Burnt Turkey

Blood and Ballots in Turkey | Stephen Schwartz

This post was co-authored by Veli Sirin, European director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

The Turkish Republic will hold new parliamentary elections for the second time this year on November 1, following the failure of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to maintain a legislative majority. Ballots cast on June 7 reduced the AKP's share of seats to 258 out of 550, the party's first loss of control over the governing body since 2002.

In addition, a new force, the People's Democratic Party (HDP), mainly comprising Turkish Kurds, won 80 seats in June. The traditional secularist Republican People's Party (CHP) gained 132, and the ultra-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) also elected 80 deputies.

Attempts to create a multiparty governing coalition - focused on the AKP and CHP - failed. But Turkish and Kurdish critics of Erdoğan argued from the beginning of the political crisis in June that the president had no desire to resolve the situation and would gamble on a new vote to provide AKP with a renewed majority.

Such an attitude fits the authoritarian style of Erdoğan. One must admit that Erdoğan has a magnificent capacity for judging the mood of the public. He is a gifted speaker, who could convey, after 13 years in power, that he was merely a modest servant of the poor Turks - or, put better said, that he could mediate between all of the country's citizens. But his credibility was destroyed by a single statement.

That came when Erdoğan called the result of the June election a "mistake" the Turks had to "correct" by a new vote. The hero of the majority party, rushing from election victory to election victory, the father of a "new Turkey," could not contend with the failure of the majority of voters to continue following him. That would have to be an error, which the Turkish citizenry could not desire.

Without his political assurance of the love of the Turkish nation, Erdoğan now wishes to force their affection for him. He also reveals that for him, Turkish democratic electoral rules are less important than his personal power.

Erdoğan has set a series of fires that will not be easy to put out. Ankara is ablaze because the long-ruling AKP has been undermined. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) agitates for greater concessions than those proposed previously. The Kurdish militants want enhanced autonomy or regional self-determination. The so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), driven by fanaticism, treats anyone who does not follow its puristic vision of Islam as an enemy.

Turkey has become a battleground of all against all: AKP vs. the Kurds, the MHP against the left, Kurds fighting ISIS, and ISIS opposed to everybody. A ceasefire between the Turkish authorities and the PKK, which was agreed to in 2013, broke down.

The pro-Kurdish HDP and Kurds in general have been the greater victims in this tumult, at least in numbers. HDP branches and other Kurdish-identified workplaces and businesses have been attacked repeatedly. In the broader Turkish context the secularist newspaper Hürriyet's offices were assaulted twice.

Early in September, as reported in the London Financial Times, HDP leader Selahattin Demirtaş counted 400 Kurdish sites as having been targeted for what he described as a "lynching campaign."

Then came the explosion on October 10 of two bombs at a rally for peace between the Turkish state and the Kurdish minority, in Ankara, the national capital. The death toll stood at 102 people, with 400 more injured, according to Hürriyet. The Ankara atrocities followed a blast in Suruç, a town in southeast Turkey, on July 20, in which 33 people were killed and 104 injured.

Suruç is close to the Turkish-Syrian border and the victims in the July horror were leftist activists who organized to rebuild the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobane, liberated from ISIS control at the beginning of this year.

The Turkish government has blamed both the Suruç and Ankara bombings on two Kurdish brothers affiliated with ISIS. But Kurdish and other opposition representatives reproach Erdoğan and his cohort for failure to assure security in the country.

Kurds make up at least 18 percent, or as much as 15 million, of the population of Turkey, which stands at a total of 80 million, as estimated in the CIA World Factbook. They are also prominent in the Turkish diaspora communities of Western Europe, especially in Germany.

As Turkey approaches its "substitute" parliamentary election for this year, two more factors come into play. With the country acting as a major transit point for Syrian and other refugees headed for northern Europe, the European Union (EU), which had suspended its process for accession of Turkey, has indicated that it would reopen the mechanism for Turkish membership if the country accepts a new role in controlling Europe's borders. German chancellor Angela Merkel visited Istanbul on October 19, and proposed that EU financial aid to Turkey, along with visa restrictions and talks on EU affiliation, be reopened.

Further, the large body of heterodox Shia Alevi Muslims among Turks and Kurds - also counting around 20 percent of the population - are fearful of a reassertion of AKP power. David Gardner of theFinancial Times stated on November 14 that 84 of 132 deputies for the Republican People's Party (CHP) are Alevis (a sect unrelated to the "Alawites" under Bashar Al-Assad in Syria).



Alevis claim with considerable justice that they have experienced long-standing discrimination at the hands of Turkish Sunni rulers, both secular and Islamist. They were reminded of their grievances by the Ashura commemoration on October 24, which recalled the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of Muhammad and heroic martyr of Shiism, at the battle of Karbala, in Iraq in 680 CE. Like the tragedy of Karbala, Erdoğan's march to new elections is paved with blood and intrigues, as well as the suffering of the Syrian victims of official Turkey's passivity toward ISIS recruitment and passage across the frontiers between the two countries.



Works Cited:
Schwartz, Stephen, and Veli Sirin. "Blood and Ballots in Turkey." Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.



Response:
With Turkey now on the brink of reaching membership in the EU, they now see that the road there might prove to be more difficult than previously thought. Currently, they're facing serious internal issues and their government seems to be having a small breakdown. They're going through a time of transition which is making elections and the primaries especially difficult. Also, the vast amounts of Kurds in Turkey are provoking Turkish leaders and are obviously trying to send a message across. Even though they are a minority, it reminds me of the Israeli situation before WWII of when they were spread across the world with no home country. Like the Israelis, Kurds are spread mostly across Europe, but they don't want to be. For bias, I thought that the author did an exceptional job at not taking sides too much. Although there did seem to be some resentment towards the Kurds as it listed all of the things that they were doing too disrupt the country of Turkey. I thought that this was a really cool article though as it pertains to the Middle East violence as a whole.

Sweden's Burden

Refugee consensus crumbling in Sweden, Europe's most generous host


STOCKHOLM a self-proclaimed "humanitarian superpower" where welcoming those fleeing war and oppression is ingrained as part of the national identity, the Nordic country has proudly taken in more refugees per capita than any other in Europe.

But now, with military barracks, ski lodges and camping huts already filling up, it is running of roofs to put over the heads of immigrants. The government is warning that tens of thousands of people may end up spending the Nordic winter in tents.

And for the first time, there have been signs in recent weeks that the national consensus behind the open-door policy is crumbling. Far-right protesters have shouted "go home" at asylum seekers. Refugee housing has been hit by arson attacks. And even in the political mainstream there is a growing feeling that its generous policies are unsustainable.

With fewer than 10 million people, Sweden has already received 100,000 refugees so far this year, and the government now predicts 150,000 could arrive by year's end. That is more than double the number it expected when it set aside as much as 4 percent of the 2016 state budget for immigration and integration.

Authorities will soon set up electrically heated tents that could house up to 35,000 people this winter, bringing to the cold dark reaches of northern Europe the sort of refugee camps more familiar in the poorest parts of the world.

"We are living from hand to mouth, and we have for a long time now," Tolle Furegard, national housing coordinator at the Migration Agency, told Reuters.

Early in the Syrian crisis, Sweden stepped out in front of other European countries to declare that all refugees from Syria would automatically be granted permanent residency, letting them work and making it easier for family members to join them.

Polls show most Swedes still welcome refugees, and several charities have received record donations. But a growing minority worry the influx will hurt their cherished welfare state.

Center-left Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, heading a fragile minority government, faces calls from within his own Social Democrat party to tighten immigration - policies that over the decades welcomed refugees from Vietnam war draft dodgers in the 1960s to Gulf War refugees in the 1990s.

One municipality in northern Sweden is keeping the location of new homes for 150 refugees secret after three centers were torched. Another center in western Sweden was forced to evacuate residents after it was set alight on Tuesday.

At Stockholm's train station, around 30 far-right demonstrators protesting what they see as an influx of Muslims to Sweden, gathered near a temporary migrations center, shouting "Go home". The station, where volunteers help asylum seekers, has welcomed refugees for months.

TENT CITIES

"Sweden is preparing for a crisis situation," said Lofven, adding that asylum seekers will have to accept a lower standard of living. "It's about putting roofs over people's heads now."

Lofven's minority government faces a backlash from a center-right and far-right opposition. The main center-right Moderates, for years champions of immigration, now call for an end to granting permanent residency for asylum seekers.

In a country where questioning immigration was socially taboo a few years ago, several of the biggest newspapers are now criticizing the government's policy.

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, the third biggest party in parliament, have risen further in polls, catching around a fifth of voters. They will start advertising in Middle Eastern media to deter people from coming to Sweden.

"Nobody should even think about coming here," said Paula Bieler, Sweden Democrats spokeswoman. "We have tented camps here. It's cold, chilly and snowy in Sweden. There is a shortage of resources both for our own population and for those who come here."

Lofven is diverting some foreign aid money back home to help meet the extra costs.

The government argues that investing money in improving integration for immigrants is crucial to staving off economic hardship in the future. But integrating newcomers has proved difficult. Unemployment among foreign-born Swedes is more than 20 percent, four times higher than among natives.

"Integration has not worked as well as we would have liked," said Interior Minister Anders Ygeman. "It's clear that there are risks."

Adding to the cost is an unexpectedly high proportion of unaccompanied children among the refugees - a fifth of the total - requiring costly extra services.

REFUGEES FIRST STOP

The vastness of the enterprise can be seen at the main asylum center in the southern city of Malmo where around two thirds of all asylum seekers to Sweden register.

The former hotel and conference center is clean, with a restaurant and rooms for 600 people. The number of refugees arriving per day ballooned from 55 in July to around 900 in September. Staffing has doubled since the crisis started.

"I don't have to worry about the budget. My job is to make sure we don't close the door on anybody who comes here," said Patricio Mora, the center's manager.

Lines quickly form outside and tempers flare when families jostle to enter.

Schools feel the strain. In Norberg, a community of around 5,000 people about two hours drive from the capital, the 500-pupil school faces an extra 100 refugee students.

"We have used the library, storage rooms and the teachers lounge as classrooms. If even more children arrive in the coming weeks, we have nowhere to place them," said Asa Eriksson, the town mayor.

"If worst comes to worst they will have to be outside."

(Additional reporting by Sven Nordenstam, Violette Goarant and Daniel Dickson; Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Peter Graff)


Works Cited

"Refugee Consensus Crumbling in Sweden, Europe's Most Generous Host." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 20 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Response:

Sweden, being one of the first EU respondents to the refugee crisis, is now starting to feel the heat as many refugees from the middle east crowd into their country. Expecting nearly double of the number of refugees than what they had originally planned, Sweden is preparing for all risks and seem to be handling the situation with the right precautions. However, tent cities are now being made for the in surge of refugees coming into the country. This wouldn't be much of an issue if the season wasn't heading into winter. Since it is, this could prove dangerous for the incoming refugees and the refugees already there. Not only, will they be in makeshift shelters, but they'll also be in it through the coldest season of the year. Although Sweden does appear to be taking the right measures with the refugee crisis, there is still a long process to see whether or not it will be sustainable. This article from Reuters will have a bit of a bias from the US, but it seems to also be critical in its analysis of the refugee crisis in Sweden.

Putin's Antics

Praise for Putin Is Misplaced, and Dangerous | Cody Cain

It seems fashionable in some circles to praise Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, for being some sort of a hero for world peace and justice.

The most recent instance of this Putin-praise came in the aftermath of Mr. Putin's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in which he suggested that the world really ought to find a solution to the war in Syria.

What? This, coming from Mr. Putin?

In fact, the world made a tremendous effort to stop the war in Syria back in 2012 at a time when this would have prevented enormous human suffering. The United Nations proposed a resolution for ending the violence, but Mr. Putin vetoed the resolution. That veto opened the gates for the ruthless Syrian regime to wage the worst aspects of the war against its civilian population.

At the time, Susan Rice, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said she was "disgusted" by Russia's veto, and that Russia would have "blood on its hands" for the violence in Syria that would ensue.

So let us not ignore the blood of war covering Mr. Putin's hands as he stands before the world and admonishes us to seek peace.

Also, the main impediment to peace in Syria is Mr. Putin's intractable support for the brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria. Mr. Assad could not remain in power without Russia's support, and his removal would lead to negotiations for a peaceful transition of government.

So let us not have any illusions of Mr. Putin somehow being a profit for peace in Syria.

The other major instance of Putin-praise came back in 2013 when Syria used chemical weapons against its own civilian population, thereby crossing the "red line" set by United States President Barack Obama against the use of chemical weapons. Mr. Putin was hailed as a hero for "proposing" that Syria surrender all of its chemical weapons in order to avoid United States military strikes for having crossed this "red line."

What? How in the world was Mr. Putin praised for this? It was like the world had fallen down a rabbit hole into some sort of alternate reality.

In truth, it was Mr. Putin who allowed Mr. Assad to conduct this atrocious war against his own civilians in the first place, including allowing Mr. Assad to use chemical weapons. Mr. Putin could have preemptively warned and prevented Mr. Assad from using chemical weapons. And when Mr. Assad actually used the chemical weapons, Mr. Putin could have immediately dropped his support for Mr. Assad right then and there.

But no. Mr. Putin continued to support this monster, Mr. Assad.

So Mr. Putin's "proposal" for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons was not motivated at all by any sort of compassion for the citizens under attack, or by a desire to spare the innocent civilians from Mr. Assad's brutal repression. No. Mr. Putin backed Mr. Assad's brutal repression all the way, and still does.

Rather, the reason Mr. Putin was willing to surrender the chemical weapons was so Mr. Assad could remain in power, and thus continue the brutal repression.

Mr. Putin knew full well that if the United States began military strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons, this would likely spell the end for Mr. Assad. Mr. Assad was struggling just to hang-on against only the rebels, and thus a United States military intervention would likely devastate Mr. Assad.

The example loomed large of the fate of the dictator in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi, who met his demise not long after the United States intervened in Libya. Mr. Putin could see the writing on the wall for Mr. Assad.

So the act of surrendering the chemical weapons was no more than an act of basic self-interest and self-preservation. It was hardly an act worthy of any sort of praise.

In fact, Mr. Putin's "proposal" did not even come from Mr. Putin. The proposal had come from Secretary of State John Kerry. Mr. Kerry had been asked if there was anything Mr. Assad could do to avert the impending United States military strikes, and Mr. Kerry responded that, yes, Mr. Assad could surrender all of his chemical weapons.

So Mr. Putin was hardly some visionary creative genius who innovated this wonderful proposal out of thin air. Rather, Mr. Putin was merely abjectly accepting the terms of surrender offered by the United States in order to save his puppet regime in Syria from destruction.

If anyone deserves praise, it is Mr. Obama for agreeing to pull back and not proceed with the military strikes once Syria agreed to surrender its chemical weapons. This was absolutely the right decision by Mr. Obama, and an honorable act of standing by his word.

Mr. Obama's "red line" was always about the chemical weapons and only the chemical weapons. So when Syria agreed to surrender its chemical weapons, as specified by Mr. Kerry, the threat was eliminated, and there was no longer a necessity for United States military action. This was a victory for the United States.

In the aftermath of this event, without any basis in reality, Mr. Obama was portrayed negatively as being weak for failing to enforce his "red line," and Mr. Putin was portrayed positively for proposing the magic solution that averted the United States military strikes. And Mr. Putin was further praised for having engineered his positive portrayal. All of this has been a bizarre perversion of reality.

Let us also not forget about Mr. Putin's long history of atrocities. This is the guy who invaded and annexed Crimea. This alone is utterly deplorable. And when he did it, he used a military with no insignias identifying their country of origin. At the time, Mr. Putin blatantly lied to the world by insisting that this mysterious invading military was not Russian and that Mr. Putin had no idea who it could be. After the invasion was complete, Mr. Putin remarked that of course this military was Russian. Astonishing. And people today praise this guy?

Mr. Putin also destabilized Ukraine, he caused a war there that devastated the local population, and he effectively carved-out the eastern portion of Ukraine as a Russian satellite.

In addition, Mr. Putin has an appalling record on human rights, jailing and killing scores of political opponents.

When one of Mr. Putin's multi-billionaire cronies, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, began to make waives by suggesting Russia needed to become less corrupt, Mr. Putin had him deposed and jailed for 10 years.

When a former colleague and Kremlin insider, Boris Nemtsov, turned into an outspoken critic opposed to the corruption of Mr. Putin's rule, he was shot dead openly on the streets of Moscow only steps from the Kremlin. Now that sends a very clear message to anyone who would dare to oppose Mr. Putin. And this was only a few months ago in early 2015. Mr. Putin publicized that he called the mother of the deceased Mr. Nemtsov to express his condolences and to vow that he would find the killer. This shockingly evokes Shakespeare's timeless portrayal of the nature of brutal dictators in his great play Macbeth, written around 1603, when the dictator Macbeth mourned and wailed the death of Banquo to the public, when, in fact, it was Macbeth who had ordered the murder of Banquo.

The New York Times ran an entire series of articles entitled, Above the Law, chronicling the corruption, abuse, and lawlessness in Mr. Putin's Russia. This included the horrendous crackdown on journalists who dared to criticize Mr. Putin's regime.

The history of Mr. Putin's ruthlessness must not be forgotten.



So to all those Putin-praisers out there, please think before you praise. Praising harmful acts and harmful people can, in fact, lead to harmful behavior.








Works Cited:

Cain, Cody. "Praise for Putin Is Misplaced, and Dangerous." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 5 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.




Response:

This article, being about Putin, is very informative about Putin's exploits. The journalist seems to be almost complaining about how Putin doesn't deserve any glory or respect. The author even backed up his accusations toward Putin by pulling in the New York Times to show that he is not the only one who shares these views. The author appears to be very biased towards the US, but seems to know what he's talking about. This article makes Putin and Russia seem to be savage, corrupt, and even evil. Although in reality, that's not the way it really is. Putin may be sometimes crazy and act like a jerk, but he is the head of a world superpower and that deserves some respect. As well as the fact that he is pulling in Russia to help efforts against terrorism. Plus, it should be noted that most Americans or westerners have a good portrayal of Putin because of news not only from the states, but even international news, that he is sneaky and can't be trusted. It's also interesting, because this article was found in the World section, which would seem to have less of a bias towards the states. The article was well written, but the bias was too much emphasized.