The next several days of Model EU were spent discussing many different issues that are currently on the EU agenda, although items related to the economy were by far the most heated.  Since this is a simulation after all, some students (although not those from our University) even threatened to leave the EU, leave the Eurozone and to block further agreement on all issues.  Many students finally realized the pitfalls of unanimous voting and sometimes the benefits of qualified majority voting, although when representing a country as small as Latvia, this also has its down side.

After Model EU ended, our students had acquired a firm grasp of the EU, its institutions, Latvia’s particular situation in the EU and how to drink all night and look fresh in the morning without letting on to their professors that they were still hung over.  They carried out all of these tasks with great success.  Now onto planning for next year’s Model EU…

Itır Bağdadi

http://ireuizmir.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/izm_life.pdf

Uluslararası İlişkiler ve AB Bölümü öğrencilerinden Ecem Sekizkardeş, Sıla Boz, Şeyma Güngör, Kamer Aydın ve Tolga Yelmen, hocalarımızdan Yrd. Doç. Dr. Balkan Devlen ile birlikte 28 – 31 Ekim 2011 tarihlerinde Ukrayna’nın Odesa kentinde düzenlenen Model Birleşmiş Milletler (ONUMUN) Konferansına katıldılar. Türkiye’den konferansa kabul edilen tek üniversite İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi olurken öğrencilerimiz üniversitemizi en iyi şekilde temsil ettiler. Dört farklı komisyonda küresel sorunları tartışan ve çözüm önerileri ortaya koyan öğrencilerimiz konferanstaki performansları ile göz doldurdular. Konferans organizasyon komitesi önümüzdeki yıllarda da İEÜ’den heyetleri tekrar katılımcı olarak görmek istediklerini ifade ettiler.

However, I have recently started reading a volume written by a person I happen to know, namely Kerem Öktem. The title of that piece is TURKEY SINCE 1989: ANGRY NATION. Kerem, whom I met in 2005 during a conference at London School of Economics and Political Science, managed to produce such a concise and dense text that I feel a bit discouraged in my own project. The book is worth reading for a number of reasons. First, it is sharply but carefully critical of the Turkish Republic. Instead of demolishing irresponsibly traditional myths of the establishment, Kerem prefers to evaluate the ways in which they have been built and the costs they presuppose in this country’s contemporary politics. The book indicates the “deep state” as the main culprit in a sort of grand historical trial that  is implicitly demanded in each paragraph. Despite the accusatory tone, it is easy, however, for an initiated reader at least, to see that Kerem Öktem loves his country. He loves it so much that he wants it cleaned of shadows of the past, especially murderous acts against which his judgments may be too harsh and even unfair sometimes. For love of the nation. Overall, the book is guided by a particular dichotomy that Kerem sees throughout the last Turkish century: that between the state’s politics of modernisation and the reality of human life on the ground. At page 39, he also suggests that this “reality of human life” in Turkey has manifested itself historically through an “internal demand for change”.

This is exactly what I think that books like ANGRY NATION should give more attention to. While being obviously busy with the unmasking of the deep, or guardian state as source of all evil, the text does not offer a coherent history, even if brief, of the people’s demand for change in this country. This is a problem that most historians of modernity seem not to have comprehended: there is too much accusative cry about the horrors associated with nation-states in the twentieth century, but little if any “history of resistance” to them.

I would be very happy if I could produce one day a political history of the resistance of non-national, non-state, non-majority, human life in modern Romania, or Turkey. I can already hear those voices lost in the dust of a history preoccupied, as Fernand Braudel warned about more than thirty years ago, too much with heroes and grand discourses of states and too little with lower but infinitely more human talk of life per se. My first contribution to this project has already been made: the dissertation I am close to present abroad contains the pieces making possible a coherent starting point. The year to come will offer me the opportunity to explore and refine the immense material I have managed to gather. So, the answer to the question posed by the radio interviewers indicated above is quite simple: the book is being prepared; however, it may not be eventually about Turkey, or Romania, but about people living in countries called Turkey, or Romania. I would also be the happiest if at least some of our students come to understand the importance of thinking history in terms other than those taught in “national” educational systems. Eugen Weber has opened this “Pandora’s box” decades ago when showing, in PEASANTS INTO FRENCHMEN (1976), how a nation is literally made through public education. We can at least talk then about possibilities of life beyond, if not post, the modern national spaces and time of this world.

Dragos C. Mateescu, 18 July 2011, Izmir

http://ireuizmir.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/sc3b6ylec59fi.pdf

The course “Contemporary Issues in Turkish Politics” at IEU was conducted in partnership with the same course offered at Gettysburg College. After discussing class readings with their lecturer students from IEU then interacted with their counterparts in the USA via Skype once a month to examine and analyze currents events in light of the assigned material. Students were then paired with students in the other university and given four assignments to work on as teammates. Taking the personality of the students into consideration myself and Dr. Yasemin Akbaba, the instructor of the course at Gettysburg College, tried to create the most compatible and effective teams. This experience was a rewarding one for the students involved because it gave them a chance to interact, using new and advanced technology, with other students in another part of the world studying the same material. Not only was it an academically beneficial experience, it also served to contribute to intercultural communication.

Azerbaijan is a beautiful country, with breathtaking views of mountains, great wine, wonderful people, and oh, yes – oil.  The country has a population of approximately 8.3 million people (according to the latest statistics of the CIA Factbook) with a landmass that (again according to the same source) is slightly smaller than Maine.  As far as geography goes, Azerbaijan has been blessed with the natural resource, or as some would argue the natural curse, of oil along with some friendly (Turkey, Georgia), some not-so-friendly (Armenia) and some questionable (Russia, Iran) neighbors.  Sandwiched in between its kinstate of Turkey, its former big brother Russia and its religious bretren in Iran, Azerbaijan has truly been at the borderland of identity crossroads.  The country speaks Azerbaijani Turkish, which is almost identical to the Anatolian Turkish spoken in Turkey, practices predominantly the Shiite sect of Islam (though after three-quarter of a century under Soviet control religious observation is not very high) and most of the population speaks Russian comfortably.  The resulting identity is one where many Azeris feel a connection to Turkey, Iran or Russia.  The different regions of the country are also close to these different and sometimes clashing identities.  What brought Azerbaijan international fame is the amount of oil reserves that they have been blessed with.  The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project, dubbed “the deal of the century” was backed enthusiastically by the Americans and the West and was seen as a way to decrease the West’s dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian energy products.  Azerbaijan, since its independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, has made significant investments in its energy sector and today is a major player in oil and gas markets.  This focus on oil and gas however has left Azerbaijan with an economy that is highly dependent on oil and in need of diversification.

Having geography on its side in terms of natural resources, Azerbaijan is also cursed with the same geography.  Ever since 1988 Azerbaijan has been embroiled with its neighbor Armenia in a frozen conflict over the territory of Nagorno Karabakh, legally belonging to Azerbaijan but a de facto state of its own (sans its ethnic Azeri population and run by the Karabakhi Armenians) since the Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement of 1994.  The Karabakh conflict has led to significant territorial loss for Azerbaijan along with a large number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) that continue to pose problems for the future stability of the state.  There are an estimated 590,000 IDPs in Azerbaijan as of 2009 (according to the Internal Displacement Organization website), and considering that the population is a little over 8 million, this constitutes a significant number.

Azerbaijan’s history of elections has seen its fair share of experiments with democratization and growing authoritarianism.  Overall, since independence from the Soviet Union, there have been four parliamentary elections and five presidential elections.  The worrying trend in Azerbaijan and in many of the post-Soviet transition states has been growing authoritarian tendencies.  The elections create a facade of democracy, with formal election procedures, but many times the results are pre-determined.  I was lucky enough to have witnessed the 2008 Presidential elections in Azerbaijan on a previous OSCE mission and along with this latest election, I can comfortably state that as far as elections go in Azerbaijan, the results are never a surprise to anyone.  In some cases the candidates are quite popular and are guaranteed election (or re-election), but in other cases when candidates associated with the government are running against more popular opposition candidates the chances are that the opposition will find it quite difficult to make it out of the ballot box.  The 2010 parliamentary elections, in that sense, did not offer any surprises other than the lenghths that election officials went to to secure the triumph of their candidates.

On my previous mission in 2008 I was stationed in the Jalalibad region which is located close to the Iranian border in southern Azerbaijan.  My general observations in the area were that there was a clear segregation of men and women, where women were generally confined to the household, the area needed development and that there was no major social activity present among residents to foster more social capital.  On this mission I was lucky to be stationed in a future tourist hot spot for the country, the region of Qebele, which is full of lush forests, fresh fruits and vegetables, waterfalls and other sites of natural beauty.  Located approximately 4-6 hours west from the capital of Baku, the region seems to offer a mountain resort getaway for locals and statesmen alike.

Being a Turkish female observer in Azerbaijan  comes with many benefits.  In addition to the linguistic ease with which I could communicate with election officials and voters, I was treated like an honored guest from a brother state everywhere I went.  Almost at every polling station I visited I was greeted with the famous saying of the deceased and idolized former President Heydar Aliyev with regards to Turkey, “one nation, two states”.  The residents were delighted that a Turkish sister had come to visit them.  In my conversations with them I realized that many of the residents in these rural areas spend most of their free time watching Turkish television and many are addicted to Turkish soap operas.  The infamous Turkish show “Valley of the Wolves” (Kurtlar Vadisi) is such a popular show that most men I met in the most rural parts of Jalilabad had their ringtones set to play its generic music.  Being a woman in this territory also led to some funny experiences like the men who wanted to take pictures with me because they were not used to meeting foreign women.  I posed for so many photographs that I ended up feeling like Cindy Crawford on a tour of the Caucasus.

On this last observation mission to Azerbaijan I expected nothing out of the ordinary during the elections.  All of the pre-election investigation and reporting of the OSCE clearly indicated that the elections were unlikely to be held in a free and fair manner and that in many cases the irregularities seemed so obvious that many voters might not even show up to vote.  There are many different reasons that underlie why this was the case and some of them are not specific to this election alone.  Azerbaijan, like some of the other post-Soviet states, has been undergoing a more authoritarian consolidation under the Aliyev dynasty.  Before father Heydar Aliyev passed away in 2003 he was successfully able to transfer power to his son İlham Aliyev who is currently the President of Azerbaijan.  What has aided the Aliyevs is the economic growth that has been motored by the oil and gas industry.  As a rentier state Azerbaijan has had very impressive growth rates due to its oil-driven economic boom.  This is quite evident for those of us who regularly visit the country and can see significant changes with every trip.  As those in power (and their political party vehicle of the New Azerbaijan Party – or YAP as its known with its Azeri initials) have consolidated their hold over the political sphere they have also limited the indepedence of the media and civil society.  In just one example during the OSCE briefing we were told that while the ruling party candidates received over 4 hours of media air time the opposition received less than 1 minute.  This discrepancy with regards to access to resources and the media has had detrimental affects at the ballot box for opposition parties.  Corruption also runs quite deep in post-Soviet societies and is a legacy of the Soviet times.  In many cases I personally felt that most of the blatant irregularities were not orchestrated from the top, as the victory of government candidates was assured  in some areas due to their popularity, but was carried out by lower-level officials as a show of their loyalty.   To become a district that has shown more than a certain amount of support to the opposition, even if the ruling party’s candidate wins, might lead to changes in the regional management of the city or town.  Some irregularities could be seen as an effort to avoid this. In a country with a population of 8.3 million, there are over 0.5 million registered YAP members.  It is impossible to avoid coming into contact with a member of this party at every level of state organization, be it rural or urban.  It is somewhat reminiscent of the Communist Party’s hold not too long ago.

My personal experience in Qebele did not result in my uncovering major corruption or irregularity at the elections.  In fact I witnessed almost no irregularities, which could either be because the elections officials were doing their job well, or because of the real reason which is the fact that most polling stations were aware that we would be visiting them and made sure to look “perfect”.  So the answer to the question of whether or not I saw any corruption at the polling stations and then at the Constituency Election Commission (ConEC) would be “no”.  This does not mean that the elections were not corrupted.  The preliminary report of the OSCE stated that this election had one of the highest cases of ballot stuffing on record in the recent years. It seems to me that some of the cases cited occurred not due to bad will but because of pure incompetence on the part of local officials.  In some cases where the district had very few residents the chairman (or chairwoman) who is always a local could generally be incompetent.  Chairing an election committee is not a full time job and only comes once every few years.  Who cares if ballots are not stamped fully and counted before everyone if you only have 200 voters and your kids are at home waiting for you to have dinner?  One of the first stops we made the day before the election when we were scouting the area was to a village called Laza.  Located on top of a mountain overlooking Russia, this village was pretty difficult to get to.  The only reason we decided to go was because we were advised that it was well worth the trip in terms of scenery.  Normally inacessible during the winter, we were blessed to have sunny autumn weather and made the trek out to this scarcely populated village.  Inside of the village there is no traffic because cars cannot make it through the narrow dirt roads and we had to ditch our vehicle and walk through mud and animal dung to get to the school building where the voting would take place.  The officials were very kind and honored to have our international presence and answered all of our questions with enthusiasm.  The funniest conversation I had with the chairman was when I asked him how far Russia was from the village, his response: “not far, only 1 day by horse”.  It was almost like I was swept back in time.  A single day’s trip on horseback is all it took to get to the Russian Federation.  In this village of a few hundred residents, where everyone knows everyone else, checking the identification of every voter because international observers are there might be a necessity, but in our absence, who could blame them if, for example, Aytan, daughter of the farmer Hikmat, forgot her id and was still allowed to vote because her name was on the voter list (needless to say these characters are products of my imagination and do not exist in reality)?

Another experience that I had was where my team was stationed to observe all night – the ConEc station where all of the different polling stations were bringing in their protocols and the votes were being tabulated for the whole district.  The hospitable head of the district offered us tea and pies his wife had made at home and we were there until 2-3 am waiting for all of the results.  At the end of the night, after all votes had been counted and all protocols signed with us receiving a copy of everything for transparency, we were invited to the guestroom for home-made plum votka and tandoori turkey brought by the Udi Christians of the Nic region.  I have never tasted turkey that delicious, even at the many Thanksgiving dinners I have attended.  Perhaps the votka had an effect but I am sure that the rich farming sector of the region along with the free nature in which the animals are nurtured led to the difference. The real funny part was when I looked around and realized that all of the ballots that came from the different polling stations in the district were in the same room with our votka and our wonderful turkey.  Is this an irregularity? Yes, if one had a devious mind and decided to steal the votes while we were toasting, but no, if you realize that there was limited room in which to put the ballots in the ConEc station.

With all of this said, many of the irregularities were not so innocent.  Ballot stuffing, proxy voting, rigging of votes, intimidation of voters are among some the serious offenses conducted during these elections and denying their existence would not be fitting for a scholar of the area.  The results of the election speak for themselves, while the previous parliament had several different political parties, still with the YAP in clear majority, this new parliament is dominated completely by YAP.  Almost all of the opposition candidates have been blocked from political office.  Although YAP received approximately 46% of the vote, many of the independent candidates (who received 48% of the vote) are also closely linked to the YAP or the President personally.  What results is a parliament almost void of opposition.  Democratic theory tells us that actors accept democracy as the best worst option because at least they have a chance of gaining power one day.  If this chance is taken away too obviously, then the opposition may begin to look for other ways to grasp power.  This is the problem that confronts all those aspiring authoritarians  or those in office.  I do not see such a grim future for Azerbaijan, because unlike some other post-Soviet states, there is an existing civil society. This civil society has taken quite a beating (let’s not even mention the case of the “donkey bloggers” who landed in prison after a parody on their blog), and they have lost significant funding, support and access to media.  Yet they are vibrant elsewhere, like on the internet and continue to voice their opposition and continue to take part in the political debate of the country.  I also see hope as I look at my many Azeri friends in government or in bureaucratic offices and how educated and active they are and the future that they will give to their country.  Azerbaijan does not only have natural resources, it also has human resources.  If modernization theory does not prove us wrong in this case (and it has been known to err here and there every once in a while), the future of real democracy in Azerbaijan may not be so grim.  For the time being however and in the near future, it does seem that “all roads lead to YAP.”

Itır Bağdadi

The days spent in Bucharest were fabulous as usual: excellent intellectual environment, good night life (good live music and food and drink in many pubs and many youngsters interested in communicating with our group of foreigners). The conference itself was intellectually satisfying, too. Its last day especially was full of vivid interventions, occasioned by the heated debate around security in Afghanistan and especially about the notion of ‘stabilisation’. Many of us put an ironic smile on our faces when this charming German lady was explaining to us how difficult it is to get domestic support for the stabilisation process in conflict-ridden areas of the world.

I personally have an impish mind that gets triggered toward even more impishness precisely by this sort of catch-all words, such as ‘stabilisation’. Most participants were intrigued by the how of the matter. I raised the question what to stabilise? Yes, what is that which we would want to put so much money and planning and implementation efforts in order to stabilise? Here the discussion departed from the Afghanistan issue and moved to the metaphysical level of any sort of situation that would demand, in the eyes of conventional security students, some form of stabilisation. Stabilisation of what, I say? Nation-states? Supranational political forms of integration? Villages? Penguin colonies? If we want to stabilise relations between political, cultural, or social entities of the world, could contemporary fixations in the framework of international relations as inter-national relations work? In other words, can current policies of stabilisation/security/development – either under the aegis of national states or initiated by regional organisations such as the EU – afford to propagate the model of the nation-state as telos of stabilisation/security/development itself?

The model of the nation-state has been and continues to be involved as first-rank subjectivity in schemes of political and military action objectifying human life itself as disposable entity and that depending on temporary political imperatives. This is essentially what happened in the context of German national-socialism and Stalinist communism. Those crucial moments in human history showed clearly the extremes that could be reached through the transformation of regimes into political religions developing various forms of imagining the state and the nation, with dramatic consequences for the humans that would not fit into the respective schemes. ‘National’ sovereignties have drawn political geographies that cut through bodies of people. Shall we continue to stabilise the world with such geographies while talking over a beer downtown Brussels, capital of political posmodernity? (sic!)

Dragoş C. Mateescu