It’s now all the chi-chi fashion rage! The prurient fashion designing male politicians of both sides are again trying to determine what Turkish women should wear on their heads. And where, and when, too. The secular left offers the Iranian model with a dash of hair showing. The so-called pious, ruling party, convicted by the Turkish constitutional court of being the center of the anti-secular movement in the nation, argues in the craven words of democracy and freedom. Whether

Üsküdar, Istanbul, November 2003

it’s abaya, chador, burqa, nigab, turban, hijab, it’s all part of a women’s democratic fashion choice. And the prime minister himself has proclaimed the covering of women as a “political symbol.” In fact, it’s a symbol of stupidity and backwardness. It’s a political dialogue, at the expense of the dignity of Turkish women, intended to put them and keep them in a “living” kefen (burial shroud). It is a lifelong headlock—social, political, intellectual, physiological, and psychological—a death grip until they meet their literal end in the grave. 

“Be sure of it!” challenged the jealous Othello, for he must be certain of his wife’s infidelity. “Give me the ocular proof,” he demanded of the treacherous Iago, taking him by the throat. And in this manner Desdemona would be condemned by her own version of a headscarf, her handkerchief, the ocular proof of her infidelity. Except it was false, planted evidence. But she was a woman so she died anyway. 

The headscarf issue that so besets and divides Turkey is also “ocular proof.” But of what? National piety, that’s what. It had allowed America to call Turkey a “moderate Islamic nation.” It satisfied the American need for symbolic gestures, like the upright purple fingers of Iraqi voters signified democratic progress. For without such signs how could America, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and their fellow Americans be sure of Turkey’s democratic moderate Islamic piety? And if you’re wondering how a backward-thinking political party like the AKP came to be the ruling party of the country of Atatürk, it’s because of AKP’s complete collaboration with America’s disastrous Middle East policy. And sadly, while President Obama earlier indicated differently, he too de facto continues the nonsensical Bush administration’s policy of Turkish moderate Islam. And the ruling party, the AKP, loves all of it, particularly the headscarf part. The prime minister also encourages women to open themselves to the idea of having at least three children. Ah such loving political concern by the prime minister for the most delicate areas of femininity. 

It should come as no surprise to even a casual reader of the Koran that the Turkish headscarf issue has nothing to do with Islam. It is a tradition that was made-in-America, not Mecca, and certainly not in Turkey. The genuine tradition of wearing a headscarf arose from women field workers in rural areas for protection from extreme weather conditions. In other words, the headscarf came about from a physical necessity that had nothing to do with religion. This has been appropriated, more correctly, stolen, by religious-mongering politicians and converted into a bogus religious duty. In fact, it is an imperative that arises from imperialism and enslavement. 

The historian Eric Hobsbawn explains this phenomenon in his book, The Invention of Tradition. (1) One example is especially relevant to today’s Turkey. Do you think that the Scottish kilt and its fabric-coded clans were part of some long cultural tradition in Scotland? Wrong! It was invented by the ruling power, England, to divide tribes into definable groups, thus to better control them. In like manner was the political turban invented by America for Turkish consumption by gullible women at the hands of scheming male politicians. Turkish women, wise up! It’s always the same old story with you! Don’t allow yourselves to be led by ignoramuses, no matter what political party they pretend to represent! 

Consider this. Without the headscarf Turkish women look, for the most part, much the same as any western women. Don’t bother what’s in the head of Turkish women. For Turkish politicians, it’s what’s on it that counts. In their eyes, women are merely objects, with particular prurient focus on their hair. The admonition for women to cover their heads is made by men not by the Koran. 

The American woman presented as some sort of authority by the Turkish Daily News article entitled “American seeking a democratic Turkey” (Feb. 2, 2008) said that, for her, the headscarf symbolizes that “I am a Muslim woman.” Covering is “mandatory” and an “obligation,” she said. This is nonsense. She was either misreading or not reading the Koran. Indeed, she was manufacturing her own tradition. One may wear whatever they want on their heads, whether a baseball cap or a lampshade. And one may justify doing so or not. But the justification for Turkish women to wear headscarves resides not in the Koran, but in their blind, thoughtless subservience to political men. One may make up one’s own rules about anything but there is no such rule in the Koran. “There must be some wisdom to it,” she insisted, demonstrating blind faith and little else. How sad a limitation for this woman who professes to be a “seeker.” 

The Koran, a precisely worded text, contains no language requiring women to cover their heads. None whatsoever! It renders specific procedures about many things. For washing: “hands as far as the elbow… feet to the ankles.” In the desert? No water? Use “clean sand” (5.5). For apostates who preach against God: “have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides” (5:31). Regarding food: don’t eat “strangled animals” (5.3) and “kill no game while on pilgrimage” (5:95). Of course, it does admonish all people as “children of Adam” to cover their shameful parts, but this is mythological derivative material from the Bible and the fall of man (7:25). And for all its enormous specificity, it never mentions women’s hair. There is much information in this fact. 

In reality, the Koran is protective of women. Women should “draw their veils close round them” so they will not be molested (33:57)—by men of course, the same kind of men who now seek to enslave Turkish women. They should “cover their bosoms,” not display “their adornments except such as normally revealed” and not “stamp their feet when walking” (24:30). But there is nothing therein about wearing a headscarf in order to be a “Muslim woman.” This is a manmade myth, a sham, that is also dangerously stigmatizing of those women who don’t cover. Are they any less Islamic? And why should women bear the full signifying burden anyway? The answer is simple. First, because of the Turkish government’s complicity with America’s political project in the Middle East. Second, because men, particularly pious political men, said so in order to keep women in a subservient role. What a bad, sick joke on women! What a bad, sick joke that women play on themselves! 

Of course, women can wear anything they choose. But they should know why they do so. And if they choose to wear a headscarf, they do so, not for Allah or Jahweh or Jesus or Mary or Mohammed, and certainly not for the Koran. They do so for politicians. And that’s just stupid. They should take great care not to end up like Desdemona, torn apart by the jealous, deceitful hands of their own personal and political Othellos. 

Cem Ryan, Istanbul 

(1) Hobsbawm, Eric. The Invention of Tradition.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992. (2) Turkish Daily News. American seeking a democratic Turkey. 2 February 2008. 

http://cemryan.wordpress.com/

[Letterhead Redacted]

20 July 2010

The Honorable Barack H. Obama 
President of the United States
The White House 
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, DC 20500 
USA

Dear Mr. President:

Truth is still on the march in Turkey; the lies and treachery of the present government are in plain sight. But justice is dead. You westerners have killed it by your support of the AKP regime of  Recep Tayyip Erdoĝan. Mr. President, you recently referred to so-called democracy in Turkey as a “Muslim Democracy.” Religion and democracy don’t go together, Mr. President. And you, above all people, should know it. You spoke so glowingly about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the Turkish Grand National Assembly in May 2009. When you speak of Atatürk and democracy in the same breath, as you did, you must always emphasize three words—SECULAR, SECULAR, SECULAR.   

This is my fourth letter to you since your inauguration, one every six months. I have yet to receive the courtesy of the slightest acknowledgement of their receipt by the White House. I know if the letters had contained threats to you, your secret service agents would have knocked my door down in the middle of the night. I also know that when I sent you campaign contributions in 2008 I received not only e-mail thank-yous, but an international telephone call from your headquarters to verify that I was a valid international contributor. Is this what defines your administration’s standards of courtesy and openness, Mr. President, money? I hope not, but I think so. But perhaps you have read my letters but acknowledging them brings you embarassment because you have so thoroughly embraced the AKP regime. So be it, Mr. President. But what about common courtesy?

So-called “democracy” remains in critical condition in Turkey. Forget Erdoĝan’s pathetic antics about Gaza. Forget about his cozy relations with Iran, Sudan and other gangster “Islamic” regimes. They are of utmost embarrassment to the Turkish people but mean nothing compared to the civilian coup that he has engineered. Like Hitler in the thirties, all was done under the veil of “democracy.” And under that same veil, the jails are bursting with leftists opposed to the brutality of the Erdoĝan regime. Where Hitler used the SA brownshirts to do his dirty work, Erdoĝan hides behind the veils and headscarves of his AKP women. Turkey’s highest court ruled that Erdoĝan and his party are the center of anti-secular activities against the Turkish nation. In America that would be called treason. Like Hitler, Erdoĝan has destroyed the legal system by packing the courts with his own judges and prosecutors.

You should be particularly worried to know that the Turkish army has been completely compromised by a hoax called Ergenekon. Not only does Erdoĝan now have the police force and the gendarmes, he has the army too. And you are now well aware of the trigger-happy, loud-mouthed incompetence of the Turkish prime minister in the foreign affairs arena. Turkey is on the march, BACKWARDS, to the gloriously incompetent days of the Ottomans. This is what your gloriously incompetent CIA along with numerous gloriously treasonous Turks have accomplished. Erdoĝan and his ilk champion this as some Islamic rennaissance. This is utter nonsense.

If you read the books I sent to you with my first letter you know this. The only “enlightenment period” was due entirely to one man, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Described and defamed as just “another ruthless general” in a recent article in the lamentable Economist, Atatürk used the energy generated by the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923) to lift Turkey from the Middle Ages mentality of the Ottomans to modern times, and in many ways beyond. For example, he gave women the right to vote in 1930 and to stand for election in 1934, decades before many European countries (France, Italy, Greece, Switzerland). It is this grand achievement, by history’s most remarkable soldier-statesmen-educator, that has been destroyed by Erdoĝan and his fellow Islamo-fascist thugs. And these same thugs, who publicly proclaim women’s inferiority to men, bring their bizarrely dressed wives to receive warm welcomes in the White House.

Oh the horror wrought by American support! A heart of darkness envelopes Turkey, Mr. President: extrajudicial wiretapping and surveilance, unconstitutional imprisonments, the trashing of human rights protections, wanton abuse of press freedom protections, corruption and theft by the ruling AKP of epic proportion, and the destruction of the Turkish army. No wonder the Economist magazine feels free to debase Atatürk. Good job, all you westerners. Bad job, Mr. President.

But there is a force rising, Mr. President. And there are many, many Turks who refuse to take the garbage dealt to them by the AKP over the past seven years. And the force is energized by the words of Kemal Atatürk. You may not know or remember them Mr. President, but you should mark them well. As I told you in my earlier letters, I remind you again. The day of reckoning is coming. The day is near. Read his words, they describe Turkey today:

You, the Turkish youth! Your primary duty is to forever protect and defend Turkish independence and the Turkish Republic. This is the mainstay of your existence and of your future.

 This foundation is your most precious treasure in the future, as well, there may be malevolence, within and abroad, which will seek to deny your birthright. If one day you are compelled to defend your independence and the republic, you shall not reflect on the conditions and possibilities of the situation in which you find yourself, in order to accomplish your mission. These conditions and possibilities may appear unfavorable. The adversaries who scheme against your independence and your Republic may be the representatives of a victory without precedent in the world. By force or by ruse, all citadels and all arsenals of our dear fatherland may have been taken; all of its armies may have been dispersed and all corners of the country may have been physically occupied. More distressing and more grievous than all these, those who hold and exercise the power within the country may have fallen into gross error, blunder, and even treason. These holders of power may have even united their personal interests with political ambitions of the invaders. The nation itself may have fallen into privation, and may have become exhausted and desolate.

 You, the future sons and daughters of Turkey! Even under such circumstances and conditions, your duty is to redeem Turkish independence and the Republic! The strength you shall need exists in the noble blood flowing through your veins.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
From The Great Speech
20 October 1927

Mr. President, in the above speech, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk gave his heirs, the Turkish people, the right, indeed the duty, to defend the principles of Atatürkian democracy. Not Moderate Islamic democracy! Not Muslim democracy! Just democracy, Mr. President, the same kind of democracy as yours.

Yes, there is a force rising, Mr. President. There is a new Kemal rising, Mr. President. You should know this, Mr. President. And you should know him. On election day he will throw the treasonous AKP into the Mediterranean as the older Kemal did to the western occupiers. You and America would be wise to abandon your support for the current Islamo-fascist government and, for once, leave Turkey alone. Or you better know how to swim in deep, turbulent waters.

With my deep respect,

James C. Ryan, Ph.D.
Istanbul, Turkey

PS  My previous three letters and a brief bio are attached.

CEM RYAN
http://cemryan.wordpress.com/

[Turkish Translation Follows]

TÜRKÇE ÇEVİRİSİ

20 Temmuz 2010
Saygıdeğer Barack H. Obama
Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Başkanı
Beyaz Saray
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
ABD

Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı:

Gerçek hala marş halindedir Türkiye’de; şimdiki hükümetin yalan ve ihanetleri açıkça görülmektedir. Fakat adalet öldü. Siz batılılar öldürdünüz onu, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın AKP rejimini destekleyerek. Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı, geçenlerde Türkiye’deki sözde demokrasiyi “Müslüman Demokrasi” diye adlandırdınız. Din ve demokrasi beraber olmaz sayın Cumhurbaşkanı. Ve siz, herkesten önce, bunu bilmelisiniz. Mayıs 2009’da Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi’nde Mustafa Kemal Atatürk hakkında övgüyle konuştunuz. Yaptığınız gibi, Atatürk ve demokrasiden aynı anda bahsederken, her zaman üç sözcüğü vurgulamanız gerekir: LAİKLİK, LAİKLİK,LAİKLİK

Cumhurbaşkanlığı görevinize başladığınızdan bu yana, her altı ayda bir olmak üzere, bu size yazdığım dördüncü mektubum. Beyaz Saray’dan mektuplarımın alındıklarına dair, nezaketen de olsa, henüz en ufak bir bilgi almış değilim. Biliyorum, eğer mektuplar size yönelik tehdit içerselerdi, sizin gizli ajanlarınız gece yarısı kapımı çalarlardı. Ve gene biliyorum ki, 2008’de size seçim kampanyası için bağış gönderdiğimde, sadece elektronik postayla teşekkürler değil, aynı zamanda sizin merkezlerden uluslararası geçerli bir destekleyici olduğumu kanıtlamak amacıyla uluslar arası telefonlar aldım. Sizin yönetiminizin nezaket ve açıklık standartlarını tanımlayan bu mudur, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı? Umarım değil, ama ben öyle düşünüyorum. Belki de mektuplarımı okudunuz ama onları aldığınızı kabul etmek size mahcubiyet verecektir çünkü AKP rejimini öyle sıkıca kucaklamışsınız ki! Öyle olsun, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı! Fakat sıradan nezakete ne oldu?

Sözde “demokrasi” Türkiye’de kritik bir durumdadır. Bırakın Erdoğan’ın Gazze hakkındaki hazin davranışlarını. Bırakın İran, Sudan ve diğer gangster ister “İslamî” rejimlerle samimi ilişkilerini. Bunlar Türkler için son derece utanç verici fakat yapılmakta olan sivil darbeyle mukayese edildiğinde bunların hiç bir anlamı yok. Otuzlardaki Hitler gibi, yapılan her şey “demokrasi” kılıfı altındadır. Ve aynı kılıf altında hapishaneler Erdoğan’ın gaddar rejimine muhalefet eden solcularla dolup taşmaktadır. Hitler kirli işlerini yaptırmak için kahverengi gömlekli SA’larını kullanırken, Erdoğan da kendi AKP’li kadınlarının örtü ve türbanlarının arkasına saklanmaktadır.Türkiye’nin en yüksek [Anayasa] mahkemesi Erdoğan ve partisinin Türk milletine karşı laiklik karşıtı eylemlerin odağı olduğuna hükmetti. Buna Amerika’da vatan hainliği denir. Hitler gibi, Erdoğan da kendi hakim ve savcılarını mahkemelere doldurarak hukuk sistemini çökertti.

Özellikle bilmeniz gerekir ki Türk ordusu Ergenekon denilen bir komplo ile ciddi olarak zayıflatılmıştır. Şimdi Erdoğan sadece polis gücü ve jandarmaya değil, orduya da hakim olmuştur. Ve şimdi Türk başbakanının dışişlerinde her yere şiddetle saldırmak için eli tetikte olan ve ağzı kalabalık beceriksizliğinin de iyice farkındasınızdır. Türkiye marş halindedir, GERİYE DOĞRU, Osmanlı’nın şanlı-şöhretli yetersiz günlerine doğru. Bu sizin şanlı-şöhretli yetersiz CIA’nızın sayısız şanlı-şöhretli hain Türklerle birlikte başardıklarıdır.Erdoğan ve taifesi bunu İslamî Rönesans olarak savunuyorlar. Bu tamamiyle saçmalıktır.

Eğer size ilk mektubumla birlikte gönderdiğim kitapları okuduysanız bunu bilirsiniz. Tek “aydınlanma dönemi” tamamiyle bir Tek Adam, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ten sayesindedir. Acınası Ekonomist dergisindeki yeni bir makalede “bir diger insafsız general” diye tanımlanmış ve karalanmış olan Atatürk, Türk Ulusal Bağımsızlık Savaşı’ndan (1919-1923) ortaya çıkmış olan enerjiyi Türkiye’yi Osmanlı’nın Ortaçağ zihniyetinden modern çağlara ve birçok bakımdan daha da ötesine taşımak için kullanmıştır. Mesela, 1930’da kadınlara seçme hakkını ve 1934’te de seçilme hakkını vermiştir, birçok Avrupa ülkesinden (Fransa, İtalya, Yunanistan, İsviçre) on yıllarca önce. İşte, tarihin en olağanüstü asker-devlet adamı-eğitimcisi tarafından gerçekleştirilmiş bu muhteşem  başarı, Erdoğan ve onun İslamo-faşist çete arkadaşları tarafından ortadan kaldırılmaktadır. Ve kadının erkekten aşağıda olduğunu açıkça ilan eden bu aynı çete, garip şekilde giyinmiş eşlerini nezaket ve içtenlikle karşılanmak üzere Beyaz Saray’a getirirler.

Ah, Amerikan desteğiyle gelen dehşet! Karanlığın yüreği Türkiye’yi sarıyor, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı: mahkeme kararı olmadan yapılan dinlemeler ve takipler, anayasaya aykırı tutuklamalar, insan haklarının tahribi, basın özgürlüğünün ahlaksızca ihlali, iktidardaki AKP’nin büyük miktarlardaki yolsuzluk ve  hırsızlıkları, ve Türk ordusunun yıpratılması. Ekonomist dergisinin Atatürk’ü aşağılamak hakkını kendinde görmesi sürpriz değil. Aferin, siz tüm batılılara. Kötü iş, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı.

Fakat yükselen bir güç var Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı. Geçen yedi yılda AKP’nin onlara vermeye çalıştığı çöpü almayı reddedecek daha çok, bir çok Türk var. Ve bu güç Kemal Atatürk’ün sözlerinden  enerji alıyor. Onları bilmiyor ya da hatırlamıyor olabilirsiniz, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı, fakat onlara iyice dikkat etmelisiniz. Daha önceki mektuplarımda  size söylemiş olduğum gibi, size tekrar hatırlatıyorum. Hesap günü geliyor. Gün yakındır. Atatürk’ün sözlerini okuyun, bugünkü Türkiye’yi tanımlıyorlar:

Ey Türk Gençliği!

Birinci vazifen, Türk istikllini, Türk Cumhuriyetini, ilelebet, muhafaza ve müdafaa etmektir. Mevcudiyetinin ve istikbalinin yegane temeli budur.

 Bu temel, senin, en kıymetli hazinendir. İstikbalde dahi, seni, bu hazineden mahrum etmek isteyecek, dahili ve harici, bedhahların olacaktır. Bir gün, istiklal ve Cumhuriyeti müdafaa mecburiyetine düşersen, vazifeye atılmak için, içinde bulunacağın vaziyetin imkan ve şeraitini düşünmeyeceksin! Bu imkan ve şerait, çok namüsait bir mahiyette tezahür edebilir. İstiklal ve Cumhuriyetine kastedecek düşmanlar, bütün dünyada emsali görülmemiş bir galibiyetin mümessili olabilirler. Cebren ve hile ile aziz vatanın kaleleri zaptedilmiş, bütün tersanelerine girilmiş, bütün orduları dağıtılmış ve memleketin her köşesi bilfiil işgal edilmiş olabilir. Bütün bu şeraitten daha elim ve daha vahim olmak üzere, memleketin dahilinde iktidara sahip olanlar gaflet, dalalet ve hatta hıyanet içinde bulunabilirler. Hatta bu iktidar sahipleri şahsi menfaatlerini, müstevlilerin siyasi emelleriyle tevhit edebilirler. Millet, fakr ü zaruret içinde harap ve bitap düşmüş olabilir.

 Ey Türk istikbalinin evladı! İşte, bu ahval ve şerait içinde dahi vazifen, Türk İstiklal ve Cumhuriyetini kurtarmaktır. Muhtaç olduğun kudret, damarlarındaki asil kanda mevcuttur. 

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Nutuk’tan
20 Ekim 1927

Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı, yukarıdaki söylevde Mustafa Kemal Atatürk varislerine, Türk Milletine, Atatürk demokrasisinin ilkelerini savunma hakkını, doğrusu görevini vermiştir. Ilımlı İslam demokrasisinin değil! Müslüman demokrasi değil! Sadece demokrasi, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı, sizin demokrasinizle aynı olan.

 Evet, bir güç yükseliyor, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı. Yeni bir Kemal yükseliyor, Sayın Cumhurbaşkanı. Bunu bilmelisiniz, sayın Cumhurbaşkanı. Ve  O’nu tanımalısınız. Seçim günü hain AKP’yi Akdenize dökecektir, aynı Gazi Mustafa Kemal’in batılı işgalcilere yaptığı gibi. Sizin ve Amerika’nın şimdiki İslamo-faşist hükümeti desteklemeyi bırakmanız akıllıca olur, bir kez olsun, Türkiye’yi rahat bırakın. Ya da derin sularda, çalkantılı sularda yüzmesini bilseniz iyi olur!

Derin saygılarımla,

James C. Ryan, Ph.D.
İstanbul, Türkiye

Not: önceki üç mektubum ve kısa bir öz geçmişim ilişiktedir.

Published in Turkish by Aydınlık Dergisi
1 Ağustos 2010                                                                
AMERİKALI BARIŞ GÖNÜLLÜSÜ OBAMA’YI UYARDI
Hesap günü geliyor, AKP’yi destekleme artık!

http://www.aydinlik.com.tr/

CEM RYAN
http://cemryan.wordpress.com/

Hacettepe University, Ankara,
Dept. of Political Science and Public Administration.
He is Vice Director of the Hacettepe University
European Union Research Center (HUAB) and
of the Strategical Research Centre (HÜSAM).t Erdoğan

Centuries have gone by since the retreat of
Turks, who once controlled the entire Southeast
of Europe and who had once expanded their territory
up to Vienna. “Europe” and “Turkey”, once
“mutual enemies”, then saw themselves rallying
on the same side during the Cold War, deleting
the negative marks of the past to a large extent.
At the same time, the ideological-political
orientation of Turkey toward Europe was more
and more institutionalized and a strong human
dimension was eventually added as well. Participating
as far as possible in Western European
institutions had a strong Europeanising effect,
making Turkey a part of Europe. Turkey’s European
commitment never seemed to perish
despite the considerable challenges on the way
to full participation in European institutions. Increasing
“Europeanness” was not only limited
to the state, it also established itself as one of
the most important aspects of modern Turkish
identity. “Europeanness” is a deliberate political
choice of Turks and the efforts spent to reach
this goal continue with great commitment.
The human factor, a dimension hardly taken
into account at the beginning, became an ever
more important issue with the start of substantial
“workforce immigration”, particularly to Germany,
at the beginning of the 1960s. The agreement
with the Federal Republic of Germany in 1961
was soon followed by other European countries.
The process and its implications, which have
been characterised by the famous phrase of Max
Frisch (“We wanted workers, but we got people”),
started almost half a century ago. Even though
the conditions of the Cold War are no longer
present, the process continues to carry on. The
immigrants and their families, identifying themselves
as European Turks, increasingly hold signifi
cant positions in the economic, cultural and
political life of the countries they live in – especially
after it had become apparent that most of
them are not living in Europe on a “temporary”
basis. More than 5 million Turkish migrants, with
half of the population already being European
citizens, are living example of this fundamental
and qualitative change in European societies.
The former “Gastarbeiter” identity, which meant
“sitting on the baggage as if returning tomorrow”,
has practically been surpassed for the majority
of Turks living in Europe. The economic, cultural
and intellectual capacity of Turkish immigrants,
having evolved into a “European Turkish middle
class” as active participants in European societies,
constitutes part of Europe’s reality.
Although impacting fi rst and foremost the countries
with substantial Turkish immigration over
the past fi fty years, the process has always been
linked to European integration as well. Mass
immigration of Turks to Europe and relations
between Turkey and the EEC developed hand
in hand, although there is no organic bond between
the two. However, the lack of workforce in
revitalised post war Europe played an important
role in the association of Turkey to the European
Economic Community. However, the charm of
cheap labour seemed to decrease for the EC in
the 1980s. Ironically, one of the most contested
issues between Turkey and the EC became the
questions related to the free movement of persons
and European efforts to stop admissions
or even to send back, if possible, people already
living in Europe. Accordingly, Turks were eventually
not granted the right of free movement, although
this had been foreseen before.
For Turkey, the migration of workforce meant a
contribution to European growth, helping foreign
countries to solve their notorious lack of labour.
The revenue sent back to Turkey initially constituted
an important source of income but gradually
lost its importance because of the economic
developments in Turkey and the decision of
many migrants to eventually rather invest money
in the country they live in. Whereas in 1995
transfers still amounted to 5 billion USD, they
dropped to an estimated 1 billion USD in 2009.
Accordingly, after the 1990s, for Turkey the signifi
cance of Turks living in Europe shifted from
the economic to politics. The main change in
migrant Turks’ attitudes in this context was illustrated
by a considerable number of them turning
from Turkish migrants into citizens of European
countries. Turkish citizens in Europe were more
and more perceived as a politically relevant entity,
not only by Turkey but also by EU politicians,
especially after 1993: The discussions on the
new EU architecture and the establishment of
a Customs Union between the EU and Turkey
created an important atmosphere for European
Turks to become part of the European equation.
Accordingly, the group that had been cause for
concern due to the problems attached to the
free movement of persons became – anew –
an important factor for Turkey. Now European
Turks were more and more considered “Turkish
Diaspora”, expected to help Turkey to reach
its goals in foreign and domestic politics, going
well beyond the signifi cance formerly attached
to workers’ transfers of money. In 1997, Turkish
Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz even demanded of
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to “defi ne his
attitude” towards Turkey and its EU ambitions
ahead of the 1998 general elections.
Many discussions and debates have accompanied
the process ever since the workforce
agreement with Germany in 1961. Despite all
problems, half a century of common history
has demonstrated that Turks in general have
integrated well into the norms of Europe.
ZEI EVENTS
The task of the European Commission in
ongoing accession negotiations consists
not only in the technical conduct of negotiations,
but to an increasing degree in the
mediation between different expectations
and demands attached to enlargement policy.
This mediation is an important factor in
adequately responding to European as well
as to partner’s interests. During his visit to
the Center for European Integration Studies
(ZEI) on 24 June 2009, Commissioner Olli
Rehn particularly acknowledged the moderating
function of ZEI’s EU-Turkey-Monitor,
accompanying accession negotiations between
the EU and Turkey ever since their
launch in late 2005. The reinforcement of
mutual understanding and recognition in
this as well as in other policy fi elds with particular
external implications plays a major
role in any successful European policy.
hard time fi tting into European culture and
lifestyle, never became a source of massive
disruption in the countries where – initially –
they were outsiders. On the contrary, they were
the kind of group who contributed to the development
of these countries by their labour and
taxes, respecting the laws and integrating into
the societies they live in. On the occasion of an
international symposium, commemorating and
discussing “Turks Abroad: Immigration and Integration
in 50 Years” in Ankara in May 2009, Minister
of State Faruk Çelik, in charge of migrant
Turks, opposed the popular view that “Turks will
create imbalance due to their cultural differences.”
To the contrary, he stressed that “the existence
of our citizens on European land and their
contributions to Europe are the most meaningful
response to those opposing the membership of
Turkey in the EU”. An environment of symbiosis
creates new dynamics, but the positive potential
of this situation outweighs the negative ones and
could be seen as an asset for Turkey on its way
to the EU. At the same event, Egemen Bağış,
Minister of State for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator,
clearly highlighted the important role of
the Turkish “Diaspora” in this context: “We are,
thanks to you, already in the EU and I see each
one of you as our ambassador in our EU efforts”.
These words clearly illustrate Turkey’s new policy
towards “its European citizens”. According to
recent declarations by Turkish politicians “integration
that does not turn into assimilation” shall
generate a win-win-situation for both, Europe
and Turkey – only if Turkish migrants are taken
seriously and are having economic, cultural and
political relevance, they can play this role. Turkish
migrants causing problems in the countries
they live in, however, also create problems for
Turkey – or, at least, are far from adding value.
Therefore it could be argued that Turkey has no
choice but to be truly sincere about integration,
because only then all parties can benefi t. The
question however remains, in how far the EU
is equally sincere about it. If one considers the
persistent obstacles to free movement, which is
still one of the central issues in EU-Turkey relations,
it appears that Turkish migrants as well as
Turkish citizens suffer: Visa-free travel is still an
illusion and it seems unlikely that the decisions
of the Court of Justice in individual cases, which
are only putting the fi nger on Europe’s negative
attitude on free movement, will lead to a general
improvement; one could therefore conclude that
Turkish people are effectively being prevented
from exercising some of the rights European
legislation gives them.2 On the other hand, the
European concern of potential mass immigration
of Turks to Europe must also be addressed
and taken into account in order to formulate a
win-win-solution to this central obstacle to true
integration.3
Within the EU, the obstacles to free movement
are complemented by limitations on political
rights. The European demand to renounce Turkish
citizenship for a working, tax-paying, lawabiding
Turkish migrant, who has lived 30 or even
40 years in Europe, reduces the eagerness to
really become an EU citizen. It also raises emotional
reactions for Turks to be subjected to different
regulations in the process of admission to
citizenship. The EU will have made a major contribution
to integration by changing its attitude in
this regard by, for example, giving migrants who
have lived in Europe for a certain time the right to
vote regardless of citizenship. Already today, the
importance of Turkish migrants, accounting for
an approximate 2.5 million qualifi ed voters, has
come to an unprecedented degree. Political parties
will increasingly be affected by this growing
potential. The conservative notion that the emotional
bond between Turkish migrants and Turkey
is an obstacle for integration and therefore
a reason for marginalising them from national
political life requires re-examination. Turkey can
be a part of the solution just as it can also be a
part of the problem: As long as Turkish EU membership
is used – or rather misused – for cheap
propaganda, the topic as an election issue emotionally
disturbs Turkish migrants. Arguments for
an anti-enlargement course along the lines of
“cultural-religious” differences, used for justifying
why the “homeland” of many migrants (i.e. Turkey)
should not be admitted, create the ground
for dangerous reasoning: Turkish migrants,
in the eyes of many Europeans displaying the
characteristics of the country that shall not be
admitted, are concerned whether those saying
“An EU without Turkey” may someday say “An
EU without Turks”. Accordingly, they perceive
the “no to Turkey in the EU” campaign as a campaign
against them, especially in the post 9/11
environment with its growing Islamophobia and
discriminatory policy approaches.4 This is not to
argue that Turkish migrants shall be manipulated
in the favour of Turkish policy goals since this
would mean intervention in the internal affairs of
the countries concerned. However, it should be
acknowledged and taken into consideration that
the integration (or non-integration) of Turkish
migrants into different EU societies is partly but
strongly linked with the question of Turkey joining
the EU or not. To ignore this fact would mean
to be ignorant to central links and connexions in
this complex puzzle.
From the presented point of view, it seems that
Turkey is more successful than some EU member
states if it comes to integration. Turkey is already
playing a major “European” role in terms
of culture (Eurovision, European Capital of Culture),
economy (Customs Union, commerce
with the EU), politics (Council of Europe), and
security (NATO, OSCE, European Security and
Defence Policy). The only – central – European
arena whose decision making mechanisms
Turkey does not participate in is the EU. It is
an undeniable fact that Turks are an important
component of European life. Through immigration,
European countries have already tested
whether it is possible to live with Turks. At this
point, it can already be concluded that Turkish
migrants constitute an undeniable “social-political
capital” to Europe that should not and must
not be wasted by building up barriers instead
of establishing a climate of mutual understanding,
respect and cooperation. Only by really accepting
and understanding Turkish migrants as
“capital”, the countries they live in can fully benefi
t from the potential of its migrant population.
Turkish migrants are a “soft power” that cannot
only contribute to the admission of Turkey to the
EU but also to the general interests of European
countries – particularly in times of crisis as they
are experienced today in the fi nancial and economic
sphere.

1
Turks, who were expected to have a rather
ZEI EU-Turkey-Monitor Vol. 5 No. 2 August 2009 7
Dr. Olli Rehn, EU Commissioner for Enlargement, meets with ZEI Director Prof. Dr.
Ludger Kühnhardt and Dr. Andreas Marchetti, Editor of the ZEI EU-Turkey-Monitor.
1) Cf. also Eleni Mavrogeorgis: A Clash of Perceptions,
Not of Civilizations.: Revealing Muslim & Non-Muslim
Perceptions of National Loyalty and Integrated Living
(Rutgers DGA Policy Brief, 1), Newark 2009.
2) R. Gutman during the mentioned symposium.
3) Former MEP V. Öger at the same event.
4) U. Erdener, Rector of Hacettepe University, at the
mentioned symposium.

After six months of slow motion, delegations from 43 member states were invited by the French environment minister to evaluate the condition of a number of sustainable development projects.

“The Union for the Mediterranean experienced a major slowdown after January […] We have convinced our partners to resume formal meetings,” indicated the technical counsellor responsible for the economy and finance at the Elysée’s Med Union unit, Gilles Mantré, during a conference organised by the Foundation for Policy Innovation on 19 June.

And if the process has begun anew, it is “solely because we’ve altered the parameters of cooperation,” he added. Contrary to the technical meetings of the Barcelona Process, which brought together ambassadors and experts, the meetings of the Union for the Mediterranean put heads of state and government in contact with one another.

According to diplomats, this was what allowed countries to overcome the Gaza crisis without leaving the Mediterranean Union. This point of view is shared by the president of the Arab World Institute, Dominique Baudis. “It was a mistake to launch the Barcelona Process solely at the ministerial level. When an initiative is taken at the level of heads of state and government, the political impact is stronger,” he said.

Launched with great pomp in July 2008, the Mediterranean Union was given a Franco-Egyptian co-presidency. Institutionally, it has already been decided that the secretariat-general will be in Barcelona, but the team to staff it is yet to be determined.

“All the countries on the southern coast of the Mediterranean agreed to give it up provided that their neighbour didn’t get it,” explained Dominique Baudis. Nevertheless, the nomination of the secretary-general should, however, take place before the end of the year, the political conditions having been recently agreed,” noted Mantré.

Representatives from Israel and Palestine need to be included as joint secretary-generals. But any attempt to bring the two camps closer through the Union seems to stop there. The objective of the project is well and truly to link the countries of the Mediterranean through concrete projects. Also, in France’s view, difficulties between members of the Union should not really be obstacles to the advancement of the project. “We must [first] build concrete solidarity to integrate the zone and create the conditions for peace,” reiterated Mantré.

Towards an energy partnership?

Energy cooperation was brought to the fore by experts and diplomats. “This would not be the first time that economics, through energy, could give some leverage,” commented the director of communications and public affairs at RTE, Michel Derdevet, alluding to the construction of the European Coal and Steel Community at the origins of the current European Union.

9% of global energy demand comes from countries bordering the Mediterranean. The growth of energy consumption in southern countries is 6-7% versus 1% for those in the north. “Encouraging nearby countries to work together makes sense,” he added. “Our interdependence could emerge through the concept of an energy partnership.”

But this project-based logic is not shared by all the players involved. “It is difficult to abstract anything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The identity questions need to be settled before we make the Union for the Mediterranean,” said the director of the diplomatic representation of the Arab League, Nassif Hitti. “We cannot allow the process to be taken hostage. But we can not abstract it from its context. Without Madrid, there would have been no Barcelona. If we cannot find the spirit of Madrid, there will be no Barcelona one, two or three,” he added. In 1991, the Madrid conference favoured peace talks, which led to the Oslo agreement of 1993 and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty in 1994.

“The Union is facing difficulties because the member states composing it have broken down,” added Asteris Huliaras, associate professor of geography at the Harokopion University of Athens.

“The real assessment of the Union for the Mediterranean will need to be made two years after its launch,” added France’s Mantré. Concrete projects – such as solar power projects or sea highways – thus still have a year to bear fruit.

Source: www.euractiv.com, 26 June 2009

Cyprus that is located in Eastern Mediterranean has a great strategic importance for European countries as much as other North Africa and Middle East have. Sovereign states made big wars especially to keep the artery of commerce under control and the island was occupied by so many forces throughout the history. Cyprus that consistently passed through many hands, conquered by naval forces under the command of Piyale Pasha in 1571 and be a part of the Ottoman Empire. In that time there was Greek Cypriot population at a specific rate. When Ottomans got Cyprus under control, they gave Greek Cypriots the rights to move freely as they always did in other places they conquered. Moreover, they granted a privilege to them for establishing orthodox churches. By courtesy of Turks, Greek Cypriots found many opportunities that could never be found under the guidance of any other power; so in the course of time their population appreciably increased throughout the island.

Russia, that had always got the policy to “Guard the hot seas”, occupied Kars and Ardahan in 1878, as a result of this Cyprus jeopardized and it was left to Britain temporarily. These all laid the groundwork for nowadays difficulties. On 4^th of June in 1878, Britain took over the administration but it can be said that the island was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. As the 1^st World War started in 1914 Ottomans entered the war on the side of Germany. Because of this attitude, Britain which was a member of the imperialist side against Ottomans, did not give the ship that Ottomans had ordered back. On top of this they declared that they annexed the island. Both during the world war and also after it, Cyprus by being an intercontinental base was attracted specially the victors. Under the Treaty of Lausanne on the 23^rd of July in 1923, it was officially accepted that Cyprus is a property of Britain. Now Britain was on the power. The island, that started facing with many internal problems after that time, became an independent republic with the treaty done in Zurich among Britain, Turkey and Greece on 19^th of February in 1959. And these three counties did “guaranty” the independence of the newly-established republic. Because all these countries were the ones that had a voice in the management on the international stage; and they got the opportunities that could make Cyprus live in prosperity. With the acceptance of the constitution, Turk and Greek unions were positioned into the island. Actually the effect of the developments after Lausanne formed a basis of forthcoming difficulties.

In 60’s Turks were forming approximately the half of the existing population. The want of Greeks who did never discard the idea to unite Cyprus and Greece that called Megali (Big) Idea which was expanded after Ottomans leave the island, caused the sparks to send Turks away from the island. Because that the Prime Minister Karamanlis leave the island in 1963 and because of the chaos of the Greek internal affairs, the Cyprus problem was forgotten for a while. Cyprus mostly was making decisions according to its own wants, but Makarios was making efforts in order to make the pressure towards Turks increase. The most widely-ranged practices about ethnic cleaning were provided by the Greek terror campaign called EOKA which was opened in 1955. Millions of Turks were murdered in ethnic mass murders that lasted till August 1964. While this progresses, some internal disorders broke out in Greece and the army captured the administration. Greece raised the support to EOKA and started to locate the army secretly to the island. Greece was also supplying required support to make mass murders towards Turks continue. At that times that Turkey wanted these happenings to be stopped, the secret arrival of Rauf Denktaş to the island affected development in favor of Turks. Denktaş, the provider of the Turk organizations, was arrested by Greeks but then released by the agency of Turkey. Turkey understanding that the chaos would never come to an end, started to mention about the military intervention after the failure about the consequence of the negotiations done by Turks and Greeks. Now insinuations started to be a threat. Turkey did not physically interfere to any country for long time and that situation directed international community to act freely. And with the sayings about this, the policies towards Turkey were intensified. The principle of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk “Peace at home, peace in the world” always perceived as a policy of “coming down a peg” by many nations; because the politic perceptions did not developed till that time for better understanding the Atatürk’s hidden message. This saying means “If there is no peace at home, there can not be peace in the world” and that meaning is vital for our nation and it will always make us stand in the first rank among other countries in the world, it will also make our historic characteristic -which is to settle and protect the peace- last forever.

Situations were shaped insecurely on the island. On 15^th of July in 1974, the Greek Cypriot National Guard that was conducted by Greek army officers knocked Makarios down and chose Sampson as a president. After Makarios leave Cyprus, Turkey asked Britain for interference in accordance with the 4^th statement of the Treaty of Guarantee 1959; but Britain did not reply. Ecevit the prime minister, in accordance with treaties and to come to Turks’ rescue, started military intervention which was mentioned so many times with the council approval. In that time there was no hope for the intervention. Turkish armed forces entered to the island with land, air and sea forces. With the Greeks’ attack to Turkish armed forced, hostilities started throughout the island.  With the help of United Nations ceasefire came into the force at the end of July. Despite these progresses, the security of the Turks could not be policed. Turkish armed forces started the second operation (on a %37 of the island under control basis) as Greece had continued to murder Turks despite the peace conferences in Geneva on 16^th of august in 1974.

As a result of peace attempts Turkish Cypriot Federal Government established in 1975. From that moment on population exchanges were started to happen. In the meantime, Turks living in south were placed into the northern parts of the Cyprus; and Greeks living in north into the southern. Exchange was done under the supervision of UN. But UN did not change its mind and insisted on diminishing Turkey’s impact on Cyprus. TCFG, council believing that all needed settlings were done, announced the independence of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to the world on 15^th of November in 1983. Certainly, many countries showed reaction to the announcement. Turkish state, attracting the reaction of the southern side and the western countries, had never been recognized by any countries. And international negotiations, which had been done from the establishment of the state till 1990, were lack of a solution.

The rapid development of capitalism in Cyprus after independence is a very important matter. The economical development of the island developed separately from Greece, bourgeoisie raised internal affairs and these are so important matters among other problems. EOKA was against with the imperialism and that conflict enforced under the thought of Enosis. We can say that for some EOKA followers, Enosis lost ground after the independence. This can also be inferred from the terror agent’s behaviors. Especially the ones that were leaded by Makarios were always mentioned about Enosis; but the idea had nothing to do with the joining to Greece. Cyprus which can stand on its own legs was wanted. In 1990, Un Security Council carried resolution 649. With this resolution the UN Council called on the two leaders to co-operate, on an equal footing. It is also emphasized that the solution must be supplied by both of the communities with an equality approach and the direct negotiations with the leaders of both communities. Yet the result was still not positive.

Turgut Özal suggested a ‘four-power conference’ about Cyprus issue. Thus he brought Turkey an innovation, As Turkey always mentioned about two-communities. According to Özal’s suggestion; the issue of Cyprus must have been handled after eliminating the external interferences; and it must have been discussed among Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus (Greek Cypriots), Turkey, and Greece. In 1991 United Nations declared that it accepted the Turkey’s four-power conference. But it could not take action because of the attitudes of Greeks. The attempts to revitalize the Cyprus negotiations, which were postponed because of the accession negotiations of Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus in UN Summit of Luxembourg in 1997, continued in the second half of the year 1999. In this context, Kofi Annan -Secretariat General of UN- conveyed in his explanation on 14th November 1999 that: “in order to lay the groundwork for the conferences for an extensive solution” . But in spite of the five-rounded conferences that were held between the dates of 3 December 1999 – 10 November 2000 with agents, yet the aim was not reached. On the other hand, the confederation offer (31 August 1998) of Turkish Cypriots was supported, decisions of 9^th OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) Summit that was held in November 2000 in Duha were accepted like the decisions of 28^th OIC Foreign Ministers conference – held in June 2001- under the subtitle of “Situation in Cyprus” that was accepted by OIC Foreign Ministers conference which was held in June 2000 in Kuala Lumpur.

The explanations done by UN General Secretary in the beginning of the fourth round on 12^th September 2000 can be seen as a hopeful step to the solution process. As in the explanation there were statements mentioning about the political equalities of each communities. And it was also emphasized that an extensive solution must be found with the two-communal negotiations. But the Greek community reacted negatively and rejected the idea of the explanation with the verdict of Greek Council on 11 October 2000.

After the year 2001 Un General Secretary invited Rauf Denktaş. He accepted the invitation, went to Salzburg and negotiated with Annan. Denktaş gave his opinions about the Cyprus issue and then gave his document reflecting the conceptions of the Turks which then published as UN document. Then Alvara De Soto made contacts with both communities (between the dates 30 August—5 September 2001) in Cyprus. Denktaş showing his conciliatory gestures and ambitious attitudes about solution again, negotiated with Klerides in buffer zone on the 4th of December in 2001. Rauf Denktaş in his speech, displayed a helpful vision, mentioned that he was ready for an equal corporation and negotiations, and he would support the issue with the context of EU, and he also mentioned about the Turk – Greek equilibrium.

The most important problem in this process is the pressure on Turkey about rather discarding Cyprus or EU. This can be called as the triangle of EU-Turkey-Cyprus. And there was always a Greek-Greek Cypriot strategy towards this triangle. It is aimed to make the history of Turkish Cypriot cease to exist. Hereafter, by regarding the current situations, only the compromises that mention about equal policies about the island’s two-communal sovereignty will be assessed and that compromise will only be assessed if it includes Turkey’s entrance to EU apropos.

Next article is about Karabakh-Cyprus discussions.

Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU

On Sept. 11, 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush addressed Congress. He spoke in the wake of the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, the weakening of the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. He argued that a New World Order was emerging: “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”

After every major, systemic war, there is the hope that this will be the war to end all wars. The idea driving it is simple. Wars are usually won by grand coalitions. The idea is that the coalition that won the war by working together will continue to work together to make the peace. Indeed, the idea is that the defeated will join the coalition and work with them to ensure the peace. This was the dream behind the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the United Nations and, after the Cold War, NATO. The idea was that there would be no major issues that couldn’t be handled by the victors, now joined with the defeated. That was the idea that drove George H. W. Bush as the Cold War was coming to its end.

Those with the dream are always disappointed. The victorious coalition breaks apart. The defeated refuse to play the role assigned to them. New powers emerge that were not part of the coalition. Anyone may have ideals and visions. The reality of the world order is that there are profound divergences of interest in a world where distrust is a natural and reasonable response to reality. In the end, ideals and visions vanish in a new round of geopolitical conflict.

The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.

The global system is suffering from two imbalances. First, one nation-state, the United States, remains overwhelmingly powerful, and no combination of powers are in a position to control its behavior. We are aware of all the economic problems besetting the United States, but the reality is that the American economy is larger than the next three economies combined (Japan, Germany and China). The U.S. military controls all the world’s oceans and effectively dominates space. Because of these factors, the United States remains politically powerful – not liked and perhaps not admired, but enormously powerful.

The second imbalance is within the United States itself. Its ground forces and the bulk of its logistical capability are committed to the Middle East, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States also is threatening on occasion to go to war with Iran, which would tie down most of its air power, and it is facing a destabilizing Pakistan. Therefore, there is this paradox: The United States is so powerful that, in the long run, it has created an imbalance in the global system. In the short run, however, it is so off balance that it has few, if any, military resources to deal with challenges elsewhere. That means that the United States remains the dominant power in the long run but it cannot exercise that power in the short run. This creates a window of opportunity for other countries to act.

The outcome of the Iraq war can be seen emerging. The United States has succeeded in creating the foundations for a political settlement among the main Iraqi factions that will create a relatively stable government. In that sense, U.S. policy has succeeded. But the problem the United States has is the length of time it took to achieve this success. Had it occurred in 2003, the United States would not suffer its current imbalance. But this is 2008, more than five years after the invasion. The United States never expected a war of this duration, nor did it plan for it. In order to fight the war, it had to inject a major portion of its ground fighting capability into it. The length of the war was the problem. U.S. ground forces are either in Iraq, recovering from a tour or preparing for a deployment. What strategic reserves are available are tasked into Afghanistan. Little is left over.

As Iraq pulled in the bulk of available forces, the United States did not shift its foreign policy elsewhere. For example, it remained committed to the expansion of democracy in the former Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO, to include Ukraine and Georgia. From the fall of the former Soviet Union, the United States saw itself as having a dominant role in reshaping post-Soviet social and political orders, including influencing the emergence of democratic institutions and free markets. The United States saw this almost in the same light as it saw the democratization of Germany and Japan after World War II. Having defeated the Soviet Union, it now fell to the United States to reshape the societies of the successor states.

Through the 1990s, the successor states, particularly Russia, were inert. Undergoing painful internal upheaval – which foreigners saw as reform but which many Russians viewed as a foreign-inspired national catastrophe – Russia could not resist American and European involvement in regional and internal affairs. From the American point of view, the reshaping of the region – from the Kosovo war to the expansion of NATO to the deployment of U.S. Air Force bases to Central Asia – was simply a logical expansion of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a benign attempt to stabilize the region, enhance its prosperity and security and integrate it into the global system.

As Russia regained its balance from the chaos of the 1990s, it began to see the American and European presence in a less benign light. It was not clear to the Russians that the United States was trying to stabilize the region. Rather, it appeared to the Russians that the United States was trying to take advantage of Russian weakness to impose a new politico-military reality in which Russia was to be surrounded with nations controlled by the United States and its military system, NATO. In spite of the promise made by Bill Clinton that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union, the three Baltic states were admitted. The promise was not addressed. NATO was expanded because it could and Russia could do nothing about it.

From the Russian point of view, the strategic break point was Ukraine. When the Orange Revolution came to Ukraine, the American and European impression was that this was a spontaneous democratic rising. The Russian perception was that it was a well-financed CIA operation to foment an anti-Russian and pro-American uprising in Ukraine. When the United States quickly began discussing the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, the Russians came to the conclusion that the United States intended to surround and crush the Russian Federation. In their view, if NATO expanded into Ukraine, the Western military alliance would place Russia in a strategically untenable position. Russia would be indefensible. The American response was that it had no intention of threatening Russia. The Russian question was returned: Then why are you trying to take control of Ukraine? What other purpose would you have? The United States dismissed these Russian concerns as absurd. The Russians, not regarding them as absurd at all, began planning on the assumption of a hostile United States.

If the United States had intended to break the Russian Federation once and for all, the time for that was in the 1990s, before Yeltsin was replaced by Putin and before 9/11. There was, however, no clear policy on this, because the United States felt it had all the time in the world. Superficially this was true, but only superficially. First, the United States did not understand that the Yeltsin years were a temporary aberration and that a new government intending to stabilize Russia was inevitable. If not Putin, it would have been someone else. Second, the United States did not appreciate that it did not control the international agenda. Sept. 11, 2001, took away American options in the former Soviet Union. No only did it need Russian help in Afghanistan, but it was going to spend the next decade tied up in the Middle East. The United States had lost its room for maneuver and therefore had run out of time.

And now we come to the key point. In spite of diminishing military options outside of the Middle East, the United States did not modify its policy in the former Soviet Union. It continued to aggressively attempt to influence countries in the region, and it became particularly committed to integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, in spite of the fact that both were of overwhelming strategic interest to the Russians. Ukraine dominated Russia’s southwestern flank, without any natural boundaries protecting them. Georgia was seen as a constant irritant in Chechnya as well as a barrier to Russian interests in the Caucasus.

Moving rapidly to consolidate U.S. control over these and other countries in the former Soviet Union made strategic sense. Russia was weak, divided and poorly governed. It could make no response. Continuing this policy in the 2000s, when the Russians were getting stronger, more united and better governed and while U.S. forces were no longer available, made much less sense. The United States continued to irritate the Russians without having, in the short run, the forces needed to act decisively.

The American calculation was that the Russian government would not confront American interests in the region. The Russian calculation was that it could not wait to confront these interests because the United States was concluding the Iraq war and would return to its pre-eminent position in a few short years. Therefore, it made no sense for Russia to wait and it made every sense for Russia to act as quickly as possible.

The Russians were partly influenced in their timing by the success of the American surge in Iraq. If the United States continued its policy and had force to back it up, the Russians would lose their window of opportunity. Moreover, the Russians had an additional lever for use on the Americans: Iran.

The United States had been playing a complex game with Iran for years, threatening to attack while trying to negotiate. The Americans needed the Russians. Sanctions against Iran would have no meaning if the Russians did not participate, and the United States did not want Russia selling advance air defense systems to Iran. (Such systems, which American analysts had warned were quite capable, were not present in Syria on Sept. 6, 2007, when the Israelis struck a nuclear facility there.) As the United States re-evaluates the Russian military, it does not want to be surprised by Russian technology. Therefore, the more aggressive the United States becomes toward Russia, the greater the difficulties it will have in Iran. This further encouraged the Russians to act sooner rather than later.

The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.

We would expect the Russians to get traction. But if they don’t, the Russians are aware that they are, in the long run, much weaker than the Americans, and that they will retain their regional position of strength only while the United States is off balance in Iraq. If the lesson isn’t absorbed, the Russians are capable of more direct action, and they will not let this chance slip away. This is their chance to redefine their sphere of influence. They will not get another.

The other country that is watching and thinking is Iran. Iran had accepted the idea that it had lost the chance to dominate Iraq. It had also accepted the idea that it would have to bargain away its nuclear capability or lose it. The Iranians are now wondering if this is still true and are undoubtedly pinging the Russians about the situation. Meanwhile, the Russians are waiting for the Americans to calm down and get serious. If the Americans plan to take meaningful action against them, they will respond in Iran. But the Americans have no meaningful actions they can take; they need to get out of Iraq and they need help against Iran. The quid pro quo here is obvious. The United States acquiesces to Russian actions (which it can’t do anything about), while the Russians cooperate with the Unit ed States against Iran getting nuclear weapons (something Russia does not want to see).

One of the interesting concepts of the New World Order was that all serious countries would want to participate in it and that the only threat would come from rogue states and nonstate actors such as North Korea and al Qaeda. Serious analysts argued that conflict between nation-states would not be important in the 21st century. There will certainly be rogue states and nonstate actors, but the 21st century will be no different than any other century. On Aug. 8, the Russians invited us all to the Real World Order.

Tell Stratfor What You Think

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg)

Beware of French presidents seeking grand projects.

Amid great fanfare, Nicolas Sarkozy last month unveiled the Mediterranean Union of 43 countries, consisting of the European Union’s 27 members, 14 non-EU member countries that border the Mediterranean Sea, as well as Jordan and Mauritania.

The ostensible goal is to improve the economic lot of Europe’s poorer neighbors, curb terrorism, stem illegal immigration, clean up the polluted Mediterranean, prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, improve maritime and land transport and promote human rights.

The experiment — Sarkozy’s attempt to establish a legacy for his presidency — is doomed to fail, not the least because it attempts to accomplish too much, with too few resources among too disparate a group of countries. The project is also rife with hidden agendas, including the promotion of French national interests, while ignoring some of the biggest dangers in the former European colonies in the Middle East and Africa.

The founding of the Mediterranean Union three weeks ago was accompanied by grandiose language saluting human rights, praising democratic principles and condemning terrorism. “We must surmount all the hatreds to make space for a great dream of peace and civilization,” Sarkozy said. France’s real motive, though, is to establish a French southern sphere of influence to counter Germany’s dominant position in central and eastern Europe.

German Resistance

The Germans caught on quick. Not wanting to see the EU divided, nor German funds used to finance contracts awarded to French companies, Chancellor Angela Merkel objected. Sarkozy retreated and agreed to include the entire EU, instead of just the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. It was also agreed to frame the effort somewhat as a successor to the ill-fated Barcelona process, a 1995 plan to promote economic development and conflict resolution among Mediterranean states.

Still, even in a watered-down version, French companies are well positioned. The union’s initial projects in energy, water systems and transport all play to French industrial strengths.

Any doubts that the Mediterranean Union isn’t a venture dedicated to the greater glory of France should be dispelled by the date chosen for its launch, July 13 — the eve of Bastille Day, France’s national holiday. That way, the assembled heads of state and other senior dignitaries could be treated to a parade that a Wall Street Journal editorial once called the most ostentatious display of military might west of Moscow.

French Armory

Replete with everything from a marching unit of the French Foreign Legion — which for decades was France’s instrument of repression of its North African colonies — to armored tanks and a flyover by fighter jets spewing out the tricolor in smoky trails, the celebrations seemed to be a cross between a photo opportunity and an armaments bazaar.

At the political level, Turkey sees the union as a consolation prize for its eventual denial of EU membership. “It would send a very bad message to the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims,” Egeman Bagis, chief foreign-policy adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told the New York Times. Sarkozy has said that Turkey doesn’t belong in the EU.

Meanwhile, Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade on July 17 said that Europe wants Algerian and Libyan oil-and-gas reserves and accused the EU of deliberately choosing to isolate Africa through the new union. Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi denounced the project.

Hodgepodge of States

Alain Leroy, the French diplomat who was overseeing the Mediterranean effort, said today’s EU began as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. The comparison is a weak one. The ECSC had only six members, all European, all true democracies. None was a theocracy, nor was any infected by terrorism.

By contrast, the Mediterranean region is a hodgepodge of European, Arab and African states consisting of democratic regimes, monarchies and dictatorships — some with a strong religious orientation — and made up of Christians, Muslims and Jews, most of whom don’t get along.

The region is mired in strife between Israel and the Arab world generally and Israel and the Palestinians specifically. Israel and Syria remain technically at war. Syria doesn’t recognize Lebanon. At odds over the Western Sahara, Algeria and Morocco have had closed borders for more than 13 years. Cyprus remains divided; the Balkans lack stability; and Turkey and Greece have disputes that date back to the successors of Alexander the Great.

Iran’s Ambitions

What’s more, the experiment ignores the majority of the African continent, and the presumed debt Europe’s one-time colonial masters owe it. Although North Africa’s former French colonies seek freer access to Europe’s food markets, France, eager to protect its farmers, opposes granting it.

By restricting itself to the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, the project also ignores the area’s most dangerous problem: Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Should Sarkozy’s efforts bring peace to the Middle East, succeed in cleaning up the Mediterranean Sea, persuade the region’s populations to abandon terrorism and help boost living standards from Algiers to Amman, he and his union will have earned their place in history.

But don’t bet on it.

(Michael R. Sesit is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Michael R. Sesit in Paris at at msesit@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: July 31, 2008 20:01 EDT

Source: Bloomberg.com, Aug. 1, 2008

Tepki çağrısı!

Fransız Le Figaro gazetesinde Erdoğan – Sarkozy görüşmesiyle ilgili bir haber: Fethiye Temiz (florida)
“Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a demande a Nicolas Sarkozy, au cours d’un entretien, dimanche matin. Ouverture de chapitres, reaction ‘coordonne’ des 27 et en concertation avec Ankara en cas d’interdiction par la justice du parti au pouvoir AKP.”

Tercümesi:

“T.C. Başbakanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, bu pazar Nicolas Sarkozy ile yaptığı gorüşmede AB adaylığı çerçevesinde öngörülen başlıkların açılmasını ve AB’nin 27 ülkesinin AKP kapatıldığı takdirde Ankara ile koordineli (eşgüdümlü) şekilde tepki göstermelerini istedi.”

* * *

Yani… Başbakan, Fransa ve AB’yi kendi ülkesinin yargı kararına tepki göstermeye çağırmış… Herhalde cumhuriyet tarihinde bir ilk…

Sarkozy’s Club Med

• Mark Mardell
• 11 Jul 08, 05:30 AM

“Very nice dear, but what’s it for?” After quite a few ups and downs the French president is, this weekend, proudly showing off his shiny new gadget – the Mediterranean Union.

Perhaps we shouldn’t expect much from the first ever summit of a new organisation, but it is fair to ask what Mr Sarkozy expects from it. Peace in the Middle East? A half-way house for Turkey? A common approach to seaweed?

It’s not exactly clear as the deep blue waters of the Med, although the president, recently described in a very amusing Irish Times article as “personally unpleasant but extremely energetic”, has invested a lot of that energy and suppressed some of the unpleasantness to achieve this get-together.

The Romans knew the sea in the middle of their world as “Mare Nostrum” – Our Sea.
Sarkozy’s grand vision of a Mediterranean Union is on one level an attempt to remind Europeans that it is not just “Our Sea”. The Med, formed by the clash of European and African tectonic plates, has given its name to a climate, a diet and a temperament that largely stresses a common bond between the people of its northern shores – the French, Spanish, Italians and Greeks – rather than those of North Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps at the back of Sarkozy’s mind is a noble effort to stress the basin’s common heritage.

But, as so often with the president’s grand projects, one is left wondering whether it is not so much a vision but a momentarily entertaining hallucination, dragged up from goodness knows what regions of the unconscious – a plan without a purpose, an idea, free-floating, unsupported by any specific strategy and undirected towards any particular goal.

The president first played with the theme during his election campaign, when he talked passionately but vaguely about the French role in Algeria, and said that France did not have to be ashamed of its past, as it did not invent the final solution.

Many thought the plan itself was merely a cynical ploy to offer Turkey something less than full European Union membership and rather more than a vague associate partnership.

But alarm bells went off in Berlin and Brussels. The Med was to be seen as “our sea”, the EU’s sea, not just the private property of those on its shores. Chancellor Angela Merkel does not want France to straddle and dominate two competing organisations. Although it would be fanciful to see the MU as in any way a rival to the EU, she wanted to make sure the stirrings of any such thought of presumed equality were strangled at birth. Britain kept quiet, but diplomats see the Baltic and further expansion to the east as more important than this distraction.

Mrs Merkel won. It was made quite clear that Mr Sarkozy’s baby might, like Athena, have sprung fully-formed from his head, but she was to be adopted and tutored by the EU itself. The MU was not to be a separate organisation, but a part of the EU under the already existing framework of what’s known as the “Barcelona Process“.

Mr Sarkozy’s original plan for this weekend was very grand indeed. A meeting of just the Med countries, EU and non-EU, to be followed by “the rest of the EU meets the Med” – all fly-pasts and flashing lights to the greater glory of France and her president. There will doubtless be a good deal of that, but the Germans made sure the EU was not decoupled from the MU.

The Med Union wasn’t allowed to be a separate organisation that sought to exclude the countries without an olive oil diet or access to fragrant scrubland. Even the Belgians insisted, and they like to think of themselves as honorary Mediterraneans, on the grounds that they have more flair and better food than the Dutch and Germans next door.

Not that it is all sweetness and light from the southern powers. Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi has condemned it as a new imperialism, and warns of the Maghreb becoming a colony of Brussels. The Israelis see it as a useful tool. The Algerians are coming along but are cold. Turkey is deeply suspicious.

There’s no doubt there are real common projects that could be useful, such as sharing power from solar panels, problems of pollution and over-fishing, that may be given fresh impetus. But perhaps the real purpose is to demonstrate that Sarkozy is at heart a Gaullist, with a determination to show that France is leading Europe, and is still a big player in the world, with a perspective different from some Atlanticist consensus. The political skill would be to make it an unquestioned reality, rather that an exercise in national and personal vanity.