Turkey News, discussions, India Turkey Relations

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Feb 2010 17:18

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak ... 2228_n.jpg

Yoga classes in Turkey

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Feb 2010 12:50

Gazi Museum - Ataturk is planning the independence war with his commanders!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Feb 2010 17:52

brihaspati wrote: thought I would ignore this comment. But then it was brought up again to notice because of a recent post.

So you found 5 named+1 unnamed+1 interesting persons only?

Here is an article you may just find interesting. http://www.ssig.kpkk.gov.my/ssig/kcent/ ... 0Swami.pdf

I chose his article for a reason - most Islamiphiles or or psecs will find it dificult to dub him "hindutvawadi" or "in the loony fringe". Actually as he tries to show: it all started with Turkey!

The discussion was about Indo-Turkish relations, and Turkey's importance to Indian politico-economic interests...You started off by first bringing in laughable economic "non-logics" (things like how distribution of income is more improtant to trade, how PPP is more important to trade, and how Turkey is therefore insignificant as a trading partner etc!!!)..then came the red herring of Turkey's Islamic roots militating against any "strategic" relationship with them..That at least is a point that can be debated, but you had to bring in a complete non-sequitor of Pak being exemplars of Indian muslims..when challenged, you bring in the Khilafat movement and moplah rebellion and SIMI!!! I guess even you can see how far from the topic you have veered off...Just because a bunch of loony Islamists refer to the Caliphate does not mean that either Turkey, or majority of Indian muslims dream of creating or presiding over a second Caliphate...In the same way as the majority of Indian hindus treat the ideas of the loony fringe of the Hindu right with nothing more than contemptuous disdain...Ideas like suspecting a Pak-loving fifth column in every muslim..

(BTW, there are much better sources than Praveen Swami in case you wanted to study the bacground and history of the Khilafat movement - start with Mridula Mukherjee...But how having a strategic relationship with Turkey is tantamounting to supporting a second Caliphate is somethign that only you can explain)

In days to come the prime interlocutors in the Muslim world are going to be Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey...they will play a larger role in a variety of issues that affect us directly - Afghanistan being one of immediate primacy..Iran is broadly on our side of the fence on this issue thanks to a variety of factors...Saudi Arabia is emerging as the key interlocutor with the Taliban - and India is renewing its thrust in relations with SA...Turkey is the third pillar, and in many ways will be more important than either SA or Iran...Its a "normal" secular state, has a modern military, is aligned to both the West and to Israel and of course to the muslim world, and is a large diversified economy...Its just too important a player...

Improtantly, Turkey is one of the few countries with real leverage in Pakistan, with the Pak ruling elite...There are vaery very few countries with real leverage - US, China, Saudi Arabia are the others, but the list ends at that, AND Turkey...Out of the four, only SA and Turkey do not have major strategic axes to grind with India, ergo, both become important as we try to deal with the Pakistan problem...

The spread of Islamism is overblown IMO in Turkey..The Istanbul elite is too well entrenched, not just in the military, but also in the all-important commercial and business domains to let a virulent form of Islam take over....The Sledgehammer story is a good example...Despite ostensibly foolproof evidence, all the arrested officers have been released...AKP can/will go only so far...

We are building new facets of relationships with Saudi Arabia now...Turkey is a second hinge on the same strategy, and in "quality" terms a few lights years away from SA....It would be good for the PM to do an official visit to Istanbul this year, as the current end game in A'stan begins...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2010 18:33

Somnath ji,

I remained firmly within Indo-Turk context. There are even greater sources to study Kihilafat than MM. In case you you did not notice, Praveen Swami's article was quoted to show the context that the theme of Caliphate+Jihad+Ghazwa that revived with the Turkish meme, against Hindu/India, runs strong up to the present among sections of IM and as represented in sentiments and actions expressed in their most prominent organizations. I could source up dozens of studies of Khilafat movement proper if I wanted to talk about the history. You only put up 7 odd names as role models, and Praveen Swamis article was quoted to show that there were definitely significantly more in number out there who were serving as role models of a completely different nature. Here were IM activists "looking up to Zial-ul Haq's Pakistan" - and the article was quoted to show that long after the Partition, there are still IM's looking up to Pakis as a role model - something you dismissed sarcastically.

You can choose a few individuals and say they represent the IM. However I would look at the larger subgroup trends. And in all this there was a continuity of the theme of Caliphate+Jihad+Ghazwa-e-Hind persisting from that very modern restart from the Turkish theme - it has not gone away. My point simply was, that the persistent meme of the Turkish Caliphate - in one form or other has remained within the theological trends in IM, and continues to do so. Given the possibility of a future Islamist Turkey, what stops the theme becoming a focus issue again once Pakis fail to become the "hope and future of Muslims"?

Once again you keep on claiming "Turkish" role and pull on Islamic countries - have not shown any concrete eveidence how such role did anything to moderate or stall Jihadi activities from all the ME Islamic countries, how far did it have any effect on Pakis or Talebs or "Kashmiri" militants, - absolutely no evidence cited.

Per capita income is not a very good indicator in all sectors of the economy as far as international trade is concerned. Modern international trade, if not looking at government level or defence level transactions, also have to look at the consumer base for the products. If the consumer base for that item is not large enough then it may not be profitable enough to do business. Are you sure you have looked into the basics of international trade and financial flows?

Actually, if you care to search, you will find references to possible role of Turkish businesses and banks in laundering drug money and providing a supply chain management system for the AFPAK heroin trade and connecting with the CAR drug trade as well. That, if true, will be also a wonderful addition to the repertoire of tools you are proposing we hand over to Jihadis - by allowing blindly a reconstruction of a whitewashed image of these Islamist powers and their access to India under covers of business and other lucrative transactions. Headley travelled as a businessman - didn't he?

If you choose to deliberately ignore the context of detailed arguments and facts referred to through articles, and keep on harping on your buzzword of "loony fringe" only in the context of "right wing Hindus" (never ever applying it to, for example to the 25,000 reported attendees in the last public gathering of the SIMI) - never providing concrete evidence in support of your claims in international politics and economics - please, let us decide not to respond to each other's posts. I have experienced many in the dhimmi class who blindly and obsessively try to dismiss any criticism of dhimmitude as belonging to the "loony fringe", not realizing that they themselves belong to the same category. I do not want to add anyone from BRF to my definition of the "loony fringe".

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 28 Feb 2010 19:26

The Washington Note

Brookings Institution Turkey Project Director Ömer Taspinar offers his thoughts on the recent wave of arrests of former and current military officials in Turkey.

Taspinar is among the most astute and objective analysts of Turkish politics in Washington and this quick snippet captures the essence of the political events unfolding there.

I helped organize a forum last week at which Taspinar spoke, and the most striking aspect of his presentation was his comment that many secular Turks from the bureaucracy and the military interpret the United States' support for the moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) - as well as Washington's rhetoric that Turkey can serve as a "model" for other Muslim countries - as evidence that the United States is actively supporting Islamism in Turkey.

True or not, this perception contributes to the immense distrust of the United States that persists among broad swaths of the Turkish population.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2010 20:14

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volum ... lkeson.pdf
Here is one of a series of refs on Turkey as relevant for this thread that I intend to post. I am starting with refs that have a reason to be sympathetic towards Turkey. This is a 5 year old paper from the Turkish side. Please follow the highlighted points :

Advanced but asymmetric trade integration
[...] As indicated by the increasing share of overall exports to GDP and the constant share of the EU in overall Turkish trade, the customs union with the EU did not lead to trade diversion but mainly to trade creation.3

Human capital endowment capable of development
Second, Turkey is endowed with a rather low degree human capital. In this respect, Turkey's scores in variables like total expenditure on education in percent of GDP, the percentage of adult population with upper secondary education (e.g., by age groups) deserve a closer look. In terms of investment in and output of education, Turkey's performance is certainly much worse than in the EU. However, according to the same criteria, the CEECs perform like the EU average. These deficits appear even larger in view of the exceptionally high share of the Turkish school age population and its high importance for Turkey's future growth prospects. Of course, such a lack of quality might have important negative consequences for Turkey's future growth path.4

Demographics giving leeway for more growth
Third, Turkey is characterised by demographic dynamism. Turkey's labour force will continue to experience growth rates of more than 1 percent per annum for at least one more generation. In contrast, it currently tends to shrink in many CEECs. This huge discrepancy gives Turkey much more dynamism and leeway for growth - not to forget a more founded right to say in different EU institutions. Moreover, Turkey's working age population is currently increasing by 1.5% more than the total population. This implies ample room for redistribution, pension payments etc. until Turkey will experience the same demographic transition to lower demographic dynamics as experienced by the EU countries some decades earlier.5

Modern and underdeveloped sectors coexist
Fourth, Turkey is a textbook example of a so-called dual economy. On average, Turkey's GDP per capita is comparable to the Bulgarian and the Romanian one. But an inspection of sectoral and regional data reveals that the Turkish economy is divided into a tiny, but exceptionally well-performing progressive sector outside agriculture (mainly industry and some services) in some Western regions which is more productive than even some of the new member countries and a large and poor rural sector covering approximately half of the labour force. In the emerging markets literature this is typically called a dual economy.

Crisis-prone domestic banking system on the road to recovery?
Fifth, the domestic banking system is significantly changing now and its development towards a supporting pillar for future growth is crucial. As is well-known, foreign banks dominate the banking system in most CEECs by now and, thus, tend to import financial stability. However, the structure
of the Turkish banking system has been more complex for some time with some very profitable private banks. However, macroeconomic instability and significant political influence on bank management and on the lending culture of public banks during the 1990s until recently contributed to the malfunctioning of this sector. The fifth and up to now last major macroeconomic instability crisis in Turkey since the late fifties happened in 2001.

Is Turkish government debt overstated? The role of capital flight
Sixth, external debt and capital flight has been a key feature of the Turkish financial performance for decades now. Turkey's foreign debt burden is higher than for most other new EU entrants or EU candidate countries. According to IMF figures, it amounts to around 80 to 100 billion EUR. Most
of it, around 70 percent, is government debt. Since cumulated current-account deficits since 1963 have been only slightly above 40 billion, one-half of Turkey's external debt appears to be the result of a significant capital flight, i.e. residents who do not trust their government anymore. This pattern even continued recently in spite of exceptionally high real interest rates. It again stands in sharp contrast with countries like Romania and Poland which have not experienced significant capital flight in spite of continuing current-account deficits.

Dominance of the agricultural sector
Seventh, the agricultural sector still is a big player in the Turkish economy. Turkey is strongly similar to other CEECs (above all Poland and Romania) in that a large part of the work force is officially employed in agriculture. One-third of the Turkish labour force is employed in this sector but accounts only for about 12 percent of GDP. Like in other EU countries, this indicates bad labour productivity performance of this sector and -to a certain extent- also some potential labour-shedding and emigration potential. However, a marked difference to other candidate countries consists of the fact that Turkey runs a significant trade surplus vis-à-vis the EU in agricultural goods. The main reason is that Turkey - due to a favourable climate - is one of the few countries which specialise in products for which the EU does not significantly hamper imports (i.e., fruits, vegetables and nuts). In addition, deviating from the CEEC case, some Turkish agricultural products have been protected even more heavily than by the EU. In case of Turkish EU
membership protection of this sector would be abolished and would, for instance, mean increasing farm sizes. Hence, human capital problems in these sectors will become even more virulent in the future. The dualistic structure of the Turkish economy becomes obvious again, this time in the
area of agriculture. A large amount of Turkish exports to the EU can be traced back to a minor but progressive sector. At the same time, the remaining sectors employ the vast majority of the labour force but are not competitive.

The outstanding importance of institutions and governance
However, Turkey's realisation of the 'rule of law' indicator is even below the level which would correspond with its low present GDP per capita. If one considers the change in the World Bank's composite quality of government indicator from 1996 to 2002, it even becomes clear that Turkey is one of the few among the current EU member countries experiencing a deteriorating
composite index of the quality of governance.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2010 20:24

http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news75225.html

Pakistan and Turkey have agreed to proceed with the $20bn freight railway to link the two countries, trials of which were carried out in August last year.

The 6,566km of rail track is planned to run from Pakistan's capital of Islamabad to the Turkish city of Istanbul through the Iranian capital of Tehran.The five-year project is expected to cut the Islamabad-Istanbul time travel from 11 days to nearly four days, resulting in faster and cheaper cargo transportation from Pakistan to Turkey, and ultimately to the rest of Europe.

Of the total track length, 1,990km would be built in Pakistan, 2,570km in Iran and 2,006km in Turkey. The project is expected to increase Pakistan's trade with Turkey and Iran by 50% from an average of $1bn. The rail route has also been planned to run passenger services in the future to boost tourism.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Feb 2010 20:48

the arabs still retain a deep hostility towards the turks, once the co-religion factor goes away, then these old animosities will return. ofcourse the turks still have all of the prophet mohammad's holy relics in the topkapi palace...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Feb 2010 21:23

prad wrote:^^^ perhaps, the first signs of Turkey extending its reach beyond its own immediate periphery.....if Turkey succeeds in creating some kind of prosperity in Pakistan and other Islamic states, Arabs + Persians + Afghans + Pakis will increasingly look to them as an anchor.

from American perspective, this is positive, at least until Turkey gathers enough power to openly challenge American hegemony in the region. US will be freed from Middle-East and withdraw its military commitments.

This Islamic confederation is the start of creation of an Islamic block to counter large blocks. This will be detrimental to the west including US. WWI was started to destroy the Ottoman empire and remove the Caliphate which united the Islamic world.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 28 Feb 2010 21:23

More on the Pakistan-Turkey railway link:
http://www.andrewgrantham.co.uk/afghani ... ner-train/

Also see: trans-asian railway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Asian_Railway

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Feb 2010 21:29

prad wrote:^^^ US will no longer be a hegemon in the Middle-East. so, yes, American power will become limited in the region. but the way i see it, a united Islamic Block will terrify Europe, Russia, and India, and to an extent even make China uncomfortable. countries like Japan and US are too far off and isolated by vast seas to directly feel any pain.

India has lived with a caliphate near its region for hundreds of years.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Feb 2010 22:16

Acharya wrote: This Islamic confederation is the start of creation of an Islamic block to counter large blocks. This will be detrimental to the west including US. WWI was started to destroy the Ottoman empire and remove the Caliphate which united the Islamic world.

They have tried to put together an "Islamic Block" for the past thousand years. That has turned out really well them!

We will have nothing to fear from Turkey as long as we are confident, powerful and clear about our identity. (Our imagined one, if brhaspati has an urge to comment)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Feb 2010 22:41

Carl_T wrote:
Acharya wrote: This Islamic confederation is the start of creation of an Islamic block to counter large blocks. This will be detrimental to the west including US. WWI was started to destroy the Ottoman empire and remove the Caliphate which united the Islamic world.
They have tried to put together an "Islamic Block" for the past thousand years. That has turned out really well them!

I was talking about something different.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2010 22:48

Carl_T,
Thats a dead turkey for the "Turkey" thread. The question and its answer belongs to the Indian Interests thread or Distiorted History thread. Then again exactly such spin-offs led to a deadly WW with heavy casualties in the new year. Kindly look back at previous versions of future-secenario thread - you will have plenty of my views on this.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 28 Feb 2010 23:07

Its funny people cribbing about Turkey not owning up to the Armenians deaths.

1) Why the heck should India selectively care about this?

2) What has India done in demanding an admittance and apology from the Vatican for its role in the Holocaust.

3) When would the christians acknowledge the role of chritian theology and Martin Luthers tirade against Jews and its impact on the 6 millions Jews who were put to death by German christians?

4) Why is no one questioning the absence of teaching the Holocaust in Indian public school education as well as in many of the christian schools?

5) Why are there rewriting of the Islamic horrors committed in India for over 800 years and why is this not taught in Indian public schools?

6) Turkey supported the formation of Israel as a country in the UN while India opposed it in the UN. When is India going to apologize to ISrael for this?

finally.. The secular Turks got rid of the Khilafat...while our own Gandhi and the Nehru left supported the Khilafat. When are we going to apologize to Turkey for this?

But some how we should show our moral outrage at the Turks for some Armenians who died of starvation along with many Turks and Kurds (Muslims) during the same time. Because the biggest predatory religion out there has played the victim card the last 2000 years and has gone on to become the Golaith of a non pluralistic supremacist Religion. PFFFFFT!

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 28 Feb 2010 23:25

I propose that India demand an apology for these

- Spanish lnqusition
- Goa lnqusition in India
- Ethn!c cIeansing of American Indians
- EnsIavement of Africans and sIavery in the Americas
- Ethnc!c cIeansing in South America
- Jim Crowe and Iynchings
- Segreg@tion
- H0l0caust due to the writing of the pr0testant founder Martin Luther and the Vaticans participation.
- R wanda m@$$acre and the participation of priests and the church in these killings.
- Ugandan Evangelicals influenced laws to h ang Gays!,,

Before we ask Turkey to apologize for the Armenian deaths. How about that?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Mar 2010 02:36

acharya-ji; my read is that by WW1 the ottomans were a spent force and not taken seriously any longer by the europeans. the real war was in europe, and the ottomans were on the fringes. britain and france expanded the theatre of operations to include turkey in order to roll up their mid-east possessions and share the loot of arabia amongst themselves and remove a thorn in the russian side as a by-product

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Mar 2010 03:54

It is little deeper. Read some of the books written around 1880/1900 and we see that they did deep discussion on the fate of the Caliphate for atleast 5 decades. Only then they decided to "intervine" during the WWI

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 01 Mar 2010 07:07

Brihaspati ji,

Your economic illogics are the most trivial - so lets first get that out of the way..

Per capita income is not a very good indicator in all sectors of the economy as far as international trade is concerned. Modern international trade, if not looking at government level or defence level transactions, also have to look at the consumer base for the products. If the consumer base for that item is not large enough then it may not be profitable enough to do business. Are you sure you have looked into the basics of international trade and financial flows?

If GDP and percapita income (PCI) are not determinants of how "wealthy" (and therefore "consuming") a country is, what is? Your confused "large consumer base" argument is (if I understand correctly what you are trying to say) measured by Gini coefficient. And I explained that in a previous post...Turkey is an OECD country by PCI, the 17th largest economy in nominal GDP terms and has a trade-to-GDP ratio of 40%, higher than India's..Thats enough data for starters...In case you have a theory that somehow disproves all the data and the basic theoretical construct behind them, you should seriously publish it..Who knows, in this day and age (of Obama getting the Nobel), you might impress the old men in Norway!! (BTW, I do analyse global financial trends and their impact quite closely - part of my day job!)

And please, lets not talk of "mafia" elements in business - there is a huge Russian mafia, there is an Italian one, for God's sake, there are enough shady Indian types in business!! So do we stop trading with all these countires?!!!!

Now that the (farcical) economic point is taken care of, the gist of your argument:

My point simply was, that the persistent meme of the Turkish Caliphate - in one form or other has remained within the theological trends in IM, and continues to do so. Given the possibility of a future Islamist Turkey, what stops the theme becoming a focus issue again once Pakis fail to become the "hope and future of Muslims"?

So you deciphered that because a few hundred (or maybea few thousand) muslims join SIMI, IMs in general have a theological predilection towards a second caliphate? Thats like saying that just because a few thousand hindus join the loony Hindu right, all hindus dream of a mythical "hindu rashtra"...There is an extremist fringe in the muslim community, but what data do you have to conclude that as a definitive stereotype?

But you know what? Even if one, for a moment agrees with you - IMs are all closet "caliphites", and if Turkey comes under an Islamic regime looking to resurrect the Caliphate they will be up in arms in India to do so - how does the lack of a strategic partnership with Turkey prevent that from happening? Given your conceptions, even if we went so far as even severing all ties with Turkey, the "behavioral" trends will anyways assert themselves...So maybe we should simply do what is in our interests today, because the doomsday scenario either ways is not influenced by that?!!

But really, this is a non sequitor..Neither is Turkey turning Islamist (in SA style) anytime soon, nor do most people attribute a fifth column to all IMs...

Turkey has not intervened in regional/global affairs till now? Because it wasnt in its core national interests till recently...It was in a sweet spot - being allied with Israel, US and a bulwark against communism, at the same time a muslim nation...Suited it fine, allowed them to modernise their economy, and allwoed the Army to preserve its "ruling status" without too much Western moralising about democracy...Its coming out of its shadows now, and is increasingly asserting its regional importance - you just have to look towards the activities around A'stan...

And Manny is spot on, if we started judging nation states by past history alone, there is no stopping the sort of hypocritical hilarities that would emerge...

For goodness sake, we dont even have any major strategic axes to grind with Turkey..

and what was the consequence of such close living accommodations with a Caliphate? if Turkey does take up its old mantle again, i see a future in which India will be more deeply divided than ever since its independence. no great power has ever emerged without setting its house in order. if India continues to bitterly divide itself, India can forget about any outward expansion of influence. creation of a Caliphate-like Islamic block will exacerbate the religious divide in the country. you can't just ignore the adoration and perhaps more, that a huge chunk of the population feels for a neighboring empire...

Prad, Turkey is not "close" to India by some distance...Second, even the Islamist parties in Turey dont talk of any Caliphate..third, if Idnian muslims are really "divided from the mainstream", it wont require a "Turkish" intervention, there is enough (closer home) interventions of the Paki kind...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Mar 2010 01:00

Somnath wrote
Brihaspati ji,
Your economic illogics are the most trivial - so lets first get that out of the way..

Unfortunately your understanding of this appears even more illogical and perhaps even a bit dated.

If GDP and percapita income (PCI) are not determinants of how "wealthy" (and therefore "consuming") a country is, what is?

Ah that Linders hypo and its various reincarnations! Thats decades old and much empirical work has appeared that explore the much more nuanced correlations between those two macro indicators and international trade - not always positive as far as I have seen. Are you sure you do not need to catch up?

Your confused "large consumer base" argument is (if I understand correctly what you are trying to say) measured by Gini coefficient. And I explained that in a previous post...

I find it quite characteristic that you are very free with adjectives ["confused", "illogical", "farcical"], which I also find in people who do selective representation of data, and who rarely go deep into data. Such qualifiers do not need justification, which is convenient. No, Gini coefficient on "income distribution" is not typically used as a principal indicator for international trade, but it is used for exploring sectoral concentrations.

Turkey is an OECD country by PCI, the 17th largest economy in nominal GDP terms and has a trade-to-GDP ratio of 40%, higher than India's..Thats enough data for starters...

Well, well - bulk of that trade is with EU, and it has stabilized but not diversified. However, why not get into comparative extensive data for this! Maybe, if you go on firing off on the tangent from time to time never actually bringing to the table all the relevant trade statistics and indicators - I will do it.

In case you have a theory that somehow disproves all the data and the basic theoretical construct behind them, you should seriously publish it..Who knows, in this day and age (of Obama getting the Nobel), you might impress the old men in Norway!! (BTW, I do analyse global financial trends and their impact quite closely - part of my day job!)

Another indicator perhaps, that you are not comfortable with precision. This part of personal sarcasm, could have been done without - if you were really a professional "analyst".

And please, lets not talk of "mafia" elements in business - there is a huge Russian mafia, there is an Italian one, for God's sake, there are enough shady Indian types in business!! So do we stop trading with all these countires?!!!!

I mentioned drug-money laundering, and did not talk about "mafia". Moreover, I specifically referred to drug-money-laundering through Turkish financial entities in the context of AFPAK heroin trade and CAR networks. Do you systematically assign things to persons that they never mentioned as part of your professional analysis?

Skipping the part on IM, where we obviously have different opinions, and where I think if you are making blanket statements about IM in one direction, you have to allow me the privilege of pointing out that there can be a significant subgroup within IM who are headed in the opposite direction.

Turkey has not intervened in regional/global affairs till now? Because it wasnt in its core national interests till recently...It was in a sweet spot - being allied with Israel, US and a bulwark against communism, at the same time a muslim nation...Suited it fine, allowed them to modernise their economy, and allwoed the Army to preserve its "ruling status" without too much Western moralising about democracy...Its coming out of its shadows now, and is increasingly asserting its regional importance - you just have to look towards the activities around A'stan...

So finally we have acknowledgement that Turkey so far has had no influence - by choice or circumstances - in the Islamist framework. This was a claim from your side to start with. As you yourself, say, it has not had any reason so far. Which also means that we do not know how it will - in the future. The initial role in AFG affairs hinted at - was perhaps very very positive for India - what do you think?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Mar 2010 01:26

Turkey is a middle income country and as an emerging market probably a good destination for investment. I don't thing somnath is even suggesting that Turkey is a big player right now. If I understand him correctly, he's referring to a future status.

somnath - What benefit does Turkey gain from a relationship with India? I think that determines how our relationship in the future will be shaped. For India I only see a strategic benefit if Turkey is willing to argue our side in OIC. Do they have incentive to do so?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 02 Mar 2010 07:34

Carl_T wrote:Turkey is a middle income country and as an emerging market probably a good destination for investment. I don't thing somnath is even suggesting that Turkey is a big player right now. If I understand him correctly, he's referring to a future status.

somnath - What benefit does Turkey gain from a relationship with India? I think that determines how our relationship in the future will be shaped. For India I only see a strategic benefit if Turkey is willing to argue our side in OIC. Do they have incentive to do so?

Turkey is not a middle income country by any definition -10k PCI qualifies for OECD membership (Turkey is a founding member)..Of course it is poorer than its West European "cousins", but in relative terms it is a high income country..(AS a comparison, India is about 1000 dollars, China is about 3500 dollars)...But yes, thanks to its proximity to Europe in many ways, it is an "emerging economy", its young and large population gives it that extra edge over others in Europe..

How does Turkey gain with closer ties with India? Any aspiring power (or non power) today will gain from ecoomic integration with India - we have so much to offer in terms of both market as well as capital and IP...OIC support is really "cheap thrills" - its not important, and is treated likewise by most serious members (barring Pakistan and Palestine!)..But Turkey has an incentive to be on the right side of the emerging global security architecture..

Brihaspatiji,

Really, if you have any "research" that shows that international trade is determined in a major way by factors unrelated to GDP, PCI and degree of mercantilism, let me know..And the point about any research by you wasnt entuirely sarcastic, I was serious in case you did have some insights of your own!

For your preusal, the latest WTO report on the trends in global trade..

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis ... _dev_e.pdf

(among other things, it starts off with how GDP growth has been driving trade!!)

And yes, also look at the table of the leading "traders" in the world - cant see any name there in the top 20 that does not satisfy at least 2 of the 3 criteria of GDP, PCI and mercantilism (barrign oil exporters of course)..

So finally we have acknowledgement that Turkey so far has had no influence - by choice or circumstances - in the Islamist framework. This was a claim from your side to start with. As you yourself, say, it has not had any reason so far. Which also means that we do not know how it will - in the future. The initial role in AFG affairs hinted at - was perhaps very very positive for India - what do you think

I didnt say Turkey has no "influence", it has had influence from the Cold War days (the Cuban missile crisis was sparked off, in parts, due to the presence of Amercian missiles in Turkey!)...I said it hasnt actively "intervened"...Just by making choices on its own society (secular), alliances (NATO, Israel), preferences (EU integration) and polity (fiercely anti-religious), it has sent out signals to the larger islamic community and the world..And none of these things have been within an "Islamist" construct..What it hasnt done is to start shouting from the rooftops, which is what it is slowly begninng to do now...Yes, their first foray in the Afghan issue didnt have a great experience for us...But that only means we need to engage more with them, not less!! After all, they are evidently an important player, and we would be better off having them on our side than leaving them to the Pakis..

And money laundering, did you say? The biggest amounts of monies being laundered are through the leading financial centres of the world! Do we stop dealing with those countries? Lets keep these red herrings aside and focus on the real issues..

I am pleased that now you have come "down" to saying that a "subsegment" of IMs have "opposite" loyalties, you had started off by asserting that Pak is a role model for IMs..thats as bizarre as it gets...My contention is that there is a fifth column within the IM, but the community by and large has shown no extra territorial loyalties..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Mar 2010 17:56

For trade data, the question was whether intra-country income distribution affected the overall inter-country trade or not. Whether per capita income was a strong determinant of international trade. These are not straightforward issues, and many of the works that cite GDP growth/per capita income etc are particular model based (where the regressions are run on certain models developed from proposed theory about the mechanism underlying the particualr trade interactions). The classical assumptions/models/conclusions about these issues have been challenged by both theoretical as well as empirical studies. It is true that major global biodies still usually quote results based on older concepts, but plenty of research material exists in journals or otherwise that take up detailed study and qualified modifications of the classical assumptions. There have been many models proposed to explain non-classical response of trade to GDP or per-capita-income movements. Current trend in research is to look at many more factors, the stage of the economy, the sectors concerned, the sub-economies of the relevant factor inputs and their growth patterns, intra-country income distribution (non-homothetic).

I am not satisfied with your quoting of a few macro factors to hold out the potential of greater advantages of trading with Turkey for sectors that India can trade with end-consumers like EU directly. I will try to put up trade statistics data and analysis with factors you propose as well as those you do not consider. There have been concerns within EU economics circles itself about certain disturbing patterns in Turkish "business". Since I am indeed exposed to a part of this research on an ongoing basis I will try to give those refs that can be made public at this stage (non-public are stuff that my colleagues are still working on or sharing before formal publication, so ethically cannot be discussed on open forums).

As for IM, you were making blanket statements that found no Paki role models anywhere in IM, and you had proposed only 7 names (one unidentified) as their role models. You have categorically denied any possibility of IM showing Paki like tendencies in the future. In fact I will add that, just as in the onset of the Partition riots, areas of major concentration of Muslim populations, which are now found by you to be completely devoid of any Jihadi or Paki like tendencies - will actually do nothing to protect non-Muslims living among them, or prevent any Jihadi outfit from carrying out Islamic text-enjoined violence and genocide on non-Muslims around them. In every conflict scenario on the subcontinent, whenever opportunities arose - those significant subgroups I am talking about - could always carry out their genocidic violence on non-Muslims and the remaining Muslims did nothing to prevent such attacks. They did not do so, simply because even if they did not participate personally, they were in a dilemma and confusion over the fact that such Ghazwas are religiously sanctioned on non-Muslims, and by going aginst such behaviour they could be behaving un-Islamic. I have had extensive contacts with people from across the border - and countless personal narratives from both Islamics and non-Muslims support my impressions. [You have included a personal experience and acquaintance as proof of an opposite trend in all IM - so I think I can include my personal experiences too]. This non-opposition to Jihadi/Ghazwa behaviour on non-Muslims have never been as violently and actively opposed by IM as some "Hindus" are so eager to do on other Hindus they think belong to the "loony fringe" because they express their assessements of Islamist tendencies on the subcontinent openly and negatively. Every supposed "Hindu" outrage on "Muslims" are taken up politically, legally, and with a verbal viciousness by "very loud Hindus" - that they somehow never, ever manage towards Islamist violence on non-Muslims. We do not see any such behaviour at comaparable levels among the Muslims - not where they are in a majority and dominating position within an independent country like PAK or BD, nor in the country where they are the minority - as in India. I was looking for IM sourced publications/blogs/ that assigned the term "loony fringe" to SIMI/the fatwaists of Deoband/the Alims who prescribed some wonderful measures for sufferers of rape by FIL/ or even to the Talebs who beheaded the Sikhs - NIL, a big big zero - no such pomposity and verbal virulence anywhere!

This is the difference - the big big difference between the Muslims and the non-Muslims of the entire subcontinent. The non-Muslims are the most active and effective opponents of any trend in non-Muslims towards anti-Islamism, whereas Muslims are neutral at best to any trend towards more active and extremist Islamism. For me, a resurgent Turkey [which you have declared to be not going Islamist in the line of KSA anytime soon but where I and many other researchers see dangerous trends towards the exact opposite of what you claim] and its increased presence in subcontinental affairs - is potentially dangerous for this very reason. More than Turley itself, its mere ascendancy and increased presence in the subcontinent can be used by section of Muslims and their organizations to carry forward their Islamist agenda.

On the other hand, perhaps for the longer run - it is good that more and more countries in the Islamic bloc begin to have a presence in India - Turkey/KSA/Iran. We should go on adding Malaysia, and maybe even the East and Central African increasingly Islamizing nations to those presence lists. If you are correct in your whitewashing - that all historical behaviour are BS as indicator of future behaviour especially where Islamists are concerned - we will have a golden age of peace and prosperity. If you are wrong, the great and criminal hoodwinking about Islamism that is now going on in India, campaigned so actively for by the significant shouting subgroup of Hindu dhimmis, will be exposed. The rest of us will have an opportunity to eliminate both Islamists and their dhimmi facilitators from having any role, once and for all. Lack of that sharp division has always confused Indian society and paralyzed it from defending itself.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 02 Mar 2010 18:30

^^^ You really seem to be someone for whom ideology/idea cannot be disturbed by facts!

BTW, the link I referred to was not an academic treatise on statistical analysis of world trade..It was a compendium, if you will, of data on global trade..Really for me Jagdish Bhagwati and Surjit Bhalla are as contemporary as it gets on international trade economics..As I said, if you have any "research" that suddenly supports "other esoteric" concepts, lets see them...As we know now on data (as well as theory), only those countries with enough "income" and polciies encouraging trade do so..Some might even put it as common sense!

And you suddenly flipped on your point:

For trade data, the question was whether intra-country income distribution affected the overall inter-country trade or not

from an earlier post

No, Gini coefficient on "income distribution" is not typically used as a principal indicator for international trade, but it is used for exploring sectoral concentrations.

Make up your mind!

In any case, income distribution will be a determinant of trade in certain kinds of goods and services, but generally not the total "pie" of international trade...And in any case, there are success stories at ginis both greater than and less than that of India's (Turkey's is not very different, actually less than India's if I am not wrong)...

As I said before, if someone has an alternative theory, he should publish it - maybe he will get the Nobel that Jagdish Bhagwati hasnt (and probably never will)!!

Back to your "core" issue:

As for IM, you were making blanket statements that found no Paki role models anywhere in IM, and you had proposed only 7 names (one unidentified) as their role models.

I said (quite a few times actually) that there might be a fifth column among te IMs, but there is no statistical/empirical evidence of IMs "in general" (which is what you implied) having Pak as a rol model...In fact there is still no evidence of even a lare section of muslims having extra-territorial loyalties...A (relatively) small number of disaffetced tribals can lead to a Maoist menace, ever wondered if "so many" (in your words) muslims had "caliphite" tendencies, what would have happened to internal security? the 7 names were simply examples of "exemplars" of the Indian muslims, and the fact that they dont need to look elsewhere...You havent given any data/evidence BTW that significant subgroups of muslims are disloyal..

But all of this is quite OT to this debate on Indo-Turkish relations unless one looks at another strange one from you (though not for the first time)

On the other hand, perhaps for the longer run - it is good that more and more countries in the Islamic bloc begin to have a presence in India - Turkey/KSA/Iran. We should go on adding Malaysia, and maybe even the East and Central African increasingly Islamizing nations to those presence lists.
......
More than Turley itself, its mere ascendancy and increased presence in the subcontinent can be used by section of Muslims and their organizations to carry forward their Islamist agenda.

What do you exactly mean by "presence"?? Diplomatic missions? Trade relations? Investments? So if we have deeper trade relations with Turkey, it will "islamise" India? And if Indo-turkish trade is triple the size of what it is today, IMs will rise in khilafat revolt?!!The argument runs very similar to those made in 1991 when the liberlisation started - "if we allow foreign companies in India, they will colonise us again like the East India Company"!!!! We know what happened post 1991...

By that logic, we should not be having relations with Italy (land of the Vatican evangelists), USA (neo-imperialists), the entire "muslim" world, China (new sino-imperialist)...Take a brush and a world map, paint your "exclusions" - there wouldnt be too much left to interact with...

If these kind of arguments had any grain of logic, shias should have risen in revolt after Khomeini revolution in Iran, all muslims should have looked for askance once Saudi Arabia got rich......

A new India has to engage the world with confidence, which it is doing at various levels....Looking for ghosts by inventing them serves no purpose..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Mar 2010 21:17

somnath wrote
And you suddenly flipped on your point:
Quote:
For trade data, the question was whether intra-country income distribution affected the overall inter-country trade or not
from an earlier post
Quote:
No, Gini coefficient on "income distribution" is not typically used as a principal indicator for international trade, but it is used for exploring sectoral concentrations.
Make up your mind!

I think you repeatedly make these remarks because you are not aware of research trends in the area. Just because Gini-coefficient on income distribution does not typically appear as indicator in international trade literature, does not imply that intra-country income distribution patterns are not factored in models or mechanisms that look beyond the Linder type assumptions. Gini-coefficient is not only used to macro-summarize income inequalities, but also used as measures of concentration within sectors. Examples abound - for example studies of the fishing export industry in SA. (not KSA).

Why the obsession with the Nobel Prize?!!! Were you a hopeful? Is it relevant for your arguments?

As for IM related stuff, we have different positions and let us stop at that. You denied any non-Indian role model, and by implication in the context of the same paragraph - including Pak.

Of course the real grotesque assertion from you was the most revealing:

Quote:
Turkey has the potential to become an alternative ideal replacing TSP for the IM.

So Indian muslims today have Pak as their ideal? Which Indian muslim are we referring to? APJ Abdul Kalam? Or Sania Mirza? Or Zaheer Khan? Or maybe AR Rahman? Or Azim Premji? these are well known public figures...So what about my friend Sxxxx - ex fund manager, now a derivatives structurer in a large bank (surprise, surprise on Indian equities!!)..He finds Pak as the ideal? A couple of years back, MJ Akbar wrote very perceptibly - "every muslim in India must thank Allah every day for one benediction, that he was left in 1947 on this side of the border, not in Pakistan" - I am paraphrasing, but the gist is that - it was made in a lecture in Jamia Millia, and was greeted by spontaeneous applause..Most Indians feel simlarly, Muslims or non-muslims..We do not need to have any country to be an exemplar for muslims in India - not Pak, not turkey, they have enough role models internally..

To which I quoted an article giving reference that there were IM's - leadership as well as followers who apparently indeed seemed to acknowledge Zia and Pak as role models. You did not acknowledge that possibility of a fifth column when you found my comment to be "grotesque". Only after I quoted extensively from Swamy [again not a supposed Hindutvawadi] you have accepted possible presence of "fifth column" in only two posts and assigned "loony" to "some Muslims" once. Just count how many times you used the same term for "Hindu".

The exchange is becoming fruitless, so can we agree to stop this particular "bilateral" exchange?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2010 23:17

Exceptional set of posts to clear the matter Brihaspati ji -- well done -- asto ma sat gamaya

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 03 Mar 2010 02:04

I do not want to derail this thread but was just responding to Somnathji comments on IM

In fact there is still no evidence of even a lare section of muslims having extra-territorial loyalties.

In cities such as Moradabad, Meerut, Aligarh, Sahranpur, Deoband, Ahemadabad, Hassan, Hyderabad, Ajamgarh millions of Muslims live in areas like kidwainagar, Khairnagar, Islamabad, Gulshaheed, Mughalpura etc. Please visit some of these cities and some of these areas and live there for at least a month. I am sure it will be a good first hand experience. My experience in these cities and these areas tells me that there is not just a fifth column but multiple fifth columns.
Please don't take it personally. (I rarely post and if anyone is offended then please feel free to ask me or an admin to remove this post).

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2010 06:49

brihaspati wrote:I think you repeatedly make these remarks because you are not aware of research trends in the area. Just because Gini-coefficient on income distribution does not typically appear as indicator in international trade literature, does not imply that intra-country income distribution patterns are not factored in models or mechanisms that look beyond the Linder type assumptions. Gini-coefficient is not only used to macro-summarize income inequalities, but also used as measures of concentration within sectors. Examples abound - for example studies of the fishing export industry in SA. (not KSA).

I didnt bring up the point on Gini - you did by talking of "consumption distribution patterns" etc..And then contradicted yourself in two different posts, once saying Gini is not important to trade and in the second saying it is! In any case, for the umpteenth time, in case you have any research that shows trading volumes depend substantially on factors other than GDP, PCI and mercantilism, please post the link! No use repeatedly alluding to research without posting one...Since I am unaware of the "latest research trends" in the area - let me know the basis of your superior "awareness"!And come on, what is this about South African fishing export industry??!!! We are talking of macro trading volumes here, and the best example you could find was fishing industry!!!

About IMs, well, to start with the topic was not relevatn to the issue at hand....If people do not let data and facts interefere with their ideologies/ideas, its a pity but thats that...

This thread was about Turkey and its engagements with India!!

In cities such as Moradabad, Meerut, Aligarh, Sahranpur, Deoband, Ahemadabad, Hassan, Hyderabad, Ajamgarh millions of Muslims live in areas like kidwainagar, Khairnagar, Islamabad, Gulshaheed, Mughalpura etc. Please visit some of these cities and some of these areas and live there for at least a month. I am sure it will be a good first hand experience. My experience in these cities and these areas tells me that there is not just a fifth column but multiple fifth columns.

Jimmyray ji, if what you are saying is right, we should be having a full fledged raging muslim insurgency in our hands...Look at what is happening because a (relatively) small number of tribals are disaffected...If muslims en masse are a fifth column in so many different places, we should be looking at a civil war situation...I have been fortunate to spend my growing-up (and beyond!) years in various parts of India..In the types of areas that you mention, there is a sort of revanchist, backward-looking conservativeness, yes...But "multiple" fifth columns? That too en masse (or even in large numbers)??As I said, in case that were true, we would have a far bigger problem in our hands...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2010 06:53

Some important pointers to what can happen on the Indo-Turkish fronts:

http://www.myiris.com/newsCentre/storyS ... D=livenews

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/11/indo ... -2012.html

Doubling trade, but the big deal is the FTA...With the WTO negotiations being perpetual political minefield, bilateral FTA/CECAs are the order of the day..An Indo-Turkish FTA will cause trade to just explode..

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Mar 2010 06:59

Lets wait for few more years when 20% BG has moved into all corners of India and the birth rate caluclations, hopes, conclusions etc go to the wind. Bottom line , we cant draw permanent demographic lesson from past behaviour or current pattern when there is real possibilty of constant new factors /arrivals skewing the equation, so many variations and very little awareness with Blindness to past and oblivious of present, future uncertain.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2010 08:14

Prem wrote:Lets wait for few more years when 20% BG has moved into all corners of India and the birth rate caluclations, hopes, conclusions etc go to the wind.

What is that supposed to mean?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Mar 2010 20:58

Quoting in full as this is a summary and not a full article:
http://csis.org/files/attachments/10010 ... tuncer.pdf

• Economic indicators from the third quarter of 2009 strongly suggest that the decline in
the Turkish economy is slowing. Although economists are predicting growth in the
fourth quarter, overall the economy is expected to have contracted by 6% in 2009
• Current estimates for 2010 suggest that the Turkish economy might achieve 3.5%
growth, a “sluggish” rate, barring any unforeseen events. The economy could still be
affected “badly” if there were to be political turmoil.
• There has been a “major decline” in both exports and imports in 2009. This contributed
to an 80% reduction in the current account deficit compared to last year.
• Over the course of 2009, the Consumer Price Index increased by 6.5%
• There is a strong potential for further price index increases in 2010 accompanied by
higher interest rates and inflation.
• The budget deficit has grown significantly in 2009 with an approximately 20% increase
in spending and virtually no increase in government revenues.
• Unemployment figures remain very high. In August 2009 the unemployment rate was
13.4%, a significant increase over August 2008 when the figure was 10%. The final figure
for 2009 was estimated to be around 16-17% because seasonal workers hired for the
summer months were laid off. If underemployment is also factored in, the figures look
quite grim.
Dr. Tuncer then gave a broader overview of Turkey’s economic performance during the past
decade:
• On average the Turkish economy only grew 3.3% annually from January 2000 to
December 2009. This is not “exceptional” considering that the growth rate averaged
3.8% in 1990’s and 4% in the 1980’s.
• The “boom years” of the 2000’s have been exaggerated. While growth was indeed high
during the middle of the decade, the Turkish economy had “lost its energy” by 2007,
before the global recession began.
• Turkish firms became more efficient and more competitive in international markets.
• The public sector’s share of the economy was significantly reduced through government
cost-cutting and the privatization of publicly owned firms.
• The banking sector was strengthened through regulation and reforms.
• The inflation rate, which had long been very high in Turkey, was lowered.
• The government introduced measures to instill greater discipline in the national budget.

Turkey began the decade with a major economic crisis, which was one of the main reasons why,
the coalition government lost the 2002 elections. After coming into power, the Justice and
Development Party (JDP) government initially hesitated about continuing Turkey’s relationship
with the IMF but “wisdom prevailed” and the government ultimately decided to proceed with a
new agreement with the IMF, thus helping to ensure substantial economic growth.
Answering the question “what was behind that growth during the second half of the decade?”
Dr. Tuncer noted that “everyone else was also growing.” Turkey’s growth owed a great deal to
the abundance of liquidity in the global financial markets. In this environment of easy capital,
Turkey became an important destination for both short and long term investment. The JDP
government made “high interest rate and low exchange rates” its slogan in order to attract
more capital into the Turkish economy. However the profits from these investments were
eventually transferred abroad. Turkey also began to import a “great deal more” and, for a
period, the government, the treasury and the general public agreed on this policy without
focusing on the consequences for the Turkish economy in the medium to long run.

The negative effect of Turkey’s easy access to foreign capital in these years was that instead of
capital being invested in relatively risky but strategically vital sectors of the “real economy” such
as manufacturing and agriculture, it was diverted to high-yield sectors like construction, real
estate and finance. However, the abundance of capital flowing into Turkey was sufficient to
cover both the trade deficit and the current account deficit.
The 2008-2009 global financial crisis exposed the weaknesses of the Turkish economy. Contrary
to assertions by the government, Turkey was “one of the three to five countries most affected.”
If the banking sector had not “stood firm”, Turkey would have had even greater problems.
Regarding the potential for Turkey to achieve medium and long-term success, Dr. Tuncer made
the following points:
• Turkey has a savings rate of approximately 8%. In order to be successful, it needs to
follow the model put forth by other developing countries like India and China, which
have maintained high growth rates along with high savings rates.
• Turkey needs to increase productivity.
• The government needs to reexamine its taxation and spending policies.
• If Turkey is to have any hope of alleviating unemployment, it cannot afford anything less
than 6% growth in the near term. This is especially crucial because of Turkey’s
demographic profile. While Turkey’s large, young, and fast growing population was once
seen and touted as an asset, this is no longer the case. The country’s underemployed
youth, once viewed opportunity, is now becoming a burden on the economy.
• If the right measures are taken, sustained growth of 6-7% is not beyond Turkey’s reach.
Dr. Tuncer lamented the lack of strategic, long-term thinking about the Turkish economy on the
part of the government, columnists, academe, and think tanks. Many economists prefer to be
optimistic and have unrealistic projections. They tend to focus on statistics such as the exchange
rate and stock market indices.

Dr. Tuncer believes that 2010 will not be an easy year for Turkey. The government’s revenue
projections for the coming year are overly optimistic while its budget includes spending
increases it cannot finance. There is a real fear of larger budget deficits returning. Recent taxes
imposed on goods such as alcohol and cigarettes will only raise enough revenue to cover the
costs of the latest pension increase, thus having at best a neutral affect on the budget deficit.
Turkish leaders are now much less optimistic about 2010 than they were just a few months ago.
It seems that the government has finally realized that the efforts made to increase the revenue
will not be sufficient in 2010, thus forcing it to find other sources of capital to make up for the
budget deficit. The dilemma for the government is that the fastest way to get the necessary
capital is to reach an agreement with the IMF. However, this would tie the government’s hands
with tax reforms and other IMF-mandated measures that would be attached to a new
agreement. Such restrictions look particularly unattractive with only sixteen months to go
before parliamentary elections in Turkey.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Mar 2010 21:15

http://www.tek.org.tr/dosyalar/TURKEY-UYGUR-FF.pdf

We conclude from these observations that in Turkey the deepest, or “depression like” part of the recent crisis is left behind, but negative growth still continues and, as evidenced by the confidence index, the future looks uncertain indeed.
We explained above that, given the insufficiency of domestic savings, capital inflows were among the most significant determinants of growth in Turkey. Thus, under the present structure of the economy, there is dependency on capital flows for higher growth. The critical question here is; will capital inflows continue in the future?

We have serious doubts here. Actually, there is a dilemma that needs to be stressed. One major adjustment that is required for the global crisis to end is the elimination of global imbalances. Yet, global imbalances have been the driving force behind capital flows. Countries like Turkey benefited from spillover effects of these flows. Countries with low-savings and deficits, such as the USA, received capital from countries with high-savings and surpluses, such as China. The adjustment suggested implies more saving for low-savers and more consumption for high savers.
If this adjustment takes place, like any adjustment it will have a cost, in the sense that global capital flows will have to slow down. That would mean that countries like Turkey would receive much less capital compared to the 2002-07 period.
If the above adjustment does not materialize and global imbalances continue, there is a serious risk of currencies like the dollar and the pound sterling to tumble down, taking the world payments system into a chaos. Such a chaos would have a retarding effect not only on capital flows but also on international trade. That might mean an even lower growth for the global economy in the medium term. We tend to think that the above adjustment will take place, but may be at a slow pace.

In either case, we predict a much lower growth for the global economy in the medium term. Obviously, this is not a novel prediction and is in line with forecasts of the multilateral institutions including the IMF. The World Economic Outlook (WEO) of the IMF forecasts a significantly lower global growth and lower capital flows in the coming three years; world average GDP growth was 4.4% in 2002-07, but is forecasted to be 2.7% in 2009-12. See below row (3) of Table 19. There is a similar lower growth forecast for developing countries, that can be seen in row (4).

Turning now to Turkey, we refer to forecasts of the recently published Medium Term Programme (MTP) of Turkey and of the WEO of the IMF for the period 2009-2012 in Table 19. Rows that start with a * contain IMF forecasts.
The MTP presumably assumed lower global growth and smaller capital flows in arriving at forecasts for Turkey. The MTP and the IMF forecasts agree that average Turkish growth over the 2009-12 period will decline sharply as compared to the 2002-07 period. What is more, the IMF forecasts that Turkish average growth will fall not only below the average growth of the developing countries, but also below that of the world. In the 2002-07 period, average growth of Turkey was close to the average growth of the developing countries and considerably higher than that of the world.
There are other pessimistic forecasts for Turkey. Investment is forecasted to grow at about half the rate recorded in the 2002-07 period. Investment/GDP ratio is forecasted to stay at about 20% in Turkey during 2009-10. IMF forecasts an investment/GDP ratio for

the developing countries at 30.6% in both of these years. According to the MTP, unemployment stays at over 14% on average during 2009-12. IMF forecasts that CA deficits/GDP ratio will rise again in spite of the much lower average growth.
These forecasts imply that, according to the IMF and the MTP, there will not be an adjustment in Turkey on the lines we explained above. Turkey is therefore assumed to try to pursue a growth strategy that is known to be unsustainable in the medium term. That strategy may succeed for some time, only if there is not a global adjustment.
We note here that we expect small positive year-on-year growth rates in industrial output in November–December 2009. However, a lasting recovery will not start unless investment spending starts to rise.

On the inflation front, IMF assumes that on average global inflation will be lower in the coming years, at about half of the average rate during 2002-07. Inflation in Turkey is forecasted to be just over 5% in the 2009-12 period by both the IMF and the MTP. It seems that the optimistic global inflation forecasts are extended to Turkish inflation. Yet, there is a significant probability of inflation rising globally and in Turkey.

At the global level, a lot depends on (i) when and how fiscal and monetary adjustments are made, or to put it with a fashionable term, on exit strategies, and (ii) on the path of commodity prices. If rising petroleum and gold prices incorporate higher inflation expectations, then IMF forecasts look optimistic and a mild form of stagflation is a real possibility. In the case of Turkish inflation, global inflation is an important determinant, but the coming election is an equally important element and it might mean continuation of expansionary fiscal and monetary policies for a year and a half.

Both the above posts quotes come from economists whose professional competence I have no reasons to doubt.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Mar 2010 00:21

Daniel Pipes on the military arrests.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists ... ?id=170033

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Mar 2010 07:23

Brihaspati ji,

All that you have is a couple of "market commentaries" on Turkey? I thought we will see a new model of international trade that identifies factors other than GDP, PCI and mercantilism driving growth in trade (maybe things like "non-dhimmitude", to use an oft repeated expression)?

BTW, the commentaries are not exceptional in terms of their insights..Usual strength-weakness analysis of the economic conditions..Obviously Turkey has its own challenges, just like any other country, including India....They dont really delve on any long term strategic points...

And these sections from what you posted are quite compliemntary:

• Turkish firms became more efficient and more competitive in international markets.
• The public sector’s share of the economy was significantly reduced through government
cost-cutting and the privatization of publicly owned firms.
• The banking sector was strengthened through regulation and reforms.
• The inflation rate, which had long been very high in Turkey, was lowered.
• The government introduced measures to instill greater discipline in the national budget.

And low savings rates, high deficits - these are hallmarks of most economies ex-Asia today..

Doesnt detract anything from the larger picture...

Carl_T, there is an interesting article in the last edition of The Economist about Turkey - unfortunately its a paid site so cant post it here..But clearly, the Army is letting its boundary lines be known clearly, and there isnt a lot of enthusiasm within AKP (whose approval ratings are down to 29% per latest reports) to get too adventurous..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Mar 2010 18:04

I do not see discussing economic theory in that detail to be "within topic" for this thread. Discussing whether international trade is entirely decided by per capita income and GDP or it needs much more nuanced analysis and whether or not PCI and GDP are sole dominant indicators that are always positively correlated with growth in international trade - will in my opinion go OT. I will post a series of references which you can look up. Your persistent harping on only PCI and GDP always being positively correlated with growth in international trade makes me a little shaky though, as you do not appear to be a practising economist then, at least not in academics. So the papers themselves may need much more background exposure to be transparent.

I have only posted stuff that are directly obviously related to Turkey's growth prospects. It was because I saw that you were continuing to paint the Turkish economy as a kind of gateway into EU, where with minor steps - "trade through bilateral FTA's" will "explode" - etc. You do not see any problems, no obstacles, and are absolutely confident that only positive thinsg can come out of Indo-Turkish economic collaboration.

Why didn't you bring this typical/ordinary/standard/"strength-weakness" analysis when you were advocating a blanket and blind, rosy picture based on just your sole dominant PCI/GDP factor claims? Read the second reference in its entirety - it is not giving a blanket superlative growth potential in the long term which you have consistently tried to imply otherwise.

What prevents you from acknowledging that things need not be so rosy in economic terms for India to go crazy with joy at the prospect of Indo-Turkish ties as you have tried to paint? The second paper talks of medium term. Which international trade strategy is built over the really "long term" - what is long term for you? Would you plan for the next 50 years for international trade? You are talking of immediate advantages - and the "medium term" cautious projections do not show the prospects that you want us to dance in joy about.

You have accused me of being ideologically "obstinate" for whom pragamtic, real data and facts do not matter. Are you not doing the same thing - in your obsession to hide anything negative about the fall-outs of Indo-Turkish tie-ups, and only project "exploding growth" are you not also pursuing some ideological obstinacy cloaked in the excuse of economics? You are dismissing "strentth weakness" analysis as standard and not predicting negative for the "long term"!!!! Goodness!!!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Mar 2010 18:34

Ahh! About 70% of your non-IM-fith-columnist posts were dedicated to a convoluted expression of how trade is defined by lots of other nuances than the obvious ones (those identified, among others, by Jagdish Bhagwati)..When asked for references, the topic becomes OT!!

I havent seen a single piece of academic reference from you in supporrt of your (non) theories..And yes, I am not an academic (though I did read economics in some of the finest instituions in India), I am a practitioner, whose day job involves putting monies where one's opinions are...

When did I ever say that everything about Turkey is "rosy" (or crazy with joy)?? Everything about no country/economy/market is rosy...Whats so special about that? The topic of discussion is whether India benefits from increasign its engagement and stakes in Turkey..If your argument is that we should not deepen our trade with one of the top 20 trading nations in the world, well, give me a reason...If you argument is that we should not increase our diplomatic engagement with one of the leading muslim middle eastern nations in the world, give me a reason (and please, not the same ones on how a deeper engagement will radicalise Indian muslims in some funny way - not even the looniest right in India prescribes to that view)...If your argument is that we should not invest in a country that has a custom's union with EU and a potential EU member, give me a reason...

SWOT analysis? If you looked up any analysis about India today, you would find references to high fiscal deficits, public debt, inflation and unstable geopolitics in the neighbourhood as the "weaknesses"..Does anyone therefore conclude that India's long term prospects are in doubt? similarly Turkey has a set of challenges, not especially unique to itself always..How does that preclude the attractions of its fundamental attributes? the commentaries you posted themselves pointed the same out - did you read the pieces you were posting??

Your semantic pretensions are grossly at odds with your analytical rigour...Lets see something that supports your fundamental tenets:

1. Trade is driven by factors divorced from GDP, PCI and mercantilism (never mind what WTO says!!)
2. India's increased trade with Turkey would have deleterious impact on India
3. Closer political ties with Turkey will radicalise IMs

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Mar 2010 19:12

Somnath ji,
as usual, the typical twisting and selective reading from the loony critics of the "right" -

I did not "divorce" GDP/PCI - I objected to your claiming jsutifications of positive growth in intercountry trade based only on those two factors, as well as claims of always "positive correlation".

India's trade with Turkey and its benefits will depend on short and medium term trends in the Turkish economy, if we want to start trading and tying up immediately. The two short and entry level articles ai have posted contain ample cautionary notes. Both papers mention that growth prospects projected by various institutions are sometimes overly optimistic about Turkish economy. You will continue to ignore "negatives" in those refs so why all this shouting?

As for the third point, the radicalization of the IM based on active as well as passive involvement of Turkey has happened in the past. The memes of Caliphate has been shown to be surviving among sections of the IM even in the present as evidenced in the ideological pronouncements from the platform of the SIMI. You will dismiss them as exceptions - 25,000 present in its meeting is nothing for you, you will continue denying evidence. Nothing that goes agaisnt your propaganda - where only the "Hindu right" is loony and none of the Islamists qualify for that epithet.

And yes, discussing economics proper will be OT. If you need a refresher course, I will refer to some papers for you in an appropriate thread. As for stalwart economic institutions in India, some time ago I had a run in with a student from one of the "top" places there. She was adamant that moderate inflation was good because it has been "proven" to be connected to growth in employment. When I tried to ask whether this classical general observation was not qualified by other factors under certain circumstances, she was adamant again that it is always true and that texts/world institutions/and her eminent practising economist professors could not be wrong!

By the way, I am curious - why is only the "right" or "Hindu right" loony for you? You have repeated the expression so many times on this thread! What makes the "left" or the "centre" or non-Hindus not "loony" for you? What irrationality you find in the right or "Hindu-right" that you do not find in the others? I have long found people who find only the "Hindu right" as loony, as showing severe loony-ness themselves, mostly among die-hard and fanatical leftists (well also among the centrists or should I say pure opportunists) for they can neither rationally explain their hatred for the "Hindu right" nor their absolute silence about "others".

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Mar 2010 19:58

Brihaspati ji,

Maybe you should start explaining some of your theories in logical terms, or post something to supprot your claims on an "alternate theory" of international trade - else its getting a bit tiring..And no, you dont have to post anything for me to understand economics - I would suggest that you read stuff that you yourself posted careflly first - they are basic stuff - and then maybe try to understand the nuances laid down in the WTO report I posted...If you are confused, do refer to Jagdish Bhagwati's "Free Trade today" or "In defence of globalisation", or even Surjit bhalla's "Imagine if there was no country"..they will help you understand interntional trade economics a lot better - all three are written in a style to enable even the untrained minds to decipher...(BTW, If I did require a refresher on international trade - and I do so often, I would rather tap a certain Prof Bibek Debroy than a certain Brihaspati!)...From the evidence at hand here, I am sure I have gone to better institutions than you have (BTW, corporations around the world are run by alumni from the same schools I went to, and American unis too - so spare me stories of the intellectual deficiencies of a certain "girl" from a "stalwart instituion")...Better still, let me know your sources of "different wisdom on interantional trade"!!

Back to the topic of Turkey in the economic domain - so just because there have challenges, its not a good idea to trade with them..Last I checked, US, UK, pretty much the entire EU, Eastern Europe, whole of Africa, eevery country in Asia and (suprise surprise) India have huge challenges...I wonder who we should stop trading with then...Any thoughts?

As for the third point, the radicalization of the IM based on active as well as passive involvement of Turkey has happened in the past. The memes of Caliphate has been shown to be surviving among sections of the IM even in the present as evidenced in the ideological pronouncements from the platform of the SIMI. You will dismiss them as exceptions - 25,000 present in its meeting is nothing for you, you will continue denying evidence

Well, this so-called influence is happening despite any great engagement, right? So how does having an engagement create the problem? 25k attended a SIMI meeting - and how many muslims vote for non-muslim candidates in elections? How many millions? How many muslims join non-religious parties, even "hindu nationalist" parties like BJP? How many lakhs? And how many muslims are out to wage war against India? As I keep saying, a few lakh disaffected adivasis are creatign mayhem, how come muslims arent (given so many according to you are fifth columnists)??

But this point is actually OT - in your words, IMs anyway have these tendencies, how does a deeper engagemetn with Turkey become relevant to that?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Mar 2010 20:48

Maybe you can read through the following paper and give me your comments: but this time also note those passages which qualify growth depending on circumstances in spite of PCI differences. Page 14 for example. Note also that Markusen later on explicitly considers the role of intra-country distribution's role on inter-country trade as comapred to a macro summarization of PCI/GDP etc. I have a nagging feeling, that after going through the details you will still ignore the subtelities of the conditions given under which the PCI alone does not predict growth or PCI growth need not be positively correlated with inter-country trade under all circumstances- you will still dismiss all that and find only support for your claims.

http://portal2.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/ ... -feb10.pdf

Added later: Would you agree to carry on this economic theory debate in an appropriate thread? As this particular debate is more general and not connected to simply Turkey.