The New York Times Travel Section's Bad Judgement: Swimming among Refugees

Last Friday, the New York Times travel section came out with an article, which caught my attention. The article, "In Turkey, Adventure Travel Takes the Plunge," introduces to its reader the Turkish coastal region of Kas, just miles away from the Greek Island of Meis (Kastellorizo). Here, Americans and Europeans will find nothing short of paradise. 

What the article fails to highlight is that Syrian refugees are dying in these waters with increasing frequency. Since January 1, over 400 people have lost their lives making the journey from the Turkish coast to the Greek Islands, while 72,000 have reached Greece, traumatized by their sea journey and facing new hardships. True, most of the refugees are crossing much farther north from Kas, in the Aegean waters, but just earlier this month a group of Syrian refugees were returned to Turkey after trying to reach the island of Meis. 

The NYT article does briefly mention the refugee issue. However, the information provided appears to have been written last summer and not updated. Further, it strangely juxtaposes the refugee vis-à-vis the tourist, who is unable to reach Greece:  

Our family agreed that it was our best holiday ever...

Not everything was perfect, of course. I would have preferred actually stepping onto the isle of Meis to start the Greece-to-Turkey swim instead of hopping from the boat a long way offshore. (That shore-to-shore crossing is undertaken by locals in an annual race in June — and at night by refugees passing through Turkey to seek asylum in Greece. Ali Gumrukcu, the captain of the daily ferry between Kas and Meis, said that of the roughly 400 refugees crossing the water into Greece each month, most of them from Syria, 10 to 20 brave the swim, waiting for nights with no moonlight so they would be undetected).

However, these waters are safe. According to the NYT:

The locations usually feature clear, relatively calm water free of watercraft and sharks. The tour guides are certified beach lifeguards with first aid training and powerboat licenses. They say the biggest hazards can be Jet Skis, jelly fish, sudden storms and swimmer fatigue.

Seeing endless tragic videos of refugees in trouble at sea, I could not help compare their plight with that of the European and American tourists:

*A tourist spends about $1,000, which gets them hotel, boat and daytime meals but not flights, dinners or tips. The pricier tours are based on boats. Swimmers are often in their 30s to 50s, though ages range from 16 to the 80s.

*A Refugee pays about a $1000 to a smuggler to cross from Turkey to Greece. They too are of all ages. However, if they are caught by the Turkish Coast Guard (or soon to be NATO ships), they are forcefully returned, with smugglers making away with their money. 

*Tourists are required to get travel insurance. 

*Refugees have no life insurance.

*Tourists are promised to have the luxury of having certified life vests

*Refugees often buy uncertified life vests which are dangerous. They are not able to hold body weight, which lead to drowning.  

*Tourists are guaranteed an "open water swimming experience"

*Refugees often receive the "open water swimming" experience with even the strong ones not strong enough to survive.  

Turkish Coast Guard rescues a lone survivor, have a watch and learn more about the refugee issue. 

  -----------------------

Of course, my point is not to say that Turkey should not be a tourist destination. That would be ridiculous. I too have been to Kas and can tell you the article is not at all exaggerating in terms of its beauty. It is simply breathtaking. Further, tourism continues to the Greek Islands despite the influx of refugees. There is no difference here. Further, Turkey is home to over 2.5 million refugees and should be commended on taking in so many people. This is certainly not a reason not to go there.  

However, the NYT travel section editor should have shown sensitivity to the issue, realizing that now is not the time to pitch a story about a summer swim get-a-way in a place where so many people are drowning on a daily basis. Or, if it did not want to shelve the article, it could have provided up-to-date information on the plight of the refugees, weaving it into the story. For example, one local Turkish site provides information on how tourists can help refugees while visiting Kas, or the neighboring Kalkan.  

Perhaps, the travel editor should have picked up its own paper to understand that the timing was not right. The NYT regularly reports about the refugee crisis. In fact, just a day after the discussed article came out, its Istanbul Correspondent, Ceylan Yeginsu, issued an important in-depth story focusing on the rampant death of refugees at sea, entitled: Constant Tide of Migrants at Sea, and at Turkish Cemetery, which I highly recommend to read.

No Laughing Matter: Turkey's International Prestige Hits New Low

During last week's blog, I shared with my readers the ongoing saga of Turkish president Erdogan's palace and the bad rap it was receiving in the world press. And, with its costs possibly soaring to over a billion dollars, rightly so. If this was not enough, this past week Turkey once again made world headlines with a protest (attack) on US sailors, and with Erdogan providing the world with a revisionist history of the Americas.  

Last Wednesday, three American sailors (in civilian clothing) were attacked by a group of protesters, belonging to an extreme nationalist group. Although the perpetrators were eventually arrested, they were released shortly after. The sheer ugliness of the event is hard to describe in words. Even if I am not at all sympathetic to the US military, they were guests of Turkey and the humiliation the sailors endured was unjust. We can only praise the sailors for the restraint they showed since this could have ended much worse.

Clearly, even if this was a fringe group, the anti-imperialist Turkish Youth Union (TGB), imagine if this had happened to Turkish military personnel in the United States or Europe. This would have captured the headlines in Turkey, caused protests, most certainly including burning the flag of the country where it occurred, and most likely have ended with Erdogan scorning the country on live television, and his pro-government media smearing it the next day. 

It needs to be stressed that the fact that Erdogan did not stand up in a strong voice and condemn the attack was a missed opportunity, especially in light of tense relations between the US and Turkey concerning the Kobani crisis. Furthermore, his honorary first in charge, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu,  also remained silent, with condemnation of the incident being issued by the Foreign Department.

No doubt that Turkey was caught off guard by the incident, while Americans sat at home watching it play out on their television screens. True, some US media outlets, seem to have got the story totally wrong, speculating the worst-that the group attacking the Americans were connected ISIS-something that could not be farther from the truth. Regardless, the damage had been done, and no Turkish spokesman was in sight.

Just days later, Turkey was back in the news following Erdogan's claiming at a conference of Latin American Muslims that in fact it was Muslims who had discovered the Americas in 1178, and not Christopher Columbus in 1492. In in no time at all the international media was all over Erdogan's preposterous claim that Cuba had served as a home to Muslims even before Columbus, making his proposal to rebuild the mosque that never was, even stranger (on that note, a Turkish proposal to build a mosque in Cuba was also recently rejected by its government). 

Once again, similar to last week's Palace incident, the "Muslims discovering Americas," quickly became the laughingstock of the world press. This coupled with the widespread negative coverage of the attack on American soldiers, not only surely strengthened the already negative perception of policy makers towards Turkey, but also gushed over to the general European and American public. 

As Turkey deals daily with its scorned relations it has with its Middle Eastern neighbors, these past weeks have shown that if it does not work hard to restore its international standing that it is in danger of hitting even newer lows in how its perceived in Europe and the United States, not to mention causing much damage in its relations with them. 

Yes, for the international press much of the recent news from Turkey has turned into a laughing matter, or in the case of the attack on the sailors, sheer disbelief; however, for the country's citizens and those who wish to see Turkey retain its international prestige, this is far from a laughing matter, but rather a tragicomedy playing out before our eyes.   

Some thoughts on Turkey’s “Parallel State” and Corruption

Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has recently been marketing a new term for Turkish public consumption: the “Parallel State.” This of course is a term that bears a striking resemblance to the familiar term, the “Deep State,” which describes the once anti-democratic forces within the Turkish establishment that prevented the will of the people from being realized, achieving this through violent means such as assassinations and extrajudicial killings of Kurds. The deep state (derin devlet) of course, went hand-in-hand with Turkey’s history of coups, and the grasp the military once had over the state institutions, with its fate being sealed with the Ergenekon and Balyoz trials.

Following the unfolding of the events of the December 17 corruption probe, Erdogan was quick to attribute the probe as a work of the parallel state (paralel devlet). In other words, a new “state within the state,” had emerged within the Turkish bureaucracy, and the corruption probe was nothing less than a blatant attempt to topple his government. In fact, as far as Erdogan was concerned, this did not begin with the corruption probe, but actually with the Gezi Park protests. In his New Year’s Eve message, Erdogan stated that “In May 2013 when everything was going well, both domestic and external powers, which were jealous of our successes, started the Gezi protests and attacked the nation's hopes and the future and independence of our country. This movement was followed by a plot started on Dec. 17.”

Defining the parallel state however was much easier than the underground shady forces of the deep state, since from the beginning there was only one culprit: the once staunch ally of the AKP, the Gulen movement. Despite that tensions between Erdogan and the Gulenist movement became evident a few years back, its spiritual leader, the self-exiled religious preacher, Fethullah Gulen, never pulled his support for the government; however, during the last few months, as Erdogan took steps to consolidate his power within his party, the two camps seemed set on a course of collision, which hit new heights right before the breaking of the corruption probe.  

While there is a kernel of truth concerning the Gulenists' influence within state institutions (as I wrote in Haaretz), what is lacking in the parallel state thesis is that the Gulen movement has showed no signs of wanting to take power away from the AKP. In fact, up until a month ago, their main newspaper, Zaman, one of Turkey’s largest dailies, was still publishing pro-government op-eds, even if its editorial staff had grown more critical following the Gezi protests.

The claim that the movement was attempting to topple Erdogan, in what has been coined as a “judicial coup,” on the surface seems ludicrous; if the Gulenists had no plans to take the reins of the state, or did not support a power to replace the AKP, then what kind of coup is this? And, if Erdogan saw them as such a great threat, then why did he work hand-in-hand with them for the last eleven years, allowing them to become an integral part of the party’s makeup. If anything, Erdogan is a political genius; he clearly is not naïve.

Of course, this leads us to the main question, whether or not the Gulenists only crime (from the perspective of the AKP) was withdrawing its support from the government? Or, perhaps, was it due to the simple fact that Erdogan could not stand any criticism whatsoever, which the Gulen movement was increasingly voicing concerning both domestic and foreign affairs?

The Turkish government knows how to strike back against its opponents and it certainly has. Without any judicial process, hundreds of police and government officials (including prosecutors), believed by many as followers of Gulen, have been removed from their positions, threatening the existence of the rule of law. The weeding out process that we are witnessing appears strikingly similar to the February 28 process, also known as the 1997 “post-modern” coup d’état, when religious Turkish citizens, including many current AKP members, were removed one-by-one from public institutions due to the demands of the once strong secular establishment.  

While Erdogan continues to call foul play, few can deny that the claims of corruption, which on the surface seem to be evident. This was so eloquently expressed by Cuneyt Ozdemir in his weekend article in the Turkish newspaper, Radikal.  According to Ozdemir, most of those accused of receiving bribes or gifts (including government ministers) have yet to deny it; however, the same answer to accusations is repeated over and over again: this is the work of the parallel state! He then goes and highlights the need to separate the two accusations: bribes and corruption are one thing; while, the struggle against parallel state is another, reiterating that if there is such a parallel state it should be investigated accordingly.

What I will add is that until now the government has been unable to present little-if any-evidence of such a parallel state, even if there is no doubt that two camps are involved in a bitter fight. And, even if the government does find the “smoking-gun” that they are endlessly searching for, the recent curbing of judicial powers to obstruct further investigations into corruption affairs, much less the targeting of peoples’ careers based on belonging to a certain sect, is worrying to say the least.

Lastly, a strange twist has emerged from this discovery of the “parallel state.” Erdogan, and the Turkish government, has signaled their support for the retrial of army officers and citizens convicted in the Ergenekon and Balyoz trials, as a result of claims that they were unjustly judged by this newly founded parallel state.

Regardless if one agrees with the convictions (numerous legal experts continue to voice concern of the special court’s judicial transparency), the fact that Erdogan is willing to allow a retrial of these convicts shows just how upside down Turkish politics have become. Imagine the impossible: the ones accused of being the deep state will be retried due to the injustice done to them by the parallel state. The fact that AKP is willing to reverse what they considered their greatest victory in order to cover up the corruption within the government is a travesty.

Lastly, if Erdogan expects to find new friends from this political maneuvering, he will most likely be mistaken. What seems clear is he will likely be opening a new can of worms, which will add to the already growing instability of the Turkish political scene. Let us not forget, for many jailed in Silivri, some who might even be released pending retrial, as far as they are concerned, there is only one parallel state, and that is Erdogan and the AKP apparatus that landed them behind bars.

What is in a Headscarf? Some thought concerning Dress Code Revisions in Turkey

Turkish government signs onto revising dress code
partially lifting head scaef ban 

After over a decade in power, Prime Minister Erdoğan finally announced that his government has done away with the headscarf ban as part of his “Democratization Package,” which is aimed at correcting an array of state-sanctioned injustices. As of October 8, women in Turkey are now allowed to wear the Muslim headscarf in the public sector, ending one of the Turkish Republic’s most stringent secular codes. The next day, television crews were out there to get a glimpse of public school teachers coming to school with their headscarves on.  As someone who has for years spoken against the ban, seeing these teachers was a joyous moment; I still remember when it was also forbidden for university students with the headscarf to enter the classroom. Good riddance to such times.    

Even if there are still some pockets of staunch secularists who vehemently oppose the right of women to cover their heads, it seems most Turkish citizens see this as a something of the past, and clearly unjust in its application. Simply, it was an absurd law that was blatantly discriminatory. One voice of objection actually came from an American emerita professor of anthropology at Stanford University, Carol Delaney, in a letter to the editor in response to a previous article entitled,  Turkey Lifts Longtime Ban on Head Scarves in State Offices (09 October 2013). She states:

“The Turkish government’s lifting of the ban on head scarves in government offices  should not be taken as a sign of democracy, despite what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claims. Instead, it is another insidious step toward the Islamist state he desires and against the secular republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk”

What Professor Delaney had in mind when writing this (or anyone else supporting the continued ban) is hard to imagine since the debate over the headscarf for the most part has been a point of contention among male politicians and not the Turkish population at large. However, her point of view does represent one stream of the former intolerant Turkish State’s political elite.  

Erdoğan’s revising of the dress code, however, also received a negative response among some who have fought years for an end to the headscarf ban since the Turkish government fell short of addressing the issue in its entirety, keeping the headscarf ban in place in the military and police force. Further, while woman lawyers are able to cover in court, they still cannot serve as judges or public prosecutors. In other words, Erdoğan has legitimized the right to restrict the headscarf in certain fields of work, something that should be seen as a grave development in the path to freedom.

The fact that the Prime Minister has chosen to keep the ban in these fields of work is disappointing. While it can be argued perhaps that he chose to remain at a safe distance from the former secularist bastion of the courts and army, we know that over the last decade he has systematically strengthened civil institutions in Turkey, securing a state system that is no longer threatened by military coups; in other words, this does not hold up under scrutiny since he certainly has the power to implement it also in these spheres. Such a decision can lead to the conclusion that the Prime Minister might not find employment in security forces as a proper place for religious women to serve. In other words, yes for teachers, but not police officers.  

Women are not the only ones shortchanged in the revision of dress codes (by the way, women public employees still need to make sure their skirt goes down to their knees with no slit on the side). According to the current dress code, men employed in the government sector need to be clean shaven; meaning, a man with a beard, which also can be due to religious reasons, is still unable to work in the public sector (while the beard is banned a modest mustache is permitted; closely mirroring Erdoğan’s own facial features). 

So what are we to make of this? While the recent changing in the dress code should be applauded, citizens in Turkey supporting a liberal democratic state can actually interpret this move as a continuation of the “uniform” state, i.e., not a state that promotes diversity, but one that supports uniformity based on  the “State’s” will.

Further, the move by Erdoğan to implement the changes in the dress code now, can actually be interpreted as being motivated out of realpolitik and not out of a liberal understanding of equal rights. With three elections just around the corner (municipality, presidential, parliamentary), Erdoğan needs to address his own conservative base, and other political groups that have adopted a more religious conservative agenda than his own; especially since some liberal camps, who have supported his reforms during the last decade, are reconsidering their support in light of the Gezi Park protests.  

Perhaps it is telling that the same day when the newspapers were congratulating the new changes in the dress code, one of Erdoğan government ministers criticized a woman television presenter’s dress, as it showed too much cleavage. The next day she was fired by the television company. Truly this is a sign that in Turkey (as many places) controversy related to a women’s dress or body, will continue to be debated and monitored by male politicians.

While the partial-lifting of the headscarf ban is a great move towards allowing more women into the workforce, it seems that this is not topping the Turkish government’s agenda. With Erdoğan continuing to encourage families to have at least three children, if not four, heavy social pressures are being placed on Turkish women to remain in the home. Further, with Turkey’s booming economy, one would think that in terms of gender equality, Turkey would have improved; however, the opposite is true with Turkey dropping from 105 (out 135 countries) in 2006, to 124 in 2012, on the Global gender gap scale; despite this, one sign of hope is that women in the workforce has jumped from 23.3% in2008 to 29.3% in 2012 according to the Turkish Statistic Foundation (TUIK).

With huge gaps in gender equality, the major force of debate in Turkey now should move on from the issue of headscarves onto working towards a more gender equitable society. Unfortunately, the government’s continued partial ban on the headscarf sends a tacit message that women are not welcomed in all fields of government employment at a time when the opposite message is needed. 

To catch a terrorist within the American Dream

Here is an excerpt of my latest in Today's Zaman (25 April 2013):

The Boston Marathon bombing, killing three people and injuring over a hundred others, shocked the world as it played out on live television. The story picked up on Thursday night after the release of photos of two possible suspects, who within hours were spotted at the scene of a robbery. Following this, the two suspects hijacked a car, temporarily holding its owner hostage; from there, they wreaked havoc, killing a university security officer, engaging police in a car chase, and a subsequent gun battle, which left one of the suspects dead. Following this incident, a whole neighborhood was placed under lockdown, and a search began for the second suspect, who was apprehended in serious condition within a little over 24 hours.

Within hours of the suspects' photos being released, they were identified; it was two brothers of Chechen origin, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed during the gun battle, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, 19, arrested at the end of the saga. The release of the identities of the suspect led to a media frenzy, much to the likes of reality television, which aired as a non-stop 24-hour episode. Both on the airwaves and social media, everyone questioned who these two men from the far off lands of Chechnya and Dagestan were, and what ills they held for the American way of life.

To continue reading, here is the link

With Mashrou' Leila from Haifa to Beirut, and back to Istanbul

Here is my latest from Your Middle East (10 April 2013):

From the moment I heard that the Lebanese band Mashrou' Leila was coming to Istanbul, I knew I was in for a great evening; I just never imagined how much this band, made up of former students from the American University of Beirut, could dish out.

Just a year ago, this group made its way across my Facebook feed, and it took only weeks before they became a part of my daily life, with a ritual developing at my home where I would share their music with friends coming over in evenings before going out to enjoy Istanbul nights.

What strikes me most about Mashrou' Leila’s music, and its musicians, is that it seems to be very much a product of urban mixing, which I myself experienced both in Haifa and Istanbul. While their music offers a splash of Beirut, evident also in their Lebanese accents, it is rather a testament to a multicultural existence, which is not forced but natural; it is a dangerous mix of happiness and the backdrop of a much darker reality. Song after song, they offer a personal narrative of crossing borders, challenging existing cultural, social and gender constructs.

To continue reading, here is the link