After applying for UN membership and being granted ‘Non-Member Observer’ status in 2012, Palestine has now been voted into the global police network, Interpol.

Despite heavy opposition from Israel, Palestine has been accepted as a full member of Interpol on Wednesday.

According to the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) diplomatic wing, Palestine was voted in by more than 75 percent of member states at the organization’s general assembly in China.

Criticizing Israel’s negative stance, PLO negotiations spokesman Xavier Abu Eid tweeted: “Israel’s hysteria over Palestine’s Interpol membership is simply based on the fact that they don’t accept Palestinian statehood.”

Earlier in the day, the Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a statement claiming that they and other countries had delayed the vote after complaining about ‘irregularities.’

“We continue to struggle,” the statement said, highlighting Israel’s attempts to block membership for Palestine.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel’s opposition was due to the fact that Israel was worried Palestine’s membership could mean issuing warrants against Israeli citizens.

A previous attempt to join Interpol was curbed during Interpol’s previous general assembly in Indonesia, when the body decided to postpone any vote on accepting new members.

Turkey’s assistance

Talking to Anadolu Agency, Mufid al-Hassaina, Palestine’s Minister of Public Works thanked the Turkish government and the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) for their humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip.

TIKA “has carried out numerous projects in Gaza varying from humanitarian aid to infrastructure,” al- Hassaina stated.

Emphasizing his appreciation, al-Hassaina thanked the leaders of Turkey: “On behalf of the people of Palestine, I’d like to thank President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Binali Yildirim and the Turkish community for their support for the Palestinian cause.”

He informed that TIKA had completed a housing project in Gaza, which would meet the shelter needs of 2,250 people, principally war victims, the needy poor and the disabled.

Highlighting the importance of the solar energy panels that TIKA installed for local people suffering from Israeli power cuts, including those in hospitals, al-Hassaina added that “a lot of people were saved in operating rooms thanks to TIKA.”

The solar panels are also critical for education needs as power cuts by the Israeli state can last up to 21 hours.

Citing the Turkey-Palestine Friendship Hospital, which is due to be opened in 2018, and set to be the largest hospital in Gaza, al-Hassaina explained how “the hospitals built by Turkey have already provided great assistance to the Palestinian people.”

In regards to the new hospital, al-Hassaina informed that the hospital staff would be chosen with coordination between Turkish and Palestinian authorities.

On Muhammad Murtaja, a TIKA employee who was detained in February this year, he said: “Israel has blocked the Gaza Strip since 2006; international groups carrying out humanitarian aid are pressured and blocked by them.”

Murtaja was detained by Israeli forces on February 12. After 37 days in custody, the court decided that he would be jailed pending trial.

Disregarded by many developed countries and neglected by the Muslim world, the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar found a voice through Turkey, once again highlighting the country’s prominence in humanitarian aid. After President Erdoğan’s meeting with the Myanmar administration, Turkey will extend its helping hand to the region and its people through the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TİKA).

Providing humanitarian aid has been a strong cultural trait of Turkey. During the time that the government has been standing firmly against the massacre in Myanmar, it must not be forgotten how Turkey was the only country that took an initiative of help during the famine in Somalia in 2011. While no politicians visited Somalia, President Erdoğan visited the country with his family, ministers, and representatives of business and sport in order to draw the international arena’s attention to the crisis that was occurring in Somalia.

In addition to Somalia, disregarding the political and economic repercussions, Turkey did not remain idle to the Israeli violence in Palestine. During the 2009 World Economic Forum’s “Gaza: Peace in the Middle East” panel, Erdogan’s firm stance against Shimon Peres clearly illustrated his government’s position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then prime minister, Erdogan’s “one minute” slogan became characterized of Turkey-Israel relations. Diplomatic relations further deteriorated after the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid, which was organized by the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Aid (IHH). Israeli commanders that landed on the deck not only prevented the aid from being delivered to Gaza but also killed 10 activists who were on board.

Another conflict in the region, which Turkey has approached with a humanitarian perspective is the Syrian civil war. Pursuing an open-door policy, Turkey has welcomed Syrians fleeing chaos and conflict. Followed by Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey is the largest host of Syrian refugees. According to data provided by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Interior Directorate General of Migration Management (GİGM), there are 3.141.380 registered Syrian refugees in Turkey. While hosting such a capacity contains political, economic and social burdens on the state, Turkey has maintained high standards in regards to its refugee camps and social inclusion of refugees into areas such as education and employment.

It is definite that a country’s economic condition is not an indicator for humanitarian aid. While 18% of the host countries are low-income economies, only 7% consists of high-income economies. Therefore, superior economic conditions do not ensure a better performance in humanitarian aid. This is further reflected in the graph provided below.

Thus, it can be argued that the Turkey is successful in lending a helping hand and aiding those in need. While the success of this activity could be measured through quantitation, sincerity of aid ultimately relies on not expecting any political or economic return.

‘Developing countries’ designed for chaos

In order to assess Turkey’s performance in terms of humanitarian aid and provision, one must glance at the 2017 report of Global Humanitarian Assistance. This report, alongside the concept which has become “Humanitarian Day” both carry relevance for the topic in discussion. It is important to briefly note here the significance of the day the report was published.

Commemorating the day UN headquarters in Baghdad was victim to a terrorist attack, August 19 has become acknowledged as World Humanitarian Day since 2008. The World Humanitarian Day provides a minimal opportunity for issues of development and crises to rise on the political agenda and for international organizations such as the UN to measure their success in areas such as the ability to provide clean shelter, water, food and security to those in need. Trends in the amount of humanitarian aid between 2012-2016 indicate that the need for humanitarian aid is increasing by the day. While $16.1 billion was dedicated to humanitarian aid by the state, EU and private sector in 2012, this amount has increased to $27.3 billion in 2016.

The strive for power in the international arena and the self-interest of societies ultimately harms socio-economically vulnerable people. In this respect therefore, the regions of crisis and the populations affected by war and famine have certain similarities between them. It cannot be denied that the wars in the Middle East and Africa today, are to a certain extent, a legacy of colonialism. Ethnic and sectarian conflicts that have been driven to the fore in the regions in question are potentially due to the fact that the borders of countries were drawn by the colonial powers. The case that emphasizes this best is the Rwandan genocide, where the Tutsi were slaughtered by members of the Hutu majority.

The power relations that were formed during the colonial era remain stable today. When we talk of humanitarian crisis, deprivation and impoverishment, we are addressing a specific ‘area’ of the world: the less developed countries. While it may be common to read of children dying from famine in Sudan or Somalia, reading of the same story occurring in a western country will come as a shock. Further, while child soldiers in Syria are perceived as commonplace, participation to Daesh from the west is perceived abnormal.

The International assessment of aid

Providing $6 billion in 2016, Turkey is the second country that provides the most humanitarian aid. Looking at the top ten (see list below), we see that the US ranks first, while Turkey second. They are followed by the UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, UAE, Norway and the Netherlands. When one considers the income per capita according to purchasing power of these countries in 2016, there is a negative correlation between income per capita and humanitarian aid. Ironically, the richer the country, the less humanitarian aid they provide.

Moreover, Turkey dedicates 0.75% of its Gross National Income to humanitarian aid. Among the top ten, the US dedicates 0.03%, the UK 0.09%, Germany 0.07% and Sweden dedicates 0.14% of their GNI to humanitarian aid. Turkey’s emphasis on humanitarian aid in comparison with developed countries like UAE, Luxemburg, Sweden, Denmark and Norway also reflects on quantitative indicators.

Ranking of the countries receiving aid indicates that political and social stability along with economic development are determinants of need for humanitarian aid. Met with idleness by developed countries, the chaos and conflict in Syria puts the country on the top of the list. Syria is followed by Yemen, Jordan, South Sudan and Iraq. Receiving $2.129 billion humanitarian aid, Syria is followed by Yemen with $1.546 billion, Jordan with $959 million, South Sudan with $935 million and Iraq with $888 million. Analyzing these countries, beside economic development, we can see how important political stability is for social and economic prosperity.

The increase in the number of people in need of humanitarian aid highlights that political and social crises and chaos are deteriorating in less developed or developing regions. Interpreting the increase in resources dedicated to humanitarian aid as an improvement in awareness and sensitivity would only be unrealistically optimistic, especially seeing the list of countries that provide humanitarian aid. However, this could only be resolved if countries that disregard humanitarian catastrophes cleanse themselves from political and economic ambitions. It should be remembered that humanitarian crises are not necessarily regional threats, but pose a threat to the whole world.

Since violence erupted in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, the UN has stated that an approximate of 421,000 Rohingya Muslims have crossed from Myanmar to Bangladesh since August 25.

“Many of the new arrivals, who walked for days throughout jungle in intense heat and monsoon rains, are already sick and malnourished by the time they reach the teeming settlements of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh,” Joel Millman, spokesman for the UN’s International Agency for Migration (IOM) told a news conference at the UN in Geneva on Tuesday.

More than 170,000 newly arrived Rohingya refugees are yet to receive primary healthcare services Millman added.

The refugees are fleeing a fresh security operation in which security forces and Buddhist mobs have killed men, women and children, looed homes and torched Rohingya villages. According to Banglades, around 3,000 Rohingya have been killed in the crackdown.

The World Health Organization launched an urgent immunization program on Saturday to vaccinate 150,000 newly arrived children.

The Rohingya, described by the UN as the world’s most persecuted people, have faced heightened fears of attack since dozens were killed in communal violence in 2012.

Further, the international organization documented mass gang rapes, killings – including infants and young children – brutal beatings, and disappearances committed by security personnel. In a report, UN investigators said such violations may have constituted crimes against humanity.

Humanitarian assistance

In response to the crimes occurring in Myanmar, the Turkish government led humanitarian assistance to Rohingya Muslims. The Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), with the assistance of First Lady Emine Erdogan, delivered 1,000 ton of aid to those fleeing violence.

While Turkish President Erdogan has repeatedly called for the end to the violence, he maintained his position during the 72^nd session of the UN General Assembly.

In his speech, Erdogan stated that “just like Syria, the international community has not given a good account of itself” in regards to helping Rohingya Muslims.

Erdogan continued claiming that “if this tragedy [in Myanmar] is not stopped, the history of humanity will face another dark stain.”

Further, President Erdogan claimed that the lack of international action confirmed the “relevance of the re-structure of the UN, and the Security Council,” elaborating the fact that “the world is bigger than five.”

De facto leader of Myanmar, former Nobel Peace recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi, did not attend the UN GA due to increasing criticism involving her government in an ethnic cleansing.

Diplomatic response

As a response to the increasing violence against the Rohingya, UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the UK will “stop all defense engagement and training of the Burmese military.”

The UK is suspending all its engagement with Myanmar’s military until the action against the country’s Muslim Rohingya minority is halted, British PM said Tuesday.

“We are very concerned about what is happening to the Rohingya people in Burma [Myanmar]. The military action against them must stop,” May told the UN GA in New York.

Noting that “too many vulnerable people” had to flee for their lives, May said: “Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese government need to make it very clear that the military action should stop.”

“The British government is announcing today that we are going to stop all defense engagement and training of the Burmese military by the Ministry of Defense until this issue is resolved,” she added.

Last year, the UK spent around £305,000 (some $412,000) as part of a training program provided to the Myanmar military on democracy, leadership and English language. The program offered by the Ministry of Defense does not include combat training.

Myanmar blocks resolution on Rohingya

Following the absence of Suu Kyi at the UN GA, the government of Myanmar also blocked a resolution at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Authored by Indonesia, the resolution “expressed concern over the humanitarian crisis in the region and urged all parties to respect the rule of law, exercise maximum self-restraint and stop the ongoing violence against the Rohingya in Rakhine state.”

While governor Suu Kyi has spoken out and denied involvement of the military in the crimes against the Rohingya, questions still arise as to the reason why she is reluctant to operate with the international community.

As we countdown the days towards the referendum, the process of changes that may come from the Presidency system have been discussed with various perspectives in a variety of different circles. What then will the presidential system, which will alter the politics of the country significantly, bring to the Turkish economy? A system of governance, which the social and cultural codes of a country make it successful in terms of providing political stability, serving predictable and inclusive policies, and activating a well-functioning bureaucracy, is certainly of benefit for the economic development of this country.

When we look at the history of the Republic of Turkey, it can be seen that stability was not achieved during the various coalition governments, politics were far from predictable or even being inclusive, and the cumbersome bureaucratic structure deadlocked the political system. The bottlenecks of the 1970s, the 1994 crisis and the 2000-2001 crises all took place during the periods when a coalition government was in place. In the single-party government periods however, the Turkish economy had made significant gains.

It would be unrealistic to expect any level of success from coalition governments in a socio-cultural environment where, due to conflicts and disagreements, even siblings have played havoc with family businesses and sustainable partnerships are rare. In Scandinavian countries where coalition governments are relatively successful in economic terms, success points at factors such as a small and homogeneous population, high social trust and their geographical position. Nevertheless, the countries where the coalition governments successfully worked have had a solid and successful economic infrastructure built over the last fifty years and consequently quick decision making has become a secondary priority. An economy like Turkey, which has lagged behind in the race of economic development, does not have the luxury to move with such a slow pace.

Despite the fact that Turkey has been governed by one-party governments for the last 15 years, the current system does not guarantee this indefinitely. The closest example of this was in the June 7, 2015 elections. The AK Party – which received 41 percent of the vote, and 15 percentage points ahead of its closest rival – failed to establish itself as a single-party government. Thus, the presidential system offers an important opportunity for the Turkish economy to avoid the friction that comes with coalition governments.

In terms of the economy, another weakness of the current system is that both the president and the prime minister go through an election process, which means that both these positions of authority also come with the potential that may arise from holding important forces in their hand. The respectable relationship between the presidents and the prime minister for the last decade has been based on strong human relations. It is not realistic to expect that the relationship between the two forces will have the same consistency and amiability in every period. If these authorities equipped with high power implement contradictory populist economic policies based their electoral agenda, these contradictory policies will increase uncertainty. Needless to say, an increase in this kind of uncertainty can cause serious damage to the economy. However, as is the case with the incident where a former president threw a constitution booklet to a former prime minister, nonsensical agitation between the president and the prime minister can also spark an economic crisis.

The current system also makes it difficult for decisions to be made quickly and for the bureaucracy to function properly. This country had experienced periods whereby the head of the execution, the prime minister, could not even choose his own bureaucrat. In 2006, despite the fact that important candidates such as the late Adnan Buyukdeniz and Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek were available to be appointed to the central bank, they were appointed due to the ideological defenses of the then president. Likewise, many projects put forward for the development of the country were deliberately postponed for unacceptably long times due to the cumbersome bureaucracy, taking advantage of the poor president-prime ministerial relations as well as duality of administration as an opportunity to delay these major projects. In a governance system in which bureaucrats cannot reach the speed of the politicians, it is impossible to make economic development move quickly.

The presidential system is critical in terms of Turkey’s role in the global economy. At the beginning of the 2000’s, Turkey was in a position of clinging onto the IMF. Thanks to the political stability and a decisively implemented economic policy, Turkey paid off all debts to the IMF. In addition to that, recent reforms in the IMF, along with Turkey and some other important emerging economies, has successfully seen them having a more important say, to a certain extent, in the governance of the IMF. As the share of developing countries in the global economy increases, this will also come with a power shift in the governance of international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Nevertheless, the inadequacy and inefficiency of the Bretton Woods’ institutions, to fully address the problems of the ever-changing global economic structure also pushes developing countries to find different alternatives. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which was founded under the leadership of China, and of which Turkey is a founding partner, is a good example of this situation. Consequently, it is no surprise that the foreseeable future will see a substantial increase in the number of institutions that are all encompassing and focused on solutions in the international arena.

It is also very likely that there will be major changes in the international trade system in the coming years. The Brexit, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the growing anti-liberal discourse in the EU will significantly alter the current international trade agreements as well as the future of the World Trade Organization. In addition, after such a long period of time, negotiations on the future of the international trade system will most certainly stiffen. In order for Turkey to gain a better position in international economic institutions and to be in a better position within the global trade system, Turkey must not have to deal with the struggle of political instability and must shake off any weak political will.

Energy is another area where Turkey has achieved an important position within the global economy in recent years. At a time when global economic growth is weak and concerns for the future of traditional energy sources are rising, the transfer of energy resources from the East to the West is crucial. Turkey is an important actor playing a critical role in securing and supplying energy because of its geographical position and has the advantage of being a rare country that can sit on the bargaining table with almost all the big energy producing countries such as Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan and Qatar. The fact that such energy projects are very long-term projects necessitates a political will that will follow through these projects outside of the daily political banter. This follow-up will be very difficult to take place within a coalition government or in a setting where this contention between the president and the prime minister.

Another important aspect of securing political stability, predictable policies and strong political will, from a global economic perspective, is that it will contribute to the creation of an environment in which Turkey can extend its assistance and support to a wider geographical area. Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), has been one of the world foremost important foreign aid donors for the past ten years even though until ten years ago no one had even had heard of their name. Turkey is one of the few countries making an effort to offer a “humanitarian” solution without prioritizing their own national interests against human tragedies. The fact that Turkey can continue to expand this work corresponds with its strong system of governance.

Turkey is a country that aims not only to increase its own economic power by accelerating the economic development process, but also to make it more inclusive for the underdeveloped and developing countries in order for them to have more say in the global economic arena. For this reason, Turkey needs a new system of governance in order to achieve this goal. The Presidential system, which will be voted on in the constitutional referendum on April 16th, is a valuable alternative that can respond to and meet these needs.

Turkey`s assistance agenda as a recipient dates back to 1950s when the Marshall Plan supported some countries for recovering their economy after the Second World War. Under the plan, the USA supported Turkey in a wide range of sectors, from the military to industry, with a total of $150 million in aid. Besides the USA, Turkey has benefited from ODA provided by Japan and Germany, which are still among the biggest donors all around the world. The Japan International Cooperation Agency implemented its first project-type technical cooperation between 1973-1979, and the German Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit supported the Turkish economy in different sectors during 1970s and 1980s.There is no doubt that the late 1980s and 1990s marked a turning point in terms of Turkey’s development assistance strategy. While Turkey continued to receive aid from developed countries, it also started to deliver aid to other developing countries. For instance, the Sahel countries were the first recipients of Turkish aid in 1985. The institutionalization of the development assistance, however, could be achieved only after the establishment of the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) in 1992, whose aim was to support transition economies primarily in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. The period after 2002 has marked a new stage for Turkey`s development assistance strategy, and therefore for TIKA, as it opened up to the world, thanks to increases in the GDP of Turkey, and reached out to different regions including the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.Since 2004, Turkey’s ODA has increased markedly, reaching $3.9 billion in 2015. The vast majority of this ODA – 86 percent – was used to promote social infrastructure and services in the recipient countries, while 10 percent was for economic infrastructure and services, and 3 percent for the production sector in 2015. Especially with the recent dramatic increase in development assistance, Turkey has been credited with being one of the largest donors worldwide.

Turkey`s efforts regarding humanitarian assistance, which is a sub-category of ODA, are quite remarkable. According to the Global Humanitarian Assistance report released in 2016 by Development Initiatives – an independent organisation with an aim at ending poverty by 2030, in which the data provided by TIKA is considered – Turkey is the second largest contributor to humanitarian assistance, after the USA. In terms of humanitarian assistance with respect to the ratio of a nation’s Gross National Income (GNI), Turkey is in first place. Without doubt, a great majority of Turkey’s humanitarian assistance was delivered to Syrian s who were forced to leave their country due to the civil war that has been continuing since 2011.

Having said this, Turkey`s remarkable efforts to increase its humanitarian aid capacity should deserve more domestic and international attention. It should be noted that Turkey`s approach to humanitarian assistance differentiates markedly from those of other donors. However, to deem Turkey’s development assistance and cooperation policies simply as humanitarian aid seems to oversimplify Turkey`s vision, efforts and activities in this field, as well as its potential to contribute to the field with its experience that has been accumulated over the last two decades.

In 2007, the Development Assistance Committee in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) introduced a new concept called Country Programmable Aid (CPA), in order to measure the volume of resources transferred to developing countries. The main goal of the CPA metric is to measure how much resources are delivered directly into the recipients countries. To do this, some components of ODA (such as humanitarian aid, refugee spending in donor countries, etc.) are not added to the gross ODA data. The remaining is considered as the direct resources transferred to the recipient countries.

When the CPA is taken into consideration, Turkey`s accomplishment can be understood more clearly. Until 2011, a great majority of Turkish ODA was also counted as its CPA. After that, however, the share has decreased due to the increase in Turkish humanitarian aid. In spite of its focus on humanitarian aid, Turkey`s development assistance in terms of CPA composes one-third of ODA in 2014, which reveals that Turkey was committed to increasing and diversifying its development cooperation with many countries all around the world.

While Japan has the largest number of beneficiaries with 141 recipients, the USA is the second with 132 countries. Turkey provides 125 countries with its aid, placing it among the top ten donors worldwide. Besides this, even though Syria is the main focus of Turkey; in terms of CPA, the recipients aided by Turkey have changed the most over the years. As a result, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Pakistan have benefited from Turkey’s assistance more than many other countries do.

This indicates three significant points regarding Turkey`s commitment to development assistance. Firstly, along with the fact that Turkey fulfils the increasing needs of its Syrian guests – as they are officially referred to – it has also been able to increase the number of countries which it cooperates with by providing them development assistance. Secondly, the top countries in terms CPA are high-income countries except for Turkey, an upper-middle income country. Lastly, institutions in Turkey related to development assistance and humanitarian aid seem to have kept pace with this trend. For example, TIKA currently has 56 coordination offices in different countries. It also works closely with its counterpart institutions, especially in Africa and Latin America, in order to share Turkey`s experiences in the field.

In order to comprehend Turkey`s effort on development assistance beyond humanitarian aid, we may have a close look at the procedure Turkey follows in selecting recipient countries and sectors. It is strongly based on a demand-driven orientation. Therefore, preferred sectors and implementation instruments may vary widely depending upon the needs of recipient countries. Since the main focus is to address the basic needs of the local people, Turkey generally implements specific projects rather than comprehensive programs.

To give an example, Turkey has implemented projects for developing radio/television/print media in the Balkans, in which transportation infrastructure is relatively developed, whereas projects to develop transportation systems have been applied in Asia and Africa, including such countries as Somalia and Afghanistan, in order to address the needs and demands of the local people in recipient countries. For instance, TIKA constructed a road between Poli Sohta and Darulamana Palace in Afghanistan. This road has then become a commercial and social attraction center. Likewise, an airport constructed by the Turkish government in Somalia has become a gateway that connects Somalis to the world. Another example is Bilge Tonyukuk road in Mongolia. TIKA constructed this road in order to ease transportation to the Orkhon Inscriptions, which have cultural and historical importance for Turks. As mentioned before, we mostly observe radio/television/print media projects in the Balkans. In this sense, many Turkish official institutions provide media equipment, and share technical know-how through training programs in Balkan countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania and Moldova.

In order to appreciate Turkey’s achievements in humanitarian aid, as well as its vision and efforts in development assistance in a proper way, one needs to bear in mind the bigger picture.

Picture: Whirling dervishes perform at the Dome of the Rock at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, Palestine, during the Nabi Mosa Festival sponsored by the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency, TIKA in April 2016.