Lessons from Turkey's elections: The AKP is dominant, but the Kurdish question is central

By Ali Ezzatyar

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the recent elections, as expected. But that's not the most important election news coming out of Turkey. With a record number of seats being won by PKK-sympathizing Kurds running as independents, Turkey's oppressed Kurdish minority sent a chilling message to the AKP government: deal with our problems, once and for all, or face unrest. In a new Turkey for which the world can't seem to contain its praise, the world had better encourage Turkey to take heed.

Its reelection on Sunday the 12th was a further reminder of how the widely popular AKP continues to dominate Turkey's political landscape, and for good reason. It has managed a spectacular rise. Through a global economic downturn, Turkish unemployment was reduced and per capita GDP has doubled since the AKP took power. The Turkish economy grew at a staggering 9% last year; that is more than twice the rate of growth of the rest of the world. The AKP supervised this economic upturn all while making Turkey more democratic and influential internationally.

But if today's unbounded optimism for Turkey demonstrates anything, it is that the world's memory is terribly short. Turkey's Kurds, who make up about a fifth of the country and much of Istanbul and the south-east, are still denied basic human rights. Admitting the mere existence of the Kurds was taboo in Turkey until recently.

The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), lead by its militant leader Abdullah Ocalan, resorted to separatist violence in the '80s and '90s to combat these failures. 40,000 deaths (mostly Kurdish), as well as the arrest or murder of hundreds of journalists and politicians, followed. During this period, foreign investment and tourism dwindled, the Turkish economy was in shambles, and military intervention in politics loomed on multiple occasions.

In the aftermath of Ocalan's arrest in 1999, the Kurdish rebellion stalled. With every Kurdish political party banned, the AKP played on Kurdish frustration in its election campaign. The AKP's perceived message of Islamic unity was attractive to Kurds; they saw it as a slap in the face to Turkey's extreme secular, nationalist tradition. The combination of promises from Prime Minister Erdogan, minor concessions, and growing prosperity has mostly calmed violence throughout the last decade.

But Kurds, partially bolstered by the success and freedom of Kurds in Northern Iraq, are still unhappy. Erdogan's "Kurdish Initiative" of two years ago never materialized, and is widely perceived as an election stunt in south-east Turkey. Meanwhile, the PKK, still widely popular in the Kurdish region, is making ominous threats of war. Abdullah Ocalan has recently stated from prison that armed rebellion will resume if Turkey does not negotiate with the PKK.

Kurds running as independents won 36 seats in Sunday's elections, including seats in Istanbul. Most of these Kurds ran on a pro-PKK platform, and will go to parliament with strict demands.

Far from an encouraging show of Kurdish participation in a new democratic Turkey, Sunday's elections are a warning to the Turkish state that Kurdish dissatisfaction is widespread. With countless pronouncements from newly elected Kurdish MPs about the need for drastic change, as well as the PKK's military arm threatening a renewed civil war, the handwriting is on the wall. An Arab Spring type uprising by Turkey's Kurds could devolve, and any armed conflict would undo the new and fragile and in many ways superficial gains the AKP has made in the last ten years. The West, likewise, will no longer have a model Middle Eastern democracy to point to.

The international community has an important role to play in encouraging the AKP to exercise its leverage with respect to the Kurdish question. First, Europe and the United States must use the 'K' word in their public relations with Turkey, signifying their belief that a serious human rights problem continues to exist. Second, as the AKP drafts a new constitution that can finally put the Turkish state's discriminatory structural impediments behind it, the world needs to its apply diplomatic pressure to ensure a conciliatory approach with Turkey's Kurds.

With particular encouragement from a Europe that is perceived as being increasingly friendly and dependent on Turkey, Erdogan has a powerful argument to advance to his citizens that Kurds must be accepted as equals at this pivotal juncture. Confrontation is brimming beneath the surface in Turkey, and without genuine regard for the Kurdish question, calamity could ensue.

Turkish delight: House fails to vote on Armenian genocide resolution

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The "Lame Duck" Congress did a great deal, yes, but unfortunately it did not pass -- and did not even vote on -- a resolution by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) recognizing the 1915-17 massacre of about 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks for what it was: genocide.

As you may know, Turkey, along with its agents in the U.S. (including the Congressional Turkish Caucus), has waged a massive campaign to revise history and silence anyone who would dare call it genocide. That word, it seems, is just too much -- even if it's absolutely the right word to use.

This campaign has been waged around the world, but in the U.S. what Turkey wants it to block Congress from passing any such resolution and the president from saying genocide. So much so that it has threatened diplomatic reprisals.

Various resolutions have made their way out of committee in recent years, but thus far no resolution has been passed. And Obama has thus far refrained from saying genocide.

The pressure from Turkey and the concern over U.S.-Turkish relations have no doubt trumped any other considerations. In this case, as The Hill reports, "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent Obama a letter Monday asking him to prevent the vote, warning that it could damage ties between the two countries." Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also pressured Hillary Clinton.

I have written about this issue -- the Armenian genocide and the failure to recognize it as such -- a few times already:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007)

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010); and

-- Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Apr. 2010).

What happened was genocide. What is going on now, almost a century later, is still a despicable cover-up. I repeat what I wrote in the third of the posts listed above:

While I suspect that Obama [and Nancy Pelosi, too, who refused to bring Schiff's resolution to a vote] knows full well that it was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?

Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S. and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives), but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America? Please.

Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the Turks to go fuck themselves.

Diplomatically, of course.

Just call it genocide. And stop helping Turkey get away with it.

Understanding Turkey's foreign policy

By Peter Henne

A few days ago, I returned from a trip to Turkey, sponsored by the Rumi Forum. The trip included visits to four cities in Turkey and meetings with community, business and political groups. As someone who studies Turkey, the trip was an incredible opportunity to learn first-hand about a country I already admire. I have discussed my thoughts on domestic issues in Turkey. I also gained greater insight into the country's foreign policy. 

Throughout the 20th century, Turkish politics was marked by the secular nationalist image instilled in the country by Ataturk's dramatic post-Ottoman reforms. The primary goal of the country's foreign policy was to maintain its security and territorial integrity. This led to a hard stance on minority issues such as the Kurds, hesitation to address the Armenian issue, and tensions with Greece over Cyprus. It also contributed to Turkey's US ties; fearful of the Soviet threat, Turkey allied itself with America and joined NATO. It also established close ties with Israel.

Turkey's foreign policy has changed markedly since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a conservative party with Islamist roots. Opposition to Israeli policies has increased, as has hesitation to support US military actions in Iraq. At the same time, Turkey has reached out more to regional states such as Syria and Iran, made some progress on the Armenia and Kurdish issues, and intensified its efforts to join the European Union. These changes have led to a flurry of speculation, including some decrying Turkey's Islamic or Eastern shift, and others claiming its international relations can be explained by economic interests.

Neither approach is completely accurate. Turkey's relations with Israel and the United States are more strained than they were throughout the Cold War, but they do not represent a complete break. And claims of an Islamic shift in Turkish foreign policy are contradicted by the AKP's great efforts to join the EU. Instead, the two can be seen as part of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu's "Zero-problems" approach to international relations, which involves management of all regional and international issues. This includes regional tensions such as Turkish-Syrian relations and Iran's nuclear program.

At the same time, it would be inaccurate to claim economics or material interests alone are driving these changes. Turkish people I met with did discuss the monetary gains from the AKP's policies, but they also discussed their support for the government in terms of its new approach to democracy, and Turkey's historical and cultural ties to surrounding states. Beyond this, there is the fact that something changed with the AKP; something about this party led to a different approach to foreign policy. The potential economic benefits from trade with Syria and EU membership, and the stability to be gained from resolving the Iran issue were present before the AKP came to power. That is, in order to explain Turkey's current foreign policy, one cannot point solely to these international factors, which for the most part remained constant.

Instead, I would argue, it is something about the AKP that led to these changes. Again, it is not a story of an Islamist party coming to power. Instead, we have a conservative party with a broad base. Their supporters include business interests, religiously-minded voters, and minority groups. And the AKP's leaders have a distinct belief in the important role Turkey should play in international politics, which includes economic, security and religious issues. Religion is important to AKP members and supporters, but as a public value, not an Iranian-style theocracy.

When formulating foreign policy, then, Turkish leaders likely weigh these various interests and concerns. Economic gains must be balanced against security, domestic stability and religious values. At times these point in the same direction; Turkish-Syrian ties satisfy Muslim identification among voters, help Turkish businesses, ease regional tensions, raise Turkey's international profile, and alleviate domestic unrest through economic growth. At other times, these pressures may be counteracting each other, such as in the case of Israel or relations with the United States over Iraq; the increased prestige and domestic support gained through Turkish actions on these issues accompany tensions with allies and possible regional instability.

The answer, as always, is more complicated than most let on. Turkey is not becoming an Islamist or anti-Western state, but it is also not only acting on material incentives. Instead, its domestic politics, the makeup of its governing party, and the current state of the international system have combined to create a unique and dynamic foreign policy.

The important question, then, is what does this mean for the United States? Turkey still values its ties with the United States, and there is a great potential for the United States to work closely with Turkey on issues of common concern, such as regional stability, counterterrorism and trade. But America will have to accept some disagreements over the means through which these goals are achieved, just as it does with other allies like Britain and France.

Turkey's changing foreign policy is not a harbinger of a new multipolar world. It is, however, the first chance for the Obama Administration to act on its vision of a "multi-partner" world, which Secretary of State Clinton has laid out. The manner in which the Administration deals with Turkey, then, will have a great impact on its legacy and the US position in the 21st century international system. 

(Previously posted at The Huffington Post.)

Thoughts from a recent trip to Turkey

By Peter Henne

I've just returned from an excellent trip to Turkey, sponsored by the Rumi Forum. The trip included visits to Istanbul, Ankara, and two cities in the southeastern part of the country: Gaziantep and Şanliurfa. The trip was intended to introduce members of the DC foreign policy community to Turkey; it involved sight-seeing as well as meetings with political, business and community leaders. I study Turkey academically and have written a bit on it, but still gained great insights into the current state of Turkey's society and politics, and the important role it plays in world affairs.

I have a few thoughts now on domestic issues in Turkey (discussion of its foreign policy will be forthcoming). It is a bit of a cliché to call any country dynamic, but that is really the only word to describe Turkey. This partly involves the dramatic growth witnessed throughout the country. Increasing trade with neighboring countries, a growing domestic market, and economic support from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has led to much economic development; I saw numerous construction projects in Istanbul and Ankara as well as the southeast, which has traditionally been under-developed.

Beyond the economy, the society itself also seems to be thriving. The AKP's policies on the economy and the consolidation of Turkey's democratic process under AKP rule seems to have attracted the support of numerous elements of Turkish society, from conservative religious voters to liberal pro-democracy voices to business groups and ethnic minorities such as the Kurds. Not all Turks support the AKP--the recent Constitutional referendum passed with about 40% of the population opposing, indicating divisions remain--and one may raise legitimate concerns about AKP attitudes towards religion and politics. But the AKP is far from the secret Islamist movement some have claimed.

Another observation has to do with Turkish nationalism. Since Ataturk founded the Turkish republic in 1923, national identity has been a major concern for Turks. Fear of territorial dismantlement--as happened to the Ottoman Empire after World War I--has influenced both domestic and foreign policies, touching on issues such as Armenia, the Kurds, and Cyprus. Defending the modern secular character of the republic has also been the justification for several military coups in the country.

It was encouraging, then, to see a responsible and respectful form of nationalism in the Turks I met. They loved their country, and were very proud of its achievements, but this did not seem to translate into fear of outsiders or anti-Americanism. They had their opinions, and were not shy about expressing their thoughts on US policies, but they were also very happy to talk with Americans and seemed to greatly value the long-standing Turkish-US ties. Again, I didn't meet everyone in Turkey, and there are undoubtedly more negative feelings out there, but what I saw was heartening.

Turkey entered the 20th century as the Ottoman Empire, a major world power in decline. It has spent the time since then smoothing out its transition into a modern nation-state and working out the nature of its domestic and international affairs. As always, there is more work to do, but as we enter the 21st century, Turkish society should provide a model for other states grappling with the proper relationship between religion and politics and managing economic development.

Amusing Photo of the Day: Swimming the Bosphorus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From The Globe and Mail: "Swimmers wait for the start in the 22nd Bosphorus Cross-Continental Swimming competition over the Bosphorus straits between Istanbul's Asian and European sides July 18, 2010. Some 750 athletes participated in the annual event for which the usually busy Bosphorus waterways close for sea traffic during the 6,500 metres (4 miles) race."

Yeah, but that guy's, like, twice as big as the others. How is that fair?

Turkish dislike: The need for a measured response

Guest post by Michael Lieberman

Michael M. Lieberman, a Truman National Security Project fellow, is an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington D.C., where he works on international regulatory and compliance issues. (The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.)

Ed. note: This is Michael's third post at The Reaction. His first, on how climate change is a real national security threat, is here. His second, on al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Afghan War, is here. This post below was originally published at The Hill's Congress Blog.

**********

While few individuals could make supporters of Israel miss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is doing his best. In the wake of the Mavi Marmara raid, Turkey's rhetorical molotovs stopped short of saying Israel should be "wiped off the map." But statements like those Erdogan made earlier this week accusing Israel of "a planned terrorist attack to kill out of nothing but hostility," coming as they do from an ostensible ally, make the words bite all the more. Turkey's active efforts to undermine sanctions efforts against Iran have further fueled the embers. What, then, should the U.S. do?

Some in Congress, including House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) believe the U.S. should now pass the controversial Armenian genocide resolution, which Turkey vehemently opposes. The neocon right, which sees every new moon as evidence of jihadist ascendance, believes we should tag Turkey as the new leader of the Islamic front in a great civilizational clash. Some on this side have even suggested Turkey no longer deserves full NATO membership. Responses like these, however, are punitive -- not good policy.

Others reject any talk of "punishment," recognizing that Turkey's history with the West has had its historical ebbs and flows, that Turkey remains rooted in NATO and the G20, and that Turkey's domestic politics all but demand its current path. Yet explaining away Turkey's disturbing trajectory does little to help us deal with it.

Then there are those who argue that the rift has a silver lining. According to this logic, Turkey's recent activities should comfort Israel and its allies. "With Turkey as the central interlocutor between the Islamic/Arab world and Israel and the West," they believe, "Iran will increasingly find it harder to carry out its agenda of destabilizing the region and the globe." This view is attractive, yet over-optimistic. Iran relies on harder currency than public opinion to sow discord. Weapons, cash, and training for the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and even the Taliban enjoy a more favorable rate of exchange.

Turkey's eclipse of Iran would be a positive development only if it distinguishes itself by constructive behavior. What good will Turkey's enhanced role be if it calls for a one-state solution? Or if it recognizes a unilaterally declared Palestinian state? Or when, as it has already done, it acts to undercut new sanctions against Iran?

It is no gain to have a more influential and powerful Turkey pursuing causes detrimental to Western interests -- indeed, in this way Turkey's credibility in the Muslim world is a double-edged scimitar.

Turkey has not capitalized on its unique position, for example, by positioning itself as an honest broker between Israel and Syria. In fact, Turkey has taken a number of concrete steps to Israel's detriment. It has canceled official defense deals, threatened to sever diplomatic ties, and adopted a policy of denial on military overflights. This last step is yet another boost to Iran, weakening Israel's deterrent against its nuclear plans.

Despite this bleak picture, the U.S. and its NATO allies should not succumb to alarmist claims that Turkey is "lost" or seek to punish it through emotive, futile gestures. Yet Turkey's provocations ought not go unanswered. It is not "punishment" to remind Turkey of the need to act responsibly, and of the consequences if Turkey truly feels its interests lie so contrary to the West's. A proper answer to Turkey's erratic behavior is thus to remind it subtly of the logic of the security partnership underlying that bond.

On this view, the U.S. might consider re-raising the question of the need for NATO tactical nuclear missiles on Turkish territory. This idea is attractive for several reasons. First, the issue long precedes the current debate, and so could not be painted as a vindictive reaction. Second, it goes to the core of Turkey's security concerns, heightening the specter of a nuclear Iran. And third, it dovetails nicely with President Obama's broader nuclear agenda.

While this issue is part of a larger issue regarding U.S. tactical nukes in allied states, raising it could be warning enough. Along the same lines, the U.S. should veto NATO military exercises on Turkish soil so long as Turkey refuses to host Israel. In either case, the U.S. must not play into the hands of the ruling AKP's current tendency towards demagoguery by taking steps that undermine its secular, military-aligned opposition more than they serve notice on the government.*

While the U.S. must find a mature way to signal its displeasure and the repercussions that should follow Turkey's wayward path, it must avoid walking into the trap Israel did by recklessly precipitating the relationship's current predicament. Lest the U.S. convey acquiescence, however, answer it must.

(* Ed. note: The center-right AKP, or Justice and Development Party, is currently Turkey's dominant political party, with a majority of seats in the Grand National Assembly. Both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gül are AKP.)

The outrage machine

By Capt. Fogg

As a boater, I'm aware that the Coast Guard has the right to board and inspect my vessel at any time and that I'm required to comply. Upon probable cause and perhaps just suspicion, they have a right to impound and literally disassemble my boat looking for drugs or contraband. Sometimes, as I'm given to understand, they've been known to be rather demanding in their searches, and other completely innocent, law abiding yacht captains I know have complained of dirty footprints on the ivory carpeting or greasy hand prints on the cherry paneling and have suggested that too much protest or grouchiness can earn one an extra careful inspection of safety equipment that might entail a ticket.

Of course we have a real problem in our coastal waters and particularly on the Atlantic coast with illegal immigrants arriving rather often, and then there's always the drug smugglers, so when the Coasties hail you it's best to heave to and not make waves, so to speak. In fact the US has a policy of stopping and boarding vessels anywhere on the high seas and at any time they suspect contraband. For an honest captain or crew, the idea of going after the Coast Guard with a boat hook or marlinespike is pretty much as unthinkable as it is counterproductive.

Yesterday however, when I read about the Israeli raid on the blockade runners attempting to bring supplies to Gaza, I was truly angered at what seemed like a pointless and brutal attack on unarmed civilians, and the video then available seemed to confirm that first impression. The media were making charges of piracy and it seemed less than hyperbolic at the time. Then I saw the rest of the video.

Aside from the question of the embargo itself, it has to be mentioned that the "relief" expedition was required to pass inspection before landing in Gaza, there being good reason for Israel to make sure no weapons or explosives or ammunition were being carried, or fugitives, or any persons wanted for questioning. The word of some Turkish political group that it's a peaceful enterprise is scarcely enough, although reports so far seem to gloss over the obvious with a coat of shiny outrage. Of course the flotilla had no intention of complying or of allowing themselves to be boarded peacefully and inspected, which carries the implication that they had indeed something to hide. The Israeli Navy did what any country would have done and boarded them.

The video that was not shown, of course, was the brutal attack by the passengers, who mobbed the inspectors, threw them to the deck and began beating them with clubs and metal rods. One Israeli was thrown overboard. They were vastly outnumbered. They began to defend themselves. There were casualties. It started to look less and less like piracy or even aggression. It began to look like deliberate provocation. It began to look like assault. It began to look like a mission of strategic martyrdom designed to turn Israel's ally Turkey against them. It looks like a success so far.

As usual, those who have their reasons for hating Israel will not compare the incident to trying to run through passport control at the airport and complaining about being tackled and detained. Those who are quite sure Hamas is justified in any act whatsoever that brings about the total annihilation of all Israelis wouldn't care and might rejoice if the ships had been blown out of the water without warning.

There's not much middle ground, there's not much changing of minds and a fortune is being spent on further polarization. This, in my opinion, is just part of that enterprise. The drums of manufactured outrage will continue to boom about mistreatment of "peaceful" passengers so long as doubt remains as to whether their mission had anything do do with anything but creating provocation against "Zionist Aggression." To some, the passengers will continue to be "tourists" and the haters of Israel will use any opportunity to appear as martyrs, but try this, if you dare: load up a flotilla of ships and announce your destination as Turkey and your cargo as aid for Islamist patriots resisting secularist aggression and when it comes time for customs inspection -- refuse to stop and be boarded. Set your "tourists" on the Turkish coast guard and customs inspectors with fence posts and bits of deck railing and furniture and claim that the secular Turkish government is attacking Islam and peaceful Islamists. Go on -- I dare you.




(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I appreciate the fact, reported by Laura Rozen, that President Obama used the proper Armenian term, Meds Yeghern (or "Great Catastrophe"), when referring today to the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks, which took place between 1915 and 1917, but it is telling that he refused to call it what it was: genocide.

"On this solemn day of remembrance, we pause to recall that ninety-five years ago one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century began," Obama said in a statement. "In that dark moment of history, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire."

"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed," he said. "It is in all of our interest to see the achievement a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."

"The Meds Yeghern is a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people, and we must keep its memory alive in honor of those who were murdered and so that we do not repeat the grave mistakes of the past," Obama said.

Yes, it was "one of the worst atrocities" of the last century. Yes, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed. Yes, it was "a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people." Yes, "we must keep its memory alive."

But that's not good enough. As Laura explains:

Obama's use of Meds Yeghern "is an elegant dodge to avoid using the 'g-word' -- but the substance of what he states about what happened gives no comfort to those who cling to the Turkish official version," says Harvard University's Andras Riedlmayer. "1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and massacred or marched to their death. Despite the passive construction, that assumes intentionality."

Nevertheless, such nuance was not appreciated by the Armenian American lobby group, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which rapped Obama for "disgraceful capitulation to Turkey's threats" and of "offering euphemisms and evasive terminology to characterize this crime against humanity," in a press release Saturday.

I have written about this issue a couple of times:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007); and

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010).

I was critical of Bush, but I've been critical of Obama, too:

I wouldn't describe Obama and those in his administration as deniers, but they're certainly doing much the same thing the previous administration did, namely, refusing to acknowledge publicly that what happened in Armenia was genocide, and all because of those ever-so-delicate, ever-so-important American-Turkish relations, which apparently couldn't survive an admission of truth.

For its part, Turkey has been waging a decades-long campaign to deny the genocide, a shameful refusal not just to take responsibility for one of the most horrendous massacres in history but even to admit that it really happened. And its reaction when challenged, this time as always, suggests a level of collective national immaturity that is truly appalling.

In other words, while I suspect that Obama knows full well that it was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?

Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S. and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives), but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America? Please.

Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the Turks to go fuck themselves. Diplomatically, of course.

Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It was a close vote, 23-22, but the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted yesterday, if I may quote the NYT, "to condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians early in the last century, defying a last-minute plea from the Obama administration to forgo a vote that seemed sure to offend Turkey and jeopardize delicate efforts at Turkish-Armenian reconciliation."

It's a vote I applaud enthusiastically. And not for the first time. Here's what I wrote back in October 2007:

What happened to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1917 was genocide -- an estimated 1.5 million killed, a brutal and systematic process of deportation and slaughter aimed at wiping out the Armenian population -- but you wouldn't know it if you got your history from the Turks, who committed the genocide (now known as the Armenian Genocide, or Holocaust), or from their present-day apologists in the Bush Administration, from Bush and Rice and Gates, the Holocaust deniers who sit at the top of the U.S. government. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution last week, calling what happened to the Armenians what it was, genocide, but the deniers wanted none of it.

I wouldn't describe Obama and those in his administration as deniers, but they're certainly doing much the same thing the previous administration did, namely, refusing to acknowledge publicly that what happened in Armenia was genocide, and all because of those ever-so-delicate, ever-so-important American-Turkish relations, which apparently couldn't survive an admission of truth.

For its part, Turkey has been waging a decades-long campaign to deny the genocide, a shameful refusal not just to take responsibility for one of the most horrendous massacres in history but even to admit that it really happened. And its reaction when challenged, this time as always, suggests a level of collective national immaturity that is truly appalling. In response to the House vote -- which, again, was just yesterday -- the Turkish ambassador to Washington was recalled and the Turking prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, issued the following statement: "We condemn this bill that denounces the Turkish nation of a crime that it has not committed."

Well, it did, whether it wants to admit it or not.

And while I understand the desire to maintain close and friendly relations with Turkey, a valuable ally, there is simply no excuse for the U.S. government, whether it's Bush or Obama in the White House, to play along with, and to lend credence to, such a lie. It might as well deny that slavery ever happened.

Besides, the Turks are bluffing. Do they really want to cut off ties with America? Hardly. They need America, just like they need the West generally, and it's about time their denials were puncutured and they were held to account for one of the darkest events of the last century.

Thankfully, 23 members of the U.S. House of Representatives agree. Not thankfully, there are far too many, including at the highest levels of the government, who are in cahoots with the Turks.

Around the World: Zimbabwe, Belarus, Greece, Russia, and Turkey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This, apparently, is Post #6,000 at The Reaction. I suppose that's a milestone of sorts. Let's use the occasion to do another installment of our Around the World series (which we haven't done in some time):

1) Zimbabwe: "A cholera epidemic is sweeping across Zimbabwe, causing further suffering to millions of people already struggling to survive in a country close to systemic collapse as food shortages and hyperinflation continue to take their toll." It's pretty grim, to say the least -- and, as the BBC notes, it does not even have permission to report from Zimbabwe.

2) Belarus: "Police have arrested dozens of opposition activists across Belarus after a series of protests marking international Human Rights Day." Oh, what a lovely dictatorship. (And such irony: human rights abuses on Human Rights Day.)

3) Greece: "Riot police battled protesters outside Greece's parliament and in Athens suburbs yesterday while opposition socialists called for the conservative government to step down to end the worst civil unrest in decades." It's a complicated situation, but, essentially, students have risen up against the government of conservative Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis in the wake of the killing of a 15-year old boy by police. As the editor of one of the country's leading newspapers put it, the killing "It will quickly become a flag of convenience for anyone who has a grudge against the state, the government, the economic system, foreign powers, capitalism and so on." More here.

4) Russia: "[T]he Kremlin seems to be capitalizing on the economic crisis, exploiting the opportunity to establish more control over financially weakened industries that it has long coveted, particularly those in natural resources." Putin's authoritarian centralization -- and, make no mistake, he's still in charge -- is disturbing, but it's not like the alternative, the rule of the oligarchs and the various other corrupt and criminal elements that dominate Russian society, is terribly appealing either.

5) Turkey: "Amid corruption scandals and stagnating reform, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, praised in Europe as a modernizer, is seeking refuge in nationalist rhetoric, adopting a tougher stance on the Kurds and moving closer to the country's military leaders." It is nationalism, and not so much patriotism, that is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and certainly of the desperate politician seeking to distract public attention away from what really matters. Yet again, and so predictably, it's the glorification of the Self (us) and the vilification of the Other (them). And, in this case, it could put a halt to Turkey's pro-European modernization efforts and lead to further destabilization in northern Iraq (Kurdistan).

HAPPY THANKSGIVING - Tiki - Turkey Style !!!

West Wing turkey pardon and thoughts on Thanksgiving

By LindaBeth

I was a West Wing junkie, so I thought I'd share this charming scene from the episode Shibboleth:

On a less humorous note, I want to share a portion of an article from last year about our continual denial about American history when we celebrate our glossy version of "Thanksgiving Day." I quite like Robert Jensen's suggestion for a "National Day of Atonement"; his reasoning, via Alternet, and I suggest you read it in its entirety:

Of course people often struggle for control over the meaning of symbols and holidays, but typically we engage in such battles when we believe there is some positive aspect of the symbol or holiday worth fighting for.
[...]
But what is positive in the historical events that define Thanksgiving? What tradition are we trying to return to? I have no quarrel with designating a day (or days) that would allow people to take a break from our often manic work routines and appreciate the importance of community, encouraging all of us to be grateful for what we have. But if that is the goal, why yoke it to Thanksgiving Day and a history of celebrating European/white dominance and conquest?

[...]

After years of being constantly annoyed and often angry about the historical denial built into Thanksgiving Day, I published an essay in November 2005 suggesting we replace the feasting with fasting and create a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of indigenous people that is central to the creation of the United States.

Happy thanksgiving to all, and as we give thanks, make a pledge to be honest about our history and to seek out ways to do something about it.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me)

PARIS HILTON - BELLY DANCES ON TURKISH TV

SHE WAS A CELEBRITY JUDGE FOR MISS TURKEY 2008

Stopping by a Middle East news stand

By Carol Gee

(image: sumeja @ StockXchng)

What is going on in the Middle East these days,
I asked myself. I confess that my ignorance about the region is a few weeks old. As I read to catch up with the latest from Aljazeera, I picked up a thread that ties all the stories together. What I learned is that factions of people are upset that certain people are not where they are supposed to be. Or, occasionally, others are pleased to see strangers where they usually have not been for some time. (All quotes are from Aljazeera):

Turkey and the Kurds -- shooting at each other has gone on for some time now. But the actions of Kurdish separatists, who would like to establish an intact and sovereign Kurdistan, are now being actively challenged by Turkey, with the help of the U.S. These new developments have proved to be a hornet's nest of complications for the United States diplomatic forces, trying to get the Iraqi government factions to reconcile and move forward. The headline says, "Turkish forces launch Iraq raid." To quote:

Some 300 Turkish troops have crossed over into northern Iraq in an overnight operation hunting Kurdish separatist fighters.

Reports on Tuesday said that the troops had already pulled out, but not before their presence overshadowed a surprise visit by the US secretary of state to Kirkuk in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region.

Condoleezza Rice was snubbed by the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan region in protest against America's apparent helping role in the military action.

. . . Meanwhile, US military commanders and diplomats in Iraq said they did not know Turkey was sending warplanes to bomb in northern Iraq until the jets had already crossed the border.

Americans have been providing Turkey with intelligence to go after Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq.

The Haj in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- a Sunni country and a Shia country were at odds in the recent past. But they have been having more frequent interactions as part of a larger Middle East family of nations. And the President of Iran is now making his own pilgrimage to Mecca in the heart of Saudi Arabia. The headline is, "Ahmadinejad takes part in the Hajj;" and to quote:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, joined millions of Muslims on Mount Arafat, east of Mecca, to mark the spiritual high point of the Hajj. He is the first Iranian leader to take part in the annual Muslim pilgrimage. Ahmadinejad is attending the Hajj at the invitation of King Abdullah, the Saudi king.

. . . Last month, Ahmadinejad publicly rebuked King Abdullah for Saudi Arabia's participation in a meeting in the US city of Annapolis aimed at finding peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

But he also became the first president of Iran to attend the end-of-year annual summit of Gulf Arab leaders that was held in Qatar earlier this month.

Israel and Palestine -- continued killing and territorial conflict. Attacks by each side against the other, demands for recognition of rights, incursions into the other's territories, all continue to plague the peace process that has lagged behind for decades. "Hamas leader renews truce offer" is the headline. To quote from the story:

Islamic Jihad, a group much smaller than Hamas, has been responsible for most of the attacks since Hamas seized total control of Gaza last June from forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and leader of Fatah party.

"We stand by our original offer for a truce based on reciprocation and an end to attacks by all sides," Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, told Al Jazeera in a phone interview.

"Our position has not changed. We are ready to commit to a truce but Israel would also have to simultaneously commit to stopping its raids and assassinations against the Palestinians."

Earlier reports suggested that Ismail Haniya, prime minister of the Gaza-based Hamas government, made a new truce offer through the Israeli media in a telephone conversation with Suleiman al-Shafi, an Israeli journalist.

Palestinians and Israelis -- conflicted over settling Jerusalem. The so-called "two-state solution" still seems very far away. The factions have split into smaller and smaller groups, and small pieces of land are still in dispute. Neither side has been able to step back and see how their rigid stances are perceived by their opponents. Negotiators always seem bound by worries about being seen as not rigid enough by their own constituencies. The story is headlined, "Israel 'examines' new settlement." To quote:

Israel has said it is examining a plan to construct a new Jewish neighbourhood in occupied east Jerusalem, weeks after sparking criticism for expanding another settlement in the city.

. . . Two weeks ago, Israel invited bids for more than 300 new housing units in another settlement at Jebel Abu Ghneim in occupied and annexed east Jerusalem. Har Homa, as the settlement is known to Israelis, is built on land confiscated by Israel.

. . . Palestinians want the eastern part of Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967 and later annexed, for the capital of a future state.

. . . In its 40 years of control over east Jerusalem, Israel has built new neighbourhoods there that are now home to 180,000 Israelis.

Update: The new headline, just in, reads, "Israel backs off on settlement plan." Good news! Tough choices need to be made by all of these conflicted parties in the Middle East.

The United States is also obliged to make tough choices. As long as our military forces occupy Iraq, the factions will not have incentive to work to reconcile themselves. We need to leave them to it. We need to begin talking to Iran in the process, who can be enlisted in solutions because of potential interest in a peaceful Iraq. And most of all, a strong, concerted and skillful U.S. initiative towards a peaceful settlement between Israel and Palestine will go a long way towards bringing peace to the entire region. The establishment of Palestinians in a contiguous area that can sustain a united population, and a peaceful settlement of Israelis in a secure area to which they have an acknowledged right, is the dreamed-for "two state solution." The U.S. owes such a big effort to the region. Goodness knows we have made such a mess. We really need to clean up after ourselves with more good offices than have been forthcoming so far. All this may have to wait for a new president. The current leopards are probably not going to change their spots.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest)

The Turkish-Kurd situation grows worse

By Edward Copeland

The PKK ambushed Turkish soldiers, killing 12 and escalating the Turkey-Iraq border tensions even further. Aside from the obvious tragedies of such an event, what's going to be worse is that incompetent congressional leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow the GOP to blame it all on the Democrats at the same time that most of the media continue to ignore that Dubya has turned a blind eye to attacks on the PKK within Iraq by both Turkey and Iran for years:

A brazen ambush by Kurdish militants that left at least 12 Turkish soldiers dead touched off a major escalation in Turkey-Iraq tensions on Sunday, bringing fears that Turkey would retaliate immediately by sending troops across the border into Iraq. But Turkey’s prime minister said he delayed a decision, after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice personally intervened.

Yes, it's Condi to the rescue, because she has such a great track record in diplomacy. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he wouldn't invade right away because Condi asked him to "allow us a few days."

Of course, because Iraq wasn't a big enough mess as it is, while the incompetent members of Dubyaland rush to try to calm things down, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, expressed reluctance to hand over Kurdish militants the way Turkey is demanding:

We will not hand any Kurdish man to Turkey, even a Kurdish cat.

The coming war in Kurdistan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times:

Turkey’s Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to authorize sending troops into northern Iraq to confront Kurdish rebels in hide-outs there, sending an angry message to the Baghdad government and its Washington sponsor. But Turkey, a member of NATO, made it clear that it would not immediately carry out the resolution.

The 507-to-19 vote was the culmination of months of frustration here with the United States, which has criticized Kurdish rebels who attack Turkey from Iraq but has failed to get its Kurdish allies in Iraq to act against them. President Bush on Wednesday reiterated American wishes for a diplomatic solution.

The vote to authorize sending troops, which Turkish officials say gives them up to a year to take action, was, in essence, a blunt request for the United States to acknowledge Turkey’s status as an important ally in a troubled and complex region.

Some will argue that this is precisely why Congress shouldn't proceed with the Armenian Genocide resolution -- that is, to maintain good relations with Turkey -- but this was going to happen anyway, tension and conflict in the region dating back to well before the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

A diplomatic solution is, of course, desirable, but that would likely require the U.S. to put pressure both on friendly Kurds in the north of Iraq and on the inept Maliki government in Baghdad, as well as for Maliki to work closely both with Turkey and with his own Kurdish allies. Even then, though, one wonders if a peaceful resolution is possible, given the strident communist-nationalist aims (and violent means) of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The establishment of an independent and sovereign Kurdistan could blunt those aims, and could be the main component of a peaceful resolution, but it seems unlikely that the PKK would agree to the terms of such an arrangement.

Regardless, although Turkey may take no immediate military action, the situation in Iraq could soon get a lot messier -- and a lot more bloody.

Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What happened to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1917 was genocide -- an estimated 1.5 million killed, a brutal and systematic process of deportation and slaughter aimed at wiping out the Armenian population -- but you wouldn't know it if you got your history from the Turks, who committed the genocide (now known as the Armenian Genocide, or Holocaust), or from their present-day apologists in the Bush Administration, from Bush and Rice and Gates, the Holocaust deniers who sit at the top of the U.S. government. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution last week, calling what happened to the Armenians what it was, genocide, but the deniers wanted none of it:

A House committee voted late this afternoon to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey in World War I as an act of genocide, rebuffing an intense campaign by the White House and warnings from Turkey’s government that the vote would gravely strain relations with the United States.

The vote by the House Foreign Relations Committee was nonbinding and so largely symbolic, but its consequences could reach far beyond bilateral relations and spill into the war in Iraq.

Turkish officials and lawmakers warned that if the resolution is approved by the full House, they would reconsider supporting the American war effort, which includes permission to ship essential supplies through Turkey and northern Iraq.

Mr. Bush appeared on the South Lawn of the White House before the vote and implored the House not to take up the issue, only to have the majority of the committee disregard his warning at the end of the day, by a vote of 27 to 21.

"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Mr. Bush said in remarks that, reflecting official American policy, carefully avoided the use of the word genocide. "This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."

How about being honest about that "tragic suffering," then? Why avoid the truth? Why deny it? Why show such cowardice? Because Bush needs Turkey -- because of the Iraq War and Occupation and the War on Terror. And, to secure that support, it seems, he is willing (as his chief Cabinet secretaries are willing, as many in his party are willing) to help prop up Turkey's long-standing campaign of denial (of accountability, of responsibility, of the truth -- truth it finds so unpleasant as to warrant such decades-long propaganda).

Bush himself referred to "these historic mass killings," but is that not genocide? Apparently not. It seems it's only genocide if it's called genocide, if the label is formally applied, even in a non-binding House resolution. I may call it genocide, you may call it genocide, historians may call it genocide, certainly the Armenians call it genocide, but it's apparently not genocide if nothing formal is declared. So Bush refuses to call it genocide, and tries to persuade the House not to call it genocide, even though he describes it as genocide and probably knows it was genocide. And why? Again, because Turkey doesn't want him to -- and, it seems, because, kowtowing to Turkey is the name of the game if you want its support, the support of "a key ally," kowtowing meaning playing along with Turkey's revisionism, accepting a role as an organ of Turkish propaganda.

This is what George W. Bush has become -- an organ of Turkish propaganda, a denier of genocide.

With all else that Bush has done that has been reprehensible, far too much to list here, this must stand as one of the lowlights of an appalling presidency.

**********

Writing in the L.A. Times today, historian Niall Ferguson (who leans right) argues that, based on the evidence, what the Turks did to the Armenians was, in fact, genocide. Yet, realpolitik triumphant, he finds fault with the resolution -- given the possible weakening of American relations with Turkey.

His concerns are very much Bush's: Most American supplies to Iraq pass through Turkey, Turkey is a good friend (an Islamic one, at that), an unfriendly Turkey will be more likely to strike Kurdish separatist bases in northern Iraq.

And so, again, the proper response is to support Turkey's lie? I understand the realities of the situation, but it seems to me that the U.S. would do better to engage with Turkey from a position of strength: We are your friend, but we condemn what you did to the Armenians 80 years ago, and we're calling it genocide.

Yes -- 80 years ago. The genocide was certainly not committed by the present-day Turkey. And so the point is not to say that you did it but that they did it. Germans have mostly taken responsibility for what they did, other Germans, just a generation or two back -- why can't the Turks, for whom is was not so much a previous generation as a different regime?

Ferguson may be right that calling it genocide won't change things: "My sense is that all the resolutions in the world about past genocides will do precisely nothing to stop the next one." No, but language matters -- words matter, labels matter. And being honest about the past, being truthful about the darkest periods of human history, is important as we struggle with the same sort of horrors today, in North Korea and Darfur and Burma and elsewhere, and the same sort of horrors tomorrow.

**********

The pressure from Turkey continues in the wake of the House committee's vote:

The chief of the Turkish armed forces has warned that military relations with the United States would take a negative turn if Congress approved the Armenian genocide resolution that was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the armed forces chief, was quoted by the Turkish newspaper Milliyet on Sunday as saying that the resolution, which condemns the killings of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks beginning in 1915 as an act of genocide, has caused considerable disappointment in Turkey.

General Buyukanit called the passage of the resolution by the committee "sad and sorrowful," in light of the strong links the two NATO allies have shared.

Further, if it were to be passed by the full House of Representatives, "Our military relations with the U.S. would never be as they were in the past," he said.

"We could not explain this to our public," he said. "The U.S., in that respect, has shot itself in the foot."

How about explaining to your public what you did to the Armenians?

You call what the House committee did "sad and sorrowful," but what about what you did to the Armenians? What words do you use to describe that?

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. should be strong enough, and so committed to the truth, to tell Turkey to fuck off. And yet, from Bush and the deniers of genocide, all we get is acquiescence. So desperate are they for support, they are willing to agree to spread the lies that the Turkish government has been telling for decades. It's like calling black slavery in the U.S. a "human resources plan," or the Nazi extermination of Jews a "population-control project". It's bullshit.

And so top Turkish officials like Gen. Buyukanit issue their threats and all Bush and Rice and Gates can say is yes, Turkey, of course, whatever you want, Turkey, feed us the lines, we're good friends, tell us what to do.

It's called extortion. Which seems to be how Bush is conducting his foreign policy these days -- giving or receiving, whatever, it's all so much corruption.

**********

Also -- The U.S. has "shot itself in the foot"? How repugnant a way to put it.

Turkey killed a million and a half Armenians!

**********

Thankfully, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has committed to push ahead with the resolution. It deserves a full vote on the floor of the House, as well as a full vote in the Senate.

History cannot be changed, but the truth about what happened even so long ago can allow us to come to terms with the past even as we deal with the present and prepare for the future. In this case, that truth must win out over Turkish propaganda.

No matter the timidity and cowardice of Bush and the other deniers of genocide.

Bush denies the Holocaust

By Capt. Fogg

It seems that President Bush would like the US to become an official holocaust denier. Not that holocaust, one of the other ones: the 1915 killings of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks. Both Gates and Condoleezza spoke with CNN this morning after advising Congress to give in to threats by Turkish President Gul and refrain from passing a bill which although it would not affect foreign policy, would call the genocide a genocide. Turkey of course, has been spending a lot of money in grants to US universities in exchange for downplaying their responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of Armenian deaths and money in America is truth.

It seems we need the Turks to continue our forever war in Iraq and the dire consequences threatened by the Turks have the administration all acquiver. Bush has demonstrated his true nature this morning and his true nature looks a lot like an over aged woman in pink hot pants lurking under a street light.

Turkish presidential election update & correction

By AviShalom

Thanks to a comment at an earlier Fruits & Votes thread, I can now clarify where things stand in the process of electing a president in Turkey. If I understand correctly, the newly elected parliament must still attempt to elect a president, because the term of the current president has expired and thus it is not constitutionally permissible to wait for possible voter approval in October of the referendum on direct presidential elections.

The moderately Islamist ruling AKP again may put forward Abdullah Güll, the candidate that the opposition blocked in previous rounds of voting. It was the stalemate over electing a president in parliament that trigged the early parliamentary elections just concluded.

With the AKP majority now reduced, it could again be impossible for parliament to elect a president. However, failure to do so could again trigger an early election for parliament, so I would expect the opposition to back down, given the huge surge in votes obtained by the AKP last Sunday.

If parliament does elect a president, then the first direct presidential election would not be held until 2014 (assuming the president elected by this new parliament serves a full term and that voters approve the referendum), because the constitution currently provides for a seven-year term.

More on Turkey in several posts at Fruits & Votes.

Turkish ruling party gains in votes, declines in seats

By AviShalom

In parliamentary elections Sunday, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has won with a much improved share of the vote compared to 2002: around 47%, which is the highest share for a Turkish party in over forty years. (News sources: The Guardian and the BBC.)

This near-majority of the vote compares woith only 34.2% in 2002.

However, the AKP has actually lost seats, and will now have 340 (61.8%). In 2002, it won 363, which put it at 66% of the total and only four seats short of the two thirds needed to elect a president. (It was the failure of parliament to elect a president that triggered this election's being called a few months early.)

Two secular parties collectively performed much better in 2007 than in 2002, combining for 183 seats, based on current estimates: Republican People's Party (112 seats, compared to 178 in 2002) and the Nationalist Action Party (71, up from 0). Independents appear to have won 27.

Of course, the AKP's seat decline despite large vote gain is entirely attributable to the better coordination of the secular parties and independent candidacies. In 2002, only the AKP and the Republican People's Party won any seats, aside from independents (of which there were only 9).

Turkey uses a districted list "PR" system with a 10% threshold. I put "PR" (proportional representation) in quotation marks, because many of the districts elect few seats (more seats per district-->more proportional result) and thus regional vote patterns can greatly distort the relationship of seats to national vote totals. More importantly, the threshold for a party to win a seat is applied nationally, despite the otherwise regional process of allocating seats. In Turkey, even if a party is the largest party in a given district, it will win no seats at all if it did not have 10% of the total aggregate national vote. (It is the only electoral system of its kind that I know of, and its design is of dubious democratic standards.)

Despite the setback in parliament, the far more significant result of this election is that it reveals that the AKP was well served by the confrontations over attempting to elect a president and the struggles over Islamism (represented, in moderate form, by the AKP) and economic liberalism (also represented by the AKP) against its more secular but also nationalist opposition. And it suggests a likely affirmative answer to my question as to whether the party could win a national majority in a direct presidential election. The referendum on the constitutional amendments that would establish direct election was recently cleared by the Constitutional Court and is due in October.

(Cross-posted at Fruits & Votes.)