Under the moderation of Professor Kemal Inat, the SETA Foundation organized a panel on the broader question of how the U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia will affect Turkey. Speakers were Neyire Akpinarli, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law at Social Sciences University Ankara; Mustafa Caner, Research Assistant at Sakarya University Middle East Institute; and Yunus Furuncu, Researcher in Energy Studies at SETA Istanbul.

Kemal Inat began the panel by highlighting how one of the most important factors of the Iran sanctions is petrol. Providing figures, Inat underlined how in 2019 January, February and March, there has been around a 12% decrease of oil imports from Iran to Turkey in comparison to the same time last year. According to Inat, one implication for Turkey is the payment method for oil imported from Iran, as this was a listed problem among the sanctions applied.

Kemal İnat: “The U.S. sanctions on Iran also punish Turkey.”

According to Inat, one of the major problems for Turkey in the scope of the Iran sanctions is Turkey’s exports and imports to Iran. There are two reasons for this. After the Iran sanctions, the Iranian currency dropped against the dollar and life in Iran was affected. The second reason for this is how the banking system in Iran was pushed out of the global system and how investment in Iran became discouraged due to the sanctions applied. By providing figures, Inat underlined how major sectors were affected and how there has been a major decrease in Turkey’s exports to Iran. Inat stated, “This illustrates that the U.S. sanctions on Iran are also designed to punish Turkey.”

Iran sanctions breach international law

Neyire Akpinarli provided a presentation on the legal implications of the U.S. sanctions applied on Iran. At the very beginning of her presentation, Akpinarli drew attention to the fact that we need to know what the term ‘sanction’ means as terms can be the constituent of a particular context. She also highlighted the fact that the term ‘sanction’ is criticized in international law.

Akpinarli also highlighted how the U.S. has driven its foreign policy interests above international law and how there is a gap in international law, which does not fiercely state the extent that a sovereign state can go in trying to preserve and act in its own interests.

Neyire Akpinarli: “The U.S. has driven its foreign policy interests above international law and acts as if a judge in its own case” 

“No-one should be a judge in his own case,” this principle of natural justice is according to Akpinarli the most important barrier in the U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran, as in this particular case, the U.S. is acting as if a judge in its own case. She further stated that it was the first time that such sanctions had surpassed international law for the first time. The U.S. has gone against international law as the current sanctions go against the sovereignty of states, freedom of foreign interference in domestic affairs and the freedom of fair-trade rights.

Following the presentation, Inat re-emphasized that the U.S. assumes its own domestic law and politics to account for international law.

What are the political, economic and social effects of the Iran sanctions?

Speaking after Akpinarli, Mustafa Caner discussed how the sanctions affected Iran in particular. When talking about the effects that the sanctions have had on Iran, he designated 3 sub-titles. The first, economic affects and the second, political– Caner mentioned how there is a strong relationship between these two due to the fact that the Trump Administration intends to apply economic pressure in order to topple the Iranian government. Therefore, both economic and political aspects of sanctions go hand-in-hand and in parallel to each other. The third area that was discussed were the social implications of the Iran sanctions.

Highlighting figures from Iran, Caner stated how there has been mass increase in youth unemployment, which has reached around 30% and how inflation is nearly 130%. The value of Iranian currency has dropped against the U.S. dollar and many important companies have withdrawn from Iran and all investments have stopped. The main aim of this is not to “embarrass” the Iranian people, but according to Caner, Trump has his own agreement in mind. Therefore, he’s using sanctions as “blackmail.”

Mustafa Caner: “Trump has his own agreement in mind. But he’s using sanctions against Iran as blackmail”

In addition to these economic sanctions, the Trump Administration are pursuing “containment policies.” While economic sanctions are part of this, there are also political tools that have been used. Caner gave the example of how the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Caner highlighted how this recognition covers all IRGC affiliated peoples and companies. Military tensions heightened after Iran recognized CENTCOM as a terrorist group. 

The Guard Corps are very influential not only within Iranian politics but also for the country’s economy. Therefore, Caner stated how many companies and people that try to work with Iran may be listed as aiding terrorism under the U.S. recognition, which is the reason why major companies are withdrawing from Iran. 

This also has a military implication due to the fact that any collusion between CENTCOM and the IRGC is an open risk. Caner highlighted how the possibility of such a collusion will be used by both sides in order to gain their bargains on the negotiating table.

In addition to these implications, Caner also specifically pointed out how the current environment caused by Iran sanctions has led to the decrease of Rouhani’s popularity and his inability to provide the modern reforms that he promised. “The Rouhani administration has had to force itself into a more conservative direction due to the sanctions imposed.” This is important as Caner highlighted the fact that Rouhani promised a softer tone in foreign policy and his biggest project was the nuclear deal – all of this has been toppled by the Trump Administration.

In terms of the social affects, there are surveys conducted by municipalities in Iran that illustrate how a majority of people living in Tehran would prefer to live somewhere else. Caner highlighted how there is a “uncomfortable fraction of society” in Iran who are “angry” but no one knows how this will be directed and controlled. He also emphasized how this tone among the public is likely to increase in the near future.

Sanctions on Russia

In terms of sanctions applied on Russia, which Inat described as coming about due to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Yunus Furuncu discussed the extent to which these have had an effect on Turkey.

Furuncu emphasized how sanctions applied on Russia are not discussed as much as sanctions applied on Iran and how the debate on any kind of sanctions around Turkey has been contextualized in the purchase of S-400s.

Yunus Furuncu: “The EUis unable to process sanctions against Russia on natural gas, because Russia provides 40% of the EU’s gas needs”

Providing a list of events where the U.S. and Russia were left face-to-face in international politics, for instance in issues around Russian involvement in U.S. elections, the murder of two Russian agents in the UK and the annexation of Crimea. Crimea was the reason why sanctions began in 2014.

Furuncu stated that it is possible to describe U.S. sanctions on Russia as an attempt to “decrease the economic power of Russia and affect its ability to dominate the energy market.” He also highlighted how the U.S. is not able to process sanctions on natural gas due to the fact that Russia provides 40% of the U.S.’ gas needs.

Fouad Siniora attended the SETA Foundation in Istanbul for a special lecture on the Middle East under the title “The Effect of Instability in the Arab World on Regional and Global Stability.”

Fouad Siniora was the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, and governed the country from 2005 to 2008. He stepped down on 9 November, 2009, in favour of Saad Hariri.

After an opening speech of the SETA Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Muhittin Ataman, Siniora began his speech by highlighting how he moved from the banking sector into politics, but that he was always fond of politics since his childhood. Prior to his role as prime minister, Siniora was Lebanon’s Minister of Finance and is now the leader of the parliamentary group, the Future Movement.

Fouad Siniora underlined how the world is going through changes and immense repercussions, which he described to a “period that is characterized by the absence of global leadership, less cooperation, more uncertainty and lower levels of trust in national and international institutions.”

“The world is increasingly becoming chaotic, where power relations are less clear, universal values are being eroded and the rule of law is being undermined. Accordingly, it appears that the world is leading into a new order, or a new global dis-order.”

Explaining the current situation in the Arab world and the region’s position in terms of international politics, Fouad Siniora described the Middle East as “the crossroad of three continents and the cradle of major civilizations.”

The former PM highlighted how while the Middle East is the most oil and natural resources-rich region, it is also one of the driest regions. He highlighted that while the Middle East has about 6% of the world’s population, it only has 1% of renewable sources of water.

Siniora listed what he believed the most important events to shape politics to be in the Middle East. Among this list was the 1948 Nakba, the events of 1967, which saw Israel occupy more Arab lands, the invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring, and the impact of technological evolution in the field of telecommunications, which he believed “led among other things to the collapse of fear and silence” in the region.

According to Siniora, the most important problem of the Middle East is the current Palestine problem. The former PM highlighted how the structural policies of Israel are forcing Palestinians to flee their homes. More, criticizing the U.S. move to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and the decision to cancel funding to those in need in the occupied Palestinian territories, Siniora emphasized that the fact that the new definition of Palestinian refugees only include those that were actually born in Palestine, is a structural way to slowly but surely see the dismantling and diminishing of this state.

According to Siniora the invasion of Iraq is what allowed for the region to be characterized by sectarian conflicts. Criticizing Iran for its sectarian policies, he simply stated that “We are all Muslims. What’s going to happen when you convert people from one sect to another. Is this how you are going to measure your success?”

Underlining how the Arab world has become the enemy, Siniora stated that “We do not want the rest of the world to be scared of us. But for this to happen, the rest of the world cannot go on to believe that the problems of the Arab world are the problems of the Arab people alone.”

Finalizing his speech, Fouad Siniora insisted on continuous reforms, which will lead to stable growth in the region. For this to happen, according to the former PM, the “Arab world desperately needs new approaches.”

The SETA Foundation held a panel today in order to discuss the possible effect that the Jamal Khashoggi can have on the politics of the Middle East.

Moderated by Kemal Inat, Berdal Aral, Ferhat Unlu and Huseyin Alptekin were the three panellists.

Before starting the panel, Kemal Inat stated that there were three aspects to the Jamal Khashoggi case. A humanitarian aspect, regional and international politics aspect, and finally an aspect regarding Saudi Arabia’s domestic politics.

In terms of the geopolitical consequences, Inat underlined how the fact that the event took place in Istanbul could have the potential to reconstruct foreign policy with countries close to Turkey. Second, the fact that Jamal Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post automatically puts the U.S. in the frame, and thus event has given the opposition the opportunity to utilize Trump’s closeness with the Saudi regime in the upcoming mid-term elections. Finally, the fact that Saudi Arabia is the only prominent regime in the region that is supporting Israel, also brings a question as to whether this event will have the consequence of changing Israel’s place in the geopolitical spectrum.

Berdal Aral from Istanbul Medeniyet University approached the issue from a international and human rights law perspective.

He first began by informing the audience of diplomatic immunity, as this was an issue that has been laid on the table after the Saudi consulate general refused to allow Turkish authorities to search the consulate.

While he highlighted the immunity provided to diplomats, Aral highlighted that these diplomats, are by international law, “required to respect the rule of law in the hosting country and are forbidden from using the diplomatic missions for events apart from national policy.”

“The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is an extraordinary situation as it was committed in the consulate. It’s difficult to find such examples in history.”

This event also damaged Turkey. It was a “disrespect to its national sovereignty.”

“There is a violation of international law.”

Berdal Aral also emphasized how Saudi Arabia has tried to extend its use of force to a different country, which is why this event, the way it took place, the actors involved, and the consequences that will be drawn from it, “are nothing like the events we’ve seen before.”

Referring to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s call for the people involved in the murder to be held to account in Istanbul, Ardal explained that this was in Turkey’s right to request to do so. However, he also reminded the audience that not only will Saudi Arabia resist, but they also have to uplift the diplomatic immunity of the consulate workers in order for a judicial review to begin.

Echoing statements made by Berdal Aral, Ferhat Unlu, a journalist from Sabah, also highlighted how the Jamal Khashoggi case was different from previous ones.

“There have been many murders since the Cold War committed by intelligence services. However, this one is very different.”

“The Saudi officials didn’t even feel the need to provide fake ID to the people that flew here [to Istanbul] to commit the murder.”

Although there is no concrete evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder, Unlu stated how it’s extraordinary for people that can be described as the Prince’s “right-wing men” to commit such a crime without having their identities covered.

It’s clear that all members of the hit squad are close allies of MbS, and therefore how can we expect for this crime to be committed without the prior knowledge of the Saudi regime?

Observing the issue from an intelligence perspective, Unlu also underlined that the Director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, came to Turkey in order to see what evidence the Turkish authorities have. He also added that there are some background reports that state Haspel listened to the recording of the murder.

Finally touching upon the future of Saudi Arabia-US relations, Unlu stated how “Although Trump will not cancel arms trade deals, he has to accept that this was an infringement on human rights and therefore, we can expect changes in relations between the two countries.”

Huseyin Alptekin, a Professor of International Relations at Istanbul Sehir University tried to answer the following questions: “Why Turkey? Why now? Why Khashoggi? Why Saudi Arabia?”

In regards to the “why Turkey?” question, Alptekin highlighted that although relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia were not in crisis mode, they had deteriorated in the previous years due to certain disagreements between the two countries.

“The Middle East is not a number one priority for the U.S. anymore,” stated Alptekin, and therefore, Mohammed bin Salman and Saudi Arabia tried to take advantage of this space in regional politics.

Alptekin described MbS as someone “that needs to prove himself.” “Those before him didn’t have to prove themselves, because they already had this. However, the way MbS came to power was through some kind of coup. Let’s remember the Ritz Carlton event.”

Thus, Alptekin described MbS as having “power” but no “legitimacy.”

In general however, Alptekin observed the Jamal Khashoggi case as a “critical juncture.”

He stated that “although critical junctures do not tell us what happen next, they tell us that anything can happen.”

In this regard, Turkey’s stance on the Khashoggi case is an example of Ankara trying to expand its boundaries of what can happen. The Turkish government could have made deals with the Saudi and U.S. governments behind closed doors. However, it has displayed a consistent tactic and has been able to place this issue as number one on the international agenda.

Alptekin finished his words by stating that “Saudi Arabia will not be able to commit such an operation like this in Turkey again.”

In cooperation with the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, SETA Istanbul held a panel today discussing the changing dynamics in Turkey’s foreign policy. Under the title “Turkey’s Foreign Policy in the New Period: Opportunities and Challenges,” the speakers were Kemal Inat, Talha Kose, Samir Salha, and Said Elhaj.

Kemal Inat began by stating that Turkey is currently trying to follow an “independent foreign policy,” meaning that Ankara is prioritizing its own interests due to the clash it has found itself in with its Western partners.

Increasingly, Turkey’s Western allies have been falling distant to the threats that Turkey has encountered in terms of fighting against terrorism and the Syrian Civil War that has caused mass migration into the country.

In terms of the current problems that Turkey is facing, Inat stated that the problems that Turkey has witnessed “are greatly related to Ankara’s foreign policy position.”

Providing a historical background on the relations between Turkey and the U.S., Inat reminded the audience that the initial beginning of a relationship between Ankara and Washington was during the Cold War era, when Turkey needed the protection of the U.S. against Soviet expansionism.

“There was no equal relationship at first. The U.S. is trying to maintain this power relationship, while Turkey wants an equal relationship.”

In regards to Turkey’s attempts to form equal relationships between its allies, Inat also added an “alternative” dimension to the discussions on Turkish foreign policy. Inat stated that it is “natural” for Turkey to seek alternative allies – including Russia – due to its deteriorating relations with its Western allies.

“Ankara wants to form relationships based on mutual interdependence. Who ever is close to this idea, then Turkey will form good relations with that country. This is the answer to who Turkey will form relations with.”

In spite of all discussions surrounding relations between Turkey and the West, Inat also reminded the audience that the European Union is still Turkey’s largest trading partner and that the two blocs are mutually dependent on each other in terms of trade.

In agreement, Talha Kose also mentioned that while there have been ups and downs in the bilateral relation between the U.S. and Turkey, there has never been such a systematic clog.

Kose stated how anti-Turkey lobbies in the U.S. gained power after the Iraq war and were finally at a peak where they had a direct affect on relations between the two countries.

Regional powers that want to maintain the current status quo in the Middle East – namely, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – have all maintained good relations with the U.S., while mutual insecurity has haunted the Turkey-U.S. relationship.

Speaking after Talha Kose, Said Elhaj also added the FETO dimension. Elhaj stated how the U.S. support for Fetullah Gulen and FETO has been a major detriment to relations between Washington and Ankara.

Emphasizing that the relationship between Turkey and the U.S. is an important one, Elhaj added that “Turkey does not want to lose the U.S. or NATO.”

Apart from Turkey’s relations with the U.S., Elhaj also re-iterated why some countries in the Arab world support a deteriorated Turkey-U.S. relationship. The reason for this according to Elhaj is due to the fact that “Turkey is a country observed as supporting the Arab Spring.” More, Turkey was very open in its support to Qatar during the Gulf crisis – something that initially went against the interests of Saudi Arabia.

The AK Party is about to celebrate its 17th foundation anniversary. Since the party was established on August 14, 2001, it became one of the game changers in Turkish politics. Turkey went under a great transformation in the political, economic, and cultural areas under the AK Party governments. Understanding Turkey’s transformation in these prominent areas in the last seventeen years requires analyzing the main paradigms in AK Party politics.

One of the things that made the AK Party successful in politics is related to its catch-all characteristic. The party has overcome the classical line of right-wing politics via using catch-all party formation. To do so, the party offered a new political identity and a new style of politics in Turkish political structure and transformed the classical right-Islamist-center right political alignments. Instead of making politics for demands of certain sections in society, the AK Party, interested in all problems of Turkish people, has pursued a more inclusive political style and thus has become Turkey’s largest catch-all party.

As in all other catch-all parties, the party leadership was crucial to attract and mobilize the supporters of the party. Even though the role of Erdogan was very effective in the party’s politics since the beginning, his determinant role on the party had increased in time. As a founding father of the party, his discourse on the party’s politics was the key element not only in decision-making processes but also in shaping and reformulating the lines of the party’s structure in some circumstances. Thus, with the effect of Erdogan’s role and his undeniable charismatic leadership in Turkish politics, the AK Party also strengthened its popularity among masses and became invincible.

Another prominent issue that makes AK Party politics different than other political actors is its unique ideological position in the Turkish political sphere. Even if the party has never had a certain and clear-cut ideological baggage, it settled its ideological position as neither a right-wing nor a left-wing party; but as a conservative democratic organization. With the help of conservative democracy, the party integrated incompatible concepts such as traditional and modern, secular and religious, and morality and rationality, in its understanding and get massive support from various circles of society.

This unique ideological concept also made the party embrace all citizens regardless of their gender, ethnicity, beliefs, and worldviews. In accordance with this, the party emphasized fundamental rights and freedoms excessively in its program since the beginning. Human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of press, democratization, and civil society were the main issues that the party brought to the forefront of its agenda.

All of these factors created a strong bond between the masses and the party. President Erdogan has always been at the center of this special relationship. Erdogan’s leadership style also empowered and transformed this relationship in a positive way. Thus, the tie between a leader and the public came to a peak under his leading role. In other words, he fulfilled the duties of his predecessors, Menderes and Ozal, and transformed the line of politics fundamentally.

Obviously, there is a need to analyze the AK Party’s politics and its function in Turkey’s transformation process in detail. Additionally, there is also a need for evaluating Erdogan’s specific role in this transformation process since the beginning. The SETA Foundation is organizing a symposium in understanding the role of the AK Party on August 14 in Ankara. This special event will also help researchers and academics of Turkish politics to ask further questions in order to understand the role of the AK Party during the transformation of political, cultural, and social spheres in Turkey.

On July 12, 2018, the SETA Foundation in Istanbul organized a symposium about the July 15 coup attempt.

Moderated by Burhanettin Duran, AK Party spokesperson Mahir Unal and former Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag attended the first panel.

Unal began his speech by stating that “We don’t need to look at literature to observe what happened on July 15 because it occurred during our lifetimes. We just have to analyze the events correctly.”

While the trials of Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) members are still ongoing, Unal underlined that “When the two terms ‘FETO’ and ‘politics’ come together, we have to first assess the mission of Turkish politics.”

“Turkish politics cannot accept another organization or cloud above itself” – and this was something that FETO was trying to do; trying to place itself within a hegemonic space within the Turkish political sphere.

Flaws of the old system

During his speech, Unal emphasized the fact that the July 15 coup attempt cannot be observed without discussing the failures of the old governance system in Turkey.

He made this point by stating that “In 42 years, 36 governments changed.”

Comparing the governance system of Turkey to a car, Unal stated that under the old system there were two drivers – one that was elected by the people and one that assumed its hegemony. He stated that the old system was based on a tutelage regime, where elected officials were continuously blocked by unelected individuals.

Continuing, in his criticism of the old governmental system, Mahir Unal stated that every time the system gave an error, “we went to the people.” In reference to this, the AK Party spokesman said that “We [the AK Party] didn’t act with the power of the system for 16 years, but rather, with the power of politics.”

The people took control

Discussing the events that took place on the night of July 15, Unal stated that as soon as the Turkish people felt that the state was being overthrown, they “took to the streets and held on to the state with their bare hands.”

“The Turkish people did not shoot back at the putschists who fired at them. It was as if there was an invisible collective understanding of justice that night.”

Before finishing off his speech, the AK party spokesman underlined the importance of not comparing FETO to other terrorist organizations such as the PKK or Daesh. The reason for this being is because, as Unal stated, “FETO is a group that had infiltrated the state and wanted to take control of the space left free from the old tutelage regime.”

“FETO is a new type of terrorist organization, that doesn’t use guns. They operate in different ways. Unlike the PKK or Daesh, FETO can be analyzed as a smarter and sophisticated terrorist organization.”

July 15 in Parliament

Before beginning his speech, moderator Burhanettin Duran asked for former Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag to talk a little about his experience of July 15, as he is one of the figures that the Turkish people remember in Parliament.

Speaking little of the events that occurred in Parliament that night, Bozdag mentioned that the reason why he believed it was wrong for parliamentarians to hide in shelters (while FETO had dropped 2 bombs on Parliament that night) is because if people had seen that Parliament was shutdown, they would not have found the courage to take to the streets.

Following, Bozdag stated that “In order to understand July 15, we need to go back in time.” Giving reference to previous military coups that happened in Turkey, the former minister stated that “no one ever asked the question: what are you doing?”

There are two events that keep July 15 separate from previous military coups in Turkey. Bozdag listed these as 1) the fact that the putschists could not take hold of the President and 2) that the President chose to protect his and his country’s honor and that the Turkish people stood right behind him. This, Bozdag stated, was a “first for Turkish people.”

Bozdag compared the resistance displayed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan on that night to that displayed by Ataturk – the people of Anadolu stood with Ataturk, resisting against imperialists, just like the people stood with President Erdogan, resisting against FETO putschists.

One other important feature of July 15 is that “For the first time the justice system did not try to legitimize the coup” – something that occurred during the February 28, 1997, coup during the Erbakan era.

Wrapping up his speech, Bozdag asked the audience to think about one question: “What would have happened if the Turkish people had not answered the President’s call to take on the streets?”

In conclusion, Bozdag made statements appreciating the courage of President Erdogan that night, referring to how he flew to Ataturk Airport with his family, not knowing who was in control. Risking his and his family’s life, Bozdag criticized those that still call Erdogan a “dictator” when he “risked his own life for democracy’s sake.”

Ending the panel, Burhanettin Duran stated that “A new belief emerged within the Turkish people that people can resist against military coups and that they should do so. In fact, people were making references to Menderes stating that ‘we couldn’t take care of Menderes [who was hung after a military take over], but we will look after Erdogan.'”

On 20 June, 2018, Anwar Ibrahim – Malaysia’s former prime minister who was sentenced to prison for sodomy in 2015 – gave a speech at SETA Istanbul.

Anwar has served a total of 11 years in prison, serving during different time periods, and was lastly sentenced by former Prime Minister Wajib Razak in 2015. Awar’s 3-year sentence by Wajib Razak was merely an attempt by the former premier to get rid of a feared political rival who was much more popular than him and who had gained the popular vote in the 2013 general election.

The release of Anwar Ibrahim was granted by the Pakatan Harapan coalition led by 92-year-old Matahir Mohamad.

Granted a full pardon by the King on the basis that there was a “miscarriage of justice,” Anwar has after 20 years of struggle, cleared his name.

After receiving the pardon, Anwar made it clear on various platforms that although it was not easy, he had “forgiven” those that sentenced him and the assaults that he had to endure.

Erdogan, a “brother” and “friend in difficulty”

During the event that took place at SETA Istanbul yesterday (Wednesday) SETA General Coordinator Burhanettin Duran made an opening speech. During this speech Duran highlighted the importance of events that are occurring in Malaysia and the correspondence of these events with the elections that are going to take place in Turkey on June 24.

Thanking Anwar for his attendance, Prof. Duran described Malaysia as a country that “plays a role in breaking the negative taboo against Muslims and in the fight against Islamophobia.”

Anwar began his speech by expressing his delight to be in Turkey – reminding the audience that he was in a prison cell only just last month. Prior to Anwar’s visit to Turkey, many circles were questioning the reason why he was visiting Turkey just before the country was to hold its parliamentary and presidential elections.

Before starting his speech, Anwar Ibrahim also felt the need to clarify this issue. Explaining that President Erdogan had invited him and his family to the country, Anwar emphasized that he was in Turkey “on this basis.”

“When I was arrested, Erdogan invited my family to Turkey – a brother and friend in difficulty – told Aziza (Anwar’s wife) ‘promise me when Anwar comes out of prison, you’ll visit us.’”

“That’s the basis I came here so there’s no confusion as to why I’m here before the elections,” Anwar said.

Underlining the respect he had for President Erdogan, Anwar stated: “From Pakistan to India – whether you agree with him or not – Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the only leader that is speaking out for the Muslim world.”

Institutional and governmental reforms

Reminding the audience that he was stripped from his freedom of speech, Anwar repeated that from now on he will speak his conscious.

“I was never made foreign minister because I’m not a good diploma. I speak my mind and I pay the price. Yes there was freedom to speak, but no freedom after I spoke.”

Throughout the hour-long speech that he made, Anwar repeatedly emphasized the importance of institutional governance in Muslim-majority countries.

“For a country to propel economically, reform is necessary,” he said.

Highlighting the fact that credit rating agencies “do not care if there is a growing gap between the rich and poor” and only care “about making a country more attractive,” Anwar stated that economics must be categorized in justice and compassion.

Continuously referring to corruptions in the region, Anwar described this as “institutionalized corruption” and stated that the future work of the Muslim world must be to reform institutions and governance.

Preserving his humor yet addressing a serious problem in the Muslim world, Anwar stated “Muslim leaders cannot go to Hajj and Umrah every year and then come back to their countries and talk Islam and justice, when they continue to shredder more money.”

Among the answers that he gave to questions regarding how he and his government will transform the system in Malaysia, Anwar listed elements such as the freedom of media, economy, care for people, health and housing – factors that he claimed were the most important.

The west cannot dictate

In reference to the hypocrisy occurring in the west, Anwar strongly expressed that he does not want the country to be dictated by the west.

“I do not want my country or myself to be dictated by the western or eastern agenda but by the Malaysian people themselves.”

“I’m a firm believer in collaboration and interchange. However, I don’t dictate my political position and will not be dictated by other’s discourses.”

Before finishing his speech, Anwar emphasized the need for reform and finished off by stating: “All we ask for is Muslim leaders to rule with their moral conscious.”

Anwar is expected to become the prime minister of Malaysia in two years, as he has said that he wants to stay as a back-bencher for a while.

The Current Educational Conditions of Syrian Children in Turkey

Obviously, hosting refugees is not easy, either logistically or politically, and the bitter truth is that they will not return to Syria in the near future. This is why the success of sustainable migration policies is crucial in terms of the mutual adaptation of Syrians and the host community in Turkey. Also, the inconsistent policies of allied countries for the refugees during the refugee crisis, along with the existence of ethnic and religious terrorist groups such as the PYD/YPG and DAESH, constitute the external factors that encourage Turkey to be more determined to implement effective education policies. Similarly, in order to reach social agreement on Syrian refugees and to keep Syrian youths away from any activity that may disrupt public order, Turkey needs to prepare a road map for the education of refugee children. This is necessary to prevent the emergence of a ghost generation that has no identity, no home and no future. Even though various regulations on education have been implemented since 2012, it is difficult to affirm the existence of stable policies on this issue.

Source: MEB

According to MEB’s February 2016 data, there are 834,833 Syrian school-age (5-18) children in Turkey. While 311,259 of these children are being educated at the GEMs[1] (Temporary Education Centers), the remaining 523,583 are yet to be enrolled in school. Furthermore, GİGM (General Directorate for Migration Management of Turkey) data says that there are 364,974 Syrian children currently aged between 0 and 4, who will start their education in the coming years. This picture illustrates the urgent need for sustainable migration policies for Turkey in terms of education and social adaptation.

What is to be done?

The SETA Foundation published a report to draw attention to this issue. As the authors of this report, based on our fieldwork conducted in the cities most populated with refugees, Şanlıurfa, Gazinatep, Kilis, İstanbul and Ankara, my colleague Müberra Emin and I argue that the education of Syrians is a challenge for Turkey, but this challenge could be transformed into an opportunity for both the refugees and Turkey. By conducting observations inside and outside the camps, holding interviews, along with holding in workshops and meetings to contribute to the process of preparing sustainable long-term policies, we developed a roadmap for the education of Syrian children in Turkey. First of all, Turkey needs more extensive and in-depth studies on Syrian children’s welfare and education conditions. The amendments needed to increase the number of schooled Syrian children necessitate a transformation of the whole national education system in Turkey, and such reforms must be encouraged. Educational reform could bridge more pluralist and enriched educational programs and environments. Also, the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has set a target to close the GEMs gradually over the next three years, and transiting Syrian students from GEMs with Arabic Syrian curriculum to public schools with Turkish curriculums.

Within the Syrian community, there are many serious concerns about this decision, because the Syrians are afraid of an assimilation that may cause generational clashes with their children. However, from the Ministry viewpoint, transition to public schools is critical to overcome the language barrier to ensure social adaptation. We should consider the concerns of the both sides, which show that Turkey needs a hybrid model for the education of Syrian children. Syrian children in public schools should undergo a 6-month/1-year language education and preparation program for school, after which they should be included in the education process according to their level. If the preparatory process is not enough, they should be provided with weekend or after-school Turkish language education. This could be a good start to increase the number of schooled Syrian children and to provide them with good education opportunities. Eventually, Turkey will promote a new strong generation rather than a Syrian ghost generation; most of them have disappeared in Europe. The report also addresses issues such as teacher training, recruitment and curriculum, and also includes policy recommendations with regard to Syrians children’s education in Turkey.

[1] GEMs are primary and secondary education institutions which provide temporary education to Syrian children and teenagers in Arabic and according to the Syrian curricula; they are active both inside and outside the camps.