Turkey crackdown on Istanbul Mayor Imamoglu, Erdogan's main rival
ISTANBUL, May 6 (Reuters) - Jailed Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu is fighting a series of legal battles on charges of corruption, insulting officials and terrorism links amid a widening crackdown on the opposition in Turkey.
Imamoglu, President Tayyip Erdogan's main rival, first became mayor in 2019, delivering a major electoral defeat to Erdogan's ruling AK Party (AKP). He secured a second term in 2024, when his main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) swept most of the country in local votes.
Pollsters said Imamoglu's lead over Erdogan has firmed since his arrest and jailing pending a court ruling.
Here is a timeline of the on Imamoglu and other figures that the opposition has criticised as a politicised and anti-democratic push in Turkey, a major emerging market and a NATO member country that Erdogan has run for 22 years.
October 31, 2024 - A Turkish court jails, pending trial, Ahmet Ozer, the CHP mayor of Istanbul's Esenyurt district, on charges of links to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militant group, banned as a terrorist group in Turkey.
January 17 - A court jails, pending trial, Riza Akpolat, the CHP mayor of Istanbul's central Besiktas district, in an investigation into an alleged criminal organisation suspected of rigging public tenders by bribing public officials.
March 18 - Istanbul University annuls Imamoglu's university degree over irregularities, dealing a blow to the party days before it was set to pick him as its presidential candidate in the next election due in 2028. Having a degree is a pre-condition for being a presidential candidate.
March 19 - Turkish police on charges of corruption and aiding a terrorist group, in what the main opposition party calls "a coup against our next president". The move triggers a lira currency slide of up to 12% to an all-time low of 42 against the dollar, while bonds and stocks also slide amid investor worries that the rule of law is being eroded. The central bank responds by suspending one-week repo auctions and hiking its overnight lending rate to 46%.
March 21 - Protests against Imamoglu's detention spread across Turkey in the biggest show of civil disobedience in more than a decade.
March 23 - A Turkish court jails Imamoglu pending trial on corruption charges, further inflaming protests by hundreds of thousands of Turks. On the same day, millions of CHP members and non-members endorse Imamoglu as the party's presidential candidate.
March 25 - Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek and Central Bank Governor Fatih Karahan tell international investors they will do whatever is needed to tame market turmoil triggered by Imamoglu's arrest.
March 27 - The number of people detained in the nationwide protests nears 1,900 and Turkey rejects what it says are prejudiced foreign statements regarding Imamoglu's arrest.
April 2 - The government denounces opposition calls for a mass commercial boycott following Imamoglu's arrest, describing them as an economic "sabotage attempt".
April 11 - Imamoglu appears before a court for the first time since his arrest and denies earlier and separate accusations that he insulted a prosecutor.
April 14 - The head of the Council of Europe, the continent's leading human rights watchdog, tells Reuters it is worried about any violations of rights in Turkey after the jailing of Imamoglu.
April 17 - The central bank hikes its key interest rate by 350 basis points to 46% in a surprise move that reverses an easing cycle following the market turmoil triggered by Imamoglu's arrest.
April 30 - A court jails, pending trial, 18 Istanbul municipality officials on corruption charges in a further widening of the crackdown on the opposition and Imamoglu.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters
PARIS/ISTANBUL, June 22 (Reuters) - In a bid to defuse the conflict over Iran's nuclear program, foreign ministers from Europe's top three powers hurried to meet their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva. Those hopes collapsed on Saturday when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's three main nuclear sites, in support of Israel's military campaign. "It's irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy," Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araqchi, visibly angry, told reporters in Istanbul on Sunday, promising a "response" to the U.S. strikes. "It's not time for diplomacy now." Trump, who said the U.S. airstrikes "obliterated" the sites, warned in a televised speech on Saturday the U.S. could attack other targets in Iran if no peace deal was reached and urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table. Reuters spoke to seven Western diplomats and analysts who said the prospect of negotiations was negligeable for now, with an unbridgeable gap between Washington's demand for zero enrichment by Iran and Tehran's refusal to abandon its nuclear program. "I think the prospects of effective diplomacy at this point are slim to none," said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank headquartered in Washington. "I'm much more worried about escalation, both in the short and the long term." According to European diplomats, the three European allies - Britain, France and Germany - were not made aware of Trump's decision to strike Iran ahead of time. French President Emmanuel Macron had promised on Saturday - just before the U.S. strikes - to accelerate the nuclear talks, following a call with his Iranian counterpart. One European diplomat, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged there was now no way of holding a planned second meeting with Iran in the coming week. In the wake of the U.S. military action, any European diplomatic role appears likely to be secondary. Trump on Friday dismissed Europe's efforts towards resolving the crisis, saying Iran only wanted to speak to the United States. Three diplomats and analysts said any future talks between Iran and Washington would likely be through regional intermediaries Oman and Qatar, once Tehran decides how to respond to the U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The attacks leave Iran with few palatable options on the table. Since Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, some in Tehran have raised the prospect of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to signal Iran's determination to accelerate enrichment, but experts say that would represent a considerable escalation and likely draw a forceful response from Washington. Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said Iran's most obvious means for retaliation is its short-range ballistic missiles, that could be used to target U.S. forces and assets in the region. But any military response by Iran carried the risk of miscalculation, he said. "On the one hand, they want a strong enough response that they feel the U.S. has actually paid a price. On the other hand, they don't want to encourage further escalation," he said. Even before the U.S. strikes, Friday's talks in Geneva showed little sign of progress amid a chasm between the two sides and in the end no detailed proposals were put forward, three diplomats said. Mixed messaging may have also undermined their own efforts, diplomats said. European positions on key issues like Iran's enrichment program have hardened in the past 10 days with the Israeli strikes and the looming threat of U.S. bombing. The three European powers, known as the E3, were parties to a 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abandoned three years later during his first term. Both the Europeans and Tehran believed they had a better understanding of how to get a realistic deal given the E3 have been dealing with Iran's nuclear programme since 2003. But the Europeans have had a difficult relationship with Iran in recent months as they sought to pressure it over its ballistic missiles programme, support for Russia and detention of European citizens. France, which was the keenest to pursue negotiations, has in the last few days suggested Iran should move towards zero enrichment, which until now was not an E3 demand given Iran's red line on the issue, two European diplomats said. Britain has also adopted a tougher stance more in tune with Washington and that was expressed in Geneva, the diplomats said. And Germany's new government appeared to go in the same direction, although it was more nuanced. "Iran has to accept zero enrichment eventually," said one EU official. A senior Iranian official on Saturday showed disappointment at the Europeans' new stance, saying their demands were "unrealistic", without providing further details. In a brief joint statement on Sunday, which acknowledged the U.S. strikes, the European countries said they would continue their diplomatic efforts. "We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program," it said, adding the Europeans stood ready to contribute "in coordination with all parties". David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum, a Paris-based think tank, said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's government had taken advantage of the Europeans for years to gain time as it developed its nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities. "The European attempt ended in failure," he said. However, the Europeans still have one important card to play. They are the only ones who, as party to the nuclear accord, can launch its so-called "snapback mechanism", which would reimpose all previous UN sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in violation of the agreement's terms. Diplomats said, prior to the U.S. strikes, the three countries had discussed an end-August deadline to activate it as part of a 'maximum pressure' campaign on Tehran. In total, the U.S. launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles, and more than 125 military aircraft in the operation against the three nuclear sites, U.S. officials said. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday warned Iran against retaliation and said both public and private messages had been sent to Iran "in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table." Five previous rounds of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran collapsed after a U.S. proposal at the end of May called for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. It was rejected by Tehran, leading to Israel launching its attack on Iran after Trump's 60-day deadline for talks had expired. Iran has repeatedly said from then on that it would not negotiate while at war. Even after Israel struck, Washington reached out to Iran to resume negotiations, including offering a meeting between the Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Istanbul, according to two European diplomats and an Iranian official. That was rebuffed by Iran, but Araqchi did continue direct contacts with US Special envoy Steve Witkoff, three diplomats told Reuters. One of the challenges in engaging with Iran, experts say, is that no-one can be sure of the extent of the damage to its nuclear program. With the IAEA severely restricted in its access to Iranian sites, it is unclear whether Tehran has hidden enrichment facilities. A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there. Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said that - putting aside from the damage to its physical installations - Iran had thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the enrichment program, most of whom had survived the U.S. and Israeli attacks. "You can't bomb knowledge," said Acton.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Spain exempt from Nato's 5pc spending target
Spain will be exempt from spending 5 per cent of its GDP on defence after striking a deal with Nato, the country's prime minister said. Speaking ahead of this week's Nato summit in The Hague, Pedro Sanchez said he had achieved a 'success' for his country by securing an exception from the new spending target, which had been billed as a strict requirement for all 32 Nato members. It puts Madrid at odds with Donald Trump, the US president, who has called for a significant increase in defence spending and cast doubt on his willingness to defend Nato allies 'if they don't pay'. Mr Sanchez said Spain could fulfil its existing commitments to Nato with a defence budget of 2.1 per cent of GDP. 'We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, but we are not going to do so,' the Spanish prime minister said in a televised address on Sunday. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned members earlier this month that they must commit to spending 5 per cent on defence spending or 'better learn to speak Russian'. It came after he had warned that Vladimir Putin could attack Nato by 2030. According to Nato estimates, Spain spent only 1.24 per cent of GDP on defence last year. In April, Mr Sanchez pledged to increase defence spending to 2 per cent by the end of this year. Target in doubt But Spain's Left-wing government is divided on the need to increase military spending and a think-tank linked to the administration has cast doubt on whether the 2 per cent target for this year is feasible. Mr Sanchez wrote to Mr Rutte last week to say that 5 per cent of GDP was 'unreasonable and counter-productive', arguing that such a commitment would impact the country's social spending and undermine EU plans for technological growth. On Sunday, it emerged that the agreement Nato leaders will sign at The Hague on Wednesday has been altered to accommodate Spain's objections. The text on the spending pledge has been changed from 'we commit' to 'allies commit', allowing Mr Sanchez to claim the commitment would not apply to Spain. Under the plan, countries are meant to reach 5 per cent of GDP by boosting their core defence spending goal from 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent, and adding a further 1.5 per cent on related items such as cyber security and adapting roads and bridges for military vehicles. Mr Sanchez said that Spain needs only to spend 2.1 per cent of GDP to meet its Nato capability targets – the personnel, equipment and infrastructure requirements set by the alliance The announcement comes at a time of political difficulty for Mr Sanchez, who is under enormous pressure over a corruption scandal within his Socialist party.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer refuses to say UK would support US if it is attacked
Sir Keir Starmer has refused to say whether the UK would offer military support to the US if it was attacked, amid questions over the legal advice given. Britain was not involved in the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities that saw bunker-buster bombs dropped on the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow nuclear facilities. The US made no request to use the UK military in the attack, either through RAF support from Typhoon fighter jets at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, or by using the Diego Garcia military base as a staging base for the bombing. It comes after leaked advice from the Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, last week warned that the UK should not join direct strikes by Israel against Iran as it might breach international law. Responding to the overnight attacks by the US, Sir Keir avoided any comment on their legality but said Iran's nuclear programme was a 'grave threat', which the US military action would 'alleviate'. Asked directly by Sky News whether he would offer military support if needed, the Prime Minister said there was a risk of escalation not only within the region but also beyond it. 'We have been moving assets to the region to make sure that we're in a position to protect our own interests, our personnel and our assets, and of course those of our allies,' he said. Asked whether the UK would support the US if it was attacked by Iran as allowed by article five under Nato's principle of collective defence, Sir Keir said: 'I'm not going to speculate about what may happen, because all of my focus is on de-escalation. 'But I do want to reassure the public that we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel, and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well. That's what you would expect.' The United Nations Charter says countries can only launch an attack in self-defence, to defend an ally, or if the UN Security Council passes a resolution authorising military action. The advice was drawn up before the US intervened in the conflict. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, suggested the situation would be 'clear-cut' on acting in self-defence if UK forces came under attack, but would not comment further on the legal advice. He confirmed that Britain had been told in advance by the US 'shortly' before the strikes on Iran, but Government officials refused to say precisely when. Mr Trump's order to attack, however, came despite Sir Keir's appeals for a diplomatic solution. At the G7 summit in Canada last week, the Prime Minister even suggested the US would not intervene after sitting with Mr Trump at a dinner. Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, said that in his view military action against Iran was lawful under conventions allowing collective self-defence, the right to take 'proportionate' action to avert Iranian attacks on UK bases and personnel, and to prevent Iran realising its 'genocidal intentions' against Israel. He accused Sir Keir of welcoming the end results of the attack but prevaricating over the means. In a post on X, Lord Wolfson wrote: 'The US and the UK are in the same legal position; accordingly, if the UK Govt's position (as reported) is that the UK cannot itself take offensive military action to support Israel, the UK Govt must also consider that the US strike on Iran's nuclear reactors was illegal. 'The UK Govt cannot welcome the ends but prevaricate about the means. So: what is our Govt's stance on the legality of the US military action. I support it. Does Keir Starmer?' In an article for The Telegraph, Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, claimed Sir Keir had been sidelined by his 'peripheral and hesitant' response to the Iran-Israel conflict. 'Ministers talk tough on Iran but have spent the past year straining relations with Israel – our key regional ally. We should be helping shape the international response, not reacting late from the sidelines,' she said. 'Commitment to peace and stability' Lord Ricketts, the former UK national security chief, said he believed the US decided it was better not to ask to launch B-2 bombers from the RAF base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean than to be told no. He told the Guardian: 'Either the Americans worked it out or were privately told please don't ask because it would raise fundamental questions about our taking part.' On Sunday, the Prime Minister held talks with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, after convening a Cobra meeting. In a joint statement the three leaders reiterated their 'commitment to peace and stability for all countries in the region'. They added: 'We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. We stand ready to contribute to that goal in coordination with all parties. 'We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilise the region. 'We will continue our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and ensure the conflict does not intensify and spread further.' The diplomatic discussions come as Sir Keir faces divisions on his back benches, with Left-wing MPs criticising Mr Trump's intervention as unjustified, illegal and potentially catastrophic. 'These are [illegal] acts with no justification,' said Diane Abbott, while Richard Burgon said: 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.' A third MP said: 'I do not support the entry of one nation state into another, and question the legality of this action, let alone the action itself.' Meanwhile, Britons in Israel have been told to book on the first Foreign Office charter flights to leave the region in the wake of the US bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Foreign Office launched a flight registration form for British nationals in Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories to log their details and interest in the flights. It has opened a booking portal and urged all UK nationals to register their presence now. It said those with greatest need would be prioritised for flights. British nationals, plus non-British immediate family members travelling with them, are eligible.
