Analyses on Turkish Issues

RFE/RL Report

Monday, September 13, 2010
Turkish Vote Result `Encouraging For Armenia'
Anush Martirosian

The victory of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in
a weekend constitutional referendum bodes well for a renewed
Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, analysts in Yerevan said on Monday.

Local Turkey watchers cautioned at the same time that the landmark
development will not have an immediate impact on the Turkish
government's policy towards Armenia.

The AKP and its top leader, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
scored a crucial victory in the referendum on their package of
sweeping amendments to the Turkish constitution adopted following a
1980 coup. The amendments will curtail the powers of Turkey's powerful
military and secularist state apparatus that has for decades supported
it.

Turkish and Western observers believe that the vote result will also
boost the AKP's chances of winning a third term in power in the next
parliamentary elections due in less than a year from now.

According to Ruben Melkonian, a Turkey specialist and senior professor
at Yerevan State University, an AKP win in the 2011 polls could in
turn embolden the Erdogan government to restart the dramatic
rapprochement with Armenia, which ground to a halt last spring.

`If the ruling party wins the parliamentary elections and continues to
rule, then Turkey-Armenia relations can be kick-started,' Melkonian
told RFE/RL's Armenian service. `The alternative to the ruling party
in Turkey is the Kemalists and nationalists, and they have a
pronounced hostile attitude towards Armenia and the Armenians.'


Turkey -- Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan addresses a news conference in
Istanbul, 12Sep2010
`With this referendum, the Justice and Development Party strengthened
its positions in Turkey,' agreed Artak Shakarian, another Armenian
pundit specializing in Turkey. `If the party further consolidates its
power in Turkey, then it could take some steps relating to the
reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border and the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations.'

The Western-backed rapprochement began two years ago and culminated in
the signing in October 2009 of Turkish-Armenian agreements to
establish diplomatic relations and open the border between the two
neighboring states. Ankara subsequently failed to ensure their
ratification by the AKP-dominated Turkish parliament as it reverted to
a long-standing linkage between the normalization of Turkish-Armenian
relations and a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict acceptable
to Azerbaijan.

Yerevan responded by officially freezing Armenian parliamentary
ratification of the two `protocols' in April. President Serzh
Sarkisian was at the same time careful not to annul them altogether,
leaving the door to renewed fence-mending talks with the Turks.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed this stance as `very
statesmanlike' when she visited Yerevan in July. `And now the ball is
in the other court,' Clinton said, urging Ankara to honor the
normalization deal.

In Melkonian's words, Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, another
prominent AKP figure, have failed to do that because of what he
described as `anti-Armenian sentiment' prevalent among the Turks. `The
freezing of Turkish-Armenian relations in the run-up to the
constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections somewhat fits
into events taking places in Turkey's internal political life,' he
said. `When these events end in success for the AKP, it will
kick-start contacts with Armenia with greater confidence.'

Shakarian sounded a more cautious note, saying that Erdogan plans to
contest a presidential election due in 2012 and will continue to avoid
fresh overtures to Armenia, for fear of a domestic nationalist
backlash, until then. `Erdogan is still not confident about his
election victory,' he told RFE/RL.


TURKEY SHOULD REOPEN DINK FILE
Hurriyet Daily News
Sept 15 2010
Turkey

The Hrant Dink murder is a shame, a disgrace of this country.

He was killed blatantly.

Police had received information in advance. They knew it but took
not a single preventive measure. Dink was slaughtered just because
of uttering words that we may not have liked or just because he had
an Armenian descent.

The state turned its back on him. Prosecutors filed claims that he
was insulting Turkishness, accusing him of violating Article 301 in
the Turkish Penal Code.

Now, hang on there: The initial court acquitted Dink. Do you know
who appealed this? The Supreme Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court of Appeals changed the ruling, determined that he
had defamed Turkishness and sentenced him.

How strange! Is it not?

The Supreme Court of Appeals, which should think of the big picture,
therefore interpreted Article 301 in the narrowest sense. We clearly
saw that the ruling influenced the perpetrators during the trials. The
decision had created an image of Hrant Dink as a bad man.

As for the latest decision of the European Court of Human Rights,
the court slapped Turkey and ruled that the state of Turkey had failed
to protect Dink's right to life.

Turkey obeyed the ruling.

That was good for Turkey. Otherwise, it could've meant self-denial.

Former European court Justice Rıza Turmen put it beautifully and
clearly during a CNN Turk program the other day. Let's see what
Turkey admitted:

Yes, despite the state knowing of plans beforehand, it did not take
measures to protect Dink. Security directorates in Istanbul and Trabzon
didn't move a finger although they had information in advance that
he could be killed.

Yes, we did not investigate incoming information well enough. The
Trabzon Security Directorate informed Istanbul about incoming tips
but took no measures themselves, did not take any warnings seriously.

Yes, the Istanbul Police did not pay attention to warnings and take
measures. In short, Dink's right to life was not protected.

With that attitude Turkey has undertaken all the responsibility. The
government did not try to cover an old shame but carried the can.

If you don't know the details, please do not get nervous by this
approach.

Please, do read Tuba Candar's book, "Hrant."

She's put together an excellent work. I congratulate her. Learn what
happened through witnesses.

What will Turkey do from now on?

Now, should we not ask the following question? After we take
responsibility, what will we do from now on? Will we close the case?

Or will we reopen it and try to find the real perpetrators in order
to seek forgiveness?

My attitude is crystal clear: The perpetrators must be caught and
punished.

What do you say?

Shall we close the case?

Or shall we take action?

Can Tekin keep the home fires burning?

I was about to start this piece by asking, "What will happen to the
CHP?" I received this information: The main opposition Republican
People's Party, or CHP, Chairman Kemal Kılıcdaroglu appointed Gursel
Tekin as the new vice chairman of the party.

Tekin is a very good politician who carefully takes the pulse of
the people and carries the burden. He is a young, assertive and
worldly man.

But of course all his good qualities do not mean that Tekin will hold
up the CHP.

And the reason is that the party administration is going to pieces.

Check out the Sept. 12 referendum results, you'll see what I mean.

If it hadn't been for the one-man campaign of Kılıcdaroglu, the
CHP would've become only a part of the audience, with no active
involvement in the popular campaigning process.

Can you imagine an administration that does not care about how and
where their leaders cast their votes?

Even though Kılıcdaroglu politely took all the responsibility for
not being able to vote in the referendum, those who closely follow
the process have already seen who the responsible party is.

At first I thought the CHP administration and the party headquarters in
particular would reshape their structure following the 2011 general
elections. But today, I look at the picture and see that perhaps
the CHP can't wait any longer. In such an atmosphere and mess, it
is difficult to expect anything from the CHP like involvement in
elections or gaining votes.

What can Tekin do?

He cannot undertake the party all by himself.

If Kılıcdaroglu believes and supports him, things might change.

Otherwise, the CHP supporters will be disappointed again.

The Economist

Turkey's referendum
Erdogan wins again
The government wins big, leaving the opposition fretful but impotent

THERE is just no beating him. Turkey’s mildly Islamist prime minister, Recep

Tayyip Erdogan, has once again persuaded millions of Turks to back him, this

time in a September 12th referendum on constitutional changes. The reforms

will further erode the generals’ influence and increase democratic control over

the courts. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s

party (CHP), had tried hard to portray the reforms as a final assault on the

secular order of Ataturk, but the voters were unswayed.

As many as 58% said yes, on a turnout of almost 77%. Analysts suggest that

half the yes voters were merely backing Mr Erdogan’s Justice and Development

(AK) party. The Nationalist Action party (MHP), which campaigned against AK

for being too soft on the rebellious Kurds, took an even bigger drubbing than

the CHP. Many in its main strongholds voted yes.

After his triumph, Mr Erdogan was quick to pledge a complete rewrite of the

1980 constitution, which was imposed after a military coup. It will have to wait

until next year’s general election, which is due next summer. There is plenty of

speculation that, if AK repeats its success yet again, Mr Erdogan will then push

for the presidency, which falls vacant in 2012. Critics say he may become

Turkey’s next sultan. But such worries are exaggerated. Turkey is in the midst

of historic reforms—and the opposition’s failure to embrace them explains

why it keeps losing.

The AK party has been in government since 2002, pursuing an agenda of

broadly democratic reform and market liberalisation. This was enough to

persuade the European Union to open membership talks with Turkey in 2005.

Spurred on by a new class of Anatolian entrepreneurs, the economy has

thrived. Turkey’s growing influence has fostered a new national confidence

that has replaced decades of paranoia and prickliness.

Yet the 42% of Turks who voted no in the referendum remain deeply suspicious

of Mr Erdogan and the AK. Turkey is a divided country. The no voters form a

slim crescent ringing its western and south-western shores. With their mentors

in the army defanged and the CHP failing to gain ground, these “white Turks”

feel increasingly vulnerable. Secular Istanbul editors joke darkly about moving

to Izmir, which voted no.

Their worries are not wholly unfounded. Ever since his re-election in 2007,

Mr Erdogan has unabashedly sought to silence dissident voices. He has had a

lengthy run-in with the country’s biggest media conglomerate, the Dogan group,

which has now taken one show off the air and fired a number of secular columnists.

Pressed for an opinion, one surviving soul says “I am too frightened to talk.” This

makes it even less likely that mainstream titles will make space for Mr Kilicdaroglu’s

claims that AK is steeped in corruption. Turkey’s media bosses tend to value their

other business interests over a free press. Meanwhile, the only overtly Islamist party,

Saadet, which had previously been nibbling away at AK’s pious base, is riven by

internal squabbles.

Yet Mr Erdogan cannot afford to be complacent. Most Kurdish voters in the

south-east complied with the wishes of the largest Kurdish party to boycott

the referendum. This in turn points to the enduring power of the Kurdistan Workers’

party (PKK), which has been waging a violent separatist campaign for the past

26 years. The PKK has threatened to call off its recent unilateral ceasefire unless

Mr Erdogan makes further concessions on Kurdish rights and sticks to his promise

to produce a new constitution.

The MHP’s poor showing should free Mr Erdogan to respond to Kurdish demands.

The changes to the judiciary mean that antediluvian judges and prosecutors

no longer stand in his way. Mr Kilicdaroglu has said he is ready to help draft a new

constitution. Past experience suggests that both the Kurdish issue and a new

constitution need some input from the opposition. So long as the Kurdish problem,

in particular, festers, Turkey cannot be a truly healthy