Formerly "Hudson Institute, New York"
In this mailing:
- Gerald M. Steinberg: Freedom of Expression, UN Human Rights Council
- Shiraz Maher: UK: Islamist Intimidation Shuts Down Free Speech
- AK Group: Turkey Sticks with Iran Oil after Saudi Talks
Freedom of Expression, UN Human Rights Council
by Gerald M. Steinberg
February 16, 2012 at 5:00 am
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2851/freedom-of-expression-un-human-rights-council
| Share: |
Be the first of your friends to like this.
The history of reporting by UN frameworks on human rights in Israel has been characterized by biased mandates, false and unverifiable allegations, double standards and hypocrisy.
Part 1: Overview and Background:
1) By any objective standard, Israeli democracy is as robust and pluralistic as any in the world. There are no restrictions on any form of protest or advocacy, including very fierce and unpopular criticism of the government and military. No other democracy can claim to have greater freedom of expression, despite more than six decades of war and terrorism; threats of annihilation; and in parallel, the challenges of developing a cohesive society based on numerous divergent communities scattered for generations as Diasporas, many of which do not have traditions of pluralism and democracy.
2) Like other Israelis, I am aware that we are not a perfect society. As in others nations, we have flaws, and it is our responsibility to correct them. But aggressive campaigns to greatly exaggerate these imperfections, as part of the ongoing effort to delegitimize Israel facilitated by the soft-power of groups not subject to any democratic accountability, should not be assisted by a United Nations framework focusing on freedom of expression and freedom.
3) Israel systematically protects the rights of its minority populations to freedom of expression and to protest. For example, each year, Israeli police forces and government institutions facilitate Gay Pride parades in Jerusalem Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Eilat; marches on Human Rights Day; protests by the Islamic movement; and to mark the murder of Yitzhak Rabin.
4) Mass demonstrations on socio-economic issues were held in Summer 2011, and attest to Israel's dynamic civil society and a culture of advocacy and peaceable protest. Israeli police facilitated these activities, blocking off roads and granting permits. The government responded to protestors' demands positively, in the form of a task force to address their claims.
5) During the "Arab Spring," where thousands were murdered at the hands of their own governments, protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and elsewhere were quoted as taking inspiration from the peaceful social protests that took place during the summer in Israel. This highlights the Israeli commitment to free expression.
6) In contrast, the history of reporting by UN frameworks on human rights in Israel has been characterized by biased mandates, false and unverifiable allegations, double standards, and hypocrisy – from Jenin (2002) through Goldstone (2009), as well as reports by special rapporteurs Jean Ziegler, John Dugard, and Richard Falk.[1] The results have been highly counterproductive in promoting human rights. I am here today to engage with the Special Rapporteur, and to contribute to an accurate report that will not repeat the flaws and negative impacts of previous UNHRC reports related to Israel.
7) The geopolitical context resulting from over six decades of conflict and violence, including the results of the 1967 war – particularly the Israeli control of disputed territories that had been occupied in 1948 by Jordan (the West Bank), and by Egypt (Gaza) and the ongoing political stalemate, presents a unique and highly complex situation. In this context, allegations of human rights violations are part of political or soft-power warfare that accompanies the hard-power attacks and violence. Such accusations should not be accepted at face value, and must be tested against credible evidence that is independently verifiable.
8) Therefore, NGO Monitor urges the Special Rapporteur to subject accusations from organizations and individuals regarding the state of freedom of expression in Israel to careful scrutiny and independent verification, and to avoid erasing the context of these allegations.
Part 2: Israeli Civil Society, Democracy and Freedom of Expression
1) Israel has a vibrant civil society: a free and highly critical press, and an NGO sector with tens of thousands of groups across the political, social, and ideological spectrum engaging in often intense debate.
2) The Israeli public, media, government and Knesset (legislature) are conducting an intense debate on the massive and unique level of foreign government funding for highly political non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
3) This debate includes questions on and criticism of the unfair advantage gained by a very narrow group of political advocacy civil society organizations that receive massive and often secret funding from foreign (mainly European) governments. Major concerns exist regarding the lack of accountability for these organizations, their "democratic deficit," non-transparent funding processes, and impact of these resources. This political manipulation and lack of transparency is unique in the case of European government funding for a narrow group of Israeli NGOs, and constitutes a blatant violation of democratic norms.[2]
4) In and of themselves, the fierce public debate and numerous failed legislative proposals affirm the strength of Israeli democracy.
5) A concerted political campaign by a narrow group of powerful NGOs uses slogans claiming "anti-democratic behavior" to intimidate critics. This campaign, including the denunciation of the very discussion of preliminary legislative proposals as entirely illegitimate, seeks to prevent this political debate. Partisan allegations from NGOs should not be taken at face value; in a democracy, groups claiming to speak in the name of human rights have no immunity from criticism and public debate.
6) Criticism of both the false claims of "war crimes" and of the secretive processes by which they receive large European government funding does not prevent members of Israeli NGOs such as Breaking the Silence, Yesh Din, Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), and many others from promoting their agendas. There is no threat to freedom of expression in this criticism of NGOs.
7) In contrast, attention should be paid to the close relationships between some influential journalists, such as Akiva Eldar (Ha'aretz) and these political advocacy NGOs. This relationship may provide unfair access of these groups of NGOs to the media, in contrast to other groups that do not have similar access.[3]
8) Issues of politicization, credibility, and faulty methodology in NGO publications on human rights are particularly acute in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Additionally, some NGOs have falsely claimed to be "human rights organizations," granting them an aura of objectivity and credibility ("the halo effect").[4]
Part 3: Criticism of NGO Political Campaigns as Central to the Democratic Process
1) NGO Monitor was formed and began researching these issues after the participants in the NGO Forum of the 2001 UN Durban Conference adopted a plan of action to exploit false claims of war crimes, apartheid, and human rights violations to advance the "total international isolation of Israel," through the use of boycotts, legal frameworks, and other forms of political warfare.
2) The evidence of NGO inaccuracy, bias, and unbalanced influence in the Israeli political discourse increased significantly in the wake of the UNHRC's report on the Gaza conflict (Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict – the "Goldstone Report"), published in September 2009. Much of the content of the allegations was provided by political advocacy NGOs (while ignoring the thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza – every one a war crime). When the principal author of the report, Judge Richard Goldstone, acknowledged that the allegations were baseless, the focus on NGO biases and inaccuracy increased.[5] This criticism included a recognition of the role of foreign government funding for these NGOs in greatly amplifying their influence, while NGOs that did not enjoy such funding were at a distinct disadvantage in the marketplace of ideas.[6]
3) As a result of these campaigns, in 2010 and 2011 members of the democratically elected Israeli Knesset introduced legislation designed to address the impact of the non-transparent, large-scale foreign government funding for these organizations. This political manipulation and lack of transparency is unique in the case of funding for Israeli NGOs, and violates democratic norms. Some of this proposed legislation was based on practices in other countries, such as the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act and prohibitions on discriminatory business practices (regarding anti-boycott legislation).
4) The NGOs that are recipients of this foreign government money and their supporters began a political campaign seeking to prevent this debate, charging that any criticism is inherently "undemocratic," "McCarthyite," etc. Statements by officials from Israeli political advocacy NGOs (the New Israel Fund, B'Tselem, and ACRI) quoted in U.S. government cables (published in Wikileaks) revealed their cynical manipulation of democratic processes and structures.
5) Media reports on these issues, both in Israel and outside, are often distorted and confused, including quotes and analysis based on inaccurate translations. Many of these reports fail to address basic issues related to the unique context of NGO political power in Israel, the secret foreign government funding processes, and the substance of the proposed Knesset legislation.
6) Only one law dealing with NGOs has been passed, mandating funding transparency. All of the other proposals, often condemned by the NGOs and their supporters as "anti-democratic," have either been withdrawn, defeated, or amended. Within the governing coalition, a number of MKs and ministers have also actively opposed the bills. Thus, in contrast to the self-interested claims of NGOs seeking to protect their secret foreign government funding, all the available evidence demonstrates the vibrancy and strength of Israeli democracy. (The law creating a civil right of action for economic damages caused by discriminatory boycotts does not directly address NGOs. In contrast to false NGO claims, the law does not criminalize anti-Israel boycotts.)
Part 4: Criticism of Government Policies, Minority Rights, and Freedom of Expression
1) Allegations to the contrary not withstanding, there is no censorship of Israeli civil society activities. Critical reports of the government issued by NGOs such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Adalah, Mossawa, and many others receive extensive press attention in Israel, including from the government-owned media. When ACRI recently released a publication criticizing alleged harassment of demonstrators, the document was widely disseminated and served as the topic in an op-ed in Haaretz, one of Israel's most influential papers.[7] This type of public debate and intense criticism of government policies would not be possible in a country without free expression.
2) Regarding the Arab minority population, while discrimination is an issue, this is often confused with impact of security requirements to protect against violence and terrorism. The facts clearly show that there are no restrictions on freedom of expression or opinion beyond those often found in other democratic societies, which do not have such ongoing conflicts. In fact, to the extent that Israel has placed any restrictions, they do not rise to the level of those imposed by democratic countries such as France, Switzerland, the UK, etc.[8] Arab representatives in the Knesset frequently deny the legitimacy and advocate the destruction of Israel as the home of Jewish nation, for which they are strongly criticized as part of the political debate.
3) Arab-sector NGO officials and MKs have participated in activities such as the so-called "Free Gaza flotilla" (2010), which deliberately provoked a violent confrontation with Israeli security forces enforcing a blockade necessary to prevent deadly weapons from reaching Hamas and other terror groups. MK Haneen Zoabi was aboard the Mavi Marmara, a boat operated by the Turkish group IHH (which is a member of the Union of Good, a U.S.-banned terror organization), from which Israeli soldiers were attacked when they attempted to board. In most cases, participation in an armed attack against one's own military forces would be considered treason, but no such charges were made against MK Zoabi. Although a Knesset committee recommended that her parliamentary immunity be revoked, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin declined to submit this to the full Knesset. Instead, on July 13, 2010, she was stripped of three parliamentary privileges. Nevertheless, Zoabi continues to freely travel around the world advocating against the State of Israel, leveling charges of "apartheid" and "war crimes." In a regime that restricted free speech, Zoabi would not be able to conduct these campaigns.
4) In January 2010, MK Tal a-Sana addressed a rally of Hamas officials and 100 members of the Free-Gaza Movement chanting, "Katyshuas on Ma'alot, Qassams on Sderot." In April of that year, a-Sana, Zoabi, and several other MKs met with Moammar Qaddafi in Libya – a country officially at war with Israel. In most other countries of the world, including many democratic states, the activities of Zoabi and a-Sana would have resulted in criminal prosecution,[9] forced removal from the legislature, or even imprisonment.[10]
Conclusion: We urge the Special Rapporteur to avoid repeating the practice of applying double standards and using false claims in order to condemn Israel, and to subject accusations from organizations and individuals regarding the state of freedom of expression in Israel to careful scrutiny and independent verification.
Gerald Steinberg is a Professor of Political Science at Bar Ilan University and President of NGO Monitor[11]. Prepared for Roundtable discussion with the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, UN Human Rights Council - December 14, 2011.
[1] Gerald M. Steinberg, "The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict." Israel Studies 16.2 (Summer 2011): 24-54; Robert Charles Blitt, "Who Will Watch the Watchdogs? Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations and the Case for Regulation," Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 10 (2004): 261-398; Ben-Dror Yemini, "NGOs vs. Israel," Middle East Quarterly XVIII.2 (Spring 2011): 67-71; Don A. Habibi, "Human Rights and Politicized Human Rights: A Utilitarian Critique," Journal of Human Rights 6.1 (2007): 3-35.
[2] Gerald M. Steinberg, "Europe's Hidden Hand: EU Funding for Political NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict: Analyzing Processes and Impact," NGO Monitor Monograph Series 2, April 2008; NGO Monitor, "Foreign Government Funding for Israeli Political NGOs 2009/2010," November 15, 2011; NGO Monitor, "Analysis of UK Government funding for Israeli and Palestinian Political Advocacy NGOs: 2008-2011," April 22, 2011
[3] NGO Monitor filed a complaint with the ethics committee of the Israeli Press Association regarding highly misleading and unprofessional coverage of NGO issues in the Ha'aretz internet edition, and the committee found the complaint justified, and ordered to newspaper to publish a correction. The text of the decision (in Hebrew) is available at http://www.moaza.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=128475.
[4] The Turkel Commission, established by Israel to investigate the 2010 "Free Gaza Flotilla" incident, criticized the credibility of political NGOs that present claims as if they are "completely disconnected from the activity itself" and "detach[] everything from the reality and placing it in one area without explaining why."
[5] Richard Goldstone, "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes," The Washington Post, April 2, 2011.
[6] Gerald M. Steinberg, "The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict," Israel Studies 16.2 Summer 2011.
[7] Gili Cohen, "ACRI report: less freedom for citizens, more harassing of demonstrators," Haaretz, December 4, 2011.
[8] In 2011, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands banned Muslim women from wearing the Burka in public. A 2009 referendum in Switzerland made minaret construction illegal. In contrast, no such restrictions are in place in Israel.
[9] See for example UK Terrorism Act (2000) and the cases of Geert Wilders (Netherlands), Jean Marie Le Pen (France), Nick Griffin (UK), and Joerg Haider (Austria).
[10] In contrast, despite his long history of incitement and inflammatory remarks, MK Azmi Bishara was only sought for police questioning after he was suspected of engaging in money laundering and providing the Hezbollah terrorist organization with information on strategic targets for rocket attacks on Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War. Bishara resigned from the Knesset on his own accord.
[11] NGO Monitor is a Jerusalem-based civil society organization that provides independent information and analysis regarding the activities, campaigns, and funding of powerful political NGOs operating in the Arab-Israeli conflict. NGO Monitor publishes systematic studies on NGO transparency, accountability, fact finding, interpretations of international law, human rights, humanitarian aid, and the laws of armed conflict.
Related Topics: Gerald M. Steinberg
UK: Islamist Intimidation Shuts Down Free Speech
by Shiraz Maher
February 16, 2012 at 4:45 am
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2849/uk-islamist-intimidation-free-speech
| Share: |
Be the first of your friends to like this.
"We are not to blame for 'provoking' the Islamists; they need no such provocation."
These have not been good times for free speech in the UK. Islamist students and cowardly student bodies – which, ironically, would identify themselves as liberal and progressive – have clamped down on the right of secular and atheist societies to voice their opposition to Islam (as they do to other religions too).
An event organized by the "One Law for All" campaign group at Queen Mary University in London was cancelled at the last minute after an Islamist made death threats against everyone attending. Anne Marie Waters, a spokeswoman for the National Secular Society had been due to address the room on Shariah law [Muslim religious law] and human rights. The room filled with students, but shortly before Waters was due to begin, a man entered the lecture theatre and filmed everyone in the audience. He then told them he could identify them all and knew where they lived – and that if anything insulting about the Prophet Mohammed was said, he would "track down" the audience members. Other students were also told that they, along with their families, would be murdered if any insult was perceived.
The event was cancelled and the police were called. The President of Queen Mary's Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society, who had organized the event, later commented:
This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate.
Only two complaints had been made to the Union prior to the event, and the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. These threats were an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and the fact that they led to the cancellation of our talk was severely disappointing for all of the religious and non-religious students in the room who wanted to engage in debate.
This was not an isolated incident. A few days earlier the Atheist Secular Humanist group at University College London (UCLASH) had been asked by the Students Union to remove an advertisement which depicted Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed sharing a beer. As ever, threats were made; the Students Union caved to pressure after several students protested.
The circumstances could not be more ironic. University College London (UCL) was founded in 1826 as a secular alternative to the strictly religious universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was the first institution of higher education in England to accept students of any race or religious or political belief, and was described by Thomas Arnold as as "that Godless institution in Gower Street." That religious intolerance should now threaten its student societies marks a staggering turns of events. UCLASH was forced to remove its publicity material, and the President of UCLASH noted:
That student representatives of the country's first secular university should attempt such an act of censorship is disheartening.
In the past, atheist groups have caused controversy also at Warwick University, with a poster showing religious symbols being put in a bin; while students at Leeds and Southampton have experienced intimidation when they proposed showing material that to which some Muslim students took offense.
Maryam Namazie, who leads the "One Law for All" campaign, explains:
This is not about lacking cultural sensitivity or discrimination…It is not about racism and 'Islamophobia'. It is not our fault for raising the issues. We are not to blame for 'provoking' the Islamists; they need no such provocation…
It's about being able to criticize and speak out against that which is taboo and the barbarism of our century. Free expression is all we have at our disposal.
That very principle may now be under threat on some campuses. The London School of Economics (LSE) has passed a motion effectively making it impossible for students on campus to criticise Islam. The motion denounced "Islamophobia," which it defined in broad brush strokes as:
A form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonization or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur'an as a manual of hatred.
The linguistic ambiguities in the wording of the motion and its broad construction make it prone to misuse. Indeed, some critics have denounced it as a "blasphemy law." The director of Student Rights, a pressure group which fights extremism on campus, has denounced the move:
This is an extremely worrying day for the London School of Economics. Shutting out people from voting online, effectively leaving the Union in the hands of political extremists who turn out day-in day-out, and passing what is a flimsy motion on Islamophobia means that freedom of speech, expression and effective representation is being curtailed on campus by those with a distinct political agenda.
A rally was to be held on February 11 to push back against rise of reactionary group and the curtailment of free speech on campus. Hailed as "a day to defend free expression," protesters will rally opposite the House of Lords. A remarkable coalition has come together to lend their support to the movement including progressive and liberal Muslims who are working with atheists, Jews, Christians, and others to ensure that the most important guarantee of religious freedoms – secularism – is not irreparably eroded in Britain.
Related Topics: Shiraz Maher
Turkey Sticks with Iran Oil after Saudi Talks
And more from the Turkish Press
by AK Group
February 16, 2012 at 3:00 am
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2857/turkey-sticks-with-iran-oil-after-saudi-talks
| Share: |
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Turkey has no plans to cut its imports of Iranian oil, remaining a rare loyal customer of Tehran despite rising pressure from international sanctions and initial signals it may buy more Saudi oil, Turkish and Saudi sources told Reuters.
The sources said Ankara's intentions became clear after a high level delegation traveled to Riyadh over the weekend and decided against requesting additional supplies from top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, the only producer in the world that has spare volumes to offer to replace Iranian barrels. The development will help Iran avoid extra pain from reduced sales of crude as the European Union seeks to ban Iranian oil imports from July 1 and major Asian customers are signaling they might cut purchases under pressure from Washington.
EU and United States sanctions against Iran over its nuclear plans are already hitting oil production in the Islamic Republic and a fall in its output and exports is likely to accelerate if more customers walk away from its oil. This could squeeze the budget and increase internal tensions ahead of parliamentary elections next month.
A Saudi oil ministry official said Turkish energy officials had not asked for additional oil when visiting Riyadh last week.
"Turkey did not ask for more oil, and has no plans to ban imports from Iran," he said.
An Ankara-based energy official said: "Turkey will continue to buy from Iran unless the United Nations supports/endorses the EU and U.S. oil embargo."
A United Nations embargo against Iran now seems very unlikely after Russia and China, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude, blocked UN sanctions against Syria. Turkey's long campaign for EU entry may now be less likely to influence its stance -- its relations with the bloc are at their lowest point in years and negotiations on membership, which began in 2005, are stalled with no immediate prospect of resumption.
Turkey imports around 200,000 barrels per day of oil from Iran, covering 30 percent of daily domestic consumption and representing over seven percent of Iranian oil exports, and had renewed its annual purchase agreement for 2012.
Most industry analysts expect China and Turkey to continue buying the same or increased volumes, despite previous signals from Ankara it could buy more Saudi oil and reports from Beijing that some of its firms are reducing purchases.
Traders say they suspect those signals were part of attempts by both Ankara and Beijing to negotiate lower prices for Iranian oil. The two countries are unlikely to follow the example of major Iranian customers South Korea and Japan, which are seeking to cut purchases to win waivers from U.S. sanctions.
NATO member Turkey has deepened economic and financial ties with Iran in recent years, despite Western efforts to isolate the country because they accuse it of trying to develop bombs under cover of what Tehran says is a nuclear energy program.
On a diplomatic level, Ankara often presents itself as a mediator in talks with the Islamic Republic, which it sees as a balancing force in the region against Israel.
Another Ankara-based oil industry official said Turkey's sole refiner Tüpraş was studying alternative crude purchase options but that did not mean it planned to stop buying oil from Iran, the second biggest oil exporter in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
"Tüpraş gets a really good price from Iran and from their point of view, there is nothing illegal. They pay through legal means and as long as that is the case, why would they stop?" he said, referring to payments via Turkish bank Halkbank.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-271388-turkey-sticks-with-iran-oil-after-saudi-talks.html
Opposition Against Bill, Accuses PM of Creating His Own 'Gang'
Turkey's main opposition accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday of trying to tighten his grip on the security services with a proposed law that would curb the powers of the judiciary to investigate senior intelligence officials.
It was hastily drafted after prosecutors summoned Turkey's top spy last week and lawmakers from Erdogan's ruling Justice and Peace, or AKP, Party pushed it through a parliamentary commission on Tuesday night. It will be put to a general assembly vote this week.
The law would mean top officials from Turkey's spy agency could not be questioned without the prime minister's permission. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party, or CHP, said by limiting the powers of the state to investigate top spies, the prime minister would effectively be creating a "gang" answerable only to him.
"Will Erdogan be given the power to establish a gang? Even if this gang betrays its country it will not be able to be tried," Kilicdaroglu said. "The prime minister could say to his gang: 'Go kill the president.' Is this a possibility? It is a possibility."
Last week, state prosecutors asked the head of the National Intelligence Agency, or MIT, and his predecessor to testify over secret links between the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and the agency, which is controlled by Erdogan.
The summons of the head of MIT, Hakan Fidan, who is close to the prime minister, was a rare imposition on the powerful agency and has stirred speculation of a power struggle between Erdogan and elements in the judiciary and police.
MIT has rebuffed the summons and Fidan has failed to appear.
Devlet Bahceli, leader of Turkey's third party, the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, said he would also oppose the bill.
"The head of MIT and officials should testify immediately. Certainly, it is the law that outlines the limits of the government's duties," he said.
The case over whether Fidan and others should be questioned has dominated Turkish media and television footage showed scenes of heated debates at the parliamentary commission.
Umit Boyner, chairwoman of the influential TUSIAD business association, also voiced her concern. "We as ordinary citizens are following with some horror and an increasing feeling of unease the power struggle within the state," she said.
The government said MIT officials should not be summoned without the prime minister's permission for simply carrying out their public duty. The prosecutors' investigation is focused on an organization called the Union of Kurdistan Communities, which the PKK is alleged to have established with the aim of creating its own political system in the mainly Kurdish southeast of Turkey.
Hundreds of people have been arrested in relation to the investigation, including some 150 people during raids across Turkey on Monday. Prosecutors now say they have also uncovered evidence state officials aided the militant separatists.
The prosecutor who ordered their questioning has since been removed from the case and, on Tuesday, media reports said Turkey's High Council of Judges and Prosecutors were investigating him, saying he had abused his position and failed in his duty to inform his superiors about his actions.
Istanbul Deputy Chief Prosecutor Fikret Secen has defended the investigation, saying it was only directed at the actions of individual officials and not against government anti-terrorism policy.
Prosecutors are also believed to want to question MIT officials about secret talks they held in Oslo with PKK representatives. The contacts came to light last year through recordings on the Internet; some have interpreted the targeting of the MIT as a nationalist warning to Erdogan against seeking any negotiated settlement with the PKK.
Talks between the state and PKK were halted after the AKP won a third term in office last June with roughly 50 percent of the votes, and the PKK has returned to fighting using northern Iraq as a refuge for operations in southeastern Turkey.
Feb. 15 marks the anniversary of jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan's capture in 1999 and officials say security forces are on high alert across Turkey fearing PKK attacks to mark the day.
Erdogan, who has Islamist roots but whose AKP includes centre-right and even strongly nationalist elements, has pressed reforms in Turkey that have shaken the political establishment since he was first elected in 2002. He has cut back the influence of the army and shaken up a conservative judiciary.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-turkey-intelligence-idUSTRE81D21K20120214
'Clash Between Powers' Creating a 'Sense of Lost Trust' in Turkey
Turkey is watching with growing trepidation and horror as elements within the state clash over a judicial challenge to the country's spy service and the government's attempts to defend it, the head of Turkey's top business association said Tuesday.
"We are watching the clash between the powers with horror and a growing sense of lost trust," Ümit Boyner, the chair of the Turkish Industry & Business Association, or TÜSİAD, said in reference to an apparent battle among the police and judiciary on one side and the intelligence services on the other after a special prosecutor called the country's spy chief in for questioning last week for his contacts with Kurdish militants.
The call forced the government to draft a bill – which was subjected to debate for the first time Tuesday – to protect National Intelligence Organization, or MİT, personnel from prosecution.
Speaking at a press conference about TÜSİAD's 2012 program, Boyner said Turkey had launched a democratization initiative in the early 2000s, but added that the gains it had made so far were "insignificant."
The process that started in 2008 to clean up the gangs within the state has now come to a point where many question whether this process is taking place within the norms of the universal rules of law, Boyner said, adding that Turkey is distancing itself from the rule of law.
"As the phrase goes, many people, from the journalist to the civil servant, from security personnel to academics, are regarded in the eyes of many citizens as 'those poor souls killed in the crossfire.' Once they get into the system, it becomes nearly impossible to get news of them. The process continues very slowly," she said. "This lack of confidence increases polarization in society."
While it is important to destroy the illegal organizations within the state, it is equally important that the Turkish justice system adopt universal legal criteria as soon as possible, she said.
"What is also equally important is that the [military] tutelage system comes to an end not only through civilianization but that the responsibilities and duties of the powers in the state becomes clearer and into conformity with the norms of law, transparency and accountability," Boyner added.
TÜSİAD unconditionally supports the government and Parliament's right to make policy, she said, but the drafting of a new law to protect MİT and other personnel from prosecution was just a stop-gap solution and would not create a democratic state.
HSYK Launches Preliminary Inquiry into Prosecutor over MIT Probe
The Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, or HSYK, on Tuesday launched a preliminary inquiry into the actions of İstanbul Specially Authorized Prosecutor Sadrettin Sarıkaya over allegations that he overstepped his authority in an investigation of intelligence officials.
The move by the HYSK's 3rd Chamber comes on the heels of a decision by İstanbul Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor Fikret Seçen to take Sarıkaya off a terrorism-related case after he attempted to obtain the testimonies of National Intelligence Organization, or MİT, Undersecretary Hakan Fidan and four other MİT officials.
On Saturday, Seçen removed the İstanbul specially authorized prosecutor from the Kurdish Communities Union, or KCK, case with the knowledge and approval of İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Turan Çolakkadı. Çolakkadı explained the reasons behind the move in remarks to the Sabah daily on Sunday, saying the prosecutor was taken off the case for violating the confidentiality of the investigation and hiding information from his superiors.
High Court Rejects Ex-Army Chief's Request to be Tried at Supreme Council
The Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office has rejected a request for former military chief retired Gen. İlker Başbuğ, who is currently jailed in a coup plot probe, to be tried by the Supreme State Council instead of a specially authorized court.
Başbuğ's lawyer, İlkay Sezer, filed a request with the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office last month for the trial of his client to take place at the Supreme State Council (Yüce Divan), a title the Constitutional Court assumes when it tries ministers, prime ministers, chiefs of General Staff and other high-ranking bureaucrats.
Evaluating the lawyer's request, the office said on Tuesday that charges leveled against Başbuğ are not related to his profession but are "terrorism charges." The office said the authority to try Başbuğ belongs to specially authorized courts and rejected the request.
Greek Patriarch to Give Speech in Turkish Parliament
Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew is set to give a speech to Parliament's Constitutional Commission on Feb. 20 to expound on the problems of Turkey's minorities, marking the first such occasion in the history of the Turkish Republic.
"Our Armenian deputy patriarch says we are happy and not beset by any problems every time a microphone is extended to him. To the contrary, we have problems [of such magnitude] that they are awaiting urgent solutions. Patriarch Bartholomew, on the other hand, does not shirk away from bringing up problems with great courage," Arev Cebeci, a former deputy candidate nominee from the opposition Republican People's Party, or CHP, told the Hürriyet Daily News.
Bartholomew will bring up a number of issues in the commission, including the re-opening of the Halki Seminary, the removal of unfavorable statements about Greeks, Armenians and Syriac Christians from Turkish class books and the employment of minorities in public offices.
Bartholomew was invited to Ankara within the framework of ongoing efforts to draft a new constitution for Turkey, although the move has led to criticism from some quarters within minority communities.
"We want to see concrete steps rather than the patriarch being summoned there," Kuryakos Ergün, the head of the Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation in the southeastern province of Mardin, told the Daily News.
The patriarch is also going to raise other issues in Parliament as well, such as the recognition of minority institutions as legal entities and the funding of minority houses of worship through the budget of the Directorate of Religious Affairs.
"We have problems of identity, recognition and language. Most important of all, we are experiencing great difficulty in training clerics," Ergün added.
It is important for Bartholomew to deliver a speech in Parliament, he said, but he also expressed reservations about the sincerity of the government in Ankara. Turkey's minority communities have more problems in common than they have differences, he added.
"Now we are demanding a solution to our problems. Dialogue is very important. We have been treated as third class citizens through this day, and this situation has to come to an end," Stelyo Berber, the head of Istanbul's Fener Hagia Yorgi Church Foundation, told the Daily News.
Turkey, U.S. Discuss How to Provide Aid to Syrians
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said Turkey and the United States on Monday agreed there should be new humanitarian initiative to reach out to the Syrian people, as a real humanitarian tragedy was taking place in the country.
Davutoğlu said he hoped all obstacles to a humanitarian aid corridor would be removed and that this was not a political or an intervention issue.
"The issue is to allow all Syrians to receive humanitarian aid regardless of their being pro-regime or not," Davutoğlu said in a press conference after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington. After the vetoes of the United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria by Russia and China, the international community and regional partners could not adopt a "wait and see" approach on Syria, he said. Clinton said Syria was at the top of the list of important matters that she discussed with Davutoğlu.
"We are increasing our funding to organizations like the Red Crescent, the International Committee for the Red Cross, and we're working directly with Syrian organizations at the grassroots to help families who have no electricity, food, or clean water," she said. She also revealed they would "intensify diplomatic pressure" on the Syrian regime, "strengthen targeted sanctions," and "increase outreach to opposition both inside and outside of Syria."
Clinton also praised Turkey as being "a nation of conscience that understands the suffering of the Syrian people and serves as an example alternative to the al-Assad regime."
The Arab League initiative for the Friends of Syria group, which will hold its first meeting in Tunisia next week, was originally Turkey's idea, said Davutoğlu, adding that if the UN Security Council had fulfilled its ethical and political responsibilities there would have been no need for a meeting in Tunisia. This meeting would represent an important international platform to send a strong and clear message to the Syrian regime that they cannot continue their violent policies, he also said.
Tunisia was chosen because it was the first place of the Arab uprisings. Davutoğlu said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had agreed to accelerate the procedures of a UN humanitarian aid office.
http://www.aa.com.tr/tr/kategoriler/dunya/115033-yiyecek-ve-ilac-sikintisi-had-safhada
Pentagon, Lockheed See Price of F-35 Going Up
Delays in United States and international orders for Lockheed Martin Corp's new F-35 fighter jet will increase its total cost, Lockheed and U.S. officials said Tuesday, as Italy announced a cut in spending on the warplane.
On Monday, the Pentagon confirmed plans to put off orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion and allow more time for testing, a third restructuring in recent years.
U.S. officials insist they have not changed their plans to develop and buy 2,443 jets at a cost of $382 billion over the next few decades.
Continued schedule delays and talk of lingering technical issues have prompted the eight countries that are helping to fund development of the new plane -- Britain, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands -- to rethink their own near- and long-term plans.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-271466-pentagon-lockheed-see-price-of-f-35-going-up.html
EU Says Natural Gas Pipeline Through Turkey Needed
In a report sent to member countries on the energy sector, the European Union Commission said it needed a pipeline to carry natural gas from Azerbaijan to Europe via Turkey; the pipeline must also be large enough to carry more natural gas from the Caspian to Europe, the commission said.
The latest interruptions in the supply of natural gas from Turkey to Greece necessitate the new pipeline to be utilized solely for carrying natural gas to the EU. Otherwise, the demand in Turkey may cause interruptions creating problems for European consumers of natural gas, the commission stressed in its report.
The EU Commission's report touched on the Trans-Anatolia natural gas pipeline that would carry 16 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey and said that this pipeline may be made bigger and replace the Nabucco project to carry natural gas only to the EU.
Trans-Anatolia natural gas pipeline will be completed in five years and cost $6 billion.
Out of the 16 billion cubic meters of natural gas to be carried by the Trans-Anatolia pipeline, six billion cubic meters would be allocated to Turkey while the rest would be sold to Europe.
http://www.aa.com.tr/tr/kategoriler/ekonomi/115116-turkiye-uzerinden-gelen-hatta-ihtiyac-var
Turkey Condemns Attacks Targeting Israeli Diplomats
Turkey has condemned recent attacks aimed at Israeli diplomatic personnel in India and Georgia in near-simultaneous strikes.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry on Tuesday issued a written statement to condemn Tuesday's attacks on Israeli diplomats' cars.
"Turkey is against terrorism, regardless of its source or justification. In this regard, we condemn the attacks in question and wish a speedy recovery to those injured," the statement said.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-271364-turkey-condemns-attacks-targeting-israeli-diplomats.html
Related Topics: AK Group
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment