Mediaboss Marketing

The observers sent by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, or ODIHR, of which I am the director, spent the month leading up to and including referendum day following and assessing virtually all aspects of the referendum. The assessment contained in the preliminary statement the observers issued Monday identified significant shortcomings. The public reaction to that assessment on the part of the Turkish authorities, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been harsh, and has questioned the role of observers. This is unfortunate, as the purpose of the statement, and of ODIHR's mandate in general, is to assist OSCE participating states, including Turkey, in improving their electoral processes.

Our preliminary statement points to where improvements are needed.

The fact that this broad, complex set of constitutional amendments was reduced to a "Yes" or "No" vote -- counter to good practice for referendums -- is only the most obvious example.

Less obvious, perhaps, but more troubling are those issues we identified that ultimately tilted the playing field in favor of one side in the contest -- the "Yes" campaign.

This was the case, for example, in the decision as to who was allowed to participate fully in the campaign. Just 10 of the 92 registered parties in the country met the legal eligibility requirements to campaign, and civil society organizations were shut out of the process. Leading national officials, including Erdogan, as well as many more at the local level, actively campaigned for the "Yes" side, while efforts by "No" campaigners were obstructed.

This was also the case when it came to coverage of the referendum campaign in the media. The laws governing the process do not provide for equal coverage of the two sides but give preference to the President and the ruling party in the allocation of free airtime. One regulation passed under the state of emergency, introduced after the failed coup last July, removed sanctions on media outlets for biased coverage, sending a clear signal the principles of impartiality and balance in reporting didn't matter. Our media monitoring results showed the "Yes" campaign dominated the coverage.

The campaign rhetoric used by some senior national and local officials equated "No" supporters with terrorist sympathizers, while those same "No" campaigners in numerous cases faced police interventions or violent scuffles at their events.

The political environment for the entire process was heavily influenced by the state of emergency that remains in effect, put in place following the failed coup.

It is clear that governments in all democratic societies have the responsibility to provide for the security of those living in their countries and of the democratic system itself. That the Turkish authorities had a duty to take measures following the failed coup is not in question.

At the same time, a balance has to be found that ensures fundamental freedoms at the center of truly democratic systems are protected. While there had been undue limitations in the Turkish Constitution even before the events of July, the freedoms of assembly and speech, for example, were even further restricted under the extraordinary state-of-emergency powers -- particularly as a result of measures introduced by provincial governors.

The assessment by our observation mission, together with observers from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, highlighted these and other areas where the referendum process fell short of OSCE commitments and other international standards for democratic elections as well as of Turkey's own laws.

In about eight weeks we will release our final report on the referendum, including not only an assessment of the process in greater depth but also a set of recommendations on how electoral processes can be improved. As in any country, whether the Turkish authorities consider following up on these recommendations comes down to political will.

The simple answer to this criticism is that election observation has an important place in promoting the principles and standards that Turkey has signed onto as an OSCE participating state. It is my hope that, given this, our assessment will ultimately be taken by the Turkish authorities for what it is -- an effort in good faith by our office to help improve electoral processes in Turkey.

This is the mandate ODIHR has been given by all 57 countries in the OSCE, a mandate that we follow in our observation activities across the entire OSCE region.

Read the rest here:
Erdogan's criticism of election observers is deeply troubling - CNN

Russian President Vladimir Putin has congratulated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a referendum that will expand his powers, the Kremlin and Turkish state media said on April 18.

The Kremlin said that Putin phoned Erdogan and congratulated him on the "successful conduct" the referendum.

A day earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump congratulated Erdogan on his "victory" in the referendum, which is being challenged by the opposition and has been greeted coolly by the European Union.

Turkish media said Putin and Erdogan emphasized the importance of normalizing ties and maintaining a cease-fire in Syria that was jointly brokered by Ankara and Moscow earlier this year.

The Kremlin said that the cease-fire and Syrian peace talks need to be reinforced.

It also said both sides called for an unprejudiced investigation into the suspected chemical attack in Syria earlier this month that killed more than 80 people.

Ankara accuses President Bashar al-Assad's government of carrying out the attack with the deadly nerve agent sarin.

Russia and Assad's government have alleged government bombs could have hit rebel chemical weapons stocks or that the suspected attack was staged -- claims that the United States and other countries have dismissed.

The rest is here:
Putin Congratulates Turkey's Erdogan Over Vote Expanding Powers - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Exclusive: Turkish President Erdogans push toward nationalistic authoritarianism has an important ally in the political arm of the neo-fascist Grey Wolves, reports Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

All but one of Turkeys major opposition parties denounced Sundays referendum to create an authoritarian new presidential system as marred by fraud and as a threat to the countrys political freedoms. The exception was the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), founded in 1969 to promote a neo-fascist, ultranationalist program. Its fortunes bear close watching as a clue to Turkeys political direction.

The MHP and its paramilitary wing, the Grey Wolves, were among the leaders of Turkeys death squad violence against leftist intellectuals, academics, and Kurdish activists in the 1970s and 1980s. In return, right-wing state security forces protected their organized criminal operations, including drug trafficking. One associate of the Grey Wolves, Mehmet Ali Agca, was convicted of trying to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981.

A New York Times reporter at that time described the MHPs followers as a xenophobic, fanatically nationalist, neofascist network steeped in violence. The partys U.S.-trained leader helped execute a successful military coup in 1960, and by 1980 was implicated in smuggling heroin into Western Europe.

Turkish Prime Minster (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan broke the back of that deep state alliance of secret intelligence, criminal, and right-wing forces through mass purges and indictments in 2008. Last year, however, he made up with many of these former opponents, making them allies of his own increasingly authoritarian government and his military adventures in Syria and Iraq.

One winner in that realignment was the MHP. Like the National Front in France, the MHP has shed many of its extremist positions in recent years to join the mainstream of respectable politics in Turkey.

Still, its racist roots were exposed to full public view in 2015, when Grey Wolves members attacked a South Korean tourist in Istanbul and hung banners saying We crave Chinese blood to protest Beijings crackdown on Turkic separatists. The MHPs leader, Devlet Bahceli, defended his street supporters, saying how are you going to differentiate between Korean and Chinese? They both have slanted eyes. Does it really matter?

As an advocate of ethnic Turkish supremacy, moreover, the MHP remains violently opposed to making any concessions to Kurdish separatists, and denounced Erdogan for starting peace talks with them in 2013.

Allies Against the Kurds

Two years later, Erdogan reversed course and began waging total war against the Kurds, both at home and in Syria. That set the stage for a tacit alliance between his ruling party, the AKP, and the MHP.

Grey Wolves thugs attacked offices of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, which supports the rights of Kurds and other political minorities. Senior MHP officials, along with members of their youth organization, also joined the fighting in Syria to support ethnic Turks against the Assad government and Syrian Kurds. Remarked one Turkish journalist, The ultranationalists are the most fertile pool for secret operations.

Even with his opponents cowering or imprisoned under a state of emergency declared after a failed military coup last year, Erdogan needed the MHP, which holds 36 seats in the 550-member parliament, to win approval of the constitutional amendments at issue in Sundays referendum. MHP officials reportedly hope to earn seats in the presidents new cabinet.

MHP leader Bahceli hailed Sundays vote to grant President Erdogan immense new powers as a very significant achievement and the final word for the future of the great Turkish nation. The head of the Grey Wolves vowed that his followers would take up our arms and fight if necessary to defend the outcome.

Fighting may indeed become inevitable if opponents, backed by foreign election observers, continue to contest the referendum vote.

Even if they are demoralized in their defeat, Erdogans project will arouse significant resistance among the various No camps, comments Steven Cook, a Mideast expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. The predictable result will be the continuation of the purge that has been going on since even before last Julys failed coup including more arrests and the additional delegitimization of Erdogans parliamentary opposition. All of this will further destabilize Turkish politics.

It remains to be seen how the Trump administration will deal with Turkeys increasingly authoritarian regime and aggressive foreign policy. President Trumps first national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, took more than half a million dollars from a pro-Erdogan Turkish businessman to promote Ankaras interests. Flynn was also joined by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes for a private meeting at Trump Hotel in Washington with Foreign Minister Mevlt avu?o?lu on Jan. 18.

More important than secret lobbying activity, however, is the strategic importance of U.S. access to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, from which U.S. warplanes launch attacks in Syria. The base also houses some 50 hydrogen bombs for NATO, giving Washington all the more reason to stay friendly with the Turkish government.

But if Erdogan and his new allies among Turkeys ultranationalist right continue to make new enemies at home and abroad, the Trump administration will need to rethink the viability of continuing to rely on Ankara to make possible continued military intervention in the Middle East.

Jonathan Marshall is author of Turkeys Revival of a Dirty Deep State, Turkeys Nukes: A Sum of All Fears, and Coups Inside NATO: A Disturbing History.

See original here:
Erdogan's Neo-Fascist Turkish Allies - Consortium News

Its too easy to conclude that Israel and Turkey are like two oxen pulling the same plow

Its a common mistake, and an entertaining one, to make comparisons between the Israeli and Turkish governments to compare human-rights violations in each country; to compare the personal ambitions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to those of Recep Tayyip Erdogan; to see a parallel between Israels treatment of its Arab minority and Turkeys war on its Kurdish minority, and to see a commonality in each leaders attacks on the media.

And as if it were vital for Israel to have a sister state, its too easy to conclude that Israel and Turkey are like two oxen pulling the same plow. Two nationalist states with fascist and racist tendencies, in which religion is an inseparable part of national identity. Two states that strive to cultivate a facade of democracy, or at least to portray their violations of democratic values as deriving from a strategy of self-defense against internal and external forces of evil.

In fact, however, there are vast differences between Israel and Turkey, and between Erdogan and Netanyahu. These lie not in the scope of the two leaders ambitions, but in the character of their respective publics.

Sundays constitutional referendum, which ended in a narrow victory for Erdogan (and which faces a legal challenge) highlighted one of the main differences: Turkeys constitution gives citizens an active role in shaping the system of government and defining the states ideology, and not only during elections.

History teaches that Turks, in contrast to Israelis, are willing to fight, sometimes violently, against anyone they perceive as harming the moral foundations of the state. Thats what happened during the Gezi Park demonstrations in 2013 and in the civil uprisings that preceded the military coups of 1960, 1971 and 1980. In Israel, no protest has ever risen to the level of an uprising, not the 400,000-strong demonstration following the massacres in Lebanons Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982 and not the cottage cheese protests against the high cost of living in 2011.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

This email address has already registered for this newsletter.

Yet despite these differences, the Turkish referendum reveals one dangerous development thats very similar to whats happening in Israel. The concepts of patriotism and the nation have become identified with the leader, not with the relevant ideas. During Erdogans propaganda campaign in favor of the constitutional amendments, he strove to portray his opponents as traitors to the state and religion, genuine heretics; as supporters of terrorist organizations; as agents of Western countries that want to oust him; and as people who have forgotten what it means to be patriotic.

Anyone who isnt willing to give Erdogan supreme power to run the state as he pleases is undermining the nation. Anyone who opposes his control of the judicial system is no patriot and abets terror. And anyone hostile to his ambition to reign without term limits, or to his takeover of the media, is seeking to harm Turkey. The vocabulary Erdogan uses against his rivals is very similar to that of Netanyahu and his associates, who identify love of the homeland with love of the leader.

Netanyahus delegitimization of the left and center-left are essentially no different from Erdogans delegitimization of the Kurds and the opposition. True, Israel isnt yet arresting political leaders on charges of subversion or attempting a coup, but the ideological groundwork has already been laid. Just as Erdogan ousted leading liberals from his party, Netanyahu has pushed out anyone considered too moderate for his nationalist tastes, or who undermined the personality cult he has built around himself.

That is how one builds unassailable control. In this manner, Erdogan and Netanyahu have eliminated the possibility of a political heir and hollowed out any ideological or moral discussion that might present an alternative to the leaders ideology, or to his monopoly over that ideology, of all content.

And this is where Netanyahus clear advantage over Erdogan lies: Not only does he not need to fear a public uprising, but he doesnt need a constitution to ratify his exclusive control. He formulates the states values himself, without any need for a referendum, and he has already inculcated the distinction between enemy and patriot. Erdogan can only look on with envy.

Want to enjoy 'Zen' reading - with no ads and just the article? Subscribe today

Read the rest here:
Erdogan can only envy Netanyahu - Turkey - Haaretz - Haaretz

The Turkish Election Commission has yet to release its official results, and the opposition promised to contest at least a third of the votes cast. But according to the state-run Anadolu Agency, with 99.8% of the ballots counted, Erdogan appeared poised to win with 51.4% of voters casting ballots in his favor.

A total of 47.5 million votes were cast, Anadolu said.

Supreme Electoral Council President Sadi Guven also confirmed that the "yes" votes had prevailed, according to unofficial results. He said official results would arrive in about 10 days, after any objections had been considered.

Voters were asked to endorse an 18-article reform package put forward by the ruling Justice and Development Party that would replace the current system of parliamentary democracy with a powerful executive presidency.

"God willing, these results will be the beginning of a new era in our country," Erdogan said at a news conference Sunday night, explaining that unofficial totals indicated the "yes" votes had prevailed in the referendum by about 1.3 million ballots, while Anadolu pegged it at closer to 1.14 million.

Several groups fighting in Syria tweeted their congratulations to Turkey, and according to Anadolu, Azerbaijani, Palestinian, Qatari, Pakistani, Hungarian, Macedonian, Saudi, Sudanese and Kenyan leaders passed along congratulatory messages to Turkey's Foreign Ministry.

Shortly before Prime Minister Binali Yldrm declared a victory for Erdogan, thousands converged in celebration at the Ankara headquarters of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, that Erdogan founded. The revelers danced, sang, chanted, lit flares, honked their car horns and waved Turkish flags along with white flags saying, "Evet" -- Turkish for yes -- which appeared to be the way the majority of voters cast their ballots.

Many in attendance saw the referendum's result as an important message for the world, not just the nation. Wasin Yalcin, 24, said the vote represented "a new hope for us to get rid of foreign forces," while Yusuf Basaran, 20, said he believed "Europe's spine has cracked. This referendum will be the most effective thing in the rebirth of the Ottoman Empire."

Added Aysel Can, a member of the AKP's women's branch, "For a strong Islamic state, for a strong Middle East, Turkey had to switch to this executive presidency system. This is a message to the world to shut up; Turkey is getting stronger. America has to know this, too. We are the voice, we are the ears, we are everything for the Middle East."

Erdogan called Yldrm and the leaders of the right-wing National Movement and Great Unity parties to offer "congratulations for the referendum victory" before the final vote tally was announced, according to Anadolu.

Yildirim later took the stage at AKP headquarters in Ankara to herald a win for the "yes" vote. He said those who voted yes and those who voted no remain one, and now the country will look to improve the economy, expedite development and fight its foreign and domestic enemies.

"No one should have an offended or broken heart," the prime minister said. "There's no stopping. We will continue our path. We will continue marching on from where we left."

The opposition took issue with the results, saying the country's electoral authority had decided to "change the rules in the middle of the game." The High Electoral Board announced it would not accept ballots that were missing ballot commission stamps. But the board changed course after voting was underway, saying it would accept unstamped ballots "unless they are proven to have been brought from outside."

The opposition said this would affect the legitimacy of the vote and called for a partial recount of about 37% of the votes, said Erdal Aksunger of the Republican People's Party, or CHP. He left the door open to challenging a higher percentage of the ballots.

"The High Electoral Board has changed the rules after the voting started. There is a clear clause in electoral law saying unstamped ballots will be invalid and the High Electoral Board issued its notice in compliance with this law," CHP deputy chairman Bulent Tezcan said.

Later, CHP leader Kemal Klcdaroglu said in a news conference, "On what grounds do you declare these valid? ... You should not change the rules in the middle of the game. ... This is not right. We will never accept this."

Guven of the Supreme Electoral Council said the board has made similar decisions in the past. He said the board made the decision before results began coming in.

"Due to the complaints of non-stamped votes being given -- with the request from the representative of AKP -- our committee decided unless there is proof that they came from outside, we decided to accept non-stamped ballots and envelopes (as) valid," he said.

Erdogan, who cast his vote in Istanbul amid tight security, said he hoped Turks would make the "expected" choice.

Earlier in the day, three people were reported to have died after an exchange of gunfire near a polling station in the southeastern province of Diyarbakr.

A violent argument erupted at a polling place in the village of Yabanard. Two men, age 68 and 32, were shot after two families got into an argument, Anadolu reported.

As a minibus transported the wounded men to Siverek Public Hospital, it was attacked by people with guns and stones. Another villager was injured. All three victims, who shared the same last name, later died, the news agency reported.

If passed, the measures will represent the biggest constitutional upheaval in the country since its foundation in 1923 after the demise of the Ottoman Empire.

They would cement Erdogan's grip on a country whose divisions have deepened since a failed coup attempt in July that ended with the deaths of more than 250 people and led to the imposition of a fierce crackdown on dissent.

Those who support the reforms believe they will kick-start a lethargic economy and stabilize a nation dealing with the resurgence of a 30-year conflict with militants from the Kurdistan Workers' Party. But opponents argue the proposals will lead to the formation of a constitutional dictatorship.

If Erdogan prevails in the official election results, his grip on power would be considerably tightened. Term limits for the presidency would be reset and, if he wins elections in 2019 and 2024, he could be in power until 2029.

Critics say the clampdown has gone beyond the supporters of the coup and was designed to silence dissent in the run-up to the referendum.

CNN's Hande Atay Alam and Deborah Bloom contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Turkey referendum: Erdogan declares victory - CNN.com