http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=what-could-erdogan-learn-from-obama-2010-02-12
By Yurter Özcan

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

EVREN TOK - The Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the changes regarding the headscarf ban in the universities has fostered discussions focused not only on the issues regarding the endangered Turkish democracy, but also indirectly we discuss the dilemma and the paradox of the secular nation-state and its institutions - this time not only the Military, but also the Judiciary mechanism, aiming at revitalizing the contradictions of the Turkish modernity. As some scholars point out a judicial revolution, the historical articulation and embeddedness of the institutions as the agents of this revolution need to be explored to imagine and envision a possibility of ‘change’. Today, the root of the problem in Turkish democracy and modernity project is the inertia and resistance of the institutional structure to change and transform, despite the political will.Even more paradoxically, the relation between the politics and the public policies is no longer defined by the society; instead, state institutions define this relation with a strong secular tone. In a well functioning democracy, politics-public policy interaction is mediated by a variety of societal actors such as civil society organizations, NGOs, trade unions, etc who are sensitive to the concerns of the public. While it is correctly pointed out by many scholars in the Turkish media that ‘bringing the public back in’ type of solutions are the only viable ones and the Constitution as we knew is no longer able to respond to societal impulses, a re-evaluation and re-appraisal of the ways in which state institutions curtail the relation between the politics and the public is urgently needed.Turkey’s Embedded InstitutionsParadoxically, the institutions of modern Turkey have been continuing to harness democracy and political stability, not to mention the possible medium and long run impacts on the economic and financial realms. As scholars of historical institutionalism indicate, institutions are integrated and embedded into the social and political configurations of a country. This situation might have adverse effects as well. As in the case of Turkey, the institutions might misuse their relative autonomy and disembed themselves from the very social and political structure. As Thelen and Streeck indicate, ‘an institutional logic in each society leads each institution to coalesce into a complex social configuration’ because they are embedded in a culture in which its logic is symbolically grounded, materially constrained and politically defended.While institutional sphere retains a degree of autonomy from the society’s idiosyncratic customs, traditions, corporate structures, it is the complementarity and connectivity of the social, legal, cultural and economic institutions that secures systemic cohesion. Therefore, what is at stake today in Turkey is not only limited to lifting the headscarf ban in the universities, instead the current institutional deadlock is a manifestation of a broader social and political trauma. Moreover, this trauma is a symptom of the ongoing detachment and disembedding of certain state institutions from the social, political and cultural fabric, which would sooner or later result in the loss of legitimacy from the public’s point of view and leading to increasing social tensions and paralysis as experienced recently.Path Dependent or Path Altering Change?There is no doubt that ‘bringing the public back in’ is a precondition to reembed the institutions into the social configuration, however, this is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. ‘Bringing the public back in’ approach would acquire meaning and impact only if a transparent and neutral venue to amalgamate different voices, concerns and interests is established. As scholars of institutionalism would predict, without recognizing the concerns of both governmental and non-governmental actors, without providing an accountable ground and a means to communicate, without a dialogical interaction, it is almost impossible to go beyond a ‘path-dependent’ alternative. In the case of Turkey, path-dependent alternative unfortunately involves minor, adaptive change, reproducing and preserving the revanchist attitudes and interests of certain actors and institutions at the expense of democracy.Path-altering change, however, is still possible and vital for the sake of attaining systemic cohesion, which would include a transparent and sustainable interaction between institutions and politics. Embeddedness of institutions, thus, would mean that politics and institutions mutually constitute each other within a social configuration and none of them could be subsumed under the other. Hence, sustaining, recognizing and benefiting from the complementarity and connectivity of the social, legal, cultural and economic institutions is extremely vital along with efforts to ‘bring the public back in’ through elections. In other words, the social concerns and voices should bridge the relation between public policies and the politics, rather than the state institutions who have delinked themselves from the social fabric.

Evren Tok: Carleton University, School of Public Policy PhD. Candidate

Turkey and the World Bank signed a new loan agreement for the land management systems modernization on the 9th of June. This is a much needed development for Turkey’s outdated land management systems.

In the press release  the authorities talk about Turkish land management system being as one of the most effective in the region but I guess when we look at our neighbors we realize the bar is not that high… I hope with this new development, Turkey will adapt the GIS (Global Information Systems) geospatial technology as well. It is great to have all the land records in digital forms and be able to reach them easily; however, we should also start to think about the digital data display in multiple dimensions.
21st century requires us to think differently about data storage and display. Regardless, however, I am very happy to see that we are taking the initial steps of a better land management system which is hopefully also going to trigger better record keeping and more transparency of land ownership.

A simple economics rule says: “As long as there is demand, there will be supply!”

The State and the Turkish intellectuals cannot keep going around and trying to make political groups or individuals they don’t approve disappear. The reason why AKP exists is because almost 50% of Turkish voters want to see them in power. Therefore, we have to understand that closing this party or the next fifteen AKP derivatives is not going to make 50% of Turkish votes disappear!

In 1995, Refah Party got the majority of the votes and after building a coalition and becoming the government, in 1997 the party got closed by the state. However, parties out of its body (Fazilet and AKP) continued to be political players. In 2002 elections, AKP got 34.29% of the votes and in 2007 elections the party got 46.58% of the votes across the country. This means if any political actor wants to see AKP disappear, they have to win Turkish people’s hearts and minds. Just like many previous once popular parties one day AKP may be history if people don’t want to see them in power anymore, not before!

Make no mistake about it! I am absolutely not arguing for naiveté or simple mindedness. The threats to Turkish Laicism might be real; however, the way to solve the problem is not to ban one of the parties in this battle. The main problem in Turkey currently is the lack of checks and balances such as independent and scrutinizing media, and strong civil society. Since these control mechanisms are missing, some people trying to overuse and stretch the judiciary power out of fear.However, just like by banning you cannot make even dangerous markets disappear if there is natural demand and supply (i.e. illegal adoptions, drug trafficking, etc.), you cannot make Turkish people stop voting for parties which in their minds talk to them.

I think for Turkey, it is time to try to develop an extensive system of checks and balances, have an overall constitutional reform (not piecemeal opportunistic changes) and quit trying to control the political outcomes with judicial punishments.

This is in response to Washington Post Article on 03/07/2008:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703528.html

The effort to label PKK as freedom fighters continues. In 2008, when US is still deciding whether it is ready for an African-American president, they are forgetting that Turkey had many Kurdish presidents, prime ministers and ministers. How can they still argue that Kurds in Turkey have no political rights?

Turkey lost over 40,000 people because of PKK. US casualties caused by Al-Qaida is less than ten percent of this figure. How can you justify the cause of PKK when you take such a hard stance against Al-Qaida?

In Washington D.C., there are many think-tanks and media organizations that are part of this concerted effort. We will never give up and continue to fight them in every opportunity. We will always be loyal to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the forefathers of our country.

Turkish nation will never sit at the table and negotiate with terrorists. If it means more war, so be it.