IN ENGLISH

The Dictators Who Changed History

2011-04-10T09:41:00.000-07:00

Ali Çimen, who has been one of the leading names in popular history writing in Turkey, casts light on the lives of the most known dictators in history, who shaped history with their cruel, brutal and mostly absurd policies. While getting lost in the pages of the book, you will learn new surprising facts on bad guys of history, while looking at what you already know from a different angle. From mighty Stalin, to crazy Hitler, from ‘Butcher of Uganda’ to ‘Duche of Italy’, from to Eternal Leader of North Korea to, his son, ‘Dear Leader’ and many more. All wait for you with their astonishing stories…

The Days That Changed History

2011-04-10T09:23:00.000-07:00

The book touches on the days which turned out to be turning points in history such as the days when history witnessed the fall of Saigon, the fall of Constantinople, the fall of Shah in Iran, the demise of Soviet Empire, 11 September, the abolition of the Ottoman Empire and many more, concluding with the fall of Baghdad in 2003, and shows how the events of a single day can shape the future in a myriad of ways. Some of the events mark the end of an era while others paved the way for something new, and while many are bloody battles, others are momentous decisions or breathtaking discoveries. Together, they are remembered as powerful symbols of their time and pivotal moments in world history.

Empires that changed history

2009-07-10T15:02:00.000-07:00

Come and…
Witness how the 2000 year-history of Chinese empire flourished; be a part of the assassinations, court conspiracies and peasant revolts that turned China upside down! Cross the Bosporus with Alexander the Great, walk into the Asian steps and fight elephants in Indian forests. Take side of Persians and defend Persepolis against Alexander!
Join Islamic armies; wave your sword for the word of God, and let the justice prevail; conquer Andalusia with Umayyads, rewrite the history of Europe!
Ally with Caesar, march into the heart of Rome; overhear the gossips in the Senate, mingle with the Romans on the streets of Rome; applause the emperors before watching their executions silently. See how much blood, sweat and tears were shed to build Rome.
Mix with the Byzantine knights, shoot your arrows from the walls of Constantinople to attacking enemies; then join the forces of Mehmed the Conqueror, surmount the walls of Constantinople and take the city changing the history forever!
Enlist in Attila’s army and scare Europe to death; appear at the gates of Rome and make Popes kneel down before you. Ride horses with the Mongols, reduce to ashes whatever confronts you and set about plundering the world as if there was no tomorrow!
Make friends with Italian explorers, set sail with Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch sailors into the unknown. Note the slaughters of the greedy ‘conquistadors’ who followed your route and see how the cross-bearers Christianized and ‘enlightened’ ‘Indians’. Get lost in the dark corridors of British castles the walls of which are beaten by rain. Take your seat around the dining tables of the queens and kings whose hearts beat for an empire the sun never sets on. Have afternoon tea with British sailors, soldiers and statesmen while following the expansion of British Empire from the rocky mountains of North America to the desolate shores of Australia…
Enter into Admiral Nelson’s service and blast the French with artillery fire! Serve as Napoleons’ orderly and wave your sword in Egyptian deserts, the salty waters of Mediterranean and the Russian steps dreaming of frenchifiying the world French!
Listen to the provocative and fervent speeches of Adolf Hitler in the suburb pubs of Munich, feel the Nazi Terror in your bones. Travel to the concentration camps in the railway cars stinking urine, blood and sweat. Share the last moments of Führer in his bunker and try to find your way in the dust storm caused by the collapsing dreams of Nazis…
Write speeches for Lenin in Petrograd, support the working class masses marching towards the palace of Czar Nikolai. Oust the monarchy and found the Soviet Union! Meet the brains of the ‘Evil Empire’ that terrified the world with its nukes, secret services and ruthless ideology. Shudder at Stalin’s presence, get excited at that of Khrushchev and applaud Gorbachev’s reforms. Hold your breath at the hot fronts of Cold War.
Fight ‘redcoats’ with Americans shoulder by shoulder; lay the foundation for the United States of America! Help black Americans out in their struggle for freedom, lift off for space, feel the ground shaking by atomic blast. Follow the foot prints of ‘American Imperialism’, tear the Soviet Empire down! Try to figure out the philosophy of the last standing empire of today’s world.

Come! Do not read history, be a part of it!

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

Who is pulling the strings? / Conspiracy theories

2009-07-01T11:31:00.001-07:00

Who is holding ropes? / Conspiracy theories (İpler Kimin Elinde / Komplo Teorileri) is my first book about the world wide known conspiracy theories such as the assassination of JFK, Moon Hoax, Pearl Harbor and many more...

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book click here to return to the previous page

Echelon / the Backstage of the Espionage World

2009-07-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

Echelon / The Backstage of the Espionage World (Echelon-İstihbarat Dünyasının Perde Arkası) is about the development of espionage and the well-known secret services. The book also casts light on the lives of famous spy-masters.

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

The space adventure of Mankind

2009-07-01T11:13:00.000-07:00

İnsanoğlunun Uzay Macerası (the space adventure of mankind) is about space exploration, the prologue of which was written by Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, the second man on the moon.

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

Gladio historian Dr. Daniele Ganser: "Europe still does not know the full story behind Gladio"

2009-06-30T16:19:00.000-07:00

Dr. Daniele Ganser, a Swiss historian and researcher at the University of Basel’s history department, spoke to Today’s Zaman about the history of the Gladio in Europe. Turkey is going through turbulent days with the ongoing investigation into Ergenekon, a shadowy criminal network suspected of plotting to topple the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government. Ergenekon is believed by some to be the last living extension of Gladio, a code name denoting the clandestine NATO stay-behind operation in Italy after World War II, intended to counter a possible communist invasion of Western Europe. Many in Turkey liken the legal process against Ergenekon to the “Clean Hands” anti-corruption operation against Gladio in Italy during the 1990s. Dr. Daniele Ganser, a Swiss historian and researcher at the history department of Basel University in Switzerland, says Europe has had similar experiments with state-born armies doing “inside jobs.” The author of “Nato’s Secret Armies,” he also says there was considerable resistance to investigating these secret armies in many countries, not unlike in Turkey. In an interview with Today’s Zaman, he cautions that there may still be secret armies might have remained in the West, particularly in the US.

How did Gladio operate and what instruments did it use?
Gladio was operating in total secrecy, in the dark. Most people had no idea that these networks existed. It was a network of secret armies, called “stay-behind”, which were set up by the US secret service, the CIA, and the British secret service, MI6, and coordinated by NATO. Gladio was the code name for the Italian stay-behind. It was operating as a branch of the Italian military secret service SISMI. The secret armies were designed to fight behind enemy lines in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe or to manipulate the political framework of a country in the absence of a Soviet invasion. The secret stay-behind armies possessed secret arms caches with guns, munitions and explosives. The members of the secret armies, drawn from the military and the secret services, were trained in secret warfare. In some countries, including Germany, right-wing extremists and former Nazis were members of the secret armies. In other countries, including Italy, the secret armies linked up with terrorists who carried out bombings against civilians in order to create an atmosphere of fear and to discredit political opponents, who were wrongly blamed for the terror.

What was the turning point in the struggle with Gladio? What special event or person helped most to cleanse Europe of Gladio?
The critical moment came in the year 1990, when Italian judge Felice Casson researched the archives of the Italian military secret service and found documents that proved the existence of secret armies across Western Europe and their links to the CIA, MI6 and NATO. Casson then informed the Italian Senate, which investigated the secret armies and found links to terrorism. Then Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti was forced to confirm the existence of the secret army in Italy. When he was attacked and people screamed that all this was illegal and criminal, he defended himself and said that these secret armies existed in all the countries of Western Europe. Thereafter, politicians in Greece, Turkey, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg and other countries searched and found their secret armies. Most were unwilling to look very closely at the conspiracy, despite the fact that the EU Parliament called all member states to investigate the secret Gladio armies and their links to terror in Europe. But only Italy, Belgium and Switzerland carried out detailed parliamentary investigations and presented public reports. In July 2008 members of parliament in Luxemburg presented a short report on their secret stay-behind. So, you see, it takes a lot of time to clarify Gladio’s history. We still don’t know the full story.

What kind of roles did media, politicians and security organizations play during the process of eliminating Gladio?
The investigation and dissolution of the Gladio secret armies is a very complicated process because it is possible to say “The secret Gladio army has been closed down” and then start a new one with the same people and the same strategy the next day under a new name. The problem really is that the media, the politicians, the military and the secret service have all been very reluctant and hesitant to look at the Gladio armies. As a consequence, we don’t have the names of all the Gladio commanders, we don’t have the names and dates of all the operations. We don’t have the data of their financial strength. Information is still fragmentary, despite the fact that it is illegal to have a secret army in a democratic state. It’s against the constitution. So, all in all, politicians and the media have failed to clarify the Gladio story.

In Turkey, there is some opposition (from media and political circles especially) to the operations being done to eliminate Ergenekon. Did Europe go through the same process? I mean, was the same resistance seen in these cases?
Oh yes, very much so. In every country there was very strong opposition to investigating the secret army. Most countries have said that they closed down their secret army. That it no longer exists, that it’s not needed anymore. If indeed Ergenekon is the stay-behind for Turkey, the secret army of Turkey, then Turkey is a special case. Because it would mean that in Turkey the secret armies continued to exist also in the 1990s and even today. But we must be careful. If other countries say they have closed down their networks and do not present a detailed investigation with names and examples of operations, then it’s always possible that secret armies exist in these countries, as well. The US journalist Seymour Hersh claims the US is still using secret armies controlled by the CIA and the Pentagon; today they operate inside Iran to create chaos and a pretext for an invasion, Hersh claims. So, you see, the issue of secret armies is still very delicate and complicated even today. The US never commented on the secret Gladio armies they set up, trained, equipped, funded and directed in Europe. They say they never existed. But we know they existed. We have the proof. But many people in Europe are scared of the US because they are the leading superpower, so they don’t want to look at these questions.

What changes were seen in the daily, social and political lives of the people in these countries after the elimination of Gladio? How did Gladio’s removal contribute to these countries?
Well, at first, people were shocked to hear that secret armies had existed in their countries. Here in Switzerland, one parliamentarian said he had lost eight kilograms during the investigation because he was so shocked. He never thought it was possible that a secret army could have existed in Switzerland. In Germany people were shocked, too, to hear that former Nazis were active in these networks, that the CIA trained Nazis was unbelievable for them. So in the beginning it was a shock. But then, when the secret armies were closed down, if indeed that was the case, then people were relieved. You know, most people want peace and security; they hate violence, lies and manipulation. So I guess it’s necessary that one talks about this difficult subject of secret armies and finds a solution.

Ali Çimen, London
24 July 2008, Thursday, Todayszaman

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to read the interview in original newspaper format
Click here to return to the main menu

The speeches that changed history

2009-06-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

The Speeches that changed the history (Tarihi Değiştiren Konuşmalar) is about the historical speeches that shaped the history, which analyses the effects of the speeches, made by historical figures such as JFK, Hitler, Gorbachev, Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Atatürk, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and many more…

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

The wars that changed history

2009-06-25T14:20:00.000-07:00

The wars that changed the history (Tarihi Değiştiren Savaşlar ) is about the wars that had a huge impact on the creation of todays political and social climate we are living in, such as Gulf War, Korean War, Waterloo and many more. The book puts the Turkish-Ottoman history in the centre while covering wars.

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

The events that changed history

2009-06-25T14:18:00.000-07:00

The events that changed the history (Tarihi Değiştiren Olaylar ) is about the events that changed the history such as demise of the Soviet Union, French Revolution, the first atomic bomb, 1917 Russian Revolution and many more...

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

The women who changed history

2009-06-25T14:16:00.000-07:00

The women who changed the history (Tarihi Değiştiren Kadınlar) is about the women who had an huge impact on the course of the history such as Indira Gandhi, Cleopatra, Mata Hari, Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Mother Teresa and many more …

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to read the piece of Turkish Daily News about the book (women heard round the world)
click here to return to the previous page

The scientists who changed history

2009-06-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

The scientists who changed the history (Tarihi Değiştiren Bilginler ) is about the scientists who changed the history such as Newton, Einstein, Copernic, İbn-i Haldun, Madam Curie, Pisagor, El Cezeri, William Rontgen and many more...

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

The soldiers who changed history

2009-06-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

The soldiers who changed the history (Tarihi Değiştiren Askerler) is about the soldiers that changed the history such as Napoleon, Stalin, Ataturk, Hitler, Fatih Mohammed II, Hannibal, Patton and many more...

click here to see the link of the publisher about the book
click here to return to the previous page

Stine Jensen: "İstanbul means a better social life, lots of tea, talking and enjoying life"

2009-06-23T08:34:00.000-07:00

Stine Jensen, a Dane who has lived in the Netherlands since the age of one, is one of the country's prominent female writers. But what makes her distinctive from her peers is that she is one of those Western intellectuals who fell in love with İstanbul at first sight. She is not only a writer but also active in the other sides of "brain work" like teaching, journalism and foremost dreaming about her coming novels. Jensen's latest book, "Turkse vlinders. Liefde tussen twee culturen" (Turkish butterflies, love between two cultures), is a personal and journalistic investigation into the choices of female and male thirty-somethings, emigrating Europeans who have lost their hearts to Turkey, Turks who are dreaming of a life in Europe and the difficulties and pleasures of intercultural love. The novel received much attention as it touched on a very heartbreaking subject; people who speak different languages but also speak one common language, that of love. Today's Zaman spoke to writer, lecturer and philosopher Jensen on the subjects of İstanbul and intercultural love.

What struck you the most during the process of writing in terms of relations and cultural differences?
These past five years, I have divided my time between Amsterdam and Istanbul. I've talked to young Europeans and Turks involved in intercultural relationships. My investigation resulted in a book that is part autobiographical, part journalistic fieldwork and part cultural analysis. It is about emigrating Europeans who have lost their hearts to Turkey, Turks who are dreaming of a life in Europe and the difficulties and pleasures of intercultural love. It was published in Dutch this June and is entitled "Turkish butterflies, love between two cultures." When writing, many things struck me. For one thing, I had no idea that there were so many Dutch people involved in relationships with Turks. After the book came out I received an enormous amount of mail by Western women who had lost their hearts somewhere in Turkey. Of course, when one realizes however, that last year, approximately one million tourists from the Netherlands visited Turkey, one must start thinking about the political and cultural impact of intercultural romances for the coming years; they will only increase.
Second, I was amazed that these women have organized themselves in discussion boards on the Internet, and even a black list. On (the blacklist), you will find women discussing some of the Turkish barmen, animators, beach boys and others they have fallen in love with, and other women post warnings if they think they're dealing with a serial Casanova.
Third, the beauty of some of these love stories struck me, as well as the openness with which people shared their intimate stories with me. Particularly how openly Turkish women discusses matters of love and sexuality with me, their hopes and their dreams. Some of these stories were heartbreaking comedies, others life-changing tragedies.
Fourth, no matter how different individuals are, in these intercultural relationships between Turks and Europeans the same things arise. For instance, the Western women seem to struggle with the important role family plays within Turkish society, and the Turkish men struggle with her independence. They might be clichés, but I heard many of them repeated as real life struggles, over and over again.

Do you really believe people from different backgrounds, religions and languages can be happy couples overcoming the barriers originating from those differences? What do your experience and observations say?
There are some specific extra difficulties to overcome with an intercultural relationship -- such as moving/language/religion and who will adapt to whom. These differences can be very pleasurable and exciting as well - there's no time to get bored and always a topic for conversation. There is a wonderful word for measuring the differences in a relationship: mixogamy. It describes that people can be different in many ways; education level, economic status, color, gender, religion or age… In intercultural relations people sometimes settle arguments quicker, saying "'It's his/her culture, I have to accept therefore," but also struggle over the question what things are "cultural" and what things are a matter of personality, for example showing up late, saving money, being friends with someone of the opposite sex, etc.
I personally believe that every marriage or relationship has its difficulties, and that a happy marriage is a bigger mystery then one that is unproblematic. A Dutch female journalist, Ileen Montijn, once said it jokingly like this: "Every marriage is intercultural."
Mind you, there is one practical boundary these couples risk facing: migration policy. Turkish people still need visas to travel and migrate to Europe. But a new and young generation is flirting, experimenting with and tempting the boundaries between East and West, Turkey and Europe; mind you, butterflies in the stomach don't need visa to cross the borders and to travel abroad.

You lived in İstanbul for a while. What were the best and worst parts of living in Turkey? What still makes you smile when you remember?
The best, in three words: better social life. Lots of tea, talking and enjoying life… The worst: slow organizational matters. I smile a lot when I think about my Turkish for beginners' course in İstanbul. We were six foreigners, five men, one woman (me). Within one week we had turned into he stereotypes of our cultures: the American guy was carrying his own super size coffee cup to class, because the Turkish coffees were too small for him, while the French guy was eating croissants and saying "voila" all the time. It was a wonderful experience, all these people from different backgrounds, stuck together in a class, each and everyone searching for a new life in İstanbul for different reasons.

After this book, what changed in your life? In which ways did 'having such a book' contribute to you?
It broadened my mind. Before writing this book I hardly knew any Turks, or anything about Turkey, and I could never have guessed that I would be learning Turkish one day. It brought me new friends, emotional experiences, life-lessons and Turkish music. The cliché is true that, when learning about another culture, one really learns about his or her own culture as well, with all its benefits and drawbacks.

What do you think of the current debates on 'samen leven' (living together) and integration? Do you believe that those are the real issues? And beyond that why do you think foreigners can not integrate into society, if there is really such a problem?
Some policies I find very silly, such as taking a language exam in Turkey before coming to the Netherlands. The focus on integration of cultures can, in my opinion, be emphasizing the "cultural" aspect too much, when really socio/economic issues are at stake. I'll give you an example: say we have a Turkish guy called Ahmet and Jan, who both are from working class and live in Rotterdam; they can have more in common than Pieter-Willem (upper-class from Baarn) and the same Jan.

And in terms of 'samen leven' what do you think the interested parties should do?
For my book I tried the following experiment, one might consider these hesitant and beginning love stories of my book, the relations between two individuals, a Turk and a European, a small micro-cosmos, or even excellent test case, for the larger discussion on Turkey and the European Union. This idea, I actually derived from a Turkish television series called 'Çocuklar Duymasın' (Don't let the children hear), in which a poor, and rather ugly boy watches a beautiful Scandinavian woman on television and comments that he can't get a girl here in Turkey, but that he would be happy to settle for one of those Scandinavian beauties. "Mmm, I see," says his father. "Then you should first meet the standards of the Copenhagen Criteria," he jokingly adds. I would say: don't loose your sense of humor and openness, be self-critical and reflexive.

You know Turks very well, both those in Turkey and the ones here. How do you compare them? Can you also see differences, as I very often hear from other Dutch people I know?
I find it really very hard to generalize about the two groups. Some of the Turks I've met here are indeed more traditional than those I've met in Istanbul (as one often hears), as they tend to come from the East; but the opposite has also occurred.

About Stine Jensen
Dr. Stine Jensen (1972, Denmark) is a literary theorist and philosopher. In 2002, she received her Ph.D. degree in the field of arts and culture from the University of Maastricht. She held a position at the Radboud University of Nijmegen as an assistant professor in television studies from 2002-2004. Currently she works as a university lecturer in literary studies as part of the Faculty of Arts at the Free University of Amsterdam. She is the author of De verlangenmachine. Vrouwen in de popmuziek (Desiremachine. Women in Pop Music, Prometheus 2001), Waarom vrouwen van apen houden. Een liefdesgeschiedenis in cultuur en wetenschap (Why women love apes. A love affair in science and culture, Bert Bakker 2002, to be published in French at Seuil in 2006), and edited Aapverhalen (Ape stories, Wereldbibliotheek 2004). She is a literary critic for the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad in British fiction and non-fiction and writes articles on film, popular culture and literature for NRC Handelsblad. In December 2004, in a special edition of the Dutch newsmagazine Vrij Nederland, Stine Jensen was chosen as one of the best and most promising young philosophers of the Netherlands.

Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
11 March 2007, Sunday, TodaysZaman

Click to read the interview on Todayszaman
Click here to return to the main menu

Mordehay Vanunu: "I Revealed Israel's Nuclear Secrets to Stop a New Genocide"

2009-06-22T08:04:00.000-07:00

Mordehay Vanunu, who leaked Israel's nuclear program to the press almost two decades ago, spoke to the Turkish media for the first time. "I wanted to stop a new genocide by drawing attention to Israel's nuclear power. I will never regret this." Vanunu spoke with Zaman about his goal, what he had been through in prison, Israel's 'psychological torture' and how he was arrested. "I would particularly like to state that everything I did was not only for the Israeli people, but also for the all people in Middle East. If any country does this, all the people in the region will fight. My only purpose was to hinder that," Vanunu explained about his decision to blow the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons. Vanunu underlined the fact that the best way to secure peace in the region was to force Israel to solve Palestine issue. He said that if peace was provided in the region then there would be no need for nuclear weapons. He believes that as long as Palestinians do not find real peace, no progress will be recorded in the Middle East.
Vanunu, who was banned from traveling abroad after he was released from prison, disclosed that he had to endure great pressure during the years he spent inside. He said he was not subjected to physical torture, but psychological torture. About his arrest, Vanunu said that many intelligence agencies, not just the MOSSAD, played a role in his capture. He claims that Cindy, who had a key role in his arrest, was an American agent. He added, "The French captured me. British and Italians helped them. My capture had been MOSSAD's international conspiracy." Evaluating the Israeli Court's verdict that forbids him from traveling abroad, Vanunu explained that he was imprisoned in Israel now. "My traveling right is limited in Israel. My freedom to speak and travel has been banned. I cannot say anything more."
Vanunu then talked about the mistreatment he suffered during his 18 years in prison. "They mistreated me badly, but not physically. They did not beat and torture. They used psychological techniques like brainwashing and breaking my will. They tried to make me mad and demoralize me. They tried to make me feel regret for what I had done." Vanunu, however, feels no regret for what he did. "I believe that I did the right thing. I wanted to save people in the region, including the Israeli people, from a big tragedy. Despite all the pains I suffered, the Israeli government failed to make me feel regret for what I had done."
Mordehay Vanunu announced on April 21, when he was released, that he was mistreated because he was a Christian.

Ali Çimen, Fatih Şeyhanoğlu, İstanbul
01 August 2004, Sunday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to see the interview in original newspaper format
Click here to return to the main menu

Bernard Bouwman: "I became more humanistic in Turkey"

2009-06-19T09:01:00.000-07:00

Bernard Bouwman, a Western correspondent living and reporting in İstanbul, is the eyes and ears of the Netherlands in Turkey. Indeed, his is a name synonymous with Turkey. He has been reporting for the Netherlands’ NRC Handelsblad daily and for Radio 1 from İstanbul for eight years. I recently spoke with Bouwman about his personal adventure and observations about Turkey and the Netherlands.

How did your İstanbul adventure begin?

Let me start by saying that I did not have a journalistic education. I studied something different, finished my doctorate at Oxford and returned to Holland. While looking for jobs, I ended up in journalism. I was at the European Integration Desk at NRC, for whom I still work. But almost everyone in the media was dealing with bureaucracy, which eventually started to bother me. I told my superiors: “Look! I do not want to do be a correspondent anymore. I will look for something else.” Just then, in 2000, a post in İstanbul became available and, of course, I jumped on it. Why? Because Turkey was quite an interesting country; a journalistic heaven with its dynamic agenda, including Turkey-EU relations; the democratization process; the place of religion in society and the question of where it should be; the ethnic groups and how these groups should be integrated into the mainstream; natural disasters; and Turkey’s relations with its turbulent neighbours, like Iran, Iraq and Syria. Simply, whatever a journalist wants!

But you had been to Turkey before you had been stationed here, right?

Sure, I had been as a tourist, a few times. But living permanently was something different. But, you know what? My boss sent me to İstanbul for one week, saying “You are free to do anything you want, don’t bother with the expenses and just see if you could live there.” It was really an excellent week. But newspapers can’t do such things anymore, as circulations in the Netherlands have decreased. Well, at the end of that week, I made up my mind. İstanbul was the place where I wanted to live.

When you look back, do you see any changes on the issues that you said brought you here?

Well, there is one thing that never changes: Turkey’s rapid change on economic and social issues. This is taking place at an amazing speed. And just at this point I would like to share one of my observations. Look, I do not share the concerns of some ultra-secular circles about Turkey becoming an Islamic state day by day. On the contrary, I believe that religious people have started to lead a more liberal and relaxed life and that in 10-15 years time they will become like Europeans!

How did you come to this conclusion?

Well, there are two things that lead societies to secularism. Of course, I mean secularism in the way we are used to in Europe. Anyway, one of these things is wealth. Look at European societies. The richer they get, the less religious they become. The number of Turks getting richer, going abroad and discovering different lifestyles is increasing. And the second point is education. Thirty percent of all Europeans have a university degree. And you see where religion stands in daily lives of these people. Anyway, Turkey is not becoming “Islamic” in the way some people are concerned about. But people, the religious ones, tend to show this more openly, which is actually not something new, if you know Turkey well. These people are mainly from Anatolia. But their children live in a very different world, with Internet, mass media, pornography and so on. These kids who were born in big cities grow up in a rich environment and go to universities naturally will not be as religious as their parents. There is an amazing transformation in this society.

But I think you are just talking about your observations regarding İstanbul. What about Anatolia?

I would like to remind you that Turkey is one of the most urbanized countries in Europe, with 60-70 percent of its population living in big cities. On the other hand, even people living in villages watch the world via satellite, follow popular series like “Sex and the City.” I am not someone religious, but I believe in the thesis that the richer and more educated people get, the less religious they become. But I must add that people becoming more religious or wearing the headscarf in Turkey neither interests nor distresses me. I don’t see any problem with it. Nevertheless, I also see that religion in Turkey is considered like a political party, which is of course not good. The secular elite in Turkey once said: “We are the elite, we believe in democracy and in this system being religious is something bad.” And you, as an average citizen, see that things are not going well in the country and hold this elite responsible for that. And you say, “These people are elite and not religious, then I must be religious!” This is a normal reaction.

And that is the reason the elite wanted to keep religion under control?

Yes. To them, religion should not have been in the public eye so much in Turkey, where they wanted to be a part of Europe. As you know, religion’s role in daily life in Europe has become quite limited after the phases of reform, renaissance and enlightenment that lasted for centuries. [Modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk wanted to cover this distance overnight. But, surprisingly, it worked! I also cover Syria and I can see the huge difference between the two countries. Atatürk’s way somehow worked. But you are right in asking this question: “Today, do we need the type of secularism of the Atatürk era?” You can say: “The Turkish way of secularism has been so successful that there is no more need to keep religion under control. Let people wear whatever they want.” I would be inclined to say that the republican project in Turkey has been a success. I think there is no need to suppress society anymore, and I even tell my secular friends that they are not aware of the success they have had in Turkey. Secularism has become successful in Turkey. Now it is time to modernize it.

As far as I understand, the secularism you are talking about is the repressive one fortified by the regulations of the post-Atatürk era and therefore often criticized by Europeans. I mean we are talking about a kind of French secularism rather than the American type.

We can define secularism in two ways. The first one is that the state is neutral in regard to all religions and does not interfere in any way. People are free to practice their beliefs, which is actually what we understand from the way of Western European secularism. For example, in my country, the Netherlands, the government supports all religious schools financially. And the second way of defining it is to say: “We do not like religion. But people may be religious. Then we keep religion under control...” That is how Atatürk interpreted secularism. But I think now it is time for Turkey to move from the latter to the former.

What charmed you most when you started living in İstanbul as a reporter?

Taksim! Yes, Taksim really made me dizzy. I saw no difference between Taksim and Amsterdam. Well, of course, I know Turkey is not only Taksim, but before coming to İstanbul, unlike an average European, I had no images of “fez-wearing, camel-riding Turks” in my mind. And I really do not understand these European tourists who come to spend a few weeks in Antalya, but who, upon their return, keep talking about Turkey with the same clichés. One thinks that they do not know that Antalya is in Turkey! But, on the other hand, you Turks do not give a good image of your country. I recall that I was covering the pro-republic demonstrations in Çağlayan last year, and I was not the only foreign reporter there. They were interviewing the secularist Turks over there. One of these people said to the reporters: “Turkey must not become Iran!” Ok, well, but who in Turkey wants that to happen, anyway? Foreign reporters do not know much about Turkey. Without offering different viewpoints, they present exaggerated fears to their audience in Europe. When an average European sits at home in the evening to watch the news, he sees “a Turkey on the brink of Iranization.” Bullshit! Because this is not true. One may say, “I am against Abdullah Gül’s candidacy for presidency,” but if you make comparisons between Turkey and Iran, this is just crude propaganda. Unfortunately, most Western reporters are not informed enough about Turkey and swim in shallow waters.

After you came to Turkey, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) came to power. As a Western reporter, you have witnessed its governing period. How do you think they are doing, especially on EU affairs?

They started well, but slowed down. I think they are a bit worried about the military and the nationalists. They must be braver. Europe and Turkey are important to each other.

What is this importance? Will you use the classic ‘bridge’ metaphor, too?

Well, if Turkey joins the EU, it will be a part of the Eurozone. The euro will be the official currency. It will help at least 10 percent more tourists come to Turkey. On the other hand, cars are produced in your country and sold to Europe. But Turks do not have any liberty to say anything about the production standards, which are only decided by those in Brussels. But once Turkey is in the EU, Turkish industrialists will have a seat at the table, too. This is not only something [purely] economic but also [involves] politics for sure. If we look at my own county again, the Netherlands, there are some political groups demanding a total ban on Muslims and immigrants entering the country. But they will never be able to cross a certain point, as the EU will not let it happen. So, in this regard, the EU functions like a regulator that activates by itself when one of the member states goes crazy. So, even if the parliament in the Netherlands passes legislation against the freedom of immigrants, the EU blocks it. You see, the EU does a good job in many ways. But politicians in Turkey and in Europe do not have enough courage. Those in Europe have to support Turkish accession with an open heart and … take a stance on TV. And the case in Turkey is not as good as it should be. Will the country be lead to nationalism or go toward Europe? This is the question. That infamous Article 301 [of the Turkish Penal Coke (TCK)] should already have been abolished. That is something slaughtering Turkey’s image. The real danger for this country in the long run is not Islamists, but nationalists. [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s government should put it this way: “No matter whether we are Turks or not, what is important is that we are a part of humankind.” Time has changed and the world has, too. Turkey should get rid of the discourse that says, “Being a Turk is a privilege.” So, sorry to say, but this sounds a bit ridiculous at this time. But the real problem, both here and in the Netherlands, is extremists. They are afraid of everything: change, globalization and so on. Despite this fear, things are going well in the Netherlands. The economy is progressing and the unemployment rate is decreasing. Globalization plays a positive role in that, contrary to what some say. There are no migrant ghettos in the Netherlands as there are in France. The government doesn’t discriminate against anyone. No bombs explode here and there. Yes, there are a few crazy radicals, but where aren’t there? I don’t get the reason for such fear.

I recently interviewed Dutch Türkologist Erich Jan Zürcher, who said: ‘Turkey needs a real leftist and liberal party. The lack of opposition is no good for Turkey.’ Do you agree?

Yes, I do. Turkey needs such a party. The Republican People’s Party (CHP) is never something like that. [CHP leader] Deniz Baykal acts just like a dictator. If I were a Turkish leftist, I would set about starting a new party.

Has Turkey changed you?

Yes, I think I became more humanistic. I lived in Western Europe, England and America for some time. And after all this time, when I got into the daily lives of ordinary folks, I can easily say that I cannot see any difference between Turks and the Dutch. And when I look at my homeland from here, I realize that all those discussions on integration are just funny. People here and there must come together to talk on their real issues. Only then they can they see that there is actually no big gap in between. Putting all this fear of Islam and immigrants aside, people across the world just strive for a better future for themselves and their kids. There lies the only concern.

Photos: Bahar Mandan

Ali Çimen, İstanbul

29 April 2008, Tuesday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to read the interview in original newspaper format
Click here to return to the main menu

Portrait-New Pope Ratzinger

2009-06-18T16:09:00.000-07:00

Seventy-eight year-old German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been elected as the new pope. Henceforth, he will be called Benedict XVI. Although his supporters say his life under the Nazi regime strengthened his belief that the Church should stand up for truth and freedom, his opponents claim that he was a supporter of suppressing disputes within the Church. He was born into a middle class Bavarian family in 1927. His father was a police officer. When he was 14, he had to join the Nazi's youth organizations, as every boy had to do at that time; however, he was never a voluntary attendant. When the war erupted, he had to interrupt his theology education and he found himself in an anti-aircraft unit in Munich. Although he escaped from the army towards the end of the war,, the Allies imprisoned him as a war criminal for some time in 1945.
Claims of "He will divide the papacy!"
When he was a young priest, he was seen as being on the progressive side of theological debates. Those who believe in the traditional values of the Church, see the election of Ratzinger as a gift. He is believed to be a good shield against those whose agenda is for "change". Reformists, however, cannot be said to be so glad. As a matter of fact, there are those who see Ratzinger as John Paul's man and even those calling him "God's Rottweiler"! Ratzinger's conservative and traditionalist views were further strengthened during the liberal trends in the 1960s. Although he was appointed to the dogmatic theology chair at the University of Tubingen in 1966, the Marxist ideas spreading amongst his students were appalling to him. Even the interruption of a course because of a political demonstration had a deep impact on him. According to him, religion was superior to any political ideology, which he saw as "tyrannical, cruel and savage". Later, he would say regarding this issue that this experience has shown him once again that we will always be struggling with the degradation of religion. He was transferred to the University of Regensburg in his native Bavaria in 1969 and finally he became the dean and the vice-rector of the university. Pope Paul VI appointed him the Cardinal of Munich in 1977. On November 25, Ratzinger accepted Pope John Paul II's invitation to take over as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and thereafter they became close friends. Wolfgang Cooper, one of Germany's prominent theologians, claims that Ratzinger might be a divisive figure within the papacy. For him, the new pope might cause the Church's leadership and the Catholic faith to diverge. Cooper says that Ratzinger has the character of a "scientist", who likes intellectual debates, and this is contrary to many Catholics' wish to see a pope who can "appeal to their hearts". The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is a continuation of the medieval Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church, has questioned many Catholic theologians and clerics on their views. It was turned into a disciplinary institution that even including dismissal from the office during Ratzinger's 24-year Prefecture since 1981. One of its criticized behaviors was specifically against the theology of liberation that was used as an instrument for making the Church more active in issues of social activism and human rights. This theology became popular among Latin American priests. When some priests attempted to struggle against poverty through social activities, Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted these as Marxist influence…
When it comes to his anti-Turkey stance...
Ratzinger sees homosexuality as a tendency towards an "innate evil corruption". He has also called on Catholics to turn their back on politicians who did not oppose homosexuality and abortion during the US presidential elections. He is against euthanasia and female priests. He even claims that those committing euthanasia and abortion should be excommunicated. Although he is a Beethoven fan, he describes rock music as an " anti-religious instrument". While the new pope was a cardinal, referring to a historical perspective and with clear expressions he said in a speech in August 2004 that Turkey had no place in the European Union (EU). Moreover, he said that Turkey should seek its future in Islamic organizations. Reminding his audience that Turkey was always "different" from Europe with its Islamic past, Ratzinger had said that it would be a mistake to integrate Turkey into Europe. In this speech, he also recalled that Turkey had marched to the gates of Vienna, and Ratzinger noted that Turkey belonged to a different continent in terms of both religion and culture. He argued that trying to make the two continents become similar to each other would cause a loss of culture and richness for the sake of economic benefits. Despite his support for the separation of church and state, he claims that the EU leaders' distant relations with their Christian roots are bad policy. He is also a fundamental Europeanist who does not avoid saying that the issue should be discussed because he is afraid of the possibility that there is a European self-hatred and guilt about its own glorious history causing this opposition. The new pope also has interesting hypotheses about secularism in France. He believes that France showed an "aggressive secularism" by banning the headscarf in schools and in this way it further provokes Muslims. He warns that showing disrespect against the sacred and the "other" in the Western world triggers the self-defense instinct within the Arab and the Islamic world.
Ratzinger is the first German to lead the Roman Catholic Church in 950 years. The last German cardinal was elected pope on April 16th 1055. The 8th German pope in the Vatican, Ratzinger speaks 10 languages, four of which fluently. One of the indicators of policies that Ratzinger will probably pursue is the name he chose for himself. Cardinal Ratzinger might have named himself Pope John Paul III and therefore signalled that he would follow his predecessor's policies; however, he preferred "Benedict", which means "merciful" in ancient Latin. The last pope who used this name was in office in the Vatican during the First World War and has been recognized for his studies aiming to reconcile traditionalists and modernists. He also made efforts to strengthen relations with Orthodox Christians. The new Benedict; however, is will face many tests. Not only the gradually decreasing number of Church followers, but also the steadily decreasing number of priests in Europe will be one of the problems he will have to deal with. Another issue is relations with Islam. When John Paul was elected as pope, he focused on the development of East-West relations. He was appreciated for his contribution to the collapse of communism. What stand in front of Ratzinger; however, are the blocs of North and South, which have been further diverging due to their levels of economic development. In short, there is now a pope, who does not avoid elevating his voice when necessary and even could do this in a radical way.

New York Times

Since almost all of the cardinals who met to choose a new pope were appointees of John Paul II, it's probably not all that surprising that they chose someone as close as possible to the late pontiff. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the new Pope Benedict XVI, worked in close partnership with his predecessor and shared a belief in staunchly defending orthodox Catholic doctrine. There is no reason to expect any change, of course, in the church when it comes to matters like birth control, priestly celibacy or homosexuality. These are issues of faith, properly left to the faithful. On matters of public policy, however, all of us have reason to be concerned about the opinions of the leader of more than one billion Catholics. For instance, as a cardinal, the new pope inserted himself last year into the political debate over allowing Turkey into the European Union. He was quoted as saying that adding Turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation of 70 million people, would dilute the culture of what he considers a Christian continent and that Turkey should align itself instead with other Muslim nations. At a time when few things are more important than reconciling the Islamic world with the non-Islamic West, it would be extremely disturbing if the pope became an unnecessary wedge between them. It would also be contrary with the legacy of John Paul II - who, for all his doctrinal conservatism, was a man known for his outreach to people of other faiths.

Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times wrote that German-born Ratzinger's quick election by the College of Cardinals of the Church is a large indicator of approval of the most conservative dogmas of the Church and the fact that the votes were in of continuity with John Paul's policy.

Daily Star

The Daily Star wrote that Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected as the 265th spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church after the shortest conclave of the century, celebrated his new office with a first public ceremony. The newspaper also indicated that the Church, which was damaged by the problems of the 21st century, clearly signaled its intention of becoming strongly traditional with the election of Benedict XVI. It noted that the new pope promised the world's Christians that they would fully be relying upon traditional methods.

The Traditional Face of the Catholic Church (Caroline Frost-BBC)

The new Pope has been chosen from what could be termed the traditional side of the Catholic Church. To some, he heralds intellectual salvation during a time of confusion and compromise. To others, his record as Pope John Paul II's prefect of doctrine showed the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be an intimidating "Enforcer," punishing liberal thinkers, and keeping the Church in the middle Ages.

Ali Çimen, İstanbul

April 22, 2005

Click here to read the commentary on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu

Syriana *: A film that sweeps US

2009-06-18T15:29:00.000-07:00

The American film industry displays its empathy this time with the movie "Syriana," which won George Clooney the supporting actor Oscar, after the "Kingdom of Heaven." The film, Syriana, boldly says: "We, Americans, are trying to lay down rules in the world under the name of the war against terrorism, and we believe that we represent the good in the war between good and evil; but this is not the reality." In fact, the industry speaks unequivocally, bravely and without “buts” in a modern sense. The film, Syriana, focuses on the crises experienced in the Middle East with regards to the US dependence on oil and recalls allegations that corruption is an inseparable part of US capitalism. Most importantly, the film elevates its voice against the expression "you're either with us or against us" and determines without mumbling: "We will have more headaches as long as America remains dependent on oil." Syriana, released on Monday in Turkey, also implies that the conscious premise of the US is "to relieve the world by criticizing itself." The message is so powerful that it leads Westerners in the street to think calmly by illustrating the missile delivered to some people in Iran through an agent, acted by Clooney, working on the CIA Middle East desk, who is used by al-Qaeda militants in blowing up a tanker carrying oil for American companies. The film teaches us that complex relations developed around the world's power equilibrium are linked and that the root cause of many conflicts which later turns into wars of religion and civilization is the problem of energy sharing; and also shows that "closeness and cooperation" of a Muslim is the factor used in determining "a good or bad Muslim,” in the eyes of the United States.

US intervenes in the film
Director Stephen Gaghan is trying to draw a picture of his own in Syriana, without heroic pretence and legendary solutions, as he did once in “Traffic” when he tried to depict that powerful states are all involved in global drug trafficking, a movie that received extensive applause. Prince Nasir, the son of the emir, (an excellent performance by Aleksandir Siddik) who behaves like a real Muslim with common sense and awareness of global facts, has a particular mission. Prince Nasir reminds us of the role of Selahaddin Eyyubi along with the role of a sheik that Syrian actor Hassan Messud played in the Kingdom of Heaven and the “Valley of Wolves: Iraq,” respectively. That is to say, he is playing the role of a decent, brave and just Muslim man. The positive messages that Gaghan attached to his moderate character, with a liking for dialogue apart from his consciousness to make sense of the Islamic world, is the challenging clichéd image of bearded Muslim terrorists which Hollywood created. Although it is possible to construe this type of characterization as one step to win over the Muslim audience, we need to congratulate both Gaghan and Clooney for their bravery, since we all know that there is growing hatred towards Islam, a mentality Hollywood has been glued to. A look at their stances, both before the movie project was launched and after the movie was completed, would show the connection to their outlook on war in the movie. At the same time, Clooney, who spent his own money to be a co-producer of this movie, said: "We are not intent on deterring anybody from their own views. We only want to show that what we have been going through cannot be explained as black and white. We thought our addiction to oil might set off a discussion on such issues." Gaghan, on the other hand, said: "We are very confused about the situation we are in. There are no good and bad men, and there are no easy answers either, that we tend to understand in the general sense." In saying this, Gaghan is actually defining the mission of making people ask questions, a project that "See No Evil," by Robert Baer, tried to realize. He is not wrong to do that. As Louise Keller an Australian journalist and critic, said, Syriana is likely to create a breathtaking debate. This debate has already begun in America, since the movie has been in cinemas for a long time. Inspired by the movie itself, there have been many occasions when the US addiction to oil in the Middle East has been questioned. We should meanwhile note that another film by George Clooney, “Good Night and Good Luck,” another Oscar nomination, is highly politicized for a purpose that is most obvious when we see the McCharty period handled in the movies. Here is Clooney speaking to us: "There were questions that needed to be asked, and I tried asking them in a period when people were pressed to remain silent. We should be able to talk about the kind of things that create terrorism, just as we remain firm in our fight against terrorism.”
Heavy pressure on the director
Clooney is still resolute although some American magazines almost accused him of treachery, saying, "Why shoot such films nowadays when we need unity and cooperation!" The actor says "I will go as far as I can. Those days, the ones around me, although in whispers, were saying that I was successful and expressed their support. It was hard to speak. Someone had to ask something" and expresses his satisfaction with political questionings, "It is the first time during the tenures of this government that the questions, 'What are you doing? And why are you doing?' have been asked so frequently. Opposition to our films has stopped. That is, something is changing.’" Film critics also consecrate the appropriateness of its message. John Venable says in Supercala.com, "Syriana, acting upon the fact that the US is the top oil consumer, displays the dreadful reality we face in an impressive way," while Australian Andrew L. Urban sees the most impressive and powerful message of the film in the depiction of two jobless but optimistic Pakistani youths turning into suicide assailants. In brief, James Bowman, an academic and film critic at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, criticizes the film, saying, "Probably one should be a director in Hollywood to be able to contend that the major threat to the progressive forces of democracy, economic liberalization and women's rights in the Middle East comes not from terrorist jihadists but from the CIA and big oil companies!" However, the film deserves being watched and discussed since, at least, it meticulously communicates the message, "addiction to petroleum may cause states to get involved in some illegal actions," in the light of many ticklish issues occupying the world agenda. Especially if we recall Bush's remarks in his State of the Union Address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world and this will go on for some time"…

(*) Syriana is a concept made up by the think tanks in America to refer to restructuring plans about the Middle East.

'Oil is determining factor in the US foreign policy…’
“Syriana, though its fiction is confusing, is a realistic film. As I closely follow these topics, I can fill in the gaps with the names and places from my memory, but this may be difficult for average cinema goers. Oil addiction is an important factor in US foreign policy. This has been the case since President Roosevelt met with Saudi Sultan Abdul Aziz on February 14, 1945 and laid the foundation of an oil-based alliance. There is no need to watch films to understand this. To understand the importance of Persian Gulf oil in terms of US foreign policy, it will be enough to look at the Carter Doctrine (dated January 23, 1980) which states that to guarantee the shipment of oil through the Gulf, the US can use its armed forces if needed. Iraq's occupation in 2003 can also be seen as the continuation of this conflict. The importance of addiction to the Middle East oil for US foreign policy will increase in the future, because domestic production is dropping and demand for imported oil is increasing.”
MICHAEL KLARE, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Massachusetts University, and writer of the book entitled, Oil and Blood.

'No room for conspiracy in the global role of the US'
“Addiction to oil and excessive oil import are real problems; but Syriana falls short of understanding these facts. It is a weak guide to understand American foreign policy and there is no room for conspiracy theories in the analyses made to understand the US role around the globe. We also see a parallelism between conspiracy theories and socio-political and economic developments of a country. Briefly, Syriana is only a fantasy. The US did not occupy Afghanistan and Iraq purely for energy-related issues. Iraq's oil is for Iraqis. Saddam declared war on Iran in 1980 and caused the deaths of 1 million Muslims in the war, which lasted for eight years. He was removed from Iran by the United Nations. He killed 400,000 of his own people and banished four million Iraqis. The American attack in 2003 took place since Saddam defied the UN resolutions binding his country as well. The conflict in Iraq is a result of Saddam's strategic threat to the region.”

ROBERT JB. LIEBER, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University

Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
22 March 2006, Wednesday

Click here to read the commentary on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu

Nuclear Energy: Catastrophe or Salvation?

2009-06-18T15:06:00.000-07:00

The short dispute regarding the natural gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine, and the concerns of Russia cutting Turkey's gas supply, has leaded us on an excursion to seek alternative energy sources. There have been many articles, commentaries and analysis forecasting that Turkey could eventually have problems meeting its energy demands. In order to prevent this dilemma, the country needs to spend a considerable part of its budget for energy supply. In spite of this reality, there is still strong opposition against the respective nuclear energy option, which leads us to discussions of "luck of energy" and how other countries have benefited from it and those who were faced with the same constrains. ZAMAN had the opportunity to discuss the situation with experts in the hope of bringing clarity to the questions surrounding this very atomic subject, starting with the very basic question of what nuclear energy is. Prof. Lefteri H. Tsoukalas, Head of the Nuclear Energy Department of Purdue University, Prof. Richard K. Lester and Prof. Andrew Kadak from the Department of Nuclear Engineering at MIT and spokesman of the Energy Nuclear Northeast, which operates a number of nuclear energy stations across America, answered our questions. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokeswoman, Diane Screnci also gave ZAMAN her definition of nuclear energy.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy?

Tsoukalas: The principal advantage of nuclear energy is that it is very clean. It releases no emissions to the environment. I think of a nuclear power station as a “giant battery.” Commercial nuclear power is the most eco-friendly (I guess we could say “the greenest”) way to generate massive industrial grade electricity. A 1000 MW coal-fired power station burns nearly 3,000,000 tones of coal a year. Its waste includes over 1,000,000 (tons) of CO2 released in the atmosphere and on average staying there for around 400 years. CO2 has a truly GLOBAL impact. It may be emitted in the US or China but it unquestionably leads to global climate change that brings climate volatility and ecological and social hardship particularly to poorer countries which have gotten none of the benefits of its use. Tons of other highly toxic materials are also released including many radioactive substances and heavy metals which are particularly bad for living organisms. Contrast this to a nuclear generating station. Nothing really comes out. On average, 22 tons of high density metal assemblies that hold the nuclear fuel and the by-products of its use, the so-called “nuclear waste,” have to be replaced every year. The “waste” is indeed highly radioactive and has to be handled with extreme care and with the proper technology. But its radioactivity dissipates rather quickly and 95percent of what is found there can be used as nuclear fuel. It is more appropriate to call the so-called nuclear waste, a “strategic fuel reserve,” since it will no doubt be used as fuel by future generations. The technology exists to separate harmful isotopes from fuel and breed even more fuel than what goes into a reactor. In this sense nuclear power is indeed a renewable form of energy.

Lester: The main advantages of nuclear energy are that nuclear power reactors, once built, are relatively inexpensive to operate, and compared with fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas (which account for about 80percent of the world's energy supplies) they are environmentally benign, producing no acid emissions (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) and no carbon dioxide. They thus make essentially no contribution to global warming. The main disadvantages are the high capital cost, the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, and the risk that civilian nuclear technology and/or materials may be diverted to weapons uses.

Steets: Its advantages are that we do not burn coal, oil, or natural gas that emit harmful toxic gases that we breath or add to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Another advantage in the US is price stability, which is possible since nuclear power is not tied to price fluctuations caused by supply or transmission constraints as are foreign-produced oil and natural gas piped long distances across the country. While the radioactive by-product of nuclear waste can be dangerous if not handled properly, the technology for handling it is well known in the industry and can be safely managed. The biggest disadvantages are the public’s fear or hesitancy that is largely attributable to a lack of understanding of the technology and the often opportunistic political environment which exacerbates that.

Kadak: Advantages are that it is safe and very clean. US nuclear plants have proven that, as too, have nuclear plants in Western Europe, Japan, China, Korea and just about everywhere except in the former Soviet Union where they built different types of reactors which are not as safe (Chernobyl style). Disadvantages are that building a nuclear power station is more costly but the fuel costs are much less which makes nuclear energy more economic in terms of the price of electricity for the long term. The other disadvantages are the public perceptions of nuclear which need to be overcome and the need to dispose of the nuclear waste. At present many countries are making progress in disposal solutions which are known, but no underground disposal site is in operation. The leaders in this field are Sweden, Finland and the US for the first operational repository. In the mean time, the small amount of material is stored on site in storage pools or in concrete storage containers.

Is there a clear and present danger that should keep us away from nuclear energy, like the disaster we witnessed in Chernobyl?

Tsoukalas: There is great irony involved here. Nuclear energy is very safe. If properly managed, this is the cleanest and safest way we have to generate industrial-grade electricity. Nuclear energy is highly mythologized. Because the press release for nuclear technology was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it understandably invokes a lot of apprehension and fear in the public (and of course fascination). There are many forces shaping and maintaining the nuclear myth. Some are simply popular misconceptions and phobias about nuclear power that were reinforced with notorious accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Some are due to the understandable apprehension of nuclear weapons, and of course, some are due to the competition of rival industries. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident that could have possibly happened. It is very well studied and understood. Overall, we can say now, nearly 20 years after it happened, on the basis of Science, not myth, that its consequences were primarily local and rather limited. There is NO GLOBAL environmental impact from Chernobyl. At the time it was a local catastrophe, but it had absolutely no global impact. Compared to industrial accidents encountered in the chemical, mining, metals, paper, transportation or even medical industries, Chernobyl is a limited affair. Of course, we must also say, that Chernobyl like Three Mile Island, provided a lot of lessons that have improved the technology and institutional arrangements required for safe nuclear power.

Lester: Each country has different opportunities and constraints when it comes to energy supplies, so it is difficult to generalize. For some countries, for example those with large resources of oil and gas, it may not make much sense to embark on a nuclear program. But for other countries, with few alternatives, nuclear energy may be very important. To answer your question directly, there is no 'clear and present danger' that stands in the way of nuclear energy development. But of course, this is a technology that has an inherent risk associated with it and therefore needs to be managed responsibly and with care.

Steets: US commercial nuclear reactors (used for electricity production) are a different design than Chernobyl with safety features Chernobyl did not have. The plants' structural strengths and safe-design features (low nuclear enrichment levels, diverse and redundant cooling and defense-in-depth safety capabilities), robust security plans and staffing, and federal security support all contribute to the safety of the plants.

Kadak: The most clear and present danger that we are witnessing in my opinion is the prospect of global climate change which is very difficult to reverse. If you chose the right nuclear technology, the safety has been demonstrated for over 40 years, so I would not be as concerned with that as I would be about our environment which is being damaged by fossil fuel burning. Even ‘environmentalists,’ such as Patrick Moore of Greenpeace, believe that we need nuclear energy to avoid these dangers; check him out on the Internet.

Whereas we are aware of the countries that run nuclear power plants without having any problems, why do we see such strong opposition to nuclear energy (as we do in Turkey) in some countries where nuclear energy is debated as an option for energy production?

Tsoukalas: I am not well informed about the nuclear debate in Turkey and risk being way off. But I assume that the comments above about the nuclear mythology also apply to Turkey. Nuclear power is actually an appropriate option for Turkey as it aspires to become a modern economic powerhouse. The country has enormous developmental possibilities, a young and energetic population, an excellent location, great potential for being a full member of the EU, and good possibilities to contribute and benefit from a new wave of prosperity coming to the Middle East. To fulfill this promise, it must have reliable and plentiful industrial-grade electricity. The nuclear power option has to be done well within a long term perspective, but there are interesting examples for Turkey to learn from, such as South Korea and Finland. In South Korea the development of nuclear power brought enormous benefits and advancements to the whole economy of the country as well as individual industries. The Korean construction industry, for example, acquired great skills and technology for construction based on international standards by constructing nuclear power stations. It subsequently expanded in South Asia and even the Middle East and now successfully bid for contracts to build airports, roads, bridges, buildings, and seaports etc, based on that experience. In the last several decades Turkey invested considerable resources in training a number of young scientists and engineers. Although many of them leave the country and make excellent careers abroad, I believe Turkey has the ability to mobilize top quality technical talent, a prerequisite for nuclear power. Nuclear power development requires leadership and long term strategy. It takes some sacrifices, but I cannot think of anything more promising today than investing in nuclear power, particularly when it becomes increasingly clear that global oil and gas production may be reaching a peak and entering irreversible decline.

Lester: The public is generally wary about nuclear power plants, and that is appropriate. But there are also pockets of intense opposition to nuclear power and this is not based on past evidence -- in fact the safety record of the nuclear power industry has been quite good -- but rather on fears of what might happen in the future. These fears are persistent, and they are difficult to address directly, but there is some evidence that that they have diminished over the past decade or so as the global nuclear industry has continued to expand without any accidents causing significant loss of life, and as the public recognizes that other energy sources also carry significant risks. I was very recently in China, for example, where I learned that the number of deaths in that country's coal mines last year was about 6000. Moreover, this was considered a 'good' year, since the historical average has been about 10,000 deaths per year.

Steets: In the US, much of the opposition stems from an entrenched (and misguided) environmental movement that has considerable political influence which has been buttressed by terrorism fears and their willingness to exploit those fears. Had there not been a 9/11, nuclear power would be enjoying support like never before as its safety performance (judged by a federal regulator, the USNRC), environmental and price advantages, and overall efficiency gains have been remarkable in the last ten years.

Kadak: In do not know the situation in Turkey, but in the US, which has the largest nuclear energy program in the world, the public is over 60percent supportive of nuclear with hard opposition of about 15percent. The typical problem that I have seen in the public opinion is a lack of information about the real facts which are not presented either by the industry or the media, and which only focuses on the negatives and without much knowledge.

What do you think is the best option for energy production? If you make a list, what grade would you give nuclear energy?

Tsoukalas: The modern global system has developed since the early 1900s on the premise that economic growth will bring the benefits of science and technology to all people in the world. Great progress has been made in the last hundred some years, maybe not as balanced and even as the world expected, but still a lot remains to be done and we now have ever growing numbers enjoying the benefits of modernity and in so doing, bring prosperity and opportunities for all. The premise of global economic growth, however, has been predicated on our ability to grow the global energy supply. In practical terms, the collateral for global growth has been our ability to grow the supply of oil (petroleum). We now see, however, that the global production of oil faces great geological (depletion) challenges and may not be able to grow much beyond current levels, no matter how much effort we apply. This is a well studied phenomenon known to geologists as “Hubbert’s Peak,” after the American geophysist Marion King Hubbert, who discovered it several decades ago. It really has to do with the finite nature of hydrocarbons and the idiosyncrasies of depletion processes. I am afraid that the world is quite unprepared for global Hubbert’s Peak. At the moment, it appears, although seldom stated as such, that the main mitigation strategy for this historic crisis is to use military means. Nuclear power represents a sound alternative to this. It will take a lot of leadership but the development of global nuclear power may be our best antidote to war and conflict brought about by the geological limitations of fossil fuels. We need all forms of energy to satisfy the world’s quest for prosperity. But for countries with a good pool of top technical talent, economic dynamism and good potential for institutional development, I would rate nuclear power as the best option.

Lester: This is not a very good question. Every energy source has advantages and disadvantages, and those advantages and disadvantages depend very much on the particular circumstances of the application. Are we talking about Anatolia or Manhattan or Cyprus, for example? But the basic message is that the world will need every available energy resource, including nuclear, if it is to meet the rapidly growing demand for energy without inflicting intolerable environmental damage.

Steets: Today, I would give nuclear the top grade, followed by hydro, natural gas, coal (with strict environmental restrictions), and oil. The alternative methods (wind, solar), needless to say, would rank at the top if their reliability and capacity were greater (much, much greater).

Kadak: Nuclear energy would clearly be my number one choice for electricity production since it is safe, clean and a concentrated source of power not requiring a lot of land, such as wind or solar power. Solar has applications for low grade heat and wind only in circumstances where reliable power is not needed or in isolated locations. It really boils down to economics, and right now, the economics of nuclear energy are quite favorable compared to the alternatives.

Do you see some alternative energy sources that may replace the nuclear one in the short term, and what could happen in the long term?

Tsoukalas: Again, we do need all forms of energy. Hydro is the best form of renewable energy. Wind and solar are promising and we should use more of them as well as bio fuels for transportation. In sunny countries, like Greece and Turkey, for example, it is such a great and practical option to heat water with solar energy. But because of thermodynamic and economic considerations most of these options do not scale up to the needs of modern industrial-grade electricity. Unfortunately, in the context of a major energy crisis, some renewable means of generating electricity may be the first to disappear, since they are quite expensive and inherently small scale. In the long term, Hubbert’s Peak will force us to do more with less. The real challenge will be to do this and still have in place a prosperous global economy. Our young people, armed with knowledge of science, will have to come up with new technologies to help us address this challenge. For example we can bring into our energy systems a lot more smart information technology (smart sensors, microprocessors embedded in our home appliances, etc) in order to increase efficiency and minimize waste to the absolute thermodynamic minima. I have little doubt that nuclear power will see significant application as the world’s growing source of primary energy.

Lester: If the world is to have any chance of avoiding very significant economic and environmental harm from global climate change, it seems inevitable that we will have to have a significant increase in the amount of nuclear power over the next few decades. Without nuclear energy, the numbers simply don't add up, and the massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions that result would very likely cause major economic and environmental disruption. In the longer term -- by which I mean several decades to 100 years -- we may well have renewable alternatives that would be preferable to nuclear power (as well as coal, oil and gas) and that would be available on the necessary scale. But on a shorter time scale -- i.e., by mid-century -- there is essentially no possibility that these alternatives would be able to fill the gap that would be left if the world were to abandon nuclear today.

Steets: None are available in adequate amounts to replace nuclear for a variety of reasons in the short term (cost, capacity and technological limitations, reliability, local opposition), and in the long term should replace older fossil plants rather than the nuclear plants.

Kadak: Long term energy sources are hard to predict since they depend on technology developments and economics. At present, no short term alternatives exist that are economic. I know some countries in Europe are building high priced wind mills as a political gesture but the consumers are paying high prices for it either in taxes or electric bills.

How is nuclear energy acquired?
Nuclear energy is a way of creating heat through the fission process of atoms. All power plants convert heat into electricity using steam. At nuclear power plants, the heat to make the steam is created when atoms split apart – this is called fission. Other types of power plants may burn coal or oil for heat to make steam. The fission process takes place when the nucleus of a heavy atom, like uranium or plutonium, is split in two when struck by a neutron. The “fissioning” of the nucleus releases two or three new neutrons. It also releases energy in the form of heat. The released neutrons can then repeat the process. This releases even more neutrons and more nuclear energy. The repeating of the process is called a chain reaction. In a nuclear power plant, uranium is the material used in the fission process. The heat from fission boils water and creates steam to turn a turbine. As the turbine spins, the generator turns and its magnetic field produces electricity.

Diane Screnci, American Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spokeswoman

Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
30 January 2006, Monday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to main menu

How does the EU Picture with Turkey Look Like?

2009-06-18T12:07:00.000-07:00

Turkey

formally began accession talks with EU on October 3rd. The common view is that the negotiation process will be a long way full of barricades, drawbacks and stress. On the other hand, the anti-EU circles in Turkey claim persistently that Turkey, which was given a 15-year negotiation period, will bump the wall at the end of this process with no membership in hand. Well, will Turkey really be disappointed? Is EU really bamboozling Turkey? Why not membership today? What if it was granted today? What does an EU with a full member Turkey mean? We tried to answer these questions with EU experts; Dr. James Ker-Lindsay, Director of Civilities Research from Nicosia, Cyprus, Dr. Teemu Palosaari of The Centre for European Studies (CESUH) at the University of Helsinki, Prof. Nick Sitter from Centre for European and Asian Studies Department of Public Governance, The Norwegian School of Management and Dr. Jorge Nunez Ferrer from Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, and Alan Cafruny, Professor of International Affairs at Hamilton College, New York, reflected what the picture was on the other side of the Atlantic.

Let's use our imagination. Suppose that Turkey became a full member of the EU, TODAY, under the current conditions! What positive and negative aspects (both for Turkey and the EU) would take place?

Lindsay: The key consideration would have to be the question of freedom of movement. Even if Turkey joined today it is likely that the same sorts of limitation on the movement of workers that have been imposed on the ten new member states would also be imposed on Turkey. In this sense, many of the worst fears many people in Europe have about the sudden arrival of millions of people from Turkey would not happen. In my view, the biggest problem would actually come from decision making. One of the more noticeable things about Turkey is that it continues to adopt a zero-sum approach towards negotiations. Issues are fought over and you either win or lose. The EU does not work in this way. Instead, compromise is the name of the game. I think that it will take time for Turkey to get used to this. If Turkey joined today, I think that we would see some very major rifts opening up and severe deadlocks on many issues.

Palosaari: If we look at the previous enlargements of the EU (and its predecessor European Community, EC) we can see that the accession of new countries has always been part of the political play of that time. Especially during the 3 first enlargements (UK, Ireland, Denmark 1973; Spain, Portugal and Greece in the 1980s)) the official criteria that applicants had to meet were not too clearly defined. For instance, the membership of UK was in a way more a result of the changes in power politics between the big European states, and the East/West confrontation played a role too, rather than the result of a systematic accession process. This political dimension was even clearer when Spain, Portugal and Greece joined. The Commission had actually advised against the accession, since the economic criteria for membership were not met, but the member states overrode this argument, mainly because they wanted to support the democratization of these ex-military regimes. After that the membership criteria were defined better and the fourth (1995) and fifth enlargements (2004) took place according to the Copenhagen Criteria. Because the accession criteria are now clearly defined and they have been used twice in practice, it is very difficult to see that any country could any longer join the EU unless all the criteria are met and the accession process systematically passed. But if - as you say - we imagine that Turkey became a member today, the explanation would probably relate to really large-scale current political issues in world politics. Perhaps a terrorist attack by foreign fundamentalists in Turkey directed against the Turkish governmental system that they regarded "too un-religious" could have raised a wave of political sympathy in Europe which led to the accession? Or perhaps the deepening of the EU integration process had slowed down so dramatically that further enlargements were needed in order to show that integration still proceeds in some way?

Sitter: That is a very large leap of imagination, for three good reasons. First, by the EU's membership criteria, Turkey does not yet qualify (apart from the political and economic situation, not to mention the Cyprus question, think of the need to get Turkish legislation aligned with that of the EU and the capacity to implement all EU law). Second, opinion polls indicate considerable public opposition against such enlargement any time soon, and after this summer's referendums in France and the Netherlands the member state governments have to be even more sensitive to this than usual (see polls cited by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4307700.stm). Third (and this I think is the answer to your question), it would not be possible to operate the EU as it currently operated with Turkey as a member state today. This is not only because a) the decision making rules have to be adapted (think of the debates at Nice over changing voting rules to prepare for the last enlargement); but also because b) it would not be possible to keep up the EU's redistributive policies for very long; c) Turkey would presumably be hit quite hard if it had to incorporate all EU social, environment and other production-related regulations and standards overnight (other enlargements have included adjustment periods); and because d) it difficult to imagine Turkey jumping past the new member states in the queue to join Schengen, EMU and full labour market access Turkish membership would help make a two-speed EU a more permanent reality than it already is today.

Nunez Ferrer: Maybe I lack imagination, but I personally do not like these kinds of speculations, they are detrimental. Giving a false image of what enlargement actually is. The enlargement process is a long adaptation period in which the candidate country gradually adopts the rules of the EU and sets up the structures to implement EU rules and programs. It is an important period of building a level of understanding and trust with the EU which is crucial for the functioning of such a diverse setting. It is simply necessary. An immediate entry today would be very detrimental for both sides, with Turkey unable to implement the EU policies to start with, including the EU structural and agricultural programs. Then the entry of Turkey, which I support, needs an adaptation of mentalities on both sides; it is a major historical event, a change in a long history of conflict. The start of negotiations is crucial, because it is through these negotiations that the basis for a good membership is built. If the negotiations had started years ago, accession today would probably be easy. Let me compare with the Central and Eastern European countries. They entered in 2004, 15 years after the break-up of communist rule in these countries. At that time, they did not look like possible members for many if not most EU citizens. Ideas of strengthened partnership etc., not unlike today's ideas for Turkey, were common. Now their membership is taken for granted. After 15 years of engagement and serious negotiations the situation changed and nobody remembers the calls to keep them out. I expect something similar today with Turkey, if negotiations are done with honesty and in a spirit of partnership, then membership will become natural. In 15 years I expect very few to remember the tensions of today.

And what kind of EU picture pops up in your mind when you see Turkey as a full member (not today, in a general manner, when the fulfilment by Turkey of the requirements for membership is realised…)?

Lindsay: Turkey 's membership of the European Union will undoubtedly have a major effect in terms of the power alignments in Europe . At this stage, power has tended to be concentrated on Germany, France and Britain, with Britain acting as the balance when issues of difference arise between Paris and Berlin. Taking on board Turkey will certainly have an effect on this power alignment. Quite how this will work is unclear. Will Turkey and Britain form a counterweight to the traditional Franco-German alliance, or will it generate more complex alignments that change on an issue by issue basis. Also, the geographical emphasis of Europe will alter. Thus far, power has tended to be congregated in Northern Europe. Taking on board Turkey will naturally see Southern Europe take on a greater role. In this sense, there might even be a new alignment in the form of Turkey leading the Southern European states.

Palosaari: I find it quite surprising how little the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries actually changed the everyday EU politics. That gives reason to expect that Turkey's accession would not cause any drastic changes either. The biggest changes would have to happen in EU's external policies, as new tools for neighbourhood policies with new regions would be needed. In "domestic" EU politics I see a more tolerant EU where cultural and religious prejudices could be abolished by cooperation and dialogue in very practical levels.

Sitter: While my own assessment is that Turkey is likely one day to join the EU, I would hasten to add that this is some time off, after considerable transition periods. The lessons from the last enlargement were that both the EU and the candidate states have to adapt considerably. It is also important to see Turkish membership in context: enlargement to Turkey is not likely to come on its own, there are several other states eager to join as well and the modifications to the EU that enlargement to Turkey means would also make it possible to take on other new members. I can imagine at least three key sets of reforms. First, the EU will need to change its decision making rules if it is to accommodate new big member states. This will be difficult, and raise questions about democracy, transparency and subsidiary all over again, not to mention member states' relative votes. An EU with turkey in it may become much more supranational (majority decision making) in a few key areas related to the single market, but I would expect the states to retain more power over many other areas and this would mean that European integration would be less 'deep' than it is today. Second, the EU's policies will need serious reform, particularly the redistributive policies (regional and agriculture) cannot operate with big new member states (there is already much debate about this after the last enlargement). Third, an EU that includes Turkey would be a two-tier EU, at least for the foreseeable future. This would consolidate the trend we have today, where not every state takes part in EMU and Schengen and there are long transition periods for labour mobility. I suspect many such transition arrangements will be used in future enlargements too. In short, a wider EU that includes Turkey could well be a less deep EU and a two- or multi-speed EU with more flexible patterns of participation. The EMU states might form a core group that pushes integration further on their own.

Nunez Ferrer: I see Turkey as an essential part of the EU, increasing its influence and security. If Turkey and the EU complete enlargement in a spirit of trust and cooperation, membership will be good for the EU and for Turkey. At this stage the necessary level of trust still needs to be built. This is normal in each enlargement, but given the size of Turkey, the geo-strategic significance and the historical burden, this process is heavier. I think both sides need to learn to collaborate and trust each other, and the enlargement negotiation is the mechanism.

And how do you evaluate the performance of the current leading party, AKP for its EU struggle? What can you say taking its Islamic origin into consideration?

Lindsay: I think that many observers have been surprised and impressed by the way in which the AKP has managed its EU membership strategy. Across a wide range of areas, it has managed to show an ability to challenge long-held national positions and take the country in a new direction. We have seen this over the Cyprus issue, over human rights reforms and with economic performance. While much still needs to be done, the signs so far have been very encouraging. In terms of the AKPs Islamic roots, I am sure that there are still many who believe that the Party maintains another agenda that sees the process of EU accession as being a chance to make reforms that will allow greater religious freedom. Now that the EU membership talks have started we shall soon see if this is the case. Similarly, the process of EU accession talks will also reveal just how aware people in Turkey are about the specific requirements of membership. It has often been said that EU accession negotiations are not negotiations at all. It is a process whereby countries must accept the changes demanded of them. This will come as a surprise for many in Turkey and it is likely that the government will come under a lot of criticism for not taking a tougher stance towards the EU. This will be the real challenge for the AKP. Will it be able to explain this to people and fight off criticism from the opposition parties?

Sitter: I don't have sufficient knowledge of Turkish politics to comment much on the AKP, except to point out that it seems (from a European perspective) to have made some moves that were particularly ill-advised given its goal of EU membership and which could hardly fail to attract criticism. The party's Islamic origin need not be a problem as such (there are many "religious" parties in the EU), the key question is how they handle high-profile issues such as human rights questions, the Cyprus issue and perhaps also the Armenia issue, which is salient in France. A final comment relates to the goal of full membership: while the goal for full EU membership is understandable, it is also some time off, and it would mean joining an EU that does not look like it does today. Given that the market seems to play a more important role than redistributive policies in redistributing wealth across the EU, perhaps it would be advisable to focus on gaining access to the single market first? The European Economic Area has not been popular among accession states because they tend to see it as an alternative to the EU, but Sweden, Austria and Finland all used it as a stepping stone towards full EU membership.

Nunez Ferrer: I have not followed the party performance in detail, but the fact that this historic agreement to start negotiations has been achieved under this party deserves praise. I do not like the question on the Islamic origin. The issue is not if a party is Islamic or not, but if it accepts the EU principles of democracy, equal opportunities and human rights, the famous EU Copenhagen criteria for all members. It is normal that in a Muslim country, Islamic ideals may inspire politicians, like Christian ideas inspire politicians of EU countries or Zen Buddhism, a Japanese political party. It is part of your culture, and cultural tolerance and diversity is a pillar of the EU. Depending which historical horizon we take, Christian catholic rules of the past would also clash severely with the EU democratic criteria. There are EU parties that have names like Christian Democrats or Christian other etc. They might have the name due to some of their basic ideals, but they accept the democratic rules. Instead of looking at the inspiration of parties or their name, we have to judge their credentials for what they say and what they do on the ground.

'EU with Turkey will still be under the American/NATO umbrella'

Alan Cafruny (Henry Bristol Professor of International Affairs, Dept. of Government, Hamilton College, New York)

“I do think it is likely that Turkey will eventually become a member of the EU, but that is quite a few years away and so not of course under current conditions. The EU would demand quite a lot in the way of political reforms, especially in the area of human rights. Assuming these reforms, on the positive side for the EU of Turkish membership would be the establishment of a larger market with significant potential to open up further trade and investment in the Arab world. Turkey would also of course benefit from closer economic integration, by increasing trade and investment, and also by facilitating and routinizing labour migration. The political implications are more complex and ambiguous. Turkish entry will promote political stability throughout the Balkans. It will make it more likely that the former Yugoslav republics also gain membership more quickly (eg. the compromise with Austria that led to Croatian membership talks). It will also help to reduce tensions between Greece and Turkey, and in the long run to facilitate a resolution for the Cyprus problem. At the same time, however, Turkish entry would make it impossible to develop any sort of "core European" strategy. Turkish accession has for a long time been the goal of the United States and the UK. It strengthens NATO's position in the EU, and therefore consolidates Atlanticism rather than any sort of Gaullist vision of Europe as a counterweight to the United States. So, with reference to the second question, the sort of Europe that includes Turkey resembles much more the Anglo-American vision of a large free trade association with loose cooperation still under the American/NATO umbrella.

Ali Çimen, İstanbul
25 October 2005, Tuesday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu

Meir Javedanfar & Prof. Mehdi Noorbaksh: “Attack on Iran Strengthens its Regime”

2009-06-18T10:28:00.001-07:00

Iran, which has been undergoing turbulent relations with the West since Ahmedinecad was chosen as president, has now become the main item of the agendas of the world’s super powers due to its highly suspect nuclear program. Though Iranian officials constantly give assurances that they only hope to benefit from nuclear energy, the US, Israel and others share the fear that Iran might misuse the rods, part of the process of producing nuclear

energy, and use them to build nuclear weapons in the future. The famous question of recent days: Will America attack Iran? That is the main theme of the brain storming centres of leading countries in the power game. We asked the very same question to Iranian born Meir Javedanfar scholars and experts who live in the west. A leading international relations expert and strategist, Mr. Meir Javedanfar, who studied in England and currently lives London and Tel Aviv as the president of Meepas, and is extremely well-known for his insightful analysis on the Middle East, and Prof. Mehdi Noorbaksh, an assistant professor at the Center for International Studies at the University of St. Thomas. His areas of specialization are Comparative Politics and International Relations with an emphasis on Globalization, Oil and Energy, Conflict and Conflict Resolution, and Middle Eastern Politics. Along with them, Professor R. K. Ramazani, the Edward Stettinius Chair who also served as the chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, commented briefly in response to our questions. Ramazani, who has penned ten books on the Middle East, in addition contributed numerous chapters and journal articles, and has been a consultant to the White House, the Department of State, the Defense Department and the Treasury Department, in addition to many private foundations and companies.

What do you think the Iranian presidency is trying to do with these tension-escalating-statements coming one after another?

Javedanfar: I believe that President Ahmadinejad’s statements are not made due to sheer ignorance. They are well planned and well timed to meet the following goals: 1. One of the main reasons is internal. Ahmadinejad recently suffered internal defeats in the Majlis; where three of his candidates for the position of oil minister were rejected one after another in front of him. Although his fourth candidate has recently been accepted, after the rejection of his second candidate, Ahmadinejad found the defeat so painful that he got up on the Majlis podium and angrily declared “This has never been done to another President of the Islamic Republic. No other president has ever been subject to such negative propaganda and treatment.” Such statements are hardly made by a president who feels confident about his position. Therefore in a bid to stamp his authority, Ahmadinejad has decided to pick on the easiest victim, Israel, with whom Iran has no economic or political relations. The fact that the Islamic Republic’s leader Ayatollah Khamenei came out to support him after he attacked Israel is testament that this method works favourably for Ahmadinejad. Now that he has the backing of the ultimate source of power in Iran, Ahmadinejad intends to use it to implement his policy with more authority and confidence. This also means that every time Ahmadinejad has internal problems; he will attack Israel again, using it as a tool. This is forecast to happen again in the next month, as Ahmadinejad’s budget, which has been presented to the Majlis, is expected to be rejected by Majlis members due to its unsuitability. This will be a major defeat for him which will leave him looking weak. This will prompt him to create another foreign crisis. 2. The second major reason behind Ahmadinejad’s attacks against Israel is related to the nuclear talks between Iran and the EU-3 countries (Germany, UK and France). Since his election, Ahmadinejad has taken an uncompromising stance in the nuclear talks with the EU. His unwillingness to change Iran’s nuclear position was confirmed again during the same, “The Holocaust is a myth” speech, when he declared that he will not “cede one inch of Iran’s nuclear rights to foreign powers”. In other words, Iran will continue to insist on carrying out conversion and enrichment of uranium on its soil. The EU can’t and won’t continue to go to the negotiation table to be told the same thing by Tehran. Therefore, in the face of Ahmadinejad’s unwillingness to compromise, it is very possible that there will be a breakdown in the talks with the EU, and we can see this today as Iran finds itself on the verge of being referred to the UN Security Council. Ahmadinejad realizes this, and in a bid to prepare the ground to shift blame when talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad is pushing the Europeans, especially Germany to defend Israel, and what better subject than the Holocaust, which Germany is still incredibly sensitive about. And as a result, when the talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad will be in a position to blame the Europeans and their defense of the “Zionist entity” and the “Holocaust myth” as the main cause for the collapse of the negotiations. 3. Ahmadinejad is a man who likes to play to his audience. The “Holocaust is a myth” speech coincided with the visit of HAMAS leader Khaled Mashaal to Tehran. The verbal assault was Ahmadinejad’s way of showing his commitment to HAMAS and its rejectionist stance. Unfortunately for Israel, such support from the president of a powerful Middle East country is likely to add to HAMAS’s motivations for not renewing its ceasefire.

Noorbaksh: Ahmadinejad’s confrontational foreign policy emanates from two sources. First, the new president is naïve and does not have a deep understanding of international politics. Second, he comes from a background shaped mostly by his involvement in the war against Iraq in the 1980s. He saw in that war injustice, insecurity and defeat and blames the United States for support of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. He is offended by Washington’s siding with Baghdad in the war and its indifference to the plight of thousands in Iran and Iraq who were exposed to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction including chemical warheads during the war. The war mentality has been carried out by him and his group of friends who are currently accompanying him in government. Ahmadinejad’s remarks against Israel are aimed at competing with al-Qaeda in the Middle East for the support from radical orientations in the region. This support, if achieved, can help the new president stabilize his power position among the hard-line conservatives within the country. Al-Zarqawi, and his strategy of killing the Shiite in Iraq, has become a new impetus for this president to galvanize support in the Arab Middle East around anti-American slogans for the sake of controlling Muslim radical rhetoric and movements.

Taking into consideration the US position and its restraints in Iraq, do you see an American military operation against Iran possible? Can it handle this on its own or with the support of the EU and Israel? What role could Turkey play in such an operation?

Javedanfar: US action against Iran is certainly a possibility, although one that is not recommendable. The US has the military might, in the air, land and sea to do this alone. The US has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Qatar which is only 500 kilometers away from the Bushehr nuclear sites. It must also be added that the runways of the US airbase in Qatar have just been extended for B-52 landings. This should ring some serious alarm bells for Iran’s military planners. Therefore, logistically, the US can carryout a sustained military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Turkey would certainly be able to play a part in the operations. The US airbase in İncirlik would be able to provide support to the attacking forces. Intelligence bases on Turkish bases on Iran’s borders would also assist the US. As for Israel, in my opinion Israel’s first choice will be to stay well away from an attack, if it can, both militarily and politically. Iran is not Iraq. Iran, with allies such as HAMAS, Islamic jihad and Hezbollah sitting on Israel’s borders, Israel would prefer not to provoke them. Iran is also equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which can reach Israel, and cause serious damage. Also logistically speaking, Israel does not have sufficient aerial capability for a sustained aerial attack against Iran’s bases. However what will help the US enormously is political support from the EU and Turkey in the case of such an attack. Bush’s unilateral action in Iraq has left the US politically isolated in the region. To attack another Middle Eastern country again, the US will need a broader consensus this time. Ultimately if the talks fail, the EU may discreetly give the green light to Washington. However, I believe that it will be unlikely for Turkey to do that. Prime Minister Erdoğan rejected a $30 billion loan from the US for assistance to topple Saddam, who was literally a “dead man walking.” Therefore it will even be more unlikely that he will support actions against Turkey’s much more powerful neighbor Iran, who not only has a stronger army, but also is a major energy supplier (gas) to the Turkish economy.

Noorbaksh: Attacking Iran’s nuclear sites is definitely counterproductive. The West must deal with the issue of fuel cycle rights and uranium enrichment in Iran with the utmost prudence. These issues are bigger than simply Ahmadinejad’s government. Most Iranians think that it is the legal right of Iran as a signatory of the NPT to develop scientific projects in this area, regardless of how critical they are of the current government. Any contemplation of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will have dire consequences for Iran, the reform movement inside this country, and the whole region. Any attack by Israel would also be considered an attack by the United States, because both nations are security partners in the Middle East. Overall, the nations of this region do not separate between Israel and the United States when it comes to political, security and military issues in this part of the world. The “carrot and stick” strategy and serious negotiations with Iran through a third party, such as the Russians and Chinese, provide a very useful approach. Extreme measures against Iran would further destabilize the Middle East region and would have the potential to disrupt the flow of oil from different parts of the Persian Gulf area at this critical juncture in the history of energy supply. There are conservative hard-line members of parliament in Iran who have suggested confrontation with the United States in the Strait of Hormuz.

If we put the military option aside, what could be the best strategy that should be followed against Iran? Do you think an economic embargo works?

Javedanfar: The best strategy would be to offer better economic incentives to Iran. The EU’s economic promises to Iran turned out to be not very substantial, as many of the items requested by Iran contained US technology, which due to the embargo, the EU was not able to supply. I don’t believe that sanctions will work. Iran has just had a bumper financial year; it earned $40 from oil alone. Iran also has porous borders, which means that smuggling from places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Shiite areas of Iraq are very possible. Sanctions against Iran will also hurt western economies, as they rely heavily on Iranian oil (Iran is OPEC’s second biggest oil producer). Putting economic factors aside, culturally speaking, any sanctions against Iran will make the Iranian people more determined to support the nuclear program. History has shown time and time again that despite internal political differences, in times of foreign hostility, Iranian people unite. This was shown during the British embargo on Iran during the rule of Mosadeq in the 1950s. The economic sanctions imposed by the British and the US did not break the Iranian people, despite all expectations of the West. The only way the West managed to change the situation was by financing a coup against Mosadeq. Economic sanctions against Iran will be a mistake, by punishing the Iranian people; the West will also become their victimizer. If punishments are needed, the best form of sanctions would be one which targets the business interests of the leadership. It is well known that Ayatollah Rafsanjani deals with conglomerates such as Daewoo, Hyundai, Statoil of Norway, Airbus and numerous other investments stretching all the way to Canada. Other sections of the regime, such as the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran) have huge business interests in the Emirates. If those are targeted by sanctions, they will have a much better chance of convincing the regime, as the leadership will pay from its own pocket, and not from the pocket of Iran’s innocent citizens.

Noorbaksh: The best sanction on Iran is the sanction on Iranian oil exports. The Iranian non-oil export revenue is close to eight billion dollars a year. This amount is very small compared to the revenue of the oil export from the country. The Iranian economy is absolutely dependent on oil revenue. Without oil money, the Iranian government’s ventures will be hard hit. The middle class and intelligentsia are the engines of change and opposition to the government in Iran today. Punishing this group, as poorly-devised sanctions will inevitably do, is not in the interest of change and democratization in the country. Cutting off Iranian oil from the global market is also not a wise thing to do. Both the industrial and developing nations need 2.5 million barrels of oil, five percent of the world’s needs, which is exported from Iran daily. One million of this amount may be compensated, but the intense global oil market will suffer the consequences of this shortfall. There is doubt that Saudi Arabia would pick up this one million barrel deficit, because the royal family might not want to jeopardize its relations with Iran especially after siding with the rest of the world in opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. Standard & Poor’s sees dire consequences if sanctions are imposed on the Iranian oil exports; sending prices, near record level, and even higher. Consequently, that will badly damage global economic growth.

Israel is believed to have at least 200 nuclear weapons or capacity to be able to produce this amount, and has not yet signed the NPT. Israeli statesmen, too, sometimes use the same threatening jargon as Iranians. But we see the international pressure focused only on Iran that tries hard to persuade the world that its nuclear agenda is bound only to energy production and nothing more. Could you view this approach as a double standard as seen by the majority of Muslim World?

Javedanfar: Israel, unlike Ahmadinejad has never called for the total elimination of Arab countries. Nor has Israel called Muslim history a “myth” and a lie, something which Dr Ahmadinejad did to Jewish people in his remarks denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile many Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Persian Gulf Countries, back the claim that Iran’s nuclear program may not be as innocent as it should be. This is why many Arab countries are not providing Iran with their full support. However, one can certainly understand why Arab and Muslim countries view Israel’s supposed nuclear capability as a double standard, as Israel is not even a signatory of the NPT. This is certainly understandable and has logic to it. I believe the best way to solve such perceptions of double standards is to free the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction. We also need to convince countries not to call for the elimination of others; as such threats are one of the biggest motivators for the possession of doomsday weapons. We need to create motivations to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to acquire them.

America’s probable military operation will aim only at eliminating the nuclear capacity of Iran or might there be different expectations in the minds of war strategists?

Javedanfar: I strongly believe that in the case of an attack, US planners would focus on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and possibly an attack against some of Iran’s missiles and aerial bases in order to neutralize Iran’s capability to respond. Any other attack would be counter productive and a waste of US resources. I do not see the US attacking political sites such as the homes of politicians, as it is a well known fact that many of Iran’s top politicians are very well protected.

There are some comments that America wants to play (is playing) the ethnical group card in Iran as it did in Iraq. Do you agree with this view? If so, could Kurds have an important role in Iran, too?

Javedanfar: It is very possible that the US is manipulating Iran’s ethnic minorities, especially Iranian Arabs in the Khuzestan region of Iran. The US can use its influence and infrastructure in Iraq to lend political and military support to them. The Kurds will also be a candidate for this task as the US forces in Iraq, and their close relations with Barzani especially (not Talabani as he has excellent relations with Iran) may allow them to support Kurdish independence aspirations in Iran. The Kurds could have an important role to play, as there are a number of Kurdish movements with established resources in Iran. I the long run, however, any Kurdish or Arab aspirations and plans for independence in Iran may be futile, as the Iranian government and people (in Iran and abroad including myself in Israel) are united against any plans for the division of Iran. In short I believe any foreign plans to split Iran will be one of the biggest mistakes the west could make, as it would incur the wrath of millions of Iran’s citizens. The West needs Iran’s citizens on its side, not against it.

Some are afraid that America’s probable operation against Iran could be the trigger of World War III. Do you agree?

Javedanfar: I do not believe that a US attack against Iran would lead to WW III. For that to happen we need to see many countries becoming involved in the conflict. Even if Iran is attacked, I do not see great number of countries becoming involved in attacking the West. Iran may have the support of numerous groups, such as Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad; however, it does not have the support of countries that would be prepared to go to war on its behalf.

Professor R. K. Ramazani:
‘US operation can not destroy the Iranian regime’

“From the Iranian perspective, Ahmadinejad is trying to resist Western pressures with his statements. A US or Israeli military strike is not likely to succeed, nor would the EU go along with an invasion. Turkey should act the same prudent way it behaved in the case of the American invasion of Iraq. When it comes to what should be done; the best strategy for the US would be to bite the bullet, recognize the Iranian regime and talk to it respectfully and directly. And right now even, some Americans see the Bush administration's approach to the nuclear issue as hypocritical. Strategy planners might hope that military action would also destroy the regime, but that is a pipe dream because it would only strengthen nationwide support for the regime. Kurds could have an important role in Iran, too? I really don't think so, but any Kurdish uprising would surely be crushed. Some may be afraid of World War III, but I don't agree because the cost of a world war would outweigh the benefits.”

Ali Çimen, Amsterdam

07 March 2006, Tuesday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu

Prof. Ilan Pappe: "What Israel, Pretending to Represent the Victims of the Holocaust, is Doing is Shameful"

2009-06-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who is well-known as a revisionist or "post-Zionist" Israeli historian. He has a BA from Hebrew University and a PhD from Oxford. He is a senior lecturer in the department of Political Science at Haifa University and the Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian Studies in Haifa. He is also the Academic Director of the Research Institute for Peace at Givat Haviva. Ilan Pappe is the author of many books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, he has been both acclaimed and smeared. Ilan Pappe’s most recent books include The Modern Middle East (Routledge, 2005), and A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (Cambridge University Press, 2004), in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart peaceful Arab-Jewish coexistence . His previous books include The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-1951 (New York, 1992) and The Israel/Palestine Question (London, 1999). He is sometimes accused of being anti-Semitic for his views on the myths which he believes inform main stream Israeli Jewish society. We talked to Dr. Ilan Pappe about the recent crisis in the Middle East.

Though Israeli officials claim that the ongoing operation started because of the kidnapped soldiers and aim to free them and disarm Hezbollah, the world media, including the Israeli one, reflect some ideas that claim ‘Israel actually moved to design the Middle East with the backing off of USA and all this was planned before hand.’ Do you agree with this view? What do you think Israel is trying to do?

I agree that the reason for the war was not the kidnapping of the soldiers. It was a pretext to implement a pre-planned attack, coordinated with the US. Forty minutes after the soldiers were taken captive, Israeli jets were bombarding Lebanon with the full and immediate support of the US, not the Hezbollah. Secondly, the unprecedented support of the US to Israel, including shipping of bombs and petrol, instead of working for peace, as a superpower should, indicated how closely the coordination was and how well the Israeli operations serves the so called American war against terror - a euphemism for imposing American control in the areas of natural resources and energies.

And again we hear-read some people saying ‘Israel’s main target is actually Iran and Syria in the long run but before eliminating them, it needs to eliminate Hezbollah in order to move freely’ what would you say for this? Do you think there is such a possibility that Israel may attack Iran and Syria? What could happen then?

I agree with this assertion as well. Israel has its own plan for imposing its will and this is in Palestine. It wishes unilaterally to annex large parts of the areas it occupied in 1967 and to imprison the Palestinians in small Bantustans and by that destroy the Palestine will and aspirations. Only two movements, Hezbollah and Hamas, and only two states, Syria and Iran, oppose this scheme. Israel sees the present American administration and mood as providing a rare window of opportunity to uses its military might for destroying the only forces willing to resist its policies in Palestine.

Israel’s bombardment in Lebanon and civilian casualties caused uproar both in Islamic world and the western one. Anti-Israeli feelings and tendencies are on the rise. Is this not a contradiction for Israel that seems ready to do anything to secure itself and its citizens? What it does is just increasing the numbers of Israel? Can you see any logic in all this happening?

This is a special logic which is called in Israel: deterrence. The Israeli orientalist establishment, the intelligence community and politicians convinced successive governments that the ‘Arabs understand only the language of force’ and therefore a particular savage and brutal Israeli attack will terrify any potential enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. History of course taught us that exactly the opposite happened. Oppressive and aggressive Israeli policies generated more animosity in the Muslim world and hostility in the Arab world and refusal to accept Israel as a legitimate political entity. Furthermore, the personal security of Israelis is not enhanced by these policies but rather deteriorates but this is exploited manipulatively by the government to nourish anti-Arab and anti-Islamic phobias.

All these developments blur the line between Zionism and ‘just being an Jewish.’ Do you find this overlapping dangerous for the good of Israeli people in the long run? Because we know that there are many segments in Israeli society who are really upset with all this happening and actually against the hard liners. When will they be able to direct the country to a more moderate, pro-negotiation-concession way?

Unfortunately, the number of Israelis, as opposed to Jews, who dare t0 oppose their government's policies is very small. The danger of this policy is indeed first for the Jewish people who live in Israel, a state that refuses to recognize that it is within the Arab world and the Muslim world and continues to alienate not only the Arab world, but the Muslim world at large. It is also a very dangerous situation for Jews around the world, who seems to allow their leaders to be ambassadors of Israel and their synagogues embassies of Israel. Especially in the US, once American policy will change as a result of the inevitable failure of the present policy, it is possible that the Jewish Zionist support for Israel would be blamed for this disastrous policy and they, the Jews, would become a scapegoat for the debacle.

Some circles say What Nazi regime had done to Jews decades ago is now being done to Palestinians by Israeli government. Does this comparison make you sorry? How do you feel? Can you see a piece of reality in that?

Although what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is horrible and terrible, it is still not genocide. The unfortunate fate of the Palestinians was well described by a late Israeli journalist. As long as Israel is not doing to the Palestinians, he said, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews, everything else is permissible. This includes ethnic cleansing, mass killings, dispossession and occupation. It is bad enough and it is shameful that a state that pretends to represent the victims of the holocaust behaves in such a way.

You said in an interview with Dutch daily Volkskrant that Israel should stop acting like a ‘Westerner’ in the Middle East (referring to the fighting against terrorism) and adapt to its environment to be safe and secure. Could you elaborate?

Israel, with a large number of Palestinians, 20 percent of the population, and a large number of Arab Jews, almost half of the Jewish population, can be a very important and constructive element in building a better middle east. But it can not do it by choosing to be a fortress for American interests in the area and by denying the connection of so many of its people to Islam and Arab tradition. It has to abandon the mentality of a colonialist and settler state, as did eventually South Africa. It will have be part of the Middle East’s problems and solutions, it can not survive as the Middle East's principal enemy- even if the price is for its small elite of European Jews giving up their dream of building a purely western society.

What should/must be done to secure an ever lasting peace? What should Israel do? What should America do? What should Arab-Islam world do?

As far as the Palestinian problem is concerned, which is the heart of the matter, Israel has first and foremost end immediately the military occupation of Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Then as part of a reconciliation process Israel will have to face boldly the ethnic cleansing it committed in 1948 when it dispossessed half of Palestine's population and destroyed half of its villages and towns. It should acknowledge the crime and accept the right of the refugees to return. In return, the Palestinians, the Arab world and the Muslim world should accept the right of the Jewish community in what is Israel today to become a legitimate part of the Middle East. My own personal view is that only one state for both people would provide the solutions for the conflict. It may be a utopia at this stage, so we can go first through a two states solutions, although we may have missed the train on such a possibility giving the extend of Israeli annexation and settlement in the occupied Palestinian areas.

‘The Jews in Israel live with myths (*)’

‘I think there are 3 main myths that inform mainstream Israeli Jewish society. A lot of them still believe, because that’s the way they have been educated, that Palestine had been empty when the Jewish settlers came there in the late 19th century. There is still a feeling there that basically the Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine are either a nuisance or newcomers, or irrelevant. They are an obstacle, but not people with rights or indigenous rights. The second myth is more directly connected to 1948. Most Israeli Jews believe that the Palestinians left voluntarily in 1948. They are not aware, or do not want to be aware of the fact that an ethnic cleansing took place in 1948. And the third myth concerns the Occupation. Very few Israelis would call it an Occupation at all. Very few relate to any of the Palestinian demands to end the Occupation, and most Israeli Jews would regard the war against them not as a war of liberation or a war against Occupation, but as part of the more general scheme by Arabs or Muslims in general to destroy the Jewish State.’

(*) Extracted from his Interview by Greg Dropkin, ‘Israeli Jewish myths and the prospect of American war’, 13/09/02, www.labournet.net

Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
06 August 2006, Sunday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu

Dr. Henri J. Barkey & Fadi Hakura: "A new Turkish identity is emerging"

2009-06-18T09:29:00.000-07:00

Dr. Henri J. Barkey and Fadi Hakura, foremost scholars on Turkish politics discussed the election victory of the Justice and Development Party and the developments in Turkish democracy. The result of the July 22 election shifted some parameters in Turkey. Many wonder how these changes will affect the country, waiting for what will happen next.
Those waiting are not only those living in Turkey, but also foreign experts who follow Turkish politics closely. We talked to two of them, Dr. Henri J. Barkey and Fadi Hakura, on the election results and possible developments in the new era that started with July 22. Dr. Barkey is the foremost scholar on Turkish politics in the United States. He is the chair of the Department of International Relations and the Bernard and Bertha Cohen chair at Lehigh University. Hakura is a specialist on Turkish affairs at Chatham House, London.

How do you interpret the election victory of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party)?

Barkey: This election, which has been a huge step in strengthening Turkish democracy, also turned out to be a great failure for those who call themselves “secularist,” but who are actually anti-democratic. Turkey needs two strong parties. The task of the left in Turkey has always been difficult since the Turkish people are widely known for their conservative identity. Well, one of those two is the AK Party, which has settled in the middle of the centre right. That is certain. But there is still an uncertainty on the middle left. Baykal and other top Republican People’s Party (CHP) figures unfortunately could not do what was expected from them, which puts the responsibility of resigning on their shoulders. They should do that. Otherwise a government without a strong opposition is no good to Turkey. Parties are social institutions which solely exist to come to power winning elections. We see that the CHP no longer has such a mission. Setting up a coalition with the army or provoking soldiers into politics, creating a crisis, is not something a political party can do. Accusing voters of not acting rationally after having lost an election, as Mr. Onur Öymen did, is not something acceptable in a democracy. There is something like responsibility. If you cannot succeed, you resign. That is what we see in all developed countries; why does Turkey remain an exception? The success of the AK Party should be read very carefully. Since 1954, for the first time in Turkish history, a governing party increased its votes while also winning the election. Secondly, 47 percent is not something one can easily underestimate. Since the 53.5 percent of the Justice Party (AP) in the 1965 general election, this is the most successful result. Besides, except Tunceli, the AK Party has gained deputies from every province. This is a historic election.

Hakura: This is the victory of liberal Islam and liberal secularism in Turkey, which also showed that Turkish people have no problem with secularism. According to a survey by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), more and more Turks are comfortably identifying themselves through Islam, but at the same time support for secularism across Turkey increased. This support is roughly about 90 percent, indicating there is a convergence of modernizing Islam and liberal secularism, which is best reflected in the governing AK Party. The third important result of the elections is the success of AK Party in south-eastern Turkey … especially remarkable in Diyarbakir, which I would describe as the “Jerusalem of the Kurds” and was where the AK Party got the majority of votes compared to the [independent candidates supported by the pro-Kurdish] Democratic Society Party (DTP).

Do you think the AK Party played a role in these developments? For the last couple of years in particular we haven’t heard anything from the AK Party on its Kurdish policy.

Hakura: Don’t forget August 2005, when Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan went to Diyarbakır, where he acknowledged the [existence of the] Kurdish problem and that there had been mistakes committed by the Turkish state. But since then no policy took place. Mainly because there was an intense focus on the presidential elections and there was a desire not to upset the nationalists and the institutional balance in Turkey. But at the same time there were some improvements for Turks in the Southeast, particularly in terms of socioeconomic indicators such as more schools, better infrastructure or healthcare or more water and ways to villages. At the end these voters rewarded the AK Party. And the other key was that the AK Party government did not have, at least officially, the cross-border operation into northern Iraq.

One of the new AK Party deputies, Zafer Üskül, a well-known professor of constitutional law, opened a discussion saying the new constitution should be ideology-free, hinting that the principals of Kemalism should be removed from the constitution. What would you say to that?

Hakura: There is a radical social transformation taking place in Turkey today, mainly because of the merger of liberalism secularism and liberal Islam. In other words the Turkish public, including Turks and Kurds, are comfortable with being secular but with being religious at the same time. And the need for religion in Turkey is changing, modernizing and secularizing itself. And therefore given the convergence of these two ideologies, I would also argue the moderate nationalism is gradually converging with modernizing Islam and liberalizing secularism. Therefore I can say that a new Turkish identity is emerging. … So, the atmosphere is correct to open such a debate on Kemalism.

CHP leader Deniz Baykal has already reacted to the probable discussion of the principles of Kemalist ideology in the constitution. In this regard, can you sense any sign of change in his party’s discourse?

Hakura: If they continue on this course, which they will likely do, [then yes], because Deniz Baykal refused to resign and other figures like Hikmet Çetin or Mustafa Sarıgül, the mayor of Şişli, are not strong enough to remove him from the party. So if this hard-line secularist rhetoric continues, by the CHP, by the left wing, then the main beneficiary could be the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) -- as happened in this election. ... Of course the AK Party, too, could gain from this process, having the votes of more liberal secularists.

Do you think this election result may limit the chance of military intervention in civil politics from now on?

Barkey: Well, that is of course a big failure for the military, too. I think the ineffectiveness of the CHP drifted them into politics. … Those who cannot lead the role of an opposition party well call on the soldiers for help. The military made a big mistake intervening in politics. Though they did this in a “modern” way [via the “e-memorandum”], you could see it was written clumsily, as if they had no strategy in mind. … I think the military will have to act more carefully in order to not discredit itself. And this is an important development for the democracy in Turkey to be rooted. We do not see such crises in the long term if quality opposition emerges.

Does it mean that you no longer see any chance of military intervention?

Hakura: No, one cannot close the option for military intervention, but the circumstances have changed. Mainly because the military is absorbing the results of the election and on the other hand the dynamic within Turkey is vastly changed now. If you look at the 1990s for example, Turkey was attracting just $800 million to $1 billion of yearly foreign direct investment (FDI); today the figure is $20 billion a year. … And what happened on the day that famous memorandum was issued? How did the foreign investors react? The İstanbul Stock Exchange (İMKB) went down 7 percent over two days. The Turkish lira suffered. And this of course had a direct impact of the economic welfare of people. So the context has changed. Turkey is not an isolated country as before.

Abdullah Gül signalled that he is committed to running for the presidency. Do you think a similar political crisis like the one we had when his candidacy was first announced may occur again?

Barkey: Presidential elections are a sensitive issue. If a referendum is held, I think it would be appropriate for Mr. Gül to wait for its result. Now that he says “The people want my presidency,” he is taking stand in public. On the other hand, to choose the current president is the right of the AK Party and becoming one is the right of Mr. Gül, too, if his party agrees on him. I do not think the election of the president by popular vote is a good step for Turkey. This is not something personal. What will candidates say or promise to voters? The point is that the executive force of the president is quite limited. He cannot promise a better education or health facilities. … A possible dynamic of conflict will emerge between the president and the government.
Hakura: Abdullah Gül is a well-respected diplomat in European capitals and in the US. And at the same time, of course, the elections seemed to be the vindication for the position adopted by the AK Party regarding Gül’s presidency. At the same time [MHP leader] Devlet Bahçeli has stated clearly that MHP will participate in the presidential elections should Gül decide to run or should the AK Party decide to nominate Gül again. My feeling is that the governing party will try to see if Gül’s presidency is feasible.

So you are not closing the door on a new political crisis if Gül runs again?

Hakura: Of course under the current conditions the chance of such a crisis is lower than it used to be, but we cannot say that the potential for a crisis has been fully eliminated. Turkey is still a maturing democracy. The civil institutions are in the process of development. The social transformation I mentioned before has not been fully completed. It is an ongoing process which will take some more time, but a huge step has been taken in the July 22 election. One should not underestimate what was achieved on that day in terms of democratic maturity. But the process is still on the way.

What could the role of the EU be in this transformation phase? We haven’t seen or heard of any step on either side in terms of improving relations for a long time…

Hakura: Let me say that the social transformation, democratic and political changes had already started before the opening of accession talks with the EU. Nevertheless, the EU accession process has been critical in political, economic and social changes in Turkey. Mainly [in terms of] civilian-military relations, language and broadcasting rights for Kurds, and of course for the upgrading and modernizing of some laws regarding family, the penal code, the situation of women in general, issues like honour crimes. … So the EU is a very important catalyst which strengthened the ongoing changes in Turkey, but is not responsible for the creation of those changes that had started within the internal dynamics of the country. The EU is accelerating the process and providing a strict discipline for politicians, bureaucrats and institutions as well as being an example to follow.

Many political analysts agreed that people did not vote for what the AK Party achieved in its first term, but for its supporting a pro-democracy stance. In this regard in which fields do you think the AK Party fell short?

Hakura: The error the AK Party made was, especially after December 2004, to slow down the political and social reform momentum within Turkey and adopt more nationalistic and religious undertones in their messages. There is a false idea that somehow the AK Party has to satisfy its religious base. I do not accept that. I think Turkish voters have shown in this election -- and many surveys, opinion polls and much field research indicate [the same] -- that Turkish voters are far more pragmatic. There is an evolving Turkish identity combining Islam, secularism and moderate nationalism. That is exclusively a Turkish phenomenon. And it may keep going if the AK Party can re-energize the reform momentum. That is why it is widely supported, not because of the headscarf issue or nationalism, because the AK Party is delivering social, political and democratic benefits to Turkish voters. Whatever party does the same, not just the AK Party, is likely to be rewarded by the voters.

Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
09 August 2007, Thursday

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to read the interview in original newspaper format
Click here to return to the main menu

William S. Cohen: “China is on the rise, America is worried”

2009-06-18T08:19:00.000-07:00

William S. Cohen, who was the American Defense Minister during Bill Clinton government between the years of 1997-2001 and who has played an important role in Iraq’s reconstruction with the Cohen Group which he is still the head of, along with being a politician and a businessman, although being under the shadow his other identities, is also a writer. With his last book ‘Abluka’ (Die Verschwörer) that was published by the Timaş Publications in Turkey, joining his political background with his abilities as a writer, has put his signature under a political fiction that needs to be underlined. Cohen, although saying ‘I reflected my imagination, this is just a fiction’, ‘like America’ siege of China and Russia’, is taking up a matter that is hard to isolate from its own identity. Cohen answered our questions about his novel which interprets the world politics stage and contains parallelism with what’s going on at the present time and also answered our questions about the current world issues.

Mossad and Mossad agent Elena are the first to help to the book's main character Micheal Santini against the conspiracies. There is a strong alliance between America and Israel then. In this case how will the Palestine matter be resolved? Is it Palestine only to be blamed?

The Palestinians have no role in the novel and are not the subject of blame for any action contained in the story. Mossad does not help the novel's main character. Elena is one of its agents, but she acts on her own and without authorization in helping Michael Santini.

There is a conspiracy against America that is formed in China's and Russia's alliance in the book. How objective were you in this regard? When we look at the world politics; the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the revolutions in the leadership of Soros, the anti-revolutions in Uzbekistan make it seem like as if there are some schemes, conspiracies being prepared by America against Russia and China.

As I have indicated previously, neither China nor Russia are engaged in a conspiracy against the U.S. The rogue general and the oligarch are not supported by their governments and do not reflect anything but their own personal agendas. The U.S. has declared openly that it believes that in a world threatened by transnational terrorism, the flourishing of democracies will help the modern world prevail in the war that must be waged against terrorists.

Can we associate some of the characters in the book with the ones in real life? For example like Wladamir Berzin and Putin?

The characters in the novel are fictional and are not intended to represent any individuals, past or present.

For someone who has been a defense minister what is the reason for you to use the secret service elements this often?

I think that it's fair to say that virtually all defense ministers look to the intelligence community for information and to some form of professional service to protect them.

One can't help but think and question whether America is in the rush of preventing China's raising power. How much of a threat is China for America? Is it or is it not?

China will continue to emerge as an economic and military power. Our goal should be used to engage China in a constructive diplomatic process that maintains peace and stability. Treating China as an enemy would only bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Chinese Defense Minister is a good character but the Chinese generals and the Russian oligarchy are all bad. Are the one who look at America from a positive perspective good and the ones who don't are bad?

There is not attempt in the novel to suggest that the characters must be judged as good or bad according to their views about America. There are bad people in this world who admire America and there are good people who don't.

How should we read this book according to you? Should we just say it's a novel or are there real issues, elements in it?

It should be read as a work of fiction. As with most novels, there are some facts woven into the tissue of the author's imagination.

Why isn't Turkey never mentioned in the book?

For the same reason that no mention is made of Jordan, Egypt, Poland or a hundred other countries. The story was not intended to serve as an encyclopedia.

Why did someone like you who has power and money, felt the need to write a novel like that?

Writing has been a hobby, one that I started during my college days.

If you were the president of The US, what would your Palestinian policy be like? And how would you handle your policy with the Israelis considering the strength of the lobby in Washington? How do you feel about the current ‘roadmap for peace’?

I am a strong supporter of President Bush's "road map." I have been working to promote support for the creation of a separate state for Palestine that will live in peace with its neighbor, Israel. In fact, just last week while in New York City, I appeared on a panel with Osman Faruk Logoglu, Turkey's Ambassador to the U.S. and urged that we continue to support a two state solution.

What are your feelings of Mr. Bush's unilateral decision to democratize the Middle East? A winning or losing proposal? Do you believe that the greater Middle East Initiative Project would actually create democracy in the region? Considering the latest events, how do you see the future of Iraq and Middle East?

The question of whether the U.S. was right in seeking to transform the Middle East from dictatorships or authoritarian governments to democracies remains controversial. At this point since we have approximately one hundred and fifty thousand troops in Iraq helping to stabilize the country while the new government writes its constitution, our goal must be to complete the transformation process. Allowing the insurgents to prevail would result in an all-out civil war, one which has the potential to destabilize the entire Gulf region.

While the US has been calling for democratic reforms in Middle East, in the aftermath of the recent bloody crackdown in Uzbekistan, the US kept its criticism of Kerimov’s repressive regime to a low level. What do you think the reason was behind this?

I am not in a position to judge the Administration's position on this issue.

It is widely and often discussed that Turkey would provide a perfect model for the rest of the Muslim world that Islam and democracy are compatible. US Politicians are the ones who emphasize this point more often. Do you think that Turkey has this potential? If she has, do you think that the US is doing what needs to be done on its part to protect this model? It is claimed that Turkey has not been receiving enough support from the US on the issues such as PKK and Cyprus, what would your opinion be on this?

The U.S. has been in the forefront urging that the EU open its doors to Turkey. In fact, our advocacy has provoked criticism from the Europeans that we have been trampling on their sovereign prerogatives. We remain steadfast in our conviction that Turkey is a modern Muslim country that is democratic and that it would be beneficial for the EU to support its admission.

What is your personal view of Iran? What would you say for the hard-line policy Bush government has been pursuing against Iran and Syria? Are not they any other options for the integration of these countries to western block, rather than talking tough?

For a number of years, Iran has maintained a covert program to develop nuclear weapons. Most nations are convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would not serve the interests of peace and stability in the region. The EU has been attempting to persuade Iran to forgo any plans for obtaining or developing nuclear weapons. The United States has shown a willingness to support a diplomatic approach to this security challenge, but it wants to be sure that Iran understands that there are 'sticks" (or consequences) that would flow from any breach of an agreement should one be reached. We should reach out to Syria and attempt to encourage it to join the international community as a modern society. That goal cannot be achieved if Syria, through its military or intelligence apparatus, continues to support elements that have proved either dominating or destabilizing to its neighbors.

Who is William Sebastian Cohen?
William S. Cohen (born August 28, 1940) is a Republican politician from Maine who served as a United States Secretary of Defense under President Clinton. Born in Bangor, Maine, Cohen attended public school, receiving his B.A. from Bowdoin College in Brunswick; and his law degree from Boston University. An attorney and law professor before entering politics, Cohen was elected to Bangor City Council (1969-1972). He was also elected to the Bangor School Board (1970-1971) and then Mayor of Bangor in 1971. In 1972 he ran successfully for the U.S. House seat being vacated by Democrat Bill Hathaway. After three terms in the United States House of Representatives, he was elected to the United States Senate in 1978, defeating Bill Hathaway in his first bid for reelection. Cohen went on to be reelected in 1984 and 1990 and served from 1979 to 1997. Both of Maine's current senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, worked for him. Snowe worked for him while he was in the House and Collins while he was in the Senate. Cohen retired from the Senate in 1996 and Collins was elected to succeed him. Cohen and President ClintonFrom 1997 to 2001, Cohen served as Secretary of Defense in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton, who was from the rival Democratic Party. As Defense Secretary he played a large role in directing the United States military actions in Iraq and Kosovo, including the dismissal of Wesley Clark from his post as NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Cohen is also the author of several books, including mysteries, poetry, and (with George Mitchell) an analysis of the Iran-contra affair. Michael Moore spent an episode of his television show The Awful Truth chasing after Cohen to ask him whether his poetry-writing made him too much of a "wimp" to run the Pentagon. Cohen is currently head of an international business consulting firm located in Washington D.C. called the Cohen Group. His second wife is former Black Entertainment Television commentator Janet Langhart.

Ali Çimen06 July 2005, İstanbul

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main page

Formal Biography

2009-06-12T11:20:00.000-07:00

Ali Çimen, London representative of Turkish International ZAMAN Daily and Todayszaman, has been a journalist with ZAMAN Media Group since 1993. Before taking over London, he had been based in Frankfurt and Amsterdam as International Correspondent for ZAMAN. He has interviewed many political and social celebrities including Bill Clinton, Shakira, Edwin Buzz Aldrin, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Greg Olsen, Mordechai Vanunu, William S. Cohen, Robert Ballard and Brad Pitt. Born in Istanbul in 1971, Ali was educated at Istanbul University. He has written numerous books ranging from Popular History to Secret Services and Space Exploration. He speaks Turkish, English, German and Dutch. Çimen will start working for Euronews as of January 1st, 2010.