Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Bin Laden’s Days in Istanbul

    Bin Laden’s Days in Istanbul

    Osama Bin Laden told Egyptian reporters for Arabic daily Cairo in 1994 that he had spent some time in Istanbul. He lived and worked in Istanbul, he said, because of “some troubles” with the Kingdom Saudi Arabia which he declined to specify.The report was ignored by most media outlets until recently; Bin Laden’s time in Istanbul became publicly known after the content of a CIA report became known.

    Turkish Daily Hurriyet quoted Bin Laden as saying: “When the Soviet Union invaded Kabul, I was residing in Turkey, having left the kingdom because of some differences, which I don’t like to mention now. I was working in trade.”

    “During my stay in Istanbul, I got acquainted with many Iranian merchants who had escaped from Iran at the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war. During that time, Arab mujahidin started going to Afghanistan with the help of the U.S. CIA, which set up a transit camp in Istanbul. Volunteers stayed in the camp and were then dispatched to Afghanistan,” he added.

    He also explained what his ‘charity’ organizations were doing, and where they operated. They had, he said, offices in 13 countries: “The Bin Ladin Establishment’s aid covers 13 countries, including Albania, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Britain, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and some Gulf countries that there is no need to mention. This aid comes in particular from the Human Concern International Society, which was founded in Afghanistan in 1982,” he said during the interview.

    Bin Laden is believed to be hiding in Pakistan now. He fled Afghanistan after the war in 2001, which came in response to his terrorist organization’s attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

  • TURKEY, EUROPE, THE MILITARY, AND THE SECULARISTS

    TURKEY, EUROPE, THE MILITARY, AND THE SECULARISTS

    Turkey and Greece were invited at the same time to join the Common Market, which later became the European Union (EU).  Greece accepted the invitation and is now one of the states of the EU. Bulent Ecevit, a Social Democrat, was the Turkish Prime minister at that time. He declined, saying that “Turkey is not yet ready”. In more recent times other Turkish governments thought that they were ready and applied for membership. This time EU set unbelievable stumbling blocks before Turkey, conditions that were not asked from the other applicants. It was obvious that Europe had changed its mind about inviting Turkey.  But for some inexplicable reason, Turkish governments did not want to see that.

     

    E u r o p e’ s    V i e w s:

     

    Most  of the EU states leaders have been officially supportive of Turkey’s membership application. Only Germany’s conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel wants that a partial membership be offered to Turkey. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy  is also against granting  full membership.  But the European populations are generally opposed to full membership.  Unofficially, Europe is dead set against Turkish membership but could not say so openly, diplomatically.  In stead of saying “no” they put such conditions, so that Turkey says “no”.

     

    Here are statements of top EU leaders, after they retired:

    Tom Spencer, Head of EU Foreign Affairs Committee, said in 1999: “I think that we did not behave correctly by promising to the Turks for 30  years that some day they will become a part of the EU. Because the truth is, that  EU has no intention to accept Turkey as a member.  Turkey is squeezed between the words that the Fundamentalists and we will not keep.  It would have been a more correct attitude for us to explain our true intentions.”

     

    Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former Republic President of France, said in 2000: “Turkey will have no place in the European Union. Today no leader in Europe wants Turkey inside Europe.  They do not have any such intention for tomorrow, either. One is doing injustice to Turkey. Because Turkey is being deceived by the EU. To make it a candidate at Helsinki was to give it an empty hope ”

     

    Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany said in 2000:  “What ever may happen, Turkey has no place in Europe. We cannot allow to let 70 million Turkish citizens  to walk freely inside Europe. We cannot accept that Europe becomes neighbors with countries like  Iran, Syria, and Iraq across European borders. We should continue our economic relations with Turkey.  We should benefit from the purchasing power of the young and

    fast-growing population. However, we should see that this country does not have the fundamental principles of Globalization, and  does not accept the international brotherhood.”

     

    [The above statements have been translated from Turkish, that were in turn translated from English, French , or German.]

     

    Although the EU is very much pro-secularism, in the case of Turkey they criticized the attempt of the courts to close the religious party for breaking almost every secularism rule. That was unbelievable.

     

    T u r k e y’ s    D e s i r e    t o   be c o m e   a   E U   m e m b e r

     

    Secularist Turkish governments before 2002 were insistently asking to become a EU member, and the EU systematically  asked that they fulfill undesirable conditions. Some Turkish representatives claimed that it was Turkey’s right to become a member. That was obviously not true.  Many Turks felt terribly insulted that they had defended the West during the Cold War, that former Soviet puppet countries were now easily accepted as EU-members, while their country was not.  While the three statements reported above happened in 2000 and before, Turkish governments did not take them seriously, because they did not like to hear that the EU does not want them.

     

    On November 2002 there was an important election in Turkey. The Turkish people had enough of the incompetent and corrupt secular coalition of parties and voted them out of office.  A religious party, the AKP, promised during the election campaign that they are not a religious party, they are just a conservative party of Muslims, that   they will respect the secularism (Laicism) clause  of the constitution and would manage better. They also promised to carry Turkey in to the European Union.  That was odd, but the Turkish voters wanted to give them a chance. The AKP won a majority of seats in the Parliament.. 

     

    Of course by 2002 the real intentions of the EU were known, and AKP’s promise to carry Turkey to  the EU was just a ruse. They knew that Europe will eventually say ”no” but mean while they would curb the capabilities of the military  to prevent their planned Islamization.  While it is downright immoral in Western culture to lie and cheat, it is just called “Takkiye” in Islam and is alright as long as it helps Islam. Thus, by Western standards EU’s  behavior is immoral.

     

    AKP kept one promise: they managed the government much better than the socialist secularists. They brought the inflation rate from 50 – 75 %  down to single digit.  The per capita income of Turks increased., but they implemented  an extensive program of Islamization.  Since 1950’s they had started to re-educate the people  in religious schools by brain-washing them as fundamentalist Muslims.  Those graduates kept on increasing and were the important part of Islamization. The people were changed.  Those people were now all voting for the AKP.

     

    Since 2002 AKP has put everywhere its own people, except in the military and the courts. During the last months the courts processed a request of the AKP to lift the ban of head scarves at Universities.  The EU had the same problem, mainly in France and the EU did not try to influence the court procedure.  The ban was not lifted and AKP lost.   Encouraged by this result , the Chief Prosecutor  accused the AKP  party and its main people to be breaking the laicism (Secularism) clause of the Constitution and wanted to close the AKP. His accusations were clear and many.  But meanwhile some people were retired and replaced in the Constitutional Court and the suit was rejected 7 to 6.  During this suite, EU heavily interfered by claiming that this suit was “destroying  democracy.”  If we accept their logic, if a party is once democratically elected, it has a license to break the constitution at will.  Europe has become horribly absurd. Now the last hope to get rid of the religious party was lost, even the courts are no more independent.

     

    T h e    T u r k i s h    M i l i t a r y.

     

    The Turkish Military is a unique institution.  It is not only a defender of Turkey, but it is also a defender of the Constitution.  I observed, that each time they interfered, they always returned to democracy in very few years. Western critics say that it is not the job of the military to interfere in the political process.  That is true for the West, because civilian governments in the West generally do their job right, they do not commit gross violations of their constitutions, so there never is need for military interference.  When Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey, Turks’ literacy rate was 7 % and the Turkish Parliament’s occupants were not too much higher educated.  The Turkish Armed Forces were always very highly educated.  Ataturk left the military as a sort of guardian angels in case the civilians would go off the track. The military had the job of putting things back on the track and returning it to civilians. They always did that. The September 12, 1980 coup was the last full-fledged coup. After that, it was seen that a coup becomes counter-productive.  No one expects today  a military coup, but some how the people want that they play their role of guardian angel and help straightening things up. Even that is getting increasingly more difficult in a nation with an increasing percentage of fundamentalists.

     

    W h a t    c a n   t h e   S e c u l a r i s t   P e o p l e   d o ? 

     

    Many Secularist people still hope and wish that the military gets the chestnuts out of the fire for them, so,  they don’t have to do any thing. But that is now an unrealistic wish. Why don’t they think of doing something themselves?  After all, isn’t it their country too, where they would want to raise their children and grand-children?

     

    The politically and legally healthy move should come from the secularist half of the population. They are disorganized, they should avoid the influence of socialists, form a Secular, Nationalist, Free-Market Economics party and engage in true opposition. They should tell the country that the European Membership is a hoax, Europe will never accept Turkey, Turkey should remain friends with Europe, continue its Economic relationship, but remain an independent country. They should convince the Parliament to tell Europe that they are retracting the membership application.  Thus, Europe should stop interfering in Turkey’s internal affairs. Ataturk said: “If a nation does not rely on its own effort, only on its own effort, it can became any body’s toy”.  The secularist half of the population should definitely avoid fragmenting and should elect themselves a good leader, who will commit himself to oppose the AKP. That can be now the only hope for Turkey.

    Source : T H E   O R HAN   T A R H A N   L E T T E R

  • Police Break Up Mosque Protest in Germany

    Police Break Up Mosque Protest in Germany

    German police broke up a protest on Saturday in Cologne, Germany at the moment it was about to start. The protest was organized by far-right parties and individuals from across Europe.

    The goal of it was to make their opposition to the approval of the region’s municipality to Moslems to build a mosque, clear.

    Thousands of left-wing protesters heard about the upcoming protest and traveled to Cologne, where they started a counter-protest. They argued that the right-wing protest was racist in nature. Police felt forced to interfene after the left-wing protesters started using violence and it had become clear that if the right-wing protest would proceed as schedulled all hell would break loose.

    The far right group Pro Koeln had organized the protest, but it was supported by right-wingers from across Europe. They went to Cologne to protest the ‘Islamification’ of Western Europe, and to celebrate the continent’s “shared, 1,000-year history of Western values and Christian traditions.”

    Germany is home to three million Moslems, who form 4% of the German population. Many of them are not well integrated, which increases anti-Moslem feelings. Many others, however, are integrated and function in German society like any other ‘born’ German.

    Sadly, the anti-immigration feeling is rapidly developing into an anti-Moslem feeling in Germany and in other European countries. This anti-Moslem attitude is becoming increasingly clear. The result of this will not be that Moslem immigrants and their children will integrate better, of course; it will be that Germany will be divided among ethnic and religious lines, with both groups distrusting the other.

    Immigrants and authentic Germans both play a role in this process. Both, it seems, refuse to take responsibility for the situation, and for the problems they have caused. Immigrants pretend that all problems are caused by racism – not true – born Germans all too often claim that immigrants are the root of all major problems – not true either. Both sides have to take responsibility. If they refuse, the problems will continue to exist.

    PoliGazette » Police Break Up Mosque Protest in Germany.

  • Turkey’s Real Problem

    Turkey’s Real Problem

    Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on September 5, 2008 @ 3:17 pm CEST

    PoliGazette takes a look at Turkey’s real problem. It is not what you may think it is.

    IZMIR, TURKEY –

    For a couple of years, the major issue of debate in Turkey has been the separation of church and state; the country’s politicians focused almost exclusively on this subject after it became clear that the Justice and Development Party (or AK Parti) wants to increase the role religion plays in the public sphere (or allow more religious freedom, choose the interpretation you agree with). For months, all Turkish politicians talked about was whether or not female students should be allowed to wear the headscarf in universities.

    Although laicism is indeed important, politicians have made too much of the headscarf issue; while debating about whether or not a woman can wear a scarf on her head, nothing was done about the real problem in Turkey. Better, the real Turkish problem was ignored.

    Turkey’s real problem is not the economy, although it is a major issue. Nor is it laicism / the influence of religious conservative individuals on the government. It is not Erkenegon, and it is not the Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    It is education.

    Compared to the rest of Europe Turkey’s education system is horrible. It is sorely lacking in a variety of ways, but especially with regards to teaching students foreign languages.

    During my visits to Turkey I have seen how teachers try to teach this highly important foreign language to their students. Sadly there are some problems. For instance, the average teacher is hardly able to communicate with a foreigner in English. His vocabulary is not big enough, his accent is too strong and he is nervous because he seldom speaks English to foreigners; he is used to speaking English to Turks, who often do not notice the horrible accent of their fellow Turk and his pathetic lack of a somewhat normal-sized vocabulary.

    As if the above is not enough, I have been told by several Turks that the grading system in Turkey is somewhat, how shall I put this… Utopian.

    The highest grade is one star, the lowest grade one. Well, one would think that when a 15 year old high school student is only able to say ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ and ‘fine, thank you’ in English, he does not deserve more than one, or at most, two stars, right?

    Not so in Turkey. I have met many high school students who are literally incapable of completing two or three sentences in English. Yet, their teachers give them four or five stars.

    One of the reasons for this Utopian grading system is, I have been told, that teachers have the tendency to reward students who are silent, obedient and anxious to learn. When that student writes an essay or makes a test, the teacher seemingly tends to think “I should reward him for his good behavior.”

    Another major cause for the lack of knowledge of English among Turks in general and (high school) students specifically is, according to Turkish friends and (future) teachers I talked to, that students are taught the exact same things over and over again. As one of the individuals I talked to remarked, “in the first year I studied English the teacher said ‘today we will study single present tense.’ In the second year he said ‘today we will study single present tense.’ In the third year the teacher said ‘today we will study single present tense…’ And you wonder why 95% of Turks do not speak English well?”

    The above signifies a real problem in Turkey’s education system. English is of immense importance. It is alright for a third world country not to teach its citizens English, but for a rapidly developing country like Turkey, with big aspirations, teaching English to its citizens when they are still young is a necessity.

    If one wants to compete in the world, if one wants to become richer in a constantly globalizing world, and if one wants to catch up economically with Western countries, one has to know English. Turkish is the language of Turkey, but English is the language of the world. One’s English does not have to be perfect – mine is not for instance – but it should be sufficient for one to express oneself accurately and to debate important issues. “How are you?” does not suffice.

    In order to improve the situation, Turkey’s government will have to invest big-time in education. University students aspiring to become English teachers should be sent abroad; either during their studies, or immediately afterwards. They should be forced to speak English 24/7 for a period of several months. Everything they do, everything they want, they should made clear in English.

    Furthermore, the Turkish government should keep a close eye on how teachers grade their students. Four stars for a student who knows jack is unacceptable. A checks and balances method should be cooked up, one that actually works. When one teacher grades his students, another teacher from a different school should double check. Competition among teachers and schools should be encouraged. Teachers that deliver better results have to be rewarded, teachers that perform badly punished. The same, of course, goes for schools.

    Another important reason Turkish students suffer from a chronic lack of English speaking, writing and understanding skills is, conversations have led me to believe, the Turkish government’s habit to send new teachers to poor regions (in the East) where they have to serve for a specific, short amount of time, after which they can go back to the richer regions. These new teachers have to educate poor students, but often lack the passion to do in a satisfying manner. The reason for this lack of passion is that they do not want to teach in the East. They are forced to go their by their government. Many of them seem to tremendously dislike the East; they consider the people backwards and uneducated (quite an accurate, albeit negative, description of course). All they long for when they are in the East is to go back to the ‘ developed, modern world. Once they can, they go.

    Teachers need conviction and passion. If not, they do not teach their students what they should teach them. When a student fails to make any progress, the teacher could not care less. ‘Lets give him four stars,’ the teacher thinks, ‘nobody cares anyway.’

    In order to do something about this, the Turkish government could consider encouraging rather than forcing new teachers to go to the East. When a teacher agrees to go to the East, pay him considerably extra. Money makes the world go ’round and it makes teachers do what they should do; educate your children. Furthermore, when a teacher does so for a prolonged period – five, six years instead of, say, six months – he should receive even more benefits; both financial and in other ways (make it more easy for a teacher to travel to foreign countries, for instance, so he can improve their language skills). Make sure that the teacher becomes part of the village or city he moves to in the East; set up a ‘welcoming’ system, which immediately results in the new teacher having many friends with whom they can socialize. Make it more easy for a teacher who goes to the East to take his spouse and children along. Help the partner of the teacher find a new job in their new village / city / region. If the job pays less than what they are used to, subsidize them (temporarily) and help them out in other ways (take care of housing, for instance).

    Sending students en masse abroad and the other reforms proposed in this short column may cost a lot of money while Turkey is far from rich – yes, I know – but the fact of the matter is that improving Turks’ English skills is not a choice; it is an absolute necessity. The Turkish government spends millions of Liras (the new one of course) on far less important things. In order to do all the above Turkey does not to need to make more money rapidly. Instead, it has to get its priorities straightened out.

    Finally it has to be remarked that the reforms mentioned in this op-ed are, to a degree, applicable on education in its entirety. Of course education is not about English alone. Other courses are just as important as English, and the government should invest in these courses (mathematics for instance, but also reading skills in Turkish – my Turkish is rapidly improving, but my interaction with Turks has given me the impression that quite some Turks do not speak Turkish well – are important).

    If Turkey does not improve its education system soon, and especially with regards to English, it will have a terrible hard time catching up with the West. Not because Turks do not want to catch up, or because they are too lazy, but because they lack the basic skills one needs to survive in this modern world.

  • TRANSFORMATION AT TDN

    TRANSFORMATION AT TDN

    Dear Turkish Forum readers,

     

    The article, “The new ‘moderate’ Turkey” By Robert Ellis (August 15, 2008) published in Turkish Forum recently reminded me of an incident similar to the one he experienced. At the end of his article Ellis notes that, although he had been a frequent commentator on Turkish affairs at Turkish Daily News (TDN) since 2005, he was declared “persona non grata” by TDN’s editor after he had written an article critical of Turkey’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) in Los Angeles Times last March.

     

    I, too, was given the same treatment by TDN less than 2 years ago.

    What attracted TDN’s ire, in my case, was an article, “After the French vote: Those crocodile tears,” I had published in TDN in late October 2006. About a month afterwards, another article I sent to TDN was summarily rejected without explanation. The timing coincided with the reshuffling of TDN’s management, with Eyüp Can Sağlık appointed as the new Executive Editor. Until that time, I had been an unpaid guest commentator at TDN, having some 40 articles published under my name since 2000. Sağlık is the husband of Elif Şafak, the Turkish activist-novelist adored by the Armenian lobby.

    In the October 2006 article, written in the immediate aftermath of the French Parliament’ s infamous decision to criminalize denial of Armenian “genocide”, I chastised European and Turkish politicians as well as a certain “intellectual cabal” in Turkey for their hypocrisy on the genocide issue. Although I did not cite names, it was obvious to those familiar with the subject that Şafak was included in the “intellectual cabal.” Like my earlier TDN articles on the Armenian issue, my criticism of the “intellectual cabal” must have hit nerves in the Sağlık-Şafak couple. So, when Sağlık took over at TDN, he found a golden opportunity to silence me.

    Thus came to an end a voice at TDN that had steadfastly defended Turks and Turkey against defamation by Dashnakian propagandists. A month later, ex-Ambassador Gündüz Aktan, another pro-Turkish voice on the Armenian issue, also left TDN.

     

    The censorship Ellis and I suffered at TDN raises the question as to whose interests TDN is serving. Whatever its mission, and contrary to its high-minded claim, TDN does not welcome free expression of opinion. I am not surprised that Ellis was declared “persona non grata” because of his article critical of AKP. After the new leadership took over in late 2006, the newspaper has been publishing op-ed pieces by staff and guest writers openly in sympathy with AKP’s Islamic-oriented regime. These writers – the Second Republicans – oppose any nationalistic sentiments and try to undermine Turkey’s securalist regime. In fact, secularists and those espousing Turkishness are treated almost with contempt. One dimwit, an op-ed writer, is a proponent of faith-based “Intelligent Design.”

     

    TDN is also sympatethic toward Armenian claims of “genocide.” In an August 25, 2008 editorial, editor David Judson issued a public apology because TDN had “mistakenly” added the word “alleged” in front of “genocide” in a recent op-ed by a Diaspora Armenian. A reader from Canada had protested that the original text did not contain “alleged.” The editor took the disclaimer to heart and apologized. The editor went on to explain that the newspaper, in fact, frowns upon the the term “so-called genocide.” Instead, the sanctioned term is “alleged genocide.”

     

    Such hair-splitting of words could be ignored as pathetic sophomorism, except that it underlies a pro-Armenian tilt on the part of TDN. The editor claims that this stance represents “enlarged mentality.” Views sympathetic to Armenian position are expressed not only by Armenian writers, but also by Turkish journalists. Surely, rarely do these opinion articles spell out the word “genocide” – at least not yet – but the implication is that the onus of history is on Turks.

     

    Months ago, I wrote a letter to TDN’s editor to protest my censorship and criticise the newspaper’s editorial policy. I challenged him to publish my letter, which he refused. He invited me to consider writing at TDN again, whıch I declined.

     

    The new identity of TDN came into being after the newspaper became part of the Dogan Media Group. How, exactly, the newspaper turned from an objecive, independent English-language Turkish newspaper to a pro-Islamic (pro-AKP), pro-Armenian media outlet is an intriguing question. As far as the pro-Islamic tilt, the appointment of Sağlık as the Executive Editor undoubtedly had a lot to do with it. Sağlık, educated in the U.S. as a protege of Fethullah Gülen, was brought in to TDN as a Trojan horse to do the clergyman’s bidding. Before Sağlık came to TDN, he and his wife Şafak were affiliated with Zaman, Gülen’s flagship newspaper in Turkey. Şafak has recently resumed her writings in Zaman.

     

    Other recruits close to AKP and Gülen include Cengiz Çandar and Mustafa Akyol. In addition to being a columnist, the latter acts as the deputy editor and vets articles submitted for the op-ed page. Akyol also writes in the AKP-controlled Star, and his articles appear on Gülen’s website on the Internet. It is a close-knit group under the effective stewardship of Sağlık.

     

    As for TDN’s pro-Armenian tilt, it is safe to assume that the Sağlık-Şafak mindset and Editor-in-Chief David Judson’s own personal bias are what drove TDN in that direction. With its “enlarged mentality,” the newspaper has lost much of its true Turkish identity. The irony in this transformation is that, while a nominally Turkish newspaper welcomes pro-Armenian views, Turks abroad face enormous obstacles to have their own views publıshed in foreign media because of ingrained anti-Turkish bias.

     

    The most lamentable aspect of TDN’s new identity, however, lies in its influence on English-speaking foreign readership who seek news and opinions about Turkey. Few readers are probably aware that the newspaper is an unofficial mouthpiece of the pro-Islamic Turkish government. Opinions and letters from readers critical of AKP are hardly, if ever, published.

     

    Likewise, the newspaper’s coverage of the Armenian issue plays into the hands of foreign entities that are intrinsically anti-Turkish. A good example is the Hrant Dink murder. The senseless and tragic murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and activist Hrant Dink in January 2007 in Istanbul was widely condemned, and correctly so, in Turkey. Killing of every innocent human being deserves strong condemnation. TDN, however, went much further. With “We are all Hrant Dink” banners splashed across, and the op-ed writers mourning Dink’s death day after day, in pious detail, the newspaper inflamed passions. Sağlık promised that, if he had a son, he would name him Hrant. (A promise he did not keep).

     

    Little did it occur to the foreign readers that none of these mourners expressed a genuine regret when many other Turkish intellectuals, prominenly in the footsteps of Kemal Atatürk, were similarly and tragically murdered. Nor did the mourners bother to invoke the memory of more than 40 Turkish diplomats that years ago fell victim to ASALA terror.

     

    Washington D.C. is one place where TDN is well read for information about Turkey. There is little doubt that TDN’s coverage of the Dink murder provided fuel and ammunition for the ensuing anti-Turkish media onslaught spearheaded by ANCA (Armenian National Committee of America), as well as a U.S. Senate resolution (S.Res. 65) introduced by Senator Joe Biden. The resolution, passed in the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee in March 2007, was highly critical of Turkey. In the process, the real reason why Dink was prosecuted under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code was ignored.

     

    Nor was any concern expressed in foreign circles for other Turkish intellectuals, including a 92-year old Sumerologist, that were prosecuted under the same penal code.

     

    For those interested, I will be glad to forward a copy of my October 2006 article in TDN. Here is an excerpt:

    “It is not what these “intellectuals” say, but rather what they do not say, that matters. In their statements, writings, interviews and fiction work alluding to the 1915-1918 tragic events, they invariably depict Turks as the villains and Armenians as the victims, leaving out the perfidious acts of armed Armenian guerillas joining the enemy ranks and the death and sufferings of innocent Turks and Kurds at the hands of these gangs. Their one-sided recounting of the 1915-1918 events at times becomes nauseating.

    None of them has ever bothered telling the world about the carnage of Azeri civilians in the Khojaly Massacre only 14 years ago.”

    Ferruh Demirmen

    [email protected]

  • Actor States’ Power and Critics on Middle East

    Actor States’ Power and Critics on Middle East

    During 2004 the USA looked at Middle East with important experiences because of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, other Arab states, Gulf area, petrol and other events. There was a tension between the US, France and Germany.
    In 2004, the USA tried to secure their position in Middle East although other’s position. Maybe there will be conflict between the USA and other NATO members. We can think that the USA thinks about only self-interests. But politic ways are giving these situations.
    In Greater Middle East project without European coordinating is unknown. There is a problem of member states about how Bush administration will act with other European powers. They should keep the balance with the USA. And they didn’t understand the US’s actions.
    We explain a circumstance as a period like post-cold war focus between European countries which are member of NATO, European Union and the USA. In the Middle East, there are several benefits of states as Greater Middle East project. But nobody decide to any thought about them as certainly.

    US Efforts to Western Security on the Greater Middle East

    There is a tension among powers. But Bush administration looked 2004 year as a new succesful and meaningful with NATO. The USA explain the Greater Middle East as a western, not only for the US responsibility But the US’s politics are not clear.

    The US’s initiatives about Greater Middle East :

    – The US encourage to build up NATO security in Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaida. With more than 6000 men the US can leave from responsibilities of heavy circumstances by this way. NATO also can look after this country.
    – Another level is about Iraq. NATO and the US goes to modify the military posture in Iraq. NATO has serious power projection in Iraq; taking role of Polish-led international division and British division.
    – The US is going to restructure force posture in Middle East and Central Asia. It wants to make new projects here which like European style.
    – New power projection capabilities in NATO focused to Greater Middle East.

    Some Important Things

    When the USA is making these changes in Middle East ; there will be a different election of American president. Strongly againsts of Bush policies can win the elections easily and keep control of Congress. It will attack to policies of the Iraq War.
    By the against ideas to policies maybe there will be disasters on Iraq policies and security. Because Bush administration was going to make big plans in here. But this is changable. It can be better…
    For president Bush, there are some unguarantee circumstances. Because America trade terms are fragile. There is a big budget deficits.

    About American Transformation

    The USA has some problems about modernisation their army. The US’s defence budget is 400 $ billion for 2004. And there are some problems about future of army.
    The US doesn’t has capability for long wars and additional attack. We can see this in Iraq war.
    However the US need to helps from NATO and Europe. They sent NATO forces to Afghanistan. And they have British forces in Iraq. But it is not enough. They try to make some new additions.
    Also the USA have three potential risks we can explain them easily :

    – Another land, there is a unification of Taiwanese. Also the US and China association is good. But Taiwan will can be critic situation.
    – In Latin America there is an influence of the US to Colombia. Their economic and politic structures are not good to the US.

    For these circumstances the US need to stop their some budgets and they need to transformation their army. These are contradictions.

    The European Security Datas

    Untill this time, European countries have priorities on economic and social subjects. But later from this moment it will spend much money to defence.
    The US is spending % 3.5 to defense of its GNP. Its 18 allies in NATO are spending something on the order of 140 $ billion.
    In Transatlantic alliance, tensions of the US and France have made all situations. But France has tried another ways on modernisation, reform and militaric spending.
    German works on their social and domestic problems. They spend to militaric modernisation less than cold war season.

    TODAY

    German spends 1.3-1.5%
    The USA 3.6%
    France 2.4%
    Britain 2.6%
    Spain 1.2%

    Other European countries spend to specialize slowly. They are joining new world style of specialazition. We can give example for these countries like Spain, Norway, Poland. But there are other states, lie Belgium that is not making specialiaze.
    By these actions we can not say something about European and NATO member countries achievement at their projects. There can be false and worse things.
    Europe has also some afraids from Cold War. They went to make tampon areas to them and get from here some energy sources in the Persian Gulf and North Africa.

    The World’s oil consumption : (million barrel)

    1990 – 2000 -2005 – 2010 – 2015 – 2020 – 2025
    66.1 – 76.9 – 81.1 – 89.7 – 98.8 – 108.2 – 118.8

    Algeria Libya Oil Production :

    2001 – 2010 – 2020 – 2025
    3.3 – – 4.0 – – 5.0 – – 5.7

    MENA – Total Production :

    1990 – 2001 -2005 – 2010 – 2015 – 2020 – 2025
    22.9 — 27.5 — 29.9 — 34.9 — 37.2 — 46.4 — 53.6

    MENA – World Capacity : (%)

    1990 – 2001 – 2010 – 2015 – 2020
    33 – – 34.7 – – 39.5 – – 40.1 – – 43.0

    The world need to strong energy as oil. They pay for this very much. And the USA also pay attention to this. And it should share all its imports with oil companions under the International Energy Agency.

    Some Security Problems

    With the threat of Soviet as Cold War, Europe planned to make tampon area the Middle East countries including as Greater Middle East.
    With planning of the Greater Middle East plan, Islamic problems had existed in Muslim countries. After from Cold War, only problem is Islamic extremism an terrorism. With the mediatic influencings and circumstances about Arab-Israeli problems Western colonialism and religious problem, the Greater Middle East project was damaged.

    Population Growth

    With all growing, educational, political, social and economic systems must be balanced to these subjects. And with growing population, working also is growing. Working age is between 15 and 20.

    MENA Population (million)

    1950 – 1960 – 1970 – 1980- 1990 – 2000
    78.6 – 101.2 -133.0 -177.9 – 244.8- 307.1

    2010 – 2020 – 2030 – 2040 – 2050
    376.2 – 449.3 – 522.3 – 592.1- 656.3

    MENA Working Age Population

    1950- 2000 -2050
    20.5 -87.8- 145.2

    Mean of growing is not only good things. It is bringing some social and economic turbulences. And there should be some solves to these problems.
    By the all statistic datas, governing systems are also important in Middle East. Monarch as traditional interfere social structures. There should be democratic structure.

    Afghanistan – Iraq – Arab and Israeli Conflicts

    If the USA want to be succesful about Greater Middle East, it should regulate social situations in Afghanistan. There are some social pressures that are preventing access of the USA.
    Also there is an influencing of Pakistani Islamic circumstance to Afghanistan. And as we know, Al Qaida is living in this state now. Al Qaida’s influence is very important.
    On the other hand, there is a Russian interest in this area. Russian influence as important as other circumstances. The USA should prevent all negative subjects.
    If the USA want to make peace and prevent Israeli-Arab war in Palestine, it should work with European states. Israel has some relations with all European states. If there is a common judge to Israel, it can go to finish.
    But nobody finishes the war of Israel because there are common interests in this area with Israel. And the USA also has some interests. All meetings are unreal. For the USA and European states, the most important thing is oil. And they are meeting as friendly Arab states for oil. We can see these events in Arafat’s and Abbas’ season. This war can be finished by Muslim attack on Israel or common negotiations.
    The biggest mistake of the USA is the bad acting to Iran. Because if we think rationally, the USA has a project about Middle East, but it is acting as badly with these countries. It is very interesting. It should repair their relations.
    Bush administration or other Western thinkers are talking about clash between civilizations. But according to them, only Muslim geography has clashing problem among each other. We should think that Western world doesn’t want to peace among the Muslims. Because their self interests are important.
    Another hand, there is clash among Western societies. This clash theory had been told for making false thoughts amon Muslims.
    The USA knows all situations and they balance all events for their interests.

    New Security Mission

    According to our datas, the Greater Middle East project will be defeated. Because the USA is losting all balance powers on this area. Already, this is for the USA.
    They want to take oil because the USA’s blood is only oil. So, their greed is only for these things on this project. They are making wars in all Muslim countries. We need to time for looking all defeatings of Western world if they are on only this way.

    Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu
    Baku Qafqaz University
    Energy Institute