Hurriyet Daily News published an article headlined "The pope’s interfaith dialogue with Erdoğan."
"Pope Francis’ visit to Turkey is not only historic, but also timely, as global terrorism is on the rise with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) every day killing hundreds of innocent people in the name of Islam. These terrorist threats posed by such extreme groups cause xenophobia and Islamophobia in the western world, creating more dangerous fault lines for global peace and security," the article reads.
"Messages delivered by Pope Francis and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan were very important to this end, as both leaders underlined the need of more, and constructive, interreligious dialogue in order to avoid potential clashes of civilizations," the author of the article, Serkan Demirtas, writes. "In this frame, Erdoğan’s remarks were attention-grabbing as he said “We sense and feel the approaching danger, calling on humanity to take precautions.” Although Erdoğan denounced all forms of terrorism and openly criticized organizations like ISIL or al-Qaeda, he indirectly blamed the western world for the birth of such terrorist organizations."
"Expressing his belief that the pontiff’s visit will find its reflection on the Muslim world, Erdoğan called the entire world to give an ear to Turkey’s advice and recommendations to start a new process for the alliance of civilizations. These are all right and timely messages and worth to be taken into attention. However, just a day before the pope’s visit, Erdoğan was portraying a completely different picture," he underlines.
"During his address to the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC) in Istanbul on Nov. 27, Erdoğan said “foreigners” are unable to solve the problems of the Middle East because Western states “don’t like us” and are more interested in just following the cash," the author informs.
"If Erdoğan wants to be taken into account by world leaders, he should make a decision out of his two statements. He will either embrace a more universal outlook and will contribute to global peace or he will gear up for his ambition to become the leader of the Muslim world through his strong-worded anti-Western rhetoric," Demirtas believes.
The Guardian published an article devoted to the ongoing controversy over the Iranian nuclear programme and thetalks held recently in Vienna.
"Of the myriad problems facing the Middle East, the question of how to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability is potentially the most serious. Even the measureless human misery of Syria’s civil war, the rising threat of a Palestinian “third intifada” and the depredations of Islamic State terrorists do not quite match the dangerous, global ramifications of, for example, a supposedly pre-emptive Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and Tehran’s likely retaliation against Saudi and US targets in the Gulf as well as in Israel," the article reads.
"This is why negotiators who last week concluded the latest round of talks in Vienna on Iran’s nuclear programme were relieved to be able to agree another extension, in the absence of a comprehensive accord. The seven countries involved – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and Iran – feared the consequences of failure more than the risks inherent in prolonging the negotiations. It is 12 years since Iran’s suspect nuclear activities were first revealed. Analysts point out that the strategic arms reduction treaties between the US and the former Soviet Union took a decade to achieve. The Paris peace accords ending the Vietnam war took five years. Most of those involved appear to agree with Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, that no deal is better than a bad one," the article reads.
"Unfortunately, there is no particularly persuasive reason to believe that a safe, sustainable and effective agreement will prove more achievable by the new deadline of next July than hitherto," the article reads.
"The continuing impasse fortifies the view of hardliners in Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran that the negotiations are a waste of time. In Israel, the old fear that Iran is playing for time while surreptitiously pursuing nuclear weapons is aggravated by this further delay. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a short-sighted, unimaginative man, is no great friend to Rouhani. He will do little to prevent the conservatives who dominate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, parliament and media redoubling their efforts to kill the talks. Likewise, the Republicans, who take full control of the US Congress on 6 January, are threatening new, potentially fatal rounds of sanctions against Iran that President Obama will be hard put to resist," the article reads.
"Given this frenetic backdrop, it is important to recall why a comprehensive agreement is so very important. At stake, for example, is Shia Iran’s possible co-operation in ending the war in Syria and vanquishing Sunni terrorism in Iraq. On offer, potentially, if relations with the west are ultimately normalised, is the replacement of Russia by Iran as Europe’s principal oil and gas supplier. At risk, if the talks collapse, is the very real possibility that Netanyahu and fellow hawks in Israel will order an attack on Iran, with all the terrible consequences such recklessness would entail. For these and many other reasons, and notwithstanding the well-founded misgivings of both sides, it is vital the negotiators make one last, rapid push for success," the article reads.
