Vive la France! But what about Turkey?

AMANDA AKCAKOCA; Zaman Gazetesi

Nicolas Sarkozy’s victory on Sunday ushers in a new era of French politics. The son of a Hungarian immigrant who abandoned him and his brothers when they were small, Sarkozy has succeeded through sheer guts and determination. Nowadays he is a man in a hurry. When he takes over from Jacques Chirac on May 16, he will have a long to-do list, including: kicking off his ambitious reform agenda including unemployment, economic growth, labor market regulations and immigration; moving along the infamous EU Constitutional Treaty -- Sarkozy favors a “mini-treaty” which would not have to go to public referendum. He wants to get it off his desk as soon as possible so that his first years in office are not bogged down by this ongoing problem; and, lastly, put France back on the world stage on which, according to Monsieur Sarkozy, it has played an unacceptably minor role over the last few years. However in many of France’s migrant communities his election was met with despair, resulting in a number of riots. Known for his heavy-handed policies on security and migration, Sarkozy suppressed riots in ethnically mixed suburbs in 2005, when he served as interior minister, during which time he infamously claimed he would work to “hose away the scum in France.” This made him a hugely unpopular figure with France’s North African communities, with many feeling they were being treated like second-class citizens. He has a huge mountain to climb here.

Coming to Turkey, it is well known that Sarkozy does not support Turkish membership of the EU, claiming that it would be the end of political Europe. Rather he favors, as does his counterpart in Germany, some type of “privileged partnership” and the development of a “Mediterranean Community,” whatever that might be -- he has not expanded on that gem as yet. I am not convinced that Sarkozy will launch himself into an all-out assault to bring Turkey’s talks to an end. More likely he will put the issue on a back-burner and deal with more pressing domestic concerns first. In any event he will have to abide by the decision taken by the European Council in Copenhagen and listen to France’s influential business community, who are strong supporters of Turkish membership. Sarkozy is a pragmatic man and will not want to rock the EU boat just as he has climbed aboard. However at the same time France may look for ways to further slow the accession process for Turkey, and when France takes over the EU Presidency in the second half of 2008 they will probably sit on their hands.

More important in Turkey’s relations with France is whether Sarkozy decides to ratify the bill, passed by the French Parliament in October, making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide. One of Sarkozy’s closest friends and advisers is Patrick Devedjian, a high profile member of Armenia’s diaspora community. To what extent he will influence Sarkozy remains to be seen. France is home to a large Armenian immigrant community, with up to 500,000 people of Armenian descent. The community is a powerful political lobby. Sarkozy will have to perform a balancing act as he needs to guard French bilateral relations with Turkey -- particularly business interests -- while at the same time keeping the Armenian lobby and others happy. Therefore even if Sarkozy does not ratify the bill he will certainly attempt to use the whole genocide issue as a bargaining tool whenever the opportunity arises.

In any event the first challenge Sarkozy will face will be the parliamentary elections in June. Securing a workable majority in the National Assembly would greatly ease the passage of Mr. Sarkozy’s planned reforms. Mr. Sarkozy is a passionate, dynamic human-dynamo who is both smart and charismatic. Being the president of a country that is known for being stubborn and unpredictable, Sarkozy will certainly need all these qualities.

Socialist İnternational must expel the CHP

SAHIN ALPAY; Zaman Gazetesi

Last week I published a column in the Zaman daily calling on the Socialist International (SI) to expel the Republican People’s Party (CHP) from membership. I would like to explain for foreign observers of Turkish politics why I really believe the CHP, with its current leadership and policies, has absolutely no place in the global organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties of the world. The “Ethical Principles” adopted at the 22nd congress of SI held in Sao Paolo in September 2003 stated the following: “The Socialist International member parties defend pluralistic democracy. This means allowing citizens to make their choice at free, coordinated and clear elections; changing of governments in a peaceful way and providing freedom for citizens; showing respect to the rights of minorities and individuals; standing for an independent and neutral judiciary system based on the rule of law, a free and pluralist press, and administrating the parties in a democratic way.”

If SI is to remain true to its “Ethical Principles,” it has to conclude that the CHP of Turkey as led by Deniz Baykal no longer deserves membership in the organization, mainly due to the following reasons:

The CHP is not at all a party that is “administrated in a democratic way.” Baykal and his clique have established autocratic rule over the party, eliminated all dissenting views and members from the party and alienated all true social democrats.

The Baykal clique has turned the CHP increasingly away from the people and basically aligned it with the bureaucratic elites. It has increasingly turned the party away from social democracy towards a 1930s-style Kemalism that refuses to recognize the ethnic and religious diversity and cultural rights of Turkey’s citizens and fully supports an authoritarian type of state secularism that does not separate state and religion, and restricts religious rights and freedoms.

The Baykal clique is not only disrespectful of democratic rights, but increasingly of democratic processes. It has made the party a spokesman for the civilian-military bureaucracy which continues to think that the Turkish people at large are not mature enough for democracy and wants to preserve its tutelary powers over the regime.

The Baykal clique has pursued a policy of polarizing the electorate over the issue of secularism, with a view towards increasing his party’s sinking share of the popular vote. His statements have led many to conclude that he is using the threat of military intervention to achieve his political goals.

Baykal has not uttered a single word against the memorandum issued by the military threatening the parliament against the election of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as president and thus has tacitly supported the military’s intervention in the democratic process. Baykal and his clique have openly opposed “pluralist democracy” SI stands for. One of the vice chairmen of the party who most clearly reflects the widespread militarism among the ranks of the CHP came out and said he is in full agreement with the memorandum, which states among other things that: “All who do not share the understanding ‘Happy is he who says he is a Turk’ are enemies of the republic and will remain so,” in a thinly veiled reference to citizens of Kurdish origin who defend their ethnic identity. Baykal’s CHP is in growing agreement with nationalist parties in support of continued suppression of Kurdish identity.

During the recent crisis over presidential election, Baykal called on the Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional the election process that has been used to elect the last three presidents and warned the court that the country would otherwise risk domestic conflict and “clashes.” He has thus displayed his disrespect for an “independent and neutral judicial system based on the rule of law.”

In summary, the views and policies of Baykal’s CHP are in open conflict with principles of both social and political democracy. There may be nothing wrong within Turkey with the CHP being a statist and nationalist party, but it surely has no right to describe itself as a “social democratic” party, and this needs to be made clear to them by SI. The CHP’s expulsion from SI may perhaps help end the Baykal clique’s domination of this important actor of Turkish politics and open the way for democratic reform within it.

'Never again' for Armenians too

Several American Jewish groups abandon their anti-genocide zeal when it comes to Turkey's massacre of Armenians.

By Daniel Sokatch and David N. Myers, DANIEL SOKATCH is executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. DAVID N. MYERS teaches Jewish history at UCLA.
May 1, 2007

THIS YEAR, Congress established April 15 as Holocaust Memorial Day, commemorating the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Just nine days later, on April 24, Armenians throughout the world observed the commemoration of their great tragedy: the massacre of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks that began in 1915.

In many ways, it was the 20th century's first genocide that helped set the stage for its largest, including Rwanda and now Darfur. Adolf Hitler reportedly said, on the eve of his invasion of Poland in 1939, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

For the last 60 years, the Jewish community has labored to avoid granting Hitler, in the words of philosopher Emil Fackenheim, "a posthumous victory." Jews have taken as their motto "never again," and most tend to understand that this charge refers to all of humanity, not only to fellow Jews. One of the last surviving leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, Simha "Kazik" Rotem, once said that the central lesson of the Holocaust to him was that the Jewish people should stand vigilant against genocidal acts directed at any people.

This is why it is troubling that some major Jewish organizations have lined up in support of Turkey's efforts to keep the U.S. Congress from recognizing the Armenian massacres as an act of genocide. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and B'nai B'rith International recently conveyed a letter from the Turkish Jewish community opposing a resolution recognizing the genocide.

The ADL and the JINSA also added their own statements of opposition, suggesting that the massacre of Armenians was a matter for historians, not legislators, to decide.

The American Jewish community has insisted, and rightly so, that the U.S. Congress, the United Nations and other governmental bodies formally commemorate the Holocaust. Why should Jews not insist on the same in this case, especially given the widespread scholarly consensus that what happened to the Armenians from 1915 to 1923 was genocide? After all, the man who coined the term "genocide" to refer to the Holocaust — the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin — cited the Armenian massacres as a precedent.

The unfortunate and well-known answer to the question is that Turkey has fiercely opposed efforts to call the Armenian massacres "genocide." Moreover, it has asked its friends to help beat back the attempts at historical recognition.

Jewish opposition to recognizing the Armenian genocide comes mainly from a desire to safeguard the important strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel. Alone among the world's Muslim nations, Turkey has forged close military, political and economic ties with Israel. In addition, Jews remember with a deep sense of gratitude that Turkey served as an important haven for their forebears fleeing persecution, from the time of the Spanish Expulsion in 1492 to the dark days of Nazism and beyond. And it is not just that Turkey has been kind to Israel and the Jews. It is a critically important U.S. ally in a dangerous region racked by religious extremism.

Nobody is suggesting that Jews forget Turkey's historic friendship. But it is a mistake for Jews — or, for that matter, anyone — to surrender the moral imperative of condemning genocide in the hopes of avoiding a perceived, but by no means necessary, strategic loss. Similarly, it would be a mistake for Turkey to hinge its own strategic interests on the denial of past criminal acts. Coming to terms with the past, as democratic Germany has done in the aftermath of the Holocaust and South Africa in the wake of apartheid, is the best path to political legitimacy.

Turkey, a trusted ally and friend of the Jews and the United States, must come to terms with its past for its own sake. It is that battle that leading Turkish intellectuals, including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and martyred Armenian activist Hrant Dink, have been waging so nobly. We should do all in our power to strengthen the hands of these figures and avoid the abyss of historical revisionism.

Sixty years (and millions of historical documents) later, the world still has to contend with those who deny the Holocaust. We need only recall the shocking words and deeds of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on this score.

In response to such denials, all decent-minded people, and Jews in particular, must continue to declare loudly "never again" — not only to future genocides but also to the attempted denial of past genocides, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are.

A portrait of a politician: Deniz Baykal

MEHMET KAMIS; Zaman Gazetesi

After the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup, all political parties in Turkey, including the Republican People’s Party (CHP) were banned. It was 12 years later that Deniz Baykal, a former member of the Social Democrat People’s Party (SHP) and his friends re-established the party. The group decided they would set up the CHP with a new motto. On Sept. 9, 1992 Baykal told the nation that his party would embrace the teens in clubs and bars as well as the teens in Islamic vocational schools, the imam-hatip high schools, “Those with mini skirts and those with headscarves are both our children,” Baykal said. Then in 1993 Baykal visited Bosnia and distributed headscarves as a symbol of virtue and innocence. This act prompted a different view of the CHP as a leader in the country. The illusion was that Turkey had finally understood its realities and Baykal would lead the CHP with a completely new vision. Baykal’s promises were very disturbing for the status quo that refused change and wanted the policies of the ‘30s and ‘40s to return. Would Baykal become the arbitrator between the nation and the government? The leader of the other left wing party, the Democratic Left Party (DSP), Bülent Ecevit, was advocating laicism that respected religion. Since the public supported Ecevit’s idea, Baykal had envisioned adopting a similar stance. But after Baykal became the CHP’s leader, he failed to continue that line of thought. It was criticism from extreme laics such as Türkan Saylan that prevented Baykal from adopting or promoting any policy that would threaten the status quo. After Baykal became deputy prime minister, in 1995 he revealed a shocking report on imam-hatip high schools and the headscarf. The report promoted former policies and had no suggestion for improvement. It contained the words of an old CHP that had not changed in the least. Everything had returned to the past…

The CHP’s stance during the Feb. 28 process was even more frustrating because Baykal had become a completely different person. He was ill-tempered, harsh and provocative. There was no sign of the Baykal that only a few years ago had promoted a laic regime respectful of religion. In a battle with the Welfare Party (RP), Baykal offended a wide religious class in Turkey. But the CHP leader paid the price for his attitude at the polls. CHP failed to meet the election threshold and did not win any seats in Parliament. Shortly afterwards, Baykal resigned.

He returned to the spotlight in 2001. A new start as a new man, Baykal began the term with a quote from Sheikh Edebali. Realizing that his stance during the Feb. 28 coup had harmed Turkey and its public, Baykal decided to reconcile with the public through Edebali. Referring to Edebali, Baykal emphasized the need for a laicism that respected religious values. He defended that peace between the public and the government would be maintained only if spiritual and religious values were respected. The public showed their appreciation and rewarded Baykal for his words at the 2002 elections.

And now today it seems Baykal has lost his balance once again, owing to the tense atmosphere of the presidential election. The Baykal today is a leader that complains about politics to other institutions and does not honor the decisions of the Parliament. He is a militarist and statist politician that places the concerns of a certain group before everyone else’s.

During crises Baykal forgets the words he has spoken. He is like a man who becomes a werewolf at night. He does not care about preventing a crisis, calling for moderation, finding a balance or defending liberty. He becomes more laic then the laic elite and more militarist then the military elite. While his words offend most of the society, in particular those that respect religion, he has lost the opportunity to become a mediator between the public and the regime.

Today there are debates in the political arena on whether the CHP should be banned from Socialist International because it has almost no signs of a socialist democratic party. It is simply a laic party. It is unfortunate because Baykal could have been remembered as an inspirational leader. What Turkey needs is a true social democrat leader, not a spokesman for laicism…

You cannot have democracy without secularism, or secularism without democracy

Mehmet Y. Yilmaz: Hürriyet Gazetesi


A declaration from the military in Turkey is not a situation which should be counted as very ordinary in our nation! Our Constitution defines the groundwork for where the military can, if necessary, make its views clear in relation to problems the country may be having: the National Security Council (MGK). That's why it's there.

So, if there are developments occuring in Turkey which elicit warnings from the military, the place to do it is at the MGK, not in the public eye.

On the other hand, the 2nd article of the Turkish Constitution defines the Turkish Republic wjth characteristics like "democratic, secular, and a state of social justice."

And the 4th article then goes on to stress that these characteristics are "unchangeable and not open to proposals of change."

But it is not an acceptable stance that in defending one of the above characteristics, one of the others could be discounted. Just as the Turkish Republic's "secular" character is crucial, its "democratic" character is also just as important. And institutions who are charged with defending the order defined by our Constitution cannot prioritize these chacteristics according to whim.

Of course, the AKP's actions in relation to the presidential process cannot be ignored in so far as the damage they inflicted on the principle of secularity. But while saying "I will protect secularity," the path is not to push democracy to one side.

Those who really love Turkey will make it clear that they understand both sides of this matter, and that just as you cannot have democracy without secularism, you also cannot have secularism without democracy.

They hit us in Malatya…

HUSEYIN GULERCE; Zaman Gazetesi

The savage murders committed in the publishing house raided because it had been distributing free Bibles are surely provocative, but what was the target? If we can clearly see the target, we can then reach a more accurate conclusion on who may be the real perpetrators.
Let’s quickly remember three recent murders: that of the Catholic priest Andrea Santoro in Trabzon, Hrant Dink in Istanbul and now three people in Malatya. Santoro was an Italian citizen, Dink was of Armenian descent, and one of the three people killed in the recent murder was a German. As a result of the three provocations, Italy, France (where the Armenian voice is loudest) and Germany are rising up against Turkey and Muslims all over Europe. But it’s not only Europe that is adopting a harsh stance against Turkey. Because the victims were Christians, all Christians from around the world, including America, are questioning Turkey. Could there have been a bigger atrocity inflicted on Turkey?

So what sort of Turkey is losing grace, accused and hard put upon? The Turkey that has been advancing toward the European Union; the Turkey that is the secular-democratic representative of the Islamic world in the Alliance of Civilizations project; the Turkey that some want to be dragged into turmoil and polarized prior to the presidential elections because it has now achieved economic and political stability. So the real masterminds of the provocations are those who want to dynamite Turkey’s EU process and who cannot digest the tolerance of the Anatolian people, who understand the core of Islam. There are circles and centers both at home and abroad conforming to these two characterizations. Many sound-minded people have kept repeating that “the groups against Turkey’s EU membership will cooperate and act in complicity to cripple this process in and out of the country.” While there are voices in Europe insisting that Turkey cannot become a full member because of its Muslim identity, and while a new condition for Turkey’s membership - a referendum -- has been introduced, these murders, which will surely play into the hands of people with such a mindset and strengthen their arguments, were committed.

Can these provocations, which will profoundly affect the European public, really be coincidences? Can it also be a coincidence that these people who exaggerate about Christian missionary activities in Turkey to draw the public’s attention again, while they themselves have no interest in preserving or practicing their own religion? Aren’t lies written and circulated through the “whisper newspaper” -- as we say in Turkish -- that Christianization activities in Turkey have intensified, thousands of people have renounced their faith and become Christians in the Black Sea region, and that hundreds of churches have been opened in the basements of big buildings in metropolitan areas? And those who spread these falsehoods also claim that the AK Party has been doing nothing to stop these missionary activities. Weekly news magazine Aksiyon revealed the actual figures in March 2005. According to the police department database, there have been 500 cases of conversion in recent years, and 400 of the people involved were already Christian and just wanted to change the official record in the registration office. Only 100 people over several years! While this is the truth and while the people of this land have lived together for centuries in peace, some people are trying to incite religious hatred in the country. Nobody dares divert the issue from its core by showing the minor hitmen. Those who are profoundly disturbed by Turkey becoming stronger, its possibility of setting sail for new horizons with EU membership and its reassuming, after perhaps centuries, a well-deserved position in the world with regard to establishing peace, serenity and justice, are now striking these hopes below the belt.

Let’s frustrate this plot together, hand in hand…

3 Killed in Attack on Publishing House That Prints Bibles in Turkey

ISTANBUL, Turkey: Three employees of a publishing house that distributes Bibles were slain in the latest attack apparently targeting Turkey's Christian minority.
The attack Wednesday added to concerns in Europe about whether this predominantly Muslim country — which is bidding for EU membership — could protect its religious minorities. It also underlined concerns about rising Turkish nationalism and hostility toward non-Muslims.
The three victims — a German and two Turkish citizens — were found with their hands and legs bound and their throats slit at the Zirve publishing house in the central city of Malatya.
Police detained four youths, aged 19-20, and also suspect a fifth, who underwent surgery for head injuries sustained apparently in trying to escape by jumping from a window at Zirve, authorities said.
The five suspects had each had been carrying copies of a letter that read "We five are brothers. "We are going to our deaths. We may not return," according to the state-run Anatolia news agency.

(Read more)