Promising Future for British-Turkish Relations

Published by Today's Zaman,07 September 2011

As Turkish-EU relations are strained, Turkey will seek closer links with EU countries with which it has an already good rapport. This gives the UK a superb chance to advance its ties with Turkey.

Both the current and previous British governments are aware of the importance of Turkish-British relations: The UK has consistently and wholeheartedly supported Turkish membership to the EU, a policy that continues today. Queen Elizabeth II’s visit to Turkey in 2008, the first time Her Majesty visited the country since 1971, was a successful relationship-building exercise. President Abdullah Gül and his wife are scheduled to visit the UK as guests of the Queen in the near future.

When David Cameron visited Turkey in his first foreign visit in July 2010, it sent positive signals to the Turkish state. The visit resulted in the signing of a new Strategic Partnership Agreement and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke of the “golden age” of Turkish-British relations. Mr. Cameron’s trip has been followed by less public visits by Defense Secretary Liam Fox, Lord Mayor of London Michael Bear, Trade Minister Lord Stephen Green, Lord James Sassoon from Her Majesty’s Treasury and Martin Donnelly from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

At the economic level, there is room for a major expansion of trade between the two countries. The UK government made the same point in a White Paper titled “Trade and Investment for Growth” in February 2011, noting that the UK is aiming to double its current trade with Turkey from a base of 9 billion pounds by 2015.

The trade between the two countries has been on a steady increase since 2001. The Turkish Statistics Institute (TurkStat) recorded a total volume of $4 billion in 2001, which has seen a major increase since 2003, quickly reaching $10 billion in 2005 and $14 billion in 2007. While 2008 and 2009 saw a drop in trade in line with the global recession, it rose again to an estimated $11 billion in 2010. The British High Commission in Ankara noted a steady increase of British direct investment into Turkey, from $141 million in 2003 to $1.3 billion in 2008, in its Country Updates for Business briefing released in July 2011.

Turkey not only produces goods consumed in the British market but as its economy and consumer confidence grows, so does demand for high-end consumer goods, in which Britain excels. Investments in Turkey by British companies and individuals have been by and large positive as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government undertook significant reforms to ease foreign direct investment to the country. There is also a trend of high level investments by Turkish companies in the UK.

Turkey is also keen to expand the markets from which it buys military supplies as its relations with Israel remain strained and there is a danger of unhealthy dependence on the US. This provides a great opening for UK companies to pursue defense contracts in Turkey, a fact which was highlighted when Fox visited Turkey. A positive sign of this was the 12.1 million euro contract won by British Ultra Electronics to provide a torpedo defense system for Turkish submarines.

Turkey’s policy of being a neutral energy route between multiple suppliers for consumption in Europe has important positive outcomes for British energy needs. A diversity of suppliers will counter European vulnerability to volatile Russian energy provisions.

At the political level, enhanced British-Turkish relations also have domestic and diplomatic benefits for the UK. Currently, the scope of British engagement in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) remains limited and problematic. With closer ties with Turkey, the UK would be able to assert influence and expand and secure its interests in the region. With closer relations on intelligence-sharing and combined security initiatives, a partnership would bring major benefits to ongoing concerns over human and narcotics trafficking, as well as organized crime and terrorism. This was a major point raised by the UK’s Home Affairs Committee in its report “Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union,” released on Aug. 1, 2011.

It is clear that the British government is on the right path regarding its Turkey policy. However, there are major areas that need to be addressed. More social and educational initiatives have to be launched in order to bolster societal ties. The speedy tightening of UK visa regulations is damaging the process. Britain not only has to accelerate its efforts to recruit a growing number of Turkish students to study in the UK, it also has to ensure that the current changes to student visas and temporary work permits that enable recent graduates to get job experience in the UK do not hinder the appeal of Britain, thus causing a loss of market share in education.

While special treaties such as the Ankara agreement between Britain and Turkey have sought to bolster economic links by allowing Turkish workers to set up business ventures, such accords are not enough and have often led to irregular migration. A more robust policy to attract highly skilled Turkish workers to Britain would be key to enabling British companies to deal with the fast-growing Turkish market.

New Briefing: Turkey



Foreign Policy Centre, 06 September 2011
"Turkey - Domestic challenges that will dominate AK Party government's third term"


One thing was certain about the June 2011 elections in Turkey: AKP would win. Yet speculation over whether or not it would earn a greater share of the vote was rife, as was the forecasting of how many votes the renewed leadership of the leading secular opposition party, CHP (Republican People's Party) would attract, or whether the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) would make the 10% threshold to enter parliament, or how many MPs the Kurdish BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) would have.

Download the Briefing by Ziya Meral

Essay in a New Book: Islam, Human Rights and 'Our Way of Life'


Dear all,

I am pleased to announce the release of a new book which I contributed to. Between Naivety and Hostility; Uncovering the best Christian responses to Islam in Britain is published by the Authentic Media in the UK and co-edited by Steve Bell and Colin Chapman.

The book contains 20 essays by leading Christian experts on Islam issues and seek to challenge and inform the British church. The vision behind the book was our growing concern over dangerious views on immigration, social cohesion and Muslim-Christian relations taking roots in the British church. We sought to produce a book that will counterbalance such views and yet at the same engage and raise genuine issues that needs to be addressed.

My essay in the book is titled "Islam, Human Rights and Our Way of Life" is an attempt to demonstrate that Islam is not inherintly at odds with democracy, human rights and the ever elusive phrase 'our way of life'. However, I also raise that there are certain areas, such as mainstream Islamic views on apostasy, homesexulaity and gender, that needs serious reform by Muslims today.

Regards,

Ziya Meral

Tactical Failure of Turkish Policy on Mavi Marmara Crises

Published by Huffington Post UK Blog, 3 September 2011

No matter what angle one looks at, it is undeniable that Turkey has every right to continue to demand an apology for the killing of her citizens, just as every country in the world would and should do in such an incident. Yet, Turkey has committed a tactical mistake in the process of achieving an apology.

With hindsight, it is clear that the build up to the killing of Turkish citizens on board the doomed boat is not that black and white. Before the boat sailed, both Turkey and Israel could have found a way of stopping or handling it, but both parties failed to do so and allowed things to reach to their nadir.

While vast majority of the people on the boat were peace activists, there was a small group of mujahiddeen-wannabes ready to 'retaliate'. The Israeli forces not only failed dramatically in the operational sense, but their wrong approach of trying to stop the boat triggered retaliation and not surprisingly use of brutal military force.

Israel had a brief window of opportunity to stop escalation of the issue. It could have been enough to state that operation went wrong and that its sorry for loss of life but still insist that the boats should not have been there, which would have defused the situation. AKP had no chance but to stand boldly against Israel and demand an apology as the entire Turkish public demanded so. Both parties were then engulfed in copying each other in harsher and bolder stands with growing myopia of the implications of their mimetic bravado for the entire Middle East.


Turkey could have made an apology from Israel a lot more possible if the AKP government has not included the lifting of Gaza blockade to its three fold demand from Israel, two of which asked for apology and reparations for the murdered citizens. However, the issue of Gaza and the issue of dead citizens are not inherently linked. It would have been so if those murdered were Palestinian dwellers of Gaza who were killed during an attempt to bring banned supplies to Gaza.

While Turkey might have a stand on Gaza and over all Israel-Palestine issues, by combining it with its rightful demand for an apology for its citizens, it undermined its own cause. The Gaza blockade emerged from Israel's policy, backed by all of the major stakeholders, to isolate and weaken Hamas. Thus, a demand for the lifting of blockade bumps into a much more complicated and long term tension involving many powerful stakeholders and Israeli public.

Unwittingly, Turkey has made the loss of its citizens a political tool for a larger policy on Israel. This only caused the hardened voices in Israel to mute others that see friendship with Turkey to be too important to loose. That is why even though the UN report clearly states the military failures and serious human rights abuses committed by Israel, it's dubious claims on the legality of the blockade was seen as a victory and a reason to never apologize to Turkey. In contrast, Egypt was able to get a quick and swift apology from Israel for the killing of its troops.

In diplomacy, one has to develop a game plan for the desired achievement. Turkey seems to have miscalculated and gambled far more than would have been possible to achieve. As for Israel, it once again found joy in being singled out by the world and loosing one more friend in such a critical conjuncture without ever realizing the long term costs of a temporary sense of pride and martyrdom.

So the winner stands alone now; a discredited UN commissioned report and its politically charged writers, unsuccessful outcomes of the Turkish gamble, delusional arrogance of Israeli foreign ministry under the Netanyahu government. The dead are still dead, their families are still mourning and sadly, many more will join their ranks.

How the press got the UK Home Affairs Committee report wrong


Published by Today's Zaman, 4 August 2011



The UK Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee released an important report titled “Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union” on Monday.

Within the same day, the international press picked up on various themes in the report and by and large used sensationalist captions highlighting the report’s concerns. The Jerusalem Post stated, “UK lawmakers say Turkey must improve border security.” AFP was more dramatic with, “MPs warn over security risks if Turkey joins EU.” The BBC reflected the ever-present panic attacks over migration in Britain stating, “MPs warn over Turkey migrant risk.” Bloomberg echoed a similar alarm, “Turkey joining EU would pose border risks.” And the part of the UK with the lowest migrant population, Northern Ireland, had “Illegal immigrants fear over Turkey’s EU move,” on the Belfast Telegraph’s pages.

This was a superb chance for the UK Independence Party’s bewildered and insignificant leader, Nigel Farage, to declare that “Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU.” In a hearty dose of paradox, Farage represents an anti-EU party with seats in the European Parliament.

The titles and content of all of the press articles seem to suggest that the Home Affairs Committee’s report was asking for an end to Turkish accession talks. Yet the truth is far from it. The report does acknowledge serious patterns of organized crime and human trafficking that both Turkey and Greece get tangled in, as both countries serve as the main entrance route to the “old continent.”


What the press omitted, however, was the strong case the report makes for Turkish integration into the EU.

Paragraph 38 in the report’s recommendations suggests: “Turkish accession would be unlikely to lead to an increase of narcotics into the EU market, given that the major factors influencing drug flows into the EU appear to be production levels in the source countries and domestic demand in the EU Member States, neither of which would be affected. Furthermore, accession will bring opportunities for greater cooperation between Turkish and EU law enforcement agencies, which could bring about a more robust response to drug trafficking”

Paragraph 44 makes similarly strong findings. It states that in the long-term, “the risks that Turkish accession poses for organised crime in the EU are considerably outweighed by the potential benefits” and that “there is a risk that, if Turkey is not permitted to join the EU, the Turkish authorities may lose their incentive to prioritise tackling criminality which affects EU Member States to a far greater extent than their own population (Turkey does not have a big domestic drug market and most immigrants transiting the country do not intend to stay). … It is clear that the Turkish authorities are proving more effective than some of the authorities that lie within the EU border, such as Greece, and that bilateral arrangements -- for example, between SOCA and the Turkish authorities -- are maturing well.”

Paragraph 45 of the report even urges the EU to incorporate Turkey into European bodies such as Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction “prior to” and “irrespective of full membership.” The report says that “not to admit Turkey to membership of those bodies would be to cut off the European nose to spite our face…”

Interestingly, in paragraph 106 the report shows a counter-trend, which is rarely raised in the European press: “We accept that both legal and clandestine migration from Turkey to the EU have declined in recent years to a combined annual figure of below 50,000, and that there is also evidence of negative migration from the EU to Turkey, particularly from Germany.”

The report also notes legitimate concerns over the expansion of EU borders to countries such as Syria and Iran, which have visa waiver agreements with Turkey. Yet the report’s tone is optimistic, and sees a robust and willing Turkish state, which will meet these challenges with the EU’s support.

In other terms, the newspaper captions have been misleading, telling us more about Europe itself then the findings of the report or the UK’s steadfast support of Turkish membership.

Dangerous Turkish Gamble on Cyprus and EU

























Foreign Policy Centre, 26 July 2011

A remarkable series of public declarations by Turkish officials last weeks are causing increasing concern over the future of Turkish-EU relations and possible solutions to the Cyprus problem.

It first started with comments made by the Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu two weeks ago. Davutoglu publicly stated that unless the Cyprus issue is resolved by early 2012, negotiations with the EU may be frozen. This deadline is based on the start of Cyprus' turn for EU presidency. Since Turkey does not officially accept the existence of the Republic of Cyprus, the FM argued that Turkey cannot engage with the EU presidency while Cyprus is in office; thus EU-Turkish relations will, de facto, be frozen.

Then came the harsher comments by the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan over the last week. Prior to his visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the PM gave a series of interviews to the Turkish and Cypriot press, as well as some stronger public talks while on the disputed island.

The Prime Minister declared that the issue has to be solved at least in principle, and agreements reached before the EU presidency, underlining Turkey's preference for a federal unification of both sides of the island. In addition, Erdogan has retracted AK Party's (AKP) willingness to offer land swaps in certain areas and clearly asserted that if no agreement is reached by July 2012, Turkey and the TRNC will close negotiations and the island will forever be two independent states on current borders. This clear Turkish challenge puts the ball not only in the Greek Cypriot but also the EU's court.


Erdogan was key in triggering the initiatives undertaken by Kofi Annan, which came to an abrupt end when the Greek Cypriots voted 'No' to the UN's proposals. In contrast, the Turkish Cypriots voted 'Yes' with a clear majority. AKP had in fact put serious political capital behind the Annan plan.

While Kofi Annan gave up on solving the issue, the EU took a controversial decision and allowed the Republic of Cyprus into the EU without any concrete solution to the conflict. This has subsequently caused both the TRNC and Turkey to feel betrayed and disillusioned as they upheld their sides of the bargain.

Ever since, Greek Cyprus has vetoed EU-Turkish accession talks at every step of the conversation. Since EU countries remain divided on the Turkish bid, it is no surprise that Turkey believes that neither the Republic of Cyprus nor the EU actually want to solve this problem and quicken the Turkish accession into the EU.

The fact that the UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon recently initiated a preliminary meeting with Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders for a final UN attempt to unite the island, has triggered the latest escalation of Turkey's focus on the island. The General Secretary too sees these talks as a last chance. Until now, neither the EU nor Greek Cyprus seem moved by Turkish and UN timelines and demands, while sponsor country Greece is too troubled domestically to even engage on the issue.

A catalytic shock was indeed needed to conclude, positively or negatively, the nightmare problem that has caused so many diplomats and mediators severe depression. In such a scenario there are only three possible outcomes from this gamble.

Either, the EU will show their resolve and thus pressure the Republic of Cyprus to let go of maximalist goals and accept in principle a timetable for the unification of the island, thus compromise; or, this would indeed finally end all chances of unification, and see the TRNC and Turkey begin work on long term nation-building.

While the former result would have tremendously positive outcomes both for Cyprus, the EU, Greece, Turkey and the feeble Eastern Mediterranean, the latter would not only result in EU-Turkish relations being frozen during Cypriot presidency, eventual political solutions for EU-Turkey tensions would be much harder to identify.

Even though the populist French and German political mood might seem to argue for exclusion of Turkey from the EU, in actuality, all of the EU states are acutely aware that they need Turkey, both economically and increasingly diplomatically as Turkey deepens its regional power and appeal. While Turkey will never give up bilateral relations with European countries, it also looks less and less in need of EU membership.

The third outcome from this gamble might be that AKP will eventually have to retract its deadlines and harsh tones, and accept the status quo. Then, AKP would have to face serious loss of diplomatic capital and a weaker stand against the EU countries which oppose Turkish membership. This would enable Greek Cyprus to find a way out of being seen as the primary reason why the issue is not solved, and blame Turkey for being the unreasonable party.

It is high time, not only to show genuine will to solve the Cyprus problem, but also once and for all finalize whether Turkey will ever be an EU state. The AKP seem set to force the moment to a crisis to find a conclusion; a dangerous, but much needed gamble.

Public Talk in July 2011

On July 29, I will be speaking at the following Congressional briefing:

The Interplay between Religious Freedom, Extremism, and Security: Implications for U.S. Policy

WHERE: 2103 Rayburn House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives

WHEN: Friday, July 29, 2011 --- 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm







The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) invites you to a staff briefing, “The Interplay between Religious Freedom, Extremism, and Security: Implications for U.S. Policy” on Friday, July 29 from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm in Rayburn 2103.

A panel of experts will discuss the interplay between religious freedom, extremism, and security with a particular focus on U.S. policy toward Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Three of the panelists, Daniel Philpott, Tim Shah, and Monica Duffy Toft, will present findings and offer policy recommendations from their recently published book, God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics. Current USCIRF Fellow Ziya Meral will speak about patterns of ethno-religious violence with case studies from countries he recently visited, Egypt and Nigeria. Questions and answers will follow.

Please contact Kristina Olney (at 202-786-0613 or KOlney@uscirf.gov) with any questions.