Foreign affairs with Gürsel Tekin

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=foreign-affairs-with-gursel-tekin-2010-02-08

Turkey’s current administration has been struggling with many of the new domestic and foreign policy initiatives that it has made. The progress of these issues is being closely examined in many Western capitals, including Washington, D.C., through various think tanks and policy debates.

While many policy makers and the region’s experts are busy focusing on Turkey’s renewed diplomatic efforts of recent years, the country’s main opposition party has been absent from these discussions. So the questions, at some point, come down to whether Turkey’s main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, simply does not have an alternative vision and policies in answer to the administration’s.

In many people’s eyes, therefore, the CHP has had some explaining to do for some time. And through Hakan Polat, a friend of mine from Mülkiye and working with the CHP’s Istanbul party organization, and Cengiz Hasgul, an active figure in the Istanbul CHP party organization, I secured an interview with Gürsel Tekin, the CHP’s Istanbul chief to discuss, primarily, the party’s foreign-policy outlook.

Tekin’s nationwide recognition is due to his work during the last local elections for municipalities. During the campaigning period, Tekin bravely stepped forward to close the gap between the CHP’s elitist party organization and the conservative people of Istanbul.

For the first time since the early ’90s, Tekin brought some excitement from a left party to Istanbul, as did Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the CHP’s candidate for mayor of the city. Since what is now known as the “burqa opening,” Tekin has continued to stay very popular in Istanbul and therefore within the CHP.

Tekin was ready to answer my questions, which were going to be heavily on foreign affairs, though I still wanted to ask him whether the “burqa opening” was just a temporary excitement or if a sequel to the move would follow. Without hesitation, Tekin claimed that in the coming months, the CHP, as a democratic left party, will work to bring more freedom, not less, to Turkey’s people. During our off-the-record conversation, Tekin also excited me with more freedom-focused statements and gave signals that he will continue to change some of the usual CHP approaches.

Tekin did not have all the right answers for me, though. For example, answering my first question – why the opposition party seems not to have much of a foreign-policy vision, he argued that it is not correct to say the CHP does not have skillful foreign-policy experts. He added that the CHP has more than 20 foreign-policy experts who have better skill sets than those of the AKP, though when I pressed to get some of these names, Tekin said he couldn’t give them to me due to political sensitivities. Seeing the expression on my face, he added, “However, if there is such an impression that the CHP seems insufficient in foreign affairs, we will surely work to repair that.”

When I insisted how terrible the picture is when one looks for an opposition voice in Washington many times, Tekin told me that the CHP is seriously thinking about opening another office in Washington, like the one in Brussels. I will follow up on this promise.

Answering my questions, Tekin insisted that the CHP has been more supportive of full membership in the European Union from the beginning, and that it still is, contrary to the general belief. However, according to Tekin, there are some national-security red lines that the CHP is extremely sensitive about, and when the current administration tries to cross those red lines, tension arises.

At the same time, the process of some of those red-line debates has also been when the West has come to view the CHP as an anti-Western party. For example, when the CHP firmly stayed in the opposition, refusing to let U.S. troops cross through Turkey into Iraq on March 1, 2003, it was one of those red-line moments for the CHP.

According to Tekin, the highest support for EU membership is among CHP supporters, not those of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP. By pointing out high anti-Western and anti-American sentiments among Turkey’s public when referencing the polls, Tekin reiterated the point that some of the AKP’s intentional statements and chauvinistic approaches drive this “anti” sentiment, and the trend continues upwards in recent years.

I also asked some specific foreign-policy questions to Tekin instead of letting him beat the current administration in abstract foreign-policy areas. I asked what he thinks about the Iranian nuclear impasse and Turkey’s approach to the matter. Tekin said there are two big crises in the region where Turkey is situated: Iran, and the Palestine-Israel conflict. After summarizing the current predicament over the Iranian issue, Tekin argued that diplomacy is the only solution for the problem, recalling what has happened to Iraq since the war started there in 2003.

Tekin not only shares the AKP’s Iran policy, he also embraces Turkey’s improving relations with Syria and Armenia, arguing that these are good neighborhood policies that the CHP has been defending for years. If Turkey does not get along with its immediate neighbors, which can easily do more trade and secure borders with the country, then, Tekin said, Turkey cannot explain these problematic relations to the world.

So the AKP’s Iran policy, along with its zero problems with neighbors policy and many other foreign openings, as Tekin articulated, overlap with the CHP’s vision.

NEXT: Gürsel Tekin: “The CHP does not have the intention to impair any relations with allies.”

Better or worse days for the ATAA?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=better-or-worse-days-for-the-ataa-2010-02-05

There were many reasons for the Democratic Party’s mammoth Senate loss in Massachusetts. In trying to elaborate on the importance of this loss in my recent columns, I emphasized that many of the Democratic voters, as well as the independents, were dissatisfied by what they came to view as a failed Obama presidency during the first year.

They wanted to punish him severely for seeing none of the sort of change Obama promised.

The state of the American economy, the ongoing wars and the ever-increasing budget deficit annoyed the American voters, as did the health-care debacle that has become a nightmare for all, as it seems it will never get passed in the American Congress, nor go away.

For Obama, like every other politician, there were many great obstacles to fulfilling his promised “change” mantra, and he can explain them quite marvelously, as seen once more in the recent State of the Union speech.

Therefore, Democrats and the Obama administration suffered a huge blow in Massachusetts, which was felt heavily in Washington, D.C., especially by the lifting of the Democratic Party’s super-majority in the Senate. The American media heavily faulted the Obama presidency for this loss, along with the flawed campaign of the Democratic Party’s Massachusetts Senate candidate, Martha Coakley.

However, the Massachusetts loss was reported in the Hürriyet Daily News with a very different touch than many could have predicted. According to a recent report in the Daily News, the Armenian-Americans played a big role in this Massachusetts election, and wanted to punish the Obama presidency. As a self-described political junkie, I must confess that I have never seen such analyses in any of the American media organizations or columns. I think that if the Armenian-American community was such an important factor in such a vital election, one that has changed the political calculation deeply in Washington, it would have been a nationwide topic and discussed overtly.

A letter featured last week in the column of David Judson, editor in chief of this newspaper, and written by Ergun Kirlikovali, the president-elect of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations, or ATAA, a “30-year-old nonprofit umbrella organization with 60 components, fielding 5,000 members nationwide,” also attracted some attention.

The ATAA, unfortunately, has not had a good reputation among the Turkish community living in America until recently for its internal fights. It has become mostly a grassroots organization that uses almost all its energy, time and money to fight the Armenian diaspora’s efforts, especially before and during the April 24 fever every year – when the American administration announces how it considers and words the tragic events that happened to the Armenians during World War I.

Although I understand the logic of this struggle, seeing a Turkish nonprofit organization being tied to this struggle only, in addition to the never-ending internal fights – until recently – painted a picture of a narrow-minded and reactionary organization that turned me, along with many others, off over the years.

When I saw the letter that Kirlikovali, president-elect of the ATAA, sent to Judson, claiming that the Hürriyet Daily News uses “a persistent anti-Turkish, pro-Armenian slant” in its reporting over “the past few years,” I was caught by surprise. I was saddened at hearing a point of view that usually would not be expected from a person who will assume an important position representing the Turkish community in America.

So I wanted to get in touch with Kirlikovali, and then with current president Gunay Evinch, to talk about the assembly, but also to ask about this letter. I wanted Kirlikovali to explain to me his remarks calling the Hürriyet Daily News’ coverage “pro-PKK, and anti-Turkish,” with which I totally disagree. I made it clear over the conference call between the three of us – Evinch, Kirlikovali and myself – that I disagreed with his complaining about the Hürriyet Daily News just because it gives space to different opinions, including opinion pieces that run contrary to the official Turkish state policies in many matters. I think the reflection of such tolerance, by giving a wide variety of perspectives in a Turkish paper that functions as a window to the outside world, in a time when Turkey’s image is in despair in terms of press freedom, lifts some hopes.

Apart from this disagreement, however, both presidents’ complaint about the recent reporting on the Armenian effect on the Massachusetts loss should be taken into consideration. This time, I disagree with my own newspaper’s reporting on the issue, for it does not exactly overlap with the realities of local and national politics in America.

And second, it was a great pleasure to listen to both presidents at the same time and hear them getting along so well, when it was only a few years ago that this kind of compatibility seemed impossible. I hope that the outreach programs designed in recent times by the ATAA will be continued by the future president, Kirlikovali. The presidents’ excitement over the phone urged me to accept Evinch’s polite invitation to visit the ATAA as soon as possible.

Turkish-Americans comprise a relatively small community when one compares them with others, especially the Armenian and Greek communities. However, after a long battle, the assembly is now getting into a preferable shape by better learning the spirit of advocacy day by day. And I think they also have right reasons to complain when they are not consulted over the grassroots issues in America that are serious concerns for them, as people who do this work day in and day out.

ATAA tries to do better work and I am ready to give the group the benefit of the doubt, even if I disagree sharply with some of its perspectives.

I believe this spirit of endurance and indulgence is needed to appreciate the Hürriyet Daily News better.

 

4 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - Murat (2010-02-07 22:09:55) :

Things have changed for the better for sure but memories of old conflicts and internal bickering continues. Unfortunately very typical of many Turkish associations. The new regime does look promising though. Hope ATAA does more than just embroil itself in only nationalistic causes or pursue a purely ethnic agenda but instead help the American mosaic to be better and healthier for all. 

---

Guest - Buğrahan (2010-02-06 18:00:21) :

And that tools such as text to a dictionary of your help I'm trying to understand. As far as I also liked it very much. Therefore you would carefully follow your writing. Respected and read in my comment thank you. 

---

Guest - Hurriyet (2010-02-06 13:36:18) :

Thank you for this article. Turks, both inside and outside of Turkey, need to act as a team and learn to cooperate on issues of common concern regardless of the issues that may have disagreements on. I wish you visit ATAA soon and hope ATAA will overcome the difficulties and in cooperation with other Turkish-American organizations, will successfully stand up against the slander campaign of the Dashnak fascist ideology. 

---

Guest - VEDAT ASLAY (2010-02-06 03:38:35) :

please call the house rep. or senators on my behalf 

Is Iran or the West to blame?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=is-it-iran-or-the-west-to-blame-2010-02-01

The United States’ recent speeding up of arms sales with its Gulf allies has raised some eyebrows as these sales appear to be preparations for a potential clash with Iran. Although these contracts to sell warplanes and anti-missile systems actually started with the George W. Bush administration in 2005 to ally with Arab states and counter Iran's growing influence in the region, accelerating it now increases the tension in an already tense Middle Eastern climate.

According to the Washington Post, arms sales, including a U.S.-backed plan to triple the size of a 10,000-man protection force in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are leading a region-wide military buildup that has resulted in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms purchases in the past two years alone.

While we are getting closer to a period that seems to be generating a historic set of events in terms of the Iranian conundrum, there are two schools of thought emerging with two sundry arguments on the situation. There are those in Washington, including Seymour Hersh as well as Flynt and Hillary Mann Leveret, who think the U.S. must do more to bind Iran to multilateral negotiations. On the other hand, there are others who argue that Iran is not willing to negotiate at this time because it mainly does not see having close ties to the U.S. as beneficial to its national security interests.

I had a chance to listen to both Hersh, an investigative journalist with many links to the region, and talk to Ladan Yazdian, an Iranian-American security analyst in Washington D.C., on the Iranian nuclear question, in the interests of getting two different approaches on the issue.

According to Hersh, Iran has not been able to enrich the uranium it possesses more than 3 or 3.5 percent so far because of technical issues. This level of enrichment is much lower than 90 to 95 percent, a level which is considered to be needed for a nuclear weapon.

And Hersh defends the Iranian position by claiming that Iran has already accepted the West's offer to send 20 percent of the 1300 or 1500 kilogram uranium, the amount that Iran is considered to possess currently, to Russia to be enriched by up to 20 percent. Subsequently, this uranium from Russia will be shipped to the French where it will be put into pallets that they can only be used for the medical purposes, which is what Iran claims the enriched uranium is necessary.

It is the irrationality of the Americans, and the West, that prevents this nuclear deal from happening, Hersh argues, and by asking Iran to ship all the uranium at once. Therefore, although Iran is doing nearly all it can do to solve the problem, it is this attitude of Western obstructionism that does not let this detail be overcame.

After listening to this perspective, I called up Yazdian, my Iranian-American friend, who was born and raised in Iran and follows the Iranian issues closely. I informed her of what Hersh had to say about the current state of the Iranian nuclear impasse and sought her opinion.

According to Yazdian, since President Barack Obama came to the office, he has been sincere and committed to unconditional negotiations with Iran. Despite three decades of distrust and conflict, Obama made an effort to offer a considerable package of incentives and start a new chapter in bilateral relationships as a part of his new foreign agenda to open up to rough regimes around the world.

A generous nuclear incentive package was offered to Iran during the past summer, which included a broader range of economic, political and energy incentives, improving Iran's access to the global economy by promoting investment, membership in the World Trade Organization and the possible lifting of U.S. and European restrictions on the export of civilian aircraft and telecommunications equipment, as well as other diplomatic and cultural exchanges.

Yazdian said despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s initial Sept. 23 proposal to buy enriched uranium from the U.S., and International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, efforts at multilateral negotiations, talks have come to a halt. She cited several factors for the regime’s unwillingness to respond to the international community and oblige it to keep its commitments.

These factors embody the internal divisions among the factions within the Iranian regime, lack of international pressure, and the anti-American nature of the Iranian regime that makes it impossible to explain changes of policy to its people after years of harsh rhetoric toward the U.S., especially during the post-election uprising. Yazdian said Iran has not shown a goodwill gesture and has bought time on numerous occasions, therefore pushing the international community toward tougher multilateral actions.

If the Iranian regime accepts the offer, it will appear weak at home and would lose its legitimacy. Yazdian recalled that there were similar debates during the Mohamed Khatami presidency, and when Khatami softened his tone toward the West, his administration was immediately criticized by hardliners who saw the reform movement as the tool of the West.

Since it was known that Iran was working on secret uranium enrichment programs, several estimates about Iran's capability for a nuclear bomb have been put forward by various intelligence agencies. Despite the revelation of another nuclear facility near the city of Qom last fall, Iran’s nuclear capability remains mostly a guessing game according to Yazdian, as opposed to Hersh's concrete assessments about Iran's nuclear capability.

In the eyes of this latter approach, the current nuclear impasse between Iran and the West stems from the nature of the Iranian regime and that Iran sees no imminent danger except toothless sanctions coming from the West. Also, the Islamic regime considers negotiations as a “kiss of death” and instead has tried to close its doors to the outside world during the internal upheaval which it still is dealing with.

We might just find out whether Hersh, who has uncovered some of the darkest sides of the Bush's global war on terror, just reactively views the West vs. Iran conflict or whether he does know things that other colossal intelligence agencies around the world could not piece together.

 

17 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - FERDINAND (2010-02-03 21:04:15) :

The only people in the entire World....that pretend that Israel may not possess Nukes....provided by the PuppetMasters in New York....are jewish guys. Your greatest asset is your propagandizing Massive Media. I love America....and do indeed find the PuppetMasters....and land-grabbing Israel....truly detestable. I am joined by a very large percentage of the Planet....as people see the carnage and hypocrisy. You guys really watch these comments, don't you? Read British comments these days.....they are waking up.....right and left.

---

Guest - Abdul Aziz Mohmand (2010-02-03 11:11:49) :

Iran is an unsafe state for itself similar to recently Iran government killed its scientist and blamed to the world. We are waiting for the day that there will be a blast in nuclear surface and than Iran government will culpability to the rest of the world. Iran government is harassed to continue its authoritative rule of the people of Iran but if we say that Iran leadership of few scoundrel people has kidnapped the nation of Iran will be absolutely right. Freedom of speech, independence of press and foreign people and especially foreign media is totally deprived of by the Iran crook state. Why international society soundless over the Iran rascal measures. World top elders, President Obama, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Prime Minister Harper are noiseless on this issue. When they will move toward to take action when there will another 9/11? Iran leadership is ruling from beginning to end dictatorial way to control its mass and from the other part it’s providing the explosive material, weapons and money to the insurgents of Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan for unconstructive activities to damage the world tranquility development. By evidence and stroke this country is not trustworthy and can hurt any time to anyone. Therefore world should center on first rule of law and second nuclear arsenals should be smashed by force as early as possible. This action, of course, will save the rest of the world. Abdul Aziz Mohmand 

---

Guest - Hukumdar (2010-02-03 06:41:37) :

@Vilgot: Title is 'blame' because I think the writer forecast that the Iran vs. West will start of a set of new events/changes and somebody will be blamed for that. And i assume the Tanir tries to bring two different ways to the problem. I can have many objections to the opinion, though it seems he tries to be distanced himself from the both... not too bad! 

---

Guest - Enquirer (2010-02-03 02:29:45) :

For the price of pistachios? 

---

Guest - MARK (2010-02-02 23:21:24) :

For all those posting here who advocate Iran having a nuclear weapon be careful what you wish for. The phobia of Israel having a nuclear weapon isn't well founded. They have never threatened to use a nuclear weapon except in self defense. @Murat-I don't know what rock you have been living under but the US has been trying to resolve this issue for several years.If Iran should get a nuclear weapon and use it on anothe ME country THEN we can blame the US for not stopping them. American owned by Israel? It's hard to figure out who you hate the most, America or Israel. It doesn't really matter...you know what they say about opinions. 

---

Guest - Anoosh (2010-02-02 19:36:37) :

Although the author has produces a fairly "lightweight" article about a subject a highly complex subject, I think he should be given credit for bringing it up. Where the author has come short on substance is to give equal weight to the views of a well known high caliber investigative journalist like Seymour Hersh as those of an obscure individual who "follows the Iranian issues closely". In other words the author calls someone who works for VOA and asked her opinion about one of the most important political issues today. No wonder Ms. Yazdian's contribution to the subject was a mere regurgitating of the US officialdom propaganda because that is what VOA does. I would like to draw the readers' attention to the following article by Farideh Farhi, who provies much needed detailed analysis about the issue. Anatomy of a Nuclear Breakthrough Gone Backwards http://www.merip.org/mero/mero120809.html Finally, I would like to express my extreme displeasure at the author's lack of knowledge, or professional carelessness, about well known geographical names. In this case he refers to the Persian Gulf as the "Gulf"! I think the author should try to brush up on his geographical literacy as soon as possible. 

---

Guest - bud white (2010-02-02 17:49:52) :

I dont lıke iran but not as much as ı dont lıke hypocrisy ı wonder why those countries who blame iran has nukes may be its for exhibitions or they just have it just ın case alıens attacks I dont lıke those mullahs to have nukes but but ı can not tell why? and dont gıve me they are unpredictable cause we have seen predictable ones also... 

---

Guest - Vilgot (2010-02-02 14:22:54) :

I was not even able to figure out the question stated in the title, "Is Iran or the West to blame?" Blame for WHAT? 

---

Guest - scepticalyabanci (2010-02-02 12:18:16) :

A pariah state like Iran, the world's biggest funder and supporter of jihadist terrorism, with a nuclear capability, is a scenario too horrific to contemplate, let alone sit back and allow to take shape. 

---

Guest - enough BS (2010-02-02 10:41:09) :

when u say "other colossal intelligence agencies around the world" do u mean the same CIA that was telling the world how stupid and blind we r for not believing them about WMD, who say they never even considered the possibility of 9/11, who trained and supplied the taliban. the same Mi5 that said saddam has the capability to wipe out england in 20 minutes and then assassinate their own scientists who disputed the logic of it. and the same mossad that that has turned the Middle East into a uncontrolled cage fight. i dont like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but the reality is that there isnt much that can be done about it. so we have a choice of antagonizing them and alienating them or developing strong and meaning full ties so that using those weapons would be like committing suicide on a military level and economic level. when was the last time u heard that a nation went to war against its largest trading partners. the reality is that the one who should have their nuclear arsenal dismantled is isreal. then u would finally see that the y will have to deal with their neighbors as equals instead of bullying them. its not about muslim against jew or muslims should help other muslims. its about the truth and humanity and co-existence. the best guarantee of peace is mutual dependence. 

---

Guest - FERDINAND (2010-02-02 10:12:31) :

There are Religious Fanatics controlling the USA right now. Most of them are Jews (read the names....it is obvious who controls America) and some of them are the Christian Religious Right. Both of these are Fanatics. This being said....one can assume that most religions have many fanatics. To remove Religion would solve a great many of the World's problems. Regarding Iran's right to have Nuclear Power and Weaponry....who made the "West" King.....? They may have all the power....but certainly no more rights. Do you notice how totally simple the Answers are? They are totally logical. Get the USA out of the Countries of the World. Get their War Machine back home. Make Plowshares out of their Missiles. It would be a start. 

---

Guest - wolf (2010-02-02 09:05:47) :

I think the article is written in a very poor way. Jumps between topics in a way making it impossible to follow what the journalist wants to say. Which is a shame, becuase it is an important topic. Nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics, and in this part of the world, can impossibly lead to anything good. 

---

Guest - CEVAT (2010-02-02 03:07:34) :

who is right 

---

Guest - Fredabod (2010-02-02 02:58:14) :

Very good article. I agree with Mr. Hersh who blames the west for the conflict. The problem is that Iran wants to have every kind of advanced technology including nuclear one for her next generation, But the west want Iran as a puppet nation for getting more and more oil. By the way I doubt about Mrs. Yazdian nationality. If she had any origin of Iranian nationality, she wouldn’t talk like a redneck arrogant American toward Iranian. 

---

Guest - Murat (2010-02-02 01:33:39) :

Your friend Yazdin has no idea what she is talking about: "According to Yazdian, since President Barack Obama came to the office, he has been sincere and committed to unconditional negotiations with Iran. Despite three decades of distrust and conflict, Obama made an effort to offer a considerable package of incentives and start a new chapter in bilateral relationships as a part of his new foreign agenda to open up to rough regimes around the world." This is completely wrong and very very very ignorant of facts. This offer apparently put forward by europeans in 2006 or 2007 provided Iran completely disbands enrichment, which Iran has said on numerous occasions it won't do. The only proposal put forward by Obama administration has been enrichment of 20 percent for a medical reactor and receiving a replacement of 3% enriched uranium. They also wanted all uranium from Iran in one shot and possible delivery of 20% uranium in a year after that. Why repeat falsehoods, un-verifyable theories while the basic facts are all public. The main question is why there is no will in the US to resolve this issue? and you end up with Israel and Israeli lobby. Since Turks are now beneath them (Israelis) and under them who knows where they are placing Iranians. The Americans are owned by Israel, that is the fact and the tragedy. 

---

Guest - Banafsheh (2010-02-02 01:08:32) :

Obvious unstudied and Tehran-centric article by an impressionable journalist who obviously knows little about Seymour Hersh's reputation as a daydreamer OR the nature of Tehran's regime. Try again writer...or don't go extrapolating on a complicated situation such as Iran which you Turks chose to keep your eyes closed about. You deal with your country and we Iranians will deal with ours, thank you very much! 

---

Guest - Matty Glendale (2010-02-02 00:41:56) :

I totally disagree with this statement: "If the Iranian regime accepts the offer, it will appear weak at home and would lose its legitimacy. " Iranians are quite realistic about their gains and losses. Although, I should say that the west tries to see them as unpredictable and illogical. Yazdian's comments are more of a Washington reflection on the story and nothing new. Until Israel's nuclear clout dominates the middle east, no wise nation-state shall forgo the potential of strikes back. So, it makes sense for Iranians to keep the backdoor open and not ship out all their material at once. However, if you want to force those Iranians to give up and keep Israel spree free, I would say this is the part that will not workout. This is the actual glitch to resolve. Scapegoating and blaming the Persians as illogical and fanatical just keeps you at square one! 

Obama delivers the first State of the Union

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=obama-delivers-the-first-state-of-the-union-2010-01-29

Barack Obama does it again.

After one full-year of failure in almost every single policy initiatives he has taken in foreign or domestic politics, he still wins the hearts of millions by a simple speech that he made while addressing the joint session of US Congress last Wednesday. However strong arguments one might have to claim that Obama had a terrible first year in the presidency, Obama still arrived on Capitol Hill with a license given by the U.S. Constitution to tell about the state of the union – and he did it once more near flawlessly.

A year ago, Obama was elected and ushered into office to change the usual divisions in the politics of Washington. However, he has ended up achieving the exact opposite objective so far while trying to pass his health care reform package during the past year. The health care bill is still hanging in the air of Congress like a fireball and is an embarrassment to Obama himself, his administration and the still-devastated U.S. economy.

Obama followed the path of predecessor George W. Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq and rapidly raised the overall number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan with a strategy that tends to change quiet often. “There has been enough fighting,” said Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan in an interview with The Financial Times a few days ago.

Not only McChrystal but Bob Gates, the U.S. defense secretary, or Kai Eide, the U.N. special representative in Afghanistan, but everyone started to talk about taking the Taliban into consideration in Afghanistan while finally thinking about the big picture.

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist and author based in Washington who uncovered the naked torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison several years ago and played a watchdog role on his own during the Bush administration years, paying close attention to the global war on terrorism. He said during an interview for "Studio Washington" this week, which will be broadcast this coming Monday, that he sees a 180 degrees of mistaken policies when it comes to the strategy in Afghanistan.

And he adds that he could bet on every single bone in his body that the current Obama administration is probably pursuing many policies of the Bush's global war against jihadism. And again, according to Hersh, there is a lot of bad blood between some officials in the White House and the Pentagon because of what is going on in Afghanistan. However, he added, he doesn't think Obama would do anything about it.

After listening to the Obama speech carefully, one thinks how can a person who understands America's issues and explains them so well have been so useless for the past year? Still, the speech came at right about the time when the majority of the independent pundits in America, who have begun to doubt Obama for his “can do” rhetoric, were about to lose all the hope and patience they reserved for him.

Obama finally admitted how bad the first year was in terms of the Arab/Israeli peace process – a top foreign agenda of his administration – during an interview that was published in Time magazine the week before the State of the Union speech. The substance of the admittance was worse than the act itself.

In the confession, Obama said, "This is just really hard ... I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that. And so what we're going to have to do – I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high."

In this testimony, Obama confesses that he had no idea what he was getting into while making that beautifully choreographed speech in Cairo. Now Obama regrets, and claims that if he had known better what was going on in the region at that time, he probably would not have chosen to utter the most courageous words that world ever heard from a U.S. president regarding the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Contrary to the Bush-era State of the Union speeches, Obama only allocated about one-tenth of his speech to discussing foreign affairs. There was so little focus on the outside sphere; by itself, this is evidence of how much the superpower of the world is bogged down with its own domestic affairs. The urgency of the matters within the States of the Union did not permit Obama to talk about foreign affairs much.

So the question is whether this speech will bring peace and bipartisanship to the capital as Obama emphasized heavily. According to Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal, the latest speech by Obama, which was to give a lesson to the opposition, might just backfire.

The Republicans so far has been winning by sitting tight and fiercely opposing nearly anything. With losing the super majority in the Senate a week before the speech, the Democrats have been going through a power shortage as one commentator put it.

Therefore, as great as the speech that was delivered almost flawlessly by Obama, that might be the last grand one in which he still begs to reach a bipartisanship spirit in Washington. From now on, the sides might start learning to sharpen swords instead of pursuing what seems to be the intention of Obama’s speech.

 

4 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - guest (2010-01-30 22:29:10) :

It is very clear that Obam is in the hands of the establishment. 

---

Guest - wolf (2010-01-30 17:38:10) :

I think we have to give the guy some time and also be realistic in our expectations. Many of the international issues are very difficult to deal with, like for example Iran and it nuclear plans (it would be a disaster if Iran gets nuclear weapons), Afganistan (do we want a civil war with the Talibans and a training camp for Islamic extemists terrorists), pulling out of Iraq (could end up with a civil war). All these are very very difficult desicions and not something you can just finish off in a second. 

---

Guest - Dinos Plassaras (2010-01-30 00:48:31) :

Nice opinion. I wonder if it has an expiration date. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jM2YwhaNCc 

---

Guest - murat (2010-01-30 00:44:53) :

Mr. Tanir, When Bush came to the office, there was 200 bn dollar surplus in budget and another billions in the horizon for the next decade.. when obama came to the office, there were billions of dollars deficit and 2 wars and economic crises... so tell me, (not necessarily you) what can Obama do in one year?? so let s be patient! 

Robert Wexler's Ankara visit

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=robert-wexlers-ankara-visit-2010-01-25

Former U.S. congressman Robert Wexler, who recently resigned from his congressional seat, made a visit to Ankara last week. Known as both a friend of Turkey and a staunch supporter of Israel’s foreign policies, Wexler’s trip to Ankara and meeting with Turkish president Abdullah Gül was too important to overlook, according to Washington sources who followed the visit closely.

Wexler has had an important profile in Washington, especially for bringing a few specialties together. He had served in the House of Representatives since 1997, representing the important 19th district of Florida, and was selected as one of the 50 most influential names in the U.S. Congress by Congressional Quarterly in 2008. The politician’s importance to Turkey is also notable, as he was the cofounder of the Caucus on U.S.-Turkish Relations, which now has more than 70 members.

Last October, Wexler announced that he would retire by the new year, and did so earlier this month. Abandoning his House seat to head a think tank, the Center for Middle East Peace, which works toward reconciliation in the Middle East, was a move that perplexed some in the beginning. Many thought that since Wexler was one of the earliest supporters of the Obama campaign and was known to be close to the Obama team, especially the president’s right-hand man Rahm Emanuel, that he would take a job in the White House. Wexler’s early support for Obama in 2007 had made him another strong bridge between the Jewish community and the Obama team.

When retiring from his congressional seat, Wexler said in a statement that he regretted leaving before the end of his term, but added that “I truly believe there is no time to waste” on achieving Middle East peace. “[We] are at a unique and critically tense moment in the history of the Middle East with both significant opportunities to succeed in the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as major challenges involving Iran, Hamas and al-Qaeda,” he said.

As a co-head of the Turkish caucus in the House, Wexler’s congressional office was a constant destination for the various visiting Turkish delegations that came to Washington. As someone with proximity to both the hawkish Jewish lobby AIPAC and to Turkish officials, Wexler was able to find common ground to make gains for all fronts, including for the U.S., since the strong and unyielding alliance between the three was unquestionable until recently.

However, things started to change a while ago. Since the now-infamous Davos summit, Turkey’s criticism of Israel has become heavier. As the relationship between the two countries underwent dramatic changes during the past year, Wexler found it increasingly difficult to pick and employ those common expediencies that were once easily achievable.

For instance, when Wexler participated the inaugural three-day conference of J Street, a young liberal Jewish lobby group whose policies related to the Arab/Israel peace process mostly coincide with those of the Obama administration, he felt obliged to blast Turkey for excluding Israel from the “Anatolian Eagle” annual joint air-force exercise. In addition, Wexler argued in the same speech in Washington at the end of last October – at which I was also present, sharing my own observations of the conference in two different columns – the U.S. government had displayed its anger by withdrawing its participation from the same joint military exercise in reaction to Turkey’s attitude toward Israel.

These changing dynamics in the relationship between Turkey and Israel, however, did not necessarily extinguish Wexler’s importance in the U.S.-Turkey-Israel relationship triangle. Particularly Wexler’s proximity to the White House and chief of staff Emanuel helped keep his profile afloat. According to one Washington source, Wexler’s Ankara visit and meeting with Gül was also encouraged by Emanuel’s White House office.

So what was the reason behind the meeting? The reason was to look for ways to repair the Turkish-Israel relationship, which especially went sour after the recent Ayalon-Celikkol “low-seat crisis.” In this latest crisis, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon didn’t shake hands with Turkish Ambassador to Israel Ahmet Oguz Celikkol on-camera in their meeting, and was heard telling the Israeli media crew in Hebrew that the important thing was that people see Celikkol sitting down low “while we’re up high.” After this insult to Turkey, however, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Turkey last Sunday and both sides acted as if there was no crisis between the two countries.

Since the script of the Gül-Wexler meeting is not publicly available, it is hard to say what went on in the meeting. However, in light of the revelations of the Washington sources who follow the White House and the Turkish side closely, it seems the visit was primarily made to convince Gül to play a more positive role and view Turkey-Israel relations tenderly. With the Iranian nuclear crisis boiling, a rift between Turkey and Israel would be the last bad news that the White House could ask for.

While Obama’s foreign policies and initiatives have been tumbling into one another, and chief of staff Emanuel’s resignation is widely discussed in Washington and on TV talk shows, having Turkey and Israel on different sides right before a huge regional conflict unravels in the Middle East complicates matters even more for the White House.

It is important to watch statements coming from Turkish officials about Turkey-Israel relations from now on, lest the sides just accept that the rift between the two countries is too big to repair in the near future.

 

5 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - Dinos Plassaras (2010-01-27 16:46:52) :

@Jill- I certainly can take a joke. Now here is another joke, namely Wexler is no longer an elected politician rather he is a hired gun working for a for profit organization that will do and say anything if compensated accordingly. There is no evidence in this article that Wexler is a political heavyweight and that his actions are closely followed by political elites for any particular significance. 

---

Guest - Jill (2010-01-27 16:03:47) :

Wexler said that on the Colbert comedy show, repeating what the host said as JOKE, to prove that Wexler has such a safe seat in his district that he can say something like that and still get elected...Seems like Dinos can't even get a joke! 

---

Guest - Dinos Plassaras (2010-01-26 21:28:41) :

@forwdean- Your reply is very reassuring and since you seem to be a real expert on this issue I guess we have no other choice but to take your word for it. Next time you want to fortify your case with evidence, I think you should feel free to use even more laconic statements such as "wrong" or "this is ain't so" and such similar eloquent expressions oozing with substance and undisputed logic. 

---

Guest - forwdean (2010-01-26 19:00:03) :

Wexler is an important figure in washington and he has been very helpful for the Turkish cause. His visit to Ankara and work on to repair Turkish/Israel relations nothing but a good work. 

---

Guest - Dinos Plassaras (2010-01-26 00:04:20) :

I can't believe that this the same Robert Wexler who said in the Colbert Report TV show: " I enjoy cocaine because... it's a fun thing to do. I enjoy the company of prostitutes for the following reasons: ...oh, because it's a fun thing to do. Much like cocaine. If you combine the two together, it's probably even more fun." Nice. This is really nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wexler 

The fizzling Obama brand

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=fizzling-obama-brand-2010-01-22

One year ago this week, on a very cold Jan. 20, 2009, I, along with more than a million Americans, went to downtown Washington, D.C., to witness a historic day. That day, Barack Hussein Obama came to the helm of the United States as the first black president in American history.

I was there on the Washington Mall first as a journalist, to see the excitement of the people, many of who were black and there to be proud eyewitnesses to a post-racial America. And second, as someone who had closely followed this young president while he was a candidate during the campaigning years, someone who saw the inspiration he gave and the expectations he created and wanted to be there to share that experience.

After eight years of the Bush presidency, with a worsening image and credibility in a world filled with wars and arrogance, and amid once-in-a-lifetime economic crises, Obama was promising to the whole American nation to get back on a right track to lead the world, maybe in a different fashion this time.

Now, after one full year, it can be easily argued that Obama has failed to meet the expectations he created and fulfill the promises he made. The day before Obama’s first anniversary, another heavy blow came from the Massachusetts Senate race. The Senate seat that had been represented by Ted Kennedy for 47 years until he lost his life due to a brain tumor was taken by Scott Brown, a Republican challenger unknown until recently in one of the bluest states in America.

The event quickly became a phenomenon that seems to have changed all the political calculations in Washington, from domestic to foreign ones. What has so far come to be called a “Massachusetts miracle” has many implications to dwell on. First of all, this heavy election blow came right about the time that everybody expected the Obama White House to celebrate its first anniversary. Instead, after this political earthquake, and with many other domestic and foreign initiatives seemingly stalled, the Obama team saw no reason to celebrate its “historic anniversary.”

Even worse news from this election loss for the Obama White House was the main theme of the newly elected senator’s election campaign. Soon to be a sitting senator, Brown ran a campaign mainly in opposition to the healthcare reform that is still in the U.S. Congress, waiting to be compromised by both sides of the aisle. Therefore Obama is now in a position where he can neither ignore the election results and push ahead for compromise, nor withdraw his priority domestic reform that has been in the works for months.

While the Obama administration is already under heavy attack by the media and opposition for being slow to tackle unemployment and other urgent economic issues, and instead focusing on the healthcare overhaul, lately these attacks have become increasingly personal, directed at Obama’s personality and casting doubts on his working capability.

The pundits who have became so brutal when criticizing Obama and his policies nowadays once enthusiastically applauded everything he said during the campaign years. And in that sense, when looking at the last year, Obama truly looks like a joke these days, with the policies he has pursued being tested by tough questions.

With the legendary Ted Kennedy’s “safe” Massachusetts seat down, even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Nevada seat is shaky before the upcoming November elections, as is the Illinois seat abandoned by Obama when he moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Actually, after a powerful political earthquake such as the one that happened in Massachusetts, sending waves through the capital, none of the Democrat members in the House who are up for re-election can feel safe and sound now.

According to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC polls, American voters nationwide are evenly split over which party they hope will run Capitol Hill after the November elections – the first time Democrats haven’t had the edge on that question since December 2003.

In the same polls, just 22 percent said that they were “optimistic and confident” about Obama’s presidency – a 10-point decline from a year ago. The numbers reflect the stubborn economic slump, in which joblessness stands at 10 percent and many Americans are angry about government bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry. This anger has especially made a difference with the independents, who now, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin, say they would prefer to see Republicans control Congress after the November elections.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote that he is “pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.” The Obama brand, which once represented visionary leadership and a reason to be hopeful for the future, is now about to bust. One wonders who will be crushed and left underfoot after such a catastrophic turn of events.

READER COMMENTS

Guest - kwell (2010-01-23 00:39:30) :

obama is not dead yet.. he is just starting 

The ghosts of September 11 are back

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-ghosts-of-september-11-are-back-2010-01-03

America is undergoing a deja vu period of 9/11 and it seems that the ghosts of those days continue to haunt Americans. On Sept. 11, 2001, millions of Americans were shocked by one of the most innovative and brutal killing sprees in history. The horrors that occurred on that day have been followed by two wars that have been going on for eight years.

Starting on that day, the life that Americans knew changed enormously. Their perception of the Muslim world also went through a dramatic change. The Muslim minority of the country, while mostly seen before 9/11 as people with an exotic background, who are nice to have a chat with and learn from, became a somewhat “different” group of people, who have a violent holy book which stems from a brutal religion and prophet.

Leaving aside the minority of the Americans, who have enough tools, time and interest to learn about Eastern culture and the religion of Islam, the rest concluded that it is Islam and the culture that is the real problem. If they could only study their own religion in light of historic evidence with objectivity, they could have seen that the Abrahamic religions, Christianity or Islam, actually are not that different from each other, and their scriptures similarly are full of belligerent versus as well as benevolent ones.

Though one has to concede the fact that it is not fair at all to blame this ignorance on the West, as it should not be expected from average Americans to have interest in the intricacies of the other cultures and religions for they have their own jobs, families and lives to worry about. The majority of people have to classify “others” and rank them in a group to make it easier to judge them. After all, don't we all love to categorize people so that we do not need to spend much time thinking about?

Unfortunately, Islam and the image of Muslim have been getting even worse lately. Only within the last two months, there have been three incidents that have scared American society, which seemingly all stem from pure religious hostility.

Only two months ago, Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army major, opened fire at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, killing a dozen fellow Army soldiers, and injuring tens more. Doctor Nidal Malik reportedly was against being deployed to the war theaters and when he was notified to be sent overseas to serve in a Muslim country for the American troops, he saw the mission equal to killing innocent Muslims. The later investigations so far have been proving that Nidal Malik was indeed sympathetic to al-Qaeda's vision and might even have had some links to its leadership.

In another incident in the beginning of December, five American citizens who had been reported missing from the Washington area were arrested in the eastern province of Punjab, Pakistan. According to the reports, those men were dispatched to go for training to join the ranks of al-Qaeda. According to the news reports, none of these five young men had suspicious backgrounds or any worrisome signs for possible terrorism links. On the heels of charges against them, this incident also showed once more that American soil is not immune to radicalism, and that Americans can be recruited within the United States to enlist in terrorist networks.

And finally on Christmas day, a young, 23-year-old Nigerian was caught in a plane only after he failed to detonate some form of explosive as the plane was landing. The suspect was identified as Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, an engineering student at University College London, who seemed to get in the plane regardless of his banker father's tips to the American Embassy officials in Nigeria. While Obama initially stated what happened was an “isolated” incident, he later quickly changed his position when he saw that the incident was a serious security lapse. It looks like, after eight years and spending hundreds of billions, the airport security is still just a front. Anyone who wants to get on a plane to blow himself and others up, with little imagination, can very well do so.

Obama has been hit heavily by the latest episode, which made him seem like a weak leader when it comes to national security matters. Mid-elections in 2010 could be deadly for the Democrats if the economic recovery doesn't come or comes late in 2010 and if there will be more security lapses. This deja vu of 9/11 is certainly not good news for Obama, as he increasingly finds himself in a position to prove his hawkish sensibilities lately in domestic and foreign affairs. And 2010, so far, seems to be a year that he has to resort to those sensibilities more often with the potential for more episodes like the one on Christmas Day.