Daniel Pipes
Türkiye Başbakanı Tayyip Erdoğan, İran Cumhurbaşkanı Mahmud Ahmedinecad hakkında “Kuşkusuz ki o bizim dostumuzdur” diyor, hemen ardından da İsrail Dışişleri Bakanı Avigdor Lieberman’ı Gazze’de nükleer silah kullanma tehdidinde bulunmakla suçluyor. Bu aşırı değerlendirmeler, Türkiye hükümetinin yönelimindeki derin değişime işaret ediyor. Türkiye 60 yıldır Batı’nın en yakın Müslüman müttefikiydi, ta ki Erdoğan’ın AKP’si 2002’de iktidara gelene kadar.
Ekimde yaşanan üç olay, bu değişimin boyutunu açığa vuruyor. İlki, uzun yıllardır laikliğin kalesi ve İsrail’le işbirliğinin savunucusu olan Türk ordusunun 11 Ekim’de aniden, İsrail güçlerinin Anadolu Kartalı tatbikatına katılmamasını istemesiydi. Erdoğan ‘diplomatik hassasiyetleri’ gerekçe gösterdi; Dışişleri Bakanı Ahmet Davutoğlu da ‘Gazze, Doğu Kudüs ve El Aksa Camii’yle ilgili hassasiyetten’ dem vurdu. Türkler, Gazze operasyonunda Hamas’a saldırmış olabilecek İsrail uçaklarını özellikle reddetti. Şam bu kararı alkışlarken, ABD ve İtalya güçlerini Anadolu Kartalı’ndan çekki; bunun üzerine uluslararası tatbikat iptal edildi.
İsrailliler içinse bu ‘ani ve beklenmedik’ değişim, Türkiye’yle 1996’dan beri sürdürülen askeri işbirliğini temelinden sarstı. Sözgelimi eski hava kuvvetleri komutanı Eitan Ben-Eliyahu iptali ‘ciddi endişelere yol açan bir gelişme’ diye niteledi. Kudüs buna derhal, İsrail’in Türkiye’ye ileri teknoloji ürünü silah tedarikini (sözgelimi Türk hava kuvvetlerine 140 milyon dolarlık savaş uçağı hedef sistemleri satışını öngören son anlaşma) gözden geçirme kararı alarak karşılık verdi. ABD Kongresi’ne sunulan Ermeni soykırımı
tasarılarının alt edilmesi konusunda Türklere yardım etmekten vazgeçme fikri de gündeme geldi.
İkinci olay iki gün sonra, 13 Ekim’de gerçekleşti.
Suriye Dışişleri Bakanı Velid Muallim, Türkiye ve Suriye güçlerinin geçenlerde ‘Ankara yakınlarında tatbikat yaptığını’ açıkladı. Muallim bunun önemli bir olduğunu söylüyordu, ‘zira böylece Türkiye’deki askeri ve siyasi kurumların Suriye’yle stratejik ilişkiler konusunda anlaşmazlık yaşadığı iddiaları boşa çıkıyordu’. Tercümesi şu: Türkiye’nin silahlı kuvvetleri siyasetçilere yenildi.
Üçüncüsü de Davutoğlu liderliğindeki 10 Türk bakanın 13 Ekim’de Suriyeli muadilleriyle, yeni kurulan ‘Türkiye-Suriye Üst Düzey Stratejik İşbirliği Konseyi’nin himayesindeki görüşmelere katılmasıydı. Bakanlar 10 gün içinde uygulanacak 40’a yakın anlaşma imzaladıklarını; nisanda ilkinden ‘daha kapsamlı ve büyük’ bir ortak kara tatbikatı düzenleneceğini ve iki ülke liderlerinin kasımda stratejik bir anlaşma imzalayacağını açıkladı.
Konseyin ortak nihai bildirisi, iki taraf arasında ‘karşılıklı yarar ve çıkar temelindeki geniş bir alanda işbirliğini güçlendirmek ve yaygınlaştırmak, halklar arasındaki kültürel bağları ve dayanışmayı pekiştirmek için uzun vadeli bir stratejik ortaklığın’ kurulduğunu ilan etti. Davutoğlu’na göre konseyin ruhu, ‘ortak kader, tarih ve gelecek’ti ve ‘geleceği birlikte inşa edeceklerdi’. Muallim’se bu birlikteliğin iki halkın ‘kutlaması gereken bir bayram’ olduğunu söylüyordu.
Ankara’nın Suriye’yle savaşın eşiğine geldiği 10 yıl öncesine kıyasla ilişkilerde gerçekten de müthiş bir dönüşüm söz konusu. Fakat Şam’la ilişkilerin iyileştirilmesi, Ankara’nın bölgede Müslüman ülkelerle ilişkilerini güçlendirmek yönündeki daha kapsamlı çabasının sadece bir parçası. Davutoğlu’nun 2000’de yayımlanan ‘Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu’ adlı etkili kitabında dile getirdiği bir strateji bu.
Batılı yetkililer büyük hata yapıyor
Özetlersek, Davutoğlu komşularla gerilimin azaltılmasını ve Türkiye’nin bir tür modernleşmiş Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu misali, bölgesel bir güç olarak ortaya çıkmasını öngörüyor. Bu stratejiye içkin olan şey, Türkiye genelde Batı’dan, özelde de İsrail’den uzaklaşması. İslamcı kavramlarla sunulmasa da, ‘stratejik derinlik’ AKP’nin İslamcı dünya görüşüne oldukça uygun.
Barry Rubin’in de dikkat çektiği gibi, “Türkiye hükümeti siyasi olarak İran’a ve Suriye’ye, ABD ve İsrail’e olduğundan daha yakın.” Jerusalem Post yazarlarından Caroline Glick daha da ileri gidiyor: “Ankara Batı ittifakını çoktan terk etti ve İran mihverinin dört dörtlük bir üyesi haline geldi.” Fakat Batı’daki yetkililer Türkiye’nin ittifaklarındaki bu önemli değişimi ve bu değişimin sonuçlarını neredeyse hiç görmüyor. Bu hatanın bedeli çok geçmeden açığa çıkacaktır. (İsrail gazetesi, Ortadoğu Forumu adlı düşünce kuruluşunun yöneticisi, 27 Ekim 2009)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Armenia and Turkey normalise ties
Turkey and Armenia have signed a historic accord normalising relations after a century of hostility.
The deal was signed by the two foreign ministers after last-minute problems delayed the ceremony in Switzerland.
Under the agreement, Turkey and Armenia are to establish diplomatic ties and reopen their shared border.
The accord has been met by protests in Armenia, where many people say it does not fully address the 1915 killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
Objections
Armenia wants Turkey to recognise the killings as an act of genocide, but successive Turkish governments have refused to do so.
The agreement calls for a joint commission of independent historians to study the genocide issue.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, signed the protocols in Switzerland after a delay of more than three hours.
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Zurich says the Armenians had apparently raised objections to remarks due to be read out by the Turkish delegation.
After the signing neither side issued a statement, and our correspondent says this seems to have been the compromise arranged by US officials.
The administration of President Barack Obama had been pressing the parties to reach agreement.
The ceremony was attended by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana.
Mrs Clinton later said the US would build on the "milestone" that had been achieved, but admitted "concerns on both sides" had delayed the signing.
A senior state department official told Associated Press that Mr Obama had called Mrs Clinton "to congratulate her and the team" on their role in the signing.
The accord needs to be ratified by the parliaments of both Armenia and Turkey.
On Friday thousands of people protested against the deal in the Armenian capital, Yerevan.
"The international recognition of the Armenian genocide will be hindered by this signature, or ratification," said Vahan Hovanissyan, a member of parliament for the nationalist Dashnaktsutyun party.
One protester told the BBC he was not opposed to the opening of the border, but was "against the setting up of a commission that will allow Turkey to further postpone declaring the killings as genocide".
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia by the Ottoman Empire. They were killed by troops or died from starvation and disease.
It is in the best interest of both countries that they forget about the past and start a new era in their relationship Abdul Malik Niazi, Kabul
Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and more than 20 countries have done so.
Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed but says the deaths were part of the widespread fighting that took place in World War I.
A roadmap for normalising relations between Turkey and Armenia was agreed in April.
Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 because of its war with Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno Karabakh.
Correspondents say most people in Armenia feel their landlocked country has been too isolated since the Turkish border closed and are ready for it to reopen.
The deal was signed by the two foreign ministers after last-minute problems delayed the ceremony in Switzerland.
Under the agreement, Turkey and Armenia are to establish diplomatic ties and reopen their shared border.
The accord has been met by protests in Armenia, where many people say it does not fully address the 1915 killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
Objections
Armenia wants Turkey to recognise the killings as an act of genocide, but successive Turkish governments have refused to do so.
The agreement calls for a joint commission of independent historians to study the genocide issue.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, signed the protocols in Switzerland after a delay of more than three hours.
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Zurich says the Armenians had apparently raised objections to remarks due to be read out by the Turkish delegation.
After the signing neither side issued a statement, and our correspondent says this seems to have been the compromise arranged by US officials.
The administration of President Barack Obama had been pressing the parties to reach agreement.
The ceremony was attended by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana.
Mrs Clinton later said the US would build on the "milestone" that had been achieved, but admitted "concerns on both sides" had delayed the signing.
A senior state department official told Associated Press that Mr Obama had called Mrs Clinton "to congratulate her and the team" on their role in the signing.
The accord needs to be ratified by the parliaments of both Armenia and Turkey.
On Friday thousands of people protested against the deal in the Armenian capital, Yerevan.
"The international recognition of the Armenian genocide will be hindered by this signature, or ratification," said Vahan Hovanissyan, a member of parliament for the nationalist Dashnaktsutyun party.
One protester told the BBC he was not opposed to the opening of the border, but was "against the setting up of a commission that will allow Turkey to further postpone declaring the killings as genocide".
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia by the Ottoman Empire. They were killed by troops or died from starvation and disease.
It is in the best interest of both countries that they forget about the past and start a new era in their relationship Abdul Malik Niazi, Kabul
Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and more than 20 countries have done so.
Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed but says the deaths were part of the widespread fighting that took place in World War I.
A roadmap for normalising relations between Turkey and Armenia was agreed in April.
Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 because of its war with Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno Karabakh.
Correspondents say most people in Armenia feel their landlocked country has been too isolated since the Turkish border closed and are ready for it to reopen.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Papandreou’s task
As Greeks are fond of saying, their country is not like others. Just as the rest of the world is pulling out of a recession, Greece’s service-oriented economy is entering one. While recent European elections have tended to favour the centre-right, Greek voters have awarded a stunning victory to the socialists of Pasok and their leader George Papandreou. After five years at the helm, Costas Karamanlis is out.
This was a very Greek election. It is not just that Mr Karamanlis and Mr Papandreou are scions of Greece’s two leading political dynasties (occupying the presidency or premiership for most of the republic’s short history). In an introspective contest, Europe was hardly mentioned. Without visible enthusiasm, voters preferred the vague promises of the Papandreou brand to the conservative Mr Karamanlis’ promises of austerity – and repudiated New Democracy’s failure to clamp down on corruption. Pasok has won a holding mandate from a fickle electorate. What Greece needs, however, is reform.
Even as Greece enters recession – and before Mr Papandreou doles out a promised €2.5bn fiscal stimulus – the budget deficit is far too high. A crackdown on tax evasion is a fine aspiration. But the new government’s first budget should go much further. Mr Papandreou should freeze most new recruitment into the public sector, get a handle on corruption (particularly in healthcare and defence), tighten control of departmental budgets, enhance cross-checking for tax returns and depoliticise national accounting. But whereas a previous socialist premier credited with squeezing Greece into the euro, Costas Simitis, had a reliable economic team, it is not even clear who Mr Papandreou’s finance minister will be.
There are more grounds for optimism in foreign affairs. As foreign minister in 1999, Mr Papandreou used the shared tragedy of earthquakes in Istanbul and Athens to improve relations with Turkey. He may now try to put pressure on the Greek Cypriot government to accept reunification on terms more acceptable to the Turkish community (though leverage over Nicosia has diminished sharply since the island was allowed to join the EU). Greece’s obduracy on Macedonia’s official name may now be tempered, holding out the possibility of an end to a sterile dispute that has cooled relations with Washington and Brussels.
To win election for Pasok, Mr Papandreou has been studiously vague. To govern for Greece he needs to be altogether more precise and determined.
This was a very Greek election. It is not just that Mr Karamanlis and Mr Papandreou are scions of Greece’s two leading political dynasties (occupying the presidency or premiership for most of the republic’s short history). In an introspective contest, Europe was hardly mentioned. Without visible enthusiasm, voters preferred the vague promises of the Papandreou brand to the conservative Mr Karamanlis’ promises of austerity – and repudiated New Democracy’s failure to clamp down on corruption. Pasok has won a holding mandate from a fickle electorate. What Greece needs, however, is reform.
Even as Greece enters recession – and before Mr Papandreou doles out a promised €2.5bn fiscal stimulus – the budget deficit is far too high. A crackdown on tax evasion is a fine aspiration. But the new government’s first budget should go much further. Mr Papandreou should freeze most new recruitment into the public sector, get a handle on corruption (particularly in healthcare and defence), tighten control of departmental budgets, enhance cross-checking for tax returns and depoliticise national accounting. But whereas a previous socialist premier credited with squeezing Greece into the euro, Costas Simitis, had a reliable economic team, it is not even clear who Mr Papandreou’s finance minister will be.
There are more grounds for optimism in foreign affairs. As foreign minister in 1999, Mr Papandreou used the shared tragedy of earthquakes in Istanbul and Athens to improve relations with Turkey. He may now try to put pressure on the Greek Cypriot government to accept reunification on terms more acceptable to the Turkish community (though leverage over Nicosia has diminished sharply since the island was allowed to join the EU). Greece’s obduracy on Macedonia’s official name may now be tempered, holding out the possibility of an end to a sterile dispute that has cooled relations with Washington and Brussels.
To win election for Pasok, Mr Papandreou has been studiously vague. To govern for Greece he needs to be altogether more precise and determined.
Papandreou sworn in as Greek PM
George Papandreou has been sworn in as Greece's prime minister after his Panhellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok) won general elections on Sunday.
The son and grandson of former prime ministers was sworn in at a ceremony in the president's Athens mansion.
Mr Papandreou, 57, is to announce his cabinet appointments later.
Pasok won 44% of votes in the snap polls, ending five years of governance by the conservative New Democracy party of Costas Karamanlis, who has resigned.
Mr Karamanlis' party won just 33.5% of vote - its worst ever election result.
Having won an absolute majority with 160 seats in the country's 300-member parliament, Mr Papandreou has said he will inject up to 3bn euros ($4.4bn: £2.7bn) into the economy in an effort to pull Greece out of a financial crisis.
"Nothing is going to be easy. It will take a lot of hard work," he said after the results were announced.
"I will always be upfront with the Greek people, so we can solve the country's problems together."
Mr Karamanlis called the snap general election half way through his four-year term.
He said he wanted a new mandate to tackle Greece's economic problems, but his opponents said he failed to fulfil promises to clean up public office and to modernise the country.
The government has also been hit by a series of corruption scandals.
The son and grandson of former prime ministers was sworn in at a ceremony in the president's Athens mansion.
Mr Papandreou, 57, is to announce his cabinet appointments later.
Pasok won 44% of votes in the snap polls, ending five years of governance by the conservative New Democracy party of Costas Karamanlis, who has resigned.
Mr Karamanlis' party won just 33.5% of vote - its worst ever election result.
Having won an absolute majority with 160 seats in the country's 300-member parliament, Mr Papandreou has said he will inject up to 3bn euros ($4.4bn: £2.7bn) into the economy in an effort to pull Greece out of a financial crisis.
"Nothing is going to be easy. It will take a lot of hard work," he said after the results were announced.
"I will always be upfront with the Greek people, so we can solve the country's problems together."
Mr Karamanlis called the snap general election half way through his four-year term.
He said he wanted a new mandate to tackle Greece's economic problems, but his opponents said he failed to fulfil promises to clean up public office and to modernise the country.
The government has also been hit by a series of corruption scandals.
Yunanistan'da sol kazanır da, bizde neden kazanamaz?
ORAL ÇALIŞLAR
Sabahın erken saatinde cep telefonuma gelen mesaj Yunanistan’daki seçimleri solcuların kazandığını bildiriyordu. PASOK lideri Papandreu, komşu ülkenin yeni başbakanı olacaktı. Yani solcular, sağcıları yenerek iktidara gelmişlerdi.
Bizdeki sol üzerine düşüncelere daldım tekrar... Sol, bizde sanki yüzyıldan bu yana seçim kazanamıyordu. Bir arkadaşım şöyle dedi: “Türkiye’de sol mu var ki?” Türkiye’de kendisini solda tanımlayan sosyal demokrat partilerin tamamının devletçi ve milliyetçi olduğunu biliyoruz. Evrensel ölçüler içinde bir sol-sosyal demokrat partinin ülkemizde bulunmadığı gerçeği, giderek daha geniş kesimler tarafından fark ediliyor.
Denebilir ki, diğer ülkelerdeki sol partiler de ‘milliyetçi’likten arınmış değiller. Örneğin Yunanistan’da seçimleri kazanan PASOK’un da milliyetçi olduğu öne sürülebilir. Bu bağlamda, Yunan sosyalizminin samimiyeti de tartışmaya açılabilir.
Ancak Yunan solunun ve Avrupa solunun birçok konuda daha demokrat, daha evrenselliğe yatkın bir çizgi izlediğini rahatlıkla söyleyebiliriz. PASOK’un ‘milliyetçi’lik boyutu, bizim solculardan farklı olarak, devletçiliğe ve militarizmle mesafeli olan bir boyuttur.
Merkel, Sarkozy gibi Avrupa sağının önde gelen isimleri, yabancı düşmanlığı, Türklere düşmanlık gibi konularda ittifak içindeler. Yunanistan’da solcu Papandreu Türkiye ile ilişkiler, Kıbrıs sorununun barışçı çözümü noktasında sağcı Karamanlis’e göre daha olumlu bir çizgiyi savunuyor. Kıbrıs’ta Annan Planı’nı da PASOK desteklemişti.
Genel olarak, Avrupa’da sol partiler, o ülkelerde yaşayan azınlıklara, yabancılara, göçmenlere karşı diğer partilere oranla daha olumlu bir tutum gösteriyorlar. Avrupa’da yabancı düşmanlığının öncülüğünü sağcı partiler yapıyorlar. Bu sağcı
partiler Türkiye’nin AB üyeliğine karşı da daha olumsuz bir tutum içindeler. Bütün bunlar şaşırtıcı şeyler de değil, tam tersine, sağ ve solun evrensel/genel tanımlarıyla uyumlu olan şeyler.
***
İspanya, Portekiz ve Yunanistan uzun yıllar askeri yönetimlerin, militarizmin acısını çektiler. Bu acı, büyük bir hesaplaşmayla sona erdi. Bu ülkeler, askeri yönetimleri, onların bıraktığı kurumları temizlediler. Bu temizliğin başını da bu ülkelerdeki sosyalistler, sosyal demokratlar ve komünistler çektiler.
Türkiye’deki sol hareket ise bu alanda karışık ve karmaşık tutumlar gösterdi. CHP zaten devletçi ve militarist bir gelenekten geldiği için darbelerin pek uzağında durmadı. 12 Mart 1971 askeri darbesine karşı Bülent Ecevit’in çıkışı, geleneksel CHP’den bir kopuş anlamına geliyordu. Bu kopuş çok uzun sürmedi. CHP’nin çizgisi 12 Eylül 1980 askeri darbesinin de etkisiyle, aslına, militarizmin savunuculuğuna dönüştü.
CHP, bugün militarizme en yakın siyasi akım olarak öne çıkıyor. Bu ülkenin farklı renklerine olan yaklaşımı açısından da CHP’yi bir sol parti olarak değerlendirmek imkânsız. DSP’nin de bu bağlamda CHP’den farksız olduğunu söylemek mümkün.
Türkiye sosyalist hareketinin önemli bir ağırlığı, ne yazık ki milliyetçiliğin, militarizmin, devletçiliğin, bürokratik elitizmin, statükonun yanı başında duruyor. Bu genel tablo içinde baktığımız zaman Türkiye’de evrensel standartlar içinde bir sol hareketten söz etmek elbette ki mümkün görünmüyor. Ülkemizdeki sol hareketler Avrupa solu arasındaki temel ayrım noktasının militarizm ve demokrasi konusu olduğu tezi, her geçen gün kendini yeni örneklerle doğruluyor.
Bülent Ecevit’in 1971 askeri darbesine karşı çıkması ve anti-militarist bir çizgiyi savunması CHP’nin evrensel sol hareketle temasa geçmesine neden olmuştu. Şimdiki CHP, o mirasın üzerinde Sosyalist Enternasyonal’de yer alıyor. Bugün ise dünya sosyal demokrasisi CHP’yi kendi parçaları olarak görmüyor.
Şu anda Türkiye’de sol hareket iktidar adayı değil. Yakın zamanda da olacak gibi görünmüyor. “Türkiye bir değişim yaşarken, temel konularda yeniden yapılanma gereği duyarken, sol hareketin bunun dışında kalması kaderin ve yeni koşulların ironisi olarak mı görülmeli, yoksa ‘zaten bizdeki sol değildi ki’ diyerek normal mi karşılamalı?” sorusu üzerine kapsamlı olarak düşünmekte yarar görmekteyim.
***
Yunanistan’da yıllar önce tanık olduğum bir olayı burada bir kez tekrar ederek ne demek istediğimi örnekli aktarmak niyetindeydim. Çoğunluğu Avrupa’da yaşayan bir grup yurttaşımızla Atina’daydık. Türkiye Büyükelçiliği’ni de ziyarete gittik.
Büyükelçiliğin giriş bölümündeki masanın üzerinde Kenan Evren’in büyükelçiye imzaladığı fotoğraf duruyordu. Hatırladığım kadarıyla, yıl 2000 civarında olmalı. Askeri darbenin üzerinden 20 seneye yakın zaman geçtiği halde, demokrasiyle yönetildiği söylenen bir ülkenin büyükelçiliğinin şeref masasında bir darbecinin fotoğrafı yer alıyordu..
O tarihlerde, Yunanistan’da 1974 yılında yıkılan askeri darbenin önde gelen iki liderinden birisi cezaevinde ölmüştü. Diğeri, 20 yıldan fazla bir süredir cezaevinde yatmaya devam ediyordu. Cezaevinde ölen darbecinin cenazesine katılan bir milletvekili, sağcı Yeni Demokrasi Partisi’nden ihraç edilmişti.
Biz darbe anayasasıyla yönetilmeye devam ediyoruz. Değişiminin önündeki en büyük engel de ne yazık ki kendilerini solcu diye tanımlayanlar. Ve acı olan şu ki, bu gerçeği dile getirmeniz, onun değişimi konusunda somut bir katkı da sağlamıyor.
Halka güvenmeyen, militarizme, devlete, iktidara ve elitlere yaslanan bir solun, toplumun desteğini almasını beklemek, zaten gerçekçilikle bağdaşmaz.
Sabahın erken saatinde cep telefonuma gelen mesaj Yunanistan’daki seçimleri solcuların kazandığını bildiriyordu. PASOK lideri Papandreu, komşu ülkenin yeni başbakanı olacaktı. Yani solcular, sağcıları yenerek iktidara gelmişlerdi.
Bizdeki sol üzerine düşüncelere daldım tekrar... Sol, bizde sanki yüzyıldan bu yana seçim kazanamıyordu. Bir arkadaşım şöyle dedi: “Türkiye’de sol mu var ki?” Türkiye’de kendisini solda tanımlayan sosyal demokrat partilerin tamamının devletçi ve milliyetçi olduğunu biliyoruz. Evrensel ölçüler içinde bir sol-sosyal demokrat partinin ülkemizde bulunmadığı gerçeği, giderek daha geniş kesimler tarafından fark ediliyor.
Denebilir ki, diğer ülkelerdeki sol partiler de ‘milliyetçi’likten arınmış değiller. Örneğin Yunanistan’da seçimleri kazanan PASOK’un da milliyetçi olduğu öne sürülebilir. Bu bağlamda, Yunan sosyalizminin samimiyeti de tartışmaya açılabilir.
Ancak Yunan solunun ve Avrupa solunun birçok konuda daha demokrat, daha evrenselliğe yatkın bir çizgi izlediğini rahatlıkla söyleyebiliriz. PASOK’un ‘milliyetçi’lik boyutu, bizim solculardan farklı olarak, devletçiliğe ve militarizmle mesafeli olan bir boyuttur.
Merkel, Sarkozy gibi Avrupa sağının önde gelen isimleri, yabancı düşmanlığı, Türklere düşmanlık gibi konularda ittifak içindeler. Yunanistan’da solcu Papandreu Türkiye ile ilişkiler, Kıbrıs sorununun barışçı çözümü noktasında sağcı Karamanlis’e göre daha olumlu bir çizgiyi savunuyor. Kıbrıs’ta Annan Planı’nı da PASOK desteklemişti.
Genel olarak, Avrupa’da sol partiler, o ülkelerde yaşayan azınlıklara, yabancılara, göçmenlere karşı diğer partilere oranla daha olumlu bir tutum gösteriyorlar. Avrupa’da yabancı düşmanlığının öncülüğünü sağcı partiler yapıyorlar. Bu sağcı
partiler Türkiye’nin AB üyeliğine karşı da daha olumsuz bir tutum içindeler. Bütün bunlar şaşırtıcı şeyler de değil, tam tersine, sağ ve solun evrensel/genel tanımlarıyla uyumlu olan şeyler.
***
İspanya, Portekiz ve Yunanistan uzun yıllar askeri yönetimlerin, militarizmin acısını çektiler. Bu acı, büyük bir hesaplaşmayla sona erdi. Bu ülkeler, askeri yönetimleri, onların bıraktığı kurumları temizlediler. Bu temizliğin başını da bu ülkelerdeki sosyalistler, sosyal demokratlar ve komünistler çektiler.
Türkiye’deki sol hareket ise bu alanda karışık ve karmaşık tutumlar gösterdi. CHP zaten devletçi ve militarist bir gelenekten geldiği için darbelerin pek uzağında durmadı. 12 Mart 1971 askeri darbesine karşı Bülent Ecevit’in çıkışı, geleneksel CHP’den bir kopuş anlamına geliyordu. Bu kopuş çok uzun sürmedi. CHP’nin çizgisi 12 Eylül 1980 askeri darbesinin de etkisiyle, aslına, militarizmin savunuculuğuna dönüştü.
CHP, bugün militarizme en yakın siyasi akım olarak öne çıkıyor. Bu ülkenin farklı renklerine olan yaklaşımı açısından da CHP’yi bir sol parti olarak değerlendirmek imkânsız. DSP’nin de bu bağlamda CHP’den farksız olduğunu söylemek mümkün.
Türkiye sosyalist hareketinin önemli bir ağırlığı, ne yazık ki milliyetçiliğin, militarizmin, devletçiliğin, bürokratik elitizmin, statükonun yanı başında duruyor. Bu genel tablo içinde baktığımız zaman Türkiye’de evrensel standartlar içinde bir sol hareketten söz etmek elbette ki mümkün görünmüyor. Ülkemizdeki sol hareketler Avrupa solu arasındaki temel ayrım noktasının militarizm ve demokrasi konusu olduğu tezi, her geçen gün kendini yeni örneklerle doğruluyor.
Bülent Ecevit’in 1971 askeri darbesine karşı çıkması ve anti-militarist bir çizgiyi savunması CHP’nin evrensel sol hareketle temasa geçmesine neden olmuştu. Şimdiki CHP, o mirasın üzerinde Sosyalist Enternasyonal’de yer alıyor. Bugün ise dünya sosyal demokrasisi CHP’yi kendi parçaları olarak görmüyor.
Şu anda Türkiye’de sol hareket iktidar adayı değil. Yakın zamanda da olacak gibi görünmüyor. “Türkiye bir değişim yaşarken, temel konularda yeniden yapılanma gereği duyarken, sol hareketin bunun dışında kalması kaderin ve yeni koşulların ironisi olarak mı görülmeli, yoksa ‘zaten bizdeki sol değildi ki’ diyerek normal mi karşılamalı?” sorusu üzerine kapsamlı olarak düşünmekte yarar görmekteyim.
***
Yunanistan’da yıllar önce tanık olduğum bir olayı burada bir kez tekrar ederek ne demek istediğimi örnekli aktarmak niyetindeydim. Çoğunluğu Avrupa’da yaşayan bir grup yurttaşımızla Atina’daydık. Türkiye Büyükelçiliği’ni de ziyarete gittik.
Büyükelçiliğin giriş bölümündeki masanın üzerinde Kenan Evren’in büyükelçiye imzaladığı fotoğraf duruyordu. Hatırladığım kadarıyla, yıl 2000 civarında olmalı. Askeri darbenin üzerinden 20 seneye yakın zaman geçtiği halde, demokrasiyle yönetildiği söylenen bir ülkenin büyükelçiliğinin şeref masasında bir darbecinin fotoğrafı yer alıyordu..
O tarihlerde, Yunanistan’da 1974 yılında yıkılan askeri darbenin önde gelen iki liderinden birisi cezaevinde ölmüştü. Diğeri, 20 yıldan fazla bir süredir cezaevinde yatmaya devam ediyordu. Cezaevinde ölen darbecinin cenazesine katılan bir milletvekili, sağcı Yeni Demokrasi Partisi’nden ihraç edilmişti.
Biz darbe anayasasıyla yönetilmeye devam ediyoruz. Değişiminin önündeki en büyük engel de ne yazık ki kendilerini solcu diye tanımlayanlar. Ve acı olan şu ki, bu gerçeği dile getirmeniz, onun değişimi konusunda somut bir katkı da sağlamıyor.
Halka güvenmeyen, militarizme, devlete, iktidara ve elitlere yaslanan bir solun, toplumun desteğini almasını beklemek, zaten gerçekçilikle bağdaşmaz.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
France: Protesting Armenia’s President
Riot police officers fought back belligerent demonstrators on Friday in Paris as President Serge Sarkisian of Armenia started a tour of Armenian communities worldwide. Protesters shouted “Traitor!” and denounced his plans to establish ties with Turkey. He embarked on the tour — which will also take him to the United States, Russia and Lebanon — to seek support for his bid for diplomatic ties with Turkey after a century of enmity. At least 200 protesters from the Armenian diaspora in France showed up at a public appearance. The genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians under the Ottoman Empire has been the main barrier to reconciliation with Turkey. Turkey rejects the label of genocide and says the death toll is inflated.
Greek Socialists Count on Dissatisfied Voters, but Fail to Inspire Their Confidence
By RACHEL DONADIO and ANTHEE CARASSAVA
ATHENS — After five years of a center-right government plagued by corruption scandals, violent protests and a moribund economy, Greece will hold national elections here on Sunday with the Socialist party poised to make a comeback. But for all their enthusiasm, even the party’s supporters question whether the Socialists have what it takes to steer Greece out of trouble.
Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis came to power in 2004, pledging to improve the economy and restore trust in government after a generation of Socialist rule. Yet last month, two years into his second term and holding a one-vote margin in Parliament, he called early elections to forestall labor unrest and avoid a lame-duck period before elections called for March by the emboldened Socialist party, Pasok.
In the midst of the worst financial crisis in decades, with a soaring public debt and rising unemployment, many Greeks say they see no major substantive difference between Mr. Karamanlis’s center-right New Democracy Party and the Socialists.
As he stood in his souvenir shop near the new Acropolis Museum, Prokopis Hadjiioannides, 53, said he would vote for the Socialists, as he always had. But he said he had no illusions about the party. “I’m not saying they’re saints,” he said. “But they started stealing and being corrupt after 20 years in power. These guys” — the New Democracy incumbents — “were corrupt from the first day.”
In his campaign, the Socialist leader, George Papandreou, an American-educated sociologist and former Greek foreign minister, has pledged to turn around the economy and restore trust in a government most Greeks see as corrupt. He has also vowed to increase meritocracy in a culture of Ottoman-style patronage where party affiliation has often trumped skill in fierce competition for public-sector jobs.
But that is a practice his own Socialist party has long been accused of nurturing. So why, many Greeks want to know, should they believe that the Socialists are different this time around, or that they can instigate change?
“You are asking me what people in the street ask me every day,” said Anna Diamantopoulou, a senior Socialist party member and a former European commissioner. The answer, she said, is that Greeks are fed up.
“There is always a moment in history and in political life when people say, ‘That’s enough,’ ” she said. “And I believe that the country is in a crisis — an economic crisis, a political crisis, a social crisis. So that’s enough for many people.”
Offsetting the need for reform is a deep Mediterranean resignation; many Greeks find the status quo, however problematic, more convenient than a new order, and aspire to find what is known as “volema,” the term for a comfortable setup within the prevailing system.
Adding to the skepticism here is a widespread disdain for politicians. Although Mr. Karamanlis came to power promising to clean up government, his efforts to persuade Greeks to pay their taxes and register their land were less effective after senior members of his government were found to have done neither.
One of his closest aides was accused of orchestrating a controversial land swap in which the state lost an estimated $150 million after exchanging prime Athens real estate for much less valuable property. The aide denied wrongdoing and stepped down.
Mr. Karamanlis was accused of covering for other high government officials who were accused of having profited from the deal, and who later stepped down. He denied that anyone in his government had done anything illegal.
Greeks also found Mr. Karamanlis’s government ineffective and puzzlingly passive in response to several crises, including a series of devastating forest fires in recent years, and the shooting by the police of a 15-year-old last December, which set off violent student protests that raged uncontrolled for weeks and caused millions of dollars of damage. (In a country with frequent demonstrations, many Greeks viewed the protests as political theater or a rite of youth, not as a social uprising.) Fresh protests are expected on the first anniversary of the shooting this December, and the dire economic situation may well precipitate other demonstrations.
The economy is the central issue in Sunday’s elections. After 15 years of sustained growth, buoyed by Greece’s entry into the euro zone, the economy has stalled. Unemployment is at 9 percent and is expected to rise to 10 percent, if not higher, in 2010.
Analysts say the recession is exacerbated by deep structural problems. The underground economy is estimated at 30 percent of gross domestic product. Experts say that Greece loses about $17.5 billion annually in unpaid income taxes and $13 billion in unpaid payroll taxes to cover social costs. And with two pensioners for every worker, employment levels cannot sustain social spending.
Greece also has a longstanding tradition of hiring more state workers in order to stave off social unrest, a practice that has bloated the public sector — one in four Greek workers is employed by the state — and increased public debt, which is estimated to reach 108 percent of gross domestic product.
Both New Democracy and Pasok say they will try to convince Brussels to give Greece more time to bring its deficit below the ceiling of 3 percent of gross domestic product set by the European Commission.
If the government does not take stimulus measures and banks do not extend credit, “come January, the economy will be strangled,” said Savas Robolis, a labor economist and the scientific director at INE/GSEE, a prominent labor research institute.
“If that happens,” he said, “it will dampen all the new energy and hope built up for Pasok.”
ATHENS — After five years of a center-right government plagued by corruption scandals, violent protests and a moribund economy, Greece will hold national elections here on Sunday with the Socialist party poised to make a comeback. But for all their enthusiasm, even the party’s supporters question whether the Socialists have what it takes to steer Greece out of trouble.
Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis came to power in 2004, pledging to improve the economy and restore trust in government after a generation of Socialist rule. Yet last month, two years into his second term and holding a one-vote margin in Parliament, he called early elections to forestall labor unrest and avoid a lame-duck period before elections called for March by the emboldened Socialist party, Pasok.
In the midst of the worst financial crisis in decades, with a soaring public debt and rising unemployment, many Greeks say they see no major substantive difference between Mr. Karamanlis’s center-right New Democracy Party and the Socialists.
As he stood in his souvenir shop near the new Acropolis Museum, Prokopis Hadjiioannides, 53, said he would vote for the Socialists, as he always had. But he said he had no illusions about the party. “I’m not saying they’re saints,” he said. “But they started stealing and being corrupt after 20 years in power. These guys” — the New Democracy incumbents — “were corrupt from the first day.”
In his campaign, the Socialist leader, George Papandreou, an American-educated sociologist and former Greek foreign minister, has pledged to turn around the economy and restore trust in a government most Greeks see as corrupt. He has also vowed to increase meritocracy in a culture of Ottoman-style patronage where party affiliation has often trumped skill in fierce competition for public-sector jobs.
But that is a practice his own Socialist party has long been accused of nurturing. So why, many Greeks want to know, should they believe that the Socialists are different this time around, or that they can instigate change?
“You are asking me what people in the street ask me every day,” said Anna Diamantopoulou, a senior Socialist party member and a former European commissioner. The answer, she said, is that Greeks are fed up.
“There is always a moment in history and in political life when people say, ‘That’s enough,’ ” she said. “And I believe that the country is in a crisis — an economic crisis, a political crisis, a social crisis. So that’s enough for many people.”
Offsetting the need for reform is a deep Mediterranean resignation; many Greeks find the status quo, however problematic, more convenient than a new order, and aspire to find what is known as “volema,” the term for a comfortable setup within the prevailing system.
Adding to the skepticism here is a widespread disdain for politicians. Although Mr. Karamanlis came to power promising to clean up government, his efforts to persuade Greeks to pay their taxes and register their land were less effective after senior members of his government were found to have done neither.
One of his closest aides was accused of orchestrating a controversial land swap in which the state lost an estimated $150 million after exchanging prime Athens real estate for much less valuable property. The aide denied wrongdoing and stepped down.
Mr. Karamanlis was accused of covering for other high government officials who were accused of having profited from the deal, and who later stepped down. He denied that anyone in his government had done anything illegal.
Greeks also found Mr. Karamanlis’s government ineffective and puzzlingly passive in response to several crises, including a series of devastating forest fires in recent years, and the shooting by the police of a 15-year-old last December, which set off violent student protests that raged uncontrolled for weeks and caused millions of dollars of damage. (In a country with frequent demonstrations, many Greeks viewed the protests as political theater or a rite of youth, not as a social uprising.) Fresh protests are expected on the first anniversary of the shooting this December, and the dire economic situation may well precipitate other demonstrations.
The economy is the central issue in Sunday’s elections. After 15 years of sustained growth, buoyed by Greece’s entry into the euro zone, the economy has stalled. Unemployment is at 9 percent and is expected to rise to 10 percent, if not higher, in 2010.
Analysts say the recession is exacerbated by deep structural problems. The underground economy is estimated at 30 percent of gross domestic product. Experts say that Greece loses about $17.5 billion annually in unpaid income taxes and $13 billion in unpaid payroll taxes to cover social costs. And with two pensioners for every worker, employment levels cannot sustain social spending.
Greece also has a longstanding tradition of hiring more state workers in order to stave off social unrest, a practice that has bloated the public sector — one in four Greek workers is employed by the state — and increased public debt, which is estimated to reach 108 percent of gross domestic product.
Both New Democracy and Pasok say they will try to convince Brussels to give Greece more time to bring its deficit below the ceiling of 3 percent of gross domestic product set by the European Commission.
If the government does not take stimulus measures and banks do not extend credit, “come January, the economy will be strangled,” said Savas Robolis, a labor economist and the scientific director at INE/GSEE, a prominent labor research institute.
“If that happens,” he said, “it will dampen all the new energy and hope built up for Pasok.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)