Albania has formally applied for membership of the European Union.
Prime Minister Sali Berisha submitted the application in Prague to his Czech counterpart, Mirek Topolanek, whose country holds the EU presidency.
"This act has historic significance, marking the return of my nation to the family of European nations," he said.
Mr Topolanek said Albania had undergone "tremendous positive changes", but stressed that the Balkan state was still "facing a huge amount of work".
Albania is not expected to join the EU until 2015 at the earliest.
The EU and Albania concluded a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), seen as the first step towards membership, in June 2006. The negotiations took three-and-a-half years - three times longer than they took in Croatia's and Macedonia's case.
Correspondents say this is because the EU thought Albania was moving too slowly in the fight against corruption and organised crime. The EU is also said to have doubts about Albania's energy sector, which suffers unstable supplies.
At the ceremony in Prague, the head of the European Commission's enlargement directorate, Michael Leigh, praised Albania's progress on key reforms and its "constructive and stabilising role in the region".
"It is now up to Albania to demonstrate its capacity to move to the next stage of European integration," he said. "Holding parliamentary elections in June in a free and fair manner remains a key condition."
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Rising Anti-Semitism in Turkey
Irmak Ozer
Commenting on the Gaza War taking place in January 2009, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan declared that Israel was committing “a crime against humanity”. It was an unexpected reaction considering Turkey’s close strategic friendship with Israel as well as the Turkish mediation efforts between Israel and Syria. Erdogan’s comment did not only upset Israel but also the Jewish citizens of Turkey.
Turkey has been witnessing uprising of nationalist feelings in the last few years. It will not be wrong to say that when nationalism rises in Turkey, the first targets are the non-Muslims and the Kurds. The murder of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, assassinations of the Christian clergymen and the Zirve Bookstore killings are few of the many events that have worried greatly the minorities in Turkey recently.
The Gaza War brought back the nationalist ghost hunting the Jewish minority. Hundreds rallied in the streets of Turkey, showing their support for their “Palestinian brothers” and cursing Israel, therefore, wrongly, the Jews. Already frustrated Turkish public was encouraged by the politicians’ attitudes towards Israel such as Erdogan’s walk off from the Davos meeting after his quarrel with President of Israel, Shimon Peres. Erdogan was welcomed as a hero on his way back from Davos. The most exaggerated reaction of the Turkish state came from the Ministry of Education. In a notice by the Ministry of Education circulated to every school in Turkey; the Ministry called for homage in all primary and middle schools in the name of solidarity with the Palestinians. The Ministry also announced an essay and a drawing competition under the subject “The Humanity Drama in Palestine” which were later withdrawn. The hatred reflected itself with the thousands of propaganda posters on the walls of Istanbul, the notices and threats left at the door of synagogues in Istanbul and Izmir. Acts reminding the Nazi period have been undertaken such as putting a poster on a shop close to Istanbul University saying that “Do not buy from here, since this shop is owned by a Jew”. A notice was put at the entrance of an association in Eskisehir stating that “The dogs can enter; the Jews and the Armenians cannot”. Finally, a group of teachers in Kayseri handed out halva for Adolf Hitler’s soul which is an Islamic ritual, to bless the death’s soul.
Following these events, the Jewish Community in Turkey made a statement saying, “As an inseparable component of the Turkish Republic, we the Turkish Jews feel deep sorrow over recent comments in some Turkish publications that denigrate and insult our religion and make us targets”. Right after this statement, the Jewish American Lobby also took action by writing a letter to Erdogan uttering their concern over the rising anti-Semitism in Turkey, the acts and statements of the public authorities and their linkage to the anti-Semitic attitudes of the public.
Erdogan, in respond, pulled back from his over-emotional speeches about “the Palestinian drama” and attended to the Jewish concerns stating that there is no anti-Semitism in the history of Turkey. He said, “I am a leader who has said that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. It is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that the protests, reactions, commentaries do not offend our own citizens. We can never accept discrimination on ethnic, religious, or communal grounds.”
Pew Global Attitudes Survey done in 2008 indicated that anti-Jewish sentiment in Turkey had risen up to 76% and it is highly probable that it has risen even more after the Gaza War. This recent trend of anti-Semitism seems to be calmed down for now with the softening attitudes of the politicians and Turkey’s fast changing agenda. As one journalist says, Turkish people are “event-addicts”; they would be carried away by the day’s news, react in sometimes exaggerated ways, then all would be forgotten the next day. The very least we can do is to hope that this anti-Semitist wave was a temporary one and the politicians will be more careful about the minorities’ sensitivities before inflaming the public’s nationalist feelings.
Commenting on the Gaza War taking place in January 2009, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan declared that Israel was committing “a crime against humanity”. It was an unexpected reaction considering Turkey’s close strategic friendship with Israel as well as the Turkish mediation efforts between Israel and Syria. Erdogan’s comment did not only upset Israel but also the Jewish citizens of Turkey.
Turkey has been witnessing uprising of nationalist feelings in the last few years. It will not be wrong to say that when nationalism rises in Turkey, the first targets are the non-Muslims and the Kurds. The murder of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, assassinations of the Christian clergymen and the Zirve Bookstore killings are few of the many events that have worried greatly the minorities in Turkey recently.
The Gaza War brought back the nationalist ghost hunting the Jewish minority. Hundreds rallied in the streets of Turkey, showing their support for their “Palestinian brothers” and cursing Israel, therefore, wrongly, the Jews. Already frustrated Turkish public was encouraged by the politicians’ attitudes towards Israel such as Erdogan’s walk off from the Davos meeting after his quarrel with President of Israel, Shimon Peres. Erdogan was welcomed as a hero on his way back from Davos. The most exaggerated reaction of the Turkish state came from the Ministry of Education. In a notice by the Ministry of Education circulated to every school in Turkey; the Ministry called for homage in all primary and middle schools in the name of solidarity with the Palestinians. The Ministry also announced an essay and a drawing competition under the subject “The Humanity Drama in Palestine” which were later withdrawn. The hatred reflected itself with the thousands of propaganda posters on the walls of Istanbul, the notices and threats left at the door of synagogues in Istanbul and Izmir. Acts reminding the Nazi period have been undertaken such as putting a poster on a shop close to Istanbul University saying that “Do not buy from here, since this shop is owned by a Jew”. A notice was put at the entrance of an association in Eskisehir stating that “The dogs can enter; the Jews and the Armenians cannot”. Finally, a group of teachers in Kayseri handed out halva for Adolf Hitler’s soul which is an Islamic ritual, to bless the death’s soul.
Following these events, the Jewish Community in Turkey made a statement saying, “As an inseparable component of the Turkish Republic, we the Turkish Jews feel deep sorrow over recent comments in some Turkish publications that denigrate and insult our religion and make us targets”. Right after this statement, the Jewish American Lobby also took action by writing a letter to Erdogan uttering their concern over the rising anti-Semitism in Turkey, the acts and statements of the public authorities and their linkage to the anti-Semitic attitudes of the public.
Erdogan, in respond, pulled back from his over-emotional speeches about “the Palestinian drama” and attended to the Jewish concerns stating that there is no anti-Semitism in the history of Turkey. He said, “I am a leader who has said that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. It is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that the protests, reactions, commentaries do not offend our own citizens. We can never accept discrimination on ethnic, religious, or communal grounds.”
Pew Global Attitudes Survey done in 2008 indicated that anti-Jewish sentiment in Turkey had risen up to 76% and it is highly probable that it has risen even more after the Gaza War. This recent trend of anti-Semitism seems to be calmed down for now with the softening attitudes of the politicians and Turkey’s fast changing agenda. As one journalist says, Turkish people are “event-addicts”; they would be carried away by the day’s news, react in sometimes exaggerated ways, then all would be forgotten the next day. The very least we can do is to hope that this anti-Semitist wave was a temporary one and the politicians will be more careful about the minorities’ sensitivities before inflaming the public’s nationalist feelings.
Armenia’s grief
The agreement between Turkey and Armenia on a “road map” to normalise their relations is very good news. Their historic animosity since the slaughter and mass deportation of Armenians from the collapsing Ottoman empire in 1915 has destabilised the region, poisoned internal politics, isolated and impoverished Armenia, and cast a shadow over Turkey’s relations with Europe and America. Now there is a chance of beginning to heal the wounds.
Yet first a word of caution. Last week’s declaration gave no clues to the precise terms of the agreement, nor a timetable. It seems to have been rushed out to enable Barack Obama, US president, to issue a statement commemorating the 1915 massacres without using the word “genocide” to describe them. That marked a sensible retreat from his election campaign position in order not to alienate Turkey.
The prize of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation is worth it, but the process remains fragile and bedevilled by mistrust. Both sides are still only inching forward, and both face strong resistance at home to making any concessions at all.
The deal would provide for diplomatic recognition, and reopening of the border between them, which was closed by Turkey in 1993 after ethnic Armenian forces seized control of Nagorno-Karabakh in neighbouring Azerbaijan. Both moves would be done gradually to build confidence. That is sensible.
On two vital points, however, there is still no clarity. A historical commission is to be set up to investigate the events of 1915. How will it be constituted and how will it work? If it decides that the massacres did amount to genocide, or did not, it will still be politically explosive unless there is agreement to abide by its results. Second, what progress needs to be made on resolving the Karabakh dispute for Turkey to reopen the border fully?
There seems to be a serious intent in both Ankara and Yerevan to find a way forward in spite of opposition, including from the influential Armenian diaspora in the US and European Union. But pressure on them both from Washington, Brussels and – most significantly – from Moscow for more progress and a clear timetable is still essential.
The one country that might try to scupper progress is Azerbaijan, fearful that reopening the border would take away pressure for Armenia to do a deal over Karabakh, or at least to withdraw from the buffer zone where 500,000 Azeri refugees used to live. But the 19-year border closure has done nothing to hasten an agreement on that score. All sides have an interest in reconciliation, not confrontation.
Yet first a word of caution. Last week’s declaration gave no clues to the precise terms of the agreement, nor a timetable. It seems to have been rushed out to enable Barack Obama, US president, to issue a statement commemorating the 1915 massacres without using the word “genocide” to describe them. That marked a sensible retreat from his election campaign position in order not to alienate Turkey.
The prize of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation is worth it, but the process remains fragile and bedevilled by mistrust. Both sides are still only inching forward, and both face strong resistance at home to making any concessions at all.
The deal would provide for diplomatic recognition, and reopening of the border between them, which was closed by Turkey in 1993 after ethnic Armenian forces seized control of Nagorno-Karabakh in neighbouring Azerbaijan. Both moves would be done gradually to build confidence. That is sensible.
On two vital points, however, there is still no clarity. A historical commission is to be set up to investigate the events of 1915. How will it be constituted and how will it work? If it decides that the massacres did amount to genocide, or did not, it will still be politically explosive unless there is agreement to abide by its results. Second, what progress needs to be made on resolving the Karabakh dispute for Turkey to reopen the border fully?
There seems to be a serious intent in both Ankara and Yerevan to find a way forward in spite of opposition, including from the influential Armenian diaspora in the US and European Union. But pressure on them both from Washington, Brussels and – most significantly – from Moscow for more progress and a clear timetable is still essential.
The one country that might try to scupper progress is Azerbaijan, fearful that reopening the border would take away pressure for Armenia to do a deal over Karabakh, or at least to withdraw from the buffer zone where 500,000 Azeri refugees used to live. But the 19-year border closure has done nothing to hasten an agreement on that score. All sides have an interest in reconciliation, not confrontation.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Türkiye-Azerbaycan-Ermenistan: Yeni başlayanlar için...
CENGİZ ÇANDAR
Türkiye-Ermenistan normalleşmesinin ‘yol haritası’nın içeriği, ayrıntılı biçimde açıklanmadı. Açıklanmadı ama kısmen sızdı. Bu konuyla ilgili olanlar, ta Ağustos 2007’den beri İsviçre’nin gözetiminde Türk ve Ermeni diplomatların yoğun bir ‘teknik altyapı’ çalışması yürüttüğünden haberdar bulunanlar ve Türkiye-Azerbaycan-Ermenistan üçgenindeki gelişmeleri ve üç eşbaşkanlı (Amerika-Rusya-Fransa) Minsk grubunun Yukarı Karabağ sorununun çözümünün neresinde durduğunu izleyenler açısından ortada büyük bir muamma yok.
‘Normalleşme’nin iki ana sütunu var: Diplomatik ilişkiler ve kapalı kara sınırının açılması.
Azerbaycan’ı doğrudan ilgilendiren ikincisi. Türkiye’nin Ermenistan ile diplomatik ilişkiler kurması, yani Ankara ve Erivan’da karşılıklı bir büyükelçilik binası bulunması veya örneğin Kars ve Gümrü’de karşılıklı başkonsoloslukların açılması Azerbaycan’ın illa karşı olduğu ya da olacağı bir şey değil.
Türkiye, Sovyetler Birliği dağıldığı vakit, bağımsızlığını ilan eden tüm Sovyet cumhuriyetleri gibi Ermenistan’ın da bağımsızlığını ve yanıbaşındaki bağımsız Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti’nin ‘meşruiyeti’ni tanımıştı.
Tanımasına tanımıştı ama diplomatik ilişki kurmamıştı. Diplomatik ilişkir kurmamış olmasını, -zımnen de olsa- ‘1915’e bakış’ ya da bir başka deyimle ‘soykırım’ konusundaki pozisyon farklarına ve aynı şekilde Ermenistan’ın 1921 Kars Anlaşması’nı kabul ettiğini resmen ilan etmemesine dayandırmıştı.
Erivan’ın 1921 Kars Anlaşması’nın kabul ettiğini resmen açıklamaktan kaçınmasının, Ankara tarafından yorumu, “Ermenistan’ın Türkiye’den ‘Batı Ermenistan’ olarak tanımlanan Doğu Anadolu’dan toprak talebinde bulunabileceği” idi.
Ermenistan’ın tutumu ise ‘Türkiye ile sınırlarımızı belirleyen 1921 Anlaşması bize sorulmadan, biz taraf olmadan Ankara ile Moskova’daki Sovyet hükümeti arasında imzalanmıştı. Taraf olmadığımız bir anlaşmayı niye kabul ettiğimizi ilan edelim. Ama, de facto olarak bu anlaşmayı sınır sonuçlarıyla birlikte kabul ediyoruz’ şeklindeydi.
Bir dizi hukuki yaklaşım ve yorum farkı, ön yargılar ve çeşitli siyasi mülahazalar, Türkiye ile Ermenistan arasında diplomatik ilişkiler 1991’de kurulabilecek iken, bunu engelledi. Sovyetler Birliği’nin 1991’de yok olmasından sonra, bıraktığı alanda dağılmasıyla üç Baltık cumhuriyeti (Estonya, Letonya, Litvanya), üç doğu Avrupa cumhuriyeti (Ukrayna, Belarus, Moldova), beş Orta Asya cumhuriyeti (Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Tacikistan, Özbekistan, Türkmenistan) ve üç Kafkasya cumhuriyeti (Azerbaycan, Ermenistan, Gürcistan) ve Rusya Federasyonu olmak üzere 15 bağımsız devlet üredi.
Bunların arasında Türkiye’nin diplomatik ilişki kurmadığı sadece Ermenistan’dır.
Ve diplomatik ilişki kurmama gerekçesi yukarıda anlattıklarımızdır.
Yani?
Türkiye-Ermenistan diplomatik ilişkilerinin kurulmamasında Yukarı Karabağ sorununun hiçbir ilgisi, ilişkisi yoktur.
***
Ermenistan, 1991’de bağımsız olduktan iki yıl sonra 1993’te Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırı kapatılmıştır.
Yani?
Türkiye’nin diplomatik ilişkiler kurmadığı Ermenistan ile kara sınırı 1991-1993 arasında iki yıl açık kalmıştır. Yanisi, bir ülke ile diplomatik ilişki bulunmaması sınırların kapalı kalması anlamına gelmiyor.
Nasıl, bir ülkenin meşruiyetini tanıyor olmanız, diplomatik ilişkiyi otomatik haline getirmiyorsa; diplomatik ilişki bulunmaması da sınırı kapatmıyor.
Peki, Ermenistan’ın bağımsızlığından itibaren iki yıl açık bulunan Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırı 1993 yılında niçin kapatıldı?
Çünkü, Ermenistan, Azerbaycan ile arasındaki Yukarı Karabağ ihtilafı üzerine Karabağ’ın çevresindeki, Azerbaycan’a ait toprak parçalarını birbiri ardından işgal etmeye başladı. Yukarı Karabağ ile Ermenistan anakarası arasında doğrudan bağlantı yok. En yakın nokta, ‘Laçin Koridoru’ adı verilen ve Azerbaycan’a ait dar alan.
Azerbaycan idari dilinde Rusçadan geçtiği haliyle ‘reyon’ adı verilen, Türkiye ölçülerinde ilçe ya da belde sayılabilecek yedi nokta, Laçin’in yanı sıra Ermenilerce, Yukarı Karabağ’ı askeri bakımdan güvence altına alma mantığıyla işgal edildi.
Türkiye-Ermenistan sınırı, Ermenistan üzerinde ‘ekonomik abluka’ yoluyla baskı oluşturmak ve Azerbaycan topraklarından çekilmesini sağlamak amacıyla, 1993 yılında söz konusu bu gelişmeler sonucu kapatıldı.
Yani?
Yani, Türkiye-Ermenistan arasındaki diplomatik ilişkilerin kurulmamış olmasının değil ama kara sınırının kapatılmasının Yukarı Karabağ sorunu ile genel anlamda- ilişkisi var.
Ancak, dikkat: Doğrudan Yukarı Karabağ ile de ilişkisi yok.
Ya neyle var?
Yukarı Karabağ çevresinde işgal altına girmiş Azerbaycan topraklarıyla veya aynı anlamda ama farklı bir deyişle Azerbaycan topraklarının Ermeni işgali altına girmesiyle doğrudan ilişkisi var.
‘Nüans’tan öteye önem taşıyan bunun önemi şu. Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırının açılmasını, Yukarı Karabağ sorununun nihai çözümüyle eşleştiremezsiniz.
Kara sınırının kapanması, Karabağ’ın değil, Karabağ çevresindeki Azerbaycan toprakları işgali nedeniyle oldu. Dolayısıyla, kara sınırı, o topraklardan Ermeni işgalinin kalkacağına ilişkin bir Azerbaycan-Ermenistan mutabakatı ortaya çıkınca mümkün olur.
Bu arada sürekli olarak ‘kara sınırı’ vurgusu yaptığımızın farkında olmalısınız. Evet, ‘kara sınırı’ zira Türkiye ile Ermenistan arasında tüm sınırlar kapalı değil. Hava sınırı ve hava trafiği açık. Hem de 1995’ten beri!
1995’ten bu yana 14 yıldır Ermenistan havayollarına bağlı uçaklar İstanbul-Erivan ve Erivan-İstanbul arasında sefer yapıyorlar. 2004’ten itibaren buna Türk bayrağı taşıyan, Türkiye’ye kayıtlı özel şirket uçakları da katıldı.
Yani, sınırların kapalılığı bile yarım yamalak bir durum.
Hava açık, kara kapalı.
***
‘Yol haritası’nın Türkiye-Ermenistan normalleşmesi yönünde ‘makul bir zaman dilimi’nde yol alması bekleniyor. Bu, çok yakın gelecek içinde adımların atılmaya başlanması demek.
2007 yaz sonundan beri
Cenevre’de yürütülen görüşmeler, Kars Anlaşması ve ‘soykırım’ konusunu ele alacak ‘ortak tarih komisyonu’ gibi konularda Türkiye-Ermenistan mutabakatı sağladı.
Bu bakımdan, her iki ülkenin Gürcistan başkenti Tiflis’teki büyükelçilerinin karşılıklı ‘akredite edilmesi’yle diplomatik ilişkilerin kurulmasının önünde bir engel yok. (Türkiye’nin Tiflis Büyükelçisi fiilen Erivan nezdinde akredite addedilebilir durumdaydı. Son aylarda, Tiflis-Erivan arasında sürekli gitti geldi.)
Fazla zaman geçirmeden Ankara ve Erivan’da büyükelçilikler ve sınırın iki yanında konsolosluklar açılabilir.
Peki kara sınırı ne zaman açılabilir?
Karabağ’da çözüme yönelik ve bu çerçevede işgal altındaki Azerbaycan topraklarından Ermenilerin çekilme takvimi konusunda bir mutabakat belgesi çıktığı vakit.
Bu ne zaman gerçekleşebilir?
Mayıs ayının 7’sinde Prag’da İlham Aliyev ile Serj Sarkisyan biraraya geliyorlar. Bir hafta arayla Moskova’da Rus muadilleri Medvedev’le yoğun görüşmeler yaptıklarını unutmayalım. Rusya, aktif biçimde devrede. İlham Aliyev ile Sarkisyan, zaten son bir yıl içinde Rusya’da St. Petersburg ve Moskova’da iki kez biraraya geldiler.
İlham Aliyev ile Serj Sarkisyan’ın, 7 Mayıs Prag buluşmasına ek olarak, haziran ayında da bir kez daha biraraya geleceklerini önceki gün öğrendik.
Türkiye’nin dışında Minsk eşbaşkanlarının, Amerika ve Rusya’nın yoğun biçimde devrede bulunduğu girişimlerin sonucunda mayıs ve haziran aylarında Aliyev-Sarkisyan zirvelerini takiben ortaya çıkacak Azerbaycan-Ermenistan mutabakat zaptı ya da belgesi, Ermenistan normalleşmesini Karabağ’a ilişkin gelişmelerle ‘paralel’ götürme sinyali vermiş olan Türkiye’nin kara sınırını açmasının anahtarı olabilir.
Yani?
Yani, Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırının birkaç ay içinde açılması kimseyi şaşırtmasın.
(Bu yazı Obama’nın 24 Nisan konuşmasından önce, konuşmanın içeriği bilinmeden yazılmıştır. cç)
Türkiye-Ermenistan normalleşmesinin ‘yol haritası’nın içeriği, ayrıntılı biçimde açıklanmadı. Açıklanmadı ama kısmen sızdı. Bu konuyla ilgili olanlar, ta Ağustos 2007’den beri İsviçre’nin gözetiminde Türk ve Ermeni diplomatların yoğun bir ‘teknik altyapı’ çalışması yürüttüğünden haberdar bulunanlar ve Türkiye-Azerbaycan-Ermenistan üçgenindeki gelişmeleri ve üç eşbaşkanlı (Amerika-Rusya-Fransa) Minsk grubunun Yukarı Karabağ sorununun çözümünün neresinde durduğunu izleyenler açısından ortada büyük bir muamma yok.
‘Normalleşme’nin iki ana sütunu var: Diplomatik ilişkiler ve kapalı kara sınırının açılması.
Azerbaycan’ı doğrudan ilgilendiren ikincisi. Türkiye’nin Ermenistan ile diplomatik ilişkiler kurması, yani Ankara ve Erivan’da karşılıklı bir büyükelçilik binası bulunması veya örneğin Kars ve Gümrü’de karşılıklı başkonsoloslukların açılması Azerbaycan’ın illa karşı olduğu ya da olacağı bir şey değil.
Türkiye, Sovyetler Birliği dağıldığı vakit, bağımsızlığını ilan eden tüm Sovyet cumhuriyetleri gibi Ermenistan’ın da bağımsızlığını ve yanıbaşındaki bağımsız Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti’nin ‘meşruiyeti’ni tanımıştı.
Tanımasına tanımıştı ama diplomatik ilişki kurmamıştı. Diplomatik ilişkir kurmamış olmasını, -zımnen de olsa- ‘1915’e bakış’ ya da bir başka deyimle ‘soykırım’ konusundaki pozisyon farklarına ve aynı şekilde Ermenistan’ın 1921 Kars Anlaşması’nı kabul ettiğini resmen ilan etmemesine dayandırmıştı.
Erivan’ın 1921 Kars Anlaşması’nın kabul ettiğini resmen açıklamaktan kaçınmasının, Ankara tarafından yorumu, “Ermenistan’ın Türkiye’den ‘Batı Ermenistan’ olarak tanımlanan Doğu Anadolu’dan toprak talebinde bulunabileceği” idi.
Ermenistan’ın tutumu ise ‘Türkiye ile sınırlarımızı belirleyen 1921 Anlaşması bize sorulmadan, biz taraf olmadan Ankara ile Moskova’daki Sovyet hükümeti arasında imzalanmıştı. Taraf olmadığımız bir anlaşmayı niye kabul ettiğimizi ilan edelim. Ama, de facto olarak bu anlaşmayı sınır sonuçlarıyla birlikte kabul ediyoruz’ şeklindeydi.
Bir dizi hukuki yaklaşım ve yorum farkı, ön yargılar ve çeşitli siyasi mülahazalar, Türkiye ile Ermenistan arasında diplomatik ilişkiler 1991’de kurulabilecek iken, bunu engelledi. Sovyetler Birliği’nin 1991’de yok olmasından sonra, bıraktığı alanda dağılmasıyla üç Baltık cumhuriyeti (Estonya, Letonya, Litvanya), üç doğu Avrupa cumhuriyeti (Ukrayna, Belarus, Moldova), beş Orta Asya cumhuriyeti (Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Tacikistan, Özbekistan, Türkmenistan) ve üç Kafkasya cumhuriyeti (Azerbaycan, Ermenistan, Gürcistan) ve Rusya Federasyonu olmak üzere 15 bağımsız devlet üredi.
Bunların arasında Türkiye’nin diplomatik ilişki kurmadığı sadece Ermenistan’dır.
Ve diplomatik ilişki kurmama gerekçesi yukarıda anlattıklarımızdır.
Yani?
Türkiye-Ermenistan diplomatik ilişkilerinin kurulmamasında Yukarı Karabağ sorununun hiçbir ilgisi, ilişkisi yoktur.
***
Ermenistan, 1991’de bağımsız olduktan iki yıl sonra 1993’te Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırı kapatılmıştır.
Yani?
Türkiye’nin diplomatik ilişkiler kurmadığı Ermenistan ile kara sınırı 1991-1993 arasında iki yıl açık kalmıştır. Yanisi, bir ülke ile diplomatik ilişki bulunmaması sınırların kapalı kalması anlamına gelmiyor.
Nasıl, bir ülkenin meşruiyetini tanıyor olmanız, diplomatik ilişkiyi otomatik haline getirmiyorsa; diplomatik ilişki bulunmaması da sınırı kapatmıyor.
Peki, Ermenistan’ın bağımsızlığından itibaren iki yıl açık bulunan Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırı 1993 yılında niçin kapatıldı?
Çünkü, Ermenistan, Azerbaycan ile arasındaki Yukarı Karabağ ihtilafı üzerine Karabağ’ın çevresindeki, Azerbaycan’a ait toprak parçalarını birbiri ardından işgal etmeye başladı. Yukarı Karabağ ile Ermenistan anakarası arasında doğrudan bağlantı yok. En yakın nokta, ‘Laçin Koridoru’ adı verilen ve Azerbaycan’a ait dar alan.
Azerbaycan idari dilinde Rusçadan geçtiği haliyle ‘reyon’ adı verilen, Türkiye ölçülerinde ilçe ya da belde sayılabilecek yedi nokta, Laçin’in yanı sıra Ermenilerce, Yukarı Karabağ’ı askeri bakımdan güvence altına alma mantığıyla işgal edildi.
Türkiye-Ermenistan sınırı, Ermenistan üzerinde ‘ekonomik abluka’ yoluyla baskı oluşturmak ve Azerbaycan topraklarından çekilmesini sağlamak amacıyla, 1993 yılında söz konusu bu gelişmeler sonucu kapatıldı.
Yani?
Yani, Türkiye-Ermenistan arasındaki diplomatik ilişkilerin kurulmamış olmasının değil ama kara sınırının kapatılmasının Yukarı Karabağ sorunu ile genel anlamda- ilişkisi var.
Ancak, dikkat: Doğrudan Yukarı Karabağ ile de ilişkisi yok.
Ya neyle var?
Yukarı Karabağ çevresinde işgal altına girmiş Azerbaycan topraklarıyla veya aynı anlamda ama farklı bir deyişle Azerbaycan topraklarının Ermeni işgali altına girmesiyle doğrudan ilişkisi var.
‘Nüans’tan öteye önem taşıyan bunun önemi şu. Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırının açılmasını, Yukarı Karabağ sorununun nihai çözümüyle eşleştiremezsiniz.
Kara sınırının kapanması, Karabağ’ın değil, Karabağ çevresindeki Azerbaycan toprakları işgali nedeniyle oldu. Dolayısıyla, kara sınırı, o topraklardan Ermeni işgalinin kalkacağına ilişkin bir Azerbaycan-Ermenistan mutabakatı ortaya çıkınca mümkün olur.
Bu arada sürekli olarak ‘kara sınırı’ vurgusu yaptığımızın farkında olmalısınız. Evet, ‘kara sınırı’ zira Türkiye ile Ermenistan arasında tüm sınırlar kapalı değil. Hava sınırı ve hava trafiği açık. Hem de 1995’ten beri!
1995’ten bu yana 14 yıldır Ermenistan havayollarına bağlı uçaklar İstanbul-Erivan ve Erivan-İstanbul arasında sefer yapıyorlar. 2004’ten itibaren buna Türk bayrağı taşıyan, Türkiye’ye kayıtlı özel şirket uçakları da katıldı.
Yani, sınırların kapalılığı bile yarım yamalak bir durum.
Hava açık, kara kapalı.
***
‘Yol haritası’nın Türkiye-Ermenistan normalleşmesi yönünde ‘makul bir zaman dilimi’nde yol alması bekleniyor. Bu, çok yakın gelecek içinde adımların atılmaya başlanması demek.
2007 yaz sonundan beri
Cenevre’de yürütülen görüşmeler, Kars Anlaşması ve ‘soykırım’ konusunu ele alacak ‘ortak tarih komisyonu’ gibi konularda Türkiye-Ermenistan mutabakatı sağladı.
Bu bakımdan, her iki ülkenin Gürcistan başkenti Tiflis’teki büyükelçilerinin karşılıklı ‘akredite edilmesi’yle diplomatik ilişkilerin kurulmasının önünde bir engel yok. (Türkiye’nin Tiflis Büyükelçisi fiilen Erivan nezdinde akredite addedilebilir durumdaydı. Son aylarda, Tiflis-Erivan arasında sürekli gitti geldi.)
Fazla zaman geçirmeden Ankara ve Erivan’da büyükelçilikler ve sınırın iki yanında konsolosluklar açılabilir.
Peki kara sınırı ne zaman açılabilir?
Karabağ’da çözüme yönelik ve bu çerçevede işgal altındaki Azerbaycan topraklarından Ermenilerin çekilme takvimi konusunda bir mutabakat belgesi çıktığı vakit.
Bu ne zaman gerçekleşebilir?
Mayıs ayının 7’sinde Prag’da İlham Aliyev ile Serj Sarkisyan biraraya geliyorlar. Bir hafta arayla Moskova’da Rus muadilleri Medvedev’le yoğun görüşmeler yaptıklarını unutmayalım. Rusya, aktif biçimde devrede. İlham Aliyev ile Sarkisyan, zaten son bir yıl içinde Rusya’da St. Petersburg ve Moskova’da iki kez biraraya geldiler.
İlham Aliyev ile Serj Sarkisyan’ın, 7 Mayıs Prag buluşmasına ek olarak, haziran ayında da bir kez daha biraraya geleceklerini önceki gün öğrendik.
Türkiye’nin dışında Minsk eşbaşkanlarının, Amerika ve Rusya’nın yoğun biçimde devrede bulunduğu girişimlerin sonucunda mayıs ve haziran aylarında Aliyev-Sarkisyan zirvelerini takiben ortaya çıkacak Azerbaycan-Ermenistan mutabakat zaptı ya da belgesi, Ermenistan normalleşmesini Karabağ’a ilişkin gelişmelerle ‘paralel’ götürme sinyali vermiş olan Türkiye’nin kara sınırını açmasının anahtarı olabilir.
Yani?
Yani, Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırının birkaç ay içinde açılması kimseyi şaşırtmasın.
(Bu yazı Obama’nın 24 Nisan konuşmasından önce, konuşmanın içeriği bilinmeden yazılmıştır. cç)
'Tek millet-iki devlet'e Azerbaycan uyuyor mu?
CENGİZ ÇANDAR
Salı günleri TBMM’de temsil edilen siyasi parti genel başkanlarının grup konuşmaları yaptığı gün. Türkiye’de 12 Eylül askeri darbe anayasasının yan ürünlerinden bir olan Siyasi Partiler Kanunu sayesinde, parlamenter sistem, her biri kendi çapında birer ‘yasal ve küçük Führer’ haline dönüşmüş genel başkanların liselerin münazara kollarındaki tartışmaları andırır polemikleriyle biçimlendiği için, salı günleri genellikle Türk siyasi hayatının ‘özel gerilim günleri’ olarak değer kazanıyor.
Buna, dün de istisna değildi. Dünün polemik konularından biri Azerbaycan-Ermenistan konusuydu.
CHP Genel Başkanı Deniz Baykal, Türkiye’nin Ermenistan’la sürdürdüğü müzakereleri ‘Cumhuriyet tarihinin en büyük diplomasi hatası’ olarak niteledi. Ayrıca, Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül’e bir çağrı yaptı ve “Derhal Baku’ya gitmelidir. Aliyev’le bir araya gelmelidir. Ortada bir yanlış anlaşılma varsa bu giderilmelidir. Türkiye Somali’ye gösterdiği ilgiyi, Bahreyn’e gösterdiği ilgiyi Azerbaycan’dan saklayamaz” dedi.
Türkiye’nin Ermenistan’la sürdürdüğü müzakerelerin ‘Cumhuriyet tarihinin en büyük diplomasi hatası’ olduğu iddiası hayli su götürür ama Baykal’ın sözlerinin ‘sıradan bir demagoji örneği’ olduğu pek tartışma götürmez.
Başbakan ve AK Parti Genel Başkanı Tayyip Erdoğan da, aynı konuda birşeyler söyledi. Bugüne dek Azerbaycan’a hiçbir eleştiri yöneltmemiş olduğu ve dünkü konuşmasında eleştiri tonu bulunduğu için söyledikleri ilginç ve ‘yeni’ idi.
“Türkiye için çok hassas bir meselenin istismar konusu haline getirildiğini” söylerken “Böyle bir konuda bile menfaat devşirme yoluna girdiler. Burada Azerbaycanlıların tavrı da yanlış oldu. Biz Azerbaycan’ı gittiğimiz her toplantıda kolladık. Biz, onları onlardan daha çok düşündük. Hiçbir zaman yalnız bırakmadık. Davulu, zurnayı, tokmağı eline alanlar yanlış yapıyorlar. Bu hiç kimseye bir şey kazandırmaz” dedi.
Doğru söyledi.
Türkiye ile Azerbaycan arasında son günlerde görünen ‘kriz ortamı’nda hatalı taraf Türkiye değildir. Bu ‘kriz ortamı’ Azerbaycan tarafından oluşturuldu ve arkasında Rusya var.
Rusya’yı sanırım konu gündeme geldiğinde ilk teşhis eden bu ‘köşe’ oldu...
***
Son günlerin gelişmeleri bu ‘teşhis’i isabetli kıldı. Türkiye’ye ‘küs’ havalarına giren ve 6 Nisan’da İstanbul’daki ‘Medeniyetler İttifakı Forumu’na gelmeyerek Tayyip Erdoğan’a ‘hava yapan’ Azerbaycan Devlet Başkanı İlham Aliyev, 16-17 Nisan’da Moskova’daydı. Azerbaycan’ın en önemli ‘stratejik kartları’ndan biri olan ‘doğalgaz kartı’nı Türkiye ve Batı’ya karşı oynayabileceğini ortaya koydu.
Rusya Devlet Başkanı Dimitri Medvedev ile 17 Nisan’daki ortak basın toplantısında Azerbaycan gazının Rusya’ya satılmasında ‘herhangi bir kısıtlama görmediğini’ açıkladı. Uzmanlar, bundan kastın yılda 14-16 milyar metreküp doğal gaz üretme kapasitesindeki Şahdeniz-2’nin Rusya’ya kaydırılabileceği anlamına geldiğine işaret ediyorlar. Aliyev, Baku-Novorossisk boru hattına verilen Azeri petrolünün artırılabileceğini de söyledi.
İlham Aliyev’in Moskova ziyareti öncesinde çeşitli Azeri yorumcular ve strateji uzmanları, Türkiye-Ermenistan normalleşme girişimlerinin Baku’nun çıkarlarını gözönüne almadığı takdirde, İlham Aliyev’in bölgenin (yani Güney Kafkasya’nın) ‘mevcut jeopolitik ve ekonomik dengelerini havaya uçuracak’ adımlar atabileceğini ileri sürüyorlardı.
Azerbaycan’ı endişeye sevkeden, Türkiye’nin Ermenistan üzerindeki ‘ekonomik ambargosu’nu kaldırması ihtimali. Yani, 1993’ten beri kapalı bulunan Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırının açılması. Nitekim, İlham Aliyev, Azerbaycan MGK’sında konuştuğunda “Bölgedeki muhtemel jeopolitik değişiklikleri izliyoruz ve gereki önlemleri alacağız. Bölgedeki yeni duruma ilişkin kendi siyasetimizi belirlemek hakkımızdır ve bu hakkı herhangi bir şekilde kullanacağız” demişti.
İlham Aliyev’in ‘blöf yapmadığına’ dikkat çeken Baku’daki bir siyaset gözlemcisi Rasim Musabekov, Baku’nun bir ‘radikal dönüş yapabileceğini’ belirtirken, “ABD Başkanı Obama’nın Abdullah Gül ile görüştüğü sırada, Aliyev’in Rusya Devlet Başkanı Medvedev’e telefon açması rastlantı değildir” diye görüş belirtmişti. Bu yorum, Turan Haber Ajansı tarafından 7 Nisan’da yayımlanmıştı.
Bu arada, yine Turan, Aliyev-Medvedev görüşmesinin ardından Azerbaycan Başkanlık Dış Politika Bölümü’nden Nevruz Mammedov’un, “Rusya ve İran’a gaz satmanın Batı desteğindeki Nabucco projesine bir alternatif olacağı” yönündeki sözlerini de yayımlamıştı. Mammedov, “Nabucco’da çıkarı olan ülkeler hareket etmezlerse, Azerbaycan’ın kendi çıkarlarını düşünmekten gayrı seçeneği olamaz.”
Bütün bunlara kimsenin bir itirazı olamaz. Azerbaycan, elbette, konulara kendi ‘ulusal çıkarları’ açısından bakabilir.
O takdirde, ‘bir millet-iki devlet’ sloganın hükmü ne? Azerbaycan yöneticilerinin nezdinde, Azerbaycan’ın ulusal çıkarları, Türkiye’nin ulusal çıkarlarıyla bire bir örtüşmüyor ise, Türkiye’nin kendi ulusal çıkarları olduğunu ama bunların mutlaka Azerbaycan’ınkilere tabi olması gerektiğini savunabilir miyiz?
***
Kaldı ki, Türkiye, her vakit Azerbaycan’ın çıkarlarını gözetmiş, hatta kendi çıkarlarını çelişse bile- Azerbaycan’ın çıkarlarıyla uyumlu hale getirmeye çabalamıştır. Abdullah Gül, 6 Eylül 2008’de Erivan’a gittikten hemen sonra Baku’ya gitmiştir. Tayyip Erdoğan’ın kaç kez Baku’ya gittiğinin, İlham Aliyev’in kaç kez Türkiye’ye geldiğinin hesabını tutamazsınız.
Yani, Azerbaycan yönetiminin Türkiye-Ermenistan yakınlaşmasına ilişkin bilmediği, ona sürpriz olacak hiçbir şey yoktur.
Öyleyse ne olmuştur?
Olan, Rusya’nın Azerbaycan üzerinden devreye girmesi, Azerbaycan’ın da Rusya ile dans etmeye karar vererek Ermenistan ile ilişkilerinde yol almak istemesidir.
Olabilir. Ama bu Türkiye’yi Azerbaycan’a karşı yanlış yaptığı mevziine yerleştirmez. Azerbaycan’ın Türkiye’ye yanlış yaptığından ise pekala söz edebiliriz.
İlham Aliyev’in ‘Azeri doğalgazını Rusya’ya yöneltmesi karşılığı, Moskova’nın işgal altındaki Azerbaycan topraklarını boşaltması için Ermenilere baskı yapmasını’ elde etmek istediği, ‘Rusya ile yakınlaşması’nın rasyonelinin bu olduğu ileri sürülüyor.
Ancak, bu amaçlarına Moskova’da ulaşmış olduğu şüpheli. Rusça Zerkalo (Ayna) gazetesi köşe yazarı Rauf Mirkalov, “Rusya (Karabağ’da) tümüyle kendi kontrolü altında bir çözüm istiyor. Bir başka deyimle ihtilaf bölgesinde kendi askerlerinden oluşan bir barış gücü bulunmasından yana. Bunu kabul etmeye, ne Azerbaycan ve hatta ne de Ermenistan hazır değil” diye yazıyor.
Birçok Azerbaycan devlet başkanına danışmanlık yapmış olan Vefa Gülizade’ye göre, Karabağ’ın nihai statüsü üzerinde bir anlaşma olmadıkça, Karabağ konusunda ilerleme kaydetme ihtimali çok zayıf.
ABD’nin Minsk grubundaki temsilcisi Matt Bryza ise İlham Aliyev ve Serj Sarkisyan’ın Karabağ konusunda bir ilerleme kaydedebilmeleri için önlerinde bulunan karşılıklı ‘acı verici uzlaşma’yı incelemekte olduklarını ve bu ‘gerçek’ ilerlemenin birkaç hafta sonra mümkün olabileceğini 17 Nisan’da Amerika’nın Sesi’ne açıkladı.
7 Mayıs’ta Prag’da İlham Aliyev-Serj Sarkisyan Zirvesi var. Azerbaycan ve Ermenistan
liderleri bir yıl içinde üçüncü kez biraraya gelmiş olacaklar. Bakalım, gelişmeler o tarihten sonra nasıl, hangi yönde seyredecek?
‘Takvim’i, olan-biteni, panik yaratmadan ve iyi izlemekte yarar var.
Türkiye’yi Azerbaycan konusunda yersiz ve haksız baskı altına almakta hiçbir yarar yok...
Salı günleri TBMM’de temsil edilen siyasi parti genel başkanlarının grup konuşmaları yaptığı gün. Türkiye’de 12 Eylül askeri darbe anayasasının yan ürünlerinden bir olan Siyasi Partiler Kanunu sayesinde, parlamenter sistem, her biri kendi çapında birer ‘yasal ve küçük Führer’ haline dönüşmüş genel başkanların liselerin münazara kollarındaki tartışmaları andırır polemikleriyle biçimlendiği için, salı günleri genellikle Türk siyasi hayatının ‘özel gerilim günleri’ olarak değer kazanıyor.
Buna, dün de istisna değildi. Dünün polemik konularından biri Azerbaycan-Ermenistan konusuydu.
CHP Genel Başkanı Deniz Baykal, Türkiye’nin Ermenistan’la sürdürdüğü müzakereleri ‘Cumhuriyet tarihinin en büyük diplomasi hatası’ olarak niteledi. Ayrıca, Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül’e bir çağrı yaptı ve “Derhal Baku’ya gitmelidir. Aliyev’le bir araya gelmelidir. Ortada bir yanlış anlaşılma varsa bu giderilmelidir. Türkiye Somali’ye gösterdiği ilgiyi, Bahreyn’e gösterdiği ilgiyi Azerbaycan’dan saklayamaz” dedi.
Türkiye’nin Ermenistan’la sürdürdüğü müzakerelerin ‘Cumhuriyet tarihinin en büyük diplomasi hatası’ olduğu iddiası hayli su götürür ama Baykal’ın sözlerinin ‘sıradan bir demagoji örneği’ olduğu pek tartışma götürmez.
Başbakan ve AK Parti Genel Başkanı Tayyip Erdoğan da, aynı konuda birşeyler söyledi. Bugüne dek Azerbaycan’a hiçbir eleştiri yöneltmemiş olduğu ve dünkü konuşmasında eleştiri tonu bulunduğu için söyledikleri ilginç ve ‘yeni’ idi.
“Türkiye için çok hassas bir meselenin istismar konusu haline getirildiğini” söylerken “Böyle bir konuda bile menfaat devşirme yoluna girdiler. Burada Azerbaycanlıların tavrı da yanlış oldu. Biz Azerbaycan’ı gittiğimiz her toplantıda kolladık. Biz, onları onlardan daha çok düşündük. Hiçbir zaman yalnız bırakmadık. Davulu, zurnayı, tokmağı eline alanlar yanlış yapıyorlar. Bu hiç kimseye bir şey kazandırmaz” dedi.
Doğru söyledi.
Türkiye ile Azerbaycan arasında son günlerde görünen ‘kriz ortamı’nda hatalı taraf Türkiye değildir. Bu ‘kriz ortamı’ Azerbaycan tarafından oluşturuldu ve arkasında Rusya var.
Rusya’yı sanırım konu gündeme geldiğinde ilk teşhis eden bu ‘köşe’ oldu...
***
Son günlerin gelişmeleri bu ‘teşhis’i isabetli kıldı. Türkiye’ye ‘küs’ havalarına giren ve 6 Nisan’da İstanbul’daki ‘Medeniyetler İttifakı Forumu’na gelmeyerek Tayyip Erdoğan’a ‘hava yapan’ Azerbaycan Devlet Başkanı İlham Aliyev, 16-17 Nisan’da Moskova’daydı. Azerbaycan’ın en önemli ‘stratejik kartları’ndan biri olan ‘doğalgaz kartı’nı Türkiye ve Batı’ya karşı oynayabileceğini ortaya koydu.
Rusya Devlet Başkanı Dimitri Medvedev ile 17 Nisan’daki ortak basın toplantısında Azerbaycan gazının Rusya’ya satılmasında ‘herhangi bir kısıtlama görmediğini’ açıkladı. Uzmanlar, bundan kastın yılda 14-16 milyar metreküp doğal gaz üretme kapasitesindeki Şahdeniz-2’nin Rusya’ya kaydırılabileceği anlamına geldiğine işaret ediyorlar. Aliyev, Baku-Novorossisk boru hattına verilen Azeri petrolünün artırılabileceğini de söyledi.
İlham Aliyev’in Moskova ziyareti öncesinde çeşitli Azeri yorumcular ve strateji uzmanları, Türkiye-Ermenistan normalleşme girişimlerinin Baku’nun çıkarlarını gözönüne almadığı takdirde, İlham Aliyev’in bölgenin (yani Güney Kafkasya’nın) ‘mevcut jeopolitik ve ekonomik dengelerini havaya uçuracak’ adımlar atabileceğini ileri sürüyorlardı.
Azerbaycan’ı endişeye sevkeden, Türkiye’nin Ermenistan üzerindeki ‘ekonomik ambargosu’nu kaldırması ihtimali. Yani, 1993’ten beri kapalı bulunan Türkiye-Ermenistan kara sınırının açılması. Nitekim, İlham Aliyev, Azerbaycan MGK’sında konuştuğunda “Bölgedeki muhtemel jeopolitik değişiklikleri izliyoruz ve gereki önlemleri alacağız. Bölgedeki yeni duruma ilişkin kendi siyasetimizi belirlemek hakkımızdır ve bu hakkı herhangi bir şekilde kullanacağız” demişti.
İlham Aliyev’in ‘blöf yapmadığına’ dikkat çeken Baku’daki bir siyaset gözlemcisi Rasim Musabekov, Baku’nun bir ‘radikal dönüş yapabileceğini’ belirtirken, “ABD Başkanı Obama’nın Abdullah Gül ile görüştüğü sırada, Aliyev’in Rusya Devlet Başkanı Medvedev’e telefon açması rastlantı değildir” diye görüş belirtmişti. Bu yorum, Turan Haber Ajansı tarafından 7 Nisan’da yayımlanmıştı.
Bu arada, yine Turan, Aliyev-Medvedev görüşmesinin ardından Azerbaycan Başkanlık Dış Politika Bölümü’nden Nevruz Mammedov’un, “Rusya ve İran’a gaz satmanın Batı desteğindeki Nabucco projesine bir alternatif olacağı” yönündeki sözlerini de yayımlamıştı. Mammedov, “Nabucco’da çıkarı olan ülkeler hareket etmezlerse, Azerbaycan’ın kendi çıkarlarını düşünmekten gayrı seçeneği olamaz.”
Bütün bunlara kimsenin bir itirazı olamaz. Azerbaycan, elbette, konulara kendi ‘ulusal çıkarları’ açısından bakabilir.
O takdirde, ‘bir millet-iki devlet’ sloganın hükmü ne? Azerbaycan yöneticilerinin nezdinde, Azerbaycan’ın ulusal çıkarları, Türkiye’nin ulusal çıkarlarıyla bire bir örtüşmüyor ise, Türkiye’nin kendi ulusal çıkarları olduğunu ama bunların mutlaka Azerbaycan’ınkilere tabi olması gerektiğini savunabilir miyiz?
***
Kaldı ki, Türkiye, her vakit Azerbaycan’ın çıkarlarını gözetmiş, hatta kendi çıkarlarını çelişse bile- Azerbaycan’ın çıkarlarıyla uyumlu hale getirmeye çabalamıştır. Abdullah Gül, 6 Eylül 2008’de Erivan’a gittikten hemen sonra Baku’ya gitmiştir. Tayyip Erdoğan’ın kaç kez Baku’ya gittiğinin, İlham Aliyev’in kaç kez Türkiye’ye geldiğinin hesabını tutamazsınız.
Yani, Azerbaycan yönetiminin Türkiye-Ermenistan yakınlaşmasına ilişkin bilmediği, ona sürpriz olacak hiçbir şey yoktur.
Öyleyse ne olmuştur?
Olan, Rusya’nın Azerbaycan üzerinden devreye girmesi, Azerbaycan’ın da Rusya ile dans etmeye karar vererek Ermenistan ile ilişkilerinde yol almak istemesidir.
Olabilir. Ama bu Türkiye’yi Azerbaycan’a karşı yanlış yaptığı mevziine yerleştirmez. Azerbaycan’ın Türkiye’ye yanlış yaptığından ise pekala söz edebiliriz.
İlham Aliyev’in ‘Azeri doğalgazını Rusya’ya yöneltmesi karşılığı, Moskova’nın işgal altındaki Azerbaycan topraklarını boşaltması için Ermenilere baskı yapmasını’ elde etmek istediği, ‘Rusya ile yakınlaşması’nın rasyonelinin bu olduğu ileri sürülüyor.
Ancak, bu amaçlarına Moskova’da ulaşmış olduğu şüpheli. Rusça Zerkalo (Ayna) gazetesi köşe yazarı Rauf Mirkalov, “Rusya (Karabağ’da) tümüyle kendi kontrolü altında bir çözüm istiyor. Bir başka deyimle ihtilaf bölgesinde kendi askerlerinden oluşan bir barış gücü bulunmasından yana. Bunu kabul etmeye, ne Azerbaycan ve hatta ne de Ermenistan hazır değil” diye yazıyor.
Birçok Azerbaycan devlet başkanına danışmanlık yapmış olan Vefa Gülizade’ye göre, Karabağ’ın nihai statüsü üzerinde bir anlaşma olmadıkça, Karabağ konusunda ilerleme kaydetme ihtimali çok zayıf.
ABD’nin Minsk grubundaki temsilcisi Matt Bryza ise İlham Aliyev ve Serj Sarkisyan’ın Karabağ konusunda bir ilerleme kaydedebilmeleri için önlerinde bulunan karşılıklı ‘acı verici uzlaşma’yı incelemekte olduklarını ve bu ‘gerçek’ ilerlemenin birkaç hafta sonra mümkün olabileceğini 17 Nisan’da Amerika’nın Sesi’ne açıkladı.
7 Mayıs’ta Prag’da İlham Aliyev-Serj Sarkisyan Zirvesi var. Azerbaycan ve Ermenistan
liderleri bir yıl içinde üçüncü kez biraraya gelmiş olacaklar. Bakalım, gelişmeler o tarihten sonra nasıl, hangi yönde seyredecek?
‘Takvim’i, olan-biteni, panik yaratmadan ve iyi izlemekte yarar var.
Türkiye’yi Azerbaycan konusunda yersiz ve haksız baskı altına almakta hiçbir yarar yok...
Obama, 'Soykırım' demedi, 'Meds Yeghern' dedi
ABD Başkanı Obama "Meds Yeghern" (Büyük Felaket) ifadesini kullandı
ABD Başkanı Barack Obama, 24 Nisan başkanlık açıklamasında, 1915 Ermeni olayları için "soykırım" nitelemesini kullanmadı.
Barack Obama, 1915 Ermeni olayları anma gününde yayımladığı açıklamada, "94 yıl önce, 20. yüzyılın en büyük katliamlarından biri başladı. Her yıl, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son günlerinde 1.5 milyon Ermeni’nin katledilmesi veya ölüme yürümesini anıyoruz" dedi.
Obama, soykırım sözünü kullanmadı ve Türkçe’ye "büyük felaket" olarak çevrilen Ermenice "Meds Yeghern" sözüne yer verdi. Barack Obama, "Ermeni halkı bizim kalplerimizde yaşadığı gibi, ’büyük felaket’ de, bizim anılarımızda yaşamalı" diye konuştu.
"Tarihin, çözülmedikçe ağır bir yük olabileceğini" ifade eden ABD Başkanı, açıklamasında, "1915’in korkunç olaylarının insanoğlunun kendi türüne insani olmayan tutumunun karanlık olasılığını hatırlattığını ve geçmişi gözden geçirmenin uzlaşma yönünde kuvvetli bir vaadi de içinde barındırdığını" bildirdi.
Obama, Türkiye’deki konuşmasında da söylediği gibi, 1915 olaylarına ilişkin görüşlerini tutarlı bir biçimde ifade ettiğini ve bu tarihe ilişkin
görüşünün değişmediğini açıklamasında bir kez daha tekrarladı. ABD Başkanı, kendi ilgisinin, "gerçeklerin tam, samimi ve adil" olarak ortaya çıkarılmasında olduğunu kaydetti.
Barack Obama, Ermeni ve Türk halkları açısında bu yönde ilerlemek için en iyi yolun şimdi, ileriye gidebilme çabalarının bir parçası olarak, geçmişin gerçeklerine yanıt vermek olduğunu da dile getirdi.
Obama, "Türk ve Ermeni halklarının, bu acılı tarih üzerinde dürüst, açık ve yapıcı bir biçimde çalışılması çabalarını kuvvetle destekliyorum. Ermeniler ve Türkler arasında ve Türkiye içinde cesur ve önemli diyaloglar gerçekleştiriliyor.
Aynı zamanda Türkiye ile Ermenistan’ın ikili ilişkilerini normalleştirme çabalarını kuvvetle destekliyorum" dedi.
ABD Başkanı, İsviçre’nin gözetimi altında iki hükümetin, bir çerçeve ve ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesine yönelik yol haritasında anlaştıklarını
belirterek, "Bu ilerlemeyi takdir ediyorum ve iki hükümete de sözlerini yerine getirmeleri çağrısında bulunuyorum" ifadesini kullandı.
Obama, "Ermenistan ve Türkiye birlikte barışçı, üretken ve refah içinde bir ilişki kurabilir. Ve birlikte, Ermeni ve Türk halkları, kendi ortak
tarihlerini kabul edip, ortak insanlıklarını kabul ettikleri zaman daha güçlü olacaklardır. Hiçbir şey, ’büyük felaket’ ile kaybedilenleri geri getiremez" dedi.
Ermeniler’in son 94 yılda dinamizm, dayanıklılık ve yetenekleri sayesinde, kendilerini yok etmeye çalışanlara karşı direndiklerini belirten
Obama, ABD’nin de, 1915’ten sonra bu ülkeye göç eden Ermeni asıllı Amerikalılar’ın topluma yaptığı katkılarla zenginleştiğini kaydetti.
Obama, "Bugün, dostluk, dayanışma ve derin saygı duygularıyla her yerdeki Ermeniler’in yanında duruyorum" ifadesiyle açıklamasını tamamladı.
ABD Başkanı Barack Obama, 24 Nisan başkanlık açıklamasında, 1915 Ermeni olayları için "soykırım" nitelemesini kullanmadı.
Barack Obama, 1915 Ermeni olayları anma gününde yayımladığı açıklamada, "94 yıl önce, 20. yüzyılın en büyük katliamlarından biri başladı. Her yıl, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son günlerinde 1.5 milyon Ermeni’nin katledilmesi veya ölüme yürümesini anıyoruz" dedi.
Obama, soykırım sözünü kullanmadı ve Türkçe’ye "büyük felaket" olarak çevrilen Ermenice "Meds Yeghern" sözüne yer verdi. Barack Obama, "Ermeni halkı bizim kalplerimizde yaşadığı gibi, ’büyük felaket’ de, bizim anılarımızda yaşamalı" diye konuştu.
"Tarihin, çözülmedikçe ağır bir yük olabileceğini" ifade eden ABD Başkanı, açıklamasında, "1915’in korkunç olaylarının insanoğlunun kendi türüne insani olmayan tutumunun karanlık olasılığını hatırlattığını ve geçmişi gözden geçirmenin uzlaşma yönünde kuvvetli bir vaadi de içinde barındırdığını" bildirdi.
Obama, Türkiye’deki konuşmasında da söylediği gibi, 1915 olaylarına ilişkin görüşlerini tutarlı bir biçimde ifade ettiğini ve bu tarihe ilişkin
görüşünün değişmediğini açıklamasında bir kez daha tekrarladı. ABD Başkanı, kendi ilgisinin, "gerçeklerin tam, samimi ve adil" olarak ortaya çıkarılmasında olduğunu kaydetti.
Barack Obama, Ermeni ve Türk halkları açısında bu yönde ilerlemek için en iyi yolun şimdi, ileriye gidebilme çabalarının bir parçası olarak, geçmişin gerçeklerine yanıt vermek olduğunu da dile getirdi.
Obama, "Türk ve Ermeni halklarının, bu acılı tarih üzerinde dürüst, açık ve yapıcı bir biçimde çalışılması çabalarını kuvvetle destekliyorum. Ermeniler ve Türkler arasında ve Türkiye içinde cesur ve önemli diyaloglar gerçekleştiriliyor.
Aynı zamanda Türkiye ile Ermenistan’ın ikili ilişkilerini normalleştirme çabalarını kuvvetle destekliyorum" dedi.
ABD Başkanı, İsviçre’nin gözetimi altında iki hükümetin, bir çerçeve ve ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesine yönelik yol haritasında anlaştıklarını
belirterek, "Bu ilerlemeyi takdir ediyorum ve iki hükümete de sözlerini yerine getirmeleri çağrısında bulunuyorum" ifadesini kullandı.
Obama, "Ermenistan ve Türkiye birlikte barışçı, üretken ve refah içinde bir ilişki kurabilir. Ve birlikte, Ermeni ve Türk halkları, kendi ortak
tarihlerini kabul edip, ortak insanlıklarını kabul ettikleri zaman daha güçlü olacaklardır. Hiçbir şey, ’büyük felaket’ ile kaybedilenleri geri getiremez" dedi.
Ermeniler’in son 94 yılda dinamizm, dayanıklılık ve yetenekleri sayesinde, kendilerini yok etmeye çalışanlara karşı direndiklerini belirten
Obama, ABD’nin de, 1915’ten sonra bu ülkeye göç eden Ermeni asıllı Amerikalılar’ın topluma yaptığı katkılarla zenginleştiğini kaydetti.
Obama, "Bugün, dostluk, dayanışma ve derin saygı duygularıyla her yerdeki Ermeniler’in yanında duruyorum" ifadesiyle açıklamasını tamamladı.
Erdoğan'dan Obama'nın 24 Nisan açıklamasına sert cevap
ANKARA - Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, "1915 olaylarıyla ilgili önceki gün yapılan açıklamaları gerçeği yansıtmayan, kabul edilemez bir tarih yorumu olarak görüyoruz" dedi.
Erdoğan, partisinin genel merkezinde, AKP 50. Genişletilmiş İl Başkanları Toplantısı’nda yaptığı konuşmada, Türkiye’nin küresel ve bölgesel barış noktasında en küçük bir tereddütünün dahi bulunmadığını vurguladı.
Türkiye’nin hiçbir ülke için tehdit oluşturmadığını, her zaman için "Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh" ilkesini hayata geçirmeye çalıştığını belirten Erdoğan, "Biz göreve geldiğimizden bu yana hiçbir zaman düşman kazanmaya gayret etmedik, hep dost kazanmaya çalıştık. Ancak Türkiye’nin gösterdiği bu hassasiyetin iyi algılanmadığını da zaman zaman görüyoruz, buna şahit oluyoruz" dedi.
"1915 olaylarıyla ilgili önceki gün yapılan açıklamaları gerçeği yansıtmayan, kabul edilemez bir tarih yorumu olarak görüyoruz" diyen Erdoğan, şöyle devam etti: "Açıklama metninin olayların bir bölümünü ağır bir yorumla değerlendirecek mahiyette kaleme alınmış olduğunu görüyoruz. Tarihe ve tarih bilimcilere bırakılması gereken böyle hassas bir uzmanlık konusunun sürekli olarak politik malzeme olarak kullanılması her yıl lobilerin istismar meselesi haline getirilmesi halklar ve ülkeler arasındaki ilişkilerin normalleşmesini de engelliyor.
Türkiye olarak 1915’de yaşanmış olayların tarihçiler tarafından bütün boyutlarıyla incelenmesi ve gerçeğin açığa çıkarılması için her zaman samimi bir gayret içinde olduk. 2005’de bizzat şahsım olarak Ermenistan Cumhurbaşkanı’na yazdığım mektup var. Bu mektubun cevabını dahi almış değilim. Ortak Tarih Komisyonu kurulması gibi iyi niyetli önerilerimiz maalesef karşılık bulmadı."
-BARIŞ VE SEVGİ FİDANLARI YEŞERTMEYE ÇALIŞTIK-
Geçmişe takılıp kalmak yerine geleceğe odaklanmak gerektiğini vurgulayan Erdoğan, "Siyasetçilerin görevi geçmişi ön yargılarla yargılamak değil, geleceği barış üzerine kurmaktır. Kin ve nefret tohumları ekmek isteyenlere karşı barış ve sevgi fidanlarını yeşertmeye çalıştık" diye konuştu. Erdoğan, şunları kaydetti:
"Ancak ısrarla ve inatla konunun istismar edilmesinde 1915 olayları üzerinden birçok siyasetçinin oy kazanma yarışına girmesinden büyük üzüntü duyduğumuzu da tekrar ifade etmek istiyorum. Tarih iç politika malzemesi yapılamayacak kadar saygın bir bilim dalıdır. Tarihin tarihçilere bırakılmasını tekrar arzu ettiğimizi ifade etmek istiyorum. Konuyla ilgisi olmayan ülkelerin durumdan vazife çıkarmaktan vazgeçmesi ilişkilerin normalleşmesini sağlayacak, tarihi aydınlığa kavuşturacağı gibi barışa da zemin hazırlayacaktır."
AKP’nin kurulduğu günden bu yana bu konudaki kararlığını ortaya koyduğunu ifade eden Erdoğan, "Dolayısıyla yapılan açıklamayı asla bizleri tatmin eden bir açıklama olarak görmüyoruz. Bunu bu şekilde de kabul etmiyoruz. Ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ndeki bu açıklama sadece seçim meydanlarında verilmiş sözün adete yerine getirilmesi anlamında bir denge niteliği taşıyan bir açıklamadır. Biz her türlü ifadenin, söylemin adaletle yapılmasından yanayız. Yoksa basit bir seçim çıkarını sağlama ve yahut oyu garantiye alınmasından yana değiliz. Ve Türkiye bu noktada el bebek gül bebek okşanacak veya aldatılacak bir ülke de değildir. Bunu da söylemek zorundayız" diye konuştu.
AZERBAYCAN’A ‘OYUNA GELMEYİN’ UYARISI
"Şimdi artık bugünkü Türkiye olarak dünyanın taşrasında yer alan ülkelerden bir ülke değiliz" diyen Erdoğan, Türkiye’nin kendi dinamikleriyle buluştuğunda dünyanın hiçbir ülkesinin sahip olmadığı zenginliklere sahip bir ülke olduğunu, dünyanın her ülkesine, bölgesine söyleyecek sözünün bulunduğunu ifade etti. En önemli eksiğin birlik ve beraberliği ortadan kaldırmaya gayret eden unsurlar olduğuna dikkati çeken Erdoğan, şöyle konuştu:
"Bunu gidermek, bunu aşmak zorundayız. Uyarıyorum, rica ediyorum, kimse Türkiye’yi küçümseyerek eski alışkanlıklarla, eski ezik psikolojiyle birilerinin Türkiye’ye yol haritası çizdiğini iddia etmesin. Uluslararası arenada Türkiye’nin elini zayıflatmak gibi bir gayeleri yoksa, bu iddia sahipleri dün mahcup oldukları gibi yarın da mahcup olurlar, bunu hatırlatmak istiyorum.
Aşkla, heyecanla Türkiye’nin imar ve inşasına çalışan AKP’yi ’memleketi satıyorlar’ gibi ucuz yaftalarla izam edenlerin, bühtan ve iftiradan medet umanların yer altı provokasyonlarıyla Türkiye’nin kalbini durdurmak istemesi hayret vericidir ama beyhudedir. Siyaset üretemeyince, proje üretemeyince vehim ve korku üretenlerin kendi varlık nedenlerini bile inkar ederek siyaseti toptan tasfiye etmek isteyen çevrelerle aynı dili kullanması ise ne kadar hazindir."
Erdoğan, konuşmasını şöyle sürdürdü: "Burası tarihin kalbinin attığı yerdir. Eskiden olduğu gibi herkesin gelip geçtiği bir köprü değiliz artık. Biz bir merkez ülkesiyiz. Dünyaya buradan bakıyoruz. Bu anlayışımızı sadece halkımıza değil, bütün dünyaya anlatıyoruz. Toplumsal merkezdeki konumu, halkımızın demokratik iradesiyle pekişen AKP iktidarı, dünya haritasının bütün bölgelerinde Türkiye’nin hukukunu korumanın, insanlığın hak ve hukukunu korumanın mücadelesini veriyor. Can kardeşimiz Azerbaycan’ın hukukunu da kapı komşumuz, kardeşimiz Irak’ın güven ve istikrara kavuşmasını da Kıbrıs Türkü’nün asil mücadelesini de biz temsil ediyoruz. Tabi bir çok fitne unsurları boş durmuyor, çalışıyorlar. Biz bu fitne unsurlarını izliyoruz, takip ediyoruz. Bakıyorsunuz, Azerbaycan’dan buraya gelenler oluyor. Onlar burada yalan yanlış şeylerle ortalığı karıştırmak istiyor. Buradan da Azerbaycan’a gidip yalan yanlış haberlerle oraları karıştırmak isteyenler oluyor. Eğer üst düzeydeki yönetim kadroları bu oyunlara gelirse biz buna üzülürüz. Bütün yönetim kadrolarıyla, bakanlarıyla, başta şahsım, şu anda Cumhurbaşkanımız olmak üzere bu kadar sık trafiğin olduğu bir iktidarın bu tür bir yaftayla karşı karşıya kalmasını kabul etmemiz mümkün değildir, bunun karşısında susmamız da mümkün değil. Ne gerekiyorsa biz bugüne kadar yaptık. Çünkü bu tür haksızlıkları kabul etmemiz mümkün değildir. Onun için de söylenecek ne varsa bunu yaparız. Ama değerlerimiz üzerinde oynanmasına da müsaade edemeyiz."
29 MART SEÇİMLERİ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ
Erdoğan, 29 Mart 2009 seçimlerinde kazananın millet ve demokrasi olduğunu kaydederek, "Daha önceki 3 seçimde milletin mesajını doğru okumayanlar veya okuyamayanlar bu seçimin sonuçlarını da yanlış anlamakta ısrar ediyorlar" dedi. Eski ezberlerde ısrar etmenin yanlış olduğunu belirten Erdoğan, dünyanın ve Türkiye’nin değiştiğini kaydetti. Erdoğan, "Ülkemizin demokrasi yolundaki yürüyüşü devam ediyor. Buradan geriye doğru tek bir adım atmayacağız ve sadece ileriye gideceğiz" şeklinde konuştu.
-DEMORALİZE OLMAYACAĞIZ, HALKIMIZLA KUCAKLAŞACAĞIZ-
Erdoğan, "29 Mart’ta yapılan mahalli seçimlerde AKP’nin Türkiye’nin en büyük partisi olmuş, kendisini en yakından takip eden siyasi partiye 16 puanlık bir fark atmıştır" diyerek, durumun iyi tahlil edilmesi gerektiğini söyledi.
Her seçime, seçimi kazanmak, birinci parti olmak için girildiğini belirten Erdoğan, bir önceki seçimden daha iyi bir noktaya gelmenin ideal olan olduğunu kaydetti. Hiçbir siyasi partinin ’Ben ikinci, üçüncü parti olayım, burada oyum 1-2 puan artarsa başarı olur’ mantığıyla hareket edemeyeceğini, etmemesi gerektiğini kaydeden Erdoğan, "Bunlara da başarı puanı vermek akıl alır bir şey değil. Bununla sadece övünenler, sadece gününü gün etmeye gayret edenler var. Ortada bir gerçek var, bu seçimin birincisi kimdir? AKP’dir. Kaç puan fark atmış kardeşim? İkincinin, üçüncünün toplamı kadar oy almak suretiyle en yakınına 16 puan fark atmış. Olayın gerçeği bu" diye konuştu.
İl genel meclisi sonuçlarına bakıldığında AKP’nin yüzde 39, CHP’nin yüzde 23, MHP’nin yüzde 16 oy aldığını söyleyen Erdoğan, partisinin 16 büyükşehirden 10’unda, 65 ilin 35’inde milletten yetki aldığını dile getirdi. Türkiye’nin 81 ilinden 45’ini AKP’nin kazandığına dikkati çeken Erdoğan, "Milletimiz yetkiyi AKP’ye vermiştir" dedi.
143 metropol ilçenin 85’ini partisinin kazandığını ifade eden Erdoğan, 892 ilçenin, ilçe belediye başkanı bazında 447’sinde milletin AKP’li adaylara milletin yetki verdiğini belirtti. Tüm büyükşehir il ve ilçe belediyesinin toplam sayısının 973 olduğunu hatırlatan Erdoğan, bunlardan 492’sini AKP’nin kazandığını, bunun da yüzde 50’nin üzerinde bir orana denk geldiğini vurguladı.
Türkiye’deki bin 974 beldenin kesin olmayan sonuçlara göre yaklaşık yüzde 50’sini yani 973 beldenin AKP’ye "terfi ettiğini" belirten Erdoğan, sözlerini şöyle sürdürdü:
"Bunlar çok çok önemli veriler, önemli rakamlar. Bütün bu rakamlar ortada dururken hala kalkıp da yorumcular, şunlar bunlar, bu seçimin neticesinin ikinci ve üçüncü sıradaki partilere, hatta dördüncü ve beşinci sıradaki partilere birşeyler kattığını, birisi birmiş iki olmuş, öbürü ikiymiş dört olmuş, bunlarla böyle bir mukayese içine girmenin siyaset bilimiyle yakından uzaktan gerçekçi bir ilgisi olamaz. Bütün bunların hepsinin hedefi, ’Acaba AKP’yi halk nezdinde nasıl demoralize edebiliriz?’. Dert bu. Biz demoralize olmayacağız, biz halkımızla kucaklaşmaya devam edeceğiz. Bundan sonraki milletvekili seçimlerinde de halkımız inanıyorum ki AKP’yi o çıtada layık olduğu yere oturtacaktır.
-SADECE KİMLİK SİYASETİ AYRIMCILIKTIR-
AKP’nin Doğu ve Güneydoğu illerinde elde ettiği il genel meclisi oylarına dikkati çeken Erdoğan, "Doğu ve Güneydoğu illerimizde yani buradaki 23 ilimizde kimlik siyaseti yaparak oy elde etmeye çalışan partinin... Kimlik siyasetiyle oy alınmaz veya siyaset yapılmaz iddiasında değilim. Ama sadece kimlik siyasetinin ayrımcılık olduğunu iddia eden birisiyim. Çünkü siyaset, eser siyasetiyle, hizmet siyasetiyle, bütün halkı kucaklamak itibariyle yapılır. Sadece kimlik siyasetiyle siyaset yapılmaz. Bunu yaparsanız, ayrımcılık yapmış olursunuz" diye konuştu.
DTP’nin il genel meclisinde elde ettiği oy oranının yüzde 27,2 olduğunu anımsatan Erdoğan, AKP’nin bölgedeki 23 ilde yüzde 36,3’lük oy oranı aldığını kaydetti. AKP Doğu ve Güneydoğu Anadolu bölgeleri toplamında birinci sırayı elde ettiğini vurguladı.
Erdoğan, şöyle konuştu: "Geride bıraktığımız seçimde milletin verdiği mesaj, değişim iradesinin güçlenerek devam etmesidir. Kimse yanlış sonuçlar çıkarmasın ve lütfen herkes seçim öncesi millete verdiği sözleri hatırlasın. Benim milletim bütün bu afaki verilmiş sözler var ya... Aman yarabbi, ’Geldiğim andan itibaren 10 bin, 100 bin kişi işe yerleştireceğim. Şu kadar dağıtacağım, şöyle yapacağım, böyle yapacağım’ diyenler var ya. Şimdi kuyruklar başladı. Hadi alın bakalım, alın. Alacaksınız neyle ödeyeceksiniz? Yerleştirin bakalım, belediyelere bu insanları nasıl yerleştireceksiniz, hangi kurumuna yerleştireceksiniz?
Halkımızı bu şeklide aldatmak suretiyle oy toplama gayreti içine girenler, buyrun şimdi. Vatandaşlarımız, benim işsiz vatandaşım müracaat etsin bu vaatlerde bulunanlara, 10 bin, 30 bin, 100 bin diyenlere... Çünkü gittiğim illerde ben bilbordlarda bunları görüyordum, şaşırıyordum, ’Nasıl da aldatma siyasetiyle halkın karşısına çıkıyorlar?’ diye. Ama maalesef burada bu oyunlarını oynadılar. Ama bir kere sıçrarsın, iki kere sıçrarsın, ondan sonra da yakalanırsın. Şimdi bunlar daha ilk seçimde bunun bedelini ödeyecekler, ben buna inanıyorum.
Seçim sonuçlarını milletin değişim iradesinden vazgeçmesi olarak yorumlamak son derece büyük bir yanlıştır. Aksine bu seçimde de milletin esas talebi çağın değişim ritmine uymamızdır. AKP milli iradeye teslimiyetin gereği olarak bütün Türkiye sathında kılı kırk yaran analizlerle milletin mesajını doğru tahlil etmeye devam ediyor." (aa)
Erdoğan, partisinin genel merkezinde, AKP 50. Genişletilmiş İl Başkanları Toplantısı’nda yaptığı konuşmada, Türkiye’nin küresel ve bölgesel barış noktasında en küçük bir tereddütünün dahi bulunmadığını vurguladı.
Türkiye’nin hiçbir ülke için tehdit oluşturmadığını, her zaman için "Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh" ilkesini hayata geçirmeye çalıştığını belirten Erdoğan, "Biz göreve geldiğimizden bu yana hiçbir zaman düşman kazanmaya gayret etmedik, hep dost kazanmaya çalıştık. Ancak Türkiye’nin gösterdiği bu hassasiyetin iyi algılanmadığını da zaman zaman görüyoruz, buna şahit oluyoruz" dedi.
"1915 olaylarıyla ilgili önceki gün yapılan açıklamaları gerçeği yansıtmayan, kabul edilemez bir tarih yorumu olarak görüyoruz" diyen Erdoğan, şöyle devam etti: "Açıklama metninin olayların bir bölümünü ağır bir yorumla değerlendirecek mahiyette kaleme alınmış olduğunu görüyoruz. Tarihe ve tarih bilimcilere bırakılması gereken böyle hassas bir uzmanlık konusunun sürekli olarak politik malzeme olarak kullanılması her yıl lobilerin istismar meselesi haline getirilmesi halklar ve ülkeler arasındaki ilişkilerin normalleşmesini de engelliyor.
Türkiye olarak 1915’de yaşanmış olayların tarihçiler tarafından bütün boyutlarıyla incelenmesi ve gerçeğin açığa çıkarılması için her zaman samimi bir gayret içinde olduk. 2005’de bizzat şahsım olarak Ermenistan Cumhurbaşkanı’na yazdığım mektup var. Bu mektubun cevabını dahi almış değilim. Ortak Tarih Komisyonu kurulması gibi iyi niyetli önerilerimiz maalesef karşılık bulmadı."
-BARIŞ VE SEVGİ FİDANLARI YEŞERTMEYE ÇALIŞTIK-
Geçmişe takılıp kalmak yerine geleceğe odaklanmak gerektiğini vurgulayan Erdoğan, "Siyasetçilerin görevi geçmişi ön yargılarla yargılamak değil, geleceği barış üzerine kurmaktır. Kin ve nefret tohumları ekmek isteyenlere karşı barış ve sevgi fidanlarını yeşertmeye çalıştık" diye konuştu. Erdoğan, şunları kaydetti:
"Ancak ısrarla ve inatla konunun istismar edilmesinde 1915 olayları üzerinden birçok siyasetçinin oy kazanma yarışına girmesinden büyük üzüntü duyduğumuzu da tekrar ifade etmek istiyorum. Tarih iç politika malzemesi yapılamayacak kadar saygın bir bilim dalıdır. Tarihin tarihçilere bırakılmasını tekrar arzu ettiğimizi ifade etmek istiyorum. Konuyla ilgisi olmayan ülkelerin durumdan vazife çıkarmaktan vazgeçmesi ilişkilerin normalleşmesini sağlayacak, tarihi aydınlığa kavuşturacağı gibi barışa da zemin hazırlayacaktır."
AKP’nin kurulduğu günden bu yana bu konudaki kararlığını ortaya koyduğunu ifade eden Erdoğan, "Dolayısıyla yapılan açıklamayı asla bizleri tatmin eden bir açıklama olarak görmüyoruz. Bunu bu şekilde de kabul etmiyoruz. Ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ndeki bu açıklama sadece seçim meydanlarında verilmiş sözün adete yerine getirilmesi anlamında bir denge niteliği taşıyan bir açıklamadır. Biz her türlü ifadenin, söylemin adaletle yapılmasından yanayız. Yoksa basit bir seçim çıkarını sağlama ve yahut oyu garantiye alınmasından yana değiliz. Ve Türkiye bu noktada el bebek gül bebek okşanacak veya aldatılacak bir ülke de değildir. Bunu da söylemek zorundayız" diye konuştu.
AZERBAYCAN’A ‘OYUNA GELMEYİN’ UYARISI
"Şimdi artık bugünkü Türkiye olarak dünyanın taşrasında yer alan ülkelerden bir ülke değiliz" diyen Erdoğan, Türkiye’nin kendi dinamikleriyle buluştuğunda dünyanın hiçbir ülkesinin sahip olmadığı zenginliklere sahip bir ülke olduğunu, dünyanın her ülkesine, bölgesine söyleyecek sözünün bulunduğunu ifade etti. En önemli eksiğin birlik ve beraberliği ortadan kaldırmaya gayret eden unsurlar olduğuna dikkati çeken Erdoğan, şöyle konuştu:
"Bunu gidermek, bunu aşmak zorundayız. Uyarıyorum, rica ediyorum, kimse Türkiye’yi küçümseyerek eski alışkanlıklarla, eski ezik psikolojiyle birilerinin Türkiye’ye yol haritası çizdiğini iddia etmesin. Uluslararası arenada Türkiye’nin elini zayıflatmak gibi bir gayeleri yoksa, bu iddia sahipleri dün mahcup oldukları gibi yarın da mahcup olurlar, bunu hatırlatmak istiyorum.
Aşkla, heyecanla Türkiye’nin imar ve inşasına çalışan AKP’yi ’memleketi satıyorlar’ gibi ucuz yaftalarla izam edenlerin, bühtan ve iftiradan medet umanların yer altı provokasyonlarıyla Türkiye’nin kalbini durdurmak istemesi hayret vericidir ama beyhudedir. Siyaset üretemeyince, proje üretemeyince vehim ve korku üretenlerin kendi varlık nedenlerini bile inkar ederek siyaseti toptan tasfiye etmek isteyen çevrelerle aynı dili kullanması ise ne kadar hazindir."
Erdoğan, konuşmasını şöyle sürdürdü: "Burası tarihin kalbinin attığı yerdir. Eskiden olduğu gibi herkesin gelip geçtiği bir köprü değiliz artık. Biz bir merkez ülkesiyiz. Dünyaya buradan bakıyoruz. Bu anlayışımızı sadece halkımıza değil, bütün dünyaya anlatıyoruz. Toplumsal merkezdeki konumu, halkımızın demokratik iradesiyle pekişen AKP iktidarı, dünya haritasının bütün bölgelerinde Türkiye’nin hukukunu korumanın, insanlığın hak ve hukukunu korumanın mücadelesini veriyor. Can kardeşimiz Azerbaycan’ın hukukunu da kapı komşumuz, kardeşimiz Irak’ın güven ve istikrara kavuşmasını da Kıbrıs Türkü’nün asil mücadelesini de biz temsil ediyoruz. Tabi bir çok fitne unsurları boş durmuyor, çalışıyorlar. Biz bu fitne unsurlarını izliyoruz, takip ediyoruz. Bakıyorsunuz, Azerbaycan’dan buraya gelenler oluyor. Onlar burada yalan yanlış şeylerle ortalığı karıştırmak istiyor. Buradan da Azerbaycan’a gidip yalan yanlış haberlerle oraları karıştırmak isteyenler oluyor. Eğer üst düzeydeki yönetim kadroları bu oyunlara gelirse biz buna üzülürüz. Bütün yönetim kadrolarıyla, bakanlarıyla, başta şahsım, şu anda Cumhurbaşkanımız olmak üzere bu kadar sık trafiğin olduğu bir iktidarın bu tür bir yaftayla karşı karşıya kalmasını kabul etmemiz mümkün değildir, bunun karşısında susmamız da mümkün değil. Ne gerekiyorsa biz bugüne kadar yaptık. Çünkü bu tür haksızlıkları kabul etmemiz mümkün değildir. Onun için de söylenecek ne varsa bunu yaparız. Ama değerlerimiz üzerinde oynanmasına da müsaade edemeyiz."
29 MART SEÇİMLERİ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ
Erdoğan, 29 Mart 2009 seçimlerinde kazananın millet ve demokrasi olduğunu kaydederek, "Daha önceki 3 seçimde milletin mesajını doğru okumayanlar veya okuyamayanlar bu seçimin sonuçlarını da yanlış anlamakta ısrar ediyorlar" dedi. Eski ezberlerde ısrar etmenin yanlış olduğunu belirten Erdoğan, dünyanın ve Türkiye’nin değiştiğini kaydetti. Erdoğan, "Ülkemizin demokrasi yolundaki yürüyüşü devam ediyor. Buradan geriye doğru tek bir adım atmayacağız ve sadece ileriye gideceğiz" şeklinde konuştu.
-DEMORALİZE OLMAYACAĞIZ, HALKIMIZLA KUCAKLAŞACAĞIZ-
Erdoğan, "29 Mart’ta yapılan mahalli seçimlerde AKP’nin Türkiye’nin en büyük partisi olmuş, kendisini en yakından takip eden siyasi partiye 16 puanlık bir fark atmıştır" diyerek, durumun iyi tahlil edilmesi gerektiğini söyledi.
Her seçime, seçimi kazanmak, birinci parti olmak için girildiğini belirten Erdoğan, bir önceki seçimden daha iyi bir noktaya gelmenin ideal olan olduğunu kaydetti. Hiçbir siyasi partinin ’Ben ikinci, üçüncü parti olayım, burada oyum 1-2 puan artarsa başarı olur’ mantığıyla hareket edemeyeceğini, etmemesi gerektiğini kaydeden Erdoğan, "Bunlara da başarı puanı vermek akıl alır bir şey değil. Bununla sadece övünenler, sadece gününü gün etmeye gayret edenler var. Ortada bir gerçek var, bu seçimin birincisi kimdir? AKP’dir. Kaç puan fark atmış kardeşim? İkincinin, üçüncünün toplamı kadar oy almak suretiyle en yakınına 16 puan fark atmış. Olayın gerçeği bu" diye konuştu.
İl genel meclisi sonuçlarına bakıldığında AKP’nin yüzde 39, CHP’nin yüzde 23, MHP’nin yüzde 16 oy aldığını söyleyen Erdoğan, partisinin 16 büyükşehirden 10’unda, 65 ilin 35’inde milletten yetki aldığını dile getirdi. Türkiye’nin 81 ilinden 45’ini AKP’nin kazandığına dikkati çeken Erdoğan, "Milletimiz yetkiyi AKP’ye vermiştir" dedi.
143 metropol ilçenin 85’ini partisinin kazandığını ifade eden Erdoğan, 892 ilçenin, ilçe belediye başkanı bazında 447’sinde milletin AKP’li adaylara milletin yetki verdiğini belirtti. Tüm büyükşehir il ve ilçe belediyesinin toplam sayısının 973 olduğunu hatırlatan Erdoğan, bunlardan 492’sini AKP’nin kazandığını, bunun da yüzde 50’nin üzerinde bir orana denk geldiğini vurguladı.
Türkiye’deki bin 974 beldenin kesin olmayan sonuçlara göre yaklaşık yüzde 50’sini yani 973 beldenin AKP’ye "terfi ettiğini" belirten Erdoğan, sözlerini şöyle sürdürdü:
"Bunlar çok çok önemli veriler, önemli rakamlar. Bütün bu rakamlar ortada dururken hala kalkıp da yorumcular, şunlar bunlar, bu seçimin neticesinin ikinci ve üçüncü sıradaki partilere, hatta dördüncü ve beşinci sıradaki partilere birşeyler kattığını, birisi birmiş iki olmuş, öbürü ikiymiş dört olmuş, bunlarla böyle bir mukayese içine girmenin siyaset bilimiyle yakından uzaktan gerçekçi bir ilgisi olamaz. Bütün bunların hepsinin hedefi, ’Acaba AKP’yi halk nezdinde nasıl demoralize edebiliriz?’. Dert bu. Biz demoralize olmayacağız, biz halkımızla kucaklaşmaya devam edeceğiz. Bundan sonraki milletvekili seçimlerinde de halkımız inanıyorum ki AKP’yi o çıtada layık olduğu yere oturtacaktır.
-SADECE KİMLİK SİYASETİ AYRIMCILIKTIR-
AKP’nin Doğu ve Güneydoğu illerinde elde ettiği il genel meclisi oylarına dikkati çeken Erdoğan, "Doğu ve Güneydoğu illerimizde yani buradaki 23 ilimizde kimlik siyaseti yaparak oy elde etmeye çalışan partinin... Kimlik siyasetiyle oy alınmaz veya siyaset yapılmaz iddiasında değilim. Ama sadece kimlik siyasetinin ayrımcılık olduğunu iddia eden birisiyim. Çünkü siyaset, eser siyasetiyle, hizmet siyasetiyle, bütün halkı kucaklamak itibariyle yapılır. Sadece kimlik siyasetiyle siyaset yapılmaz. Bunu yaparsanız, ayrımcılık yapmış olursunuz" diye konuştu.
DTP’nin il genel meclisinde elde ettiği oy oranının yüzde 27,2 olduğunu anımsatan Erdoğan, AKP’nin bölgedeki 23 ilde yüzde 36,3’lük oy oranı aldığını kaydetti. AKP Doğu ve Güneydoğu Anadolu bölgeleri toplamında birinci sırayı elde ettiğini vurguladı.
Erdoğan, şöyle konuştu: "Geride bıraktığımız seçimde milletin verdiği mesaj, değişim iradesinin güçlenerek devam etmesidir. Kimse yanlış sonuçlar çıkarmasın ve lütfen herkes seçim öncesi millete verdiği sözleri hatırlasın. Benim milletim bütün bu afaki verilmiş sözler var ya... Aman yarabbi, ’Geldiğim andan itibaren 10 bin, 100 bin kişi işe yerleştireceğim. Şu kadar dağıtacağım, şöyle yapacağım, böyle yapacağım’ diyenler var ya. Şimdi kuyruklar başladı. Hadi alın bakalım, alın. Alacaksınız neyle ödeyeceksiniz? Yerleştirin bakalım, belediyelere bu insanları nasıl yerleştireceksiniz, hangi kurumuna yerleştireceksiniz?
Halkımızı bu şeklide aldatmak suretiyle oy toplama gayreti içine girenler, buyrun şimdi. Vatandaşlarımız, benim işsiz vatandaşım müracaat etsin bu vaatlerde bulunanlara, 10 bin, 30 bin, 100 bin diyenlere... Çünkü gittiğim illerde ben bilbordlarda bunları görüyordum, şaşırıyordum, ’Nasıl da aldatma siyasetiyle halkın karşısına çıkıyorlar?’ diye. Ama maalesef burada bu oyunlarını oynadılar. Ama bir kere sıçrarsın, iki kere sıçrarsın, ondan sonra da yakalanırsın. Şimdi bunlar daha ilk seçimde bunun bedelini ödeyecekler, ben buna inanıyorum.
Seçim sonuçlarını milletin değişim iradesinden vazgeçmesi olarak yorumlamak son derece büyük bir yanlıştır. Aksine bu seçimde de milletin esas talebi çağın değişim ritmine uymamızdır. AKP milli iradeye teslimiyetin gereği olarak bütün Türkiye sathında kılı kırk yaran analizlerle milletin mesajını doğru tahlil etmeye devam ediyor." (aa)
Turkey and Armenia set 'roadmap'
Turkey and Armenia have said they have agreed on a "framework" to normalise their bilateral ties, putting decades of strained relations behind them.
A statement by their foreign ministers said they had "achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding".
But it did not say how the neighbours would resolve their dispute over the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915.
Turkey has condemned widespread efforts to have them defined as genocide.
The breakthrough comes just weeks after US President Barack Obama urged Turkey to come to terms with the past and resolve the issue.
In 2008 Mr Obama asserted that the "Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence".
'Roadmap'
Wednesday's talks between Turkey and Armenia took place away from the public eye, under Swiss mediation.
Afterwards, the two countries announced in a joint statement that they had agreed to "develop good neighbourly relations in mutual respect and progress peace, security and stability in the entire region".
"The two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalisation of their bilateral relations," it said.
"Within this framework, a roadmap has been determined."
Later, the US state department said it welcomed the agreement.
"It has long been and remains the position of the United States that normalisation should take place without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe," spokesman Robert Wood said.
Closed border
However, correspondents say it is not immediately clear how the neighbours will resolve their bitter dispute over the Ottoman-era killings of ethnic Armenians.
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert and elsewhere. They were killed by Ottoman troops or died from starvation or disease.
Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and some countries have done so.
Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed but it denies any genocide, saying the deaths were part of the widespread fighting that took place in World War I.
Turkey and Armenia have had no diplomatic ties since Armenia became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in a show of support for its ally, Azerbaijan, which had a dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, the ethnic Armenian enclave of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan reacted to the announcement by warning that Turkish-Armenian relations should not be resumed without parallel progress over Nagorno-Karabakh - namely a withdrawal of Armenian troops.
A statement by their foreign ministers said they had "achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding".
But it did not say how the neighbours would resolve their dispute over the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915.
Turkey has condemned widespread efforts to have them defined as genocide.
The breakthrough comes just weeks after US President Barack Obama urged Turkey to come to terms with the past and resolve the issue.
In 2008 Mr Obama asserted that the "Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence".
'Roadmap'
Wednesday's talks between Turkey and Armenia took place away from the public eye, under Swiss mediation.
Afterwards, the two countries announced in a joint statement that they had agreed to "develop good neighbourly relations in mutual respect and progress peace, security and stability in the entire region".
"The two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalisation of their bilateral relations," it said.
"Within this framework, a roadmap has been determined."
Later, the US state department said it welcomed the agreement.
"It has long been and remains the position of the United States that normalisation should take place without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe," spokesman Robert Wood said.
Closed border
However, correspondents say it is not immediately clear how the neighbours will resolve their bitter dispute over the Ottoman-era killings of ethnic Armenians.
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert and elsewhere. They were killed by Ottoman troops or died from starvation or disease.
Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and some countries have done so.
Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed but it denies any genocide, saying the deaths were part of the widespread fighting that took place in World War I.
Turkey and Armenia have had no diplomatic ties since Armenia became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in a show of support for its ally, Azerbaijan, which had a dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, the ethnic Armenian enclave of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan reacted to the announcement by warning that Turkish-Armenian relations should not be resumed without parallel progress over Nagorno-Karabakh - namely a withdrawal of Armenian troops.
Obama marks Armenian 'atrocity'
Barack Obama has refrained from calling the killing of Armenians by Turks in World War I "genocide" despite using the term during his election campaign.
However, the US president did describe the killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians as "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century".
He appealed for Turks and Armenians to "address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward".
The two countries agreed this week on a roadmap for normalising relations.
While admitting many Armenians were killed, Turkey, a Nato member and key American ally in the Muslim world, denies committing genocide, saying the deaths resulted from wartime fighting.
Armenia has long campaigned for the loss of its people to be recognised as a crime of genocide and it commemorated the event with ceremonies on Friday.
'My view unchanged'
"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed," Mr Obama said in a written statement.
"My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
In a January 2008 statement on his campaign website, Mr Obama wrote: "The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
"America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides," the 2008 statement added.
On Friday, he said the Armenians killed in the final days of the Ottoman Empire "must live on in our memories".
"I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive," he added.
However, the US president did describe the killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians as "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century".
He appealed for Turks and Armenians to "address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward".
The two countries agreed this week on a roadmap for normalising relations.
While admitting many Armenians were killed, Turkey, a Nato member and key American ally in the Muslim world, denies committing genocide, saying the deaths resulted from wartime fighting.
Armenia has long campaigned for the loss of its people to be recognised as a crime of genocide and it commemorated the event with ceremonies on Friday.
'My view unchanged'
"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed," Mr Obama said in a written statement.
"My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
In a January 2008 statement on his campaign website, Mr Obama wrote: "The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
"America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides," the 2008 statement added.
On Friday, he said the Armenians killed in the final days of the Ottoman Empire "must live on in our memories".
"I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive," he added.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Walkout at Iran leader's speech
Diplomats have walked out of a UN anti-racism conference during a speech by the Iranian president in which he described Israel as "totally racist".
Dozens of delegates got up and left, moments after two protesters wearing coloured wigs disrupted the start of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech.
Diplomats who remained applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.
France said it was a "hate speech" and the US called it "vile". Some countries had boycotted the meeting altogether.
The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is supposed to do best - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.
UN dismay
The walkout by delegates from at least 30 countries happened within minutes of the start of the speech.
Most officials planned to return later to participate in the rest of the conference, although the Czech delegation announced it would join the boycott.
One of the two protesters escorted out of the conference hall managed to throw a red clown's nose at the Iranian president, as they yelled "racist, racist" as he stood at the podium.
Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East after World War II "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine".
He continued, through an interpreter: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."
French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: "As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room," the Associated Press news agency reported.
British Ambassador Peter Gooderham, also among those who left, said "such inflammatory rhetoric has no place whatsoever in a United Nations conference addressing the whole issue of racism and how to address it."
Speaking to the BBC Radio 4's PM programme, he said of the Iranian leader's accusation of Israeli racism: "That is a charge we unreservedly condemn and so we had no hesitation at that point in leaving the conference hall."
The US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had all boycotted the conference being held in Geneva, in protest at Mr Ahmadinejad's appearance.
His comments were described as "an absolute disgrace" by Israeli President Shimon Peres, attending a Holocaust Remembrance Day event in Jerusalem.
Israel had earlier recalled its ambassador to Switzerland.
Mr Ahmadinejad told a press conference after his speech that the countries boycotting the forum were showing "arrogance and selfishness".
The US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, said the speech was "inaccurate", as well as showing disregard towards the UN, and "does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people".
Speaking at UN headquarters in New York, he said: "We call on the Iranian leadership to show much measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region, and not this type of vile, hateful, inciteful speech."
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had warned that French delegates would walk out if the forum was used as a platform to attack Israel. The whole point of these meetings is to represent the views of your nation and challenge the views of others Gavin, Brussels
Speaking after the walkout, he said: "The defence of human rights and the fight against all types of racism are too important for the United Nations not to unite against all forms of hate speech, against all perversion of this message.
"Faced with attitudes like that which the Iranian president has just adopted, no compromise is possible."
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed dismay at the boycotts and the speech, saying Mr Ahmadinejad had used his speech "to accuse, divide and even incite".
Dozens of delegates got up and left, moments after two protesters wearing coloured wigs disrupted the start of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech.
Diplomats who remained applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.
France said it was a "hate speech" and the US called it "vile". Some countries had boycotted the meeting altogether.
The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is supposed to do best - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.
UN dismay
The walkout by delegates from at least 30 countries happened within minutes of the start of the speech.
Most officials planned to return later to participate in the rest of the conference, although the Czech delegation announced it would join the boycott.
One of the two protesters escorted out of the conference hall managed to throw a red clown's nose at the Iranian president, as they yelled "racist, racist" as he stood at the podium.
Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East after World War II "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine".
He continued, through an interpreter: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."
French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: "As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room," the Associated Press news agency reported.
British Ambassador Peter Gooderham, also among those who left, said "such inflammatory rhetoric has no place whatsoever in a United Nations conference addressing the whole issue of racism and how to address it."
Speaking to the BBC Radio 4's PM programme, he said of the Iranian leader's accusation of Israeli racism: "That is a charge we unreservedly condemn and so we had no hesitation at that point in leaving the conference hall."
The US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had all boycotted the conference being held in Geneva, in protest at Mr Ahmadinejad's appearance.
His comments were described as "an absolute disgrace" by Israeli President Shimon Peres, attending a Holocaust Remembrance Day event in Jerusalem.
Israel had earlier recalled its ambassador to Switzerland.
Mr Ahmadinejad told a press conference after his speech that the countries boycotting the forum were showing "arrogance and selfishness".
The US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, said the speech was "inaccurate", as well as showing disregard towards the UN, and "does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people".
Speaking at UN headquarters in New York, he said: "We call on the Iranian leadership to show much measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region, and not this type of vile, hateful, inciteful speech."
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had warned that French delegates would walk out if the forum was used as a platform to attack Israel. The whole point of these meetings is to represent the views of your nation and challenge the views of others Gavin, Brussels
Speaking after the walkout, he said: "The defence of human rights and the fight against all types of racism are too important for the United Nations not to unite against all forms of hate speech, against all perversion of this message.
"Faced with attitudes like that which the Iranian president has just adopted, no compromise is possible."
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed dismay at the boycotts and the speech, saying Mr Ahmadinejad had used his speech "to accuse, divide and even incite".
Hardliners win N Cyprus election
Turkish Cypriot nationalists have swept to victory in a parliamentary election in northern Cyprus that could hamper peace talks with Greek Cypriots.
The right-wing National Unity Party (UBP), which favours closer links with Turkey rather than EU membership, has won 44% of the vote.
That leaves the ruling Republican Turkish Party (CTP) of leader Mehmet Ali Talat with only 29%.
Mr Talat retains his position, but his hands will now be tied at peace talks.
Cypriot problem
Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkish forces invaded the island in response to an attempt by Greek Cypriots to make it part of Greece.
Frustration at the slow progress of talks aimed at reuniting the island appears to have been a key element in this latest poll, the BBC's Tabitha Morgan reports from Cyprus.
When Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Talat began talks with the Greek Cypriot leader, President Dimitris Christofias, over a year ago, he predicted a deal within months.
As part of the package, the breakaway Turkish Cypriot republic - which is only recognised by Turkey - would have gained automatic membership of the EU.
None of this has happened.
Two-state solution
The leader of the nationalist UBP party, Dervis Eroglu, has said he will be pressing for international recognition for the breakaway state.
The UBP wants the island to remain divided and has its sights on a two-state model.
Mr Eroglu has said that he would be appointing his own representative to accompany Mr Talat to future negotiations - a complication which is likely to make the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem considerably more difficult, our correspondent says.
The last attempt at a negotiated solution to the Cypriot problem - in 2004 - collapsed when Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of a UN settlement plan which was rejected by Greek Cypriot voters.
As a result, Cyprus - or the southern part ruled by Greek Cypriots - joined the European Union that year, while the north remained effectively excluded.
Just under 162,000 people were eligible to participate in Sunday's vote. The provisional election results were released by the Turkish Cypriot administration with 89% of the votes counted.
The right-wing National Unity Party (UBP), which favours closer links with Turkey rather than EU membership, has won 44% of the vote.
That leaves the ruling Republican Turkish Party (CTP) of leader Mehmet Ali Talat with only 29%.
Mr Talat retains his position, but his hands will now be tied at peace talks.
Cypriot problem
Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkish forces invaded the island in response to an attempt by Greek Cypriots to make it part of Greece.
Frustration at the slow progress of talks aimed at reuniting the island appears to have been a key element in this latest poll, the BBC's Tabitha Morgan reports from Cyprus.
When Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Talat began talks with the Greek Cypriot leader, President Dimitris Christofias, over a year ago, he predicted a deal within months.
As part of the package, the breakaway Turkish Cypriot republic - which is only recognised by Turkey - would have gained automatic membership of the EU.
None of this has happened.
Two-state solution
The leader of the nationalist UBP party, Dervis Eroglu, has said he will be pressing for international recognition for the breakaway state.
The UBP wants the island to remain divided and has its sights on a two-state model.
Mr Eroglu has said that he would be appointing his own representative to accompany Mr Talat to future negotiations - a complication which is likely to make the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem considerably more difficult, our correspondent says.
The last attempt at a negotiated solution to the Cypriot problem - in 2004 - collapsed when Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of a UN settlement plan which was rejected by Greek Cypriot voters.
As a result, Cyprus - or the southern part ruled by Greek Cypriots - joined the European Union that year, while the north remained effectively excluded.
Just under 162,000 people were eligible to participate in Sunday's vote. The provisional election results were released by the Turkish Cypriot administration with 89% of the votes counted.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Greek tourism faces summer drought
By Kerin Hope in Athens
The Greek tourist industry faces a grim summer, with bookings down by 25 to 30 per cent as recessions deepen in Germany and the UK, Greece’s main tourist markets.
Dozens of four-star and five-star hotels in Crete, Rhodes and Corfu, the most popular islands, decided against opening for Easter, the traditional start of the season, in an attempt to keep down costs.
“Many hotels will stay closed in April and May and hope to break even over the peak months,” said Nikos Angelopoulos, president of SETE, an industry group.
Hoteliers also face constraints because banks are cutting lending to the tourist industry, in spite of a €28bn ($37bn, £25bn) government support package aimed at sustaining small and medium-sized businesses, said Mr Angelopoulos.
The €35bn tourism industry is Greece’s biggest employer, but more than 50,000 jobs could be at risk if hotels shut down during the “shoulder” seasons in spring and autumn.
Greek hoteliers are offering foreign tour operators discounts averaging 15 to 25 per cent amid intensifying competition from cheaper destinations such as Turkey and Croatia.
British-based tour operators TUI Travel and Thomas Cook both recently reported strong growth in bookings for Turkey.
The recession has hit all sectors of the Greek market, with yachting, cruise and alternative tourism operators seeing a drop of 20 per cent in bookings and a steady flow of cancellations.
Tourist arrivals were flat last year at 17m after three years of growth, according to Aris Ikkos, managing partner of GBR Consulting. German and UK visitors accounted for almost 30 per cent of total arrivals.
“The number of UK visitors this year will be affected by the decline of the pound against the euro, and more Germans are expected to choose holidays at home,” said Mr Ikkos.
Athens, the main Greek winter destination, saw a significant drop in first-quarter arrivals because of last December’s riots, say hoteliers, although no official figures have been issued. The worst-hit region is the southern island of Crete, which normally caters for 3.5 to 4m tourists, mostly from the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. Local hoteliers’ associations said bookings had fallen by 30 per cent.
Hotels are offering discounts of as much as 40 per cent to secure high-season bookings, said Nikos Korakas, president of the hotel association of west Crete.
“Visitors are cutting the length of a holiday and it’s clear from the last few days that they’re spending less,” Mr Korakas said.
Industry lobby groups are pressing the government to follow the example of Cyprus and cut value-added tax by 3 percentage points for hotels and restaurants.
The Greek tourist industry faces a grim summer, with bookings down by 25 to 30 per cent as recessions deepen in Germany and the UK, Greece’s main tourist markets.
Dozens of four-star and five-star hotels in Crete, Rhodes and Corfu, the most popular islands, decided against opening for Easter, the traditional start of the season, in an attempt to keep down costs.
“Many hotels will stay closed in April and May and hope to break even over the peak months,” said Nikos Angelopoulos, president of SETE, an industry group.
Hoteliers also face constraints because banks are cutting lending to the tourist industry, in spite of a €28bn ($37bn, £25bn) government support package aimed at sustaining small and medium-sized businesses, said Mr Angelopoulos.
The €35bn tourism industry is Greece’s biggest employer, but more than 50,000 jobs could be at risk if hotels shut down during the “shoulder” seasons in spring and autumn.
Greek hoteliers are offering foreign tour operators discounts averaging 15 to 25 per cent amid intensifying competition from cheaper destinations such as Turkey and Croatia.
British-based tour operators TUI Travel and Thomas Cook both recently reported strong growth in bookings for Turkey.
The recession has hit all sectors of the Greek market, with yachting, cruise and alternative tourism operators seeing a drop of 20 per cent in bookings and a steady flow of cancellations.
Tourist arrivals were flat last year at 17m after three years of growth, according to Aris Ikkos, managing partner of GBR Consulting. German and UK visitors accounted for almost 30 per cent of total arrivals.
“The number of UK visitors this year will be affected by the decline of the pound against the euro, and more Germans are expected to choose holidays at home,” said Mr Ikkos.
Athens, the main Greek winter destination, saw a significant drop in first-quarter arrivals because of last December’s riots, say hoteliers, although no official figures have been issued. The worst-hit region is the southern island of Crete, which normally caters for 3.5 to 4m tourists, mostly from the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. Local hoteliers’ associations said bookings had fallen by 30 per cent.
Hotels are offering discounts of as much as 40 per cent to secure high-season bookings, said Nikos Korakas, president of the hotel association of west Crete.
“Visitors are cutting the length of a holiday and it’s clear from the last few days that they’re spending less,” Mr Korakas said.
Industry lobby groups are pressing the government to follow the example of Cyprus and cut value-added tax by 3 percentage points for hotels and restaurants.
Gazprom faces fines threat over gas blast
By Isabel Gorst in Moscow
A gas dispute between Turkmenistan and Russia escalated this week as the central Asian country threatened to claim damages from Gazprom for causing an explosion on a pipeline that has halted its lucrative gas exports to Russia.
The accident, exposing the extent of Turkmenistan’s dependence on Russian gas export routes, could help promote Europe’s campaign to import Turkmen gas through a planned pipeline across the Caspian Sea, bypassing Russia.
It also highlights Turkmenistan’s vulnerability to the global economic crisis, which has reduced Russian gas demand.
Turkmenistan accused Gazprom of triggering the blast by unexpectedly reducing its intake of gas from the main export pipeline linking central Asia with Russia.
Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, the president of Turkmenistan, told a government meeting on Monday he would order an international investigation of the accident unless Gazprom accepted the blame.
“If Gazprom is guilty, let they take upon themselves all losses and expenses inflicted on our country by the accident,” he said.
Gazprom refused on Tuesday to comment about the threat of fines, but said Turkmenistan was responsible for repairing pipelines on its own territory.
Foreign governments have courted Turkmenistan for gas supplies since Mr Berdymukhamedov became president in 2007 and pledged to open up the country to the outside world.
Mr Berdymukhamedov last year sanctioned the construction by a Chinese oil company of a pipeline to China that will end Russia’s stranglehold over Turkmen gas exports from 2010.
He has also held frequent talks with European backers of the the planned Nabucco project to transport Caspian and central Asian gas west across the south Caucasus and Turkey, reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian gas.
Gazprom agreed last year to pay central Asian producers European prices for gas in an attempt to block competition for supplies it needed to compensate for declining output at its Siberian fields.
But the urgency of the race for central Asian gas has evaporated as the economic contraction in Russia depresses energy demand, forcing Gazprom to cut production.
Europe is also consuming less gas and has sharply reduced Russian imports while waiting for gas prices, which lag behind world oil prices by six months, to fall.
“The global economic crisis has turned the Eurasian gas business on its head in the past six months,” said Jonathan Stern, the head of gas research at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies.
“Why on earth would Gazprom buy expensive central Asian gas when it is shutting in its own production?”
Mr Berdymukhamedov visited Moscow last month for talks aimed at finalising plans launched in 2007 to build a new pipeline to carry additional central Asian gas to Russia, but left empty-handed.
A gas dispute between Turkmenistan and Russia escalated this week as the central Asian country threatened to claim damages from Gazprom for causing an explosion on a pipeline that has halted its lucrative gas exports to Russia.
The accident, exposing the extent of Turkmenistan’s dependence on Russian gas export routes, could help promote Europe’s campaign to import Turkmen gas through a planned pipeline across the Caspian Sea, bypassing Russia.
It also highlights Turkmenistan’s vulnerability to the global economic crisis, which has reduced Russian gas demand.
Turkmenistan accused Gazprom of triggering the blast by unexpectedly reducing its intake of gas from the main export pipeline linking central Asia with Russia.
Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, the president of Turkmenistan, told a government meeting on Monday he would order an international investigation of the accident unless Gazprom accepted the blame.
“If Gazprom is guilty, let they take upon themselves all losses and expenses inflicted on our country by the accident,” he said.
Gazprom refused on Tuesday to comment about the threat of fines, but said Turkmenistan was responsible for repairing pipelines on its own territory.
Foreign governments have courted Turkmenistan for gas supplies since Mr Berdymukhamedov became president in 2007 and pledged to open up the country to the outside world.
Mr Berdymukhamedov last year sanctioned the construction by a Chinese oil company of a pipeline to China that will end Russia’s stranglehold over Turkmen gas exports from 2010.
He has also held frequent talks with European backers of the the planned Nabucco project to transport Caspian and central Asian gas west across the south Caucasus and Turkey, reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian gas.
Gazprom agreed last year to pay central Asian producers European prices for gas in an attempt to block competition for supplies it needed to compensate for declining output at its Siberian fields.
But the urgency of the race for central Asian gas has evaporated as the economic contraction in Russia depresses energy demand, forcing Gazprom to cut production.
Europe is also consuming less gas and has sharply reduced Russian imports while waiting for gas prices, which lag behind world oil prices by six months, to fall.
“The global economic crisis has turned the Eurasian gas business on its head in the past six months,” said Jonathan Stern, the head of gas research at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies.
“Why on earth would Gazprom buy expensive central Asian gas when it is shutting in its own production?”
Mr Berdymukhamedov visited Moscow last month for talks aimed at finalising plans launched in 2007 to build a new pipeline to carry additional central Asian gas to Russia, but left empty-handed.
Turkish unemployment reaches historic high
By David O’Byrne in Istanbul
Unemployment rates in Turkey reached a historic high of 15.5 per cent in January according to figures released on Wednesday by Turkey’s institute of statistics.
The rise of 3.9 per cent on the January 2008 figure of 11.6 per cent took unemployment to its highest level recorded since the current method of measuring unemployment was adopted in 2005.
According to the figures a total of 3.65m Turks are now unemployed - an increase of 1.06m on the 2.59m recorded in the same month last year.
Rates for urban unemployment were reported as reaching 17.2 per cent, up 4.2 per cent on the figure of 13 per cent recorded in January 2008 while rural employment was reported as being 11.8 per cent, an increase of 3.4 per cent on the figure of 8.4 per cent recorded in January 2008.
Figures for unemployment among non-agricultural workers showed an even steeper increase at 19 per cent up 5.3 per cent on the 13.7 per cent recorded in January 2008.
However the figures have been challenged by Turkey’s biggest trade union confederation Turk-Is which claims that the true figure is close to 27 per cent.
Turk Is claims that a more accurate assessment of unemployment should also include those who are not actively seeking work but would work if jobs were available, which would include many single women who stay at home and those entering further education as an alternative to unemployment.
The historically high levels come on the back of an eight month period which has seen many major Turkish manufacturers laying off workers.
According to the Istanbul Ready-Wear and Apparel Exporters’ Association as many as 160,000 people have been laid off by textile manufacturers in Turkey since August last year.
Many other manufacturers have opted to halt production for short periods in order to decrease high inventory levels caused by a drastic drop in exports to key European markets caused by the ongoing recession.
Particularly badly hit have been the automotive, white goods and textile sectors.
Turkey’s finance ministry last month announced a drop in purchase taxes on automobiles and white goods in an effort to help manufacturers decrease stocks.
Speaking to the FT Wednesday Ercan Tezer the head of Turkey’s Automotive Industry Federation commented that companies in his sector had been forced to cut production by as much as 60 per cent but because of expectations that demand would rebound had cut their workforces by only around 15 per cent
”Manufacturers are in a difficult position because they need to maintain a highly trained workforce for when demand starts growing again, which we’re expecting next year,” he said.
On Sunday last Turkish Economy Minister Mehmet Simsek and Finance Minister Kemal Unakitan announced Turkey’s EU pre-accession economic programme which envisages industrial production drop by 9.7 per cent during 2009 with the economy shrinking by 3.6-per cent overall.
Unemployment rates in Turkey reached a historic high of 15.5 per cent in January according to figures released on Wednesday by Turkey’s institute of statistics.
The rise of 3.9 per cent on the January 2008 figure of 11.6 per cent took unemployment to its highest level recorded since the current method of measuring unemployment was adopted in 2005.
According to the figures a total of 3.65m Turks are now unemployed - an increase of 1.06m on the 2.59m recorded in the same month last year.
Rates for urban unemployment were reported as reaching 17.2 per cent, up 4.2 per cent on the figure of 13 per cent recorded in January 2008 while rural employment was reported as being 11.8 per cent, an increase of 3.4 per cent on the figure of 8.4 per cent recorded in January 2008.
Figures for unemployment among non-agricultural workers showed an even steeper increase at 19 per cent up 5.3 per cent on the 13.7 per cent recorded in January 2008.
However the figures have been challenged by Turkey’s biggest trade union confederation Turk-Is which claims that the true figure is close to 27 per cent.
Turk Is claims that a more accurate assessment of unemployment should also include those who are not actively seeking work but would work if jobs were available, which would include many single women who stay at home and those entering further education as an alternative to unemployment.
The historically high levels come on the back of an eight month period which has seen many major Turkish manufacturers laying off workers.
According to the Istanbul Ready-Wear and Apparel Exporters’ Association as many as 160,000 people have been laid off by textile manufacturers in Turkey since August last year.
Many other manufacturers have opted to halt production for short periods in order to decrease high inventory levels caused by a drastic drop in exports to key European markets caused by the ongoing recession.
Particularly badly hit have been the automotive, white goods and textile sectors.
Turkey’s finance ministry last month announced a drop in purchase taxes on automobiles and white goods in an effort to help manufacturers decrease stocks.
Speaking to the FT Wednesday Ercan Tezer the head of Turkey’s Automotive Industry Federation commented that companies in his sector had been forced to cut production by as much as 60 per cent but because of expectations that demand would rebound had cut their workforces by only around 15 per cent
”Manufacturers are in a difficult position because they need to maintain a highly trained workforce for when demand starts growing again, which we’re expecting next year,” he said.
On Sunday last Turkish Economy Minister Mehmet Simsek and Finance Minister Kemal Unakitan announced Turkey’s EU pre-accession economic programme which envisages industrial production drop by 9.7 per cent during 2009 with the economy shrinking by 3.6-per cent overall.
Turkey reaps rewards of high regional profile
Ankara’s efforts to cultivate good relations with its neighbours and play a more active role in regional diplomacy paid off handsomely this week when Turkey became the first country to host a formal state visit from Barack Obama.
In a two-day charm offensive, the US president gave praise to parliamentarians for Turkey’s “strong and secular democracy”, took questions from wide-eyed students, admired Istanbul’s Blue Mosque and left a handwritten tribute at the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the republic’s founder.
“This is the first overseas visit – the first bilateral visit – of the new US president. The fact that he has chosen Turkey and has chosen to address the Islamic world from the Turkish parliament made us very happy,” Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, told the Financial Times in an interview.
The display of friendship will help Turkey’s government, which has roots in political Islam, counter claims that it has been promoting ties with Muslim states at the expense of its traditional western alignment.
Mr Obama said Turkey’s new popularity in the Muslim world made it the ally he needed in a region suspicious of US intentions.
Mr Gul is proud of the fact that he and Turkish ministers have been able to travel relatively freely in Iraq and Afghanistan recently, in contrast with western leaders’ high-security dashes.
“We are not leaders who go to Afghanistan to visit our troops there in an isolated manner and then come back. So Turkey’s ability to contribute in these matters is very large,” said Mr Gul.
Ankara put more emphasis on civilian activities in Afghanistan, Mr Gul said, reeling off lists of girls’ schools opened and roads surfaced, but he said Turkey would also send more non-combat troops when it took command of Nato forces in Kabul later this year.
The president is far more guarded when questioned about Armenia, the neighbour with which Turkey has no formal diplomatic relations. Mr Obama used his visit to convene Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers in Istanbul and urge rapid progress in talks to open their border, which was closed by Turkey in 1993 to support Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Azerbaijan shunned the talks, alarmed that Turkey might reach a deal it had previously linked to resolving the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.
“The major problem in the Caucasus is the Karabakh question between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” said Mr Gul. “I believe that 2009 is a year of opportunity in that respect.” But he did not rule out Turkey normalising relations with Armenia before any progress is made over the disputed territory.
Turkey’s new profile in regional politics appears, if anything, to have helped to revive its partnership with the US. Both sides will hope that Mr Obama’s visit helps stem a rising tide of anti-US sentiment in Turkey.
But Ankara’s growing assertiveness – whether berating Israel’s policies in Gaza, holding out for better terms over the planned Nabucco gas pipeline across Turkey, or voicing loud objections to Europe’s favoured candidate for Nato’s leadership – is doing nothing to further its flagging efforts to join the European Union.
Bernard Kouchner, one of the few French politicians to have backed Turkey’s EU ambitions, expressed shock at Turkey’s objection – later withdrawn – to the Danish premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s nomination as Nato secretary-general.
Mr Gul, who as foreign minister led Turkey’s drive to begin EU membership talks, does not hide his frustration at obstacles placed in Turkey’s EU path – by Greek Cypriots and others – blaming them for sapping public support for reform.
Certain countries “are in conflict with their own signatures, their own commitments”, he said, maintaining that Turkey, in contrast, remained serious about talks to end divisions on Cyprus.
As foreign minister, he said, he had told Nato and EU colleagues “time and again that we have to solve this problem on time, as soon as possible, because in the future it is likely to poison some more important and strategic issues.
“In the meantime...we are going to continue our reform process, because these are our reforms and we want to do them ourselves.”
In a two-day charm offensive, the US president gave praise to parliamentarians for Turkey’s “strong and secular democracy”, took questions from wide-eyed students, admired Istanbul’s Blue Mosque and left a handwritten tribute at the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the republic’s founder.
“This is the first overseas visit – the first bilateral visit – of the new US president. The fact that he has chosen Turkey and has chosen to address the Islamic world from the Turkish parliament made us very happy,” Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, told the Financial Times in an interview.
The display of friendship will help Turkey’s government, which has roots in political Islam, counter claims that it has been promoting ties with Muslim states at the expense of its traditional western alignment.
Mr Obama said Turkey’s new popularity in the Muslim world made it the ally he needed in a region suspicious of US intentions.
Mr Gul is proud of the fact that he and Turkish ministers have been able to travel relatively freely in Iraq and Afghanistan recently, in contrast with western leaders’ high-security dashes.
“We are not leaders who go to Afghanistan to visit our troops there in an isolated manner and then come back. So Turkey’s ability to contribute in these matters is very large,” said Mr Gul.
Ankara put more emphasis on civilian activities in Afghanistan, Mr Gul said, reeling off lists of girls’ schools opened and roads surfaced, but he said Turkey would also send more non-combat troops when it took command of Nato forces in Kabul later this year.
The president is far more guarded when questioned about Armenia, the neighbour with which Turkey has no formal diplomatic relations. Mr Obama used his visit to convene Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers in Istanbul and urge rapid progress in talks to open their border, which was closed by Turkey in 1993 to support Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Azerbaijan shunned the talks, alarmed that Turkey might reach a deal it had previously linked to resolving the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.
“The major problem in the Caucasus is the Karabakh question between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” said Mr Gul. “I believe that 2009 is a year of opportunity in that respect.” But he did not rule out Turkey normalising relations with Armenia before any progress is made over the disputed territory.
Turkey’s new profile in regional politics appears, if anything, to have helped to revive its partnership with the US. Both sides will hope that Mr Obama’s visit helps stem a rising tide of anti-US sentiment in Turkey.
But Ankara’s growing assertiveness – whether berating Israel’s policies in Gaza, holding out for better terms over the planned Nabucco gas pipeline across Turkey, or voicing loud objections to Europe’s favoured candidate for Nato’s leadership – is doing nothing to further its flagging efforts to join the European Union.
Bernard Kouchner, one of the few French politicians to have backed Turkey’s EU ambitions, expressed shock at Turkey’s objection – later withdrawn – to the Danish premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s nomination as Nato secretary-general.
Mr Gul, who as foreign minister led Turkey’s drive to begin EU membership talks, does not hide his frustration at obstacles placed in Turkey’s EU path – by Greek Cypriots and others – blaming them for sapping public support for reform.
Certain countries “are in conflict with their own signatures, their own commitments”, he said, maintaining that Turkey, in contrast, remained serious about talks to end divisions on Cyprus.
As foreign minister, he said, he had told Nato and EU colleagues “time and again that we have to solve this problem on time, as soon as possible, because in the future it is likely to poison some more important and strategic issues.
“In the meantime...we are going to continue our reform process, because these are our reforms and we want to do them ourselves.”
EU old boys play politics with Turkey
By Ben Hall in Paris and Chris Bryant in Berlin
Published: April 8 2009 23:25 | Last updated: April 8 2009 23:25
Centre-right governing parties in France and Germany have leapt on the awkward question of Turkey’s place in Europe for their own political advantage as they gear up for elections.
The row between Turkey and other Nato members over the job of secretary-general and US president Barack Obama’s push at the weekend for Turkish membership of the E U allowed the German Christian Democrats and France’s UMP to underline their opposition to Ankara’s accession.
With European parliamentary elections in June, followed in September by Germany’s general election, it pays to tap into popular suspicion of Turkey’s EU credentials, which is particularly strong among conservative and far-right voters.
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, ignored Turkish resistance to the nomination of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as Nato secretary-general, and gave the Danish prime minister her full backing.
She and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, both reiterated their opposition to EU membership for the predominantly Muslim country.
They have called instead for a “privileged partnership”.
Mr Sarkozy, the most pro-American French leader in a generation, tartly reminded Mr Obama that it is the EU which decides who can join its club.
Ms Merkel did not challenge the US president, but the CSU, her Bavarian sister-party, which risks falling short of the 5 per cent hurdle required to enter the European parliament, seized the moment.
Bernd Posselt, a CSU member of the European parliament criticised Mr Obama for “meddling in the internal affairs of Europe”, and suggested the US should instead accept Turkey as its 51st state.
Horst Seehofer, CSU leader, said Turkey “as a self-proclaimed representative of the Muslim world, clearly doesn’t fit in”.
Mr Sarkozy’s party has sought to play up the Turkish issue to highlight its unity on the subject in contrast to the left’s alleged divisions.
French advocates of Turkish membership inside the government have helpfully changed their minds.
Bernard Kouchner, the left-leaning foreign minister, renounced on Tuesday his support for Turkish entry, saying he was “very shocked” by Ankara’s behaviour at the Nato summit.
Mr Kouchner said he was also concerned by Turkey’s evolution towards a “strengthened religion, a secularism that is less emphasised”.
Published: April 8 2009 23:25 | Last updated: April 8 2009 23:25
Centre-right governing parties in France and Germany have leapt on the awkward question of Turkey’s place in Europe for their own political advantage as they gear up for elections.
The row between Turkey and other Nato members over the job of secretary-general and US president Barack Obama’s push at the weekend for Turkish membership of the E U allowed the German Christian Democrats and France’s UMP to underline their opposition to Ankara’s accession.
With European parliamentary elections in June, followed in September by Germany’s general election, it pays to tap into popular suspicion of Turkey’s EU credentials, which is particularly strong among conservative and far-right voters.
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, ignored Turkish resistance to the nomination of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as Nato secretary-general, and gave the Danish prime minister her full backing.
She and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, both reiterated their opposition to EU membership for the predominantly Muslim country.
They have called instead for a “privileged partnership”.
Mr Sarkozy, the most pro-American French leader in a generation, tartly reminded Mr Obama that it is the EU which decides who can join its club.
Ms Merkel did not challenge the US president, but the CSU, her Bavarian sister-party, which risks falling short of the 5 per cent hurdle required to enter the European parliament, seized the moment.
Bernd Posselt, a CSU member of the European parliament criticised Mr Obama for “meddling in the internal affairs of Europe”, and suggested the US should instead accept Turkey as its 51st state.
Horst Seehofer, CSU leader, said Turkey “as a self-proclaimed representative of the Muslim world, clearly doesn’t fit in”.
Mr Sarkozy’s party has sought to play up the Turkish issue to highlight its unity on the subject in contrast to the left’s alleged divisions.
French advocates of Turkish membership inside the government have helpfully changed their minds.
Bernard Kouchner, the left-leaning foreign minister, renounced on Tuesday his support for Turkish entry, saying he was “very shocked” by Ankara’s behaviour at the Nato summit.
Mr Kouchner said he was also concerned by Turkey’s evolution towards a “strengthened religion, a secularism that is less emphasised”.
Time for Turkey to try quiet diplomacy
President Barack Obama’s visit to Turkey last week – towards the end of his first big international trip – paid a handsome compliment to the country’s growing influence in international affairs. Under the administration of George W. Bush, relations between Washington and Ankara slipped badly, not least because Turkey refused to support the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. But Mr Obama’s state visit may have marked a turning point. The US president underlined Turkey’s importance as a bridge between the Islamic world and the west. He made clear that Turkey had a role as a negotiator between Israel and the Arab world. He voiced, too, the hope that Turkey would one day join the European Union.
This last aspiration, of course, prompted another display of anguish from some European leaders. No sooner had Mr Obama spoken than Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, argued that “the immense majority” of EU states opposed Turkey’s accession. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, acknowledged there were huge “differences of opinion” inside her country on Turkey’s EU hopes.
Such doubts over Turkey’s EU ambition are regrettable. As Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, reminded the FT in an interview last week, his country has begun entry negotiations with the EU and is pressing on with political reforms needed to underpin its bid. It should be encouraged in this. The prospect of EU membership is one of the best guarantees of Turkey’s political stability. It would also help improve relations between Islam and the west.
Even so, the Turkish government must be aware of one thing. It does itself no favours when adopting a needlessly brash tone on the world stage. Turkey may be playing a constructive role in attempts to stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan. But Recep Tayyip Erdogan, prime minister, nearly wrecked the recent Nato summit with his lone opposition to Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s nomination as the organisation’s secretary-general. The summit was too important a stage for such petty grandstanding, which damaged Turkey’s international image.
Instead, this is a time for Turkey to display quiet and responsible diplomacy. The next few months bring two great challenges. The first is to normalise relations with Armenia and reopen the border closed by Turkey in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan. The second is to reach a settlement with Greece over Cyprus, a dispute which poisons decision-making inside the EU and Nato. If Turkey can display statesmanship on both these fronts, it will significantly bolster its claims to EU accession.
This last aspiration, of course, prompted another display of anguish from some European leaders. No sooner had Mr Obama spoken than Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, argued that “the immense majority” of EU states opposed Turkey’s accession. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, acknowledged there were huge “differences of opinion” inside her country on Turkey’s EU hopes.
Such doubts over Turkey’s EU ambition are regrettable. As Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, reminded the FT in an interview last week, his country has begun entry negotiations with the EU and is pressing on with political reforms needed to underpin its bid. It should be encouraged in this. The prospect of EU membership is one of the best guarantees of Turkey’s political stability. It would also help improve relations between Islam and the west.
Even so, the Turkish government must be aware of one thing. It does itself no favours when adopting a needlessly brash tone on the world stage. Turkey may be playing a constructive role in attempts to stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan. But Recep Tayyip Erdogan, prime minister, nearly wrecked the recent Nato summit with his lone opposition to Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s nomination as the organisation’s secretary-general. The summit was too important a stage for such petty grandstanding, which damaged Turkey’s international image.
Instead, this is a time for Turkey to display quiet and responsible diplomacy. The next few months bring two great challenges. The first is to normalise relations with Armenia and reopen the border closed by Turkey in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan. The second is to reach a settlement with Greece over Cyprus, a dispute which poisons decision-making inside the EU and Nato. If Turkey can display statesmanship on both these fronts, it will significantly bolster its claims to EU accession.
Interview transcript: Abdullah Gul
In an interview with Delphine Strauss in Ankara after Barack Obama’s visit, Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president spoke of his reaction to the US president’s initiatives and warned that European criticisms could pose a threat to western security interests. The following is a transcript of the interview
What do you expect the impact of President Obama’s visit to be inside Turkey?
Gul: First of all we were very happy because this is the first overseas visit – the first bilateral visit of the new US president - to our country and the fact that he has chosen Turkey and has chosen to address the Islamic world from the Turkish parliament made us very happy.
We have seen that they realise the place of Turkey. I told him, take out a piece of paper and write down the priorities for US foreign policy. I’d also take a paper and write down the issues Turkey has been dealing with. You will not see such similarities with any other country in the issues they are dealing with.
Of course the US is a superpower, so they have duties, but in this region we are one of the important countries. In this region, from Afghanistan to the Balkans, from energy security to the Middle East, from terrorism to nuclear disarmament, these are issues not only of interest to Turkey but to all of the world.
Therefore the visit of the US president to Turkey was not only aiming at strengthening bilateral relations between the two countries but also of great relevance to regional and international issues.
One of the most important messages Obama gave yesterday was his support for the talks going on between Armenia and Turkey. He also met yesterday evening with both foreign ministers. What is left to resolve before we see public steps on this issue?
Gul: As I’m sure you know there have been efforts at normalisation from time to time between the two countries, but as you see these efforts accelerated after my visit to Armenia. This visit was a historical visit because this was the first time a Turkish president was in Yerevan and from that time on from telephone calls and other communications we have come to a certain mutual understanding on normalisation of relations. Through bilateral talks, I can say that we have reached a good understanding towards normalisation. In fact, after last summer there has been a new situation in the Caucasus. Everybody saw that these problems which we thought were frozen could immediately become big problems.
Therefore we have started an initiative named Stability and Cooperation in the Caucasus. From this perspective the major problem in the Caucasus is the Karabagh question between Armenia and Azerbaijan, We wish that this problem is resolved so that a new climate emerges in the Caucasus, because in fact although this is a relatively small area it can become a wall between East and West or it can become a gateway.
We are in a great effort to resolve these problems in the Caucasus and I believe that the year 2009 is a year of opportunity in that respect. And therefore I would like to invite everybody, beginning with the Minsk group, to multiply their efforts to come up with a solution.
We heard from president Obama that a breakthrough in these talks could be very close. Are you saying we should not expect a public step forward before there has been progress in the Minsk group?
Gul: I can say that there is a good level of understanding between the parties and goodwill on both sides
There is a clear statement that partnership with Turkey is crucial to US policies in the region. What role exactly does the US want Turkey to play, for example, in Afghanistan?
Gul: Frankly in this visit there was no concrete demand. Based on our understanding of our responsibility in that matter we have increased our efforts, our contributions, not only in terms of our military presence but also in our civilian activities.
As you know we had the command of ISAF twice before and we will now take over the command of the forces in Afghanistan. There are other sides of our military activities but what’s more important is the civilian activities that we’re undertaking and I’ve shared this extensively in our Nato meeting. I’ve visited Kabul. I stayed there two days, I visited everywhere in that city and I saw that we cannot win people’s hearts and minds no matter how much we spend on the military side. I said before that the streets of Kabul are flooded with mud. People are walking there as if they are just floating on mud. We’ve now allocated $100m for asphalting streets in Kabul. We’ve almost finished the tender process and started actually preparing the roads. In a country where the girls are not allowed to go out in the street, we’ve open tens of schools for girls. In total we’ve opened hundreds of schools.
You might have followed that five days ago we had the president of Afghanistan and Pakistan and also the general chiefs of joint staff [for meetings in Ankara]... This was very important... Our sole objective in this was to establish a working relationship between these institutions and it actually materialised.
I have obtained in full the opinion of both of these presidents so that I can convey these views to the Nato leaders and to president Obama. I was very happy that I shared our assessments and the realities and the facts in a very open manner and I think it was of great service.
Our foreign minister has visited all three regions in Afghanistan, many cities, with his wife. We are not leaders to go to Afghanistan and to visit our troops there in an isolated manner and come back. So the capacity of contribution in Turkey in those matters is very large. Why are we doing all of this? We are doing all of this for peace and stability and to expand our common values.
I understand that as Turkey takes over command in Afghanistan that will involve increasing the numbers of troops. Is that correct?
Gul: Yes, as I’ve said we’re increasing our military and civilian presence. The way in which we do these things, the military authorities are working on that.
Do you have a sense of the numbers involved?
Gul: This will certainly be an important contribution but there will not be any combat forces.
Turkey has been very assertive in its foreign policy recently, for example making its objections to the appointment of Mr Rasmussen very clear. Is there a risk of all this antagonising its European partners?
Gul: That shouldn’t be the case. Especially in a defence organisation like Nato, it is necessary that you discuss these matters in decision making mechanisms and come to a decision. Since 1952 Turkey has been the most active member of nato and a major contributor. During the cold war period Turkey spent its own resources for the defence of Europe. This should be appreciated.
We have discussed [Rasmussen’s candidacy] with all of our partners over the phone and we had some questions and we shared our concerns and so our concerns are met.
Now we must look to the future and we have to work all together in order to make the new secretary general successful.
In fact concerning the points you have raised I am aware of some opinions from various circles and this is worrying.
[Breaking in on translator in English] It’s very dangerous and making us disturbed.
[Switching back to Turkish] You know for example even in the EU, some countries whose contributions are smaller may be blocking or vetoing some strategic issues which can be extremely important.
In this present case, if a country has a significant and vital contribution to the organisation, if they have concerns, rational concerns on a concrete subject it is very natural that this should be listened to and responded to. So these points should not be underestimated.
We neither engaged in blackmail nor did we have an irrational request. We acted in a rational logical and in a modern way within the compromise which is a European culture. And indeed in the end we came to an understanding. Therefore I am surprised to see comments of that nature coming from certain countries. I don’t find it terribly in line with the European spirit.
There’s been a lot of speculation about exactly what guarantees given allowed Turkey to overcome its objections [to Rasmussen’s appointment]. Can you able to tell me how president Obama was able to convince you?
Gul: I prefer not to communicate through newspaper headlines. We should look to the future. We should make Nato and the new Secretary General successful.
One issue in particular is causing friction in Nato now – the difficulties over EU-Nato cooperation where of course Cyprus plays a part. Is this an issue where Turkey would be able to make some kind of gesture that would make the issue less sensitive?
Gul: In fact if there’s going to be a gesture I think there should be a gesture to us, not from us… We make more contribution, a more strategic contribution and more sacrifice. Not others.
This is very important. I was foreign minister for 5/6 years and at all of our meetings in Nato in the EU I have told my colleagues time and again that we have to solve this problem on time, as soon as possible because in the future it is likely to poison some more important and strategic issues.
So the world is a very fragile place and there is a big potential for problems, there are big threats and there may be times when we need even stronger cooperation. This problem might hijack the huge issues and prevent us having a huge solidarity so therefore I used to warn all my colleagues, let’s solve this problem in a fair manner. I was warning them many times…
You are right, it’s a problem in the EU. It’s a problem that the EU and Nato have not been having very healthy and full cooperation. But it’s not because of us. It’s because of the others.
Are you worried that time is running out for talks to solve the Cyprus issue?
Gul: We are very serious for a solution. We really wish this problem to dissolve - I’m not making propaganda, we proved this in 2004. We took the risk, we compromised, we challenged inside and we made sacrifices and the plan was put to a referendum on both sides. So Turks and Turkey said yes, the other side rejected.
What else we can do? Anyway, that’s old, we start again and we have a full intention to reach a comprehensive solution over there. That’s why we have full support behind president Talat. We wish this problem to be over very soon. Once the problem is over we believe that Turkey, Greece and the whole of Cyprus can be another pillar in the EU with full cooperation. This is our real desire, this is our vision. Once, when it was not a joke, in 2004 we proved ourselves, so we have the credibility.
Is it helpful for the US to intervene in support for Turkey’s EU bid – or the reverse?
Gul: We do not ask them to do it. They’ve done these public declarations because of their strategic approach, and nobody should be disturbed by this, because in the end the decision regarding Turkey is the decision of members of the European Union and nobody will be making this decision under pressure. All member states made their own decision – by unanimity and of their own free will – to start membership negotiations with Turkey… This is not likely to happen under pressure. They have elaborated and studied the matter to see whether Turkey is an asset or not and they came to the conclusion that it’s probably an asset
[The decline in domestic support for EU process] is not because its taking a long time. But some public statements coming from some member states are upsetting public opinion and undermining the credibility of those states. Because they are then in conflict with their own signatures, their own commitments. In the meantime the negotiation process is going on and Turkey is amending its laws and regulations and constitution to harmonise with the Community acquis… In any case we are going to continue with our reform process because these are our reforms and we want to do them ourselves.
What do you expect the impact of President Obama’s visit to be inside Turkey?
Gul: First of all we were very happy because this is the first overseas visit – the first bilateral visit of the new US president - to our country and the fact that he has chosen Turkey and has chosen to address the Islamic world from the Turkish parliament made us very happy.
We have seen that they realise the place of Turkey. I told him, take out a piece of paper and write down the priorities for US foreign policy. I’d also take a paper and write down the issues Turkey has been dealing with. You will not see such similarities with any other country in the issues they are dealing with.
Of course the US is a superpower, so they have duties, but in this region we are one of the important countries. In this region, from Afghanistan to the Balkans, from energy security to the Middle East, from terrorism to nuclear disarmament, these are issues not only of interest to Turkey but to all of the world.
Therefore the visit of the US president to Turkey was not only aiming at strengthening bilateral relations between the two countries but also of great relevance to regional and international issues.
One of the most important messages Obama gave yesterday was his support for the talks going on between Armenia and Turkey. He also met yesterday evening with both foreign ministers. What is left to resolve before we see public steps on this issue?
Gul: As I’m sure you know there have been efforts at normalisation from time to time between the two countries, but as you see these efforts accelerated after my visit to Armenia. This visit was a historical visit because this was the first time a Turkish president was in Yerevan and from that time on from telephone calls and other communications we have come to a certain mutual understanding on normalisation of relations. Through bilateral talks, I can say that we have reached a good understanding towards normalisation. In fact, after last summer there has been a new situation in the Caucasus. Everybody saw that these problems which we thought were frozen could immediately become big problems.
Therefore we have started an initiative named Stability and Cooperation in the Caucasus. From this perspective the major problem in the Caucasus is the Karabagh question between Armenia and Azerbaijan, We wish that this problem is resolved so that a new climate emerges in the Caucasus, because in fact although this is a relatively small area it can become a wall between East and West or it can become a gateway.
We are in a great effort to resolve these problems in the Caucasus and I believe that the year 2009 is a year of opportunity in that respect. And therefore I would like to invite everybody, beginning with the Minsk group, to multiply their efforts to come up with a solution.
We heard from president Obama that a breakthrough in these talks could be very close. Are you saying we should not expect a public step forward before there has been progress in the Minsk group?
Gul: I can say that there is a good level of understanding between the parties and goodwill on both sides
There is a clear statement that partnership with Turkey is crucial to US policies in the region. What role exactly does the US want Turkey to play, for example, in Afghanistan?
Gul: Frankly in this visit there was no concrete demand. Based on our understanding of our responsibility in that matter we have increased our efforts, our contributions, not only in terms of our military presence but also in our civilian activities.
As you know we had the command of ISAF twice before and we will now take over the command of the forces in Afghanistan. There are other sides of our military activities but what’s more important is the civilian activities that we’re undertaking and I’ve shared this extensively in our Nato meeting. I’ve visited Kabul. I stayed there two days, I visited everywhere in that city and I saw that we cannot win people’s hearts and minds no matter how much we spend on the military side. I said before that the streets of Kabul are flooded with mud. People are walking there as if they are just floating on mud. We’ve now allocated $100m for asphalting streets in Kabul. We’ve almost finished the tender process and started actually preparing the roads. In a country where the girls are not allowed to go out in the street, we’ve open tens of schools for girls. In total we’ve opened hundreds of schools.
You might have followed that five days ago we had the president of Afghanistan and Pakistan and also the general chiefs of joint staff [for meetings in Ankara]... This was very important... Our sole objective in this was to establish a working relationship between these institutions and it actually materialised.
I have obtained in full the opinion of both of these presidents so that I can convey these views to the Nato leaders and to president Obama. I was very happy that I shared our assessments and the realities and the facts in a very open manner and I think it was of great service.
Our foreign minister has visited all three regions in Afghanistan, many cities, with his wife. We are not leaders to go to Afghanistan and to visit our troops there in an isolated manner and come back. So the capacity of contribution in Turkey in those matters is very large. Why are we doing all of this? We are doing all of this for peace and stability and to expand our common values.
I understand that as Turkey takes over command in Afghanistan that will involve increasing the numbers of troops. Is that correct?
Gul: Yes, as I’ve said we’re increasing our military and civilian presence. The way in which we do these things, the military authorities are working on that.
Do you have a sense of the numbers involved?
Gul: This will certainly be an important contribution but there will not be any combat forces.
Turkey has been very assertive in its foreign policy recently, for example making its objections to the appointment of Mr Rasmussen very clear. Is there a risk of all this antagonising its European partners?
Gul: That shouldn’t be the case. Especially in a defence organisation like Nato, it is necessary that you discuss these matters in decision making mechanisms and come to a decision. Since 1952 Turkey has been the most active member of nato and a major contributor. During the cold war period Turkey spent its own resources for the defence of Europe. This should be appreciated.
We have discussed [Rasmussen’s candidacy] with all of our partners over the phone and we had some questions and we shared our concerns and so our concerns are met.
Now we must look to the future and we have to work all together in order to make the new secretary general successful.
In fact concerning the points you have raised I am aware of some opinions from various circles and this is worrying.
[Breaking in on translator in English] It’s very dangerous and making us disturbed.
[Switching back to Turkish] You know for example even in the EU, some countries whose contributions are smaller may be blocking or vetoing some strategic issues which can be extremely important.
In this present case, if a country has a significant and vital contribution to the organisation, if they have concerns, rational concerns on a concrete subject it is very natural that this should be listened to and responded to. So these points should not be underestimated.
We neither engaged in blackmail nor did we have an irrational request. We acted in a rational logical and in a modern way within the compromise which is a European culture. And indeed in the end we came to an understanding. Therefore I am surprised to see comments of that nature coming from certain countries. I don’t find it terribly in line with the European spirit.
There’s been a lot of speculation about exactly what guarantees given allowed Turkey to overcome its objections [to Rasmussen’s appointment]. Can you able to tell me how president Obama was able to convince you?
Gul: I prefer not to communicate through newspaper headlines. We should look to the future. We should make Nato and the new Secretary General successful.
One issue in particular is causing friction in Nato now – the difficulties over EU-Nato cooperation where of course Cyprus plays a part. Is this an issue where Turkey would be able to make some kind of gesture that would make the issue less sensitive?
Gul: In fact if there’s going to be a gesture I think there should be a gesture to us, not from us… We make more contribution, a more strategic contribution and more sacrifice. Not others.
This is very important. I was foreign minister for 5/6 years and at all of our meetings in Nato in the EU I have told my colleagues time and again that we have to solve this problem on time, as soon as possible because in the future it is likely to poison some more important and strategic issues.
So the world is a very fragile place and there is a big potential for problems, there are big threats and there may be times when we need even stronger cooperation. This problem might hijack the huge issues and prevent us having a huge solidarity so therefore I used to warn all my colleagues, let’s solve this problem in a fair manner. I was warning them many times…
You are right, it’s a problem in the EU. It’s a problem that the EU and Nato have not been having very healthy and full cooperation. But it’s not because of us. It’s because of the others.
Are you worried that time is running out for talks to solve the Cyprus issue?
Gul: We are very serious for a solution. We really wish this problem to dissolve - I’m not making propaganda, we proved this in 2004. We took the risk, we compromised, we challenged inside and we made sacrifices and the plan was put to a referendum on both sides. So Turks and Turkey said yes, the other side rejected.
What else we can do? Anyway, that’s old, we start again and we have a full intention to reach a comprehensive solution over there. That’s why we have full support behind president Talat. We wish this problem to be over very soon. Once the problem is over we believe that Turkey, Greece and the whole of Cyprus can be another pillar in the EU with full cooperation. This is our real desire, this is our vision. Once, when it was not a joke, in 2004 we proved ourselves, so we have the credibility.
Is it helpful for the US to intervene in support for Turkey’s EU bid – or the reverse?
Gul: We do not ask them to do it. They’ve done these public declarations because of their strategic approach, and nobody should be disturbed by this, because in the end the decision regarding Turkey is the decision of members of the European Union and nobody will be making this decision under pressure. All member states made their own decision – by unanimity and of their own free will – to start membership negotiations with Turkey… This is not likely to happen under pressure. They have elaborated and studied the matter to see whether Turkey is an asset or not and they came to the conclusion that it’s probably an asset
[The decline in domestic support for EU process] is not because its taking a long time. But some public statements coming from some member states are upsetting public opinion and undermining the credibility of those states. Because they are then in conflict with their own signatures, their own commitments. In the meantime the negotiation process is going on and Turkey is amending its laws and regulations and constitution to harmonise with the Community acquis… In any case we are going to continue with our reform process because these are our reforms and we want to do them ourselves.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Obama stresses Turkey's role in 'civilisation' outreach
US President Barack Obama began a groundbreaking visit to Ankara and Istanbul today (6 April), seeking to boost the role of this large Muslim ally on the world stage.
Background:
The second forum of the 'Alliance of Civilisations', held on 6-7 April in Turkey, seeks to address some of the ongoing tensions and dividing lines across cultures and religions, and to examine some of the broader challenges related to good governance of cultural diversity in an age of rapidly accelerating globalisation.
Hosted by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the forum convenes a network of global leaders, including US President Barack Obama, heads of international organisations including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, civil society and youth groups. Its declared aim is to forge partnerships aimed at building substantive interaction between diverse communities and strengthening trust and reconciliation across cultures.
The conference builds upon the success of the inaugural Alliance Forum which was held in Madrid, Spain, in January 2008. The high representative for the Alliance of Civilisations is former Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio.
Turkey-related controversy has outshined other topics during the successive European stopovers of US President Barack Obama over the last few days.
At the NATO summit in Strasbourg on 3-4 April, discussions centred on overcoming Ankara's initial reluctance to appoint Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the Alliance's next secretary-general.
Rasmussen finally got the job after Turkish President Abdullah Gül dropped his opposition, following intense telephone mediation by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Obama himself. Turkey was against the appointment of Rasmussen due to the 2006 'cartoon' crisis (EurActiv 15/02/06), as well as Denmark's hosting of a Kurdish satellite channel, Roj TV.
Bargaining gains
Erdogan told Turkish television that Turkey had received "guarantees" from Obama that one of Rasmussen's deputies would be a Turk and that Turkish commanders would be present in the alliance's command, Reuters reported. Also, according to Bloomberg, Rasmussen had promised that his country would shut down Roj TV, if investigations show it has connections with terrorists.
During his next stop in Prague for an EU-US summit on 4-5 April, Obama put his weight behind Turkey's membership of the European Union, prompting French President Nicolas Sarkozy to reiterate in strong terms his government's opposition to the country's EU accession.
France against Turkey in EU
In an interview in Prague for French television channel TF1, Sarkozy said his negative stance towards Turkish membership of the bloc had not changed.
"I have always been against [Turkey's] admission and I continue to be opposed to it. I think I can say a huge majority of member countries take the same position as France," Sarkozy said.
Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg told journalists that Turkey's EU admission was not officially discussed at the EU-US summit in Prague.
"It is known that a few states - not only France, but also Germany - are sceptical enough about Turkey joining. The Austrians are not happy about it either," Schwarzenberg said.
Regional and global contribution
According to the Turkish press, Obama's official visit to Turkey, which is taking place not long after the new US president took office, is a sign of the importance of the two countries' bilateral relationship.
In Ankara, Obama will have talks with President Gül, Prime Minister Erdogan, parliament speaker Köksal Toptan and leaders of the opposition parties represented in parliament. He will also address a plenary session of the parliament today (6 April), reflecting the US administration's support for Turkey's parliamentary democracy.
NATO's role in Afghanistan, where Turkey currently has more than 800 troops, is likely to be high on the agenda of Obama's talks with Turkish officials. Obama's new approach to Afghanistan, which highlights the need for more civilian efforts there, is a point which has been frequently underlined in the Turkish capital, Zaman wrote.
The US president will then proceed to Istanbul, which is hosting the second forum of the UN-led Alliance of Civilisations (UNAOC). The forum, which kicked off today (6 April) and ends tomorrow, is likely to see Obama's participation to a reception held tonight for world leaders attending the forum.
As the Turkish daily Zaman reminds, during the Munich Security Conference held in Germany in February, US Vice President Joe Biden reiterated Obama's desire to steer clear of the 'clash of civilisations' theory, stressing his desire to break with some of the more confrontational aspects of former President George W. Bush's foreign policy.
Turkey is also seen by Washington as a key player in the Middle East conflict. Erdogan recently obtained hero status in the Arab world when he walked out on the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a debate earlier this year in Davos (EurActiv 30/01/09).
Mediation with Teheran?
The Turkish press is also speculating that Obama may meet former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in Istanbul. The speculation comes after Turkey announced its readiness to mediate in possible talks between Tehran and Washington.
Turkey is the ideal location for a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran should such a meeting take place, the Middle East Times writes.
Relations between Washington and Ankara have been going through a difficult spell since 2003, when the Turkish parliament voted not to let President George W. Bush use Turkish soil to open a front of the invasion of Iraq.
In a damage-limitation strategy, any tension over difficult issues, such as Turkey's denial of an Armenian genocide during the Ottoman era, is expected to be avoided during Obama's trip. Unlike his predecessors Bush and Clinton, Obama will not pay a visit to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians. Turkey harbours historical mistrust toward the patriarchate.
Positions:
Sami Kohen of the Turkish daily Milliyet wrote that the centre of gravity of Obama's visit is not just about giving support to Turkey's EU bid, but also highlights the importance of Turkey's geostrategic position.
"Obama is eager to win Turkey back," the author writes. "Turkey is building up close relations with Middle East countries and the Muslim communities. The US is quite worried about that, and Obama wants a new insight in Turkey-US relations. This is why Obama is paying a visit to Turkey."
The visit, Kohen continues, has a different objective to Obama's European trip. "He visited European countries, but there he participated in multi-lateral meetings such as the NATO summit or the EU-US summit. But his visit to Turkey has a different characteristic. He comes to Turkey just for Turkey [for bilateral relations]. The US is reconsidering its foreign policy. Obama's message is:'Let's not alienate Turkey'."
Mustafa Akyol, deputy editor of the Hurriyet daily, writes that together with Obama, the Turkish government is hoping that it can build up its soft power in the region.
"The Bush administration was not very open to dialogue with several important actors in the Middle East. So, when Obama came to power with a more reconciliatory tone, with a message that says 'The United States will listen,' and when Obama said he wants to engage in a process with Iran, Turkey said, 'Yes, this is what we have been waiting for'."
Nusret Kandemir, a former Turkish ambassador, stated: "This visit is quite different than any other visits of US presidents to Turkey. In the past, it has always been Turkey which wanted to gain something from US or which has been the demanding side. And the point has always been whether Turkey achieved its goals or not. But this time, US wants to change its image of the last eight years. Now the US is the demanding part."
Background:
The second forum of the 'Alliance of Civilisations', held on 6-7 April in Turkey, seeks to address some of the ongoing tensions and dividing lines across cultures and religions, and to examine some of the broader challenges related to good governance of cultural diversity in an age of rapidly accelerating globalisation.
Hosted by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the forum convenes a network of global leaders, including US President Barack Obama, heads of international organisations including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, civil society and youth groups. Its declared aim is to forge partnerships aimed at building substantive interaction between diverse communities and strengthening trust and reconciliation across cultures.
The conference builds upon the success of the inaugural Alliance Forum which was held in Madrid, Spain, in January 2008. The high representative for the Alliance of Civilisations is former Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio.
Turkey-related controversy has outshined other topics during the successive European stopovers of US President Barack Obama over the last few days.
At the NATO summit in Strasbourg on 3-4 April, discussions centred on overcoming Ankara's initial reluctance to appoint Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the Alliance's next secretary-general.
Rasmussen finally got the job after Turkish President Abdullah Gül dropped his opposition, following intense telephone mediation by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Obama himself. Turkey was against the appointment of Rasmussen due to the 2006 'cartoon' crisis (EurActiv 15/02/06), as well as Denmark's hosting of a Kurdish satellite channel, Roj TV.
Bargaining gains
Erdogan told Turkish television that Turkey had received "guarantees" from Obama that one of Rasmussen's deputies would be a Turk and that Turkish commanders would be present in the alliance's command, Reuters reported. Also, according to Bloomberg, Rasmussen had promised that his country would shut down Roj TV, if investigations show it has connections with terrorists.
During his next stop in Prague for an EU-US summit on 4-5 April, Obama put his weight behind Turkey's membership of the European Union, prompting French President Nicolas Sarkozy to reiterate in strong terms his government's opposition to the country's EU accession.
France against Turkey in EU
In an interview in Prague for French television channel TF1, Sarkozy said his negative stance towards Turkish membership of the bloc had not changed.
"I have always been against [Turkey's] admission and I continue to be opposed to it. I think I can say a huge majority of member countries take the same position as France," Sarkozy said.
Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg told journalists that Turkey's EU admission was not officially discussed at the EU-US summit in Prague.
"It is known that a few states - not only France, but also Germany - are sceptical enough about Turkey joining. The Austrians are not happy about it either," Schwarzenberg said.
Regional and global contribution
According to the Turkish press, Obama's official visit to Turkey, which is taking place not long after the new US president took office, is a sign of the importance of the two countries' bilateral relationship.
In Ankara, Obama will have talks with President Gül, Prime Minister Erdogan, parliament speaker Köksal Toptan and leaders of the opposition parties represented in parliament. He will also address a plenary session of the parliament today (6 April), reflecting the US administration's support for Turkey's parliamentary democracy.
NATO's role in Afghanistan, where Turkey currently has more than 800 troops, is likely to be high on the agenda of Obama's talks with Turkish officials. Obama's new approach to Afghanistan, which highlights the need for more civilian efforts there, is a point which has been frequently underlined in the Turkish capital, Zaman wrote.
The US president will then proceed to Istanbul, which is hosting the second forum of the UN-led Alliance of Civilisations (UNAOC). The forum, which kicked off today (6 April) and ends tomorrow, is likely to see Obama's participation to a reception held tonight for world leaders attending the forum.
As the Turkish daily Zaman reminds, during the Munich Security Conference held in Germany in February, US Vice President Joe Biden reiterated Obama's desire to steer clear of the 'clash of civilisations' theory, stressing his desire to break with some of the more confrontational aspects of former President George W. Bush's foreign policy.
Turkey is also seen by Washington as a key player in the Middle East conflict. Erdogan recently obtained hero status in the Arab world when he walked out on the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a debate earlier this year in Davos (EurActiv 30/01/09).
Mediation with Teheran?
The Turkish press is also speculating that Obama may meet former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in Istanbul. The speculation comes after Turkey announced its readiness to mediate in possible talks between Tehran and Washington.
Turkey is the ideal location for a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran should such a meeting take place, the Middle East Times writes.
Relations between Washington and Ankara have been going through a difficult spell since 2003, when the Turkish parliament voted not to let President George W. Bush use Turkish soil to open a front of the invasion of Iraq.
In a damage-limitation strategy, any tension over difficult issues, such as Turkey's denial of an Armenian genocide during the Ottoman era, is expected to be avoided during Obama's trip. Unlike his predecessors Bush and Clinton, Obama will not pay a visit to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians. Turkey harbours historical mistrust toward the patriarchate.
Positions:
Sami Kohen of the Turkish daily Milliyet wrote that the centre of gravity of Obama's visit is not just about giving support to Turkey's EU bid, but also highlights the importance of Turkey's geostrategic position.
"Obama is eager to win Turkey back," the author writes. "Turkey is building up close relations with Middle East countries and the Muslim communities. The US is quite worried about that, and Obama wants a new insight in Turkey-US relations. This is why Obama is paying a visit to Turkey."
The visit, Kohen continues, has a different objective to Obama's European trip. "He visited European countries, but there he participated in multi-lateral meetings such as the NATO summit or the EU-US summit. But his visit to Turkey has a different characteristic. He comes to Turkey just for Turkey [for bilateral relations]. The US is reconsidering its foreign policy. Obama's message is:'Let's not alienate Turkey'."
Mustafa Akyol, deputy editor of the Hurriyet daily, writes that together with Obama, the Turkish government is hoping that it can build up its soft power in the region.
"The Bush administration was not very open to dialogue with several important actors in the Middle East. So, when Obama came to power with a more reconciliatory tone, with a message that says 'The United States will listen,' and when Obama said he wants to engage in a process with Iran, Turkey said, 'Yes, this is what we have been waiting for'."
Nusret Kandemir, a former Turkish ambassador, stated: "This visit is quite different than any other visits of US presidents to Turkey. In the past, it has always been Turkey which wanted to gain something from US or which has been the demanding side. And the point has always been whether Turkey achieved its goals or not. But this time, US wants to change its image of the last eight years. Now the US is the demanding part."
Obama ziyaretinin bilançosu
Sami Kohen
ABD Başkanı Barack Obama’nın iki günlük Türkiye ziyaretini başarılı sayması için birçok sebep var. Denilebilir ki, Amerikan lideri, buraya gelirken güttüğü amaçların ve beklentilerinin çoğunu gerçekleştirmek olanağını buldu.
Başlıca amaç son zamanlarda bozulan ilişkileri düzeltmek ve yeni bir zemine oturtmaktı. Yani Washington’daki analistlerin deyişiyle, bir süreden beri dış politikasının Batı’dan uzaklaştığı düşünülen “Türkiye’yi yeniden kazanmak”tı...
Obama Türk lideriyle görüşmelerde olduğu gibi, Türk halkına dönük jestleri ve mesajlarıyla, bu yönde ustaca bir çaba harcadı. Resmi temaslarında, ele alınan ikili ve bölgesel konularda, yeni bir ortaklık anlayışı sağlamaya çalıştı. Basın toplantısında ve Meclis’teki konuşmasında, Türkiye’yi destekleyen ifadelerinin yanı sıra, Türk halkının gönlünü kazanan sözler sarf etti.
ABD Başkanı görüşmelerde ele alınan birçok konuda Türk yetkilileriyle bir görüş birliği veya yakınlığı sağlamayı başardı.
Nihayet Obama Türkiye’den -özellikle Meclis’teki konuşmasıyla- İslam dünyasına, ABD’nin imajını iyileştirebilecek, önemli mesajlar göndermek fırsatını buldu.
Kısacası bu ziyarette Obama Avrupa’daki üç durağında katıldığı zirvelerdeki performansından çok daha başarılı sonuçlar elde etti...
Beklentiler, sonuçlar...
YA Türkiye Obama’nın ziyaretinde, istek ve beklentilerini ne ölçüde gerçekleştirdi?
Kuşkusuz bunun bilançosu yapıldığında, Türkiye’nin aktifine geçirilecek birtakım kazanımlar var. Örneğin, Obama’nın ilk denizaşırı resmi ziyaretini Türkiye’ye yapması, ülkemize verdiği önemi tüm dünyaya gösterdi.
Obama’nın Türkiye’ye selefinden farklı bakışı, bu arada ülkenin laik, demokratik yapısına vurgu yapması, önemli bir gelişme.
Obama’nın Türkiye’yi öncelikle bir Avrupalı veya Batılı ülkel olarak sayması, onun AB üyeliği çabalarını doğrudan AB nezdinde- desteklemesi, ayrıca Batı ile İslam âlemi arasındaki yakınlaşmada etkin bir araç olarak göstermesi, bu ziyaretin Türkiye’ye sağladığı kazanımlar arasında sayılabilir.
Daha spesifik meselelerde de Türkiye’nin lehinde bazı gelişmeler var, ama bunları daha doğru değerlendirmek için zaman gerek. Bu konulardan biri Ermeni soykırım iddiaları ve Ermenistan ile ilgili.
Obama’nın bu konuda söylediklerinden çıkan sonuç, dünkü yazımızda da belirttiğimiz gibi, “24 Nisan tehlikesi”nin atlatıldığıdır. Yani Obama, daha önce korkulanın aksine, o tarihteki beyanında, “soykırım” sözcüğünü kullanmayacak.
Ama buna karşılık Obama, 1915 olaylarının “soykırım” olduğu konusundaki kanısını değiştirmiyor. Ayrıca, bu yıl bu konuyu, Ankara ile Erivan arasında ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesini tehlikeye düşürmemek için bir kenara itiyor. Obama, Türkiye ile Ermenistan’ın bir an önce anlaşmaya varmasını ısrarla istiyor.
Avantajlar, fırsatlar
HOŞA gitsin veya gitmesin, gerçek şu ki, ABD’de Ermeni soykırım iddiası ile Türkiye-Ermenistan ilişkileri arasında bir ilinti kurulmuş durumda. Yani soykırım konusunun gündemden düşmesi, Erivan ile ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesine bağlı...
Aslında Türkiye de ilişkileri normalleştirmek istiyor. Bu kendi çıkarları açısından da önemli. Ancak, bu konu da, Ermenistan’la başka uyuşmazlıkların ve özellikle Ermenistan’ın Azeri topraklarındaki işgali ve Dağlık Karabağ meselesinin halliyle ilintili. Bu da zaman isteyen bir çaba.
Obama’nın Türkiye’ye destek verdiği diğer bazı konularda da -örneğin PKK ile mücadele, Kuzey Irak’ın geleceği gibi- pratikte olayların nasıl gelişeceğini kestirmek zor.
Bununla beraber, Obama’nın ziyareti, ABD’ye olduğu kadar Türkiye’ye de birtakım avantajlar ve fırsatlar kazandırmıştır. Önemli olan bu avantajları kaybetmemek, fırsatları da yeni “model ortaklık” anlayışıyla değerlendirmektir.
ABD Başkanı Barack Obama’nın iki günlük Türkiye ziyaretini başarılı sayması için birçok sebep var. Denilebilir ki, Amerikan lideri, buraya gelirken güttüğü amaçların ve beklentilerinin çoğunu gerçekleştirmek olanağını buldu.
Başlıca amaç son zamanlarda bozulan ilişkileri düzeltmek ve yeni bir zemine oturtmaktı. Yani Washington’daki analistlerin deyişiyle, bir süreden beri dış politikasının Batı’dan uzaklaştığı düşünülen “Türkiye’yi yeniden kazanmak”tı...
Obama Türk lideriyle görüşmelerde olduğu gibi, Türk halkına dönük jestleri ve mesajlarıyla, bu yönde ustaca bir çaba harcadı. Resmi temaslarında, ele alınan ikili ve bölgesel konularda, yeni bir ortaklık anlayışı sağlamaya çalıştı. Basın toplantısında ve Meclis’teki konuşmasında, Türkiye’yi destekleyen ifadelerinin yanı sıra, Türk halkının gönlünü kazanan sözler sarf etti.
ABD Başkanı görüşmelerde ele alınan birçok konuda Türk yetkilileriyle bir görüş birliği veya yakınlığı sağlamayı başardı.
Nihayet Obama Türkiye’den -özellikle Meclis’teki konuşmasıyla- İslam dünyasına, ABD’nin imajını iyileştirebilecek, önemli mesajlar göndermek fırsatını buldu.
Kısacası bu ziyarette Obama Avrupa’daki üç durağında katıldığı zirvelerdeki performansından çok daha başarılı sonuçlar elde etti...
Beklentiler, sonuçlar...
YA Türkiye Obama’nın ziyaretinde, istek ve beklentilerini ne ölçüde gerçekleştirdi?
Kuşkusuz bunun bilançosu yapıldığında, Türkiye’nin aktifine geçirilecek birtakım kazanımlar var. Örneğin, Obama’nın ilk denizaşırı resmi ziyaretini Türkiye’ye yapması, ülkemize verdiği önemi tüm dünyaya gösterdi.
Obama’nın Türkiye’ye selefinden farklı bakışı, bu arada ülkenin laik, demokratik yapısına vurgu yapması, önemli bir gelişme.
Obama’nın Türkiye’yi öncelikle bir Avrupalı veya Batılı ülkel olarak sayması, onun AB üyeliği çabalarını doğrudan AB nezdinde- desteklemesi, ayrıca Batı ile İslam âlemi arasındaki yakınlaşmada etkin bir araç olarak göstermesi, bu ziyaretin Türkiye’ye sağladığı kazanımlar arasında sayılabilir.
Daha spesifik meselelerde de Türkiye’nin lehinde bazı gelişmeler var, ama bunları daha doğru değerlendirmek için zaman gerek. Bu konulardan biri Ermeni soykırım iddiaları ve Ermenistan ile ilgili.
Obama’nın bu konuda söylediklerinden çıkan sonuç, dünkü yazımızda da belirttiğimiz gibi, “24 Nisan tehlikesi”nin atlatıldığıdır. Yani Obama, daha önce korkulanın aksine, o tarihteki beyanında, “soykırım” sözcüğünü kullanmayacak.
Ama buna karşılık Obama, 1915 olaylarının “soykırım” olduğu konusundaki kanısını değiştirmiyor. Ayrıca, bu yıl bu konuyu, Ankara ile Erivan arasında ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesini tehlikeye düşürmemek için bir kenara itiyor. Obama, Türkiye ile Ermenistan’ın bir an önce anlaşmaya varmasını ısrarla istiyor.
Avantajlar, fırsatlar
HOŞA gitsin veya gitmesin, gerçek şu ki, ABD’de Ermeni soykırım iddiası ile Türkiye-Ermenistan ilişkileri arasında bir ilinti kurulmuş durumda. Yani soykırım konusunun gündemden düşmesi, Erivan ile ilişkilerin normalleştirilmesine bağlı...
Aslında Türkiye de ilişkileri normalleştirmek istiyor. Bu kendi çıkarları açısından da önemli. Ancak, bu konu da, Ermenistan’la başka uyuşmazlıkların ve özellikle Ermenistan’ın Azeri topraklarındaki işgali ve Dağlık Karabağ meselesinin halliyle ilintili. Bu da zaman isteyen bir çaba.
Obama’nın Türkiye’ye destek verdiği diğer bazı konularda da -örneğin PKK ile mücadele, Kuzey Irak’ın geleceği gibi- pratikte olayların nasıl gelişeceğini kestirmek zor.
Bununla beraber, Obama’nın ziyareti, ABD’ye olduğu kadar Türkiye’ye de birtakım avantajlar ve fırsatlar kazandırmıştır. Önemli olan bu avantajları kaybetmemek, fırsatları da yeni “model ortaklık” anlayışıyla değerlendirmektir.
Tone is key to Obama message and impact
By Edward Luce and Delphine Strauss
It is not so much what Barack Obama says, as how he says it. The US president on Monday gave his last set-piece address of a frenetic and momentous inaugural overseas tour at the Turkish parliament in Ankara.
The event was loaded with opportunities to trip up – not least over the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman soldiers. Mr Obama has repeatedly backed a US congressional resolution des-cribing the killings as genocide. Without using the word “genocide” Mr Obama gently pressed for progress in talks with neighbouring Armenia, with which Ankara has yet to establish relations.
In spite of his speech’s acute sensitivity to his Turkish hosts, Mr Obama was given a standing ovation. By choosing Turkey to deliver messages on his policies for the region, and linking Turkey’s secular and democratic evolution to that of the United States, he flattered to cajole – in stark contrast to the tone and language of George W. Bush.
President Obama said “the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods” – slavery, its treatment of Native Americans and human rights abuses during the “war on terror”. “I say this as the president of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote,” he said. “But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries ... Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantánamo Bay closed, and prohibited, without exception or equivocation, any use of torture.”
Nowhere did Mr Obama unveil a radically new policy. Yet the unorthodox manner in which he framed his words and the fact that he was introduced by the Turkish speaker as Barack Hussein Obama, made it all sound radically fresh.
“Each country must work through its past,” he said. “I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915 ...The best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.” There was substance as well – Mr Obama offered his help to resolve the continuing division of Cyprus and gave strong backing to Turkey’s aspirations to join the European Union – urging his hosts to continue reforms that had “created ... a momentum that must be sustained”.
If only for a day, there was more unity, even in the fractured world of Turkish politics. Military commanders came to listen for the first time since shunning parliament after elections in 2007 brought Kurdish party politicians into the chamber. They applauded as Mr Obama promised US support in fighting Kurdish separatist rebels and as he paid tribute to Ataturk’s legacy of “strong and secular democracy”. The speech came towards the end of a trip in which Mr Obama repeatedly promised to “listen, not to lecture” and in which the US appeared, once again, to be an enthusiastic participant in multilateral institutions, such as the G20 meeting in London or the Nato summit in Strasbourg. Mr Obama’s impact has been in how he has delivered his message.
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” the president said when asked by the Financial Times whether he subscribed to the view that the US was uniquely moral among nations. “The fact that I am very proud of my country, and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world, does not lessen my interest in recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise.”
Mr Obama applied that approach to Turkey, a country that could prove pivotal to his plans for remaking America’s relations with the Muslim world. “The trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practised,” he said.
The president distanced himself from the Bush administration’s habit of praising Turkey as an example of moderate Islam. Mr Obama instead took the United States as his starting point, saying, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.”
It is not so much what Barack Obama says, as how he says it. The US president on Monday gave his last set-piece address of a frenetic and momentous inaugural overseas tour at the Turkish parliament in Ankara.
The event was loaded with opportunities to trip up – not least over the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman soldiers. Mr Obama has repeatedly backed a US congressional resolution des-cribing the killings as genocide. Without using the word “genocide” Mr Obama gently pressed for progress in talks with neighbouring Armenia, with which Ankara has yet to establish relations.
In spite of his speech’s acute sensitivity to his Turkish hosts, Mr Obama was given a standing ovation. By choosing Turkey to deliver messages on his policies for the region, and linking Turkey’s secular and democratic evolution to that of the United States, he flattered to cajole – in stark contrast to the tone and language of George W. Bush.
President Obama said “the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods” – slavery, its treatment of Native Americans and human rights abuses during the “war on terror”. “I say this as the president of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote,” he said. “But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries ... Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantánamo Bay closed, and prohibited, without exception or equivocation, any use of torture.”
Nowhere did Mr Obama unveil a radically new policy. Yet the unorthodox manner in which he framed his words and the fact that he was introduced by the Turkish speaker as Barack Hussein Obama, made it all sound radically fresh.
“Each country must work through its past,” he said. “I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915 ...The best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.” There was substance as well – Mr Obama offered his help to resolve the continuing division of Cyprus and gave strong backing to Turkey’s aspirations to join the European Union – urging his hosts to continue reforms that had “created ... a momentum that must be sustained”.
If only for a day, there was more unity, even in the fractured world of Turkish politics. Military commanders came to listen for the first time since shunning parliament after elections in 2007 brought Kurdish party politicians into the chamber. They applauded as Mr Obama promised US support in fighting Kurdish separatist rebels and as he paid tribute to Ataturk’s legacy of “strong and secular democracy”. The speech came towards the end of a trip in which Mr Obama repeatedly promised to “listen, not to lecture” and in which the US appeared, once again, to be an enthusiastic participant in multilateral institutions, such as the G20 meeting in London or the Nato summit in Strasbourg. Mr Obama’s impact has been in how he has delivered his message.
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” the president said when asked by the Financial Times whether he subscribed to the view that the US was uniquely moral among nations. “The fact that I am very proud of my country, and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world, does not lessen my interest in recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise.”
Mr Obama applied that approach to Turkey, a country that could prove pivotal to his plans for remaking America’s relations with the Muslim world. “The trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practised,” he said.
The president distanced himself from the Bush administration’s habit of praising Turkey as an example of moderate Islam. Mr Obama instead took the United States as his starting point, saying, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.”
Obama pledge on Mideast solution
By Edward Luce and Delphine Strauss in Ankara and Roula Khalaf in London
Barack Obama on Monday offered his clearest pledge since taking office to pursue a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, as he took his message of remaking US relations with the Muslim world to Turkey.
President Obama urged Israel and the Palestinians to “live up to the commitments they have made”, in what is likely to be seen as a rebuke to Israel’s new rightwing government, whose foreign minister last week distanced himself from a 2007 US-backed process to create a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian Authority last night welcomed Mr Obama’s statement, while Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, issued a brief statement saying: “Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security and to the pursuit of peace.” He did not mention the two-state solution.
In an address to the Turkish parliament, the US president also carefully prodded his hosts to make progress on talks with neighbouring Armenia and restated the US’s support for Turkey to join the European Union.
His remarks came on the closing leg of an eight-day tour of Europe, in which he made Turkey the last stop, in part to deliver a symbolic statement about bridging the divide between east and west after the “mistrust” created by the presidency of George W. Bush.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam,” he said. “I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground.”
Mr Obama has sought to reach out to Muslims by quickly appointing a Middle East envoy; giving an Arabic television station his first interview with a foreign broadcaster; and making clear that he wants engagement with Iran. He took his message on Monday to the heart of a Muslim capital and insisted that he saw engagement with the Muslim world as a dialogue based on mutual respect.
Reactions to the US president in the Muslim world have been both hopeful and cautious, with many people appreciating the new tone, but also waiting to see concrete changes in US policies.
While reaction in the Muslim world has been cautiously hopeful, many are also waiting to see concrete changes in US policy.
Abdelaziz al-Qassim, a Saudi analyst, said Mr Obama was creating a new mood in the region and was clearly “a man of initiative, of values”. But he said there were still questions about “what he will do”.
In the Arab world, the biggest question is how far the new president will go in putting pressure on Israel to pursue negotiations on a Palestinian state.
Mr Obama’s US president, who concludes his tour today in Istanbul with a “town hall” event, where he will take questions from ordinary Muslims, also sought Turkey’s help in pursuing a two-state solution and in brokering successful talks between Israel and Syria.
Although Mr Obama did not offer any radical new policies on the issue, his language was studiously even-handed.
“Let me be clear: Regarding negotiations On a Palestinian state, he said: “The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”
Barack Obama on Monday offered his clearest pledge since taking office to pursue a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, as he took his message of remaking US relations with the Muslim world to Turkey.
President Obama urged Israel and the Palestinians to “live up to the commitments they have made”, in what is likely to be seen as a rebuke to Israel’s new rightwing government, whose foreign minister last week distanced himself from a 2007 US-backed process to create a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian Authority last night welcomed Mr Obama’s statement, while Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, issued a brief statement saying: “Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security and to the pursuit of peace.” He did not mention the two-state solution.
In an address to the Turkish parliament, the US president also carefully prodded his hosts to make progress on talks with neighbouring Armenia and restated the US’s support for Turkey to join the European Union.
His remarks came on the closing leg of an eight-day tour of Europe, in which he made Turkey the last stop, in part to deliver a symbolic statement about bridging the divide between east and west after the “mistrust” created by the presidency of George W. Bush.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam,” he said. “I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground.”
Mr Obama has sought to reach out to Muslims by quickly appointing a Middle East envoy; giving an Arabic television station his first interview with a foreign broadcaster; and making clear that he wants engagement with Iran. He took his message on Monday to the heart of a Muslim capital and insisted that he saw engagement with the Muslim world as a dialogue based on mutual respect.
Reactions to the US president in the Muslim world have been both hopeful and cautious, with many people appreciating the new tone, but also waiting to see concrete changes in US policies.
While reaction in the Muslim world has been cautiously hopeful, many are also waiting to see concrete changes in US policy.
Abdelaziz al-Qassim, a Saudi analyst, said Mr Obama was creating a new mood in the region and was clearly “a man of initiative, of values”. But he said there were still questions about “what he will do”.
In the Arab world, the biggest question is how far the new president will go in putting pressure on Israel to pursue negotiations on a Palestinian state.
Mr Obama’s US president, who concludes his tour today in Istanbul with a “town hall” event, where he will take questions from ordinary Muslims, also sought Turkey’s help in pursuing a two-state solution and in brokering successful talks between Israel and Syria.
Although Mr Obama did not offer any radical new policies on the issue, his language was studiously even-handed.
“Let me be clear: Regarding negotiations On a Palestinian state, he said: “The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)