Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Press Release – The Ataturk Society of the UK (ASUK)

May 16, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

(from the Turkish original on 09/05/2012)

ASUK finds it necessary to make a public statement to clear its name due to the fact that the local media blamed this Association directly and incorrectly in their reporting of the 1st of May 2012 incident at the Houses of Parliament. At the CTS (Centre for Turkey Studies) organised panel, the contributors Hilal Kaplan and Amberin Zaman’s talks seem to have caused some serious objections from the floor.
 
  1/ ASUK did not send anyone to this meeting either to oppose or represent the Society and never had taken a decision to attend as a group. Anyone
      who attended must have done so on their own accord and therefore the Society is not responsible for any of the questions, comments and behaviour
      displayed, whether positive or negative, by the attendants at the meeting
 
  2/ The views of the above named two speakers are well known as they write regularly in familiar Turkish newspapers and consequently the content of their talk
      would have been easily anticipated beforehand. Hilal Kaplan is well known for her dislike and attacks on Ataturk whom she accuses of being a
      ruthless dictator without providing any historically or sociologically based evidence.
      Amberin Zaman, on the other hand pursues her own agenda rather than display unbiased journalistic quality as she is renowned for her
      hatred of the Turkish Army which she would like to see destroyed. She also hails the Ergenokon accusations, arrests and trials which have been proved to
      be based on false documents and phone hacking.
 
   3/ CTS has, by way of inviting two speakers with their own certain mission and agenda (also excluding a speaker with a counter argument), allowed
       insults to be directed at the Turkish Republic, Turkish Armed Forces and the State’s founder Ataturk in the UK’s Houses of Parliament building! We leave
       it to the Turkish Community and the hosts of this event to judge the objectives of CTS.
 
   4/ Under these circumstances, the frustration and anger of some of the members of the audience is quite understandable and consequential.
 
    5/ It would have been desirable and in order for the respectable London Turkish press officials to check the accuracy of their stories before claiming
       the attendance of the ASUK’s President at this meeting without any truth.
 
    6/ We deplore the behaviour of some of the press members who seemed to have used this situation to capitalise on and use it as another opportunity to
        attack Ataturk.
   Respectfully,
 
   Jale Ozer
   President of ASUK
 
   On behalf of the Management Committee

 
İNGİLTERE ATATÜRKÇÜ DÜŞÜNCE DERNEĞİ’NİN
KAMUOYUNA ZORUNLU AÇIKLAMASI
 
1 Mayıs 2012 tarihinde Birleşik Krallık Parlamento’sunda CTS(Centre for Turkey Studies) adlı kuruluş tarafından düzenlenen ve Hilal Kaplan ile Amberin Zaman adlı kişilerin konuşmacı olarak katıldığı toplantı sırasında çıkan olaylar nedeniyle yerel basında Derneğimizi kasıtlı bir şekilde itham altında bırakmayı amaçlayan  haberlere  yer verilmiş bulunmaktadır. O nedenle aşağıdaki açıklamayı yapmak gerekli olmuştur.
1)    Derneğimizin yönetimi o toplantıya hiç kimseyi ne görevli ne de temsilen göndermemiş ve toplantıya gidilmesi konusunda karar almamıştır. Orada bulunanlar tamamen kendi kişisel iradeleri ile hareket etmiştir. Dolayısı ile orada sorulan sorulardan, yapılan konuşmalardan, davranışlardan olumlu veya olumsuz şekilde derneğimiz sorumlu değildir.
2)    Buna karşılık her iki konuşmacının da düşünceleri çalıştıkları gazetelerin köşelerinde tüm detayları ile kendi kalemleri tarafından sürekli dile getirildiği için toplantıya giden ve gazete okuyan herkesin toplantının içeriği konusunda önceden bilgi sahibi olması anlaşılabilir bir şeydir. Konuşmacılardan Hilal Kaplan Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kurucusu ve halkın ve dünyanın gözünde saygın yeri olan Atatürk’e olan nefretiyle tanınan bir kimse olup hiçbir tarihsel ve sosyolojik bilgiye dayandıramadığı halde onu gaddar, acımasız bir diktatör ilan etmiştir.  Türkiye’de laik rejimin sona erdirilmesi konusunda giriştiği çabalarda bir köşe yazısında  savunduğu Ermeni soykırımı iddialarına atfen “1915 soykırımının Türkiye’de laik bir rejim oluşturmak için planlandığını” iddia etmiştir. Atatürk’ün tarihsel kişiliğini kaynaklarından öğrenme zahmetine katlanamayacak kadar önyargılı olması Hilal Kaplan’ı  en sonunda bir inekten medet umar durumuna düşürmüştür. Diğer konuşmacı Amberin Zaman da bir gazeteci olarak değil sanki kendi misyonu varmışçasına Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümetini yönlendirmeye çalışan yazılarıyla ön plana çıkmış bir kişidir.  Ancak ABD’nin desteği ile ayakta durabilen, bu desteği sağlayabilmek için Kuzey Irak petrollerini tek taraflı olarak ABD petrol şirketlerinin hizmetine sunan feodal aşiret reisine “yıldızı yükselen devlet adamı” olarak methiyeler düzen Amberin Zaman’ın gözünde TSK yok edilmesi gereken bir kuruluştur. Daha ne olduğu mahkemelerce bile anlaşılamayan Ergenekon davası onun için olmuş bitmiş bir konudur ve o kararını çoktan vermiştir. 1. Dünya Savaşı’nın hangi koşullarda yapıldığını dikkate almadan,  tarihsel belgeler üzerinde araştırma yapmadan ondan bundan edindiği dedikodularla Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ni  Ermeni soykırımı konusunda mahkum eden bu kişi Suriye’nin aynen Irak gibi emperyalizm tarafından işgalini desteklemektedir. 
3)    CTS adlı kuruluş bu kadar önyargılı ve misyon sahibi kişileri  davet edip (ki karşı görüşlü kişilere yer verilmemiştir) onların Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne ve tarihine Birleşik Krallık Parlamentosu’nda hakaret etmesini, sorumsuzca suçlamasını sağlamıştır.Türkçe açılımı Türkiye Çalışmaları Merkezi olan bu kuruluşun Türkiye hakkında ne tür çalışmalar yaptıklarının yorumunu halkımıza bırakıyoruz.
4)    Bu durum karşısında bazı katılımcıların tepkilerini göstermesi doğaldır.
5)     Londra Türk Basınının  değerli mensuplarının bilhassa IADD Başkanının da toplantıda oldugunun ifade edildiği bu olayı  haber yapmadan önce Derneğimiz ile görüşüp teyid etmelerini dilerdik.
6)    Toplantıda olan olayları fırsat bilerek ve toplantının niteliğini göz ardı ederek olaylardan Derneğimizi suçlama fırsatı yakaladıklarını zanneden, Atatürk’e hakaret etme şansını tekrar yakaladıkları için sevinen bazı  basın mensuplarını da halkımızı yanlış bilgilendirme konusundaki çabadan dolayı ayrıca kınıyoruz.
 
Saygilarimizla.
 
Yönetim Kurulu adına
Jale Özer
 
İngiltere ADD Başkanı

Posted in OUR LETTERS & COMMENTS | Leave a Comment »

Erdogan’s Next Move

May 14, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

 

WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 11, 2012, 8:13 am

 
By ANDREW FINKEL

ISTANBUL — Is Turkey’s prime minister past his expiration date? At first glance, the question sounds absurd. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has led his Justice and Development Party, known as the A.K.P., to three consecutive electoral victories, most recently in June 2011, and few doubt that if there were an election tomorrow he would chalk up victory number four.
A decade of A.K.P. rule has transformed Turkey from a debt-ridden, inflationary economy to one of the fastest-growing in Europe. The increase in confidence and prosperity has allowed Erdogan to tame the country’s military and reel in its die-hard judiciary. But there are ominous signs that the prime minister intends to overplay his hand.

This week, Erdogan said that Turks should begin debating a move from the current parliamentary system, in which most of the governing power rests with the prime minister, toward a presidential system with a more powerful executive, along the lines of the United States or France. Everyone knows what his push for a stronger president means: Erdogan would jump ship before his term as prime minister ends in 2015 and stand as president himself when the job becomes vacant in 2014.  He would continue leading the country, with more power than ever.
The vehicle for change would be a major revision of the out-of-date Constitution. Most Turks agree that the country needs a new charter — one that would finally enshrine individual rights and provide for greater accountability and government transparency. In the view of many, the current Constitution concentrates too much power in the hands of an unelected state apparatus. Enacted in 1982 when the country was under military rule, the Constitution is seen as full of fussy provisos designed to protect the government from its citizenry rather than the other way around.
Notoriously, the Constitution tries to resolve Turkish Kurds’ demands to be able to express their own identity by pretending that those demands do not exist. Even agitating for regional devolution of power can be interpreted as an assault on the integrity of the state. And the biggest problem is that the Constitution’s guarantees of basic rights and freedoms are subject to so many qualifications that they end up being no guarantee at all.
The government is right to want to replace it. But the new Constitution has to be better than the old one. It should not serve as a means for Erdogan to hold on to power.
Under the current system, the president is not powerless: he appoints senior bureaucrats and can veto laws passed by Parliament, but the main power flows from the prime minister. As head of the cabinet, the prime minister has responsibility for the day-to-day running of government.
While no one has yet spelled out what a strong presidency would look like, it can be assumed that it will combine the might of the current office with that of prime minister. To do so without the approval of a popular referendum would mean securing the support of two-thirds of the Parliament and winning the support of at least one other party.
It is already clear that no opposition group would be willing to support a constitutional change that would end up giving Erdogan so much power. But that hasn’t stopped the prime minister from trying. His political allies have also joined the fray.  Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said this week that a presidential system allows for “the most effective supervision.’’
As a result of Erdogan’s efforts, discussion over the shape of the future of Turkey under a new Constitution will be hijacked by a debate over the future of just one man. Unfortunately, all of this is a distraction from the real issue of how to make Turkey’s government more representative.
At the moment Erdogan resembles a Moses wandering in the desert: having led his people from one sort of bondage, he is unable to lead them to the promised land. If he believes so strongly that Turkey should have a presidential system, then he first needs to declare that he is not a candidate.

 
Andrew Finkel has been a foreign correspondent in Istanbul for over 20 years, as well as a columnist for Turkish-language newspapers. He is the author of the book “Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

Posted in TURKISH CURRENT AFFAIRS | Leave a Comment »

Turkey’s PM, generals unite in anger at writer’s Aesop fable

May 14, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

REUTERS

 

ISTANBUL | Thu May 10, 2012 11:18am EDT

(Reuters) – A journalist’s fable portraying the Turkish military as a spoilt, overfed dog has provoked a rare show of unity by top generals and the Prime Minister seen by many as their nemesis.
“This is an individual whose pen always drips with filth,” Erdogan said of columnist Bekir Coskun, whose account of a privileged military that puts comfort and security before freedom drew on a fable from ancient Greek writer Aesop.
Erdogan has radically cut back the power of a military that toppled four governments in the last five decades. Hundreds of serving and retired officers face accusations of coup plots in trials unthinkable only a few years ago for a long-privileged army that kept politicians on a short leash.
Writing in the secularist Cumhuriyet newspaper at the end of April, Coskun retold the ancient Greek story with a twist by naming the tame dog “Pasha”, the honorary Ottoman title given to generals and to secular state founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
“I think the Pashas should now seek legal redress over this matter,” said Erdogan, who himself once sued a cartoonist who had depicted him as a cat.
Some 100 journalists are currently in jail in Turkey, attracting international criticism of the European Union candidate’s record on freedom of expression. The government says few of them are in jail due to what they have written.
ARMY STATEMENT
The army has also issued a statement attacking writers who undermine or provoke the army, saying they abused freedom of expression.
“Some writers…cheaply poured scorn on a military title carried by soldiers including our Eternal Chief Commander Gazi Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,” the general staff statement said.
Army statements once carried enormous weight. Declarations could shape government policy or even undermine prime ministers, but the military have now become less inclined to react publicly to criticism or, of late, the prosecution of those in its ranks.
An avowed admirer of Ataturk, Coskun’s allegorical tale appeared to be passing comment on the current crop of generals who have been brought to heel by Erdogan.
The piece was published at a particularly sensitive time. Last month, police began arresting officers allegedly responsible for pressuring Turkey’s first Islamist prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, to resign in 1997.
Erdogan was a member of Erbakan’s party.
Hundreds of military officers, including former chief of staff General Ilker Basbug, are already on trial over their alleged role in conspiracies against Erdogan, whose AKP first swept to power in 2002.
Relations between Erdogan and the military have been fraught. After the AKP won a third consecutive election last year, four top commanders quit in protest over the conduct of investigations into their comrades.
Their resignations cleared the way for Erdogan to appoint General Necdet Ozel as armed forces chief. Since his appointment there appears to have been less friction despite state prosecutors ramping up their pursuit of suspected coup-makers.
Coskun appeared to allude to this transformation in the relationship in his reworking of Aesop’s tale about a hungry wolf who admires a well-fed, groomed dog, Pasha, sitting in his hut.
The dog invites the wolf to join him in his comfortable life. But when he learns of the collar the dog must wear, the wolf leaves, saying the loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for a life of comfort.
Coskun defended his piece in an interview with broadcaster CNN Turk on Wednesday night.
“The article had some benefits in that it made the prime minister appear like a Kemalist…and I reconciled the Turkish Armed Forces and the government,” Coskun said.
“Me and my family are under threat at the moment. How can a prime minister make a writer a target?” he said.
Media representatives criticized the responses by the army and Erdogan to the column, with the Contemporary Journalists Association (CGD) calling on the army to respect press freedom.
“Journalists, writers and the press generally in our country already live under conditions of government pressure and severe self-censorship. General Staff intervention shouldn’t be added to that,” said CGD chairman Ahmet Abakay.

Posted in ERGENEKON TRIALS | Leave a Comment »

François Hollande and the Turks MAXIME GAUIN

May 14, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

Hurriyet Daily News
May 14 2012
 
 
There is a historical trend in the main Socialist leaders of France alternating their attitudes vis-à-vis the Turks, especially if the Armenian question is involved. Jean Jaurès (1859-1914) diffused the Armenian nationalist propaganda in the 1890s, in ignorance, then met the Young Turks and became, until his death, their loyal friend. The first years of François Mitterrand’s presidency were marked by a serious crisis (1981-1984), but it was very quickly resolved and followed by years (1985-2000) of good relations.

However, this is perhaps the first time that the victory of a Socialist provokes both satisfaction and concern, from a Franco-Turkish perspective. For the Turks, the main sensitive points are: French awareness (or lack thereof) of Turkey’s growing importance; the Turkish candidacy for European Union membership; the cooperation against terrorism (chiefly the PKK); the situation of Turkish immigrants in France; and the Armenian question.

Mr. Hollande understands the strategic and economic role of Turkey. He wrote in his book Le Rêve Français (The French Dream, 2011) that negotiations between the EU and Turkey must be “fairly” (loyalement) pursued, until their conclusion. He criticized Mr. Sarkozy several times for his radical opposition to Turkish candidacy. Despite the persistent ignorance of some Socialist leaders about the PKK, there is no reason to fear that the Franco-Turkish agreement against organized crime, signed in October 2011, will suffer. Mr. Hollande was elected on a program of national unity and reconciliation in a rejection of the anti-immigrant demagogy. He even promised to present a reform giving non-EU citizens the right to vote in municipal elections.

Consequently, it is clear that only the Armenian question represents a serious subject of concern, which must be neither underestimated nor overestimated. Turkey and Turks are paying the cost of more than ten years (1997 until the late 2000s) of passivity and ineffectiveness vis-à-vis Mr. Hollande, ten years largely used by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) for its proper agenda. Even the staunch support of the ARF for the Nazis, or the terrorist tradition of this party, were not used as an argument for years. Turkey and Turks are also paying for the more than twenty years (from the beginning of 1990s to today) almost without translation of any scholarly work rebutting the “Armenian genocide” allegations into French. Regardless, is it too late? No.

Among the close friends of Mr. Hollande, you have not only members of the ARF, but also several MPs who gave their signature to send the Boyer bill to the Constitutional Council. Mr. Sarkozy tried until the end to prevent these applications from being presented. Mr. Hollande eventually renounced the pressuring the MPs of his party, after a few days. Mr. Hollande’s recent speeches given to Armenian associations, in Marseille and Paris, were published only by Armenian websites, not by his campaign site or by the Socialist Party.

The current situation of both national and European jurisprudence is another reason to be quite optimistic. The decision of the Constitutional Council destroying the Boyer bill was based on the principle of law, not a formal, secondary problem. It leaves very little possibility for a new attempt. The Court of Justice of the European Union decided in 2003 (first instance) and 2004 (appeal) that the European Parliament’s resolution regarding the Armenian “genocide” had no legal value. The European Parliament itself has reversed its views since 2007.

In conclusion, a lot of work remains, but Mr. Sarkozy’s defeat most likely marks the beginning of a new spring in Franco-Turkish relations. A coordinated effort of information and education, which would neglect no issue, is needed and would be very fruitful.

Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) and a Ph.D. candidate at the Middle East Technical University Department of History.  

 

Posted in ARMENIAN QUESTION | Leave a Comment »

Summary of the Discussion “Untruth About Armenian Genocide” with Sukru Server Aya

May 13, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

3352) Video: Untruth About Armenian Genocide With Sukru Server Aya, ART TV 4th May 2012, Strategy Special

 
This programme started with the presenter Ali Kulebi’s introduction of SS Aya as an eminent researcher and a writer on the subject. In reference to the previously viewed video clip which showed the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s speech in 2005, the question was asked about the current situation following the April 24th genocide commemorations all around the world. Aya responded with an observation about the Prime Minister’s argument, stating that there would always be a problem with this kind of argument because he believed that the Armenians would neither respond to his invitations, nor come to discuss the subject as they have no historical evidence for their claims. They should be confronted with the reams of evidence and documents which exist and prove that the claims cannot be based on truth . . .

Aya believes that the Turkish state has a duty to question and demonstrate the truth, putting the evidence in front of the eyes of the believers and supporters of this unjust claim.

Aya and Kulebi acknowledged that the subject is being used as a political tool by the French politicians in order to gain Armenian votes. Aya pointed out that the acceptance of genocide is being discussed in Iceland, Check Republic and Norwegian parliaments and Obama is still getting away with playing with words in the US because the Turkish state is not making a real effort to challenge them with the strong relevant documents. He explained that there are 160 newspaper articles from 1890s, proving the existence of Armenian terrorism and their fight against the Ottoman army.

In enhancing this argument Kulebi read from one of the documents in which the old United Nations (1920) General Secretary clearly declares the impossibility of intention of genocide on the part of the Turkish administration; “Further, in Turkey, minorities were often oppressed and massacres carried out by irregular bands who were entirely outside the control of the central Turkish Government”.

Kulebi later enquired about the inaction of the Turkish Foreign Office officials and wondered why they were allowing all the unjust claims/actions of the activists as well as the biased press to continue unchallenged. Aya’s response was based on his belief that in order to achieve this, people need to be curious, educate themselves on the subject and arm themselves with historical facts and figures as he himself has been doing for years. He believes that the state does not seem to be organised enough and willing to undertake this responsibility on herself. He pointed out that if ever, the much talked about Commission was set up and proceeds, the host country Switzerland is not likely to be neutral, given their past attitude towards Turkey.

Aya explained that he was not one for taking sides, Turkish or Armenian and that his work was based on a humanist perspective because he was interested in the truth and the importance of the truth being acknowledged. He referred to his Armenian contacts and the website where his work is continuously published and documents displayed while he has come unstuck with the Turkish Foreign Office officials, press and academia that do not seem to want to know about his work. Aya believes that even the Turkish press is reluctant to publish the truth but somehow happy about publishing news related to the supporters of genocide claims!

Aya gave his opinion about the established belief in Armenian people and the Diaspora where the role of the activists and some terrorists being the most crucial element. He believes that the psychological situation of the people have been manipulated by them with the financial gain playing an important part. Also that they have managed to professionalize the hatred towards Turkey in the way they collect aid money and money for supporting US senators and Congressmen with their political campaigns. At this point Kulebi gave the example of Nancy Pelosi, an American Senator who has campaigned against Turkey vociferously as a pay back to the funds and support she had received from the Californian Armenians. Aya acknowledged that the American public is likely to be naive and innocent and that they believe Armenian propaganda in the absence of a strong counter argument by the Turkish State. Aya believes that they must be confronted with facts and figures. Also that the Prime Minister has a strong hand, strong evidence base and that he should fully utilise these.

Aya continued to supply further information from the archives of US (General Harbord) and Britain. He made the link between British and Russian encouragement in involving the Armenian Turks to rebel, and this leading to the refusal of the ‘ Armenian autonomy’ offered to them by the Turks in 1914. The ensuing killings and thousands of dead bodies were later witnessed by the Turkish Army entering Erzincan and Erzurum at the end of the war. Kulebi mentioned the graves in Syria which are claimed to be the only Armenian graves discovered up to now. However Aya questioned the genuineness of these and also explained the impossibility and the myth of so many million Armenian deaths as argued. If the claim of 1.5 million deaths in 150 days were to be accepted, this would have required the killing and burial of 10.000 people every day. This he said is an absurd lie and cannot be believed.

Aya explained the delicateness and the difficulty of overturning the American belief system but was adamant about the necessity of exposing the truth; he referred to Prof Justin McCarthy’s work where the origins of the hatred against Turks are explored and documented. Aya explained that the original purpose of the American missionary involvement was driven by this hatred and the objective of converting the Armenians into Protestants.

These points led to Kubeli’s enquiry about the West’s double standards and general negative attitude towards the Muslims, demonstrating itself even in the heart of Europe when thousands of Muslims were massacred by the Serbians in 1990. Double standard issue was also related to the actions and inactions of the West in the cases of Northern Cyprus and Karabag (Azerbaijan).

Kulebi moved the discussion to the issue of latest Armenian demands; financial compensation and property. Aya gave documentary evidence regarding the already paid compensation, going back to 1937 – the early Republican Government days. Aya referred to the communique between US and the Turkish Foreign Office; this document was signed by W Washington of US Foreign Office, stating clearly that $ 89.338 was paid to the Armenians as compensation and that therefore Turkey was clear from any further obligations. Aya believes that this US signed document should be used as an evidence to confront all the demands continuously being made on Turkey.

At end of the discussion both Aya and Kulebi discussed the unjustness of the claims and the slander against the Turkish character and behaviour, giving examples from history about the Turks’ caring and helpful acts towards other nations regardless of their religious differences. One example was the 3 ships-full of grain sent to Ireland due to the potato famine in 1840, during the reign of Sultan Abdulmecid. The other example given was the 98% of American aid which was delivered solely to the Christians during the famine and epidemics suffered by the Ottoman army and the Muslim public as well as the Armenian Turks. American Aid Report noted with astonishment that there was no looting or stealing in the times of extreme suffering and shortage by the Turks.

Aya summarized that the deportation of Armenians was necessary and it was successful because as a result, Armenian terrorists had stopped their terrorist actions. It was also noted as significant that many of the deported returned to the Republic of Turkey afterwards.

Aya expressed his frustration and his sadness that he has not been effective in mobilising the Turkish government since his involvement in 2005 and that he is immortal. Kulebi responded with the conclusion that the’ fight must go on’ and that Aya’s work is being most helpful and appreciated by many people.

Betula Nelson 10/05/12
 

Posted in ARMENIAN QUESTION | Leave a Comment »

IT’S 19 MAY…KNOW YOUR ENEMY! By Cem Ryan

May 12, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

 
http://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2012/05/11/its-19-mayknow-your-enemy/
http://www.brighteningglance.org/its-19-mayknow-your-enemy-11-may-2012.html

Posted in TURKISH CURRENT AFFAIRS | Leave a Comment »

WMA Council Resolution on Threats to Professional Autonomy and Self-Regulation in Turkey

May 10, 2012 by Ataturk Society UK

World Medical Association

Adopted by the 191st WMA Council Session, Prague, April 2012

Introduction

The WMA is extremely concerned about recent actions by the Turkish government that drastically reduce the self-governing authority and professional autonomy of the medical profession in Turkey. In particular, the newly enacted Government Decree 663 on the Organization and Duties of the Ministry of Health and its Associated Organizations establishes a Health Professions Board, controlled by the Ministry of Health, and delegates authority to this Board for certain critical functions that should remain with the Turkish Medical Association in keeping with the principles of professional autonomy and physician self governance. The Turkish Medical Association was established by the Turkish Parliament in 1953, while Decree 663 was passed by the government ministers of Turkey in an extraordinary process that bypassed the Parliament.

Of grave concern is the fact that the Turkish Medical Association no longer has the authority to:

  • Establish and issue ethical guidelines concerning physician conduct
  • Conduct investigations regarding alleged malpractice by physicians
  • Determine disciplinary sanctions against physicians in cases of malpractice
  • Develop core curricula for medical education, post-graduate medical specialty curricula, and content and accreditation for continuing medical education (all of which were previously done in partnership between the TMA and universities)

In addition, Decree 663 amends Article 1 of the Constituting Law of the Turkish Medical Association (originally drafted and adopted by the Parliament) by removing the following language in the TMA’s mandate: “ensuring that medical profession is practiced and promoted in line with public and individual well-being and benefit”. As a result of this restriction of its mandate, the TMA no longer has the right to legally challenge actions and regulations that adversely affect the right to health, the provision of health care, public health, and individual patient well-being. Examples might include, for instance, efforts against restrictions on which medical procedures would be reimbursed under the national health system or initiation of action to address public health hazards such as the use of cyanide in silver and gold mining and processing. The narrowing of the TMA’s mandate in this regard not only diminishes the independence of physicians, but also jeopardizes the health of their patients.

THEREFORE:

Reaffirming its unequivocal commitment to the independence and professional self-governance of the medical profession, as defined in the WMA Declaration of Madrid on Professional Autonomy and Self-Regulation, and the WMA Resolution on the Independence of National Medical Associations, the WMA Council:

  1. Urges the Turkish government to rescind Decree 663 and restore to the Turkish Medical Association its duties and responsibilities for professional autonomy and self regulation, properly established by the Parliament in 1953 through the legitimate and transparent national democratic process.
  2. Urges all physician members of Parliament, regardless of political affiliation, to recall their duties as physician leaders and support the right of the medical profession to autonomy and self-regulation.
  3. Supports and commends the Turkish Medical Association and those members of the Turkish Parliament who have challenged these recent actions and requested a legal review of this Decree by the Constitutional Court.
  4. Calls on all physicians in Turkey and around the world to join actively in advocacy efforts to promote and support professional independence, the right to health, and the health of the people of Turkey.
 http://www.wma.net/en/10home/index.html

Posted in TURKISH CURRENT AFFAIRS | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.