border or establishing diplomatic relations. For Armenia, maintaining this dialogue is necessary to resolve its bilateral disputes with Azerbaijan, which remain a major obstacle to comprehensive peace in the region. Thus, Turkey is working to normalize its relations with Armenia on the one hand and mediate between Azerbaijan and Armenia on the other.

    On December 1 Babacan is on an official visit to Baku at the invitation of his Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov to discuss bilateral relations as well as the details of his meeting with Nalbandian. Babacan is expected to explore the possibility of arranging a three-way meeting in Helsinki. Before departing for Baku, Babacan told reporters that the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan would meet with the co-chairs of the Minsk group in Helsinki, following which he would meet his counterparts individually. He did not, however, announce a tripartite meeting yet (Ihlas Haber Ajansi, November 30).

    The Babacan and Mammadyarov meeting focused on energy cooperation, regional developments, the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform (CSCP), the opening of Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, and Azerbaijan’s problems with Armenia. They discussed Karabakh issue in detail, and Mammadyarov clarified Baku’s policy on this dispute. During the joint press briefing following the meeting, Babacan reemphasized the urgency of solving the Karabakh problem now, and underlined the connections between solving Azerbaijan-Armenian problems and Turkish-Armenian problems. Although diplomatic observers had expected Babacan to discuss trilateral consultations in Helsinki, no such meeting was announced (www.ntvmsnbc.com; Cihan Haber Ajansi, December 1).

    As the noted Turkey analyst Cengiz Candar observed, the OSCE meeting would bring together not only the three countries but also other players that had attempted to mediate between Armenia and Azerbaijan. If the Helsinki talks could achieve progress in the Karabakh issue, it could pave the way for concrete steps toward normalization between Ankara and Yerevan in 2009 (Radikal, November 25).

    Turkey has also used this diplomatic traffic to begin setting in motion the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform (CSCP) that would bring together Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Since proposing the organization in the wake of the Russian-Georgian war, Turkey has conducted several meetings with the respective parties to ensure their participation. Babacan told reporters that representatives from the five countries would convene for the first time during the OSCE meeting in Helsinki. The members of the group will use the opportunity to specify the goals, principles, and mechanisms of the CSCP (Cihan Haber Ajansi, November 30).

    https://jamestown.org/program/armenian-foreign-minister-visits-turkey-reaffirms-determination-for-dialogue/

  • The danger of ‘losing Turkey’

    The danger of ‘losing Turkey’

    By CLAUDE SALHANI, UPI Contributing Editor

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) — Is it possible to lose something you haven’t yet found?

    That is a question being asked by two scholars from the Brookings Institution in Washington, and what would happen in the event that Turkey got tired of waiting to be accepted as a full partner by the West.

    Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former director for European affairs on the National Security Council, and Omer Taspinar, a professor of national security studies at the U.S. National War College, as well as a director of the Turkey Project and a non-resident fellow at Brookings, just released their thoughts on the matter in a publication put out by Brookings, titled “Winning Turkey.”

    They start off by asking, “Who lost Turkey?” and play off the following scenario: The year is 2012, and a televised presidential debate is under way in the United States. Following a coup by Turkey’s military, the elected Islamist-leaning government is overthrown after being accused of “promoting a hidden Islamic fundamentalist agenda and selling out Turkey’s national interests.”

    As might be expected, Europe and the United States impose strict economic sanctions on Turkey. The new government in Ankara responds by declaring it would pursue a more independent foreign policy.

    Turkey’s military government withdraws Ankara’s more than 10-year-old application to join the European Union, suspends its membership in NATO, bars the United States from the use of military bases on its territory and announces that henceforth Turkey would pursue a more independent foreign policy in which it would seek to develop closer diplomatic, economic and energy relations with Russia, China and Iran. Furthermore, Turkey orders its military forces into northern Iraq to act against the Kurds.

    The questions in this hypothetical presidential debate being asked by the moderator are the following: How could the United States let this happen to a relationship with such an important American ally? As president, the candidates in the debate are asked what they would have done to prevent this foreign policy disaster. Who lost Turkey? And how can we win it back?

    Indeed, there is a growing feeling among many Turks of being fed up with the way they are currently treated by the West, and particularly by the Europeans. In addition to the current problems facing Turkey in foreign policy, the Islamist-leaning government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is accused of pursuing a hidden Islamist agenda. However, as the authors point out, Turkish secularists believe Western observers tend to underestimate what is really transpiring in Turkey and to see the country more as a “moderate Islamic country.”

    A monumental mistake being made by the West is falsely believing that Turkey has no other option but to align itself with the West. Turkey’s love affair with Europe and the United States is a result of a policy set out by Mustafa Kemal, the founder of modern-day Turkey. Kemal, also known as Ataturk, saw the future of his country after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, when Turkey retrenched itself within its borders after having lost all its territories in World War I with Europe.

    While the vast majority of Turkish politicians since Ataturk have followed his ideas and remained faithful to the Kemalist principle, there are no ironclad guarantees that this will remain the same in the years to come. It is not impossible to expect future Turkish governments — either through elections or, as the two Brookings scholars point out, through a military coup, something modern-day Turkey has already experienced several times — to alter the course of Kemalism. Yes, this is unthinkable today, but who could have predicted the sudden turn of events in Iran, for example, when the shah, a staunch U.S. ally, was overthrown by an Islamic revolution?

    Turkey represents an important ally in the Levant for a number of reasons. The country counts more than 70 million Muslims, and despite its paradoxes it remains the most advanced democracy in the Islamic world. It straddles far more than just Europe and Asia; but with borders with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Iran, Iraq and Syria, it also straddles the Caucasus and Europe, as well as the Middle East and Europe, the Arab world and Iran.

    It should not be ruled out that Turkey one day might decide enough is enough and turn away from Europe and Kemalist ideas, and seek alliances with the Central Asian republics, with some of whom it even shares a similar language, not to mention religion.

    In conclusion, the authors point out that at this time Turkey is not “lost.” Of course, it could become so, unless current trends are quickly reversed and Turkey is given a reason to believe its future is well assured as part of the Western world.

    With almost certain guarantees that the situation in Afghanistan will get much worse before it gets any better, and with tensions between India and Pakistan rising to dangerous new levels, “losing” Turkey would be more than a monumental mistake. It would border on outright stupidity.

    —

    (Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times.)

  • Official presentation of European Azerbaijan Society takes place in Britain

    Official presentation of European Azerbaijan Society takes place in Britain

    London. Kemale Guliyeva-APA. The official presentation of the European Azerbaijan Society (EAS) was held in Britain’s House of Lords, the Society told APA.
    Tale Heydarov, Chairman of the European Azerbaijan Society, said the EAS was originally established as the London Azerbaijan Society in 2004, aiming to promote Azerbaijani culture mainly to British audiences.
    According to him, earlier this year the Society took a decision to set up the EAS so as to broaden its activities to reach out wider audiences.
    “The Society aims to promote Azerbaijan as a modern, forward facing country with tremendous economic opportunities and a strong cultural heritage, to promote international relations with Azerbaijan to a wide political, media and cultural audience, to bring together Azerbaijanis living in Europe, and to involve them in promoting Azerbaijan and to raise awareness and end the apathy of the West towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” he added.
    He also underlined the significance of the Society’s publications to raise awareness about Azerbaijan in Europe. According to him, a magazine “Visions of Azerbaijan” is published in English every three months and distributed to libraries, scientific research centers around the world, a book called “Azerbaijan: 100 Questions Answered” was published in English and Russian, and a new collection of articles by foreign authors about the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict will soon be published in the UK.
    He also noted that the Society distributes monthly business and membership bulletins among political and business groups.
    Speaking about the undertaken projects, he underlined a documentary My Surreal Duty by British director Nick Tiron.
    “The EAS-initiated documentary with music by American Jeffrey Werbock deals with the lives of Azerbaijanis displaced from Karabakh by Armenian aggression. The firm is scheduled for completion in January,” he said.

    Addressing the event chairman of British-Azerbaijani Society Lord Fraser underlined that establishment of the European Azerbaijan Society in London was a significant event for the country’s recognition in the world. Lord Fraser appreciated the society’s activity in informing the Europe of the truths about Nagorno Karabakh conflict and said there was a great need for it. Noting Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity as the most important principle, Lord Fraser underlined the significance of Diaspora’s activity in finding fair solution to the problem. Lord Fraser said he was always ready to support and patronize the society’s work.

    Azerbaijan’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Kingdom Fakhraddin Gurbanov noted that it was the second Azerbaijan-related event held in the House of Lords in November. Fakhraddin Gurbanov said the embassy would support the activity of the European Azerbaijan Society in the United Kingdom and added that the embassy had already held a joint event with the society.

    He said that Azerbaijani violinist Sabina Rakchiyeva studying at the University of London for PhD played works by outstanding Azerbaijani composer Gara Garayev at the concert on the composer’s 90th anniversary. The ambassador said the documentary film “My Surreal Duty” about Azerbaijani refugees and mugham was one of the most significant projects of European Azerbaijan Society. The film showed the hard life of the Azerbaijanis displaced from Karabakh due to Armenian aggression and their great musical heritage as the unity.

    At the end of the event director of the documentary film Nick Tiron demonstrated a piece of his work. The participants were given brochures published by European Azerbaijan Society in London “Business bulletin”, “Azerbaijan’s role in the Caucasus and international policy” and “Nagorno Karabakh” and book “Azerbaijan: 100 Questions Answered”.

    The event was attended by UK MPs, public and political figures, businesspeople representatives from London-based diplomatic corps, international organizations and Azeri community.

  • Turkish FM, In Baku, Defends Armenia Ties

    Turkish FM, In Baku, Defends Armenia Ties

    AFP

     Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan on Monday defended Ankara’s efforts to improve ties with Armenia during a visit to Azerbaijan, where Turkish overtures to its arch-foe have raised concerns.

    Following talks with Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov, Babacan said better ties between Turkey and Armenia would help to resolve the longstanding conflict over Azerbaijan’s breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

    “The normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations would have a positive impact on the Azerbaijan-Armenia talks over Nagorno-Karabakh,” he said at a press conference.

    Babacan’s visit came amid a push by Turkey for more influence in the volatile Caucasus region, where Russia and Georgia fought a brief war in August. After the conflict, Ankara proposed creating a new forum for cooperation in the region, which Babacan called for regional governments to support.

    “All the countries of the region must sit at the bargaining table,” he said.

    In September, Turkish President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish head of state to visit Armenia, boosting a tentative dialogue process between the two countries to overcome their history of enmity.

    Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have severed ties with Armenia, closing borders and imposing an economic blockade on Yerevan as a result of the Karabakh dispute. But Azerbaijani media and some officials have raised concerns that Ankara’s recent overtures to Yerevan could see it re-open the border and lift its embargo, easing international pressure on Armenia to give up control of Karabakh and other territories seized from Azerbaijan.

  • Crimean Tatars Rally For Return Of Ancestral Land

    Crimean Tatars Rally For Return Of Ancestral Land

    SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — Some 2,000 repatriated Crimean Tatars gathered in front of the Crimean Supreme Council in the Ukrainian city of Simferopol to demand the return of land they were forced to leave several decades ago.

    Daniyal Ametov, a leader of the protest, told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that the demonstration is against Crimean authorities for “their responsibility in creating the land problems for the Crimean Tatars.”

    The protesters ended the rally after negotiations with local legislators, but promised to gather again on December 15 if their demands are not met.

    Crimean Tatars are considered an indigenous nation of the Crimean Peninsula. Tens of thousands were deported by Soviet authorities to Central Asia in the 1940s.

    Deportees and their families began returning to Crimea in the 1990s, demanding that their lands and properties be returned to them.