The real threat to Turkey and the missile shield


On May 29th, 1910, Britain's embassy staff in Istanbul compiled a report for power brokers back in London about who were to be the new leaders of the soon-to-be-formed Turkish republic. What became known as the FitzMaurice and Lowther report, David Fromkin writes in his epic book "A Peace to End All Peace" concluded that "the Young Turks leaders were foreigners, not Turks, and that they served foreign interests". Fromkin also writes, "This was the opposite of the truth, and led British observers to miscalculate what the Young Turk government would do."

As Oscar Wilde wrote, "Experience is one thing you can't get for nothing." So if history has anything to teach us, it is that in times of conflict, national interest will always come first and that Western diplomats stationed in Turkey are not so apt at reading between the lines. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate these miscalculations. There have often been wrong assumptions when it comes to Turkey, a country that is constantly criticised from within for not setting its own agenda but rather following one that is spoon fed by Washington. But is it time to perhaps turn this myth on its head? Sure Turkey can not act alone, its geography dictates that it must form an alliance of sorts in times of conflict. During both world wars of the twentieth century, Turkey chose to remain on the side of caution until it was forced to choose - a wise decision for a country that straddles Europe and Asia, bordering Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Syria and Iraq not to mention Russia two days north by Sea and Egypt to the south.

The deployment of the NATO-led missile shield (worth an estimated 4 billions dollars) in Turkey with little or no opposition by a public who are seemingly anti-interventionalist - Turkish public outcry prevented the US from forming a northern front during the Iraq war - begs one question. Where does Turkey see, in the words of the US administration,"an imminent threat of incoming missiles"? An American lobbyist earlier this week claimed that Turkey was deploying the early-warning missile system against Iran. Tehran as expected reacted with harsh words of criticism stating its national interest will not be threatened by any country. But Turkey has not reacted to either commentary and why?

This week Turkish-Israeli relations reached an historic point of potential conflict after Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan promised to deploy the Turkish navy on the Eastern Mediterranean to escort aid ships trying to reach Gaza. In response, Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor described the comments as "grave and serious". And all of this because Israel arrogantly refuses to offer a simple apology for the deaths of nine Turkish activists who were slain onboard an international aid flotilla last year that attempted to break the blockade on Gaza.

Speaking to the vice-president of IHH charity, the organisation that lead the aid-flotilla, may provide some insight into why Turkey has not reacted to the Iranian posturing and rather is seeking to deploy the missile shield with little or no public opposition. Who do Turks view as the aggressor here? Their Islamic neighbour or the rogue state who seemingly doesn't respect the lives of nine of its citizens.

Huseyin Oruc, the vice-president of IHH, explains why he thinks Israel used such brute force against the Turkish ship."Maybe there are many answers. But from our side as a humanitarian organisation it is impossible to answer. We don't think like them. If they had an ounce of humanitarian thought they couldn't act like this. Therefore I couldn't understand. But what we have realised is that there is a very significant level of hostility against the Turkish nation. They are always talking about the friendship betweeen the Turkish government and the Israeli government, the Turkish nation and the Jewish people. But what we realise is that it's not true."

IHH has been accused by some Western governments of supporting a radical Islamists agenda, one that rejects Western ideals. Whether this is a fair assessment is not my argument. It simply can not be ignored that the charity does provide aid to millions of vulnerabe people world-wide from Somalia to Palestine and has a popular international following. It is this position that has exposed Israeli aggression to a mass audience for the first time. It can also not be ignored that people on the street in Turkey feel pretty much the same as Huseyin. Here are some voxpops we gathered on Friday from pro-secular non-AK party voters.

"I don't find them honest, I expected them to be more honest. They are not our friends," Ayse, 44-years-old.

"The US and Europe haven't criticised Israel enough. Israel tortures Palestinians, and Israel effects the world badly," Murat, 25-years-old.

"Israel is trouble for everyone. I think Turkey shouldn't have a relationship with Israel. We don't need them," Ahmet, 52-years-old.

Turkey recognised Israel in 1949, but the relationship has never been easy. And since Erdogan's AK Party come to power in 2002, it has taken a decidingly downward trend. Having improved some of its human rights issues while growing its economy, emboldened with a new confidence, Turkey no longer feels the need to heed Israeli policies in the region as it once did. Whether this translates into Turkish perceptions over an Israeli threat rather than the US driven narrative that Iran poses the problem is difficult to assess. But one only needs to listen to the many voices in Turkey to understand where Turks think the conflict resonates from.

Turkey feels Israel has reached a point of no return. The arrogance of Israeli hardliners is a sentiment that Turkish diplomacy can no longer stomach. It pains Turkish culture for the Israeli governent not to mourn the dead nine young peace activists who died on that fatal night.

James Baldwin wrote, "People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them." Is Israel to be trapped by the modern history it is effortlessly now writing? The events of the past twenty-four hours should serve as a warning. Scenes of Egyptians storming the Israeli embassy in Cairo are quite telling. Protesters tore down the newly built security wall with their bare hands. Is this the new Middle East Israelis want to live in? One where their allies are no longer able to ignore the outpouring of popular protest and the hypocrisy of ambivelance.

ISTANBUL: Pro-Kurdish rally ends in chaos - filmed by me.

The age of consensus; a pipe dream.

Grey skies linger over a pro-Kurdish demonstration in Istanbul. Police used pepper gas and water cannons against the peaceful protestors.

Just two weeks after parliamentary elections were held, Turkey finds itself more divided than ever. Will this sentiment play into the hands of the ruling conservatives who are looking more decisively ready to go it alone on ushering in a new constitution? And what does this say about the state of democracy in this burned out EU candidate member state?

The prime minister has ignored the calls of the opposition to find a way out of the current stalemate brought about because independently elected MPs were not freed from prison to take their oath in parliament on Tuesday.

"Whether the opposition comes to parliament or not, there is no legal obstacle preventing parliament from functioning. They will see how parliamentary commissions work," Erdogan is quoted as saying in Today's Zaman newspaper.

The prime minister it seems has no intention in solving the current stand off with the main opposition party and the pro-Kurdish bloc, both of whom boycotted the oath taking ceremony in protest that their deputies are still behind bars.

Has the opposition miscalculated their political power again? Supporters of the CHP were almost ecstatic when the party leader announced, he and his party, would not take the oath on Tuesday. The decision was hailed as a courageous principaled step. However, on reflection these same supporters now question whether it was a bold move or just plain stupidity.

"They didn't take the oath, but they were in parliament on that day. So there was enough quorum. If they really wanted to protest what were they doing in the parliament? That would have been a much bolder protest that would have held more meaning," one supporter told me.

While confusion reigns over whether the independently elected MPs should have been released from prison in time to take the oath, as was, Sebahat Tuncel in the 2007 elections - she was elected from prison. The so-called consensus that Prime Minister Erdogan offered on election night seems further away than ever.

The question over whether convicted MPs such as Hatip Dicle should have been released apparently pertains to their sentence time. Dicle recieved a one-year eight-months sentence for making propaganda for a terrorist organisation. The labyrinth of Turkish law, which no one seems able to make any sense of, as is usually the case in Turkey, I believe, states that candidates serving more than a one-year prison sentence do not qualify to run in the elections. So why did Dicle apply for candidacy? And why did the Supreme Election Board permit him to run?

In contrast, Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who was convicted of belonging to a terrorist group - a much more serious crime in the judicial sense - was able to seek re-election, after her 18-month sentence was reduced to six months by an Istanbul court, two months ahead of the elections.

Confused? The Turkish judicial system is clearly disfunctional. But this disfunctionality it seems could play further into the hands of the ruling conservatives, who are looking more and more likely to go it alone on rewriting the consitution.

"They may be looking to strike while the iron is hot," a Turkish journalist told me.

Although AKP lost seats in the June parliamentary election, the prime minister's party recieved 50 percent of the popular vote. In the eyes of the ruling party, this may be all the validation they need to hold a public referendum on Turkey's long awaited constitution. It clearly signals a YES vote at the ballot boxes.

But could they? And would they go it alone? The AKP only need to rally an extra four MPs in the legislature to vote on taking the new consitution to a public referendum. Hatip Dicle's seat has already been given to an AKP candidate, so now they need three. The MHP took their oath on Tuesday and have promised to back AKP's consitution. And, the markets have shown no reaction to the current political stand off in Ankara, which pretty much paves the way for AKP to confidentally get on with the job at hand.

A draft constitution has been knocking around for a few years, so why not just get on with it? Do AKP supporters care whether there is consensus?

What does this mean for the future of Turkey? The prime minister wants to bring in a presidential system that would seal his ultimate grip on power. Are we watching an autocratic regime in the making, as others in the region fall? Does Europe understand what's at stake here? Do Turks understand what this means in the long-term? Are fears that the secular state will be undermined legitimate in this context? Is the prime minister sincere in his claims of wanting to solve the Kurdish issue?

"I will seek consensus with all parties. The nation has spoken and called for a negotiated constitution. I am the negotiator of the new consitution," the prime minister said on election night in his victory speech. We the foreign press reported it, hoping that finally Turkish democracy would be propelled forward and that real negotiations would start.

"Both the main opposition CHP and AKP don't want to take responsibility for making amendments to the law now that would free these MPs. Because these changes may, later down the road, pave the way for the likes of Abdullah Ocalan (the imprisoned leader of the PKK) to stand in parliamentary elections, and no one wants to take responsible for that," a friend commented.

So where do we go from here? The parliament will elect a speaker of the house on Monday. How will the CHP act? The parliament will then go to summer recess, probably at the end of this month. This will provide Prime Minister Erdogan a couple months to plot his next move. Will he seek consensus and deliver an inclusive consitution? Or will he as many opposition supporters now fear, go it alone?

The Istanbul Roma that once were...... Sulukule

What started out as a peaceful demonstration beneath the Ottoman minarets of Sisli mosque quickly spun into a day of anger and frustration for Istanbul's Kurdish residents. The contrast between young Kurds dancing for peace and police regiments putting on their gas masks was a stark reminder that Turkey has a long way to go in resolving the Kurdish issue.




Having reported from hundreds of protests in central Istanbul over the past four years, both I and my cameraman, watched knowingly as the police decisively put on their gas masks in preparation of the end game. Even we were surprised by the sheer force that was used against the demonstrators.

What had started out as a sunny Sunday of peaceful protest ended in tears and fear. A five-year old boy, who lost his parents in the pepper gas panic, was scooped up off the street and carried to safety by a policeman. The limp body of the boy was snatched back from the strong arms by a demonstrator and passed from one person to another until he reached the safety of a cafe. The policeman was verbally ridiculed for his actions that had led to the child trauma. One woman even dared to hit him with her handbag, she was so enraged. An angry group of elderly people protectively pushed the police back away from the cafe.

Forty minutes before the brutal "clearance strategy" was unleashed, we were in a different world, smiling and enjoying the carnival atmosphere - weaving in and out of lines of young and old Kurds holding hands and dancing to traditional folk songs. We asked people how they felt. One after another they lined up to talk to us.

"We came here for peace, but there is a lot of pressure everywhere. We don't want to feel under pressure. Our elected representatives got thousands of votes, but he's not free. We want peace, democracy and our own language rights."

The elected MP this woman was talking about is Hatip Dicle, who ran as an independent candidate backed by the pro-Kurdish Labour, Democracy and Freedom Bloc. Hatip Dicle is serving a prison sentence. He is charged with supporting a terrorist group. However, in Turkey, parliamentary candidates can run from prison in general elections. And, if elected, they are granted parliamentary immunity, which effectively postpones the charges until they are no longer an MP. Dicle was not granted this immunity, and has not been released from prison. He has instead been disbarred and stripped of his deputyship. His seat has been given to a member of the ruling party AKP, a move that has further angered the Kurdish community.

"We are here for our representative Hatip Dicle. We support his freedom and rights. The prime minister has stolen our 80,000 votes. It's shameful that AK party gave Hatip's seat to a member of their party."

While there has been a lot of commentary over an apparent YSK "decision" that disqualified Dicle from entering the election race. Ertugrul Kurkcu, a newly elected independent MP, refuted these claims. Kurkcu pointed out that Dicle's name was on the ballot papers, which facilitated his candidacy. Kurkcu was also at the demonstration.

"The Supreme Election Board accepted his candidacy. So for this reason, the responsibility belongs to the the board not Hatip Dicle. He entered the election, and won the votes. They didn't say anything. Now they've disbarred him."

The pro-Kurdish bloc has taken a collective position by refusing to enter the parliament. Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who ran from prison in the 2007 elections and was re-elected on June 12th, explained the delicate position the block now finds themselves in.

"We got a good result in the election, but the decision of the YSK has put pressure on the Kurdish people. The reason we are in parliament is to solve the Kurdish issue, to promote democracy and contribute to the new constitution. But if we enter under these circumstance it won't be valid."

Tuncel's comments some up the intricate politiking that Kurdish politicians must tread. She knows that parliament is the platform where the Kurdish issue can be solved. But at the same time, she also knows that she can not ignore the feelings of those who elected her. There has also been rumours that the Kurdish block plan to veto parliament until bi-elections are held, effectively creating a political crisis for Turkey. Tuncel rejected these claims.

"We are not going to resign. There is no bi-elections. Our people gave us this duty. Only, we will not go to the parliament. If we resign at this time there could be a bi-election. But it's not useful to us. There would be no benefit for Turkey or for us. We don't want to create a larger political crisis."

The government must act swiflty to resolve the stand off. If it doesn't, the state will have won. It's no coincidence that the YSK allowed Dicle to run and then disbarred him after thousands of people cast their votes. This incident shows the cracks in Turkish democracy, where the militarised state is still grasping for control. The agenda is to protect the status quo.

Kurdish politicians must be supported in their political endeavours or there will be a return to violence, which no one wants. AKP have a historic chance in this term to fight back and resolve this chronic problem through democractic moves. Images of a five-year-old boy being gassed will not help.

Standing along side the demonstrators, we too felt the powerful effects of pepper gas. Our eyes were stinging, our throats contracted. We were gagged and blinded by the state.

May Day, oh May Day

May 1st was a total disappointment for anyone hoping for a sensible reaction from the government to requests by the Labour Unions to celebrate Labour Day. It was a day that ended in more anxiety than anyone could have imagined.

I also became a victim of this anger and pent up frustration over how the government handles things. Late in the evening after the traffic had finally begun to flow through Taksim square, I was sitting in my local neighbourhood bar with some friends glad that peace had finally been restored to Cihangir.

It had been a long day for anyone involved in reporting on it - like myself - or those who were trying to celebrate.

While sitting there feeling relieved that the day had finally come to an end without major casualties (a cameraman I know was hospitalised from tear gas, but survived), I saw a new aquaintance sitting a couple tables down from me and decided to do the neighbourly thing and say "Hi".

As soon as I approached the table I was immediately harassed by his dining companion. This was the following coversation as I remember it:

"I don't agree with what you said," the female diner said one minute after being introduced to me for the first time.
"What exactly don't you agree with?" I said, NOTE: I had never spoken to this woman before in my life.
"What you said about the government having made an offer to the unions," she said.

Not being prepared to encounter such a hostility, I immediately went on the defensive.

"Well the government did make an offer," I said. (which was to hold the rally in a different place in the city, somewhere "that would be more appropriate without disrupting business.")
"But what kind of offer," my acquaintance said.

I then told the hostile female diner that "as a reporter I have a responsibility to not have an opinion." It was a stupid thing to say, but I just wasn't expecting to be dressed down so publically by someone I don't even know.

Upon reflection, I have wondered just how she could have had an opinion on something I've said when we've never even met. I imagined that the only possible reason could be that I had talked to a colleague on the telephone, and asked him why in their report they hadn't mentioned the fact that the government had made an offer to the unions. And that I thought the report was slightly biased because of this omitted information - I thought she must have over heard me, perhaps I had been speaking quite loud.

The whole issue has bothered me ever since, so much so that I have actually had to sit here and write about it.

My response to this mystery diner is as follows:

Yes, the government made an offer. The problem with the offer, which I did actually say in my live televised report on May 1, is that the reasoning they gave was not the reality. The government said that they wouldn't allow Taksim Square to be used for the celebrations because it would disrupt a work day, and the economy was in no shape to handle that. As it was, the economy took a beating on May 1 anyway, why?

1 - All stores in and around the Taksim area were closed afraid of unrest.
2 - At least 60 schools were closed. Causing a cost to those children who lost a day of study.
3 - The cost of 30,000 police and few hundred village guard deployed to keep people out of the square all day long ironically may have totalled more than the so-called cost to the Turkish economy, which I also said in my live televised report.
4 - The damage that it has done to Turkey in terms of foreign investors perceptions of what type of country Turkey is, is immeasurable.
4 - AKP have lost, everyone has lost.

I stated that there had been an offer by the government in order to present the context of why there was so much frustration from those who simply wanted to hold a rally for one hour, and perhaps seek some closure for the terrible events of 1977. I don't agree with what the government's response was, but I am also realistic in the sense that public gatherings in Turkey do sometimes descend into a separate issue - that's because I actually attend many of them. This doesn't make me pro-government.

I have joined all the workers protests on the streets in Istanbul in the run up to the social security reform bill, and most of the people there I saw were 20 plus in age. Not 17 year old university students. This does leave the question: What exactly is labour day in Turkey really about? And how is the government going to deal with it in the future?

We will see next year I expect. But to the lady who quite rudely shot me down before asking me why I had thought it important to point out the government's offer - namely because it does more to present the real politics of AKP and indeed the current state of Turkish politics - then I ask you to read this and next time ask "why" before you jump to conclusions based on a sound bite that you overheard without knowing what that sound bite was really all about.

I empathise with your frustration, I feel it too, which is why I delivered a report that may actually have added more context to Turkey's image abroad.

Turkey’s Christians are they really in danger? And from who?

At what point does a sensational sentence become more important than the personal safety of the subject it contains?

The recent case of Aljazeera English on “Turkey’s Unsafe Christians”, March 10, 2008, is an example. The opening sentence, “Christians in Turkey are living under a shadow of fear and insecurity due to a violent backlash by nationalist hardliners”, is a head turner, the reader is hooked immediately, it plays on our sympathy and compassion.

The report was shocking. It tells of a Christian missionary who is taunted by “conservative, nationalistic, religious angry young men who have a deep-seated aversion to being told to change their ways”, and was even kidnapped. This is sadly all too common in Turkey where Christian missionaries are seen by a staunchly nationalist youth as agents of the West sent to undermine the Turkish state.

The problem with the story is that it presents the argument as a religiously and culturally motivated one that is rooted in history: “Mistrust and hatred of Christianity has been embedded in the culture of the Black Sea region of Turkey for decades some say centuries.” It equates today’s nationalist youth with “the crusades and the First World War when the Christian minority in Turkey sided against the then Ottoman empire.”

This report then links this deeply rooted Black Sea nationalism with an horrific incident in a southern Turkish city over 500 kms away: “Recent attacks on Christians in Turkey have been very ferocious, including the torture and killing of a group of missionaries in the town of Malatya. Three youths currently face trial on charges relating to those attacks.”

The report failed to mention the recent arrests of over 30 members of an ultra-nationalist group called Ergenekon with alleged links to the Malayta killings and is believed to operate out of the Turkish Patriarchate, a Christian church in Istanbul.

Mustafa Akyol, an editor at the Turkish Daily News wrote on February 3: “It appears that the church might not only be linked to Ergenekon but could actually be its very base. According to the prosecutor, the church has been “the headquarters and the financial hub” of the covert gang.”

Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s leading conservative English language newspaper reported on January 29, that “Leaders of the Ergenekon gang had jointly decided to “OK”, the murders of three Christians in Malatya.”

The group are also allegedly linked to the slaying of Hrant Dink, an Armenian Turk, who was gunned down outside his office in February 2008 by a nationalist youth.

Ergenekon is suspected of shady links to groups hidden within the state. These groups are commonly referred to as Turkey's "deep state," a phenomenon in which individuals and groups occupying various state positions take justice into their own hands to shape Turkey in accordance with their political convictions.

Today’s Zaman also states: The Ergenekon organisation was working to create a chaotic atmosphere so that its counterparts in the military could overthrow the government, charges brought against the group by a law court in Istanbul has confirmed.”

If it is proven that Ergenekon, is linked to these killings, then the report on Turkey’s unsafe Christians by Aljazeera English takes on a different light.

On March 6, Bianet, an independent Turkish news portal, cited links to the “Susurluk incident”, a scandal that proved for many Turks the existence of the deep state in Turkey: “The roots of the gang are said to go back to the Susurluk case of 1996. A car accident in that city which shook Turkey because it revealed connections between the state, the mafia, and nationalist hit men.”

Cengiz Candar a columnist for the Turkish Daily News, states the importance of rooting out such organisations in Turkey. “Leaving things half-done will also prove how impossible it is to firmly attach Turkey within any particular structure of the “modern world” or of the European Union. The Ergenekon investigation is indeed one of the “most important incidents” of recent Turkish history toward securing the country's future.”

Fetiye Cetin, Dink’s family lawyer agrees and explains that proving the involvement of nationalist elements of Turkish security services in Dink’s murder will be a similar test: “If the government really wants democracy and rule of law, it has to solve this murder case. Because Turkey's enlightenment partly depends on the clarification of this case. It all comes down to some security forces. They should investigate and see if there was negligence or purposeful act.”

Turkish police were repeatedly warned of death threats to Dink, but failed to protect him.

The report therefore failed to look at why Turkey’s Christians are taunted and how Turkey’s youth, especially outside the commercial hubs such as Istanbul and Ankara are also victimised by such groups because the dire situation they find themselves in. Turkey suffers from high unemployment, 10 % nationwide but it doubles in areas like the Black Sea where at least 50 % of the population are below the age of 30 with little or no job prospects. They are swept into an unregistered economy, which creates a sense of failure and despair. The national education system itself is staunchly nationalist in nature and contributes to these feelings.

The sad fact that this reporting is still practised in Turkey means that it is a nation that is still deeply misunderstood

The headscarf, the headscarf, the headscarf. This is just a fraction of the times I've heard this small item of clothing mentioned this week. Turkey is spinning from the headscarf frenzy, which has given me a chance to meet some women that perhaps I wouldn't have had the chance to otherwise.

I live in a relatively trendy neighbourhood and live a very Western life-style as do many of my Turkish friends. I'm not saying they are all big drinkers many of them are not, but for ease of understanding they live very secular lifestyles. But hang on a minute, what does a "secular life-style" mean? And here we are again, right back to redefining the definitions in Turkey.

A practising Muslim woman gave me her take on Turkey's secularism this week:

"The government should be impartial. It shouldn't violate the rights of its citizens who wear the headscarf by always taking the side of those who don't wear it. If it describes itself as secular, and if we define secularism as the separation of state from religious affairs -this is the typical description in Turkey- yes these two are separated. But the government always had the authority to organize and direct religious affairs. In Turkey, religious life, religious beliefs have always been oppressed."

Pretty articulate don't you think? She is one of the millions of women who lost the chance to further their studies after the headscarf ban in universities was implemented over a decade ago. It's a sad story. She moved away from her hometown to find a better life and get herself a higher education, only to find it was all shattered after the ban came in.

The woman I met is an example of why women need to have an education, because it gives them more choices and as some experts have been saying in the Turkish media this week, could prevent extremism in the future. The only problem now is that women are still discriminated against once they leave university as the headscarf is also banned in public office.

Regardless of the hype and the inevitable lifting of the ban, another interesting development is going on in Turkey. The constitutional package that has been agreed on by the ruling AK Party and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) is slated to include a clause on the type of headscarf that will be permitted.

This for me is an extremely curious development. It could be Turkey defining its own Islamic dress code aimed at keeping a more extremist type of Islamic expression at bay. Or a promotion and institutionalising of it, depending on which way you're looking from.

The clause is said to allow "the traditional scarf tied under the chin in universities but not the veil, chador or burqa".

The headscarf has been worn in Anatolia for thousands of years, and will be for many more I expect. This could therefore be seen as a revival perhaps of the "Turkish headscarf".

I tried to also interview a more secular Turkish woman this week so that I could profile these two women back to back. But I couldn't find a more secular woman who wanted to go on the record about their fears. Why not? Even the more religious conservative Turk has fears of extremism. They don't necessarily want to live with Sharia. They have lived with the imposition of not being able to attend university for over a decade now, and say that they don't want to impose anything on anyone.

The problem here is that both sides aren't talking to each other. The woman that I interviewed, who is now the mother of 4 because she was deprived of her education is hoping that her kids will get the opportunities she once took for granted.

I hope that Turkey is able to make this transition smoothly, I think it will, most people you talk to are not against the lifting of the ban but they are against extremist politics. So an education may be the best preventative measure to fight against such issues anyway.

And as my subject told me this week, it is a personal choice to practise Islam and how to practise it.

"We wear the headscarf and the reason is our belief in Allah. Since we believe Allah ordered us to cover our heads, we wear it. I don't see myself in a position to order anyone to cover their heads if they are not believers. If they do, it wouldn't mean much. If they believe, they would voluntarily cover their heads. If she thinks the headscarf is unnecessary, she wouldn't wear it. But it is unacceptable to forbid people to go to school or to work with their headscarf on with a presumption that one day those who wear the headscarf will force others to do so. They act with pure prejudice. And honestly, they impose their prejudices on the other side as a cruel act. I don't think it is right when a person who doesn't wear the headscarf says 'I am not wearing it,
so you shouldn't wear it either'. I mean, people say they are Muslim. But if they don't fulfill the requirements of their belief, the
responsibility belongs to them. "

This statement is an open desire for equality but at the same time denies it, which is the precise issue more liberal Turks have with the more religious conservatives.

Do I have to cover my hair to believe in God? Not at all. And as an Iranian friend recently told me the enforcement of the Islamic dress code in Iran has lead to a less sincere faith in some young Iranians. Covering the hair in Turkey dates back beyond Islam, but was a cultural identity that has been accepted for thousands of years.

Live and let live, but don't be complacent.

Nationalism V Patriotism

By Jody Sabral


Does being a nationalist make you a fascist? For those who do not know Turkey, it might. Recently I was challenged by a Turkish colleague that in Turkey being a “nationalist” does not mean the desire for a pure “Turkic” race.

He explained: “If you say ‘Turkish-nationalist’ then it’s different, this could be used to describe a kind of fascism. But the prefix “Turkish” is important here. This kind of nationalism is one that is built on an idea of ethnicity perhaps. I can say I’m nationalist ‘milliyetciyim’ but I say it because I love my country, not because I hate people who have a different ethnic root than I. My country is a mosaic, which is why I love it.”

By definition in English, nationalism can mean: The desire for and the attempt to achieve political independence for his/her country, according to the Cambridge dictionary. It can also describe someone who loves their country “too” much.

This “too” much, is always a worry when we talk about nationalism in English, but my friend went on to explain.

“Why can’t we say we love our country. It’s a regular healthy expression. It doesn’t mean that I hate all other races that are different than me.” he said.

It was then that I realised there must be a different word to describe him in Turkish, although he still insists that nationalist is ok.

The word I was looking for was “vatan sever”, which means patriot. By definition, according to the Cambridge dictionary, it means someone who loves their country and is prepared to die for it.

So what is the difference then between patriot and nationalist? Not much according to the dictionary, but it is a widely held common idea that a patriotic person is not as threatening as a nationalist to a multi-ethnic society.

So, is this why the West have hyped the “rising nationalism” in Turkey? Is there really a rise in nationalism, or has it always been like this? And have we just got it wrong by definition?

In recent polls less than 10% of Turks said that they supported US policies. This is then translated into a “new nationalism” in Turkey.

It may be more accurate but less provocative to say that there has been a “rise in patriotism as Turks look to their own government to solve their problems from within.”

And after the Iraqi invasion, which happened right next door – who would blame them?

It’s all too easy to categorize people according to our own perceptions and politics, especially when it suits our own cause.

I hate definitions in all their forms although I am forced to apply them because I work in the media. Television does not allow you time to explain, so labels and adjectives are used to simplify the message. But then it becomes distorted, squeezed between media organizations

Facts speak for themselves, don't they?

Turkey is a multi-layered society, in which labels get distorted. These labels divide and conquer, they do not harmonise or even get close to the root of the problem.

Many Turks choose a lifestyle when they choose an ideology - it is not always a political statement. It can be the difference between getting a regular salary, or not, or working in a building that has a bar in its basement or not - very simple things.

Turks are tolerant, which is sometimes a curse, but at the same time it can be a blessing. Turkey is a nation that was built from a crumbling empire. It was saved from the invaders. Its identity is built on this notion, but we now see that it is moving to a new era, one that is not based on fear.

It was built on its own defense, when are we going to stop giving "it" such a hard time, and allow it time to breathe and catch up to where it needs to be. It has the ability, it has the academics, yes, and now it seems that there is some revitalized political will. It has a wealth of cultures, it is still for me a mini-empire where multitudes of cultures intermingle as one.

I have fascinating conversations with friends about their origins, which are hardly ever Turk by ethnicity. What is Turk anyway?

No wonder Turkey is still defending itself.

This week, a colleague in France, who was to host a programme on Abdullah Gul’s candidacy asked me: “But why is everyone so sure that he will secure the presidency? Especially now that there is a nationalist party in parliament?”

My answer: “Being Muslim is part of the Turkish identity, not all nationalism is Turkey is built on what we know it to be in the West. The MHP is a nationalist party yes, but it also has religious roots too.”

“Oh, that is strange,” she said.

“Yes, but that’s Turkey,” I said, “which is why it’s so fascinating.”


AND HERE'S THE TURKISH
http://www.boyuthaber.com/haber/20070823/Milliyetcilik-ve-Vatanseverlik.php

Milliyetçilik ve Vatanseverlik
“Evet, burası Türkiye, işte budan dolayı burası büyüleyici”
23 / 08 / 2007 02:28
jodysabral@boyuthaber.com

Milliyetçi olmak bir insanı faşist yapar mı? Türkiye’yi tanımayanları evet yapar. Geçenlerde bir Türk meslektaşım bana Türkiye’de “milliyetçi” olmak için illa da saf “Türk” ırkından gelmek gerekmediğini söyledi.

Bana aynen şöyle bir açıklamada bulundu “Eğer “Türk-Milliyetçisi” dersen bu farklıdır, bu ifade bir tür ırkçılık olarak tanımlanabilir. Ancak burada “Türk” öneki önemlidir. Bu tür bir milliyetçilik muhtemelen bir etnisite fikri üzerine inşa edilmiş olabilir. Ben “milliyetçi” olduğumu söyleyebilirim, ancak bunu sadece vatanımı sevdiğim için ifade ederim yoksa benden farklı etnik kökenden gelen insanlardan nefret ettiğim için değil. Ülkem bir mozaik gibidir ve bunun için onu seviyorum”.

İngilizce tanımıyla “milliyetçilik”; Cambridge sözlüğüne göre şu anlama gelir: “bir kişinin ülkesinin siyasi bağımsızlığını gerçekleştirmek için beslediği arzu ve girişimdir.” Bu tanımın devamı olarak da “milliyetçi” bir kişi ülkesini “çok fazla” seven kişi olarak tanımlanabilir.

Bu “çok fazla” ibaresi, İngilizcede milliyetçilikten bahsederken duyduğumuz bir kaygıdır her zaman. Ancak arkadaşım açıklamasına şöyle devam etti:

“Niçin ülkemizi çok fazla sevdiğimizi söyleyemeyelim ki? Bu, gayet düzenli ve sağlıklı bir ifade. Bunu söylemem benim benden olmayan diğer tüm ırklardan nefret ettiğim anlamına gelmez”.

İşte o zaman onu Türkçede başka bir kelime ile tanımlamak gerektiğini fark ettim gerçi o “milliyetçi”nin uygun olduğunu düşünse de.

Benim aradığım kelime İngilizcede “patriot” olarak ifade edilen “vatansever”di. Yine Cambridge sözlüğüne göre vatansever: “ülkesini seven ve onun için ölmeye hazır olan kimse”dir.

O zaman vatansever ve milliyetçi arasındaki fark nedir? Sözlüğe göre pek fark yok, ancak geniş kesimlerce benimsenen ortak fikre göre vatansever bir insan çok ırklı bir toplumda milliyetçi birisi kadar tehdit unsuru olarak algılanmaz.

İşte bundan dolayıdır ki, Batılılar Türkiye’de “yükselen milliyetçiliğe” aşırı dikkat çekmeye uğraşırlar. Milliyetçilikte gerçekten bir yükseliş var mı, yoksa her zaman böyle miydi? Yoksa biz aslında sadece tanımdan dolayı mı bu yanılsamaya düşüyoruz?

Son yapılan kamuoyu araştırmalarına göre Türklerin % 10’dan daha azı ABD politikalarını destekliyor. Yani % 90’dan fazla bir ABD karşıtlığı var. Böyle olunca bu durum Türkiye’de “yeni milliyetçilik” olarak değerlendiriliyor.

“Türkler kendi hükümetlerinin kendi meselelerini çözmesini istedikçe vatanseverliklerinde bir yükseliş var” demek daha dikkatli ve daha az provokatif bir ifade olabilir.

Özellikle de hemen yanı başlarında cereyan eden Irak işgalinden sonra, onları kim suçlayabilir?

İnsanları kendi algılamalarımıza ve politikalarımıza göre kategorize etmek, özellikle de işimize de geliyorsa çok kolay ve basittir.

Ben, medyada çalıştığım için sıkça kullanmam gerekse de, tüm tanımlamaların her çeşidinden nefret ediyorum. Televizyon açıklama yapma imkânı vermiyor size, böyle olunca da etiketler ve sıfatlar mesajı basitleştirmek için kullanılıyor. Ama bu durumda da her şey medya kuruluşlarının arasında eğip bükülüyor ve tahrif ediliyor.

Hakikatler yalnız kendileri için konuşurlar, öyle değil mi?

Türk toplumu, etiketlerin tahrif edildiği çok katmanlı bir toplum. Etiketlemeler bölüyor ve fethediyor, uyum sağlamıyorlar ve sorunun köküne bile yaklaşamıyorlar.

Türklerin çoğu illa siyasi olmasa da, ideoloji seçerken hayat tarzlarını da seçiyorlar. Burada, düzenli bir maaşı olup olmamak, oturduğu binanın altında bar bulunup bulunmamak gibi çok basit şeylerden dolayı farklılıklar oluşmakta.

Türkler hoşgörülüdürler, bu bazen bir lanet gibi görünse de aynı zaman da rahmet olarak da algılanabilir. Türkler batmış bir imparatorluğun küllerinden inşa edilmiş bir millettir. İşgalci ve istilacılardan kurtarılmış bir millet. Kimliklerinin aslında bu nosyon ve kavram üzerine inşa olduğunu, ancak bununla birlikte korkuya dayanmayan yeni bir çağa ve aşamaya doğru ilerlenmekte olduğunu görüyoruz.

Çok zor, artık “vermekten ve kaybetmekten” ne zaman kurtulacağız denilen bir dönemde nefes alacak ve olması gereken yere gelecek biçimde kendi savunması üzerine inşa edilmiş bir toplumdur Türk toplumu. Yeteneği vardır, bilim adamları vardır ve yeniden canlanmış bir siyasi iradesi vardır. Kültürel serveti vardır, bana göre Türkiye hala benzersiz bir biçimde kültürel birikimlerin harman olduğu bir mini imparatorluktur.

Etnik olarak çoğu saf Türk dahi olmayan Türk arkadaşlarımla çok sürükleyici konuşmalarım oluyor. Bu arada anlam olarak Türk ne demekti?

Türkiye’nin hala kendini savunuyor olması şaşılacak bir şey değil.

Bu hafta Abdullah GÜL’ün adaylığı ile ilgili bir program sunacak olan Fransa’dan bir meslektaşım bana şunu sordu: “Ama neden herkes GÜL’ün cumhurbaşkanlığına kesin gözüyle bakıyor? Özellikle de şimdi mecliste bir milliyetçi parti varken?”

Benim cevabım aynen şöyle oldu: “Müslüman olmak Türk kimliğinin bir parçasıdır, Türkiye’deki milliyetçiliğin tamamı bizim Batıda algıladığımız anlam ve değerler üzerine kurulu değildir. Evet MHP, milliyetçi bir partidir ama dini kökleri de vardır”.

“Ya öyle mi, bu çok ilginç” dedi.


Ben de: “Evet, burası Türkiye, işte budan dolayı burası büyüleyici” dedim.



Fotoğraf İkizdere Ovit Şenliklerinde Jody SABRAL tarafından çekilmiştir.

-----

Jody SABRAL'ın yazısı Yavuz Selim KURT tarafından tercüme edilmiştir.

Divide and conquer; Gul's candidacy

Choices... choices... choices...


With the news that there will be no alternative to Abdullah Gul’s presidency from AKP, we can expect more tensions ahead. One of the most hotly debated topics in Turkish homes is the issue of whether Gul can be Turkey’s next president.

Mathematically he can, he needs 367 deputies present in the first two rounds, something that seems easy now with the support of the MHP announcing that they would attend the session, although possibly not vote. But it is surely bound to cause more tensions. As Yusuf Kanli put it in his column in the TDN yesterday: “It’s not the headscarf Turks have an issue with, it’s what it symbolises – political Islam.”

Why then is AKP pushing ahead with Gul for president. They say that they can not head the calls of the public on the issue of Gul’s presidential bid citing the election results as a reason to push on. But would AKP really have won 50% of the vote had the polls been held in November as planned, a summer of no action in northern Iraq, may well have garnered more votes to the MHP, many people voted for them on issues of national security.

And just two months before the elections, and before the famous military memo of April 27th, AKP was running at about 35% of the vote. So, what makes them think that a reaction by the public against military intervention means that there is overwhelming support for Gul for president. No one can say give a reason why military intervention is good for Turkey, but many can say why Gul's candidacy is causing problems.

Gul’s candidacy threw Turkey into a period of turmoil, which resulted with a more moderate AKP in fact [200 new MPs were brought into the party, some cite military intervention her in fact]. But what makes AKP think that it won’t cause the same tensions again. Of course, technically Gul can win, but what about the other 50% of the country who didn’t vote for AKP.

AKP should be cautious over this issue, and also act politically mature in relation to the presidency. There is an opposition to Gul, and it’s a strong one, the military.

Is it politically realistic for the military to accept Abdullah Gul’s wife as the first lady. I will refer back to Yusuf Kanli’s statement again. “The headscarf is not the issue, it’s what it symbolises, political Islam.”

He has a point, Turkey is a secular, democratic country, where religion is a personal choice, and the type of headscarf that Mrs Gul wears does symbolise something political in Turkey, this fact can not be avoided.

Mrs Gul has the right to chose, this is true, it is her personal choice. But to become the first lady, as with any job, also comes much responsibility. So, when then does personal choice come before your responsibilities to public service, it is also a choice to accept the responsibilities that come with this position, which in Turkey means representing an image that doesn’t project any type of religious statement – as it is a private thing.

The reality that the president is the top commander of the military – overseeing the security council – should surely be recognised by AKP, as a source for tension over this issue.

Why then do they push on with these actions. To create more change in the political system, to further democratise Turkey?

Some members of the Kurdish camp are supporting Gul’s candidacy. Why? Because they are simply against the military and CHP or anything related to Ataturk and Turkish nationalism, not necessarily because they really want Gul as president. Is this the right reason to give support? AKP should understand this, and note that it could divide Turkey further. Some, of course are supporting the bid because of religion, which therefore makes the issue of support on religious grounds politicized. Isn't that what Turkey is trying to stay away from, political Islam.

Of course, with any type of change in a political system – moving away from a military constitution to a civilian one – there must be tensions. But have we had enough already this year in the past few months? We now have a system that looks more like a western democracy with a one-party government returning to power, which can bring more stability and reforms.

But, there must at some point be a consensus reached between all parties, in order to set an example to the ordinary voter on the street that consensus can be reached in Turkey.

There are so many different groups in Turkey, as I wrote in my previous article, perhaps 6, 7, 8 or more Turkey’s, and these Turkeys need its leaders to set an example of peace and harmony and consensus between all sides.

For now, the question in my mind is still open on Gul, he has yet to confirm his candidacy. If AKP does push on with Gul, I would hope that it would then go to a referendum rather than divide parliament, and the voters further.

But time will tell, only time will tell.

Polarisation; myth or fact?

I have lived in Turkey for almost six years now, and it still teaches me something new every day. Istanbul, Turkey’s largest commercial hub, is a labyrinth that embodies a romantic old Europe with mounds of eastern history to unravel. Once you start peeling back the layers, it becomes an obsession that most of us foreigners can’t live without.

People always ask: “Why Turkey?” My reply: “Why not?”.

If truth be told the first time I came to Turkey I hated it. I landed in a conservative neighbourhood of Istanbul, and, was in complete culture shock for at least ten days. There were no women on the street after 9pm. My apartment was about 20 metres from a very noisy mosque. No one spoke English. I didn’t understand the public transport. I felt as if I’d landed on the moon. I remember calling my mother, after I’d figured out the awful public payphone system, and pleading with her to rescue me from this backwater place.

I returned six months later and haven’t been able to leave since. It’s not like I haven’t tried. I have left Turkey at least five times, but I always return. So, why is Istanbul so attractive to us foreigners? It’s the village syndrome. Istanbul is a city of almost 17 million people. It has everything anyone could want, culture, the arts, nightlife, hidden away pockets of nature, the hustle bustle of any worldly metropolis. It is a city that is constantly moving, but, it is one of the only cities in the world in my opinion – I’ve travelled from the US to South East Asia – where one feels like you’ve known your taxi driver forever. I live in a city, but it feels like a village, and my taxi-driver lives on the next street.

Turkish taxi-driving hospitality

Recently I had to attend a live programme on Turkey’s ongoing elections cycle. Already ten minutes late I ran out of the house and hailed a taxi on the street. When we got to the studio I reached into my bag for my wallet, but found myself in a very awkward position, I'd left it at home. Oh no, I thought "What should I do?"

Seeing my dispair, my taxici simply shrugged his shoulders and said casually: “No problem, you can pay me later, it’s OK.” My taxici was a stranger to me, but he wanted to help solve my problems.

Although we live in a vast city, there is always someone who wants to help, be it because they are nosey, or bored or for whatever reason. But Turkish people still have time for each other. This is something to be applauded. There is this feeling that “we are in this together”. It’s something quite remarkable to me, still, after all this time, because I come from a world where people make appointments two weeks ahead just to have dinner with a personal friend.

So if people still extend a helping hand to each other, is Turkish society really becoming more polarized as many analysts say? The recent crisis over the presidential elections have been cited as proof of this polarisation – millions of people took to the streets to protest against an “Islamic lifestyle”. The western media played a great role in fostering tensions by talking about “two Turkeys”. But, since when has there only been two Turkeys? At my last count there were at least 6, 7 , 8 or even more Turkeys. It is a complex social fabric of many religions, ethnicities, and cultures that even an expert anthropologist would have a hard time counting.

Tough measure

I personally attended both the Ankara and Istanbul protests, and there is no doubt that they were absolutely huge. There were masses of people on the street, but were the numbers honest? News services claimed that turn out in Istanbul had been larger than that of Ankara. In my opinion, and the opinion of the two handsome policemen who were standing next to our SNG truck, there were actually less people on the streets of Istanbul than Ankara.

I remember it very clearly, because I and a couple of colleagues were discussing this throughout the day. The general consensus among us was that people had stayed away from the Istanbul protests because of the military memorandum issued just one week earlier. When you look at the election results this week, our conclusions on that day made perfect sense. So, were the numbers inflated and why? Was this to add to the ongoing polarisation of Turkish society. Turkish friends tell me: “We don’t talk to each other anymore, there is even an eye of suspicion towards a stranger.”

But, from where I’m standing conversation has never been so lively in Turkey. Even the taxi driver has something to say on the country’s future. The question everyone is asking now is: “Will the new government be able to please the ordinary taxi driver that still wants to help you.”

This will be the new government's toughest challenge, to transfer the recent economic boom of the financial markets into something that helps the ordinary Turk. Unemployment and underemployment are issues that will need tough measures. But, finding help when you need it in this city needs absolutely no measure at all.

My oh my... will he or won't he?

Foreign minister Abdullah Gul did a little tap dancing for the press, who were eargerly gathered around his podium at the ministry for the first time since his party won a stunning victory on Sunday. The journalists readied themselves for shameful interrogation over the upcoming presidential race. During the questions and answers session, Gul requested that all enquiring journalists "get off the subject of the presidential elections". This after at least five reporters had not been able to ask him anything else. Smiling as they continued to fire away, I'm sure he wondered to himself "Are these people hard of hearing, or am I speaking Japanese?" They wouldn't let it go. And quite rightly so, his candidacy is the reason that we have just been through a general election, so of course he deserved to be grilled over his next plan of action.

Well, as ever he was graceful and calm. He talked of democracy and played it cool: "The decision should reflect the will of the people, and all parties should consider that."

What a guy, it is particularly weird, when I think that one in every two Turks voted for AKP. I have many friends in Istanbul who are die hard CHP supporters, and well, they did what they had to do - they voted CHP. It is a curious phenomenom that AKP gathered voters who are not as Islamic looking as their leaders' wives - this is such a devisive issue in Turkey. I'm guessing that they didn't gather votes from the CHP, these people really couldn't ever vote AKP, but rather from the centre-right who only two months ago I said would run into trouble by not attending the presidential vote back in April. They just couldn't get themselves together after that - they were another party that missed the boat, as did the CHP with all the secular rallies - they just didn't use them to their political advantage.

Now we have to wonder, will the independents support Gul's presidency? Or will the MHP? Apparently the MHP have already said they will attend the vote, whether they will participate is not clear. And depending on who the next speaker of parliament will be, we'll have to see if only attending the session is enough to hold qorum (of 367 deputies to pass the first round). I feel I'm going to be living in a parallel world soon enough, only this time it's going to be hotter.

The independents are a new force in parliament, and I'm happy that Kurds finally have some representation, at least 24 deputies I believe. It may take the fire out of the fight by PKK militants that come down from the mountains every year. From my understanding the fight here in Turkey is not really about separatism anymore - most of the Kurds I have met in Diyarbakir look to Istanbul culturally, not to the east. But, the fight is more about representation and rights. Well, if the Kurdish deputies play a more moderate card rather than that of Zana, AKP may just be able to talk to them. Possibly they will strike some sort of deal, should AKP need their support. If the chance arises I hope they use it well. I guess it really depends on the MHP. These two groups - the MHP and the DTP - are not famous for getting along. They may at least have to change the seating plan in parliament. I believe independents will sit next to the MHP under the present plan.

Whatever happens, we are definitely in for further fun. If you are a colleague and you plan to holiday this summer, best to head out now, as I don't think the presidential election is going to be as simple as we all expected it to be. There is still room for political errors, as we have seen already this year. Although AKP does have a good knack at learning from its mistakes - but with the proper backing, they might just get what they want this time - their guy in Cankaya. I personally think that it would be best to have a president from outside the parties, but we will have to wait and see, what the parliament want.

One thing I'm pretty sure on, and will predict with a clear conscience - the list of candidates will be a little longer this time, if Arinc doesn't come back to his former glory! Hey, perhaps he'll get his day to run for presidency this time around.

And to Deniz Baykal, when are you going to admit defeat? It is not "you" personally that can protect the state, but the party. CHP is in desparate need of new leadership - one that talks democracy and reconciliation. If you're not careful, perhaps MHP will garner your voters in the name of national security. You have five years to work hard on changing your image, as we are seeing that the current one doesn't fit the new Turkey - one that is much more confident than it has been in years.

Oh Turkey... where are you headed?


It's the question everyone is asking. Why? Because it seems it is at a crossroads yet again in the history of the Cumhurriyet.


This beautiful land is grappling with its own identity, but not as it is perceived. It is grappling with a change of identity. Today's Turkish society is more educated, more world savvy. But this is not the image that is projected to the world. Why? Because Turks really don't know how to explain themselves to the world let alone their own patriots. But for what it's worth there are still some shining moments that touch the heart of every foreigner living here, and if you haven't experienced this Turkish hospitality then you are surely missing the essence of Turkish living itself.

Situation: Last weekend I was shopping for a wedding present for a couple of friends who celebrated their respect for each other by tying the knot.

A raki drinking Budhist from Belgium and a Euro savvy and expert analyst from Turkey, who wed.

I browsed a few stores in my neighbourhood looking for the perfect gift. I wandered into a small store that was full of curios. A small item in the window caught my eye - a money box, but no ordinary money box. A small tin from the '60s, shaped like a house and painted like one with a slot in the top. It was old and funky and had a practical function, given it would not hold enough money for the house they will one day buy, but perfect in metaphor for a newly wed couple of friends.

The vendor asked for 50 YTL, I had 40 YTL in my wallet. I asked if I could bring him the extra 10 YTl later on in the day. I promised to bring it at 6pm. He looked at his watch and said, "I'll be counting the minutes, if you're a minute late I'll have to set the dogs on you." This was followed by a coy smile.

I left the shop with a nicely wrapped gift that I hand't completely paid for. I dropped the money off two days late, and he smiled and said no problem, see you soon.

What a nice man. These are the things I really love about Turkey.

Two weeks ago, I had to be at the studio for a live transmission at 6am. I hopped into a cab hoping to get some money from the ATM on the way to the studio. Every ATM I stopped at was empty after the weekend. The taxi driver said, "No problem drop it by later."

You have to understand that at this point the guy didn't know me from Adam. He had no idea of where I lived etc. as I'd hopped in on the street. The fair was not just a drop in the neighbourhood, it was a large sum, as I had to travel right across town.

And I thought this is why I live in Turkey and if only everyone could experience this Turkish culture.

I've always been welcomed and treated like a local.

When my colleague asked me in Qatar, "Why Turkey?". My reply was simple, "It's like a village, the guy in the cornershop will pass a message to his neighbour for you, even though he's never met you before."

I guess we all find this in our own environments eventually when you live somewhere long enough - but I've never been able to find it from a complete stranger no matter how long I've lived in a city.

This is one side of my Turkey that I truly admire and is why I still live here. What a place, a city of almost 17 million people, but who still have time to help a stranger, because the gesture is more important than the transaction itself.

Happy long life to the Turkish-Belgium marriage!

It's official, we are now in the midst of a political crisis.

While the world media watches and tries to get to grips with Turkish politics, newsrooms in Turkey are also trying to figure out what is going on here.

During the failed presidential elections, I spoke to a friend who is a producer on a newsdesk at a Turkish TV channel regularly to mull over what the hell was going on in Turkey. There was one sentence that rang clear in my mind for days after, "You should see our daily news meetings, no one knows what the hell is going on, there just seem to be too many IFs."

And he was right:

If the government doesn't reach the 367 seat mark in the parliament, we will petition it to the constitutional court and get it annulled.

If the government thinks they can change this country into an Islamic state they have another thing coming.

Even if the government doesn't reach the 367 as stated by the constitutional court, we will still hold the second round.

If they reach 367 on the reform package then it will go direct to public vote and the people will elect their own president.

If they don't reach 367 then it will go to the public who will vote on the amendments.

After speaking to Journalists, professors and law students, it seems there is so much confusion over the constitution in Turkey that no one really knows what is going on. Not surprising as law is an abstract thing by nature.

But I'd like to put the record straight. Although it is seen as an historic event by the eyes of the foreign media, most of us living in Turkey know sadly that it is a bit of a futile attempt by the ruling party to go on with trying to elect their candidate to Cankaya, the presidential palace.

The reality is that we will probably not see three ballot boxes as Zaman newspaper claims in the elections. One for the referendum on voting for the president by popular vote, one for reducing the parliamentary term from five to four years, and one for the prime ministry. No it is much more likely that the Turkish president Sezer will veto the motion once the bill is passed today, and Turkey will be right back to where it was three weeks ago.

Sezer can veto the bill and send it back to parliament for reconsideration, and the government will then have to start the process again. Sezer has 15 days to react, which would mean that if the bill does go back to parliament it would put us somewhere in the beginning of June before the process is restarted.

Then Sezer can once more react, and it is likely that he will by calling for a public referendum on the ammendments, which should be held 120 days after the decision.

We will by now be well into July, election month, which means that all parties will be far too busy with trying to secure their votes to deal with the referendum - this is a personal opinion, but a likely one nonetheless.

So, the referendum on constitutional amendments will probably be voted on by the public in September/October. This also means that the new parliament will probably elect Turkey's next president.

Now, the problem with this scenario is that as we have seen with the current power sharing in parliament, AKP can not expect to put forward another Islamic-looking presidential wife, it has caused just too much controvery and and oppostion by Turkey's secularists and more importantly the military.

AKP may not be able to try and pull such a stunt again, as it also depends on how other parties fair in the upcoming elections. There are alliances now happening on the left and the centre-right, which may steal some seats from AKP. This would force them into chosing a much more conciliatory figure.

Either that, or we will find ourselves back in the same position two months down the road.

Are you confused??? You should be. Basically the fun stems from the fact that the constitution that we are now grappling with in Turkey was written by the military! Yes, the military left Turkey with a constitution that doesn't seem to fucntion too well, following the 1980 coup.

The curious thing about the military is that most Turks I've spoken to were upset about their intervnetion, even if they don't support the ruling party. They feel that Turkey should be able to decide by itself through democratic means and not those of a dictatorship or the militant type.

I personally think that these decisions and the failed presidential election are really part of a wider plot to keep Turkey at bay and keep her subserviant. There are too many interests in the region by outsiders and who wants a dynamic Turkey which you can't predict to meddle in such things.

The question that most Turks have been asking over the past week is: "Who exactly does the military work for? For Turkey?"

Hmmmmmmm

First round of presidential elections in Turkey - we are slowly slipping into political crisis.

Children of Diyarbakir...



Thought...

Does being a nationalist make you a fascist? For those who do not know Turkey, it might.

Does being patriotic make you fascist? No, but it might make you a nationalist. For those who do not know America, it might.

Describing the degree of nationalism and patriotism may then qualify as fascism - "extreme".

It is all too easy to categorise people according to our own perceptions and politics, especially when it suits our own cause.

I hate definitions in all their forms although I am forced to apply them because I work in the media. Television does not allow you time to explain, so labels and adjectives are used to simplify the message. But then it becomes distorted, squeezed between media organisations, but what can one do. You look forward to those opportunities when for a fleating moment you might speak on the behalf of someone who doesn't have a voice, and that millions of people might hear it.

Facts speak for themselves, don't they?

Turkey is a multi-layered society, in which labels get distorted. These labels divide and conquer, they do not harmonise or even get close to the root of the problem.

Many Turks choose a lifestyle when they choose an ideology - it is not always a political statement. It can be the difference between getting a regular salary, or not, or working in a building that has a bar in its basement or not - very simple things.

Turks are tolerant, which is sometimes a curse, but at the same time it can be a blessing. Turkey is a nation that was built from a crumbling empire. It was saved from the invaders. Its identity is built on this notion.

It was built on its own defense, when are we going to stop giving "it" such a hard time, and allow it time to breathe and catch up to where it needs to be. It has the ability, it has the academics, yes, there is no political will, this is sure. But it has a wealth of cultures, it is still for me a mini-empire where multitudes of cultures intermingle as one.

I have fascinating coversations with friends about their origins, which are hardly ever Turk by ethnicity. What is Turk anyway?

I'm aware of its problems, but I personally feel after many years here that it should be able to deal with these problems by itself. Why do we come here thinking we can change it. The debate has been unleashed, there really is no way back. But it needs to happen on its own terms.

No wonder Turkey is still defending itself. Separate the politics from the people, then and only then, will you really ever see the beauty of the place, and only then will you be able to participate in the internal debate. The external one is fueling the nationalism that killed a man because of what he believed. May your soul be at peace dear Hrant Dink.

For photos of Newroz see here - copy and paste the link: http://www.worldpicturenews.com/web/ShowLightbox.aspx?driverid=378687
Video report to be published.

This is the most insightful analysis I've seen on the matter so far - so thought I'd share it with you folks. Terry Jones apparently speaks Turkish, according to an old friend of mine and Cihangir resident who says he was more than impressed when he heard Mr Jones speaking to people in eastern Turkey during a documentary on the crusades, which makes him even cooler in my book. Enjoy!

Call that humiliation?

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

By Terry Jones

03/31/07 "The Guardian" -- -- I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python - www.terry-jones.net

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Good to be home..

I dedicate this post to a friend who I met shortly before I left Qatar... but has recently reminded me that we share time with those who challenge us. Yes, you are right, which is why I returned to Turkey - to challenge the train of thought that exists here without belittling it or generalising it. To contribute to the continuing debate that challenges the state and support the internal democratisation, and be a sounding board for those who wish to discuss where Turkey is heading and how we can get there together.





Last weekend, I attended a two-day conference organised by the Heinrich Boll Stifling Dernegi. It was an enlightening two days in Turkey. A forum where the words "attrocities against Kurds".. "vicitimisation of Turks by the state".. "systematic forgetfulness".. were banded about freely. What a refreshing change to see Turks speaking like this openly. Only ten years ago, it would have been impossible to hold such a gathering.

A journalist friend also attending the conference, spoke of her ups and downs with regards to optimism and pesimism in Turkey. It's an easy one to fall into when you live here. Just when you think Turkey is making some ground, it seems to loose more than it has gained. Two steps forward, one step back is how I would characterise it. It's the uneasy kind of emotional attachment you can fall into when you live in a place that is as complex as Turkey. It swings from east to west regularly. With a secular political system which is very much built on the "nation state", somewhat democratic to the outside world with regards to civil society [although a military state, it is by no means a dictatorhip, there is a somewhat free press], and yet a Muslim majority, one may wonder how on earth did all of these elements ever come together. By the military elite, that's how, who are still very much in control of the modern republic. Woe behold the politician that tries to tame the Security Council (MGK), who protect Turkey from becoming an Islamic republic or at least that's the mandate. The generals are revered to be the most educated peoples in the land, so it would be difficult for the peasants to pull the wool over their eyes.

The push between east and west can also been seen by Turkey's ambitions to join the EU, which date back to Ataturk times, the founding father of the republic in 1923. He changed the alphabet to that of western script from Arabic. Although hailed a hero and quite rightly so as Ataturk saved Anatolia and gave women rights long before the Europeans did, this basically left a generation of Turks "illiterate overnight", according to a friend. At this time there was a separation from the past - a severence that Turkey never really mourned. The Ottoman empire was less Turk than any other ethnicty, it was Armenian, Jewish, Christian and so on. The republic did away with this and brought Islam to be the state religion to raise the status of Anatolian Turks who really made up a small proportion of the empire and what better way to unify a society than with religion. This is why there is a real separation from the Ottoman past in some areas [such as the Armenian genocide -'we didn't do it, it was the Ottomans'], and the associations are presented only when necessary - tales of victory.

At the same time, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, traveled to Pakistan last week, and invited the Iraqi VP to Ankara on his private plane. He also suggested sending a team of experts to inspect the Al-Aqsa mosqe in Jerusalem, placing Turkey in the heart of a sensitive issue - the Arab-Israeli conflict. Last week, a headline in a news body I am affiliated with read "Turkish prime minister denies anti-Shia bloc".. It seems that everyone is confused about Turkey. Anyone that knows Turkey and its history with Iran, knows that the two share a history that is fraught but one of mutual respect. The two have shared a border for hundresd of years have common interests in fighting the PKK and also have trade relations. Why on earth would Turkey turn against Iran. No, Turkey's dream is to be the BRIDGE. Seen as the occupying force by the Arabs for hundreds of years... [funny that as the Turkish republic seems to have no association to the Ottoman empire] the feeling generally is that Turkey does not have the credibility to achieve such an ambition.

Anyway, I digress. Back to the conference. I will simply list a few ideas that were discussed without going through everything and hope that those who are at all interested in Turkey and its complex identity may look for more information into the debate of Turkey's human rights.

The conference was called "From the Burden of the Past to Societal Peace and Democracy", and I know it sounds a bit wishy washy, but it was actually well worth sitting for hours and listening to the crammed programme of speakers.

The reason I believe that the organisation held such a conference in Istanbul was to get Turks talking about its forgotten history of human rights violations and present suggestions for ways of dealing with it. This was in the wake of the recent tragic killing of Hrant Dink, a prominent Turkish-Armenian editor, who was gunned down on the street in Istanbul in late January for his outspoken words on Turkish identity and the Armenian genocide.

The conference was useful as it was a place where Turks could interact with international experts who were experienced in areas of Truth and Reconciliation to international law. Guests varied from Marrianne Birthler, from the Federal Commission for the records of the National Security Service of the former German democratic Republic of Germany, to Ronit Lentin, of Trinity College Ireland, a political sociologist who was born in Haifa Israel but lobbies for the freedom of the Palestinians. Also there was Alex Borraine, International Centre for Transitional Justice from South Africa and Sezgin Tanrikulu, Bar association of Diyarbakir, who set up the Diyarbakir branch of human rights and has been persecuted for cases he has fought for in Turkey.

As there was so much covered I think in order to keep it short I will simply list some key quotes and allow you to ponder them as to whether or not you agree. I was able to ask two questions in a forum of 400 people, which opened up a debate on superpowers and the inequality that countries like Turkey constantly use as a tool for overlooking past human rights violations. Because surely if the US won't sign up to the International Criminal Court, well I think that in itself demonstrates the hyprocracy of the world we live in.

The topic of discussion was how and where do we start to look at Turkey's violations of human rights.

Mithat Sancar, professor of faculty of law at Ankara University and brains behind the conference: "In the last two decades the world has been discussing the issue of coming to terms with its past. During the same time, in Turkey the conspiracy theory was dominent. As we are uninformed we are going ahead in a stumbling manner. After 1945, the world started to comes to terms with its past. Turkey has still not come to terms with its violent past."

Murat Belge, columnist for Radikal daily and lecturer on English literature at Bilgi University Istanbul: "Turkey has suffered from a systematic forgetfulness. If we say that the killing of Hrant Dink did not happen, then we are distorting the point from the beginning. The reality that we are establishing between truths creates a pathology in our mind. Who did it? A group? Organisation? Individual? The instinct of self survival condemns us to a pathology that is the basis of this structure. How can a community be saved by denial or acceptance. On the Armenian genocide, a student doctor once asked me: 'do you believe in the genocide?' When I answered him positively, he told me that as I am not a historian I couldn't say such things. I responded I was not involved in the French Revolution, but I know it happened. I can read. This type of academic pathology exists in Turkey. So there is a man who has been killed [Hrant Dink] and there are people who say they can die the same and others that empathise with the killer. If we start from mentality of pathology it is a dangerous beginning. This is an artificial surrounding, having empathy for a killer or killed. We have to setp out of it. The values that are defended as nationalist are inhumane. Hrant Dink was the victim of this pathology that is being reflected on the outside."

Murat Paker, clinical psychologist and assistant professor at the psychology department at Bilgi university Istanbul: "We are at a critical point in our history. We have a political framework, we have not lost any wars [suh as we can see in Africa], no one is pushing us to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. So we are trying to solve things on our own. It is happening slowly, which is why the national identity is being upset. We are starting to realise what lies we have been fed. The problem is that those of us who have lived through these lies, won't have a basis for our lives. We need a more systematic way of coming to terms with it. On the Armenian-Turkey issue of 1915, both sides are in tangent with each other. 'You have a loss of 1 million but we have a bigger loss in the Balakn wars fro example'. People talk like there is emotional baggage involved I put this down to the loss of the Ottoman empire. This paranoia can be easliy mobilised and activated in Turkey. To understand the nationalist we must come down to their level. So where do we start to mourn our pain. Do we go back to the oldest problem? Or go from the new traumas to the old. We haven't come to terms with Semdinli, Susurluk, 12 September. So I don't think we can explain to the masses that 1915 is the priority. If we are looking for social transformation we must take up issues that impact our lives today. This is striving towards democracy. The EU deadlines are creating difficulties for us and we have to explain this to our foreign partners. We should talk to the victims of the 1980 coup and document it. We need to be organised and persistent in our collection of data to make it available for younger generations."

Ayse Hur, columnist: "We have a perculiar type of truth because of our pathological relationship with it. Forgetfulness is occupying key positions that mobilise our nationality. We severed our relationship with the Ottoman empire, so we have had to build our identity. This identity design has some problems. The approach of the intellegencia should be one of self criticism for having such a mentality. The intelligencia have been the managing elite in Turkey for the past 90 years. This has continued to play a negative role. The intelligencia should question themselves 'why did September 12 happen?'. The ideas of forgetfulness and forgiveness have been taken from the west from Christian values, the public does not take this on board. They are perceiving this from an Islamic keyhole and culture they have taken on. The public while looking back do this from one of Islamic and Turkic culture. The past is the past. Pathology is something that concerns the intelligencia not the masses. The public from elementary school are not exposed to critical thinking. We have an inheritance from the Kemalist movement, we have survied on forgetfulness. Disturbingly there is a xenophobic intellectual group to whom everything on a foreign level looks like a conspiracy. There is external interest on the Kurdish issue and we must stand up and beg for forgiveness in the Christian sense, while we are leaping over the faces of natoinalism. Turkey is disturbed because there "can not be a Kurdish state", we have reached this critical point late. Perhaps we need to think quiet inside from the beginning. We can't keep rediscovering the wheel we must open the archives and besides other archives are now open."

I will add more tomorrow - there were some scarily old school comments also. I'll add two more speakers tomorrow. Tired of typing. I hope that the statements give some insight into the debate in Turkey presently. This is why I did not give any analysis, I wanted the statements to stand alone, as I think they say enough by themselves.

The face of Aljazeera English 2006-2007, we saw the launch of the new channel. It was stressful at times, but highly rewarding because everyone mucked in when necessary - a team I can say I was proud to work with and to know.

The journalists/writers


Me and my editor


The editors


The newsroom on the nightshift a few days before launch