Antipodes

Back soon

2009-09-15T15:31:00.000-07:00

Antipodes will be back towards the end of September after an extended holiday break.

The architecture of Neo-Ottomanism part 3

2009-08-09T21:12:00.000-07:00

Continuing from the last post titled, “The architecture of Neo-Ottomanism part 2” which can be accessed here (which is based on an article by Basil Markezinis which can be found here), Markezinis continues to Davutoglu's theory in four steps (read on conjuction with last two posts):

3) The above are used to justify and promote the role of Turkey as a peace-loving mediator in the region, but also to present it as a country with a “multidimensional, complementary foreign policy”. In this way it can be active in Russia, in the Caucusus, the Middle East and Africa, all without “negating the traditional Western friendly [sic] feature of Turkey (United States - NATO - EE), but to supplement it”.

4) Thus, Turkey should take an active part in all international forums and international organizations choosing as representatives its most charismatic citizens. The overiding aim of these measures is to promote Turkey's image abroad and to promote its economic interests.

To be continued........

Source: To Ethnos on Sunday (Basil Markezinis), Antipodes

The architecture of Neo-Ottomanism part 2

2009-08-02T21:40:00.000-07:00

Continuing from the last post titled, “The architecture of Neo-Ottomanism part 1” which can be accessed here (which is based on an article by Basil Markezinis which can be found here), Markezinis outlines the theoretical framework of Davutoglu's thought:

The theory of Davutoglou is centred on the idea that the strength and future of a country depends, first from its “geopolitical depth” - geographic position secured within the Muslim world in general via the control of the major straits (Bosphoros, Suez, Hormouz, Malacca, and also partially Gibraltar) which separate the warm seas of the world, and on the other hand, it also risks an “internal systemic competition” – from its historical depth. The combination of these two he named “strategic depth”.

Then Markezinis then outlines the theory in four steps (only two translated today):

1. Davutoglu's argument starts from the area of religious doctrine - Christian and Islamic - in which he makes his first claim, that there is no incompatibility between Islam and Western democracy. This claim is developed along two axes. Firstly, Davutoglu highlights the resurgence of all the major religions in modern political dialogue - especially in America - thus preventing, very intelligently, any objection to religion as a factor that "infects" political thought. Secondly, he correctly points out that the Koran simply proposes a set of fundamental values without imposing a specific political mechanism for their implementation. In order to show that these values are not foreign to our own - because, despite his emphasis on Islam, he believes that Turkey has a critical role to play in Europe, and in which he considers a European country - he lists examples such as “the justice, humanity, equality and freedom”.

2. Then when he focuses on the full integration of Turkey in the EU, his argument is conducted in a different way, beyond the religious or philosophical. Davoutoglou relies on these two ways: he uses Turkish history; and furthermore, he also argues that this integration will be beneficial for Europe, because only this way can it hope to become a “global player”. Once again, after having made a theoretical proposal, he does not support it by concrete evidence. The basis of the argument is conducted in a very skillful way, using arbitrary spatial shifts, which make the conclusions of the author at least debatable. The history used for his argument is based on a broad understanding of the geographical size of the country in the past. It suffices to present a few excerpts from his text in order to clarify our analysis.

"Turkey is an Asian country, a European country, a neighbor of the African continent directly connected to the Eastern Mediterranean, a Balkan country, a Middle Eastern country, Caucasian country, a Central Asian country, a country of the Caspian Sea and, indirectly, a Gulf country (because of its association with the Gulf via Iraq)"

To be continued.....

Source: To Ethnos on Sunday (Basil Markezinis), Antipodes

The architecture of Neo-Ottomanism part 1

2009-07-30T22:36:00.000-07:00

Basil Markezinis regularly writes articles in Greek newspapers on foreign policy. Often his ideas are controversial but they are hardly ever irrelevant. He has also been a legal adviser to the Queen Elizabeth II of England is a member of seven foreign Academies. By the way he has also been knighted by the Queen Elizabeth II; however, since Greeks do not recognize titles this is irrelevant.

Markezinis has just written another insightful article published in the Greek newspaper, The Ethnos on Sunday (which can be accessed here) on Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, his ideas and Turkish foreign policy. Some believe Davutoglu is the theoretical architect of Turkey’s re-discovered Ottoman outlook often called "Neo-Ottomanism". Antipodes has written about Neo-Ottomanism and Davutoglu several times before which can be accessed here and here and even Greek Neo-Ottomanism which can be found here.

Recently, there is no doubt that Turkey has been demonstrating an ability to adapt to the new geo-strategic environment (following the collapse of the Soviet Union); specifically, developing multi-dimensional foreign policy initiatives and interventions from the Middle East to Caucasus and even as far as China. However, what are the ideas which underpin these manoeuvres?

Markezinis begins by providing valuable and often unknown information on Davutoglu, Turkey's foreign minister:

The first indication that Davutoglu’s way of thinking would prove decisive in the transformation of Turkish political culture came with the publication of his doctoral thesis, “Alternative Models: The impact of Islamic and Western world perspectives on political theory” (available in English from 1994). His work is characterised by containing aspects of most good theses: he appears widely read, he has abstract tendencies, uses excerpts from several languages and includes a dose of personal ideology. The author's focus is the importance of Islam; which, according to Davutoglu had been “exploited” by the West. One further indication of his robust academic background and the stability of his views is that Davutoglou repeatedly questions the American and Kemalist doctrines.

Markezinis alludes to something very important here which has, and is likely to continue, to re-orientate Turkish foreign policy going forward. Rather than eschewing the Islamic world view in favour of European Enlightenment-inspired but the essentially Asiatic despotism of Kemalism (which has driven Turkish foreign policy over the last 90 years or so), Davutoglu believes the Islamic world view should underpin Turkish foreign policy. Markezinis continues:

Over the next few years he further developed his ideas, starting with an article written in 1988, entitled “A Conflict of Interest: An explanation of World Ataxias”. The article questioned the ideas of the major thinkers of the period e.g. the "globalization of political values and institutions of Western civilization” of Fukuyama, the (inevitability) of the “clash of civilizations” of Huntington (who overlooked the fact that the most destructive wars were not between different cultures but “wars within civilizations between systemic forces of Euro-western culture”), and the individual theory of Huntington of a permanent “Islamic threat” - which helped to shape Davutoglu's next theoretical step.

Davutoglu then went on to argue that Turkey (and by implication Islam) could help to promote co-existence, and not, as pursued by the Americans, the homogenization of cultures. These views found fullest expression, three years later, in his book “Strategic Depth: The international position of Turkey”, published in 2001 in Turkish.
In March 2003, with the advent to power of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Erdogan, the ideas of Davutoglou were progressively incorporated into Turkish foreign policy.

We should recall that the Ottoman Empire was governed by a "millet system" where the subjects of the Sultan were grouped amongst their various religions and governed by a religious leader with the Sultan as the supreme leader. Is this the sort of system that Davutoglu is referring to when he writes that Islam can help to promote co-existence?

To be continued......

Source: The Ethnos on Sunday (Basil Markezinis), Antipodes

Cyprus mediator, Alexander Downer is a spy

2009-07-28T19:09:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent discussions, speculations and threats (by Turkey) about the potentially large hydrocarbon deposits south of Cyprus it is probably worth referring to an article titled, “The Mediator who is a Spy” written by Angelos Athanasopoulos that was published in the Greek newspaper, To Vima late last year. The article can be accessed here.

As most people will know, the former Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer was appointed as the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Cyprus in 2007. Essentially, he has been working as a mediator between the two negotiating parties that are trying to figure out a solution following the Turkish invasion of the island a little more than 35 years ago.

Interestingly, Alexander Downer has since May 2008 been working for the British company, Hakluyt & Co. This company was founded in the 1990s by former MI6 agents to provide strategic intelligence/information to multinational corporations that want to invest in areas where the political and economic environment is unstable; of course, with a view to profit.

Despite being founded by former British former secret service agents Hakluyt is increasingly comprised of former politicians, diplomats and people in general with access to political, economic and business centers of power. As the former foreign minister of Australia, Alexander Downer would have supervised the intelligence services of Australia and had direct access to “hot” information. Obviously, he still has friends both inside and outside Australia.

To Vima contacted Hakluyt last year and a company executive, who wished to remain anonymous, confirmed that Alexander Downer was working on behalf of them; and in particular, as a member of the Advisory Council. He also stated that members of the Advisory Council, "are either not paid or receive a token amount". He also stated that members do "not make their living from this job". In Cyprus, Alexander Downer was asked directly about his role and the membership of Hakluyt, and he answered:

I do not know where all the members working for the company come from, nor am I responsible for these members. I am a member of the Advisory Council, I meet with members of the Council once a year and provide perspectives on the situation of different regions such as Asia.

Athanasopoulos then raises some important questions, which have recently become even more relevant, as speculation over the hydrocarbon deposits has increased:

However, questions arise from the activities of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on Cyprus. Because of his role, Mr Downer has access to confidential information which would be useful to many. Does he only inform the United Nations and the parties in Cyprus or does he inform others? And who are they? Moreover, how will the actual negotiations on the Cyprus issue be influenced by the dual activities of Downer?

If Hakluyt provides information to businesses so they can reduce investment risk, the presence of Downer could affect, for example, the activity of oil companies interested in undertaking investigations into suspected continental shelf deposits off the coast of Cyprus? Moreover, the relationship of Hakluyt with giants such as BP and Shell could easily lead to such suspicions.

Athanasopoulos then goes on to provide information on the the identity of Hakluyt. General information can be found here (the company's website does not really contain any information). He also states that the people who have worked for Hakluyt are long and illustrious. Alarmingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, in 1997, just two years after the company's establishment, the current foreign minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt also became a member. Hellenic Antidote recently provided some interesting information on the odious Bildt and his rabidly pro-Turkish positions which can be accessed here. Also, Athanasopoulos points out, and certainly not surprisingly, the former U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger and his firm Kissinger Associates have also worked with Hakluyt. Every Greek should know about Kissinger's evil and his role in the dismemberment of the island.

Source: To Vima (Angelos Athanasopoulos), Antipodes

Israel’s role in the invasion and occupation of Cyprus part 2

2009-07-27T15:06:00.000-07:00

The previous post titled, “Israel’s role in the invasion and occupation of Cyprus part 1” (which can be accessed here) provided some background on the diplomatic maneuverings between Cyprus, Greece, Israel and Turkey before the Turkish invasion in 1974.

An article recently posted on Infognomon (which can be accessed here) written by M.Michail provides some information on the role of Israel around the days immediately preceding and following the invasion of Cyprus.

The German magazine, Der Spiegel in 19 August 1974, revealed that “... hiding behind this issue (i.e. the Turkish invasion of Cyprus) was Israel” and that “... the telephone line between Nicosia - Tel Aviv had been connected two days before the coup and only the embassy of Israel or Israeli journalists could use it” (from the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, 20/4/1975). This probably means that Israel and its embassy in Nicosia were aware of the coup to oust Makarios [this is interesting but probably many secret services knew about the invasion of Cyprus]

The Jews were, with a series of “errors” and “coincidences” during the Turkish invasion, continuously on the side of ATTILA [the code name used for the Turkish military operation]. The Athenian newspaper Ta Nea (27/2/1975) published that Israeli planes, at the beginning of July 1975, “accidentally” violated the Greek airspace of Cyprus and twice during the Turkish invasion of July 1974. However, amazingly the following event was also made to appear as “coincidental”: an Israeli navy boat coincided (!) to be within the Turkish invasion armada. And, indeed, collected the castaways of the Turkish destroyer, which was accidentally bombed by Turkish airplanes (from the newspaper Greek Tharros, 15/12/1979). The 42 survivors of the sinking of the Turkish destroyer "Kotzatepe",which previously belonged to the U.S. Navy, was transferred to the Israeli vessel in Haifa! [this is particularly strange as one would expect that Turkish ports would have been closer and more convenient]

At the end of 1972, the secret services of Israel sold to EOKA B "Kalasnikovs" "under the direction of the CIA". The Cypriot journalist Spyros Papageorgiou wrote in his book “The Attila impacts Cyprus”, p. 27: “In connection with the acquisition of Kalashnikovs, despite being sold by the Israeli secret service, they were acting under the direction of the CIA. However, it can be said with certainty, regarding the negotiated purchase of weapons in Beirut, the leader of the operation of EOKA B, Kikis Constantinou was under the impression that he was dealing with illegal arms traffickers". Of course, the readers can draw their own conclusions. The attitude of Israel during the Turkish invasion of 1974 cannot be described as positive. The same “coincidental” attitude was there during in the invasion of Turkey in 1963-64. [unfortunately the article does not provide details of this assertion]

Without further evidence some of the inferences made above appear tenuous. However, we can state with reasonable certainty that Israel's role during the invasion of Cyprus was not constructive.

Of course, any country is free to pursue a foreign policy which best serves its own interests but Israel could have played a more neutral role if it genuinely believed in developing better relations with Greece. Perhaps, as some people have suggested, there was a longer term motive of gaining control of parts of Cyprus which was one of the options in the early Zionist project before the creation of Israel.

Israel's enmity towards Greece and the Cypriots throughout the 1950’s to the 1980’s, should not preclude Greece and Israel forging closer diplomatic and even military ties going forward - international relations should be based on interests rather than historical grudges, loyalty or sentiment. However, history should not be forgotten and Greece must choose its "friends" wisely.

Source: Infognomon (M.Michail), Antipodes

Israel's role in the invasion and occupation of Cyprus part 1

2009-07-23T21:47:00.000-07:00

There are some Greeks; particularly Greek Americans, continuously bombarded with Israeli apologetics, who find it difficult to understand why other Greeks are ambivalent about the state of Israel. Certainly, there are some traditional northern European inspired Right-wing Greek anti-Semites but they are few and far between. There are also traditional Left-wing anti-Israeli Greeks, which are larger in number, who automatically sympathise with the just Palestinian cause because of their underdog status. However, a significant number of sensible largely non-aligned Greeks are ambivalent about Israel due to its role before, and during, the invasion and occupation of Cyprus.

Over the last few weeks Greeks and the Greeks of Cyprus have been commemorating the terrible nightmare of July 1974, the brutal invasion of Cyprus by Turkey and its continuing occupation 35 years later. Hellenic Antidote has provided a blistering series of posts describing the causes and the outcomes of these tragic events which can be found here. The culprits are clear enough: the United Kingdom, the United States, the craven Greek political class and small number of Cypriots with poor judgement. However, Israel was also involved in this catastrophe. Antipodes will provide a two part of series of their involvement - first being a historical recap.

The website of Greek television program, Anixneusis recently uploaded an old article from Greek Cypriot newspaper Politis which can be accessed here in turn summarizing an article written by Israeli academic Zach Levef titled, "The entrance of Israel in Cyprus, 1959-1963" originally published in the academic journal, Middle East Review of International Affairs. The study relies on declassified documents and sources of the period. The article from Politis begins:

From 1948 to 1960, Israel was able to conclude strategic relations with Iran and Turkey and consolidated diplomatic relations with all the major countries (embassies in America, Canada, England, Argentina, France, Italy, Soviet Union). Greece and Cyprus remained inaccessible to them. However, since 1954 when Greece brought Cyprus into the UN, Israel; although it avoided openly supporting either Turkey or Greece, behind the scenes it pressured the British and the UN to support the Turkish position on the division of the island, precisely because they did not want to see Greece dictate policy to Cyprus and act as a regional power with claims in the Eastern Mediterranean. Simultaneously, Israel believed the only way for cooperation with Greece went through Nicosia, which is why immediately after the independence of Cyprus in 1960, they sought to gain diplomatic relations with the Makarios government.

Until then, the regional strategy of Israel was to cultivate strong, but not obvious ties, with Turkey and Iran, two Muslim but not Arab countries. It should also be noted that this strategy perfectly suited the United States and NATO, which considered Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan as a single zone of defense/containment against the Soviet threat. For example, on 29 August 1958 the prime ministers of Turkey and Israel, Menderes and Ben Gurion respectively, secretly met in Ankara with the purpose being to find a means to limit the influence of Egyptian President, Nasser.
Cyprus and Greece were left of the regional strategic alliances of Israel; however, Cyprus was an exceptional case because it lay only 220 miles west of the Israeli coast. So, Israel decided to play a double game. On the one hand, it worked underground for excellent relations with the Turkish Cypriots in order to maintain its strategic relationship with Ankara, and the other it tried to establish diplomatic relations with the official Cypriot state of Makarios. But Makarios presented a major obstacle to Israel. In essence, the strong pro-Arab policy of Makarios threw Israel more into the arms of Turkey and its separatist policies in Cyprus.
In order for Israel to address the problem of Makarios, it was forced to approach the Greek lobby in America to put pressure on Athens and Nicosia. Although this practice had borne some fruit, the Israelis were not slow to discover that the benefits and support they received from Ankara and the Turkish Cypriots in no way offset the gains they were slowly getting from the Greeks [as one poster stated this seems to contradict other parts of the article]
The Israeli leaders decided to more firmly support the Turks, from the time Makarios could not make any decisions on external policy (e.g. to allow Israel to open an embassy in Nicosia) without the consent the Turkish Cypriot Vice President, Koutsouk. At some point, in 1960, the leadership of Israel even discussed providing military assistance to the Turkish Cypriots, something that did not happen, because the consequences would have been negative for the development of official relations between Nicosia and Tel Aviv. Makarios, who was well informed about what was happening, intelligently tried to convince the Mufti of Cyprus to show sympathy to the just cause of his Arab Muslim brothers, to unite with the Christians and cease relations with Israel. But Israel worked quietly to stop this manoeuvre - and it succeeded. The visit of Nasser in Athens in June 1960 did not help things. The Greek government supported the Egyptian leader and secured the prosperity of the Greek minority in Cairo and Alexandria - leading Israel to turn more towards Turkey. Therefore, on 13 January 1961 Koutsouk, Denktash and the Turkish Cypriot defense minister, Osman Orek decided to visit Makarios demanding an ultimatum - to accept the Israeli diplomatic service and the official opening of the Israeli embassy without delay. On 2 February of that year, Israel opened its embassy in Nicosia and warmly thanked Ankara.
But Israel was soon convinced that its interests with Cyprus under the leadership of Makarios was not at all compatible. Makarios voted in favor of the Arabs at the UN on the issue of refugees and a number of other issues, and even started to build excellent relations with Nasser. Also, Makarios persistently refused to send diplomatic corps to Israel; and in reality, the Israel only opened fully operational embassy in Nicosia in 1994, shortly after the recognition of Israel as an independent state, by Greece.

To be continued......

Source: Infognomon, Politis, Antipodes

Nabucco gets the go ahead, Turkey's hand strengthens

2009-07-21T19:17:00.000-07:00

Antipodes has previously written about the Nabucco and South Stream gas pipelines and their geopolitical and economic importance here and here.

Further to these developments, the inter-governmental agreement for the construction of the 3,300 kilometre Nabucco pipeline, which will connect Europe to gas-rich Central Asia via the Balkans, Turkey and the Caucasus, was signed in Ankara on July 13. The Nabucco website can be found here. Nabucco is expected to carry around 30 billion cubic metres of gas a year (this is only 20% of what Russia exports to Europe) with an estimated cost of around 8 billion euros. The construction will begin in 2010 and is expected to be completed by 2015. The pipeline will be built by a consortium of multinational companies.

The agreement was signed by the prime ministers of Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Turkey and the President of the European Commission. The signing ceremony was also attended by heads of state and government of more than 10 countries with the notable absence of representatives from Russia and Turkmenistan - interpreted as disapproval of the pipeline by Moscow. Apparently, the realization of Nabucco is of strategic importance for Europe, as Brussels is seeking to reduce their dependence on hydrocarbons from Moscow. As part of their efforts, the Europeans are succoring the political support of Washington, which never fails to miss an opportunity to pinprick Russia. As expected, there was an assortment of flowery speeches by Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso on how Nabucco will help to build bridges between Europe and Asia.

Unfortunately, for the supporters of Nabucco, the sources of that gas remain unclear. Azerbaijan has only enough for Nabucco's early stages and they remain non-committal and Iran is excluded on political grounds. However, Kurdistan (northern Iraq) is potentially another supplier. And so is Turkmenistan but they are stuck between satisfying Russia or the European Union.

However, the construction of the pipeline has potentially important consequences for Greece and Cyprus. A recent article which can be accessed here published in Greek weekly, The Paron by K.Vosporitis believes the signing of the agreement; despite the uncertainty of supply, strengthens the position of Turkey as a “key” transit country in the international energy map. Vosporitis comments:

The signing of the inter-governmental agreement regarding the Nabucco gas pipeline is of particular importance for Turkey, as Ankara plans raise its position as a strategic partner of the EU, in the crucial energy sector. This development will become more visible, when the construction of the pipeline is completed, and it will ultimately enable Ankara to have a significant say in European affairs. The pipeline, which will cross the territories of Turkey, will probably be ideal leverage against Western centers of power, which maintain reservations about Turkish membership in the EU.

In the case where Ankara makes future use of her privilege, to control the flow of gas to Europe as it pleases - a possibility which should not be dismissed - in order to achieve political, financial etc. objectives, then one wonders who benefits from this arrangement? Moreover, France was the first country to taste the bitter experience of exclusion from the project, following the stubborn refusal of Ankara, possibly as a sign of dissatisfaction for the negative attitude of the French President towards Turkey’s EU membership aspirations. Furthermore, the widely circulated perception; particularly in the European press that Ankara, despite the frustrations of the Turkish side, claimed that 15% of the gas passing through the pipeline will be for domestic consumption, and will be subject to specially discounted prices, was obviously not viewed very favorably by the Europeans.

Vosporitis then raises an important question about the financing sources of this exorbitantly costly project. How in the middle of the global financial crisis will at least 5 billion euros be invested in Turkey for the construction of the Turkish section of the pipeline? Not surprisingly, the doyens of the Anglo-American financial and business elite and their propagandists, The Economist magazine (and surely its benefactors) strongly support Nabucco. A recent article, characteristically depicting Turkey as the "saviour" of Western civilisation and Russia as the evil one, can be found here.

Finally, Vosporitis then points out how the Nabucco pipeline is intimately intertwined with Greek foreign relations and how Turkey's increased leverage is likely to be used to extract concessions from Greece:

Modern political history shows us that Ankara knows how to exploit its geographic location - typical was the inconclusive stance it took during the Second World War, and the refusal in 2003 to allow the passage of U.S. military forces from its territories during the invasion in Iraq - to gain political and economic benefits. With the completion of the Nabucco pipeline, there is a risk, the negotiating position of Ankara will be massively strengthened against the Europeans. This would have serious consequences for Greek national issues, starting with Cyprus, where a new “Annan Plan” has already been launched, even though Nicosia is desperately pushing for the implementation of the Ankara Protocol.

Note: The Ankara Protocol is the extension of the EU customs union to the recent new member countries including Cyprus. Turkey had refused to sign the Protocol due to Cyprus.

Source: To Paron (K.Vosporitis), Antipodes

The Neo-Ottomans stumble (again) over Pan-Turkism

2009-07-19T22:51:00.000-07:00

Judging by their efforts in the 1990’s, it was only a matter of time before the Neo-Ottomans stumbled. The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, got himself into hot water a couple of weeks ago by suggesting that the recent violence in the capital of the Chinese province of Xinjiang, Urumqi involved “genocide”. Refuting this claim, China’s official media says the latest death toll is 192 with at least 46 of them Uighurs.

The Economist magazine recently published an article, titled “Troubles across Turkestan” providing an outline of events which can be found here. Note: it is interesting The Economist magazine has bought into the language of the Pan-Turkic movement i.e. the usage of Turkestan and not naming Xinjiang as a Chinese province. Antipodes has previously highlighted here, The Economist magazine’s robust support for the Turks at the expense of everyone else including the Greeks. The Rothschilds, the owners of The Economist magazine, probably have a lot to lose if Turkey is isolated from the West.

As if Erdogan’s words were not enough, the Turks went even further when Turkey’s trade minister hinted strongly that Turkish consumers should boycott Chinese goods. Erdogan also proposed a discussion of the rioting in the UN Security Council. However, this is very unlikely to happen considering China holds veto power.

Obviously, Turkey’s increasingly Neo-Ottoman self perception, where they believe they can engage with a variety of geopolitical actors on a number of levels shaped by the recent ministerial appointment Ahmet Davutoglu, has motivated it to support the hapless Uighurs. Turkey believes it has cultural, religious and ethnic links with the people of Xinjiang; consequently, Turkey has long been a haven for its disaffected people.

However, Turkey has definitely gone too far this time. Perhaps it overestimated Pan-Turkic solidarity. Pan-Turkism is a political movement started more than 100 years ago aiming to unite the various Turkic peoples into a modern political state. More recently, Pan-Turkic ideas and "re-unification" movements have been popular since the collapse of the Soviet Union in Central Asian and other Turkic countries. In particular, Turkey went clumsily gallivanting around Central Asia trying to build a Pan-Turkic movement. The results were less than encouraging. Alarmingly, the idea of Pan-Turkism also stretches beyond Central Asia and into Europe. Recently, when Erdogan was in Germany, he told cheering Turkish workers and Germans of Turkish ancestry that “assimilation is a crime against humanity”. But, recent Pan-Turkic sympathy for their supposed ethnic brethren in China, has been muted.

However, what is more worrying is Turkey’s relationship with certain geopolitical actors in the West; particularly, their rabid supporters, the United States, the United Kingdom and a few other pathetic small European states like Sweden. It is not out of the realms of possibility that the Americans and the English will use Turkey to irritate China without doing the work themselves, and invariably further promoting Turkey as a global power. As a result, keep a close watch on all the supposed well-researched studies that will be published from American "think-tanks" and English periodicals over the next few months alluding to Turkey's historical relationship with the Uighurs.

Source: The Economist, Antipodes

The Turkish state and its American pimps

2009-07-16T20:32:00.000-07:00

Over the last 30 years, Turkey's activities in the United States trying influence policy and opinion makers have been exceptional. The acquiescence of some Americans; supposedly the purveyors of freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law and truth, has been utterly disgraceful.

Mario Evryviadis has recently written a good article about the activities of the Turkish state within American circles which can be found here. He begins by pointing out the pervasive influence of Turkey in the United States:

If we only limited ourselves, to the so-called think tanks and related institutions/foundations of America, whose goals are to influence American foreign policy, we notice that not one lacks a Turkish presence. This influence takes the form of either donations, for supposedly funding research programs, or the presence of Turkish researchers (or the presence of Americans) whose partisan positions and sometimes absolute slavishness toTurkish propaganda, is supported by very crude research.
The best results of Turkey’s activities in Washington (originally dating from 1975 after the Cyprus invasion) was recently seen with the presidency of Barack Obama which has literally taken to the last iota the positions and views of a think-tank of the Democratic Party, the Center for American Progress (www.americanprogress. org) which have been recorded in a study by Spencer P. Boyer and Brian Katulis, "The Neglected Alliance: Restoring US-Turkish Relations to Meet 21st Century Challenge", December 2008.

The study that Evryvidis cites can be found here. Evryvidis draws our attention to the date of the abovementioned paper (December 2008) which was right in the middle of the transitional period of the presidential election during which the Transition Team formulates the program and activities of the new U.S. administration. Obviously, the study was written with a view to influencing the incoming Obama administration.

Consequently, Clinton-Obama's first visit to Turkey in early 2009, closely follows the study's policy suggestions. Evryvidis then points out that if you look at the end of the study where they attribute thanks and acknowledgements, there are listed all the Turkish "lechers" of Washington. In addition, the sources of funding are from Germany and Turkey. Therefore, Turkish money is helping to formulate U.S. foreign policy facilitated by an assortment of American pimps. Evryvidis then highlights the main characteristics behind Turkey's lobbying:

First, the Turks know what persons, situations, think-tanks, etc. have the upper hand in both political parties at any time. Secondly, they know that to conduct their work there has to an adequate flow of cash. In the case of Turkey, there are some interesting exceptions on how they operate. The Turks are not stingy and they allocate the most capable diplomats to follow the recipients of Turkish finance and donations, ordering them and literally draining the juices from them. They do not allow the tail of the dog to guide them. They guide the dog, leaving him periodically starved.

Regarding their conquest of America power centres (and educational institutions), the Turks had excellent guidance from the Jewish-American lobby. Jewish-Americans took them by the hand in 1975 and taught them how to short-circuit the decision-making system in the U.S; and specifically, how to operate in Washington and how to direct financing to various institutes/foundations, which number in their hundreds in the U.S.

Today, one is not exaggerating if they claim that the Turks have done a better job than their teachers in this field. And our only consolation is that the Turks have become increasingly autonomous from the Jewish-American lobby, truly believing that their country is more important than Israel to the U.S. Therefore, they find it increasingly more difficult to curb their inherent anti-Semitism, as is proved daily by the government of Erdogan.

Evryviadis then lists the think-tanks and institutes/foundations which have been financed directly or indirectly by the Turkish state, they include:

Council of Foreign Relations, RAND, Brookings, Carnegie Endowment, CSIS, Hudson Institute, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Jamestown Foundation, Eurasia Foundation, German Marshal Fund of the U.S., U.S. Peace Institute, Center for American Progress, Middle East Progress, Center for New American Security, New America Foundation, Century Foundation, Stanley Foundation.

Additionally, Evryviadis writes that other groups dealing with energy and terrorism, whose financing remains obscure, always have a good word about the Turks and how important they are to the safety of the United States and the West. Evryvidis continues on the results of Turkey's systematic lobbying efforts:

Finally, if somebody reads closely the policy-orientated books that are about Turkey in the U.S., which all point out the “strategic” or “central” role of Turkey for the West and the innumerable villains that will confront the world if Turkey “is lost” by the West, they will realise a few interesting things.
The donations and financing, if they do not emanate from Ankara, emanate from hyper-conservative and reactive American institutes, as the John M. Olin Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation etc. the last one, as an example, financed Henri Barkey (background from the Constantiniople) and Philip Gordon with USD$100,000 for a series of anti-Cypriot studies that promoted the Turkish position that Turkey will make war if Cyprus is included in the European Union. Also, Philip Gordon has replaced Daniel Friend as the new U.S. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, with responsibilities that include the Cyprus issue and Greek-Turkish relations.

Source: Infognomon (Mario Evryvidis), Antipodes

Greece and Cyprus are caught in a trap

2009-07-15T22:07:00.000-07:00

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos’s articles have been highlighted before on Antipodes. One of those posts can be found here and Konstantakoppoulos’s website can be found here.

Konstantakopoulos has recently written another insightful article on the complex geostrategic issues facing Greece and Cyprus. There have been rumours the Turkish government is planning to re-open of the Halki seminary as a concession to Greece, separate from their obligations to Greece and Cyprus regarding their accession to European Union. It should also be noted that a significant amount of pressure for the Halki re-opening comes from the United States government and various American organizations. However, Greece and Cyprus find themselves in a trap. Konstantakopoulos expands:

These “concessions”, if, and when they occur - because Ankara usually makes promises it does not keep - are combined and do not contradict the intense pressures which are simultaneously implemented (e.g. Aegean) as part of their goal to continue unimpeded in their EU accession course and also to achieve one of Ankara’s primary goals of state sovereignty over the Aegean/Cyprus.

Ankara requests “reciprocity”, i.e. Greek concessions, every time they consider fulfilling their obligations. In the case of Halki, in return they request the expansion of rights of the Muslim minority in Thrace. Simultaneously, the Turkish consul in Komotini, has gone beyond its diplomatic terms of reference by going from village to village and acting rather like a “political leader” of the “Turkish minority”, rather than a foreign diplomat, despite repeated misgivings expressed by the regional government. In the end, rather than the Turkish diplomat complying, the governor ceased to attend many events attended by the diplomat! As for the leadership of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it appears to be ignoring the information provided by the secret services on Turkish activities in Thrace.

In contrast, no Greek government has ever dared to remind Ankara about what happened to the Greek minority in Turkey which was expressly protected by the Treaty of Lausanne. Konstantakopoulos then continues about the role being played by the United States on some of the abovementioned issues:

Meanwhile, Washington is now pressing for quick solutions to the problems impacting the external relations of Greece such as Cyprus, the Aegean and Macedonia. Also, American diplomats have indirectly but clearly posed the question of a “review” of the status quo of the Aegean (Treaty of Lausanne). For example, the extremely philo-Turkish Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Gordon deplored the low flyover flights over the Greek island of Agathonisi by the Turkish airforce, requesting the suspension of these activities, essentially to allow for a Greek-Turkish dialogue on “disputed issues” of sovereignty.

Undoubtedly, Ankara will make it appear to the US and the EU that it is caving in, presenting it as a concession, and then requesting allowances from the Greeks. This is a tactic that has regularly been followed by Mehmet Ali Talat in Cyprus. This tactics works because Greece and Cyprus have fixed objectives in maintaining a “good climate” in relations between Greece and Turkey whereas Turkey has never made the same sacrifices. Therefore, Turkey has greater strategic flexibility compared to Greece.

Konstantakopulos further clarifies the strategic mistakes made by Greece and Cyprus regarding to Turkey's EU access process and the limited set of choices that are currently available to them:

The problem is not tactical but strategic. Greece has declared a policy of “full integration and full compliance” for Turkey's entry into the EU; however, they practically consented to launch negotiations without raising the issue of removing Turkish demands and threats in the Aegean or the recognition of Cyprus. This “tactic” led Ankara into an extremely advantageous win-win position. Either they continue the tough stance, possibly extracting more Greek concessions, or they agree to Greek requests, demanding requisite reciprocations from Nicosia and Athens. For example, if they open the ports to Cypriot trade, it would appear strange to other EU members for Greece or Cyprus to veto opening new chapters because Turkey does not recognize Cyprus.

It makes no sense to put major issues such as the protection of Greek and Cypriot sovereignty from threats, occupation and assorted claims at the end of the accession process. This is because the process will stop, without Greece-Cyprus gaining anything and attracting the ire of Turkey and EU members or we are made to finally accept Turkey into the EU with all its demands.

Source: Dimitris Konstatakopoulos, Antipodes

The integration of Diaspora Greeks into Greek national life part 2

2009-07-14T00:14:00.000-07:00

Diplomatic Periscope has recently posted an article by Mr. Ioannis Touloumakou, Professor of the Faculty of Philosophy at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The article is an attempt to trigger a discussion on the role of the Greek Diaspora (or more accurately the Omogeneia) on Greek and Cypriot national life and Hellenism more broadly. Antipodes posted some of the proposals put forward by Touloumakou yesterday which can be found here.

To repeat, Touloumakou believes it is critical that the Greek Diaspora, despite its heterogeneity, should, and can be, a critical factor in the national strategy; particularly, today as the nation confronts a plethora of internal and external problems.

Touloumakou provides several proposals for the reform of Greek political life and requisite revision of the Constitution which will concern Greeks living abroad. They include the election of representatives of Greeks living abroad (Greek citizens) to the Greek parliament in a proportion determined by certain factors and for the President of the Republic to prepare and speak at the end of each year at the Parliament House; following the budget debate, “On the state of the Nation”, which will include comprehensive references on all the issues facing Greeks living abroad.

Touloumakou provides an interesting set of proposals (some have been largely incorporated) that focus just as much on the Diaspora's rights as their obligations. The Greek Diaspora often conveniently forgets that along with representational rights also come obligations to Greece.

Furthermore, it will be difficult to get broad agreement from Greek society and the Diaspora but at least his article does demonstrate that there are people who are thinking about utilising such a valuable resource as the Diaspora for the renewal of Hellenism. Like almost everything Greeks do, they construct the most wonderful ideas - such as Plato's Republic or the Byzantine cosmosystem (Contogiorgios) - but its in the implementation in which we fall down. The recent bickering in the Greek parliament, on how the Greek Diaspora will be represented, shows the Greeks have a long way to go.

Source: Diplomatic Periscope (Ioannis Touloumakou), Antipodes

The integration of Diaspora Greeks into Greek national life part 1

2009-07-13T00:36:00.000-07:00

Diplomatic Periscope recently posted a thoughtful article by Mr. Ioannis Touloumakou, a Professor of the Faculty of Philosophy at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The article is an attempt to trigger a discussion on the role of the Greek Diaspora (or more accurately the Omogeneia) in Greek and Cypriot national life, and Hellenism more broadly. Antipodes will provide a two part series of translations from that article.

Touloumakou believes it is critical that the Greek Diaspora, despite its heterogeneity, should, and can be, a critical factor in the national strategy; particularly, today as the nation confronts a plethora of internal and external problems. However, Touloumakou points out the Greek Diaspora and its personalities, its history, geographical distribution, achievements and problems, is notably absent from the Greek school curriculum. Furthermore, the Greek Diaspora is hardly mentioned in the daily or periodical press and media of Greece.

Touloumakou then goes on to provide a series of ideas for the integration of Hellenes living abroad into Greek national life:

1. The establishment of a Ministry of Emigrants (the Greek Government had promised a Ministry to Greek parliamentarians from foreign countries after the 2004 Olympic Games, in which 25% of the Greek athletes were emigrants). The organization and responsibilities of this (independent) Ministry should be subject to a special study of specific factors by Greeks and Greeks abroad;

2. The reorganization of the Council of Hellenes Abroad (S.A.E) in accordance with the requirements arising from the (newly formulated) national strategy;

3. The establishment of an independent television channel with satellite range or the conversion of the existing Parliament House channel into an emigrant station;

4. The representation of Hellenes abroad in a new “National Institute of Educational Studies”, which will replace the currently (expensive and generally failed) Pedagogical Institute (and also a “Central Educational Council”) or the “National Institute for Radio and Television”, the “National Film Centre” and “National Book Centre”;

5. The reorganization of the education of Greek children abroad in close cooperation with the Church, whose role in this field, as in others, relating to cultural and social life of emigrants, was and is a national necessity;

6. The naturalization of young people of Greek origin under certain conditions, one of which (the most important) should be service (military or social) in the armed forces. The acute demographic problem, national defence program that cannot be addressed by professionals (and mercenaries) soldiers (especially after the recent reduction in the duration of military service) but above all the important educational role of the military in developing national and social consciousness, makes bringing volunteers of Greek communities abroad into the armed forces particularly important;

7. The introduction of Greek Olympic games every four years with the participation of young people from Greece, Cyprus and Greek communities abroad (and possibly foreigners, who know the Greek language and culture well); and

8. The establishment of Historical Museums for Diaspora Greeks in the capitals of the states, provinces or other jurisdiction which are comprised of many Greek immigrants.

To be continued.........

Source: Diplomatic Periscope (Ioannis Touloumakou), Antipodes

Trouble continuing to brew in Thrace

2009-07-09T22:35:00.000-07:00

The situation in Thrace continues to worsen. Turkey’s covert program of inciting the local Muslim population, whilst simultaneously raising minority concerns in bilateral relations with Greece in order to gain leverage on outstanding geopolitical issues, continues almost unopposed.

Many strategists in Greece believe Turkey's long term designs are to create another Cyprus (or the threat of another Cyprus) or perhaps even a Kosovo whereby they use a false pretext, protecting a "threatened" Muslim minority, to invade another country. It should be noted that half of the Muslims living in Thrace identify as Greek Pomaks and Gypsies.

An article titled, “They are cultivating the climate for the minority” by Niko Meleti from the website, Infognomon highlights some of the strange developments that have been occurring amongst the Muslim community in Thrace guided by the support of Turkey. For example, just recently, Mustafa Sarnits, Turkish Consul General in Komotini, during the attendance of a children’s graduation ceremony of “Koran Koursou”, one of the many Islamic denominational schools which have filled Thrace, went to a Pomak village of Kechros and gave this message:

... I see here a Turkish community in abnegation. Continue this struggle without succumbing and support Turkism, thanks to you Turkism will continue in Thrace and will continue to live ...

Mr Sarnits, a few days later visited the Pomak village of Chloe, to participate in celebrations in which certain people are trying to re-introduce the “Forty Kourbania” (the forty sacrifices). The event is in memory of forty soldiers of Turk Suleiman Pasha, who fell in the struggle for the conquest of Thrace in the 14th century!

Turkey's stooges in Thrace are also urging Muslims to send their children to minority-only schools (not bilingual public schools), so as not to lose their religious and national identity, and to further the reach of Islamic Turkish identity.

Obviously, these incidents have raised legitimate concerns about the methodical and systematic effort of the Turkish consulate - surpassing its mission and terms of reference - to cultivate favorable grounds for the demands of Turkey to interfere directly and in a divisive manner in the internal affairs of Greece. The Greek-Turkish "friendship" continues.....

Source: Infognomon (Niko Meleti), Antipodes

The hypocrisy of Western capital: divestment from Iran, investment rises in Turkey

2009-07-08T23:00:00.000-07:00

Last week one of the largest institutional investors of the United States, the New York State Pension Fund, stated they were divesting US$86 million from companies conducting business in Iran and Sudan. The complete news release can be found here.

The State Comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli stated that, "....they [investors] don't want us investing their future in excessively risky markets. And they shouldn't have their pension fund dollars jeopardize by regimes that support genocide and terrorism".

The sentiments expressed by DiNapoli are part of a growing movement amongst pension funds and other large investors such as foundations, endowments and high net worth/family offices in the United States and elsewhere towards making investment decisions within an environmentally and socially conscious framework.

Obviously, these sentiments are noble and honourable - every decent human being would like a better world. However, like all Utopian adventures, they can be abused by influential people and institutions for ends which are less than idealistic.

For example, leaving aside the case of Sudan, Iran is not currently occupying any foreign country with its armed forces, has not uprooted 200,000 people and refused to hand back their property and livelihood, has not destroyed the civic and religious architectural remains of a 4,000 year old civilisation and does not threaten a neighbouring country with low flyovers over inhabited areas in order to challenge its sovereignty. In addition, Iran does not deny the genocide of three important ethnic groups that surround it. However, there is one country which is currently doing all these, Turkey.

Absurdly, not only have pension funds not decided to divest from Turkey but they appear to be increasing their investments in Turkey judging by this article printed in the Turkish daily, Hurriyet earlier this year. For example, the total number of U.S. companies operating in Turkey was 834 in 2007 and those companies helped raise the total capital inflow from the United States to Turkey to around US$9.2 billion in 2007. Undoubtedly, the asset allocation decisions of some of the abovementioned institutional investors have contributed to this flow of capital.

Obviously, there is one rule for some and another rule for others. As mentioned before, investing according to environmentally and social responsible frameworks is theoretically sound but in reality power-relations determine who is socially acceptable and who is not.

Source: Huffington Post, Hurriyet, Antipodes

Shipping as an asset class

2009-07-05T21:20:00.000-07:00

Antipodes recently reported here how shipping was showing signs of a recovery from the steep declines experienced in 2008. The Greek merchant fleet is the largest in the world totalling a fifth of the world's shipping fleet. After tourism, it is the second largest contributor to Greece's 240 billion euro economy, accounting for around 7% of output.

However, after an impressive rise off recent lows, the Baltic Dry Index (BDY) is currently stuck in a narrow range. Investors appear to be uncertain about the global economic recovery. The Baltic Dry Index is an indicator of chartering prices and one of the most popular leading indicators of global economic growth. Despite the uncertainty many are advising that now is a opportune time to enter the shipping market.

One way to enter the shipping market is via some form of fund structure. Investors have increasingly sought alternative asset classes such as private equity, hedge funds, real estate, commodities and timber in order to diversify their investments away from the traditional stocks, bonds and cash. The historically low Treasury yields on offer of the last eight years, and the steep equity market declines during the latterhalf of 2007 and then most of 2008, have made the search for lowly correlated assetclasses to traditional asset classes even more urgent.

JP Morgan Asset Management, a subsidiary of U.S. investment bank JP Morgan, released a report in April 2009 titled, "Shipping industry in the spotlight - a historic opportunity" that provides a relatively easy to understand overview of shipping's economics and its worth as an asset class. The report can be accessed here.

Of course, like all the advice or research expressed by investment banks one must be extremely wary. JP Morgan Asset Management recently announced it would be raising USD$750 million for a distressed shipping fund. More details can be found here.

Source: JP Morgan Asset Management (Adrian Dacy), Bespoke, Antipodes

Obama's Philo-Turkish policy and its weaknesses

2009-07-02T23:25:00.000-07:00

U.S. President Barak Hussein Obama’s visit to Turkey in early 2009 and the statements he made to the Turkish parliament fueled intense discussion about the future geopolitics of the region. The general conclusion was that American foreign policy is now geared towards ending the purported “Clash of Civilizations” (Huntington) between the West and Islam that began with 9/11. The Americans are planning a re-rapprochement with Islam, by not only using the personality of the new president familiar with Islam and with a name of Arabic origin; but, they will also enlist the help of a traditionally strong Muslim ally - specifically Turkey. In short, Turkey has been invited by the U.S. to serve as a bridge or tool of U.S. policy towards the Arab-Muslim world.

Turkey, being an increasingly adept player of the global chessboard, and with global superpower ambitions, certainly intends to comply fully with the Americans, as it also serves its own ambitions. It is no coincidence, that a few weeks after the visit to Ankara by Obama, Ahmet Davutoglu was appointed the Foreign Minister of Turkey, a widely respected theoretician of re-making Turkey a global superpower. Antipodes highlighted some of his ideas here and here. Davutoglu argues that Turkey should act simultaneously at multiple levels: in Europe as a European power; in Islam as a Muslim power; and in Central Asia as Turanic power.

The consistently informative Greek-Thracian magazine, Antifonitis, recently published an article titled, “Greece, Turkey and the Eastern Question” by Meleti Meletopoulos, Professor of Economics and Social Sciences at Geneva University and the President of the Democrats party. The article addresses many questions but one of them is Obama's Philo-Turkish policy and its weaknesses. It has been republished on a number of websites since it first appeared and has generated a lot of discussion.

Antipodes has decided to provide a translation of the first part of the article because it provides a rather optimistic viewpoint regarding Turkey's geopolitical future and its relationship with the United States, providing a good comparison with some of the doomsday scenarios painted by other Greek commentators.

Certainly, both the American and Turkish school of thought suffer from serious theoretical and practical problems.
The internal contradictions of the Turkish state, its problematic political system, the large minorities of different national consciousness and cultural characteristics, economic and social vulnerability, the Kurdish issue, the failure to penetrate Central Asia and the Caucasus during the 1990s, the dynamic return of Russian policy, the crisis in Turkish-Israeli relations, etc., essentially undermines any attempt by the Turks to become even a regional superpower. Furthermore, Turkey is faced with the serious possibility of a secession of its eastern provinces and civil conflict between the Islamists and the Kemalists. Also, the collapse of accession negotiations between Turkey and the European Union and towards a special relationship, will end of Turkey's efforts to lead Europe, using its demograpic growth and its Muslim minorities in Europe as levers.
But U.S. policy suffers from its own inherent contradictions, because it tries to reconcile conflicting objectives with the election of Turkey as a key partner, such as the simultaneous rapprochement with Russia, Iran, the Arab world and the need to maintain its relationship with Europe and Israel.

Contemporary Turkey is a third-world militarist society, which is ruled by increasingly theocratic leaders (which bases itself on the Koran rather than civil law). Its natural area, from a cultural and sociological perspective, is the Arabic Middle East. Turkey is a descendant of the Ottoman Empire, which its leader (the Sultan) had the title of Caliph, or leader of the Faithful, of the entire Muslim world. The purpose of the current Turkish leadership is to again make Turkey leader of the Islamic world.

If U.S. policy aims to make Turkey a channel towards Islam, it should be reconciled from the outset with the idea that Turkey will not function as a channel of the West to Islam, but as a conduit of Islam to the West. And a key element of this will serve the geo-strategic interests of Turkey.

Source: Antifonitis (Meleti Meletopoulos), Antipodes

Skopjan leadership betrays its people

2009-07-01T19:18:00.000-07:00

Hellenic Antidote has diligently and eloquently highlighted the deceitful, delusional and downright bizarre nature of the Skopjan regime and some of its people on a series of posts which can be found here. However, the political entity bordering Macedonia never fails to surprise.

Last week, German Left-wing newspaper, Der Spiegel ran an interview with F.Y.R.O.M. president, Gjorgje Ivanov. Before dealing with Ivanov, special mention must go to Der Spiegel which has established itself almost as a mouthpiece of the F.Y.R.O.M. regime after having published a series of interviews and articles whose only notable feature is their slavish adherence to the insane beliefs and propaganda emanating from Skopje. These articles can be accessed here, here, here and here.

Returning to Ivanov, the 49 year old political scientist was elected president of F.Y.R.O.M in April 2009. In the interview with Der Spiegel, Ivanov discusses his country's conflict with Greece and his hope it will soon become a member of the European Union and NATO. He also suggests that in the 19th century all Macedonians lived together in one state and implies they were subsequently separated by the establishment of Greek Macedonia. He also suggests that Skopjans have a right to unify with other Skopjan minorities in neighbouring countries such as Bulgaria and Greece.

Not surprisingly, these comments correspond with the bizarre nature of the regime highlighted by Hellenic Antidote. Clearly, there was no political state entity in the 19th century called Macedonia in which all Macedonians (obviously Slav-speaking) lived together. Also, clearly there is no justification in claiming Greek Macedonia based on the existence of less than 2,000 Slav speaking people in Greece - whose ethnic identity is uncertain to say the least.

Furthermore, and even more seriously for the Skopjan people, Ivanov does not seem to realise that the European Union is becoming increasingly skeptical about further enlargement. And if any country was capable of assisting them, during this difficult time for EU aspirants to accede into the EU and NATO, it would be Greece. Rather, the Skopjan leadership prefers to continue with their insane nationalistic antics. More worryingly, they are continuing to solidify shady alliances with Turkey; which will ultimately align itself with Skopje's minority Albanian population, and spell the end of Slav dominance of F.Y.R.O.M.

Source: Der Spiegel, Antipodes

The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism Part 5

2009-06-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

This is the last part of a summarised translation of George Karabelias's article, "The social basis of Neo-Ottomanism" which appeared in the November-December edition of the Greek magazine Ardin. The last Antipodes post can be accessed here.

Karabelias continues on how the Greek Neo-Ottoman elite requires complicity from the broadest possible segments of society in order to continue their project undisturbed; and therefore, attempt through tourism and the selling of real estate to Europeans, to corrupt the last remaining Greeks. He also describes how on the islands of the eastern Aegean, there are growing calls for local businessmen to integrate economically with the “neighboring coast". At the same time, “Left-wing pacifists” make “friendship festivals”, that help to pave the way - despite Turkey's purported grey areas and the continued airspace violations - for the occupation of the Aegean.

Despite the doom and gloom which pervades Karabelias’s article he ends on a note of potential optimism about how the present crisis may galvanise people into resisting Neo-Ottomanism:

That is why, furthermore, the political and spiritual landscape looks so unhealthy and stalemated in our country because there are no parties of political, social and spiritual subjects who could offer resistance to this deadlock. However, the two major global deadlocks of our time, the ecological and economic collapse of globalization, will pose a tough test to Greek parasitism in Greece and Cyprus. And perhaps, as in all crises, it will trigger a set of questions that would lead a party of the people and intellectuals who will consciously oppose voluntary servitude and decline.

Obviously, Karabelias's analysis owes much to Marx and material dialectics; despite, showing few signs of sympathy for the contemporary Greek Left. His analysis of the de-nationalisation of certain parts of Greek ship-owning and other capital, Churchmen and intellectual New Leftists is accurate. There is a lack of data supporting some of his claims but it is only an article in a magazine. However, he does fail to mention the globalisation of the old Left and the working class where they sought to reach out to their Turkish (and Bulgarian, Skopjan and Albanian) working class counterparts in solidarity despite aggression against the Greek people.

Certain parts of the Greek Diaspora also manage to escape Karabelias's wrath. This is unfortunate because this is where some of the most apparent signs of Neo-Ottomanism are present. For example, during the recent adulation poured on President Barak Obama by Archbiship Demetrios during Greek Independence Day celebrations, where he idiotically compared Obama to Alexander the Great, he failed to mention Turkey's miserable role in the bloody saga. Obviously, he was sensitive to American geopolitical designs which have recently elevated Turkey as a paragon of freedom, democracy and peace in the region.

Source: Ardin (George Karabelias), Antipodes

The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism Part 4

2009-06-28T20:02:00.000-07:00

Those who have read Byzantine history carefully will realise the events that occured on 1071, 1204 and 1453 were not really that critical to the Empire's disintegration. More important but less recognisable were the broader social forces which led to these events, such as the increasing power of the Anatolian aristocratic families and the Church at the expense of the small landholding and military classes. It is no coincidence the Byzantine Empire reached its greatest height, in terms of territorial expansion and finances, when Basil II, the Bulgar-Slayer, crushed the aristocratic elite and Church and gave back power to the small landholders, which supplied the army with most of its men and the empire with its agricultural produce and manufactures.

The last few posts of Antipodes (the last can be accessed here) have provided a summarised translation of an article writen by one of Greece's best social commentators, George Karabelias for the magazine Ardin. Karabelias documents the changes in social, economic and political forces in Greece and elsewhere which have led to Greek Neo-Ottomanism and the weakening of a national consciousness. Much like the period after the death ofBasil II, Karabelias believes the balance of forces in Greek society has shifted in favour of a globalised "Greek" "parasitic" elite, which largely prefers its own narrow interests (in accordance with Neo-Ottomanism) at the expense of the nation.

Karabelias continues his increasingly caustic commentary with the odious figure of Costas Karras:

Typical are the views of the recently arrested (for illicit trade in antiquities) ship-owner, Costas Karras. He is a 17-year member of the secretariat of Bilderberg club, president of the Greek-Turkish Forum and the Greek section of CDRSEE (the organization that issued the history books of Mrs Koulouris) and he is a Great Archon of the Patriarchate. He is also an ecologist and acts as a mentor regarding ecological activities to Patriarch Bartholomew. Essentially, his views are that we must re-establish as the center of the Hellenism, the Phanari and the Patriarchate, and leave behind “nationalism”. This is because the Helladic nation-state and a free Cyprus are very small and insignificant for the investment and political dreams of a type of capital which is often Greek in name only.

Karabelias states that is why we witnessed representatives of Cypriot capital outbidding each other in support of the Annan Plan and the dissolution of the Cyprus Republic because it is an obstacle to their plans. Also, he believes this is why the Angelopoulos’s, the Karras’s and others slander those who support the defense of the homeland as "nationalism". These people, including educators, cultural experts and churchmen, call for the disintegration of nation-state and support abandoning arms and defense of the country. They are supporters of Greek-Turkish friendship and even if they are non-religious, are against the “nation-race” outlook of the Helladic Greek Church, as represented by the now deceased Archbishop Christodolou, in favour of the “universalism” of the “ecologist Patriarch” – in other words globalization and Neo-Ottomanism. Karabelias continues:

Furthermore, representatives of all parties, “capital” and the “Left”, co-sign the same texts in support and “solidarity” as happened with the signatures in favor of Mr. Karras, or for the pursued Mrs Repousi or for poor Costas Simitis.

To be continued.....

Source: Ardin (George Karabelias), Antipodes

The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism Part 3

2009-06-25T19:11:00.000-07:00

Antipodes finished the last post titled, "The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism part 2" with George Karabelias describing how the Greek "parasitic" elite came toopt for Neo-Ottomanism.

In the next section, Karabelias expands on the different uses of the terms "race" and "nation" and how they have been used to serve different agendas regarding the Greek people and nation-state.

More importantly, in the next section, Karabelias deals with the distancing from Greek national interests by Greek ship owners, who control an increasing proportion of banks, press and electronic media; and internationalized Greek capital, involved in banking and communications.

Shipping capital, because they are not related to the internal accumulation of capital of a small country such as Greece and far exceed it (the Greek shipowners operate the largest fleet in the world), has supranational features; or to be more precise, coincides largely with the interests of the major naval forces of the West, that control the global trade and transport. Thus, the center of action of Greek shipping is in London and New York, which suffered great damage from the recent crisis, and secondarily in Piraeus and Limassol. This distancing from the Greek community is intensified by the fewer Greek crews and seamen working on Greek ships.

Thus, Karabelias writes how Greece and Cyprus stand in an absoloute "paradox" with their illustrious shipowners and capitalists:

On the one hand, economically and politically, they are countries in the second tier of the West and treated as the poor or annoying relatives, and on the other hand ship owners participate fully in the heart of the West, and primarily Anglo-Saxon, multinational capital. And the greater "paradox" is that the Helladic Greek and Cypriot states are treated as poor relations of their own ship owners and other dealers, who largely have an extremely “flat” and “anti-nationalist” perception of the interests of Hellenism, preferring always the general interests of the West against the “narrow” interests of Greece or Cyprus. And if those interests coincide, as has happened in very few cases, things go well, if not, as often happens because of the geopolitical position of Greece, then they consider the interests of their wallet, or the general interests of the West.

Today the general interests of Anglo-Saxon capital, which Greek shipping and the general globalised Greek capital is tied into, ordain for our region, the following provision of power: in the center of a sub-imperialist station is Turkey, which in terms of size, location, economic potential and population outweighs all others. The other Balkan powers and Greece should be subordinated to Turkey and accept what we call Neo-Othomanism.
Greece, the Greek nation-state, and the Cypriot government, which is in direct rivalry with Turkish expansionism in Cyprus, the Aegean, Thrace, should subjugate their “special” interests; namely, national integrity and independence and the overriding interests of the alliance. That is why Anglo-American support for Turkey is permanent and stable and why they call on the Greek-Cypriot elites to align themsevles with this strategy. The main lever for this “transition” of the Greeks of Greece and Cyprus is the same “Greek” international capital and domestic Greeks subordinated them.

To be continued......

Source: Ardin (George Karabelias), Antipodes

The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism part 2

2009-06-24T18:24:00.000-07:00

The last Antipodes post titled "The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism part 1" finished with George Karabelias writing that the Greek "parasitic" elite's role as the commercial intermediary between the Ottoman Empire and the West was similarly repeated in the intellectual and ideological field - the spiritual "modernization" of modern Hellenism was cut from the Byzantine tradition and stuck onto ancient Greeceand Western modernity - dependent entirely on Western universities and publishers. Byzantium was identified only with the religious aspect of Greek spirituality.

As a consequence, Karambelias writes that the ruling elite of Greece (including the capitalists, Phanariots and clerics) did not have an organic link with the Greek people. From the Greek revolution and after, and throughout the long period until 1974, he describes how Greek capital and the elites shifted towards the West; since the Ottoman Empire was in decline until 1922, and Turkey did not resurface as an expansionist power in the region until 1974 (with the invasion of Cyprus). The parasitic Greek elite voluntarily became subjugated to the designs of the western Great Powers, primarily Great Britain and the U.S.

But since 1974, there began a transition period which lasted until the late 1990s, during which the Greek elites tried to resist the incipient Neo-Ottomanism of Turkey post the invasion of Cyprus, bringing Greece even more under the umbrella of the West and joining the European Union for protection.

However, the facts in the region had changed dramatically. The Balkans broke apart after the fall of the Eastern Bloc and the Arab world suffered another severe setback with the double invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, Turkey to became an important economic and geopolitical pole due to its population (exceeding 70 million people) and trade several times the size of the Greece’s. In addition, with the threat of radical Islam in the West and the resurgence of “Russian aggression”, Turkey became a crucial hub of the New World Order. Karabelias then states the choices faced by the Greek elite and which option they eventually chose:

For the Greek elite there were two options: either to resist the extension of Neo-Ottomanism by setting up a Balkan and Middle Eastern bloc, as they tried to do when Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou was in power; or they could accept the new facts and join the emerging Neo-Ottoman reality, and merely balancing the Turkish influence on Greece with others - Western or Russian - and always with “reward” in mind, i.e. winning the Neo-Ottoman enterprise zone as a first step.
Since the last government of Andreas Papandreou, and especially from the time of the government of Kostas Simitis, in Greece, and from Glafkos Clerides in Cyprus, the second option became dominant.

With the early “bards” of anti-nationalism, the intellectuals of the Left; who prepared the ideological ground, the Greek ruling classes gradually became Neo-Ottoman. The Annan Plan, the policies of Dimitris Christofias, George Papandreou and Dora Bakoyannis, the Turkish television serials on Greek TV, Repousi [history book controversy] and Karras, the huge investments of the National Bank of Greece in Turkey and the growing role of the besieged Ecumenical Patriarch (controlled by Turkey) on Greek ecclesiastical life, are manifestations of this new reality; in which gradually, the Greek people have become addicted.

To be continued......

Source: Ardin (George Karabelias), Antipodes

The social, economic and political basis of Greek Neo-Ottomanism part 1

2009-06-23T16:33:00.000-07:00

Antipodes has made reference to, or written about, the ideology Neo-Ottomanisn before. Indeed, the last post provided a summarised translation of the November-December editorial of Greek magazine, Ardin. The editorial defined the concept of Neo-Ottomanism, some of the forces which have contributed to its formation and its implementation across the Balkans, Middle East and Central Asia.

However, Neo-Ottomanism is not only an external threat. Despite 400 years of Ottoman occupation, the darkest, bloodiest and most unproductive period of Greek history, unbelievably there are some people in Greece, Cyprus and the Diaspora which promote the ideology of Neo-Ottomanism.

In the same edition of Ardin, the very important Greek sociologist, economist and historian, George Karabelias also contributed an article titled, “The Socal Basis of Neo-Ottomanism” which provides a historical analysis of the social, economic and political factors that have led to Greeks supporting Neo-Ottomanism. Karabelias begins:

.......various interest groups which have in their core the internationalized and parasitic bourgeoisie of Greece; but also many other parties, from groups of intellectuals and artists to progressive political parties and religious interests, either by voluntary servitude or by material factors (e.g. the very large number of discs which certain musicians sell in the Turkish market) promote a Greek-Turkish friendship with a view to profit.

Karabelias then writes about the formation of this "parasitic elite" amongst certain sectors of Greek and Cypriot society and its visible signs of Neo-Ottomanism, including:

......the support of Turkey in the EU, the acceptance of a fait accompli regarding the occupation in Cyprus, the sermons that the Ottoman occupation was less than harmful. Since the time that a Neo-Ottoman Turkey returned as a "strong power" in the region, whilst at the same time the influence and power of Anglo-American interests has waned, a growing segment of the Greek elite are readying themselves to take on a role of modern Phanariotes, accepting the domination of the new power.

Karabelias then goes back in time to identify the roots of this Phanariotism. He believes the double occupation of the Greek world from 1204 onwards, by the West and the Ottoman Turks, did not allow the Greek bourgeoisie to create a system of domestic production but rather turned the lands on which Greeks lived into a semi-colony exporting raw materials such as cotton, grapes and tobacco:

For the Greeks and the Armenians, the only role that was permitted was that of the intermediary between the West and the Ottomans, and this is why the Greek middle class developed as a commercial or commercial-naval power. Hence, from the 18th century the Greeks became more active in the Danube, southern Russia, Austro-Hungary, Smyrna and Constantinople as traders, and on the islands, as seamen.

One of the consequences of Ottoman rule and the "transit-trade" character of Greek business were similar developments in the intellectual and ideological field. The spiritual "modernization" of modern Hellenism was cut from the Byzantine tradition and stuck to ancient Greece and Western modernity - dependent entirely on Western universities and publishers - and Byzantium was only identified with the religious aspect of Greek spirituality…..

To be continued......

Source: Ardin (George Karabelias), Antipodes

Neo-Ottomanism and Hellenism

2009-06-21T20:30:00.000-07:00

Antipodes has written previously about Turkey's ascendant Neo-Ottoman policy and its acceptance amongst a small but growing number of Greeks in Greece and Cyprus. Ardin, a long-running Greek magazine and its sister newspaper publication, Rixi have written extensively on this subject matter in recent years.

Below is a translation of the editorial from the November-December 2008 edition of Ardin which provides a brief overview of the concept of Neo-Ottomanism and its implementation across the region:

.............[Neo-Ottomanism] is the resurgence of invasive imperial policies from Turkey; and the formation, within the neighboring countries of Turkey, of social and political forces that are prepared to accept and to actively contribute to shaping the Neo-Ottoman framework.

Specifically, in Greece and Cyprus we have documented Neo-Ottomanism (or Phanariotism), in the form of acceptance and allegiance to Turkish expansionism, despite Turkey continuing to occupy northern Cyprus and threatening Greece in the Aegean and Thrace.

The Neo-Ottomanism has its starting point in the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, while it was greatly enhanced by the geopolitical changes in the wider region including: the collapse of the Soviet Union; the disintegration of the Balkans; and the deterioration of the Arab world. This opened a wide gap that facilitated greater Turkish geopolitical influence stretching from the Turkic republics of Central Asia to the Balkans and the Middle East.

The internal factors behind the the consolidation and growth of Neo-Ottomanism was rapid economic growth, inflow of foreign capital and the large population growth of Turkey, which providing a material basis for a Neo-Ottoman policy - together with the strengthening of the armed forces and war industry. In the ideological field, Islamism on an increasingly global scale, has provided the opportunity for Turkey to abandon secular Kemalism and create a new ideological synthesis classified as Islamo-Kemalism.

Thus, a Neo-Ottoman Turkey can use the Islamic dimension in its relations with Islam, the integration of the Kurds and the use of Muslim minorities in the Balkans; and its secular Kemalist dimension in its relations with the West and in joining the European Union.

Greece and Cyprus, and the Kurds in Turkey, are the two main obstacles to the complete implementation of Turkey's Neo-Ottoman strategy. Hence, the need for their subjugation and allegiance using a mixture of methods and tactics. Firstly, the use of violence or threat of violence in Cyprus, the Aegean, Thrace and Kurdistan. Secondly, and in parallel, the ideological integration and acceptance of Neo-Ottomanism amongst the Kurds through the creation of Islamism and Kurdish elites that identify with the Turkish state. And regarding the Greeks in Greece and Cyprus, the integration of an increasing number of economic and intellectual elites, in the Neo-Ottoman Balkan project and the parallel decline of internal Greek resistance.

Source: Ardin (Editorial), Antipodes

Greek-Australians outdo Australians but should we care?

2009-06-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

In the 2006 Australian Census conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1.86% of respondents answered "Greek" when asked "what is the person's ancestry?”. Therefore, according to the recently released BRW (Business Review Weekly) Rich 200 table, Greeks are disproportionally represented amongst the wealthiest Australians. The Greek-Australian newspaper published in Melbourne, Neos Kosmos published a short article on this achievement which can be accessed here. Six Greeks made it into the top 200 rich list representing 3% of the group compared to a broader Greek population of 1.86%.

The Greeks in the list are involved in somewhat traditional Greek commercial pursuits such as property and development, pearling (Greeks from the Dodecanese were brought to Australia early in its history to fish for pearls), hotels and leisure; and less traditional pursuits such as mining and information technology.

These results are encouraging; however, how much of a Hellenic consciousness do these people have and how much do they actually bequeath to their community? Furthermore, how organized are Greek-Australian associations in receiving their donations and funneling them into causes which will enhance the Greek-Australian community such as teaching the Greek language and culture, aged care, health, Orthodoxy, media and the promotion of Hellenocentric positions regarding national issues such as Cyprus, the “Macedonian” name issue, northern Epirus and Turkish aggression in the Aegean and Thrace? Certainly, the self-defeating religious and political schisms that have bedeviled the Greek-Australian community do not help.

There is no point in feeling any sense of pride if the surplus wealth of these wealthy Greeks does not go back to their community.

Source: Neos Kosmos, ABS, Antipodes

Illegal Muslim immigrants and Geopolitics

2009-06-16T14:55:00.000-07:00

Ioannis Theodoratou, Editorial Director of the Greek monthly Defence Review, recently wrote an important article on the recent riots by illegal Muslim immigrants in Athens, the consequences of the massed entry of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and Muslims in Greece and the role of Turkey. Antipodes has previously referenced Theodoratou here.

Theodoratou believes that Muslim immigrants protesting outside the Parliament House in downtown Athens and crying “God is Great” is only the beginning of their mobilization. He is almost certainly right. Problems will worsen due to Greece lacking a reliable system for monitoring maritime borders; and therefore, unable to control further illegal immigration. Although, there is an agreement between Greece and Turkey for the return of those who cross the border illegally, Ankara has so far refused to accept them back and Athens does not exercise any pressure.

Furthermore, Theodoratou views the latest problems with illegal Muslim immigrants in the broader context of Greece failing to uphold its national security:

This is again ample proof of the total failure of our country to defend its basic national interests. Another recent example of the “Finlandisation” of Greek policy occurred on June 4, duringthe official visit of senior Greek military personnel to Turkey in order to "normalize" bilateral relations; however, Turkish fighter planes were at the same time flying low over the island of Agathonisi. So apart from exercising military pressure on Athens, Ankara has in its “quiver” the selective dumping of Muslim immigrants to certain islands in the Aegean.

Theodoratou then asks the question why should illegal Muslim immigrants worry us more than others and why is the recent increased flow such a threat to national security. He answers:

We should be worried because of the political use of Muslims by countries whose strategic interests conflict with Greek ones. For example, Ankara has over the last five years tried to create within Greece a “window of opportunity” through which to intervene indirectly the domestic political scene. The first example of these new tactics were noticeable during the recent European elections. After the incidents in central Athens concerning the damaging of a Koran by a policeman, the Advisory Committee of Thrace, a Muslim minority institution, urged Muslims in the region to vote "blank". The incident in Athens was seen as an excellent opportunity to garner support amongst Muslims in Thrace to protest towards Europe - the abstention of about 48-49% in the prefectures of Xanthi and Rhodope was significant compared to the broader national context. At the same, a trend worth mentioning was that some people, obviously poorly informed, had taken the instructions of abovementioned committee literally and voted for the “Blank” party, in the Rhodope prefecture, which strangely came fourth, with 2,591 votes or 4.84% of the vote!

We should note that the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan and the Foreign Minister, Davutoglou already prescribe a policy of protecting Muslim religious minorities throughout the Balkans. Antipodes has previously written about this policy here. Davutoglou has proposed that Turkey should create a legal basis to justify the intervention of Turkey; bringing forth, the example of the invasion of Cyprus in order to protect the Turkish minority there.

Theodoratou then writes that over time illegal Muslim immigrants in Greece and longstanding Muslims in Thrace will become better organised and will receive increased financing from foreign sponsors such as Saudi Arabia. He also writes:

Human rights will be used as political tools by the powerful regional/global powers to promote their wider geopolitical interests. Thus, in the case of the Muslims in Greece, they are asserting their rights, which runs counter to national security, at a time of increasing American openness towards the Islamic world. At the same time, the United States promotes the "right to self-determination" in conjunction with the obligation to accept a multi-racial and multi-religious future.

We see a path of convergence in U.S.-Turkish interests, which along with the problem of illegal Muslim immigrants in Greece, should not be ignored by Greek planners. This convergence will become progressively clearer and is expected to lead to an escalation of pressure over the next few months on other issues such as Cyprus, the Aegean Sea, the exclusive economic zone, etc.

In the media, Ankara enjoys the support of prominent Americans, who are either ignorant of history or deliberately lie in order to support the important geo-strategic role of Turkey. On 2 June, the Joint Chief of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces, Admiral Mullen, speaking at an event of the 28th Annual Meeting of the US-Turkish relations, said that Turkey fought with the United States on the side of the Allies during the WWII!
In future, we should expect other such "innocent" statements, which in combination with the exploitation of Muslim immigrants in Greece as political tools, will lead to clear political goals. Already there has been an attempt to register the Albanian Muslim minority in Greece - to provide them with more political "expression" by giving them greater political rights.

Theodoratou interprets the recent protests by Muslim illegal immigrants and the massive wave of illegal immigrantion through a geopolitical lens rather than simply being a problem of humanitarian concern. He also recognises the interesting correlation of forces at work which are likely to exert additional pressure on Greece in the medium term. Considering the spineless political class currently governing the country the future looks increasingly grim.

Source: Defence Review (Ioannis Theodoratou), Antipodes

The distance between Turkey and the EU widens

2009-06-14T19:38:00.000-07:00

George Delastik, a respected Greek journalist, writing for the Greek newspaper, IMERISIA, claims in a recent article that the distance between Turkey and the EU has widened following the recent European elections. The original article written in Greek can be found here.

In response to the increase in the right-wing across most of Europe, Delastik writes that the Turkish press has interpreted the European election results as showing that Europeans are increasingly turning against Turkish membership of the EU.

The most glaring increase in the right-wing vote was in the Netherlands where the leader of the Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, won wide repute and notoriety across the EU for saying that “Turkey will not join the EU even in one million years!” In Italy, the party of the Northern League doubled its vote to 9.5%. Roberto Kota, the chief executive of the Northern League, which is part of the Silvio Berlusconi’s government, declared, “We will work above all to block illegal immigration and the entry of Turkey into the EU”.

However, Delastik points out that Turkey faces problems beyond just the extreme right. “The biggest concern for Turkey's accession course is the rise of extreme right and the Christian Democrats”, notes the newspaper Sabah, and stressing the fall of the Socialists, which support Turkish accession to the EU.

The latest European election results have also had an alarming impact on Turkish public opinion. Delastik writes:

The apparent increase of anti-Turk feelings of Europeans has apparently generated feelings of alienation in Turkey. Recent research at the University of Istanbul Bachtsesehir showed that almost 80% of Turkish respondents believe the EU would reject Turkey's accession even if it met all the criteria.

Only 22% of respondents believe full integration in the EU will occur; despite, 60% of respondents welcoming inclusion into the EU as a very positive development. However, over 35% of respondents considered the strengthening of relations between Turkey and the Islamic world as a more important objective.

Strangely, it appears the wider the distance between Turkey and the EU, the closer the Greek government comes to Turkey. Only recently as part of a long-running process of "Finlandisation", Greece accepted a Turkish commander to be occasionally stationed in Larissa.

Source: Imerisia (George Delastik), Antipodes

The absurdity of the Annan Plan

2009-06-11T21:10:00.000-07:00

An interesting article titled “What If: The Annan Plan and Turkey” written by Marcus A. Templar appeared recently on the Greek website Antibaro. The article poses an interesting ‘what-if’ scenario for the Turks and all those in the international "community" who never stop bleating about democracy and freedom but really run roughshod over justice.

As most people would recall, the Greek Cypriots were and are the majority population, counting more than 80%, on the island of Cyprus. They strongly rejected the Annan Plan, that was developed by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan (with the support of the United States and the United Kingdom), in a referendum in April 2004 for reunification with the small Turkish minority - excluding settlers from Anatolia the Turkish Cypriot minority numbers around 18 per cent. The Greeks believed the Annan Plan was unfair while the government of Turkey (and many Greek politicians) praised it as accommodating to both parties.

Coincidentally, the size of the Turkish minority in Cyprus roughly equals the percentage of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. Templar then writes:

Given long-standing Kurdish demands for greater political and other rights in Turkey, an interesting “what if” question arises- -if the Annan Plan were implemented within Turkey for its Kurdish minority, would the Turks still find the plan fair and practical?

Here’s the “what if?”

Upon agreement of the two main communities living in Turkey (Kurdish and Turkish), the present state ceases to exist pending approval of the citizens of the Turkish Republic through a nation-wide referendum. Immediately after the approval of the new settlement, the new state is a reality. There is no going back to the old state even if later on majorities in both the Kurdish and Turkish areas overwhelmingly vote to do so. Under the provisions of the Plan, Turkey becomes a bi-zonal and bi-communal federal state in which 37% of its land passes to the new government of the Kurds. The new federal state is misnamed “United Turkey Republic” and under the new Constitution, the two major ethnic groups (Turkish and Kurdish) have equal representation in the proposed Senate regardless of unequal populations. Under the above provision, the state comes to a standstill.

The Supreme Court consists of an equal number of Kurdish (18% of the population) and Turkish judges (80% of population) plus three foreign judges; thus, foreign players would cast deciding votes. Since a hierarchy of laws does not exist, the federation is an actual confederation in which the component states are the source of laws for the central authority and not the other way around! One must have in mind that the reason the United States had abandoned its original confederation structure was because it was not workable. The Constitution of the United States established in 1789 gave clear federal supremacy over the laws of its constituent states. All state laws in the United States originate from federal laws.

Turkish and Kurdish populations are displaced, each moving to the other's pertinent ethnic territory. Time restrictions on the right of free and permanent installation of Turks back to their homes and properties in the Kurdish state are imposed; Kurds have no restrictions. Those Turks who choose to live in their old homes in regions under the Kurdish administration have no local civil rights because only Kurds may elect the political representatives of the Kurdish state. In addition, the Turks that stayed in the Kurdish lands will never be allowed to make up more than 6% of the population in any single village. In this manner, Turks are prevented from setting up their own schools and are even unable to give birth once this quota is reached! '

The economy of the new federal Turkey is separate with no common monetary and fiscal policy. In addition, Turkish businesses are not allowed to invest in the Kurdish constituent state, and while all provisions above benefit the Kurds, the Turkish taxpayer ends up paying for all modifications, adjustments, and conversions in the new republic because the UN considers that in the previous decades the Kurds suffered enormously and must be compensated. In addition, Turkish citizens are not allowed to file any complaints with the European Court of Justice in relation to any losses suffered because of the implementation of the Plan.

The above “what if” analysis indicates what could happen to the Turks if the Plan had applied to Turkey and depicts what would have happened to the Greek Cypriots had they voted for the Annan Plan for Cyprus' reunification.

Source: Antibaro (Marcus A.Templar), Antipodes

More provocations from the Skopjan Diaspora

2009-06-10T15:33:00.000-07:00

The provocations against Greece and Greeks by the Skopjan Diaspora continues to intensify. A Greek-Australian teacher recently sent a letter written in Greek to Greek political news website, Infognomon expressing his alarm at the situation:

the "Macedonians" of Melbourne and all of Australia, have from their media in Australia, made terrible attacks against Greece and the Greeks. We are characterized as "bastards", "freaks of nature", "bogeymen" "Conquerors of Aegean Macedonia", "fascists", "barbarians" and responsible for genocide, and the ongoing intimidation, of the "occupied" territories of Macedonia ....

The teacher recommends that readers visit the website of Greek-Australian newspaper, O Kosmos and click on the archive for the 3 June 2009 edition to read an update on the Skopjan provocations. He then continues:

The war has been declared by their local media, and it is a tough message to us Macedonians and Greeks in general, that the road ahead will be long one, that the "Macedonians" (Skopjans) will gnaw away at us from outside Greece, while in Greece, the politicians will continue to sleep. The issue is being lost and our politicians remain indifferent.....There is a need for the continued mobilization of truth in the view of the Macedonian issue!

Unfortunately, with European elections, petty party politics, financial scandals, the appointment of Turkish commanders as NATO administrators in Greece and personal career ambitions preoccupying the minds of Greek politicans, there is little hope they will give even a passing thought to Skopjan insults in the Diaspora.

Source: Infognomon, Antipodes

Greek investment in F.Y.R.O.M falls sharply

2009-06-09T15:00:00.000-07:00

Nations are engaged - alongside their national companies - in offensive policies to conquer external markets and to take control of sectors of activity considered to be strategic. For Nations today, the quest for power and assertion of their rank on the world stage depends more and more on their economic health, the competitiveness of their companies and the place that they occupy in world trade. In this world which is becoming global, nation’s political interests are taking second place to economic interests. This shift signals the start of a new era, that of geo-economics.

The above passage was written in 1999 by Pascal Lorot, the renowned French political scientist, economist and president of the Institut Choiseul for International Politics and Geoeconomics, as part of a larger commentary on the emerging discipline of geo-economics. Although, the recent credit crisis has probably seen a re-emergence of the State at the expense of the economy in international relations, Lorot was documenting an increasingly important phenomenon.

However, the author most responsible for the current usage of the term geo-economics was Edward Luttwak which Antipodes has written about previously here. As described by Luttwak in 1993, the term geo-economics means nothing more than "the continuation of the ancient rivalry of the nations by new industrial means". War has been substituted by industrial conquest. Geo-economics describes a situation in which instead of "measuring progress by how far the fighting front has advanced on the map”, “worldwide market shares for the targeted products” that are the yardstick.

The implication of Lorot and Luttwak's thesis is that geo-economic strength can change power relations between nations - which may lead to subjugation or domination. Therefore, the news that Greek investment in F.Y.R.O.M has dropped sharply is disappointing.

The articled titled “FYROM: Significant reduction of Greek investment” written by Alexandra Gkitsi and published in Greek at Euro2Day describes how there has been a significant drop of Greek investment in neighbouring F.Y.R.O.M. Relying on reports from the Office O.E.Y. at the Greek Embassy in Skopje, a Skopjan newspaper reported that Greek investors have begun to withdraw from F.Y.R.O.M and have left “the field open for the Slovenian capital”.

According to the Central Bank of F.Y.R.O.M, in 2008 Greek investments were only 12 million euro, of which 2 million were reinvested profits, while the remaining 10 million were loans awarded to ensure ongoing operations of companies. The above figure shows a significant reduction of investment when compared with that of 2007, which amounted to 44.6 million euros (5.3 million equity, 35.5 million reinvested earnings and 3.8 million euro loans) and 2006, which amounted to 40.7 million euros (3.1 million equity, 35.3 million reinvested earnings and 2.3 million loans).

More than likely something is happening, in terms of economic relations between the two countries Greece and F.Y.R.O.M, and the underlying reasons are probably political (i.e. problem with the name "Macedonia"). If this trend continues any potential for Greek political leverage declines.

Source: Euro2Day (Alexandra Gkitsi), Antipodes

"Paradise Lost" by Giles Milton, another agent of Neo-Ottomanism: Part one

2009-06-07T22:42:00.001-07:00

Over the next few weeks Antipodes will provide a series of posts reviewing the book, "Paradise Lost: Smyrna 1922 The Destruction of Islam's City of Tolerance" written by Giles Milton and published in 2008.

Paradise Lost purports to provide a history of the life of the inhabitants of Smyrna before the Asia Minor Catastrophe of 1922. It also claims to provide some background on the political events and personalities that led to the Turk's final bloodthirsty pillage. However, despite the author's somewhat fluid writing style the book only acts as another instrument of an insidious ideology that has been growing rapidly but steadily in the minds of Western and Turkish elites.

Much like the despicable "Salonica: City of Ghosts" by Mark Mazower, Giles Milton concludes that the cosmopolitan life renowned the world over and commercial strength of Smyrna was only made possible by the enlightened Ottoman administration (he is generally scathing of the nationalist Turks). However, a person with only a passing knowledge of Ottoman history will conclude that it was the lack of Ottoman administration that allowed Smyrna to become so envied. In addition, he primarily writes the history from the perspective of the Levantine families of Smyrna (French and English families which had settled there 200 years before but had retained their nationality) including first person narratives collected from their personal letters and diaries. This is strange because the majority population in Smyrna was Greek with sizeable populations of Armenians, Jews and Turks. Obviously, their stories were not important enough to tell in the same detail.

In summary, Milton's history is incomplete and bedevilled by Western prejudices. Most importantly he really comes across as just another agent of the growing ideological edifice of Neo-Ottomanism, created and spread by European, American, Turkish and even some Greek people and organisations. They generally believe that the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean was, and will be, best governed by a benevolent 'Islam-lite' Turkey implementing mostly Anglo-American neo-liberal political and economic policies for their own benefit. Barak Obama's recent trip to Turkey and his outrageous overtures to the Turks was an obvious manifestation of this line of thinking.

Not surprisingly, one of the most enthusiastic mouthpieces of Neo-Ottomanism, the Economist magazine, thought the book was balanced. Of course they would as their average reader would conceive of themselves as the Levantine families depicted in Milton's book, lording it over their uncivilised and unruly Balkan, Mediterranean and Oriental subjects, with a newly Ottomanised modern Turkey acting as policeman and bully.

Source: Paradise Lost (Giles Milton), Antipodes

The illusion of Greek-Turkish friendship Part Two

2009-06-05T18:13:00.000-07:00

This is part two of a series of translations selected by Dr Ioannis Mazis which appeared on the Anixneusis website (a talk show on Greek television channel ET3). The first part of this series can be accessed here. The translations are from a book titled "Stratejik Derinlik” (or Strategic Depth in English) first written in 2001 by the newly appointment Foreign Minister of Turkey, Ahmet Davutoglu.

Dr Ioannis Mazis, is the professor of Geopolitics and Economic Geography at the Ionian University. Mazis seeks to highlight how Greek commentators have selectively used readings from Davutoglu’s books to make inferences which are not matched by Davutoglu’s writings on Greek and Cypriot relations with Turkey.

[Sub-title] The strategic Gordian knot of Turkey: Cyprus

Cyprus, which occupies a central position in the global continent [Eurasia] - located almost equidistant from Europe, Asia and Africa - is together with Crete, on a line that intersects the sea lane passages. Cyprus occupies a position between the Straits [of Hormouz], which separate Europe and Asia, and the Suez Canal, which separates Asia and Africa; while its current position is like a stable base and aircraft carrier, which acts like a pulse in the seaway of Aden and Hormouz, which together with the basins of the [Persian] Gulf and the Caspian Sea, are the most important lanes connecting Eurasia-Africa.

Page 176:

A country that ignores Cyprus can not be active in global and regional politics. In global politics it cannot be active, because this small island occupies a position that (may) directly affect the strategic linkages between Asia-Africa, Europe-Africa-Asia and Europe.

It cannot be active in regional policies, because Cyprus, with its eastern tip projects like an arrow towards the Middle East, whilst its western ridge is like a foundation stone of the strategic balance existing in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans and North Africa.

Page 178:

Turkey, due to its geographic position, is influenced by many forces, but is required to assess its Cypriot policy, outside of the Turkish-Greek equation.

The Cyprus policy is a rapidly growing problem of Eurasia and Middle East-Balkan region (West Asia-Eastern Europe). The Cypriot policy [of Turkey] must be placed in a new strategic framework, appropriate to this new strategic context.

The Cyprus issue's importance, from Turkey’s perspective, can be traced along to two main axes.

One of them is the axis of humanitarian value, oriented towards ensuring the security of the Turkish Muslim community, as a result of the historical responsibility of Turkey. (...)

Page 179:

(...) A failure [of Turkey] to [possibly] secure and protect the Turkish community of Cyprus can be spread like a wave in Western Thrace and Bulgaria - and even in Azerbaijan and Bosnia.

The second important pillar of the Cyprus problem is the importance of the island from a geo-strategic viewpoint.

(...) Even if there was no Muslim Turks in Cyprus, Turkey is obliged to have a Cyprus issue. No country can remain indifferent towards such an island located in the heart of that vital area. (...)

Page 179:

This geo-strategic importance has two dimensions. One of them has a close strategic importance and relationship with the Turkish-Greek balance and T.D.V. Cyprus-Greek section [sic!] in the eastern Mediterranean.

The second dimension of the geo-strategic importance and significance is related to the position of the island within a global and regional strategy.

Page 180:

Cyprus cannot be ignored by any regional or global power which makes strategic calculations in the Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean Sea, the Suez, the Red Sea and the Gulf.

Cyprus is situated at such an ideal distance from all these areas which (may) affect each of them directly. Turkey’s strategic advantage on Cyprus gained in the 1970’s, must build on it not as part of a defensive Cypriot policy aimed at preserving the status quo, but providing fundamental support to an aggressive maritime strategy.

As stated before, this series of translations also helps to highlight what Turkey’s strategic moves mightbe over the next 10-15 years - intentions which markedly contradict the purported Greek-Turkish friendship.

Source: Anixneusis (Ioannis Mazis)

The illusion of Greek-Turkish friendship Part One

2009-06-03T20:26:00.000-07:00

Over the last few weeks much has been written in the Greek press and amongst more ‘serious’ commentators about the appointment of Professor Ahmet Davutoglu as the Foreign Minister of Turkey. Antipodes also wrote about him here.

Dr Ioannis Mazis, Professor of Geopolitics and Economic Geography at the Ionian University, which Antipodes has posted excerpts from previous pieces here, recently wrote an article on the Greek reactions to Davotuglu’s appointment which appeared on the website of ERT3 talk show Anixneusis.

Mazis writes that Greeks generally reacted in the most ‘ostrich way possible' by referencing selectively certain readings from his books; particularly, in regards to his view of “zero friction with neighbours Turkey”. However, Mazis writes that these commentators have failed to understand who Davutoglu means when he writes about “neighbours” because judging by what Davutoglu writes, Greece and Cyprusshould not be included as ‘neighbours”.

Mazis then selects excerpts from Davutoglu's book entitled, "Stratejik Derinlik" or better known in English as "Strategic Depth", first published in 2001, which refutes the conclusions (inferred from their selective readings) reached by some Greek commentators. A careful analysis of Davutoglu's writings may also provide some clues as to Turkey's strategic direction over the next 10-15 years. Antipodes provides the first of a two part series of translations for its readers below:

Page 174:

(The latest developments have shown that) the U.S., in creating a dynamic relationship between their policies for Eastern Europe and the Middle East, they are seeking to have control of the Hinterland of Europe and to fill the geopolitical vacuum that occurred in the Balkans-Middle East axis after the dissolution of Soviet. Union. The Aegean Sea and Cyprus are two important parts due to the line Eastern Europe-Middle East in terms of a land connection and the Adriatic-East Mediterranean-Gulf in terms of a sea connection.

Page 175:

(. ...) In this strategic plan, the Cyprus issue will come to the forefront in a more active way. (....)

Today, the Eastern Europe-Balkan-Adriatic-Aegean-East Mediterranean-Middle East and Gulf area is forming a very dynamic interaction. (....)

On this line which unifies the Balkans to the Middle East will be the inevitable development of a new plan.

NATO joint administration of Aegean airspace

2009-06-01T00:59:00.000-07:00

An interesting article titled "NATO joint administration of Aegean" written by Kyras Adam was published in the Greek daily, Eleftherotypia last week. The article reports on the recent agreement made between the Defence Chiefs of Greece and Turkey regarding the new NATO structure for the Aegean.

Essentially, the agreement stipulates the closure of the NATO centre at Eski Sechir, Turkey (6 CAOC) and transfer of responsibility to the corresponding NATO centre at Larissa, Greece (7 CAOC). The NATO centre at Larissa will periodically have a NATO commander from Turkey. Previously, the commander was exclusively Greek. The article continues:

The current Greek government, according to existing information, have long insisted that Turkey shut down Eski Sechir and for Greece to formalize air control (for the purposes of NATO) of Bulgarian, Albanian and FYROM airspace. Due to technical difficulties (related to its radar range) Turkey could not satisfy this role on behalf of NATO. However, the article claims that Athens has given in return the activation of a new NATO structure for the Aegean, which opens the door for NATO joint administration of the Aegean airspace - at least the period during when a Turkish commander controls the NATO centre at Larissa. The article claims the Turkish commander can reasonably do everything he can to create and maximize problems between Greece and NATO when Greek fighter aircraft intercept Turkish fighter jets in the Aegean.

In other words, the Turkish commander in undertaking his duties can "prohibit", or can denounce Greece, to NATO, for the use of Greek aircraft assigned to NATO for the interception of Turkish fighter aircraft (which have also been allocated to NATO) in the airspace of the Aegean.

Greece has just given away another piece of its sovereignty in order to conduct policing on behalf NATO.

Source: Eleftherotypia (Kyras Adam), Antipodes

A bright spot: renewable energy

2009-05-27T20:47:00.000-07:00

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently completed its mission to Greece and published its preliminary findings on May 25. Missions are undertaken as part of regular (usually annual) consultations under Article IV of the IMF's Articles of Agreement, in the context of a request to use IMF resources (which usually means borrowing from the IMF). The report can be accessed here.

The report does not really state anything new. Greece has been largely relying on cheap debt to generate growth over the last 15 years. However, at least for the foreseeable future, the availability of reasonably priced debt will be scarce - global financiers such as commercial banks, investment banks, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds etc., have had to reign in their lending, and if they decide to lend,Greece is not high on their list. Another problem is that the very high borrowing requirements of the Greek state mean that it ‘crowds out’ the private sector – which has become increasingly reliant on debt rather than savings to finance investment (not to the same extent as Ireland or the United Kingdom).

The IMF points out that Greece needs to make the necessary reforms to its economy in order to become more productive and competitive by reducing inefficiencies in its state bureaucracies (which includes reducing public debt to fuel growth) and encourage private enterprise.

Amongst all the discouraging news there are some bright spots. Global accounting firm, Ernst and Young has just published its latest “Renewable energy country attractiveness indices” which scores countries for national renewable energy markets, renewable energy infrastructures and their suitability for individual technologies. Greece ranks 12th overall ahead of Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan and Finland. Of course, Greece has a comparative advantage in solar (reflected in their high ranking in this category) and to a lesser extent wind; but recent government initiatives, have also found favour amongst investors.

Source: IMF, Ernst and Young, Antipodes

The importance of the Aegean Sea-Dardanelles

2009-05-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

People often bemoan that Greece has no geopolitical or geo-economic tools at its disposal in which it can use to formulate an effective international political strategy when dealing with its near abroad and even further away. Perhaps they have been overly influenced by former Prime Minister, Costas Simitis’s reductionist mentality that Greece is a “small, Balkan nation”, implying it has no place playing with third, second rate or even first rate powers. Of course, this is incorrect. However, one may be correct in stating that she does not use her geopolitical tools to her advantage.

A very important geopolitical and geo-economic tool is the Aegean Sea. The importance of this seaway is neatly summarised by Dr Ioannis Mazis, Professor of Geo-Economics and Geopolitics at the Ionian University, in an article titled, “Geopolitical Analysis of the Commercial Sea Channel Dardanelles-Aegean” which was originally published in the Archives of Economic History in 1997 (shortly after the Imia crisis). Although, the article is somewhat dated and poorly translated it is also surprising how very little has changed in Greek-Turkish relations regarding the Aegean Sea over the last 10-15 years.

The article begins by explaining the importance of the Aegean Sea as a sea route and air passage between Europe and Turkey and the broader Eastern Mediterranean, and between the former Soviet Republics of Russia, Ukraine (including the shipment of oil and gas from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan etc.) and the Mediterranean Sea. Interestingly, Mazis writes that the Aegean airspace is one of the main airways connecting Israel with the United States and Western Europe which is of major importance for the survival of Israel - with the implication that Israel would never consent to the occupation of this airspace by an unfriendly power. He concludes that the Aegean Sea is a very important space in the context of geopolitical dynamics and control and is an asset for whichever power has sovereign rights over it.

Regarding Greece's maritime borders, the present 6 nautical miles extension from land means there are strips of international waters between the Aegean islands and islets providing for a "Sea Crossing" for ships moving unheeded between the Black Sea/Dardanelles and the Mediterranean Sea. However, Greece can effectively close the Aegean Sea if she extends her maritime borders. Mazis writes:

According to estimations taken seriously by the American government, the extension of Greek territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles - which is absoulutely legitimate according to the International Sea Law - would cede 72% of the Aegean Sea to Greece and only 9% to Turkey; at the same time, the percentage of international waters would fall to some 19%, closing almost all sea passages and "transforming the Aegean Sea into a Greek lake" creating "similar stifling situations" as in the airspace , according to Turkish declarations.

Mazis also points out that control of the Aegean Sea on its own is not does not confer as much power as controlling the Aegean Sea and the Dardanelles together (the narrow straits separating the Aegean Sea from the Black Sea) which perhaps provides clues as to Turkey's long-term strategy. He writes:

An Aegean without "Straits" [Dardanelles] lacks substance. One must control the block of Aegean-Straits otherwise the control of the Aegean Sea or the Straits is meaningless.

Source: Archives of Economic History (Ioannis Mazis), Antipodes

The Greeks get a wake-up call

2009-05-24T19:05:00.000-07:00

The Research Institute for European and American Studies (RIEAS), an independent Greek think-tank, has just published two special editorial reports which can be accessed here following the recent riots by Muslims in the Greek capital, Athens.

Beginning May 21 and continuing on May 22, around 2,000 mostly illegal Muslim immigrants (reportedly from Afghanistan and Pakistan) clashed with police in the centre of Athens. The police fired tear gas and stun grenades; 14 people were injured and 46 arrested. The riots started over the alleged defacing of a Koran by a Greek policeman following an identity check. A recent wave of illegal immigration has led to an influx of Muslims living in dilapidated parts of central Athens.

The RIEAS report titled, “Never say we didn’t tell you….” describes the gravity of the situation now facing the Greeks:

The scenes in downtown Athens on May 22 – a date already marked by those who follow events with a more sombre eye as the beginning of something extremely dangerous – were unprecedented.......Suddenly, the Greek government has been made brutally aware that the uncontrolled entry of illegal immigrants into the country, and the formation of large blocks of culturally alien populations in the middle of Greek society, carries implications that cannot, and won't be, addressed successfully by the jargon of political correctness and the demands of overarching foreign structures impervious to common sense, not to mention the iron lessons of history.

Previously, RIEAS had warned readers about the looming Islamic extremist terrorist threat in Greece and the inability of the authorities to do anything about it:

There is little evidence, if any, that Greek authorities give the requisite attention to the critical question of the possibility of illegal immigration bringing into Greece Islamic "sleeper" terrorists or, indeed, spawning locally resident disgruntled populations that could engender future terror attacks against Christian Greece. The myth [of Greek-Arab-Islam friendship] plays an important role in this complacent attitude. Yet, real threats hardly evolve along the lines of what makes one feel good and helps him avoid dark thoughts about the future.

The report continues rather pessimistically:

On May 22, we crossed a critical threshold. The Muslim riot, couched on the kind of belligerent religious rhetoric we thought, until now, it was the unenviable privilege of other European lands grappling with the challenge of hostile Islam, is a deafening warning to the government and the people of this country.

Greece has just had her wake-up call. Let's see if she rises as she must to do what it takes to contain and defeat the almost inevitable “next phase.” Our estimate, in this respect, is not optimistic.

In another articled titled, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses …” RIEAS describes the broader geopolitical and security concerns caused by the recent wave of illegal immigration and the recent riots:

With her eastern Aegean islands under threat from a swelling wave of Asian undocumented aliens arriving with the help of Turkish human traffickers – and with Turkey doing little, if anything, to honour bilateral agreements to control illegal immigration – the Greek government has finally announced it will deploy the armed forces next to shorthanded police and coast guards in trying to reduce illegal arrivals.

Illegal immigration is quickly shaping into the most critical national security threat of today, closely related, as a subsidiary part, to the long-simmering crisis whipped up by Turkey's neo-Ottoman expansionism and constant saber rattling in the Aegean. Greek governments were slow to appreciate the broader picture.

Caught in unilateral “good neighbourly relations” mentalities toward Ankara, in the absence of a more focused, cohesive, and realistic approach to Turkish belligerence, they are now watching, largely impotent, as successive waves of Asians and Africans, pushed relentlessly forward by Turkish human trafficking rings, arrive at the country's doorstep uninvited but demanding, nevertheless, their “human rights” from a country that she, herself, faces enormous economic, political, and social problems even without hundreds of thousands beating down her gates.

Source: RIEAS, Antipodes

Antonis Samaras spells out a new vision for all

2009-05-21T16:48:00.000-07:00

The increasingly partisan, bland and self-defeating rhetoric of Greek politicians; particularly on domestic issues, is not a primary concern of Antipodes. However, the Greek Minister of Culture, Antonis Samaras recently made a very noticeable speech at the conservative think-tank, the Constantinos Karamanlis Institute of Democracy, regarding the “Challenges and Prospects for the EU”. Excerpts from the speech were published in an article in Eleftherotypia and are translated below:

Until recently, some have identified Europe with its bureaucracy. They had even identified that Greece had to be subjugated to European-bureaucracy in order to undergo “modernization”.

”They told us, in order to become “more Europeans”, we must be “less Greeks”. Supposedly, we had to eliminate our Greek identity in order to gain “European consciousness”. Now, after the [financial] crisis, we probably recognise the opposite: We have to become more demanding of ourselves, as Greeks, to become Europeans”.

Mr Samaras said that patriotism is a precondition of social cohesion, confidence, security and peaceful cooperation with other nations and said that if we ever lose our national identity we will become a patchwork of regionalism without jointrelations, without coherent linkages, without solidarity between us.

"Those who consider national consciousness and our collective identity “κουσούρι” are wrong! A very serious mistake. And these people stand in stark contrast with the overwhelming majority of the Greek people which will not negotiate or surrender their traditions, nor their culture, nor all those things which unite us over all those enturies” Samaras said. He added: “Our freedom and Greekness are are non-negotiable goods".

As John Akritas from Hellenic Antidote wrote, “not only is it a good speech from Samaras – Dragoumian in places – it is refreshing that such an ideological speech was made. Greece needs a vision, not someone whose raison d'être is to manage the crisis from day to day – like Karamanlis”.

We would go further than Samaras and propose that for any Greek living anywhere, whether it is in Greece, Cyprus, northern Epirus, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Germany, Ukraine or anywhere else, to be a good citizen of your respective country means that you have to be a better Greek. This is because Hellenic culture throughout its variegated history always aspired for universality and justice; therefore, making it applicable across space and time.

Antonis Samaras is a former Member of the European Parliament for New Democracy; part of the European People's Party. He was Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs in the New Democracy government of Konstantinos Mitsotakis (1989-1992). Samaras was considered a hardliner on the "Macedonian Question" and on other "national" issues, dreaming of an "Orthodox Axis" in the Balkans. After being removed from his post in 1992 over the Macedonian Question, Samaras founded his own party, "Political Spring", located politically to the right of New Democracy. Samaras caused the government's fall from power by leaving New Democracy.

Before the 2004 general election, Samaras rejoined New Democracy. In the 2007 Greek legislative election he was elected to the Greek Parliament for Messinia, and consequently resigned from the European Parliament. In January 2009 he was appointed Minister for Culture after a government reshuffle.

Source: Eleftherotypia, Antipodes

Relations with Russia?

2009-05-19T15:24:00.000-07:00

The Greek newspaper, Eleftheros recently published an article titled "Russia and us" written by Apostolos Apostolopoulos which can be accessed here. The article raises a number of important questions and makes a few relevant points about carefully thinking through Greece’s stuttering relations with Russia.

Recently, there has been talk about the need for a “polygamous” foreign policy because our monogamous relationship with the United States does not deliver. The U.S. President, Barack Obama has disappointed us and some (such as international jurist Vassilis Markezinis) suggests that we re-approach Moscow as a counterbalancing measure. This sounds fine. Moreover, others more powerful than Greece have preceded us, such as Germany which has re-approached Moscow slowly and carefully but steadily. Also (we should not forget), Mr Karamanlis, following the German example, launched the gas pipeline policy; namely, the South Stream project. Previously, Mr Tsochatzopoulos, formerly the Defence Minister, purchased anti-aircraft defence systems from Russia for the first time. The two politicians (from opposing parties) have opened doors.

Neither the supply of weapons systems nor the construction of gas pipelines; such as the South Stream project; however, were a general prelude to the reorientation of our foreign policy, although they were of special importance. That is why the reactions of the United States were intense and visible. However, have we posed the question, during our warm embraces with Putin, if these reactions were considered carefully enough? The recent distancing, hesitations and retractions that have occurred in our relations with Russia, indicate there was probably insufficient consideration made of these possible reactions. It would have been useful to have considered more carefully the difficulties of re-approaching Russia.

The first question we should pose is whether the idea of re-approaching Russia suggests a general re-orientation of our foreign policy, and consequently, a distancing from the Western fold. Without clarifying this, the “question” is simply unrealistic.

The second question is what we have to offer to Russia. For example, Turkey offers services to the United States and extracts favours. What we can offer to the Russians so that we have their steady support?

The third question, and perhaps the most critical, is what the Russians want and especially what can the Russians give us? Recognising that Greece is part of the larger (and still unresolved) Eastern Question.

Inertia and unconditional obedience (to the United States) has lead to poor foreign policy but also “steps" (towards Russia) without clearly defined objectives can also be destructive. With upcoming European elections, the parties should be explaining to Greeks how they believe Greece should be maneuvering itself in the world. But with the Pavlidis issue at the centre of our political life our thinking about these issues is limited.

Source: Eleftheros (Apostolos Apostolopoulos)

The absurdity of Cypriot "inter-communal talks"

2009-05-18T00:40:00.000-07:00

The Cypriot newspaper Simerini recently published a caustic but insightful article (written in Greek) by Lazaros Mavros titled “Neither Inter-Communal and Neither Talks”. The article which can be read in Greek here provides a somewhat Realist interpretation of the historical and ongoing inter-communal talks between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriot minority. Here is the full text translated into English:

For many years now, for almost three decades, we write and print articles containing two words inside quotation marks, “inter-communal talks”. Controversially, how much are they actually inter-communal or indeed talks?

Regarding the first term, “inter-communal”, the last few decades have proved that it has been used to mislead, as the representative of the so-called “Turkish Cypriot community” was and is, in fact, a representative, an agent and instrument of theTurkish invaders. And using the “vehicle” and strategic bridgehead of the Turkish Cypriot minority - which is entirely controlled by Ankara - the Turks have attempted to expand their control over the entire island.

The second term in quotation marks, “talks”, has shown during the last few decades what was obvious from the beginning: with a Turkish pistol to the temple, the talks were a process of imposing the objectives of the invader onto their victims, with a view towards final capitulation.

The acceptance, from the victim, of “inter-communal talks” legitimised the process; being “clothed” under the auspices of the UN, and mainly accommodated, the United States and the United Kingdom. It also exempted….the rest of the international community…..from this headache! Ultimately, neither the internal practices, operations and occasional results of the “inter-communal talks”, in whatever form, have salvaged the concept of actual negotiations and talks. Currently, abandoned to a point considered unthinkable, is the basic rule of negotiations, that “none of those discussed, proposed, negotiated, binds the parties, except if they reach a final, comprehensive agreement”!

The clear result is that henceforth, the current Greek Cypriot negotiator Mr Christofias - who considers himself bound to what the previous negotiators, the Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus, consented to during the “talks” - is completely indifferent to the fact that the sovereign people of Cyprus rejected on 24 April 2004, with a 76% vote, all the results and derivations of the so-called “inter-communal talks” that were incorporated into the “Annan Plan". And he is indifferent to the internal declarations of the Annan Plan that it will be rendered dead and buried if it is rejected......
Source: Simerini (Lazaros Mavros)

South Stream gas pipeline gets sign off

2009-05-16T22:04:00.000-07:00

After considerable uncertainty and conjecture over the last 12 months which Antipodes highlighted here, the basic agreement for the construction of the part of the gas pipeline South Stream which runs through Greek territory has been signed between the chief executive of Gazprom, Alexey Miller and the president of Greek company DESFA, Nicholas Mavromati and managing director Panagiotis Kanellopoulos in Sochi, Russia. Also present at the signing was Greek Minister of Development, Costis Hatzidakis.

As announced by the two companies, the agreement sets out the principles for cooperation between the parties during the pre-investment phase of the project and defines the conditions and rules regarding the construction and operating mechanisms of the consortium. The design, construction and operation of the project will be established on an equal basis between the two entities.

The consortium will also prepare a feasibility study for the pipeline. This study will include a detailed evaluation of all technical, legal, financial, environmental and economic characteristics and indicators of the project.

Source: ANA-MPA

Turkey exploiting another geopolitical tool

2009-05-15T21:28:00.000-07:00

Turkey's methodical efforts to reap the maximum benefits from its geostrategic position continues to bear fruit. Last year Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited Iraq; whilst this year the Turkish President Abdullah Gul met with the Iraqi leadership in late March. Turkey is already one of Iraq's most important trading partners with Turkish firms dominating northern Iraq's (Kurdistan) economy. Furthermore, more than 20% of Iraq's exports are piped through the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

One of the key discussions during these meetings was the provision of water from Turkey to Iraq. The parties agreed for Turkey to double the flow of water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in order to increase agricultural production in Mesopotamia. According to Ioannis Theodoratou (who writes for the Defence Report), Turkey controls 52% of the Tigris and Iraq controls the rest. Also, Turkey controls 89% of the Euphrates and Syria controls 11%. Interestingly, most of the water flows from Turkey's restive south-east which is heavily dominated by Kurds. Syria and Iraq are also in discussions to increase the flow of water into Iraq.

Of course, Turkey is not missing any opportunity to use the provision of water from its territory to strengthen its bargaining position in its relations with Iraq and Syria. Theodarotou refers to this as the geopolitics of water. For example, despite relations between Turkey and Syria being poor for many years, relations have recently been improving. Apart from joint military exercises recently, which raised eyebrows across the region; notably Israel, Turkey and Syria have agreed to build a dam across the Orontis river which again flows from Turkey through Syria and then out to the Mediterranean. Syria is a relatively dry country and badly requires the construction of dams to manage water supplies. Turkish construction and engineering firms have won the very lucrative contracts to build the dam.

Source: Defence Report (Ioannis Theodoratou)

The Economist versus the Republic of Cyprus

2009-05-13T00:25:00.000-07:00

The Economist, an English-language magazine is supposedly the authoritative source for international politics, economics, business and finance. One thing is for certain is that its editorial is unashamedly biased in favour of Turkey in regards to the Cyprus issue. This should really come as no surprise as it represents the business and political interests of the Anglo-American elite which has maliciously sought to undermine Republic of Cyprus for many years. This stance was clearly in evidence during the negotiations, and after the referendum, of the Annan Plan. The election of Dimitris Christofias as the President of the Republic of Cyprus , from the Marxist-Leninist inspired AKEL, has probably helped to sharpen their knives even further. However, not because he is apparently more intransigent on national issues than his predecessor, Tassos Papadopoulos but probably because of some deep seated hatred of anything resembling the Left.

The Economist never fails to interpret facts in favour of Turkey; and ultimately, the magazine's crude neoliberal globalisation agenda. Examples can be found here and here. The Economist seems to conveniently forget that ethnic cleansing and war crimes were committed by Turkey in 1974 and condemned in countless UN resolutions. Today, Greek refugees are disallowed from returning to their homes, settlers continue to arrive from Anatolia and 35,000 Turkish troops remain stationed on the island. However, because of the Cold War, and more recently Turkey's riches of cheap labour and geostrategic position, it has never been punished neither by world governing bodies such as the United Nations, hegemonic states such as the United States nor by the media.

Last week, The Economist was at it again, bashing the Greek Cypriots with this article. For example, they claim that the Greek-Cypriots have been subverting Turkey's EU membership. According to The Economist's logic, the Greek-Cypriots are to blame for Turkey's occupation of a significant part of Cyprus - not the Turks. Fortunately, this week they printed an excellent letter by the High Commissioner for Cyprus in London:

Cyprus and Turkey

SIR – Your article on the “elections” in the occupied part of Cyprus showed more concern for Turkey’s accession to the European Union than for negotiations over the reunification of Cyprus (“A hawkish problem”, April 25th). In 2005 Turkey undertook to fulfil a number of obligations. Its refusal to open to Cypriot ships and aircraft harms the normalisation of relations with Cyprus and is an obstacle to free trade and competition.

Moreover, your reference to “trade restrictions” imposed by the EU on the occupied north is unfounded when what is happening is the application of national, international and European law on trade, customs and sovereign rights of states. In 2004 Cyprus proposed measures aimed at promoting trade with the Turkish Cypriots. These were rejected outright by their leadership. The suggestion that Cyprus has tried to “subvert” Turkey’s EU membership is equally unfounded. In 2005, Cyprus decided to support the beginning of accession negotiations with Turkey, and on April 23rd, the president of Cyprus and the Greek prime minister reiterated their support for
Turkey’s membership bid, provided Turkey fulfils the obligations and requirements.

Alexandros Zenon
High commissioner for Cyprus
London

The Economist belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England, owns the rest.

Source: The Economist

Shipping shows early signs of recovery

2009-05-11T04:34:00.000-07:00

The sharp drop in world trade which followed the credit crisis in the middle of 2007; and particularly, the decline in economic growth during the second half of 2008 amongst developed and developing economies, has sent shockwaves throughout the Greek shipping community. The demand for chartering, which is increasingly used to transport commodities such as coal, steel, cement and iron ore to the fast-growing economies of China and India, has experienced a steep decline.

Exacerbating the problem has been the oversupply of new ships which are only now coming onto the market. Some firms are already cancelling orders. But some Greek shipowners, accustomed to downturns, have taken a long term perspective. For example, Diana Shipping cancelled its dividend recently but said it was saving cash to acquire ships at low prices during the downturn.

Also, the lack of credit has made banks reluctant to lend to shipowners and provide financial guarantees to allow ships to sail. Local lenders such as Piraeus Bank have stated they are relatively comfortable with their loan exposures. However, analysts question whether foreign banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland - which has experienced problems related to the credit crisis generally not encountered by Greek banks - has apparently over 75% of Greek shipping debt, are more nervous. The number of ships asking to idle off Piraeus has risen and Greek officials say traffic at the port has been down sharply.

Greece owns a fifth of the world's shipping fleet. At 170 million tonnes, the Greek merchant fleet is the largest in the world, ahead of Japan. After tourism, it is the second largest contributor to Greece's 240 billion euro economy, accounting for around 7% of output. Nicholas Magginas of the National Bank of Greece recently estimated the slowdown in shipping will take around 0.5% off GDP.

Although, shipping accounts for just over 1% of Greece's 4.5 million workforce, its economic influence is much higher because shipowners and shipping executives invest heavily in other sectors of the Greek economy such as banks, real estate, construction/development and tourism. Just as importantly, they provide much needed funds for educational endowments, cultural centres and social infrastructure.

More recently there has been some positive news. An important indicator of chartering prices and one of the most popular leading indicators of global economic growth, the Baltic Dry Index (BDY), has rebounded almost as rapidly as the crash that occurred from levels of 12000 to 600 in late 2008.

The BDY is a daily average of prices to ship raw materials using Dry Bulk Carriers. It represents the cost paid by an end customer to have a shipping company transport raw materials across seas on the Baltic Exchange, the global marketplace for brokering shipping contracts. Therefore, it is a good indicator of the supply and demand for commodities across the world. However, it is imperfect as prices are driven by other forces than the supply and demand of raw materials such as fleet supply, weather, bunker oil prices and port congestion.

The reason for the sharp increase in the BDY since December seems to have been caused by mainly Chinese manufacturers trying to rebuild their inventories. It is doubtful that the index will continue to increase given the global economic recession.

Some potential investors may consider investing in shipping company stocks as they usually have a high correlation to increases in the BDY; however, it is probably too late at this stage as most of them have already rebounded around 40% since December.

Source: Ship Chartering, Bespoke and Antipodes

South Stream pipeline to go ahead despite American pressure

2009-05-07T23:19:00.000-07:00

The South Stream gas pipeline agreement between Russia and Greece will be signed in mid-May following a telephone conversation between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis which apparently sealed the deal. Almost simultaneously, the Russian-Bulgarian South Stream gas pipeline agreement will be signed. There were rumours the Karamanlis-Putin and Stanisev-Putin agreements would be abandoned following persistently strong American pressure. The Americans are strongly in favour of the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline which would pass through Turkey - leaving Greece out of the equation. Unfortunately, there are significant elements within the Greek and Bulgarian political establishments which take heed of American pressure. However, Dimitri Konstantakopoulos states in a recent article published in the Greek newspaper, Investor’s World (and which can be found on his blog here) that:

“there remains a long time before the gas flows and we should certainly not expect that Washington will wait passively for the completion of a project towards which it has never hidden its hostility”

The pipeline is expected to carry 30 billion cubic metres of gas annually from Russia to Bulgaria via the Black Sea. From there, 20 billion cubic metres will be channelled north and 10 billion cubic metres will be channelled south through Greece and then southern Italy. Russian company, Gazprom believes the pipeline can probably carry over 50% more.

On its strategic importance, Konstantakopoulos writes:

“the pipelines is of great strategic importance for securing energy supplies for Greece and the rest of Europe, and for Russian interests, because it bypasses Ukraine and Turkey, the two other "gates" of Russian gas exports towards southern and central Europe. Ukraine is immersed in increasingly explosive internal problems, to the extent that Washington wants to create a wedge between Europe and Russia, wholly within the context of Rumsfeld’s "New Europe". Regarding Turkey, it is simply absurd to export Russian gas through an Asiatic country. This is even more absurd for Greece considering Turkey's continued threats over the Aegean island of Agathonissi and Cyprus"

Increasingly more frequent communication between Putin and Karamanlis has been driven by alarm in Moscow at the variety of forces that have been mobilised to torpedo the South Stream project. They have also been puzzled by the contradictory signals received from various sectors of the Greek government which has raised questions in Moscow about who ultimately makes the decisions in Athens.

The United States as the New Byzantium

2009-05-06T05:32:00.000-07:00

Edward Luttwak has published several works on military strategy, history and international relations. Since the 1980s he has also published articles on Byzantium and is the author of the forthcoming "Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" which is due to be released by Harvard University Press later this year.

Luttwak was born into a Jewish family in Romania, raised in Italy and England. He attended the London School of Economics and Johns Hopkins University, where he received a PhD. In 2008, he became a Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). This is the same think-tank that was cited in a previous Antipodes post titled “Upgrading U.S.-Turkish relations and winning Greek-American votes” which can be accessed here. His profile at CSIS can be found here.

Luttwak has worked for a number of years as a consultant in the Deep State and military-industrial complex of the United States, including: the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the National Security Council; the US Department of State; the US Navy; US Army; US Air Force; and several NATO defense ministries. The Jewish-American magazine, Forward has published an interesting article on Luttwak and his shady dealings within these organisations which can be accessed here.

His book "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook" is perhaps his best-known work; it has been reprinted numerous times and translated into 14 languages. "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century AD to the Third" remains controversial.

Luttwak has now turned his complete attention onto the Byzantine Empire. The introduction on the Harvard University Press website (which can be accessed here) states:

“The Byzantine empire so greatly outlasted its western counterpart because its rulers were able to adapt strategically to diminished circumstances, by devising new ways of coping with successive enemies. It relied less on military strength and more on persuasion—to recruit allies, dissuade threatening neighbors, and manipulate potential enemies into attacking one another instead. Even when the Byzantines fought—which they often did with great skill—they were less inclined to destroy their enemies than to contain them, for they were aware that today’s enemies could be tomorrow’s allies.”

Luttwak is so apparently enamoured with Byzantium that he espouses that the United States should emulate the Byzantine rather than the Roman Empire. The Italian newspaper, La Stampa ran an articled which stated Luttwak tries to prove basically three things (similar to the above) about Byzantium's survival:

It learned from its enemies whenever it could;
It did not pursue the former Roman strategy of annihilation of its enemies;
It developed a formidable political and diplomatic clout that carefully played allies and adversaries for its own ends.

Of course, people can probably learn more from reading Byzantine primary texts on strategy and tactics often written by Emperors and Generals themselves - rather than some American. Information on these texts can be found here and here.

New Turkish FM and Neo-Ottomanism

2009-05-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently announced a reshuffle to his cabinet which included the appointment of Ahmet Davutoglu as the Minister of Foreign Affairs (the previous minister, Ali Babican has been shifted to Minister of the Economy). Professor Ahmet Davutoglu is a Turkish political scientist, academic and ambassador. Previously, Davutoglu was the chief advisor to Erdogan.

Davutoglu was born in Iconium (Konya in Turkish) and graduated from İstanbul Erkek Lisesi (German International School) and the Department of Economics and Political Science of the Bogazici University, Constantinople. He holds a masters degree in Public Administration and a PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from Bogazici University. His most important work is the book, “Strategic Depth – The International Position of Turkey” first published in 2001. This book apparently provides clues regarding his views on the future prospects of Turkish foreign policy:

Greek left wing newspaper Eleftherotypia published an article written by Ari Arbatzi (which can be accessed here) that included the following excerpts of Davutoglu's book:

“the short and medium term objectives of Turkish foreign policy in the Balkans is the strengthening of Bosnia and Albania, within a framework of stability, and the application of international law for the safety of ethnic minorities in the region. Within this legal context Turkey needs to be continuously aiming to provide guarantees that would allow intervention in cases involving Muslim minorities in the Balkans. A striking example in modern times was the intervention in Cyprus”

In regards to Greek-Turkish relations; and particularly the Aegean, Davutoglu writes:

“The area in which Turkey find itself close to war, more than any other case, are the Aegean islands, which seriously restrict Turkey’s vital space, which is due to unforgivable mistakes made by an absence of a coherent maritime strategy. The crisis in Karntak (Imia), highlighted the Greek domination, even on rocks that are close to our shores, and this is the bitter price of these accumulated errors”

Upgrading U.S.-Turkish relations and winning Greek-American votes

2009-05-03T20:41:00.000-07:00

Looking back over U.S. President Obama's first 100 days, Dr George Friedman, Chief Executive of well known global geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor, notes that the only substantive change in U.S foreign policy has been U.S.-Turkish relations. The full report can be accessed here. Along with the symbolic importance of President Obama's visit to Constantinople and Ankara - which included a speech in the Turkish parliament and the obligatory visit to Ataturk's mausoleum - the U.S. has significantly upgraded Turkey as a strategic partner.

The report states that the U.S. thinks that it needs Turkey to balance Iran, protect American interests in the Caucasus, provide assistance in stabilizing Iraq, can be potentially useful in Afghanistan and may serve as a diplomatic bridge to Syria. Friedman notes that the upgrading of U.S.-Turkish relations did not even appear as a minor issue in the recent U.S. election campaign. However, Friedman states that this change in policy:

"emerged after the election because of changes in the configuration of the international system. Shifts in Russian policy, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and shifts within Turkey that allowed the country to begin its return to the international arena all came together to make this necessary"

We believe that Friedman is basing his assertion on wrong data because Russian policy has hardly changed and the U.S. knew it was withdrawing from Iraq before the election campaign. Also, the shifts within Turkey have been going on for many years. Not surprisingly, a key U.S. think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, published a report which can be accessed here, soon after President Obama's inauguration. President Obama's foreign policy is closely aligned with the recommendations contained within this report which was formulated prior to his inauguration and perhaps before his election victory. It appears that President Obama kept the upgrading of American-Turkish relations close to his chest during the election campaign; perhaps even in consultation with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, whilst simultaneously making overtures to Greek-American and Armenian-American voters.