Political rhetoric disguised as research
This week I'm traveling through the nation which has the distinction of being America's oldest ally. It also hosts America's first embassy and the first foreign property owned by the United States. I was surprised to learn the first nation to recognize an independent U.S. was actually Morocco. Yesterday, I had the unique opportunity to visit this former embassy in Tangiers, founded in 1777. The founding fathers of the U.S. were entrepreneurs who apparently got right to work. They had business interests through this vital port city and set up shop immediately following the Declaration of Independence even while simultaneously fighting the British.
This is a crucial piece of American history to be aware of in understanding current U.S. - Turkish relations, information that is apparently lost on many of my fellow columnists in Turkey. The U.S. is a pragmatic nation. It may be comprised of many varied viewpoints and beliefs, however, the institutions of the government are setup to withstand the gusts of ever-changing political winds. The institutions are most interested in furthering the welfare of the U.S. through its citizens, plain and simple. This includes giving these citizens, including myself, the ability to travel and conduct business freely throughout the world, including setting up diplomatic missions in far-flung locations. Everything else is secondary.
This is why U.S. President Barack Obama shunned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month during his visit to the U.S. Congress. The U.S. should not be involved in partisan Israeli bickering, Obama argued, nor should Israel be involved in partisan American bickering.
In this context, the U.S. has never had better relations with Turkey as it does today. This is why it surprises me to read "independent" articles written by anti-government Turks, through the façade of American "think tanks." Most recently I came across the Bipartisan Policy Center's (BCP) article titled "Fragile or Favored? Prospects for Turkey's economy in 2015." This is the latest in a salvo of articles that not only do not value the interests of the Turkish people, but also do not value those of the U.S. They are simply a mouthpiece for the old-guard/apartheid regime in Turkey, putting the Americans who support these efforts on the wrong side of history.
The article does an amateur job at arguing that the current Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government's economic successes are actually non-existent, and that the country's growth rate is actually the same now as it always has been. That the structural reforms put in place following the 2001 economic crisis are the only cause of 14 years of economic growth and prosperity. Let me briefly share the highlights and obvious fallacies in this argument.
Arguing that the AK Party is not responsible for Turkey's 14 years of economic prosperity is like arguing that George W. Bush is responsible for the U.S.'s economic recovery during Obama's tenure. It was Bush, who to quote Obama, "drove our [American] economy into a ditch." As the Troubled Asset Relief Program was instituted one month before Obama's victory over the Republicans, is Bush responsible for the subsequent six years of economic recovery? Of course not. The Bipartisan Policy Center makes a similarly silly argument in their article.
One of the key metrics the BPC does not mention is that of purchasing power and economic mobility. How has the purchasing power of the median Turkish citizen changed in the last 14 years? The AK Party government is responsible for executing the necessary structural reforms that Turkey embarked on following the 2001 economic crisis, yes, but it is also responsible for the subsequent 14 years of increased middle class purchasing power - even the formation of a middle class - of home ownership rates, improvements in health care and infrastructure.
The BPC argues for three "primary reforms:" Autonomy of the central bank, improved legal protections for businesses and decreasing disparity in the education system. Autonomy of the central bank already exists. The current chair of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) could easily decrease or increase rates with the support of the monetary policy committee, and the only recourse the president or the prime minister has would be to disagree with their decision and wait for the next meeting of the committee. What is wrong with this? This happens in the U. S. all the time, the U.S. Federal Reserve chair is not infallible and is often criticized for everything by American politicians from mismanagement of monetary policy at best, to "treasonous" efforts to systemically enslaving the working class at worst. Should the free speech of these politicians be infringed upon? Of course not.
Legal protections for businesses and reforming the education system are actions the AK Party government has already been doing; however, antiquated laws put in place by the opposition decades ago are making this an arduous process. Amending the Constitution is the only solution, as constant legal objections by opposition parties to legislation that would implement these reforms are not helping to speed up reforms. A super-majority would be necessary to amend the Constitution, in which case these reforms could be quickly implemented.
The BPC craftily uses other "important statistics" to predict impending doom and gloom in the Turkish economy. The article cites "difficulties" that "shopping malls ... could be facing" as evidence of oversupply in commercial real estate and a predictor of economic uncertainty. The article fails to mention that there have been no new shopping malls constructed in the U. S. in the last nine years, that they are also experiencing "difficulties," but that U.S. economy is said to be doing fine. Why this metric is mentioned to be a predictor of financial instability is peculiar at best.
The article goes on to conduct the opposition's dirty work by running through a laundry list of anti-Erdoğan and anti-AK Party talking points. Why the contributors to the articles aren't introduced is also in bad faith. If you quote a Republican or vocal anti-Obama critic about the chances of success by the Democrats, you have a responsibility to point out they are anti-government lobbyists. Similarly, this "paper" was written and sponsored by a group of anti- Erdoğan, anti-AK Party former government officials, including a candidate for a position in Obama's cabinet, who later stepped down because of tax-evasion that was later uncovered.
The major flaw of this "research paper" is that the conclusion was written before the "research" was done. Turkey is much better off now than it ever was. This is reflected in not only the real wages of the working class, but also the polls that consistently show support for the incumbent AK Party government. To be clear, my support for President Erdoğan is based on choosing the best candidate for a position, not in any one person's infallibility. I encourage the Turkish writers of this article to run for office themselves in the upcoming election and allow the people to decide the validity of their arguments, just as Syriza successfully did in Greece. The place for political rhetoric is in politics, not in "research papers."
This is a crucial piece of American history to be aware of in understanding current U.S. - Turkish relations, information that is apparently lost on many of my fellow columnists in Turkey. The U.S. is a pragmatic nation. It may be comprised of many varied viewpoints and beliefs, however, the institutions of the government are setup to withstand the gusts of ever-changing political winds. The institutions are most interested in furthering the welfare of the U.S. through its citizens, plain and simple. This includes giving these citizens, including myself, the ability to travel and conduct business freely throughout the world, including setting up diplomatic missions in far-flung locations. Everything else is secondary.
This is why U.S. President Barack Obama shunned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month during his visit to the U.S. Congress. The U.S. should not be involved in partisan Israeli bickering, Obama argued, nor should Israel be involved in partisan American bickering.
In this context, the U.S. has never had better relations with Turkey as it does today. This is why it surprises me to read "independent" articles written by anti-government Turks, through the façade of American "think tanks." Most recently I came across the Bipartisan Policy Center's (BCP) article titled "Fragile or Favored? Prospects for Turkey's economy in 2015." This is the latest in a salvo of articles that not only do not value the interests of the Turkish people, but also do not value those of the U.S. They are simply a mouthpiece for the old-guard/apartheid regime in Turkey, putting the Americans who support these efforts on the wrong side of history.
The article does an amateur job at arguing that the current Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government's economic successes are actually non-existent, and that the country's growth rate is actually the same now as it always has been. That the structural reforms put in place following the 2001 economic crisis are the only cause of 14 years of economic growth and prosperity. Let me briefly share the highlights and obvious fallacies in this argument.
Arguing that the AK Party is not responsible for Turkey's 14 years of economic prosperity is like arguing that George W. Bush is responsible for the U.S.'s economic recovery during Obama's tenure. It was Bush, who to quote Obama, "drove our [American] economy into a ditch." As the Troubled Asset Relief Program was instituted one month before Obama's victory over the Republicans, is Bush responsible for the subsequent six years of economic recovery? Of course not. The Bipartisan Policy Center makes a similarly silly argument in their article.
One of the key metrics the BPC does not mention is that of purchasing power and economic mobility. How has the purchasing power of the median Turkish citizen changed in the last 14 years? The AK Party government is responsible for executing the necessary structural reforms that Turkey embarked on following the 2001 economic crisis, yes, but it is also responsible for the subsequent 14 years of increased middle class purchasing power - even the formation of a middle class - of home ownership rates, improvements in health care and infrastructure.
The BPC argues for three "primary reforms:" Autonomy of the central bank, improved legal protections for businesses and decreasing disparity in the education system. Autonomy of the central bank already exists. The current chair of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) could easily decrease or increase rates with the support of the monetary policy committee, and the only recourse the president or the prime minister has would be to disagree with their decision and wait for the next meeting of the committee. What is wrong with this? This happens in the U. S. all the time, the U.S. Federal Reserve chair is not infallible and is often criticized for everything by American politicians from mismanagement of monetary policy at best, to "treasonous" efforts to systemically enslaving the working class at worst. Should the free speech of these politicians be infringed upon? Of course not.
Legal protections for businesses and reforming the education system are actions the AK Party government has already been doing; however, antiquated laws put in place by the opposition decades ago are making this an arduous process. Amending the Constitution is the only solution, as constant legal objections by opposition parties to legislation that would implement these reforms are not helping to speed up reforms. A super-majority would be necessary to amend the Constitution, in which case these reforms could be quickly implemented.
The BPC craftily uses other "important statistics" to predict impending doom and gloom in the Turkish economy. The article cites "difficulties" that "shopping malls ... could be facing" as evidence of oversupply in commercial real estate and a predictor of economic uncertainty. The article fails to mention that there have been no new shopping malls constructed in the U. S. in the last nine years, that they are also experiencing "difficulties," but that U.S. economy is said to be doing fine. Why this metric is mentioned to be a predictor of financial instability is peculiar at best.
The article goes on to conduct the opposition's dirty work by running through a laundry list of anti-Erdoğan and anti-AK Party talking points. Why the contributors to the articles aren't introduced is also in bad faith. If you quote a Republican or vocal anti-Obama critic about the chances of success by the Democrats, you have a responsibility to point out they are anti-government lobbyists. Similarly, this "paper" was written and sponsored by a group of anti- Erdoğan, anti-AK Party former government officials, including a candidate for a position in Obama's cabinet, who later stepped down because of tax-evasion that was later uncovered.
The major flaw of this "research paper" is that the conclusion was written before the "research" was done. Turkey is much better off now than it ever was. This is reflected in not only the real wages of the working class, but also the polls that consistently show support for the incumbent AK Party government. To be clear, my support for President Erdoğan is based on choosing the best candidate for a position, not in any one person's infallibility. I encourage the Turkish writers of this article to run for office themselves in the upcoming election and allow the people to decide the validity of their arguments, just as Syriza successfully did in Greece. The place for political rhetoric is in politics, not in "research papers."
Last Update: March 16, 2015 20:12