For current reports go to EASY FINDER




In-depth Business Intelligence

Key Economic Data 
  2003 2002 2001 Ranking(2003)
Millions of US $ 237,972 182,848 147,700 21
GNI per capita
 US $ 2,790 2,500 2,530 92
Ranking is given out of 208 nations - (data from the World Bank)

Books on Turkey


Area ( 




Ahmet Necdet Sezer 

Update No: 112 - (26/09/06)

Turkey is an absolutely vital country in world politics right now. This is not just because of a new spate of terrorist attacks in Istanbul and elsewhere in Anotolia at the end of the summer. That was clearly designed to damage the tourist industry, claimed predictably by the militant wing, the Falcon Freedom Group, of the Kurdish Workers' Party (KKP). They have been a thorn in the side of the Turkish body politic for many years now.
Turkey is the one Muslim country in the Middle East which is not automatically against Western interests. Indeed, it is in a sense a Western nation, fashioned as such by one of the six or seven great statesmen of the twentieth century- Ataturk. 
The list is an interesting one - and can temporarily detain us, Churchill, De Gaulle, Roosevelt for sure, and Gorbachev. They recreated nations, the last in abundance, and the world to boot. 
Gandhi, Mandela, Ataturk created new nations.
"We would be like Iran today; but for Ataturk," says one perceptive latterday Turk. Ataturk is the only leader to have secularized an Islamic country in the Middle East - a quite massive achievement, which needs to be emulated - and how so. (We have hopes of Pakistan's president, Musharraf.

The Turks want to be differentiated
The Turks distinguished themselves in early 2003 by refusing to send troops to Iraq at the behest of Washington to remove Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the parliament banned the US army from launching an invasion from Turkish territory.
Like many locals, they had a solid relationship with him, whom they regarded as the lesser of a number of evils. It is of course a perfectly reasonable, if not ineluctable, view in the light of recent developments. The Kurds and Marsh Arabs would not agree, but the Turks have a racist disdain for Kurds and Arabs.

US Welcomes Turkey's Decision to Send Troops to Lebanon 
It is understandable by contrast how US Department of State spokesman Sean McCormack has said that his country welcomed the approval of the government motion in the Turkish parliament regarding the deployment of Turkish troops to Lebanon. 
Spokesman McCormack stated that they (US) welcomed the offer, in his regular press briefing held in US capital Washington DC. "We think it's important that countries around the world step up and meet an important need so that we do -- we are able to make progress in that small corner of the world," McCormack remarked. 
McCormack added that, thus, they would not end up back where they were at the beginning of hostilities thanks to finding such common points. 
Turkish lawmakers have adopted a government motion after six-hours of heated debate in the general assembly, authorizing the deployment of Turkish peacekeeping troops to Lebanon as part of the U.N. peacekeeping forces. 
A total of 340 deputies from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) voted in favour of the government motion, while 192 deputies voted against the motion. One deputy abstained from voting.


There is a lot to be learned from Turkish history. Politically, Turkey is a bridge to the Islamic world. It shows that prosperity, democracy and security are possible in a constructive partnership with the developed world. 
If Turkey were part of the EU, it would be its eighth largest economy. Its constitution and educational system ensure women's rights and that they play a full role in the economic and political life of the nation, thanks to Ataturk. 
There are many in the fundamentalist shadows who believe such rights threaten the power and influence of the clerics and that the emancipation of women is incompatible with their interpretation of Islam. They would like nothing more than to push Turkey into reverse gear. 
The safeguard of the Ataturk legacy is the army, which are mostly conscripts; it is the leading officers that really matter. But so does the tradition of conscription. It is really an initiation into secular citizenship for the young males. 


This year is election year in Turkey. The moderate Islamicists of Premier Reccep Erdodogan's AKP are likely to win, having steered a cautious course, as have oil tankers in the Bosphorus, between the Charibdis of fundamentalism and the Scylla of abject pro-Americanism a la Blair. The economy is recovering from a frightful crisis earlier in the decade. 
It is better to be a Turk than a Lebanese, or an Israeli, let alone an Iranian or a Palestinian. Turkey is still the best place to be in the Middle East; and Istanbul remains one of the world's ten great cities - to deviate again, we could suggest Rome, Paris, London; St Petersburg, Singapore, Hong Kong; Sydney, Rio de Janeiro, New York. But last and not least the mistress of the Bosphorus, the most mysterious of all, Istanbul.


For an informed assessment of the new situation by an Indian diplomat:-

Turkey's high-stakes march into Lebanon
By M K Bhadrakumar September 8th 2006
Two years ago, in a political profile of Turkish Prime Minister Racep Tayyip Erdogan, Der Spiegel came close to concluding that he could be harbouring a secret dream of being an Ottoman sultan, [an extravagant proposal with which we do not agree. ED]. 
The German magazine was metaphorically summing up Erdogan's phenomenal march from an obscure Istanbul prison cell to Turkey's prime ministership. But the hunch was stunningly prescient, too. 
Curiously, even as the Turkish parliament was bracing this week for a heated debate on the wisdom of deputing troops to Lebanon as part of the United Nations' stabilization force, Erdogan chose a forum of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to speak on the subject. 
The venue of the OIC conclave was highly significant - the ornate Dolmabahce Palace overlooking the Golden Horn in Istanbul, the abode of the last Ottoman sultan, Mehmet VI. Referring to the Levant, Erdogan said, "We can't forget our historic responsibility as an OIC member." 
With these few words, Erdogan at once summoned memories of the Caliphate and a host of images from a distant past that modern Turkey has consciously tried to obliterate. Earlier in the evening, Erdogan was quoted as saying that a nation cut off from its past would have no future. "We should own our values," he said. 
It is therefore not in the least bit surprising that the decision by the Turkish government to depute troops to Lebanon - duly endorsed by the Turkish parliament in a majority vote on Tuesday - has virtually split the country's polity into two distinct worlds. 
What Erdogan perceives as Turkey's age-old "values" becomes heresy for the political opposition, which perceives it as nothing less than an invidious attempt by the Islamist ruling party to bury Kemal Ataturk's legacy of Turkey as a staunchly secular democratic-state model in the Muslim world. 
In this context, referring to the pressure on the Turkish government from the United States over the Lebanon deployment, Cumhuriyet newspaper, the flag carrier of "Ataturkism" in the Turkish media, wrote, "The Bush administration is pushing Turkey to be an Islamic state favouring the US, and ignoring the solution of a secular, democratic-state model in a Muslim society." 
The 340-192 vote in parliament authorizing the government to deploy a naval force for one year to patrol the waters off Lebanon, and possibly Turkish ground troops of an unspecified number, might appear deceptively simple. Actually, the topic proved to be highly divisive, with significant sections of public opinion, the country's president and all political parties other than the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) vehemently opposing the move. Dissident opinion is apparently sizable even within the AKP. 
The Islamist and nationalist camps argue that the Turkish contingent in Lebanon might come to be viewed as an occupation force, which would work against "Islamic solidarity" and hurt Turkey's long-term interests. The nationalists abhor the very idea of Turkey getting entangled in any manner in the Israeli-Arab conflict. They argue that Turkey ought to concentrate attention on the pressing challenge to national security posed by Kurdish separatism. 
"Leave aside Palestine; the primary interest is in Mount Kandil and Kirkuk," said top nationalist leader and former deputy prime minister, Devlet Bahceli, in reference to Kurdish militant strongholds in Turkey and Iraq, respectively. 
There is widespread concern that the United Nations stabilization force will be called on incrementally to serve US-Israeli interests and will prove incapable of protecting the Lebanese people from future Israeli aggression. Overarching all this is the pervasive scepticism about Turkey identifying with the United States' controversial "New Middle East" project. 
In a televised address to the nation, Erdogan made a forceful case for his decision. He said the only way to safeguard Turkey's interests would be by involving itself in the region, rather than remaining a "mere bystander"; the political opposition was "failing to comprehend world realities"; Turkey's "elevated interests" demanded involvement and any failure to do so "amounted to a betrayal of our past"; the preconditions for Turkey's deployment of troops were fulfilled (a UN mandate, a ceasefire and acceptability of a Turkish military presence by all parties concerned). 
Erdogan ruled out any involvement of the Turkish contingent in a combat role or in any task to disarm Hezbollah. He said, "Hezbollah is a sovereign matter for Lebanon and is an interlocutor of the Lebanese government. It is out of the question for the UN peacekeeping force to be drawn into any task of disarming Hezbollah." 

Stepping into a quagmire 
The government's sensitivity has to be viewed against the backdrop of Turkey's foreign policy, which is traditionally aimed at avoiding the quagmire in the Middle East - a course originally set by Ataturk, the father of the modern Turkish state. Thus Turkey consistently refrained from taking sides in the countless vanity fairs and disputes among its Arab neighbours (who were historically part of the Ottoman Empire), or in the 50-year Arab-Israeli conflict. 
This policy ensured that Turkey kept out of wars and made no fierce enemies in the region, though a deleterious side-effect, arguably, was that Turkey had no firm friends in its neighbourhood, either. 
Erdogan is now relegating to history that chapter of "masterly inactivity" in Turkey's Middle East policy. This hasn't happened all of a sudden. In his past three years in power, Erdogan dexterously took a huge arc, almost unobtrusively for the most part, of shifting the course of Turkish policy. 
He followed a two-pronged approach. Even as he counted on the Foreign Ministry to maintain diplomatic ties with Israel on an even keel, he himself resorted to a "tilt" toward Turkey's Arab brethren at the political level. The "tilt" took the form of a more vocal stance within the OIC, intensified political exchanges with Arab countries, dealings with Hamas in Palestine, a warming of relations with Syria and Iran, and Erdogan himself directing an occasional barb or two against Israel. 
Thus Turkey's political leadership blamed Israel for the latest flare-up in the Middle East, and was manifestly reluctant to criticize Hezbollah. Erdogan resorted to sharp rhetoric at the OIC's emergency meeting on Lebanon held in Kuala Lumpur on August 3. He said: "No justification can show what is happening [in Lebanon] to be innocent. This war that we are witnessing can never be accepted as legitimate by any means. It cannot be defended." 
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul strode further ahead in an article in the Washington Post: "Throughout the world, the same question is being asked: Why has the sole superpower, which alone has the capability to stop this tragedy, turned a blind eye to the images of human suffering and a deaf ear to the cries for mercy? The grave tragedy that has been unfolding before our eyes in Lebanon, and the inability of the international community to bring it to an end after three weeks of suffering, unfortunately raise questions about the US and its proud legacy of leadership for freedom and justice." 
Interestingly, both Washington and Jerusalem took such strident criticism calmly, estimating probably the need for the Turkish leadership to ride the crest of domestic opinion that was so overwhelmingly surcharged over the US-Israeli axis in the Middle East. 
What are Erdogan's calculations? First, the Turkish military and political leaderships want to regain the ground lost in Ankara's equations with the administration of US President George W Bush after the rejection by the Turkish parliament in March 2003 of the idea of deployment of US troops on Turkish soil in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. 
Second, in political terms, Erdogan has been bearing the brunt of the chill in US-Turkey relations. A fresh turn offers itself during his forthcoming official visit to Washington on October 6-7. US backing will become useful for him politically when Turkey prepares for presidential and parliamentary elections next year. Erdogan is equally conscious that his Islamist credentials are useful for the US in the Middle East's politics. 
Third, Erdogan intends to enhance Turkey's profile as a key player in the region. He hopes that along with Turkey's regional standing, his own leadership role in the Muslim world will get a fillip, and that in turn is bound to have resonance in the Islamic constituency in Turkey, especially if he projects himself as a candidate in the presidential election in May. 
Finally, through a significant military presence in Lebanon, Ankara will be drawing the attention of the European Union once again to Turkey's unmatchable role as a bridge between the Western world and Muslim Middle East. 
But there are dangers in Erdogan's audacious decision. First, there are inherent uncertainties in the Lebanon situation over which Turkey has no influence. Second, what today begins as a benign peacekeeping mission by the UN can transform in due course. 
Third, Erdogan may believe that Turkey has a natural role to play in the Middle East but, as Michael Rubin, former Pentagon official and prominent Middle East expert with the (US-Israeli lobby) American Enterprise Institute, put it, "His [Erdogan's] neo-Ottomanism aside, he is neither trusted by the Israelis nor the Lebanese. Many in Israel will not forgive his statements of sympathy for Palestinian terrorist groups, and the Lebanese remember that when they had their Cedar Revolution and the world was pressuring Syria to preserve Lebanese freedom, Erdogan chose Damascus over Beirut." 
Most important, Ankara is pinning hopes on Washington's capacity to appreciate its gesture. Whereas peacekeepers, when successful, are soon forgotten, in Lebanon, on the other hand, the chances of things going wrong are real, which would make Turkish participation risky. 
But what will matter to the Turkish leadership (civilian and military) is the extent to which Washington is willing to reciprocate Turkey's goodwill by cooperating with Turkey's "war on terror" against the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK). There is uneasiness in Ankara whether Washington will go beyond a few cosmetic moves aimed at appeasing Turkey, and proceed to take concrete steps against the Kurdish guerrillas. 
To be sure, Bush's recent pledges of a larger anti-PKK effort had an effect on Erdogan. As National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley acknowledged, the PKK matter is "something we [Washington] have to address more aggressively. The president has made that assurance to Prime Minister Erdogan, and I think he was relieved. Now we've got to deliver on it." 
The problem is, Washington has made such pledges in the past by way of appeasing Ankara and keeping it from intervening forcefully in northern Iraq. If Turkish expectations are not fulfilled this time around, Erdogan will face a serious problem, as he will be seen to be doing "America's job" in Lebanon. 
And that is a public perception that Erdogan simply cannot afford with an election year looming. Turkish columnist Burak Bekdil recently explained that "anti-Americanism" in Turkey had traversed ideological divides and now is an apolitical phenomenon. 
Bekdil wrote: "Islamists, nationalists, Kemalists, liberals, social democrats, leftists, your cleaning lady, the waiter at your favourite restaurant, the owner of the shop on the corner, the taxi driver, even the modern Turkish youth who 'try to live like the Americans' are anti-American." 
Washington's moves on the PKK issue, therefore, will be a litmus test for Ankara. The Bush administration recently issued an appeal to the PKK to lay down arms. But a Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman curtly reacted, "We found the statement somewhat odd, because we would expect the US to take rather more concrete steps instead of a statement expressing the obvious." 
Again, Washington has appointed retired General Joseph Ralston as a "coordinator" for the PKK matter. But according to top Turkish commentator Fatih Altayli, this only "caused annoyance" to Turkish security agencies, which felt that the move held no "meaning" for Turkey as there was "no need for such a coordination group." Altayli quoted Turkish intelligence sources as sensing a "dangerous aspect" to Washington's decision, since "if a US coordinator, who will have an official title, meets with the PKK, and that, too, with Turkey's approval, and performs the role of a go-between for Turkey and the PKK, then Turkey will face a fait accompli". 
The question once again returns like a bad coin to the war in Iraq: Can Washington afford to antagonize its Kurdish allies in northern Iraq? 
All in all, therefore, Erdogan has taken Turkish policy into uncharted waters. He is indeed a brave and gifted politician with an extraordinary track record of salvaging the ground from hopeless situations. But as opposition leader Deniz Baykal described last week, Erdogan is taking on epic forces. 
Baykal said, "Turkey is entering the vortex of the clash of civilizations. How sad, this is a Jewish-Muslim war! In all honesty, Turkey will gain if it keeps out. This is only the first phase of the conflict. One doesn't end the world's oldest conflict by sending in a UN peacekeeping force." 
Yet settling a civilizational clash from the dawn of history would have been a tall order for even Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-66), the sultan under whom the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith.

« Top


Eyes turn toward Iran for oil

A new link is being forged in the Turkish-Iranian chain of energy cooperation, news agency said recently.
In a bid from Iran to bypass Russia and access the European natural gas market via Turkey, Iran appears ready to allow Turkey to search for oil in the country in return. Turkey currently operates oil fields in Azerbaijan and Kazakstan and TPAO (Turkey's state-owned petroleum company) has the authorisation to search for oil in Syria, Iran and Libya. The issue was to be discussed with Iran's Oil Minister, Kazem Vaziri Hamanch, who arrived in Turkey to meet with Turkish Energy Minsiter, Hilmi Guler. During the talks, TPAO was due to ask permission from Iran to rent potential oil fields and conduct feasibility studies.

Guler launches US$5bn Afsin Elbistan project

Energy Minister, Hilmi Guler, announced the start of the biggest project in the history of the Turkish Republic: the US$5bn Afsin Elbistan lignite mine, during a press conference in Ankara on August 24th.
Guler said the bidding process had begun. With the private sector's investment of US$5bn over five years, some 15,000 people would be employed during the accompanying construction process and 8,500 during the management process, he said, news agency reported.
When the project is completed, it will have the capacity to produce 30bn kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, Guler explained, adding that the mining operation alone would require 100m shuttles by 50 tonne trucks, the news report said. The Afsin Elbistan project includes the rehabilitation of Power Plant A and the building of power plants C and D over five years.
The ash produced by Afsin Elbistan would be used in cement production.
Electricity Generation Inc (EUAS) General Manager, Sefer Butun, said power plants C and D would produce energy equivalent to 18 per cent of Turkey's electric production. The construction of power plants A and B took 17 years to complete, Butun said. Hitachi, Minex, Alsthom, Babcok, DemirExport, Unit Int, Dogus, Koseoglu Madencilik and Ozdogru are reportedly interested in various phases of the project.

« Top


WB grants 280m Euro for energy sector 

The World Bank (WB) granted a 280 million Euro loan to Turkey to be used within the framework of the electricity generation rehabilitation and restructuring project, Italian News Agency ANSA reported on September 13th.
World Bank Turkey Director, Andrew Vorkink, said that Turkey may have an electricity problem between 2008 and 2010 due to the expected economic growth and rise in electricity demand. According to Vorkink, the loan will reduce the risk and help Turkey meet the energy demanded by its private sector and households.

« Top


« Back


Published by 
Newnations (a not-for-profit company)
PO Box 12 Monmouth 
United Kingdom NP25 3UW 
Fax: UK +44 (0)1600 890774