Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 9 2009
Turkey in the United Nations Security Council
ABSTRACT – Turkey’s new seat in the UNSC marks a historic achievement
for Turkish foreign policy since 1961. Turkish diplomatic corps around
the world and political leaders have lobbied towards this end since
2003.
In recent years, Turkey has expanded its foreign policy parameters not
only in theory but in practice and reached out to disparate corners of
the world. Turkey’s present success offers challenges and
opportunities together. While trying to contribute to international
security, Turkey will face the requirement of transforming its
domestic politics in accordance with the realities of the post Cold
War era. Turkey’s policies of bringing the conflicting sides together
and initiating platforms for cooperation will be seen more often now
in international politics.
TURKEY IN THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Turkey won a seat as a non-permanent member of the United Nations
Security Council in the election held on October 17, 2008. Turkey had
competed in the `Western European and Others’ bloc along with Austria
and Iceland; out of 192 voting members of the UN General Assembly, 151
voted for Turkey. Turkey and the second winner in the same bloc,
Austria, will replace Belgium and Italy. The responsibilities of the
seat will resume on January 1, 2009 and end on December 31, 2010.
The United Nations Security Council is formed around five major
permanent members (also called the big five), the United States,
Russia, China, the UK, and France. The permanent members represent the
real power distribution, each holding the power to veto any
decision. In addition to these five permanent members, the United
Nations General Assembly elects ten non-permanent members from among
five blocs representing different regions in the world. Non-permanent
members of the UNSC are elected for a two years term and are not
eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey’s new seat in the UNSC is a
historic achievement for Turkish foreign policy since 1961. After
holding a non-permanent member seat three times, in 1951`1952,
1954`1955 and in 1961, Turkey tried its hand throughout the 1970s and
twice in the 1990s with no success. Turkey’s present success was not
won easily and reflects the dynamic transformation in Turkish foreign
policy over the last few years. The success came with hard work and
coordinated diplomacy, and it promises to offer challenges and
opportunities together. The following lines briefly discuss the path
that led to Turkey’s present seat in the Security Council, and assess
its potential impact on Turkish foreign policy.
Turkey Builds a New Circle of Trust
Turkey’s new government decided to run for a seat in UNSC immediately
after its election in 2002. Since then, Turkish foreign policy has
demonstrated a remarkable dedication to this goal. Turkish diplomatic
corps around the world and political leaders lobbied to achieve this
end during the last six years until the last hours before the
election. Perhaps for the first time in its modern history, Turkey
coordinated a multidimensional diplomacy initiative of this magnitude
effectively and successfully. During the campaign Turkey expanded its
foreign policy parameters not only in theory but in practice and
reached out to disparate corners of the world. The new territories
Turkey charted for this goal ranged from Pacific countries (all of
whom voted in favor of Turkey in the UN General Assembly) to
Sub-Saharan Africa, and from South America to Central Asia.
By hosting various summits in Istanbul, among them one for African
countries and another for member states of the Caribbean Community,
Turkey exhibited a high level of engagement with countries whose
problems had not received a dedicated voice in the Western world. The
summit between Turkey and the member states of the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) was held on August 21-23 2008. The summit exemplified the
evolving nature of Turkish foreign policy and the global nature of its
economic relations irrespective of geographical distance. Attendees
raised common concerns and emphasized their commitment to advancing
economic, political, social and cultural relations. The CARICOM
countries welcomed Turkey as a permanent observer to both the
Association of Caribbean States (ACS) and the Organization of the
American States (OAS). Turkey’s proposal to raise its level of
relations with these countries by establishing a `Consultation and
Cooperation Mechanism’ was also welcomed.
Another Istanbul summit, which was held right before the
Turkey`CARICOM meeting, gathered heads of delegations from the African
Union countries with Turkish statesmen in August 18-21 2008. `The
First Africa-Turkey Cooperation Summit’ embodied Turkey’s most recent
openings towards the continent. For too long the continent had escaped
the attention of Turkish foreign policy. To rectify this situation and
to bring the continent and its problems to the world’s attention
Turkey had declared the year 2005 as `The Year of Africa’ during which
several conferences were held and new initiatives introduced. As part
of Turkey’s new opening to Africa, TIKA (the Turkish Cooperation and
Development Agency) financed and carried out several development
projects in different parts of the continent. In addition, for the
first time in Turkey, a scholarly journal solely devoted to issues
related to the African continent, Afrika began to be
published. Africa, beyond a handful of Northern countries, was a
recent `discovery’ for Turkish statesmen, business people and NGOs; in
fact they all discovered how much could be done in the region. In an
attempt to fill the gap of representation, Turkey plans to open up ten
more embassies in Africa.
In addition to its initiatives in Africa, Turkey’s contributions to
the UN and to projects in the least developed regions of the world
have been on a steady increase during the last few years. Turkey’s
contribution in development assistance programs now amounts annually
to more than 700 million US dollars; when combined with the NGOs’
contributions the number reaches to more than one billion
annually. Such efforts fall under the Millennium Development Goals
promoted by former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, and
contribute to Turkey’s trust building efforts. In sum, despite its
limited financial means, Turkey is emerging as a donor country in the
UN. The Africa`Turkey cooperation summit in Istanbul emphasized
Turkey’s positive role in the world in general and its constructive
initiatives for Africa in particular. The declaration of the Summit,
announced on August 19, 2008 in Istanbul, welcomed the African Union’s
decision to declare Turkey a strategic partner. The declaration
recognizes the importance of economic cooperation between Turkey and
the growing economies of African states, and also makes significant
references to the role of the UNSC. Among these, the declaration calls
for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, emphasizing the
UNSC’s role in providing peace and security in the world, and demands
recognition by the UNSC of the positive role facilitated by the
African Union in the settlements of conflicts in the continent. As
evidenced by the Summit, Turkey’s objectives and the African Union’s
desires to resolve international conflicts through negotiations and
peaceful methods compliment each other.
Another highly visible event was the United Nations Ministerial
Conference of the Least Developed Countries which took place in
Istanbul July 9`11, 2007. The meeting discussed issues around how to
increase the participation of LDCs in global business by addressing
their specific problems in attracting investment and international
trade.[1] Through the UNDP Turkey hosted this event and embraced the
problems of the least developed world.
Obviously Turkey did not engage in all of these efforts only to get
the non-permanent seat in the UNSC. After the end of the Cold War the
international system had to be redefined. And it was redefined by
three major events: the first war on Iraq (after Saddam’s invasion of
Kuwait), the US invasion of Afghanistan, and the second war in Iraq
(both of the latter took place after the horrifying terrorist attacks
on the US on September 11, 2001). Turkey, along with the rest of the
world, was entering unknown territory in terms of its international
relations. The world system was becoming increasingly unpredictable,
as there was no agreed upon mechanism for re-distribution of world
resources by major powers. The showcase territory for the new world
order, led by the US, was in close proximity to Turkey, and Turkey’s
financial losses from the first war on Iraq were second only to Iraq’s
own. In addition, Turkey paid (and is still paying) a heavy price in
terms of financial resources and human lives due to terror originating
from Northern Iraq. Turkey needed to regain its strength in order to
meet new challenges coming from all directions. Turkey’s diplomatic
initiatives over the past few years can be interpreted from this
perspective, and its successful bid for the nonpermanent seat in the
UNSC is emblematic of its new and dynamic approach to the post Cold
War world.
The United Nations was formed around three major concerns:
development, human rights and security. The Security Council
represents the security aspect of these three major pillars. As
outlined in the UN charter, the Security Council oversees peace and
security operations around the world. The Council has the power to
authorize military actions, peacekeeping operations, and international
sanctions. In this regard Turkey’s active involvement in the Council’s
decision-making process has different dimensions. Main dimension is
related to Turkey’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations. In
recent years, Turkey has provided a range of military services under
the umbrella of the UN (and NATO), in places ranging from Somalia to
Bosnia and from Kosovo to Lebanon. Turkey led UN troops (ISAF) in
Afghanistan with a large number of military personnel and is currently
providing peacekeeping and infrastructure-building services in the
war-torn regions of Lebanon. One thing that should be kept in mind is
that Turkey’s approach toward UN security operations has traditionally
been concentrated around its peacekeeping efforts. Therefore, the
non-permanent status of Turkey in the Security Council compliments
Turkey’s role and efforts in providing peacekeeping operations around
the globe.
Turkey and the UNSC: Challenges
There is no question that non-permanent membership in the UNSC will
provide Turkey with great prestige in the international community, or,
conversely that it reflects Turkey’s prestige in the world. But in
what ways and to what extent can Turkey transform this `capital’ into
real benefits for itself and for the good of the international
community?
Turkey will be serving at the UNSC at a time of a great many
challenges. The most recent financial crisis in the US spread to the
rest of the world in a matter of days, and with only grim prospects
for immediate solution, the same crises is now shaking the very
grounds of liberal economies around the globe. The question if and/or
to what extent the traditional paradigms of the current international
economic system, the parameters of which were set at Bretton Woods[2]
after the end of WWII, should be reconsidered revised lies at the core
of the uncertainty. The same uncertainty delays and complicates the
emergence of a new political international system. What will be the
roles of new centers of power in the would-be emerging world system,
namely the European Union, China, India and Russia? Maybe there will
be no new international `system.’ Maybe there will be multiple systems
in the world. To debate a clear answer to these issues would be far
too ineffectual at this stage. But until that time comes there are
many good things to be done, and with its new role Turkey can serve
the good of humanity along with the other non-permanent members and
the big five of the UNSC.
One of the most urgently needed steps in order for Turkey to function
with maximum efficiency in the UNSC is for Turkey to bring its
domestic politics urgently into the real world of the post Cold War
era. This is necessary for two reasons: the most recent internal
political struggles in Turkey (e.g. the closure case against the
Justice and Development Party, the relentless rejections of main
opposition party, the People’s Republican Party, government proposals
for a more democratic constitution,[3] the inability to effectively
eradicate the undemocratic environment so that those who aspire to
utilize terror will lose their ground, the need to transform unwilling
and disgruntled segments of the old fashioned bureaucracy, etc.) are
preventing Turkey and its political leaders from tapping their full
potential. The second reason is that for outsiders, domestic power
struggles invite worries that Turkey’s trends toward greater
democratization and economic stability could be temporary rather than
the established norm. Turkey needs to eradicate these anomalies and
the damaging misperceptions they perpetuate now in order to strengthen
its claims for a better and more peaceful world.
Given Turkey’s emphasis on peacekeeping, a major dilemma could arise
for Turkey when the issues of using military power or authorizing
sanctions against another country are brought before the Security
Council. The most immediate issue before the Council will inevitably
be the case against Iran because of its nuclear program. The case
against Iran has the potential to turn into an international military
conflict. While Israel has pressed the US and the UN to take military
action against Iran, the EU has shown reluctance. China and Russia
likewise disfavor an immediate military operation. Turkey’s position
regarding Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weaponry is clear; Turkey does
not want a proliferation of nuclear arms in general, and in its
neighborhood in particular. Whether Iran’s nuclear program is designed
for peaceful civil use or to reach military capability, making Iran a
nuclear power posing a viable threat to Israel seems to be at the core
of the problem. Turkey has tended to accept Iran’s statements that its
nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, while the US and
Israel have not. The case against Iran in the UNSC seems to be
deadlocked as there is a disagreement among the permanent members: the
US and the UK lobby for wider sanctions ` perhaps before a military
campaign ` while China and Russia try to prevent it.
The case is complicated for Turkey for several reasons. First, Turkey
does not want another sanctions regime around its borders. Turkey paid
a heavy price from the sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq, and was never
compensated for its losses. Several Turkish companies operating in
Iraq lost billions of dollars when they had to leave the country
before the first war on Iraq in 1991. The total losses of Turkish
companies are estimated to be around 40`60 billion dollars. Second,
although few Turkish companies operate in Iran today, Turkey needs to
remain on good terms with this neighbor, because Iran provides the
only viable alternative to Turkey’s sole natural gas supplier,
Russia. Aware of Turkey’s need to diversify its energy supply, Iran
recently offered Turkey a privileged status to supply its energy from
Iran, a proposal containing partnership offers for the drilling of oil
and natural gas reserves. Although the proposal
has yet to be realized, and although the US does not want Turkey to go
ahead with it, the proposal certainly is an attractive offer given
Turkey’s currently limited options for energy supplies.
Turkey opposes military operations for another and more humanitarian
reason, urging the world to recognize that the region has exhausted
its capacity to endure another war. Another unjustified military
operation would eradicate the prospects of democratization in the
region, this time perhaps forever. As a point of even greater caution,
a war against Iran should not at all be compared to the war against
Iraq. The consequences of an Iran war would be far more catastrophic
than the Iraq war ever was. Although Iran’s military capacity cannot
compare with America’s military might, it could still inflict heavy
damages on American resources and on US allies in the region.
Turkey can and should mediate between the sides to preempt a
large-scale conflict in the region, and it can do so with greater
efficiency using the UNSC as a platform for cooperation. The role
Turkey would assume to prevent an armed conflict between the US and
Iran also fits Turkey’s traditional foreign policy directive,
inherited from the founder of the Republic, namely `peace at home,
peace abroad.’
Turkey and the UNSC: Opportunities
Through its membership in the UNSC, Turkey should offer its
experiences in combating terror for the good of the international
community. It is widely known that Turkey sided with the US in the
`War on Terror’ but received little sympathy from its Western allies
in general or from its European partners in particular during its
struggle against the PKK. Originating from Northern Iraq where their
terrorist activities have yet to be outspokenly and frankly rejected
by local authorities, a PKK terror network has long been active in
Turkey, causing a wide gap of trust between its supporters behind the
scene and Turkey’s people. It would be imprudent for Turkish statesmen
not to raise the issue of the PKK and its subsidiary terrorist
networks with a stronger voice now, in order to get higher-level
attention and cooperation from the international community. No better
place exists among the current international institutions than the
UNSC to voice such concerns and demand solid contributions from
partners to combat terrorism. The most recent conflict between Georgia
and Russia has created instability around Turkey which involves the US
also. The dimensions of the conflict inevitably invite Turkey to be
more proactive in seeking a peaceful solution, as it has good
relations with both countries and the Western world. Though the
conflict took place between Georgia and Russia, the results would
suggest a new geopolitical situation between the US and Russia. The
conflict can also be perceived as Russia’s reaction to NATO’s policies
of expansion to include the former Soviet republics. The conflict
poses a critical challenge to Turkish foreign policy because Turkey is
a member of NATO and is also trying to form a high level of economic
partnership with Russia. The disagreement between the US and Russia
(and to a limited extent between the US and the EU) over NATO’s future
role in the region invites careful policymaking as far as Turkey is
concerned. Not yet admitted to the decision-making process of the
European Union’s major security structures, Turkey faces a dilemma and
perhaps a hard choice between two seemingly close but internally rival
blocs, the EU and the US. The real dilemma for Turkey appears to lie
in how to accommodate Russia’s new aspirations and the United States’
already in-progress designs for the region. Turkey’s choices are quite
limited where Russia is involved: Russia is the only major natural gas
supplier for Turkey, the only alternative being Iran. Turkish Prime
Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan’s recent proposal to form a regional
cooperation scheme (the Caucasian Stability and Cooperation Platform)
which includes Russia, would serve as a good exit point `if realized
meaningfully`from the current impasse and could provide alternative
venues to engage the parties involved in the conflict. Despite the
possibility that Turkey could find itself in the middle of an
international conflict while trying to mediate a regional
disagreement, (consider that the conflict in Georgia was perceived by
many as between Russia and the US), if used effectively, Turkey can
utilize the UNSC as a mediating platform. Turkey will bring more to
the table than any other country in the region not only because it is
and has been a reliable partner to both Russia and the US, but also
because it seeks to expand diplomatic and economic cooperation with
the countries in the region. With much to lose in future international
conflicts in the Caucasus region Turkey should try to prevent any
further expansion of the current conflict.
Other Dimensions
Turkey will be working with a new American administration in the
UNSC. This certainly presents a big opportunity for Turkey because the
new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has a considerable knowledge
of Turkey and Turkish leaders. While Clinton has acknowledged Turkey’s
positive role in the Middle East and has attended events with Turkish
policymakers more than once, Turkey should not expect that the
relationship between the two countries will be stress-free. If
American-Armenian’s allegations are brought before the House, with
Hillary Clinton and the next president of the United States Barack
Obama, as well as the current speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
already committed to the Armenian claims; it would mark a catastrophic
beginning for bilateral relations. Common sense suggests that the
issue should be delayed if not eliminated altogether to let Turkey
cultivate alternative venues to reach out to Armenia and the Armenian
Diaspora. Turkish President Abdullah Gül’s visit to Armenia in
September 2008 is a positive step showing Turkey’s willingness to
resolve the issue. But each side needs time to digest the steps taken
and prepare for a better future ahead. If third parties cannot remain
neutral they should at least encourage the Armenian Diaspora to
support Turkey’s recent initiatives. America’s military campaign
against Iraq without the authorization of the UNSC was the beginning
of a series of events that led to further destabilization of the
Middle East and cost America its legitimacy in the region. The US
needs to repair at least some of its legitimacy more than ever, and
this might not happen without Turkey’s positive input. After a new
administration takes office in Washington, how much help Turkey can
provide to Obama’s efforts to rebuild American legitimacy in the
region will be determined by the level of cooperation offered to
Turkey. While working with the US in the Middle East will be one of
the most challenging subjects for Turkish foreign policy, American
policymakers should also reevaluate their objectives in the region and
their methods of reaching those objectives afresh. The US and Turkey
will be closer to each other in the corridors of the UN than they have
ever been in Iraq, and they should both take time to listen to each
other more than they once did. The pragmatics of international affairs
dictates more cooperation between Turkey and the US in the near
future.
The improvement of bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia
started in the post Cold War context with Russia cleverly tapping
Turkey’s need to access alternative markets beyond Europe, while at
the same time creating an environment in which it can control Turkey’s
aspirations toward the Turkic states in Central Asia. The relations
between Turkey and Russia are complex, but rich at the same
time. Although known as traditional foes, Turkey and Russia have been
cultivating venues of cooperation during the last two decades. In an
attempt to make the transition to a liberal market economy, Russia
invited Turkish business people and welcomed billions of dollars of
Turkish investments in several infrastructure projects. Russia has now
become one of the major importers from Turkey (second only to
Germany), and around two million Russian tourists visit Turkey every
year. In addition, Turkey derives its natural gas Supplies almost
exclusively from Russia.[4] If the US continues to remain a superpower
whose primary foreign policy tool is hard power, Turkish`Russian
relations will naturally improve further. The growth recorded in the
Russian economy in the last few years seems poised to make Russia to
reappear once again as a global actor. But such aspirations may be
dimmed by the current global financial crisis that has resulted in an
incredible fall in oil prices, the sole pillar of Russia’s
economy. Russia and Turkey seem more interdependent now than ever
before in history, the positive impacts of which will reflect in the
geopolitics of the region in the near future.
Slowly but surely, China has been entering into Turkey’s foreign
policymaking parameters since the early 1990s. The constant growth
rate of its economy has brought China to a status worth reckoning
with. While China, so far, has not openly attempted to translate its
economic power into the political realm (with the minor exception of
the Hong Kong issue), the future holds more challenges between China
and the West. A major reason for the rivalry is that affordable
Chinese products are defeating the very grounds of local industries
all over the world. The second reason, which has already placed the US
and China at odds, is China’s constant need for energy, specifically
oil and natural gas, to supply and maintain its growing economy. In an
attempt to cultivate alternative resources beyond the Middle East,
where it cannot challenge American dominance, China has developed
inventive models to gain the trust of some oil-rich countries (Africa
for instance) by financing infrastructure projects. Nevertheless,
their contribution to China’s thirst for energy has been minimal to
date, leaving Iran as one of China’s major suppliers. An ambitious
pipeline project to supply China with oil and gas from Russia is
already underway. It is perhaps within this context that the brewing
crisis between Iran and the US should be read. Last but not least,
despite Turkey’s credible worries over the current status of China’s
Turkic minorities, Turkey will have more encounters with China while
serving in the Security Council.
Despite its recent successes, Turkish foreign policy still suffers
from an acute problem of ineffective public relations (PR). While the
following examples are real time issues with international
consequences they also represent a high level of ineffective PR cases
as far as Turkey is concerned. The most recurrent of these cases has
been the claims of Armenian Diaspora about the events of 1915. Turkey
lagged behind in countering the efforts of the Armenian Diaspora in
Europe and the Americas when it chose to remain on the
defensive. Neither Turkish historians with international acclaim nor
diplomats have shown so far a well-coordinated academic and diplomatic
engagement to defeat the accusations. Despite the successful efforts
of the Armenian Diaspora in turning their claims to non-binding laws
or decisions in different parliaments around the world, the Turkish
diplomatic corps still does not seem to posses a sophisticated
approach to the issue. Turkey must realize that it cannot continue to
its current policies of defense against the Armenian claims and
suffice to rely on the power of lobbies alone. Turkey’s systematic
denial of Armenian claims should not prevent its policymakers and
diplomats from developing a proactive and informative
approach. Turkey’s current inactivity with regard to this issue will
not be helpful especially when the new administration in the US takes
office with some of the major figures in politics already expressing
their sympathies for the claims of the American-Armenians. To arrest a
catastrophic result in the US, Turkey should use its presence in the
UNSC to be more proactive and reach out to clearly explain its
position, its willingness to refer the matter to scholars from third
party countries, and its recent goodwill efforts toward
Armenia. Moreover, the stressful relations with Armenia will certainly
ease and gain a deeper momentum when Armenia shows willingness to
solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem by withdrawing its forces from
Azeri territories. Turkey should certainly bring this issue, including
the plight of about one million Azeri refugees caused by Armenia, to
the attention of the members of the UNSC, and must push for a strong
UNSC resolution to force a withdrawal.
Another major multi-dimensional problem for Turkey has been the Cyprus
issue. Due to its geo-strategic location and loaded history the island
is causing challenges far greater than its actual size. Turkey’s
historic ties with the Turkish community on the island make Turkey an
active participant in the debates surrounding the island. Turkey’s
position as a guarantor, recognized by the Zurich and London
Agreements of 1959,[5] was challenged when the Cypriot side was
unilaterally accepted to the European Union, a clear violation of
article 22 of the 1959 Agreement. In the referenda prior to the
accession of the Greek side to the EU, the Annan Plan was voted upon
by the Turkish and Greek communities. The EU and the US supported the
Plan, and Turkish Cypriots were promised that they would be dealt with
on equal terms if they voted yes to the Plan. Yet despite the fact
that Turkish Cypriots voted yes and the Greek Cypriots voted no, the
EU went ahead with the full accession of the Greek Cypriots, as if no
referenda had ever taken place. Today, the Turkish side still suffers
from the heavy blockade of the international community. While in the
UNSC, Turkey should mobilize for the recognition of a new regime for
the Turkish Cypriots so that they will be able to live in peace with
their immediate neighbors and the rest of the world.
Turkey obviously should not exaggerate its potential role in the UNSC
vis-Ã -vis the real powers of the Council (the big five or
permanent members). As the most recent crises in the Middle East
demonstrated, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been a
major challenge for the region at large and most recently a turn of
events for the idealism that is dominating the Turkish foreign
policy. Referring to the peace talks between Israel and Syria Turkey
has been mediating; the Turkish prime minister accused his Israeli
counterpart that Olmert was preparing for war while talking
peace. While Hamas foolishly triggered the Israeli assault, the
humanitarian plight in Gaza caused by the use of uncontrolled force
must have been disheartening for the party of peace in both
sides. With the veto power of the US government, the UNSC becomes
literally ineffective when it comes to Israeli`Palestinian
conflict. Erdogan’s proposal to mediate the demands of Hamas to the
UNSC for a ceasefire seems beyond the interest of Israel and the
US. Turkey seems to be caught up in a wide gap between its aspirations
for peace and the hard reality on the ground.
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
[*] Akif Kirecci, Assistant Prof. Bilkent University, School of
Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences.
Globalization and the Least Developed Countries: Issues in Trade and
Investment,’ The United Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least
Developed World, Making Globalization Work for the LDCs 9`11 July
2007, UNDP & UNCTAD Issues
Paper. [ 07-Globalization_and_LDCs. pdf]. Accessed
on December 21, 2008.
The Bretton Woods system is an international monetary agreement signed
in 1944 which gave the US currency a dominant status in the world
economy. The agreement made the US dollar the reserve money for the
world; the system has been malfunctioning since 1971. On October 13,
2008, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown asked world leaders to
create a new `financial architecture’ to replace the current
system. For further details, see (inter alia): Joan E. Spero and
Jeffrey A. Hart, eds. The Politics of International Economic Relations
(Thompson/Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2003), Martin S. Feldstein,
ed. The United States in the World Economy (Chicago: Chicago
University Press & National Bureau of Economic Research, 1988).
Turkey’s current constitution was prepared in 1982 at the behest of
the military leaders of the 1980 coup d’état.Despite several
amendments the current constitution still needs to be improved and
brought up to the standards of the established democracies of the
European Union.
Graham E. Fuller, The New Turkish Republic: Turkey as a Pivotal State
in the Muslim World. (Washington, DC: The United States Institute of
Peace, 2008), pp. 131`132.
See Murat Metin Hakki, ed. The Cyprus Issue, A Documentary History
1878`2007. (London, New York: I. B. Tauris), pp. 31`40.
21 January 2009, Wednesday
AKIF KIRECCI [*]