A textbook case of hate speech in Turkish media: The story, entitled ‘Mishcon Indecency,’ suggests that “Zionists, who have been doing ethnic cleansing in Palestine for over a century” show that “they have no limit to indecency (or moral corruption)” because some members of the Israeli lobby in the United States supported a U.S. House of Representatives Resolution that was against Turkish interests. Note that the title includes the Turkish version of the common Hebrew name, Mişon (Mishcon), in an attempt to symbolize and generalize Jews. Although it is the Jewish lobby that supported the resolution in the U.S. Congress, the article uses ‘Mischon’ and ‘Zionists,’ not Jewish lobby or Israeli lobby. It also has the hidden message that suggests that ‘it was already known that Jews have no decency’ and ‘their’ decision to support the anti-Turkey resolution in the U.S. Congress ‘proves it’.

Although there is no universally accepted definition of the term hate speech, most states have adopted legislation to address the problems caused by it. Prejudice, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, Antisemitism and discrimination are all underlying motives of hate discourse. According to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation 97(20),

“hate speech covers all forms of expression which spread, incite and promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”[i]

The European Commission 2011 Progress Report on Turkey emphasizes that Antisemitism and hate speech in the media (targeting missionaries or Christians in general) remain an important issue. Despite national and international calls, the Turkish government has not addressed hate speech and hate crimes in the country. Therefore, Turkish media has absolute freedom in publishing reports and commentaries full of insulting and defamatory content. Not only are the issues reported with extreme manipulation of the facts (based on ideological and political affiliations of the newspaper), they often include hate speech.

For example, in the country’s ultraconservative Islamist newspapers Milli Gazete and Vakit (known as Yeni Akit since 2010), the staunch supporters of the ruling AK Party, one can find defamatory content about Armenians, Christians, Jews, gays, and AK Party’s political opponents. Moreover, these papers use ‘being of Jewish/Armenian/Greek origin’ or ‘having a Jewish relative’ or even ‘allegedly being of Jewish/Armenian/Greek origin’ as defamatory phrases to ‘vilify’ the targeted group or individuals (often political opponents of conservative groups, the AK Party and their allies):

A commentary appeared in Yeni Akit in November 2011, entitled ’Generals’ Jewish Son-in-laws,’ aims to vilify and defame the Turkish military, because some of its generals have son-in-laws who happened to be of Jewish origin. According to the article, it is “strange” that after the “discovery” of footage showing high ranking Army officers at the Wailing Wall (Western Wall), which is accepted as a holy site by the “Zionists,” it is now “discovered’ that “some generals have Jewish son-in-laws.” Here, the purposes is to attack the presumed opponents of the AK Party (and  the Islamist ideology the newspaper represents) by associating them with something or someone that is “Jewish,” as if it is something threatening, immoral or bad. 

In another story, the same newspaper attempts to vilify Büşra Ersanlı (a Turkish academic who has been detained on the charges of being a member of the KCK, the alleged urban wing of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK). The article’s title is ‘Ersanlı’s Jewish lover (Ersanlı’nın yahudi aşkı), in reference to Ersanlı’s former husband who is a Turkish-Jew. There is a clear effort to associate Ersanlı with something ‘Jewish,’ and more importantly, the article suggests that ‘the Jewish link’ shows the “truth about Ersanlı,” again, as if it is something concerning for the reader.  

What people see in the media has influence on their perceptions. Therefore, hate content shouldn’t be seen as just mere propaganda – it may actually provoke and incite violence:

In 11 July 2009, a group of youngsters from the youth movement of the far-right Grand Union Party (BBP) disrupted a concert organized at Istanbul’s Topkapı Palace. The main sponsor of the event, a local wine company, had promoted the concert with banners saying ‘Take your wine and come enjoy the full moon,’ and ‘Tchaikovsky, wine and sunset: What else is there to say?’ A week before the event, Vakit began publishing commentaries (in its print and online editions) emphasizing that wine was to be served “right next to Prophet’s belongings” at Topkapı Palace which was “once filled with the voices of Ottoman soldiers reciting Quran before going to battle.” “This is how a country is destroyed” and “wine audacity in sacred courtyard,” read the titles of the newspaper.

In its latest report on the subject (Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: Incidents and Responses), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) underlines ‘intolerant discourse’ as an important factor contributing to the occurrence of hate crimes. Moreover, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights stresses that hate crimes “pose a serious threat to domestic and international security, thus undermining societal cohesion by sowing the seeds of conflict and wider-scale violence.”[ii] Therefore, they not only harm the individual or group targeted in the crime, but affect the entire community to which the victim belongs.

The Association for Social Change (ASC, Sosyal Değişim Derneği in Turkish) is a leading organization focusing on the hate issue in Turkish media. Their 2009 report, entitled ‘Hate Crimes in National Media: 10 Years, 10 Cases,’ covers the years between 1998 and 2008 and focuses on a large selection of newspapers that represents most political and ideological sides in Turkey.[iii] The ASC researchers investigated hate speech instances in ten categories including ethnic background, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and religious affiliation. Of the 30,000 articles and commentaries investigated, the researchers analyzed 200 pieces in detail and provided ten ‘textbook cases of hate speech’ for each category.

According to this study, 79 percent of all material analyzed is characterized as ‘hate crimes’ leaving the hate speech with 21 percent. 24 percent of all hate crimes are related to ethnic identity, followed by those related to political identity (19 percent), sexual identity (16 percent), and religion (16 percent). Moreover, a staggering 47 percent of all hate speech instances are related to ethnic identity. Categorized as a single unit, ‘hate crimes and hate speech’ related to ethnic identity tops the list of ten categories with 42 percent. It is followed by religion (20 percent), national identity (11 percent), and political affiliation (11 percent). Of all the newspapers studied, Yeni Şafak, Milli Gazete, Vakit and Zaman – all conservative newspapers and staunch supporters of the AK Party – have the highest number of hate speech content about religious identity.[iv]

The study also revealed that there is more hate speech against certain groups in certain dates. For instance, before or on April 24 (Genocide Remembrance Day in Armenia) of every year, there was a recognizable increase in the negative and discriminatory discourse against the Armenians. Similarly, before or on March 21^st (Nevruz), discourse against the Kurds and the Kurdish identity was more offensive. Another important finding that must be mentioned here is that hate speech about sexual orientation and identity is common in almost all newspapers regardless of their political and ideological affiliation.

Hrant Dink Foundation is another organization that is focusing on the hate issue in Turkish media. The foundation has an ongoing project called ‘media watch on hate speech’. The project allows readers to submit hate speech cases via the Internet to the project website. According to their latest reports, there is an increasing hate speech against missionaries and Christians in Turkey.[v]

I think part of the increase in hate speech against missionaries may be related to the emergence of “PKK is against Islam” themed reports and commentaries. Since early 2011, there has been a visible increase in stories in which PKK members ‘eat pork’ and ‘exercise shamanic rituals,’ while the security forces find ‘bodies of uncircumcised PKK members.’  Reports about ’PKK members converting in masses to Christianity to obtain financial support from Christian aid and missionary organizations’ are also being circulated regularly in Yeni Akit, Milli Gazete and Sabah. It is known that the government has been trying to counter PKK’s influence in country’s eastern provinces by a strategy, which I call 3D+I, or Defense, Diplomacy, Development and Islam. There is strong resistance to this policy among the Kurds, but the pro-government media seems to catch up with it.

Another organization, Kaos GL, the most active NGO promoting the rights of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community in Turkey, is focusing on homophobia in Turkish media. The organization has recently won a legal case over ‘perverts’ insult (in an article appeared in Yeni Akit) on Turkey’s High Court of Appeals (Yargıtay). Kaos GL’s lawsuit against Yeni Akit was initially rejected by two Ankara courts on the grounds that the newspaper was ‘within the limits of criticism.’ The Supreme Court of Appeals, however, overruled the previous decision stressing that ‘the freedom of the press does not encompass the freedom to insult the personal freedoms of individuals.’ Since the Supreme Court of Appeals is the highest court for reviewing verdicts given by courts of criminal and civil justice, its decision sets a precedent for future lawsuits.

The good news is, there is growing public attention on hate speech and hate crimes in Turkey. In January 2012, more than fifty NGOs announced that they have come together in a campaign to demand hate crimes legislation in the new Turkish constitution. The Campaign for Hate Crime Legislation (Nefret Suçları Yasası Kampanyası) is perhaps the most important step to date in Turkey for addressing hate speech and hate crimes. However, the AK Party, which has the majority in the parliament, has not taken any step for such legislation yet.

I think the hate speech problem in the Islamist and pro-government media shows yet another shortcoming of ‘Turkey as a model to the Middle East’ concept. It is very confusing that, the AK Party, which has been promoted as the ‘champion of democracy’ in Turkey and the ‘model political movement for democracy and development in the Middle East,’ has not addressed the problems caused by hate crimes. More interestingly, the newspapers, which have the highest Antisemitic, homophobic, racist, insulting, and defamatory content, are the ones that have been the closest media allies of the AK Party government.

UPDATE, February 6, 2012:

As I was doing my daily readings of Turkish media, I saw an article on habervaktim.com discussing the hate speech legislation campaign I mentioned above.

Here is a quick translation of what the article suggests:

Lately, while the so-called ‘hate speech legislation’ campaign has been introduced as if there is a hate speech problem in Turkey, it is discovered that Jews’ newspaper Şalom is behind provocative activities. Although hate crimes legislation is not in the agenda of the majority of the people, marginal groups are working to introduce the so-called problem in West’s agenda. Marginal groups such as those which portray sexual perversion in their activities are supported by those who claim to be the representatives of Jews, Greeks and Armenians in Turkey.

Here, the message is “the majority” doesn’t have a problem with hate speech and only “marginal groups such as those who portray sexual perversion” are supporting this issue because, in the background, “the Jew” supports them. It is important to note that the concept of “support/will of the majority” is used to “justify” certain policies by ultraconservative newspapers. The newspaper tries to avoid calling gays “perverts,” but make use of another homophobic phrase “sexual perversion,” while it also attempts to discredit those who support the hate crime legislation as if they are not the ‘real the representatives’ of the minorities in the country. The article also openly calls Şalom as the ‘behind-the-curtain’ mastermind of the ‘so-called hate crimes issue’ in Turkey, which the newspaper suggests is an attempt to discredit Turkey in the West.

_____________________

 

So basically, we have a recession in the air and a pressing hope that the leading governments of the world will use whatever wealth we have to maybe – say – use it to improve the lives of earthlings? Well prepare to have your faith in humanity restored, as the European Commission has approved an [...]

Millions to be Blown on Fictional Asteroid Event is a post from: PakMediaBlog All Rights Reserved.

As the Arab Spring is turning to its second (and harder) phase of conducting elections and forming legitimate transitional government, the need for an economic strategy is becoming painfully apparent.  The people, who marched on the streets demanding political freedom, were also demonstrating for economic freedom and the general improvement of their future economic prospects.  Rising food prices, inflation, unemployment, all played a significant role in motivating people to demand democratic and accountable governments.

Much has been made about the comparisons of the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring.  Although similar in origin and motivation, most analysts are quick to point out the glaring difference: Eastern Europeans had a vision of what they wanted – EU and NATO membership.  Eastern European countries in constitutional transition during the 1990’s, had something to look towards – something to emulate.  The people of the Arab Spring don’t have that.

Now more than ever, the Arab people need a vision of what life after dictators could look.  Because of the instability, the Arab people need reassurance and certainty for the political and economic future that awaits them.  In essence, they are in need of targets and in need of benchmarks; for something to aspire, both politically and economically.

They need to organize and form a regional integration group, modeled after the EU.  They need a new regional integration strategy that includes as many elements of the Eastern European accession treaties as possible, in a way that is of course particular to the needs and idiosyncrasies of the region.

This will not be easy, considering that intra-regional trade is currently very low: between 4% and 7%.  On the other hand, exports to the EU make-up 40% of total exports.  However, this economic trade relationship with the EU has created a foundation on which convergence could be achieved.

A League of Nations in Transition –

At a time when all the people of the Arab world are going through this political and sociological transformation it might feel inappropriate to embark on any regional integration effort.  However, now is the time to think big and find inspiration from each-other.  The people are following developments around the region and are connected (in solidarity) in a way that should make regional integration feasible.

This ‘League of Nations in Transition’ could start with the countries that have overthrown their dictators: Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.  After that comes Jordan and Morocco, both of which have embarked on some (meaningful or not remains to be seen) important democratic reforms, and continue with Lebanon, the Palestinian Territory, Yemen, Syria, and eventually Algeria (if/when they continue with their political reforms).  [Eventually, including a democratic Israel willing to conclude negotiations on the Palestinian issue, will be the ultimate sign of braking with the past.]

Members should adopt a set of principles – similar to democratic values (respect for the party system and elections – freedom of the press to report on candidates and elections – independent judiciary – rule of law).  Democratic standards and criteria should be used for membership, and members-nations should use each-other for peer-review and monitoring, to ensure the successful transition to democracy.

Although the countries of the region face high budget deficits and are in need of immediate financial assistance, the long-term challenge remains the absence of a vibrant private sector that can create jobs domestically and export/compete internationally.  For oil-importing countries like the majority of the Arab Spring nations in constitutional transition, who cannot rely on oil production to attract foreign investments and create jobs, trade agreements with the west (and each-other) could increase foreign direct investment and encourage domestic reforms that improve the domestic business climate.

The key to economic growth and long term prosperity for the whole region is Regional Integration like the EU.  Start with a common energy policy, then common custom/tariff regulations/levels, then common investment/banking regulations.  Eventually, what would be very important for the region is labor mobility, especially considering the labor needs of the oil-exporting nations of the Gulf and the labor surplus of the non oil producing nations of North Africa.

Of course, integration of regional trade will require: 1) customs facilitation, 2) transportation/infrastructure improvements, 3) transparency of trade regulations, 4) harmonization of regulatory requirements, and eventually 5) political integration.

What if the foundation for all that was already there because of 30 years of legal and regulatory harmonization with the EU?

Backdoor Integration through Trade with the EU –

Regional integration through trade is not something new for North Africa and the Middle East.  The countries of North Africa in particular have in the past joined trade agreements with the EU and among themselves, with devastatingly unsatisfactory results.  Of course, there are other regional integration efforts currently in place (like the Arab Maghreb), but they are seriously tainted by their origin and affiliation to past dictators and autocrats.

However, democratization, or at least the possibility of removing dictatorial control of the people and the markets, changes the existing paradigm and hopefully the counter-productive conditions on the ground.  The lesson from Eastern Europe is that well-structured trade agreements can help create the conditions which encourage countries in transition to undertake appropriate reforms.

Starting in the 1960s, the European Community began concluding first-generation Cooperation Agreements (CAs) with Mediterranean countries.  By the beginning of the 1990s, the EU had signed a series of CAs with most Arab states in the eastern and southern Mediterranean, which mainly covered aid and trade liberalization.  Though commerce in general rose between Europe and the region, the region’s balance of trade with the EU worsened under the CAs.

Because these CAs were clearly not enough, negotiations started on Association Agreements (AAs) between the EU and the eastern and southern Mediterranean countries to replace the existing CAs.  Provisions of these AAs have many economic aspects in common, including establishing WTO-compatible free trade over a transitional period of up to twelve years; provisions related to intellectual property rights, services, public procurement, competition rules, state aid, and monopolies; and economic cooperation in numerous sectors.  With time, more areas of cooperation have been included, thus further bringing the regulatory and legal regimes on the ground in sink.

In essence, the EU has established a network of AAs with most countries of the region, with the only exception of Syria, though currently the coverage of these Agreements is essentially limited to trade in goods.  To that end, the EU has developed a system of pan-European rules of origin. This allows diagonal cumulation among regional members in order to export to Europe as long as they adhere, among themselves, to the same rules of origin introduced in Europe.

These ‘mandates’ as they are called (to be completed by the end of 2011 and then submitted for ratification by EU member states) are with Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan (and Libya) for ‘second generation’ FTA’s (that go beyond goods and also cover services, investment, competition, government procurement, etc.).  In particular, negotiations are currently in progress on the liberalization of trade in services and establishment, on further liberalization for agricultural, processed agricultural and fisheries products, a Dispute Settlement Mechanism, and on an Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA).

The AAs also cover political dialogue, respect for human rights and democracy, cooperation related to social affairs and migration (including the readmission of illegal immigrants), and cultural cooperation. After they are signed, AAs must undergo a lengthy ratification process by EU member national parliaments.

Therefore, these EU AAs with North African countries have the potential of harmonizing regulations across the region.  By participating in FTA’s with the EU, regional countries could end up (and are certainly in the process of) with the same rules and regulations for a number of critical sectors responsible for economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade.  Country specific accession to FTA’s with the EU and compliance with EU regulations for market access and trade, could lead to a ‘backdoor’ regional integration.

The Agadir Agreement –

The Agadir Agreement is a free trade agreement between four Arab countries: Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia (covering 115 million people) – all countries that have been going through some serious constitutional transition due to the Arab Spring.  It was launched in May 2001, signed in February 2004 and came into force in March 2007.  The Agadir Agreement is open to further membership by all Arab countries that are member of the Arab League and the Greater Arab Free Trade Area, and linked to the EU through an Association Agreement or an FTA.

Its purpose is to facilitate integration between Arab states and the EU under the broader EU-Mediterranean process, by enhancing investments in the Agadir partner countries and eliminating barriers to trade; the overall objective being to boost economic activity, to support employment, and to improve living standards.  The rationale behind Agadir is that integration would be easier to achieve with a core of countries, and that others could join later when they were ready.

Trade among the Agadir signatories is limited, both in absolute size and compared with exports to other destinations.  The exports of the four countries to each other were $1.06 billion in 2006, or 2.1% of the region’s exports.  In contrast, more than 51% of all exports from the four Agadir signatory countries went to the EU.  However, since the agreement’s inception, intra-Agadir trade exchange has registered a 45% increase.  In Jordan, exchange with Agadir signatories jumped by 70% between 2007 and 2009.  During the same period, Egypt saw a 160% increase in trade with member states, while Morocco witnessed a 30% rise.

Many technical issues are to be tackled by the four signatory countries with the EU’s financial and technical support.  The European Commission has contributed 8 million euro since the beginning of the process, investing in a Technical Unit that works on practical aspects: legislative approximation, custom regulations, rules of origin, etc.  Three sectors were identified to kick start inter-Arab trade exchange: textile, leather and automotive technology.  One important feature of the Agadir Agreement is that it uses the EU’s rules of origin.  The EU allows its Mediterranean FTA partners to cumulate value-added. This means that it turns a blind eye to where value was added, for the purpose of preferential tariffs, as long as it was in an FTA partner country.

In Conclusion –

Regional integration for the region would be hard under normal circumstances, let alone under the current Arab Spring.  Any meaningful effort for regional integration will require external help and assistance in building and facilitating infrastructure (roads – railways – air and seaports) at a regional level.

However, the Agadir Agreement offers the perfect vehicle on which to build and grow a ‘League of Nations in Transition.’  The ongoing harmonization of rules and regulations with the EU is leading to substantial conversion of rules and regulations among the four countries.  Adding Libya and building on the existing progress could significantly improve regional trade and real economic growth for the people of the Arab Spring.

 

Other Sources:

The Star (Amman, Jordan) – ‘Made in Agadir Zone’: An ambitious vision of the future’.

European Commission – Overview of FTA and other Trade Negotiations.

Carnegie Papers – EU and the U.S. Free Trade Agreements in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Washington Quarterly – American and European Response to the Arab Spring: What’s the big Idea?