Currently, we are working on bringing back neTTurkish. We were able to retrieve some of the older content from Internet Archive.
New content will be published very soon. meanwhile please take a look at some of the older pieces published in 2002 and 2003.
Originally Published in 2003:
So what if Turks missed $6 billion in grants and $20 in loan guarantees. What is the price of the dignity for a nation? Better or worse, so called the inexperienced administration of libero-conservative/religious administration of AK Party has done a great job handling neo-Con pressure from DC. In fact, it was the Bush administration who showed total lack of experience and ignorance in international diplomacy since the beginning of this latest world crisis. Now, Turkish political elite who had been taken the country into an unknown future in last 50 years is gone, there is a whole new attitude towards world politics now in Ankara. Turkish capital is no longer under the spell of the “real-politik” of a quazi-democratic military regime who blindly followed an outdated Kemalist ideology which was created long after the death of one the great leaders of the Twentieth Century, Kemal Ataturk.
Islamic or not, Turkish people want change. Based on the analysis of last general elections, pity to Turkish politics, only one part offered that change. That party was no other than AKP led by the Islamist mayor of one of the largest cities in the world, Istanbul. Long time ago, some one told me that things can only get worse so much, at the end it only gets better. It is time for Turkish nations to get better now. Perhaps, once a country bashed by the rest of the world could very well be an example of democracy to the rest of the world.
Originally published in 2003:
The ongoing war in Iraq for the liberation of the Iraqis and implementation of a decade old DC based ideology called “The new American Century” continues. The desserts of Iraq are under control of Amero-British forces. Yet, Baghdad, which its five million plus population, is far from being controlled by the allied forces from the both sides of the Atlantic. The Amero-British forces are stuck at the out skirts of the largest city in the country. The war is just starting now. It is like no other war Americans forces have ever fought. Israelis and British are quite familiar with this kind of war. Ask British who got kicked out of Palestinian territories in 1948, as a result of Israeli terrorism, or better, ask Israelis who have been fiercely fighting Palestinian uprising for decades. Fifty plus deaths that American forces have suffered so far might be acceptable to public in the United States who so far unconditionally supported heir leader under the auspicious of “patriotism”. However, it is highly unlikely that an continuing invasion of Iraq will be welcome by American people if and when Iraq turns into an other and much larger West Bank and Gaza. To avoide that possibility, President Bush has much to count on the United Nations, an institution he and his extreme republican gang once bashed so harshly.
Moreover, the question of Baghdad remains wide open, until the every street and citizen of the secured. The chances are that Baghdad be secure for even a US soldier is as likely as for an Israeli soldier enjoys a sip of Turkish coffee in Gaza Strip.
Originally Published on 11/25/2002:
Finally, EU decision makers have come to the point of self realization and the moment of truth. So called “European Values” of equality and human rights, which are actually post-War (WW2) American exports to the Continent, do not seem to have a firm grab on EU mentality in practice. So called “Copenhagen Criterias” which were supposed to be precondition to any candidate state’s accession talks are bluntly ignored for some states yet presented as an obstacle against Ankara.
Yet, the weak Turkish stance against EU’s double standard is one of the main reasons Turkey has been treated like a beggar at the door steps of Brussels. It is not clear when if ever, Turkey with its potential voting power of 68 million Muslims will ever be admitted into the EU. A strong and determined government which will no longer compromise to EU is a must to show Turkish determination to force Europeans keep their promise, which was put onto paper in Ankara Agreement of 1963.
Ironically, the way the things look nowadays, EU members neither vision nor leadership quality to create another power house in the world for 21st Century. Perhaps, by realizing their short comings in fairness and bigotry, Europe can avoid another continent wide disaster which caused the Second World War.
First step is to get rid of “socially and politically challenged” leaders like Parodi and Giscard d’Estaing, and replacing them with more visionary counterparts. We think Germans and British have much to work on this issue. (NT 2002)
The dispute between the two NATO members began in early 2001 when Turkey threatened to block the EU from using NATO assets over fears about any possible future deployment in the Aegean region or in Cyprus. In late 2001, the US, the UK and Turkey agreed the Ankara Text, allowing Turkey a say in such operations. Greece immediately rejected the Ankara Text, again threatening the EU Rapid Reaction Force.
In fear of endangering permanent division of Cyprus and loosing NATO assets by Turkish wrath, Brussels said on Friday that Turkish membership of the European Union would not destroy the grouping, as asserted by the man who is chairing the convention on the EU’s future.
Such downplay of statements from prominent leaders of Europe is common behavior by Brussels. Brussels is in immediate need of Turkey’s good will in solving the Cyprus issue before the divided island becomes a full member of the EU. In fact, many in EU do not want to have a divided island into the institution.
Moreover, Turkish blessing is needed to put European Rapid Reaction Force into effect, since most of the Europe’s military assets are locked in NATO and Europeans are not willing to spent a dime on armament. Yet, Turkey has absolute power in vetoing the usage if those assets by EU. Therefore, Brussels has been constantly downplaying Euro-Christian statements to not to upset Turks. Yet, it is widely believed that, even Brussels has no genuine intention in admitting a predominantly Muslim country with a weak economy.
Originally Published in 2002:
Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing told Le Monde newspaper that people who backed Turkey’s accession were “the adversaries of the European Union”. “Its capital is not in Europe, 95% of its population live outside Europe, it is not a European country,” he said. Asked what the effect of including Turkey in a future wave of European enlargement would be, he said: “In my opinion, it would be the end of Europe.”
To many, Giscard d’Estaing’s recent anti-Turkish statement is simply an honest opinion shared by the all wings of EU yet not spoken out loudly, for Cyprus and NATO assets sake. NeTTurkish believes, once EU secures the usage of NATO assets and a pro-Greek settlement in Cyprus, Turkey will face a blunt NO from Brussels.
Originally Published in 2002:
On November 3 voters delivered a devastating rebuff to all the parties that have dominated Turkish politics for the past two decades. None of the parties in the previous governing coalition cleared the 10 percent vote needed to secure parliamentary representation. The opposition Party of the Right Path (DYP), led by the former head of government, Tansu Ciller, also failed to get into parliament. The election result is an expression of the growing anger and discontent on the part of substantial layers of the population in relation to the country’s corrupt political elite. Turkey has experienced a worsening economic crisis over the past 18 months. Two million workers have lost their jobs and the value of the Turkish currency, the lira, has halved against the US dollar. It is above all lower and middle-income workers and their families who have shouldered the brunt of unemployment and inflation. Widespread social discontent has resulted in an electoral victory for the Islamist Party of Justice and Development (AKP), which will occupy nearly two-thirds of the 550 seats in the Turkish parliament. The party will play the leading role in the new parliament although it won just 35 percent of the vote. Its absolute parliamentary majority is a result of the failure of most of the other parties to cross the 10 percent hurdle. When one compares the hopes and expectations which Erdogan and the AKP encouraged in their election campaign with the party’s rapid adoption, after the election, of the course advocated by the IMF, the US and the EU, then it is evident that this election victory is only a temporary stage in the continuing political and economic crisis in Turkey. The anger and discontent which swept aside the Turkish political establishment will inevitably backfire on the AKP.
