he UN head of peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of the Congo today rejected accusations that the organisation is complicit in war crimes Congolese troops allegedly committed in an offensive against rebel groups.
Alan Doss, the head of the mission in Congo (Monuc), said such charges misrepresented the UN force's role and risked undermining efforts to help the Congolese government end the people's suffering.
Monuc has come in for strong criticism from human rights and aid groups for providing operational and logistical support for an army offensive, Kimia II, against Hutu militias from neighbouring Rwanda. UN forces have provided military firepower, transport, rations and fuel for government troops as they seek to disarm the militias, who call themselves the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).
Human Rights Watch last week called on Monuc immediately to suspend its support to the Congolese army or risk being implicated in further atrocities. Human Rights Watch said it had documented the deliberate killing of at least 270 civilians in a remote part of North Kivu province since March, when the offensive began. Most of the victims were women, children and the elderly, it said.
"Some were decapitated. Others were chopped to death by machete, beaten to death with clubs, or shot as they tried to flee." According to Human Rights Watch, army soldiers have killed a total of at least 505 civilians from the start of Kimia II to September.
Other groups, such as Oxfam, have described the human cost of the attempt to defeat the FDLR as "unacceptable and disproportionate to the results it has achieved". Eastern Congo has been ravaged by war and conflict since the 1990s, when perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda fled across the border and local guerrillas and foreign armies battled for control of lucrative mineral deposits.
Doss, who spoke at the Royal United Services Institute thinktank in London, acknowledged the moral and practical dilemmas involved in supporting an army that is frequently accused of human rights violations.
"By extension, any Monuc support for the FARDC [Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo] is criticised as condoning such abuse," Doss said. "And yet I believe that the women and the children of eastern Congo would probably suffer more should we give up and walk away from the FARDC."
Doss pointed out that Monuc's support for the army was not without preconditions, and that it had made clear that, where there was evidence of troops committing human rights violations, Monuc would withdraw its support.
He added that more than 30 army personnel had been prosecuted for crimes against civilians this year, and more such cases were being prepared.
The head of UN peacekeeping, Alain Le Roy, last week said Monuc would suspend support to army units it believes killed at least 62 civilians during the operations. But he stressed the move would not affect the UN's broader support for the army.
Around 1,300 FDLR fighters have been disarmed and repatriated to Rwanda since the offensive began, according to the UN. During that time, more than 7,000 women and girls have been raped, and more than 900,000 people have been forced to flee their homes.
With a budget this year of $3.1bn (£1.9bn) and some 20,000 peacekeepers, Monuc is the world's largest UN peacekeeping mission.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
European Union Struggles to Select New Leaders
By STEPHEN CASTLE
BRUSSELS — Days after securing the landmark treaty that will lead to the naming of the European Union’s first president, the bloc has lapsed into horse-trading-as-usual over the position — the kind of maneuvering that has often yielded the kind of bland leadership that the new presidency was supposed to overcome.
On Tuesday, the latest flurry over the flaws in the European Union’s way of choosing leaders swirled around the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, who reportedly dropped out of the race to become the union’s powerful new foreign policy chief.
Mr. Miliband’s preference for sticking with the Labour Party in Britain rather than moving to the uncertain corridors of Brussels threatened to wreck an emerging compromise package of appointments: a center-leftist as foreign policy chief, with a politician from the center-right, which dominates the European Parliament, getting the presumably bigger plum of the bloc’s presidency.
The Lisbon Treaty was designed to supply the union with the kind of leadership that would give it a more powerful voice on the global stage.
Some member countries — but not all — see the new president as an interlocutor with the presidents of the United States and China, for example.
The latest dealing has underlined the complications of getting 27 heads of state to agree on candidates who need to complement each other and reflect a political, geographical and ideological mix among large and small nations.
Without a direct election involving almost half a billion people in the bloc’s countries, that sort of maneuvering has been the traditional route for finding leaders.
Now, instead of negotiating behind doors for a solution, the union’s three largest nations — France and Germany on one side, Britain on the other — appear increasingly headed for an open clash.
The Lisbon Treaty, in addition to creating a permanent president of the European Council, where national governments meet, the Lisbon Treaty establishes a powerful foreign policy chief supported by a network of diplomats. With a reluctant signing by the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, the treaty was finally secured last week after eight years of wrangling. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the current rotating union presidency, said Tuesday that he was halfway through consulting with the bloc’s leaders. But there is still no date for a summit meeting to decide the who will be selected for the new positions.
Even European ministers sound weary. “It should have been at the end of this week,” Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, told France Inter radio, “but I don’t believe that will happen.”
Mr. Reinfeldt may have to threaten to use a new procedure, under which a weighted majority can agree on the selections without requiring the support of all 27 leaders.
In an implicit attack on the whole process, Poland suggested that candidates face a job interview in front of the union’s leaders where they would “present their vision of how their tasks would be conducted.”
In the unwritten rules for appointment to senior posts in the European Union, most candidates do not declare their interest before decisions are made. An elected official who is not selected for a senior position with the union could find the outcome politically costly at home.
Stephen Wall, a former British ambassador to the bloc, said that this type of negotiation was particularly difficult for diplomats, who are trained to forge compromise and not cling stubbornly to a political position.
“I think it’s always going to be a pretty messy situation, because this is a decision that E.U. leaders care about,” he said, “They will have strong views.”
But he is also dismissive of the Polish proposal for a job interview.
“Given that they have to placate the right, the left, the north, the south, the large and small nations, you could have a brilliant presentation but, if the politics didn’t fit, what would be the point?” he said.
The heavyweight contender for the presidential post had been former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. When his campaign failed to gain momentum on the center-left, as well as in Germany and among some smaller nations, a new consensus began to emerge.
That would involve Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, a conservative, becoming president of the union and acting as a broker of compromise, with foreign policy post going to Mr. Miliband, who is regarded as a big hitter among foreign ministers.
Mr. Miliband had declared himself unavailable for the post, but to many people that appeared to mere comply with the unwritten rule under which serving ministers never admit that they are candidates for senior jobs with the bloc. The BBC’s political editor reported Monday night, however, that Mr. Miliband had decided to remain in his current job.
A former Italian prime minister, Massimo D’Alema, is thought to be the new front runner for the foreign policy job, but his past in Italy’s Communist Party is a problem for some nations in eastern Europe. Other potential candidates from Britain include Peter Mandelson, a former European Commissioner, and the current Trade Commissioner, Catherine Ashton.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain is still supporting Mr. Blair, who is also not a formally declared candidate. Britain argues that if the presidential post goes to a technocrat like Mr. Van Rompuy, the union would miss an opportunity to expand its profile in the world.
But President Nicolas Sarkozy of France praised Mr. Van Rompuy on Tuesday in the newspaper Le Monde, describing him as “someone very good.”
Besides Mr. Van Rompuy, leading contenders for the presidency include the Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands, Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg and a former Latvian president, Vaira Vika-Freiberga.
Mr. Wall said that if past experience is a guide, it will not be possible to find a compromise without a real discussion among the leaders of the bloc’s nations.
“If the Swedes have already got a clear route through this,” he said, “I would be amazed.”
BRUSSELS — Days after securing the landmark treaty that will lead to the naming of the European Union’s first president, the bloc has lapsed into horse-trading-as-usual over the position — the kind of maneuvering that has often yielded the kind of bland leadership that the new presidency was supposed to overcome.
On Tuesday, the latest flurry over the flaws in the European Union’s way of choosing leaders swirled around the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, who reportedly dropped out of the race to become the union’s powerful new foreign policy chief.
Mr. Miliband’s preference for sticking with the Labour Party in Britain rather than moving to the uncertain corridors of Brussels threatened to wreck an emerging compromise package of appointments: a center-leftist as foreign policy chief, with a politician from the center-right, which dominates the European Parliament, getting the presumably bigger plum of the bloc’s presidency.
The Lisbon Treaty was designed to supply the union with the kind of leadership that would give it a more powerful voice on the global stage.
Some member countries — but not all — see the new president as an interlocutor with the presidents of the United States and China, for example.
The latest dealing has underlined the complications of getting 27 heads of state to agree on candidates who need to complement each other and reflect a political, geographical and ideological mix among large and small nations.
Without a direct election involving almost half a billion people in the bloc’s countries, that sort of maneuvering has been the traditional route for finding leaders.
Now, instead of negotiating behind doors for a solution, the union’s three largest nations — France and Germany on one side, Britain on the other — appear increasingly headed for an open clash.
The Lisbon Treaty, in addition to creating a permanent president of the European Council, where national governments meet, the Lisbon Treaty establishes a powerful foreign policy chief supported by a network of diplomats. With a reluctant signing by the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, the treaty was finally secured last week after eight years of wrangling. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the current rotating union presidency, said Tuesday that he was halfway through consulting with the bloc’s leaders. But there is still no date for a summit meeting to decide the who will be selected for the new positions.
Even European ministers sound weary. “It should have been at the end of this week,” Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, told France Inter radio, “but I don’t believe that will happen.”
Mr. Reinfeldt may have to threaten to use a new procedure, under which a weighted majority can agree on the selections without requiring the support of all 27 leaders.
In an implicit attack on the whole process, Poland suggested that candidates face a job interview in front of the union’s leaders where they would “present their vision of how their tasks would be conducted.”
In the unwritten rules for appointment to senior posts in the European Union, most candidates do not declare their interest before decisions are made. An elected official who is not selected for a senior position with the union could find the outcome politically costly at home.
Stephen Wall, a former British ambassador to the bloc, said that this type of negotiation was particularly difficult for diplomats, who are trained to forge compromise and not cling stubbornly to a political position.
“I think it’s always going to be a pretty messy situation, because this is a decision that E.U. leaders care about,” he said, “They will have strong views.”
But he is also dismissive of the Polish proposal for a job interview.
“Given that they have to placate the right, the left, the north, the south, the large and small nations, you could have a brilliant presentation but, if the politics didn’t fit, what would be the point?” he said.
The heavyweight contender for the presidential post had been former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. When his campaign failed to gain momentum on the center-left, as well as in Germany and among some smaller nations, a new consensus began to emerge.
That would involve Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, a conservative, becoming president of the union and acting as a broker of compromise, with foreign policy post going to Mr. Miliband, who is regarded as a big hitter among foreign ministers.
Mr. Miliband had declared himself unavailable for the post, but to many people that appeared to mere comply with the unwritten rule under which serving ministers never admit that they are candidates for senior jobs with the bloc. The BBC’s political editor reported Monday night, however, that Mr. Miliband had decided to remain in his current job.
A former Italian prime minister, Massimo D’Alema, is thought to be the new front runner for the foreign policy job, but his past in Italy’s Communist Party is a problem for some nations in eastern Europe. Other potential candidates from Britain include Peter Mandelson, a former European Commissioner, and the current Trade Commissioner, Catherine Ashton.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain is still supporting Mr. Blair, who is also not a formally declared candidate. Britain argues that if the presidential post goes to a technocrat like Mr. Van Rompuy, the union would miss an opportunity to expand its profile in the world.
But President Nicolas Sarkozy of France praised Mr. Van Rompuy on Tuesday in the newspaper Le Monde, describing him as “someone very good.”
Besides Mr. Van Rompuy, leading contenders for the presidency include the Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands, Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg and a former Latvian president, Vaira Vika-Freiberga.
Mr. Wall said that if past experience is a guide, it will not be possible to find a compromise without a real discussion among the leaders of the bloc’s nations.
“If the Swedes have already got a clear route through this,” he said, “I would be amazed.”
Bulgaria Still Stuck in Trauma of Transition
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER
SOFIA — The silence on the streets of the Bulgarian capital this week speaks volumes about this nation’s deep ambivalence about democracy.
Although Tuesday was the 20th anniversary of the removal of Bulgaria’s Communist leader, Todor Zhivkov, and the start of democratic changes here, the day went uncelebrated, even as Germany cleaned up from celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
To explain the amnesia of Bulgarians about their Communist past, and apathy about their democratic present, Bulgarian commentators are using a biblical metaphor: Like the Israelites, the Bulgarians will have to wander the desert for 40 years to be cleansed of the sins of Communism.
“Twenty years have passed and we are in still the middle of the desert,” said Edvin Sugarev, 56, a poet and former anti-Communist opposition leader. “And we’ll be waiting for another 20 years.”
Bulgaria is the only former Warsaw Pact member state without an institute for national memory to hash out the historical details of a Communist past, during which, historians say, thousands of people were imprisoned and killed. Mr. Sugarev is one of the few public figures in Bulgaria who talks about the need for a moral assessment of Communism.
“Everything in Bulgaria looks fine formally: the free market, human rights, free speech, the multiparty political system, membership in E.U. and NATO,” Mr. Sugarev said. “But that’s only a facade. Behind it there is nothing.”
“People got their freedom, but they don’t know what to do with it,” he added, “because it’s more comfortable when someone tells them what to do, where to go and what is right and wrong.”
Bulgaria earned its reputation as the most obedient of Soviet allies. Mr. Zhivkov said in 1973 that Bulgaria and the Soviet Union would “act as a single body, breathing with the same lungs and nourished by the same bloodstream.”
Despite its political and military achievements, Bulgaria is still the poorest country in the European Union, with monthly wages averaging €300, or $450. The country also suffers from a huge image problem in Europe and years of criticism by the European Commission for failing to fight corruption and organized crime.
The country became to the first in the bloc to see its E.U. funds stopped, in October 2008, because of corruption and poor administration. According to Transparency International, an organization that fights corruption, Bulgaria shares the bottom spot for most corrupt E.U. member state along with Romania.
By most measures, Bulgaria appears the most dissatisfied with democracy and nostalgic for Communism of all the former Warsaw Pact members, with Hungary a close second, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which recently surveyed East Europeans by returning to questions it asked in 1991.
When asked about democracy, 76 percent of Bulgarians said they were dissatisfied. Questioned whether free markets made people better off, only 37 percent of Bulgarians agreed. And when asked about the move away from the state-controlled economy, 54 percent of Bulgarians approved, compared with 46 percent of Hungarians.
Russia’s influence on Bulgaria was viewed as good by 45 percent of Bulgarians, about the same as Ukraine. Only 11 percent of Bulgarians agreed that ordinary people had benefited from the changes in 1989. And asked whether the state was run for the benefit of all people, 16 percent of Bulgarians agreed, down from 55 percent in 1991.
“We have created democratic institutions, but we are missing the democratic-political culture to make them effective,” said Petar-Emil Mitev, a sociologist at the Ivan Hadjiyski Institute for Social Values and Structures in Sofia.
Mr. Mitev added that the collapse of the old political and economic system did not mean the end of the old collectivist values.
“Now we are entering a new system of individual-based values and human rights, etc.” he said. “This new value system can’t be created all at once.”
The boundaries of the new market-based values are still not well defined, Mr. Mitev said, referring to the example of vote selling, which was widely reported in recent elections.
Evgeni Dainov, a political science professor at the New Bulgarian University, said, “It has taken us 20 years to get away from the idea that people are helpless and the state should do everything.”
The hope for Bulgarian democracy is in the generation born since 1989, Mr. Dainov said.
“They are totally different,” he said, even from those born in 1985. For them, he said, 1989 is long ago, “like dinosaurs walking the earth.”
“They are the first achieving generation I have seen,” Mr. Dainov said. “The first who don’t hide behind myths of helplessness. This generation that is now 20 is almost exactly like their peers in the West, which was the whole point in the first place.”
“I don’t know where they got it from,” he added. “Maybe from American movies, certainly not from their parents, who are helpless. From somewhere they got the idea that achieving things is good.”
This young generation is the most critical of Communism and the most positive about the transition, said Mr. Mitev, the sociologist.
But parents of children born in this generation say they have grown up with “slobodia, not svoboda” in Bulgarian, or “licentiousness, not freedom.”
One of the new concepts to emerge from the transition is the Bulgarian word “dalavera,” which means easy money through dishonest means. While older people see dalavera as negative, since money should be earned through work, it is viewed as positive by young people, who are completely comfortable with the free market.
“Enrichment by dishonest means has become a part of the Bulgarian transition and that has been absorbed by the young generation,” Mr. Mitev said. “This is an important part of trauma of the transition.”
At a debate at Sofia University on the 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, three students in the crowd who were born in November 1989 were chosen to represent Bulgaria in the European Parliament on Wednesday for a meeting of 89 other Europeans born in the same month.
“I haven’t heard anything good about that time,” said Silvia Vasileva, 20, a law student who was born on Nov. 10. “Even if you had money, there was nothing to buy. Oranges were only for Christmas. If you wore jeans, you were an absolute attraction.”
Vyara Pancheva, also 20 and an English student at Sofia University, said she was not really sure whether Communism was good or bad.
Bulgarians still have extreme and opposing views on Communism, she said, so a mass celebration of Nov. 10 was not possible because the subject was too sensitive.
“As an idea, I think Communism is good,” Ms. Pancheva said.
“But in practice it’s totally unworkable. I personally think democracy is better.”
SOFIA — The silence on the streets of the Bulgarian capital this week speaks volumes about this nation’s deep ambivalence about democracy.
Although Tuesday was the 20th anniversary of the removal of Bulgaria’s Communist leader, Todor Zhivkov, and the start of democratic changes here, the day went uncelebrated, even as Germany cleaned up from celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
To explain the amnesia of Bulgarians about their Communist past, and apathy about their democratic present, Bulgarian commentators are using a biblical metaphor: Like the Israelites, the Bulgarians will have to wander the desert for 40 years to be cleansed of the sins of Communism.
“Twenty years have passed and we are in still the middle of the desert,” said Edvin Sugarev, 56, a poet and former anti-Communist opposition leader. “And we’ll be waiting for another 20 years.”
Bulgaria is the only former Warsaw Pact member state without an institute for national memory to hash out the historical details of a Communist past, during which, historians say, thousands of people were imprisoned and killed. Mr. Sugarev is one of the few public figures in Bulgaria who talks about the need for a moral assessment of Communism.
“Everything in Bulgaria looks fine formally: the free market, human rights, free speech, the multiparty political system, membership in E.U. and NATO,” Mr. Sugarev said. “But that’s only a facade. Behind it there is nothing.”
“People got their freedom, but they don’t know what to do with it,” he added, “because it’s more comfortable when someone tells them what to do, where to go and what is right and wrong.”
Bulgaria earned its reputation as the most obedient of Soviet allies. Mr. Zhivkov said in 1973 that Bulgaria and the Soviet Union would “act as a single body, breathing with the same lungs and nourished by the same bloodstream.”
Despite its political and military achievements, Bulgaria is still the poorest country in the European Union, with monthly wages averaging €300, or $450. The country also suffers from a huge image problem in Europe and years of criticism by the European Commission for failing to fight corruption and organized crime.
The country became to the first in the bloc to see its E.U. funds stopped, in October 2008, because of corruption and poor administration. According to Transparency International, an organization that fights corruption, Bulgaria shares the bottom spot for most corrupt E.U. member state along with Romania.
By most measures, Bulgaria appears the most dissatisfied with democracy and nostalgic for Communism of all the former Warsaw Pact members, with Hungary a close second, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which recently surveyed East Europeans by returning to questions it asked in 1991.
When asked about democracy, 76 percent of Bulgarians said they were dissatisfied. Questioned whether free markets made people better off, only 37 percent of Bulgarians agreed. And when asked about the move away from the state-controlled economy, 54 percent of Bulgarians approved, compared with 46 percent of Hungarians.
Russia’s influence on Bulgaria was viewed as good by 45 percent of Bulgarians, about the same as Ukraine. Only 11 percent of Bulgarians agreed that ordinary people had benefited from the changes in 1989. And asked whether the state was run for the benefit of all people, 16 percent of Bulgarians agreed, down from 55 percent in 1991.
“We have created democratic institutions, but we are missing the democratic-political culture to make them effective,” said Petar-Emil Mitev, a sociologist at the Ivan Hadjiyski Institute for Social Values and Structures in Sofia.
Mr. Mitev added that the collapse of the old political and economic system did not mean the end of the old collectivist values.
“Now we are entering a new system of individual-based values and human rights, etc.” he said. “This new value system can’t be created all at once.”
The boundaries of the new market-based values are still not well defined, Mr. Mitev said, referring to the example of vote selling, which was widely reported in recent elections.
Evgeni Dainov, a political science professor at the New Bulgarian University, said, “It has taken us 20 years to get away from the idea that people are helpless and the state should do everything.”
The hope for Bulgarian democracy is in the generation born since 1989, Mr. Dainov said.
“They are totally different,” he said, even from those born in 1985. For them, he said, 1989 is long ago, “like dinosaurs walking the earth.”
“They are the first achieving generation I have seen,” Mr. Dainov said. “The first who don’t hide behind myths of helplessness. This generation that is now 20 is almost exactly like their peers in the West, which was the whole point in the first place.”
“I don’t know where they got it from,” he added. “Maybe from American movies, certainly not from their parents, who are helpless. From somewhere they got the idea that achieving things is good.”
This young generation is the most critical of Communism and the most positive about the transition, said Mr. Mitev, the sociologist.
But parents of children born in this generation say they have grown up with “slobodia, not svoboda” in Bulgarian, or “licentiousness, not freedom.”
One of the new concepts to emerge from the transition is the Bulgarian word “dalavera,” which means easy money through dishonest means. While older people see dalavera as negative, since money should be earned through work, it is viewed as positive by young people, who are completely comfortable with the free market.
“Enrichment by dishonest means has become a part of the Bulgarian transition and that has been absorbed by the young generation,” Mr. Mitev said. “This is an important part of trauma of the transition.”
At a debate at Sofia University on the 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, three students in the crowd who were born in November 1989 were chosen to represent Bulgaria in the European Parliament on Wednesday for a meeting of 89 other Europeans born in the same month.
“I haven’t heard anything good about that time,” said Silvia Vasileva, 20, a law student who was born on Nov. 10. “Even if you had money, there was nothing to buy. Oranges were only for Christmas. If you wore jeans, you were an absolute attraction.”
Vyara Pancheva, also 20 and an English student at Sofia University, said she was not really sure whether Communism was good or bad.
Bulgarians still have extreme and opposing views on Communism, she said, so a mass celebration of Nov. 10 was not possible because the subject was too sensitive.
“As an idea, I think Communism is good,” Ms. Pancheva said.
“But in practice it’s totally unworkable. I personally think democracy is better.”
Turkey's PKK peace plan delayed
Opposition parties in Turkey have delayed the government's announcement of its plan to end a conflict in the mainly Kurdish south-east.
Interior Minister Besir Atalay ran out of time to present the measures in parliament as nationalist MPs jeered.
The plans are thought to include some Kurdish language education, restoring Kurdish place names and more freedom to use Kurdish in election campaigns.
The announcement is now expected on Thursday.
Some 40,000 people have been killed in the 25-year Kurdish fight for autonomy.
The government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently been seeking opposition support for a negotiated settlement to end the insurgency by the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK).
It first announced the plan three months ago but has yet to publicise details.
Nationalist sentiment
The issue is very sensitive in Turkey, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Istanbul. The PKK has been vilified as a terrorist organisation, so making peace is a delicate task for the government.
Nationalist sentiment is so strong in Turkey that until recently there was no official recognition of a separate Kurdish identity, our correspondent says, despite the fact that as much as 20% of the population is made up of ethnic Kurds, many of whom speak Kurdish as their first language.
Last month Turkey's government was caught off guard when a group of PKK fighters crossed the border from Iraq and announced they wanted to lay down their arms.
They were not prosecuted as previous returnees have been, but the euphoric welcome they received from thousands of local Kurds provoked a nationalist backlash.
While the government package is expected to allow much greater freedom to use the Kurdish language, the government is almost certain to refuse the request for a general amnesty made by the PKK and its supporters, our correspondent says.
Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader, has been in jail since 1999.
In recent years, Turkish warplanes have launched numerous attacks on rebel hideouts in the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region, from where Ankara says some 2,000 PKK guerrillas stage hit-and-run attacks on Turkish territory.
Interior Minister Besir Atalay ran out of time to present the measures in parliament as nationalist MPs jeered.
The plans are thought to include some Kurdish language education, restoring Kurdish place names and more freedom to use Kurdish in election campaigns.
The announcement is now expected on Thursday.
Some 40,000 people have been killed in the 25-year Kurdish fight for autonomy.
The government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently been seeking opposition support for a negotiated settlement to end the insurgency by the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK).
It first announced the plan three months ago but has yet to publicise details.
Nationalist sentiment
The issue is very sensitive in Turkey, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Istanbul. The PKK has been vilified as a terrorist organisation, so making peace is a delicate task for the government.
Nationalist sentiment is so strong in Turkey that until recently there was no official recognition of a separate Kurdish identity, our correspondent says, despite the fact that as much as 20% of the population is made up of ethnic Kurds, many of whom speak Kurdish as their first language.
Last month Turkey's government was caught off guard when a group of PKK fighters crossed the border from Iraq and announced they wanted to lay down their arms.
They were not prosecuted as previous returnees have been, but the euphoric welcome they received from thousands of local Kurds provoked a nationalist backlash.
While the government package is expected to allow much greater freedom to use the Kurdish language, the government is almost certain to refuse the request for a general amnesty made by the PKK and its supporters, our correspondent says.
Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader, has been in jail since 1999.
In recent years, Turkish warplanes have launched numerous attacks on rebel hideouts in the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region, from where Ankara says some 2,000 PKK guerrillas stage hit-and-run attacks on Turkish territory.
EU calls for budget deficit cuts
Thirteen members of the European Union have been told to take action and get their budget deficits back in line.
EU requirements mean that they should not exceed 3% of the country's GDP. However, since the financial crisis most countries have broken that rule.
Deadlines ranging from 2012 to 2014 have been issued.
France, the UK, Spain and the Irish Republic have longer to comply because their economies have worsened since the original deadline was imposed in April.
'Bite the bullet'
France has already warned that it will not meet the new deadline. The government wants to focus on boosting growth rather than cutting spending.
Germany and six other countries have until 2013. Belgium and Italy have the tighter deadline of 2012.
The BBC's business correspondent in Brussels, Nigel Cassidy, said the EU's economy commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, saved his harshest criticism for Greece. Mr Almunia said the country had taken "no effective action".
Our correspondent said: "Ultimately the message from Brussels is straightforward enough. Economic crisis notwithstanding, the named countries must bite the bullet and act now to cut their borrowings".
He says that will mean tax rises or benefit cuts in order to bring budget deficits under control.
EU requirements mean that they should not exceed 3% of the country's GDP. However, since the financial crisis most countries have broken that rule.
Deadlines ranging from 2012 to 2014 have been issued.
France, the UK, Spain and the Irish Republic have longer to comply because their economies have worsened since the original deadline was imposed in April.
'Bite the bullet'
France has already warned that it will not meet the new deadline. The government wants to focus on boosting growth rather than cutting spending.
Germany and six other countries have until 2013. Belgium and Italy have the tighter deadline of 2012.
The BBC's business correspondent in Brussels, Nigel Cassidy, said the EU's economy commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, saved his harshest criticism for Greece. Mr Almunia said the country had taken "no effective action".
Our correspondent said: "Ultimately the message from Brussels is straightforward enough. Economic crisis notwithstanding, the named countries must bite the bullet and act now to cut their borrowings".
He says that will mean tax rises or benefit cuts in order to bring budget deficits under control.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Turkey defends Sudan leader visit
Turkish President Abdullah Gul has accused the EU of interfering after Istanbul was asked to reconsider an invitation to the president of Sudan.
Omar al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
But Mr Gul said he was invited to a summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), not for bilateral talks with Turkish officials.
Turkey, which has applied for EU membership, does not recognise the ICC.
It says it has no plans to arrest Mr Bashir, who is due to attend an OIC economic summit in Istanbul on Sunday and Monday.
Turkey insists it is not shifting away from its traditionally close ties to the West.
But the BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says the country is certainly choosing some controversial new partnerships.
The visit by the Sudanese president comes fresh on the heels of the Turkish prime minister's groundbreaking state visit to Iran in October, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that country's nuclear programme to be entirely peaceful.
Mr Bashir's visit to Turkey will be his third in the past 18 months, but his first since the ICC arrest warrant was issued in March.
A coalition of Turkish human rights groups is protesting against the visit, our correspondent says.
They have accused the government of double standards for condemning Israel over its actions in Gaza, and then hosting a president who is blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
Omar al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
But Mr Gul said he was invited to a summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), not for bilateral talks with Turkish officials.
Turkey, which has applied for EU membership, does not recognise the ICC.
It says it has no plans to arrest Mr Bashir, who is due to attend an OIC economic summit in Istanbul on Sunday and Monday.
Turkey insists it is not shifting away from its traditionally close ties to the West.
But the BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says the country is certainly choosing some controversial new partnerships.
The visit by the Sudanese president comes fresh on the heels of the Turkish prime minister's groundbreaking state visit to Iran in October, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that country's nuclear programme to be entirely peaceful.
Mr Bashir's visit to Turkey will be his third in the past 18 months, but his first since the ICC arrest warrant was issued in March.
A coalition of Turkish human rights groups is protesting against the visit, our correspondent says.
They have accused the government of double standards for condemning Israel over its actions in Gaza, and then hosting a president who is blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Türk dış politikası İslamileşiyor
Efraim İnbar
Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişiyle birlikte, Kemalist Türkiye İran, Irak ve Suriye’den kaynaklanan ve giderek artan tehditlere karşılık vermesine yardımcı olabilecek Ortadoğulu ortaklar aradı. İsrail kusursuz bir tercihti. Türkiye’nin tehdit algısını paylaşıyordu ve dünyanın yeni hegemonik gücü ABD’de nüfuzu olan güçlü bir Batı yanlısı ülkeydi. Dahası Kudüs, Batı’nın Ankara’nın Kürt isyanına karşı yürüttüğü savaş nedeniyle NATO müttefikine satmaya gönülsüz olduğu askeri teknolojiyi sağlayabilirdi. Sonuçta İsrail’le askeri, ekonomik ve diplomatik ilişkiler gelişip serpildi. İsrail için Ankara’yla yakınlık, ABD’yle ilişkisin-den sonra ikinci sırada geliyordu.
Ancak uluslararası koşullar değişip ulusal çıkarlar yeniden tanımlanırken, ilişkiler soğuyor, hatta uluslararası bir boşanma gerçekleşiyor. İsrail, önemli bir bölgesel güç olan Türkiye’yle kuvvetli ilişkileri sürdürmek konusunda ısrarcı davransa da, Türkiye’nin uluslararası ve ülke içi ortamı değişiyor. İki ülke ara-sındaki mevcut gerilimlerin sebebi bu.
Yepyeni bir perspektif
Türkiye’nin Suriye’ye karşı güç kullanma tehdidinde bulunduğu 1998’den bu yana Şam Kürt isyanına desteği bitirmesi ve Hatay üzerinde hak iddia etmekten vazgeçmesi yönündeki Türk taleplerine riayet ediyor.
Saddam Hüseyin’in Irak’ı 2003’teki ABD işgaliyle tehdit olmaktan çıkarıldı, bu da daha az tehditkâr bir ortam oluşmasına katkıda bulundu. Dahası, ‘proto-İslami’ AKP’nin Türkiye’de iktidara geldiği Ekim 2002’den bu yana, yeni seçkinler bölgeye dair önemli ölçüde farklı bir perspektif ve farklı siyasi öncelikler ihdas etti.
Türkiye kendisini büyük bir güç ve Batı’ya uzanan hayati önemde bir enerji köprüsü olarak görüyor, büyük bir uluslararası ilgiye mazhar olduğunu düşünüyor. Dış ilişkilerdeki giderek büyüyen hevesi, Türkiye’nin uluslararası önemini artırmak umuduyla bölgesel ihtilaflara arabulucuk önermesine yol açmış durumda.
AKP ilk başta İsrail’le iyi ilişkileri sürdürdü. Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan da dahil Türk liderliği İsrail’i ziyaret etti. Söz konusu dönemin büyük bölümünde işler stratejik alanda bile her zamanki gibi yürüdü. Bunun en son tezahürü İsrail’le Türkiye’nin Ağustos 2009’da düzenlediği donanma tatbikatıydı.
Ancak Kudüs’le Ankara arasındaki anlaşmazlıklar adım adım büyüyor, buna Türkiye’nin Batı’dan giderek uzaklaşması eşlik ediyor. Bilhassa AKP’nin Haziran 2007’de Gazze’yi kanlı bir biçimde ele geçirmesinden hemen sonra Hamas’la diyalog kurma kararı almasının ardından, Filistin meselesi daha fazla yankı buluyor. Bu, Batı’nın İsrail’in yok edilmesini savunan bir terör örgütüyle resmi ilişkilerden kaçınmayı öngören dış politika rotasından bir sapmaydı. Türkiye başbakanı 2009 kışında Gazze’ye düzenlenen Dökme Kurşun Operasyonu sırasında İsrail’i kaba ve ateşli bir biçimde kınadı. Oysa Batı yanlısı Arap ülkeleri bile İsrail’in radikal Hamas’a karşı mücadelesini destekliyordu.
Beşir’i ağırladı
Ulusal seçimleri kazanıp tekrar iktidara geldiğinden beri AKP, dış politikasını yürütmek konusunda
daha büyük bir özgüven sergiliyor. Ağustos 2008’de Türkiye İran İslam Cumhuriyeti’nin tepki toplayan cumhurbaşkanı Mahmud Ahmedinecad’ı resmi bir ziyaret çerçevesinde ağırladı. Hiçbir Batı ülkesi İran liderine böyle bir davette bulunmuş değil. Dahası Ankara Batılı müttefiklerinin aksine, geçenlerde İran’ın nükleer programını engellemeyi hedefleyen hiçbir yaptırıma katılmayacağını açıkladı. Türkiye Ağustos 2008’de, Darfur’da savaş suçu işlemek ve ve soykırım yapmakla suçlanmasına rağmen Sudan devlet başkanı Ömer Beşir’i ağırlayarak Batı’nın ortak tutumundan bir kez daha ayrıldı. Velhasıl Türk dış politikası giderek İslami bir renk kazanıyor.
Görünen o ki İsrail, Türkiye’nin arabuluculuk çabası çerçevesinde Suriye’ye yeterince taviz vermeyerek AKP hükümetini düş kırıklığına uğrattı. Dahası Kudüs Türkiye’nin yeni dışişleri bakanı Ahmet Davutoğlu’nun İsrail’den Gazze’ye geçme isteğini geri çevirdi; Davutoğlu Yahudi devletine geri dönmeden önce Gazze’de Hamas yetkilileriyle görüşecekti. Bu karar İsrail’in, Hamas yetkilileriyle temas eden yabancı devlet adamlarıyla görüşmeme politikasını yansıtıyordu.
Anti-semitik ifadeler kullanıldı
Fakat Davutoğlu tam da, bugünkü Türkiye için epey önemli görünen ‘’arabuluculuk’ izlenimini yaratmak istiyordu. İsrail’in buna izin vermemesi Türkleri çileden çıkardı ve Türkiye rahatsızlığını İsrail hava kuvvetlerinin de katılması planlanan uluslararası ‘Anadolu Kartalı’ tatbikatını iptal ederek göstermeye karar verdi. Türkiye’nin devlet kontrolündeki televizyon kanalında İsrail karşıtı ateşli bir yeni dizinin yayımlanmaya başlaması gerilimleri daha da artırdı.
Son olarak mevcut durum AKP liderliğinin İsrail ve Yahudilere yönelik gerçek antipatisini de yansıtır nitelikte. Erdoğan’ın New York’ta Amerikan Yahudi toplumu liderleriyle en son görüşmesi fiyaskoyla sonuçlandı. İstanbul Üniversitesi’nde geçenlerde yaptığı bir konuşmada da alenen
anti-Semitik ifadeler kullandı.
Batı için büyük stratejik kayıp
İsrail için AKP’nin tutumunu hazmetmek zor olacaktır. En hassas mesele elbette ki silah satışları ve stratejik işbirliği. Kudüs Ankara’nın niye Tahran, Şam ve Gazze’deki diktatörleri Yahudi devletinin demokrasisine tercih ettiğini merak ediyor. Ne yazık ki Türkiye bir kimlik krizi yaşıyor ve iktidar partisinin İslami kökleri iç ve dış meselelerde giderek egemen hale geliyor.
Umut edilir ki Türk demokrasisi, sadece Batı’ya demirlemenin sağlayabileceği ilerlemeyi ve refahı tercih edecek kadar güçlü olsun. Türkiye’nin İslamcılığa sürüklenmesi İsrail ve Batı için büyük bir stratejik kayıp olacaktır. Fakat bu en başta Türkler için bir trajedi anlamına gelecektir.
(The Daily Star- Lübnan’da İngilizce yayımlanan gazete, Bar-İlan Üniversitesi’nde siyaset bilimi profesörü, Begin-Sedat Stratejik Çalışmalar Merkezi direktörü, 28 Ekim 2009)
Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişiyle birlikte, Kemalist Türkiye İran, Irak ve Suriye’den kaynaklanan ve giderek artan tehditlere karşılık vermesine yardımcı olabilecek Ortadoğulu ortaklar aradı. İsrail kusursuz bir tercihti. Türkiye’nin tehdit algısını paylaşıyordu ve dünyanın yeni hegemonik gücü ABD’de nüfuzu olan güçlü bir Batı yanlısı ülkeydi. Dahası Kudüs, Batı’nın Ankara’nın Kürt isyanına karşı yürüttüğü savaş nedeniyle NATO müttefikine satmaya gönülsüz olduğu askeri teknolojiyi sağlayabilirdi. Sonuçta İsrail’le askeri, ekonomik ve diplomatik ilişkiler gelişip serpildi. İsrail için Ankara’yla yakınlık, ABD’yle ilişkisin-den sonra ikinci sırada geliyordu.
Ancak uluslararası koşullar değişip ulusal çıkarlar yeniden tanımlanırken, ilişkiler soğuyor, hatta uluslararası bir boşanma gerçekleşiyor. İsrail, önemli bir bölgesel güç olan Türkiye’yle kuvvetli ilişkileri sürdürmek konusunda ısrarcı davransa da, Türkiye’nin uluslararası ve ülke içi ortamı değişiyor. İki ülke ara-sındaki mevcut gerilimlerin sebebi bu.
Yepyeni bir perspektif
Türkiye’nin Suriye’ye karşı güç kullanma tehdidinde bulunduğu 1998’den bu yana Şam Kürt isyanına desteği bitirmesi ve Hatay üzerinde hak iddia etmekten vazgeçmesi yönündeki Türk taleplerine riayet ediyor.
Saddam Hüseyin’in Irak’ı 2003’teki ABD işgaliyle tehdit olmaktan çıkarıldı, bu da daha az tehditkâr bir ortam oluşmasına katkıda bulundu. Dahası, ‘proto-İslami’ AKP’nin Türkiye’de iktidara geldiği Ekim 2002’den bu yana, yeni seçkinler bölgeye dair önemli ölçüde farklı bir perspektif ve farklı siyasi öncelikler ihdas etti.
Türkiye kendisini büyük bir güç ve Batı’ya uzanan hayati önemde bir enerji köprüsü olarak görüyor, büyük bir uluslararası ilgiye mazhar olduğunu düşünüyor. Dış ilişkilerdeki giderek büyüyen hevesi, Türkiye’nin uluslararası önemini artırmak umuduyla bölgesel ihtilaflara arabulucuk önermesine yol açmış durumda.
AKP ilk başta İsrail’le iyi ilişkileri sürdürdü. Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan da dahil Türk liderliği İsrail’i ziyaret etti. Söz konusu dönemin büyük bölümünde işler stratejik alanda bile her zamanki gibi yürüdü. Bunun en son tezahürü İsrail’le Türkiye’nin Ağustos 2009’da düzenlediği donanma tatbikatıydı.
Ancak Kudüs’le Ankara arasındaki anlaşmazlıklar adım adım büyüyor, buna Türkiye’nin Batı’dan giderek uzaklaşması eşlik ediyor. Bilhassa AKP’nin Haziran 2007’de Gazze’yi kanlı bir biçimde ele geçirmesinden hemen sonra Hamas’la diyalog kurma kararı almasının ardından, Filistin meselesi daha fazla yankı buluyor. Bu, Batı’nın İsrail’in yok edilmesini savunan bir terör örgütüyle resmi ilişkilerden kaçınmayı öngören dış politika rotasından bir sapmaydı. Türkiye başbakanı 2009 kışında Gazze’ye düzenlenen Dökme Kurşun Operasyonu sırasında İsrail’i kaba ve ateşli bir biçimde kınadı. Oysa Batı yanlısı Arap ülkeleri bile İsrail’in radikal Hamas’a karşı mücadelesini destekliyordu.
Beşir’i ağırladı
Ulusal seçimleri kazanıp tekrar iktidara geldiğinden beri AKP, dış politikasını yürütmek konusunda
daha büyük bir özgüven sergiliyor. Ağustos 2008’de Türkiye İran İslam Cumhuriyeti’nin tepki toplayan cumhurbaşkanı Mahmud Ahmedinecad’ı resmi bir ziyaret çerçevesinde ağırladı. Hiçbir Batı ülkesi İran liderine böyle bir davette bulunmuş değil. Dahası Ankara Batılı müttefiklerinin aksine, geçenlerde İran’ın nükleer programını engellemeyi hedefleyen hiçbir yaptırıma katılmayacağını açıkladı. Türkiye Ağustos 2008’de, Darfur’da savaş suçu işlemek ve ve soykırım yapmakla suçlanmasına rağmen Sudan devlet başkanı Ömer Beşir’i ağırlayarak Batı’nın ortak tutumundan bir kez daha ayrıldı. Velhasıl Türk dış politikası giderek İslami bir renk kazanıyor.
Görünen o ki İsrail, Türkiye’nin arabuluculuk çabası çerçevesinde Suriye’ye yeterince taviz vermeyerek AKP hükümetini düş kırıklığına uğrattı. Dahası Kudüs Türkiye’nin yeni dışişleri bakanı Ahmet Davutoğlu’nun İsrail’den Gazze’ye geçme isteğini geri çevirdi; Davutoğlu Yahudi devletine geri dönmeden önce Gazze’de Hamas yetkilileriyle görüşecekti. Bu karar İsrail’in, Hamas yetkilileriyle temas eden yabancı devlet adamlarıyla görüşmeme politikasını yansıtıyordu.
Anti-semitik ifadeler kullanıldı
Fakat Davutoğlu tam da, bugünkü Türkiye için epey önemli görünen ‘’arabuluculuk’ izlenimini yaratmak istiyordu. İsrail’in buna izin vermemesi Türkleri çileden çıkardı ve Türkiye rahatsızlığını İsrail hava kuvvetlerinin de katılması planlanan uluslararası ‘Anadolu Kartalı’ tatbikatını iptal ederek göstermeye karar verdi. Türkiye’nin devlet kontrolündeki televizyon kanalında İsrail karşıtı ateşli bir yeni dizinin yayımlanmaya başlaması gerilimleri daha da artırdı.
Son olarak mevcut durum AKP liderliğinin İsrail ve Yahudilere yönelik gerçek antipatisini de yansıtır nitelikte. Erdoğan’ın New York’ta Amerikan Yahudi toplumu liderleriyle en son görüşmesi fiyaskoyla sonuçlandı. İstanbul Üniversitesi’nde geçenlerde yaptığı bir konuşmada da alenen
anti-Semitik ifadeler kullandı.
Batı için büyük stratejik kayıp
İsrail için AKP’nin tutumunu hazmetmek zor olacaktır. En hassas mesele elbette ki silah satışları ve stratejik işbirliği. Kudüs Ankara’nın niye Tahran, Şam ve Gazze’deki diktatörleri Yahudi devletinin demokrasisine tercih ettiğini merak ediyor. Ne yazık ki Türkiye bir kimlik krizi yaşıyor ve iktidar partisinin İslami kökleri iç ve dış meselelerde giderek egemen hale geliyor.
Umut edilir ki Türk demokrasisi, sadece Batı’ya demirlemenin sağlayabileceği ilerlemeyi ve refahı tercih edecek kadar güçlü olsun. Türkiye’nin İslamcılığa sürüklenmesi İsrail ve Batı için büyük bir stratejik kayıp olacaktır. Fakat bu en başta Türkler için bir trajedi anlamına gelecektir.
(The Daily Star- Lübnan’da İngilizce yayımlanan gazete, Bar-İlan Üniversitesi’nde siyaset bilimi profesörü, Begin-Sedat Stratejik Çalışmalar Merkezi direktörü, 28 Ekim 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)