Middle East Press on Erdogan Suing Charlie Hebdo, Islamophobia and Resurgence of anti-Islam Sentiments in Europe: New Age Islam's Selection, 29 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Desk
28 October
2020
• Erdogan Sues Charlie Hebdo Over Caricature
By Diego Cupolo
• Islamophobia: Macron’s Desperate Bid For
Re-Election
By Ali Saad
• This Is Where Macron Falls Short
By Melih Altinok
• Resurgence Of Anti-Islam In Europe
By Muhittin Ataman
• Tatar: Federation Is Dead And Buried
By Yusuf Kanli
• ICJ Lacking Transparency In Rohingya Genocide
Case
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
• Media Bias And The US Election
By Ray Hanania
-----
Erdogan Sues Charlie Hebdo Over Caricature
By Diego Cupolo
Oct 28,
2020
Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan holds a press conference following the weekly
cabinet meeting at the presidential complex in Ankara on Aug. 24, 2020. Photo
by ADEM ALTAN/AFP via Getty Images.
-----
Turkish
prosecutors launched a legal probe into the French satirical magazine Charlie
Hebdo Wednesday after it published a cover containing an insulting cartoon
depiction of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Lawyers
representing Erdogan submitted a criminal complaint to prosecutors in Ankara,
saying the content should be considered “libel” and was “not covered by freedom
of expression.” The editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo did not respond to
requests for comment.
Turkish
presidential communications director Fahrettin Altun also condemned the
caricature in a tweet Wednesday, calling its publication a “disgusting effort”
to spread “cultural racism and hatred.” In response, French government
spokesperson Gabriel Attal told reporters in Paris Wednesday remarks by Ankara
officials had been “hateful” in the fallout caused by the caricature.
The
developments come amid an ongoing spat between Erdogan and French President
Emmanuel Macron, who have traded barbs in recent months over divergent stances
in the Libyan war, tensions in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and more recently
over fighting in the southern Caucuses.
Erdogan,
who said he had not seen the caricature, told lawmakers of his Justice and
Development Party (AKP) during a speech in Ankara Wednesday that Western
countries mocking Islam want to “relaunch the Crusades,” vowing to stand against
insulting remarks made toward Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
"Unfortunately,
we are in a period when hostility to Islam, Muslims and disrespect for the
prophet are spreading like cancer, especially among leaders in Europe,"
said Erdogan.
The statements
come in response to comments made earlier this month by Macron, who has
increasingly targeted radical Islam in a series of controversial speeches.
On Oct. 2,
Macron outlined a number of proposals to integrate Muslim citizens into French
secularism, including the regulation of imams and mosques in the country.
During the speech, the French leader said Islam was a religion “in crisis,”
sparking a backlash from followers of the faith around the world.
On Oct. 16,
tensions escalated further when French schoolteacher Samuel Paty was beheaded
by Abdullakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old of Chechen origin, after having shown
controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad during a
class.
The event
shook France, deepening the debate over state policies impacting its Muslim
minority, with French leaders banning an Islamist group named after a
co-founder of the Hamas movement on Oct. 21.
The
controversy soon spread to already tense French-Turkish relations Saturday,
when Erdogan questioned his French counterpart’s mental health over his
statements regarding Muslims. The spat prompted Paris to recall its ambassador
in Ankara Sunday, and Erdogan responded Monday by calling on Turkish citizens
to boycott French products.
After
Charlie Hebdo unveiled its caricature of Erdogan Tuesday evening, the
Turkey-France row expanded to broader topics, including freedom of expression.
Lisel
Hintz, an assistant professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins
University, said that while the magazine has long been known for publishing
provocative content, the latest developments allow Erdogan “to stand up as the
regional and even global defender of Muslims that he claims to be.”
“This
dispute, like any other perceived attack on Islam in Europe or the United
States, provides Erdogan with justification for his hostile rhetoric and
generally uncompromising policy stance toward the West,” Hintz told Al-Monitor.
She said
the magazine cover was “deliberately offensive” in its questioning of the
Turkish leader’s commitment to Islam and could be used to serve Erdogan’s
political goals.
“The extent
to which this can be considered offensive by Turkey's pious Muslims provides
Erdogan with precisely the kind of external enemy he can deploy to rally
conservative and nationalist voters of various stripes,” Hintz told Al-Monitor.
Charlie
Hebdo’s Paris office was attacked by gunmen in January 2015 as retaliation to
caricatures the magazine had published featuring the Prophet Muhammad, deemed
blasphemous in Islam. The event resulted in the death of 12 people and
continues to be the subject of debates regarding free speech in the country.
Following
the attacks, Turkish officials issued statements in solidarity with victims of
the shooting. Merve Tahiroglu, Turkey program coordinator at the
Washington-based Project on Middle East Democracy, said Erdogan wanted to “at
least appear on the side of freedom of speech” at the time.
“Today, he
no longer seems to value that pretense,” Tahiroglu told Al-Monitor. “He feels
emboldened enough to sue that same magazine just days after a man was beheaded
for showing a cartoon during a lesson on freedom of expression.”
Tahiroglu
noted a large portion of the Turkish public holds unfavorable views toward
France following a string of spats between Ankara and Paris, and the AKP
government is now poised to exploit such sentiments as it condemns Charlie
Hebdo’s latest caricature of Erdogan.
“[Erdogan]
knows that in this climate, the Turkish opposition will have a hard time
defending Charlie Hebdo’s freedom of expression, lest it appear as a defense of
France against Turkey or the Muslim world, and he doesn’t seem to care about
what this will cost him vis-a-vis his image in European democracies,” Tahiroglu
told Al-Monitor.
On Tuesday,
Erdogan also filed a lawsuit against anti-Islam Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders,
who described the Turkish leader as a “terrorist” in a tweet earlier this week.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/10/turkey-investigates-charlie-hebdo-erdogan-caricature.html
------
Islamophobia: Macron’s Desperate Bid For
Re-Election
By Ali Saad
28 Oct 2020
French
President Emmanuel Macron arrives to deliver a speech next to Interior Minister
Gerald Darmanin and Seine-Saint-Denis prefect Georges-Francois Leclerc in
Bobigny, near Paris on October 20, 2020 [Ludovic Marin/Pool via Reuters]
------
More than a
week after the gruesome murder of French teacher Samuel Paty by a Chechen
refugee, France remains gripped by shock, hatred and despair. The terrorist
attack, which followed Paty’s decision to show the controversial Charlie Hebdo
caricatures of Prophet Muhammad in class, has intensified anti-Muslim
sentiments.
Once again,
France’s Muslim citizens find themselves at the heart of a debate that holds
their religion and its symbols in contempt and smears and vilifies them in the
political sphere, mainstream media and social media networks. And once again
the ruling elite and a large part of the French society are in denial about the
true roots of radicalisation.
But this
time around, it seems the head of state is particularly intent on fanning the
flames of Islamophobia. President Emmanuel Macron feels his electorate is abandoning
him and thinks the only thing he that can save his political career is taking a
page out of the far right’s playbook.
Macron’s
faltering support
It is worth
pointing out that the attack comes as France is suffering from a long-term
social crisis that has been made worse by the failed policies of Macron’s
government. Popular anger has reached the boiling point and manifested itself
in street protests. In the spring of 2018, major public sector strikes took
place followed by the Gilets Jaunes (yellow vests) protests in fall.
Then
throughout 2019, there were major demonstrations against pension reforms,
fuel-price hikes, police violence, and unemployment. The year ended with one of
the longest public transportation strikes in French history, which paralysed
the country.
This
upheaval brought Macron’s ratings from approximately 60 percent when he was
elected in May 2017 to 23 percent in December 2018. Before the pandemic
mobilised French society earlier this year, the French president had the
approval of about 33 percent of the people.
The slight
gains Macron made at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis did not help his
party in the June municipal elections, where it suffered a crushing defeat by
the Greens movement in a number of large French cities.
The
presidential election is scheduled for April 2022, and the French president is
seemingly running out of time to come up with something that can help secure
his re-election. His latest desperate attempt at gaining political ground –
specifically at the expense of the far right – seems to be his decision to come
after the Muslim community in France. He knows that anything that has to do
with attacking Muslims galvanises the supporters of the far right and its
racist and anti-Muslim agenda, as well as perhaps a good segment of the French
left.
Thus, in
early October, Macron made a special address to the nation in which he insisted
that Islam “is in crisis” and that he was going to “liberate” it from foreign
influences.
When the
murder of Paty took place less than two weeks later, the French president was
quick to seize the moment and declare he was going to take action to eradicate
“Islamist extremism” in France.
A kneejerk
reaction
In the
aftermath of the attack, Macron and his government launched a crackdown on
Muslim civil society – or what they called “extremists”. Among the measures
they took were “several dozen concrete actions … against organisations,
associations or individuals who carry a project of radical Islamism”.
As a
result, more than 50 charities – including the Collective Against Islamophobia
in France (CCIF), a mainstream organisation that combats Islamophobia – dubbed
by Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin as “enemies of the Republic”, may
face dissolution.
Throughout
the process, Macron and his government have kept up their Islamophobic
rhetoric, setting the tone for the public debate on the terror attack.
Thus a
chorus of media pundits and politicians across the political spectrum have
apparently united in the conviction that the French “values” are under threat
and that the general population needs to mobilise for a fight. “It is wartime!”
declared one magazine on its front cover. “To arms, citizens” tweeted MP Meyer
Habib, deputy chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the National
Assembly, using a phrase from the French national anthem.
The
“weapons” some suggested should be used in this “war” include the rescinding of
citizenship, obligation to adopt French first names, the reinstatement of the
death penalty, etc.
This
belligerent rhetoric did not spare public figures who have come out in defence
of the French Muslim community. In a TV debate, writer Pascal Bruckner accused
journalist Rokhaya Diallo, whom he identified as a “Black Muslim woman” of
having, through her words “led to the death of Charlie Hebdo’s 12 cartoonists”.
Jean-Luc
Mélenchon, head of the France Insoumise (Unbowed France) party, has also faced
a smear campaign since he has been warning against the stigmatisation of
Muslims. He has been accused by the political establishment of being an
Islamo-leftist in an attempt to undermine the Left by associating it with
“Islamism”, which has a very negative connotation in the minds of the French
majority.
Coincidentally
or not, Mélenchon had emerged as a potential challenger to Macron in the next
presidential election. If this character assassination campaign against him
succeeds, Macron may have an easier time securing re-election.
The real
problem
Amid this
cacophony of Islamophobia and electoral scheming, the crux of the matter has
not really been addressed.
For well
over two decades, the French state has been moving in a vicious circle in its
relationship with its Muslim citizens.
The state
still does not acknowledge the fact that Islam is a religion of France, that it
is not wise to systematically remind or refer to French Muslims by their racial
or geographic origins, and that French Muslim issues are inherently French
issues.
The state
does not want to recognise the fact that there is no empirical evidence to
suggest that religion is a primary motivator for violent extremism and that
radicalisation is a social phenomenon.
It
continues to use terrorist incidents as a distraction from its own failed
policies towards French Muslim citizens which have led to the marginalisation
and alienation of an entire community.
The state
has done little to address job and housing discrimination, police brutality,
poverty and everyday racism and yet it accuses the French Muslim community of
failing to “integrate” or even of “separatism”.
It has
relied on a security-centred approach in which Islam has been systematically
perceived as an evil that society should confront, and Muslims as a threat to
the way of life and to fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.
For the
majority of Muslims, the most blatant bias is that when it comes to criticising
or mocking Islam and its symbols, the establishment’s definition of freedom of
expression is universal, absolute and indisputable. While insisting that
Muslims embrace criticism and mockery of what is sacred to them, it has very
little tolerance for criticism of Israel, Israeli policies and Zionism.
If
anything, it appears that it is the state rather than the Muslim citizens that
is “separating” itself from a segment of society and is insisting on treating
them as outsiders. It clearly does not want to acknowledge that
multiculturalism is an integral part of French society and should be embraced
as such.
Unfortunately,
as long as the French state considers its Muslim citizens a “fifth column” and
excludes them from its battle against extremism; and as long as the political
establishment uses heinous terror attacks to make political gains ahead of
elections, we will continue to be light years away from the Republic’s core
principles of social cohesion, civil peace and dialogue.
----
Ali Saad is a French sociologist and media
critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/10/28/islamophobia-as-an-integration-strategy-in-france/
----
This Is Where Macron Falls Short
By Melih Altinok
OCT 29,
2020
President
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has long been the target of far-right and populist
politicians in Europe.
Most
recently, Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch main opposition party, the
far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), shared a cartoon of Erdoğan on his Twitter
account that portrays him wearing a hat resembling a bomb on his head, with the
caption “terrorist.”
The reason
behind the provocations against minorities in Europe by Nazi remnants like
Wilders is obvious. Erdoğan is seen as a representative not only of the
millions of Turks in Europe but also of all Muslim minorities. When in a tight
corner, fascist politicians seeking to garner the vote of the electorate who
hates immigrants and citizens of Asian African origin for economic and cultural
reasons attack Erdoğan. The Turkish president has been turned into a symbol of
the “other.”
Nowadays,
they have been joined by the center and left-wing players who pull votes by
positioning themselves against this right-wing populist politics in Europe.
Some even outcompete entrenched fascists. French President Emmanuel Macron is
the poster child for this. Macron was elected by the vote of the electorate
whom he intimidated with Marine Le Pen, who could be considered a French
equivalent of Wilders and is now an inspiration for fascist politicians.
Macron
recently announced that cartoon pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, portraying
him as a “terrorist,” in the Charlie Hebdo magazine, will continue to be
published in his country.
As
expected, after Macron exacerbated the issue; Le Pen, who is poised to face off
with him in the elections, has further inflamed racism. Following Macron’s
encouragement, the same cartoons, instigating indignation, were projected on
public buildings in the country. Far-right figures such as Robert Menard, the
mayor of the city of Beziers, have followed in the footsteps of Macron and
placed Hebdo's hate-filled cartoons in various parts of the city.
It is not
hard to imagine how difficult life has become for the millions of Muslim
citizens living in France. It would not be hard to assume that the radical
groups and proxy organizations standing to gain from such tensions are in
seventh heaven now.
However,
Macron, who has gone too far in racism to the extent to compete with fascists
in an attempt to influence the center-right electorate, is already trapped.
The
belligerence and artificial debates on the polarization of the “secular
republic – Islam” that he initiated in French society amid the pandemic are not
enough to hide the truth. His adventures in Libya, Syria and the Eastern
Mediterranean all ended in fiascos. In addition, he has been defeated at the
hands of the same opponent, Erdoğan, at every turn.
Meanwhile,
Macron, who makes a mess of everything, has managed to unite the government and
opposition in Turkey against France. In a joint statement issued a few days ago
by different political parties that make up the Turkish Parliament, the
politicians condemned Macron’s “provocative, disrespectful and dangerous
rhetoric against Islam, the Holy Prophet Muhammad and Muslims.”
I wonder
when Macron will realize that his capacity and experience are suited to more
“micro” issues rather than global struggles involving veteran leaders like
Erdoğan.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/this-is-where-macron-falls-short
-----
Resurgence Of Anti-Islam In Europe
By Muhittin Ataman
OCT 28,
2020
The current
European governments and politicians who face many political, social and
economic problems try to use other states, peoples and civilizations as a tool
for their own interests. They try to instrumentalise them for their own good,
no matter how it might harm others.
They easily
blame others for the problems that they experience at home.
For the
last two decades, mainstream political parties, especially center-left parties
such as socialists, have lost not only their governments but also their
influence in most European countries.
European
countries have been experiencing the rise of ultra-nationalist movements, far-right
political parties and racist political actors. Radical and xenophobic parties
began to enter parliaments, and some of them came to power.
Today,
European political actors identify themselves based upon otherization and
alienation of others and are therefore strongly anti-migrant, anti-Muslim and
anti-black.
European
political actors especially have been instrumentalising Islam and Muslim
countries and peoples for their domestic policies. For instance, most European
countries have been directly or indirectly discussing Islam and Muslims during
election periods.
Many
European politicians consider Muslims as the main threat to their way of life
and the main source of the troubles they face. These views are shared by many
European politicians.
French President
Emmanuel Macron is a typical example of ambitious, shallow arrogant European
politicians. He uses the same political language and political discourse that
Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz
use.
Recently, Macron
made several statements insulting Islam and Muslims. First, he claimed that
“Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today.” Then, he
ordered the cartoons insulting the Prophet of Islam to be projected onto
government buildings in Paris. Considering the rise of anti-Islam sentiment,
Macron and France are not alone. Many other politicians and countries
increasingly pursue similar policies.
The Muslim
world immediately condemned Macron and France over the treatment of Islam,
especially after the cartoons insulting the Prophet of Islam were projected
onto governmental buildings in France. Many Muslim individuals, non-state
actors and state officials demanded a boycott of France from their respective
governments.
Many social
media campaigns were announced by different political groups to boycott French
products. Several Arab trade associations and many companies withdrew French
products from supermarkets in response to Macron’s comments on Islam and
Muslims.
Many
countries reacted to Macron’s spread of hatred. Different states such as
Turkey, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Palestine and
Tunisia made official explanations against France and decided to impose
sanctions against French products.
Only
officials from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia made pro-France
explanations, mainly due to their fierce anti-Turkey stance. For example, an
adviser of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) and a professor of political
science, Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, tweeted: “The equation is simple and clear: know
that when (President Recep Tayyip) Erdoğan attacks Macron, Macron is right.”
Abdulla
knows well that Macron’s explanations are not about Erdoğan but about the
Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, peace be upon him. Abdulla, however, still prefers
not to condemn Macron or France and blames Erdoğan for what is going on.
Abdulla’s tweet demonstrates two important factors.
One, it is
a clear indication of anti-Islam sentiment by the UAE regime. The regime
officials give open checks to all anti-Islamic actors worldwide. Second,
anti-Erdoğanism made the UAE officials blind to regional and global
developments.
Similarly,
Muhammad Abdulkarim al-Isa, an adviser of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
(MBS) and also secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a nongovernmental
organization (NGO) funded by the Saudi government, did not hesitate to show his
support for Macron. He called Muslims living in non-Muslim countries not to
react to political developments.
On the
other hand, Europe stood by Macron, and many European politicians preferred to
criticize Turkey and its leader Erdoğan. Erdoğan questioned Macron’s mental
health and said that the French president has “lost his mind.”
The
European Union's Foreign Policy Representative Joseph Borrell said Erdoğan’s
words were “unacceptable” and called on Turkey to stop “this dangerous spiral
of confrontation.”
Similarly,
Vice President of the European Commission Margaritis Schinas said that EU
values prioritize “liberties.”
Greek Prime
Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said that “hate speech targeting France by the
Turkish leadership is unacceptable (and) fuels religious hatred.” In other
words, they do not question Macron’s hatred of Muslims and Islam.
Even though
Muslims believe that any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is blasphemous and
they do not want the insulting cartoons to be shown or published, Europeans
have been insistently using caricatures/cartoons drawn years ago. That is, the
problem is not the discussion of freedom, but the political language that
Europeans prefer to speak nowadays.
Europeans
do not care about the concerns of Muslims worldwide. It should not be forgotten
that their use of radical and negative political discourse against Islam and
Muslims will be counterproductive because their claims do not reflect reality
but rather their misperceptions.
Today,
Islam is the only belief system in the world that the European colonial powers
could not change. Therefore, ambitious, shallow and arrogant European
politicians such as Macron have been trying to initiate a reform process in
Islam.
In other
words, they intend to demolish the basic source of dynamism in Islam. They have
been trying to do the same thing with different instruments and with different
methods. France or Macron cannot achieve much in the Middle East depending on
the personalistic regimes, namely the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The peoples of the
Middle East as well as French Muslims will continue to react to French
hostility toward Islam and Muslims.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/resurgence-of-anti-islam-in-europe
-----
Tatar: Federation Is Dead And Buried
By Yusuf Kanli
October 29
2020
Ersin
Tatar, the new President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), has
given a message to Ankara, which was not surprising or out of the blues. In two
sentences, we can sum up all that he said: “The Federation is dead and buried.
We have not been able to live together, we have not reconciled in more than 50
years of talks, and now it is time to discuss how we can live side by side in
two separate states.”
President
Tatar, who I had been able to chat with for a long time at the hotel where he
was staying, was determined more than I have ever seen, and he was very fit.
The image of a politician in need of support during the election period has
been replaced by a determined practitioner who feeds on one source. He has seen
and accepted the fact that he was elected with the support of Turkey’s
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and believes that with this support, he can
comfortably overcome the big problems ahead.
The
government will conduct the upcoming National Unity Party (UBP) congress to
discuss matters for assigning the seat of chairperson that Tatar vacated when
he got elected as the president and the immediate tasks for the government to
take ahead. A meeting with Greek leader Nicos Anastasiades, albeit within a
“social framework,” was also high on Tatar’s agenda.
What
happens with UBP? Tatar was tightlipped about it. Finally, all five competing
candidates have been comrades for a long time. However, it is the will of most,
not just Tatar, to choose someone who will work harmoniously with the president
and with Turkey, perhaps contribute to the recreation of the balances
dissipated during the election process, or manage a consensus approach that
might even help setup of a grand coalition with socialist Republican Turks’
Party (CTP) of Tufan Erhürman. Such a coalition might have sufficient
parliamentary strength to make a constitutional amendment and carry the Turkish
Cypriot state to presidential governance.
We are
together
As a matter
of fact, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who will visit the TRNC after a
three-year break on Nov. 15, will do some political engineering as well as
attend anniversary ceremonies and a picnic in Varosha. His meeting with
Erhürman could be very important. Erdogan, who stayed away from the TRNC
because of tensions with former President Mustafa Akıncı, might deliver some
good news at his Nov. 15 TRNC anniversary celebrations speech. Reportedly there
will be some good news for the growing Turkish Cypriot budget deficit,
offsetting increased current needs and deferred infrastructure investments due
to the epidemic. “We will deal with whatever is needed. One of us, we are
together,” Erdogan expressed, which shows how happy he is upon Tatar’s election
as the president.
The Varosha
visit may also raise the issue of the announcement of perhaps the second step
in the opening of the closed city. Neither Ankara nor the TRNC has any idea of
opening the region immediately to anyone other than the citizens of the region.
When the region ceases to be a military zone by government resolution, it is
planned to call on its former residents to return to their property in
accordance with U.N. resolutions. Yet, the region will remain to be a part of
North Cyprus territory.
Of course,
it is no coincidence that some important Greek Cypriot figures have been in
contact lately, both with the Turkish Cypriot authorities and Turkish
authorities in Ankara.
Time to
talk about new things
Tatar was
very clear. He stresses that the must-haves of the Turkish Cypriot people are
well known and cannot accept arguments about them. The Greek side insists that
Turkey’s military presence in Cyprus and nullifying Turkish guarantor status
are indispensable conditions of an agreement. However, he said his people have
voted for him to hold these values high, their principles and basic posture,
and defend them under all circumstances. “I’m not going to back down,” Tatar
said. The new president stressed that the people rejected Akıncı and his
defeatist and surrenderist politics and demanded from him that their rights be
defended.
What are
all these? The most important is Turkey’s guarantor status, which includes the
right to unilateral intervention.
Tatar said
that the Turkish Cypriots were subjected to major criminal and genocidal
attacks between Dec. 21, 1963, and July 20, 1974. “Visitors to mass graves will
see the answer to this question why Turkey’s guarantor status is a sine qua non
for us. A step back from guarantorship would mean saying yes to Cyprus becoming
a second Crete, where Turkish people were either annihilated or forced to
migrate Turkey. It is out of the question.”
Could not
have a federation, let’s live side by side
Tatar said
the elements that form the basis of the concept of federation include sharing
management, resources, sovereignty and responsibilities on the basis of
political equality. “Greek Cypriots never ever wanted to share sovereignty,
administration or resources with Turkish Cypriots. They always suggested to the
Turkish Cypriot people that they accept some minority rights within the Greek
majority. It’s not something that can be accepted, that can be considered
serious. We couldn’t live together. Now we want to talk about the conditions
for friendly living side by side, the two-state solution. We’re sincere. We
want a solution. Turkey agrees with us on the same assessment.”
Equal share
in island resources
Tatar
reminded that the Turkish Cypriots have equal rights in hydrocarbons and other
resources of the island and its exclusive economic area as much as the Greek
Cypriots, under the 1960 agreements and the constitution of the partnership
during 1960 state, which has become part of the rule of international law.
Tatar
stressed that the international community should not accept the Greek Cypriot
usurpation of Turkish Cypriot rights obtained under the founding agreements and
constitution of Cyprus, “We will not give up our rights under any
circumstances.”
He said
Turkish Cypriots made many offers to the Greek Cypriot side to share, on the
basis of equality, the resources of the island. But in a spoiled attitude, all
the calls fell on deaf ears. “We shall not give up our rights. Turkey will not
let anyone usurp our rights and get away with it,” he said.
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/yusuf-kanli/tatar-federation-is-dead-and-buried-159550
----
ICJ Lacking Transparency In Rohingya Genocide
Case
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
October 28,
2020
The Gambia
has this week taken the next step in its action against Myanmar at the
International Court of Justice for the Rohingya genocide by filing a “Memorial”
of some 500 pages, plus appendices. This new step is to be celebrated, even
though it also serves to highlight some of the shortcomings of the UN’s system
of justice.
In recent
months, there had been cynical and dismissive noises around the legal action
taken by the Gambia: That it was an effort aimed at generating publicity above
anything else, and that the action would not be pursued to its ultimate
conclusion. Critics highlighted that the Gambian minister who initiated the
action at the ICJ, Abubacarr Tambadou, recently quit his role in the government
of the Gambia to take up a position with the UN. They jumped on this
development to argue that the whole exercise was carried out primarily as a
springboard for his career.
However,
with this new submission, those fears have been put to rest. The work by the
government of the Gambia on the Rohingya genocide case continues unabated and
the amount of evidence submitted to the court even at this early stage suggests
it is serious about pursuing this action to its conclusion. The Gambia is,
without any shadow of doubt, a genuine human rights hero in this story.
Unfortunately,
the story does take an unfortunate twist in another of its aspects. We do not
get to see any of the evidence or arguments the Gambia has just submitted to
the court. Nor will we get to see the response we expect from Myanmar next
year. It is a feature of the proceedings of the UN legal bodies that in cases
such as this the evidence, at least at this stage, will only be available to
the parties directly participating in the legal process — which is to say, only
to the governments that are actively prosecuting or defending.
This is
extremely unfortunate. No nongovernmental organizations or indeed the very
victims of the genocide, the Rohingya themselves, will have the opportunity to
review the evidence or to augment it with their own testimony, experiences, and
relevant documentary resources. Other minority groups in Myanmar that continue
to be assaulted by the federal military of the country will not get to compare
their own experiences with those documented by the prosecution. And we all have
to simply trust that the process, hidden as it is, is nevertheless fully fair.
On the
other hand, it is also not completely unreasonable that, as a default position,
defendant states that enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by
the court should not suffer the reputational damage that might come from observers
reading allegations by a prosecution as an established fact.
Though that
principle is sound, it is well established legal precedent in most countries
that there are many cases in which this principle is set aside. This usually
happens when the alleged perpetrator may have victimized others who should feel
encouraged to come forward with their own evidence and experiences, or when the
original victims are believed to still be under immediate threat from the
accused or some of their associates. In those cases, a judgment is made, on the
balance of harms, that all aspects of a trial should be made public so as to
protect suspected victims from further aggression and to encourage anyone else
with relevant information to come forward.
Both these
criteria are clearly applicable in this genocide case. There remain some
300,000 Rohingya in internally displaced people’s camps in Myanmar, under the
most precarious of conditions. The military of Myanmar could start massacring
these people on a moment’s notice. And there are many other ethnic minority
groups, especially in border areas, that are currently seeing their civilian
villages and towns shelled by the military in ways that are reminiscent of how
the Rohingya villages were razed three years ago. This makes a strong case for
why the ICJ should look to make public as much of the evidence and the
proceedings as possible, as soon as possible.
In the end,
for justice to be served and satisfied, justice must also be seen to be done.
That is why we must continue to call on the ICJ to open up the proceedings and
make them transparent.
----
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is a director at Centre for
Global Policy in Washington, D.C.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1755446
----
Media Bias And The US Election
By Ray Hanania
October 28,
2020
Four years
ago, a succession of American newspaper polls predicted Hillary Clinton would
easily win the presidential election and defeat Donald Trump. On election day,
Trump proved them all wrong. How?
In part,
Clinton took Trump for granted, in her own arrogant and entitled manner,
disparaging his supporters by pejoratively describing them as a “basket of
deplorables.” Another reason was that much of the news media also took Trump
for granted, refusing to take him seriously and attacking him at every turn,
every misstep and every spoken stumble.
What
Clinton and sections of the mainstream media failed to grasp was how her attack
on Trump and his supporters would solidify them as a loyal base. Calling them
“deplorables” so insulted them that, rather than look at Trump, they vented
their anger on Clinton and the media. That Clinton arrogance and media bias
ultimately made Trump the victor. The “hate divide” that split the country into
two resulted in a base that would not be swayed.
In the four
years since, not much has really changed. The political attacks on Trump are
vicious — far more vicious than they were to the US’ first African American
President Barack Obama — and the unrelenting perception of media bias continues
to fuel his support base.
Polls have
been accurate about one thing over the years: That the public distrusts the
news media. A recent survey by Gallup and the Knight Foundation found that
nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of Americans see too much bias in the media
as a “major problem.”
Sections of
the media continue to blame the hate divide on Trump. But the president leads
his own communications, makes his own shoot-from-the-hip pronouncements and
continues to deal directly with the media outlets that have savaged him during
his time in office.
However,
the hate divide literally means that the country is divided, with about half
supporting the president no matter what and half opposing him no matter what.
This means that the brutal battles on the campaign trail will probably not
persuade anyone to switch sides.
Following
his recent interview on the popular CBS News program “60 Minutes,” Trump’s
performance was portrayed as below par. The worst part was that the media
unfavorably compared his interview to his rival Joe Biden’s. In truth, Biden
stumbled several times, but these were generally ignored by the media. At one
point, interviewer Norah O’Donnell even corrected something Biden said as if it
was nothing.
O’Donnell
asked about foreign policy and the biggest challenges. In his response, Biden
said: “What happens now is you have the situation in Korea, where they have
more lethal missiles and more capacity than they had before.” O’Donnell quickly
corrected him, saying “North Korea,” making the mistake irrelevant. Biden
responded by confirming, “North Korea.” Had Trump made that mistake, the media
would likely be going berserk, writing about how the president’s rhetoric could
have started a nuclear war with a friendly ally rather than a crazed foe.
After the
interview, Biden’s staff also had to correct a figure he quoted. It was
explained that the Democratic nominee “misspoke” and that the cost of free
public college education could be twice as much as the $150 billion he told
O’Donnell. The media would have had a field day had that been Trump.
However, it
is the perception of media bias — exaggerated by his supporters and
marginalized by his critics — that could carry Trump to victory. The
president’s followers are not focused on his leadership as much as they are on
the perceived bias against him.
Why were
the polls all wrong in 2016? Because the “deplorables” were angry at being
vilified by Clinton. So, when the news media calls them to ask how they will
vote this time, how many Trump supporters hang up the phone and how many lie to
avoid being criticized?
If you want
to know what is happening in next week’s election, don’t pay attention to the
mainstream US news media. Instead, watch for the results as they come in from
four states: North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida. Then you
will know who is winning, and I think Trump continues to hold an edge in all
four.
----
Ray Hanania is an award-winning former Chicago
City Hall political reporter and columnist.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1755471
-----
URl: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/middle-east-press-erdogan-suing/d/123312
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism