Kabadayi in Overkill

It was 86 years ago, when the visionary leader of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in his opening remarks to the Great National Assembly denounced the historical practice of using the religion of Islam as a political tool, demanding that the religion should be restored to its original sacral task. The first leader of Turkish nation excoriated the nation to “immediately and in the most decisive manner save our religious values from all kinds of dark goals and concupiscence.” The current leadership of Turkey under Recep Tayiip Erdogan is doing exactly what Ataturk counseled against as he fans the fury of Muslim masses against Israel. If in 1949, Turkey was the first Muslim nation to recognize the State of Israel, today the Turkish government calls Israel, not the fundamentalist Iran, “the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East” and accuses the Jewish State in perpetrating 'massacre against civilians” and “piracy in the international waters”, while Erdogan established a perfect rapport with Ahmenijjad and Haled Masahal.

Since the mid-1990s, Turkish military and civilian leaders envisioned a new role for Turkey in the broader Middle East. They proposed that Turkey had a potential and, indeed, the strategic necessity to become a central regional power in its neighborhood. In this vision, the strategic relationship with Israel plays the functional role as both a bridge to Washington and the source of cutting edge military technology and know-how. The strategic alignment formed by Turkey and Israel in the heady days following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, found the strongest and enthusiastic proponents in Turkey among the Kemalist state bureaucracy. When Erdogan's AK party gained control of the Turkish parliament in 2002, the Kemalists warned about the creeping Islamization of Turkey. So, now eight years later, when the Turkish leadership is publicly praising Syria, Iran and Russia as its close strategic allies, the darkest fears of the secular pro-Western elite in that country were realized.

The bungled Israeli operation to intercept the Turkish boat with the Hamas supporters in the international waters off Gaza, only provided Turkey's current leadership with an excellent excuse for demonizing Israel and silencing Turkey's military that in the past years made strategic alliances with Israel. Erdogan is striking a shrewd blow against the generals in rabble-rousing anti-Israeli sentiment. Currently, at the behest of Erdogan's party, Turkey's judiciary is conducting a witch hunt against an ever-growing number of pro-secular journalists, intellectuals and ex-soldiers, who are accused of a highly nebulous "conspiracy" to overthrow the constitution. No doubt, some of them will soon be tarred with evidence of having worked too closely with Israel.

For balancing its foes, Israel needs Turkey. Firstly, Israel needs to avoid a position of regional isolation in the aftermath of the Gaza war. Turkey’s role as a moderator is also has great value for Israel. Israel needs to be seen as relevant to the processes in the Middle East, viewed through the Washington prism. In this sense, it needs to cooperate with the ‘moderate Islamist’ regime ruling Turkey.

However, here is the rub. Since the Erdogan’s outburst at the Davos Global Meeting in the beginning of February 2009. Erdogan received a triumphant welcome at home. Upon his return from Davos, Edogan was greeted as the Fatih or Savior of the “Turkish honor” by thousands of supporters at the Istanbul airport. It is futile to try to talk sense with the politician, who is seeking laurels of the new Gamal Abdel Nasser and who perfected an aggressive and acrimonious style of attacking his opponents and raised his “hoarse yell” into a method of political communication. This politician, known in Turkey, as Kabaday ("street tough" or '”hoodlum”)of Kazim Pasha ( the Istanbul's neighborhood where he grew up), has a knack for addressing the dispossessed Muslim masses in the language they readily understand, but he might further jeopardize Turkey's entry into the European Union. Using familiar slogans: “Israel - terrorist state,” “Israel is the main threat to peace in the Middle East” will play well on the Arab Street. However, how much support these diatribes will procure him in the European capitals and Washington, which are more concerned about the looming danger of nuclear Iran as their votes for recently approved Security Council sanctions indicate.

If Turkey abandons Israel, Israel needs re-energize its flagging relations with Egypt and the Gulf States, who are not particularly amused by Erdogan's Neo-Ottomanesque pretensions for the leadership of the Sunni Muslims. In the mist of the current diplomatic stand-off after the flotilla fiasco, the public image of Recep Erdogan as the protector of all Muslims has become a significant factor in the global affairs, but Israel should act quickly to neutralize internationally the Turkish government that champions the most radical causes in the Muslim world.

LALE KEMAL loglu@todayszaman.com Columnists Turkey’s entente with Israel in serious jeopardy

The Turkish-Israeli relationship, celebrated in the mid 1990s as an emerging Muslim-Jewish alliance in a “hostile” Middle East, has been deteriorating with increasing speed since Israel’s assault on Gaza that began in December 2008 and continued into January 2009.

Post your comments



Furthermore, an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in the Mediterranean Sea on May 31 of this year left nine Turks dead and marked a turning point in the further deterioration of the relationship between the two. This raised question marks over the impact of the strained relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv in the Middle East as well as in Turkey’s ties with its close ally, the US, which also needs Turkish cooperation in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as in the strategic Black Sea region.

In an attempt to have Israel meet Turkish demands, such as offering an apology for its raid on the Turkish ship and killing nine Turks, Turkey has continued to impose gradual sanctions on Israel. Cancelling three joint military maneuvers with Israel, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told reporters in Canada last Monday that Turkey had imposed a ban on Israeli military flights in Turkish airspace.

But Turkey has so far been reluctant to impose defense industry-related sanctions on Israel, mainly because Ankara, lacking military technology, has become heavily dependent on Israeli military systems. Turkish diplomatic sources earlier told a group of Turkish journalists that Turkey has to be careful before taking any steps on imposing an embargo on Israeli military technology because some systems -- such as F-4 and F-5 fighters as well as M-60 tanks, upgraded by Israel -- will in the future require spare parts from Israel.

An ongoing project with Israel worth about $160 million and concerning the Israeli supply of electro-optical reconnaissance pods for Turkish F-4s is currently in jeopardy. Israel is expected to not supply Turkey with the system out of a fear that Turkish F-4s may later gather reconnaissance info on Israel. Such speculation underscores a serious loss of trust between the two countries, mainly in defense industry cooperation.

Alexander Murinson recalls that Israel was able to offer Turkey in the early 1990s military cooperation without undue attention to human rights observance and also served as a conduit for American political echelons, i.e., the US Congress, which approves funding for American foreign aid and arms sales.

(Murinson, “Turkey’s Entente with Israel and Azerbaijan: State identity and security in the Middle East and Caucasus,” Routledge, 2010)

He goes on to say that the strategic Turkish-Israeli-Azerbaijani axis is bound to dissolve as the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government realigns Turkish foreign policy in the direction of greater cohesion with its Middle Eastern neighbors. Murinson quotes Israeli journalist Yoav Karny as saying, “The close strategic partnership which developed between Turkey and Israel came into being because generals took this subject out of jurisdiction of government.”

I have a reservation over Murinson’s observation, namely, that the Turkish-Israeli axis is bound to dissolve as the AK Party government realigns Turkish foreign policy in the direction of greater cohesion with its Middle Eastern neighbors. In my opinion, on the Turkish side, common sense will prevail in a way that the ruling AK Party will prevent an increased perception in the world that Turkey has been associating itself too much with the Muslim cause in the Middle East rather than seeing it as a case of conflict resolution.

On the other hand, one of the biggest problems behind deteriorating Turkish-Israeli relations has been the limited influence that the political authorities had in forging military and defense industry cooperation deals with Tel Aviv in the mid 1990s. As Karny observed, the strategic cooperation between the two countries came into being because generals took this subject out of the jurisdiction of government.

The more Turkish political authorities have attempted to put under their control the decision-making mechanism, the more Turkish-Israeli military cooperation was questioned by the majority Muslim Turkish society, which was already skeptical about Israel.

Meanwhile, a major part of responsibility lies with Israel in normalizing relations with Turkey, too, accepting the fact that the Turkish military’s central role in decision making is declining.

01 July 2010, Thursday
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/75-lale-kemal.html

It was 86 years ago, when the visionary leader of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in his opening remarks to the Great National Assembly denounced the historical practice of using the religion of Islam as a political tool, demanding that the religion should be restored to its original sacral task. The first leader of Turkish nation excoriated the nation to “immediately and in the most decisive manner save our religious values from all kinds of dark goals and concupiscence.” The current leadership of Turkey under Recep Tayiip Erdogan is doing exactly what Ataturk counseled against as he fans the fury of Muslim masses against Israel. If in 1949, Turkey was the first Muslim nation to recognize the State of Israel, today the Turkish government calls Israel, not the fundamentalist Iran, “the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East” and accuses the Jewish State in perpetrating 'massacre against civilians” and “piracy in the international waters”, while Erdogan established a perfect rapport with Ahmenijjad and Haled Masahal.

Since the mid-1990s, Turkish military and civilian leaders envisioned a new role for Turkey in the broader Middle East. They proposed that Turkey had a potential and, indeed, the strategic necessity to become a central regional power in its neighborhood. In this vision, the strategic relationship with Israel plays the functional role as both a bridge to Washington and the source of cutting edge military technology and know-how. The strategic alignment formed by Turkey and Israel in the heady days following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, found the strongest and enthusiastic proponents in Turkey among the Kemalist state bureaucracy. When Erdogan's AK party gained control of the Turkish parliament in 2002, the Kemalists warned about the creeping Islamization of Turkey. So, now eight years later, when the Turkish leadership is publicly praising Syria, Iran and Russia as its close strategic allies, the darkest fears of the secular pro-Western elite in that country were realized.

The bungled Israeli operation to intercept the Turkish boat with the Hamas supporters in the international waters off Gaza, only provided Turkey's current leadership with an excellent excuse for demonizing Israel and silencing Turkey's military that in the past years made strategic alliances with Israel. Erdogan is striking a shrewd blow against the generals in rabble-rousing anti-Israeli sentiment. Currently, at the behest of Erdogan's party, Turkey's judiciary is conducting a witch hunt against an ever-growing number of pro-secular journalists, intellectuals and ex-soldiers, who are accused of a highly nebulous "conspiracy" to overthrow the constitution. No doubt, some of them will soon be tarred with evidence of having worked too closely with Israel.

For balancing its foes, Israel needs Turkey. Firstly, Israel needs to avoid a position of regional isolation in the aftermath of the Gaza war. Turkey’s role as a moderator is also has great value for Israel. Israel needs to be seen as relevant to the processes in the Middle East, viewed through the Washington prism. In this sense, it needs to cooperate with the ‘moderate Islamist’ regime ruling Turkey.

However, here is the rub. Since the Erdogan’s outburst at the Davos Global Meeting in the beginning of February 2009. Erdogan received a triumphant welcome at home. Upon his return from Davos, Edogan was greeted as the Fatih or Savior of the “Turkish honor” by thousands of supporters at the Istanbul airport. It is futile to try to talk sense with the politician, who is seeking laurels of the new Gamal Abdel Nasser and who perfected an aggressive and acrimonious style of attacking his opponents and raised his “hoarse yell” into a method of political communication. This politician, known in Turkey, as Kabaday ("street tough" or '”hoodlum”)of Kazim Pasha ( the Istanbul's neighborhood where he grew up), has a knack for addressing the dispossessed Muslim masses in the language they readily understand, but he might further jeopardize Turkey's entry into the European Union. Using familiar slogans: “Israel - terrorist state,” “Israel is the main threat to peace in the Middle East” will play well on the Arab Street. However, how much support these diatribes will procure him in the European capitals and Washington, which are more concerned about the looming danger of nuclear Iran as their votes for recently approved Security Council sanctions indicate.

If Turkey abandons Israel, Israel needs re-energize its flagging relations with Egypt and the Gulf States, who are not particularly amused by Erdogan's Neo-Ottomanesque pretensions for the leadership of the Sunni Muslims. In the mist of the current diplomatic stand-off after the flotilla fiasco, the public image of Recep Erdogan as the protector of all Muslims has become a significant factor in the global affairs, but Israel should act quickly to neutralize internationally the Turkish government that champions the most radical causes in the Muslim world.

This is the cover of Chinese magazine Sanlian Life Weekly Magazine, where my interview is published.

Александр Муринсон: Российско-турецкая дружба продлится недолго

Как считает специалист по Ближнему Востоку Вашингтонского института Александр Муринсон - дружба России и Турции продлится недолго.
По его мнению, при правительстве Партии справедливости и развития (ПСР) Турция преследует цель превращения в лидера всего исламского мира, и в этой связи внешнеполитические усилия Анкары все больше концентрируются в ближневосточном регионе. При этом она не забывает о поддержании хороших отношений с Азербайджаном и Россией. Установление особых отношений между Анкарой и Баку американский ученый объясняет, прежде всего тем, что Азербайджан, зажатый между внушающими ему опасения Россией и Ираном, стремится сблизиться с Западом, чьим представителем в регионе выступает Турция.


Отвечая на вопрос об энергетической безопасности Турции, Муринсон наметил два пути снижения энергетической зависимости страны от России и Ирана: строительство на своей территории атомных электростанций и увеличение закупок энергоносителей в Ираке. Но первая альтернатива не столь очевидна, так как страна расположена в сейсмоопасной зоне, и это в будущем может привести к серьезным авариям на АЭС.
Американский ученый считает, что турецко-российское сотрудничество сегодня опирается на следующую договоренность: Турция поддерживает российский проект «Южный поток», Россия, в свою очередь, не препятствует превращению Турции в узел по перекачке углеводородного топлива из третьих стран на европейский рынок. Но такая ситуация не может продлиться слишком долго, и Турции придется выбирать между российским и ближневосточным топливом. Если она намерена и дальше солидаризироваться с Западом, ей придется отдать предпочтение топливу, поступающему из Каспийского бассейна в ущерб газу и нефти из российских скважин.
В заключение интервью Муринсон предрек образование антитурецкого союза Ирана, Египта и Саудовской Аравии, направленного на ограничение растущего влияния Турции в ближневосточном регионе. И тогда Анкаре придется рассчитывать лишь на поддержку США и Израиля, которые «хотят видеть Турцию частью западного мира».

UN Security Council vote on new Resolution

фото Reuters 08.06.2010 20:03 : Голосование в Совете безопасности ООН по проекту новой иранской резолюции может состояться уже завтра
Об этом сообщает агентство Рейтер со ссылкой на неназванного западного дипломата.
Ранее высокопоставленный дипломатический источник в Москве сообщил, что проект полностью согласован и никаких проблем для принятия документа нет. По словам источника, члены Совбеза согласовали перечень компаний и физических лиц, в отношении которых будут введены санкции.
Напомним, США и другие страны Запада обвиняют Иран в разработке ядерного оружия. Тегеран это отрицает.

Flotilla: Sideshow to Israeli-Turkish Confrontation

Dr. Alexander Murinson
Special to the Jewish Times


The ongoing conflagration between Turkey and Israel over the confrontation at sea, between Israeli commandos and pro-Palestinian activists that ended in unfortunate death of nine protesters is just a side-show to Turkey’s strategic realignment closer to Iran and its regional allies.

Over the last three years, the world has watched as Turkey has drastically distanced itself from Israel. In the latest face-off that ended in the tragic deaths of nine people after a team of Israeli commandos attempted to board the ship that defied the Israeli requests to stay away from the Israeli territorial waters, Turkey further raised ante and threatened to break off diplomatic relations.

The Turkish ambassador was recalled from Israel and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan publicly threatened Israel that the next “peace convoy” to Gaza will be “accompanied by Turkish naval boats.” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu declared that the relations would only be normalized, if Israel lifted the blockade of Gaza.

Sending a flotilla under Turkish flag into Israeli waters that intended, at least, to provoke Israel is a reflection of the game-changing shift that transpired in the political echelons of the Turkish leadership in its perception of Turkey’s role in the Middle East.

Despite news reports that the mission was peaceful in nature, its organizers made clear that their mission was not about delivering aid, but was a political demonstration to “break the siege on Gaza.” This tactical step could have been designed to deflect the Western criticism of Iran and shift the world’s attention to Israel’s not always prudent attempts, as the last fiasco shows, to prevent smuggling of weapons and funds to prop up the Iran-supported regime imposed by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

It has to be acknowledged that the “peace flotilla” received an official blessing of Prime Minister Erdogan, who called the bungled Israeli military operation to prevent penetration of Israeli-controlled sea waters ‘an act of piracy.” Erdogan threatened the Israelis that Turkey will insist on ending of the Israeli blockade by any means is close in diplomatic language to a declaration of war. The described series of events are not isolated incidents or random political statements, but a thought-out and long term policy of the current government of Turkey.

As the Turkish Prime Minister intimated on many occasions that Turkey sees eye-to-eye with Iran, Russia and Syria on most of the regional issues including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict process and the possibility of including Hamas as a party to negotiations, as the recent statements by Presidents Dmitry Medevdev and Abdullah Gul confirmed during a joint press conference in Ankara on May 15.

Ankara’s relations with Syria experience an unprecedented closeness, with Erdogan proclaiming “brotherly love” between the two neighbors. On December 26, Mr. Erdogan said in Damascus: “The achievements and fruits of those deep relations became tangible in our region in all fields… they became a reality that anyone couldn’t ignore in any case.”

The changing of profile of Turkey vis-à-vis Israel, from a fellow secular Western democracy to an aspiring neo-Ottoman power that that seeks to command world’s respect as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire that ruled for 500 years in this geography should be taken into account in Israeli foreign policy calculations.

Ahmet Davutoglu clarified the new Turkish position in an Al-Jazeera interview that good relations of Turkey with Israel were not an end in itself, but “a tool for achievement of the regional peace.” In fact, it is the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who is the intellectual father of the new Turkish foreign policy doctrine, called the “Strategic Depth”, which emphasizes imperial Ottoman and Islamic legacies and its geographic position at the apex of the three adjacent to Turkey land basins: the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus as defining features of its global strategy.

Israel should be wary of its former close ally that claims that it views the Middle East from the “Muslim perspective.” The sponsoring of the “peace flotilla” that intended to provide political support to Hamas-controlled Gaza and recent pro-Iranian diplomatic endeavors are solid indications that Turkey seeks to construct a new regional union or, or at least an axis, comprising its Muslim neighbors. In this context, the Iranian search for nuclear weapons need not necessarily be perceived as a threat, but could instead serve as a bargaining chip to be used by Turkey in the new global and regional calculus.

If, as late as 1997, Turkish strategists listed Russia, Greece, Iraq, Iran, and Syria as the top threats to regional security, now, under the Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey singles out Israel for that distinction. Pointing an accusatory finger at Israel, during the 2008 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visit to Turkey, the Turkish leader stated that “countries which are against Iran’s nuclear weapons, should themselves not have nuclear weapons.”

During his stop-over in France, on the way to the recent NPT review conference in Washington, Recep Tayyip Erdogan reiterated to reporters that Israel was “the main threat to Middle East peace.” While castigating Israel, the Turkish leader, referring to Ahmadinejad as his “dear friend”, added in his interview with Le Figaro that diplomacy, not sanctions, is the only way to solve the current crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.

The “Iran Six”, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and France—plus Germany, all voiced skepticism about the Teheran agreement, which proposes to swap 1,200 kilograms of Iran’s low enriched uranium in Turkey, reached between Iran, Brazil and Turkey on May 17.

Last Wednesday (May 19), the White House reacted with surprise to the Brazilian-Turkish initiative that potentially would allow Iran to escape international sanctions and continue to enrich uranium. The U.S. draft resolution for the fourth round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program was introduced only a day after Iran signed on to a nuclear fuel swap deal with Turkey and Brazil.

President Barack Obama’s spokesman stated that the President had a phone conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan in which he indicated that “the international community’s concern about the Iranian nuclear program is increasing, not decreasing.” President Obama pointed out to the Turkish Prime Minister that actions of Tehran did not “build trust.”

The staunch supporter of the tougher line on Iran, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, talking to reporters in China on Tuesday in her comments about the Tehran agreement, said: “There are a number of deficiencies with it that do not answer the concerns of the international community.” She dismissed this initiative as an evasion tactic by the Iranian regime and drew attention to the fact “the agreement that was reached in Tehran a week ago between Iran and Brazil and Turkey only occurred because the Security Council was on the brink of publicly releasing the text of the resolution that we have been negotiating for many weeks.”

Even Russia and China are closer now to supporting the Western position that calls for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, though their vote of approval in the Security Council is not guaranteed.

Turkey’s leadership provides a diplomatic cover for Iran and its regional affiliates such as Hamas in pursuing its regional aspirations in exchange for future power sharing in the evolving post-American Middle East. Even if the brokered Turkish-Brazilian deal with Iran fails to deliver, which is, according to American and Israeli experts, is a foregone conclusion, Turkey will further reinforce its stature not only as the key player in the Muslim world, but also as the sine qua non in global affairs. This is an important objective of Turkey’s implicit support of Iran, while the Turkish Prime Minister accuses Israel, as the lone nuclear power in the Middle East, of undermining regional peace and security.

The dramatic shift of Tehran in its relationship with its Western neighbor is due to the new assessment of the growing role of Turkey. It is worth remembering, that just in four years Iran dismissed the similar nuclear swap offer from Turkey. Then an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman dismissed the idea, stating “it is certainly out of the question to engage in a joint venture with any country other than Russia in that country’s territory.”

Despite reservations of the Great Powers, Iran found in Turkey and Brazil willing geopolitical chess players in its race to join the nuclear club. All three nations are seeking the status of global powers. Both Turkey and Brazil have close economic and strategic ties with Iran. Turkey and Brazil serve currently as two out of five non-permanent members of UN Security Council, while Brazil aspires to become a permanent member.

The Security Council’s rules of voting on substantial matters, such as the fourth rounds of sanctions against Iran, require a nine-member majority. As members of the Security Council, both countries are capable of thwarting the attempt to approve crippling’ sanctions approved by UN Security Council. This will provide breathing space for the Iranian regime to avoid on-site inspections from the IAEA on its soil and continue on its progress to its strategic goal.

Dr. Alexander Murinson is a Baltimore-based independent researcher. He writes about security, issues of identity, religion and globalization, nationality problem in northern Eurasia. He is the author of “Turkey’s Entente with Israel and Azerbaijan State Identity and Security in the Middle East and Caucasus” (Routledge). The book is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Turkeys-Entente-Israel-Azerbaijan-Routledge/dp/0415778921/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1 .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read more, pick up a copy of the Jewish Times at one of our newsstand locations.
For a trial subscription, click here.
To purchase a subscription or send a gift subscription, click here.

The March 2010 Genocide Resolution and Turkish Reaction

From:
Miller, Marjorie (Marjorie.Miller@latimes.com)
Sent:
Thu 3/04/10 10:24 PM
To:
Alexander Murinson (murinson@hotmail.com)
Thank you for your time, input. As this will be a short editorial, I won’t be able to quote you or to name your book this time. Usually these editorial conversations are on background.

From: Alexander Murinson [mailto:murinson@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:18 PMTo: Miller, MarjorieSubject: RE: Questions on House resolution?

Dear Marjorie, I would predict that some major military contracts with US will be cancelled. As a letter of Feb. 26 from the chief executives of Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Raytheon Co., United Technologies Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. to the committee’s Democratic chairman, Representative Howard Berman indicates. All the three manufacturers are in the midst of sensitive negotiaons with the Turkish authorities about technology transfer and purchases in the aerospace sector. As it is known Russia is competing for military contracts in Turkey with the Uniteed States. Turkey already cancelled the air exercises with Israel, whereas the NATO's allies, Italy and the United States, also declined to participate. So Turkey will have a political excuse to distance itself from the Western alliance in general, and the United States in particular. On Iran, Prime Minister Erdogan reiterated that Turkey supports Iran's nuclear program for the 'peaceful purposes.' Erdogan stated that the West is applying the 'double-standards 'to Iran, because one power in the region (presumably Israel) already posseses nuclear weapons. Turkey might threaten to stop the use of Incirlik for refueling and maintenance of the US air transports to Iraq. I would appreciate, if you mention my book Turkey's Entente with Israel and Azerbaijan (Routledge, 2009) in reference to me.
Alexander Murinson Ms.Sc. (LSE) D.Phil. (SOAS), University of Londonemail: murinson@hotmail.comPhone: 001 410-664-3398

Subject: RE: Questions on House resolution?Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:30:34 -0800From: Marjorie.Miller@latimes.comTo: murinson@hotmail.com
You think there will be anything more consequential for US-Turkish relationship beyond calling Amb back for consultations? What concrete negative consequences? They’ve already distanced selves from Israel, which is why the likes of Berman voting for this. Iran? Iraq? Since this whole thing is symbolic, anyway?

From: Alexander Murinson [mailto:murinson@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:22 PMTo: Miller, MarjorieSubject: RE: Questions on House resolution?

Hi Marjorie, Since the resolution passed in the Foreign Relations Committee several minutes ago, Turkey declared its intention to call back its ambassador for consultations. It is hard to predict the concrete steps, but there will be negative consequences for the bilateral relations.The embattled Turkish military (under pressure from the AKP) will try ride the wave of popular backlash and express more nationalist and populist opinions about the American anti-Turkish stance. the Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, a representative of more conservative and religious circles in Turkey, warned against the passing the Genocide Resolution before nad and he will use diplomatic pressure and some counter-measures to voice Turkey's sense of betrayal by its main NATO ally. Secular Kemalist circles are also enraged by this legislative act, but liberal intellectauls in Turkey have more lenient view of this matter. In my vioew, it shouldn't derail the negotiation with Armenia, but it might put on the freeze until all political consequences of this crisis between USA and Turkey will play out. Keep me posted. Truly,
Alexander Murinson Ms.Sc. (LSE) D.Phil. (SOAS), University of Londonemail: murinson@hotmail.comPhone: 001 410-664-3398

Subject: Questions on House resolution?Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:44:46 -0800From: Marjorie.Miller@latimes.comTo: murinson@hotmail.com
Hi Alexander,

Marjorie Miller here, editorial writer for the LAT. Nick Goldberg passed along your name. So here are some questions for you on House resolution this time: Turks serious about pulling Ambassador if Armenia genocide resolution goes forward? At what point would they do it--House committee, House, full senate? How far would they go? Close Incirlik? Is this any easier or harder with Turkish military corralled now? Who's more militant on Armenian issue, secular or religious Turks? And one last question, will it derail negotiations with Armenia? Your thoughts much appreciated.

Best, Marjorie

BİR DOSTLUK HİKAYESİ by Mustafa Azizoglu

soğuk savaş’ın ardından arap ülkelerini
çevreleyecek bir ittifak arayan İsrail
ile petrol ve doğalgaz zenginliğini koruyup
dışa açılmayı hedefl eyen Azerbaycan’ın
çıkarları, hem birbirleriyle, hem Türkiye ile
son 20 yılda sık sık kesişti. Şu anda ise bu
üçlü arasındaki ilişkiler, Türkiye’nin bir yandan
Azerbaycan’ın düşmanı Ermenistan’la,
diğer yandan da İsrail’in düşmanları olan
İran ve Suriye ile yakın politikası nedeniyle
adeta yeniden şekilleniyor.
Geçen ay yeni kitabı “Turkey’s Entente
with Israel and Azerbaijan: State
Identity and Security in the Middle East
and Caucasus” (Türkiye’nin İsrail ve
Azerbaycan ile Anlaşması: Ortadoğu ve
Kafk aslar’da Devlet Kimliği ve Güvenlik)
çıkan, Londra Üniversitesi’nden Alexander
Murinson, Dışişleri Bakanı Davutoğlu’nun
“Komşularla sıfır problem stratejisi”nin
teorik olarak güzel olabileceğini ama
günümüz dünyasında gerçekleşmesi
çok zor bir rüya olduğunu savunuyor.
Azerbaycan’ın, Ermenistan dışında tedirgin
olduğu bir diğer komşusu ise İran. Yazara
göre Türkiye, İran’la yakınlaşırken, İran’ın
Ermenistan’la bağlantısını arttırması, bir
yandan da Şii nüfusuna sahip Azerbaycan’da
rejim ihracı korkusu yaratabilir. Öyle olmasa
bile Azerbaycan’ın İsrail’le bağlantı kurmasında
önemli etkenlerden biri bu tedirginlik
olabilir. Ermenistan ile savaşırken
Azerbaycan’a Stinger füzeleri veren İsrail,
Haziran ayında Cumhurbaşkanı Peres’in ziyareti
sırasında, hava savunma sistemi kurulması
için de bu ülkeyle bir anlaşma imzaladı.
Murinson’a göre İsrail, Azerbaycan-İran
sınırında dinleme faaliyeti de sürdürüyor. İki
ülke arasındaki ticaret hacmi yaklaşık 3.6
milyar dolar. İsrail, petrol ihtiyacının yüzde
25’ini Azerbaycan’dan karşılıyor. Ayrıca İsrail,
Azerbaycan’da iletişim ile tarım ve gıda
sektöründe yatırım yapıyor.
Peki Türkiye, İsrail ve Azerbaycan arasındaki
ilişkilerin geleceği nasıl olacak?
İsrail Savunma Bakanı Ehud Barak’ın
Ankara’yı ziyareti iyice gerginleşen ilişkileri
biraz yumuşattı. Azerbaycan’la Türkiye
arasındaki sıkıntı, söz verildiği gibi Yukarı
Karabağ’daki işgal sona erdirilebilirse eski
yoğun kıvamına ulaşacaktır. Eğer İran’da da
2012’deki Parlamento seçimlerinde muhalefet
kazanır ve Batı’yla ilişkileri yeniden rayına
oturtursa, o zaman Dışişleri Bakanı Ahmet
Davutoğlu “komşularla sıfır problem”
politikasının sefasını sürebilir.
YARALAR
HÂLÂ KANIYOR
12 N 31 OCAK 2010
FOTOĞRAFLAR (SOL ÜSTTEN SAAT YÖNÜNDE): AP, PATRICK FARRELL—AP, FABRICE COFFRINI—AFP
Ğ (Ü ) Ü
BİR DOSTLUK HİKAYESİ
Mustafa Azizoğlu
Port au Prince (Haiti)
Başkent enkaz altında. Halk kitleler
halinde kırsal alanlara kaçıyor.
Haiti yeniden belini doğrultabilecek
mi?
Sichuan (Çin)
Devlet çabuk davranarak dünyaya
örnek oldu: Depremden bir yıl sonra
yeniden inşa projeleri tamamlanmaya
yakın.
L’Aquila (İtalya)
Başbakan Berlusconi, altı ayda kenti
yeniden inşa etme sözü vermişti.
Ancak 20 bin kişi sekiz ay sonra
hâlâ evsiz.
New Orleans (ABD)
İşsizlik ve icraya düşme oranları
azaldı ama çok sayıda mahalle beş
yıl önceki Katrina Kasırgası’nın
izlerini taşıyor.
Aceh (Endonezya)
Tsunaminin yere serdiği eyalette
hayat ancak beş yıl sonra normale
döndü, ticaret ve turizm kendine
geldi.
Myanmar
Sel felaketinden 18 ay sonra 500 bin
insan hâlâ barakalarda yaşıyor. Ama
en azından hastalıkların önü kesildi.
PERİSKOP
KAYNAK: ANKARA ÜNiVERSiTESi AVRUPA TOPLULUKLARI ARAŞTIRMA VE UYGULAMA MERKEZi’NiN
BU AY YAYINLADIĞI ‘KAMUOYU VE TÜRK DIŞ POLiTiKASI’ ANKETi.
BİR SAYI
TÜRKİYE’NİN ERMENİSTAN İLE
İLİŞKİLERİNİ NORMALLEŞTİRECEK
PROTOKOLÜN ‘ANCAK ERİVAN
AZERBAYCAN TOPRAKLARINDAN
ÇEKİLİRSE’ ONAYLANMASI
GEREKTİĞİNE İNANAN TÜRKLER’İN
ORANI. PROTOKOLÜN KOŞULSUZ
OLARAK ONAYLANMASI GEREKTİĞİNE
İNANANLARIN ORANI İSE YÜZDE 6,1.
%35
Dünyanın dört yanında son beş yılda büyük
çaplı felakete uğramış bölgeler için dile getirilen
vaatlere rağmen, sorunlar sürüyor.
PERISKOP.indd 2 23.01.2010 11:45

Israel, Turkey and Azerbaijan: Strategic Shifts?”

CACI Forum
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute


“Israel, Turkey and Azerbaijan: Strategic Shifts?”

January 20, 2010



The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University, invites you to a Forum:

“Israel, Turkey and Azerbaijan: Strategic Shifts?”


Featuring


Dr. Alexander Murinson

author of Turkey's Entente with Israel and Azerbaijan: State Identity and Security in the Middle East and Caucasus, Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics, Dec. 2009

Commenting

Mr. Khazar Ibrahim, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Azerbaijan
Mr. Berkan Pazarci, Counselor, Embassy of Turkey
Participant, Embassy of Israel, TBA

Wednesday, January 20, 2010
5-7 PM
Rome Auditorium, 1st Fl., The Rome Building
SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Israel has long sought to maintain cordial relations with moderate Muslim countries that have secular systems of government. Specifically, this has resulted in a mutually beneficial collaboration with Azerbaijan and other Turkic states. Are these alignments changing today? If so, why, and with what likely consequences?

The Forum opens with a reception and refreshments at 5 PM. The program will begin promptly at 5:30 PM and conclude at 7 PM. RSVP for this event is mandatory and will not be accepted after 10 AM on the day of the event. To register, please send an email with your name and affiliation to SAISCACIForums@jhu.edu or call 202-663-7723.

The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute is the primary institution in the United States for the study of the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Caspian Region. The Institute, affiliated with Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, forms part of a Joint Center with the Silk Road Studies Program, affiliated with the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy. Additional information about the Joint Center, as well as its several publications series, is available at www.silkroadstudies.org.















http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/forum/CACI_2010_0120.html