Massoud Barzani eats at the White House with President Bush. Then he goes to the European Parliament and has lunch with the representatives. He even tours Europe and makes friends with leaders. What does he find when goes back home? Turkey calls him a tribal chieftain. He is refused admittance. He’s treated as a nobody. This is the attitude that upsets Massoud Barzani most and goads him into protecting the PKK.

  In international relations, it’s your own country’s interests that are in the foreground, and not your emotions. Yesterday, we carried Barzani on our shoulders. Today, we can’t criticize him enough. Tomorrow, you may see him become “our best friend” again.

  Maybe it’s already time to ask ourselves this question:

  Wouldn’t it be better – tomorrow if not today – to start treating Mesut Barzani with some respect in order to pull him closer to our side, as the leader of a region that disturbs us most?

  Isn’t it almost time to consider convincing people instead of beating them into cooperation?

  It would be to our advantage to at least consider it…

He who laughs last…

  I like this saying…It reminds me a little of our relations with the US.

  In 2003, the US was planning a military operation into Iraq. It rang its good friend Turkey’s doorbell and said, “We’ve decided to intervene in Iraq. We need your help. Support us.”

  Turkey had internal problems and said NO.  Washington was very disappointed by the Turkish Parliament’s rejection of the March 1 motion. 

  Today, it’s Ankara that rings Washington’s doorbell and says, “We’ve made up our mind. We will attack the PKK camps in North Iraq. We need your help. Support us.”

  Doesn’t this situation remind you a little of the saying, “He who laughs last laughs best?”

  We must take a measure of ourselves before we judge others.

  This sort of relation is always a matter of give and take.

What’s Turkey’s objective in northern Iraq?

  It would be useful to repeat the answer.

  We can list Turkey’s PKK-related expectations from Washington and the northern Iraqi administration as follows: 

  Basically, Turkey wants to activate Americans and the northern Iraq administration against the PKK in order to stop all terror activities or to reduce them to a minimum within that region. Turkey has asked the US and the northern Iraq administration to achieve the following to this end:

  1. To capture terrorist leaders and to deliver them to Turkey.

  2. To close all military camps positioned at various sections of the region, and especially on the Kandil mountain. ( this item especially includes cutting off free circulation, means of communication  and financial sources.)

  3.  To establish one or several 20-km. wide buffer zones along the border between Turkey and North Iraq, and to develop a system to block all entrance into Turkey through this zone.

  4. To evict the PKK from settlement areas and to prevent them from hiding among the people.  

  5.  To update intelligence exchange.

  The accomplishment of these objectives depends on the support that American forces and North Iraqi authorities lend us in the coming period. If American forces and Barzani do not participate at all, it will be very hard for Turkey to achieve complete results. 

  In that case, there will be three alternatives:

  1. To bomb some camps and to repeat the bombardment from time to time.

  2. To establish a narrow buffer zone or outposts at critical passage points.

  3-   To employ special forces to find and remove PKK leaders from northern Iraq when necessary.

  All these options will be bargaining points between the Turkish Armed Forces and Pentagon. 

  The U.S. has grasped the fact that it is important for Turkey to take action, especially in order to satisfy the public opinion. It is also aware of Turkey’s determination. However, it wants this action to be confined to a limited time and area.

  Turkey, however, wants to establish a long-term sanction mechanism northern North Iraq. 

  At this stage, the sides have yet to reach a clear agreement on specific points. However, general belief says that the U.S. will not object to air attacks and to limited land operations..

I don’t see why we are mad at the Greeks

  The newspapers are in an uproar.

  The Greeks have applied to the EU patent office and have registered Lokum (Turkish delight) in their name.

  What’s wrong with that?

  They have used an intelligent sales tactic and have received the patent of the Geroskipou Lokum.

  “How could they do that?” scream the papers.  Göksu, the president of the Association of Sesame, Crushed Sesame Seed and Halvah Industrialists (SUTHER) has said, “ …The whole world knows that lokum is Turkish. The Greek Cypriots are trying to claim it for their own through some sort of sweet produced by the Greeks from Istanbul…You can’t cover the sun with mud.”

  It seems that the Greeks have also tried to steal our baklava , but had to give up when we defended it with our lives. It also seems that now our pastirma is in danger, too.

  Dindar, a Koska (halvah producers) executive said in his statement that, “Even Madonna mentions the Turkish Lokum in her song.”

  Friends, why don’t you stop talking and hurry to get your own patents first? If you do nothing but watch, others might pull your chairs from under you before you know what has happened.

  What the Greeks did was intelligent.

  Furthermore, let’s not try to hide our laziness and failure to look ahead by turning a commercial event into a matter of national pride.

Share This

  Earlier this summer, talking at a conference organized by the Press and Publications Department of the Prime Ministry for local media members in Adana, I had shocked the audience when I defended the role civil society organizations, or as it is more commonly referred to, nongovernmental organizations, could play in the formation of both domestic, economic, social as well as foreign policy objectives of this country by suggesting “privatization of policy making.”

  Naturally, what I tried to explain was not an anarchist approach to the concept of state, but rather to stress the role establishments like the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodities Exchanges (TOBB), think tank organization Turkey Economy Policies Research Center (TEPAV), the Eurasia Studies Center (ASAM) or the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) could offer Turkey in policy planning by offering ideas that differ from those of “official Turkey” and thus utilize the “soft power” of this country in attaining new dimensions in all spheres.

  I was stressing that rather than concocting a foreign policy through the contributions of only the Foreign Ministry and often without the Foreign Ministry’s contributions but through discussions among some advisors of the prime minister or the foreign minister, Turkey should encourage civil society to nourish fresh ideas and try to benefit from those ideas.

  I was underlining that if one of the thousands of ideas that can be developed by civil society provide a new dimension or help Turkey to better promote any of the fundamental domestic, economic or foreign policy objectives of this country then such a probability is worth encouraging works of TEPAVs, ASAMs and the TESEVs.

  Indeed, that ought to be the case in any participatory democracy that this country has been aspiring to become.

  While the U.S. and the European Union might hope that the “moderate Islam” they see in the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Turkey under the AKP’s rule can be a role model for the Islamic world with the successes of the modernity project undertaken by the founding fathers of this country resulting in a democratic, secular and pluralistic Turkish republic.

Appreciation for TEPAV

  Turkey has two very important guests nowadays: Presidents Shimon Peres of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine. They will come together with President Abdullah Gül for a first-time-ever encounter of Turkish, Israeli and Palestinian leaders under the same roof. This meeting will be taking place just few weeks before the forthcoming talks in United States with President George W. Bush to search for common ground to re-launch a search for peace in the Middle East.

  Though it is too early to even assume that the forthcoming talks in the U.S. city of Annapolis will in any way lead to yet another Camp David-style process, it is clear that the Arab-Israeli conflict has reached a very crucial junction that we hope will gear toward a resolution.

  These two presidents are in Turkey because of the works of TEPAV. The two leaders are here to put the final signatures to a project TEPAV has undertaken under the leadership of Güven Sak with the support of TOBB President Rifat Hisarcıklıoğlu. The “Ankara Forum for Economic Cooperation” and the “Eretz Industrial Zone” project that TEPAV under the leadership of Sak has started to bring to life are good examples of the effective role Turkish civil society can play not only for Turkey’s progress, but also for the promotion of peace and stability in this region.

  It might be just a detail for outsiders, but when completed the Eretz industrial zone – which was demolished almost completely by hostilities as well as by withdrawing Israelis – will provide job opportunities to as many as 6,000 Palestinians and thus prove the slogan “Industry for peace” a success.

  Of course this project could not become realty without the support of the Turkish state and the international community, but we have to underline that this is a product of Turkey’s soft power with which it can be a role model in this geographical region.

Share This

  As a matter of fact, this will be the second biggest summit between Israeli and Palestinian top-level state officers since the Camp David summit orchestrated by the U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000 that failed.

  Following a tri-partite meeting on the morning of Nov. 13 at Çankaya, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres will pay a visit to the TOBB University and have lunch together hosted by Rıfat Hisarcıklıoğlu, head of the Union of Chambers and Commodities Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB).

  The next stop is in fact more important than these two meetings. The Israeli and Palestinian state leaders will delivers speeches one after the other at the same place; that is, they will listen to each other. That place is the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Turkish Parliament, thus proving Turkey’s leading role in regional politics.

  If any of the previous visits, almost like an official parade, by Syrian President Bashar Assad or Saudi King Abdullah has not proven Turkey’s role in the region, the Peres-Abbas rendezvous in Ankara should prove this.

  People betting that Turkey will be isolated in the Middle East due to on-and-off relations with the European Union are mistaken. Turkey has achieved a jump in relations with the Middle East as well, while insisting on its EU bid and continues to struggle against anti-EU cliques inside.

  Still, the power bringing Peres and Abbas together in Ankara is the face of politics with solid steps, not one full of promises, we should see.

The Ankara Forum

  Peres and Abbas are visiting Ankara as part of a project titled “Ankara Forum for Economic Cooperation” launched for “Industry for peace” in 2005 through the initiative of the Manufacturers Association of Israel and TOBB for the revitalization of the Palestinian economy, and the “Erez” Industrial Zone, which was ruined by skirmishes in Gaza. Approximately 6,000 Palestinians will have jobs as a resource will be created for the Palestinian economy in a bid to ease the political tension.

  The Ankara Forum is the only solid and feasible project in the hands of the Middle East Peace Quartet consisting of the U.S., Russia, EU and the United Nations led by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

  Politics and abstract concepts can only find body by solid steps. Therefore, this is a solid example for Turkey’s power in the region. Comparing the trouble Turkey faces with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) plague in Iraq with its efforts for the Ankara Forum is not right and is underestimating the country.

  International politics resembles communication vessels, a well-known experiment that most persons have conducted in school: Sometimes to raise the liquid level in a tube, you have to add some more to the other column in an inter-connected system so as to have liquid level out.

  Without Gül’s encouragement and without Hisarcıklıoğlu’s dedication, this project would have not been put into practice. But the project was given flesh and bone by primarily Güven Sak, director of TOBB’s think tank organization TEPAV.

  Foreign Ministry Deputy Undersecretary and former Ambassador to Tel Aviv Feridun Sinirlioğlu, former Foreign Ministry spokesman and current Turkish Ambassador to Israel Namık Tan, Turkish Economic Assistance Coordinator for Palestine Vehbi Dinçerler, Palestinian Ambassador to Ankara Nabil Mahluz, former Israeli Ambassador to Ankara Pinhas Avivi and current Israeli Ambassador to Ankara Gaby Levy made this project possible.

  Our appreciation goes to all…

Share This

  We have been accusing and criticizing the Bush administration left and right… For their performance in Iraq and the way that they openly try to break up a country; pretend that the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) nests in northern Iraq do not exist; and prepare the grounds for the formation of an independent Kurdish state in the region. They’ve deserved everything that’s been said and more. Except on one subject… The Armenian project… The readers of this column will remember. Since the beginning of this year, the Armenian project had been hanging over our heads like the Democles sword. The easiest way for the Democrats to punish Bush, once they achieved majority in Congress, was to approve the Armenian project. All “Washington observers” believed that the project would pass with ease until the last few weeks. Despite the non-binding nature of the project, its approval would have dealt a serious blow to Turkey’s morale.

  The approval of the genocide accusation by the U.S. House of Representatives would have clinched the accuracy of Armenian allegations, damaging Ankara’s international credibility on this issue in an almost irrefutable way. The Bush administration achieved something that had appeared to be  “impossible” only a short while ago. It blocked the project and had it postponed.  The observers in Washington repeatedly qualify this feat as a “never seen before effort.” It was really incredible. The White House exerted an incredible amount of pressure and conducted a very convincing campaign, thanks to which, a disaster in Turkey-U.S. relations was averted at the last minute. The Bush administration anticipated Ankara’s reactions and made this effort to salvage its relations with Turkey despite the risk of losing Armenian votes. No matter why he did it, Prime Minister Erdoğan “owes a big thank you” to Bush to be delivered at the first occasion. This postponement will hopefully make Turkey lift its head out of the sand and approach this issue from a brand new angle. Otherwise, the same project will come back on the agenda next year (just before the elections in November 2008), when a no longer effective White House wont be able to stop it no matter what it does. Turkey must make the most of this opportunity…

  Let loose Turkey is entering a very risky period. Today the first face-to-face negotiation starts with U.S. State Secretary Rice, who is expected to arrive in Istanbul to attend a conference that will also be attended by Iraqi speakers. The Istanbul conference was an idea conceived by Abdullah Gül during his term as foreign minister.  The project was launched with Washington’s support, although Egypt and some other countries had initially been cool to it.  The objective of the conference, which is to meet for the second time, is to prevent the division of Iraq and to get the neighboring countries that want immediate peace to produce solutions. Despite its already set agenda, the Istanbul conference will be overshadowed by the PKK presence in northern Iraq and Turkey’s possible military intervention.

  In official sessions, Iraq’s internal issues will be the topic of discussions, whereas in corridors and bilateral meetings, other countries will put pressure on Turkey not to intervene in northern Iraq. This meeting gives Turkey a rare opportunity to expose the tension created by the PKK, as well as the support and protection it receives from the northern Iraqi administration. More importantly, Turkey will be able to show its determination to prevent the PKK from operating in northern Iraq. If there’s to be a military operation, it is imperative to make sure that the participant countries understand the situation. To convince them will be to tone down their latter reactions. The conference will also present the opportunity to take the pulse of these countries, which will enable us to reach healthier decisions in the near future.

  There is no doubt that the most important meetings in these series will be the ones held with State Secretary Rice. Washington continues to say, “please avoid military operations and let’s settle this issue through negotiations.”  At least, that is the official view… The basic aim of the discussions to be held in Istanbul and Ankara will be to convince Rice. Turkey has to make her understand the meaning of the outrage felt by the Turkish public. We have to show her how impossible this feeling makes it for the AKP government  and the Turkish Armed Forces to try to settle this issue through negotiations without taking other steps. In fact, Turkey has now reached the point of no return or better said, how the PKK pushed Turkey to this point. Even people who have spent their lives in search of peace now want action, let alone those in favor of violence. I am not talking about a large-scale occupation of 30-40,000 soldiers. The number of people who say, “we must do something to hurt these men back,” increase every day. This atmosphere must be described to Rice first while she’s here, and then to President Bush on Monday. Neither the government nor the Turkish Armed Forces can convince the public of any other alternative now. The die has been cast. The Bush administration has to see this in order to adjust its attitude accordingly. In other words, Turkey will first thank President Bush about the Armenian project, and then will let loose…   

Share This

  Despite all the remarks by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, including the one that “Fatma may go on holiday” – an allusion to the “Ayşe may go on holiday” message late legendary Foreign Minister Turan Güneş sent to Ankara from last ditch London talks and gave the go-ahead for the 1974 Cyprus operation – from the men in the street to the retired generals accused by the premier of engaging in “agitation” everyone is aware that the Turkish government continues to consider a Turkish military incursion into northern Iraq as the “last option” in the fight against the separatist terrorist gang.

  As is apparent from the government’s decision to withhold a decision on the issue first by 72 hours and later for another few days at the request of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and later until after a Nov. 5 meeting at the White House between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Erdoğan, Turkey is trying to give diplomacy one last chance before resorting to use of force to bring an end to the presence of the separatist terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) gang in northern Iraq.

  Not only are the members of the PKK enjoying a safe haven in the mountains of northern Iraq, but they are freely moving around the territory, getting medical treatment at hospitals, opening “cultural” bureaus and even some chieftains of the gang are serving as peshmerga commanders in Barzani’s regional force.

  Turkey is of course right in expecting the U.S. to do something on this issue as it is the “occupation power” in Iraq and because of its military presence in that country it is responsible for peace and security in that country together with the puppet Jalal Talabani regime it installed and the new Iraqi armed forces it established, trained and armed.

  It is a fact as well that although the U.S. has withdrawn from the northern parts of Iraq and left the security of that region to the Kurdish peshmerga of the local Kurdish administration led by Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Massoud Barzani, the region remains under strict surveillance of the U.S…. Washington knew far better than anyone the dimensions of the problem Turkey has been facing, yet did nothing over the past period other than stalling the Turks with the so-called trilateral (Turkey-Iraq and the U.S.) “coordinators” mechanism.

Cooperation with Barzani

  If Turkey, despite all the rhetoric, did not want a military operation and wanted the PKK presence in Iraq problem to be resolved through diplomacy, cooperation of the local warlord Barzani – as well as the U.S. and the central Iraqi government – is a must. However, all indications so far demonstrate the fact that Barzani has no intention of cooperating with Turkey – unlike what had happened in the previous such Turkish operations – and on the contrary is in attempts to use a possible Turkish intervention as a tool in his Kurdish nation-building campaign, which is not limited to northern Iraq.

  What is obvious as well is the role Washington and Jalal Talabani, a Kurd and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), could play in not only convincing  Barzani to cooperate with Turkey but also in pressuring the PKK to stop violence if not to lay down arms totally.

  Thus, while the meeting of Erdoğan with President Bush on Nov. 5 will be of crucial importance either for a “diplomatic way out” from the present quagmire we have been facing or a “coordinated” Turkey-U.S. drive against the PKK, Turkey cannot and should not overlook the crucial role Talabani – who has a reputation as “belly dancer of politics” – might have to play in contributing to a Turkish or Turkish-U.S. joint drive against the PKK and his capability of pulling Barzani into such a scheme.

  Over the past years the doors of Ankara were closed to Talabani because of the sensitivities of former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. We no longer have such a restriction. However, Ankara’s doors remain closed to Talabani. Even if meeting with Talabani might not be a success, if diplomacy is given a last chance Turkey must at least try to utilize the Iraq’s neighbors meeting in Istanbul this week, invite Talabani there and have talks with the Iraqi president on the sidelines of that conference.

  Sabah Omran, Iraq’s ambassador to Ankara told us yesterday “up to this minute we have not received any invitation from Turkey for a visit to Ankara or Istanbul either for a working or official visit or for the foreign ministers’ meeting.”

  We should not have missed out on such an opportunity.

Share This

  PRAGUE – Last Sunday evening I was strolling down the biggest avenue of the Czech capital and suddenly a blonde and blue-eyed young lady approached me. She handed me a tabloid paper and said something in Czech, which, of course, sounded to me like Chinese. “Excuse me,” I asked, “could you please repeat that in English?” She kindly did. “Come join our cause,” she invitingly explained. “We are standing up against Islam.”

  I was definitely not the most promising candidate to be inspired by that message, but I found it interesting. The headline of the tabloid read, “Progressive Islamic Occupation of Europe.” The “news story” had alarming revelations about the increasing number of mosques in the old continent, which were, supposedly, “like sharp lances stuck into the heart of Christian shaped Europe.” Islam was so dangerous for these folks, because it was, they believed, “an aggressive, spiteful and cruel religion that considered fighting against the ‘infidels’ as a natural and right cause.”

The Czech ‘National Front’:

  The alarming headline story was supplemented by an eye-catching graphic. The famous Hitler poster in which the German dictator poses messianicly in front of his brown-shirted storm troopers was adapted to the “Islam” this paper had in mind. Hitler was replaced by a man with a beard and a turban, and whose flag carried a crescent instead of the swastika. The caption summarized the whole message. Instead of the Nazis’ notorious motto, “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer,” it read, “Ein Volk, Ein Ummah, Ein Muhammad.”

  A minute later this “standing up against Islam” became much more exciting, because the comrades of the tabloid-handing lady lined up in front of the splendid statue of Saint Vaslav, the national hero of the Czechs, and started to sing patriotic hymns. I realized that they were the members of the ultra-right Narodni Strana, or “National Party,” which has not ever been able to pass the 5 percent national electoral threshold in order to make its way into the parliament.

  The Narodniks are apparently a marginal element in Czech society, but they are not the only ones who have a strong zeal against Islam. Similar groups in various European countries continuously fuel fear about and hatred toward Muslims. And although they think they are “defending” their countries, they are actually making them more vulnerable by fuelling the global threat called “clash of civilizations.”

  The term Islamophobia has been coined recently to define the psycho-ideology of such groups, and it reminds of other ethnicity or religion based hatreds. Some of the vile comments made by Islamophobes about dress codes, beards, or dietary laws of traditional Muslims indeed sound like the way Nazis affronted Jews in their propaganda tools such as the notorious film, Der Ewige Jude, or “The Eternal Jew.”

  Don’t expect any gas chambers as a result of this paranoia, but there are less direct perils. The more Islamophobia will grow, the more the gap will deepen between Europe’s Muslim communities and their host societies. That will make those communities more open to radical ideas, and hence more Islamophobia will follow. A truly vicious cycle.

What is to be done?:

  But what should be done in the face of this trouble? Here, as a Muslim myself, let me say this: Much of the responsibility lies in the hands of Muslim leaders and intellectuals. We should see that there is Islamophobia in the world, because there are men who blow up innocents, respond to any criticism with fury, treat their wives as slaves, and do all of these in the name of Islam. The racist and xenophobic tendencies in European societies add a lot to the problem, to be sure, but they are secondary. The primary issue is what some misled Muslims do.

  Thus Islamophobia will never end by reiterating that it is too bad. Many Western leaders do say that, but some of their people disregard their comments as political correctness. What is really needed is an initiative by Muslims to reject and denounce all the horrible things done in the name of their religion – and do this frankly and persuasively. The objections to the West and its policies, on the other hand, should be made calmly and constructively.

  The event that brought me to Prague is actually very much directed at fostering such a dialogue between Muslims and the West. Organized by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and supported by the Czech government, the American Embassy, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Prague Civic Institute, the conference addresses a crucial topic: “What Unites and What Divides Us: Tough Questions for Islam and the West.” Muslim speakers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Bosnia and Turkey will discuss with panelists from Europe and the United States the issues that both sides are most curious about. In my next column, I will let you know what comes out of it.

  What is outright certain is that the Narodni Strana and other Islamophobic groups are driven by a wrong and dangerous cause. It is in the best interest of all of us to help them calm down. 

Share This

  Turkey would have perhaps lived with Barzani but as he continues to protect the PKK and to insist on Kirkuk, talks are going nowhere. Besides, isn’t Barzani playing with fire while he tries to bargain by using such a terror organization? After all whether or not the PKK is the right trump card for Barzani is debatable. Does the U.S. see the PKK deal as part of the Iranian equation? At this point, the ambassador shared his opinion referring to Turkey, “I think the U.S. prefers Kurds over you.” If this is the case really and if the U.S. is uttering about “strategic ally” for nothing and regarding Kurds as a more serious ally than Turkey, then why is the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice going to come to Ankara on Nov. 2?

  Who would benefit from these developments? Ahead of a Justice and Development Party (AKP) parliamentary group meeting Tuesday, I asked Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan if he received any phone calls from the U.S. He said, “no.” And I insisted, “do you expect one?” He answered, “we are going there now.” Does this mean hopes have already died on the Rice visit? But I didn’t have a change to ask this question. However, Erdoğan’s speech to his group in Parliament sent sufficient amount of signals that if his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House on Nov. 5 bares no fruit, the rope will get thinner quickly. If we go back to our meeting at the embassy, a colleague asked the question backwards to freshen up the inside of our heads already filled with new questions and answers flying around: Who would benefit from these developments? Counting them one by one gives a clear picture as a matter of fact: Before the PKK’s latest attacks, both the U.S. and Turkey and Barzani could tolerate the situation, even though it was not pleasing entirely.

  However, the developments such as reforms in Turkey reducing the tension, the U.S. completely leaving northern Iraq to Barzani and concentrating on the chaos in central and southern Iraq, Barzani’s publicizing himself more everyday as the sole and legitimate leader of Kurds, pushed the PKK aside, left in desolation. Perhaps, alarm bells rang for the PKK when the AKP stole away the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) votes in southeastern Turkey during the July 22 elections. Perhaps for this reason only, terrorists, thinking, “this is the day,” attempted raids in crowded groups consisting of let’s say 150 militants.

  They wanted to drag Turkey into a quagmire set on their terms. Neither Turkey nor the U.S. nor Barzani is content at the point we have come to, but only the PKK is after finding a place on the international agenda. After the meeting, I found two news stories on my desk: In his parliamentary speech the DTP leader Ahmet Türk was requesting a redefinition of the republic, in a way to not appropriate it to a single nation only. In Diyarbakir, he had announced the decisions reached in the “Democratic Society Convention” who had gathered with the desire to imitate the Erzurum Congress, of the days of Independence. Abdullah Öcalan was the leader of the Kurds and this convention asked for Kurdish autonomy from Turkey. What the PKK does want is clear. Apparently terrorists succeeded in making other actors in the region tag along with the agenda that has changed entirely with its latest attacks. What needs to be stopped is this tagging along.

Share This

  The government has established an extremely faulty communication system that also involves the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTUK) and TV channels. You’ll soon see it fail completely. What’s more, it’s going give the impression that Turkey is applying censorship. There’s so much difference between what was meant to happen and what actually happens now. Let’s first read the text that RTUK sent us: “Re the terrorist attacks that took place at Dağlıca/Hakkari’ on 21/10/2007: In accordance with article 25 of Law number 3984 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts; and with respect to social responsibility and sensitivity in broadcast, in order to raise the morale of security forces, in order to avoid disturbing the psychological state of the public, and to protect the mental health of children; a decision has been made to stop the broadcast of radio and TV programs that exercise negative effects on public order and morale, weaken the powerful image of security forces,  and disturb the psychological state of society.“ The reasons behind this attitude can be summarized in the following way: - To prevent some channels from exploiting public sentiment by showing exaggerated scenes of heartbreaking grief at funerals. (Exaggerated reporting was beginning to start dangerous trends. Some Kurdish neighborhoods were attacked. Even slight differences in opinion were motivating lynching attempts. The exaggeration had to be stopped.)

  - Another reason was to stop some channels from broadcasting the opinions of people with no expertise whatsoever; individuals and some retired officers, were running from one channel to the other, pretending to be experts and passing judgment on what to do by pronouncing the most outrageous views. They disseminated false information and impressions in and outside Turkey. In short, the reason was to prevent information pollution.

  - To prevent the written and visual press from depicting objectionable pictures and providing false information by grossly exaggerating military activities within the related regions. 

  - To reduce the tension created by the questions, criticism and commentaries concerning the attitude and tactics of the Turkish Armed Forces and about the eight kidnapped soldiers. The government wanted to appease the public and reduce the anxiety. When official statements didn’t work, the government tried to achieve it through RTUK. However, the general picture is one of complete censorship. Now, I want to ask you a question: Is there any relationship between the RTUK statement and what the government was trying to do? The statement is very abstract and open to individual interpretation. Especially the part about “protecting the mental health of children.” What on earth does that mean? What news does not conform to article 25? Are we to use no funeral scenes or casualty information? When we do use them, what are the reference points? These are my objections. If it’s indeed necessary to block some exceptionable broadcasts, article 25 is not the answer. The answer is to do what civilized countries do. In other words, officials establish communication with the channels, tell them exactly what they want, give concrete examples and solve the problem. You can be sure that the media will fall in with this method. It is wrong to restrain all channels because of a few marginal channels that exaggerate in the name of opposition. Neither the related ministries nor the military organized a proper information campaign during the crisis. Afterwards, they said, “you are ruining the country, pal.” In civilized countries, however, the media receive constant information in similar situations. In this way, they are also warned and guided. What can the media do in the absence of information but write and broadcast what they see and hear? As usual, the state took the easy way out. It preferred sticks to communication (information and guidance).

‘Neighborhood pressure’ on media increases… Everybody holds the media responsible. The government and even the military accuse and criticize us constantly: 

  “Why do you exaggerate the news of casualties and funerals so much? Why do you exploit public sentiment?  Look, your broadcasts arouse the public. You invite Turkish-Kurdish strife.” You hear what they are saying and find that they are not entirely wrong. You fine-tune your article accordingly. This time, however, it is the people, the families of the soldiers killed in action, some political parties and associations that accuse and criticize you:   

  “ Shameless media…Sold-out media…Our brave soldiers lose their lives and get only two lines from you…” You bear these reactions and resist the pressure to avoid provoking Turk-Kurd conflict. This time it’s your colleagues who hit below the belt. “To us, there’s no difference between five and fifty-five soldiers killed in action. We are hurt just as badly.  The pro-censorship media is trying to silence us, hand-in-hand with RTUK.” So you’re cornered by the neighborhood pressure that exists even at home and in your street and don’t know what to do. I am against the limits set by RTUK. However, when I feel the neighborhood pressures, hear the comments and the provocation on some marginal channels, see the news on soldiers killed in action and the funerals and witness the exploitation, I also give reason to the state. Still, I firmly believe that this is not the right method, and that I dialogue and information are.

Share This

  Retired generals with thick eyebrows have been appearing on TV screens or giving interviews to news people, elaborating on Turkey’s possible reaction to increased terrorist attacks, which points along the Turkish-Iraqi joint border Turkish troops could enter northern Iraq, how deep they might go into northern Iraq, which areas could be bombarded by Turkish artillery and fighter jets, what might be targeted by Turkey besides the hideouts of the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) terrorist group…

  Similarly some “strategists” appeared in front of cameras with sketches of northern Iraq and engaged in elaborate comments about the scope and targets of a possible Turkish operation…

  Some were talking about the “determination” of Turkey to use “this opportunity” to eradicate the independent state aspirations of the Iraqi Kurds, particularly that of Massoud Barzani, the northern Iraqi local leader and chairman of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP).

  Television channels were full of “emotional” footage about the life stories of the slain soldiers as well as the emotional outpouring of the nation to the streets to condemn separatist terrorism…

  That was so until early Tuesday afternoon, when upon a request by Deputy Prime Minister Çemil Çiçek, the Radio and Television High Board (RTÜK) clamped down on radio and television stations with a censure order, restricting broadcasts regarding the attacks by the terrorist PKK.

  It was impossible, of course, not to share the concerns of the government over such broadcasts. TV channels were directly or indirectly accusing the government of still not acting against the terrorists despite all the recent suffering, the declared view of the military that there was a need for such a military incursion, and the immense public pressure for an all out war at any cost on the separatist gang and its collaborators at home and in northern Iraq.

  For reasons that are obvious to anyone with some intellect, however, the government was at pains to exhaust all possible diplomatic remedy options before undertaking a military operation. Only on Monday, a senior government official was telling us that undertaking a military operation without giving a last chance to diplomacy might land the country into a very difficult situation and the country might pay a very high price, not limited to a possible high number of casualties but more so in the diplomacy and international relations arenas.

  With the mounting public pressure – which the government believed was a direct byproduct of the ratings war among TV channels using the recent escalation of terrorist attacks and the national pain felt – it was becoming more and more difficult for the government to continue its last ditch diplomatic efforts, or even to consider confining a possible Turkish military operation to aerial bombing of the separatist terrorist bases in northern Iraq.

  In particular, the government was annoyed with the remarks of a retired four-star general who implied during a TV interview that besides the PKK, Turkey must also aim at Barzani and reconsider its relations with Washington as developments have proved that the increased number of U.S.-made guns and ammunition in the possession of the PKK “could not be coincidental.”

  What the aim was and what was done were perhaps not the same. The government might have just wanted to prevent a possible provocation that might ignite strife in the country based on ethnic differences; or it might have made the request just for the protection of the psychological health of our children, as the statement underlined. The end product, however, was an example of how governments can clamp down censure on the media…

  Whatever the aim is behind it, of course, censure is not something that we or anyone sensitive to freedom of expression, press freedom or the right of the public to be informed can agree with. The way the government handled this problem and the way the RTÜK acted upon the request of the government will be remembered in the years ahead as an unfortunate chapter of the administration’s anti-democratic attitude toward the media. What has happened must enter textbooks as an example of bad use of government power.

  Instead, however, the government might have established a well-functioning information unit, bombarded newspapers and radio-TV networks with information, bring clarification on speculative remarks made and manage the situation in a professional manner.

  If news of eight soldiers being held hostage by the gang can be kept from the media for more than 24 hours, if no one, even at this moment, can be provided with a satisfactory explanation of the security lapse we have been complaining about, clamping down with a censure cannot help the government “control” the media…

Share This

    Will Turkey launch a military operation in northern Iraq? When, how? I mean, what will the scope and  who will be the“targets” of this operation? A Turkish military operation in northern Iraq will be the case of the Erdoğan-Bush meeting scheduled for Nov. 5 in Washington. I think an operation before Nov. 5 is less likely and one after Nov. 5 is most likely. This is my “impression.”

  Don’t ask me why and how because like I said, the conversation we held with Erdoğan was 90 percent “off the record.” When I added up the pieces of that puzzle, I came up with “my impression.” After Nov. 5 (I don’t know how much after), a military operation will be organized against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as the target in northern Iraq.

  Why is a cross-border operation in north of Iraq before Nov. 5 less likely? There are two main reasons: One is hidden in the conversation between Erdoğan and the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the night of the PKK’s bloody attack in the Dağlıca district, Hakkari. She requested Erdoğan to wait for “a few days.” “A few days” could be translated as “couple days” or “a little.”

  Erdoğan’s impression about this phone call is this: “I have never seen Americans this frenetic.”

  Why should the Turkish obey this “American request” now? Because, in fact, the U.S. makes the following suggestion: “Wait a few days and let’s move together.”

  And in this “wait a few days” period, intelligence about the PKK that the U.S. is willing to share with Turkey must have been coming. Because just a few hours before the Erdoğan-Rice talk in Kiev, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül and his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates, former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, met and Gates conveyed a similar request: “Wait a few days for a joint action.”

  Erdoğan seems reactive to the mentality and remarks of the nationalist-leftist groups. “Some with a nationalist-leftist mentality will mention that this is waiting permission from the U.S. and imperialist circles. We will take care of it ourselves,” he said. As Erdoğan utters these words, his posture reflects “self-confidence” and that he was not affected by such remarks.

  It’s been long since I’ve had a face-to-face conversation with Erdoğan. I see a man clearly relaxed by winning 47 percent of votes in the July 22 general elections and an almost 70 percent “Yes” in the constitutional amendments package referendum held last Sunday with 67 percent turnover. Erdoğan nowadays feels much like a leader whose authority is continuously ratified, therefore “powerful politically.” He will meet Bush with this peace and quiet on Nov. 5. and Erdoğan seems confident he will get the green light for a joint operation against the PKK.Let’s take up where we left off. A “joint operation” with the U.S. will not target, as some people wish to see in Turkey, Massaud Barzani and the Iraqi Kurdish administration. Erdoğan underlined this in our meeting and specified the operation as “targeting the PKK only with the least number of loses.” Therefore, he says a military operation in northern Iraq will target the PKK only.Of course the organization will not be looking forward to seeing troops, banners or posters in hand out there. Just for this very reason, the U.S. should leave the Iraqi Kurdish administration and the PKK alone, for “intelligence” cooperation.This is how we can obtain clues about the operation; an operation to serve a heavy blow to the PKK presence in northern Iraq and to catch some of its leaders. That is to say, it will not be barging into northern Iraq with the company of large-scale land force units or tanks or armored vehicles and give the impression of an “occupier.” It will definitely not be the one Israel did in south Lebanon in 1982.

  Erdoğan’s Oxford message

  Dr. Philip Robins is an Oxford University lecturer in politics, with special reference to the Middle East, and a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College at the same University. We are following Erdoğan’s speech side by side at the Oxford Union. He whispers to my ear: “Upon the developments on Sunday, was not coming here the issue?” I replied: “I don’t think this is on Erdoğan’s mind. His coming here is a message to the PKK. A message of ‘You cannot determine my agenda’. I carry my own agenda.’…”

  “It is good to have him here. This is a message of ‘I am in control.’ He seems very self-confident anyways,” said Robins.I scan through the place in the hall where many great men have delivered speeches since 1870. British prime ministers are there in the Oxford Union. There are five of them. Robins picks one and shows me Gladstone.Established by students in 1823, the Oxford Union exists for about 200 years as the most prestigious debating society in Britain as the cradle of “free thought,” democracy and “freedom of expression.”I lent an ear to a foreign ministry official who is delighted by Erdoğan’s speech because he talked about “almost every aspect of Turkish foreign policy,” But I don’t ask Robins if he was pleased with the speech, perhaps I don’t want to hear any negative comments.

   “He could have delivered this speech in a Justice and Development Party (AKP) members meeting or in a fast-breaking dinner with the TOBB or in the Gazi University. I think cassette number three was on again. Since it was a country kind of speech, it didn’t suit here; a waste of time. A speech at the Oxford Union went down the drain,” is was what I said to a journalist about Erdoğan’s speech.The Oxford Union is home to historic speeches, of “vision “speeches. It was so nice to be there. Erdoğan’s conversation with us in the air was much more critical than his speech at the Oxford Union because the latter is prepared by state officials but the former genuinely belongs to him…

Share This