Archive for December, 2011

French domestic politics take France back to middle ages

Making Armenians (and Turks) a tool for French domestic politics is quite disgusting.

An article of mine that appeared in Todayszaman in September 2007 is highly relevant again now.

Armenian resolution:’ Bad for Armenia, Turkey and the US

25.09.2007
Today’s Zaman
Countries are free to let their parliaments decide on historical issues. For example, you may have the Japanese parliament vote unanimously that it was the American air force who first struck Japan to start the eastern episode of World War II.

That will not change history, but may have repercussions on the politics and economics of the day.

Letting parliaments decide on historical facts may also seem one of the silly features of the political system of our times when future political historians, say a hundred years from now, describe the beginning of 21st century.

One of the prime weaknesses of democracies is probably the possibility of making parliaments hostage to strong lobbies. Lobbies are not bad per se; so long as they are a means to convey sincere preferences of voters to parliament, they are a useful ingredient of the democratic system. They are bad when they become just a stick to prod a parliament to vote as a specific clique wants; the parliament then becomes a stamping authority of the strong lobbies of smaller cliques.

What Armenia needs today is economic growth and political stability. When a poor country invading its neighbor’s land is no news to the world, one can conclude there is a problem somewhere, including for the invading party. Armenia, instead of using its resources properly to drive growth and development for its people, is allocating today a significant portion of those resources to feed its official and unofficial invasion army in Azerbaijan.

The result is closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, and animosity instead of cooperation for Armenia. Armenia has about 70,000 illegal workers in Turkey, maybe more. It could trade freely with Turkey and Azerbaijan to create mutual prosperity. It could see higher growth rates and a more prosperous society. Its invasion of Azerbaijan does not help all this.

A vote of so-called genocide by the US Congress will also not help. The prime result will be increased animosity with Turkey. Nor will Turkish-US relations benefit from a Congress-stamped slander of Turkey which will also be taken as encouragement of a country’s invading its neighbor.

The Armenian diaspora in the US sabotaged a speech by Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II (Mutafyan) to be delivered at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., last week. The patriarch was probably going to voice his appeal for more cooperation instead of hostility, more dialogue instead of bickering. Perhaps Congress should listen to him.

I am not sure if the Armenian diaspora will also be ultimately happy with a “Congress victory.” Their insistence on unduly affecting US policy will result in damaged US foreign relations, a further damaged Armenian economy and a damaged Turkish openness to dialogue with Armenia.

The Turco-American economic relationship spans more than 100 years. This is a close relationship, but still weak compared to its potential. A vote by congress will damage that potential as well. This is probably what the diaspora wants. Is this what all Americans want?

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Tags: , , ,

Getting along with the new Turkey

Murat Yulek and Anthony Randazzo

Real Clear World – 2 December 2011

(http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/12/02/getting_along_with_the_new_turkey_99784.html)

Turkey announced this week it would freeze the financial assets of Syria, its southern neighbor, and prevent all weapons deliveries to the country until the regime of Bashar al-Assad ceases its assaults on civilians protesting autocratic rule and agrees to step down. This is also the same Turkey that has co-negotiated a deal with Iran on limiting nuclear weapons developments. This is the same Turkey who’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is beloved by Muslims around the world for his fiery language leveled toward Israel in the wake of diplomatic snafus and the flotilla incident last year. This is the same Turkey that has made the foreign policy choice to negotiate with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

How is the Western world to understand Turkey taking the lead with sanctions against Syria and the vehement Turkish defense of democracy?

Already well on its way to becoming a regional power, the Republic of Turkey was thrust into the global spotlight by the Arab Spring earlier this year. Its commitment to true democratic governance, majority Islamic population, and rapid economic growth has caused many to cite it as a model for struggling nations like Egypt and Libya. However, there are many in the Western world that view Turkey’s rise with suspicion and even scorn. These fears are misplaced, and governments all over the world should be seeking to partner with Turkey in reshaping a region long fraught with instability and violence.

After rising from ashes of a once proud Ottoman Empire in 1923, the Turkish Republic spent its first seven decades as a moderately industrialized nation but with hardly any major influence on any international platform. At the turn of the millennium, Turkey had just gone through a Japanese-style lost decade and was at the brink of economic collapse. Inflation was at 70 percent by 2001 (having hit a high of 116 percent in 1994) and GDP was at negative 5.7 percent.

The 1990s were also a time of severe political instability and democratic failure in Turkey. The government was crushed by a fourth military coup in four decades. Kurdish terrorism in Turkey’s southeastern region claiming thousands of civilian and military lives. And by 2001, the Istanbul Stock Exchange was in collapse, the banking system was leaning hard on the International Monetary Fund as a savior, and Turkey’s long-standing membership process to the European Union received scant attention in Brussels.

The general elections of November 2002 proved to be the starting point of a major overhaul in Turkey’s economy, political systems, democratic credentials and rising regional importance. A newly established party won a majority of seats in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and began a program focused on liberalizing the economy – starting with the privatization of state owned enterprises – and eventually the introduction of the now famous “zero problems” foreign policy to make peace with all Turkey’s neighbors.

On the economic front, public finances have been improved substantially and private output has surged. The Turkish banking sector is one of the most stable in Europe and the world. Its economy has reached 17th largest on the planet. Even after the global financial crisis in 2008, Turkey has one of the fast growing economies in the world. Turkey’s government debt-to-GDP ratio – down from 76 percent in 2001 to 35 percent in 2010 – is not only better than its Greek neighbors (142 percent) but also European fiscal stalwart Germany (54 percent). And inflation has been brought down to around 8 percent.

At the same time, the domestic political clout of the military has been pealed back. This has sparked international concerns that the former guardians of secularism in Turkey were giving way to Islamic fundamentalism. However, while painful, the process to reducing military authority has led to a healthier real democracy, instead of a faux-democracy operating as a front for the wishes of generals and admirals.

Perhaps most importantly, the ruling party has substantially improved Turkey’s human rights record, including implementing European standards for criminal justice.

The biggest challenges ahead for Turkey are on the global political stage. Turkey’s international resurgence started with sincere attempts to improve its relations with all neighboring foreign interests. The so-called “zero problems with neighbors policy” was put in place with overtures made to countries ranging from Greece to Armenia. But good faith efforts to broker deals between Syria and Israel have been overshadowed by dealings with Iran, Hamas and the authoritarian Egyptian military ruling council. These and other efforts have earned Turkey the label of Islamist fundamentalist in some Western quarters.

Such “activism” is a new experience for Turkey and has involved a steep learning curve with mixed success as the process has depended on other parties’ willingness to engage. Turkey is carving a new place for itself in the world, and in many ways is growing up, requiring the world to adapt as Turkey finds its new footing.

Inside Turkey, the government is at times accused of only “looking west” for co-operating on security missions in Afghanistan and installing a U.S.-led missile defense system on Turkish soil. Outside Turkey, the Justice and Development Party is seen as “turning to the east” for choosing a foreign policy that negotiates with Iran and Hamas, and stands up to Israeli diplomatic bullying.

In reality, Turkey is rejecting the passivity that developed during the latter half of the 20th century with its global affairs, and developing a more balanced yet assertive approach. Such “tectonic” change is creating conflicting interpretations from different quarters, and thus the confusion over why the most recent popular critic of Israel is taking such a hardline with a supposed Islamic ally.

The rehabilitation of Turkey’s economy, political structures and global position is still ongoing, but substantially stronger in this new decade. Such changes in economic strength, policy and activism often will lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. But Turkey becoming a strong and stable economy, on its way to becoming a healthier democracy, is critical for regional stability and development. It can be a voice helping to guide the Arab Spring into a true period of reform, thereby transforming the region into one of prosperity, democracy and freedom. The West should not reject its international standing or assertiveness, but rather embrace a new, stronger friend, criticizing missteps when appropriate, but welcoming a partner in the process of global development.

Tags: , , , , ,