| |
February 13th, 2010
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=what-could-erdogan-learn-from-obama-2010-02-12
By Yurter Özcan
Today, most Turks agree that their country needs a new Constitution. There is disagreement, however, on how this Constitution should be drafted.
The governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, needs 367 of the 550 votes in Parliament to pass a new Constitution. It currently has 337 deputies. A referendum is needed if the draft Constitution receives between 330 and 367 votes in the legislature; it fails if it gets less than 330 votes.
The AKP has a majority in the Turkish Parliament, but not a supermajority. Should AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan single-handedly draft a Constitution, or should he build consensus to this end? In this regard, Mr. Erdoğan might find inspiration in U.S. President Barack Obama, for Mr. Obama, too, has a pressing legislative issue, healthcare reform, and like Mr. Erdoğan, Mr. Obama enjoys a majority in the U.S. legislature. Yet, since the Democratic Party’s loss in the Massachusetts Senate elections, Mr. Obama is also short of a legislative supermajority. The two leaders face similar political fortunes and to this end, Mr. Erdoğan might draw lessons from Mr. Obama’s current strategy.
Mr. Obama made healthcare reform one of his election campaign pillars and placed it on top of his agenda after taking office. On Dec. 13, 2009, he said, “I think that when we look back after I sign this [healthcare] bill, people are going to acknowledge that not only was this the most important piece of domestic legislation since at least Social Security, but it also tackled the biggest problem that we had in terms of our long-term fiscal well-being.”
However, Mr. Obama realized that he does not have the public backing needed for his proposed healthcare reforms after losing the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts – what had been “the Kennedy” seat for more than 40 years. Despite calls from some in the Democratic leadership to pass the healthcare legislation before the newly elected Republican Senator in Massachusetts, Scott Brown, takes office, breaking the Democratic Party’s supermajority in the U.S. Senate; President Obama made it clear that the American people’s message was well-received.
Mr. Obama recognized that losing the Senate elections in Massachusetts in January, and governor races in Virginia and New Jersey in November, was a popular message. The implications of losing Massachusetts to a Republican opponent are quite significant. Democrats lost the 60th vote needed to block Republican filibusters in the Senate and pass legislation. Yet, instead of ramming the legislation through Congress for an easy triumph, Mr. Obama has opted for something more difficult: He has decided to engage his critics and attempt to turn them into partners by convincing them of the benefits of healthcare reform.
In Turkey, there is opposition to the drafting of a new Constitution by a single party in charge, the arguments being that the Constitution should not be rushed before the national elections to be held in July 2011 and that the Constitution should be based on wider political and public support.
Mr. Erdoğan technically has the political power to push for a new Constitution. Though, if he were to look at Mr. Obama, Mr. Erdoğan could benefit from starting a public debate while engaging the opposition and the public at large over a new Constitution. The framework for this debate should focus on how to strengthen Turkey’s liberal democracy while jumpstarting the European Union accession process.
So what has Mr. Obama been doing that could set specific examples for Mr. Erdoğan’s strategy? Listening to the opposition and engaging critics is the answer. On Jan. 30, President Obama voluntarily participated in a meeting of the U.S. House Republicans, where he directly answered questions on his policies for 90 minutes. He will soon start hosting bipartisan brainstorming sessions. His engagement efforts also have social aspects – last weekend, Republicans were invited to watch the Super Bowl at the White House, and similar events will be held at Camp David and other venues.
Following Mr. Obama’s strategy, it will help Turkey to have an extensive debate on the new Constitution. In addition to creating dialogue with the opposition, the AKP should involve NGOs, civil society, academia, youth organizations, jurists and other stakeholders. At the end of the day, a new Constitution affects everybody’s life in Turkey, not just the ruling party and its followers. It is of utmost importance to patiently formulate the new Constitution and secure broad buy-in.
Even though it is not common to see a governing party with a majority engage the opposition in Turkey, Mr. Obama’s take on democracy could be inspirational for Mr. Erdoğan, who faces a very vocal opposition and a very polarized country. In this regard, Mr. Erdoğan might consider attending sessions organized by critics and answering questions on the new Constitution. He can also leverage this process as a means to make more headway with the opposition. Such an environment would create more transparency into the process and allow the Turkish public to better identify who is the go-getter and who is the road-blocker on the new Constitution.
Given the importance of what a new Constitution entails, the ultimate goal for Mr. Erdoğan should be a grand compromise across the country, not just a political win. Turkey needs to become a more democratic country where all segments of society feel represented and secure. Erdoğan’s attitude on this will identify what’s more important – being a politician or being a statesman.
* Yurter Özcan is a research assistant at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Turkish Research Program.
January 8th, 2010
Yesterday I read a column at Trakya Net Haber which made me really sad. I was not sad because of its content, the article was full of baseless claims with the hope of creating an illusion of a big conspiracy theory against Turkey. Frankly, the author did not write anything that is worth reading or even thinking about for 2 minutes. However, that column reminded me of our, Turkish people’s, tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. When you ask people on the street, most of them think the majority of the world is out there to get us. As a matter of fact, about 10-12 years ago I was one of those people. This may seem like an insignificant thing, however, I think at the aggregate level this tendency creates a lot of problems for Turkey.
When people are willing to believe in claims not based on any sort of fact or information but solely on artifacts, they are also willing to elect politicians who claims to protect people’s interest from these “evil powers”. In fact, all of these problems can easily be solved if we only put some effort into learning about the reality. Once a person starts reading about political history, understanding international relations, at least at a very simple level, becomes quite easy. The one thing we need to do is:
- Stop thinking that there is one giant conspiracy against Turkey, and western powers have nothing better to do but to sit and think about how to take Turkey down. Instead start realizing that international relations is a purely self-interested area where every country is simply trying to protect its own interest. Sometimes there are positive sum games where all the participants can benefit from a common agreement. Some other times there are zero-sum games, meaning one country’s gain is the other one’s lost.
If we can accept this simple platform, try to learn the rules and the players of the game instead of refusing to understand the game at all, we can move so much further and faster.
My hope for 2010 and beyond is an increasing desire to learn the truth and not let ourselves be used by manipulative agendas. We, as Turks, do not need to be afraid that the world is out there to get us. Turkey is an incredible country with enormous potential and we can deal with REAL problems at the international level without falling prey to conspiracy theories.
November 14th, 2009
http://web.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news=persistent-pest-2009-08-04
Persistent pest
SONER CAGAPTAY & YURTER ÖZCAN
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Over the past years, some analysts have suggested that George W. Bush’s unpopular administration spawned the high levels of anti-Americanism in Turkey. Referring to this phenomenon as “anti-Bushism,” however, discounted the rise of anti-Americanism in Turkey and implied that the country’s adverse view of the United States would change with a new administration. Unfortunately, two recent polls suggest otherwise. Despite the new faces in Washington — policymakers who have gone out of their way to embrace Turkey and its citizens — anti-Americanism persists across Turkish society.
The Pew Global Attitudes Project polls reveal that President Barack Obama’s election has led to significant improvement in America’s standing in the world, including in European and Muslim-majority countries; France and Indonesia, for instance, witnessed increases in U.S. popularity from 42 percent to 75 percent and 37 percent to 63 percent, respectively, between 2008 and 2009.
Turkey, however, is a rare exception to this trend. According to Pew, the U.S. favorability rating in Turkey in 1999-2000 was 52 percent, but then sharply dived to 30 percent in 2002, 15 percent in 2003, and 12 percent in 2008. In 2009, with the advent of the Obama administration, there has been only a minimal increase of 2 percent in U.S. favorability in Turkey, from 12 to 14 percent.
The Pew poll says that Obama’s trip to Turkey and subsequent speech to the Turkish nation “had little measurable impact on Turkey’s view of the United States or of Obama himself.” What is more, according WorldPublicOpinion.org survey, a project run by the ARI Foundation and INFAKTO Research Workshop, 45 percent of the Turks say they have confidence in Obama, while 46 percent say they do not.
What is more, despite the U.S. administration’s full support for Turkey’s European Union, or EU, membership, continuous assistance against Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, terror attacks, and diplomatic outreach through very successful and well publicized trips to Turkey by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, Turkey is top among nations that say that U.S. foreign policy is playing a mainly negative role in the world (72 percent), ranking higher than Pakistan (69 percent), Egypt (67 percent), Iraq (53 percent), Russia (49 percent), and China (41 percent).
In addition, according to Pew, the United States is viewed as an enemy by 77 percent of Palestinians, 42 percent of Pakistanis, and 40 percent of Turks. It is interesting to note that Russia, a traditional U.S. rival, is less hostile with 21 percent.
In a significant break from the past, Turkey’s negative sentiments toward U.S. efforts have now gone beyond mere differences with foreign policy issues and now affect Turks’ view of the United States as well as U.S. citizens.
According to Pew, Turkey is among nations with a highly unfavorable view of the United States as a country (69 percent), together with the Palestinian Territories (82 percent), Pakistan (68 percent), and Jordan (74 percent). Interestingly enough, countries such as Russia (44 percent) and China (46 percent) have more a favorable view of the United States.
In addition, according to Pew, a majority of people in 17 out of 24 nations have a favorable view of Americans. Negative views of American people, however, appear in Turkey (14 percent), Pakistan (20 percent), and the Palestinian territories (20 percent), where little change has occurred in recent years.
Combined with historical data, these new polls show that anti-Americanism might be becoming an internalized component of Turkish society, and that anti-Americanism in Turkey does not relate to specific U.S. administrations. The reshuffle in U.S. foreign policy — placing Turkey higher up on the agenda and jumpstarting the strained bilateral ties — has not produced its intended effect on the Turkish public. While Washington continues to do its share to win Turkish hearts and minds, public attitudes toward the United States will change only if Ankara adopts more positive rhetoric.
For the U.S. image in Turkey to improve, Ankara needs to take ownership of U.S.-Turkish ties. In this regard, Turks need to hear from their government that the United States is their friend, supporting Turkey’s EU membership and helping them against the PKK — astoundingly, most Turks believe the United States is actually supporting the terrorist group — and that Turks share values, institutions, and interests with America.
The United States might be doing all the right things for Turkey, but only positive domestic rhetoric that brings home U.S. policies will really dispose Turks favorably toward the United States.
(Yurter Ozcan is a research assistant in the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.)
November 14th, 2009
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3098
By Soner Cagaptay and Yurter Ozcan
July 29, 2009
Over the past years, some analysts have suggested that George W. Bush’s unpopular administration spawned the high levels of anti-Americanism in Turkey. Referring to this phenomenon as “anti-Bushism,” however, discounted the rise of anti-Americanism in Turkey and implied that the country’s adverse view of the United States would change with a new administration. Unfortunately, two recent polls suggest otherwise. Despite the new faces in Washington — policymakers who have gone out of their way to embrace Turkey and its citizens — anti-Americanism persists across Turkish society.
Enduring Anti-Americanism
A poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project reveals that President Barack Obama’s election has led to significant improvement in America’s standing in the world, including in European and Muslim-majority countries; France and Indonesia, for instance, witnessed increases in U.S. popularity from 42 percent to 75 percent and 37 percent to 63 percent, respectively, between 2008 and 2009. Turkey, however, is a rare exception to this trend. According to Pew, the U.S. favorability rating in Turkey in 1999-2000 was 52 percent, but then sharply dived to 30 percent in 2002, 15 percent in 2003, and 12 percent in 2008. In 2009, with the advent of the Obama administration, there has been only a minimal increase of 2 percent in U.S. favorability in Turkey, from 12 to 14 percent.
Despite the U.S. administration’s full support for Turkey’s EU membership, continuous assistance against PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) terror attacks, and diplomatic outreach through very successful and well publicized trips to Turkey by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, Turkish public opinion is divided on the new U.S. president: 45 percent say they have confidence in Obama, while 46 percent say they do not (as reported by the World Public Opinion survey, a project run by the ARI Foundation and the INFAKTO Research Workshop of Istanbul) The Pew poll also found that Obama’s trip to Turkey and subsequent speech to the Turkish nation had little measurable impact on Turkey’s view of the United States or of Obama himself.
U.S. Image Recovering Elsewhere
According to the World Public Opinion survey, many nations, including European allies that were critical of the United States during George W. Bush’s term, now say that the United States is playing a primarily positive role in the world: a majority in France (52 percent) and Britain (58 percent), a plurality in Germany (44 percent), nearly half in Mexico (49 percent), and a large majority of Kenyans (81 percent), Nigerians (70 percent), South Koreans (68 percent), and Taiwanese (61 percent). According to the Pew poll, in all but three — Poland, Russia, and Israel — of the twenty-four countries surveyed, America’s image improved after President Obama took office.
Turkey Remains among Those Most Critical of the United States
U.S. foreign policy. According to World Public Opinion survey, Turkey is top among nations that say that U.S. foreign policy is playing a mainly negative role in the world (72 percent), ranking higher than Pakistan (69 percent), Egypt (67 percent), Iraq (53 percent), Russia (49 percent), and China (41 percent). A large number of Turks (45 percent) also believe that the United States is generally not cooperative with other countries, a view shared by other Muslim-majority nations, including Egypt (62 percent), Iraq (58 percent), and Pakistan (54 percent). Seventy-six percent of Turks see the United States as hypocritical for promoting international laws for other countries but neglecting to apply the same rules to itself (down slightly from 81 percent in 2008). In addition, 86 percent of Turks say the United States abuses its power in forcing Turkey to comply with its agenda (unchanged from 2008), while 86 percent believe America uses the threat of military force to gain leverage over other countries.
According to Pew, the United States is viewed as an enemy by 77 percent of Palestinians, 42 percent of Pakistanis, and 40 percent of Turks. It is interesting to note that Russia, a traditional U.S. rival, is less hostile with 21 percent.
In a significant break from the past, the following two categories suggest that Turkey’s negative sentiments toward U.S. efforts have now gone beyond mere differences with foreign policy issues and now affect Turks’ view of the United States as well as U.S. citizens.
The United States as a country. According to Pew, Turkey is among nations with a highly unfavorable view of the United States as a country (69 percent), together with the Palestinian Territories (82 percent), Pakistan (68 percent), and Jordan (74 percent). Interestingly enough, countries such as Russia (44 percent) and China (46 percent) have more favorable view of the United States.
The American people. According to Pew, a majority of people in seventeen out of twenty-four nations have a favorable view of Americans. Negative views of American people, however, appear in Turkey (14 percent), Pakistan (20 percent), and the Palestinian territories (20 percent), where little change has occurred in recent years.
Policy Implications
Combined with historical data, these new polls show that anti-Americanism might be becoming an internalized component of Turkish society, and that anti-Americanism in Turkey does not relate to specific U.S. administrations. The reshuffle in U.S. foreign policy — placing Turkey higher up on the agenda and jumpstarting the strained bilateral ties — has not produced its intended effect on the Turkish public. While Washington continues to do its share to win Turkish hearts and minds, public attitudes toward the United States will change only if Ankara adopts more positive rhetoric.
For the U.S. image in Turkey to improve, the Turkish government needs to take ownership of U.S.-Turkish ties. In this regard, Turks need to hear from their government that the United States is their friend, supporting Turkey’s EU membership and helping them against the PKK — astoundingly, most Turks believe the United States is actually supporting the terrorist group — and that Turks share values, institutions, and interests with America. The United States might be doing all the right things for Turkey, but Turkey’s perception of America will not improve until Turkish government officials stress what the United States is doing for the Turkish people. Only positive domestic rhetoric that brings home U.S. policies will dispose Turks more favorably toward the United States.
Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute. Yurter Ozcan is an Institute research assistant in that program.
March 24th, 2009
During his Presidential campaign, President Obama promised to clean up “special-interest-driven” politics. He declared “I’m not in this race to continue the special-interest-driven politics of the last eight years. I’m in this race to end it.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At a Town Hall Meeting, Billings, MT, 5/19/08)
It is clear that special interest strong-arming of politicians not only hurts the American people, but also constitutes a threat to US relations with its allies It has been several decades that Armenian special interest groups have been lobbying Congress to convince to pass a resolution labeling what happened between Ottoman Turks and Ottoman Armenians in 1915-1919 as “genocide”—a topic still widely debated among historians. Legitimacy of the strategies used by these Armenian groups has been questioned— on February 18, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice, the IRS, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate urging an investigation into whether the Armenian National Committee of America-Western Region (ANCA-WR) and the ANCA Endowment Fund violated their status as charitable organizations by actively participating in political campaigns, publicly endorsing political candidates (including the Obama-Biden ticket), and lobbying for the Armenian agenda in Congress.
According to the first nationwide public opinion survey of Turkey on this issue that the ARI Foundation conducted in 2007 in partnership with Terror Free Tomorrow of Washington DC, congressional passage of such a resolution would actually set back the cause it purports to achieve—namely shedding light onto the historical events and promoting Turkey’s reconciliation with Armenia. According to the poll, 78% of the Turkish public opposes a resolution by the U.S. Congress on the issue of the Armenian allegation of genocide, irrespective of the wording of the actual resolution. More importantly, 73% think the effect of passage would worsen relations between Turkey and Armenia.
A very significant finding was also uncovered during this survey– 74% of Turkish people believe that the most important reasons that the U.S. Congress would approve an Armenian resolution are anti-Muslim feelings and American domestic politics. Yet another Armenian Resolution was introduced in Congress last week. Is this the message that the new Congress wants to give to one of its most important allies and the country that President Obama will visit in early April?
Washington must understand that the Turkish people are not afraid of facing what happened in their history—as long as it is done fairly and by experts, not politicians. In fact, hardly a day goes by where a news article or television program does not address this issue from one angle or the other. Debate on this issue is now wide open in Turkey, where books by the most ardent supporters of the Armenian historical narrative are available everywhere. Contrast that to Armenia, where hardly any publication that contrasts their views is available. While most Turks are opposed to an American political judgment on this historical issue, 75% of all Turks favor unbiased scholarship by independent historians on what occurred between Turks and Armenians during the demise of Ottoman Empire. How many countries in the world would have such courage and open-heartedness in the face of a topic that hangs over their head like the sword of Damocles? This public response is quite in line with the repeated invitations from both President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan to initiate a joint historical commission constituted of Turkish, Armenian and international experts.
When I was invited to Armenia in August 2007 to meet with high-level state officials (including the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs), former prime ministers, political party leaders, NGO representatives and journalists, I realized that Armenians living in Armenia stand quite differently on this debate in comparison to the Armenian Diaspora living in the US, Europe and other parts of the world. The message that they repeatedly gave me was that the ordinary Armenian people want to look forward and improve relations with their neighbor Turkey at many different levels, including social, economic and cultural. They also seemed quite puzzled and irritated as to why a foreign government’s legislative body would dwell into history and even attempt to use it as a foreign policy lever.
Will President Obama keep his promise and have the courage to take special interest out of legislation and encourage direct reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey? Or will he give in and allow Congress take an unjust, one-sided action to satisfy the Armenian Diaspora at the expense of alienating Turkey and Armenia by undermining their ongoing rapprochement? The Turkish people are not asking for a favor— we are asking for justice.
Yurter Ozcan
ARI Foundation, President
Washington D.C.
March 24, 2009
www.arifoundation.org
February 24th, 2009
| http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=167775
Resisting the global crisis through Anatolian cities
by
EVREN TOK [*]
|
| As many urban policy makers, economists and scholars from a variety of disciplines would agree, in the age of neo-liberal globalization, cities have become the new engines of global capitalism. |
| |
| In particular, studies focusing on “global cities,” such as London, Tokyo, New York, etc., all point out that global(izing) cities have now become the new driving forces of national economies. The critical question is, while nations now gain a competitive edge through their competitive globalizing cities, could these cities play a crucial role in devising strategies to support nation-states in confronting the global economic and financial crisis? Turkey’s globalizing cities, especially in the case of Gaziantep, convince us that the answer to this question could be “yes.” I believe that, starting from the case of Gaziantep, reinvigorating the export potential of Anatolian centers and framing this dynamism as city-based responses to the global crisis should be explored further.
Global crisis, local responses
Nowadays, in the media, one easily comes across pessimistic views on the so-called “Anatolian Tigers,” rapidly industrialized and economically improved medium-sized Anatolian cities. For instance, in a comprehensive analysis titled “Anatolian Tigers lose their roar,” it was argued that their “Tiger” status is being “downgraded to the status of ‘Anatolian Cats’ by industrialists and businessmen operating in these cities who are feeling the ever-tightening grip of the global financial crisis” (Today’s Zaman, Feb. 15). Nevertheless, we also need to recognize that, contrary to the overshadowing pessimistic outlooks, Turkey’s globalizing Anatolian cities, with their export potential, could be the strategic players in aiding Turkey in weathering the crisis environment! There are significant sparkles that we need to investigate closely.
As cities mobilize their resources in order to formulate new strategies to alleviate the negative impact of the crisis, they are also becoming key sites through their strategies to translate the detrimental effects of the crisis into an opportunity. In this regard, some Anatolian cities constitute vibrant examples of how this could be achieved and sustained. A recent event organized by the Gaziantep Young Businessmen’s Association (GAGİAD) is an illuminating example in this context. Thus, a recent example of how city-based strategies could be formulated to cope with the impact of the global crisis comes from Gaziantep, which has also been perceived as one of the Anatolian Tigers and also proudly portrayed as the “Paris of the East”!
Rather than being a site for complaints and hopelessness and insistently asking for support from the state, the economic agents of Gaziantep, especially the Chamber of Industry, Chamber of Commerce and GAGİAD chose to look for their own ways to come out of the crisis and even devise strategies to benefit from the current pessimistic outlook in the global economy. This collective effort is not sustained through the hegemony of a single actor; instead, civil economic actors have jointly become the architects of this local response. A meeting organized in Gaziantep on Jan. 26, titled “Global Crisis: Threats and Opportunities in the Export Sector,” could be seen as an exemplar of implementing a city-based strategy to confront the global crisis.
The participation of Mehmet Büyükekşi (who is also originally from Gaziantep), the chairman of the Turkish Exporters Assembly (TİM), made this meeting even more critical. The common message from the speeches given by the chairman of the Chamber of Trade, Mehmet Arslan, and the chairman of the Chamber of Industry, Nejat Koçer, emphasized the willingness and enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs in Gaziantep to export more to alternative markets, such as the Middle Eastern and African markets, since they have been less influenced by the crisis due to their less integrated position in world markets.
While the sense of insecurity and fragility in the international markets prevails, especially when companies are in need of loans in order to realize their export potential, the leaders of the Chamber of Trade and the Chamber of Industry both pointed out that there is a need for a “reassurance-enabling state.” They argued that state institutions such as Eximbank, Ziraat Bank and Halk Bank could provide emergency credits and help turn the crisis into an opportunity in these tumultuous times. Moreover, the speakers also outlined a strategy for Gaziantep that could also appeal to the other cities of Anatolia: (1) to protect optimism, (2) to protect already established export markets and (3) to hold on to the vision of the city. In Gaziantep, this strategy is centered on a critical concept, namely, “common reason.”
Common reason
The agents who are the drivers and critical members of Gaziantep’s economic development, as well as other state and non-state actors, opinion leaders and almost all Gaziantep residents emphasize the role of “common reason” as an instrument in fostering development. According to this mindset, common reason works as a glue connecting the interests of different actors, and when the issue is making a contribution to Gaziantep, “common reason” prevails. The agents who construct Gaziantep’s economic potential emphasize that common reason is not just a temporary mechanism, especially when the economy is growing and everybody is content. “Common reason,” however, is a symptom of urban identity, in other words, the city’s soul, and also a mechanism that encompasses the active participation, coordination, cooperation and collaboration of a variety of agents — economic, social and political — in order to overcome tumultuous times.
Having been inspired by the case of Gaziantep, why should other rising Anatolian centers, especially the ones who reached “Anatolian Tigers” status, not bring back and utilize their own “common reason” during current downtimes? If there is any possibility to transform and translate the global crisis into opportunity, then Anatolian cities need to be more open to embarking on a process to find or formulate their own “common reason.” As the global crisis unfolds with severe consequences, especially in the nonfinancial sector, by reinvigorating the export potential of Anatolian centers, Turkey’s key regional and global role could be reasserted.
[*] Evren Tok is a doctoral candidate at the school of public policy at Carleton University, Ottawa.
|
|
24 February 2009, Tuesday
|
|
| EVREN TOK [*] OTTAW |
September 17th, 2008
The first documentary covering Atatürk’s life from his early years in Salonika to his final years in Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul will be on screen on Oct. 29. The documentary, written and directed by journalist Can Dündar, the maker of the renowned documentary ‘Sarı Zeybek’
ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
A documentary on the life of Atatürk, the first to follow the entire life of the founder of the Turkish Republic, is coming to the silver screen at the end of this month.
The documentary, called Mustafa, was written and directed by Can Dündar, journalist and documentary director. Atatürk has never been properly introduced to the Turkish public, to the world and to younger generations, even though 70 years have passed since his death in 1938, said the press release on the film, arguing the documentaries produced thus far have focused only on certain periods and appealed only to a domestic audience.
This is the first documentary covering Atatürk’s life from his early years in Thessalonica to his final years in Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul and representing all military, political and personal aspects of his personality, said the press release.
The documentary was produced by the maker of the renowned documentary Sarı Zeybek and a number of others over the last 15 years on Atatürk’s life. The documentary team was given special permission to open many national and international archives, including those at the President’s Office and the General Staff.
During shooting several previously unseen photos, memoirs, special letters and manuscripts of Atatürk were used. The production team traveled from Thessalonica to Manastır, Damascus to Berlin, Sofia to Karlsbad any places that Atatürk lived. Some scenes were even shot in the room where he was born and the one where he died. A detailed literature review was made of books written about Atatürk, national and international newspapers and diplomatic letters.
The documentary tells Atatürk’s life from an objective point of view and tries to give a sympathetic account of a real-life story. His personal belongings, memoirs, headquarters where he worked, houses where he lived, documents that he left, songs he liked and remarks he uttered were all used in the documentary, the release said.
Internationally known Balkan-origin musician Goran Bregovic composed the soundtrack for the film.
The film will begin showing Sept. 29.
September 15th, 2008
Armenia: Obscure issue could challenge a President Obama
Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The two major presidential candidates differ sharply over an Armenian genocide commemoration, with Republican John McCain opposing it and Democrat Barack Obama supporting it.
The policy clash could make a political difference in California’s San Joaquin Valley and other regions with sizable Armenian-American populations. McCain may have more to lose, in the short term. But in the long run, Obama may have more to prove.
“Support for the genocide resolution is important in the presidential race and can have a significant impact,” said Barlow Der Mugrdechian, coordinator of the Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno.
The potential short-term political cost is readily apparent. Estimates of the number of Armenian-Americans range from 385,000, in the 2000 Census, to more than 1 million. Many track the genocide issue closely.
By contrast, only 117,000 U.S. residents nationwide claimed Turkish ancestry. In comparing grassroots political strength, the Armenian-American community wins hands down.
“There are many Armenians in states such as Michigan and Florida,” Der Mugrdechian noted. “Since the race is expected to be close in these states, and many others, the Armenian vote could prove to be the difference.”
The long-term challenge is different. If Obama is elected, he would face tremendous pressure from the State Department, the Pentagon, other countries — and maybe even his own advisers — to back away from emphatic Armenian genocide language. That is what other presidents have done.
In 1988, for instance, a campaigning George H.W. Bush declared the United States should “acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian people.” As president, Bush instead stressed “the differing views of how the terrible events of 1915-23 should be characterized.”
Bush’s son, while campaigning in 2000, similarly referred to a “genocidal campaign” against the Armenians. Once elected, he avoided the genocide term, and his State Department withdrew a U.S. ambassador who dared use it.
“I think the Armenian community is very leery of any candidate who says he will support a genocide resolution, because those promises haven’t necessarily been kept,” said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. “When push comes to shove, the State Department gets in there and has its way.”
Genocide is what Armenian-Americans and many scholars say happened in the dying years of the Ottoman Empire, between 1915 and 1923. By this account, the slaughter and violent exile of more than 1 million Armenians met the legal definition of genocide and should be commemorated as such.
Genocide means the systematic and intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.
“There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people,” Obama said while campaigning earlier this year.
He hasn’t been very active on the issue in his four years in the Senate, despite serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Obama has not co-sponsored the Senate’s Armenian genocide resolutions, and he did not attend confirmation hearings for President Bush’s nominees to serve as U.S. ambassador to Armenia.
Obama’s rhetorical support now for recognizing the genocide nonetheless helped secure the endorsement in January of the Armenian National Committee of America. It’s a view long held publicly by Obama’s vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It’s also a position being deployed on the campaign trail.
Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard scholar who has advised Obama on foreign policy, posted on YouTube a campaign-style video explicitly addressed to the Armenian-American community. Power declared that a President Obama would “call a spade a spade” and publicly acknowledge the genocide.
McCain’s position is the polar opposite, as he cites the diplomatic and strategic risks associated with alienating Turkey.
“I was disappointed that many in Congress were ready to legislate a historical judgment of the Armenian genocide whatever the cost to our relations with Turkey,” McCain declared in Iowa last October. “Turkey is essential to stabilizing Iraq, containing Iranian power, and encouraging economic and political reform in the Arab world. We should be strengthening our partnership, not erecting new barriers to it.”
One form of recognition would be in the form of a congressional resolution. Earlier this year, though, a resolution collapsed in the House after appearing to come close. Radanovich said he does not “see that coming back anytime soon.”
The alternative path is a presidential proclamation. Each April, presidents present a public statement about what happened between 1915 and 1923. The question thus becomes: Will the statement include the word genocide?
Power, a strong proponent of Armenian-American issues, no longer has a formal role advising Obama. One top adviser, Anthony Lake, was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton during the period that Clinton avoided the genocide word in his annual proclamations. Another top Obama adviser, Susan Rice, was Clinton’s assistant secretary of state when Clinton blocked a genocide resolution authored by Radanovich.
September 7th, 2008
Social democracy and Turkish Left: A New Possibility?
Evren Tok
Karl Polanyi (1886-1964) is a well-known economic historian and anthropologist of Hungarian origin, the author of the “Great Transformation”, and also one of the key figures who have had significant influence on the evolution of European social democracy. Polanyi’s contribution to the European tradition of social democracy mostly stems from his nuanced understanding of “freedom in a complex society”. Karl Polanyi’s understanding refers to accepting the reality of society to remove injustice and unfreedom. The task according to Polanyi is to create more abundant freedom for all, without fear. This is the meaning of freedom in a complex society in his perspective; it provides certainty that the society needs (Great Transformation, p. 268). I believe that Polanyi’s perspective could provoke new debates and motivations for the Turkish left in order to be more self-reflexive especially in relation to the possibility of social democracy in Turkey. In other words, Polanyi’s vision and the meaning he attached to freedom in a complex society could guide the Turkish left in many ways. The failure of the left could be approached in respects, first by contextualizing the ascendance of social democracy in Europe, and Turkish left’s inability to utilize from it; and secondly by pointing out the highly fragmented nature of the left, which prevents them to reach the public as well as connecting with the global left.
The road to today’s impasse for the Turkish Left
The ascendance of Third Way social democratic parties in Europe, such as New Labor under the Blair government, Zapatero’s Socialist Party in Spain and Social Democrat Party under Schröder in Germany all pointed out that social democrats could achieve electoral success through strategies such as balancing out the market forces with societal priorities, privileging both recognition and redistribution, and also being extremely sensitive to issues such poverty, inequality and social justice. Since 1980, but more intensively during the course of 1990s, the emergence of new societal actors with new societal demands have been played out in Turkey, which in turn opened the floor for further democratization efforts and voiced claims for recognition and participation. In Turkey, however, the left has been quite passive and disoriented in terms of capitalizing on the domestic dynamics, which had very prominent counterparts abroad. It is also quite controversial that this societal reshuffling took place in a context in which the leftist oriented political parties especially the CHP, have been totally detached from societal reflexes. In this conjuncture, the AKP starting from the 2002 elections, emerged as a party offering a social democratic alternative as opposed to the CHP, which remained, and can even be said to have become more nationalist/state centric. This debate was caricatured as Turkey’s late, or in other words, “delayed” encounter with the global Third Way politics.
The recent discussions within leftist circles successfully denounced the deeply fragmented nature of the left in Turkey. In a way, these discussions were portraying the historical opportunity that has been ruined at the beginning of the new millennium. Today, one of the central debates is centered around the leftist stance and positioning towards the Ergenekon case. The number of labels circulating within the left oriented press is numerous running the spectrum from positivist vs. non-positivist leftists, Kemalist vs. non-Kemalist leftists, and liberal leftists vs. non-liberal leftists, etc. Perhaps, these discussions gained momentum especially after Sungur Savran’s proposal to bring Marxist analysis to the table.
On the one hand, these discussions were necessary in order for the left to be more self-reflexive and recognize the historicity of the way in which different fragments within the left have come into existence. The internal squaring ups within the left especially with respect to the debates on Ergenekon made it clear that the current leftist critique in Turkey equates “getting more civilian” to democratization. In a way the former is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one for the consolidation of democracy. Furthermore, the same sets of discussions were mute regarding the issue of Third Way social democracy and its importance in Turkey. The introverted and futile discussions within the Turkish left prevented them from finding institutional correspondence in the Western Left.
Turkish left and the meaning of freedom
The post 2002 period has shown that unlike European style social democratic parties, which have put emphasis on restructuring/redesigning welfare states, balancing out recognition and redistribution and aiming for freedom in a complex society, Turkish social democrats have not been successful in getting such debates even onto the agenda. Now, it is the task of the Turkish left to establish a road map to move out of the impasse. Turkey’s delayed encounter with Third Way social democracy could be better instituted if the Turkish left helps build a road map that would accelerate the pace of democracy, promote participatory democracy, and redraw the boundaries between the state and the civil society. Indeed, providing effective and democratic regulation of the market and more emphasis on issues such as social justice, inequality and poverty should be priority.
The Turkish left has more responsibility than ever to prescribe a social democratic alternative that recognizes the multiplicity of societal actors, state and non-state institutions, diverging interests and global ideas that reign over Turkish democracy. From Polanyi’s perspective, the apathy of the left toward the society and societal privileges is a big obstacle to reach freedom in a complex society. Hence, being extraverted and connecting with the public, societal concerns as well as the global left, and providing more certainty than ambiguity are essential for the Turkish left to look for the true significance of freedom in a complex society.
Evren Tok: Ph.D Candidate, Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration
July 21st, 2008
The summer of 2008, most likely, will not be remembered by its high running temperatures but will be remembered with two major lawsuits deeply dividing the Turks. In one lawsuit the prosecutors argue that the ruling party (AKP) has to be closed based on its non-secular policies&activities. In another lawsuit, the prosecutors are pressing charges against more than 100 citizens including two retired generals, several other retired military officials and many well known public figures for being a member of an organization called Ergenekon which is claimed to be planning a coup to dethrone AKP.
Thanks to all the dust raised by these lawsuits the public seems to be completely blind to how the economy is performing. The figure below, recently published by Ari Movement shows the increasing export and import numbers in billion dollars. It is clear how the gap between these two has been increasing since AKP won a major victory in the 2002 elections. Even though major economic parameters are not bright, the public seems to disregard these and still support AKP as they won the 2007 election by a landslide.
(*:2008 numbers are projected using the 1st quarter’s numbers. Except the 2008 projection, all the numbers are taken from Turkish Statistical Institute)
It would be unfair to say the increase in trade-deficit was a direct cause of AKP’s policies. The next figure (also published by Ari Movement) shows the increase in trade deficit and mineral fuel and oil import numbers.
(*:2008 numbers are projected using the 1st quarter’s numbers. Except the 2008 projection, all the numbers are taken from Turkish Statistical Institute)
The oil and natural gas imports make up most of the mineral fuel and oil imports. The figure shows us how the increasing crude oil prices had a high toll on growing Turkish economy. Unfortunately for Turkey, as the economy grows the need for energy grows and this directly fuels the deficit.
Even though we said AKP did not create this problem, it would be fair to say they have done almost nothing to solve the problem. For instance, today, over 14% of Germany’s electricity power comes from renewable energy. This number is less than 1% for Turkey.
AKP government has very recently passed several legislatures which aims to boost the transition to renewable energy. Turkish Embassy has a PDF document outlining Turkey’s new energy policies. It is to be seen if these policies are enough and if they will have their effects before it is too late.
|
What could Erdoğan learn from Obama?
