Turkey needs early elections, not the army! Turkish distractions

What we are up against:
In yesterday's House of Lords conference, speakers from Turkey stated that Turks themselves were oppressed by their own state, that reforms were achieved by changes in attitude not just by cosmetic amendments to legislation, and that suppression within Turkey was facilitated by Europe's double standards when it comes to human rights and the treatment of minorities.
Yet look at these articles that expound the official Turkish line without any critical analysis!
The UK Armenian community has so much to do to change mindsets here.


Turkey needs early elections, not the army
Published: April 30 2007 20:11

Turkey has entered a dangerous political crisis. The heavy-handed intervention by the army in the stand-off between the neo-Islamist government and the secular establishment over electing the next president has turned the clock back on Turkey’s emergence as a fully-fledged liberal democracy. It risks coarsening public and political life to the point of open confrontation.

The generals’ declaration – that they are the “absolute” guardians of the secular republic created by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk – is a pronunciamiento from another era. An army that has ousted four elected governments since 1960 – the last one in a “soft” coup against an Islamist administration 10 years ago – is threatening to do so again.

That would be a terrible mistake.

First of all, the thesis that the Justice and Development party (AKP) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan is intent on installing theocracy by stealth does not really stand up. Mr Erdogan’s party combines the deeply conservative and religiously observant traditions of Anatolia with a huge constituency in Turkey’s modern but Muslim middle class. It was created from the debris of failed Islamist movements in order to supersede them; a rough analogy would be the way the Christian Democrats emerged as modern parties of the centre right in much of Europe.

Second, the AKP is a successful, reforming government. It overcame a deep financial crisis, and enlarged democratic, human and minority rights through the biggest ever overhaul of Turkey’s laws. It has a good chance of being re-elected. That is partly why Turkey’s fragmented, largely unmodernised secular parties are trying to win back in the streets what they lost in the ballot box – and goading the generals into helping them.

The trigger for this crisis was Mr Erdogan’s decision to nominate his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, for president, to be elected by parliament, where the AKP has a thumping majority. The minority opposition’s attempt to get the constitutional court to change the rules is spurious and opportunist.

But underlying this clash is an umistakable whiff of class animus. Many in the urban secular elites equate Islam with backwardness and fear that their socially liberal lifestyle will be constrained as observant Muslims from the Anatolian countryside gradually become a majority in Turkey’s cities. Both sides need to address these fears and attitudes openly.

That is not going to happen if the constitutional court finds procedural excuses to invalidate Mr Gul’s candidacy, much less if the army intervenes. The return of the military to centre stage, moreover, would put an end to Turkey’s stalled but still intact candidacy to enter the European Union, exacerbating the already worrying signs of a country turning in on itself.


Turkish distractions
Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 30/04/2007

What mighty contests rise from trivial things.

A row over whether the Turkish President's wife should wear a
headscarf has brought millions of demonstrators on to the streets,
agitated the army and reheated the familiar argument about Turkish
secularism. In the eyes of many foreign critics, this is an argument
that Turkey cannot win. If Ankara tolerates the outward symbols of
religious devotion, it is sliding into Islamism; if it bans them, it
is a dictatorship.

Such criticism is inconsistent and unfair. The governing party, AK,
has behaved impeccably, dismantling some of the more oppressive
anti-clerical laws while respecting the laic character of the state.
Its candidate for the largely titular office of president, the
current foreign minister Abdullah Gul, is courteous, cultured,
moderate and touchingly Anglophile. The idea that he should be
barred because his wife's attire violates the ban on Islamic symbols
in state offices would be risible in any other country.

This newspaper is a long-standing friend of Turkey. We backed the
Sublime Porte in its quarrels against Russia during the 19th
Century; we broke with Gladstone over his anti-Ottoman policy; we
called for intervention in Cyprus when the anti-Turkish pogroms
began in the 1960s, and supported the invasion when it came in 1974;
we have consistently backed Turkey's right to join the EU.

Our grounds have altered little over the years: Turkey remains a
vital ally, guarding Europe's flank against the Islamists as it once
did against the Russians. Ankara's Western vocation rests, however,
not on its renunciation of Islamic iconography, but on its respect
for human rights, representative government and individual liberty.
It is worth restating, therefore, what ought to be basic principles.

First, election results should stand.

Second, states ought not to be in the business of telling their
citizens how to dress.

Third, if generals want to get involved in politics, they should
resign their commissions and stand for election.

There is no question that Mr Gul should be president: we wish him
every success.


Blair intervenes in Turkish crisis
By Ben Hall in London

Published: May 1 2007 11:53 | Last updated: May 1 2007 11:53

Tony Blair, British prime minister, on Tuesday intervened in Turkey’s internal political crisis by urging the Turkish armed forces to abide by the country’s democratic constitution.

In an unusual foray into the domestic affairs of a close ally, Downing Street issued a statement in which Mr Blair said he was following closely developments in Turkey following the military’s threat on Friday to block the selection of a new president.

“It is essential that all those engaged in the political process do so in accordance with Turkey’s well established democratic principles and in compliance with the constitution,” Mr Blair said.

He added that he was “confident” that this would happen and that Turkey “will continue to play a role as a key and democratic partner”.

Mr Blair has been a forceful advocate of Turkey’s accession to the European Union and has celebrated Turkey’s status as a democratic Muslim country. The UK regards Turkey, a Nato member, as a pivotal power in the Middle East and is grateful for its constructive approach towards Iraq.

Mr Blair has forged close links with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, most recently using Ankara to put pressure on the Iranian government to release 15 UK navy personnel seized by Iranian forces from Iraqi waters.

Mr Blair’s intervention is intended as an expression of confidence in Mr Erdogan after the military issued an ultimatum to the Islamist-based government to drop Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, as its candidate for the presidency.

The best way to resolve this crisis is to bring forward general elections due by November. That should be the occasion for re-establishing common ground rules and a common definition of secularism. With passions at their current pitch, that will be, of course, risky. But not as risky as the alternatives.