How Wikileaks could change the world?

The recent massive leak of government documents to the whistleblower website Wikileaks is not just an example of the game-changing potential of the Internet – it’s a clear warning shot to political and social elites who equate secrecy with public service.

Until recently Wikileaks was an insider’s website with a mission to publish secret government documents. But now it’s a social phenomenon; applauded on one hand as an active promoter of democratic principles, and attacked on the other for endangering lives.

The sudden focus on Wikileaks is based on the release of thousands of pages of U.S. military documents, produced between 2004 and 2010, about the Afghanistan war effort. The documents were not intended for public release, but someone with access forwarded them to Wikileaks, which published them online, creating a tornado-like media and political storm. 

Canadian officials say U.S. report inaccurate 

In Canada the furor was focused on one report that suggested four Canadian soldiers had been killed by ‘friendly fire’ in a 2006 incident, and not by the enemy as the military reported at the time. Canadian officials maintain the U.S. report is wrong and that they did not provide false information to the public. Some Canadian news outlets have criticized the decision to publish the papers, in part because some of the documents could be inaccurate, while also suggesting that military secrecy is expected and required during a war. In the U.S., the reporting is more focused on the bulk of the leaked documents, which cover specific events like the deaths of civilians and involvement of Afghanis in support of Western forces, and include details on strategic initiatives.

U.S. Officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are angry over what they suggest is an irresponsible action that could endanger the lives of soldiers, though he hasn’t suggested how their safety has been compromised. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange counters by asserting the documents were vetted prior to release. The names of Afghanis who might have been subject to reprisals have been redacted and much of the tactical information is dated. Assange maintains that it was important to publish because of the public policy importance of the material, and more discussion on the war is needed. 

The real issues

Anti-war activists, war-weary folks and the media sites they go to for information will line up on the side of disclosure. Military people and most politicians will argue the need for some secrecy and control of information during wars. Debate in the media has swirled around the ethics of publishing the documents, but the bigger communications issue might be whether the limitless publishing potential of the Internet, combined with an expanding social expectation of information disclosure, will rewrite the rules around what is secret and what is not. 

Wikileaks’ social activism

Wikileaks says its mandate is based in social activism and it invites whistleblowers to seize the chance to toot away and send private documents in posting. The editors also explain how they authenticate the documents posted on the site. Having no publishing guidelines would be indefensible, and no one has suggested that Wikileaks’ editors are not living up to their own rules. But if a publisher’s goal is to effect social change, that presupposes he has a good handle on what needs to change, and in a pluralistic society there is hardly ever a consensus on that. If Wikileaks acts according to reasonable in-house policies on handling the documents people submit, the issue boils down to the specific choice made in this case. In a democratic society, where press freedom is assumed and necessary, the benefit of the doubt must go to the editors.

But what about the role of journalists during a war? Do they have a responsibility to withhold information that might damage the war effort? Should they accept restrictions on their reporting? There is no easy answer. Media outlets that are ideologically antiwar would be inclined to publish war documents, while other more conservative outlets might not. In a democratic society, the tension over an appropriate course of action is arguable. The discussion can be hugely emotional for the public, which has watched its soldiers’ bodies being repatriated, and there is no doubt that mainstream media is sensitive to this dynamic.

The Wikileaks case is another indication of the power of the Internet. The web provides a platform for self-promotion and general discovery that is unprecedented. Video and file sharing, viral media, social media, downloading, commercial applications, and publishing applications provide a gigantic range of access points to breaking news and ongoing stories, and it provides unlimited forums for alternate or unofficial voices. The interval between an event and reaction to it has been reduced to hours – even minutes — and anyone with a computer can help shape that reaction.

Whistleblowing is not a new phenomenon, but the ease by which Wikileaks can post thousands of pages of material is new.

You don’t have to be too old to recall a time when political elites had free reign on public messaging around policy decisions, particularly during wartime. Assuming that the access the Internet allows is rapidly meeting up with social expectations for disclosure, the Wikileaks event could be a signal to all that the Internet is leveling the playing field between powerful elites and the rest of us.

Terry Field is an associate professor and journalism program chair in the Bachelor of Communication program at Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Channels: The Calgary Beacon, Aug. 7, 2010

Read more: How Wikileaks could change the world | Troy Media Corporation http://www.troymedia.com/2010/08/06/how-wikileaks-could-change-the-world/#ixzz16caLB1DE

Read More

Turkish Political Life After 1923

1. 1923–1946: Single-party period

The history of Modern Turkey begins with the foundation of the republic on October 29, 1923. Mustafa Kemal ATATURK was the first president of the Republic of Turkey. The second constitution was ratified by the Grand National Assembly on April 20, 1924. In first ten years of the republic, there were a lot of reforms led by ATATURK in the process of secular westernization, such as unification of education; the discontinuation of religious and other titles; the closure of Islamic courts and the replacement of Islamic canon law with a secular civil code modeled after Switzerland's and a penal code modeled after the Italian Penal Code; recognition of the equality between the sexes and the granting of full political rights to women on 5 December 1934; the language reform initiated by the newly founded Turkish Language Association; replacement of the Ottoman Turkish alphabet with the new Turkish alphabet derived from the Latin alphabet; the dress law (the wearing of a fez, is outlawed); the law on family names; and many others.

The first party of the Republic of Turkey is People`s Party of Women or in Turkish Kadinlar Halk Firkasi. It is founded by Nezihe Muhiddin in July 1923.

The actual passage to multi-party period was first attempted with the Liberal Republican Party by Ali Fethi Okyar. The Liberal Republican Party was dissolved on 17 November 1930 and no further attempt for a multi-party democracy was made until 1945.

After ATATURK`s death, Ismet Inonu became the Second President of the Republic of Turkey. He was the one of the respected figures of the Turkish Independence War but because of internal fights between power groups and external events like the World War which caused a lack of goods in the country. He lost some of his popularity and support.

During the WWII, Turkey signed a peace treaty with Germany and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. In February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, although this was largely symbolic.

In 1946, Inonu`s government organized multi-party elections, which were won by his party. He remained as the president of the country until 1950.

2. 1946–present: Multi-party period

On May 27, 1960, General Cemal Gürsel led a military coup d'état removing President Celal Bayar and Prime Minister Menderes, the second of whom was executed. The system returned to civilian control in October 1961. The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the Justice Party of Süleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of İsmet İnönü and Bülent Ecevit on the left.

The army gave a memorandum warning the civilian government in 1971, leading to another coup which resulted in the fall of the Demirel government and the establishment of interim governments.

In 1974, under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey carried out an invasion of Cyprus.

The government of Adnan Menderes was very popular at first, relaxing the restrictions on Islam and presiding over a booming economy. In the later half of the decade, however, the economy began to fail and the government introduced censorship laws limiting dissent. The government became plagued by high inflation and a massive debt.

On May 27, 1960, General Cemal Gürsel led a military coup d'état removing President Celal Bayar and Prime Minister Menderes, the second of whom was executed. The system returned to civilian control in October 1961. The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the Justice Party of Süleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of İsmet İnönü and Bülent Ecevit on the left.

The army gave a memorandum warning the civilian government in 1971, leading to another coup which resulted in the fall of the Demirel government and the establishment of interim governments.

In 1974, under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey carried out an invasion of Cyprus.

The governments of National Front, a series of coalitions between rightist parties, followed as Ecevit was not able to remain in office despite ranking first in the elections. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence between ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities.

A military coup d'état, headed by General Kenan Evren, took place in 1980. Martial law was extended from 20 to all then existing 67 provinces of Turkey.[3] Within two years, the military returned the government to civilian hands, although retaining close control of the political scene. The political system came under one-party governance under Turgut Özal's Motherland Party (ANAP), which combined a globally oriented economic program with conservative social values. Under Özal, the economy boomed, converting towns like Gaziantep from small provincial capitals into mid-sized economic boomtowns. Military rule began to be phased out at the end of 1983.[4] In particular in provinces in the south-east of Turkey it was replaced by a state of emergency. In 1985 the government established village guards, local paramilitary militias, to struggle against the conflict with the PKK, a separatist Kurdish terrorist group.

Starting in July 1987, the South-East was submitted to state of emergency legislation, a measure which lasted until November 2002. With the turn of the 1990s, political instability returned. The 1995 elections brought a short-lived coalition between Yılmaz's ANAP and the True Path Party, now with Tansu Çiller at the helm.

In 1997, the military, citing his government's support for religious policies deemed dangerous to Turkey's secular nature, sent a memorandum to Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan requesting that he resign, which he did. This was named a postmodern coup. Shortly thereafter, the Welfare Party (RP) was banned and re-born as the Virtue Party (FP). A new government was formed by ANAP and Ecevit's Democratic Left Party (DSP) supported from the outside by the center-left Republican People's Party (CHP), led by Deniz Baykal. The DSP won big in the 1999 elections. Second place went to the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). These two parties, alongside Yılmaz's ANAP formed a government. The government was somewhat effective, if not harmonious, bringing about much-needed economic reform, instituting human rights legislation, and bringing Turkey ever closer to the European Union.

A series of economic shocks led to new elections in 2002, bringing into power the conservative Justice and Development Party (AK Party) of former mayor of Istanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The political reforms of AK Party has ensured the beginning of the negotiations with the European Union. AK Party again won the 2007 elections, which followed the controversial August 2007 presidential election, during which AK Party member Abdullah Gül was elected President at the third round. Recent developments in Iraq (explained under positions on terrorism and security), secular and religious concerns, the intervention of the military in political issues, relations with the EU, the United States, and the Muslim world were the main issues. The outcome of this election, which brought the Turkish and Kurdish ethnic/nationalist parties (MHP and DTP) into the parliament, will affect Turkey's bid for the European Union membership, as Turkish perceptions of the current process (or lack thereof) affected the results and will continue to affect policy making in coming years.

Alleged members of a clandestine group called Ergenekon were detained in 2008 as part of a long and complex trial. Members are accused of terrorism and plotting to overthrow the civilian government.

On 22 February 2010 more than 40 officers arrested and then were formally charged with attempting to overthrow the government with respect to so-called "Sledgehammer" plot. They include four admirals, a general and two colonels, some of them retired, including former commanders of the Turkish navy and air force (three days later, the former commanders of the navy and air force were released).

Read More

EUROPE AFTER 1815

I. EUROPE AFTER 1815

Following Napoleons defeat in 1815, the victorious European powers redrew borders of Europe in such a fashion as to restore political stability. The Great Powers succeeded in establishing a peace that lasted for almost a century.

A. The Congress of Vienna
 

Prince of Austria Klemens von Metternich, Britains Viscount Castlereagh, Frances Maurice de Talleyrand, Russias Tsar Alexander I, and Prussias King Frederick William III dominated the Congress of Vienna, which first convened in September 1814. Unwilling to burden Frances Louis XVIII with a punitive peace, the allies were very lenient in their demands of France. France returned to its 1790 borders, paid a 700 million franc indemnity, and suffered a short period of military occupation. Britain and Austria were concerned with restraining Russia and Prussia while containing France. The kingdom of the Netherlands, Austrian territories in Italy, and the German Confederation served as bulwarks against future French aggression. While competing Russian and Prussian interests made the issue of Poland more problematic. Congress Poland emerged with nominal independence from Russia. Prussia gained substantial lands from the negotiations in Vienna, but failed to achieve geographical unity. Russia meanwhile acquired Finland, and Sweden received Norway. Satisfied with the defeat of Napoleon, Britain gained no land and even returned French colonies.

B. The Alliance System

Two alliance systems were developed to protect the settlement at Vienna. The Quadruple Alliance Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia pledged to protect Europe from French expansion. This alliance would soon become the Quintuple Alliance with the addition of France in 1818. The Holy Alliance engineered by Alexander I, pledged Prussia, Austria, and Russia to renounce warfare and advance the interests of Christianity. Furthermore, the major powers agreed to meet regularly to discuss European affairs in the so-called Congress System. In 1822 France, overlooking British opposition, intervened i Spain to restore the monarchy there.

II. THE NEW IDEOLOGIES

The Industrial Revolution that introduced extensive political and social changes~ encouraged Europeans to embrace new ideologies that explained the changes that were taking place. Liberalism, nationalism, romanticism, conservatism, and socialism revolutionized the traditional intellectual order in this period.

A. Liberalism

Belief in the freedom of the individual and in the tendency of authority to become corrupt underlay the liberal principles that swept across Europe from the later eighteenth century. Liberals maintained that the advance of individual civil and political freedom was the only acceptable goal of government. Jeremy Benthams liberal utilitarianism, arguing the principle of the -greatest happiness of the greatest number of people,- accepted the need for governmental intervention. John Stuart Mill, the leading spokesman for classical liberalism, advanced both womens rights and individual rights while questioning the value of economic inequality. David Ricardo, who opposed government intervention in foreign trade, argued that the -iron law of wages- kept workers wages at the basic subsistence level.

B. Nationalism

Before 1850 nationalism envisioned a united people fighting against absolutism and tyranny. Beyond ideology and political practices, nationalism began to capture the imagination of groups who resented foreign domination. The German Johann Herder saw nationalism in the culture of folk tales and folk dances. Liberalism and nationalism were closely related in this period as is demonstrated by tile politics of the Italian nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini. Meanwhile Friedrich List encouraged economic nationalism, which meant the replacement of free trade with protective tariffs. Nationalistic desires for independence flourished in this period, especially in lands ruled by the Habsburg family.

C. Romanticism

Romanticism emphasized the force of spontaneous human emotions rebelling against the highly structured artistic norms of the traditional conventions of neoclassicism. Romanticism is found in a variety of literary and artistic movements. Building on the work of Immanuel Kant, romanticism embraced subjective knowledge. Inspiration and intuition took the place of reason and science for the romantics. Creativity, spontaneity, romance, love, and adventure were romantic traits found in the literary works of Germaine de Staël, Johann Goethe, the brothers Grimm, and Victor Hugo; and in the music of Berlioz, Chopin, and Liszt; and the art of Turner and Delacroix. Focusing on the primacy of the individual made romanticism truly revolutionary.

D. Conservatism

Conservatives countered the development of liberalism by underlining the importance of tradition, corporate values, and organic growth in civilization. Led by the English politician Edmund Burke in the 1790s, conservatives maintained a firm belief in the benefits of gradual change and the importance of stable social order. The Austrian prince Metternich epitomized the more reactionary manifestation of conservatism by enforcing the Carlsbad decrees of 1819, which imposed censorship and espionage at universities in order to regulate nationalistic ideology and activity.

F. Socialism

Socialists differed substantially in their goals, but were united in condemning the social and economic changes resulting from industrial development. Henri de Saint-Simon encouraged the establishment of a new society which would make productive labor the basis of social Status. Pierre Proudhon, hostile to industrial development, urged the restriction of large-scale private ownership. He favored a cooperative society with credit unions, free credit, and equitable exchange. Charles Fourier, a French socialist, envisioned a utopian society where people would work and live together in harmony in communities he called phalanxes. Some socialists argued for greater freedom for women, though this was not a position that all socialists accepted. Most agreed, however, that society needed to be reshaped.

III. PROTEST AND REVOLUTION

Drawing on the radical tradition of the French revolutionary era and the organization of mutual aid societies and artisan organizations, workers and their allies initiated waves of popular protest that swept across Europe from the 1820s to 1848. Seemingly, society was becoming unglued as people protested the repressive actions of government. For its part government increasingly relied upon military force to keep the people under control.

A. The Revolutions of 1830

Poor harvests as well as social and political unrest converged in 1830, sparking revolutions throughout much of Europe. In France, Charles X’s efforts to restore absolutism by realigning the monarchy with the Catholic Church antagonized the liberal bourgeoisie at a time when workers were plagued by economic hardship. Workers took their grievances to the streets in July 1830, forcing Charles X to abdicate. Liberal politicians made Louis-Philippe the new constitutional monarch. Greece, aided by Britain, France, and Russia, gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire. Belgian patriots, inspired by the French revolution of 1830, succeeded in overthrowing their Dutch rulers, although Polish nationalists were unsuccessful in their bid for independence later that year. Italian nationalists in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States made an unsuccessful bid to cast off the Austrian yoke, bringing the European revolutions to a close. The revolutions of 1830 strained relations between the Great Powers by testing their commitment to a European balance of power in an age of extensive domestic instability. These revolutions also demonstrate the growing political awareness of all classes in European society.

B. Reform in Great Britain

The Great Reform Bill of 1832 enfranchised half of the British middle class and increased the political representation of the new industrial towns. Workers and their radical leaders, disillusioned by the limited scope of the bill, initiated the Chartist movement in an effort to cure Britains social ills with universal manhood suffrage, the secret ballot, elimination of property qualifications for public office, equal electoral districts, and annual elections of Parliament. Although workers warmly embraced Chartism, the government responded with force.

C. Worker Protest

Many industrial workers resisted mechanization, which brought de-skilling and low wages. Skilled workers were determined to protect their economic privileges by adopting new forms of labor organization or, like the Luddites, destroying the new machinery. French artisans adopted socialism and agitated for the creation of a democratic republic in a series of uprisings and strikes that lasted from 1831 to 1834. Government repression drove the workers secret societies underground, but failed to end the artisan republican socialism. Trade unions contested both the authority of the state and the rights of women to engage in industrial work.

D. The Revolutions of 1848

The year 1848 saw revolutionary activity in virtually every European nation. Subsistence crises and political unrest combined to set the stage for this year of revolutions, inaugurated by events in France. Bourgeois reformers in Paris initiated banquets to circumvent government dictates against political speeches. Parisian workers took to the Street to protest the prohibition of banquets and ended by toppling Louis Philippe and proclaiming the Second Republic. Bourgeois reformers led the new Provisional Government, but workers committed to the right to labor ruled the social revolution of 1848. Unsuccessful in fending off workers’ demands with its national workshops, the government suppressed an insurrection of armed workers in June, creating a military dictatorship that restored order in the capital. In the German states, the French revolution of 1848 inspired efforts to create a constitutional government in a united German nation. These efforts collapsed, however, when Prussias Friedrick William IV refused to serve as the German king. Elsewhere in central Europe, Magyars briefly gained Hungarian independence while Czechs struggled unsuccessfully for self-rule in Prague. Italian nationalists also contested Austrian dominion, and Rome emerged briefly as an independent republic in February 1849. Conservative forces rallied, however, restoring Habsburg control and quashing Prussian efforts to establish a united German nation.

F. Europe in 1850

The revolutions of 1848 marked the end of the Concert of Europe and an irreparable split between liberals and democrats. Conservative forces regained control over their political institutions, as the middle class favored strong governments that could protect private property from anarchy.

CONCLUSION

While the revolutions of 1848 failed to achieve their democratic, nationalist, and republican ends, they left a lasting mark on European politics. Realism and intervention emerged as central aspects of statecraft in the decades that followed the failed revolutions.

Read More

THE COLD WAR (1945-1991)

 The cold war is a global bipolar struggle known as aggressive Soviet foreign policy and the U.S. reaction (counter policy). This is periods of intense conflict and periods of Relative Corporation. It is not only about national interests but also ideologies. Cold war could be divided into 3 periods:

1_ Confrontation (1945 - 1962)

2_ From coexistence to détente (1963 – 1978)

3_ From renewed confrontation to rapprochement (1979 – 1991)

The Eastern Europe had been occupied by Soviets after WWII. However, only Greece and Turkey was not occupied by Soviets and they may be the next. For this reason, the U.S. President declared a doctrine (Truman Doctrine) that is the policy of the U.S. to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. The U.S. would aid Turkey and Greece through this doctrine. This is the beginning of the period of Confrontation that is expansion and influence calls as Containment. On the other hand, Soviets or Communism was continuing to expanding; USSR made a coup and occupied Czechoslovakia. In addition to this, USSR blockades the West Berlin. In 1949, Chinese communists take the mainland China and Communist North Koreans invades pro-west South Korea. Because of this reason, the U.S. promised to protect new client states (South Korea & Iran) from external attack in a strategy. This is known as Extended Deterrence.

NATO is established by the leadership of U.S. to contain USSR in 1949. In the Korea War (1949-1955), the U.N. troops pushed North out, Korea remain partitioned. In 1950, communist China occupies Tibet. However, maybe the most important event happened in 1949, the USSR broke the U.S. atomic monopoly. The status quo moved from unipolarity to bipolarity. This was the balance of power, the movement away from confrontation. Atomic arms are a deterrent to Soviet aggression. In 1950, President Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles pursued a strategy termed `rollback`, which promised to move what was called the `Iron Curtain` separating the East and the West by liberating `the captive nations` of Europe. Communist leader Joseph Stalin has been dead in 1953. After him, Nikita Khrushcev pursued a policy of peaceful coexistence with capitalism. In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was established by the leadership of the USSR to confront NATO. In 1955, there was Geneva Summit provided important forum for the rivals` s meaningful dialogue about world problems, and I 1956, Soviets dissolved the Cominform that is Communist Information Bureau which coordinated the work of communist parties in other states. All these peace process is killed by Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. However, all these peace process is killed by Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In spite of Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy installed the hot line in 1963. The hot line is a direct communication system linking the White House and Kremlin. After the installment of hot line, some important treaties were signed between the USSR and the US in 1960s, such as Partial Ban Treaty, Outer Space Treaty, Glassboro Summit, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In 1968, Soviet-American relations took a dramatic turn with Richard Nixon`s election. The National Security Adviser of the U.S.A; Henry A. Kissenger, and President Nixon initiated a new approach to Soviet relations that he officially labeled détente in 1969. The Soviets also adopted this term to describe their policies toward the U.S. In Kissenger`s words, détente sought to create ` a vested in cooperation and restraint`,` an environment in which competitors can regulate and restrain their differences and ultimately move from competition to cooperation.` To engineer the relaxation of Superpower tensions, Nixon and Kissenger pursued a linkage strategy to bind the two rivals in a common fate by making peaceful superpower relations dependent on the continuation of mutually rewarding. Thus, relations are dependent on the continuation of mutually rewarding. As a result of this, the relations between Soviets and America normalized. Arms control stood at the dialogue surrounding détente. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) initiated in 1969, sought to restrain the threatening, expensive and spiraling arms race. The talks produced 2 agreements, the first was in 1972 (SALT 1) and the second was in 1979 (SALT 2). SALT II was signed in 1979 but newer ratified by the U.S, because, Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Furthermore, anti-communist and communist forces fought in Vietnam War from 1959 until 1975. America damaged economically, militarily and psychologically in Vietnam War. When Soviets invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter viewed it, ` Soviet aggression in Afghanistan confronts all the world with the most serious strategic challenge since the Cold War began.` Because of this, he declared a declaration which is called as Carter Doctrine. This doctrine declares America`s willingness to use military force to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf. In addition to this, President Regan`s doctrine pledged U.S. support of anticommunist insurgents who sought to overthrow Soviet-supported governments in Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR. In his presidency period, there were some important events and policies. For instance, he was the first Soviet president who visits the U.S.A. Also, he was the founder of the new thinking policy in the U.S.S.R. which brings openness and restructuring to the U.S.S.R. In 1987, Intermediaterange Nuclear Forces (INF) disarmament agreement was signed between the Soviets and America. With this agreement, Soviet Union agreed to end its aid and support for Cuba and their forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. 2 disarmament agreements are agreed by Gorbachev; Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) and Conventional Forces in Europe. However, peoples were not ready for all these things. New thinking policy is not supported by most of people of communist states. In 1989, the Berlin Wall is demolished and the East and West Germany merged. Moreover, the Warsaw Pact dissolved and finally, the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Read More

NORTHERN IRAQ: THE KURDISH QUESTION

Ottomans divided Iraq into 3 parts; Mosul, Baghdad, Basra. These 3 cities has multi-ethnic population (Sunnis, Kurds, Shia, Turkmens, and Nestorians). So there is no majority. The direct Ottoman rule was imposed and lasted until World War I; afterwards the British influence increased in the region.

1919: Paris Peace Conference: Kurdish delegation attends along with Prince Faisal (Hashimite Family) (Future king of Iraq)

GB will unify 3 provinces, create `class A` mandate of Iraq. GB proposes a Kurdish Tribal Confederation. Iraqi Kurds wanted self determination. GB and Hashimite King opposed to this.

The first revolt began on May 22, 1919 with the arrest of British officials in Sulaymaniyah and it quickly spread to Mosul and Arbil. The British employed aerial bombardments, artillery, ground combat, and on one occasion, chemical gas, in an attempt to quell the uprising. Then the British exiled Mahmoud to India. In July 1920, 62 tribal leaders of the region, called for the independence of Kurdistan under a British mandate. The objection of the British to Kurdish self-rule sprang from the fear that success of an independent Kurdish area would tempt the two Arab areas of Baghdad and Basra to follow suit, hence endangering the direct British control over all Mesopotamia. In 1922, Britain restored Shaikh Mahmoud to power, hoping that he would organize the Kurds to act as a buffer against the Turks, who had territorial claims over Mosul and Kirkuk. Shaikh Mahmoud declared a Kurdish Kingdom with himself as King, though later he agreed to limited autonomy within the new state of Iraq.

By 1927, the Barzani clan had become vocal supporters of Kurdish rights in Iraq. In 1929, the Barzani demanded the formation of a Kurdish province in northern Iraq. Emboldened by these demands, in 1931 Kurdish notables petitioned the League of Nations to set up an independent Kurdish government. Under pressure from the Iraqi government and the British, the most influential leader of the clan, Mustafa Barzani was forced into exile in Iran in 1945.

Later he moved to the Soviet Union after the collapse of the Republic of Mahabad in 1946.

in 1958, Abdul Karim Qasim returned from exile by the military coup. Kurds demanded power sharing but it is rejected by Qassim and results in Kurdish Rebellion based on demand of Kurdish as an official language.

During 1959-1960, Barzani became the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

In response to the attack, Qasim lashed out and ordered the Iraqi Air Force to indiscriminately bomb Kurdish villages in 1961.

1963, Baathist coup against Qasim.

Abdul Rahman Arif came to power, the Iraqi government launched a last-ditch effort to defeat the Kurds. This campaign failed in May 1966, when Barzani forces thoroughly defeated the Iraqi Army at the Battle of Mount Handrin, near Rawanduz.

New Kurdish demands, full autonomy. 2/3 of oil revenue must spend in N.Iraq. but this is rejected. This caused another rebellion by Kurds.

Rahman Arif announced a 14-point peace program in June 1966, Barzani accepts this.

In 1966, new government established in Iraqi Kurds are offered a de-centralized administration.

1968, Baath party came to power in Iraq.

Proposals for full authonomy, Barzani demands full independence. A peace plan was announced in March 1970 and provided for broader Kurdish autonomy. The plan also gave Kurds representation in government bodies, to be implemented in four years.

Iraqi army controlls towns, Kurds control countryside. Kurds armed, supported by USA, Iran and Israel. Kurds have bases in Iran. USA wants to support Kurds to weaken Iraq government.

1970-1975: Barzani viewed as America`s man.

Support ends with Algiers Agreement in 1975. In 1974, Iraqi government began a new offensive against the Kurds and pushed them close to the border with Iran. Iraq informed Tehran that it was willing to satisfy other Iranian demands in return for an end to its aid to the Kurds. With mediation by Algerian President Houari Boumédiènne, Iran and Iraq reached a comprehensive settlement in March 1975 known as the Algiers Pact. The agreement left the Kurds helpless and Tehran cut supplies to the Kurdish movement.

After 1979, Iran Islamic Revolution, Iran forces Kurds out.

1980-1988: During the Iran–Iraq War, the Iraqi government again implemented anti-Kurdish policies and a de facto civil war broke out.

The Al-Anfal Campaign constituted a systematic genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq. 150.000-200.000 Kurds killed with use of gas in Halabja.

Kurds are divided over problems between Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP)(BARZANI)

And Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) (TALABANI).

In 1991, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait prompts in 1991 Kurdish Rebellion: 20.000 killed, 1.5 million reffugees.

Turkey fears impact Kurdish co-operation with PKK.

Economic problems. Must close pipeline from Iraq to Turkey. Iraqi Kurds flee into Turkey. Now crisis for Turkey. UN Resolution 688: Establishment of a no fly zone, safe havens for Iraqi Kurds. In 1991, Turkish President Ozal orders air strikes on PKK followed by ground operations. 1992: 5000 troops into Northern Iraq.

Relations between the PUK and the KDP started to become dangerously strained from September 1993 after rounds of amalgamations occurred between parties. This led to internecine and intra-Kurdish conflict and warfare between 1994 and 1996. Direct United States mediation led the two parties to a formal ceasefire in Washington Agreement in September 1998.

Iraqi Kurds have played an important role in the 2nd Gulf War, “Operation Iraqi Freedom" Kurdish parties joined forces against the Iraqi government in the Operation Iraqi Freedom in Spring 2003. The Kurdish military forces known as peshmerga played a key role in the overthrow of the former Iraqi government.

PUK-leader Jalal Talabani has been elected President of the new Iraqi administration, while KDP leader Massoud Barzani is President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).

Read More

The Report of Inspection of the U.S. About the Republic of Turkey

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) inspects each of the approximately 260 embassies, diplomatic posts, and international broadcasting installations throughout the world, to determine whether policy goals are being achieved and whether the interests of the United States are being represented and advanced effectively. Additionally, OIG performs specialized security inspections and audits in support of the Department's mission to provide effective protection to our personnel, facilities, and sensitive intelligence information. OIG also audits Department and BBG operations and activities to ensure that they are as effective, efficient, and economical as possible. Finally, OIG investigates instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement that may constitute either criminal wrongdoing or violation of Department and BBG regulations.

This report is about the U.S. Embassy Ankara, Turkey.

You can reach the full report here: http://dosyalar.hurriyet.com.tr/abddisisleriraporu.pdf

Read More

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY AND HER INTERESTS IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Introduction

  Countries are different as size of population, land, capacity of economy and type of governance, etc. Therefore, their trade preferences are also different. Some countries prefer to open their boundaries to trade, and others can prefer less trade according to their interests from trade. In addition to this, countries` trade policies are very important. There are two main trade policies. Namely, factor and sector model. In this essay, Republic of Turkey is selected as the model country. For this reason, interests of Turkey in the World Trade Organization (WTO) will examine in detailed. Moreover, the place of Turkey in the WTO and world trade system, her trade policies will be mentioned and the economic and trade capacity and main exporting products of Turkey will be also mentioned under a separate title in the article. Besides this, it will ensure some statistical information about the country`s economic development since 2000. Actually, it will show the success story of Turkey on trade. Alternatively, Turkey is also a part of the European Union`s custom union. This means that Turkey is the part of regional trade arrangements which is the greatest challenge for the WTO. Therefore, this essay will examine Turkey`s interest from both trade arrangements. Finally, in the conclusion section of the article, it will ensure overview of the analysis, briefly, and it will try to show the gains and losses of The Republic of Turkey from each trade arrangements; WTO and the EU custom union.      

Importance of Trade for Turkey and Her Economic and Trade Capacity

Republic of Turkey is a country where is between Europe and Asia like a bridge between two continents. Her location is very influential on her trade policy. Due to her location, Turkey cannot be closed country, economically. Especially, after 1980s, Turkey started to be more liberalized and integrated with the world. Privatization and the importance of trade have risen and as a result of this, Turkey is now in 20 major economies of the world (G20), the European Union Custom Union, The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, etc. In addition to this, Turkey was a member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and she became a member of WTO when it was established. Furthermore, she is among the world`s leading producers of textiles, agricultural products, construction materials, consumer electronics, home appliances and transportation equipment such as ships, motor vehicles, etc. Turkey is also one of the founding members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). `Significant improvements in such a short period of time have registered Turkey on the world economic scale as an exceptional emerging economy, the 15th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest economy when compared with the 27 EU countries, according to GDP figures (at PPP) in 2008`(Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2009). Growing of Turkey`s economic capacity puts her stronger position in the WTO, because countries can state themselves strongly when they have very strong and healthy economy. If people look the statistics of economic development of Turkey since the beginning of 2000s, they will realize that Turkey`s economy started to be stronger. `Turkey is an emerging market economy. The visible improvements in the economy have also boosted foreign trade, while exports reached USD 132 billion by the end of 2008, up from USD 36 billion in 2002. Similarly, tourism revenues, which were around USD 8.5 billion in 2002, reached USD 22 billion in 2008` (Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2009). With reference to UNCTAD`s survey Turkey`s institutionalized economy fueled by USD 18.2 billion of FDI in 2008 and ranked the 15th most attractive FDI destination for 2008 -2010. Another survey which belongs to IMF-WEO says us that 15th largest economy in the world and 6th largest economy compared with the 27 EU countries in 2008. Turkey has an important position and she will get more important position in WTO in the near future with her trade and economic capacity in this global world. 

Turkey's Interests in the WTO

`Turkey has been a member of WTO since 26 March 1995` (WTO, 2009). Turkey is one of the leading producers of textiles and agricultural products. And WTO put some arrangements for trading of textile, clothing and agricultural products. For this reason, the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB) was established and Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) was signed with related countries. `Since 1 January 1995, international textiles and clothing trade has been going through fundamental change under the 10-year transitional programme of the WTO's Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). Before the Agreement took effect, a large portion of textiles and clothing exports from developing countries to the industrial countries was subject to quotas under a special regime outside normal GATT rules` (United Nations, 2003).

There are two sorts of trade policy such as factor and sector model. When we look at Turkey`s factor model policy on export, we see mainly labor as a factor of production, because Turkey mostly exports agricultural products and textile. In Turkey, the price of labor is cheaper than Europe so she requires more capital than labor.  When Turkey exports agricultural products and clothing, she imports high technology products such as machinery and mechanical appliances, Pharmaceutical Products, Aircraft Spacecraft, etc. Also, Turkey imports natural gas from Russia but she deal in Europe, generally. Actually, there is a balance of trade between Turkey and Europe, because Turkey needs capital based products and Europe needs labor based products. However, the biggest danger for Turkey on exporting textile is China, because the price of labor is cheaper than Turkey in China. They are rival on textile and clothing so China always tries to reject Turkey`s proposals on the issue of trading of textile in WTO conferences. Turkey`s agriculture sector is very big. She is not only self-sufficient in food, but one of the biggest food exporters of the world. Most of agricultural products are produced in Turkey.  For instance, she is the world`s largest producer of hazelnut cherry, apricot, fig, pomegranate and quince. She also produces watermelon, cucumber, tomato, green pepper, onion, olive, sugar beet, cotton, tobacco, tea and apple, orange, etc. As a result of this, trading agricultural products is also important for Turkey. The WTO`s tariff policy on agriculture can be strict but Turkey has to adapt them to export her agricultural products. On the other hand, the trade policy is changing in Turkey, because the importance of agriculture is decreasing and the sector moves from agriculture to industrial and service sector.  

Turkey: Between the EU Customs Union and WTO

Some scholars see regional trade arrangements as the greatest challenge for WTO. These regional trade arrangements can be free – trade area and customs union. Turkey is also a part of one of the custom unions which is the EU custom union. According to WTO`s general statements or rules; member countries cannot provide special advantages for other states, because; it has nondiscrimination principle which is one of the most important principles of the WTO. Contrary to popular belief, the WTO did not oppose Turkey`s membership of the EU Customs Union and the WTO published a report about the EU Custom Union membership of Turkey. According to this report; `Turkey's far-reaching structural and legislative reforms, undertaken within the framework of the customs union with the European Union, have led to improved market access and a more secure trading environment for all investors and traders` (WTO, 1998). In Turkey, some people argue that the EU Custom Union is not beneficial for Turkey, because they think that foreign firms and their products occupy the market and it harms domestic firms and production, Maybe, they can be right, because there will be no restriction for foreign firms to enter the market but Turkish firms and their products can also enter the European market at the same time. `The report states, however, that the customs union also obliged Turkey to introduce some new external trade measures to achieve harmonization with those of the EU, particularly concerning the adoption of the EU textile and clothing regime. A number of goods such as certain telecommunications equipment, machinery, motor vehicles and chemicals remain subject to prior import licensing` (WTO, 2008).

On the other hand, agriculture is excluded from the EU customs union, because; people can see that government intervention on this sector of production in Turkey. For developing countries, agriculture is very important, and these countries generally export agricultural products so the WTO has some strict arrangements on agriculture. It is also important for Turkey as one of the developing countries in the world.      

Conclusion

To sum up, the WTO is important organization for all states. Maybe, some states refuse to trade but most of states open their borders to trade, because trading is one of the important things to get benefit economically for states. If you produce something, you should sell it to get benefit so states should do same thing. They produce and sell to abroad. Furthermore, states need some goods therefore they should import those goods from abroad. Because of this, I tried to show importance of trade for Turkey and her economic and trade capacity with formal statistics by important organizations, such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. Then, I tried to analyze the interests of Turkey in the WTO. Moreover, the place of Turkey in the WTO and world trade system, her trade policies was mentioned and the main exporting products of Turkey were also mentioned under a separate title in the article. Turkey is the part of regional trade arrangements which is the greatest challenge for the WTO. Therefore, this article examined Turkey`s interest from both trade arrangements, finally.

Personally I believe that, we need the WTO to better trade policy for all states and order in trade between states. Turkey is developing country and WTO`s arrangements are very important for her, because; Turkey need trade to develop herself economically and reach the developed states` level on technology, economy and politics. Turkey`s the EU Custom Union membership is also important for her EU full membership. The EU Custom Union is one of the important stages for EU membership. Turkey should show her harmony to Europe so she can show this through being a part of the customs union of the EU. People often claim that, regional trade arrangements are the biggest challenge for the WTO, and Turkey is a part of both the EU customs union which is a regional trade organization and the WTO. But in my view, both of them do not clash for some areas and for some countries. Turkey can gain benefit from both organization and both of them can help Turkey for having stronger and healthier economy through trade arrangements.  

Isa Burak GONCA      

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency (2009)  Economic Outlook, Available online at:

http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/turkey/factsandfigures/Pages/Economy.aspx     [Accessed on

January 4, 2010].

United Nations (2003) United Nation Conference on Trade and Development, Dispute

Settlement, Available online at:

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/edmmisc232add21_en.pdf      [Accessed on January 3, 2010].

WTO (1998) Trade Policy Reviews: First Press Release, Secretariat and Government Summaries, Turkey October 1998, Available online at:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/tpr_e/tp83_e.htm     [Accessed on January 5, 2010].

WTO (2009) Member Information, Turkey and the WTO, Available online at:

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/turkey_e.htm     [Accessed on January 3, 2010].

WTO (2009) Textiles, Available online at:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/texti_e/texti_e.htm     [Accessed on January 4, 2010].

Read More

Ukraine faces new crisis as Yanukovych claims narrow poll victory

Ukraine faced the prospect of fresh political confrontation on the streets after the result of its fiercely contested presidential election teetered on a knife edge today.

According to exit polls published immediately after voting ended Yuliya Tymoshenko, the glamorous, firebrand leader of the Orange Revolution, was narrowly beaten by Viktor Yanukovych, her bitter rival. But the margin of defeat was as little as three percentage points, paving the way for a potential challenge in the courts — and in the streets if her campaign claims widespread electoral fraud.

Two polls gave her 45.5 per cent against 48.7 per cent for Mr Yanukovych, while two others put him between four and five percentage points ahead. While all four polls gave the election to Mr Yanukovych the result was tighter than either side had predicted.

Mr Yanukovych’s campaign hailed an “absolute victory”. His political aide Anna German said: “That leaves Tymoshenko with no chance... She will get nothing in the courts.”

Ms Tymoshenko refused to concede defeat, saying that it was too early to call the result. She urged supporters to “try to protect every vote because this is what is going to determine the future of Ukraine”.

Her campaign chief, Oleksander Turchynov, added: “The result of the majority of exit polls are within the margin of statistical error. Conclusions about who the victor is can be made only on the basis of the real results of the Central Election Commission.”

Ms Tymoshenko, 49, threatened last week to lead a second Orange Revolution after accusing Mr Yanukovych of preparing massive ballot-rigging to steal the presidency. With tensions soaring, there are fears that the highly charged contest will spill over into violence on the streets after both sides accused each other of bussing in thousands of supporters for demonstrations.

Hundreds of Mr Yanukovych’s supporters were gathering outside key government buildings in Kiev last night as well as the Central Election Commission. The Interior Ministry disclosed that his Party of Regions had submitted plans to gather 50,000 people outside the election commission headquarters for a demonstration today.

The election had been billed as a verdict on the pro-Western revolution led by Ms Tymoshenko and her former Orange ally Viktor Yushchenko against Mr Yanukovych’s fraudulent, Kremlin-backed victory in 2004. History may now repeat itself if the ballot-box verdict is challenged on the streets.

Mr Yanukovych, 59, had been favourite to win the presidency since leading the first round of voting on January 17 with 35 per cent, ten percentage points more than Ms Tymoshenko. She had been seen as struggling to make up the gap on her foe, but an apparent late surge in support put her within reach.

The next few days will be critical in determining whether a clearly divided country plunges into a new bout of instability, particularly if the election count confirms the closeness of the race. The verdicts of international observers, expected later today, will also have an important impact.

Victory for Mr Yanukovych would confirm a remarkable political comeback after the humiliation of the Orange revolution. It would also tilt Ukraine back towards Russia’s sphere of influence after the relentlessly pro-European course under President Yushchenko.

For his opponents it would signal the restoration of an authoritarian cronyism that dominated post-Soviet Ukraine. Mr Yanukovych, 59, has never apologised for the ballot-rigging and insisted defiantly in a recent interview with The Times that he had been elected legitimately.

American political consultants worked hard to soften his image as a Soviet-era factory boss, but Mr Yanukovych’s leaden speaking style meant he would never compete on charisma with the sleekly persuasive Ms Tymoshenko. Instead, his campaign focused on his reputation as an effective manager who knew how to get the slumping economy moving again.

Mr Yanukovych’s power base is in Russian-speaking eastern and southern Ukraine, where heavy turnout was reported throughout the day, while Ms Tymoshenko’s greatest support is in the nationalist west.

Temperatures are running high after a battle for power that has been exceptionally vitriolic even by Ukrainian standards of political mud-slinging. Her camp accused supporters of Mr Yanukovych yesterday of killing one of her campaign workers during a confrontation at a voting station in western Ukraine.

The candidates have poured abuse on each in recent weeks, with Ms Tymoshenko repeatedly raising her opponent’s criminal past and Mr Yanukovych dismissing her as better suited to kitchen duties than running the country.

Ms Tymoshenko, the Prime Minister, presented herself as the pro-European candidate and her opponent as “defender of the interests of oligarchs and criminals”. Her campaign literature made repeated reference to the fact that Mr Yanukovych had been jailed twice in his youth after being convicted of assault and robbery, taunted taunted him for his coarse manners and apparent difficulties in speaking Ukrainian.

In return, the Russian-speaking Mr Yanukovych cheerfully made several sexist remarks as he homed in on Ms Tymoshenko’s alleged failings in dealing with the economic crisis.

From Times Online

Tony Halpin in Kiev

Read More