Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Turkic Council,, Hungary, and Russia

The article below has a brief explanation of the Turkic Council.

The Turkic Council compares itself to the European Union, aborning. Membership presently is limned to Turkic-speaking nations,

Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan in aqua,

are members of the Turkic Council.

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, in blue,

are not yet members

. . . but that may not be such a barrier as is it would at first seem to be. Hungarian membership is being considered. Hungarian is part of the Finno-Ugric family of languages,

. . .which is a part of the Altaic family, originating in the Altai c Mountains,

. . . a large family which may include Korean and Japanese. See A Brief Exploration of the Altaic Hypothesis. Such an extended view of "Turkic" could include a great many Russians and Mongolians.

Thw West needs many coungerweights to Chineseexpnionist aims in Central Asia. Turkey is a NATO member now and Azerbaijan would welcome membership, as wuld Georgia. In the few short years since the Turkic Council was first envisioned, it has grown significantly. It deserves support from the West.

Ramil Hasanov: We consider Turkic Council ‘mini model of EU’[ 29 December 2014 13:10 ]
“We’re not a military bloc, but a political-economical organization”
Istanbul. Mayis Alizadeh – APA. The operational mechanism of the Turkic Council is based on discussing every issue in detail, thoroughly studying and analyzing desires of member countries, and carrying them to the signing stage. Areas coordinated by the Turkic Council are expanding as relations among its member countries continue to develop. There are currently 12 areas that we coordinate:

1) Foreign Affairs; 2) Customs; 3) Education; 4) Culture; 5) Tourism; 6) Sports; 7) Economy; 8) Industry; 9) Taxes; 10) Transportation; 11) Information technology and innovation; 12) Communications and infrastructure.

This was stated by Ramil Hasanov, Secretary General of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States, in an interview with APA.

He said any matter brought up to develop cooperation in these areas is first discussed in Istanbul with the participation of officials from member state’s related ministries as well as relevant diplomats of the Council.

“Later on, ministers hold discussions and documents adopted are submitted to us. As the secretary general of the Turkic Council, we bring up final documents at the annual summit of heads of state and report them. Draft resolutions are then presented to the summit, and after draft resolutions are signed by heads of state, we carry out control on the execution of resolutions passed. I would to stress one point that the Turkic Council owes its dynamic and effective activity to the strong political will of the heads of state of the four member states. That very political will enables us to bring our activity to standards of international organizations,” he noted.

R. Hasanov said some people liken the Turkic Council to a non-governmental organization.

“It is quite wrong. The Turkic Council is an official international organization established to expand cooperation between the four member states. From this perspective, we consider the Turkic Council “mini-model of the European Union”. All international organizations, including the United Nations, OSCE and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation recognizes the Council just so. We are not a military block, but a political and economic organization aimed at developing relations between fraternal countries on the basis of voluntariness, consensus and mutual respect. The main objective of the Turkic Council is to contribute to peace, stability, economic welfare, tolerance and rapprochement between peoples. We have no religious, linguistic and racial differences. We rest on universal and humanistic values. The Turkic Council includes Astana-based Academy of Turkic World, Baku-based TURKPA and Turkic Cultural Heritage Foundation, as well as Ankara-based TURKSOY,” he added.

To the question about the non-accession of Uzbekistan to the Council, as well as the fact that despite the participation of Turkmen president in the Council Summit on September 16, 2010, Turkmenistan still refuses to join the Council, R. Hasanov said the document on the establishment of the European Union was signed by only 3 countries, but now the EU includes 28 countries.

“The Turkic countries are located in a region with rich natural resources. The Turkic Council aims at improving the welfare of the people in the region and providing them with a happy future. Therefore, from the very beginning we wanted Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to take an active part in the Turkic Council. We remain hopeful and want Uzbekistan to join the Council. Our doors are always open. As for Turkmenistan, we are extremely satisfied with its activity in the Turkish Council within the past two years. The deputy prime minister of Turkmenistan attended our summit held in Gabala in 2013. And we were also pleased with Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov’s participation at the Bodrum summit in June. Officials of Turkmenistan’s relevant bodies continue to attend our summits. I believe that the probability of joining the Turkic Council in other countries in the near future is high. Our main condition is that one of the official languages of the countries wishing to join the Council is the Turkic language. From this perspective, I would advise to closely follow the policy of Hungary. The Hungarian delegation asked the TURKPA with the intention of becoming a member with observer status, and the delegation visited Baku for this purpose. We discussed this issue and accepted Hungary as an observer member of TURKPA. With respect to Hungary’s accession to the Turkic Council, if we are applied in this regard, the decision about Hungary’s accession will be taken by the heads of the Turkic Council member states. Maybe, in the future other countries such as Macedonia and Albania will apply to cooperate with us. It’s known that there are 30 million people of Turkic origin in Russia. If Russia welcomes any cooperation with the Turkic Council, we will stand ready to discuss it and pass necessary decisions,” he completed.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Netanyahu's Dangerous Game; Light Amidst Encircling Darkness

An editorial by Roger Cohen in today's New York Times pictures Palestine in Kafkaesque terms: Gar Kein Ausweg - No Way Out At All.

But Deutsche Welle also reported today that Sweden has recognized Palestine, the first long-term EU member to do so, to Netanyahu's impotent rage.

It is an ugly picture, and the editorial raises a hope that the new elections in Israel may see a post-Bibi
government able to cut through the Gordian knot.

Netanyahu plays a dangerous game.

For example the Saudi government that keeps Islamists in chick for Israel fears a take-over by the super-Islamic State, on the ground that the present Saudi government is insufficiently extreme in its application of Sharia restrictions on its people. The new co-educational King Abdullah Science and Technology University

allows men and women to attend classes unsupervised, an unprecedented betrayal of the powerful clergy.

Sheik Saad bin Naser al-Shethri from his duties on the powerful government-sanctioned Council of Senior Islamic Scholars, for publicly condemning co-educational practices and science teaching not vetted by the clergy.

The clergy follows Wahhabism; so does the Islamic Sgage.

If the Islamic State succeeds, it will fall heir to billions of Saudi dollars to use against Israel.

If the Islamists in Pakistan succeed in taking control of that nation's atomic weapons, Israel will wish it had only Iran to worry about. Pakistan located its atomic arsenal near the Islamist Northwest Territories.

None of this many happen. Even worse things may come about before the Islamic State plays its hand and disappears from the World Stage.

The New York Times

What Will Israel Become?

DEC. 20, 2014

Roger Cohen

JERUSALEM — Uneasiness inhabits Israel, a shadow beneath the polished surface. In a violent Middle Eastern neighborhood of fracturing states, that is perhaps inevitable, but Israelis are questioning their nation and its future with a particular insistence. As the campaign for March elections begins, this disquiet looks like the precursor of political change. The status quo, with its bloody and inconclusive interludes, has become less bearable. More of the same has a name: Benjamin Netanyahu, now in his third term as prime minister. The alternative, although less clear, is no longer unthinkable.

“There is a growing uneasiness, social, political, economic,” Amos Oz, the novelist, told me in an interview. “There is a growing sense that Israel is becoming an isolated ghetto, which is exactly what the founding fathers and mothers hoped to leave behind them forever when they created the state of Israel.” The author, widely viewed as the conscience of a liberal and anti-Messianic Israel, continued, “Unless there are two states — Israel next door to Palestine — and soon, there will be one state. If there will be one state, it will be an Arab state. The other option is an Israeli dictatorship, probably a religious nationalist dictatorship, suppressing the Palestinians and suppressing its Jewish opponents.”

If that sounds stark, it is because choices are narrowing. Every day, it seems, another European government or parliament expresses support for recognition of a Palestinian state. A Palestinian-backed initiative at the United Nations, opposed in its current form by the United States, is aimed at pushing Israel to withdraw from the West Bank by 2017. The last Gaza eruption, with its heavy toll and messy outcome, changed nothing. Hamas, its annihilationist hatred newly stoked, is still there parading its weapons. Tension is high in Jerusalem after a spate of violent incidents. Life is expensive. Netanyahu’s credibility on both the domestic and international fronts has dwindled.

“We wake up every morning to some new threat he has found,” said Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist. “We have grown tired of it.”

This fatigue will, however, translate into change only if a challenger looks viable. Until recently nobody has. But in the space of a few weeks something has shifted. The leader of the Labor Party, Isaac Herzog, has been ushered from unelectable nerd to plausible patriot. Polls show him neck and neck with the incumbent. Through an alliance forged this month with Tzipi Livni, the recently dismissed justice minister and longtime negotiator with the Palestinians, the Labor leader created a sense of possibility for the center left. A post-Bibi Israel no longer seems a fantasy.

“This cannot go on,” Herzog, a mild-mannered man working on manifesting his inner steel, told me. “There is a deep inherent worry as to the future and well-being of our country. Netanyahu has been leading us to a dead end, to an abyss.” Summing up his convictions, Herzog declared, “We are the Zionist camp. They are the extreme camp.”

Here we get to the nub of the election. A battle has been engaged for Israel’s soul. The country’s founding charter of 1948 declared that the nascent state would be based “on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex.” This is the embodiment of the Zionism of Herzog and Livni. They are both descendants of important figures in Israel’s creation — Chaim Herzog, a former president of Labor sympathies, and Eitan Livni, a former commander of the rightist Irgun militia. For all their differences Labor and Likud, left and right, did not differ on the essential democratic freedoms for all its citizens, Jew and Arab, that Israel should seek to uphold. The new Herzog-Livni alliance looks like an eloquent reaffirmation of that idea.

It is a fragile idea today. Tolerance is under attack as a wave of Israeli nationalism unfurls and settlements grow in the West Bank. This virulent, Jews-first thinking led recently to a bill known as the nationality law that would rescind Arabic’s status as an official language — and proved a catalyst to the breakup of Netanyahu’s government. It also finds expression in the abuse hurled at anyone, including the Israeli president, Reuven Rivlin, who speaks up for Arab rights. “Traitor” has become a facile cry.

Danny Danon, a former deputy defense minister who is challenging Netanyahu for the Likud leadership, told me his long-term vision for the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as he calls it, “is to have sovereignty over the majority of the land with the minimum amount of Palestinians.” The two-state idea, Danon said, “is finished, and most Israelis understand that.”

In fact the two-state idea is alive but ever more tenuous. It is compatible with an Israel true to its founding principles. It is incompatible with an Israel bent on Jewish supremacy and annexation of all or most of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It can be resurrected, because there is no plausible alternative, despite the fact that almost a half-century of dominion over another people has produced ever greater damage, distrust and division. It can be buried only at the expense of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, for no democracy can indefinitely control the lives of millions of disenfranchised people — and that is what many Palestinians are.

“This election is a critical juncture,” said Ofer Kenig, a political analyst. “We have to choose between being a Zionist and liberal nation, or turning into an ethnocentric, nationalist country. I am concerned about the direction in which this delicate democracy is heading.”

A child of 9 in Gaza has memories of three wars in six years. The child may stand in the remains of the Shejaiya neighborhood in eastern Gaza City, gazing at tangles of iron rods, mountains of stone, jagged outcrops of masonry, and air thick with dust. The child may wonder what force it is that wrought such destruction, so repetitively, and why. It is safe to say that the adult this Palestinian child will one day become does not bode well for Israel. The child has no need for indoctrination in hatred.

I was there the other day, in the rubble. Children stood around. I chatted with the Harara family, whose houses were flattened during the 50-day war with Israel that began this summer. Every day Mustafa Harara, 47, comes to gaze at the cratered vestige of his house. He asks where else he should go. It took him 26 years to build. It took five minutes for Israel to demolish it. The reason is unclear. He is no Hamas militant. His electricity business, located in the same area, was also destroyed.

Since the war, he has received nothing, despite the billions for reconstruction pledged by gulf states and others. In June, President Mahmoud Abbas swore in a new government that grew out of the reconciliation pact his Palestine Liberation Organization had signed with Hamas. There is no unity and, in effect, no government in Gaza.

The Egyptian border is closed. Movement through the Israeli border amounts to a minimal trickle. Israeli surveillance balloons hover in airspace controlled by Israel. The 140-square-mile area is little better than an open-air prison. As incubators for violent extremism go, it is hard to imagine a more effective setting than Gaza.

Abbas has not visited since the war broke out. To come after such suffering would have been courageous; not to was craven. Now he is regarded as a stranger by most of the 1.8 million inhabitants of Gaza, the absent father of a nation in desperate need. “Abbas is the one who destroyed us,” Harara says. “What reconciliation? You cannot mix gasoline and diesel.”

Lutfi Harara, the younger brother of Mustafa, whose home was also destroyed, took me to see the little house with a corrugated iron roof he had cobbled together since the war. He showed me photographs of Haifa, his memories of the Israel where he used to work as an electrician before divisions hardened. From rockets and artillery shells found in the rubble of his home, he has fashioned lamps and a vase and a heavy bell dangling from an olive tree — his version of swords into plowshares, and the one hopeful thing I saw in Gaza.

FROM his home I went to see a hard-line Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar. He lambasted Abbas — “he is living on stories” — and told me to forget about a two-state compromise at or near the 1967 lines. “Israel will be eliminated because it is a foreign body that does not belong to our area, or history or religion,” he said. Referring to Israeli Jews, he continued, “Why should they come from Ethiopia, or Poland, or America? There are six million in Palestine, O.K., take them. America is very wide. You can make a new district for the Jews.”

Zahar, with his hatred, is almost 70. Abbas will be 80 in March. Many Palestinians in their 20s and 30s whom I spoke to in Gaza are sick of sterile threats, incompetence and the cycle of war.

“There is no such thing as a happy compromise,” Amos Oz told me. “Israelis and Palestinians cannot become one happy family because they are not one, not happy and not family either. They are two unhappy families who must divide a small house into even smaller apartments.” The first step, he said, is to “sign peace with clenched teeth, and after signing the contract, start working slowly on a gradual emotional de-escalation on both sides.”

Israel is a remarkable and vibrant democratic society that is facing an impasse. It must decide whether to tough it out on a nationalist road that must lead eventually to annexation of at least wide areas of the West Bank, or whether to return to the ideals of the Zionists who accepted the 1947 United Nations partition of Mandate Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab (the Arabs did not accept the division and embarked on the first of several losing wars aimed at destroying Israel).

This election constitutes a pivotal moment. Herzog told me, “We are not willing to accept that mothers and fathers on the other side don’t want peace. They also want it, and I understand that they have a lack of hope just like here.” He smiled, as a thought occurred to him. “You know, I would be very happy to visit my mother’s birthplace in Egypt as prime minister.”

Mansouled Fiery Islands