EU Referendum

On Saturday, we are told by the Islamic Republic News Agency, the EU’s foreign policy supreme, Javier Solana, backed Abdullah Gül for the Turkish presidency. One might consider Solana’s and the EU’s backing as being the kiss of death for any politician.

Solana told Bild am Sonntag that in his opinion Gül had been an excellent Foreign Minister, having done so much to promote Turkey’s possible membership of the EU (what does that make the French Foreign Minister?) and will make an excellent President.

On Sunday came the news that Abdullah Gül, having not managed to get the required number of votes in the Turkish Parliament as the opposition boycotted the election, has withdrawn his candidacy. Two nil to the secularists, I’d say.

The EU cannot really complain (though, I am sure it will) as the entire process was within Turkey’s constitutional structure. The opposition has the right to boycott presidential elections and it is sensible for a candidate who stands no chance of getting the right number of votes to withdraw. We now await the parliamentary election that Prime Minister Erdogan has called.

Several questions arise. The most obvious one is why do Solana or the Enlargement Commissar, Olli Rehn, think that they have some kind of a right to interfere with internal Turkish matters.

The answer must be two-fold. In the first place there is the possibility, however remote, that Turkey will one day be a member of the European Union and this gives the present officials some rights in its politics. Or so they think. Curiously enough, the Turks do not appear to share this view.

The second point is that wretched common foreign policy, which has no particular aim or purpose. Therefore, in order to show that it does exist, after a fashion, constant statements have to be made and actions, as long as they have no results, have to be taken.

A more interesting question is why does the EU and, indeed, the great and the good across the world, take the Islamists’ side against the secularists’ in Turkey. After all, when it comes to Europe and the European countries, the EU is severely secularist as the Pope, for one, has pointed out.

Left wing newspapers, such as the Toronto Star, where I found this extremely funny article, would demand smelling salts if there were the slightest suggestion that legislation in Canada or the United States or Europe be proposed on the basis of religious views. Yet, in Turkey, where it matters desperately that the secularists stay somehow in power, they take the opposite side.

The answer from the EU’s point of view could be, as my colleague has suggested, that an Islamist Turkey will no longer be a problem in the sense that she could not possibly be part of the European Union. In the process, they lose sight of the fact that an Islamist Turkey would be a problem in many other ways and of another dismal fact – if the Turks are becoming more Islamists, it is at least partially because of the EU’s shenanigans.

Then there is the question of what it is Erdogan playing at. A man, who seems to have had a sure political touch until now, appears to have miscalculated rather badly over the question of presidential elections. Could he have wanted to provoke the secularists in order to control the stronger Islamists in his own party? Might he have done a deal of some kind with the army? Is he trying to pressurize the EU? Could he be hoping for a bigger majority in the parliamentary elections than he would have got if they had come in a few months’ time as scheduled?

Turning away from all this discussion, let us look at Abdullah Gül’s wife and her headwear. One of the problems about Gül is that his wife wears a headscarf and it is part of Turkey’s secular settlement that women are not allowed to wear them in public offices, which clearly includes the presidential palace.

Anyone who thinks this is a minor matter does not understand the importance of certain symbols. The clothes people and, especially, women wear in Islamic countries make a crucial point about those countries.

Hayrounisa Gül, in the picture above, wears a silk scarf and a very expensive looking leather coat. One wonders what the Mullahs of Iran and their morality police would have made of it.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

Events in Turkey are becoming extremely interesting with the EU, as usual, flapping on the sidelines. It was always clear to anyone who managed to think about it for two consecutive minutes – which means not the EU foreign policy makers – that Turkey needs to be treated quite carefully. Otherwise, we may find ourselves facing the choice of either an Islamist government or a military dictatorship. Well, that time may have come.

This week-end saw another enormous demonstration in Istanbul of opponents of political Islam. According to the police there were well over a million people there.

A couple of weeks ago there was a smaller demonstration of only 300,000 also in favour of retaining Turkey’s prized secular status. At the time there were dark mutterings of the demonstration having been organized by the army and possibly it was not entirely untrue. Developments this week-end show that the support for secularism is more widespread than just in and around the military.

The immediate cause of this excitement is the forthcoming presidential elections and we have written about this before. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the Islamist AK Party was thought to have been eyeing the presidency for himself but was put off by the first demonstration. Instead he promoted the present Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gül, a close ally and also an Islamist. One of the complaints against Erdogan and his decision was that he did not consult the opposition parties as is customary over the question of presidential candidates, relying, one assumes on his majority in parliament to get his man in.

The opposition Republican People's Party has presented the Constitutional Court with a petition to suspend the presidential election, claiming that Erdogan had acted unconstitutionally and that putting someone like Gül into the presidential palace would undermine the secularist state of Turkey.

Prime Minister Erdogan, on the other hand, has claimed that far from introducing political Islamism, his government has been very pro-Western and reformist. Though, as he did not add, this may well have been because of the barely hidden threat by the army to overthrow any government that pushes Turkey towards an Islamic state and because of a secularist President who managed to control or overrule many of the proposals.

There have been various attempts to criminalize adultery, restrict the sale of alcohol and lift the ban on the wearing of headscarves in government offices. The fear is that with an Islamist President and an Islamist Prime Minister these attempts will be successful.

In fact, Abdullah Gül is finding it more difficult to achieve the presidency than it had been expected. In the first round he failed to win the necessary number of votes and, it is expected, that he will not get in till the third round, due to take place (Constitutional Court permitting) on May 9.

The army, which considers itself to be the guardian of Atatürk’s settlement, has quite openly threatened to deal with the situation if the government moved towards political Islamic structures and this has caused an immediate flap among the great and the good in Europe.

One effect of the crisis was almost predictable:

The turmoil unsettled traders in Istanbul, where the benchmark index, the IMKB-100, was down 4.01 percent at 44,984.45 points by closing, after opening down 7.99 percent. Turkey's currency, the lira, slid against foreign currencies and was trading at 1.36 against the U.S. dollar, compared to Friday's close of 1.33.

Turkey, a candidate for European Union membership, has been steadily recovering from a financial crisis in 2001, curbing inflation and pushing ahead with banking reform and other initiatives backed by the International Monetary Fund. The country has huge foreign debt but is attractive to foreign investors.

Analysts said the markets will likely recover if the government defuses tension by agreeing to early elections for Parliament, a move that could appease critics and clear the way for more vigorous implementation of economic reforms once a new government is in place. But they warned that sustained political uncertainty would take its toll.

The Turkish press, as Deutsche Welle reports, is not taking sides but calling on both the government and the military to sort the problems out for the country’s sake. The point several journalists make is that, while the military may be there to protect the secular structure, the idea that it should do so by overruling a democratically elected government (as it has done on several occasions in recent years) is not all that appealing either.

The Turkish press on Sunday was unanimous in calling on the government and the army to resolve their differences democratically and said early elections were the only way to prevent the country from plunging into chaos.

"Turkey either giving up on secularism or suspending democracy are two doomsday scenarios impossible to choose between," the popular daily Vatan said.

The liberal daily Milliyet said the army's warning had "cast a shadow on the credibility and respectability of civilian institutions."

"The latest developments show that the current term of parliament has reached the end of its natural life. Elections should be held at once," it added.

Prime Minister Erdogan has addressed the nation, appealing for unity and calm. However, it seems that, although the address was broadcast today, it was actually recorded on Saturday, that is, before the mass demonstration. Earlier the government’s spokesman, Çemil Çiçek, said this:

It is inconceivable in a democratic state based on the rule of law for the General Staff, which is under the orders of the prime minister, to speak out against the government. The primary duty in protecting the basic tenets of the state falls on the government. The Chief of the General Staff is answerable to the Prime Minister.

It is a difficult situation to understand and the EU having not helped matters by creating endless difficulties over negotiations for Turkey’s membership of the EU (while not making it clear that this is an impossible idea, either) and having behaved with less than total honesty in Cyprus, is now making grandiloquent statements.

Both the European Union and the Council of Europe have rushed in to demand that the army stay out of Turkish politics, an impossible notion, given modern Turkey’s history. Terry Davies, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General said:

I am very anxious about this statement from the Turkish military. It sounds like an explicit attempt by the armed forces to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

Then again, these days the Council of Europe has members like Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation, so its attachment to human rights may not be as strong as it used to be.

For the European Union Ollie Rehn, the Enlargement Commissar opined:

It is important that the military leaves the remit of democracy to the democratically elected government. This is a test case if the Turkish armed forces respect democratic secularism and the democratic arrangement of civil-military relations.

He is quite wrong. The test case will come if Turkey, the only more or less democratic secular Muslim state is taken over by political Islamism. What will all the great and the good say then? The European Union, one assumes, will heave a sigh of relief. All negotiations with Tukey can be abandoned. The Council of Europe will bleat on. But a reliable Western ally will disappear.

Of course, the crisis may pass and Erdogan may stay on a secularist path, not least because he still has some hope that the EU will open its doors to Turkey. The most likely reason for that, however, will be the threat expressed by the army and a large part of the populace.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

We did not write about the horrific news from Turkey last week of the three Christians tortured and murdered not because we do not think it was important but because it was adequately (if sometimes lamely) discussed in the media and there was nothing we could add.

We do not think it is likely that the criminals were "ultra-nationalists" and, judging by those arrested, neither does the Turkish police, though it seems to have been the line taken by some journalists in Britain. One cannot judge a country by appalling crimes of this kind but only by the way they are dealt with. So we wait and see.

Meanwhile, the presidential elections are coming up there, as well, though the President is not elected directly but by the Parliament. There was some worry that the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would run for President, a largely ceremonial position though with some power to prevent legislation. The outgoing President, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, has vetoed a record number of bills and appointments to protect Turkey's cherished (well, by some) secular order.

Mr Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) is more Islamist and there has been some worry, especially in the army that sees itself as the guardian of the secular state as created by Kemal Atatürk, that he would run for President. Secularists, including those who came out to demonstrate earlier this month against Erdogan, see him as entirely unsuitable for the position.

As Der Spiegel reports Mr Erdogan has tried to defuse the tension by announcing that the party's nominee (and, given the parliamentary majority, a certainty for the postion) will be the current Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gül (seen with Secretary of State Rice in an official State Department picture above).

The solution is not totally satisfactory from the secularists' point of view as Mr Gül's views are seen as similar to Mr Erdogan's.

Like Erdogan's wife, Gül's wife Hayrunisa wears a headscarf and secularists are opposed to the idea of Islamic attire in the presidential palace. Head scarves have been banned in public offices and on university campuses since Atatürk's Western-style reforms in the 1930s.

"His mind-set is no different than Erdogan's," Mustafa Ozyurek, deputy chair of the main opposition party, Republican People's Party, told the AP. "There is no evidence that he is sincerely loyal at heart to the secular republic and principles of Atatürk."

To be fair, Mr Erdogan's government did not turn out to be as strongly Islamist as was feared but that may have been because of control exercised by the President, something that will disappear now. Meanwhile, the army is watching keenly for any signs of backsliding from the Kemalian settlement.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

It is entirely possible that some readers will show their displeasure at the fact that I have posted a picture of Eugene of Savoy at the start of a piece about Turkey, he being the general who defeated the Ottomans once or twice. This statue celebrates the Battle of Zenta of 1697 and stands above the Danube, in front of Buda castle. As he looks out, Prince Eugene commands a very fine view (though not as fine as the views in Yorkshire).

It was a short piece on American Thinker that led me to think of Prince Eugene. It seems that Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was irritated by a farewell present to retiring (and not a moment too soon) President Chirac from Chancellor Merkel. It seems the antique beer mug was decorated by illustrations from a French victory over the Ottomans.

Thomas Lifson is rightly disdainful about the Turkish huffing and puffing:

Gull [sic] should understand that we are free to celebrate our victories. Americans celebrate our Revolutionary War from Britain with nary a peep from our Brit cousins. The French celebrate their victory at Austerlitz with a railway station, and Germany doesn't object. I have to wonder if Turkey might not celebrate a victory or two.

Very true, I thought, seething again at the thought of an inscription I read to a picture in the Royal Academy's "Turks" exhibition about the "glorious Szigetvár campaign" in Hungary in the sixteenth century. Glorious? It was a national tragedy, lightened merely by the heroism of the defenders, all but a handful of whom were killed.

And right again about Brits not minding too much about the Revolutionary War, not even when seriously misleading films such as "The Patriot" are produced. Though I cannot help thinking that German equanimity about the Battle of Austerlitz may have something to do with the fact that they were not much involved, it being the "Battle of the Three Emperors": Napoleon, Francis I of Austria (then still the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II) and Alexander I of Russia.

What rather puzzled me was the French victory over the Ottomans. I looked up the history of the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth century and found several Russo-Turkish wars, which went this way and that (mostly that) and several defeats of the Ottomans by the Austrians under Prince Eugene of Savoy (hence the picture). Of course, some of the defeats were reversed and had to be repeated but, on the whole, events went this way.

Which French victory? Right at the bottom of the list, dear reader, is something I ought to have remembered (mea culpa): 1798 Battle of the Pyramids. Quite so, though, as it was swiftly followed by the Battle of Aboukir and the Siege of Acre, it may not be something the French care to dwell on too much, despite Napoleon's stirring words to his soldiers:

Soldiers, from the heights of these pyramids, forty centuries look down on us.

Still, the Germans could have produced a beer mug with l'empereur making that speech or fighting the mameluk army.

Looking up the original story I found, sadly, that it was all a storm in a tea-cup or beer mug.

The German government said Wednesday the commotion had sprung from a misunderstanding: The mug, manufactured around 1710 in Germany, was adorned with flower ornaments, not a pictorial depiction of a historic war victory.

I wonder which translator was responsible for that little effort and whether he or she is in the Bosphorus yet.

Meanwhile, beer mugs aside, something is stirring on the EU-Turkish front. The negotiations have been resumed with the opening of another chapter, number 20, to be precise, on enterprise and industrial policies, "after the German presidency held emergency talks between Spain, France and the European Commission (EC) on Monday". In fact, this is only the second chapter that has been opened in the negotiations with Turkey, so the ten year long timetable remains over-optimistic.

The question of whether Turkey could or should ever become part of the European Union is very wide, indeed, and starts with a very basic query for the EU: exactly how far does it intend to expand and what is the purpose of that expansion.

On other postings I have argued that the EU is a little like an amoeba (though less useful) in that it can exist only if it enlarges itself. If it is not negotiating the entry of new members it has to deal with all the internal contradictions of its structure as it exists. That would be an intolerable burden for the politicians and theoreticians of integration.

Aydın Dumanoğlu, the co-chairman of the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission, expressed the view that the EU and Turkey needed each other, as "the EU needs Turkey as a global actor and Turkey needs the EU as a vision".

It is nice to hear somebody describing the EU as a vision after all these years. It is, however, a vision that has been somewhat tarnished, not least in the eyes of the Turkish people who see a great deal of hostility to themselves (and if their foreign minister goes around making dumb comments, they can expect no other) and in the eyes of the Turkish military, a very important participant, who do not seem to like the idea of having to make choices between European defence strategies and the American alliance.

However, there is one very good reason why the EU needs Turkey. With the Turks inside the tent the European army may well become a reality at last.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: enlargement, Turkey

In Washington yesterday, Turkey signed on for the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), pledging $175 million toward the aircraft's production and promising to buy 100 of the conventional-take-off-and-landing version (F-35A) of the aircraft, worth about $10 billion.

This follows the decision in October last when Turkey's Air Force decided to go for the Lightning II, dashing any hopes of the "colleagues" that the Eurofighter might be chosen.

Back in October though, only the Air Force, as the user, had made the decision - which had to be ratified by the government. It now has been. In the Pentagon yesterday US deputy defense secretary Gordon England met with Turkey's national defense minister Mehmet Vecdi Gonul and undersecretary for defense industries Murad Bayar, where they signed a memorandum of understanding, cementing the deal.

Of course, this is much, much more than an aircraft deal, as indicated by England's remarks prior to the signing. He said he had spent several years cultivating US relations with Turkey and called the Turkish officials present "dear, close friends," adding, "Our country is privileged to have such a strong and dynamic ally in Turkey … Together our two nations are standing together in the name of freedom."

This continued Turkish participation, says the US Department of Defense, reinforces the longstanding and close relationship between the US and Turkish Air Forces, "providing a solid foundation for future air operations with other allied and friendly nations in a joint and coalition environment."

But it also signals, if not a cooling in the relationship between Turkey and the EU, then certainly the reluctance to get too far into bed with the Europeans, especially in such a vital area as defence. The message will undoubtedly be received and understood in Brussels, both in the EU commission headquarters and in Nato.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: JSF, Turkey

It's back again – that "God" question. Angela Merkel, we are told, has renewed criticism that the EU constitution does not explicitly refer to Europe's Christian roots, with a reference to God or Christianity.

This is according to an interview today, published in the German news weekly Focus. She talks with German cardinal Karl Lehmann, telling him that she "…would have liked to have seen a clearer declaration on the Christian roots (of Europe) … No one doubts that they significantly shape our life, our society."

You really do have to admire the tenacity of these people – if nothing else. Back in early 2004 when this blog was but a mere pup, God and the constitution was on the agenda then.

At the time, we though that this was primarily a ploy to exclude Turkey from the EU, or make it feel unwelcome – in the hope that this Muslim country would be dissuaded from joining.

The probably remains the case today, although Merkel has the sense to dress it up as an expression for her concern for the survival of Christianity. "I wonder, can we maintain the formative aspects of Christianity for day-to-day politics if the political sphere does not stand by them?" she ruminates.

Politics and religion, of course, is a dangerous mix but, when an idea is floated in the European Union, it does seen that you simply cannot say no. Like a recalcitrant child refusing to eat its breakfast being re-presented with the same meal again and again, the people of Europe, it seems, are to have God thrust into their lives – and a Christian God at that - whether they like it or not.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: constitution, EU, God, Turkey

As we approach the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the European Union (boy, is that going to be fun!), some people are turning their attention to Turkey. As it happens, Turkey's possible entry has been pushed even further into the future with the Commission part-freezing the negotiations, allegedly because of Turkey's refusal to deal with the question of Cyprus but, really, because the EU is getting cold feet about that country.

Though, as we have said before, if the EU wants its own army, it has to have Turkey in. Who else has enough well-trained, well-equipped soldiers? Poland and Turkey can form the backbone of the European defence force. There's a wonderful historic irony for you.

Yesterday evening I was in 18 Doughty Street, waiting for my turn. I was about to take part in a discussion about counterfactual history with several other contributors to "Prime Minister Portillo and Other Things that Never Happened" and "President Gore and Other Things that Never Happened". Well, since you ask, the two essays I had written were: "What if Lenin's train had never reached Petrograd" and "What if the Czechoslovak army had fought in 1938".

While waiting for our programme I listened to the discussion before it, mostly about newspaper stories, that involved the presenter and two others: Russell Walters of the Democracy Movement and Greg Clark MP (he of the Polly Toynbee idea).

What intrigued me was the efforts made by both discusants to demonstrate that taking in Turkey would be a good idea because it would prevent any further integration and would make the EU shallower. To be fair to the presenter, he did remind them of the same comments and promises being made before the East European countries came in and none of that had materialized. In fact, it is the East Europeans who have to adjust their hitherto reasonably successful economies to our own high-tax, high-regulation ones. And, as some of us predicted at the time, those adjustments are playing havoc with the economies there.

In fact, what we said at the time was that each enlargement was accompanied by greater integration as it was impossible to run ever more and ever more diverse member states together without centralizing more powers. The big one into Eastern Europe was used for huge steps forward with integration in the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and even bigger ones attempted with the Constitution for Europe.

All of this seems to have passed by a number of the commentators, who are known as eurosceptics. The truth is that it is not enough to be called a eurosceptic. One also has to have some knowledge on the subject.

So, next time somebody says that taking in more countries, particularly Turkey would result in a shallower European Union, here are a few questions to ask;

Does this mean that the leaders will call another IGC and change the treaties to restore a number of the existing EU competences to the member states? In particular, will they rescind the Social Chapter, a subject apparently dear to the Boy King's heart?

Does this mean that there will be a change to the treaties (through an IGC, which is the only way to do it) and vetoes will be reintroduced in a number of areas that are now legislated on according to qualified majority voting?

Does this mean that the ECJ decision in the Van Gend & Loos case of February 1963, which determined that European legislation is superior to national, something that has been written into the European Communities Act 1972?

Will there be a change to the treaties (through an IGC etc etc) and the Commission's role as the sole initiator of legislation within Pillar I will be changed?

I have an odd suspicion that the answer to all those questions will be firstly a blank stare, secondly a number of throat clearances and stammered nothings and, thirdly, a reluctant no. Well, in that case, how is the European Union going to become shallower?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: enlargement, Poland, Turkey

Something we didn't pick up from the general media is a report on an English language Spanish site which headlines a piece: "EU summit on the European Constitution set for Madrid in January".

We are told that, at the "European Summit" (i.e., Council) on Friday, Spain and Luxembourg announced a joint initiative to try to recover the idea of a European Constitution. The prime ministers announced a new EU summit between the 18 countries which have already ratified the document, to be held in Madrid on 26 January.

These were Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the failure of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, the man whose one aim in life is to see his bébé come out of intensive care.

How instructive it is, though, that Blair, immediately following the European Council, jetted off to Egypt – with a brief stop-over in Turkey - in a bid to resolve the growing Mid-East crisis. He went not as a plenipotentiary of the EU, nor as one of an EU "troika" or whatever other grouping they tend to go for. He went as Tony Blair, prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, how interesting it is was, while in Turkey, Blair met his counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and talked not of Turkey's (failing) bid to enter the EU but of how to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians (not that that is possible if the latter are determined to rip themselves apart in a civil war).

Thus do the "little Europeans" condemn themselves. With their obsessive navel-gazing, they are not only boring us all to death but highlighting the pathetic vacuity of their agenda and their irrelevance as world players.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: constitution, EU, european council, Turkey

The fate of the Joint Strike Fighter – or F-35 Lightning II as we must learn to call it – has hugely entertained us on this site, with the will they won't they drama of whether the Brits will actually buy it and the parallel saga of the second engine.

Although things have gone somewhat silent and there are still serious funding issues, the UK still seems to be in the game, even though we have yet to hear precisely what has happened to the carrier project.

But there always was going to be a time when the players had to get serious. That time has arrived: the participants in the multi-national project have to commit to the production and support phase.

Leading the way is the Netherlands which on Tuesday became the first of the partner nations to make that commitment. The other F-35 partner nations - the United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway - are expected to sign up by the end of December.

Then the music is going to have to stop and the partners are going to have to put up or shut up. For Gordon Brown, that means a serious spending commitment – getting on for £15 billion, including the carriers. I suspect that there is more than a little heart-searching going on in the Treasury. Meanwhile, DID has a good backgrounder on the Dutch decision.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Gordon Brown, Turkey

Nice report on the Polish president's visit to London here.

Polonia Radio reckons the visit has been a success, even the trip to Scotland, where the president appealed to the thousands of his people who have settled there to return home to help revive the country's economy.

This is incredibly bad timing, when you think about it though, given the US mid-term elections. The media has given the visit scant attention and there has been no mention of an EU army or Nato discussion that I can see. Blair and Kaczynski were, however, asked in the press conference whether they had discussed it. Said Mr Kaczynski, in this extract from the transcript:

No, we did not speak about this. It didn't fit within the range of issues we have discussed, but that does not mean that I will refrain from telling you and the Prime Minister what I think about it. A few minutes ago I have mentioned NATO, it is linked of course. No idea presented by me or our Prime Minister or to do with the Eurocorps, some sort of European military presence, this has nothing to do with our very strong attachment to NATO, our membership of NATO, the membership of most of the EU member countries to NATO, though there are exceptions, there are some EU members who are not in NATO. So for us NATO is the basis of security for countries on the one side, North America, on the other in Europe, and Turkey, although Turkey to a large degree of course is in Asia. This has nothing to do with each other, NATO is the foundation whether a Eurocorps is set up or not. Well we are in favour of setting up a Eurocorps and we believe that should it exist it should be a part of NATO, no doubt about it.

Prime Minister: From our perspective we are in favour very much of strengthening European cooperation, but as the President says NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence relationship.

What is also interesting - and possibly significant - is that, in a meeting between the representatives of two EU member state governments, there is no sign of an EU flag. Check back to pics of meetings between Blair and Chirac to see the difference.

Picture courtesy of No. 10 Website – Crown copyright. Thank you.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

The International Herald Tribune brings us news of another demonstration in Turkey, but this one does not appear to be a rage of any kind. They are unhappy with the French legislation (not yet through the Senate) that makes it illegal to deny that the massacre of Armenians in 1915 was a genocide. Why the Turks should care about the French limiting their own freedom of speech is a little hard to understand but when they accuse France of hypocrisy one cannot but sympathize.

There are, after all, certain taboos in recent French historiography as well: treatment of their opponents in Algiers, for instance, or the treatment of North Africans in France; the ruthless massacre of peaceful demonstrators in Paris; and other suchlike interesting events. The Turks are clearly aware of all this.

The Turkish Parliament's Justice Committee, meanwhile, has discussed a retaliatory law that would make it illegal to deny that France was responsible for a colonial-era genocide in Algeria, which France ruled from 1830 to 1962.

Other suggestions have included the deportation of the remaining Armenians from Turkey, a seemingly pointless exercise unless one takes the “1066 And All That” view of history in the Near East.

Seriously though, the Turks do seem to have sized up the situation correctly. They see the French legislation as part of a campaign to prevent Turkey from joining the European Union. Whether that is still something the Turks really care about remains to be seen. The nationalist element in Turkish politics has been strengthened to some extent but some ideas of retaliation sound perfectly reasonable:

Ankara has rejected calls for an all- out boycott of French goods, but Turkish officials say some lawmakers are considering retaliatory measures, including blocking French defense and energy companies from bidding for Turkish contracts. Ordinary Turks speak of making their own symbolic protests, like selling their Peugeots.

While far from being a potential repetition of the catastrophic American boycott of France and French goods, not being allowed to bid for Turkish contracts will not go down well among the French defence and energy companies.

Labels: Turkey

It would appear that the Norwegian Nobel Committee shares this blog’s view that there is something farcical about the whole idea of a peace prize. Let us recall the citation. The prize is to be awarded to

the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Well, failing such luminaries of peace congresses as SecGen Annan, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, the committee decided on someone who has actually achieved something though not, perhaps, anything to do with the citation.

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize went to

Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank for their efforts to help "create economic and social development from below" in their home country by using innovative economic programs such as microcredit lending.

Microbanking may well be a very helpful development. Certainly, in that it emphasises individual entrepreneurship, private property and fiscal responsibility rather than feckless claims of aid money, it has a sense of purpose. One could even argue, as the Nobel committee did:

Lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways to break out of poverty.

Since NGO activity and large amounts of aid money are guaranteed to keep people in poverty we look forward to a complete ban of peace prizes or, indeed, any kind of prizes to those organizations. Nevertheless, we cannot help feeling that there is a certain desperation about the award. Best they can do, I suppose.

read more...

Labels: Turkey

There just had to be something odd about that story of the hi-jack. As reported by both the BBC World Service and CNN, among others, one assumes, there was a connection with the Pope but not quite in the way it was assumed by all and sundry.

Italian officials are questioning a Turkish man who hijacked a Turkish jetliner with 113 people aboard Tuesday and forced it to fly to Italy, where the passengers and crew were released unharmed.

The man, identified by Turkish authorities as Hasan Ekinci, has reportedly requested political asylum.

Turkish authorities said Ekinci wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI in August asking for help in avoiding service in the Turkish army.

"I am a Christian and don't want to serve a Muslim army," he wrote, adding that he had been attending church since 1998.

Further details appear to make the story even more confusing. Apparently, the man was on his own and, according to the BBC, did not actually have a missive for the Pope, though he had told the pilot otherwise.

According to the Turkish authorities the man is on the run from the army.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

Back in the bad old days of serial hi-jacks of aeroplanes there were all sorts of anomalies. For instance, there were all those Americans who hi-jacked American planes to fly to Cuba. Most of them pleaded to be allowed back into the despised United States within a very short space of time.

I even recall jokes about Cuban aeroplanes being hi-jacked to fly to Florida but, of course, for the many Cubans who desperately tried to get out of Castro’s “paradise” that was not all that funny.

Now we have news of what must be one of the most bizarre hi-jacks in recent times. A Turkish airliner, on its way from Tirana to Istanbul was hi-jacked by, apparently, two Turks (or maybe not) who demanded that it should fly to Brindisi in southern Italy.

The plane was escorted by the Greek air force and negotiations have been conducted by the Italian civil aviation authority. The hi-jackers are not threatening anyone and are ready to surrender. They are merely protesting against Pope Benedict’s forthcoming visit to Turkey.

Surely, there must be something more to this. Even if there isn’t, one has to love the ending of the BBC’s report:

A speech by Pope Benedict suggesting a link between Islam and violence sparked angry protests in Turkey and other mainly Muslim countries last month.

Say what?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

One of those days, I fear, with more to come. As I opened my e-mails I found one of those round robin ones, which can be rather funny. I read it through and it was only moderately so.

Somebody, who clearly has more free time than is good for him/her put together various “spooky” things about number 11 (and I don’t mean the bus either). The list started with the fact that New York City has 11 letters, adding for good measure that New York is the 11th state. Well, blow me down. And so what? Anyone who thinks bad luck accrues to NYC has never been there.

It carries on with Afghanistan having 11 letters and Ramsin Yuseb (man who tried to blow up the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters (in this particular transliteration) as well as George W. Bush. Wow and double wow. Actually, his full name is George Walker Bush, which is 16 letters.

We then get lots of adding up of figures about those planes, always making sure that inconvenient facts such as the real number of people on them remain carefully hidden. None of it really matters until one gets to the supposed translation of Verse 9.11 of the Koran.

Admittedly, there are disagreements on what that Verse really says as this debunking site points out. But what amused me was the complete stupidity of the person who thought that the quoted translation was somehow eerie or spooky:

"The most recognised symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle."

The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace.

To me that says that the Eagle is going to cleanse the lands of Allah, which would imply a victory for the Americans. The person who had sent me the e-mail could not understand what I meant when I pointed this out. You know what? I don’t really want that debunked but I guess it has to be.

Perhaps the Americans should have listened to Ben Franklin and adopted the turkey as their national symbol as an infinitely more useful bird.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

That famous UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon is getting there slowly. 1,000 Italian troops are supposed to have landed by yesterday evening, the eventual plan being 2,450 Italian ground troops. These will be deployed in the next two months and command will be assumed (if the French agree to give it up) next year.

Meanwhile of the reluctantly promised 2,000 French troops the same 250 that deployed last week are there and others are awaited. UNIFIL is commanded by Major General Alain Pellegrini, who is French.

The German naval deployment has been put on hold as the request from Lebanon had not yet arrived. Lebanon is supposed to ask the UN who is then supposed to pass the request on to the relevant country.

Indonesia said it would send 1,000 troops as Israel has withdrawn its objections. Indonesia is not just predominantly Muslim but is also a country that has refused to acknowledge Israel’s existence, which makes its role as a peacekeeper potentially very interesting.

Turkey is considering whether to participate, though the tiny Armenian community of Lebanon has protested because of the 1915 massacres. While those massacres were horrible, one rather wonders why an old historical event should weigh more heavily in the international community’s considerations than more recent attacks on a country that had been set up by the United Nations.

The UN has said that Israel should withdraw its forces as soon as the international contingent reaches 5,000 – some way to go. But the numbers matter less than the mandate. General Pellegrini may announce that the new UNIFIL has greater powers than the old one did but, in actual fact, neither the Lebanese army (despite all the huffing and puffing) nor the UN forces intend to disarm Hezbollah, who will, undoubtedly do what all terrorist organizations do when the UN moves in: rearm behind the shield of blue berets and blue helmets.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

As the post mortem continues about the latest war in Lebanon – and will continue until the next one starts, as Hezbollah has flatly refused to abide by the agreement so lovingly crafted by SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) – various interesting details emerge.

To start with, Lebanese politicians are getting worried, as well they might be. The country, if it can be called that, is now at the mercy of Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors. There is some evidence that the politicians and military commanders, having done nothing to disarm Hezbollah and prevent the importation of arms into Lebanon or about the creation of that state within a state, were thinking that perhaps Israel will solve the problem for them. Naturally, they would sit on the sidelines and cry foul every time the IDF bombed so-called civilian targets. The future looks considerably more bleak for them than for Israel.

Meanwhile the Beirut international airport has opened to commercial flights. Amid all the cheering there seems to be no mention of the fact that if it could be opened that easily it was presumably not bombed by those nasty Israelis, despite their well-known propensity to bomb everything indiscriminately.

The Lebanese army, having proved to be completely useless in the many months since Syria’s part-retreat from the country and having more or less sat the recent conflict out, is slowly taking up positions in southern Lebanon to prevent further attacks on and by Israel. Since they have already announced that they neither can nor will disarm Hezbollah, their achievements in this field are awaited with bated breath.

Another part of the whole arrangement that is awaited with bated breath is the appearance of the international force, for which there have been precious few volunteers. Past history of UN forces in the Middle East does not fill one with any great hope for a peaceful arrangement.

Who is to lead the contingent? The general assumption seems to be that it will be France and the BBC is terribly excited in a muddled sort of way about the prospect.

“Many see the French as natural mediators because of the strong historical ties between the two countries.

France's role in helping to negotiate the UN resolution allowed it to continue mending its relations with the US after the past divisions over Iraq.”

Those strong historical ties are not precisely that of equal partners, France having been the imperial ruler of Lebanon for a couple of decades until the Germans occupation of the former. Would the BBC advocate British meddling in Egyptian or Sudanese affairs because of the “strong historical ties”? I think not.

It is, of course, quite sensible for France to mend its relations with the US but the tortuous negotiations over the UN resolution that became a laughing-stock before the proverbial ink dried on it may not necessarily achieve this.

The same story points out that both President Chirac’s and Prime Minister de Villepin’s approval rating went up by 5 per cent but noticeably does not say what the figure had been before.

Still, even the BBC has to admit that the problems for France are only beginning. Exactly, what is it going to do in southern Lebanon? How many troops can it spare and who else is going in with them? They are already bogged down in Côte d’Ivoire and taking on Hezbollah will be a far harder test.

Public opinion in that country seems as incapable of thinking things through as it is in Britain, which is a comfort to those of us who have been somewhat depressed by the latest YouGov poll.

Seven out of ten, responding to a poll by the newspaper La Croix, are in favour of an international force and 53 per cent are in favour of sending French troops, because it is for peace, though it might bring terrorist attacks to France. (If it is only carbeques in the banlieux that does not count.)

The politicians, however, are worried.

“French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie voiced concern about deploying troops without clearly defined goals.

"France wants the mission's rules of engagement to be clear and it to have real means," she told French TV.

"Sadly, all too often, the United Nations forces don't have the power that they asked for."

The main political parties share such reservations.

Jacques Myard, an MP in France's governing UMP party and a member of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told the BBC the last UN resolution
did not make it clear how France can act.

"I know that a lot of military, high-ranking officials in France are reluctant if this mandate is not very precise," he said.

The opposition socialists have also warned that "extreme vigilance" is needed, saying the UN resolution does nothing to address the conditions necessary for a political agreement that would guarantee the security of peacekeeping forces.

Above all, France wants to avoid a situation where its own soldiers find themselves having to disarm Hezbollah fighters.”

As it happens, Philippe Douze-Blasty has already announced that France has no intention of disarming Hezbollah, preferring to use “diplomatic methods”, whatever they might be in the circumstances. This, too, is known as speaking loudly but carrying a very small stick.

Still, there might be a solution to this problem: Turkey.

“Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, in Beirut yesterday for talks, reportedly received the message that "all sides are waiting for the friendly Turkish soldiers" to take part in the United Nations sponsored peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon. FM Gul noted that the final decision from Ankara would come following his upcoming Sunday visit to Israel.”

Let us not forget that Turkey, in her previous incarnation as the Ottoman Empire, also has strong historical links with all the countries in the region.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Kofi Annan, Turkey

Now is the time, surely, for the European Union to display the effectiveness of soft power, to speak with one voice, to show that it has a strong presence on the international scene. But then, we say that every time there is an international crisis (and they do come thick and fast) and every time we look around and see nothing.

Once more we have to point out the bleedin' obvious: there can be no common foreign policy if there are no common interests.

Still, let us have a look at what the Europeans have been up to. The presidency of the European Union rests with Finland at the moment (and I bet they wish it didn’t). Thus, it fell to Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja to chair the emergency session and to come up with some pointless platitudes.

The EU, he told reporters, must make a united stand, even if it means breaking with the United States on the issue of what is to happen in southern Lebanon. Of course, if the EU paid a little less attention to what the United States is doing, in order to stand up to it, and a little more attention to what is going on in the region they are talking about, that famous common foreign policy might emerge. Or not.

Breaking with the American stance, which is, roughly speaking, that Israel has a right to defend itself and that the problem must be solved on a more long-term basis than just an immediate cease-fire that is unlikely to be kept by Hezbollah, in any case, presumably means speaking up against Israel. Does that mean that the united stand and strong voice will be for Hezbollah? Well, up to a point.

“It is unacceptable for Israel to continue with its current policy. The words of Mr (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert and his plans for further military attacks (are) concerning and we have this message to him: it is unlikely to bring military success, it will only fuel the support for Hizbollah and other extremists in the region.”

Well, that’s as may be. So far, support for Hezbollah has been muted in the region, many Arabs and Arab governments fearing the organization’s sponsor, Iran, more even than hating Israel. In any case, what precisely, does Mr Tuomija suggest?

It seems that the EU is about to put pressure on Israel, otherwise its credibility will be in question (don’t snigger, please) to have a cease-fire and then get involved in a long-term political solution. Or so EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told Reuters.

Yes, but what then? How is the EU going to ensure that the cease-fire is maintained and that Hezbollah is disarmed? Are they going to send in troops to maintain peace on the border? Are they going to sit back and say, well, it will all turn out all right at the end and wring their hands when it does not?

Italian Foreign Minister, Massimo d’Alema, has no doubts on the subject:

“Either there is a ceasefire and an effort by the international community, or there is war. ... The international community does not intend to participate in war.”

How nice for the international community, which has no troops with which to participate anyway. Unfortunately, Israel does not have that choice.

As it happens, the EU is not alone in calling for a ceasefire. It would appear that the Organization of the Islamic Conference intends to do the same, according to the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry. The Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is the present chairman of the OIC and he has called an emergency meeting for August 3. Crisis? What crisis?

Meanwhile the various European countries have been making statements.

Italy, France, Finland, Poland, Sweden and Spain are considering sending troops to Lebanon. EU candidate Turkey and Muslim Asian state Indonesia have also said they may contribute peacekeepers.

Given the Italian Foreign Minister’s comments, Italy may not be considering these matters all that hard. In any case, the international force, the only thing according to Israeli Prime Minister, Ehmud Olmert, that will bring about that much coveted cease fire has to be under UN auspices. Or so everyone seems to agree. The trouble is that the UN has no auspices. The Security Council met yesterday to discuss matters and adjourned sine die to analyze at leisure what the political standing of that international force will be.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems unable to make up her mind whether Germany will send troops if asked by all sides and as part of an international force or whether the country’s armed forces are severely overstretched. The latter is more likely to be true.

Britain and the United States have already ruled themselves out of the game, in this case that of “What’s the time Mr Wolf?”. Poland has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and is unlikely to produce any significant numbers for yet another far-off war. (And who knows how long the Polish government will be in place?)

Then there is France. There is always France. There is a strong possibility that any international force would be led by them, having been so spectacularly successful and humanitarian in sundry African countries.

According to Haaretz

“The force must be larger than the current UN Interim Force in Lebanon and be more than the 10,000 suggested by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview published on Tuesday. Military officials in France have said the new Lebanon force should be 15,000-20,000 strong. "There is no question of it being a UNIFIL Mark Two," Alliot-Marie told Le Monde daily.

"It must be a very large international force with very precise missions. It must be well-armed, have substantial firepower and armor. It must be credible and capable of making itself respected by everyone," she added.

So where are those numbers of troops going to come from, especially as, according to Mme Alliot-Marie, the international force must be given the right to fire if it should be seen as necessary? Which country is going to send troops into that quagmire (I use the word advisedly)?

There is even some doubt as to what France can contribute despite Mme Alliot-Marie’s fighting words:

“Only countries with real military know-how should take part in the force, which should avoid becoming a kaleidoscope of nations that would lose its effectiveness, she said. Military experts say France, which already has some 13,000 service personnel deployed abroad, could send around 5,000 troops to Lebanon, but the French daily Le Figaro said Monday that military planners felt the country was reaching its limit.

"It won't be easy. We've reached our deployment limit now, not so much in terms of numbers of personnel but in terms of command capacity," the paper quoted one officer as saying.”

Meanwhile we have seen another very fine example of French diplomacy. The Syrian, Iranian and French Foreign Ministers are supposed to meet in Damascus. The last two have already met and shaken hands in Beirut.

Philippe Douste-Blazy was full of praise for Iran and her role in the Middle East:

“Iran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilizing role, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said earlier Monday in Beirut. "It was clear that we could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region," Douste-Blazy said in Beirut.

"In the region there is of course a country such as Iran - a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region," he told a news conference.”

One can argue about the great civilization, in particular its timing, but there can be no argument about the “stabilizing role”. Iran has made no secret of its support for Hezbollah, for Shi’ite militias in Iraq or of its desire to obliterate Israel.

On Sunday Reuters published the following:

“Iran's hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

"The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans," Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.

The Basij are volunteer Islamic militiamen.

"The timing of the this will be announced by the leader," he added.”

Later on, Fars, the Iranian news agency that has access to the hard line military units, announced that those quotations were being withdrawn, though it is not clear by whom.

Meanwhile, the EU has condemned unreservedly the strike at Qana, naturally enough without bothering to investigate the growing number of questions about it, and all attacks on “innocent civilians” (though not Israeli ones, who are, presumably never “innocent”). And to add to the convoluted picture, the European Parliament has supported the Finnish Presidency’s call for an immediate cease-fire. No, since you ask, they have no idea how it can be achieved or what might happen afterwards.

In any case, that famous united stand is as elusive as ever. While the EU has issued a draft statement, which calls for an immediate cease-fire, Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic have promptly rejected it, announcing that they, too, would like to see a cease-fire but do not want a definite timeframe.

Just another crisis in the creation of the strong European voice on the world stage.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Kofi Annan, Poland, Turkey

That seems to be the response of the Israeli government to the various European foreign ministers and international personalities who are busy imitating headless chickens at the moment.

A number of them went to Israel over the week-end and spent some time telling Israel that a cease-fire might be a good idea but as to how it could be achieved and what would happen afterwards, none of them came up with an answer. At least, Secretary of State Rice, obviously with the President’s agreement, made it quite clear that the United States did not think that a cease-fire that did not include all the participants, including and especially Hezbollah, was anything to go on about.

Meanwhile, as the International Herald Tribune puts it:

“Support is growing for the creation of an international military force to stabilize the Lebanese border with Israel and to bring an end to the fighting. But there is no agreement on the size, mandate or mission of such a force and little enthusiasm around the world for sending troops.”

Not all that useful, really. The United States has already made it clear that it will not be sending any troops and one cannot blame them when one remembers the last time they were in Lebanon. NATO has said that it had not been asked, despite the hints dropped by Israeli politicians, and, in any case, was already stretched too thin.

France has decided to forego the privilege of intervening on Hezbollah’s side and announced that calls for an international force were “premature”. Germany has agreed to send some troops but only if definitely asked by both Israel and Hezbollah.

The great European foreign policy panjandrum, Javier Solana, has announced that “several European states” were ready to provide “all possible assistance” but did not specify who they were and what that assistance might consist of.

A thoroughly frustrated “senior European official” came up with a bitterly funny comment:

“All the politicians are saying, 'Great, great' to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground. Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.”

Unexpectedly, the new Israeli government that had been discounted by so many commentators because it is not led by a politician with an extensive military experience (some experience Olmert had, like most Israelis, but he is no Sharon), is acting tough with the “international community” and, in particular, the Europeans, whose representatives emerged looking rather sheepish from the round of talks this week-end.

“For the moment, at least, Israel is laying out an ambitious view of what the force would do. Israel wants it to keep Hezbollah away from the border, to allow the Lebanese government and army to take sovereign control over all of its territory, to monitor Lebanon's borders to ensure that Hezbollah is not resupplied with weapons and to help implement a UN Security Council resolution calling for the dismantling of all nongovernmental militias, including Hezbollah.

The 2004 resolution also calls for the expulsion of all foreign fighters, including any Syrian advisers and Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who have helped train Hezbollah since it was established by Iran in 1982.

Livni laid out the goals in a meeting on Sunday with a British Foreign Office minister, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany and Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy of France, telling them that Israel's goal was to disarm Hezbollah and that either the Israeli Army or an international force would have to do it, officials familiar with the meeting said.

The Europeans, including Britain, France and Germany, envision a much less robust international buffer force that would operate with the consent of the Lebanese government to support the deployment of its army in the south. Such a plan would mean that Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, would have to consent to its own disarming and the protection of Israel, a situation that European officials see as far-fetched.”

Far-fetched to the point of absolute impossibility, as is the idea of an adequate international
force.

"The Europeans want us to stop, and we wonder how badly they want us to stop," an Israeli official said. "It's unacceptable for them to say cease-fire and then wash their hands of the consequences. If you're not part of the solution, then don't complain."

Exactly. Put up or shut up. Everyone is good at criticizing Israel (and at times it deserves criticism like any other country) but nobody has the first idea of how to deal with the overwhelming problems that country faces day after day. And, let us not forget, the enemy they are fighting is our enemy as well.

Meanwhile the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora will lead an extensive Lebanese delegation to Rome where they will meet Romano Prodi and proclaim the need to stop Israeli aggression and to liberate the whole of Lebanon. It is not quite clear who they want to liberate it from since, at least nominally, Hezbollah is not a foreign force.

Prodi has already called for an end to Israeli attacks but, like everyone else, has not managed to come up with any solutions to the rather difficult situation.

According to Gulfnews:

“U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for the meeting, which includes ministers and diplomats from Britain, Italy, Spain, the United States, Germany, Canada, Russia, Finland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the European Union, the World Bank, the United Nations.

Israel and Syria have not been invited to attend.”

Neither has Iran, by the looks of it, and Hezbollah has already refused any cease-fire that might involve its disarmament. Then again, Deutsche Welle gives a different list of possible participants:

“Italian government sources told AFP that Israel could also be present at the high-level gathering, which will include representatives from Britain, Egypt, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Spain as well as the United Nations and the World Bank. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said he would use the meeting to demand an end to the fighting, which has killed more than 360 people in Lebanon, along with at least 37 Israelis.”

According to the same news item, “the United States increasingly estranged from European and Arab allies”, for which there is no evidence as nobody wants to intervene in Lebanon and, as we have pointed out before, Arab support for Hezbollah has not been forthcoming. Even the calls for cessation of Israeli military activity have been somewhat half-hearted.

Did I say headless chickens?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey

We hear a great deal about the newly strong Russia throwing its weight around, demanding that the United States stopped criticizing her record on democracy and human rights. Everyone has got in on the act: President Putin, of course, who is sneering at America and the West simply wanting to spread their ideas as well as Mikhail Gorbachev, who has told the world that American attempts to impose their political ideas on the world were worse than AIDS (in a country where the problem is growing by leaps and bounds).

ABC News, incidentally, is busy rewriting history about the collpase of Communism as Iowa Voice points out.

None of these people are saying that Russia is a democracy in any accepted sense of the word, merely that others should not criticize them. But all this strength and defiance rest on rather dubious economic achievements. Russia relies almost entirely on the sale of oil and gas for her economic growth and the consequent political strutting.

Naturally enough (this, too, has annoyed the Russians) some Western countries as well as Russia’s neighbours have been trying alternative ways of getting oil and gas out of the region.

One such alternative may be taking off, as the BBC World Service reports:

“A 1,768-km (1,100-mile) pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan is set to be formally opened. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline links Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Oil is then shipped to western markets.”

There are hopes that a second pipeline along the same route, carrying gas, will be opened by the end of the year. The two pipelines will not be a solution but alternatives to existing sources seem like a good idea. Furthermore, it will give Turkey an increased clout in the political arena.

“Ankara is currently negotiating to host several other international gas and oil pipelines, hoping to become a major transit and terminal country for fuel.”

If Russia can throw her weight around, Turkey can learn to do so. At which point, it will be slightly difficult for the EU to huff and to puff about freedom of speech in that country (after all, you don’t hear much huffing and puffing about the media being controlled by the government in Russia).

Turkey’s highest court has upheld a suspended sentence against the Turkish-Armenian writer Hrant Dink, who had written a version of the Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1915 that does not tally with the official one. He is thus deemed to have offended against Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code that penalizes insults to “Turkishness”.

The words pots and kettles spring to mind here. EU countries penalize unfashionable opinions like David Irving’s (once again I must point out that under no circumstances would I defend or exonerate Irving, only his right to make a complete fool of himself).

The EU is also the organization that is constantly looking for ways of overcoming old-fashioned nationalist terminology and is trying to create a system of words that could insult minorities even if said minorities are demanding the beheading of journalists who publish cartoons they do not like.

Oh and let’s face it, the EU’s record on the Danish cartoons is distinctly mixed with the Austrian President calling for media self-censorship, ooops, sorry, I mean self-restriction.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Turkey