PLAN A AND PLAN B

David Judson is the editor-in-chief of the Hurriyet Daily News, published by the Dogan Media Group. Dogan is an international media company operating in more than 12 countries; it is the largest media group in Turkey and among the largest in Europe.

An American with ties to Turkey reaching back more than 30 years, Judson is well aware of the problems of our region. As the head of the Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review, David has his own professional view of economic developments worldwide. We started our inteview with him from politics.

I would like you to express your opinion about the ongoing developments in our region. What progress is expected to be made in the Turkey-Armenia dialogue and Azerbaijan-Armenia relations?

My own view would be that the web of complexity in the process of normalizing relations in the region has been neglected. Part of this has to do with the fact that the NGOs that are focused on this (and influence the media on this) have focused narrowly on border opening. It all overshadows the Nagornyy Karabakh issue.

But there are other dimensions of this that also become ignored. For example, today Turkey has limited leverage over Armenia. Most economists expect Armenia to be the "big winner" of a border opening deal. If so, this enables Turkey to push harder on Karabakh, not less. This is a contentious subject to debate. But it is not even being debated. Most urgently, the views of Azerbaijanis need to be heard in the ongoing, NGO-mediated dialogue between Turkey and Armenia.

Turkey has always supported Azerbaijan's position in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and Ankara says that it will support it in the future as well. Do you think Turkey can make a decision against Azerbaijan's interests under international pressure?

Turkey and Azerbaijan certainly have deep ties. So do Canada and the United States, or Sweden and Denmark. These ties will always aid relations. But an Azerbaijani foreign policy constructed exclusively atop the assumption that Turkey will also be on its side and act in accordance with the policies of the Azerbaijani government is not a realistic policy for Azerbaijan. It is not a healthy policy. There is an expression in English, "the better Plan B you have, the better chance that Plan A will be successful." Said differently, the more scope Azerbaijan has to act without Turkey, the more likely Azerbaijan will be able to act with Turkey.

Turkey and Israel have always been allies. Their relations went down after Turkish Prime Minister Receb Tayyib Erdogan's "one minute" remark during his meeting with Israeli President Shemon Peres in Davos. Now the Gaza events have strengthened the tensions between the two countries. What do you think hides behind these processes?

Complex question. Erdogan feels deeply about Gaza. His speech (in Davos) was very popular domestically. And least discussed is the fact that all this noise and controversy in some ways helps Israel and US policy. Two years ago, every taxi driver in Gaza had a photograph in his car of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad. Today, he has been replaced with a photograph of Erdogan. That Erdogan's fiery rhetoric serves to weaken Iran's influence in the Arab world very directly and concretely serves the interest of both Israel and the United States. Let's not forget this important dimension, as many people do.

 Your newspaper is an economic publication. I would like to hear your predictions about the post-crisis period.

Very complex question with many answers. But most important is the rapid shift of economic power to emerging countries, including Azerbaijan. In 1965, more than 80 per cent of the world's GDP was produced in the US, Europe and Japan. In 2001, it was less than 50 per cent. And this is changing more all the time.

In conclusion, I would like to ask you, as a journalist, whether the media always delivers true information? How should the media act if the truth is against the government's interests in any specific case?

The government, through the courts, has the right to sanction media for slander, hate speech, libel, fraud or criminal activity. In the realm of television and radio, the government has a right to impose certain obligations on the media, say educational programming or time for candidates to speak during elections. This is because the "electronic" media uses a publicly-owned channel, airwaves or "broadcast spectrum". This is akin to factories being granted the right to build on state land or farmers being given the right to use water from a river that is state property.

But the media in a democracy cannot be an arm of the state. It is the "fourth estate". Complex democracies need effective judiciary, effective legislature, effective executive power and effective media. Pursuit of the truth is the media's sole obligation, and it is an obligation to the readers and society, not to the government.

Have you ever had to publish any information against the government's  interest in your newspaper just in order to be objective?

Every day.

Thank for the interview.