DOCSLIB.ORG

SETA Policy Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SETA Policy Report SETA Policy Report SETA | Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research | www.setav.org | January 2012 Turkey ın 2011 SETA POLICY REPORT TURKEY IN 2011 EDITORS TAHA ÖZHAN | HATEM ETE | SELİN M. BÖLME AUTHORS MUHİTTİN ATAMAN | SELİN M. BÖLME | ZAFER ÇELİK | YILMAZ ENSAROĞLU | HATEM ETE | YAVUZ GÜÇTÜRK | BEKİR S. GÜR | ERDAL TANAS KARAGÖL | HÜSEYİN KIRMIZI | MÜJGE KÜÇÜKKELEŞ | MURAT ÖZOĞLU | FERAY SALMAN | FURKAN TORLAK | FATMA SEL TURHAN | UFUK ULUTAŞ | HAKKI UYGUR | CEM DURAN UZUN CONTRIBUTORS SADULLAH ANKARALI | EDA BEKTAŞ | AHMET SEMİH BİNGÖL | İPEK COŞKUN | GALİP DALAY | FATOŞ EMEKDAR | SAMİ ORÇUN ERSAY | DOĞAN EŞKİNAT | ÜLKÜ İSTİKLAL MIHÇIOKUR | ZEYNEP BETÜL SARIYILDIZ | FATİH TAŞKIRAN | KADİR ÜZEN TRANSLATED BY GÜLGÜN KOZAN | DOĞAN EŞKİNAT | DOV FRIEDMAN | NUR MURPHY COPYRIGHT ©2012 SETA SETA | Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı Nenehatun Caddesi No: 66 GOP Çankaya 06700 Ankara TÜRKİYE Tel:+90 312.551 21 00 | Faks :+90 312.551 21 90 | www.setav.org | [email protected] SETA | Washington D.C. Office 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1106 Washington, D.C., 20036 Tel: 202-223-9885 | Faks: 202-223-6099 | www.setadc.org | [email protected] SETA Policy Report, No. 8, January 2012 Design & Layout by Ümare Yazar | Publishing: Pelin Ofset, Ankara FOREWORD 7 CHAPTER 1 11 POLITICS CHAPTER 2 29 LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS CHAPTER 3 49 FOREIGN POLICY CHAPTER 4 71 ECONOMY CHAPTER 5 77 EDUCATION EPILOGUE 87 CONTENTS FOREWORD | 7 1. POLITICS | 11 1.1 2011 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS | 12 1.1.1 Election Period and its Aftermath |13 1.1.2 Political Parties and the Elections | 14 1.1.3 Political Indications of June 12 | 16 1.2 CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS | 18 1.2.1 Trials of Coup Plotters and Anti-Government Propaganda | 18 1.2.2 Supreme Military Council Summit of 2011 | 19 1.2.3 Normalization and Civilian Rule | 19 1.3 THE KURDISH QUESTION: EFFORTS TOWARD RESOLUTION AND THE PKK | 21 1.3.1 The KCK Trials |22 1.3.2 Resolution through Dialogue | 24 1.3.3 Intra-PKK Power Struggles and the Militant Turn | 25 2. LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS | 29 2.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES | 29 2.1.1 Constitutional Amendment | 29 2.1.2 Act Granting the Council of Ministers the Authority to Issue Decrees Having the Force of Law | 30 2.1.3 The Act on Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sporting Events |30 2.1.4 The Process of the New Constitution Making |30 2.2 JUDICIARY | 31 2.2.1 Strengthening the Judicial System | 31 2.2.2 Controversial Cases and Expectations | 32 2.3 HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2011 | 36 2.3.1 Civilian Control of Security Forces | 37 2.3.2 Compliance with International Human Rights Law | 37 2.3.3 Institutionalization of Human Rights | 40 2.3.4 Training for Public Officials 40| 2.3.5 Prisons | 40 2.3.6 Freedom of Expression | 41 2.3.7 Freedom of Religion | 41 2.3.8 Freedom of Association and Assembly | 42 2.3.9 Women’s Rights | 42 2.3.10 Children’s Rights | 43 2.3.11 Police Violence | 44 2.3.12 The Disabled |44 2.3.13 Minorities and Cultural Rights | 44 2.3.14 The Kurdish Question |45 2.3.15 2011 Parliamentary Elections | 46 2.3.16 Refugees | 46 2.4 EXPECTATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS | 47 3. FOREIGN POLICY | 49 3.1 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON TURKEY | 49 3.1.1 Arab Spring | 49 3.1.2 Discussions on the UN system | 52 3.2 CRISIS IN FOREIGN POLICY AND BILATERAL RELATIONS | 53 3.2.1 Turkey-U.S. Relations | 53 3.2.2 Turkey-EU Relations | 56 3.2.3 Turkey-Iraq Relationship | 58 3.2.4 Turkey-Iran Relations | 60 3.2.5 Turkey-Israel Relations | 62 3.2.6 Turkey-Syria Relations | 64 3.2.7 Turkey-Balkan Relations | 66 3.2.8 Turkey-Africa Relations | 67 3.2.9 Cyprus Issue | 69 4. ECONOMY IN 2011 | 71 4.1 ECONOMIC GROWTH | 71 4.2 CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT | 72 4.3 PUBLIC FINANCE | 73 4.4 MONETARY POLICIES | 74 5. EDUCATION | 77 5.1 NATIONAL EDUCATION | 77 5.1.1 Teacher Appointments | 77 5.1.2 National Teaching Strategy Workshop | 78 5.1.3 FATİH Project | 78 5.1.4 The Act on the Organization and Duties of the Ministry of National Education | 79 5.1.5 2011 Placement Tests for Secondary Education (SBS) | 79 5.2 HIGHER EDUCATION | 80 5.2.1 Student Protests | 81 5.2.2. The Right to Wear the Headscarf | 82 5.2.3 Student Amnesty and Tuition Fees | 83 5.2.4 The Restructuring of ÖSYM and the Allegations of Cheating to YGS |83 5.2.5 Supply and Demand in Higher Education | 85 5.2.6 The Reconstruction of Higher Education |85 EPILOGUE | 87 FOREWORD The year 2011 was going to be a year in which the political and social effects of the September 12, 2010 referendum for drafting of the new constitution would be felt. As Turkey bid farewell to its old political habits with the September 12 ref- erendum, a public debate on how new political structures were going to be built began. The focus of the debate was “innovation”. As the public debate was gearing towards an exhaustive examination of the new political patterns, the wave of revo- lution and transformation that began in Tunisia and spread over the entire region took the public discourse hostage. Turkey’s discussions of ‘innovation’ were ab- sorbed in the wave of transformation. Turkey faced the Arab Spring as a country that has demonstrated significant developments in its own political transforma- tion. Political actors, who had not contributed to the ongoing efforts of democra- tization in Turkey satisfactorily, especially in the context of the Kurdish question, tried, to no avail, cast themselves in important roles in the uprisings in the region. In 2011, the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AK Party) was going to campaign for its third term in power after having won the vote of confidence in the referendum on September 12, with a high margin of 58 percent. In the after- math of the referendum, the main opposition CHP (Republican People’s Party) after its contentious change of leadership; BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) after its decision to boycott the referendum and the democratic initiative; and MHP (National Movement Party) after its constituents’ reaction to its stance on the Kurdish initiative reflected to the poles in the referendum, embarked on the electoral process with ambitions of their own. Contrary to the attitudes of the op- position, the interim elections resulted in AK Party’s landslide victory. 7 SETA POLICY REPORT: TURKEY IN 2011 The elections of June 12th, which can be considered the most important event of the year 2011, affected the opposition parties in different ways. Internal strife in the main opposition party CHP stretched through the entire year. CHP had still not stabilized after its contentious change of leadership when it entered the elec- toral process. The new party leader, Kemal Kılıcdaroglu joined the “new Turkey” discourse with his vision of a “new CHP”. Kılıcdaroglu’s vision for the party satis- fied neither its lifetime constituents, nor those who expected an AK Party like per- formance from CHP. This inevitably caused factions within the party. In the fall of 2011, after Prime Minister Erdogan apologized for Dersim events in the name of the state, CHP found itself paying for the sins committed during the single party regime. It became clear for the new vision of CHP to take hold, it needed a clean break from its treacherous past. The MHP campaign kicked off under pressure for having witnessed that the party’s strong opposition against sensitive issues such as the Kurdish Initiative, the Kurdish Question’s peaceful resolution, and the September 2010 referendum did not attract popular support. Notwithstanding its internal bickering, MHP during this year failed to demonstrate a definitive line or stance, and the main political target of the party became achieving the 10 percent national threshold required to qualify for the parliament. Finally, the pro-Kurdish BDP entered the race with heated discussions and a wind of change. Applying their previously-agreed ‘umbrella party’ concept through their endorsement of independent candidates from different backgrounds within the Kurdish political movement, the party achieved considerable success in the elections. The Turkish government’s transition from a security-oriented approach to a democratization paradigm, embodied by the Kurdish Initiative, helped create a BDP experience that varied greatly from that of the party’s predecessors: The accompanying of an ongoing trend of democratic reforms by economic develop- ment naturally provided the BDP with an instant appeal, while it remains to be seen whether or not the party will be able to extend its popularity over the longer term. The primary obstacle en route to this goal appears to be their exclusive focus on the Kurdish Question that makes it impossible for the party to escape the vi- cious circle of PKK tutelage. As such, the outdated leftist language that imposes the BDP-PKK line as the sole legitimate territory for peaceful resolution interferes with the party’s potential to develop an all-encompassing political view for Turkey and its Kurds. PKK—with its opposing stance towards the democratic initiatives of the 2010 and violent attacks on the tail of Middle Eastern uprisings—trapped itself into a cor- 8 FOREWORD ner. The leaked communication between MIT (National Intelligence Agency) and PKK revealed attempts to persuade PKK in more peaceful methods than it was as- sumed in the public discourse. In the light of these events, it became apparent that PKK situated itself not as part of the solution, but rather the problem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reconciling Statism with Freedom: Turkey's Kurdish Opening
    Reconciling Statism with Freedom Turkey’s Kurdish Opening Halil M. Karaveli SILK ROAD PAPER October 2010 Reconciling Statism with Freedom Turkey’s Kurdish Opening Halil M. Karaveli © Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program – A Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 Institute for Security and Development Policy, V. Finnbodav. 2, Stockholm-Nacka 13130, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org “Reconciling Statism with Freedom: Turkey’s Kurdish Opening” is a Silk Road Paper published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the Silk Road Studies Program. The Silk Road Papers Series is the Occasional Paper series of the Joint Center, and ad- dresses topical and timely subjects. The Joint Center is a transatlantic independent and non-profit research and policy center. It has offices in Washington and Stockholm and is affiliated with the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University and the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy. It is the first institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse commu- nity of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders, and journalists. The Joint Center is at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security, and development in the region. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lec- tures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public dis- cussion regarding the region. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this study are those of the authors only, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Joint Center or its sponsors.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey's Deep State
    #1.12 PERSPECTIVES Political analysis and commentary from Turkey FEATURE ARTICLES TURKEY’S DEEP STATE CULTURE INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ECOLOGY AKP’s Cultural Policy: Syria: The Case of the Seasonal Agricultural Arts and Censorship “Arab Spring” Workers in Turkey Pelin Başaran Transforming into the Sidar Çınar Page 28 “Arab Revolution” Page 32 Cengiz Çandar Page 35 TURKEY REPRESENTATION Content Editor’s note 3 ■ Feature articles: Turkey’s Deep State Tracing the Deep State, Ayşegül Sabuktay 4 The Deep State: Forms of Domination, Informal Institutions and Democracy, Mehtap Söyler 8 Ergenekon as an Illusion of Democratization, Ahmet Şık 12 Democratization, revanchism, or..., Aydın Engin 16 The Near Future of Turkey on the Axis of the AKP-Gülen Movement, Ruşen Çakır 18 Counter-Guerilla Becoming the State, the State Becoming the Counter-Guerilla, Ertuğrul Mavioğlu 22 Is the Ergenekon Case an Opportunity or a Handicap? Ali Koç 25 The Dink Murder and State Lies, Nedim Şener 28 ■ Culture Freedom of Expression in the Arts and the Current State of Censorship in Turkey, Pelin Başaran 31 ■ Ecology Solar Energy in Turkey: Challenges and Expectations, Ateş Uğurel 33 A Brief Evaluation of Seasonal Agricultural Workers in Turkey, Sidar Çınar 35 ■ International Politics Syria: The Case of the “Arab Spring” Transforming into the “Arab Revolution”, Cengiz Çandar 38 Turkey/Iran: A Critical Move in the Historical Competition, Mete Çubukçu 41 ■ Democracy 4+4+4: Turning the Education System Upside Down, Aytuğ Şaşmaz 43 “Health Transformation Program” and the 2012 Turkey Health Panorama, Mustafa Sütlaş 46 How Multi-Faceted are the Problems of Freedom of Opinion and Expression in Turkey?, Şanar Yurdatapan 48 Crimes against Humanity and Persistent Resistance against Cruel Policies, Nimet Tanrıkulu 49 ■ News from hbs 53 Heinrich Böll Stiftung – Turkey Representation The Heinrich Böll Stiftung, associated with the German Green Party, is a legally autonomous and intellectually open political foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Populism: Trolls and Political Polarization of Twitter in Turkey
    International Journal of Communication 11(2017), 4093–4117 1932–8036/20170005 Digital Populism: Trolls and Political Polarization of Twitter in Turkey ERGİN BULUT Koç University, Turkey ERDEM YÖRÜK Koç University, Turkey University of Oxford, UK This article analyzes political trolling in Turkey through the lens of mediated populism. Twitter trolling in Turkey has diverged from its original uses (i.e., poking fun, flaming, etc.) toward government-led polarization and right-wing populism. Failing to develop an effective strategy to mobilize online masses, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP/AKP) relied on the polarizing performances of a large progovernment troll army. Trolls deploy three features of JDP’s populism: serving the people, fetish of the will of the people, and demonization. Whereas trolls traditionally target and mock institutions, Turkey’s political trolls act on behalf of the establishment. They produce a digital culture of lynching and censorship. Trolls’ language also impacts pro-JDP journalists who act like trolls and attack journalists, academics, and artists critical of the government. Keywords: trolls, mediated populism, Turkey, political polarization, Twitter Turkish media has undergone a transformation during the uninterrupted tenure of the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) since 2002. Not supported by the mainstream media when it first came to power, JDP created its own media army and transformed the mainstream media’s ideological composition. What has, however, destabilized the entire media environment was the Gezi Park protests of summer 2013.1 Activists’ use of social media not only facilitated political organizing, but also turned the news environment upside down. Having recognized that the mainstream media was not trustworthy, oppositional groups migrated to social media for organizing and producing content.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plot Against the Generals
    THE PLOT AGAINST THE GENERALS Dani Rodrik* June 2014 On a drizzly winter day four-and-a-half years ago, my wife and I woke up at our home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to sensational news from our native Turkey. Splashed on the first page of Taraf, a paper followed closely by the country’s intelligentsia and well-known for its anti-military stance, were plans for a military coup as detailed as they were gory, including the bombing of an Istanbul mosque, the false- flag downing of a Turkish military jet, and lists of politicians and journalists to be detained. The paper said it had obtained documents from 2003 which showed a group within the Turkish military had plotted to overthrow the then-newly elected Islamist government. The putative mastermind behind the coup plot was pictured prominently on the front page: General Çetin Doğan, my father-in-law (see picture). General Doğan and hundreds of his alleged collaborators would be subsequently demonized in the media, jailed, tried, and convicted in a landmark trial that captivated the nation and allowed Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to consolidate his power over the secular establishment. In a judgment issued in October 2013, Turkey’s court of appeals would ratify the lower court’s decision and the decades-long prison sentences it had meted out. Today it is widely recognized that the coup plans were in fact forgeries. Forensic experts have determined that the plans published by Taraf and forming the backbone of the prosecution were produced on backdated computers and Cover of Taraf on the alleged coup attempt made to look as if they were prepared in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Illiberal Media and Popular Constitution-Making in Turkey
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Communication Department Faculty Publication Series Communication 2020 Illiberal Media and Popular Constitution-Making in Turkey Burcu Baykurt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/communication_faculty_pubs 1 Illiberal Media and Popular Constitution Making in Turkey 1. Introduction Popular constitution making, a process that allows for public participation as opposed to a handful of elites writing a fundamental social contract behind closed doors and imposing it on the rest of society, is tricky. It sounds like a noble idea in theory, but it is difficult to execute effectively, efficiently, and, most importantly, democratically. Even trickier are the roles of publicity and media in popular constitution making. What are the consequences of reporting during the drafting of a new constitution? In what ways could the media lend legitimacy to the process by informing the public and incorporating public opinion into the drafting of a constitution? Coupled with the rise of new media technologies, an ideal of participatory constitution making (and an active role for the media) may seem desirable, not to mention attainable, but there are myriad ways to participate, and basing a constitution on popular opinion could easily devolve into a majority of 50 percent plus one that imposes its will on the rest. The bare minimum, ideally, is to expect journalists to report on facts without bowing to political or economic pressures, but even that is easier said than done. For which audiences are these journalistic facts intended? For those leaders drafting the new constitution or the public at large? These are not easy questions to answer empirically, not only because media and communications are often neglected in studies of constitution making, but also because the relationship between the two is hard to ascertain precisely.
    [Show full text]
  • ERGENEKON, SLEDGEHAMMER, and the POLITICS of TURKISH JUSTICE: CONSPIRACIES and COINCIDENCES August 29, 2011 Gloria-Center.Org
    http://www.gloria-center.org/2011/08/ergenekon-sledgehammer-and-the-politics-of-turkish-justice-conspiracies-and-coincidences/ ERGENEKON, SLEDGEHAMMER, AND THE POLITICS OF TURKISH JUSTICE: CONSPIRACIES AND COINCIDENCES August 29, 2011 gloria-center.org Since it was launched in June 2007, the Ergenekon investigation has become the largest and most controversial case in recent Turkish history, resulting in over 300 people being charged with a membership of what is described as a clandestine terrorist organization seeking to destabilize the country’s Islamist government. In the parallel Sledgehammer investigation, 195 members of the fiercely secularist Turkish military stand accused of plotting a coup in 2003. Yet not only is the evidence in both cases deeply flawed, there are also increasing indications that much of it has been fabricated. On June 12, 2007, acting on an anonymous tip-off, the Turkish police discovered a crate of grenades in a shantytown in the Istanbul suburb of Umraniye in the beginning of what later became known as the Ergenekon investigation. By May 2011, a motley collection of over 300 people had been formally charged with membership of what public prosecutors described as the “Ergenekon terrorist organization,” which was allegedly plotting to use violence to try to destabilize the government of the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (JDP). In January 2010, prosecutors launched a parallel investigation into claims that members of the Turkish military had plotted to stage a coup against the JDP in early 2003. By May 2011, 195 serving and retired members of the Turkish military had been formally charged with involvement in the alleged plot.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Trial Observation Report
    INTERIM TRIAL OBSERVATION REPORT Hearing of “Taraf” journalists Istanbul High Criminal Court October 2016 Written by Gráinne Mellon Bar Human Rights Committee 1 Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales Doughty Street Chambers 53-54 Doughty Street London WC1N 2LS England 2 Produced by BHRC Copyright 2016 © Contents About the Bar Human Rights Committee ...................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Arrest and investigation ..................................................................................................................... 9 The hearing ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Events following the hearing .......................................................................................................... 13 Concerns ................................................................................................................................................. 14 The right of a Defendant to know the case against them................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Agenda and Turkey: a Study on The
    Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 28 / 2012 Değişen Gündem ve Türkiye: Changing Agenda And Turkey: 2009 Yılı Medya Gündemi A Study On The Media Agenda Üzerine Bir İnceleme Of 2009 Mustafa YILMAZ** Aynur KÖSE*** ÖZET Enformasyonun haber formatındaki üretimi ve dağıtımı işlevini yerine getiren medya, kamusal alandaki tartışmaların en önemli belirleyicisi ve taşıyıcısı olarak kilit bir rol üstlenmektedir. Buna bağlı olarak haber medyasında öne çıkan konular ve bu konuların haberleştirilmesinde kullanılan dilsel pratikler geniş bir inceleme alanı olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada ise medya gündeminin çok sık değiştiği ya da değiştirildiği yönündeki tartışmaların hız kazandığı bir yıl olarak 2009 yılında, yaygın medyanın değişmez konu başlıkları, bu konulardan olu şan medya gündemini kimin belirlediği, nasıl şekillendirdiği, gündemin değişim sıklığı ve hızı, haber sunumunda öne çıkan çerçeveler gibi sorulara yanıtlar aranmıştır. Bu çerçevede 1 Ocak-31 Aralık 2009 tarihleri arasında yaygın medyaya mensup Akşam, Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet, Milliyet, Posta, Radikal, Sabah, Taraf, Yeni Şafak ve Zaman gazetelerinin manşet ve sürmanşetleri içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda 2009 yılında en fazla gündemde kalan konuların Ergenekon davasına ilişkin gelişmeler ve Kürt açılımı tartışmaları olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu konuları ilk defa manşetlerine taşıyan ve uzun süre gündemde kalmasını sağlayan gazeteler ise Zaman, Taraf ve Radikal’dir. Çalışmanın ortaya çıkardığı temel bulgu, gazetelerin ateşleyici olayların
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Ioannis N. Grigoriadis
    Room T-364 Phone : +90-312-290-1856 Dept of Political Science & Fax : +90-312-290-2742 Public Administration E-mail : [email protected] Bilkent University, Bilkent Date of Birth: 2 December 1976 Ankara, TR-06800 Turkey DR. IOANNIS N. GRIGORIADIS Education-Training: Oct 2011- Higher Board of Education, Turkish Ministry of National Education, Ankara § Associate Professor Specialization Field: “Political Life and Institutions [Siyasal Yaşam ve Kurumlar]” Sep 2002- University of London, School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), London Sep 2005 § Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Politics (Supervisor: Prof. William M. Hale) Thesis Title: “Turkish Political Culture and the European Union” Aug 2000- Columbia University, School of International & Public Affairs (SIPA), New York May 2002 § Master of International Affairs (Concentrations: International Energy Management & Policy/Middle East) Aug 2000- Columbia University, The Middle East Institute, New York May 2002 § Advanced Certificate of Middle East Studies Dec 1998- Athens Court of First Instance, Athens Aug 2000 § Athens Bar Association Membership Licence Aug 1998- Hellenic Infantry Reserve Officers School (SEAP), Heraklion, Greece Dec 1998 § Certificate of Military Studies Sep 1994- National & Capodistrian University of Athens, School of Legal, Economic & Political Sciences, Athens Aug 1998 § Juris Doctor (J.D.) Teaching Experience: Sep 2009- Bilkent University, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Ankara § Associate Professor-Jean Monnet Chair of European Studies
    [Show full text]
  • Media-Watch-On-Hate-Speech-May
    Media Watch on Hate Speech & Discriminatory Language May - August 2013 Report Hrant Dink Foundation Halaskargazi Cad. Sebat Apt. No. 74 D. 1 Osmanbey-Şişli 34371 Istanbul/TURKEY Phone: 0212 240 33 61 Fax: 0212 240 33 94 E-mail: [email protected] www.nefretsoylemi.org www.hrantdink.org Media Watch on Hate Speech Project Coordinators Nuran Gelişli – Zeynep Arslan Part I : Monitoring Hate Speech in the National and Local Press in Turkey İdil Engindeniz Part II: Discriminatory Discourse in Print Media Gözde Aytemur Nüfuscu Translator Melisa Akan Contributors Berfin Azdal Rojdit Barak Azize Çay İbrahim Erdoğan Eda Güldağı Merve Nebioğlu Günce Keziban Orman (statistic data analysis) Nazire Türkoğlu Yunus Can Uygun Media Watch on Hate Speech Project is funded by Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Global Dialogue, the British Embassy and Danida. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders. CONTENTS MONITORING HATE SPEECH IN THE MEDIA 1 MONITORING HATE SPEECH IN THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL PRESS IN TURKEY 2 PART I: HATE SPEECH IN PRINT MEDIA 5 FINDINGS 6 NEWS ITEMS IDENTIFIED DURING THE PERIOD MAY-AUGUST 2013 16 EXAMPLES BY CATEGORY 24 1) ENMITY / WAR DISCOURSE Masons, communists and Jews! – Abdurrahman Dilipak 24 From EMPATHY to YOUPATHY! – Dursen Özalemdar 26 2) EXAGGERATION / ATTRIBUTION / DISTORTION German violence to the Turk – Dogan News Agency 28 ‘Do not be treacherous!’ - News Center 30 3) BLASPHEMY/ INSULT/ DENIGRATION Unwavering hatred and grudge - C. Turanlı 31 No such cowardice was ever seen before
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who in Politics in Turkey
    WHO’S WHO IN POLITICS IN TURKEY Sarıdemir Mah. Ragıp Gümüşpala Cad. No: 10 34134 Eminönü/İstanbul Tel: (0212) 522 02 02 - Faks: (0212) 513 54 00 www.tarihvakfi.org.tr - [email protected] © Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 2019 WHO’S WHO IN POLITICS IN TURKEY PROJECT Project Coordinators İsmet Akça, Barış Alp Özden Editors İsmet Akça, Barış Alp Özden Authors Süreyya Algül, Aslı Aydemir, Gökhan Demir, Ali Yalçın Göymen, Erhan Keleşoğlu, Canan Özbey, Baran Alp Uncu Translation Bilge Güler Proofreading in English Mark David Wyers Book Design Aşkın Yücel Seçkin Cover Design Aşkın Yücel Seçkin Printing Yıkılmazlar Basın Yayın Prom. ve Kağıt San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. Evren Mahallesi, Gülbahar Cd. 62/C, 34212 Bağcılar/İstanbull Tel: (0212) 630 64 73 Registered Publisher: 12102 Registered Printer: 11965 First Edition: İstanbul, 2019 ISBN Who’s Who in Politics in Turkey Project has been carried out with the coordination by the History Foundation and the contribution of Heinrich Böll Foundation Turkey Representation. WHO’S WHO IN POLITICS IN TURKEY —EDITORS İSMET AKÇA - BARIŞ ALP ÖZDEN AUTHORS SÜREYYA ALGÜL - ASLI AYDEMİR - GÖKHAN DEMİR ALİ YALÇIN GÖYMEN - ERHAN KELEŞOĞLU CANAN ÖZBEY - BARAN ALP UNCU TARİH VAKFI YAYINLARI Table of Contents i Foreword 1 Abdi İpekçi 3 Abdülkadir Aksu 6 Abdullah Çatlı 8 Abdullah Gül 11 Abdullah Öcalan 14 Abdüllatif Şener 16 Adnan Menderes 19 Ahmet Altan 21 Ahmet Davutoğlu 24 Ahmet Necdet Sezer 26 Ahmet Şık 28 Ahmet Taner Kışlalı 30 Ahmet Türk 32 Akın Birdal 34 Alaattin Çakıcı 36 Ali Babacan 38 Alparslan Türkeş 41 Arzu Çerkezoğlu
    [Show full text]
  • Captured News Media: the Case of Turkey
    Captured News Media The Case of Turkey BY ANDREW FINKEL October 2015 Captured News Media The Case of Turkey OCTOBER 2015 ABOUT CIMA The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), at the National Endowment for Democracy, works to strengthen the support, raise the visibility, and improve the effectiveness of independent Contents media development throughout the world. The center provides information, builds networks, Foreword . 1 conducts research, and highlights the indispensable role independent media play in the creation and Introduction . 3 development of sustainable democracies. An Capture and its Applicability to Turkish Media . 4 important aspect of CIMA’s work is to research ways to attract additional U.S. private sector interest in Media, State, and Economy . 8 and support for international media development. Historical Background: CIMA convenes working groups, discussions, and panels on a variety of topics in the field of media A Media on the Offensive Is Itself Captured . 11 development and assistance. The center also issues reports and recommendations based on working The Implications of Capture group discussions and other investigations. These for Democracy Promotion . 20 reports aim to provide policymakers, as well as donors and practitioners, with ideas for bolstering Endnotes . 24 the effectiveness of media assistance. Center for International Media Assistance National Endowment for Democracy 1025 F STREET, N.W., 8TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, DC 20004 ABOUT THE AUTHOR PHONE: (202) 378-9700 FAX: (202) 378-9407 Andrew Finkel is a British-educated journalist EMAIL: [email protected] who has been based in Turkey since 1989, and has URL: http://cima.ned.org corresponded for a variety of print and broadcast media outlets, including The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Mark Nelson The Economist, TIME, and CNN.
    [Show full text]