Ian Traynor, Europe editor The Guardian,
Wednesday February 27 2008
Turkey is engaged in a bold and profound attempt to rewrite the basis for Islamic sharia law while also officially reinterpreting the Qur'an for the modern age.
The exercise in reforming Islamic jurisprudence, sponsored by the modernising and mildly Islamic government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, is being seen as an iconoclastic campaign to establish a 21st century form of Islam, fusing Muslim beliefs and tradition with European and western philosophical methods and principles.
The result, say experts following the ambitious experiment, could be to diminish Muslim discrimination against women, banish some of the brutal penalties associated with Islamic law, such as stoning and amputation, and redefine Islam as a modern, dynamic force in the large country that pivots between east and west, leaning into the Middle East while aspiring to join the European Union.
A team of reformist Islamic scholars at Ankara University, acting under the auspices of the Diyanet or Directorate of Religious Affairs, the government body which oversees the country's 8,000 mosques and appoints imams, is said to be close to concluding a "reinterpretation" of parts of the Hadith, the collection of thousands of aphorisms and comments said to derive from the prophet Muhammad and which form the basis of Islamic jurisprudence or sharia law. "One of the team doing the revision said they are nearly finished," said Mustafa Akyol, an Istanbul commentator who reflects the thinking of the liberal camp in Erdogan's governing AK party. "They have problems with the misogynistic hadith, the ones against women. They may delete some from the collection, declaring them not authentic. That would be a very bold step. Or they may just add footnotes, saying they should be understood from a different historical context."
Fadi Hakura, a Turkey expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, described the project as an attempt to make Turkish Sunni Islam "fully compatible with contemporary social and moral values.
"They see this not as a revolution, but as a return to the original Islam, away from the excessive conservatism that has stymied all reforms for the last few centuries. It's somewhat akin to the Christian reformation, although not the same."
Under the guidance of Ali Bardokoglu, the liberal Islamic scholar who heads the religious directorate and was appointed by Erdogan, the Ankara theologians are writing a new five-volume "exegesis" of the Qur'an, taking the sacred text apart forensically, rooting it in its time and place, and redefining its message to and relevance for Muslims today. They are also ditching some of the Hadith, sayings ascribed to and comments on the prophet collected a couple of hundred years after his death.
A Roman Catholic Jesuit expert on Turkey and Islam, Felix Koerner, is working with the Ankara professors, reportedly schooling them in the history of western religious and philosophical change and how to apply the lessons of historical Christian reform movements to modern Islam. "This is really a synthesis of modern European critical thought and Muslim Ottoman Koranic tradition," said Koerner. "There is also a political agenda. With this government there is more confidence in these modern theologians."
Erdogan insists his AK party, in a country that is constitutionally secularist, is a Turkish Muslim equivalent of a European Christian democratic party - traditionalist, conservative, based on religious values, but democratic, tolerant, and liberal. With Spain and the Zapatero government, he is pushing an "Alliance of Civilisations" aimed at a rapprochement between the Muslim and western worlds. After years of fighting the militantly secularist Turkish establishment, he has just succeeded in lifting the ban on Islamic headscarves for girls in higher education. His many opponents decry it as part of Turkey's slide away from secularism down the slippery slope of Islamism.
Sources say the Islamic reform project is so ambitious and so fundamental it will take years to complete, but that it is already paying dividends - abolition of the death penalty, a campaign against honour killings, and the training and appointment of several hundred women as imams.
At a glance
The Hadith are narrations of the life of the prophet Muhammad and his companions and are considered an important source of material on religious practice, law, history and biography. Hadith relate what the prophet said, did or liked. Most Muslims consider the Hadith to be an essential addition to and clarification of the Qur'an. In Islamic jurisprudence the holy book contains guidelines about the behaviour expected from Muslims but there are no specific rules on many matters. Hadith influence around 90% of sharia, or Islamic law, and the most controversial ones concern the violent punishments meted out to adulterers and apostates, the role and treatment of women and jihad.Riazat Butt
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Manchester am Bosporus
Die Türkei feiert ihr »Wirtschaftswunder«. Vor allem der Werftsektor boomt. Arbeiter hingegen müssen für Hungerlöhne ihr Leben riskieren
Von Nico Sandfuchs, Ankara
Der türkische Schiffbau boomt. Wie die meisten anderen Sektoren der Wirtschaft konnten sich auch die Eigner der großen Werften, die fast alle in der südlich von Istanbul gelegenen Region Tuzla angesiedelt sind, in den vergangenen Jahren über satte Gewinne freuen. Allein die Exporterlöse der Branche verdreifachten sich zwischen 2004 und 2007 von rund 700 Millionen US-Dollar auf knapp zwei Milliarden Dollar jährlich. Die Erfolgsstory der Werftbosse ist bezeichnend für die Türkei, wo nahezu sämtliche Wirtschaftszweige seit Amtsantritt der gemäßigt-islamischen Regierung unter Ministerpräsident Tayyip Erdogan ähnliche Umsatzsteigerungen hinlegen konnten. Auch der Umstand, daß sich die zweistelligen Zuwächse der Schiffbauunternehmen in den Lohntüten der Werftarbeiter nicht widerspiegelt, ist typisch: Ähnlich sieht es bei ihren Kollegen im Textilsektor oder im Baugewerbe aus. Denn von dem vielbeschworenen »türkischen Wirtschaftswunder«, das die neoliberale Politik Erdogans dem Lande angeblich beschert hat, ist bei der werktätigen Bevölkerung bislang nichts angekommen. Tageslöhne von umgerechnet kaum 15 Euro, fehlende Sozialversicherung, Wochenarbeitszeiten von 60 Stunden und mehr, Lohnkürzung oder Kündigung im Krankheitsfalle – unter diesen Umständen wird die türkische Arbeitskraft billig gehalten und so das vermeintliche Wirtschaftswunder am Bosporus überhaupt erst ermöglicht.
Tödliche ArbeitsunfälleDie Arbeitsbedingungen beim Schiffbau sind sogar für türkische Verhältnisse derart kraß, daß sie inzwischen selbst in der einheimischen Boulevardpresse thematisiert werden. Denn nicht nur die Gewinne der Werfteigner haben sich in den letzten Jahren verdreifacht: Die Zahl der Arbeiter, die während der Maloche ums Leben kommen, ist von durchschnittlich fünf auf mindestens 20 pro Jahr in die Höhe geschnellt. Allein seit Anfang des Jahres starben in der Region Tuzla bereits vier Werftarbeiter bei Arbeitsunfällen. Für den Verband der Schiffbauer (GISBIR) tragen die Arbeiter allerdings selbst die Schuld an den Unfällen. »Wir treffen alle Vorkehrungen, aber die Arbeiter sind einfach viel zu nachlässig bei der Umsetzung«, behauptete kürzlich Verbandschef Kenan Torlak. »Es ist Pflicht, Handschuhe und Schutzhelm zu tragen. Aber manche halten diese Vorschrift nicht ein.« In den Ohren der Funktionäre der Gewerkschaft Limter-Is klingen die Worte der Werftbesitzer geradezu wie Hohn. Viele der verunglückten Arbeiter wurden von tonnenschweren Stahlteilen erschlagen oder stürzten von wackeligen Gerüsten mehrere Dutzend Meter in die Tiefe. Daß das Tragen von Handschuhen und Helm die Überlebenschancen bei dieser Art von Unfällen kaum wesentlich erhöht, dürfte auch den Werftbossen klar sein, meint der Gewerkschaftsvorsitzende Cem Dinc. In Wahrheit würden die Arbeitsunfälle bewußt in Kauf genommen. Die Auftragsbücher sind voll, das Arbeitstempo ist dementsprechend hoch, selbst einfache Arbeitsschutzvorkehrungen würden umgangen, weil sie zu einem Zeitverlust führten. So würde ganz bewußt eher der Tod eines Arbeiters in Kauf genommen als die Konventionalstrafe, die drohe, wenn ein Auftrag nicht pünktlich ausgeführt wird. Verschärfend komme noch hinzu, daß ein Großteil der Beschäftigten ungelernte Leiharbeiter seien, die von Arbeitsvermittlern vor allem in Südostanatolien, dem Armenhaus des Landes, für Hungerlöhne rekrutiert würden. Gerade einmal zehn Prozent der 24000 Werftarbeiter, die in der Region Tuzla ihr Brot verdienten, sind den Angaben von Limter-Is zufolge fest angestellt. Der Rest sind ungelernte Zeitarbeiter, die zumeist nie zuvor in der Branche gearbeitet haben. Eine Umgehung sämtlicher Sicherheitsstandards, völlig übermüdete Malocher, die statt der vorgeschriebenen 37,5 Wochenstunden selten weniger als 70 Stunden arbeiten, ungelerntes Personal – tödliche Unfälle sind unter diesen Bedingungen geradezu programmiert.Die Angaben der Gewerkschaft über die horrenden Arbeitsbedingungen werden auch durch eine Studie der Regierung bestätigt. Im April des vergangenen Jahres ließ das Arbeitsministerium 44 Werften auf die Einhaltung der Arbeitsschutzbestimmungen überprüfen. Mehr als 500 schwerwiegende Mängel traten dabei zutage. Grund genug für ein Eingreifen ist dies allerdings auch vor dem Hintergrund der gehäuften Todesfälle nicht – man will die boomende Industrie schließlich nicht bremsen.
Streik für mehr SicherheitDie Gewerkschaft Limter plant deshalb nun einen Streik, um zumindest die Einhaltung der Sicherheitsstandards und einen Einstellungsstopp für Leiharbeiter zu erreichen. Von Gesprächsbereitschaft ist auf seiten der Werftbesitzer derweil keine Spur. Arbeiter, die vergangenen Samstag protestiertenw, wurden statt dessen kurzerhand auf die Straße gesetzt. Das rigide Vorgehen gegen jede Form von gewerkschaftlicher Organisation und Widerstand hat bereits dafür gesorgt, daß gerade viele der Leiharbeiter, die keine festen Verträge haben, einem Streik skeptisch gegenüberstehen: »Die Bosse sitzen einfach am längeren Hebel. Denn wenn Ali nicht arbeitet, dann kommt eben Mehmet und arbeitet für ihn. Und wenn Mehmet nicht arbeitet, dann kommt Hasan. Wenn ich sage, ich setze mich für 15 Euro am Tag nicht länger diesen Bedingungen aus, dann kommt einer, der die gleiche Arbeit sogar für zehn Euro macht – weil er das Geld noch viel nötiger braucht als ich«, sagt ein Arbeiter. Arbeitskraft ist billig im Wirtschaftswunderland Türkei. Und Menschenleben sind es auch.
Von Nico Sandfuchs, Ankara
Der türkische Schiffbau boomt. Wie die meisten anderen Sektoren der Wirtschaft konnten sich auch die Eigner der großen Werften, die fast alle in der südlich von Istanbul gelegenen Region Tuzla angesiedelt sind, in den vergangenen Jahren über satte Gewinne freuen. Allein die Exporterlöse der Branche verdreifachten sich zwischen 2004 und 2007 von rund 700 Millionen US-Dollar auf knapp zwei Milliarden Dollar jährlich. Die Erfolgsstory der Werftbosse ist bezeichnend für die Türkei, wo nahezu sämtliche Wirtschaftszweige seit Amtsantritt der gemäßigt-islamischen Regierung unter Ministerpräsident Tayyip Erdogan ähnliche Umsatzsteigerungen hinlegen konnten. Auch der Umstand, daß sich die zweistelligen Zuwächse der Schiffbauunternehmen in den Lohntüten der Werftarbeiter nicht widerspiegelt, ist typisch: Ähnlich sieht es bei ihren Kollegen im Textilsektor oder im Baugewerbe aus. Denn von dem vielbeschworenen »türkischen Wirtschaftswunder«, das die neoliberale Politik Erdogans dem Lande angeblich beschert hat, ist bei der werktätigen Bevölkerung bislang nichts angekommen. Tageslöhne von umgerechnet kaum 15 Euro, fehlende Sozialversicherung, Wochenarbeitszeiten von 60 Stunden und mehr, Lohnkürzung oder Kündigung im Krankheitsfalle – unter diesen Umständen wird die türkische Arbeitskraft billig gehalten und so das vermeintliche Wirtschaftswunder am Bosporus überhaupt erst ermöglicht.
Tödliche ArbeitsunfälleDie Arbeitsbedingungen beim Schiffbau sind sogar für türkische Verhältnisse derart kraß, daß sie inzwischen selbst in der einheimischen Boulevardpresse thematisiert werden. Denn nicht nur die Gewinne der Werfteigner haben sich in den letzten Jahren verdreifacht: Die Zahl der Arbeiter, die während der Maloche ums Leben kommen, ist von durchschnittlich fünf auf mindestens 20 pro Jahr in die Höhe geschnellt. Allein seit Anfang des Jahres starben in der Region Tuzla bereits vier Werftarbeiter bei Arbeitsunfällen. Für den Verband der Schiffbauer (GISBIR) tragen die Arbeiter allerdings selbst die Schuld an den Unfällen. »Wir treffen alle Vorkehrungen, aber die Arbeiter sind einfach viel zu nachlässig bei der Umsetzung«, behauptete kürzlich Verbandschef Kenan Torlak. »Es ist Pflicht, Handschuhe und Schutzhelm zu tragen. Aber manche halten diese Vorschrift nicht ein.« In den Ohren der Funktionäre der Gewerkschaft Limter-Is klingen die Worte der Werftbesitzer geradezu wie Hohn. Viele der verunglückten Arbeiter wurden von tonnenschweren Stahlteilen erschlagen oder stürzten von wackeligen Gerüsten mehrere Dutzend Meter in die Tiefe. Daß das Tragen von Handschuhen und Helm die Überlebenschancen bei dieser Art von Unfällen kaum wesentlich erhöht, dürfte auch den Werftbossen klar sein, meint der Gewerkschaftsvorsitzende Cem Dinc. In Wahrheit würden die Arbeitsunfälle bewußt in Kauf genommen. Die Auftragsbücher sind voll, das Arbeitstempo ist dementsprechend hoch, selbst einfache Arbeitsschutzvorkehrungen würden umgangen, weil sie zu einem Zeitverlust führten. So würde ganz bewußt eher der Tod eines Arbeiters in Kauf genommen als die Konventionalstrafe, die drohe, wenn ein Auftrag nicht pünktlich ausgeführt wird. Verschärfend komme noch hinzu, daß ein Großteil der Beschäftigten ungelernte Leiharbeiter seien, die von Arbeitsvermittlern vor allem in Südostanatolien, dem Armenhaus des Landes, für Hungerlöhne rekrutiert würden. Gerade einmal zehn Prozent der 24000 Werftarbeiter, die in der Region Tuzla ihr Brot verdienten, sind den Angaben von Limter-Is zufolge fest angestellt. Der Rest sind ungelernte Zeitarbeiter, die zumeist nie zuvor in der Branche gearbeitet haben. Eine Umgehung sämtlicher Sicherheitsstandards, völlig übermüdete Malocher, die statt der vorgeschriebenen 37,5 Wochenstunden selten weniger als 70 Stunden arbeiten, ungelerntes Personal – tödliche Unfälle sind unter diesen Bedingungen geradezu programmiert.Die Angaben der Gewerkschaft über die horrenden Arbeitsbedingungen werden auch durch eine Studie der Regierung bestätigt. Im April des vergangenen Jahres ließ das Arbeitsministerium 44 Werften auf die Einhaltung der Arbeitsschutzbestimmungen überprüfen. Mehr als 500 schwerwiegende Mängel traten dabei zutage. Grund genug für ein Eingreifen ist dies allerdings auch vor dem Hintergrund der gehäuften Todesfälle nicht – man will die boomende Industrie schließlich nicht bremsen.
Streik für mehr SicherheitDie Gewerkschaft Limter plant deshalb nun einen Streik, um zumindest die Einhaltung der Sicherheitsstandards und einen Einstellungsstopp für Leiharbeiter zu erreichen. Von Gesprächsbereitschaft ist auf seiten der Werftbesitzer derweil keine Spur. Arbeiter, die vergangenen Samstag protestiertenw, wurden statt dessen kurzerhand auf die Straße gesetzt. Das rigide Vorgehen gegen jede Form von gewerkschaftlicher Organisation und Widerstand hat bereits dafür gesorgt, daß gerade viele der Leiharbeiter, die keine festen Verträge haben, einem Streik skeptisch gegenüberstehen: »Die Bosse sitzen einfach am längeren Hebel. Denn wenn Ali nicht arbeitet, dann kommt eben Mehmet und arbeitet für ihn. Und wenn Mehmet nicht arbeitet, dann kommt Hasan. Wenn ich sage, ich setze mich für 15 Euro am Tag nicht länger diesen Bedingungen aus, dann kommt einer, der die gleiche Arbeit sogar für zehn Euro macht – weil er das Geld noch viel nötiger braucht als ich«, sagt ein Arbeiter. Arbeitskraft ist billig im Wirtschaftswunderland Türkei. Und Menschenleben sind es auch.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Turkey and Islam Veils of half-truth
Feb 14th 2008 ISTANBULFrom The Economist print edition
What lies behind the row over lifting the headscarf ban in universities
TO TURKEY'S secular elite it is a step back to the dark ages; to its conservatives, an overdue right. Either way, the constitutional changes approved by parliament to ease the ban on the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in universities will trigger a new battle between the mildly Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his secular opponents.
Scores of university heads have declared they will ignore the changes, although they were approved by a big parliamentary majority on February 9th. Tens of thousands of Turks have taken to the streets in protest. The opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, promises to go to the constitutional court, arguing that the measures contravene constitutional guarantees of secularism. The court may rule in his favour, as it did in a dispute about the Turkish presidency last May. In any case, before the measures take effect the government has to change more specific rules about garb on campuses. Some doomsayers predict the sort of violence that flared between leftist students and nationalists and Islamists in the 1970s.
Mr Erdogan's Justice and Development (AK) party has been under pressure from its base to scrap the headscarf restriction, which was imposed only in the 1990s, ever since it came to power in 2002. Polls show that most Turks favour lifting the ban for university students. Even the country's generals have remained silent, for a change. So what is all the fuss about?
One answer is that the battle over headscarves is not really about religion at all. Rather it is a power struggle between a rising class of observant Turks from the Anatolian hinterland and an entrenched elite of secular “white” Turks, backed by the generals and the judiciary. “Women with scarves used to be our maids, now they have become our neighbours,” sniffs one Istanbul socialite.
But snobbery and power are only part of the story. The headscarf debate reflects a clash between tradition and modernity as much as one between Islam and democracy. Many Westernised, middle-class Turks, especially women, fear for their lifestyle. They cite government plans to ban the showing of alcohol on television as another example of creeping conservatism. It did not help when one AK member of parliament crowed that, after getting the headscarf into universities, government offices would be next.
Even headscarf campaigners complain that they knew nothing about the government's plans. Some believe they were designed merely to win votes in the local elections due next year. If the AK were serious about bolstering equality between the sexes, “there would be more than one woman in the cabinet,” says one AK-supporting lady. And if letting women cover their heads were a matter of rights, as Mr Erdogan claims, why has the government not scrapped Article 301 of the penal code, which criminalises free speech? (Its most recent victim is Atilla Yayla, a liberal academic, given a suspended three-year jail sentence for calling Ataturk “that man”.) The government is also dragging its feet on European Union demands to make it easier for non-Muslim minorities to reclaim properties confiscated by the state.
One reason for this, some suggest, is that the AK government needed to placate a small far-right party whose support it needed in parliament to secure a two-thirds majority on the headscarf. At all events, Mr Erdogan's waning interest in joining the EU has led to growing disenchantment among his liberal supporters. Their problem is that they have nowhere else to turn. Mr Baykal, who purports to stand for Ataturk and modernity, is among the country's most strident opponents of EU-imposed reforms. Despite losing three elections within the space of a decade, he remains firmly in position.
The bigger worry is that Turkey has not yet devised a system of checks and balances that can protect the rights of all individuals, be they secular or pious, Turks or Kurds. As Abdullah Gul, the pro-European Turkish president, argued this week, EU membership could offer a panacea for Turkey's ills. If only Mr Erdogan (and existing EU members) would agree.
What lies behind the row over lifting the headscarf ban in universities
TO TURKEY'S secular elite it is a step back to the dark ages; to its conservatives, an overdue right. Either way, the constitutional changes approved by parliament to ease the ban on the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in universities will trigger a new battle between the mildly Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his secular opponents.
Scores of university heads have declared they will ignore the changes, although they were approved by a big parliamentary majority on February 9th. Tens of thousands of Turks have taken to the streets in protest. The opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, promises to go to the constitutional court, arguing that the measures contravene constitutional guarantees of secularism. The court may rule in his favour, as it did in a dispute about the Turkish presidency last May. In any case, before the measures take effect the government has to change more specific rules about garb on campuses. Some doomsayers predict the sort of violence that flared between leftist students and nationalists and Islamists in the 1970s.
Mr Erdogan's Justice and Development (AK) party has been under pressure from its base to scrap the headscarf restriction, which was imposed only in the 1990s, ever since it came to power in 2002. Polls show that most Turks favour lifting the ban for university students. Even the country's generals have remained silent, for a change. So what is all the fuss about?
One answer is that the battle over headscarves is not really about religion at all. Rather it is a power struggle between a rising class of observant Turks from the Anatolian hinterland and an entrenched elite of secular “white” Turks, backed by the generals and the judiciary. “Women with scarves used to be our maids, now they have become our neighbours,” sniffs one Istanbul socialite.
But snobbery and power are only part of the story. The headscarf debate reflects a clash between tradition and modernity as much as one between Islam and democracy. Many Westernised, middle-class Turks, especially women, fear for their lifestyle. They cite government plans to ban the showing of alcohol on television as another example of creeping conservatism. It did not help when one AK member of parliament crowed that, after getting the headscarf into universities, government offices would be next.
Even headscarf campaigners complain that they knew nothing about the government's plans. Some believe they were designed merely to win votes in the local elections due next year. If the AK were serious about bolstering equality between the sexes, “there would be more than one woman in the cabinet,” says one AK-supporting lady. And if letting women cover their heads were a matter of rights, as Mr Erdogan claims, why has the government not scrapped Article 301 of the penal code, which criminalises free speech? (Its most recent victim is Atilla Yayla, a liberal academic, given a suspended three-year jail sentence for calling Ataturk “that man”.) The government is also dragging its feet on European Union demands to make it easier for non-Muslim minorities to reclaim properties confiscated by the state.
One reason for this, some suggest, is that the AK government needed to placate a small far-right party whose support it needed in parliament to secure a two-thirds majority on the headscarf. At all events, Mr Erdogan's waning interest in joining the EU has led to growing disenchantment among his liberal supporters. Their problem is that they have nowhere else to turn. Mr Baykal, who purports to stand for Ataturk and modernity, is among the country's most strident opponents of EU-imposed reforms. Despite losing three elections within the space of a decade, he remains firmly in position.
The bigger worry is that Turkey has not yet devised a system of checks and balances that can protect the rights of all individuals, be they secular or pious, Turks or Kurds. As Abdullah Gul, the pro-European Turkish president, argued this week, EU membership could offer a panacea for Turkey's ills. If only Mr Erdogan (and existing EU members) would agree.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
TURKEY: WORRIES MOUNT OVER GOVERNMENT’S COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRATIZATION
Yigal Schleifer 2/13/08
The recent vote in the Turkish parliament ending the ban on headscarves at public universities is raising concern about the future direction of Turkey. Some political observers are voicing concern that the government may be turning away from its broad reform agenda covering domestic democratization and Turkey’s European Union bid.
"The perception shared by many intellectuals is that this reform [over headscarves] will come at the expense of other reforms," says veteran Turkish journalist Yavuz Baydar, a columnist for the English-language newspaper Today’s Zaman.
"Some intellectuals [who support the government] are starting to have second thoughts about whether the government has a well-defined strategy for change for Turkey, and what triggered this doubt is the priority that the government has put on the headscarf issue."
The constitutional reform package that ended the headscarf ban zipped through parliament, after first being introduced only a few weeks ago by the liberal Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. The rapid passage of the measure contrasted sharply with the AKP’s drive to promote European Union membership. Over the last year, many of Turkey’s EU-related reforms have stalled.
For example, article 301 of the penal code, used to punish those who have "insulted Turkishness" and which has marred Turkey’s record on freedom of expression issues, remains unchanged despite numerous promises by the government to amend it. Meanwhile, the draft version of a new civilian-minded constitution, meant to replace one written by the military following a 1980 coup, has been ready for months but has yet to be presented by the government.
"What Turkey really needs to have is a very profound constitutional debate," says Katinka Barysch, an expert on Turkey at the Centre for European Reform, a think tank based in London. "The headscarf is only the tip of the iceberg."
Ali Babacan, Turkey’s foreign minister, claimed that lifting the headscarf ban was part of the effort to meet EU membership requirements. But EU officials were quick to make clear that the issue was strictly a domestic Turkish matter. "There is no EU legislation on the issue of wearing the headscarf," Krisztina Nagy, the spokesperson for the EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn, told reporters in Brussels after the Turkish vote.
Says a European diplomat based in Ankara: "The fighting over the headscarf issue is distracting from dealing with other issues, and could make it more difficult for the different sides to come together on these issues, if it reinforces antagonisms and skepticism."
"It is unfortunate that this has taken up priority over these other issues, such as the reform of 301 and the constitutional process as a whole," the diplomat continued. "We hear from the government that reforms are in the pipeline. … But those never come true."
Also worrisome for observers was that in order to pass the headscarf legislation, the AKP had to enter what some have termed an "unholy alliance" with the opposition Nationalist Action Party (MHP), a hard-line group that has taken a rejectionist stance on many of Turkey’s EU reforms. Already, parliamentary debate over a bill that would provide for the return of property confiscated by the Turkish state from religious minority groups has been delayed by the AKP government, in order not to antagonize the MHP, which opposes the legislation.
Academics, meanwhile, are expressing concern that the focus on the headscarf issue is obscuring the need for more substantive reforms in Turkey’s higher education system. The same 1982 constitution that created the headscarf ban also put in place a highly centralized and bureaucratic university system that many academics assert stifles academic and intellectual freedom.
"The whole higher education system needs a greater look and needs to be reformed," says Ustun Erguder, a political scientist at Sabanci University in Istanbul. "This headscarf issue just delays the whole thing."
But Sahin Alpay, a professor at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University and a leading Turkish liberal secularist, counters that getting the headscarf issue out of the way may actually make it easier to bring about other constitutional changes. "It may be a good thing that the headscarf issue is dealt with separately, because then the discussion of the new constitution will not be overshadowed by this extremely divisive issue," he said.
AKP government representatives insist that the party pushed for lifting the ban in the name of human rights and civil liberties. "Our main aim is to end the discrimination experienced by a section of society, just because of their personal beliefs," AKP parliamentarian Sadullah Ergin recently told private broadcaster NTV.
Because of the ban, many covered women went abroad to study. (The covered daughters of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, attended college in the United States). Other women have resorted to wearing wigs over their headscarves in order to attend classes at Turkish state universities.
According to one recent poll, 60 percent of Turks support ending the headscarf ban. Still, the reaction from Turkey’s secular establishment has been forceful. While parliament was voting February 9 in Ankara, tens of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators turned out for pro-secularism rally only a few blocks away.
Although Turkey’s powerful military, considered the ultimate guardian of the country’s secular tradition, has, for now, remained quiet on the issue, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the main secular opposition party in parliament, has vowed to appeal to the country’s top court to annul the vote lifting the headscarf ban.
"The aim [of the legislation] is to erode the principle of secularism in the constitution," said Kemal Anadol, spokesman for the CHP, at the start of the debate in parliament.
Editor’s Note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.
Posted February 13, 2008 © Eurasianet http://www.eurasianet.org
The recent vote in the Turkish parliament ending the ban on headscarves at public universities is raising concern about the future direction of Turkey. Some political observers are voicing concern that the government may be turning away from its broad reform agenda covering domestic democratization and Turkey’s European Union bid.
"The perception shared by many intellectuals is that this reform [over headscarves] will come at the expense of other reforms," says veteran Turkish journalist Yavuz Baydar, a columnist for the English-language newspaper Today’s Zaman.
"Some intellectuals [who support the government] are starting to have second thoughts about whether the government has a well-defined strategy for change for Turkey, and what triggered this doubt is the priority that the government has put on the headscarf issue."
The constitutional reform package that ended the headscarf ban zipped through parliament, after first being introduced only a few weeks ago by the liberal Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. The rapid passage of the measure contrasted sharply with the AKP’s drive to promote European Union membership. Over the last year, many of Turkey’s EU-related reforms have stalled.
For example, article 301 of the penal code, used to punish those who have "insulted Turkishness" and which has marred Turkey’s record on freedom of expression issues, remains unchanged despite numerous promises by the government to amend it. Meanwhile, the draft version of a new civilian-minded constitution, meant to replace one written by the military following a 1980 coup, has been ready for months but has yet to be presented by the government.
"What Turkey really needs to have is a very profound constitutional debate," says Katinka Barysch, an expert on Turkey at the Centre for European Reform, a think tank based in London. "The headscarf is only the tip of the iceberg."
Ali Babacan, Turkey’s foreign minister, claimed that lifting the headscarf ban was part of the effort to meet EU membership requirements. But EU officials were quick to make clear that the issue was strictly a domestic Turkish matter. "There is no EU legislation on the issue of wearing the headscarf," Krisztina Nagy, the spokesperson for the EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn, told reporters in Brussels after the Turkish vote.
Says a European diplomat based in Ankara: "The fighting over the headscarf issue is distracting from dealing with other issues, and could make it more difficult for the different sides to come together on these issues, if it reinforces antagonisms and skepticism."
"It is unfortunate that this has taken up priority over these other issues, such as the reform of 301 and the constitutional process as a whole," the diplomat continued. "We hear from the government that reforms are in the pipeline. … But those never come true."
Also worrisome for observers was that in order to pass the headscarf legislation, the AKP had to enter what some have termed an "unholy alliance" with the opposition Nationalist Action Party (MHP), a hard-line group that has taken a rejectionist stance on many of Turkey’s EU reforms. Already, parliamentary debate over a bill that would provide for the return of property confiscated by the Turkish state from religious minority groups has been delayed by the AKP government, in order not to antagonize the MHP, which opposes the legislation.
Academics, meanwhile, are expressing concern that the focus on the headscarf issue is obscuring the need for more substantive reforms in Turkey’s higher education system. The same 1982 constitution that created the headscarf ban also put in place a highly centralized and bureaucratic university system that many academics assert stifles academic and intellectual freedom.
"The whole higher education system needs a greater look and needs to be reformed," says Ustun Erguder, a political scientist at Sabanci University in Istanbul. "This headscarf issue just delays the whole thing."
But Sahin Alpay, a professor at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University and a leading Turkish liberal secularist, counters that getting the headscarf issue out of the way may actually make it easier to bring about other constitutional changes. "It may be a good thing that the headscarf issue is dealt with separately, because then the discussion of the new constitution will not be overshadowed by this extremely divisive issue," he said.
AKP government representatives insist that the party pushed for lifting the ban in the name of human rights and civil liberties. "Our main aim is to end the discrimination experienced by a section of society, just because of their personal beliefs," AKP parliamentarian Sadullah Ergin recently told private broadcaster NTV.
Because of the ban, many covered women went abroad to study. (The covered daughters of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, attended college in the United States). Other women have resorted to wearing wigs over their headscarves in order to attend classes at Turkish state universities.
According to one recent poll, 60 percent of Turks support ending the headscarf ban. Still, the reaction from Turkey’s secular establishment has been forceful. While parliament was voting February 9 in Ankara, tens of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators turned out for pro-secularism rally only a few blocks away.
Although Turkey’s powerful military, considered the ultimate guardian of the country’s secular tradition, has, for now, remained quiet on the issue, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the main secular opposition party in parliament, has vowed to appeal to the country’s top court to annul the vote lifting the headscarf ban.
"The aim [of the legislation] is to erode the principle of secularism in the constitution," said Kemal Anadol, spokesman for the CHP, at the start of the debate in parliament.
Editor’s Note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.
Posted February 13, 2008 © Eurasianet http://www.eurasianet.org
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
MUJERES-TURQUÍA: Un velo sobre la identidad nacional
Análisis de Hilmi Toros
ESTAMBUL, 6 feb (IPS) - El gobierno de Turquía mantiene vivo el debate hacia una reforma constitucional que, de concretarse, levantaría la prohibición a las mujeres de cubrir la cabeza con la tradicional mantilla musulmana cuando asisten a las universidades.
La oposición percibe en la iniciativa un intento de debilitar el actual régimen secular y de imponer principios islámicos, incluso más allá de la educación superior. Temen que este país aspirante a miembro de la Unión Europea (UE) se deslice, en realidad, hacia restricciones religiosas. Pero el oficialismo considera que el levantamiento de la prohibición representaría, en cambio, un paso hacia una libertad de expresión similar a la que disfrutan las estudiantes de universidades occidentales. El gobernante Partido de Justicia y Desarrollo (AKP), fundado por miembros de un partido islamista proscripto y que hoy se definen como conservadores, se unieron con el Partido de Movimientos Nacionalistas para concretar la enmienda que deroga la prohibición. Los dos partidos suman 410 votos en el parlamento, y se requieren 367 para aprobar la reforma. El proyecto ya se encuentra a estudio de una comisión legislativo y el trámite elegido es de carácter acelerado. Podría adoptarse en un plazo de 10 días. El Partido Popular Republicano (CHP), el principal de la oposición y fundado en los años 20 por el padre de la Turquía secular, Mustafá Kemal Ataturk, anunció que, de aprobarse la reforma, procuraría anularla mediante una demanda ante la Corte Constitucional. Unas 100.000 personas marcharon en Ankara el sábado contra los cambios propuestos. La reforma se concretará solamente en relación al denominado "basortusu", pequeño pañuelo usado por millones de mujeres en todo este país de 70 millones de habitantes. Los turbantes, por ejemplo, seguirán prohibidos, pues se los considera símbolo del fundamentalismo islámico. La mayoría de las esposas de los miembros del AKP usan turbante. El primer ministro y líder del AKP Recep Tayyip Erdogan, otrora islamista, había prometido a la devota base musulmana del partido que levantaría la prohibición. La enmienda, según Erdogan, solo pretende acabar con la discriminación contra las universitarias devotas y a restablecer su derecho a recibir educación terciaria. "Ningún derecho humano básico plantea una amenaza a la democracia o a los valores fundamentales de la república. El gobierno del AKP garantiza nuestro orden secular", declaró Erdogan. Mientras, el líder del opositor CHP, Deniz Baykal, consideró que "éste no es un asunto religioso, sino altamente político". Baykal acusó al AKP de intentar hacer pasar el turbante por "basortusu", y dijo que el turbante "no es turco, sino importado" de la secta musulmana wahabi, extremadamente religiosa y originaria de la Península Arábiga. El dirigente Husnu Tuna, del AKP, afirmó que "el objetivo" de la reforma "es levantar la prohibición en todos los ámbitos", lo que condujo a críticas de la oposición sobre la existencia de una agenda islámica oculta en el oficialismo, que alega lo contrario. "El problema real es el peligro de que esta libertad (de usar el pañuelo) se propague a todas las áreas públicas y también contamine las escuelas primarias y secundarias, los hospitales y los juzgados con el paso del tiempo", dijo el analista liberal Mehmet Alí Birand, del periódico Posta. "El peligro real es generar hombres y mujeres de turbante, que sean jueces, fiscales o médicos, y que afronten instancias en que médicas se nieguen a examinar a pacientes hombres o que mujeres se nieguen a que las examine un médico", sostuvo. El mundo académico, directamente afectado, está dividido. "Advertimos a quienes apoyan la reforma y a quienes permanecen en silencio que la enmienda socavará los avances de la república y que el orden secular llegará a un fin", dijo el profesor Mustafá Akaydin, presidente del Consejo Interuniversitario y presidente de la Universidad de Akdeniz. "Esto transformará de modo inevitable a la República Turca en un estado religioso", advirtió. El rectorado de la Universidad de Estambul, la mayor del país, con 50.000 estudiantes, sostuvo que "los intereses y opciones políticas, disfrazadas de libertad de credo, no pueden permitirse para amenazar la libertad científica en las universidades". "Turquía no será una escena para juegos de sharia (ley islámica) y abuso de religión. No podemos hacer la vista gorda ante quienes por su voluntad o su ignorancia debilitan nuestro orden social", señaló el rectorado en una declaración pública. El profesor Ural Bulut, rector de la prestigiosa Universidad Técnica de Medio Oriente en Ankara, dijo, entrevistado por CNN Turquía: "Si la reforma se adopta, los islamistas radicales presionarán para que la prohibición se levante en los niveles inferiores de la enseñanza y en otras áreas. Quienes no usan el pañuelo quedarán bajo presión." Pero, en el mismo programa, su colega Ihsan Dagi acotó que "las universidades no deberían preocuparse por las prohibiciones sino por las libertades y la educación". Dagi presentó una petición para levantar la prohibición, y dijo que en 24 horas sería apoyado por más de 600 profesores universitarios de todo el país. Dos poderosas organizaciones del sector privado, la Asociación de la Empresa y la Industria y la Organización Empresarial Femenina, se oponen a derogar la prohibición por entender que el gobierno se concentra en el velo y no en las reformas en materia de derechos humanos que reclama la UE. La oposición también teme que un retroceso de los valores seculares aumente el sentimiento antiturco en la UE. "Habrá confusión y más polarización, con la posibilidad de que el conflicto escale", dijo a IPS el profesor Ilter Turan, ex rector de la Universidad Bilgi de Estambul. Las fuerzas armadas, que derrocaron a cuatro gobiernos civiles, uno de ellos islamista, desde 1960, y que se consideran a sí mismas guardianes del orden secular, no formularon comentarios. Sólo advirtieron que su posición en la materia es bien conocida, en evidente referencia a una declaración de abril pasado en la que se reivindicaron como "parte interesada" en el debate sobre secularismo, y manifestaron que actuarían en su defensa cuando fuere necesario. La prohibición entró en vigor en 1989, cuando un tribunal falló que la mantilla violaba el artículo 2 de la Constitución, sobre la inmodificable naturaleza secular de la república. En los conservadores años 90, se prohibió el ingreso a las universidades a las estudiantes que no cumplieran con la disposición. El propio Erdogan envió a sus hijas a estudiar al exterior para eludir la norma. La hija del presidente Abdullah Gul cubrió su pañuelo con una peluca al estilo occidental. Su esposa, primera primera dama de la república secular que usa velo, demandó en el pasado al Estado turco ante la Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos para reivindicar su derecho a lucirlo. Pero retiró la demanda cuando su esposo ascendía en el gobierno. En otra oportunidad, el tribunal europeo avaló la prohibición de la mantilla. Millones de mujeres turcas cubren hoy sus cabezas, y la práctica es cada vez más visible. También son más frecuentes otras modalidades de velo. La "burka" que cubre la mayor parte del rostro y se extiende hasta los pies --como en Irán y Afganistán-- todavía es inusual. La enmienda propuesta establece, además, que un pañuelo admisible debe ser lo suficientemente pequeño para dejar el rostro descubierto, a fin de permitir la identificación, con un nudo bajo el mentón. Tal como están las cosas, ni la primera dama ni la esposa del primer ministro calificarán para ser admitidas en una universidad turca. El pañuelo que cubre sus cabezas no está atado bajo la barbilla, sino en la nuca. (FIN/2008)
ESTAMBUL, 6 feb (IPS) - El gobierno de Turquía mantiene vivo el debate hacia una reforma constitucional que, de concretarse, levantaría la prohibición a las mujeres de cubrir la cabeza con la tradicional mantilla musulmana cuando asisten a las universidades.
La oposición percibe en la iniciativa un intento de debilitar el actual régimen secular y de imponer principios islámicos, incluso más allá de la educación superior. Temen que este país aspirante a miembro de la Unión Europea (UE) se deslice, en realidad, hacia restricciones religiosas. Pero el oficialismo considera que el levantamiento de la prohibición representaría, en cambio, un paso hacia una libertad de expresión similar a la que disfrutan las estudiantes de universidades occidentales. El gobernante Partido de Justicia y Desarrollo (AKP), fundado por miembros de un partido islamista proscripto y que hoy se definen como conservadores, se unieron con el Partido de Movimientos Nacionalistas para concretar la enmienda que deroga la prohibición. Los dos partidos suman 410 votos en el parlamento, y se requieren 367 para aprobar la reforma. El proyecto ya se encuentra a estudio de una comisión legislativo y el trámite elegido es de carácter acelerado. Podría adoptarse en un plazo de 10 días. El Partido Popular Republicano (CHP), el principal de la oposición y fundado en los años 20 por el padre de la Turquía secular, Mustafá Kemal Ataturk, anunció que, de aprobarse la reforma, procuraría anularla mediante una demanda ante la Corte Constitucional. Unas 100.000 personas marcharon en Ankara el sábado contra los cambios propuestos. La reforma se concretará solamente en relación al denominado "basortusu", pequeño pañuelo usado por millones de mujeres en todo este país de 70 millones de habitantes. Los turbantes, por ejemplo, seguirán prohibidos, pues se los considera símbolo del fundamentalismo islámico. La mayoría de las esposas de los miembros del AKP usan turbante. El primer ministro y líder del AKP Recep Tayyip Erdogan, otrora islamista, había prometido a la devota base musulmana del partido que levantaría la prohibición. La enmienda, según Erdogan, solo pretende acabar con la discriminación contra las universitarias devotas y a restablecer su derecho a recibir educación terciaria. "Ningún derecho humano básico plantea una amenaza a la democracia o a los valores fundamentales de la república. El gobierno del AKP garantiza nuestro orden secular", declaró Erdogan. Mientras, el líder del opositor CHP, Deniz Baykal, consideró que "éste no es un asunto religioso, sino altamente político". Baykal acusó al AKP de intentar hacer pasar el turbante por "basortusu", y dijo que el turbante "no es turco, sino importado" de la secta musulmana wahabi, extremadamente religiosa y originaria de la Península Arábiga. El dirigente Husnu Tuna, del AKP, afirmó que "el objetivo" de la reforma "es levantar la prohibición en todos los ámbitos", lo que condujo a críticas de la oposición sobre la existencia de una agenda islámica oculta en el oficialismo, que alega lo contrario. "El problema real es el peligro de que esta libertad (de usar el pañuelo) se propague a todas las áreas públicas y también contamine las escuelas primarias y secundarias, los hospitales y los juzgados con el paso del tiempo", dijo el analista liberal Mehmet Alí Birand, del periódico Posta. "El peligro real es generar hombres y mujeres de turbante, que sean jueces, fiscales o médicos, y que afronten instancias en que médicas se nieguen a examinar a pacientes hombres o que mujeres se nieguen a que las examine un médico", sostuvo. El mundo académico, directamente afectado, está dividido. "Advertimos a quienes apoyan la reforma y a quienes permanecen en silencio que la enmienda socavará los avances de la república y que el orden secular llegará a un fin", dijo el profesor Mustafá Akaydin, presidente del Consejo Interuniversitario y presidente de la Universidad de Akdeniz. "Esto transformará de modo inevitable a la República Turca en un estado religioso", advirtió. El rectorado de la Universidad de Estambul, la mayor del país, con 50.000 estudiantes, sostuvo que "los intereses y opciones políticas, disfrazadas de libertad de credo, no pueden permitirse para amenazar la libertad científica en las universidades". "Turquía no será una escena para juegos de sharia (ley islámica) y abuso de religión. No podemos hacer la vista gorda ante quienes por su voluntad o su ignorancia debilitan nuestro orden social", señaló el rectorado en una declaración pública. El profesor Ural Bulut, rector de la prestigiosa Universidad Técnica de Medio Oriente en Ankara, dijo, entrevistado por CNN Turquía: "Si la reforma se adopta, los islamistas radicales presionarán para que la prohibición se levante en los niveles inferiores de la enseñanza y en otras áreas. Quienes no usan el pañuelo quedarán bajo presión." Pero, en el mismo programa, su colega Ihsan Dagi acotó que "las universidades no deberían preocuparse por las prohibiciones sino por las libertades y la educación". Dagi presentó una petición para levantar la prohibición, y dijo que en 24 horas sería apoyado por más de 600 profesores universitarios de todo el país. Dos poderosas organizaciones del sector privado, la Asociación de la Empresa y la Industria y la Organización Empresarial Femenina, se oponen a derogar la prohibición por entender que el gobierno se concentra en el velo y no en las reformas en materia de derechos humanos que reclama la UE. La oposición también teme que un retroceso de los valores seculares aumente el sentimiento antiturco en la UE. "Habrá confusión y más polarización, con la posibilidad de que el conflicto escale", dijo a IPS el profesor Ilter Turan, ex rector de la Universidad Bilgi de Estambul. Las fuerzas armadas, que derrocaron a cuatro gobiernos civiles, uno de ellos islamista, desde 1960, y que se consideran a sí mismas guardianes del orden secular, no formularon comentarios. Sólo advirtieron que su posición en la materia es bien conocida, en evidente referencia a una declaración de abril pasado en la que se reivindicaron como "parte interesada" en el debate sobre secularismo, y manifestaron que actuarían en su defensa cuando fuere necesario. La prohibición entró en vigor en 1989, cuando un tribunal falló que la mantilla violaba el artículo 2 de la Constitución, sobre la inmodificable naturaleza secular de la república. En los conservadores años 90, se prohibió el ingreso a las universidades a las estudiantes que no cumplieran con la disposición. El propio Erdogan envió a sus hijas a estudiar al exterior para eludir la norma. La hija del presidente Abdullah Gul cubrió su pañuelo con una peluca al estilo occidental. Su esposa, primera primera dama de la república secular que usa velo, demandó en el pasado al Estado turco ante la Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos para reivindicar su derecho a lucirlo. Pero retiró la demanda cuando su esposo ascendía en el gobierno. En otra oportunidad, el tribunal europeo avaló la prohibición de la mantilla. Millones de mujeres turcas cubren hoy sus cabezas, y la práctica es cada vez más visible. También son más frecuentes otras modalidades de velo. La "burka" que cubre la mayor parte del rostro y se extiende hasta los pies --como en Irán y Afganistán-- todavía es inusual. La enmienda propuesta establece, además, que un pañuelo admisible debe ser lo suficientemente pequeño para dejar el rostro descubierto, a fin de permitir la identificación, con un nudo bajo el mentón. Tal como están las cosas, ni la primera dama ni la esposa del primer ministro calificarán para ser admitidas en una universidad turca. El pañuelo que cubre sus cabezas no está atado bajo la barbilla, sino en la nuca. (FIN/2008)
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Analysis: Turkey embraces wind power
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 In an era of record high oil prices, many countries increasingly are turning to alternative fuels, including biofuel, solar energy and wind power. This pattern is typically pronounced in Turkey, forced to import more than 90 percent of its energy needs, with energy suppliers that are not only expensive, but erratic.In 2006, Turkey spent $29 billion on energy imports, primarily from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia. High prices and fickle suppliers have stimulated Turkey's growing interest in wind power.Turkish interest in alternative fuels has been spurred by recent events. Turkish natural gas imports come primarily from Russia via the South Stream pipeline and Iran. On Dec. 31, Turkmenistan halted its deliveries of natural gas deliveries to Iran, citing the need for urgent pipeline repairs. The cutoff subsequently forced Iran to reduce its gas exports to Turkey by 75 percent, from 20 million cubic meters to 5 million cu. m., as inclement weather increased domestic demand, disrupting Iran's domestic gas distribution. Tehran subsequently claimed that Turkmen action was, in fact, a retaliatory move over proposed price increases. Iran then stopped shipments completely Jan. 8, leading Ankara the next day to halt the flow of Azeri gas to Greece because of the suspension of gas supplies from Iran.Turkey is Iran's sole export market for natural gas, but the relationship has not been smooth, again due to disputes over price. The Turkmen incident had a feeling of deja vu, as in January 2006 Iran halved its supplies of natural gas to Turkey to around 7 million cubic feet per day, citing "climactic conditions" and increased domestic need, while in December 2006 it temporarily shut off supplies completely.During the most recent dispute, Turkey turned to Russia with a request for additional natural gas supplies, but was rebuffed. Instead, Moscow also reduced exports, citing severe weather. As natural gas powers half of Turkey's power stations, state pipeline company Botas was forced to tap reserves in its gas depot near Silivri, Turkey's sole gas-storage facility.The incident has provided further incentives to Turkish efforts to seek alternatives. A measure of Ankara's determination to free itself from the grip of avaricious, erratic energy suppliers is a dramatic rise in governmental interest in wind power, which is illustrated in government figures. While in 2006, wind power in Turkey generated 19 megawatts of electricity, last year Turkey's 10 wind farms produced nearly 140 megawatts, a 736 percent increase.Turkey's interest in renewable energy dates back to 2005, when the Turkish Grand National Assembly passed a renewable energy law harmonizing government legislation with European Union legislation to support renewable sources, including wind power. The new law provided a government guarantee to purchase electricity at a set price for seven years.Marmara University Energy Department Associate Professor and World Wind Energy Association Vice President Tanay Sidki Uyar recently said that if Turkey properly developed all of its renewable energy potential resources, including solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power sources, the country could become self-sufficient in energy. Uyar told RenewableEnergyAccess.com, "Wind power could supply Turkey's electricity needs twice over within five to 10 years if the government had the political will to develop this sector." Uyar added, "We have terrific geographic conditions for solar and wind power in Turkey. Exploiting it is already economically and technically possible, but the problem is that the government favors fossil fuels and nuclear energy."Epitomizing Ankara's determination to become energy self-sufficient is a contract signed last July with General Electric for 52 of its latest generation of wind turbines with a generating capacity of 2.5 megawatts apiece. The GE 2.5xl is the largest GE wind turbine available for onshore applications and is specifically designed to meet EU requirements, where the relative lack of available land is a significant constraint on project size. While previous wind park projects were primarily situated in Turkey's western regions and the Aegean coast, the 130-megawatt GE wind power project in southeastern Turkey will be the world's largest installation of GE latest 2.5xl wind turbine technology and will more than double Turkey's installed wind capacity.Turkey is not limiting itself to U.S. suppliers; on Jan. 30, Turkey's Rotor Energy Co., a subsidiary of Zorlu Energy, signed a contract with Ecosecurities to build a wind power plant in the southern province of Osmaniye. The Osmaniye facility, scheduled to come online in 2009, will initially generate about 135 megawatts daily, with an annual capacity of 500,000 megawatts.Ankara is not moving on the issue as swiftly as alternative energy advocates would like, however; proposals to build wind farms with a total operating capacity of 8,000 megawatts is still awaiting government approval. Ankara has already issued about 40 licenses for wind parks, each with an installed 20-60 megawatt capacity.The future looks bright for alternative energy companies, as the Turkish government intends to privatize a significant proportion of the country's primarily state-owned energy and gas supply companies over the next few years. Given the "pipeline politics" that Turkey has recently endured with its fickle natural gas suppliers Russia and Iran, Ankara's move toward alternative energy makes both fiscal and ecological sense.
http://www.earthtimes.org/
http://www.earthtimes.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)