Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Islamization of Turkey

Islamization of Turkey


Dear Stratfor Editor,

Congratulations for your excellent research article of August 23rd regarding the Islamization of Turkey. Your article is an invaluable addition to the recent compendium of Western articles written in a similar vein. Warnings given in numerous letters to some Western leaders and in media articles written by some Turkish intellectuals since 1990s fell in deaf ears. Hopefully, the observations and analysis of Western writers will awaken the Western supporters of the current Turkish regime to the consequences of Islamization of Turkey. The recent news that the State Department belatedly has launched a study of the turn of events in Turkey may be a good omen.

I would like to take the liberty of making a few observations on your most welcome article, in an attempt to complement it:
In the second paragraph it is stated “Islamist-oriented Anatolia”. It may have been a more accurate statement to say “Islamist-steered Anatolia”. Anatolian masses have not been ostentatiously practicing Muslims in the model of Arab Muslims. There are historical, cultural and practical reasons for this. To give an example of practical reasons, for the sake of brevity, it may be noted that Turks cannot read the Koran written in Arabic and claimed by Muslim clerics themselves to be untranslatable. Until 1950s mosques were far and few between in villages and towns. Religiosity was fanned among the uneducated masses after the introduction of multi-party system in 1945. Parties exploited religious feelings ever since, for political advantage. Therefore, today’s transformation cannot be attributed to the political success of AKP alone; it was a process in the making over a period of at least fifty years.

It is noted, under the subtitle Power Struggle, “the party took power in 2002 with a mandate to close the political and economic gap between the Kemalist elite and the Anatolian masses.” The AKP struggle is not to close the gap between the two groups, but rather for the Anatolian masses to take over the political and economic power from the elite. They have to do this necessarily by way of disestablishing the Republic’s founding tenets. In this process, the Islamists had to undo the Kemalist modernization reforms, including secularism and national unity perceived as the main obstacles to reaching the uneducated Anatolian masses. Hence, they embarked on a social and national identity restructuring from modernity to traditionality of religion.

Your reporting of the Gulenist movement, under the subtitle Islamist Movement, is perfect. It would have been desirable to have reported, along the actions cited in Netherlands and Russia, some actions against Gulen schools also here in the US, for example in Utah. It is unfortunate that many US academics and politicians, and even the government agencies are embracing this potentially dangerous movement with a mistaken belief that it is the answer to the culture clash with Islam. It is naïve, or maybe motivated by political correctness, to believe that this movement is the moderate Islam in action. The quotations from their leader indicated in your article must be taken note of. It would have been desirable to have mentioned this naïveté in your article.

One misses under the subtitle Media and Business the mention of PMs dozens of law suits going on at all times against journalists or news papers critical of his actions. While his increasingly dictatorial demeanor has been mentioned in the article no examples were given, such as the extent of security entourage around him not seen even in old communist regimes, severe punishments of protesters even if they are teen agers, his harsh treatment of his staff and simple citizens.

Finally, the section on Foreign Policy again accurately indicates that one factor in this policy is the possible trade benefits, but fails to state that it is the only motivation rather than the Ottoman nostalgia. The foreign policy is not motivated by such a grand plan, or by strategic considerations, or national prestige. It is the expectations that the economic power obtained through trade will expedite the spread of the Gulen movement internationally and strengthen the hold of the Islamists domestically. Tradesmanship is peculiar to Muslims. It may be added that the AKP’s insistence on EU membership is also a bargaining stunt. It is a win win situation for the Islamist government. Knowing full well that the EU will not (and should not) accept Turkey’s bid for a variety or reasons, AKP is forcing a refusal that it will exploit for gaining further popularity in the ME and Africa. The Party is well aware that the Arab market and capital is more available than the European one. If, on the other hand, Turkey is really accepted in the Union, then AKP will declare victory over the so-called “Christian club”.

I hope you will find the foregoing comments as useful additions to your article and publish them. However, I plead that you withhold my name because of my serious concern about the capability of retribution by the people mentioned in this note.
August 30, 2010

Friday, June 18, 2010

Turkish-Israeli Encounter in the Eastern Mediterranean

Turkish-Israeli Encounter


The international debate over Israel’s use of force to stop a seafaring convoy of humanitarian aid destined to Gaza has been full of emotion. An impartial analysis may help make some distinctions in this complex incident, and thus understand its causes and consequences.
Taking the events from the back end to the origin:
1- Israel’s use of deadly force, particularly at high seas, is excessive, therefore reprehensible, although Israel defends its action as self-defense against the attempt to brake Israel’s security blockade of Gaza. Israel’s action is consistent with her policy and pattern of national defense, but it does not absolve her from accountability. An independent international arbitration commission or, failing that, the International Court of Justice must be seized with the matter.
2- Organizing a direct delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, despite the knowledge of Israel’s indiscriminate policy and use of force warnings, is clearly intended as a provocation with possible deadly result. Organizers of this mission must be held accountable for the loss of life and injury as much as Israel should be. Turkey should prosecute the organizers, and presumably the government for whatever its involvement may be in the affair.
3- The organizers of the mission are an Islamist Turkish organization. It is believed to be close to the Turkish Islamist government. It is not out of the ordinary to think that this NGO’s mission was orchestrated, or endorsed by the government, considering the fact that the government’s foreign policy was steadily moving in the direction of Arab countries –allegedly to attract their petro-dollars to Turkey, and to undo Iran’s as well as Israel’s domination of the politics in the region. The mission must have been organized to show the government’s frustration with having been let down in its efforts to mediate between Israel and Syria, and with Iran on its nuclear development, which were attempts to assert its position in the region. The Turkish government must be held accountable for endangering the lives of its citizens with such a reckless, undiplomatic and irresponsible distortion of Turkey's foreign policy. Opposition parties in Turkey (if they exist) should carry out a parliamentary enquiry into their government's foreign policy.
4- The alleged humanitarian aid was not to Palestinians, but to the terrorist group Hamas. Turkish government must be held accountable for attempting to help the cause of a declared terrorist group. Opposition parties in Turkey (if they exist) should carry out a parliamentary enquiry into the real objective of the ill-fated mission.
5- Hamas is recognized internationally as a terrorist group, but Hamas take over of Gaza was the result of local elections encouraged by the international community. Therefore, getting rid of Hamas must be an internal matter for the Palestinian Authority. The legitimate way for the international community to deal with this matter is to help the Palestinian Authority to get rid of the terrorist group Hamas. It does not give any right to any government –including Israel- to take the matter in their own hands to remove Hamas from Gaza, and from Palestine for that matter. Israel’s blockade of Gaza is wrong, and has already been condemned by the UN.

June 16, 2010