NASA's Mars Orbiter Spies Victoria Crater

An image of the Victoria Crater, one of the biggest craters on Mars, was released on Friday.
Scientists located several layers of sedimentary rock and think it could be a sign that there was once liquid water on the Red Planed.

Victoria Crater is 200 meters deep and has a diameter of 800 meters, which means it is 5 times larger than other craters observed so far. Scientists from NASA emphasized the images of the crater are a touchstone for exploration studies of Mars, and will contribute to answering questions about Mars? past .

NASA?s Mars Rover Opportunity was sent to Mars in 2004. Opportunity reached the Victoria Crater, which was its biggest target so far, on Sept., 27, 2006. After a long preparation process, Opportunity finally managed to take pictures of Victoria Crater on its 951st day on the planet.

The French Definition of a 'Genocide'

No one, I suppose would disagree with the French lower house Parliamentary minority Socialist MPs? definition of a ?Genocide? as ?the organized killing of a people to end their collective existence?.

However, the ?lower house minority Socialists? MPs of the La Sinn River overlooking Assembly National (the Parliament), seem to have a short memory to la Sinn River graveyard. Thousands of Algerians were reported to have been thrown alive into La Sinn River, and left to be drawn during the late 20th century (Ahmed Bin Billa, al-Jazeera TV, 2004). Isn?t that a ?Genocide?? which was an ?organized killing of a people to end their collective existence?.

The minority Socialist MPs, whose their country is traditionally, popular for art, literature, theatre, and poetry should remember that, ?whose house is glassy, shouldn?t throw the houses of the others with stones?. Beginning of ?Hijab? (Muslim women head scarf) banning in public places and in schools, to satirizing the Prophet of Mercy for all humanity, Mohammed, Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH) , to lately, considering any denial to the Armenian ?Genocide?, as a crime, French Assembly National, who gave away its ?Statue of Liberty? to the United States of America, appear to have lots of memory lapses.

long time before the notoriously, infamous Armenian alleged ?Genocide? took place in Turkey during 1915, the French brutal, and barbaric colonization committed a numerous of genocides against Algerians, both inside Algeria, and in France itself, since 1832 up to 1962, when the Algerians had eventually, achieved their independence. About 7 million Algerians were killed during French colony in Algeria, while resisting French occupation (President Ahmed Bin Billa, al-Jazeera TV, 2004). Despite requests, and appeals from Algerian President, Butaflieqa recently, made public to France to apologize for its horrendous 'Genocides' in Algeria, France has not yet, responded.

Although, there are many Turks, including influential thinkers, and politicians, will not deny hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed in 1915 during a relocation arrangement to other parts of the Ottoman Empire, the issue of a ?Genocide? was reported to have been conceived as highly, controversial. Some argue that, those Armenians who died, were caught into inter-communal warfare. Thus, it was not ?the organized killing of a people to end their collective existence?.

In other words, It was not a ?Genocide?. A few others in Turkey, and beyond however, would argue that, it was conscious, and it was a ?Genocide?. Despite World-wide contentious differentiation on the event, the lower house minority Socialists of French Assembly National apparently, for voting reasons are determined to legalize their mind-set.

Many in France make a case that, sheer politics are behind the minority Socialists initiative. As such, there are no ethics, good merits, or else genuine concerns about the Armenian ?Genocide?. The minority Socialists, by proposing such a bill in order to push for a law criminalizing denial of an Armenian genocide, aim at gaining Armenian votes, during next year presidential elections.
One presume, as do many that, the minority Socialists also, aim at spreading an anti Turkey sentiment, in order to make it impossible for Turkey, as a predominantly, Muslim country to join the EU. Has to be born in mind that, Turkey has already got an appointment from the EU for 2010, to negotiate its membership.

Since there are more or less 6 million Arabs in France, mainly, from Algeria, and other Arab North African countries, would be such an opportunistic moment for the Socialists in France to push for a law that, considers Israeli occupation forces? killing in Gaza, and other Palestinian lands as ?Genocide?. Approximately, 750 Palestinian civilians, including women, and children were killed by the Israeli occupation forces since January 25th, as Hamas, Islamic Resistance Movement democratically, was voted to office. More than 3000 civilians, including women, and children either injured or maimed since then. Additionally, nearly, 4000 civilians, including children, and women were arrested. If these killings, are not a ?Genocide?, what a ?Genocide? could be. Isn?t this an ?organized killing of a people to end their collective existence?.

Instead of crying over a controversial history, without of course endorsing genocides by anyway, against any human race Palestinian daily, ?Genocides? committed by Israeli occupation forces, are crystal clear, which is beyond controversy, and globally, documented by satellite cameras, including French TVs, press, and media. Had the French Socialists been sincere about human suffering, they would have assuredly, considered Israeli ?Genocides? against Palestinians since as early, as 1948, as real ?Genocides?. Plus, this would certainly, bring them at least 3 million votes by Arab French.

Nobel for a writer, not his politics

Last year - not long after Orhan Pamuk was tried for insulting Turkishness - an Istanbul newspaper ran an article entitled 'Who is Maureen Freely?' Their answer was that I was more than just Orhan's friend and translator - I was a shadowy master agent whose sole purpose in life was to win my client a Nobel Prize.

It was part of a much larger hate campaign in the rightwing press - just one lie amongst thousands. The campaign was so vicious that I was sure that - even if it wanted to honour Turkey's foremost writer - the Nobel Academy, which shies away from controversy and does not wish to take instruction from shadowy master agents, would want to wash its hands of the whole thing

So - though I've often used the N word when writing about Pamuk's work - I was probably the most surprised person in the world this morning. I was just finishing a fiction seminar at the University of Warwick when he rang me with the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, and I'm afraid I screamed. He was calm and courteous, as I too tried to be on a series of radio programmes afterwards. But I am somewhat troubled that almost every interview began with the same question. Did I see this prize as political?
No, I don't. Orhan Pamuk has been on the world stage for 15 years now. He is a hugely innovative literary writer whose books owe as much to the great 19th century novelists as they do to the modernist traditions to which he also belongs. His subject is the clash of civilisations, or rather, the strange and subtle interweavings of contradictory cultures in Turkey past and present. In his historical novels - The White Castle and My Name is Red - he presents dark metaphors that illuminate the contradictions of contemporary life. In his contemporary novels, he pierces the silences enforced by state ideology to expose the truth about power and its masters. But like all important writers in Turkey, he has often been asked - and felt obliged - to speak on matters of political principle. He has spoken most consistently and eloquently on free expression.

For many years, his high profile in the west allowed him more freedom than most. That ended in February 2005 when he remarked in passing to a Swiss journalist that though a million Armenians had been killed in the country of his birth, no one talked about it. The firestorm in the Turkish press was so fierce that he briefly left the country. And then there was the lawsuit, which seemed to come at such an awkward time for Turkey. Here it was, trying to join the EU. But here it was, prosecuting yet another writer for his words. It wasn't doing itself any favours, was it? The story has moved on since then - as many as 80 writers, scholars, artists, and activists have been prosecuted for insulting state, the judiciary, or Turkishness itself; there are 45 more cases set to go to trial before the end of the year.

The ultranationalist lawyers who brought the case against Pamuk hope to trample democratic debate. Here they have not (yet) succeeded. The intelligentsia is putting up a good fight. But it's come at a cost, especially for those who are known in the west, and most especially for Orhan. His life story eclipsed the stories in his books.

My hope is that this will change now. The Nobel has gone not to the man and not to his politics but to his words, his characters, and his ideas. Born into a culture that had (recently) clipped its eastern roots, and that was struggling to define itself as western, he has (like all of us who grew up in Istanbul) grappled with double identities all his life. What might have seemed a curse to a young man is the source from which his imagination feeds. He has taken both sides of his clashing heritage and made them whole. Though he is often praised in the west for making Turkey "visible", his greater achievement is to make the west see what it looks like from the outside. This is why he has such devoted readerships on both sides of the divide.
Now that he has won the prize of prizes, will he be allowed to shed his political persona and go back to his desk? It's too early to tell. He is still a controversial figure in Turkey. He will, no doubt, continue to challenge its official history when he thinks it right to do so, just as he will continue to challenge Islamophobia and ultranationalism in the west. But now, at last, his books will come first. Who knows, the day may come when he is honoured even in the country he's put back on the map.

For U.S., a Strategic Jolt After North Korea?s Test

North Korea may be a starving, friendless, authoritarian nation of 23 million people, but its apparently successful explosion of a small nuclear device in the mountains above the town of Kilju on Monday represents a defiant bid for survival and respect. For Washington and its allies, it illuminates a failure of nearly two decades of atomic diplomacy

North Korea is more than just another nation joining the nuclear club. It has never developed a weapons system it did not ultimately sell on the world market, and it has periodically threatened to sell its nuclear technology. So the end of ambiguity about its nuclear capacity foreshadows a very different era, in which the concern may not be where a nation?s warheads are aimed, but in whose hands its weapons and skill end up.

As Democrats were quick to note on Monday, four weeks before a critical national election, President Bush and his aides never gave as much priority to countering a new era of proliferation as they did to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Bush and his aides contend that Iraq was the more urgent threat, in a volatile neighborhood. But the North?s reported nuclear test now raises the question of whether it is too late for the president to make good on his promise that he would never let the world?s ?worst dictators? obtain the world?s most dangerous weapons.

?What it tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the ?axis of evil,? ? former Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who has spent his post-Congressional career trying to halt a new age of proliferation, said in an interview. ?We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time. And now we have to deal with that.?

Mr. Bush?s top national security aides declined Monday to be interviewed about whether a different strategy over the past five years might have yielded different results. But Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, has described the administration?s approach to North Korea as the mirror image of its dealings with Iraq. ?You?ll recall that we were criticized daily for being too unilateral? in dealing with Saddam Hussein, Mr. Hadley said. ?So here we are, working with our allies and friends, stressing diplomacy.?

But at the same time, he said the administration had made a conscious decision not to draw ?red lines? in dealing with Kim Jong-il?s government because ?the North Koreans just walk right up to them and then step over them,? just to show they can. Other aides say that, lines or no lines, the North simply decided to race for a bomb ? and finally made it.

North Korea announced its nuclear breakout in early 2003, kicking out international nuclear inspectors and very publicly beginning its drive to turn its stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel rods into a small arsenal of weapons. Focused then on the coming war with Iraq, Mr. Bush and his administration chose to set no limits.

But foreign policy, as Mr. Nunn says, is ?all about priorities,? and until Monday the closest Mr. Bush came to drawing a red line for the North was in May 2003, when he declared that the United States and South Korea ?will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea.?

The Central Intelligence Agency?s estimates in the years since have been that the United States has been tolerating exactly that ? a small arsenal of nuclear fuel sufficient to produce six or more weapons.

Notably, Mr. Bush did not repeat that threat on Monday morning. Instead, he drew a new red line, one that appeared to tacitly acknowledge the North?s possession of weapons. The United States would regard as a ?grave threat,? he said, any transfer by North Korea of nuclear material to other countries or terrorist groups, and would hold Mr. Kim?s government ?fully accountable for the consequences of such actions.?

To critics of Mr. Bush?s counterproliferation policy, this seemed a recognition that the North had successfully defied American, Chinese and Japanese warnings about building weapons and testing them, and was now simply trying to manage the aftermath. North Korea, it appears, is taking a page from Pakistan?s strategic playbook: it exploded its first nuclear device in 1998, endured three years of sanctions, and now has emerged as a ?major non-NATO ally? of the United States.

Mr. Bush?s aides say that if Mr. Kim believes he, too, can expect the world to impose a few sanctions and then lose interest in the issue, he is wrong. ?He is really going to rue the day he made this decision,? Christopher R. Hill, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said of Mr. Kim on Monday. But Mr. Bush?s critics charge that the threat may be empty. As they see it, Mr. Kim watched the Iraq war and drew a simple lesson: that broken countries armed with nuclear weapons do not get invaded, and do not have to worry about regime change.

?Think about the consequences of having declared something ?intolerable? and, last week, ?unacceptable,? and then having North Korea defy the world?s sole superpower and the Chinese and the Japanese,? said Graham Allison, the Harvard professor who has studied nuclear showdowns since the Cuban missile crisis. ?What does that communicate to Iran, and then the rest of the world? Is it possible to communicate to Kim credibly that if he sells a bomb to Osama bin Laden, that?s it??

Mr. Allison was touching on the central dilemma facing Washington as it tries to extract itself from the morass of Iraq. Whether accurately or not, other countries around the world perceive Washington as tied down, unable or unwilling to challenge them while 140,000 troops are trying to tame a sectarian war.

Divining North Korea?s true intentions is always difficult; there is no more closed society on earth. But the broad assumption inside and outside the United States government is that Mr. Kim?s first priority is the survival of his government. And the second is that without a nuclear weapon, he believes his government would have no way of staving off the larger, richer powers around it: China, Japan, South Korea and the United States.

All have fought over control of the Korean Peninsula in decades past, and to Mr. Kim?s mind, presumably, the prospect that the North could lash out is the only reason they have stayed at bay.

Mr. Kim may have calculated, many experts believe, that at this point there is little more that the Bush administration can do to him. The United States has imposed sanctions on his country since the end of the Korean War. The new crackdown on the banks through which the North conducts many of its illicit activities ? counterfeiting, missile sales, trade in small arms ? are being choked off, a step the North Korean leaders presumably see as part of a strategy of bringing them down.

It may be years, or decades, before historians know whether Iraq played into Mr. Kim?s calculations about when to conduct a nuclear test. But clearly, managing simultaneous crises around the world is straining the system in Washington, and posing the Bush administration with more direct challenges than many believe it can handle at one moment.

That returns Mr. Bush to the problem he faced when he came to office, and that his aides have never stopped arguing about: whether the best way to contain North Korea is to further isolate it, or to draw it out of its paranoid shell. The nuclear test may force Washington to pick a strategy.

North Korea says nuclear test successful

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea faced a barrage of condemnation and calls for retaliation Monday after it announced that it had set off a small atomic weapon underground, a test that thrust the secretive communist state into the elite club of nuclear-armed nations.

The United States, Japan, China and Britain led a chorus of criticism and urged action by the United Nations Security Council in response to the reported test, which fell one day after the anniversary of reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's accession to power nine years ago.

The Security Council had warned North Korea just two days earlier not to go through with any test, and the Pyongyang government's defiance was likely to lead to calls for stronger sanctions against the impoverished and already isolated country.

White House spokesman Tony Snow called for "immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act" and said that the United States was closely monitoring the situation and "reaffirms its commitment to protect and defend our allies in the region."

South Korea's geological institute estimated that the test's power was equivalent to 550 tons of TNT, far smaller than the two nuclear bombs the U.S. dropped on Japan in World War II.

The U.S. Geological Survey said it recorded a magnitude-4.2 seismic event in northeastern North Korea. Asian neighbors also said they registered a seismic event, but only Russia said its monitoring services had detected a nuclear explosion.

"It is 100 percent (certain) that it was an underground nuclear explosion," said Lt. Gen. Vladimir Verkhovtsev, head of a Defense Ministry department, according to Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency.

Although North Korea has long claimed it had the capability to produce a bomb, the test was the first manifest proof of its membership in a small club of nuclear-armed nations. A nuclear armed North Korea would dramatically alter the strategic balance of power in the Pacific region and would tend to undermine already fraying global anti-proliferation efforts.

"If the test (is) true, it will severely endanger not only Northeast Asia but also the world stability," Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso warned.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, facing his first major foreign policy test since his recent election, called for a "calm yet stern response."

South Korea said it had put its military on high alert, but said it noticed no unusual activity among North Korea's troops.

China, the North's closest ally and the impoverished nation's main source of food, expressed its "resolute opposition" to the reported test and urged the North to return to six-party nuclear disarmament talks. It said the North "defied the universal opposition of international society and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test."

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair said the test was a "completely irresponsible act," and its Foreign Ministry warned of international repercussions.

The White House said a test defied world opinion.

"A North Korean nuclear test would constitute a provocative act in defiance of the will of the international community and of our call to refrain from actions that would aggravate tensions in Northeast Asia," Snow said.

Russia, which borders North Korea, had urged Pyongyang not to conduct a nuclear test. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov last week voiced concern about the environmental consequences for Russia. The Foreign Ministry warned that a test would add to regional tensions and undermine the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The North has refused for a year to attend six-party international talks aimed at persuading it to disarm. The country pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 2003 after U.S. officials accused it of a secret nuclear program, allegedly violating an earlier nuclear pact between Washington and Pyongyang.

The North's official Korean Central News Agency said the underground test was performed successfully and there was no dangerous radioactive leakage as a result.

North Korean scientists "successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions," the government-controlled agency said, adding this was "a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous powerful socialist nation."

"It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the ... people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability," KCNA said. "It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it."

South Korea said the test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (9:36 p.m. EDT Sunday) in Hwaderi near Kilju city on the northeast coast. South Korean intelligence officials said the seismic wave had been detected in North Hamkyung province, the agency said.

No increase in radiation levels was detected in Russia's Primorye territory, which borders North Korea, the Russian news agency Interfax quoted regional meteorological service spokesman Sergei Slobodchikov as saying. Vladivostok, a large port city on Russia's Pacific Coast, is about 60 miles from the short border with North Korea.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun convened a meeting of security advisers over the test, Yonhap reported. The Japanese government set up a task force in response, Kyodo news agency said.

A U.N. Security Council resolution adopted in July after a series of North Korean missile launches imposed limited sanctions on North Korea and demanded that the reclusive communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program - a demand the North immediately rejected.

The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea - and it bans all countries from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang.

Speculation over a possible North Korean test arose earlier this year after U.S. and Japanese reports cited suspicious activity at a suspected underground test site.

South Korean stocks plunged Monday following North Korea's announcement of the test. The South Korean won also fell sharply. The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index, or Kospi, fell as low as 1,303.62, or 3.6 percent.

Markets in South Korea, the world's 10th largest economy, have long been considered vulnerable to potential geopolitical risks emanating from the North. The two countries, which fought the 1950-53 Korean War, are divided by the world's most heavily armed border.

The two Koreas, which fought a 1950-53 war that ended in a cease-fire that has yet to be replaced with peace treaty, are divided by the world's most heavily armed border. However, they have made unprecedented strides toward reconciliation since their leaders met at their first-and-only summit in 2000.

The South had planned to ship 4,000 tons of cement to the North on Tuesday as emergency relief following massive flooding there, but decided to delay it, Yonhap reported, quoting an unidentified Unification Ministry official.

South Korea had said the one-time aid shipment was separate from its regular humanitarian aid to the North, which it has halted after Pyongyang's missile launches in July.

Impoverished and isolated North Korea has relied on foreign aid to feed its 23 million people since its state-run farming system collapsed in the 1990s following decades of mismanagement and the loss of Soviet subsidies.

Knowledge Sharing: Forever a Future Prospect?

Is knowledge sharing a utopia, the international community?s new « buzz word »? We do not think so. A few examples are more telling than a dozen analyses.

In 1965, Singapore was overrun with shantytowns, and its economy was underdeveloped. Since then, the authorities have pursued resolute policies aimed at investing in education, improving skills and productivity and attracting high-added-value industries. The per capita GDP of Singapore has today overtaken that of many countries of the North.

An economy based on the sharing and spread of knowledge is an opportunity for the emerging countries and for the wellbeing of their populations. Thus, despite its poverty, the Indian State of Kerala now boasts a level of human development close to that of the countries of the North: life expectancy has risen to 73 years and rates of schooling are in excess of 90%. Kerala contributes significantly to making India the 8th nation in the world in terms of scientific publications.


In 1971, a few thousand migrants settled in an empty plain 20 km from Lima and created Villa El Salvador. Practising self-reliance, its inhabitants set up education centres and formed associations. A courageous endeavour of participatory community development, relying on women, transformed this shanty area into an organized town. Recognized in 1983 as a municipality, Villa El Salvador established in 1987 its university. Today, 98% of its children attend school and the rate of adult illiteracy (4.5%) is the lowest in the country. The town now has 400,000 inhabitants, including 15,000 students. The municipality provides computer access points for its citizens, who express their opinions on issues under discussion within the community.


Shared knowledge is thus a powerful lever in the fight against poverty. It is also today the key to wealth production. Finland, which suffered a severe economic crisis following the break-up of the Soviet Union, is currently cited as a model: it invests almost 4% of its GDP in research, its education system is highest rated among the industrialized countries by OECD, and the variation in performance between pupils and educational institutions is astonishingly low, demonstrating that success on the scale of knowledge societies can very well be combined with equity.


These are far from being isolated examples. In all parts of the world, different countries are in the process of inventing new styles of development, based on knowledge and intelligence. For a society?s development potential will depend less in future on its natural wealth than on its capacity to create, spread and utilize knowledge. Does this mean that the 21st century will see the rise of societies based on shared knowledge? Since this is a public good that ought to be accessible to all, none should find themselves excluded in a knowledge society. But the sharing of knowledge cannot be reduced to the dividing up of knowledge or the exchange of a scarce resource to which nations, societies and individuals lay competing claim.


In network societies, creativity and the possibilities of exchange or sharing are greatly increased. These societies create an environment particularly favourable to knowledge, innovation, training and research. The new forms of network sociability that are developing on the Internet are horizontal and not hierarchical, encouraging cooperation, as well illustrated by the models of the research ?collaboratory? or « open source » computer software.


The emergence of network societies and the concomitant reduction of transaction costs encourage the rise of new forms of productive organization, founded on exchange and collaboration within a sharing community. This is particularly vital set against the temptation of economic warfare: these new practices hold out the hope that we shall be able to arrive at a fair balance between the protection of intellectual property rights, necessary for innovation, and the promotion of knowledge belonging to the public domain.


The sharing of knowledge cannot however be confined to the creation of new knowledge, the promotion of knowledge belonging to the public domain or the narrowing of the cognitive divide. It implies not only universal access to knowledge, but also the active participation of everyone. It will therefore be the key to the democracies of the future, which should be based on a new type of public space, in which genuine democratic encounters and deliberations involving civil society will make it possible to address social problems conceived in prospective terms. « Hybrid forums » and citizens? conferences prefigure this development in some respects.


The obstacles that stand in the way of knowledge sharing are admittedly numerous. Like the solutions we are putting forward, they are at the heart of the UNESCO World Report Towards Knowledge Societies directed by Jérôme Bindé and published a few months ago. The 21st Century Talk that we have just organized at UNESCO on the topic of knowledge sharing has doubtless helped to identify them more clearly: polarization, the digital divide and, even more serious, the knowledge fracture and gender inequality ? these are the main impediments to the sharing of knowledge. To overcome these obstacles, societies will have to invest massively in lifelong education for all, research, info-development and the growth of « learning societies? and to cultivate greater respect for the diversity of cognitive cultures and for local, traditional and indigenous knowledge. Knowledge sharing will not forever be a future prospect: for it is not the problem but the solution. The sharing of knowledge does not divide knowledge: it causes it to grow and multiply.


Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO

THE FORGOTTEN OPTION:TURKISH EURASIANISM

Turkey, which has been making its future plans according to the prospect of the EU membership for 40 years, is now facing the ambiguity of the ?open-endedness,? that has been offered to, or rather imposed on us at this stage of the accession negotiations. What does the EU plan for Turkey, while the Turkish society seems to be completely focused on the EU affairs and our once untouchable and nonnegotiable red lines have gone pink?

Cyprus, which is about to be lost in the same way that Crete was lost, Aegean Sea, which is subject to the schemes aiming at Turkey?s geostrategic eminence in the region, and Greek designs over Istanbul and incessant Armenian demands that have both received the generous support of the EU, are the signposts on the long, narrow and crooked road and warn against the danger awaiting. The EU for which we have greatly compromised our identity and national honor seeks to play an influential role beyond the north-eastern border of Turkey. Whereas we turn our faces to the West, the western countries try to extend their influence to Central Asia which is the fatherland of Turks. This region, which has been central to theories of world supremacy throughout history, is known as Eurasia. The EU?s newly emerged interest in the area is simply based on the existence of abundant energy resources there, but for us, it is the homeland of Turkish states and the nourisher of Turkishness.

Where is Eurasia?

It is possible to answer this question in 10 different ways. Answers vary according to one?s nationality and historical and political convictions; hence remain relative. Our versions of definitions of Eurasia are listed below.

? It is the vast region that encompasses the entire Europe and Asia from Atlantic to Pacific and Lisbon to Vladivostok.
? It is the region stretching towards the west and east of the Ural Mountains.
? It is the region sheltering the Turkish and Slavic peoples (Turkish, Mongolian, Slavic, Hungarian, and Finnish) for centuries.
? And finally, in its narrowest sense, Eurasia can be defined as the region where the Turkish states, in other words the Turkish world, dwell on.

Eurasianism in the Early Twentieth Century

It was a truism in the nineteenth century that the power who commanded the oceans would be much more advantageous than its rivals. From the early twentieth century on, however, with the advancement in the railroads the territorial powers acquired the same degree of mobility as the maritime powers. Within this context, the power that had the potential to command Eurasia territorially would emerge superior to the maritime powers which had to sail miles and travel costly in order to arrive at the point where the land powers reached with much ease through shortcuts offered by the railroad.

Therefore, one of the commonplaces of the early twentieth century was that the state which controlled the heart of Eurasia could also control the entire Europe and Asia -and even Africa to some extent. Although such commonplace had its part in the eruption of the two World Wars, the subsequent advancement of the naval-air forces, such as the US, rendered an extra-region actor the hegemon of this globalizing world. This fact should be seen as the confirmation of what some American strategists suggest ?which is, the control of the centre lays in the power of the peripheral states. However, we can not claim that this rule saying ?who commands the peripheral states commands Eurasia, who commands Eurasia determines the world?s future? applies perfectly. Nevertheless, today it is apparent that the US acts on a strategy based on subordinating the peripheral states of Eurasia with the purpose of preventing Russia from emerging in the region as a global power.

Eurasian Strategies during the Cold War Period

Even after the dissolution of the USSR, the strategic assessments concerning Eurasia ?no different than those pertaining to the Cold War era- focus on hindering in the region the supremacy of Russia which is today world?s second biggest nuclear power and hence the Russian attempts at becoming once again a world power. For this particular reason, the US demonstrates much interest in the Turkic countries and deploys forces there. It seeks to both stop the spreading of the Russian influence through Eurasia and protect China from Russia. The nuclear assets of China, which is considered as an eminent nuclear power, do not, in fact, exceed the capacity stored in a Trident-type submarine of the US. Therefore, against the common point of view, it is not likely in the future that China will challenge the US?s global power. Furthermore, the scarcity of its energy and uranium resources setbacks the Chinese development. As China proceeds towards the end of its development strategy, its oil demand increases considerably. All in all, it can be argued that the US, in order to pursue further its Greater Middle East Project, counterbalance Russia and safeguard its abundant investments in China, seeks to settle down in Eurasia. Meanwhile, the pretext that China needs American support in the region serves conveniently this design of the US.

?Eurasian Balkans?: Where the empires of the past encountered

Over the past fifty years, the role to be played by Eurasia in the world-supremacy plans have been assessed by taking into consideration the developments on the three fronts, namely Europe, Neareast and Fareast. Recently, into these three fronts are included Turkey-Caucasia and Central Asian Turkish Republics, which are together called by Brezezinski the ?Eurasian Balkans.? This new front, with its unique underground richness and oil resources, has an immense geostrategic value.

Eurasia has a central place not only in the formation of Turkish identity but also in the Russian designs of supremacy. Under the strategic guidance of his consultant Alexander Dugin, the Russian President Vladimir Putin has been forcing Turkey out of any plans concerning the future of Eurasia, which is in fact inherently Turkish. The motive behind such exclusive attitude could possibly be explained by Russia?s urge to be cautious towards the Turkic Republics in the region and their potential to be one day powerful and unified. On this account, Russia has been following the Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Tehran-Tokyo axis in shaping its Eurasian policy. Nevertheless, Putin?s latest visit to Turkey and his offer of cooperation and friendly advice not to be so much caught up with the EU affairs could be understood as a sign that Russia may put an end to its attempts to exclude Turkey from Eurasia. Also, Dugin?s latest visits to Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the speeches that he delivered there signal a change of heart in the Eurasian policies of Russia and thus underpin our argument. Dugin highlights the vast possibilities of cooperation ranging from economic to strategic ?even in Eurasia.

Dugin?s theory of Eurasianism bears much resemblance with the Soviet Imperialism of the past. First and foremost, it is essentially anti-Americanist. The Putin administration, which has been seeking ways to increase even further its influence in the Central Asia through a kind of neo-imperialism, is also active in the region by means of successful organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Commonwealth of Independent States. Thus Russia enhances its regional existence by strong bonds of economy, culture and politics. However, Putin who envisages challenging America?s design of world supremacy through Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Tehran-Tokyo axis in accordance with Dugin?s viewpoint, has chosen to neglect the Turkishness embedded in the characteristics of the region. Implication of this express negligence as a policy in Eurasia will soon weaken Russia in the region where the Turkish elements are predominant and will eventually facilitate the entrance of the US into Eurasia as an extra-regional but omnipotent actor. Still, Putin?s visit to Turkey indicates that a change in this attitude is on the horizon.

The Theories based on the Turkish-Slavic Unification

There is another theory based on a Turkish-Slav Unification proposed by Bagramof, which is more realistic than Dugin?s theory of Eurasianism. This theory suggests the restoration of the rights of Turkish Muslim minorities and Altınordu in the region.

Within this approach, as orientalist Alexander Kadirbayev emphasized, the ideal of stronger Eurasia lays in the unification of Turkish and Slavic peoples. According to Kadirbayev, ?Eurasianism is grounded on the steppe and forest, in other words on the unification of the Turkish and Slavic peoples. Expansionism, crossing borders and foundation of mighty states are all results of the steppe culture. This is how the Turkish character was formed. The consciousness of coming from Turan and partaking in Turkish Union has prevented the assimilation of the Turks.? In compliance with the maxim saying ?what makes the Eurasian continent is not the geographical union but the cultural one,? extra-regional actors such as the US and Germany, which is encouraged by Russia to be active in this region, are incompatible with this nature of the region. Therefore, designs built on the existence of the outsiders are not realistic. As Kadirbayev held, the Soviet imperialism rose on the harmonious co-existence of the Turkish and Slavic cultures. The most important determinant of the Eurasian culture is, however, the Turan (Turkish) element. Still, the third continent situated between Europe (West) and Asia (East), namely Eurasia, stands on the harmony of its Turkish-Muslim and Russian components. The first is represented by Turkey, whereas the latter by Russia. Both countries built empires in the region and had a say in the shaping of Eurasia?s future.

US?s Quest for Supremacy in Eurasia

Against this background, it would not be wrong to suggest that the American endeavors such as the Greater Middle East Project and North African Project are indeed the tools of an American Eurasianism. Today, consequent to a shift in its rationale, the US seems to ground its strategies in the notion of ?land power? and thus aims to extend its support, through land forces deployed in Eurasia, to the Anglo-Saxon naval civilization, which is in fact greatly under American control. The invasion of Afghanistan, acquisition of military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, obtaining of military permit for passage to Central Asian Republics could be perceived as the unfolding of the Eurasianism as Brezezinski prescribed. Next steps in this American version of Eurasianism will probably be Iran and Syria. Despite Russian resistance, American supremacy in Caucasus, which has started in Georgia, could continue growing.

The confirmation of the Eurasianist theories -in terms of territorial superiority and power- could be seen in the fact that the civilizations, which advanced to greatness in the region, built long lasted empires. Roman, Great Alexander?s Macedon, Genghis Khan?s Mongolian, Persian, Russian, Turkish Seljukid and Ottoman Empires can all be shown as an example to this. Therefore who commanded this heartland commanded not only Eurasia but also the entire world and thus became a super power.

Fully aware of this historical fact, the US aims to keep the peripheral states of Eurasia under its influence and prevent Russia from acquiring global power once again. Within this context, by manipulating the peripheral states such as Korea and the Philippines in the Fareast and Germany and Poland in Europe, the US strives to hinder Russia?s dominance over Eurasia.

Extended Eurasianism - New Eurasianism

Given the varying perceptions of Eurasianism and the diversity of its peoples, though after considerable hardship, it is likely that a new concept of cooperation depending on multipolarism will emerge. Today, it could be possible for Turkey, Iran, the Turkic Republics, Ukraine, Russia, China and even Japan to unite around a certain Eurasianism defined in terms of politics and economics. However, as a realistic Eurasianism requires geographical and cultural unity and the above mentioned countries lack such unity, especially with respect to their cultural identities, their version of Eurasianism does not seem to be a viable option.

Another view, which is similar to the one recently acknowledged in Russia as ?Neo Eurasianism? claims that ?At the heart of Eurasianism could only be Turks.? As this view goes, ?Russia could partake in Eurasianist designs only under the condition that it recognizes the Turkish-Muslim reality and acts accordingly. This principle does not divide Russia, but unifies it instead.? The Russian intellectuals, who argue for this ideal, desire religion to be important, while they at the same time pursue a secular Eurasianism.

If Iran comes to a secular line, it will be a realistic approach to include it into this Eurasianism and it is important to mention that Iran is a country where, in fact, the peoples of Turkish origin founded empires and states until 1924. Although the Eurasianist tendency that exists among Turks and Slavs do not exist among the Persians, the presence of the Turkish element in that country?s demographic profile could lead to such a development.

However, such Eurasianism encounters fierce opposition from the mainstream political groups in Russia and the pro-Atlantic and -European Union groups in Turkey. Additionally, in Russia the views similar to those of Dugin in their anti-imperialist approach and to those of Putin in their quest for making Russia a global power may overshadow this Eurasianist argument.

Nevertheless, in the pursuit of Eurasianism in the region Turkey should be cautious of the manipulative attempts of both the US and Russia, as Eurasianism requires cooperation and in the disguise of cooperation there may come subordination.

A realistic Eurasianism should not be dominated by one power, cause religious conflicts and antagonize the peoples of the region. Besides, not being against any state, alliance and ideology will increase the chances of this Eurasianism to be successful. This ideology can succeed on its own terms. Meanwhile, it will also be realistic to form a Turkish-Eurasianist integration as well.

If Neo-Eurasianist doctrine presupposes a Turkish-Slavic Union, by allying with Turkish Eurasianists, Russians could remain influential in the east of the Ural Mountains where the Turkish peoples are predominant. The world?s one of the greatest energy resources in this region encompassing the Caspian region, Tataristan and Siberia indicate that economic cooperation within Eurasianism, which could lead to the emergence of modern welfare states, is a very profitable prospect. Because Russia is not recently very successful in building solid alliances on its own and feels the potential threat of the American oil companies that are active in the region, it should seriously take into consideration the Eurasianist option requiring a Turkish-Slavic Union. In the near future, Russia might experience a second dissolution. In order to prevent this, it should cease seeking eminence through the hallow Eurasianism of the Tsarist era.

Turkish Interpretation of Eurasianism

If Russians choose to neglect completely the prospects of cooperation with Turkish, then Turks should not hesitate to concentrate on Turkish Eurasianism and help it flourish in the Turkish world.

Whereas Slavs are the majority in the west of the Ural Mountains, they seem to be outnumbered by the Turks and semi-Slavic and Mongolian peoples in the east. This situation, hinting a perfect geographic and cultural integrity in Turan, offers a fine starting-point for Turkish Eurasianism.

Of course, certain hardships today hinder the further enhancement of Turkish Eurasianism. From Dugin?s point of view particularly, Turkey, which has been on the opposing front of Russia, gave up on its imperial pursuits subsequent to its transformation to a nation-state. It has now an overtly pro-Atlantic stance. According to this viewpoint, Turkey and Russia, two rival powers, will remain in constant clash in the region and Turkey could build relationships with the Turkic states only in the degree that Russia allows. Furthermore, Russian statesmen living in the nostalgia of the Soviet days will always stand in the way of a real cooperation with Turkey. Yet, another obstacle to the Turkish Eurasianism is evidently the US.

At the outset, American version of Eurasianism and, as its extension, the Greater Middle East Project aimed at the limitless access to the natural resources of the Central Asia by the help of a friendly Turkey and pacified Iran. All was, in fact, in compliance with Brezezinski?s Eurasianism. Nevertheless, the US presently requires no help to enter the region, as it stands powerful at the heartland of Eurasia thorough its military bases in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan as well as its military presence in Iraq. On this account, it is questionable to what extent the US will need a potentially rival Turkey in the region or whether it will permit Turkey to be active in Eurasia.

In line with the current trends of Eurasianism and consequent to the US-Russian alliance, the US has enabled Russia to dominate the Turkish geostrategic zone which was once safeguarded by the US to serve the Turkish interests. This fact reveals that it is imperative for Turkey to dwell on an Eurasianism designed solely for the Turkish world.

Once pursued, such Eurasianism would provide Turkey with many considerable benefits. Turkey could, above all, bridge between the Central Asian Republics and EU and skillfully manage an energy network spread all through both continents. In comparison with the EU, Turkey is vastly more advantageous an actor in the region given its geographical, ethnical and cultural proximity to the Central Asian states. It would not be wrong to suggest that at the summit of December 17, 2004 the EU did not completely rule out the possibility of Turkey?s accession in spite of the fact that the materialization of this possibility will make Turkey the biggest member state, because Turkish Eurasianism is likely to result in a very profitable union from which the EU would not want to be excluded.

In the future, Turkey should, on one hand, preserve its national borders and unitary structure and, on the other hand, summon the Turks, Persians, Uzbeks, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyzs, Kazaks and Turcomans under a geographical unity. It is Turkey?s historical mission to grow from a regional to a semi-global power by means of first economic cooperation and then political integration.

Turkey?s most helpful tools in its quest for greatness are its geostrategic advantages in the areas where oil pipelines are being constructed as well as its military power and human resources fortified by technological training. Its commitment to democracy is also another asset that would bring along the leadership that Turkey aspires to.

Turkish Eurasianism envisages advancement towards a full integration between Turkey and Azerbaijan. ?One nation, two states? is a motto shared by both countries. However, not hiding their discontent with the prospect of such rapprochement, Russia and Iran seek ways to prevent any integration between these two major Turkish states of the region. Their support to Armenia and opposition to Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline should be understood within this context. Russia, which aims to subordinate Azerbaijan, and Iran, which pursues very cautious policies towards 30 million Azerbaijani Turks within its borders, both desire to pacify Azerbaijan by the help of Armenia and obstruct the communication and cooperation within the Turkish world.

Resistance against the EU?s interference with Turkish Eurasianism

Another step to be taken within Turkish Eurasianism is to reinvigorate the Economical Cooperation Organization (ECO). This organization has the potential to be the motor that will inactivate an enhanced industrial, commercial and cultural integrity amongst Turkey, Azerbaijan, the Turkish Republics of Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, our commitment to the EU acquis does not allow enhancing further the current integration with these countries. When Turkey entered the Customs Union, the EU promised full membership in return. Subsequent to Turkey?s entrance to the Customs Union, most of our small and medium scale enterprises could not compete and bankrupted in the end. Our importation from the EU member states has constantly increased over the past 11 years and finally reached to the amount of 28 billion dollars this year. Our current trade deficit amounts to 5,8 billion dollars. Among the countries to which the EU exports most, Turkey ranks sixth. It is now time to say no to the Customs Union, which has virtually made our country an open market for the EU, curtailed the progress of our relationship with Turkish world and simply enslaved us. If the open-ended negotiations with the EU mean to leave Turkey in a vast ambiguity and uncertainty for a period of 10 to 15 years, then we should freeze commitments to the Customs Union until a final date for accession has been set. We therefore demand the right to trade freely again with the neighboring and brethren countries in our region. It is vital and urgent for Turkey to put an end to the unfair and asymmetric relation with the EU and take a stand against its impositions and assertions which should in fact remind us of the historical phenomena ?the Capitulations!