Wow, Istanbul. As noted in my previous post, I have been in Istanbul before, in 1997. The city has changed tremendously, but remains fascinating.

First, it has grown significantly; in one conversation we had, with a man I’d guess to have been in his 60s, he remembered an Istanbul of his youth of around 600,000 people; it now is estimated at over 18M, and growing. Imagine the infrastructure needs of running a city with that kind of growth rate! Many of these immigrants come from the country, from less-developed areas, bringing with them different social mores and tremendously mixed skill-sets. Somehow, though, Istanbul has thus far managed to integrate them into its (fast-changing) culture and structure.

Istanbul has also, in my view, grown up considerably. My memory – admittedly not great, and traveling then as a college-aged back-packer (as opposed to a professional on a highly organized tour) – is of a far more chaotic city, a dirtier city, a city where we felt ourselves to stand out as tourists. Today’s Istanbul has (as our guide described it) too many tourists, almost overwhelming its infrastructure (the two main tourist attractions, the Aiya Sophia and Blue Mosques, draw an average of 12,000 visitors every day of the year), it has all the major brands (Diesel, H&M, MAC, Sephora, and of course all the usual fast food restaurants, including quite a few Starbucks), and its prices have gone up. Even the Grand Bazaar, which I recall as having been a chaotic, developing country-esque shopping experience of bargaining for hand-crafted goods, now has the requisite tourist-oriented handicrafts, but also highly glossy jewelry stores, leather shoes wearing the Prada and Boss logos, and numerous other shops. And here, too, the prices have risen with the gloss.

The mosques remain amazing; the Hagia Sophia was built in the 3^rd century as a Greek Orthodox Church (interestingly, the Greek Orthodox Church’s headquarters remain in Istanbul, a hold-over from its days as Constantinople), modified in the 6^th century, and eventually became a mosque. Following the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the church became a museum, and it serves as a fascinating exhibit. Similarly, the Blue Mosque, still in operation as a mosque but likewise dominated by tourists, is an incredibly beautiful building decorated in large part with blue tiles, from whence comes its name.

The city remains fascinating, and just chaotic enough to still feel somewhat out of the ordinary. While there, I explored some of the backstreets, we had meetings with various leaders (including, in my case, the founder of the Turkish Slow Foods movement), learned a good deal about Turkish culture, and had more amazing food. Indeed, our final night in Istanbul featured a spread fit for a king, with a seemingly endless stream of mezzes accompanied by Raki (a local drink similar to Ouzo, the licorice-flavored Greek alcohol that becomes cloudly when mixed with water), and accompanied by great conversation.  Phew! I'm now in Warsaw, having been in Krakow between the two cities, but move on tomorrow to Paris.

Photos below include:

1) first lunch in Istanbul, with my colleagues Bob Aber, Tamara Prather, Turkish MMF program coordinator Ceylan Akman, Turkish program assistant Petek (?), Anna Schleunes, and Elizabeth Aguilera.

2)  the Blue Mosque

3) the kitchen of the founder of the Turkish Slow Foods movement

4) The mezzes (appetizers) at our dinner the last night in Istanbul.

 

 

 

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

Our time in Turkey has already long passed (that is, I left there 4 days ago…), but it was a fascinating adventure. We spent just under two days in Ankara, the time mostly filled with meetings with politicians and eating amazing meals. My colleague, Elizabeth, and I also made time, as previously logged, to visit the ancient Citadel (if you haven’t already, check out the video I took from the top; it was an amazing experience). And, the group visited the monument to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (the leader largely credited with creating the modern country of Turkey, and whose last name, given after he successfully led the creation of Turkey, means “Father of Turkey”). We met with leaders of both major political parties (AKP, currently in power, and the more left-leaning CHP, which was Atatürk’s party but has been out of power since the early 2000s).

Much of our conversation and the myriad meetings involved discussion centered around Turkey’s role vis-à-vis the US, the EU, and its neighbors. It’s a fascinating debate, centering as it does on a country with one of the world’s 20 largest economies (and one of the top in Europe), a country with a population of over 72M, which would put it with Germany at the top of the population list for European countries. It is a tremendously dynamic country; in the last 20 years it has gone from 80% rural/20% urban to the exact reverse, with Istanbul growing from just a few million to a booming metropolis of 18M. Finally, the country borders Europe on one side, and Iran, Iraq, Syria, and obliquely, Russia, on the other, making it tremendously strategically important. It is also a country of whom approximately 97% of the population is Muslim, though the country itself is secular.

The conversations we’ve been having in non-Turkish EU countries center around a few things: fear, economics, and demographics. Specifically, the populations of most of Western Europe are aging, meaning fewer workers to contribute to expensive social support systems. However, many of these countries have also long been relatively homogenous, and have been struggling with integrating other cultures. However, the aging population means they are in need of new energy, new people, in their countries. Turkey has, for many, been the source for those laborers.

Turkey began, in 2005, proceedings for accession into the EU. Should it enter the EU, the borders will be open for free transit of people, goods, services, and money. It will also give Turkey a seat at the governing table of all the European countries, a body that deals with issues ranging from economic policy to continental security to agriculture policy. As part of the process of entering the EU, countries have to bring their institutions and laws up to the standards of the EU – a process that can be harder or easier depending on the state, will, and legislative abilities of the country in question. In the case of Turkey, they have had amazing change over the last five years, change that seems largely to be seen as a good thing, as a result of the accession process. Indeed, some people told us that regardless of the results of the EU negotiations, those internal changes may be the most important aspect of the process.

The main barriers to Turkey entering in its current form are twofold: the “Armenian Question,” as the Turks call it (though it’s also known elsewhere as the Armenian Genocide) and the Cyprus question. The former dates back to the early 1900s, and revolves around whether the Ottoman Empire, from which Turkey was born, committed genocide on the Armenian population (the Wikipedia article to which I’ve linked gives fascinating background on this period of history). The problem of Cyprus, or as the Turks call it, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), revolves around the small but strategically important island divided by Greece and Turkey and which has been a simmering diplomatic challenge since the 1970s; globally, only Turkey recognizes the TRNC. Should those two issues be resolved, the question becomes: should Turkey ascend to the EU?

The basic arguments for ascension are that Turkey is European in its orientation and society, that it would bring value to Europe, and that strategically, it makes sense to have Turkey more closely tied to the EU than not.

The central arguments against ascension are that Turkey is too different from the rest of Europe (largely, this argument seems to be derived from its religious make-up, as compared against the other, predominantly Christian-rooted European countries), and that (from the Turkish side) the EU sees it as a second class country. Also of contention is the value Turkey would derive from membership, an argument that is growing as the EU’s economy continues to struggle while Turkey’s is experiencing double-digit growth.

Interestingly, the Marshall Fund regularly runs surveys, called the Transatlantic Trends survey, to gauge public opinion on various issues on both sides of the Atlantic. Their most recent asked whether people felt Turkey should join the EU, and whether they thought it would. Overwhelmingly, EU member citizens felt Turkey should not join the EU, but that they probably would; conversely, most Turks surveyed felt membership would be a good thing but that it was unlikely to happen.

My view? Europe should invite Turkey to join the EU. It is a country of tremendous strategic importance, and it has a huge population (and eager potential work-force) under the age of 30. While the country clearly has a different religious foundation, in the form of mosques, rather than cathedrals, on every corner, but the people seem culturally to look west…the streets bustle with smartly-dressed people, prices are competitive with EU countries, advertising is similar to that in the EU (that is, provocative, very western) and the infrastructure in Istanbul and Ankara does not seem terribly dissimilar to that of many European cities. However, once the EU invites Turkey to join… I’m not entirely sure whether Turkey will, or should, agree. Indeed – if they join, their energetic young work force will surely leave for other European cities, taking with it some of the engine of their current economic growth. However, in balance, I believe their ascension would be a good thing, for both the west and for Turkey.

Here're a couple of photos of Ankara.

And another, of me, on the wall of the Citadel overlooking the city.

I've been to Turkey before, though admittedly only to Istanbul. Tonight was an incredible evening - we went to visit the Citadel, a ~2000 year old fortress above Ankara. It was beyond spectacular, in the true sense of the word.

I'm too tired to type much tonight, but wanted to post this video. It's the view, panorama, from the Citadel. Ankara is in a valley of sorts, surrounded by mountains. It was a village until Kamil Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, led the country through battle to become Turkey. In so doing, he moved the capitol to Ankara, which happened to be roughly in the middle of the country. This village didn't intend to become a massive city - but now holds around 4M people. It is a cacophony, beautiful, crazy, and more. It is also, of course, Muslim. The video below shows, as mentioned above, the panoramic view from the Citadel, with the sounds of Muslims being called to prayer echoing off the mountain walls surrounding the city. The calls to prayer come from the innumerable mosques scattered across the city, but the incredible thing of being at the top of this building, in the middle of the city, was hearing the echoes (if you're having a hard time imagining it, picture a bundt cake pan). Hopefully this video will give some idea of this phenomenon; I have never experienced anything like it.

 

 

I wrote this en route to Ankara, the capitol of Turkey, where we arrived just a bit ago. It’s fascinating to be there, for a number of reasons: Turkey is arguably the least “European” of the states in or being considered for the EU (considered, in the case of Turkey, who has been in talks w/ the EU since 2005). It is a secular Islamic state that has wielded tremendous power over the centuries, and that if it were to enter the EU, would be arguably the largest state by population in the EU (rivaled only by Germany). It is also a highly challenging and controversial subject in the EU, being the home country of many of the EU’s current and past immigrants, a topic that is being hotly debated currently.

Below I shall write about a few topics on which I’ve been thinking. Be forewarned; this is a random collection of musings, in no particular order. 

The opportunity

This opportunity is amazing. When else does one get the chance to step outside one’s daily life, connect with the broader global community, and connect with highly-placed leaders in multiple other societies, all with the sole goal of building a better transatlantic relationship? In Copenhagen, we met with Members of Parliament, heads of government ministries, leaders of companies and NGOs, and we got to hear their challenges, concerns, and hopes. Fascinating. For those who don’t know, I’m doing this trip under the auspices of the Marshall Memorial Fund, which manages all logistics, connects us to the various meetings, and supports the trip. It has been amazing so far, and everyone I’ve met who is associated with the program has been phenomenal, giving much of themselves to improve this transatlantic relationship and ensure an interesting and fruitful trip for our group.

Taxes

Denmark has among the highest tax rates in the world; if I understand it right, they pay approximately 56% of their income in taxes. They also have an incredible social state; all citizens (and immigrants) are entitled to free education (including advanced degrees), health care, etc. The citizens pay the taxes willingly, both on a sort of trust system (“I know my neighbor will pay this, so I, too, am so obliged”) and because they rather like the benefits of the system. In Copenhagen, we met with various people from across the political spectrum (a spectrum which, we were told, lies to the left of most of Obama’s policies), and while there was some disagreement over the level at which they should be taxed, even conservatives with whom we met felt they should still be heavily taxed. This reality sparked a discussion amongst our group in which some felt the taxes too onerous. I was intrigued not so much by the tax rate, but by its results: the Danes, from what I could tell, have an extremely high standard of living, are well cared-for and have tremendous opportunity. If that is the result of their system, it seems rather appealing! That said: I can’t imagine how we could implement something of this nature in the US. Core to the Danish system is that trust in each other, something inherited from being a relatively closed, homogenous society. They know all about each other (in the case of the government, this is particularly true; citizens are tracked in all ways from birth via their CPR number, without which they are unable to go to school, get health care, open a bank account, or any number of other things), and as such, have great faith that all will play by the rules. Further, they seem to have a shared sense of obligation to care for one another, acknowledging that some are better off than others and that those should help care for those less well-off.

Immigration

Immigration is a significant challenge in the EU, and Denmark is no exception. As noted above, the Danish system is partially built on a strong social and cultural bond with broadly-understood expectations and obligations. New immigrants, no matter how they try, do not immediately understand these social bonds, and understandably can have a hard time at first (not least due to a challenging language). Further, as was explained to us, many immigrants arrive and learn of the welfare state and, understandably, think a place in which they can not work yet still be provided for seems like a great thing. Finally, many immigrants, as in other countries, seek to maintain their cultures, including their languages and styles of dress. In a country as homogenous as Denmark, that is understandably a challenge, both in terms of developing cross-cultural understanding and ultimately in allowing different cultures not only to co-exist but also to grow together. It is interesting to compare this with the US style of integration, which I would argue tends to allow for other languages and certainly styles of dress and eating to persist while simultaneously integrating immigrants into the mainstream. The US struggles, perhaps, with effective immigration of massive numbers of first generation immigrants, but by the second generation, most immigrants have adapted to the US, learned English, and become part of the system.

Transportation

One of the things I loved most about Copenhagen was that it is incredibly bike-oriented, with one estimate I heard being that nearly 60% of citizens bike to work in Copenhagen. There are bike lanes segregated from car lanes and sidewalks, giving cyclists a safe and fast transit. While plenty of people drive, in a few conversations people told me it was “simply faster” to ride bicycles. Myriad bicycles served a wide range of needs, from box-oriented bicycles for carrying people or luggage, bicycles with flat hauling beds, and of course, kids’ seats galore. People rode in high heels, skirts and dresses, suits, and all other conceivable outfits, with chain and wheel guards assuring they didn’t get greasy. Riding around the city, cars seemed very aware of our presence, again contributing to an overall safety. The genius of this easy system: one can drive, but if one wishes to avoid doing so, one has other options. This, to my mind, is the core of a great livable city: a wide variety of transportation options enabling true mobility.

Money

Dang, Copenhagen’s expensive. Think $6 for a doppio espresso (Seattle price ~$2).

Renewable Energy and Climate Change

Europeans I’ve met believe in both. Seriously. And they see them as a huge opportunity for economic growth and innovation. So do the Chinese, if the news reports I’ve been reading are to be believed. I love that some US companies agree, and remain disappointed that the US resists acknowledgement of the greater opportunity climate change presents. Preaching to a choir, I imagine, I’ll assert that never in human history has something been as thoroughly studied as climate change, and there is no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Further, even if that weren’t true, the rest of the world generally believes it is. Given that, how can a country so generally pioneering and innovative as the US not rise to the opportunity to lead in developing new products and services and financial mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gases?? Have we lost our edge? Scary thought.

Finally, Biodiversity

A recent report on biodiversity asserted that the economic threat of decreasing biodiversity could rival that of climate change. Of course, they’re linked. Of course, if one is concerned with such things (you know, survival), one now must begin thinking about how to make a case to a global population to whom the very idea of biodiversity is likely a new one that they should care. Oh – and about that climate change thing…

Now, to see a bit of Ankara!

 

 

This town is beautiful. It's been a fascinating few days here (how it has flown!).

We've met with amazing people, and learned a ton. Some highlights include a meeting with the amazing woman behind INDEX, meetings with members of Parliament and the Ministry of Defense, an incredible dinner with some amazing Danes in the TV and news industry, and a homestay with a wonderful family. I'll post some photos below.

The city itself is beautiful. It is, of course, full of old European charm - beautiful old buildings, squares, churches, canals and lakes. The weather has been perfect - sunny, cool, autumnal. The food has been delicious, if expensive - a particular highlight was BioM, at which we had a delicious dinner a few nights back. I have been in meetings all day most days, have had engagements at night, and when not otherwise busy, have spent time wandering the city.

Alright, I have to get up early, so I'll stop writing now, and will instead post a few photos. Enjoy! Next stop: Ankara, Turkey.

These photos are all taken around the center of Copenhagen. I need to download more photos before giving much more. Sorry!

The amazing thing about the Marshall Fellowship is access. This Fellowship gives us access to really interesting, and impressively high-level people. In the last two days we've heard from some really incredible conversations, meeting with very high-level folks in NATO and the European Commission.

It's interesting to see how much some concerns/tensions are shared in US and EU, and how others are completely different. For example, European states are struggling with the European Union's new supra-national powers, trying to create an acceptable balance of power between individual nation-states and the continental government (the conversations sound a lot like discussions about how much power the US federal vs state governments should have). Similarly, there is much talk of immigration, both in regards to the large flux of people from former European colonies (Morocco, Congo, etc), and from neighbors such as Hungary and Turkey - talk that mirrors conversations being had in the US regarding how to best integrate (or not) immigrants, with some of the exact same opportunities and concerns being raised.

One particularly interesting topic is the conversation around Turkey, which is being considered for EU membership. This is an area of much contention, not least because it would immediately be the largest (by population) country in the EU, and the first that is distinctly not Christian-majority (or at least historically so). Some with whom we meet argue it's imperative that it join the EU, as Islamic and Judeo-Christian societies must learn to live together, side by side, and this could be the best opportunity to do so. Others argue that it will lead to an overwhelming flow of immigrants, and could open the door to even more from its neighbors in the Middle East. It's a fascinating conversation, and one that reminds me a good deal of US arguments regarding Mexico.

Also interesting to discuss: the future of NATO. This organization was created to deal with mutual security threats; from conversations we've had, it seems to me that NATO is now in a position where it is both losing relevance (as more European states join the alliance, but many lose military capacity vis-a-vis the US) and gaining in potential value - as threats grow increasingly more global, complex, and generally requiring of multi-lateral action. It's a fascinating thing to think about.

We often ask how the US can improve relations with Europe, and what are areas of greatest concern to Europeans. While there have been a mix of answers generally, one topic comes ever to the fore: climate change. The Europeans with whom we've met universally cite the need for US leadership as the single biggest problem in Euro-American relations.

Finally, I've been fixated on innovation, and how the US and EU compare. That'll have to be a subject for another post, but... quite the interesting topic. I had an idea today that could be a lot of fun if I could find the right sponsor(s) here in the EU to pursue it. Climate change game anyone?

I'll leave this for now w/ a few pictures. Enjoy!

The view from the window where we had today's European Commission meeting

Yours truly

View of one building in the Central Square. Awesome central square.

Ah, Belgian beer. How I love thee... This one was probably made from lambic beers at least 1-2 years old.

 

 

 

Today was great. We went to the Royal Museum of Fine Arts this morning, and it was one of the best art museum visits I think I've ever experienced because, simply, we had an incredibly knowledgable - and interesting - guide. She limited the massive building to a few select pieces, and gave us great detail about those pieces. The level of detail and depth in each painting became so much better and more evident with her guidance. It was really quite great.

Following that, we were left to our devices, which in my case meant heading to Gent with a colleague, Anna. Gent is a beautiful little university town around 35 min outside of Brussels, and was great to explore. We saw some incredible buildings, had a few great Belgian beers, and enjoyed a gorgeous, sunny day. Also, we saw more bicycles in one place (around the train station) than I've ever seen. Amazing.

This evening, we had dinner with a group of very interesting Europeans, a mixed bunch of people working within or for the European parliament and some journalists. As part of the dinner, we had a fascinating discussion about the challenges of forming a true Union of Europeans - a discussion that mirrored, in many ways, some of the challenges we face in the US of reconciling state needs/desires with federal. Fascinating.

I'm exhausted, so that's it for tonight.

We're here! Specifically, in Brussels. We have a few hours until the first meeting, which is nice - time to decompress, sleep (if possible), etc. The flight was uneventful, but I looked out the window as we were coming in and had the thought: that's Europe. Wow. International air travel is kinda amazing when you think about it; last night the sun set for me over DC, and this morning it rose over Brussels, a short night's sleep later.

My schedule the next 23 days will be kinda nutty. There are 15 of us traveling together, from all over the US. So far it seems like a great crew - really interesting mix of backgrounds, geography, etc. We will be together in Brussels, then split up and travel somewhat separately for three stops, then group back together in Paris. It's 5/city in the three middle areas, but not always the same 5 - so I'll be w/ almost no one the entire time, but will get a chance to know many of the group at least for a few cities. My itinerary is one of the more aggressive in terms of number of cities visited/days. My cities look like this: Brussels - Copenhagen - Ankara - Istanbul - Krakow - Warsaw - Paris. Copenhagen's the longest stay, at around 5 days, I think. The Turkish and Polish cities are ~2 days/city, which seems crazy, but should offer tremendous contrast. I'm particularly excited, for that reason, about the Copenhagen - Ankara trip; the two, from my imaginings, seem about as far apart as possible in nearly all ways. I'll see soon!

Off to find some Euros and a bakery for some breakfast.

This morning we met with professor Gary Weaver, of American University. The subject was, in effect, what it is to be an American. The basic summary: the main unifying traits of "Americans" is our independent, self-reliant, "do" oriented ethos. He tied this to numerous characteristics and behaviors, one of the most interesting of which was the phrase "can you spare some change?" As he explained, the phrasing is not an explicit ask for help; rather, it is a suggestion of excess - "clearly, you have change you don't need, and I'll take it from you". Conversely, to sat "will you give me money is to acknowledge one's own inability to be self-reliant or independent. Very interesting. And now... Off to Dulles.

Today is the first day of my Marshall Fellowship... sort of. We arrived in DC last night to begin orientation today. Yesterday, upon arrival, I was treated to a rainbow. Today, in DC, I wandered through a beautiful, quasi-Greek alley in DC. This is an auspicious beginning.

 

I apologize. I have begun this blog with no context.

As many know, I was chosen l last year as a 2010 Marshall Fellow. It is quite an honor; the people with whom I'll be traveling are incredible, and I feel honored to be in their company. The premise of the fellowship is to build the Trans-Atlantic relationship.

We began today with an orientation in DC, our nation's capitol. We discussed energy policy, governing trends, and European vs American perceptions of leadership, Obama, and governance. I loved it. I find myself eager to again engage in political debate, in conversations around policy and governance and philosophy, a set of things easily left aside in daily life, as one trundles along through work and etc. Talking with a group of very bright, motivated individuals from both the US and Europe is inspiring, invigorating. A key takeaway for me: as one thinks about the US's inability to move toward a lower-carbon economy, I am often stumped; why can we not, as a society, internalize the reality of climate change? Today, a European colleague helped me see a possible explanation: culture. For some reason, our society (American) requires catalytic events for change. The example he used was 9/11: for Americans, that was the beginning of the possibility of terrorism. Our European counterparts have been living with the threat of terrorism in one guise or another for decades (this particular commentator was from Spain, where terrorism has been all too common (due to internal civil dispute), but terrorism in general has been far more common in Europe than in the US. As such, terrorism has been normalized (not a state to which I'd aspire, to be sure); they do not see the same urgency as the US vis-a-vis the "war on terror." However (and here is the dichotomy around which I've yet to wrap my head), the Europeans, if this group is to be believed, have accepted the scary reality of climate change, and are willing to preemptively take action to avert that danger. They've had no catalytic event, but have accepted the reality of the situation, and are working to avert it.

In the US, we reduce our driving when gas prices rise, but resume our old habits when they fall; we replace light bulbs, but refuse to accept the larger, long-term reality. I've never understood why - we are so eager to apply the precautionary principle in other areas, but for some reason, around climate change... nothing. Perhaps it's culture. Perhaps we need a catalytic event. I don't want such a thing to come to pass and yet... is that the only way?

After our afternoon of orientation, we reconvened at a great local restaurant, Fire Fly, which featured local farm-produced bounty. Dinner was great, and the conversation stimulating - with topics ranging from the coming mid-term elections to the great museums of Turkey.

More to come....