twitter

Friday, February 26, 2016

White House Statement After Can Dündar Release

Following Cumhuriyet Daily editor in chief Can Dündar and Cumhuriyet's Ankara represantive Erdem Gül's release due to Constitutional Court ruling, White House National Security Council spox Mark Stroh sent these comments:
''we remain deeply concerned that media outlets and individual journalists critical of the government are subject to pressure and intimidation.  We have both publicly and privately raised our concerns about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly in Turkey, including during the Vice President’s recent visit to Turkey, and we continue to urge the Turkish authorities to uphold the universal democratic values that are enshrined in Turkey’s constitution.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Readout on phone call btw Obama and Erdogan

Readout of the President’s Call with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey

The President spoke today by phone with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about the situation in Syria and U.S.-Turkish cooperation in the fight against terrorism.  The President condemned and offered condolences for the February 17 terrorist attack in Ankara, which killed and wounded both military personnel and civilians, and the February 18 terrorist attack against a Turkish military convoy in Diyarbakir Province.  President Obama expressed concern about recent Syrian regime advances in northwest Syria and urgently called for a halt to actions that heighten tensions with Turkey and with moderate opposition forces in northern Syria, and undermine our collective efforts in northern Syria to degrade and defeat ISIL. President Obama stressed that YPG forces should not seek to exploit circumstances in this area to seize additional territory, and urged Turkey to show reciprocal restraint by ceasing artillery strikes in the area.  He emphasized the unwavering commitment of the United States to Turkey’s national security as a NATO Ally.  The two leaders expressed their support for the understanding reached in Munich last week on the cessation of hostilities in Syria and called on Russia and the Assad regime to halt airstrikes against moderate opposition forces.  The leaders pledged to deepen cooperation in the fight against all forms of terrorism, including the PKK, and reiterated their shared goal of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

US calls on YPG not to seize new territory, on Turkey to cease any fires

US State Dept Spox John Kirby, answering a question re N.Aleppo via email, called on YPG “not to take advantage of a confused situation by seizing new territory” and also called on Turkey “to cease fires” from Turkish side of the border.

In an email, Spokesperson Kirby, when asked about the situation in N.Aleppo and Azaz, said US working to de-escalate tensions on all sides and “concerned about the situation north of Aleppo.”

Kirby, in his two paragraphs, first urged YPG and affliated forces not to seize new territory and then called on Turkey.

Kirby said:
"We are concerned about the situation north of Aleppo and are working to de-escalate tensions on all sides. W‎e have urged Syrian Kurdish and other forces affiliated with the YPG not to take advantage of a confused situation by seizing new territory.

‎ We have also seen reports of artillery fire from the Turkish side of the border and urged Turkey to cease such fires.‎ Turkey and the YPG share a serious threat of ISIL poised just to the east of the Azaz corridor.‎ We continue to encourage all parties to focus on this common threat, which has not subsided, and to work towards a cessation of hostilities, as agreed in Munich."‎

Thursday, February 11, 2016

US does not view Turkey's Elections "Fair and Free"

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 24
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2016
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Briefer: Mark Toner, DeputySpokesperson 


My Qs & As w Spox Mark Toner re recent OSCE Report on Turkey Elections. Toner does NOT use "fair and free" when comes to defining Turkey's November 1st elections even if given chances to do so. 

QUESTION: Okay. OSCE report on Turkey’s election in November just came out. At the time, you avoided making any kind of comments regarding elections. Now that you have seen this building has seen the report --
MR TONER: You’re talking about the OSCE report? 

QUESTION: OSCE report on Turkey’s elections in November.
MR TONER: Yeah. Yep. So we note the OSCE’s final report, obviously on the November 1st, 2015 elections, and it highlights that Turkey offered voters a variety of choices, but that the challenging security environment, violent attacks against party members and on party premises, and restrictions on media freedom had hindered campaigning and the free flow of information to the public.
So at the time of the elections, OSCE released a statement of preliminary findings highlighting that the elections offered voters a variety of choices, but that restrictions on media freedom remain a serious concern. We reiterated our own concerns that media outlets and individual freedoms or individual, rather, journalists critical of the government were subject to pressure and intimidation during the campaign, seemingly in a manner calculated to weaken political opposition. And that view has not changed with the final OSCE report.


QUESTION: And the same report says that Turkey has not fulfilled its obligations as an OSCE member and it has not conducted this elections on fair and free basis and international standards. So can you now tell us that Turkey conducted these elections on not fair and free conditions according to this report?
MR TONER: Well, I think – I’ll just put it this way: We’ve been very clear in our discussions with Turkish officials at all levels our concerns about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. We’ve urged the Turkish Government to ensure its actions uphold its democratic universal democratic values, consistent with international law and commitments that are enshrined in Turkey’s constitution.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Clearly, you cannot define these elections as fair and free, so can you tell Turkish democracy is still strong and vibrant as you have mentioned recently if they cannot hold fair and free elections? 


MR TONER: I’ll just say we’ve been very clear, the OSCE final report was very clear where our concerns lie. I don’t need to repeat them now, and I’ll stop there.
QUESTION: Thank you.

White House refutes Turkish President and FM’s remarks over PYD, Says Biden has not received, nor shown any documents

White House refutes Turkish President and FM’s remarks over PYD


Visiting Budapest on Tuesday, Turkish FM Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said: “The US needs to make a decision. Is it picking us as a partner or terrorist organizations? We gave number of documents to the Americans, our friends, [US Vice President Joe] Biden as evidence of the close relationship between the PKK and the PYD.’’


Cavuşoğlu, on January 27th, speaking to Vatan Newspaper, went even further and said ‘’We told Biden things about PYD. Their type of their management chart which shows PKKs in it, we gave documents to (them)’’


President Erdoğan also, speaking to Turkish provincial heads meetings Wednesday morning, said Turkey ‘’has documents’’ about PYD and PKK links, but stopped short saying that Turkey given any documents to Biden.


White House official refuted these claims in a email when asked about those notes and documents Cavusoğlu talked.


White House said: ‘’Turkish delegation communicated concerns over cross-border weapons and ammunition transfers. But they did not provide any information to indicate any resources the United States has provided to groups fighting ISIL in Syria have made their way into Turkey.’’


Comments continued: ‘’The VP and his team have made it very clear to the Turks and with Kurdish groups, that our support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (which includes elements of the YPG as well as Arab forces) in no way entails coordination or endorsement of the PKK. On the contrary, as the Vice President made clear in Istanbul, the PKK is a terrorist organization, we condemn their attacks, we recognize the Turkish government’s right to self-defense, and we believe it is imperative for the PKK to cease violence as a first step back a negotiated settlement.’’

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

OSCE thinks Turkey has not fulfilled its OSCE obligations holding Free & Fair elections in November

Long expected OSCE report on Turkey’s November elections is finally out, here.


I have been reading OSCE reports on Turkey’s elections since 2002 for last two days to see if there is a significant difference when it comes to November elections. Answer to this questions is a clear yes, there is a big difference.


I did a long story on OSCE report and how it differs from previous reports in 2002, 2007, 2011, 2015 June general elections, in Turkish. When I look at the page on OSCE and its election observations, it shows that the OSCE began observing member states’ elections in 1995. In Turkey, first report, seems to be on the website, from 2002.  


OSCE reports on 2002 and 2007 elections held in Turkey use very positive language when describing Turkey’s elections. For example, in 2002, OSCE report embraces Turkey’s elections for opposition party to seize the power (when AKP first time came to the power). You do not see a lot of criticism both in 2002 and 2007 elections, beside the fact that 10% threshold and ban on other languages beside Turkish.


Even for 2015 June elections, OSCE thinks they were “generally free.”


However, when it comes to 2015 November elections, paragraph after paragraph OSCE mission heavily criticizes Turkey’s administration for problems in the elections. 

As far I can see, OSCE is, for the first time, accusing Turkey for not fulfilling the international obligations and standards in the report (page 12, footnote 46).

You feel like you are reading a report on elections that were held in some sort of dictatorial regime.


Though it is the page 12, and footnote 46, when OSCE says clearly that what the report cited “incidents of intimidation and pressure to vote and the restrictions to campaign freely are not in line with the international obligations and standards.”
Full paragraph here, page 12:
“The OSCE/ODIHR LEOM received some reports of voter intimidation and pressure to vote.42 Some members of the CHP, the HDP and the MHP were investigated for defamation of authorities, including insult of the president. A high number of HDP offices were targeted and members were taken into custody.43 In addition, HDP affiliated mayors were suspended,44 and the party’s campaign leaflets were confiscated, which had a restraining effect on its campaign.45 These incidents of intimidation and pressure to vote and the restrictions to campaign freely are not in line with the international obligations and standards.46”


The footnote the report gives here is more interesting, same page, at the bottom:
“Paragraph 7.7 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document provides that the participating States will ensure that law and public policy work to permit political campaigning to be conducted in a fair and free atmosphere in which neither administrative action, violence nor intimidation bars the parties and the candidates from freely presenting their views and qualifications, or prevents the voters from learning and discussing them or from casting their vote free of fear of retribution. See also paragraph 25 of General Comment No. 25 (1996) to Article 25 of the ICCPR. “
OSCE, for the first time in its available reports, accusing Turkey not fulling its obligations to “ensure that law and public policy work to permit political campaigning to be conducted in a fair and free atmosphere.”


Is Turkey’s democracy still vibrant, and strong as US likes to call it?


Finally, I contacted with the US State Department regarding this report. US State Department spokespeople, right after November elections, avoided calling Turkey’s elections “fair, free and transparent” when asked and said that they will wait until the OSCE issues its final report on elections.


When asked this week what the US State Department thinks of Turkey’s elections, in light of OSCE reports, I got this long answer, from a State Department official:
“We note the OSCE’s final report highlights that the November 1, 2015 elections in Turkey offered voters a variety of choices, but that the challenging security environment, violent attacks against party members and on party premises, and restrictions on media freedom hindered campaigning and the free flow of information to the public.
At the time of the elections, OSCE released a statement of preliminary findings highlighting that the elections offered voters a variety of choices, but that restrictions on media freedom remain a serious concern.  We reiterated our own concerns that media outlets and individual journalists critical of the government were subject to pressure and intimidation during the campaign, seemingly in a manner calculated to weaken political opposition.  That view has not changed with the final OSCE report.
We have continued to make clear publicly, as well as in discussions with Turkish officials at all levels, our concerns about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. We have urged the Turkish government to ensure its actions uphold the universal democratic values consistent with international law and commitments and that are enshrined in Turkey’s constitution.”


When I pressed further, and asked clearly if the US State Department, in light of this OSCE report, sees Turkey’s elections “free, fair and transparent”, I got this response from the same US State Department Official:


“The United States did not provide election monitors to the OSCE Observation Mission for these elections.   We closely followed events and concur with the OSCE’s assessment as outlined in the final report.”


As US says it concurs with the OSCE’s assessment as outlined in the final report, means it also concurs that Turkey has not fulfilled its obligations as an OSCE member.

Can we still call Turkey as democracy if the most basic element of democracy which is holding a free, fair and transparent elections not valid anymore?

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Ecuadorian MP who got beaten spoke: I have a blood cloth in my nose

Ecuadorian MP who got beaten spoke: I have a blood cloth in my nose
Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Ecuador caused quite a few scandals at the same time in the country. Several protestors got beaten during Pres Erdogan speech by Turkish guards, there were protests organized outside where he went. Now it turns out, Erdogan’s bodyguards also attacked and beaten Ecuador MP Diego Vintimilla

I reached out to member of Asamblea Nacional Vintimilla via twitter message to ask him what happened. Vintimilla, first thanking ‘’thousands of communications for national and international solidarity, especially [from] Turkish people” continued: “I was assaulted by four security agents of [President] Erdogan, for the sole reason was to record with my phone as they assaulted a fellow who was manofestándose politically.”




(It seems like MP Vintimilla is not familiar with Erdogan’s rules and objects that he was only recording another person who was assaulted by Erdogan’s guards. In places where Erdogan is present, there is no rule of law and it was very clear that it was MP’s fault who attempted to film a brutal intervention by Erdogan’s guards.)


“Turkey owes an apology to Ecuadorian State”
Vintimilla, who is only 27, continued: “I think it is important that the international community aware of these events as they are a violation of national sovereignty and it is unfortunate that a diplomatic visit end this way. The Ecuadorian State deserves a public apology from the Turkish government, and we hope this answer soon.”


"My nose is fine, only have a blood clot inside.."
I asked MP if reports that his nose is broken by guards are accurate. He answered: “My nose is fine now, I got lucky because the bone is ok, but i have a blood clot inside...”


Lessons for those non-Turk MPs out there
There is a lesson here for all MPs around the world who may face Pres Erdogan’s visit in the future and to prevent such unlucky incidents even occurring again to them.


First all, all MPs around the world, wherever they are, if near Pres Erdogan’s presence, they need to work to calm people and prevent protests against his highness. This comes with the package. Erdogan is a very exceptional leader and must be treated that way. It's not for no reason that close to 1500 people got sued by Erdogan for allegedly 'insulting' him. He is very sensitive. Little be more considerate, please!


In addition to that, if they are unable to calm protestors, then they have to help Pres Erdogan’s guards “calming” or “kicking” or “hitting” protestors because, as Pres Erdogan stated during his speech while protest against him was continuing: “these are rude people and getting deserved for what they did.” MPs shall never record his highness Erdogan’s bodyguards ‘manhandling” protestors.

Finally, all those MPs around the world must be thankful all time that world leader Erdogan cares enough to visit their countries. They should thank Erdogan over Twitter via other communications etc. 

They dont know it: it’s Erdogan. He is always right.

Friday, February 05, 2016

Why Turkey's Demanding Extradition Of Fethullah Gülen Is Frivolous Grandstanding

Kevin Snapp is a former federal court staff attorney and have worked on extradition cases. (JD 1982, University of Chicago) Snapp worked for the US District Court in Chicago between 1989 and 2005, assisting judges with, among other things, extradition cases. The following is his expert opinion over the Fethullah Gulen extradition case being posted as guest article on WashingtonPoint.

Why Turkey's Demanding Extradition Of Fethullah Gülen Is Frivolous Grandstanding 

By Kevin Snapp

On Tuesday, August 2, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asserted in an interview on Italian television that Italy should be investigating the Mafia, not his son Bilal, and that the  investigation “could put Turkish-Italian relations in a difficult position.”  Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promptly tweeted his riposte:  “In this country, judges follow the law and the Italian constitution, not the Turkish president. It's called 'the rule of law.'”

Although ordinarily I respect his cool-headedness and self-control, in hindsight I wish President Obama had been equally blunt in responding to President Erdoğan's demands that the US extradite Fethullah Gülen.  All of his demands, beginning in 2014 and vigorously renewed in the wake of the July 15 attempted coup, have been completely illegitimate and unfair.  Plainly stated, President Obama does not have the authority to order the deportation of Mr. Gülen, a lawful permanent resident, unless either his permanent residency is revoked for a lawful reason, such as being convicted of a serious crime, or a request for his extradition has been granted based on a showing that he has committed a serious crime in Turkey.  In either case, judicial and administrative procedures must be followed, Mr. Gülen's rights must be respected, and President Obama cannot determine the outcome.  

This is quite clear from the extradition treaty and American statutes.  It is surely known to the relevant staff in Turkey's Foreign Ministry, and given its importance, it is hard to believe it is not known to Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, if not to President Erdoğan himself.  They certainly know that more than two years after then-Prime Minister Erdoğan declared Mr. Gülen to be the leader of a terrorist organization, Turkey has never submitted a request for his extradition.  American spokespersons have said diplomatically that no “formal request” for extradition has been received; according to a July 26 story in the Washington Post, Turkey will formally request his extradition after it has finished investigating the defeated coup plotters.  What neither Turkish officials nor the media seem to understand is that extradition is governed by treaty, and a “formal” request for extradition is the only kind of request there is.  Blustering demands by heads of state don't count.  

From an American legal perspective, Turkey's brazenness is mind-boggling.  In the last two weeks the President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkey have repeatedly and publicly castigated the US for “harboring” Gülen, demanded his immediate extradition, insinuated that Gülen's continued presence in the US suggests complicity in the attempted coup, and warning that Turkish-American relations will depend on Gülen's extradition -- notwithstanding the fact that President Obama would violate his oath of office if he promised to extradite Gülen, and Turkey had not even taken the necessary first step to begin the extradition process!

The 1979 extradition treaty between the US and Turkey requires an extradition request to be made in writing through diplomatic channels.  For Mr. Gülen, who has not yet been convicted, the request must be accompanied by an arrest warrant, a statement of the facts of the case, the text of applicable Turkish laws defining the offense, prescribing the punishment, and the applicable statute of limitations.  All documents must be accompanied by certified English translations.

Critically, the request must also include evidence that, under US law, would justify Mr. Gülen's arrest and committal for trial if he had committed the offense in the US.  An arrest in the US requires “probable cause,” a phrase from the US Constitution understood to mean sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe the accused person committed the crime charged.  

When an extradition request is received, the State Department reviews it to identify potential foreign policy problems, ensure that there is an extradition treaty in force, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that supporting documents are properly certified.  The request is then passed to the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs, which determines whether the attached documents will establish probable cause.  If not, the treaty provides that further evidence and information should be requested.  When the request is considered complete, it is forwarded to the US Attorney (federal prosecutor) in the judicial district where the suspect lives.

The US Attorney files the request with the federal district court and obtains a warrant for the suspect's arrest.  A hearing is held before a federal district judge or magistrate judge to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to extradite the suspect.  The US Attorney represents the country requesting extradition, and the suspect may have an attorney present and challenge the evidence offered.  If the judge determines the suspect is extraditable, he or she certifies that finding and returns the request, the associated documents, and any evidence received at the hearing to the Secretary of State, who makes the final extradition decision.  

As a consequence of this procedure, the President, through his executive authority over the State and Justice Departments, can prevent the extradition of a suspect, but lacking power over the judicial branch, he cannot compel a judge to permit extradition.  The President can offer the assistance of government attorneys to help Turkey prepare its case, but a judge will decide. 

Turkey and the US have a very serious misunderstanding concerning the process.  Turkey's government apparently believes that high Turkish officials talking with high US officials should settle matters.  According to HDN, quoting “Turkish media,” Turkish Chief of Staff General Hulusi Akar told visiting US General Joseph Dunford, “I am the evidence!”  According to Akar, while he was held captive one of the coupists, Brig. Gen. Hakan Evrim, offered to put him in touch with Gülen.  That satisfied Akar that Gülen was behind the coup, and the word of Turkey's top military man should justify extraditing Gülen to Turkey. 

America doesn't work that way.  The conciliatory tone of American officials and spokespersons may have done both parties a disservice by allowing Turkish officials to think it does.  Turkey has to accept that Gülen's extradition will depend on a federal prosecutor putting Turkey's evidence before a low-level, but independent, federal judge in Pennsylvania, with no shortcuts and no guarantees.  Turkey must also accept that if the judge finds him extraditable, Gülen will still have the right to file a petition for habeas corpus, and appeal the denial if it is denied. If he does, although he will remain in custody, he will remain in the US until the decision is final, and yes, it could take more than a year.  Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu is simply wrong in saying that the US can extradite Gülen quickly if it wants to.  That is arrogant ignorance from someone who should know better -- and Turkey is hardly known for its speedy processing of criminal cases -- or he is deliberately maligning the US for popular effect.  Neither should be acceptable.  

Turkey wants the US to understand the trauma it has just gone through, and that in a state of emergency ordinary limitations on governmental power may be disregarded.  But Turkey must understand that the US is not living in a state of emergency, and will not suspend its laws because Turks very badly want to punish the man they are convinced caused a part of its military to commit mutiny and murder.  

It's called the rule of law, Mr. Erdoğan.