[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15098-15102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES IN TURKEY

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as my colleagues are well aware, the 
people of Turkey, a NATO ally, are experiencing extremely serious 
economic and political difficulties.
  On April 10, 2001, at the Bosphorous University in Istanbul, Turkey, 
our distinguished former colleague in the House of Representatives, the 
Honorable John Brademas, delivered a most thoughtful address, on this 
subject, ``Democracy: Challenge to the New Turkey in the New Europe.'' 
Dr. Brademas' speech was sponsored by TESEV, the Turkish Economic and 
Social Studies Foundation. Its contents some four months later still 
resonate with timely wisdom and creative analysis.
  A long-time and effective advocate of democracy and transparency, 
John Brademas served for 22 years, 1959-1981, in the House of 
Representatives from Indiana's Third District, the last four as House 
Majority Whip. He then became President of New York University, the 
Nation's largest private university, in which he served for 11 years, 
1981-1992. He is now president emeritus.

[[Page 15099]]

  Among Dr. Brademas' involvements include Chairman of the Board of the 
National Endowment for Democracy, NED, from 1993-2001, and founding 
director of the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast 
Europe. Located in Thessalonike, Greece, the Center seeks to encourage 
peaceful and democratic development of the countries in that troubled 
region of Europe.
  I believe that Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
and other interested citizens will read with interest Dr. Brademas' 
significant discussion of the challenge of creating a truly more open 
and democratic Turkey. I ask unanimous consent to print Dr. Brademas' 
address in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Democracy: Challenge for the New Turkey in the New Europe

       I count it an honor to have been asked to Istanbul to 
     address a forum sponsored by the Turkish Economic and Social 
     Studies Foundation, and I thank my distinguished host, 
     Ambassador Ozdem Sanberk, Director of TESEV, for his gracious 
     invitation even as I salute the invaluable work performed by 
     TESEV in promoting the institutions of civil society and 
     democracy in Turkey.
       So that you will understand the perspective from which I 
     speak, I hope you will permit me a few words of background.
       In 1958, I was first elected to the Congress of the United 
     States--the House of Representatives--where I served for 22 
     years.
       During that time I was particularly active in writing 
     legislation to assist schools, colleges and universities; 
     libraries and museums; the arts and the humanities; and 
     services for children, the elderly, the handicapped.
       A Democrat, I was in 1980 defeated for re-election to 
     Congress in Ronald Reagan's landslide victory over President 
     Jimmy Carter and was shortly thereafter invited to become 
     President of New York University, the largest private, or 
     independent, university in our country, a position I held for 
     eleven years.
       If I were to sum up in one sentence what I sought to do at 
     NYU during my service as President, it was to lead the 
     transformation of what had been a regional-New York, New 
     Jersey, Connecticut-commuter institution into a national and 
     international residential research university.
       And I think it's fair to say that that transformation took 
     place, thanks in large part to philanthropic contributions 
     from private individuals, corporations and foundations.
       Although no longer a Member of Congress or university 
     president, I continue to be active in a range of areas, only 
     a few of which I shall mention.
       By appointment of President Clinton in 1994, I am Chairman 
     of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, 
     a group of 40 persons, 27 from the private sector and 13 
     heads of government departments with some cultural program. 
     Our purpose is to make recommendations to the President--and 
     the country--for strengthening support for these two fields 
     in the United States--and we have done so. Four years ago, 
     then First Lady of the United States, and Honorary Chair of 
     the Committee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I released 
     Creative America, a report to the President with such 
     recommendations.
       Among them was that the United States give much more 
     attention to the study of countries and cultures other than 
     our own, including strengthening international cultural and 
     scholarly exchanges. Only last Fall, I took part, at the 
     invitation of the then President, Bill Clinton, in the White 
     House Conference on Culture and Diplomacy, at which these 
     ideas, and others, were discussed, and I have urged the new 
     Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to consider ways of 
     implementing them.
       Several days ago, in Washington, I attended a meeting of 
     the Advisory Board of Transparency International, the 
     organization that combats corruption in international 
     business transactions, to talk about how to expand the OECD 
     Convention outlawing bribery of foreign public officials to 
     include outlawing bribery of officials of political parties.


                    national endowment for democracy

       And last January I stepped down after eight years as 
     Chairman of what is known in the United States as the 
     National Endowment for Democracy.
       Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for 
     Democracy, or NED, as we call it, has played a significant 
     role in championing democracy throughout the world.
       The purpose of NED is to promote democracy through grants 
     to private organizations that work for free and fair 
     elections, independent media, independent judiciary and the 
     other components of a genuine democracy in countries that 
     either do not enjoy it or where it is struggling to survive.
       Two years ago, in New Delhi, India, I joined some 400 
     democratic activists, scholars of democracy and political 
     leaders from over 85 countries brought together by NED for 
     the inaugural Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy.
       The establishment of this World Movement is inspired by the 
     conviction that interaction among like-minded practitioners 
     and academics on an international scale is crucial in the new 
     era of global economics and instant communications. The 
     Movement, we hope, can help democrats the world over respond 
     to the challenges of globalization.
       Indeed, last November, Ambassador Sanberk and I were 
     together in Sao Paulo, Brazil, for the Second Assembly of the 
     World Movement for Democracy.


      center for democracy and reconciliation in southeast europe

       And I have been involved in yet another initiative related 
     to strengthening free and democratic political institutions. 
     Four years ago, a small group of persons, chiefly from the 
     Balkans, decided to create what we call the Center for 
     Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe. The Center 
     officially opened its offices one year ago in the city of 
     Thessaloniki, birthplace, as you all know, of the great 
     founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I was 
     pleased that my friend, the distinguished Turkish business 
     leader, Mr. Sarik Tara, was with us on that occasion.
       The Center is dedicated to building networks among 
     individuals and groups working for the democratic and 
     peaceful development of Southeast Europe.
       Chairman of the Board is a respected American diplomat, 
     Matthew Nimetz, who was Under Secretary of State with Cyrus 
     Vance and is Special Envoy for United Nations Secretary-
     General Kofi Annan to mediate between Athens and Skopje. The 
     Center's Board is composed overwhelmingly of leaders from 
     throughout Southeast Europe, including Mr. Osman Kavala and 
     Dr. Seljuk Erez of Turkey. Ambassador Nimetz and I are the 
     only two Americans on the Board.
       Although the Center is administratively headquartered in 
     Salonika, which, with excellent transportation and 
     communications facilities, is easily accessible from 
     throughout the region, the activities of the Center are 
     carried out in the several countries of Southeast Europe.
       Last September, the Board of the Center met here in 
     Istanbul where Mr. Tara and other Turkish leaders graciously 
     received us.
       Indeed, I arrived in Istanbul only last Sunday after a 
     meeting of the Center's Board this past weekend in 
     Thessaloniki. We had originally planned to gather in Skopje 
     but you will understand why we changed the venue!
       What are we doing at the Center? Here are some of our 
     current projects:


                         JOINT HISTORY PROJECT

       The Center's inaugural program is a ``Joint History 
     Project,'' which brings together professors of Balkan history 
     from throughout the region to discuss ways in which history 
     is used to influence political and social relations in 
     Southeast Europe. The scholars seek to produce more 
     constructive, less nationalistic, history textbooks and 
     thereby ultimately enhance the understanding of, and respect 
     for, the peoples of the region for each other--a daunting 
     challenge, we realize!
       For it is evident in the Balkans that how history is taught 
     can powerfully shape the attitudes of people toward those 
     different from themselves. Even as the violence plaguing this 
     region has roots in nationalist, religious and ethnic 
     prejudices, cultivated, in many cases, by and based on 
     distortions of histories, the accurate teaching of history 
     can be crucial in promoting tolerance and peace.
       An Academic Committee, established by the Joint History 
     Project, encourages exchange among scholars in participating 
     educational institutions. We on the Center Board hope the 
     Committee will establish a network among academics in 
     Southeast Europe as counterweight to existing nationalistic 
     groups within each country. So far we have organized two 
     seminars for young scholars and another two are being 
     arranged.
       The Center's History Project has also begun to work with 
     the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, initiated by the 
     European Union and supported by the United States and other 
     non-EU countries in Europe. The mission of the Pact is to 
     extend democracy and prosperity to all the peoples of 
     Southeast Europe. So far, the participating governments have 
     pledged $2.4 billion for the initiative.
       I must also cite the Center's Young Parliamentarians 
     Project which, through a series of seminars, enables young 
     MPs from Southeast Europe to join parliamentarians from 
     Western Europe and the European Parliament as well as 
     professionals, economists and journalists to discuss issues 
     of urgent and continuing concern in the region.
       The Center last year conducted four seminars on such 
     subjects as the workings of parliamentary democracy, the 
     relationship between politics and the media, the operation of 
     a free market economy, and the organization of political 
     parties.
       This year, in another project, the Center is sponsoring 
     seminars on reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia. Serbs 
     and Croats have already met in Belgrade and will meet again 
     next month in Zagreb. And representatives of the other 
     peoples of the former Yugoslavia will soon meet.

[[Page 15100]]

       All the projects I have cited promote, by creating cross-
     border contacts and stimulating dialogue, the economic, 
     social and political development of the Balkans. Our goal, to 
     reiterate, is to encourage vibrant networks of individuals 
     and groups with common interests and experiences.
       I hope I have made clear, from what I have told you, that 
     in my own career, as a Member of Congress, university 
     president and participant in a range of pro bono 
     organizations, I have been deeply devoted to the causes of 
     democracy, free and open political institutions and 
     encouraging knowledge of and respect for peoples of different 
     cultures and traditions.
       Against this background, I want now to talk with you about 
     the great challenge, as I see it, facing what I call ``the 
     new Turkey in the new Europe''--and that challenge is 
     democracy.
       So that you can better understand my viewpoint, I must tell 
     you one other factor in my own experience that I believe 
     relevant to my comments.


                       greece, cyprus, and turkey

       As some of you know, my late father was born in Greece, in 
     Kalamata, in the Peloponnesus. My late mother was of Anglo-
     Saxon ancestry.
       I was the first native-born American of Greek origin 
     elected to the Congress of the United States, and I am proud 
     of my Hellenic heritage.
       In 1967, however, when a group of colonels carried out a 
     coup in Greece, established a military dictatorship, later 
     throwing out the young King, I voiced strong opposition to 
     their action.
       I refused to visit Greece during the seven years the 
     colonels ruled, refused invitations to the Greek Embassy in 
     Washington and testified in Congress against sending U.S. 
     military aid to Greece.
       My view was that as Greece was a member of NATO, 
     established to defend democracy, freedom and the rule of law, 
     of all of which goals the colonels were enemies, I had as a 
     matter of principle to oppose sending arms from my own 
     country to the country of my father's birth.
       In like fashion, when in 1974, the colonels attempted to 
     overthrow Archbishop Makarios, the President of Cyprus, 
     triggering their own downfall and sparking two invasions by 
     Turkish armed forces, equipped with weapons supplied by the 
     United States, I protested the Turkish action, again on 
     grounds of principle.
       For the Turkish invasion violated U.S. legal restrictions 
     on the use of American arms, namely, that they could be 
     utilized solely for defensive purposes.
       Because American law mandated that violation of such 
     restrictions would bring an immediate termination of any 
     further arms to the violating country and because Secretary 
     of State Kissinger willfully refused to enforce the law, we 
     in Congress did so by legislating an arms embargo on Turkey.
       I can also tell you that when my colleagues in Congress and 
     I who called on Kissinger in the summer of 1974 to press him 
     to take the action required by law, we reminded him that the 
     reason President Nixon, who had just resigned, was 
     constrained to do so was that he had failed to respect the 
     laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States.
       So even as I opposed U.S. military aid to Greece in 1967 on 
     grounds of principle, I opposed U.S. arms to Turkey in 1974 
     on grounds of principle. You may not agree with my viewpoint 
     on either matter but I want you to understand it!


                        a new democratic turkey?

       Yet I would not be here today if I did not believe in the 
     prospect of a new, democratic Turkey, belonging to the new 
     Europe, a member of the European Union and a continuing ally 
     of the United States.
       I am well aware that Turkey is now confronted with a 
     profound financial and economic crisis, ``the most severe 
     economic crisis of its history,'' the Chairman of TUSIAD, Mr. 
     Tuncay Ozihlan, told a group of us in New York City last 
     month at a meeting with members of the Turkish 
     Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association. It is a crisis 
     that reaches all parts of the nation.
       If I have one thesis to advance tonight, it is this: That 
     the combination of three factors make this moment one of 
     great opportunity for fundamental reform of the Turkish 
     political system and significant advance in the quality of 
     life of the Turkish people.
       The first factor is the economic crisis. The distinguished 
     Turkish economist, Mr. Kemal Dervis, has, as you know, been 
     charged with recommending structural reforms essential if 
     Turkey is to win assistance from the International Monetary 
     Fund, the United States and other actors in the international 
     financial community.
       Most obvious in this respect is the situation of Turkish 
     banks, widely understood to be afflicted by corrupt links 
     with the nation's political parties.
       The second factor that can drive fundamental reform in 
     Turkey and bring the country into the modern world is 
     Turkey's candidacy for accession to the European Union.
       Beyond the economic crisis and Turkish candidacy for entry 
     into Europe, there is a third factor that can make this the 
     time to start building a new Turkey in the new Europe.
       I speak of the rising engagement in pressing for democracy 
     of the leaders of Turkish business and industry, of your 
     universities, of the media, and leaders of the other 
     institutions of what we call civil society.
       So where are we now?


                     turkey and the european union

       First, we can be encouraged by the approval last month by 
     the Turkish cabinet of the National Program for Adoption to 
     the Acquis of the European Union, or NPPA.
       In my view, Turkish leaders of all parties should agree to 
     confront the problems resolution of which is necessary to 
     Turkish entry into Europe.
       And if Turkish responses are only cosmetic, as Gunter 
     Verheugen, the European Commissioner in charge of 
     enlargement, has made clear, the candidacy will fail. 
     Verheugen has reminded Turkish leaders that the European 
     Council in December 1999 in Helsinki stated, ``Turkey is a 
     candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of 
     the same criteria as applied to the other candidate states.''
       I add that Turkey should deal with these obstacles not 
     solely to meet the so-called Copenhagen requirements for EU 
     membership but also because such action will be in the 
     interest of the people of Turkey.
       What has impressed me greatly as I prepared for this visit 
     to Istanbul is the deep commitment of so many Turkish 
     leaders, especially in business and industry and in the 
     universities, to the economic and political reform of this 
     great country.
       What are the requirements Turkey must meet to enter Europe?
       Let me here remind you of the eloquent words of TESEV's 
     respected Director, Ozdem Sanberk, only a few weeks ago 
     (``It's Not the Economy, Stupid!'' Turkish Daily News, 
     February 28, 2001).
       Commenting on the clash last February between Prime 
     Minister Bulent Ecevit and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, 
     Ambassador Sanberk said: ``. . . You cannot reform the 
     economy root and branch without an equally radical reform of 
     the political system. . . .
       ``. . . [O]nly comprehensive political reform can create 
     the stability . . . required for long-term economic 
     success.''
       The Ambassador then criticized the Government's failure to 
     undertake radical structural reform, to ``plug the leaks in 
     the state-owned banks, through which billions of dollars of 
     public money have poured. . . . No crackdown on curruption in 
     the highest places. No lifting of cultural restrictions on 
     freedom of expression. No reform of the Political Parties 
     Law, which might transform our parties into something more 
     useful than closed clubs dominated by their leaders. No 
     serious effort to change a constitution which does not meet 
     the needs of the age. . . .
       ``. . . The problems that lie at the root of Turkey's 
     current difficulties are political, not economic and 
     political reform can solve them. . . .''


                          LEADERSHIP OF TUSIAD

       I find encouragement, too, at the positions taken by the 
     leadership of TUSIAD, Turkey's major business and industrial 
     organization.
       Indeed, only a few days ago, in New York City, I had the 
     privilege of meeting several members of TUSIAD, including its 
     distinguished chairman, Mr. Ozihlan.
       I said then, and repeat here, that I have been deeply 
     impressed by the high quality of the reports published by 
     TUSIAD and by the obvious commitment of so many leaders of 
     Turkish business and industry to the principles of democracy 
     and human rights, freedom of enterprise, freedom of belief 
     and opinion.
       As Muharrem Kayhan, President of TUSIAD's High Advisory 
     Council, who was also in New York last month, has said, ``The 
     requisites of EU membership are exactly what Turkey needs. . 
     . .
       ``. . . TUSIAD believes that fully adopting the Copenhagen 
     Criteria will benefit our country. We think that the fears 
     expressed about the possible damages Turkey might suffer if 
     its special conditions are not taken into account are 
     exaggerated.
       TUSIAD . . . consistently calls for a thoroughgoing 
     political reform for quite a long time. We firmly believe 
     that unless we change Turkey's political system, efforts to 
     modernize our economy will be in vain. To that end we join 
     the President of the Republic Ahmet Necdet Sezer, in calling 
     for a reform of the constitution and the rewriting of the 
     Political Parties Law and the Electoral Law.'' (TUSIAD)
       This commitment to democracy, freedom of opinion, free 
     market economy, a pluralistic society, clean politics, social 
     development and the rule of law is, I have observed, one that 
     runs through TUSIAD's several studies and reports directed to 
     the problems that face Turkey.
       Not only does TUSIAD call for action to meet the Copenhagen 
     criteria but do does a wide range of scholars, analysts and 
     officials from Turkey itself as well as from other countries.
       Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz last month, in speaking 
     of the cabinet approval of the NPPA, said that Turkey must 
     give top priority to ensuring freedom of speech, cracking 
     down on torture, reviewing the death penalty and offering 
     more freedom of organization for trade unions.
       So what else must be done for Turkish entry into Europe?

[[Page 15101]]

       The European Union has also called on Turkey to grant full 
     cultural rights to all minorities, including allowing Turkish 
     citizens to speak whatever language they like. After all, 
     millions of the over 65 million people of this country speak 
     Kurdish. Why is it not possible to respond to their desire 
     for a degree of cultural freedom?
       I was present in New York City when your Foreign Minister, 
     Ismail Cem, and the Greek Foreign Minister, George 
     Papandreou, were both honored at a dinner, a symbol of a 
     reapprochement between Turkey and Greece in recent months 
     triggered by the response in each country to earthquakes in 
     the other.


                            the cyprus issue

       Here again, I have been impressed by how both Turkish and 
     Greek business leaders seem to be able to communicate 
     effectively with each other, yet another example of the 
     significant contribution that institutions of civil society 
     can make to encouraging peaceful resolution of conflict in 
     this troubled part of the world.
       And, of course, Europe wants to see progress in resolving 
     the thorny issue of Cyprus. With respect to Cyprus, I could 
     make an entire speech tonight but I won't!
       Let me say that it must be obvious that both Greek and 
     Turkish Cypriots perceive a problem of security, both are 
     unhappy with the present situation and both would like to 
     improve their political and economic conditions by entering 
     the European Union. Turkish Cypriots, moreover, have an acute 
     economic problem, with less than a fifth of the $17,000 per 
     capita GDP annually of the Greek Cypriots.
       Clearly Turkish Cypriots would be the net beneficiaries of 
     entry into Europe but this gain will come only if Cyprus is 
     admitted as a single federal state, bi-zonal and bi-communal.
       Accordingly, if Turkish Cypriots are not to continue to be 
     left behind, economically and politically, the only sound 
     answer is for Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots to accept the 
     United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for such 
     a settlement.
       For as The Economist has written, Cyprus represents ``the 
     main block of Turkey's hope of joining the European Union in 
     the near future.''
       I turn to another matter that is clearly of concern to the 
     European Union, the role of the armed forces in the political 
     system of Turkey.
       Now, of course, for decades, the principal link between the 
     United States and Turkey has been strategic, specifically, 
     military. In light of the geographical location of Turkey, 
     the size of its armed forces and its population, such a 
     relationship should not be surprising. Turkey is a major 
     actor on nearly every issue of importance to the United 
     States in this part of the world, including NATO, the 
     Balkans, the Aegean, Iraqi, sanctions, relations with the 
     states of the former Soviet Union, turmoil in the Middle East 
     and transit routes for Central Asian oil and gas.


              the role of the military in turkish politics

       Yet it must be obvious to any thoughtful observer that of 
     particular importance in opening the doors to Europe for 
     Turkey is that steps be taken to curb the influence of the 
     military in politics.
       I am certainly aware of the respect and admiration the 
     Turkish people have always had for their armed forces. 
     Nonetheless, any serious student of the place of the military 
     in Turkish life learns very quickly that its role extends far 
     beyond defense of the security of the Republic.
       Here, rather than using my own words, let me cite those of 
     a distinguished Turkish journalist, Cengiz Candar:
       ``Unlike Western armies, the Turkish military is 
     politically autonomous and can operate outside the 
     constitutional authority of democratically elected 
     governments. It can influence the government both directly 
     and indirectly, controlling politicians according to its own 
     ideas and maxims. . . .
       ``The National Security Council is the institution that 
     really runs the country. . . . ''
       ``. . . [T]he military has become the power behind the 
     scenes that runs Turkish politics. . . .
       ``. . . The military is able to intervene at will in 
     politics, not only determining who can form governments, but 
     actually exercising a veto over who can contest elections. . 
     . .'' (``Redefining Turkey's Political Center,'' Journal of 
     Democracy, October 1999, Vol. 10, No. 4)
       A powerful analysis of the role of the military in Turkish 
     politics is to be found in an essay published last December 
     in the influential journal Foreign Affairs by Eric Rouleau, 
     French Ambassador to Turkey from 1988 to 1992. (``Turkey's 
     Dream of Democracy,'' Foreign Affairs, Vol 79, No. 6, 
     November/December 2000)
       Said Rouleau, commenting on Turkey's candidacy for the EU, 
     ``Turkey today stands at a crossroads,'' and explains that 
     ``The [1999] Helsinki decision [of the EU] called on Turkey, 
     like all other EU membership candidates, to comply with the . 
     . . Copenhagen rules [requiring] EU hopefuls to build 
     Western-style democratic institutions guaranteeing the rule 
     of law, individual rights, and the protection of minorities. 
     Indeed, the EU's eastern and central European candidates 
     adopted most of the Copenhagen norms on their own, before 
     even knocking at the doors of the union.''
       Rouleau then asserts that the Copenhagen criteria 
     ``represent more than simple reforms; they mean the virtual 
     dismantling of Turkey's entire state system . . . which 
     places the armed forces at the very heart of political life. 
     Whether Turkey will choose to change . . . a centuries-old 
     culture and . . . practices ingrained for decades--and 
     whether the army will let it--remains uncertain. Even EU 
     membership, the ultimate incentive, may not be enough to 
     convince the Turkish military to relinquish its hold on the 
     jugular of the modern Turkish state.''
       Rouleau then describes the ways in which the National 
     Security Council (NSC) operates and notes the objections of 
     the EU to the military's budgeting, its ownership of 
     industries, its own court system and, above all, the 
     military's dominance over civilian authority.
       Concludes Rouleau: ``Turkey's EU candidacy has crystallized 
     the way in which two very different visions of the country 
     are now facing off. . . . On the one side stands the Turkey 
     of . . . the `Kemalist republicans,' those who see the 
     military as the infallible interpreter of Ataturk's legacy 
     and the sole guardian of the nation and the state. . . .
       ``On the other side stand . . . the `Kemalist democrats' . 
     . . proud of the revolution carried out by the founder of the 
     republic eight decades ago, but a the same time . . . believe 
     that the regime should adapt to modernity and Western norms. 
     This group includes intellectuals . . . business circles . . 
     . and . . . Kurds and Islamists hopeful that Brussels will 
     ensure that their legitimate rights are recognized and 
     guaranteed.''


                      TUSIAD FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM

       What, I must tell you, seems to me a particularly 
     significant statement about the place of the military is the 
     following sentence, under the heading, ``Democratization and 
     the Reform Process in Turkey,'' in the document prepared for 
     the visit of the TUSIAD Board of Directors to Washington, DC, 
     and New York last month (``TUSIAD Views on Various Issues''):
       ``8. National Security Council (NSC) should be eliminated 
     as a constructional body and its sphere of activity be 
     restricted to national defense.''
       While one group of TUSIAD leaders was in the U.S., speaking 
     in Paris at the same time at a panel sponsored by Le Monde, 
     was Dr. Erkut Yucaoglu, former TUSIAD Chairman. Here are his 
     words:
       ``. . . TUSIAD has been in the forefront of the struggle 
     for political reform in Turkey. . . . Our report on 
     democratization challenged the most sacred tenets of the 
     existing order in the country, be it freedom of expression of 
     all sorts, the role of the National Security Council, or 
     private broadcasting in all languages, or the political 
     parties law. We have consistently defended the integration 
     with the EU and called for a speedy implementation of the 
     Copenhagen criteria without reference to Turkey's special 
     conditions. . . .
       ``. . . It is no secret . . . that the Turkish political 
     system as it is presently functioning is in a crisis, perhaps 
     a terminal one. The political parties have lost the 
     confidence of the public a long time ago. . . .
       ``By now, every thinking person in Turkey knows that if the 
     country wishes to fulfill its own promise of greatness and 
     become prosperous, the political system must change . . . .''
       Dr. Yucaoglu went on to praise the President of the 
     Republic as ``a national leader'' who enjoys `'the support of 
     an overwhelming percentage of the population, who is 
     committed to Turkey's European vocation. Mr. Sezer stands for 
     the rule of law, civilian supremacy, anti-corruption, 
     integration with the globalizing world and perhaps most 
     important, for an unfettered democracy. . . .''
       Now I am aware that I have spoken to you very candidly 
     about the challenges--and opportunities--Turkey faces as your 
     country moves into the 21st century.
       You will observe, however, that most of the voices I have 
     cited that are pressing for reform in Turkey are Turkish!
       I certainly don't want to suggest that we in the United 
     States have a perfect political system. As you know, far too 
     few of our eligible citizens bother to vote, and the scramble 
     for money to finance our political campaigns is an ongoing 
     threat to the integrity of American democracy. Even now, 
     Congress is acting on measures to reform campaign financing.
       Moreover, as you are all aware, the Presidential election 
     in my country last year was finally determined by our Supreme 
     Court in a decision that has caused leaders of both our 
     Democratic and Republican Parties to call for reform of our 
     election laws.
       I have noted that the election of President Sezer seems to 
     be regarded by Turkish champions of democracy as a great 
     victory. Like the leaders of TESEV and TSIAD, I have also 
     been impressed by President Sezer's commitment to the rule of 
     law and to rooting out corruption, and by all accounts, 
     President Sezer has won the confidence of over 80% of the 
     citizens of Turkey.
       I have said that the combination of the current economic 
     crisis, Turkish candidacy for entry into the European Union 
     and the increasing influence of the leaders of civil society 
     make this a moment of extraordinary opportunity for the 
     people of Turkey.

[[Page 15102]]

       So now let me say some words about civil society.


                      civil society and democracy

       What do we mean by the term?
       Civil society is the space that exists between, on the one 
     hand, the state--government--and, on the other, individual 
     citizens. This space is where citizens act with one another 
     through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, 
     and independent media
       For as I am sure you will agree the state cannot--and 
     should not--in any country do everything.
       Indeed, I believe it significant that last year German 
     Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, as you know, a Social Democrat, 
     declared:
       ``One of the great illusions of Social Democratic policies 
     has been the idea that `more state' guarantees more justice. 
     However, providing or even extending the `classical' means of 
     state intervention--law, power, and money--can no longer be 
     considered sufficient solutions for a society where movement 
     `has become as important as regulation' (Alain Touraine).  .  
     .  .''
       Added Schroder, ``Subsidiarity, giving responsibility back 
     to those who are willing and capable of assuming this 
     responsibility, should not be understood as a gift from the 
     state, but, rather, as a socio-political necessity.'' (``The 
     Civil Society Redifining the Responsibilities of State and 
     Society,'' Die neue Gesellschaft, No. 4, April, 2000, 
     Frankfurt.)
       For the health of democracy, then, we must strengthen the 
     institutions of civil society.


                         foundations in turkey

       What is the state of civil society in Turkey today, on non-
     governmental organizations, or as we say, NGOs?
       Now I do not pretend to be an expert on NGOs in Turkey. But 
     I understand that there are some 75,000 private associations 
     registered in Turkey including more than 10,000 nonprofit 
     foundations. Some foundations make charitable donations to 
     NGOs and individuals; others are so-called ``operating 
     foundations'' which provide social services and support 
     education and research. (``Human Rights and Turkey's Future 
     in Europe,'' by Aslan Gunduz, Orbis, Vol. 45, No. 1, Winter 
     2001, p. 16.)
       Of these 10,000 foundations, nearly half were started in 
     only the last 30 years.
       Of course, Turkey has a long history of philanthropic 
     foundations. During the Ottoman Empire, many of the services 
     the state now provides, in health care, education and city-
     planning, were financed by foundations. (Davut Aydin, 
     unpublished book chapter.)
       I am sure that you here can tell me how NGOs gained a new 
     prominence in Turkey through their effective relief work 
     after the earthquake.
       But you also know that NGOs have often faced intense 
     scrutiny, and sometimes harassment, from the government. So I 
     cannot emphasize enough the importance of philanthropic 
     support from the business community in sponsoring NGO 
     activities.
       Last year, by the way, I delivered a speech in Athens in 
     which I sharply criticized the Greek law that imposes a 20% 
     tax on philanthropic contributions, reduced by half in the 
     December 2000 budget but still an anomaly in a land that gave 
     us the word philanthropia.
       I hope that Turkish law will include further incentives to 
     create foundations and expand the services they provide.


               NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY IN TURKEY

       I can also tell you that the National Endowment for 
     Democracy, which, as I have said, I chaired for several 
     years, has supported several non-governmental organizations 
     in Turkey. I'll say something about a few to illustrate the 
     kinds of civil society groups--and their activities--that 
     contribute to a strong democracy:
       First, I note that the Center for the Research of Societal 
     Problems, (TOSAM), founded by Professor Dogu Ergil, has been 
     a NED grantee since 1997.
       An NGO called the Foundation for Research of Societal 
     Problems (TOSAV) was established in 1996 to explore possible 
     solutions to the Kurdish issue. After TOSAV published a 
     Document of Mutual Understanding on possible peaceful 
     solutions, TOSAV's founders were brought to trial at State 
     Security Court and the document was banned.
       To continue their work, TOSAV members established TOSAM, 
     which produces Democracy Radio, broadcasting bi-weekly 
     programs on such themes as democracies and minorities, the 
     role of the media in a democracy, and the relationship 
     between central and local government.
       The Helsinki citizens' Assembly--Turkey (HCA--Turkey) has 
     been a NED grantee since 1997.
       Founded in 1990, HCA is an international coalition that 
     works for the democratic integration of Europe and on 
     conflict resolution in the Caucasus and the Middle East. 
     HCA--Turkey was established by jurists, human rights 
     activists, mayors, trade unionists, journalists, writers and 
     academics.
       HCA brings together representatives of civil society 
     organizations from different cities, legal experts, academics 
     and representatives of municipalities to develop and advocate 
     an agenda for reform of the law governing NGOs in Turkey.
       Women Living Under Muslim Law--Turkey (SLUML--Turkey) has 
     been a recipient of NED grants since 1995. Founded in 
     December 1993, this NGO provides information and advice to 
     women's organizations throughout the country. WLUML-Turkey 
     sponsors a project to train social workers, psychologists and 
     teachers from community centers throughout Turkey in 
     conducting legal literacy group sessions for women.