ARI FOUNDATION BLOG

Will President Obama Keep His Promise?

Yurter — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:54:17 +0000

During his Presidential campaign, President Obama promised to clean up “special-interest-driven” politics. He declared “I’m not in this race to continue the special-interest-driven politics of the last eight years. I’m in this race to end it.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At a Town Hall Meeting, Billings, MT, 5/19/08)

It is clear that special interest strong-arming of politicians not only hurts the American people, but also constitutes a threat to US relations with its allies It has been several decades that Armenian special interest groups have been lobbying Congress to convince to pass a resolution labeling what happened between Ottoman Turks and Ottoman Armenians in 1915-1919 as “genocide”—a topic still widely debated among historians. Legitimacy of the strategies used by these Armenian groups has been questioned— on February 18, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice, the IRS, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate urging an investigation into whether the Armenian National Committee of America-Western Region (ANCA-WR) and the ANCA Endowment Fund violated their status as charitable organizations by actively participating in political campaigns, publicly endorsing political candidates (including the Obama-Biden ticket), and lobbying for the Armenian agenda in Congress.

According to the first nationwide public opinion survey of Turkey on this issue that the ARI Foundation conducted in 2007 in partnership with Terror Free Tomorrow of Washington DC, congressional passage of such a resolution would actually set back the cause it purports to achieve—namely shedding light onto the historical events and promoting Turkey’s reconciliation with Armenia. According to the poll, 78% of the Turkish public opposes a resolution by the U.S. Congress on the issue of the Armenian allegation of genocide, irrespective of the wording of the actual resolution. More importantly, 73% think the effect of passage would worsen relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A very significant finding was also uncovered during this survey– 74% of Turkish people believe that the most important reasons that the U.S. Congress would approve an Armenian resolution are anti-Muslim feelings and American domestic politics. Yet another Armenian Resolution was introduced in Congress last week. Is this the message that the new Congress wants to give to one of its most important allies and the country that President Obama will visit in early April?

Washington must understand that the Turkish people are not afraid of facing what happened in their history—as long as it is done fairly and by experts, not politicians. In fact, hardly a day goes by where a news article or television program does not address this issue from one angle or the other. Debate on this issue is now wide open in Turkey, where books by the most ardent supporters of the Armenian historical narrative are available everywhere. Contrast that to Armenia, where hardly any publication that contrasts their views is available. While most Turks are opposed to an American political judgment on this historical issue, 75% of all Turks favor unbiased scholarship by independent historians on what occurred between Turks and Armenians during the demise of Ottoman Empire. How many countries in the world would have such courage and open-heartedness in the face of a topic that hangs over their head like the sword of Damocles? This public response is quite in line with the repeated invitations from both President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan to initiate a joint historical commission constituted of Turkish, Armenian and international experts.

When I was invited to Armenia in August 2007 to meet with high-level state officials (including the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs), former prime ministers, political party leaders, NGO representatives and journalists, I realized that Armenians living in Armenia stand quite differently on this debate in comparison to the Armenian Diaspora living in the US, Europe and other parts of the world. The message that they repeatedly gave me was that the ordinary Armenian people want to look forward and improve relations with their neighbor Turkey at many different levels, including social, economic and cultural. They also seemed quite puzzled and irritated as to why a foreign government’s legislative body would dwell into history and even attempt to use it as a foreign policy lever.

Will President Obama keep his promise and have the courage to take special interest out of legislation and encourage direct reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey? Or will he give in and allow Congress take an unjust, one-sided action to satisfy the Armenian Diaspora at the expense of alienating Turkey and Armenia by undermining their ongoing rapprochement? The Turkish people are not asking for a favor— we are asking for justice.

Yurter Ozcan
ARI Foundation, President
Washington D.C.
March 24, 2009
www.arifoundation.org

Todays Column on Today’s Zaman

evrentok — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:03:06 +0000

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=167775

Resisting the global crisis through Anatolian cities
by
EVREN TOK [*]

As many urban policy makers, economists and scholars from a variety of disciplines would agree, in the age of neo-liberal globalization, cities have become the new engines of global capitalism.

In particular, studies focusing on “global cities,” such as London, Tokyo, New York, etc., all point out that global(izing) cities have now become the new driving forces of national economies. The critical question is, while nations now gain a competitive edge through their competitive globalizing cities, could these cities play a crucial role in devising strategies to support nation-states in confronting the global economic and financial crisis? Turkey’s globalizing cities, especially in the case of Gaziantep, convince us that the answer to this question could be “yes.” I believe that, starting from the case of Gaziantep, reinvigorating the export potential of Anatolian centers and framing this dynamism as city-based responses to the global crisis should be explored further.

Global crisis, local responses

Nowadays, in the media, one easily comes across pessimistic views on the so-called “Anatolian Tigers,” rapidly industrialized and economically improved medium-sized Anatolian cities. For instance, in a comprehensive analysis titled “Anatolian Tigers lose their roar,” it was argued that their “Tiger” status is being “downgraded to the status of ‘Anatolian Cats’ by industrialists and businessmen operating in these cities who are feeling the ever-tightening grip of the global financial crisis” (Today’s Zaman, Feb. 15). Nevertheless, we also need to recognize that, contrary to the overshadowing pessimistic outlooks, Turkey’s globalizing Anatolian cities, with their export potential, could be the strategic players in aiding Turkey in weathering the crisis environment! There are significant sparkles that we need to investigate closely.

As cities mobilize their resources in order to formulate new strategies to alleviate the negative impact of the crisis, they are also becoming key sites through their strategies to translate the detrimental effects of the crisis into an opportunity. In this regard, some Anatolian cities constitute vibrant examples of how this could be achieved and sustained. A recent event organized by the Gaziantep Young Businessmen’s Association (GAGİAD) is an illuminating example in this context. Thus, a recent example of how city-based strategies could be formulated to cope with the impact of the global crisis comes from Gaziantep, which has also been perceived as one of the Anatolian Tigers and also proudly portrayed as the “Paris of the East”!

Rather than being a site for complaints and hopelessness and insistently asking for support from the state, the economic agents of Gaziantep, especially the Chamber of Industry, Chamber of Commerce and GAGİAD chose to look for their own ways to come out of the crisis and even devise strategies to benefit from the current pessimistic outlook in the global economy. This collective effort is not sustained through the hegemony of a single actor; instead, civil economic actors have jointly become the architects of this local response. A meeting organized in Gaziantep on Jan. 26, titled “Global Crisis: Threats and Opportunities in the Export Sector,” could be seen as an exemplar of implementing a city-based strategy to confront the global crisis.

The participation of Mehmet Büyükekşi (who is also originally from Gaziantep), the chairman of the Turkish Exporters Assembly (TİM), made this meeting even more critical. The common message from the speeches given by the chairman of the Chamber of Trade, Mehmet Arslan, and the chairman of the Chamber of Industry, Nejat Koçer, emphasized the willingness and enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs in Gaziantep to export more to alternative markets, such as the Middle Eastern and African markets, since they have been less influenced by the crisis due to their less integrated position in world markets.

While the sense of insecurity and fragility in the international markets prevails, especially when companies are in need of loans in order to realize their export potential, the leaders of the Chamber of Trade and the Chamber of Industry both pointed out that there is a need for a “reassurance-enabling state.” They argued that state institutions such as Eximbank, Ziraat Bank and Halk Bank could provide emergency credits and help turn the crisis into an opportunity in these tumultuous times. Moreover, the speakers also outlined a strategy for Gaziantep that could also appeal to the other cities of Anatolia: (1) to protect optimism, (2) to protect already established export markets and (3) to hold on to the vision of the city. In Gaziantep, this strategy is centered on a critical concept, namely, “common reason.”

Common reason

The agents who are the drivers and critical members of Gaziantep’s economic development, as well as other state and non-state actors, opinion leaders and almost all Gaziantep residents emphasize the role of “common reason” as an instrument in fostering development. According to this mindset, common reason works as a glue connecting the interests of different actors, and when the issue is making a contribution to Gaziantep, “common reason” prevails. The agents who construct Gaziantep’s economic potential emphasize that common reason is not just a temporary mechanism, especially when the economy is growing and everybody is content. “Common reason,” however, is a symptom of urban identity, in other words, the city’s soul, and also a mechanism that encompasses the active participation, coordination, cooperation and collaboration of a variety of agents — economic, social and political — in order to overcome tumultuous times.

Having been inspired by the case of Gaziantep, why should other rising Anatolian centers, especially the ones who reached “Anatolian Tigers” status, not bring back and utilize their own “common reason” during current downtimes? If there is any possibility to transform and translate the global crisis into opportunity, then Anatolian cities need to be more open to embarking on a process to find or formulate their own “common reason.” As the global crisis unfolds with severe consequences, especially in the nonfinancial sector, by reinvigorating the export potential of Anatolian centers, Turkey’s key regional and global role could be reasserted.

[*] Evren Tok is a doctoral candidate at the school of public policy at Carleton University, Ottawa.

24 February 2009, Tuesday

EVREN TOK [*] OTTAW

“Mustafa” on Screen

derya — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:12:45 +0000

The first documentary covering Atatürk’s life from his early years in Salonika to his final years in Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul will be on screen on Oct. 29. The documentary, written and directed by journalist Can Dündar, the maker of the renowned documentary ‘Sarı Zeybek’

ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
A documentary on the life of Atatürk, the first to follow the entire life of the founder of the Turkish Republic, is coming to the silver screen at the end of this month.

The documentary, called Mustafa, was written and directed by Can Dündar, journalist and documentary director. Atatürk has never been properly introduced to the Turkish public, to the world and to younger generations, even though 70 years have passed since his death in 1938, said the press release on the film, arguing the documentaries produced thus far have focused only on certain periods and appealed only to a domestic audience.

This is the first documentary covering Atatürk’s life from his early years in Thessalonica to his final years in Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul and representing all military, political and personal aspects of his personality, said the press release.

The documentary was produced by the maker of the renowned documentary Sarı Zeybek and a number of others over the last 15 years on Atatürk’s life. The documentary team was given special permission to open many national and international archives, including those at the President’s Office and the General Staff.

During shooting several previously unseen photos, memoirs, special letters and manuscripts of Atatürk were used. The production team traveled from Thessalonica to Manastır, Damascus to Berlin, Sofia to Karlsbad any places that Atatürk lived. Some scenes were even shot in the room where he was born and the one where he died. A detailed literature review was made of books written about Atatürk, national and international newspapers and diplomatic letters.

The documentary tells Atatürk’s life from an objective point of view and tries to give a sympathetic account of a real-life story. His personal belongings, memoirs, headquarters where he worked, houses where he lived, documents that he left, songs he liked and remarks he uttered were all used in the documentary, the release said.

Internationally known Balkan-origin musician Goran Bregovic composed the soundtrack for the film.

The film will begin showing Sept. 29.

Armenia: Obscure issue could challenge a President Obama

Yurter — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:42 +0000

Armenia: Obscure issue could challenge a President Obama

Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The two major presidential candidates differ sharply over an Armenian genocide commemoration, with Republican John McCain opposing it and Democrat Barack Obama supporting it.

The policy clash could make a political difference in California’s San Joaquin Valley and other regions with sizable Armenian-American populations. McCain may have more to lose, in the short term. But in the long run, Obama may have more to prove.

“Support for the genocide resolution is important in the presidential race and can have a significant impact,” said Barlow Der Mugrdechian, coordinator of the Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno.

The potential short-term political cost is readily apparent. Estimates of the number of Armenian-Americans range from 385,000, in the 2000 Census, to more than 1 million. Many track the genocide issue closely.

By contrast, only 117,000 U.S. residents nationwide claimed Turkish ancestry. In comparing grassroots political strength, the Armenian-American community wins hands down.

“There are many Armenians in states such as Michigan and Florida,” Der Mugrdechian noted. “Since the race is expected to be close in these states, and many others, the Armenian vote could prove to be the difference.”

The long-term challenge is different. If Obama is elected, he would face tremendous pressure from the State Department, the Pentagon, other countries — and maybe even his own advisers — to back away from emphatic Armenian genocide language. That is what other presidents have done.

In 1988, for instance, a campaigning George H.W. Bush declared the United States should “acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian people.” As president, Bush instead stressed “the differing views of how the terrible events of 1915-23 should be characterized.”

Bush’s son, while campaigning in 2000, similarly referred to a “genocidal campaign” against the Armenians. Once elected, he avoided the genocide term, and his State Department withdrew a U.S. ambassador who dared use it.

“I think the Armenian community is very leery of any candidate who says he will support a genocide resolution, because those promises haven’t necessarily been kept,” said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. “When push comes to shove, the State Department gets in there and has its way.”

Genocide is what Armenian-Americans and many scholars say happened in the dying years of the Ottoman Empire, between 1915 and 1923. By this account, the slaughter and violent exile of more than 1 million Armenians met the legal definition of genocide and should be commemorated as such.

Genocide means the systematic and intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

“There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people,” Obama said while campaigning earlier this year.

He hasn’t been very active on the issue in his four years in the Senate, despite serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Obama has not co-sponsored the Senate’s Armenian genocide resolutions, and he did not attend confirmation hearings for President Bush’s nominees to serve as U.S. ambassador to Armenia.

Obama’s rhetorical support now for recognizing the genocide nonetheless helped secure the endorsement in January of the Armenian National Committee of America. It’s a view long held publicly by Obama’s vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It’s also a position being deployed on the campaign trail.

Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard scholar who has advised Obama on foreign policy, posted on YouTube a campaign-style video explicitly addressed to the Armenian-American community. Power declared that a President Obama would “call a spade a spade” and publicly acknowledge the genocide.

McCain’s position is the polar opposite, as he cites the diplomatic and strategic risks associated with alienating Turkey.

“I was disappointed that many in Congress were ready to legislate a historical judgment of the Armenian genocide whatever the cost to our relations with Turkey,” McCain declared in Iowa last October. “Turkey is essential to stabilizing Iraq, containing Iranian power, and encouraging economic and political reform in the Arab world. We should be strengthening our partnership, not erecting new barriers to it.”

One form of recognition would be in the form of a congressional resolution. Earlier this year, though, a resolution collapsed in the House after appearing to come close. Radanovich said he does not “see that coming back anytime soon.”

The alternative path is a presidential proclamation. Each April, presidents present a public statement about what happened between 1915 and 1923. The question thus becomes: Will the statement include the word genocide?

Power, a strong proponent of Armenian-American issues, no longer has a formal role advising Obama. One top adviser, Anthony Lake, was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton during the period that Clinton avoided the genocide word in his annual proclamations. Another top Obama adviser, Susan Rice, was Clinton’s assistant secretary of state when Clinton blocked a genocide resolution authored by Radanovich.

Today s Zaman Column

evrentok — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:45:41 +0000

Social democracy and Turkish Left: A New Possibility?

Evren Tok

Karl Polanyi (1886-1964) is a well-known economic historian and anthropologist of Hungarian origin, the author of the “Great Transformation”, and also one of the key figures who have had significant influence on the evolution of European social democracy. Polanyi’s contribution to the European tradition of social democracy mostly stems from his nuanced understanding of “freedom in a complex society”. Karl Polanyi’s understanding refers to accepting the reality of society to remove injustice and unfreedom. The task according to Polanyi is to create more abundant freedom for all, without fear. This is the meaning of freedom in a complex society in his perspective; it provides certainty that the society needs (Great Transformation, p. 268). I believe that Polanyi’s perspective could provoke new debates and motivations for the Turkish left in order to be more self-reflexive especially in relation to the possibility of social democracy in Turkey. In other words, Polanyi’s vision and the meaning he attached to freedom in a complex society could guide the Turkish left in many ways. The failure of the left could be approached in respects, first by contextualizing the ascendance of social democracy in Europe, and Turkish left’s inability to utilize from it; and secondly by pointing out the highly fragmented nature of the left, which prevents them to reach the public as well as connecting with the global left.

The road to today’s impasse for the Turkish Left

The ascendance of Third Way social democratic parties in Europe, such as New Labor under the Blair government, Zapatero’s Socialist Party in Spain and Social Democrat Party under Schröder in Germany all pointed out that social democrats could achieve electoral success through strategies such as balancing out the market forces with societal priorities, privileging both recognition and redistribution, and also being extremely sensitive to issues such poverty, inequality and social justice. Since 1980, but more intensively during the course of 1990s, the emergence of new societal actors with new societal demands have been played out in Turkey, which in turn opened the floor for further democratization efforts and voiced claims for recognition and participation. In Turkey, however, the left has been quite passive and disoriented in terms of capitalizing on the domestic dynamics, which had very prominent counterparts abroad. It is also quite controversial that this societal reshuffling took place in a context in which the leftist oriented political parties especially the CHP, have been totally detached from societal reflexes. In this conjuncture, the AKP starting from the 2002 elections, emerged as a party offering a social democratic alternative as opposed to the CHP, which remained, and can even be said to have become more nationalist/state centric. This debate was caricatured as Turkey’s late, or in other words, “delayed” encounter with the global Third Way politics.

The recent discussions within leftist circles successfully denounced the deeply fragmented nature of the left in Turkey. In a way, these discussions were portraying the historical opportunity that has been ruined at the beginning of the new millennium. Today, one of the central debates is centered around the leftist stance and positioning towards the Ergenekon case. The number of labels circulating within the left oriented press is numerous running the spectrum from positivist vs. non-positivist leftists, Kemalist vs. non-Kemalist leftists, and liberal leftists vs. non-liberal leftists, etc. Perhaps, these discussions gained momentum especially after Sungur Savran’s proposal to bring Marxist analysis to the table.

On the one hand, these discussions were necessary in order for the left to be more self-reflexive and recognize the historicity of the way in which different fragments within the left have come into existence. The internal squaring ups within the left especially with respect to the debates on Ergenekon made it clear that the current leftist critique in Turkey equates “getting more civilian” to democratization. In a way the former is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one for the consolidation of democracy. Furthermore, the same sets of discussions were mute regarding the issue of Third Way social democracy and its importance in Turkey. The introverted and futile discussions within the Turkish left prevented them from finding institutional correspondence in the Western Left.

Turkish left and the meaning of freedom

The post 2002 period has shown that unlike European style social democratic parties, which have put emphasis on restructuring/redesigning welfare states, balancing out recognition and redistribution and aiming for freedom in a complex society, Turkish social democrats have not been successful in getting such debates even onto the agenda. Now, it is the task of the Turkish left to establish a road map to move out of the impasse. Turkey’s delayed encounter with Third Way social democracy could be better instituted if the Turkish left helps build a road map that would accelerate the pace of democracy, promote participatory democracy, and redraw the boundaries between the state and the civil society. Indeed, providing effective and democratic regulation of the market and more emphasis on issues such as social justice, inequality and poverty should be priority.

The Turkish left has more responsibility than ever to prescribe a social democratic alternative that recognizes the multiplicity of societal actors, state and non-state institutions, diverging interests and global ideas that reign over Turkish democracy. From Polanyi’s perspective, the apathy of the left toward the society and societal privileges is a big obstacle to reach freedom in a complex society. Hence, being extraverted and connecting with the public, societal concerns as well as the global left, and providing more certainty than ambiguity are essential for the Turkish left to look for the true significance of freedom in a complex society.

Evren Tok: Ph.D Candidate, Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration

Turkish economy headed into dark waters

admin — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:06:53 +0000

The summer of 2008, most likely, will not be remembered by its high running temperatures but will be remembered with two major lawsuits deeply dividing the Turks. In one lawsuit the prosecutors argue that the ruling party (AKP) has to be closed based on its non-secular policies&activities. In another lawsuit, the prosecutors are pressing charges against more than 100 citizens including two retired generals, several other retired military officials and many well known public figures for being a member of an organization called Ergenekon which is claimed to be planning a coup to dethrone AKP.

Thanks to all the dust raised by these lawsuits the public seems to be completely blind to how the economy is performing. The figure below, recently published by Ari Movement shows the increasing export and import numbers in billion dollars. It is clear how the gap between these two has been increasing since AKP won a major victory in the 2002 elections. Even though major economic parameters are not bright, the public seems to disregard these and still support AKP as they won the 2007 election by a landslide.

(*:2008 numbers are projected using the 1st quarter’s numbers. Except the 2008 projection, all the numbers are taken from Turkish Statistical Institute)

It would be unfair to say the increase in trade-deficit was a direct cause of AKP’s policies. The next figure (also published by Ari Movement) shows the increase in trade deficit and mineral fuel and oil import numbers.

(*:2008 numbers are projected using the 1st quarter’s numbers. Except the 2008 projection, all the numbers are taken from Turkish Statistical Institute)

The oil and natural gas imports make up most of the mineral fuel and oil imports. The figure shows us how the increasing crude oil prices had a high toll on growing Turkish economy. Unfortunately for Turkey, as the economy grows the need for energy grows and this directly fuels the deficit.

Even though we said AKP did not create this problem, it would be fair to say they have done almost nothing to solve the problem. For instance, today, over 14% of Germany’s electricity power comes from renewable energy. This number is less than 1% for Turkey.

AKP government has very recently passed several legislatures which aims to boost the transition to renewable energy. Turkish Embassy has a PDF document outlining Turkey’s new energy policies. It is to be seen if these policies are enough and if they will have their effects before it is too late.

Two Fighting Neighbors, Losing Generations…

pensel — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:07:20 +0000

It is so hard to even start talking about the Turkish-Armenian conflict; so, I am just going to talk about my personal take on it.

As a Turk living in the US, it saddens me to see people from other countries recognize my country and Armenia only through our conflict. They do not know much about each of the countries but they know that we have been in conflict since the early times of this century.However, what saddens me most is to actually see these two countries with such similar history and culture to be in conflict and closely observe my generation grow up not recognizing our commonalities. Today, I read an article from Dr. Stepan Grigoryan, the chairman of the board of the Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation in Yerevan, who in his article pointed out that people are closer to each other than their governments. He claims that people of both countries want reconciliation and end of the conflict; however, political realities do not represent this view.

Armenia and Turkey are so similar to each other, our histories are so intertwined that it is amazing to see this conflict persist this long. We don’t need to put much effort into confirming this hypothesis, just search Wikipedia for Armenian Cuisine. Almost 90% of Turkish cuisine and Armenian cuisine overlaps. Or look at our habits, the games we play, etc. Thousands of things I cannot even count. Even the way we raise new generations is similar. The only difference is Turkish side finds Armenian side in fault and Armenian side claims Turks are to blame. In the mean time, generations are growing up, not knowing each other, not realizing the past is out there to hunt their future, and only learning how to perpetuate this fight where there are only losers!

I do realize this writing sounds like a pep talk and does not seem to contain any substantive facts. Yes, I do know there are complicated things involved, yes I do know it is hard to reconcile when both parties had lost so many people, and yes I do know there were dramatic events the survivors of which still cannot let go (from both sides). However, I do also know if people were to hold on to these complexities and never reconcile, today there would not be a Vietnam with strong relations with the US, there would not be an Austria, who faught againts Britain and France in the World War I, with close relations to them now, or there would not be a Latin America, which had to faught for its independence, trading with Portugal or Spain now.

My point is I think it is time for the people of Turkey and Armenia to get to know each other and to demand reconciliation from bottom up, not top down. We, as neighbors, do need to strengthen each other, not weaken!

Where do you stand on the political Cartesian coordinate system?

pensel — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:16:01 +0000

One of the natural human instincts, when one meets a new person, is to place that person in a little box in their minds to be able to identify to where they belong in this complicated world. Although, this is a helpful shortcut in simplying life and being able to identify with whom you would get along well, it is very limited in its ability to capture something real about the other person. Once you identify the “right box” in your mind for someone it takes a lot of effort and counter argument to change their mental location, even though sometimes that is necessary. One of these short cuts we use to mentally place people is their econo-political view. Thanks to Chris Blattman’s blog I learned about this new ideological test which positions you on a cartesian coordinate system with social and economic ideological extremes on the axes.

They also placed some of the world known leaders on this compass (below).

I am not going to write where I ended up on the compass (though it was close to reality); however, no matter how we use these categorizations we need to keep in mind that these are very rough drawing of people’s outer contours…

Obama Continues to Stand against Turkey in Armenian allegations

Yurter — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:17:13 +0000

Presidential Candidate Obama continues to take a clear stance against Turkey and side with the Armenian allegations. In a letter to ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian, Sen. Obama wrote “I share your view that the United States must recognize the events of 1915 to 1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide. . . We must recognize this tragic reality. The Bush Administration’s refusal to do so is inexcusable, and I will continue to speak out in an effort to move the Administration to change its position.”
http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1513

In July 2006, Obama had also written to Secretary of State Rice and opposed the decision to recall Ambassador Evans from his post to Armenia after he used the term genocide. (http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1513

Re-embedding Turkey’s Secularist Institutions

evrentok — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:28:11 +0000

EVREN TOK - The Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the changes regarding the headscarf ban in the universities has fostered discussions focused not only on the issues regarding the endangered Turkish democracy, but also indirectly we discuss the dilemma and the paradox of the secular nation-state and its institutions - this time not only the Military, but also the Judiciary mechanism, aiming at revitalizing the contradictions of the Turkish modernity. As some scholars point out a judicial revolution, the historical articulation and embeddedness of the institutions as the agents of this revolution need to be explored to imagine and envision a possibility of ‘change’. Today, the root of the problem in Turkish democracy and modernity project is the inertia and resistance of the institutional structure to change and transform, despite the political will.Even more paradoxically, the relation between the politics and the public policies is no longer defined by the society; instead, state institutions define this relation with a strong secular tone. In a well functioning democracy, politics-public policy interaction is mediated by a variety of societal actors such as civil society organizations, NGOs, trade unions, etc who are sensitive to the concerns of the public. While it is correctly pointed out by many scholars in the Turkish media that ‘bringing the public back in’ type of solutions are the only viable ones and the Constitution as we knew is no longer able to respond to societal impulses, a re-evaluation and re-appraisal of the ways in which state institutions curtail the relation between the politics and the public is urgently needed.Turkey’s Embedded InstitutionsParadoxically, the institutions of modern Turkey have been continuing to harness democracy and political stability, not to mention the possible medium and long run impacts on the economic and financial realms. As scholars of historical institutionalism indicate, institutions are integrated and embedded into the social and political configurations of a country. This situation might have adverse effects as well. As in the case of Turkey, the institutions might misuse their relative autonomy and disembed themselves from the very social and political structure. As Thelen and Streeck indicate, ‘an institutional logic in each society leads each institution to coalesce into a complex social configuration’ because they are embedded in a culture in which its logic is symbolically grounded, materially constrained and politically defended.While institutional sphere retains a degree of autonomy from the society’s idiosyncratic customs, traditions, corporate structures, it is the complementarity and connectivity of the social, legal, cultural and economic institutions that secures systemic cohesion. Therefore, what is at stake today in Turkey is not only limited to lifting the headscarf ban in the universities, instead the current institutional deadlock is a manifestation of a broader social and political trauma. Moreover, this trauma is a symptom of the ongoing detachment and disembedding of certain state institutions from the social, political and cultural fabric, which would sooner or later result in the loss of legitimacy from the public’s point of view and leading to increasing social tensions and paralysis as experienced recently.Path Dependent or Path Altering Change?There is no doubt that ‘bringing the public back in’ is a precondition to reembed the institutions into the social configuration, however, this is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. ‘Bringing the public back in’ approach would acquire meaning and impact only if a transparent and neutral venue to amalgamate different voices, concerns and interests is established. As scholars of institutionalism would predict, without recognizing the concerns of both governmental and non-governmental actors, without providing an accountable ground and a means to communicate, without a dialogical interaction, it is almost impossible to go beyond a ‘path-dependent’ alternative. In the case of Turkey, path-dependent alternative unfortunately involves minor, adaptive change, reproducing and preserving the revanchist attitudes and interests of certain actors and institutions at the expense of democracy.Path-altering change, however, is still possible and vital for the sake of attaining systemic cohesion, which would include a transparent and sustainable interaction between institutions and politics. Embeddedness of institutions, thus, would mean that politics and institutions mutually constitute each other within a social configuration and none of them could be subsumed under the other. Hence, sustaining, recognizing and benefiting from the complementarity and connectivity of the social, legal, cultural and economic institutions is extremely vital along with efforts to ‘bring the public back in’ through elections. In other words, the social concerns and voices should bridge the relation between public policies and the politics, rather than the state institutions who have delinked themselves from the social fabric.

Evren Tok: Carleton University, School of Public Policy PhD. Candidate