Dr Aafia Siddiqui - Prisoner 650

[I wrote this article for ISN Security Watch in October 2008. Despite so much international pressure, the Pentagon had the guts to fly her over to United States from Bagram, hide her children and denying their existence in its custody, and trying her in US court without its jurisdiction. Obama administration seems more trigger happy than his predecessor . . . The United States changing for the worst at least so far . . .] Please read and comment . . .

The mystery surrounding the disappearance, terror-related detention and trial of a Pakistani female doctor adds fuel to the fire for an angry public, Naveed Ahmad reports for ISN Security Watch.

By Naveed Ahmad in Islamabad and Karachi for ISN Security Watch 


http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?id=92219&lng=en

---

Though Pakistani Dr Aafia Siddiqui allegedly has been held by US forces for over four years, it was only on 6 July this year that the story came to the world when British journalist Yvonne Ridley published a report about the "grey lady" in custody at Afghanistan's Bagram Detention Center.

However, there had been reports of Siddiqui's disappearance earlier in the year.

In April this year, Newsline published a detailed account of Siddiqui's disappearance along with her three children en route to the airport. On 2 April 2003, then-interior minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told local reporters that Siddiqui had been arrested for her connections with al-Qaida. "You will be astonished to know about the activities of Dr Aafia," he told reporters at the time.

Moreover, a book of memoirs - Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar - co-authored by former Gitmo detainee Moazzam Begg with Victoria Brittain  mentions Siddiqui as the "grey lady" at the Bagram prison, known there as "Prisoner 650."

Though the Pakistani public has expressed outrage at the story since its initial publication by Newsline in April, Ridley's story served to further fuel the fires of anti-American sentiment.

Her story - and that of her children - remains a mystery.

"Prisoner 650" faces a possible life sentence for allegedly grabbing a US Army officer's M-4 rifle while she was being detained, shooting at another officer and threatening all seven members of an Army and FBI team before she was shot and subdued, according to Ridley's account.

According to the New York Times, Siddiqui was transferred to New York from Afghanistan on 5 August, where the authorities say she tried to kill American soldiers who had gone to interrogate her after she was taken into custody in July. According to this account, she was taken into custody in July this year, rather than over four years ago.
 

According to Newsday, Siddiqui was "originally arrested in Afghanistan on July 17 and brought to the United States to stand trial on attempted murder and other charges."

Siddiqui's family in Karachi, however, claims she went missing on 30 March 2003 with her three children - Mohammad Ahmad (now 11) Mariam (10), and Suleman (5) - as they left Karachi for the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. The family claims they were informed of Siddiqui's detention in Afghanistan in late 2003 by a government official sympathetic to their cause.

The US denies these claims.

"As the Department of Justice has made clear, Ms. Siddiqui was not in U.S. custody before she was detained on July 17, 2008," The Washington Post quoted CIA spokesman George Little as saying. "Any suggestion that the CIA would imprison her children is wrong and offensive. Had we known where Ms. Siddiqui was prior to her capture, we would have shared that information with our partners in this country and overseas. She was a fugitive from American justice."
 

What we do know for sure is that Siddiqui is being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn during her trial. And as to where two of her missing children may be, that is anyone's guess.

Chain of mysteries

In March 2003, Siddiqui was accused of being a high-profile al-Qaida operative, who had allegedly supplied precious gems from Africa to fund the 9/11 attacks. A biographical summary of terrorism suspects by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence described Siddiqui as part of a ring of "al-Qaida operatives and facilitators," and said she also helped 9/11 suspect Majid Khan with travel documents.

However, these allegations have not appeared on the charge-sheet since the hearing started in September this year in New York; instead Siddiqui is being charged only with firing on US soldiers and is being pressed about her possession of some maps and pictures of landmark New York buildings.

Since the start of her trial in New York, the Pakistani government has been seeking the repatriation of Siddiqui and her three children.

US Justice Department documents seen by ISN Security Watch confirmed that the eldest son, Ahmad, was under the supervision of US authorities in Afghanistan, but there is no mention of the other two children. Ahmad has since been returned to Pakistan.

Following tremendous pressure from Pakistan, its civil society and international human rights watchdogs, Siddiqui's eldest son was flown to Islamabad on 15 September. Currently, the 11-year-old is receiving counseling and staying with his aunt, Dr Fowzia Siddiqui.

Terrorist, victim or patient?

More mysteries are being unveiled as the trial proceeds in the southern district court of New York. The indictment hearing of Dr Siddiqui in Afghanistan was postponed until 22 September after she refused to appear before the court in protest against being strip searched. Her defense counsel and family allege that she was repeatedly raped in custody.

On 23 September, District Court Judge Richard Berman entered a plea of not guilty on the defendant's behalf and ordered a psychiatric evaluation to assess if she was fit to stand trial. In a letter to US District Judge Richard Berman, US Attorney Michael Garcia said that there was reason to believe Siddiqui was suffering from a mental illness.

According to Bernman, a competency hearing will be held on 17 December.

Speaking to ISN Security Watch in Karachi, Siddiqui's neighbors described her as a very polite and shy woman who was barely noticeable in gatherings and kept a quiet apartment on the 20th floor of the Back Bay Manor in Roxbury, Boston. 

She was particularly known for her religious activities, such as distributing copies of the Holy Koran to prisoners and raising funds for Bosnian war victims. According to Pakistani reports, Siddiqui had lived in the US for 12 years before her return to Karachi and her disappearance there.

Her husband, Mohammed Amjad Khan, was known for his extreme religious views and his ambitions to convert people to Islam. One Boston friend, who requested anonymity, said Amjad never believed in using weapons or forcefully implementing his views and belonged to Lahore-based "Tablighi Jama'at," which focuses purifying the soul through prayers and meditation.

Siddiqui's disappearance followed the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from Pakistan. It is assumed that this key al-Qaida operative had thrown up her name during interrogation. The FBI believes that Siddiqui's post-office box was used by Majid Khan. Sharp argued that his client may have trusted the man out of naivety, terming the incident "a case of stolen identity."

Iqbal Haider, a Karachi-based lawyer and human rights activist, believes the case is severely flawed. "How can a Pakistani national be tried in an American court if she is not a US citizen and the alleged crime was not committed on US soil?" he tells ISN Security Watch in Karachi.

Haider also questions the rationale behind the alleged abduction of Siddiqui's three children by the intelligence agents. "Are these kids terrorists, sleepers or financers? Nobody is talking about this," he says.

In the meantime, Dr Fowzia claims she has been receiving threats during her campaign for Siddiqui's release. "I am receiving anonymous threatening phone calls . . . I cannot trust anyone."

War on terror fallout

Fowzia has been assured by the Pakistani foreign minister, government and opposition that every possible effort is being made to have her sister extradited to Pakistan along with her children. Both houses of parliament passed unanimous resolutions to repatriate Siddiqui.

Though anti-American sentiment in Pakistan continues to grow, many analysts believe that unlike the cases of other missing persons handed over to the US by former president General Pervez Musharraf, the case of Siddiqui and her children may have a happy ending yet.

Rashid Mafzool Zaka, an expert in security and foreign affairs, believes that "tremendous pressure by human rights organizations and media would make Aafia and her children an exception as the matter is too sensitive even for the American public to ignore in name of terrorism."

On 11 August, the Washington Post quoted Bruce Hoffman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, as saying that "the [US] government has realized it is much easier to make a criminal case than a terrorism case, which involves conspiracy and sensitive materials." Until recently, Siddiqui might have "disappeared into the enemy combatant protocols," he was quoted as saying.

In the meantime, while Siddiqui's lawyer and family members continue to pressure authorities regarding the whereabouts of the defendant's two remaining children, Washington continues to deny they are being held in custody.
Pakistani officials also say they have no information on the whereabouts of Siddiqui's two children. 

An Afghan embassy spokesman in Islamabad told ISN Security Watch: "There is no information about these two Pakistani juveniles in any of our prisons."

Human rights activist Amina Masood Janjua, the wife of a missing person, says missing people are picked by the Pakistani intelligence agencies for a few months before being handed over to the Americans, who keep them either at the Kandahar or Bagram prisons in Afghanistan before sending some to Gitmo.

Many still believe that Siddiqui has been lucky to be heard by a federal judge unlike dozens of other quietly languishing at Guantanamo.

---

Naveed Ahmad is ISN Security Watch's senior correspondent in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Besides reporting for Pakistani TV channel, Geo News and Germany's DW-TV, he also strings for newspapers in the US and Middle East.

It’s not a new Turkey, it’s the right time

Turkey is not to be bullied, threatened, or intimidated. Even Israel is now becoming more aware of its limits.

By Ramzy Baroud for Aljazeera.com

Uri Avnery’s assessment of the recent Israeli-Turkish diplomatic and political row - that “the relationship between Turkey and Israel will probably return to normal, if not to its former degree of warmth” – seems sensible and daring. In my view, however, it is also inaccurate.

Simply put, there is just no going back.

In a recent article entitled “Israel Must Get Used to the New Turkey,” Suat Kiniklioğlu, Deputy Chairman of External Affairs for Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) wrote, “Israel appears to be yearning for the golden 1990s, which were the product of a very specific situation in the region. Those days are over and are unlikely to come back even if the Justice and Development Party (AKP) ends up no longer being in government.”

This assessment seems more consistent with reality.

One would agree with Avnery’s optimistic reading of events if the recent row was caused by just a couple of isolated incidents, for example, the gutsy public exchange over Gaza between Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Israel’s President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in late January 2009, or the recent premeditated humiliation of Oguz Celikkol, Turkish Ambassador to Israel, by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

However, these incidents are anything but isolated. They reflect a clear and probably irreversible shift in Turkish foreign policy towards Israel, the U.S. and the Middle East as a whole.

For decades Turkey was torn between its historical ties to Muslim and Arab countries on the one hand, and the unstoppable drive towards Westernization on the other. The latter seemed much more influential in forming the new Turkish identity in its individual, collective, and thus foreign policy manifestation and outlook.

But even during the push and pull, Turkey grew in import as a political and economic player. It also grew into a nation with a decisive sense of sovereignty, a growing sense of pride and a daring capacity for asserting itself as a regional power.

In the 1970s, when ‘political Islam’ was on the rise throughout the region, Turkey was experiencing its own rethink, and various politicians and groups began grappling with the idea of taking political Islam to a whole new level.

In fact, it was Dr. Necmettin Erbakan, the Prime Minister of Turkey between 1996 and 1997 who began pushing against the conventional notion of Turkey as a second-class NATO member desperate to identify with everything Western.

In the late 1980s Erbakan’s Rafah Party (the Welfare Party) took Turkey by storm. The party was hardly apologetic about its Islamic roots and attitude. Its rise to power as a result of the 1995 general elections raised alarm, as the securely ‘pro-Western’ Turkey was deviating from the very the rigid script that wrote off the country’s regional role as that of a “lackey of NATO.” According to Salama A Salama, who coined the phrase in a recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly, Turkey is no longer this ‘lackey’. And according to Kiniklioğlu, that’s something “Israel must get used to”.

The days of Erbakan might be long gone. But the man’s legacy registered something that never departed Turkish national consciousness. He pushed the boundary, dared to champion pro-Palestinian policies, defied Western dictates and even pressed for economic repositioning of his country with the creation of the Developing Eight (D-8), uniting the most politically significant Arab and Muslim countries. When Erbakan was forced to step down in a ‘postmodernist’ military coup, it was understood as the end of short-lived political experiment which ended up proving that even a benign form of political Islam was not to be tolerated in Turkey. The army emerged, once again, all powerful.

But things have changed drastically since then. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) was elected to power in 2002. The AK Party leadership was composed of savvy, yet principled politicians who aimed for change and even a geopolitical shift in their country’s regional political outlook.

The AK Party began to lead a self-assertive Turkey which was neither pleading for European acceptance nor American validation. By rejecting the use of Turkish territories as a launchpad of a U.S. strike against Iraq in 2003, Turkey was acquiring a voice, and a strong one at that - with wide democratic representation and growing popular support.

The trend continued, and in recent years Turkey dared translate its political power and prowess into action, without immediately severing the political and military balances that took years to build. So, for example, while it continued to honor past military deals with Israel, it also made many successful overtures to Syria and Iran. And, in being willing to be seen as a unifier in the age of Muslim and Arab disunity, it refused to take part in the conveniently set up camps of ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’. Instead it maintained good ties with all its neighbors, and its Arab allies.

Starting in 2007, the U.S. began seeing the emergence of the “New Turkey”. U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to the country soon after his inauguration was one of many signs that the West was taking notice of Turkey’s ‘special’ status. Turkey is not to be bullied, threatened, or intimidated. Even Israel, which has for long defied the norms of diplomacy, is now becoming more aware of its limits, thanks to Turkish President Abdullah Gül. Following Israel’s belligerent insult of the Turkish Ambassador, he said, "Unless there is a formal apology from Israel, we're going to put Celikkol on the first plane back to Ankara." Israel, of course, apologized, and humbly so.

It took Turkey many years to reach this level of confidence and the country is hardly eager to be anyone’s ‘lackey’ now. More, Turkey’s united and constant stance in support of Gaza, and its outspokenness against the threats against Lebanon, Iran and Syria show clearly that the old days of “warmth” are well behind us.

Turkey, of course, will find a very receptive audience among Arabs and Muslims all over the world who are desperate for a powerful and sensible leadership to defend and champion their causes. Needless to say, for the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, Erdogan is becoming a household name, a folk hero, a new Nasser in fact. The same sentiment is shared throughout the region.
 

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Israeli drones take over skies of Afghanistan

By YAAKOV KATZ in The Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=166454

Germany becomes fifth NATO country to employ Israeli UAVs in fight against Taliban.

While Israeli soldiers can't fight in the war in Afghanistan, Israeli drones can. Starting next week, five NATO member countries will be operating unmanned aerial vehicles produced in the Jewish state in anti-Taliban operations in the Central Asian country.

Next week, officials from the German military will arrive to take delivery of an undisclosed number of Heron UAVs, made by Israel Aerospace Industries.

The Heron is a medium altitude long endurance UAV that can remain airborne for more than 30 hours with a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet, and can carry a payload of 250 kg. It has a wingspan of 16.6 meters, a takeoff weight of 1,200 kg. and an operational range of several hundred kilometers. It can carry a variety of sensors used for surveillance and target identification.

Germany is the fifth country to operate Israel Aerospace Industries UAVs in Afghanistan. In December, the Royal Australian Air Force took delivery of several Heron systems, joining Spain, France and Canada that already operate the platform.

Israel is a recognized world leader in the development of UAVs. In November, the Brazilian government announced that it was prepared to sign a $350 million deal to purchase Heron UAVs to patrol its cities and borders, and to provide security for the 2014 Soccer World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games.

Later this year, Israel Aerospace Industries will hold demonstrations of the Heron for Panamanian security forces in conjunction with the US military's Southern Command. The demonstration in Panama will focus on counter-drug operations, as well as border security.

Last May, the Heron underwent a month-long evaluation by the Southern Command and the Salvadoran military to judge its suitability for counter-drug missions in Latin America and the Pacific. It was the first time that the drone, designed for intelligence gathering and surveillance, was used in such operations.

Pak-US Ties Decline After Obama’s One-Year Presidency

By Naveed Ahmad

After Barack Obama’s swearing in as President of the United States, intelligencia in Pakistan was hoping for anything but over a dozen and half US drone missile attacks  in Febrauary alone on its territory bordering Afghanistan, with death toll crossing 100 mark.

US President Obama’s Afghanistan policy review speech brought the fore his desire to pull out troops before his country goes to the next presidential polls but left much to imagination, especially for the country’s neighbouring the war-ravaged country. Moreover, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met wide variety of the Pakistani people but her interaction was devoid of much-awaited statement on softening of conditionalities on Kerry-Lugar Aid Bill. Islamabad’s expectations with the new US administration have been too short-lived, which have now started to shape up as unease. 

Pakistan-United States relation emerged from a prolonged thaw literally hours after four airliners exploded in icons of United States economic and military might on the 9/11. During the two term of George W Bush in the presidency, the United States relations with Islamabad were confined to person of Pervez Musharraf.

The Pentagon announced sale of military hardware worth $27 million in fiscal year 2002 and worth $167 million in fiscal year 2003. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda operatives could hit a Protestant Church adjacent to the United States embassy.

Soon President Bush announces a five-year, $3 billion package for Pakistan as General Pervez Musharraf flanked him in Camp David. This was the time, when the US military started pointing fingers on Pakistan for manning mountainous and porous border with Afghanistan.

By mid-2003, Pakistan and Afghanistan had developed tense relations over presence of al-Qaeda and Taliban top leadership in each others respective territory, sans any proofs. Finally Musharraf sent first ever batch of 25,000 soldiers to semiautonomous tribal areas.

Under intense American pressure in February 2004, Musharraf dethrones and humiliates father of Pakistan nuclear weapons, Dr AQ Khan, for alleged smuggling of nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran. While Musharraf-led Pakistan is branded as ‘major non-NATO ally,’ military operation in tribal areas sparked serious opposition against Islamabad.

While the US looked the other on questions regarding his legitimacy and style of governance, Musharraf not only offered airspace to US fighter jets, missiles and spy plane but handed over some 600-plus alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban operative in the absence of any extradition treaty or judicial hearing. The military ruler Pervez Musharraf even admitted pocketing the bounty on the heads of arrested al-Qaeda and Taliban operative in his book, In the Line of Fire.

The massive Kashmir earthquake of October 2005 offered US a rare opportunity for public diplomacy. Besides relief assistance worth $51million, Washington dispatched marines, efficient and sturdy helicopters, and other means of logistical and medical support. During his late 2006Islamabad visit, President Bush agreed for sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan.

United States fully backed Musharraf when he unlawfully made Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry dysfunctional and attracted public rage from liberal and Islamists alike. In his bid for re-election as president, Washington brokered a power-sharing deal between Prevez Musharraf and exiled Benazir Bhutto as the former agreed to rub off all corruption cases filed till installation of his coup on October 12, 1999.

Washington’s policies until the ouster of Pervez Musharraf from presidency changed little as Obama administration was only starting its comprehensive review by August 2008. Asif Ali Zardari replaced Prevez Musharraf in the presidency as he had become caretaker chairperson of People Party after Benazir Bhutto’s murder on election trail on December 27, 2007.

The Pakistani nation could not find any significant change in Pakistan’s approach to the United States or vice-a-verse. The Pakistani parliament, under pressure from its electorate, passed a unanimous resolution against drone attacks and killing of predominant number of innocent civilians.

The rare unanimous parliamentary resolution fell on deaf ear in the United States and the Pakistan Air Force chief bitterly responded to a questioning journalist that the country has the ability to hit the invading drone but statement never materialized.

In a goodwill gesture, the new US administration remained neutral when the Pakistani people took to the street for restoration of independent Chief Justice of Supreme Court. However, Islamabad was shocked to see Holbrooke’s appointment limited only to special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan while as a presidential hopeful Obama had promised to have a special emissary on Jammu and Kashmir.

The military’s operation in Malakand Division, left over 2.5 million people displaced while so far the security forces have suffered the heaviest number of peace time casualties since Pakistan’s creation in 1947. Besides costly military operations, the country’s economy faired badly due to worsening security situation and travel warnings.

President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan strategy could only salt to the injury of the Pakistani government as well as people. Over the past 17 days, 10 drone attacks inside the Pakistani territory has claimed some 100 lives without significant killing of an al-Qaeda or Taliban operative hiding in Waziristan mud-huts.

Though Pakistan and United States are two nations engaged in strategic partnership but the difference of opinion in strategy and policy is both greater than divergence. Though Washington has repeatedly referred to abandoning of Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, yet the actual treatment remains too indifferent to the country’s needs.

While Pakistan suffers severe energy and a rare food shortage, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered little to ease the public misery, thus wasting a golden chance of bringing a positive change in people daily lifestyle. The least Washington could have done was to offer quick-fix solution to meet the energy shortage to the stabilize this nose-diving economy amid rampant corruption. 

With President Obama completing his first year in office, his ratings have not only plummeted at home but abroad as well. The public sentiment expressed in the parliament and in media suggests that the Obama administration is being seen more trigger happy and right-wing slanted on security issues concerning Afghanistan or Iraq.

Given the soft deadline announced for troops withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Pentagon would have to now not only start withdrawal prior to second term vote for President Obama and for that more firepower seems a quick-fix solution. The cost of Afghan war is set to increase for the United States as well as its partners.

However, political cost of Afghan war is as important for the regime in Islamabad as much the financial one is. Weapon-yielding US diplomats, presence of its private security forces, increasing drone attacks resulting in soaring death and preferential treatment to neighbouring arch-rival India all may lead to widening of Pakistan-US gulf, with no worthwhile attempt by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to build bridges during his recent visit to Islamabad.

Another highlight is the Pakistani parliament position against fresh security checks introduced by the FAA across the United States. Unlike military dictator Pervez Musharraf, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani both are accountable to people, an independent judiciary as well as an assertive media. Their pro-Washington policy may not last for long unless responded positively from across the Atlantic.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Naveed Ahmad is an investigative journalist and academic, whose work appears on the TV channel Geo News, Corriere della Sera (Italy), and ISN Security Watch (Zurich). He frequently reports for American and other western newspapers on South Asian security, energy and politics.

Steve Jobs and the Economics of Elitism

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/31lohr.html?hpw

By Steve Lohr in The New York Times

The more, the better. That’s the fashionable recipe for nurturing new ideas these days. It emphasizes a kind of Internet-era egalitarianism that celebrates the “wisdom of the crowd” and “open innovation.” Assemble all the contributions in the digital suggestion box, we’re told in books and academic research, and the result will be collective intelligence.

Yet Apple, a creativity factory meticulously built by Steven P. Jobs since he returned to the company in 1997, suggests another innovation formula — one more elitist and individual.

This approach is reflected in the company’s latest potentially game-changing gadget, the iPad tablet, unveiled last week. It may succeed or stumble but it clearly carries the taste and perspective of Mr. Jobs and seems stamped by the company’s earlier marketing motto: Think Different.

Apple represents the “auteur model of innovation,” observes John Kao, a consultant to corporations and governments on innovation. In the auteur model, he said, there is a tight connection between the personality of the project leader and what is created. Movies created by powerful directors, he says, are clear examples, from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” to James Cameron’s “Avatar.”

At Apple, there is a similar link between the ultimate design-team leader, Mr. Jobs, and the products. From computers to smartphones, Apple products are known for being stylish, powerful and pleasing to use. They are edited products that cut through complexity, by consciously leaving things out — not cramming every feature that came into an engineer’s head, an affliction known as “featuritis” that burdens so many technology products.

“A defining quality of Apple has been design restraint,” says Paul Saffo, a technology forecaster and consultant in Silicon Valley.

That restraint is evident in Mr. Jobs’s personal taste. His black turtleneck, beltless blue jeans and running shoes are a signature look. In his Palo Alto home years ago, he said that he preferred uncluttered, spare interiors and then explained the elegant craftsmanship of the simple wooden chairs in his living room, made by George Nakashima, the 20th-century furniture designer and father of the American craft movement.

Great products, according to Mr. Jobs, are triumphs of “taste.” 

And taste, he explains, is a byproduct of study, observation and being steeped in the culture of the past and present, of “trying to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then bring those things into what you are doing.”

His is not a product-design philosophy steered by committee or determined by market research. The Jobs formula, say colleagues, relies heavily on tenacity, patience, belief and instinct. He gets deeply involved in hardware and software design choices, which await his personal nod or veto. 

Mr. Jobs, of course, is one member of a large team at Apple, even if he is the leader. Indeed, he has often described his role as a team leader. In choosing key members of his team, he looks for the multiplier factor of excellence. 

Truly outstanding designers, engineers and managers, he says, are not just 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent better than merely very good ones, but 10 times better. Their contributions, he adds, are the raw material of “aha” products, which make users rethink their notions of, say, a music player or cellphone.

“Real innovation in technology involves a leap ahead, anticipating needs that no one really knew they had and then delivering capabilities that redefine product categories,” said David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School. “That’s what Steve Jobs has done.”

Timing is essential to make such big steps ahead. Carver Mead, a leading computer scientist at the California Institute of Technology, once said, “Listen to the technology; find out what it’s telling you.” 

Mr. Jobs is undeniably a gifted marketer and showman, but he is also a skilled listener to the technology. He calls this “tracking vectors in technology over time,” to judge when an intriguing innovation is ready for the marketplace. Technical progress, affordable pricing and consumer demand all must jell to produce a blockbuster product.

Indeed, Apple designers and engineers have been working on the iPad for years, presenting Mr. Jobs with prototypes periodically. None passed muster, until recently.

The iPad bet could prove a loser for Apple. Some skeptics see it occupying an uncertain ground between an iPod and a notebook computer, and a pricey gadget as well, at $499 to $829. Do recall, though, that when the iPod was introduced in 2001, critics joked that the name was an acronym for “idiots price our devices.” And we know who had the last laugh that time.

Three critical term presidencies in Asia: Turkey-CICA, Kazakhstan-OSCE, Russia-CIS (1)

MEDIA REVIEW from Tukish Today's Zaman

By Muharrem Eksi

As of 2010, three major actors in Asia have taken over the term presidencies of three strategically important international and regional organizations.

This has given these three major actors in Asia the opportunity to cooperate with each other in 2010. While Turkey took over the term presidency of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), Kazakhstan took over the term presidency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Russia became the term president of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). There is a strong probability that cooperation developed by these three strategic actors will deeply impact Asian policy.

International organizations started playing an important role in the development of international relations after the 1990s. Among these intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), which have the critical function of developing cooperation in international policy and international relations and of harmonizing the interests of different states, the CICA, the OSCE and the CIS have great potential to develop cooperation in the fields of political security, economic trade and culture in Asia.

The development of cooperation, especially in these three areas, will not only reflect on the regional but also on the global arena and contribute to world peace. In this respect, international organizations function as significant platforms to achieve bilateral and multilateral regional integration between states. It is for this reason that Asia is offering these three actors and organizations opportunities to develop their cooperation and solve existing problems.

Turkey, Russia and Kazakhstan will have vital responsibilities to fulfill as they take over the term presidencies of these three organizations. The development of cooperation, which is expected from all three countries because they are countries that have been gaining power and prestige on the regional and international level since the 2000s, will depend upon their abilities and regional and global dynamics and parameters.

The CICA was established upon the initiative of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev in 1992, but it only recently concluded its institutionalization process. Until now, Kazakhstan had always assumed the term presidency in order to complete the institutionalization process. Therefore, the CICA’s existence today is in a sense linked to Kazakhstan and specifically to Nazarbayev.

The importance and the potential of the organization rests with its member states (CICA member countries: China, Russia, India, South Korea, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Thailand, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Palestine and Uzbekistan. Observer countries: the US, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Qatar, Vietnam, Ukraine and the United Nations, the OSCE and the Arab League). Most importantly, the CICA, which includes regional powers and global actors such as China, Russia, India, South Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Israel and Turkey, is not just a regional organization, but an organization with a global dimension.

The CICA’s main duty is to ensure regional security and stability in Asia. However, the organization has not been able to increase its impact and functions yet because it has only recently completed its institutionalization process. Nazarbayev asked Turkey to assume the term presidency of the CICA so it can increase the organization’s activities and functions. Turkey’s status as a temporary member of the UN Security Council, its increased activity in international and regional organizations since 2003 and its potential to become a global actor played a role in this request.

Turkey and CICA

For Turkey, becoming the term president of the CICA means many different things. Primarily, it means giving Turkey, which has shifted to a multidimensional foreign policy for the first time since the 1980s, an opportunity to focus on Asia as well as the Middle East and the Caucasus with foreign policy architect Ahmet Davutoğlu. Furthermore, Turkey has applied for observer status in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which is virtually the European Union of Asia, taking its first serious and concrete step to delve into Asia in depth.

Between 2003 and 2010, Turkey observed a foreign policy based upon the economy and trade in its Asia policy and implemented a strategy focused on improving bilateral trade relations with regional countries. The 30 percent average increase in the bilateral trade volume between Turkey and Asian countries between 2003 and 2009 is proof that trade relations improved.

As of 2010, trade relations will start to have an impact on the areas of politics and security as well. In this way, as the CICA term president, Turkey’s ability to affect its Asia policy and dynamics and pave the way for integration by becoming more engaged with institutions in Asia will improve.

No only will Turkey be able to increase its activity and profile in Asia, but it will also be able to consolidate its position as a global actor on the international stage. To put it concisely, the term presidency of the CICA offers Turkey a wide scope for movement. What is left is for Turkey to benefit from this as much as it can. In the final analysis, assuming the term presidency of this Asian security organization will test Turkey’s image as a country that promotes security in its environment and region within the scope of the policy it has been implementing since 2003.

Kazakhstan and OSCE

As for Kazakhstan, a country considered to be the shining/rising star of Central Asia, its active participation in regional organizations in Asia, along with its possession of energy resources and a balanced, multidimensional foreign and energy policy, is consolidating its position on the international stage day-to-day. At the Summit of OSCE Foreign Ministers in 2007, Kazakhstan was chosen to be the OSCE’s term president in 2010.

By taking over the presidency, Kazakhstan has opened the way to a critical period in terms of the country’s future. Kazakhstan is the first country from Central Asia, the former Soviet countries and the CIS to take over the term presidency of a major organization such as the OSCE, which is essentially a European institution with 54 member states (founded by the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975).

*Muharrem Ekşi is a doctoral candidate in the international relations department at Ankara University. He is an expert on foreign relations and the Turkish Parliament.

Sledgehammer’s National Socialism

MEDIA REVIEW from Turkish Today's Zaman

Atilla Yayla*

The most perfected, the most “awesome” and the cruelest-ever coup plan has been exposed. Despite the efforts of coup-loving journalists, politicians and civil servants to cover it up, it is certain that this plan is authentic and has been partially implemented.  

However, since it is a full-fledged coup attempt, the Sledgehammer (Balyoz) has some aspects which we did not see in other coup plans such as Moonlight (Ayışığı), Blond Girl (Sarıkız), Glove (Eldiven) and Cage (Kafes). It presents an understanding of the economy and comprises a number of actions to be taken in this context. These political or economic aspects of Sledgehammer can shed light on the ideological position of the subversive generals.

Let us see what the Sledgehammer generals planned to do with the economy after the coup as this is not extensively covered in the papers. Due to considerations of space, a summary of their economic measures will be provided. (You should add “so they say” or “so they claim” at the end of every sentence.) 

After performing the coup, the subversive generals would extend their tutelage over political life to include the economy as well. Active or retired military officers would be appointed as the presidents of all important institutions, including all banks, the İstanbul Stock Exchange (İMKB), the Gold Exchange, the Central Bank of Turkey and all big corporations and holdings. Thus, all key points would be occupied by military personnel. This means that the uniformed civil servants whose profession is to prepare for dying and killing would manage the economy, which is quite a different sphere for them, within a chain of command. 

The abovementioned implies that the uniformed civil servants see themselves as a caste and trust only their own members and have the delusion they will carry out everything successfully. Their perceptions about the economy are explained better in the following:

The Sledgehammer generals entertain the false belief that as they can save this country from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), they can also save the economy from “dependence” and people from “poverty.” Another of their beliefs is that they have to forcefully seize the economic welfare of “the reactionary people” in order to prevent their “reactionary” activities. 

A perverted understanding of economic independence is the most important part of their economic credo. In this context, ties with “non-national” organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would be severed after the coup in order to attain “full economic independence.” The privileges granted to international companies would be abolished and their property in Turkey would be seized. Holdings partially owned by international companies would be nationalized. 

The interest on internal and external debts would be wiped clean. Permits for interest-free banking would be canceled and the assets of these banks would be registered as revenue in the state Treasury. Foreign corporations’ shares being traded on the stock markets would be confiscated. Foreign people and companies would be prohibited from transferring their money to banks outside the country. Banking and stock exchange transactions would be halted until a contrary command was issued. Economic relations with Iran, Arab and Gulf countries would be terminated.

Intending to ensure “full economic independence” at full throttle, the Sledgehammer generals neglected citizens and local companies in line with the abovementioned measures. Thus, the management of the previously privatized State Economic Enterprises (KİT) would be seized and nationalized as soon as possible. 

Strategically important enterprises would be nationalized. If necessary, private enterprises would have up to 40 percent of their shares confiscated be paid later.Islamic capital, too, would be confiscated. The banks belonging to non-Muslim minorities would be prevented from transferring money abroad, and the bank accounts of companies belonging to minorities would be confiscated. Payment of domestic and foreign debts would be halted until a subsequent command. Then extra banknotes would be printed to pay the debts.

That’s all for now about what the Sledgehammer generals would do in the economy. I know that you are bored and see most of this as utter nonsense. They are surely nonsensical, but they are not the ravings of some madmen. Rather, these views expressed so naively by these uniformed civil servants have a strong ideological basis and are advocated by more people than you would guess. In particular, two groups are likely to entertain similar views: nationalists and socialists.

A nationalist socialist line

The Sledgehammer generals are pursuing a national socialist line in the economy. Many of this line’s arguments make their characteristic appearance in their economic program. First of all, they don’t like the idea of leaving economic life to its own devices. They believe that a free economy will soon lose its independence.

Accordingly, as they tend to regard society as one big military base, they see the economy as an aspect of military life. For the subversive generals, everything should be disciplined and affairs should be conducted within a chain of command as it would be in military base. In more technical terms, the subversive generals are against a market economy since in their eyes, it represents lack of control.

A market economy not only harms independence but also helps people or groups, termed as “internal enemies” by the armed civil servants, to prosper and become influential in society. That’s why it is considered harmful.

Unlike pure socialists, national socialists do not rule out private property altogether. They want it to exist, but in a castrated form. They say that small shops, groceries, carpentry shops and even small-scale enterprises may exist and function in the economic sphere but large-scale enterprises and strategic sectors should be completely owned or controlled by the state. Because they consider everything as a part or tool of the national struggle for existence -- referring to what Germans call “Lebensraum” (living space) and Turks “national security.” For this reason, they want to extend state ownership and the property not owned by the state should be tightly controlled by the state.

The Sledgehammer’s civil servants are also not content with the friendly relations we develop with other countries, particularly with our neighbors. They are quite uncomfortable with these good relations because they feel that sophisticated and complex relations will bring welfare and stability. On the contrary, they need more and more enemies and continuous threats to our security. Otherwise, their existence will become insignificant or be viewed unnecessary.

The political economy of the Sledgehammer generals is obviously a self-isolating, paranoid, anti-market, statist national socialist model. Of course, such a model cannot be implemented; there may only be attempts to implement it. If it is implemented, it will certainly breed hunger, chaos and war.

The fact that they failed to see this plain truth gives us an idea about the qualifications and economic knowledge of the subversive generals. Still, they cannot deny the following fact: There is an unbreakable bond between private property or a market economy and freedom. The market economy is the source and shelter not only of wealth, but also of freedom and democracy. Those who are against freedom always raise objections to private property and a private property-based economy. Therefore, we should congratulate the Sledgehammer generals for their consistency. For some reason, they have managed to grasp the fact that being against freedoms and democracy also entails opposition to private property and the market economy and have prepared a plot consistent with this policy.

---

*Professor Atilla Yayla is a political scientist.