Assistant Sec Doug Frantz on Turkey's Press Freedom

Turkey parts are highlighted:



FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS DOUGFRANTZ AND FREEDOM HOUSE “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS” PROJECT DIRECTOR DR. KARIN KARLEKAR

TOPIC:  WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY 2014:  STATE OF WORLD PRESS FREEDOM

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014, 2:00 P.M. EDT

THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  Thank you all for coming.  It’s especially nice to see so many people here on such a beautiful day. 

I was a journalist for 35 years, and am now a government official.  Sometimes people say that I am a recovering journalist.  And I say, “No, I’m not recovered.  It’s not a sickness from which you have to recover.  It’s something that I hold very dear in my heart.”  So getting to speak with you today of the necessity of a free press worldwide marries both of my jobs, both as U.S. government official and as a former journalist.

I want to assure you first of all that Secretary Kerry on down to every employee at the State Department understands that democracy and liberty depend on a free press.  The way a government responds to criticism is what holds governments accountable.  We may not always like what’s written or spoken about us.  We may not always agree with it.  But we understand in this country the ultimate value of freedom of the press.  Shutting down opposing views, whether by jailing journalists or trying to block social media sites, or worse, is not a demonstration of a government’s strength; it’s a symptom of a government’s weakness.

Earlier this month, I visited four countries to talk with journalists and journalism students and members of civil society and government officials about press freedom.  I was in Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and South Africa and Turkey.  I found positives in all four countries, and I found issues of concern in a couple of those countries.  In one country, a senior government official told me that the United States should help close down one of the only independent publishing presses in the country because the president didn’t like what some of the newspapers printed there were saying.  In another country, I saw the government’s efforts to block Twitter and YouTube, and I realized that these were only part of the efforts there to muzzle the press.

But I was also heartened by the vigor of the reporters and editors with whom I met, and by their understanding that freedom of expression and a free press are universal human rights.  As Secretary Kerry said earlier this week when he spoke to an online freedom forum in Estonia – he said, “I am convinced that these tactics will fail the test of history.”  When we stand up for freedom of expression anywhere and everywhere that it’s threatened, including with our friends and our allies, that makes all the difference in the world.

So I’m happy to stand here with Dr. Karin Karlekar of the Freedom House as she presents her organization’s latest Freedom of the Press report.  Before I turn the mike over to her, I just want to say a couple words about the U.S. ranking in the new Freedom House survey.  Unfortunately, we slipped a couple of notches.  Partly I think that’s because of legitimate questions about the ability of reporters to protect their sources.  As I said, I spent 35 years as a journalist both here and overseas, and I understand the necessity of protecting sources.  I understand the value of leaks from a journalist’s perspective.

So I do want to point out that, in defense of the United States and this Administration, despite the massive leak of very damaging national security information by Edward Snowden, the U.S. government has not threatened reporters or publications involved in disseminating that information.  That’s not who we are.  That’s not what should happen in a democracy.  As I said at the outset, we may not like everything we read, and in fact, we may see things that are very damaging to our national security, and – in the case of Edward Snowden – have, I think, made Americans and other people around the world more vulnerable to extremist threats.

But we don’t go after the messenger.  In the same way you don’t punish the technology, like Twitter or YouTube or other social media sites.  You don’t punish the technology; you punish the leaker.  Edward Snowden should come back home and face trial.  It’s for the Justice Department and the courts to decide whether he’s punished and what that punishment is.  He should come back.  That’s his responsibility as a leaker.  But we’re not going after the publications that disseminated that information.

And now I’ll turn it over to Dr. Karlekar.

MS. KALEKAR:  Thank you very much, everybody.  And I’ll just try and give a quick overview and briefing of our findings for this year before opening the floor to questions and answers.

So to start with an overview of the findings, as many of you may know, our annual report entitled “Freedom of the Press” has been produced since 1980.  And we try and capture the state of press freedom in the world every year, covering all types of media in 197 countries and territories, and rating each country on a numerical scale as well as classifying countries as free, partly free, or not free.  And these are the colors that you see on the maps that we produce every year.

In terms of what we try and look at in the index, we look at the ability of journalists to do their jobs without fear of repercussions, as well as the ability of people in each country to receive diverse news and information.  Our 2014 report, which covers calendar year 2013, has found that the global level of press freedom has fallen to its lowest level in a decade.  And this is a very worrying trend.  We’ve also found that the share of the world’s population which lives in countries with a free press remained at 14 percent, while the vast majority live in either partly free or not free media environments.

In terms of our regional trends this year, we found that every region – except sub-Saharan Africa, where the regional average score leveled off and there were both positive and negative trends – every other region showed declines, with the Middle East and North Africa suffering the worst deterioration.  And in terms of significant numerical shifts in country scores, which we classify as a country where the score moves three or more points in a single year, we found that declines overall outnumbered gains by 15 to 11 countries.

Looking next at our status changes for the year, which is when a country changes category from, let’s say, free to partly free, we had 10 status changes for the year.  And these were fairly balanced between positive and negative movements.  So moving from free to partly free this year was Nauru, a small island in the Pacific.  We had five countries, very important countries, moving from partly free to not free, including Libya, South Sudan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Zambia, and those were the negative shifts.  On the positive side, moving from partly free to free we had Israel.  And moving from not free to partly free we had three countries:  Algeria, Côte d’Ivoire, and Paraguay.

I’ll turn first to look and summarize some of the good news that we had, because there definitely were a few positive trends.  We saw that the significant gains that took place, took place largely in Africa.  Eight of the eleven significant improvements were in sub-Saharan Africa, and primarily in West and Southern Africa.  We saw that country improvements across the board were largely driven by three factors.  One was the opening of the broadcast space and a growing ability of private firms to operate television and radio outlets.  We also found across the board, but particularly in some of these countries experiencing improvements, that a greater access to a variety of news via online media, social media, and international outlets was providing more diversity in access to news and information.  So that’s a positive trend across the board.  And we did see that in – particularly, again, in Africa – in a number of countries with new governments, there was an improved respect for legal and constitutional protections for the press.

However, as I said, the overall trend in 2013 was negative.  We saw that press freedom was under attack in a range of environments, and important authoritarian states such as China and Russia continue to place broad restrictions on the media.  We saw backsliding in several key countries, including Egypt, Turkey, and Ukraine, as well as several countries in East Africa.  Even freer countries, as the Assistant Secretary has noted, have witnessed negative trends.  This year – past year we noticed that the United States had its most significant decline in a decade, primarily due to efforts by the government to control information on national security issues and the impact this had on journalists’ ability to protect their sources, and to work free from surveillance and legal harassment.

On a global level, we saw that the use of restrictive laws to jail journalists, as well as retaliatory physical attacks and murders, and the impunity that often accompanies it have reached record levels, and these remain key ways of restricting the press.  In particular, I’ll point to countries such as Ethiopia, which are continuing to jail journalists under anti-terrorism laws.  And then we have countries where there’s extremely high murder rates of journalists, so – countries like Pakistan and like Mexico, there are very, very high murder rates and high levels of impunity in these cases.

Additionally, the declines in 2013 were driven by a number of additional factors, which I’ll outline here.  And we looked at these declines across the board and tried to highlight some of the thematic things that we saw that were impacting press freedom.

So the first thematic topic I’ll focus on is the idea of attacking the messenger.  In many countries last year there were unprecedented civic protest demonstrations, and journalists’ ability to cover these types of breaking news events was threatened.  In some cases they were caught up in protests that turned violent, while in others they were targeted specifically for being journalists by governments who did not want these types of stories to be covered.  The most egregious cases – some of them were in Ukraine last year.  Several journalists were caught up – several dozen journalists were caught up in attacks at the end of the year, targeted attacks.  But we also saw a number of cases in Turkey and Egypt, and to a lesser extent in countries such as Brazil, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Jordan, and Uganda.

We also saw an increased targeting of foreign media during the year.  So in many countries – particularly the more restrictive environments, where foreign media do provide a way of getting the information out to a global audience, and are able sometimes to cover more sensitive stories than their local counterparts – in some of these countries, such as Russia and China, there were attempts to either expel reporters or to threaten to withhold visa extensions for reporters from prominent outlets.  Meanwhile in Egypt, the new government went even further, targeting Al-Jazeera in particular, harassing and detaining journalists throughout the year.  And at the end of the year, three Al-Jazeera journalists were in jail, charged with terrorism-related offenses.  Other colleagues remained in jail without even being charged.

Third, we had a clamping down on new media in a number of environments throughout the year.  As new and social media become more important conduits for news and information, we’ve seen multi-pronged efforts to control online speech by countries such as China and Vietnam, both in terms of sort of harassment of bloggers as well as using legal penalties to persecute online speech.  We also saw other countries, though, imposing restrictions on this relatively open sphere, either through introducing new legislation to cover online content, as in Jordan, or by censoring websites, as in Zambia.

And the fourth thing we really wanted to highlight this year was looking at ways of controlling news content via ownership.  We saw that in a number of countries there were ownership changes of the media in key outlets, and that new owners, particularly ones who had close connections to the government or the ruling party in the country, then would alter the editorial lens of the outlet, make it less independent, and in some cases dismiss outspoken staff.  In Turkey, for example, several dozen journalists lost their jobs during the year because of sensitive coverage of controversial issues or things that the government was not happy with them covering.  We also saw cases in Ukraine and in Venezuela.

I’ll end by highlighting our annual Worst of the Worst category.  And this is really looking at the countries with the most restrictive media environments around the world.  This is a set of eight countries, and actually this list did not change from last year.  They all remain incredibly restrictive, both in terms of journalists’ ability to do their job, and as well in terms of access to information.  So the eight countries this year again are Belarus, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Overall, this year’s findings indicate that even as the amount of news and information in the world increases, threats to media freedom remain pervasive and multi-faceted, and are a continuing cause for concern.  And now I’d like to conclude and open the floor to questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  So remember that when you get called on, please wait for the microphone, identify yourself and your outlet.  And if you have a particular briefer that you would like to address the question, please indicate that as well.  So yes, please.

QUESTION:  I’d like to ask my question to Mr. Assistant Secretary, if I may.  My name is Ilhan Tanir from Turkish Press.  I know that you were just in Turkey, Mr. Assistant Secretary.  I got couple quick questions on Turkey.  Obviously, Turkey now – Turkey’s media is now not free, from partly free from last year and previous years.  My first question is general:  What did go wrong with Turkey that it has been sliding back, not only in press freedom but almost every single index – freedom indexes that show democratic standards?

And my second question is:  We have two more elections are coming up in Turkey.  We just came out on one.  Obviously, Turkey’s judiciary is under attack, as U.S. State Department stated openly.  That’s why I’m repeating.  And now the press is not free.  How are you going to – or how do you think the elections will be held under the circumstances that two of the very important branches within the government now under attack?

And my final question is, over a hundred journalists got fired since the Giza protests.  I am one of those for a couple of weeks.  So my question is:  How can you rate – or explain to us that U.S., Turkey’s ally, have been helping on these issues, which we know that this President and this Administration actually has been talking more about the strategic issues and other issues, but when it comes to standards of democracy, we don’t hear much?  Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  That’s quite a list.  I think on the “what went wrong” question, I think I would start by saying take a look at what has gone right in Turkey in the 12 years that Prime Minister Erdogan and AK Party have been in charge.  The economy is much stronger, per capita income is much higher, the overall GDP more than tripled.  More recently, we have seen good overtures to Armenia by Prime Minister Erdogan just last week, we have seen the old taboo of not talking about the Kurds, not paying attention to the Kurds, that’s been lifted.  So there has been progress, and there’s been good progress.  There’s been progress on some fronts in the European accession process. 

But what concerns me is some of the issues that you raised, and that is we don’t want to see Turkey replace the old taboos with new taboos.  There needs to be, as there once was, a vibrant, vigorous, free, and independent press in Turkey.  As I said in my opening remarks, democracies function best when they have free and independent press, when they have a freedom of expression that extends to everyone, regardless of their political persuasion, regardless of their ethnic background.

And I think what we’ve seen over the last few months, certainly since December 17^th in Turkey, is some backsliding.  And it’s backsliding that causes concern here in Washington with the Obama Administration.  It causes concern and that’s one of the reasons that I went over to Istanbul a couple of weeks ago and sat down with the columnists there and gave them a very long and detailed on-the-record interview about the issues. 

And I did that, as I do this today when talking about Turkey, as someone who has deep affection for Turkey.  I lived there for almost six years.  I love going back.  My wife and I both consider those six years the best years of our lives, professionally and personally.  And so when I was back a couple of weeks ago and took a hard look about what’s going on in journalism, it raises concerns.  It raises concerns about what the next steps are. 

One of the points that I made to the Turkish journalists, and I think it’s worth repeating here, is that Turkey’s economy has been growing very successfully over the past decade, but last year there was a bit of a slowdown and this year there’s been a bit of a slowdown.  And Turkey really depends on foreign direct investment still to keep that economy growing, to try and push Turkey out of this middle class economic trap that it’s fallen into.  And part of that foreign direct investment is dependent on a belief by investors that there’s a rule of law in a country, that there is, in fact, a free press that will be available to keep the government accountable.  And so I think actions that detract from the free press, that constrain the free press in Turkey, are ultimately detrimental to Turkey and to its people. 

On the presidential election coming up in August, I really shouldn’t get into Turkish politics.  I mean, we saw that the parliamentary elections last month were a success for AK party, perhaps less of a success than Prime Minister Erdogan expected, but nonetheless they got 45 percent of the vote.  That’s a big vote in Turkey.  And I don’t know what’s going to happen in August.  I hope that these attempts to block Twitter and the attempt to block – the successful attempt – more successful attempt to block YouTube will be things of the past soon in Turkey.

I worry also about the more structural changes that you alluded to and that Dr. Karlekar mentioned in terms of the ownership within the Turkish media, and I worry about the long-term effect of that.  I saw a polarization in the Turkish media that didn’t exist when I lived and worked there, so that is very troubling. 

And equally troubling, and on a personal level for you and other friends I have in the Turkish media, losing your job for doing your job is wrong.  And that’s something that certainly we try to convey to Turkey as friends and partners.  Part of your responsibility as a friend and an ally and a NATO partner of Turkey or any other country is to speak out when you see your friends making what you feel are mistakes.  But we do that, again, with the knowledge that Turkey is a vital ally, that Turkey has a long history of democracy.  Democracies are organic things.  They continue to grow.  They can’t remain static.  And so Turkey’s democracy needs to continue to grow, and part of that will be a return to a more vigorous and freer press.

QUESTION:  My name is Yusif Babanli.  I’m with AzerTac, Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency.  My question is to Ms. Karlekar:  When you have – our world is moving towards internet, right?  Look at Washington Post, a lot of newspapers lose their profits, they move to internet.  When you have countries where internet is unimpeded, but it has some problems in the published press, and especially the countries that have an overwhelming majority of the population that have access to internet, direct access to internet, how do you weigh in that component of internet into your decision, whether it’s the country is partly free or not free?

MS. KARLEKAR:  Well, we definitely try and look at the issue.  For each country, the media mix is slightly different, and different proportion of the population would have access to print, broadcast, and internet.  So we really look at the level of people in the country that access the internet, and are ability to access, and where the main news sources are. 

In most countries, there is a significant gap between the level of press freedom and internet freedom.  There are exceptions to that rule such as China, but in many countries the internet is a relatively open space.  So we will take that into account in each country’s score when we look at the ratings.  And in many cases, countries do get some credit for having a relatively open internet

space.

QUESTION:  What do you mean by – what do you mean by a level (inaudible)?

MS. KARLEKAR:  Like the percentage of people, the number of people.  So if only, let’s say, 10 percent of the population has access to the internet, then it wouldn’t be considered one of the major news sources in the country because relatively few people have access; whereas, if 80 percent of the people in the country access the internet regularly and are able to do so, that means the internet is a much more important source of news and information. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Thank you for doing this and thanks for our friends at the FPC for hosting this.  My name is Andrei Sitov.  I am with the Russian News Agency ITAR-TASS here.  I have a couple of questions. 

The first one is we seem to be hearing different and a bit, in my opinion, contradictory messages over the past few years, where on the one hand you hear, especially the government, proclaiming that the freedom and democracy in the world are on the march, and then groups like your own say that no, freedom is actually declining.  So my question to both presenters is:  Why is it that in the countries involved, say, in the Arab Spring, in other colored revolutions that Washington seemed to be actually supporting and encouraging, that freedom actually declined after the changes happened?  Thank you.

MS. KARLEKAR:  Well, generally – I mean, we have seen big improvements in some of these countries.  In the Arab Spring countries we saw huge openings, for example, in Tunisia and Libya.  And although this year there was backsliding – yeah, yeah, yes – and there was backsliding in Libya this year, but it’s still not at the level it was under Qadhafi.  There still is much more media freedom in Libya than there was a few years ago.  So some of those openings have continued. 

And in general, I would say looking at the Middle East region in particular, we have seen backsliding this year.  But when you look at the overall trends over the last five years, the level of press freedom in the Middle East is definitely higher than it was five years ago. 

So there are ups and downs.  I would say that democracy is not a single-way process, and there can be blips along the road and countries can go backward and forward.  In the case of Ukraine, for example, we’ve seen a lot of up-and-down movements over the last five years as well.  So I definitely feel like there is – there have been positives, there have been negatives.  Our overall level of global press freedom has declined, but that does mask positive movements in a number of countries. 

QUESTION:  And specifically to Assistant Secretary Frantz, I have a different question.  I have here a publication from yesterday from The New York Review of Books, a story by David Cole named “How Many Have We Killed?”  On Monday, The New York Times reported that, quote, “The Senate has quietly stripped a provision from an intelligence bill that would have required President Obama to make public each year the number of people killed or injured in targeted killing operations in Pakistan and other countries where the United States uses lethal force,” unquote.  “National security officials in the Obama Administration objected strongly to having to notify the public of the results and scope of their dirty work, and the Senate acceded. 

So much for what President Obama has called the, quote/unquote, ‘the most transparent administration in history,” end quote.

My question, obviously, is:  Do you think that this sort of information is better made public.  It’s going to come out anyway, so maybe it’s easier and better to make it public right away?  Thank you.  If not, then why not?  Thanks.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  Thanks for the question, Andrei.  I believe that there are instances where governments need to keep secrets.  I signed an oath when I joined the government to keep classified material secret.  I think the operations of unmanned aircraft in various parts of the world are part of a critical national security function of the United States, and details and facts surrounding much of those operations need to remain secret for the national security of the United States. 

When I was a journalist, I might have had a slightly different attitude, but I think I was also a responsible journalist.  But sometimes secrets need to stay secret. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Right here. 

QUESTION:  Hi, I’m Julio Marenco with NTN24.  Yesterday the deputy spokesperson asked directly the Government of Venezuela to leave the ban that my network is suffering there since the protests began in February.  Are you planning on taking that suggestion directly to the diplomatic channels and not only like through the media and through us directly the Venezuelan Government to not only ban the – not only the ban on NTN24 but on other networks that are under the same – that have suffered the same luck in Venezuela?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  The strong public and private position of the United States and of the State Department is that banning television networks is wrong, it’s anti-democratic, and it’s not in the interests of Venezuela or the Venezuelan people.  I assure you that those conversations have been occurring on a regular basis through appropriate diplomatic channels, and they will – and they will continue to occur.  We can’t tell the Venezuelan Government what to do.  We can make suggestions to them both in public, as Marie said from the podium yesterday, and we can certainly do that on a consistent and ongoing basis through private diplomatic channels.  I mean, we’re pushing as hard as we can to the best of our ability there. 

QUESTION:  Thank you very much for your report and for – to Freedom House, and thank you for your remarks supporting the freedoms in Turkey, Doug, actually.  But you actually told – voiced these concerns in Turkey too, as you said, when you were – you met with the columnists in Istanbul.  But at the same time, are you hesitant also to voice these concerns at the level of Secretary of State?  Because assistant of secretary, you are very outspoken on this issue and you were in Turkey and when you are speaking from this podium too, but when it comes to high-level cabinet members or, I mean, high-level U.S. officials, including Secretary of State, is there any concern to raise this – these issues?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  Thanks for the question, Tolga.  Issues –  relationships between allies like the United States and Turkey are complex, and there are many equities that have to be considered.  One of those certainly is our belief that freedom of expression is a universal right and that a free press is an essential element of a democracy, any democracy, American democracy, Swiss democracy, Turkish democracy.  And those sentiments have certainly been part of the discussions that Secretary Kerry has had with Foreign Minister Davutoglu over the past few months.  I think if I remember right, Secretary Kerry sent out a tweet over his own Twitter account @JohnKerry, which I urge all of you to follow.  I think he sent out a tweet there about Twitter.  He made some pretty strong statements earlier this week at the Freedom Online conference which he came in via internet to Estonia.  So it’s part of our ongoing dialogue with Turkey and with many other countries.

Sometimes it doesn’t seem to some of us, perhaps, like it’s shouted quite loudly enough, and that’s one of the reasons that I went over to Turkey.  I mean, I went over because I’m the assistant secretary for public affairs.  This is part of my jurisdiction.  I also went over because, as I said, I’m a great friend of Turkey’s and I want Turkey to be better.  And I think it will be better if it has a freer press.  But there are many issues that have to be balanced in a strategic relationship like the one between the United States and Turkey.  And this is a vital, longstanding friendship, and we value it very, very much. 

QUESTION:  Yes.  My name’s Peter Li from NTD Television.  Could you hear me?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  Yes, I can hear you. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  So I have two questions.  The first question is for Mr. Doug Frantz.  My question is:  I got (inaudible) measures here.  I saw throughout 1980s, 1990s, and in 2000, even in 2014, China’s press freedom didn’t change.  And my first question is:  What’s the major obstacle to make this happen?  I mean, China didn’t get any improvements on the freedom – press freedom. 

And my second question is for Dr. Karlekar.  And is there any measure of target of the government behavior to crack down on media in China, I mean, the clear target like some specific group people, like Falun Gong practitioners or Tibetans or democracy activities?  So that’s my second question. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANTZ:  I think both those questions are probably best addressed by Dr. Karlekar.  But I will say that, without going into the history of press freedom in China, I would say that what we’ve seen over the last few years with the Great Wall of China blocking internet access, the efforts to muzzle the New York Times and Bloomberg and other outlets by denying visas for their reporters, by trying to stop press reports that are critical of the government.  Those are the signals of a very strong lack of press freedom.  And I think that’s one of the reasons why China is where it is on the Freedom House list. 

As far as the details, I’ll leave that to Dr. Karlekar. 

MS. KARLEKAR:  Well, just to follow on from your point, definitely, I mean, what we’ve seen in China is a score that hasn’t really changed that much over the last few years.  And I think what we see – I mean, the relative lack of change in the score I think masks the fact there is quite a bit of ferment in China.  There are attempts to push back, to try new social media and the internet and the blogosphere, particularly in China, to sort of push some of the boundaries. 

But what we’ve seen is that as a platform becomes more successful and as people are using that platform, that that platform then comes under attack by the authorities.  So this past year in China, we were really looking at attempts to suppress dissent and information on the microblogosphere, which has become one of the main platforms in China where people were trying to express dissent.

What we’ve also seen, as the assistant secretary mentioned in his remarks, is this crackdown on foreign media last year, particularly U.S.-based outlets, and that was also a concern.  But in general in China what we see is I think quite a lot of back and forth, but I don’t see any major changes in the media environment.  The print and broadcast are fairly well under state control.  We do see some openings on the internet despite the great firewall, but we see a lot of pushback, a lot of repression.  We see people being thrown in jail for expressing their opinions; we see journalists being threatened, having to resign from their jobs, if they try and push the boundaries. 

And to answer the second part of your question, there are definite redlines on coverage.  If people try and discuss the issue of Tibet, of Falun Gong, of Xinjiang, of democracy, those people are the ones being targeted, and it’s very, very common for people to receive visits from the security services or to be, in the worst cases, detained or thrown in jail.  So I really don’t see any major changes in the environment.  There are little changes back and forth around the margins, but on the whole, China remains a very closed media environment.

MODERATOR:  All right.  With that, I’m afraid we’ll have to bring this briefing to a close. 

State Dept Spox calls Erdogan's statement "ridiculous"

Daily Press Briefing Index

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Briefer: Marie Harf, Deputy Spokesperson

QUESTION:  On Turkey. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  One more question.  In that interview, which was widely publicized in Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan talks about these groups within U.S. that were behind the protests and upheavals in Egypt, Ukraine, and Istanbul.  Do you know anything about these groups?

MS. HARF:  Well, let’s be clear that this is not about the United States in any of those places you just said.  And we’re not behind any of the legitimate, democratic protests we’ve seen in any of those countries.  So let’s be very clear that this is not about what the U.S. is doing, because we’re not doing anything.  This is an internal Turkish matter.  That’s where they need to focus.

QUESTION:  But the prime minister says that there is a scenario.  It’s the same scenario as being conducted in Ukraine, in Egypt, in Istanbul, in Turkey.

MS. HARF:  Well, we certainly believe that people all over the world should be able to legitimately express their points of view.  What I’m saying is the United States has nothing to do with that.  We say that they should be able to do, but this isn’t about us.  This is about what’s happening in each of those countries.

QUESTION:  What do you think about the notion that there are groups either in U.S. or in the West that trigger this kind of upheaval in these --

MS. HARF:  I think it’s ridiculous and not borne out by the facts on the ground.

Fethullah Gulen

MS. HARF:  Uh-huh.

QUESTION:  I know that you were asked – or Jen Psaki was asked about prime minister’s – Turkish prime minister interview with Charlie Rose.  I just want to again repeat, is there any way you can share?  The prime minister said that he expects from U.S., as his strategic partner, to either expel Fethullah Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania, or extradite him back to Turkey.  What is your response to this?

MS. HARF:  Well, I’m going to say probably exactly what Jen said.  As a matter of longstanding policy, the Department of State does not comment on pending or potential extradition requests. 

QUESTION:  Don’t you think prime minister has a point when he says that as a strategic partner that he returned tons of people in the past and U.S. should do the same?

MS. HARF:  I’m just not – you can ask the question any way you want.  I’m not going to comment on it.

Conference Schedule

Conference Schedule

9:00 - 9:30                 Registration

9:30 - 9:45                 Welcoming Remarks

Talip Kucukcan (Insight Turkey)

09:45 - 10:45              Keynote Address

H. E. Besir Atalay (Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey)

Moderated by Erol Cebeci (SETA DC)

10:45 - 11:00              Coffee Break

11:00 - 12:30              Elections and Future of Turkish Politics

Chair:          Kadir Ustun (SETA DC)

Speakers:    Hatem Ete (SETA)

Etyen Mahcupyan (Zaman Daily)

Fuat Keyman (Sabancı University & Istanbul Policy Center)

Ertan Aydın (POLLMARK)

12:30 - 1:30               Luncheon

1:30 - 3:00                 Democratization in New Turkey: What is Next?

Chair:          Amb. James H. Holmes (ATC)

Speakers:      Taha Ozhan (SETA)

Oral Calislar (Radikal Daily)

Ali Bayramoglu (Yeni Safak Daily)

Mustafa Karaalioglu (Star Daily)

3:00 - 3:15                 Coffee Break

3:15 - 4:45                 Turkey and the Arab Awakening

Chair:          Marina Ottaway (Wilson Center)

Speakers:      Stephen Larrabee (RAND)

Kilic Kanat (SETA DC)

Ufuk Ulutas (SETA)

Ramazan Yıldırım (Ru'ye Turkiye)

4:45 - 5:00                  Closing Remarks

Kadir Ustun (SETA DC)

Statement by the President on Armenian Remembrance Day

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 24, 2014

Statement by the President on Armenian Remembrance Day

Today we commemorate the Meds Yeghern and honor those who perished in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.  We recall the horror of what happened ninety-nine years ago, when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire, and we grieve for the lives lost and the suffering endured by those men, women, and children.   We are joined in solemn commemoration by millions in the United States and across the world.   In so doing, we remind ourselves of our shared commitment to ensure that such dark chapters of human history are never again repeated.

I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed.  A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all of our interests.  Peoples and nations grow stronger, and build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future, by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past.  We continue to learn this lesson in the United States, as we strive to reconcile some of the darkest moments in our own history.   We recognize and commend the growing number of courageous Armenians and Turks who have already taken this path, and encourage more to do so, with the backing of their governments, and mine.  And we recall with pride the humanitarian efforts undertaken by the American Committee for Syrian and Armenian Relief, funded by donations from Americans, which saved the lives of countless Armenians and others from vulnerable communities displaced in 1915.

As we honor through remembrance those Armenian lives that were unjustly taken in 1915, we are inspired by the extraordinary courage and great resiliency of the Armenian people in the face of such tremendous adversity and suffering.  I applaud the countless contributions that Armenian-Americans have made to American society, culture, and communities.  We share a common commitment to supporting the Armenian people as they work to build a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous nation.

Today, our thoughts and prayers are with Armenians everywhere, as we recall the horror of the Meds Yeghern, honor the memory of those lost, and reaffirm our enduring commitment to the people of Armenia and to the principle that such atrocities must always be remembered if we are to prevent them from occurring ever again.

###

Qs and As w/State dept Spox Psaki on Turkey - Checks and Balances

Daily Press Briefing with Jen Psaki, Spokesperson - April 14, 2014

State dept Spox refers "the system of checks and balances between branches of government" for the first time:

QUESTION:  Can I do Turkey quickly?

MS. PSAKI:  Do we have any more on Iran?  Okay, Turkey. 

QUESTION:  Yes.  Over the weekend, State Department Turkey official Amanda Sloat made a speech for a Turkish convention, and she talk about it – she said that U.S. deeply concerned over the allegations that the politics interfering into the judicial system in Turkey.  Is there any way you can elaborate on this?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, as we have made clear in the past, including in our annual Human Rights Report, we remain deeply concerned about due process and effective access to justice in Turkey.  Independent investigations and independent judicial processes are essential for the rule of law.  We look to Turkey to uphold the essential elements of a healthy democracy such as the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and the system of checks and balances between branches of government.  And as I mentioned, this is an issue we’ve raised in the past when warranted, and it’s also included in our annual Human Rights Report.  So I’d point you to that as well as the text of the speech for more details.

QUESTION:  While Ms. Sloat was making that speech, she talk about that over the last recent months that there were disturbing events.  So apparently this is not the last year’s annual report, but something happened over the last two months.  There were several incidents over the months --

MS. PSAKI:  And oftentimes over those months we raised concerns as those instances occurred. 

QUESTION:  But you – also many times, you stated that these were the internal affairs, for example, when I ask about the judges and prosecutors, counsels, legislation.  So if you are now deeply concerned, that means that you change your --

MS. PSAKI:  I don’t think so.  I’m still not weighing into internal political matters in Turkey.  But certainly, as we’ve expressed in the past, over – around a variety of events, when there are concerns to express about the independence of the judiciary, we’ll express those.

QUESTION:  So they – can I just follow up?  Is this about the prime minister or the leaders in the government talking about the Constitution Court, or is this something about legislations?  I’m just trying to get a sense of what exactly are --

MS. PSAKI:  I’m just not going to detail it further.  Our deputy assistant secretary did an entire speech just a few days ago.

ABD: Seçimlerdeki düzensizliklerden dolayı Şeffaf, Adil ve Özgür demiyoruz!

Added by Posta212 on April 7, 2014.
Saved under SON DAKİKA
Tags: mercek

İLHAN TANIR – WASHINGTON – POSTA212ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığından üst düzey bir yetkili, Posta212′nin, Türkiye’de geçen hafta yapılan seçimlerle ilgili Bakanlığın pozisyonunu görüştü.

ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığı ve Beyaz Saray, adetten olmasına rağmen, seçim başarısından dolayı ne Başbakan Erdoğan’ı aramışlardı, ne de seçimlerle ilgili yine adetten olan şekilde ‘adil, şeffaf ve özgür’ gibi tanımlalar getirmişlerdi.

ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığının Pazartesi günkü basın toplantısında da, sözcü Jen Psaki, yine yerel seçimlerle ilgili olarak, seçimlerin adil, şeffaf ve özgür olup olmadığı sorusuna karşılık olarak, ‘özel bir yorumumuz yok’ cevabını verdi.

Dışişlerindeki bu basın toplantısından sonra, Posta212′ye konuşan üst düzey bir Dışişleri Bakanlığı yetkilisine, neden Türkiye’deki yerel seçimlerle ilgili, adetten olan ‘şeffaf ve adil’ tanımlamalarını kullanamadığını sorduk. Bakanlıkta Türkiye ile ilgili konulara da bakan yetkili ile olan kısa görüşmede şu soru ve cevaplar alındı.

Türkiye’de seçimleri özgür, şeffaf ve adil olarak tanımlayamamanızı anlayamadım. Şüpheleriniz mi var?

Birçok zaman seçimlerle ilgili düzensizlikler haberleri gelmekte. Bu birçok farklı ülkelerde meydana gelmektedir. Bundan dolayı, bu sürecin sona ermesini beklemeyi tercih ediyoruz. Ama bununla ilgili olarak konuşmaya ve görüşmeye devam edeceğiz.

Bu düzensizlikler sizin bu sıfatları kullanmanızı engelliyor öyle mi?

Bunun hakemliğini yapmak bize düşmez. Genelde, hükümetler bu şikayetlere kendileri bakarlar. Anladığımız kadarıyla da şu an Türkiye’de olan da bu.

Arınç’ın Anayasa Mahkemesi Eleştirisini ABD Katılmıyor

Dışişleri Bakanlığı Sözcüsü Psaki, ayrıca, yine günlük basın toplantısında, Arınç’ın Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Twitter kararıyla ilgili olarak, bu kararın yanlış olduğuna, ve mahkemenin diğer mahkemeleri dinlemesi ve bireysel haklara daha çok saygı göstermesi gerektiği şeklindeki eleştirileri sorulması üzerine ise şunları söyledi:

Türkiye’nin iç politikasına karışmayacağım. Ama şunu söyleyebilirim ki, Anayasa Mahkemesinin yakın zamanda aldığı ve ifade özgürlüğünü destekliyici kararını memnuniyetle karşılıyoruz. Türk hükümetinin Twitter’in engellenmesinin kaldırılması kararını uyguladığını not ediyoruz. Biz aynı şekilde hükümetin Youtube’a ulaşıma konan engellemeyi de kaldırmasını bekliyoruz. Türk hükümetini, bütün Sosyal Medya kanallarına ulan ulaşımın açık kalması için ısrarlı talebimizi sürdürüyoruz.

ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığı da Hersh’ü reddetti

Beyaz Saray’ın dediklerini destekliyoruz. Biz, kendi istihbaratımıza, kendi raporlarımızın arkasındayız. Uluslararası toplum da geniş bir şekilde bu görüştedir ki 21 Ağustos kimyasal silah saldırılarının arkasında Esad rejiminin olduğu konusunda hiçbir soru işareti bulunmamaktadır.

US can't characterize Turkey's elections as 'fair, free and transparent'

US State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki, during the daily press briefing on Monday, preferred not to characterize Turkey's recent local elections as 'fair, free and transparent." 

When asked whether Turkey's local elections can be characterized as 'fair, free and transparent,' Psaki said, she has "no particular analysis."

This is highly unusual. One thing that neither the president Obama nor any other US officials called Prime Minister Erdogan to congratulate for his recent success. Though, for US not to characterize the Turkey's elections 'fair, free and transparent' is pretty significant deal.

After the daily press briefing, I had a chance to talk about this particular subject with a senior State department official. Here are my quick questions and answers with the senior official:

I'm puzzled that you can't qualify Turkey's recent local elections as 'free, fair and transparent'?

Often times there are irregularities that reported. We let the process sees itself through. This happens in many countries. We will keep talking about it though. 

So, because of these irregularities you can't characterize Turkey@s elections as fair and transparent?

Not for us to judge. But often times, governments will look into them themselves (these irregularities) as we understand this is the case in Turkey.

Beyaz Saray Hersh’i Yalanladı

Added by Figen Onur on April 6, 2014.
Saved under GÜNCEL, SON DAKİKA
Tags: mercek

İLHAN TANIR – WASHINGTON – POSTA212

ABD’li gazeteci Seymour Hersh’in ortaya attığı büyük iddiaya Beyaz Saray’dan yalanlama geldi. Haber şöyleydi: Suriye’de geçtiğimiz yıl düzenlenen sarin gazı saldırısının Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan’ın bilgisi dahilinde Türkiye tarafından yaptırıldığı ve ABD’nin, bu ‘acı gerçeği’ son anda öğrenip saldırıdan sorumlu tutulan Suriye rejimine karşı harekat düzenlemekten vazgeçip, ‘felaket sonuçlar’ doğuracağı için bu durumu gizli tuttu.

Beyaz Saray’dan POSTA212 Washington Temsilcisi İlhan Tanır’a konuyla ilgili özel açıklama yapıldı. Açıklamada şöyle denildi:

Sn. Hersh’in son yazdığı haberi gördük. Bu haber sadece isimsiz kaynaklara dayanan bilgiler ışığında 21 Ağustos’da Suriye meydana gelen Kimyasal Silah saldırısı hakkında tamamen yanlış sonuçlara ulaşmaktadır. Aşağıdaki yalanlama, on-record olarak Sn. Hersh’in kendisine, ODNI (Milli İstihbarat Ajansı) İletişim Direktörü ve sözcüsü Shawn Turne tarafından ve Beyaz Saray Milli Güvenlik Konseyi sözcüsü Caitlin Hayden tarafından, yayınlanmadan önce sunulmuştur.

Llibya’dan silahların taşınması hakkındaki sorunuzla ve başkalarının (başka ülkelerle kastı Hersh’in söylediği Türkiye) 21 Ağustos Kimyasal Silah saldırısından sorumlu olabileceği hakkındaki fikirlerinizle ile ilgili olarak Shawn Turner’in cevabı şudur:

Sadece ve Sadece Esad Rejimi Sorumlu

”Biz bu anlatımınız (kimyasal silah saldırısı ile ilgili) her yanlış yönüne yorum yapmayacağız ama bir şey kesin ki 21 Ağustos kimyasal silah saldırısından sadece ve sadece Esad rejimi sorumlu olabilirdi. Biz bu sonuca, Amerikan ve müttefikleri tarafından toplanan istihbarat sayesinde ulaştık. Bu görüş, uluslararası toplumun büyük çoğunluğunca paylaşılmaktadır ve bu (görüşbirliği) daha önce görülmemiş bir ortaklık ile Esad’ın Kimyasal Silah depolarının ortadan kaldırılmasına götürmüştür. İstihbaratın baskı altına alınması veya değiştirilmesi hakkındaki imalarınız en basitinden yanlıştır. Aynı şekilde, ABD’nin Libya’dan (Suriye’ye) silah yardımı yaptığı da yanlıştır.”

Suriye Muhaliflerinin Kimyasal Silah Kapasite Raporu Yoktur

Suriye muhaliflerinin kimyasal silah kapasitelerine ilişkin hazırlandığı söylenen istihbarat raporu hakkındaki soruya gelince, yine Shawn Turner’in açıklaması şudur:

”Hiçbir zaman İstihbarat Kurumlarından ne böyle bir rapor istenmiştir ne de (onlarca) hazırlanmıştır.”

2 Eylül İddiası Yanlış

Suriye ile ilgili olarak askeri planlamalar hakkındaki sorulara gelince, Cailtin Hayden’in cevabı:

”Uzun zamandır, Suriye için bütün ihtimallerin masa üstünde olduğuna ve uygun acil askeri planlamaların da yapıldığını söyledik. 31 Ağustos tarihinde Başkan Obama, kamuoyu önünde, ABD’nin Esad rejiminin kimyasal silah kullanılmasına cevap olarak kısıtlı askeri saldırı yapacağını açıklamıştır. Bu saldırının amacı Esad’ı bir daha kimyasal silah kullanımından caydırmak, rejiminin bu tür silahları kullanmak kapasitesini azaltmak ve dünyaya bu tür silahların kullanılmasının tolere edilmeyeceğini açıklıkla göstermek içindi. Ama Başkan’ın, 2 Eylül günü kesinleşmiş bir askeri müdahele yapmak üzere karar verdiği haberi tümüyle yalandır (fabricated.) Başkan Obama’nın 31 Ağustos günü söylediği gibi, askeri saldırı emiri vermek otoritesi kendisinde olduğu halde, ABD’nin milli güvenliğine doğrudan ve acil bir tehdit olmadığı için, Başkan bu kararını Kongre’ye götürmeye karar vermştir. Yaptığı budur ve Eylül ayının 10′unda ise, Kongre liderlerine kuvvet kullanma ile ilgili oylamanın ertelenmesini istemiştir -ki böylece diplomatik yolu izleme ve bu şekilde Suriye’nin kimyasal silahlarının ortadan kaldırma sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.’

White House Refutes Seymour Hersh

White House says they provided answers to Sy Hersh earlier:

We have seen Mr. Hersh's latest story, which is based solely on information from unnamed sources and which reaches conclusions about the 21 Agustos chemical weapons attack in Syria that are completely off-base. The following are relevant on-record rebuttals we provided to Mr. Hersh's fact checker in advance of publication from ODNI Director of Communications and Spokesperson Shawn Turner and National Security Council Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden:

In response to your question about weapons moving from Libya and the suggestion that others could have been responsible for the CW attack, on the record from Shawn Turner:

The Assad regime, and only the Assad regime, could have been responsible
“We’re not going to comment on every inaccurate aspect of this narrative, but to be clear: the Assad regime, and only the Assad regime, could have been responsible for the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21 We have made that judgment based upon intelligence collected by the United States and by our partners and allies. It is a view that is shared overwhelmingly by the international community and has led to unprecedented cooperation in the dismantling of Assad’s CW stockpiles.  The suggestion that there was an effort to suppress or alter intelligence is simply false. Likewise, the idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.”

In response to your question about a classified paper on the Syrian rebels’ chemical-weapons capabilities, on the record from Shawn Turner:

“No such paper was ever requested or produced by Intelligence Community analysts.”    

A fixed deadline of September 2, 2013 is completely fabricated.

In answer to your questions about military planning, on the record from Caitlin Hayden:

“We have long said that all options were on the table in Syria and that our military was doing appropriate contingency planning, as you’d expect them to do.  The President said publicly on August 31, 2013 that he had determined that it was in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. He said that the purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.  But the notion that the President ordered our military to undertake action in Syria by a fixed deadline of September 2, 2013 is completely fabricated. As the President said when he addressed the nation on August 21 even though he possessed the authority to order military strikes, he believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take the debate to Congress. That’s what he did, and on September 10 asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force so we could pursue the diplomatic path we are now on and that is resulting in the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons.”