İkinci Obama Dönemi, Akıllı Güç ve Başkanın Adamları

Nur Özkan Erbay 25/01/2013

USASABAH

2016’ya uzanan ikinci Obama dönemi resmen başladı. Hafta sonu Beyaz Saray’da aile arasında gerçekleştirilen yemin töreninin ardından Obama ikinci kez; bu kez Pazartesi günü yaklaşık yedi yüz bin Amerikalının katıldığı törende yeminini etti.

Dört yıl önce tarihinin ilk Afro-Amerikan başkanını seçen 2 milyon Amerikalı aynı tören için başkente akın etmişti. Bush’un seçimleri kaybettiği ve Obama’nın zaferini ilan ettiği seçim günün akşamı soluğu Beyaz Saray’ın önünde alan genç Amerikalılar Beatles’ın ünlü “Hey Jude” şarkısı eşliğinde Bush’a büyük bir zevkle “güle güle” diyordu.

2009’da “Değişim” mesajı ile iş başına gelen Obama 2012’de ise bu kez “İşler bitmedi, Yola Devam, İleri” diyordu. Kasım seçimlerinde, Amerika’nin son iki yüzyıllık tarihinde ard arda iki dönem seçilebilen dört başkandan biri olma ünvanını kazandı. Obama’nın ilk dört yılında neyi ne kadar değiştirdiği ya da değiştirmediği ayrı bir soru işareti olarak bir yanda dururken şimdi ikinci dönemde ABD’yi nasıl bir yöne doğru “ilerleteceği” ve bunda başarılı olup olamayacağı ise merak konusu.

Mütevazi biir demokrasi şöleninden ziyade, İmparatorlukların  tahta çıkış, taç giyme, kılıç kuşanma törenlerini anımsatan gösterişli yemin töreninde yaptığı konuşmada her zamanki gibi retoriği iyi kullanan Obama’nın önümüzdeki dönemde özellikle iç politikada yarım kalan işleri ne ölçüde gerçekleştirip gerçekleştiremeyeceğini şimdiden kestirmek güç.

Yemin töreni konuşmasında yer alan ifadelerine baktığımızda; demokrasi, adalet, eşitlik, orta sınıfın güçlendirilmesi idealleri ile bezenmiş konuşmasında Obama, spesifik olarak bir politikaya ya da hedefe işaret etmezken genel anlamda ordunun gücü ve hukukun üstünlüğü vasıtasıyla Amerikan değerlerini yukarılarda tutmaya ve Amerikalıları savunmaya devam edeceği yolunda genel geçer vaadlerde bulundu.

Akıllı Güç’te İkinci Perde  

Öte yandan Obama’nın konuşmasında özellikle yeni dönem ABD dış politikasında izlenmesi muhtemel stratejiye ışık tutabilecek işaretlerin olduğunu söyleyebiliriz.  Zira bu noktalar bugüne kadar Obama’nın ABD dış politikasında çizmeye çalıştığı çerçeve ve yürüttüğü politikalarla paralellik arz ediyor.

Obama’nın  ifadelerine bakıldığında;  “güvenlik ve kalıcı barış için illa ki sürekli bir savaş içerisinde olmak gerekmediği, ABD’nin diğer ülkelerle farklılıklarını ve sorunlarını barışçıl yollarla çözme yönünde cesaret göstereceği, diyaloğun kuşku ve korkuları kalıcı bir şekilde ortadan kaldıracağına inandığı” yolundaki noktalar ön plana çıkıyor.

Diğer yandan, Obama bir taraftan ABD’nin dünyanın her yerinde ”güçlü ittifakların dayanak noktası” kalmaya devam edeceğini belirtirken bir taraftan da dış politikada karşılaşılan krizlerin idaresine yönelik kapasitelerini artıracağını ve bunun için de mevcut ittifaklıklarına yönelik kurumları güçlendireceğini kaydediyor.

Obama 20 dakikalık konuşmasında hiçbir şekide “terör” kelimesini kullanmıyor. Son olarak belki de en çarpıcı olanı ise ”Asya’dan Afrika’ya, Amerika’dan Ortadoğu’ya demokrasiyi destekleyeceğiz.  Çünkü çıkarlarımız ve vicdanımız özgürlük arzulayanlar için hareket etmeye bizi zorluyor ve biz yoksullara, hastalara, dışlanmış kesimlere, ön yargıların kurbanı olanlara umudun kaynağı olmalıyız” cümlesi.

Gerek bu ifadeleri alt alta koyduğumuzda gerekse ilk dört yılda geride bırakılan politikalarına baktığımızda İkinci Obama döneminde ilk döneme paralel olarak “Smart Power” “Akıllı Güç” paradigmasının yine bu dönemde dış politikanın merkezinde olacağını öngörebiliriz.

Bu noktada “Akıllı Güç” paradigmasının ABD dış politika tarihindeki izdüşümlerine ve bu paradigmanın süreçteki evrimine dair hafızaları tazelemekte yarar var. Amerika’nın diplomasi, ekonomi, askeri, politik, hukuki ve kültürel alanlardaki tüm gücünün dış politika potasında birleşimi anlamına gelen bu kavram 1900’lerde Roosevelt’in “Yumuşak konuş ama büyük sopa taşı” cümlesi ile özetlenirken 1960’lara gelindiğinde ise “Akıllı Güç”ün yan kolu olan diplomasideki “Yumuşak güç” Sovyet Bloğunun yıkılması hedefinde kullanılan en önemli araçtı.

1990’lara gelindiğinde Soğuk Savaşın bitirilmesindeki başarı da yine askeri ve diplomatik gücün ortak bir ürünü olan “Akıllı Güç”e atfedildi.

“Akıllı Güç” stratejisi 2009’a gelindiğinde, ikinci Bush döneminde ABD’nin dış politikada daha çok ‘hard power’ yani askeri güce yönelmesi ve bunun uzun vadede beraberinde getirdiği büyük zararların tazmin edilmesine yönelik yeni başkan Obama ve dışişleri bakanı Clinton’un önüne bir can simidi olarak konuldu. Washington’da önde gelen demokrat, liberal, multileteralist (çok ulusluculuk), realist  dış politika uzman ve  bürokratları çiçeği burnunda başkan Obama’nın dış politikada  5 ana kritik alana odaklanması telkininde bulundu. Zira bu noktalar dış politikada “Akıllı Güç”ün mihenk taşlarını oluşturacaktı; İttifaklar, Küresel Kalkınma, Kamu Diplomasisi, Ekonomik Entegrasyon, Teknoloji ve İnovasyon.

Yıllar içinde evrilen bu doktrine göre Birleşmiş Milletler gibi uluslararası kurumların da desteği ile çok taraflı, çok uluslu ittifaklar öncelenecekti. Obama tarafından kabul gören bu doktrinin baş uygulayıcısı da Hillary Clinton oldu.  Clinton 4 sene önce bugünlerde bakanlığının onayı için yapılan Senato oturumunda da ABD’nin “Akıllı Güç”ü dış politikasının temel doktrinlerinden biri olarak benimseyeceğini ilan etti.

2010 ve 2011 yılına gelindiğinde süregelen Irak, Afganistan savaşlarının yükünü hafifetmeye çalışan Obama yönetimi bir taraftan da başta İran olmak üzere sorunu alanlarda “Akıllı Güç” doktrinini uygulamaya devam etti. Özellikle Arap Halk Ayaklanmaları ile gelişen süreçte yine bu doktrinin prensibi gereğince uluslararası ittifakları daha fazla önceleyen ve daha az tek taraflı insiyatif alan bir yol izledi.

2012’ye gelindiğinde ise ABD;  Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika’da belki de kendisine artık pek de tanıdık gelmeyen çehresi, Çin’in Asya’da önü alınmaz bir şekilde artan etkisi, İran’la kör topal sürdürülmeye çalışılan diplomasi, Rusya ile neredeyse her konuda sürekli inip çıkan tansiyon, İsrail’in bölgesinde ve uluslarası alanda sürekli başına bela olan politikaları, Avrupa’nın ve ABD’nin kendi içinde bulunduğu ekonomik krizle baş başa kaldı.

Şimdi yeni bir yıla ve yeni bir döneme giren Obama yönetimini önüne tıpkı 2009’da olduğu gibi yeni politika önerileri, raporlar, stratejiler getiriliyor. Geçtiğimiz haftalarda yayınlanan Atlantik Konseyi ve Dış İlişkiler Konseyi (CFR)’in raporlarına  bu anlamda göz atmakta fayda var. Her iki raporda Obama’ya, ABD’nin küresel çıkarlarının çok taraflı ortaklıklar üzerinden korunmaya devam edilmesi telkinin de bulunuyor. Liberal eğilimli CFR bunu “Amerika’nın liberal değerleri ve ilerici ideallerinin dünyaya yansıtılmaya devam edilmesi için çok taraflı küresel düzeninin inşaası ” olarak tanımlıyor. CFR politika önerilerinde ayrıca “dünyanın farklı yerlerinde  gelişmekte olan demokrasilere destek verilmesi ve özellikle Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika’da daha aktif bir rol oynanması gerektiği” vurgulanıyor.  ABD dış politikası için daha çok realist politikaların benimsendiği Atlantik Konseyi’nin raporunda ise “ekonomi ve güvenlik alanlarında NATO, Transatlantik İttifakı, Avrupa Birliği başta olmak üzere devlet ve devlet dışındaki insiyatiflerle ikili ve çoklu ittifakların sürdürülmesi gerekliliği”nin altı çizilirken yine Orta Doğu’da daha aktif bir rol oynanması gerektiği noktası tekrarlanıyor.

Atlantik Konseyi raporunun yazarlarından biri Obama’nın Savunma Bakan adayı aslen ılımlı bir Cumhuriyetçi ve Trans-Atlantik İttifakının savunucularından olan Chuck Hagel. Diğer yandan  Dışişleri Bakanlığı kesinleşen John Kerry de multileteralist bir liberal demokrat.

ABD dış politikasında önümüzdeki 4 senelik dönemde adını Başkandan sonra en fazla duyacağımız bu iki isim de “Akıllı Güç”doktrininin diplomatik  ve askeri ayağındaki mühendisleri olacak. Geldikleri siyasi ekoller itibariyle bu doktrine uygunluğu açıkca görülen Kerry ve Hagel’ın Clinton, Gates ve Panetta üçlüsünden ne derece farklı bir performans sergileyeceğini de zaman içinde göreceğiz.

Türk-Amerikan ilişkilerinde masada neler var?

 

Nur Özkan Erbay -1/16/2013-Washington

USASABAH

ABD Başkanı Obama ikinci dört yıllık görev süresine birkaç gün sonra resmen başlamış olacak. Dış politikada hayli yoğun bir gündeme girecek olan ABD yönetimini özellikle Türk-Amerikan ilişkileri ve bölgesel konular bağlamında da yoğun bir temas ve istişare trafiği bekliyor.

Zira  Türkiye-ABD ilişkilerindeki gündemin  Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın henüz kesin tarihi belli olmayan ancak  kısa bir süre sonra Washington’a yapması muhtemel ziyaret ile daha da hareketlenmesi bekleniyor.  Obama’nın Başkanlık yemin töreninin ardından gerçekleşmesi beklenen ziyarette iki lider arasında yapılacak görüşmelerde ön plana çıkabilecek önemli  başlıklara ve iki ülkenin bu konularda durduğu pozisyonlara ilişkin kısa bir ufuk turu yapmakta fayda var.

Diplomatik kaynaklardan edinilen bilgilere göre halihazırda iki ülke arasında ağırlıklı olarak mesai harcanan konular; Suriye,  Patriotların konuşlandırılması, İran, Irak, Güny Asya, Balkanlar ve Arap baharı bağlamında tüm Orta Doğu. Bunların yanında enerji konuları her zamanki gibi ikili görüşmelerde önemki yer tutuyor. Öte yandan Türkiye ve ABD üç ülkede yakın zaman içerisinde gerçekleştirelecek seçimleri yakından takip ediyor. Bu ülkeler İsrail, Ermenistan ve Güney Kıbrıs olarak sıralanıyor.

Obama yönetiminin dış politikadaki ana gündem maddesinin Suriye olduğunu belirten diplomatik kaynaklar, Amerikan yönetiminin bundan sonraki dönemde bu konuda daha net politikalar ortaya koyabileceğini tahmin ediyor.  Bunun yanında, ABD’li uzmanların Esed rejiminin 6 ay içerisinde sonunun geleceğini öngörüsünde bulunduğuna  işaret eden kaynaklar, Esed rejiminin ülke genelinde kontrolü büyük ölçüde kaybettiğine dikkat çekiyor.  Diğer yandan ABD’nin Nusra Cephesini terör örgütü listesine almasındaki zamanlama konusunda Türkiye’nin aynı değerlendirmeyi paylaşmadığını belirten kaynaklar, Nusra’dan ziyade Esed’in halkına yaptığı zulüm ve ülkesini savaşa sürüklediği gerçeğinin odak noktası olarak alınması gerektiğini vurguluyor.

Öte yandan, Türkiye-ABD ilişkilerinin Obama’nın ilk dört yılına tekamül eden son 4 yılına bakıldığında ortak çıkarlar zemininde sürekli iyiye giden bir ivme kaydettiğini belirtilirken Türkiye’nin özellikle Hagel ve Kerry’nin savunma ve dışişleri bakanlıklarına adaylıklarına oldukça olumlu baktığını ifade ediliyor. Bunda da her iki adayın da Türkiye’yi ve bölgeyi uzun yıllardır yakinen tanıyan ve bilen tecrübeli siyasetçiler olmalarının etkili olduğu kaydediliyor.

Diğer bir önemli konu  İran. Türkiye ve ABD’nin İran konusunda aynı sayfada yer aldığı biliniyor. Yine bu konuda Türkiye’nin her zaman siyasi çözümden yana tavır aldığını ve askeri bir çözümü mümkün görmediğini ifade eden diplomatik kaynaklara göre ABD de siyasi çözümün sağlanması konusunda Türkiye ile  aynı görüşleri paylaşıyor.

Irak konusuna gelindiğinde ise Türkiye ve ABD’nin bakış açıları ülkenin refahı, ulusal güvenliği ve istikrarının sağlanması hedefi doğrultusunda farklılık göstermiyor. Özellikle son dönemde Kuzey Irak’tan Türkiye’ye petrol ihracatı konusunda ABD yönetiminden “Bağdat yönetiminden bağımsız hareket edilmesin” minvalinde mesajlar gelmişti. Diplomatik kaynaklar bu konuda ABD ve Türkiye arasında yer yer değerlendirme farklılıkları olsa da gerek Irak gerekse bölge dengelerinin korunması doğrultusunda aynı hedeflere doğru haraket ettiğini belirtiyor.

ABD’nin Türkiye ile ilgili gündeminde halihazırda önemli bir yer tutan ve önümüzeki dönemdeki görüşmelerde en üst sıralarda yer alacak konu Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerinin akıbeti.  Türkiye ve İsrail’in bir normalleşme sürecine girebilmesi için Türkiye’nin kapıyı her zaman açık tuttuğu ancak şartlarından asla taviz vermediğini ve bu konuda zik zak çizmediğini kaydeden diplomatik kaynaklar, normalleşme süreci doğrultusunda zaman zaman görüşmelerde bulunulduğu, bu görüşmelerin yine geçerli olabileceğini aktarıyor. Açık kapı bırakılırken, Türkiye’nin ortaya koyduğu şartların da geçerliliğini koruduğu vurgulanırken bugüne kadarki süreçte Türkiye’nin taleplerinin yerine getirilmesinde İsrail tarafında siyasi irade eksikliğinin başgösterdiği, ülkedeki seçimler sonrasında bu iradenin ortaya konulup konulmayacağının görüleceğini belirtiliyor.

Türkiye-ABD gündemindeki bir diğer önemli konu ise İmralı ile yürütülen müzakere ve terörle mücadele süreci. Özellikle son dönemde Türkiye’nin terörün sona erdirilmesi yolunda İmralı ile başlattığı görüşme sürecinin ABD yönetimi tarafından yakından izlendiği  biliniyor. Washington bu konuda süreci desteklediğini belirten bir dizi açıklama da yaptı.

Yine diplomatik kaynaklardan edindiğimiz bilgilere göre, ABD sürece desteğini teyid ederken iki ülke aynı zamanda terörle mücadele konusundaki mutabakatını da sürdüyor. Kaynaklar terörle mücadele konusunda ABD’nin Türkiye’ye önümüzdeki dönemdeki desteğinin artırmasının beklendiğini ifade ediyor.

Sonuç olarak, ABD’de ikinci Obama dönemine girilirken Türkiye-ABD ilişkilerini de her zamanki gibi yoğun  bir gündem bekliyor. Bir yandan Suriye’de Esed’in sonuna yaklaştığına ilişkin öngörüler ağırlık kazanırken bunun başta Türkiye, İran, Irak ve tüm bölgeye yansımaları Türk-Amerikan ilişkilerinin önümüzdeki dönemdeki birinci gündem maddesini oluşturacak görünüyor.

Yeni dönemde ABD ve Türkiye, küresel ve bölgesel ölçekteki politikalarının devamlılığı bakımından yoğun bir mesai harcayak. Bu anlamda ABD ve Türkiye’nin Irak ile ilişkileri ve bu ülkedeki çıkarları,  Arap Baharı sonrası şekillenen Orta Doğu-Kuzey Afrika coğrafyasında her iki ülkenin rolü, İran ile ilişkilerde diplomasinin kalıcılığı, İsrail’in yeni Orta Doğu politiği bağlamında Türkiye ve ABD dış poltikasındaki yeri, Rusya ile ilişkiler, Orta Asya, Kafkaslar ve enerji koridoru gibi ana başlıklar ortak gündemin üst sıralarında olmaya devam edecek.

http://www.usasabah.com/Yazarlar/nur_ozkan/2013/01/16/turkamerikan-iliskilerinde-yogun-bir-gundeme-giriliyor

Obama Hagel ile neyin mesajını veriyor?

Nur Özkan Erbay – 01/09/2013 – Washington,DC

Yılın ilk günlerinde Mali Uçurum krizini atlatıp rahat bir nefes alan Beyaz Saray ve Başkan Obama ikinci dört yıl için kabinede planladığı revizyona ilişkin gündemine döndü. Geçtiğimiz hafta Susan Rice’dan sonra Dışişleri Bakanlığındaki ikinci tercihi olan senatör John Kerry’inin adaylığını resmen ilan eden Obama  bu hafta başında da eski senatör Chuck Hagel’in Savunma Bakanlığına aday gösterdi.

Senato’dan onay çıkması halinde, Obama kabinesinin Cumhuriyetçi bakanı ve ilk Vietnam Gazisi Savunma Bakanı olarak taltiflenecek Hagel’ın ısrarla tercih edilmesinin ardında yatan sebepler neler? Obama yönetimi ikinci dönemde savunma ve dış politika alanında yeni bir yol haritası mı izleyecek? Hagel aynı zamanda İsrail’e verilen bir mesaj mı? Yeni dönemde bu seçimin Türkiye ile ilişkilere etkisi neler olur?

Bu soruların cevaplarından önce bügüne kadarki sürece ve Hagel’ın profiline mercek tutmakta fayda var. Obama’nın Dışişleri Bakanlığında tercihini kuvvetle muhtemel Susan Rice ya da John Kerry’den yapacağı uzun zamandır biliniyordu. Chuck Hagel’in Savunma Bakanlığı adaylığı sürpriz olmamakla birlikte karşısına Dışişleri bakanlığında olduğu gibi ikinci bir ismin çıkmaması ise hayli dikkat çekici oldu. Şimdilerde Obama’nın Hagel konusundaki kararına ilişkin Washington’daki tartışmalar tüm hızıyla sürüyor. Bu tartışmaların ortasındaki en büyük ironi ise muhalefetteki Cumhuriyetçilerin aslında demokrat partiden olan Kerry’nin dışişleri bakanlığına istinasız bir destek verirken kendi partilerinden olan Hagel’in savunma bakanlığına karşı çıkıyor olmaları.

Obama’nın bu iki ismin adaylığını resmen ilan etmesinin ardından şimdi her iki aday, Senato’da düzenlenecek oturumlarda Demokrat ve Cumhuriyetçi partili senatörlerin görev alanları ve bugüne kadarki deneyimleri ile ilgili sorularını yanıtlayacak. John Kerry’inin senatodaki onay sürecinden çok büyük bir aksilik ve son dakika skandalı olmaz ise rahatlıkla geçeceğini söylemek mümkün ancak aynı şeyi Hagel için söylemek kolay değil. Zira, Washington’da Hagel ismi üzerinde süren itilaf  henüz resmi olarak adaylığı açıklanmadan haftalar önce başladı ve halen tüm hızıyla sürüyor. Özellikle John McCain, Lindsay Graham gibi savunma lobilerine yakın Cumhuriyetçi kanadın önemli isimlerin yanı sıra Kongre’de İsrail lobisine yakınlığı ile bilinen Demokrat ve Cumhuriyetçi üyelerin neredeyse tamamı Hagel ismine onay vermiyor. Diğer yandan ABD’deki Yahudi cemaati ve İsrail lobisinin de bu konuda yoğun ve açık  olarak  anti-Hagel kampanyasını sürdürdüğü gözleniyor.

Öte yandan Hagel Obama yönetiminin tamamından, dış politika yapıcıları, eski büyükelçiler, dış işleri bakanları ve düşünce kuruluşları çevrelerinden ise büyük destek görüyor.  Kendisi bir Vietnam gazisi olan Hagel bu çevreler nezdinde “Vatanperver”,  iki dönem Cumhuriyetçi partiden senatörlük yapmış  bir siyasetçi olarak “deneyimli bir politikacı”, ABD Dış Politikasında realist akımı temsil eden ve önde gelen isimleri barındıran Atlantik Konseyi’nin Başkanı olarak da “dış politika ve savunma alanlarında uzman” bir profil olarak görülüyor.

ABD’de dış politika ve savunma alanında realist akımın günümüzdeki bayrak taşıyıcılarından olan Hagel’ın bu ekolün temel doktrini olan “ABD’nin ali çıkarları herşeyden önemlidir” şiari ile parti ve siyaset üstü bir “devlet adamlığı” vasfina sahip olduğu görüşü Washington’da sıklıkla dillendiriliyor. Hagel bu anlamda Başkan Obama’nın dış politika ve savunma alanındaki poltikalarının devamlılığının garantörü olabilecek, Kongre ve savunma çevrelerinde her iki tarafı da iyi tanıyan ve buralarda dengeyi sağlayabilme gücüne sahip bir isim olarak ön plana çıkıyor.

Bu nedenle ki Obama ile kişisel ilişkileri de hayli iyi olan Hagel aynı zamanda Obama’nın Ulusal İstihbarat konseyi’nin Eş başkanlığı görevini de sürdürüyordu.  Hagel bu konuda ilk örnek değil. Zira, Cumhuriyetçi Başkanların ekiplerinde yer almış ancak bugün Başkan Obama’ya danışmanlık veren ve hatta Ulusal Güvenlik Konseyinde de görev alan emekli generaller Brent Scowcroft, Jim Jones’un yanı sıra Zbigniew Brzezinski’nin de aralarında bulunduğu realist çizginin önde gelen isimlerinin Hagel’in adaylığına destek veriyor olmaları bu açıdan bakıldığında hiç de sürpriz sayılmaz.

Hagel klasik bir Cumhuriyetçi değil

Önceki Başkan Bush döneminde açılan Irak ve Afganistan savaşlarına sıkılıkla eleştiriler getiren Hagel, Obama yönetiminin iki ülkeden geri çekilme politikasına da açıktan desteğini belli etmişti. Hamas ve Hizbullah ile görüşülmesi taraftarı olan Hagel İran ile girilecek bir savaşa keskin bir dille karşı çıkarken  her mecrada İran ile diplomasinin sürdürülmesi gerektiğini savunuyor. Hamas ve Hizbullah’ın “terörist örgüt ” olarak ilan edilmesine karşı çıkan Hagel,  yine 2007 yılında halen Senatör iken İran Devrim Muhafızları ordusunu “terörist” ilan eden bir tasarıya karşı çıkan iki senatörden biri olarak biliniyor. Hagel’ın adaylık sürecinde başını en fazla ağrıtan konu ise İsrail. İsrail lobisinin Washington’daki etkisine ciddi eleştiriler getiren Hagel belki de bu konuda fikirlerini açıktan söyleyebilen nadir isimlerden biri. Bazılarına göre “Ben İsrail’in değil, ABD’nin Senatörüyüm” diyecek kadar da “ileri” giden Hagel bu görüşleri ile  dış politikada klasik Cumhuriyetçi ve muhafazakar ekolden ayrılıyor.

Obama ikinci döndemde Hagel ile neyi planlıyor?

Önümüzdeki 10 yıllık dönem için savunma bütçesinde ciddi kesintilere gidileceğini uzun süre önce açıklayan Obama’nın özellikle bu konudaki hedeflerini gerçekleştirebilmesinde Hagel adeta biçilmiş kaftan olarak görülüyor. Hagel’ın bu anlamda Kongre ve kamouyunun ikna edilmesi, Savunma Sanayii ve yönetim arasında sağlıklı bir ilişkinin sürdürülebilmesinin yanında  Afganistan’dan geri çekilme süreci ve ABD’nin Asya Pasifiğe odaklı yeni savunma stratejisinin hayata geçirilmesi konularında son derece verimli çalışabileceği düşünülüyor. Bunun yanında Hagel’in özellikle İran bağlamında diyalogdan yana tavrı, Obama’nın İran ile preemptive bir savaşa girmeyi reddeden politikası ile paralellik arz ediyor.

İsrail’e mesaj mı?

Hagel’ın Obama kabinesinde bulunmaya başlamasından itibaren başının en fazla ağrıyacağı konunun İsrail olacağı düşünülse de nihayetinde yönetimin politikalarını uygulamakla mükellef bir bürokratın sınırlarını aşmayacağını tahmin etmek zor değil. Bunun yanında Hagel’in israil’e yönelik geçmişte sarf ettiği sözler  sonrasında sık sık anti-semitik olmadığı yönünde savunmaya düşmüş olması da Bakan olması halinde eskisi gibi rahat konuş-a-mayacağının bir ön göstergesi sayılabilir.

Halihazırda İsrail-ABD ilişkileri, Obama-Netanyahu arasındaki düşük yoğunluklu krizin gölgesinde “sarsılmaz ilişki” paradigması doğrultusunda ilerliyor ve İsrail her yıl ABD’den 3 milyar dolar askeri yardım almaya devam ediyor.

Şu an için bu tablonun Hagel ve Kerry’inin gelmesi ile tümden değişeceğini beklemek ne kadar beyhude ise ABD’nin bu bağlamdaki dış politikasında kökten bir değişimin öngörüldüğünü söylemek de o kadar zor. Her ne kadar İsrail hükümeti ve Washington’daki lobi Hagel isminden nem kapsa da Obama’nın Hagel ile İsrail’e aba altından sopa gösterdiğini söylemek için henüz çok erken.

Hagel Türkiye’yi, Türkiye Hagel’i tanıyor?

Hagel’in Türkiye ile yürütülen ilişkilerde ise  yukarıda sıraladığımız tüm bu özellikleri ön plana çıkacaktır. Gerek senatörlüğü döneminde gerekse Atlantik Konseyi Başkanı sıfatıyla  Türkiye’yi ABD’de en iyi tanıyan ve Türkiye ile iletişim kanalları belki de en gelişmiş Amerikan siyasi figürlerinden olan Hagel’ın Türkiye ile ilişkilerde olumlu etkilerinin olacağını söylemek ise mümkün. Öte yandan ABD yönetiminin neredeyse en önemli bakanlığının başına geçecek olan Hagel’in Beyaz Saray’ın savunma ve dış politikadaki politika tercihlerinden bağımsız olarak hareket etmesinin  sözkonusu olamayacağının altını bir kez daha çizmekte fayda var.

Geçmişte yaşanan örnekler; Türkiye’ye silah, teçhizat ve askeri uçak-helkopterler satışları vs. alanlarında Beyaz Saray’ın Kongre dengelerini gözetmesi gerektiği sorunlu durumlar hasıl olduğunda  Hagel’in Beyaz Saray’dan bağımsız hareket edebileceğini de düşünmek mümkün olmadığı kadar Kongre nezdinde Türkiye lehine çok etkili de olabilir.

Özet olarak Türkiye’yi yakından tanıyan ve ABD siyasetinde Türkiye’nin önemini en iyi kavramış siyasi figürlerin belki de en önemlilerinden biri olan Hagel’ın Savunma Bakanlığı’na getirilmesi birçok açıdan Türkiye için avantajlı okunabilecek bir sonuç olma potansiyeline sahip. Önümüzdeki dönemde, Obama yönetiminin prensipte dış politika ve savunma işbirliği alanında Türkiye’ye verdiği önemin uygulamada da görülebilmesinde Chuck Hagel en önemli aktörlerden biri olacaktır.

Turkey: A New Star Born in the Zuckerberg Galaxy

By Nur Özkan Erbay / WASHINGTON DC

At the strategic crossroads of Asia, the Middle East and Europe, Turkey has ignited a largely overlooked yet immense social media explosion.

The engagement with Social Media has increased rapidly in the country with the high penetration of Internet usage. Turkey hits record number to engage with Social Medias and Social Networking which also raise many questions regarding the impact of social media in Turkish society.

With over 35 million people or 44% of its population using the internet, Turkey is the 3rd most engaged online audience in Europe, and 5th in the world. Virtually all internet users in Turkey (96%) interact with social media. (Internet World Stats, April 2012).

Turkish users are watching an average of 200 videos per month and posting 20 tweets per second (webrazzi.com). They spend an average of 32.7 hours online consuming 3,706 pages per month, altogether consuming a whopping 13.1 billion minutes in a month on Facebook alone. (ComScore, October 2011).

And the real-world repercussions of this virtual world expansion in Turkey? Seismic.

During the last devastating earthquake in city of Van, eastern Turkey, hashtags like #van and #deprem (earthquake in Turkish) trended instantly, being tweeted hundreds of times per second as people shared information on how to help and what to donate. According to Time Magazine Ahmet Tezcan, a prominent Turkish journalist with 32,000 followers has posted a tweet offering his spare apartment to a family in need. He suggested others do the same. Within hours, thousands of people had emailed the “My house is your house” #EvimEvindirVan campaign, offering their homes. As a result of the campaign’s success, Istanbul governor’s office has taken charge to launch a 24 hour hotline where people can apply to stay or host. (Time.com, October 2011)

Politicians Among The Top Twitter personalities

In the wider political sphere, Turkish politicians have made Obama’s savvy ground-breaking use of social media into standard fare during the June 2011 general elections. Among the top ten personalities on Twitter in Turkey are President Abdullah Gül with 1.7 million followers, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with 1.3 million, and the main opposition party CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu with 0.6 million.

“Zuckerberg Galaxy”

These effects and more are explored in a book newly released in Turkey, We Are All Global, We Are All Local: A Journey from the Gutenberg Galaxy to the Zuckerberg Galaxy, edited by Dr. Edibe Sozen. With contributions authored by journalists, academicians, and other experts from Turkey the United States, Indonesia, and Germany, it is one of the first extensive studies of social media in Turkey.

The book names the new social sphere in our times as “The Zuckerberg Galaxy” and elaborates on the schools of thought that are at the forefront of explaining this new galaxy.

As the book opens a new chapter on Social Media Studies in Turkey, Sozen presents the emphasis on the idea that social media offers a new public sphere that involves new actors, actions and expressions.

Sozen notes that the most active users in Turkish society are journalists, intellectuals, artists, and students. “Turkish people use social networking to share their ideas and expertise as well as to follow and get in touch with prominent or famous figures in politics, media, cultural and social life,” she writes. Social media platforms are also favorite places for heated discussions on current social and political issues in the country. “The new constitution process, the Kurdish question, the terrorism question, Turkish foreign policy, Arab uprisings, and other recent developments in the Middle East are top discussion topics,” says Sozen.

The book also also analyzes an archeology of social media, the practices of social media in education, government, social movements and political elections as well as the eco-politics of the
social media. The book also brings a critical look to the spinning discussion on “The Role Of Social Media in the Arab Spring”.

What else might this burst of social media in Turkey have in store within and beyond its borders? As this new star burns ever more brightly, it will pull our global gaze towards it.

The article first published @USASABAH

Related Link: http://www.usasabah.com/EnglishNews/2012/06/01/turkey-a-new-star-born-in-the-zuckerberg-galaxy

---

Second Four Years for Obama – Obama’nın İkinci Dört Yılı (Turkish)

Obama’nın İkinci Dört Yılı

ABD Başkanı Barack Obama’nın dört yıl önce kendisine addedilen “yenilikçi ve ilerici liberal demokrat” çizgisi özellikle son iki yıldır yerini daha çok iç politikadaki dengeleri gözeten, “merkez sağ”a evrilen ve statükonun devamını benimseyen bir pozisyona bıraktı.

Şimdi ikinci bir dört yıl için yeniden seçilen Obama’nın önümüzdeki dönemde uluslararası alanda sergileyeceği performansın en önemli belirleyicisi de bu iki duruş arasında yapacağı tercihler olacak.

Uluslararası ittifakları önceleyen ancak ortak çıkarları göz ardı eden bir politika izlemesi, “İsrail:imtiyazlı ülke” statükosunu devam ettirmesi halinde ise ABD’nin dış politikasında istikrarı yakalaması mevcut şartlarda zor görünüyor.

Dört yıl önce “Değişim” vaadi ile iş başına gelen, 2012 seçimlerinde ise “İleri” mesajını veren ABD Başkanı Barak Hüseyin Obama’yı şimdi iç ve dış politikada önemli gündem maddeleri ile dolu zorlu bir dört yıl bekliyor. İkinci kez seçilen başkanlık koltuğuna oturan Obama’nın önümüzdeki dönem politikalarında hareket alanının genişleyeceği yaygın bir kanaat olsa da Amerikan siyasetinde son yıllarda zirve yapan kutuplaşma karşısında bu alanı çok da rahat kullanamayacağı görülüyor. Öte yandan, seçim sürecinde dış politika alanında yaptığı değerlendirmelerinde baskın olarak ulusal güvenlik ve çıkarlar merkezli bir söylemi benimseyen Obama’nın yeni insiyatifler alma konusunda tercihini hangi yönde kullanacağı büyük bir soru işareti olarak karşımızda duruyor.

“Oyları düşüş gösterdi”

Seçimler sonunda Obama, her ne kadar Başkan seçilebilmek için gerekli olan delege sayısını rahatlıkla bularak ipi göğüslemiş olsa da ülke genelindeki halk oylarının dağılımı Amerikan toplumunun son seçimlerdeki siyasi tercihinin etnisite,din,ırk,ekonomik sınıf kriterlerinde ne derece bölünmüş olduğunu gözler önüne seriyor. Kayıtlı seçmenlerin neredeyse yarısının seçim sandığına gitmediği seçimlerde rakibi Cumhuriyetçi Mitt Romney’e karşı halk oylarında sadece üç puanlık bir avantaj sağlayan Obama’nın bu anlamda çok da ezici bir galibiyet aldığını söylemek mümkün görünmüyor. Zira, beyaz Amerikalıların yüzde 60’ının Romney’e, Afrikan-Amerikalıların ise yüzde 93’lük ezici bir çoğunluğunun Başkan Obama’ya oy verdiği görülüyor. Asyalı ve Latin Amerikalı göçmenlerin ağırlıklı olarak tercih ettiği Obama’nın 2008 seçimlerine oranla aldığı oylarda 10 milyonluk bir düşüş gözleniyor. Bu rakam Obama’nın dört sene önceki rakibi Senatör John McCain karşsındaki performansı ile kıyaslandığında gerek kazanılan eyalet, gerek alınan toplam oy, gerekse elektoral delege saysında belirgin bir düşüş göze çarpıyor.

Diğer yandan, her ne kadar Obama ve Demokratlar Kongre’nin üst kanadı olan Senato’daki avantajını korusa da, Temsilciler Meclisi’nde Cumhuriyetçiler çoğunluğu ellerinde bulundurmaya devam ediyor. Siyasetteki kutuplaşmanın bir izdüşümü olarak Demokrat yönetim tarafından yapılan her hata, söylenen her çelişkili söz, yakalanan her açık yasama organlarında Cumhuriyetçi muhalefetin büyük bir direnci ve atakları ile karşılık buluyor.

Özellikle seçimler arefesinde ve sonrasında yaşanan iki büyük skandal, iç siyasetindeki amansız çekişmede Obama yönetiminin elini zayıflatan en büyük etken olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. ABD’nin Bingazi konsolosluğu saldırısı ile ilgili sürecin iyi yönetilememesi beraberinde Obama yönetimi tarafından yapılan çelişkili açıklamalar ve seçimlerden sadece bir hafta sonra patlak veren CIA Başkanı Petraeus’un karıştığı skandal önümüzdeki dönemde Amerikan iç siyasetini hali hazırda domine eden iki sorunlu başlık olarak sıralanıyor.

Diğer yandan, seçim sürecine damgasını vuran ekonomi alanında ise Obama’nın önündeki en kritik gündem maddesi 2013 yılının bütçesi. Zira, son dört senedir Amerikan ekonomisinin düzlüğe çıkamadığı ve ikinci bir mali krize elverişli ortamın sürdüğü düşünüldüğünde Obama’nın Kongre’de partiler üstü bir uzlaşıyı sağlayamaması riski hala bulunuyor.

“Dış Politika daha zorlu”

İç politikada partiler üstü uzlaşıya acilen ihtiyacı olan Obama’yı dış politikada ise daha zorlu bir süreç bekliyor. Başkanlığının ilk 4 yılında, Irak ve Afganistan’dan geri çekilme süreci ile paralel ilerleyen dönemde “ulus inşası” ve “askeri müdahale” gibi seçeneklere mesafeli duran ve “geriden liderlik”i benimseyen Obama Cumhuriyetçiler tarafından yoğun eleştirilere maruz kalıyor. Orta Doğu’da süregelmekte olan siyasi dönüşümlerde “aktif” olarak yer almamakla suçlanan Obama’nın, ABD’nin Çin’e karşı, “küresel liderlik” idealini devam ettirmesi yolunda ortaya koyduğu Asya-Pasifik stratejisinin akıbetinin ne olacağı ise henüz kestirilemiyor.

Obama’nın dış politikada öncelik vereceği bölge Orta Doğu ve bölgedeki ülkelerin başında da Suriye geliyor. Suriye konusunda askeri bir müdahaleyi seçenek dışında bırakan Obama’nın son tahlilde uluslararası ittifakla hareket eden ancak çıkarlarını da garantileyen bir formulü benimseyeceği yaygın öngörüler arasında yer alıyor.

Amerikan iç siyasetinin ve kongrenin önümüzdeki dönemde Obama üzerinde baskı uygulamaya devam edeceği konuların başında ise İran ve İsrail geliyor. İran’ın nükleer çalışmaları konusunda ikna olunmaması durumunda, askeri müdahale dahil olmak üzere her seçeneğin masada olduğunu vurgulayan Obama diğer yandan da diplomasiye fırsat vereceği sözünü yineliyor. Yineliyor ancak İsrail’in bu yöndeki baskılarına “direnen” Obama’nın özellikle İsrail’in son Gazze saldırısında kayıtsız şartsız İsrail’i destekleyen tavrı İran konusunda da şahinleşebileceği ihtimalini kuvvetlendiriyor.

Göreve geldiği 2009 yılının Ocak ayında İsrail’in Dökme Kurşun operasyonuna karşı takındığı tavrı, İsrail’in son Gazze saldırılarında da sürdüren Obama bu ükenin ulusal güvenliğini ABD’nin Orta Doğu politikalarının merkezine oturtmaya devam ediyor. Seçim konuşmaları ve tartışmalarında İsrail’i ABD’nin bölgedeki en büyük müttefiki olduğunu müteakiben zikreden Obama’nın Kongre’de ve Washington’daki İsrail yanlısı cenahı üzmeyeceğini öngörmek ise hiç de zor değil.

“İsrail’e desteğin devamı çatışmalı alanları artıracak”

Öte yandan, Arap ülkelerindeki demokratikleşme sürecinde, İsrail yanlısı politikalarını devam ettirmesi durumunda Obama yönetiminin Müslüman ve Arap dünyası ile çatışma olasılığı yüksek görünüyor. Bununla birlikte, ABD’nin bölgede diğer önemli müttefiki Ürdün’ün yanı sıra Bahreyn ve Yemen’de gitgide artan değişim talepleri önümüzdeki dönemde Obama’nın Orta Doğu politikalarını temelden etkileyecek gelişmelerin başında geliyor. Keza, Irak’ta merkezi yönetimi ile Kürt bölgesi arasında son dönemde tırmanan gerginlik ABD için hali hazırda fazlasıyla paradoksal olan ancak durumun bir şekilde idare edildiği Orta Doğu’da yeniden ciddi bir sorun alanı ile karşı karşıya gelmesi anlamını taşıyor. Suriye’de olduğu gibi Irak’da da kendi çıkarlarını önceleyen bir politika izlemesi, İsrail’in güvenliğini Orta Doğu politikasının temel argümanı olarak saymaya devam etmesi, Obama yönetiminin Mısır ve Türkiye ile ilişkilerde de gergin bir döneme girebileceği ihtimalini kuvvetlendiriyor.

Seçimler sonrasında iç ve dış politikada yoğun ve gergin bir gündemin beklediği Obama, insan hakları ihlalleri ve sivil ölümlerinin engellenememesi konusunda da hayli sıkıntılı bir dönem yaşayacak gibi görünüyor. Zira, Amerikan ordusunun Afganistan’da insansız hava araçları ile gerçekleştirdiği saldırılarda yaşanan sivil kayıplar, İsrail’in Gazze’deki sivil katliamına seyirci kalınması, Bush döneminden kalan ve kapanacağı vaadinde bulunulan Guantanamo hapishanesini kapatmaması Obama’nın hanesinde birer eksi olarak görülüyor.

Her ne kadar seçimler öncesinde yapılan araştırmalar Uluslararası kamuoyunun Cumhuriyetçi Romney’e karşı Obama’yı tercih ettiğini gösterse de son anketler Obama’nın özellikle Orta Doğu-Kuzey Afrika ve Af-Pak bölgesini içine alan Müslüman coğrafyasındaki imajinın hayli düşüşe geçtiğini gösteriyor.

Son tahlilde; uluslararası ittifakları önceleyen ancak ortak çıkarları göz ardı eden politikaların devamı, “İsrail:imtiyazlı ülke” statükosunun sürdürülmesi halinde ABD’nin bölge politikalarında istikrarı yakalaması mevcut şartlarda zor görünüyor.

Yazını Orijinali Mostar Dergisinin Aralık 2012 Sayısında Yayınlanmıştır

Interview with Patrick Tyler on his newly released book “Fortress Israel”

My Exclusive Interview with Patrick Tyler on his newly released book “Fortress Israel: The Inside Story of the Military Elite Who Run the Country–and Why They Can’t Make Peace”

Nur Özkan Erbay – Washington, DC / December 4, 2012

In “Fortress Israel”, Tyler demonstrates an epic portrayal of Israel’s martial culture of Sparta presenting itself as Athens. Tyler takes us inside the military culture of Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu, introducing us to generals who make decisions that trump those of elected leaders and who disdain diplomacy as appeasement or surrender.

Fortress Israel shows us how this martial culture envelops every family in Israel. So ingrained is the martial outlook and identity, Tyler argues, that Israelis are missing opportunities to make peace even when it is possible to do so. “The Zionist movement had survived the onslaught of world wars, the Holocaust, and clashes of ideology,” writes Tyler, “but in the modern era of statehood, Israel seemed incapable of fielding a generation of leaders who could adapt to the times, who were dedicated to ending . . . [Israel’s] isolation, or to changing the paradigm of military preeminence.”

Patrick E. Tyler is an author and former chief correspondent for The New York Times and the Washington Post. He is the author of three books: A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East from the Cold War to the War on Terror, A Great Wall: Six Presidents and China, a history of U.S.-China relations since the 1972 opening by President Richard Nixon, and Running Critical – The Silent War, Rickover and General Dynamics, a history of the U.S. nuclear submarine program under Admiral Hyman G. Rickover.

“Military impulse lives so prominently in the Israeli chest”

Q: In your newly released book you described the characteristic of Israel statehood in historical context and how the military shape the political culture and landscape in the country since 1950’s. Could you please give us a brief summary and evaluation of this characteristic?

A:. I think what I tried to put out for the western audience was what is the source of this Marshall impulse; this military impulse that lives so prominently in Israeli chest. Going back to the 1950’s so many archives and diaries have been opened up. You have to go back to 1950’s to understand how Ben Gurion and how the leaders around him came in that first decade up against the decision: Do we engage the Arabs over the long term or do we fight them over the long term. Because that is a profound decision but it is also a profound fork in the road. Beacuse one side, the military side says you have to arm yourselves extensively over a multi decade program of arms build-up. You have to go for the a nuclear weapon, you have to do so with a great deal of stealth and secrecy, duplicity and how you deal with your firends and enemies. On the other side you are much more open, you are taking risks by exposing yourselves. You are having to absorb some of the blows of terrorism, people who are angry have lost their homes and land but your overall objective is peace. That is the strategic objective. That means you do so that you have enough armaments to defend yourself but basically every bit of your focus is on diplomacy and engaging with your enemies and rivals. People don’t understand how profound that fork in the road is. There was a man to take over the leadership from Ben Gurion; Moshe Sharett he was destroyed politically by Ben Gurion. People have to understand that story because every political fight in Israel is related to the same set of issues.

“Did anyone listen to Sheikh Yasin back in 2004? NO.”

Q: What kind of role do these predominant militarist characteristics play in Israel’s foreign affairs today? What are the motives behind it? Why is so hard to choose diplomacy for Israel?

A: If you look at the Gaza flare up that just occured. More than a hundred Palestinians died just three years after fourteen hundred of were killed and in an earlier invasion four thousand buildings in Gaza were leveled. There was enormous destruction in their society and you ask yourself how can diplomacy help you there? They are shooting rockets on us. You can’t bring up this argument just spontaneously. You have to say it was Israel pursuing a diplomatic strategy aside from a military strategy that might have helped. There was Sheikh Yasin back in 2004, a leader of Hamas who was interested in a long term truce with israel. Did anyone listen to him? Did anyone opened a secret channel to find out what he was talking about? The answer to that is: NO. Because there was no one in Sharon’s government at that time. Actually there were secret Turkish brokered talks which I spent a lot of time trying to decipher. There was a guy named Alon Liel who was working with the Turkish Prime Minister Office to try to get track II negotiations open which Olmert then took over. So there were people who were interested in talks. They weren’t part of Israel’s Foreign Ministry anymore but people understood that the only way to get results in the long term is to create options that are not military-based, that are to talk. To talk secretly, productively about how to solve problems. Israel’s culture finds that very hard to do because the military is so preeminent and also so absorbed but also absorbed with working on military contingencies that crowds out diplomacy and diplomacy was looked at as being risky, a kind of an appeasement that doesn’t get resolved easily. That is the military gets quick results.

Q: Could we make the same connection between Sheikh Ahmed Yasin and Ahmed Jabaris’s killings by Israelis? Because some reports says Mr. Jabari was also pursuing finding a way to reach long term truce.

A: Some people have written that he was working on opening a secret channel for negotiations. One of the intermediaries has written a column how just days before Mr. Jabari was killed he had a meeting with him and he was talking about the possibility entering some secret talks that might lead to a Hamas reintegration into an acceptable political environment. But once there is a political decision declaring someone as a “terrorist” military doesn’t go around thinking about all these people by saying, ‘we should probably find a way to talk to them’. No. They think that’s the enemy and their job is to kill the enemy.

“In Israel it is impossible to see where the army ends and where the government begins”

Q: Do politics in Israel give this preeminent role to the military or does the military use this power forcibly?

A: I have to say that the political culture in Israel is very tightly knit with the military establishment. There is no way to see where the army ends and where the government begins. In his office, the prime minister has people in uniform who are his aides. Knesset has people in uniform. The military is the institution that provides them with intelligence, information, staff support, recommendations and policy ideas and so they are deeply reliant on them. Therefore, they are mutually reinforcing each other. When the army argues that you have to consider the class of these people and Hamas is a terrorist, politicians say why not and I want the army on my side. It is good politics to go along with them. They declare off limits, this is a terrorist organization and we don’t talk to them. You know Yasser Arafat was in that position for many, many years. It took Yitzhak Rabin to say the only way to negotiate for peace is to talk to your enemy. You have your people in security establishments now; they are kind of like voices of the wilderness. When I mentioned Ephraim Halevy who was the head of Mossad and he was a Rabin man who comes from the diplomatic tradition, he was arguing that we have talk to Hamas because there is no other way to make peace.

“In Israel, families are suffused with the military ethos”

Q: What are the reflections of this militarized characteristic on Israeli society? You have mentioned that young Israelis are ignorant, don’t know much about reality and do not have any idea of what is going on in their circle?

A: Well, the effect that has on society is that every family becomes a military stakeholder. If you have 4 children and you know they are all going to go to the army and you yourself are in the reserves until the age of 49, then the whole house is suffused with the military ethos. Sparta means the army is the country to a greater extent. So, if the leaders of the army create the propaganda, in the logical sense they propagate our position, we propagate how we look at Hamas. So in the army you hear that information channel and you absorbed that. It unifies and galvanizes the country behind the central set of talking points, thinking points and logic which may not be logical at all. And they are not tested because there is no counter bailing institution that says to the army, ‘your logic is off here, you are wrong’. Maybe there are enemies, but we have to negotiate a contingency also, because that would create options and it’s in our interest to do that. That’s the weakest part of Israeli society; Diplomacy, compromise, negotiation, statesmanship, is regarded as a low form of existence.

Q: So, under these conditions will Israel be able to make peace some day?

A: They can. I think what happened in the late 1980’s. Yitzhak Rabin was a former general and political figure who saw from the Intifada and other events that there had to be a better way than the military. There is no military solution for the population of Palestinians who live among us and next to us who have their own national aspirations. We have to try something else. No Israeli politician has ever spoken this way. Rabin had a strong following among the younger generals in the general staff. There was a great deal of support for him within the military leadership. A lot of generals were skeptical but Rabin had a group of generals who were politically active. After he was killed the forces in the military that saw Sharon coming shifted politically to align themselves with Sharon’s outlook. Sharon’s outlook was completely different. He had the military and undermining what Rabin had built which was a strategic objective for peace. And they came back to the strategic objective of attack and repression.

“Despite being against her will, Hillary Clinton has also been trapped into this administration, kind of like mouthing the AIPAC talking points at times”

Q:How about current US.-Israeli relations? You also state that the Obama administration first term was a big disappointment for the sake of the peace process and the U.S. administration is using AIPAC’s talking points for the most part in Washington. Is it only because Israel doesn’t give the U.S. diplomatic flexibility? Despite the fact that many people know in Washington, President Obama and Netanyahu don’t like each other personally but President Obama has given full support to Israel’s recent Gaza attack..

A:He is up against the same problem. In other words he was essentially defeated by Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu, who would rather focus on Iran and anything but the peace process. And at home here in Washington, Obama has the domestic situation that is so all-consuming with its importance and urgency on the fiscal cliff, our debt crisis, our unemployment rate and the economy in general. That is a searing domestic issue that will probably decide the next presidential election. So what can he do? Can he take the risk of alienating part of the senate or house by getting so energetically involved in the peace process that he is going to change all the noise of Israel supporters to try to better their position tactically every day? He can’t afford to alienate those forces in Congress. He is going to get through all those legislations that have to go through this term to fix our economy. That’s what he is trying to balance. I think he is idealistic enough and he wants to make a dent in this, just in the way Bill Clinton did. Hillary Clinton wanted bill Clinton in. She has also been trapped into this administration, kind of mouthing the AIPAC talking points at times. You know this is against her will, against her sentiment which is more about being interested in pushing the peace process. That is hard to do for her but politicians do that.

“Making concession to the Arabs was a violation of Zionist code and DNA”

Q: You use the quote of Former President Nixon in your book referring that Israel and Golda Meir had not given the US “diplomatic flexibility” to resolve the issues in the Middle East at that time. You think Israel will provide this flexibility to the U.S in the near term?

A: In Golda Meir’s time the notion of compromise, the notion of making concessions to the Arabs was politically impossible. They believe that they beat them in 1967 at the cost of six hundred lives and thousands of casualties. So, making concession to the Arabs was just a violation of Zionist code and DNA. Anwar Sadat was really interested in making a deal, Golda didn’t bring herself to do anything because she was obsessed by her own domestic politics.

Q: Can we say the same situation goes for the Netanyahu government today?

A: For the moment Yes, Golda didn’t last and fell apart. Yitzhak Rabin came in for his first premiership, he wasn’t successful but it was important. Netanyahu has many enemies in the Israeli military and security establishments. He is not an admired person even though it is a paradox he is such a strong Prime Minister. Because he has the entire right wing and society lined up very intensely. Whereas the other side, the left or center side is fractured so it is hard to defeat that. The arrival of millions of Russians over the last 15 years has had a profound effect on the Israeli electorate. But I believe, and I served in Russia I know about the Russians, that you can’t assume that the Russians will always be the way they are and they will not change their minds. Those who came in with a very hard view against the Arabs, they were left of the center on social issues and they want the socialistic government to take care of them. But they were quite willing to go back though a security government hard line against the Arabs, I think that would break down over time. I think Russians will help the Israelis over the time. Look at the security situation in America in a more constructive way with the help of allies like Turkey. I think Turkey’s position is very influential within Israel.

“I think Israel miscalculated the effect of Mavi Marmara. If they had known the cost they would not have done it. It is regretted by almost all across Israel”

Q: You just stated that “Turkey’s position is very influential within Israel”. Can you elaborate on that? Also, Turkey seeks an apology after Israel killed 9 Turkish citizens in the Mavi Marmara Incident. Do you think that Israel is close to an apology?

A: I think if Israel had known going into that crises, what the storming of those ships would cost them, with their extremely productive relationship with the NATO ally, as the largest country to the north Turkey, they wouldn’t have done it. I think they miscalculated the effect. It got out, it looked like they over killed and it was their ally. So, then their ally asks is that the only way you could have dealt with this issue. Because you are going there with legitimate protestors. It’s not the way to treat friends. It is the way Americans felt after the Israelis attack and sank the USS Liberty during the 6 day war and killed 70 Americans on that ship. We asked the question is this the way you treat a friend and ally. The American flag was flying over that ship and even your controller said it might be American. Ships and plans continued to attack because so they were so militarized into it and everybody wanted to kill.
I think Turkey is a historic, important NATO ally and an extremely important country in the region. Therefore, the loss of relations with Turkey I think is regretted by almost all across Israeli society. It makes them feel more isolated in the long term.

“Israel’s unfortunate status quo”

“The Turkish PM’s words shocked Israel, to hear that voice from such a large country it used to be a close ally with back in time”

Q: There seems to be a high probability that Israel and the U.S. will not be able to sustain its status quo any longer for a couple of reasons. With the political landscape, people’s demands in the region have been shifting enormously. For how long will Israel continue to follow militaristic doctrines and avoid diplomatic solutions under these circumstances? Also for how long can the United States continue to back Israel?

A: It is an unfortunate status quo but it could remain frozen the way it is with Israel as a regional superpower armed with nuclear weapons in isolation from the region which it lives. But also capable to strike and affect its neighbors in a negative way anytime it chooses to do so. That’s not a very constructive way to arrange a neighborhood but it could stay that way if nothing moves forward politically. You can’t move forward without diplomacy. Israel is not exactly behind diplomacy these days. I am sure they are secretly in talks with Turks because they are working full time to repair that relationship. Your Prime Minster called them a terrorist state. I think it shocked Israelis to hear that voice from such a large country it used to be a close ally with. It’s painful and disturbing and makes them think that errors could change. Partly fueled by the Arab awakening and fueled by other historic grievances that would make Israel even more isolated and dangerous place to live.

“No Question. America will continue to back Israel”

Q:Do you think the Obama administration will continue to back Israel in his second term?

A: No Question. America will continue to back Israel. That doesn’t mean just Obama. If he saw an opportunity tomorrow to move the process, if something happens to open the window he would seriously jump in again. The problem is the forces are very strong against him right now. We have a big problem at home and he can’t take a risk alienating part of the congress over the Middle East. There are high stakes in Middle East negotiations which inflames both sides all while he is trying to rescue our economy.

“People don’t want to seem anti-Israel in US Media and institutions”

Q: We know how the Israeli Lobby plays an active role in the Hill, the Congress and the U.S. Media. Wasn’t it hard to write a book on Israel presenting the historical context of Israel’s militaristic statehood and failing diplomacy? Isn’t that an issue of burden for a journalist and historians? At least we know that from other books written in the past…

A: My book is attacked in a couple of reviews. But it was more of an ideological attack and they didn’t seriously engage with my book. A lot of mainstream media are staying away from the book because it is a thought issue for the media, for big institutions to deal with. They don’t want people calling up saying ‘Oh, you are anti-Israel because you said something favorable about this book’. This book is not ideological. I am a historian and I approached it with the interest of a journalist.

Thank You for this interview.

First Published @ Sabah English
http://www.sabahenglish.com/National/2012/12/04/why-cant-israel-make-peace

Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.

By Nur Özkan Erbay
03/26/2012

Q – I would like to start about Syria. You are suggesting that Turkey might be one of the key players to resolve ongoing situation in Syria and may take the lead of possible military intervention. What would be the outcomes of this situation for Turkey?

Dr. Brzezinski: First of all I didn’t say that the primary mission of Turkey would be to organize the military intervention. What I sad was that Turkey is the most important neighbor of Syria, Turkey has the economic power, the energy and dynamism and the military power to play a critical role if it need to be. And that really is up to Turkey, up to Saudi Arabia to some extent to formulate a kind of policy that the region itself with find most beneficial and the U.S. should then support it.

Q- In your opinion what should be done in Syria right now?

Dr. Brzezinski: I am not recommending what should be done in Syria because it is not my responsibility. In my view it is not primarily America’s responsibility. The problem is for the region and we have friends in the region. We have reliable friends. Turkey has been an important player in NATO, in my view Turkey should be in some fashion in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Community. So I would be inclined to follow whatever decision whatever consensus Turkey reaches as to what is ought to be done or perhaps what ought not be done.

Q- How about “Friends of Syria” group and Syrian Opposition? Syrian Opposition seemed divided and non-unified in some extent?

Dr. Brzezinski: I have sad previously that there are significant contrasts between Syria and Libya. Assad is not Qaddafi. Qaddafi was literally, I am sorry to say ” crazy”. Secondly opposition in Libya was composed of serious major players. Politically and militarily and it was not controlled significant part of the territory almost the one half of time beginning of the hostilities. Clearly that is not the case in Syria. For this reason problem is much more complicated. And simplistic solutions are not likely to b/e the best solutions.

Q- Then, in what conditions Assad would fall?

Dr. Brzezinski: I am not an expert on Syria and I am not going to resolve issues. Intellectually that is really the responsibility of neighbors of the Syria. The countries that are in the region and aware of what are some of the potential implications of a very major explosion in the region.

Q- You have underlined many times in the past that there will be no peace in the region without reconciliation in Israel-Palestine peace process. What would you suggest Obama administration to solve this conflict?

Dr. Brzezinski: I think one has to bare in mind that the majority of Israelis and majority of Palestinians want the problem to be solved peacefully. And peaceful solution to the problem cannot be a one-sided solution, in which one side imposes its will on the other side. There are elements among the Palestinians who believe in extreme solutions in effect the eradication of the State of Israel. 4.43. There are people on the Israeli side who believe in simple solutions. The incorporation one way or another of the entire West Bank of the so-called “former British mandate” of Palestine into Israel. These solutions will not work. The further consideration that has to be born in mind is that history teaches us, experience teaches us. Over the last 30 years that left to themselves, Palestinians and Israelis will never agree on compromise. Palestinians are too weak to make compromise recommendations; Israelis are too strong to feel inclined to make compromise suggestions. So requires a mediator who can be active and assertive and can in effect create an international consensus for fair and equitable solutions. And I’ve sad many times what is ought to be. No right of return for the descendents of the Palestinian refugees. We cannot expect Israel to commit the suicide demographically. The sharing of the Jerusalem. If Jerusalem is not shared it would be in itself a refutation that the agreement is a compromise. A significant part of Jerusalem is Arab and has been so for centuries and centuries that can’t be ignored. Three, a compromise on the territorial issue based on 1967 lines. There is great international consensus regarding that. With changes because of some of the settlements but with compensatory territorial arrangements then for the Palestinians. So that in the end the Palestinians don’t have less land then they have right now which is only 22 percent. Israelis already have 78 percent. And last by not least a genuinely demilitarize Palestinian State. May be some NATO presence on the Jordon River. So the Israelis feeling of security in depth. I think the formula like that is the only formula for compromise solution. Any other solution will be a one sided and therefore unfair solution, which will not endure.

Q – Do you expect more aggressive policy on to that by Obama Administration if he gets elected for 4 more years?

The president has been very consistently saying that he is dedicated to find a solution because he knows absence of solution is unfair to the Palestinians who are suffering, its unfair to the Israelis because perpetuates the situation in which they are not accepted in the region. And in the long run as America disengages from the region the fact that Israelis are not accepted in the region could become to be very dangerous to the survival of Israel.

Q – A Proxy War between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems to be like emerging and might be proceed to be a regional conflict? Where Turkey stands in this picture as friends of both and many other neighboring countries in the region?

I think Turkey interested as the international community in regional stability and regional accommodation. So at this stage I think whatever can be done to avoid regional explosion is something very timely very important and ultimately to the advantage of Turkey.

Q – As you have mentioned in your recent book ” Strategic Vision” that beyond 2025 there is a need for the larger West in Euro-Atlantic Alliance and for that reason U.S. should embrace Russia and Turkey to enlarge this alliance. So, in this context, what U.S. administration can do more for Turkey’s inclusion in European Union?

Well, first of all Turkey is negotiating with European Union although the negotiations going very slowly. Still Turkey has proven over the last almost hundred years that it is determine to modernize itself and democratize itself on the European Model. So it has a very strong case for being included in larger Euro-Atlantic Community. I don’t specifically argue that Turkey has to be in the EU in European Union such. That depends on decisions made by Europeans and Turks but the Euro-Atlantic community can also include within it a European Union as larger or smaller and can include Turkey. Turkey is already in NATO. So, Turkey is already in a half way in a member of Euro-Atlantic Community. I think Turkey would add great vitality to the West and Turkey would be more secure and better positioned to play a global role. The case with Russia is more complicated because Russia is not yet a democracy. Turkey is far ahead of Russia in social transformation. As all Turks know the transformation of Turkey began just a few years after the transformation of Russia and the communists. The difference is that Ataturk was much more successful than Lenin or Stalin. This is why Turkey is ahead but I am optimistic that after Putin or maybe even if Putin begins to be little more realistic and little less nostalgic for the past empire. Begins to realize that it is Russia’s interest to change and facilitates what is already happening anyway namely the emergence of the middle class. That is increasingly western an outlook democratic aspirations. Therefore I am relatively confident that if not as quickly as Turkey but in a decade or so Russia would be ready for this relationship with a Euro-Atlantic Community which I have described.

Q – How do you think that the United States will maintain its position as a global power in next years?

It will maintain its position if it pursues intelligent foreign policies and I think Obama has a great improvement on George Bush II and it will maintain its position if it addresses seriously to some of the domestic problems. It is beginning to do that. In my book, which is called “strategic vision”, I’ve outlined some of the domestic difficulties in America but I also outlined a vision in which America exploits the many assets it has. And it is still of all the major powers best positioned to be the preeminent world power. Even if not a hegemony, even if not the only superpower which seemed to be the case after 1990. I think we have to realize that in the course of this century no one power is going to be a dominant but some powers may be preeminent and if America is not preeminent we probably will experience for a while not the domination of some other power but more likely a more pervasive 12.31 turmoil worldwide.

Q – If you were a National Security Council Adviser to the President Obama today what would you suggest him about revising his policy on Muslim World?

I don’t think he has to revise his policy about the Muslim World. He spoke in Cairo and he spoke in Istanbul. I think people know what his position is and it is fundamentally different from the position of his predecessor. The only problem is he is now being pushed to go into war with Iran and that could have regionally destructive consequences. And if the consequences regionally destructive it will have wider internationally destructive consequences politically and economically. Therefore it is very important that President Obama advised by his European friends, advised by his NATO allies in both cases therefore including Turkey persuade a policy that is realistic but not hysterical not driven by fear or by hate but by intelligent realism.

Nur Özkan Erbay / Washington, DC

Source: http://www.sabahenglish.com/World/2012/03/26/interview-with-dr-zbigniew-brzezinski

Egypt Crisis: Struggling with the message

By Nur Özkan Erbay, Feb 3, 2011

Controlling the message is one of the hardest works for the administrations. Throughout the ongoing political turmoil in Egypt, the Obama administration was caught in a difficult spot, keeping its narrative consistent and coordinated in this volatile foreign policy situation.

Since the crisis began, the administration is walking a fine line on putting out the right message about defending the democratic right of protest for Egyptians without openly subverting Mubarak as a long-standing partner. Despite the intensive efforts to demonstrate that things are under control, the White House had a hard time controlling the message. The inconsistent statements given by the administration officials created mixed signals and caused the confusion among the domestic and international audience to understand the U.S. reaction to the developments and Mubarak’s regime.

“Mixed Signals”

By summarizing the administration’s statements chronologically, we can see the fast and scattered evolvement of the U.S. reaction just in last couple days. The first high-level statement from the administration came soon after the demonstrations began, on Jan 25^th. Secretary Clinton said the government of Mubarak is stable and trying to respond to the legitimate needs of the protesters. In a similar vein, the Vice President Biden spoke to PBS on Jan 27^th said that the Egyptian government is stable; the Mubarak is a long and strong ally of the U.S. and he is not a dictator and shouldn’t have to resign. On Jan 28^th, President Obama made his very first statement, called on Egyptian forces from refraining from using too much force and reaffirmed Egypt’s basic human rights. After two days of the President’s statement, the Secretary Clinton interviewed with five television networks and this time she called Egypt not as an ally but “important partner” in the region. She stated the Egyptian government needs to engage immediately with the Egyptian people in implementing political, social and economic reforms. Last of all, the President Obama warned Mubarak on Tuesday. On his speech he mentioned “difficult days ahead” for Egypt and he said the transition in the government of Egypt must begin immediately.

Perhaps the very often changes on the administration’s messages on this volatile issue put  the White House Press Office and Press Secretary Gibbs in a very chaotic situation in order to respond the media and the international auidence promptly and clearly. Secretary Gibbs’s efforts to deliver the administration’s view somehow remained inadaquate for the media as well as the international community.

For instance, once Secretary Gibbs was asked on what President Obama refers the word “Now” on Tuesday evening when he told President Mubarak that “…An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now”.

Gibbs’s response was quite interesting but also confusing in a rhetorical manner.

Following the question Gibbs said: “‘Now’ means yesterday — because when we said ‘now,’ we meant yesterday. … [T]ough we are in the here and now, ‘now’ started yesterday… [W]that the people of Egypt want to see is not some process that starts a week, a month or several months from now. If you’re asking if ‘now’ September is: It is unseasonably warm, but it is not September. ‘Now’ means now.”what the President meant on Tuesday with his statement: “an orderly transition … must begin now”
The administration’s struggle to control the message continued at the State Department last week. According to recent news reports, the US state department has distanced itself from comments by a US special envoy, to the effect that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should stay in office during a power transition. The special Envoy to Egypt, former Ambassador Frank Wisner was sent by President Obama to Cairo on Monday, to urge Mubarak to announce his departure. He commented on Mubarak’s departure in Munich Security Conference on Saturday and said “We need to get a national consensus around the pre-conditions for the next step forward. The president must stay in office to steer those changes”. After his comments Spokesman Philip Crowley said Frank Wisner’s views were his own, and not co-ordinate with the US government.

Despite the fact that the administration officials put intensive efforts to control the message, they struggled to remain relevant in the principal message and keep the narrative on track.

 

Is “Sputnik Moment” for real?

 

By Nur Özkan Erbay—Jan 27, 2011

The President opened a new chapter in nation’s future using the term “Sputnik Moment” in Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address. By analyzing the performance of last two years of the White House’s engagement and communication strategies, it is easy to conclude that the Obama Administration’s technology driven changes have already enabled them to attain a “Sputnik Moment”.

President Obama employed the term to highlight on the idea of “winning the future” for America. He established a connection between this metaphor and new perception that all Americans need to stand for. President Obama carried his message in by using his exceptional oratorical and communicative ability throughout the SOTU week. Thus, he inspired people with his story. He conveyed it through every possible venue and enabled people to see and hear his message.

The Obama Administration is well known for using almost every tool that the new media world has to offer. The President’s messages are conveyed instantly via the White House web site, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook even and MySpace. Thus, the President’s messages were strengthened and reached the largest audience in the internet world before and after the State of the Union Address. Two days after the SOTU, the President made a live online interview via YouTube and answered a wide range of questions on his policy vision that he explained Tuesday night. He was also asked some personal questions such as what he would give the first lady as a Valentine’s Day gift. According to the CNN report, “The 40-minute interview was part of a White House communications offensive in support of this week’s State of the Union speech, with a series of events in which top administration officials spoke directly to Americans about administration policies set out in the address Tuesday night.” High level White House Officials also answered social media users questions live from the White House web site.

The night of his third State of the Union speech, President Obama executed a carefully calculated and balanced rhetoric. As the economy still dominates the public agenda, the American Public was expecting and willing to hear a more concrete set of proposals on how Obama was planning to deal with the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, more than 14 trillion in national debt and the above 9 percent unemployment rate.

Even though, he tried to imbue motivation and unification to the nation by using a constructive and an inspiring tune as expected, he preferred to generate the nation’s enthusiasm with providing light substance on the contentious policy issues and easing expectations. Throughout the address he endeavored to put an emphasis on bipartisanship and to go and think beyond the ordinary political rivalry in the heart of Capitol Hill. He neither put too much emphasis on Social Security Reform and the future of the Medicaid and Medicare, nor the decisive policy shift toward gun control after Tucson Shooting.

The tune of the speech was strengthened by the visual ambience in the House Chamber, and the moment of glad-handing. Cheers and applause resonated through the House Floor as the President made his way down the aisle. His speech lasted more than hour and was interrupted by applause more than 80 times. He used the word “jobs” 25, “Work” 20, “Education” 11, “Innovation” and “internet” each six times out of the 6936 words of his speech. In contrast to his previous speech, instead of underlining ongoing the economic recession and disputed social reform, he glorified the significant importance and need of innovation, infrastructure, new job creation and technology for Americans.  After the address Member of the House  were clamoring for President Obama’s autograph on their State of the Union Program as he made his way out of the House Chamber. The President and his team intended to reach broader audience and it worked.

The speech drew 43 million viewers from 11 television networks, compared to 48 million last year, and the record number of 52 million in 2009. The stock market rose after the President’s speech. In a poll conducted by CNN, 68 percent of Americans said that they think Obama’s plan will succeed in improving the economy and 77 percent said that Obama’s policies will move the country in the right direction. The overall reaction to President’s SOTU address was 84 percent total positive compared to 78 percent last year.

In the end, the State of the Union carried out successfully with the President’s passionate and flawless oratory, and the White House’s effective communication strategy. It seems that a “Sputnik Moment” has already been achieved.

“MUCKRACKING IN 21ST CENTURY U.S. MEDIA

                  “ Today technology is in its golden age. Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and many other muckraker never imagined the tools and techniques; spy cams, computers, Freedom of Information searches now make muckraking a very potent form of journalism in 21^st century. The internet has done in the newsroom what the telephone a hundred and more years ago did not. There are no inadequacies, but substantial methods to reach sources and facts rapidly more than ever today. While it is true that the supplemental tools of news gathering has enormously emerged, the days of traditional news organizations as gatekeepers of information are nearly over. They’ve almost lost their watchdog function. This is why we can’t see contemporary muckraking examples in dominating media organizations today.

 The general conception on contemporary muckraking today is not quite optimistic as it is evident by the unsubstantial performance of mainstream media organizations to support this institution. The investigation units have been agonizing for financial and timing props and are often sacrificed for rating wars. Media executives tend to outsource watchdog mission of journalism to non-profit organizations and think-thanks.

 On the other hand we can’t see widespread public demand on muckraking today as much as that was in 18^th and early 19^th centuries. The   public  has always clamored to know more during American Revolution, Vietnam War and Watergate.

   “Muckraking”, in other words “Exposé-Investigative Journalism”, has been eroding in last century, exclusively on major TV networks because of the media executives’ inclination to prevent rising costs, law-suits rather than supporting journalistic efforts. They intend to maximize their revenues which are conducted on weaver ratings and advertisers. This inclination generates sort of chain effects in media industry. As a result, the business of journalism has been emerging to business of entertaining. To see celebrities on primetime news is not surprising and absurd anymore in the middle of a news story reported from Baghdad. The other outcome of this transformation is prognosis of punditry.  Media organizations don’t give any credit to investigative units as they give to their precious pundits.

 Fortunately there are solutions and alternatives to keep muckraking and non-profit news sustainable.  Blogs, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE), philanthropists who support muckrakers, many advocated newspaper reporters who provides deep, detailed and analytical reporting on their books seem to be alternative solutions. Yet re-activating public demand would be the most influential method to remind media organizations their watchdog responsibility.

 In this context, my study aims to analyze the obstacles and solutions in 21st century muckraking with the assistance of recent trends. The first part of the study includes determinative factors of decline of muckraking today in the context of investigative journalism. The second part implicates the solutions and alternatives. 

 I’ve consulted a variety of academic and journalistic resources. I’ve also analyzed studies conducted by PEW Research Center, Columbia Journalism Review, and American Journalism Review, Neiman Foundation, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE).

 MONEY AND TIMING MATTERS 

 Before we analyzing determinants of declining muckraking, we need to observe general trends in news reporting in U.S media outlets today.  When we ask the question: “How healthy is news reporting in 21^st century?” most of the journalists’ responses are pessimistic. They are not satisfied with the quality of news that has depreciated due to increased bottom-line and financial pressures. These pressures generally tempt news organization to emphasize journalism that’s easier and cheaper to do, that targets the audience that advertisers desire most, and that intends to entertain rather than to inform.  

 According to PEW Research Center’s 2007 survey financial pressure is now overshadowing concern about the quality of news coverage, the flagging credibility of the news media, and other problems that have been very much on the minds of journalists over the past decade. Large majorities of local print journalists (82%) and national print journalists (69%) say staffs at their news organizations have decreased over the past three years. Two-thirds of internet (69%), national and local journalists (68% each) say that increased financial pressure is seriously hurting the quality of news coverage. [i]

 Evidently financial pressure on journalists and highly increased cost of news gathering makes investigative journalism less popular. Investigation reporting has been perceived as financially expensive by media executives after the market-driven journalism start to rise in 1980’s. The new trend has put profit maximization at the first place. Once they face with financial crisis, the investigation units would be the first  to make cutbacks. Therefore financing long-term, rough, expensive and risky muckraking stories an became unfavorable option in newsrooms.

 MARKET-DRIVEN MEDIA

 The consolidation wave in media industry, high amount of dependency to the market conditions and advertisers are other vital facts to determine the diagnosis.  Media consolidations has been lessening independence of journalism and limiting distinct voices. How can we expect the major networks to chase after the scandal where their sister companies are involved and then to report it? Rupert Murdoch, AOL, General Electric or Walt Disney Company would never worry about contingent investigations on their other divisions.

 Furthermore, TV’s sole revenue is their advertisers. In the past, news and documentary programs were funded by a single sponsor who exercised great influence over the program like Murrow days.  As television production grew more expensive and networks demanded greater control over their programming, financial support shifted from sole to multiple sponsors. This has fostered more commercialism on broadcast news reporting. As a result the proportion of national and local journalists saying that commercial pressure is negatively affecting coverage has climbed dramatically since the 1990s. Reporters are under the pressure to make commercially viable products because of

The TV program sponsors. If the news stories hurt one of the advertisers, they may suggest to change the story or not to air it.  

 IRRESISTIBLE ATRACTIVENESS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND RATING WARS

  As a consequence of seeking less expensive way of news making and maximizing ratings, entertainment became a favorite phenomenon for  media executives. As journalism is losing its major responsibility, informing people, media gurus discovered “INFOTAINMET” notion of media which well-worked in TV’s.

 Infotainmet became the most efficient way to be successful in rating wars. To maintain their audiences’ attention before they switch their channel, TV outlets bear to make less comprehensive and analytical coverage of news instead of investigative-hard news stories. Then who needs boring investigating stories and facts?

 This is the reason why public intellectuals, pundits, commentators cooperate and celebrities cover all 24 hours news cycles. Besides they are less expensive, the speculations and comments they make are the most efficient ways to entertain and attract the viewers’ attention. Once they are able to entertain ratings start to flow.

 Consequently, since TV’s began to intertwine news and entertainment, news reporting has become tenuous and poor quality.

 OLD FASHION MUCKRAKERS OUT MARKETABLE PUNDITS IN

 Since it is far cheaper and efficient to fill their airtime with the live political stand-ups, pundits, experts, commentators and freaky news shows, today TV news rooms are like 24 hours open-CVS pharmacy stores. They have to have 24 hours available pundits to supply viewers demand. If you are a marketable pundit no matter how much expertise you have even outside of your field, you would be welcome to the air. Therefore TV news cycles are stuffed by experts who have an expertise on almost everything such as infotainers, friction creators, and agitators and so on.                              

  SOLUTIONS

 Even so if we are not able to see a muckraker on TV’s because of TV the  executives choose ratings, money and punditry what are the alternatives and solutions going to be? Especially on TV’s, news became almost commercial products; narrowed, softened and rendered to entertain. However public demand would always be there to know more detailed, analyzed and investigated new stories. Thus potential muckraking cannot be restrained by prominent media organizations.

  Although traditional media organizations are still preeminent actors to determine what is going to be the “NEWS”. There is tremendous amount of news sources that feed public demand today. Blogs, philanthropists, think-thanks, non-profit organizations, public interest groups and academic institutions who supports investigative reporting intensively are the crucial alternative solutions.

 For instance there are already powerful non-profit news organizations, such as National Public Radio, Christian Science Monitor; Journalism’s founders include those affiliated with legacy news media-such as Annenberg, Scripps, Tribune, Reynolds, Gannett-plus long time supporters like Carnegie, Ford and Pew Charitable Trusts.

 There is also rising trend among non-governmental and non-profit organizations that support muckraking and citizen journalism voluntarily. AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) is one of the biggest supporters of journalistic works. In 2005, U.S Foundations granted $158 million for media and communications. Knight, the leading journalism founder, announced more than $21 million in journalism grants in 2006 and more than $50 million in 2007.

 There are also many individuals and organizations which have been funding specifically investigative journalism today. For instance McDonald’s Joan Kroc gifted $200 million to National Public Radio and also left $5 million to KPBS, NPR’s San Diego affiliate in 2003. Also the Carnegie Corp. of New York,, gave NPR $200 million last year to support education coverage.

  Who are these people? They are part of the public. Then we can interpret that people want to see more journalism from journalists and media organizations. Otherwise they would not gift big amounts of money. While these funds can be a good budget relief for media organizations, they could also reinvigorate journalistic ambitions. Who knows how many successful investigative journalists would join the profession in the future in spite of the big erosion of citizen journalism in today. 

  The digital media is another convenient place to carry on muckraking today. Bloggers, journalists who operate online overwhelmingly seem to advocate muckraking. They emphasize getting information quickly, investigation government claims, analyzing complex problems and discussing policy. In general they tend to believe interpretive function of journalism than distributive. This inclination would not be harmful unless they violate accuracy, objectiveness and seeking truth codes of journalism. 

 In addition to non-profit organizations, online media and foundations, the most crucial element that needs to foster muckrakers is public demand. The public should clamour for more news programs like the ones Edward Murrow, Bill Moyers, Walter Cronkite have advocated. They’ve exalted them and many others in their days. Supply and demand for investigating journalism were extremely high in those days. What has changed today? Info-entertainment, commercial and advertorial journalism should not be a destiny of this society. The public demand needs to be awakened again also in favor of democracy and future of citizen journalism.

 CONCLUSION

  Today American Society stands in greater need of change in muckraking because it is almost disappeared.  The central problem of muckraking is the prominent media itself. Newspapers, News Magazines and TV’s were the sole promoter of muckraking in last centuries. Surprising now they are the ones who outsource watchdog function of journalism to non-profit organizations.  

 On the one hand, traditional media has been looking for more profit-less expense.  They prefer to retreat their TV studios or offices to provide more entertaining and titillating news to public. Thus the investigation units have been agonizing for financial and timing props and often sacrificed for rating wars.

 On the other hand there is a philanthropist who can gift $200 million to media organization, fostering them to follow investigative reporting. Blogs, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, advocated journalists, individuals who support muckrakers are the solutions and alternatives to keep muckraking and non-profit news sustainable. 

 In conclusion, despite the fact that public demand is dramatically less for muckraking today, re-activating this is the crucial element to remind real function of journalists and muckrakers. No one would believe that nonprofits going to overthrow commercial media 20 years ago. Now this is happening and with the help of sensitive citizens and journalists of the society, muckraking will flourish again like in the old days.