“United States” of America v. united citizens of America

2016 elections ended with surprise for all parties concerned and for the public. Consternation and anxiety overshadowed hope and confidence that an election is expected to generate. Post-election analyses relate the outcome to, among others, the widening economic gap in the society, the gap between the educational levels of voters, perceived connection between increase in crime and illegal immigration from the South, fear from terrorism expected to be perpetrated by future immigrants from the Muslim Middle Eastern countries, the claim (fueled by extreme patriots) that the US lost its superiority in the globalization process it promoted, and also  to the electoral college system. Of course, all claims have differing levels of truth, so do the views that campaign interferences caused by the FBI Director, and Wikileaks. But, at the core of this contentious election result lies the supersession of the popular vote by the electoral vote, like the one occurred also in 2000. A challenge to election results when the two groups of votes are consistent is very rare or subdued.

The electoral college has been constituted by the Constitution (Art. 2, Section 1.2 as amended by XIIth amendment) to reflect the states’ concern over the federal authority; after all, the Constitution had to be ratified by states. It should be inconceivable now to amend the Constitution with a view to abolishing the electoral college, considering that the states and a great number of citizens who despise the central authority and favor the state authority would jealously protect the status quo. Furthermore, such repeal would never succeed so long as the Supreme Court has enough number of judges who want to preserve the Constitution in its elementary and rudimentary state of its infancy, by believing in the legal philosophy of law for the sake of law (Scalia type), not law for the sake of the people. Consequently, citizens will have to live with this reality, but they need to learn how to live with it.

The frustration of citizens, when the result of elections is contrary to the choice of the majority, arises from the inadequate education of citizens about the real facts of the election process. Namely, presidential elections are announced and campaigned, and ballots indicate that they are “for the President of the U.S.” This statement gives the impression to citizens that the President is elected by and for them, because citizens take the term “the U.S.” as the federal entity for the people and all the people. The reality in practice is that the intervention by the Electoral College in the election process makes the presidential election by and for the united states. Citizens vote, in reality, an instruction to their state electoral college about the candidate their state should vote for. Therefore, citizens are in fact mislead by the way the elections are organized. Sometimes, even some presidential candidates recognize the vagary of the enigmatic electoral college after they are already in the primaries, as it happened again during this election. President-elects invariably state in their victory speech, and occasionally repeat thereafter, that they are the President of all citizens. Even this is an inaccurate, legally baseless (more precisely, unconstitutional) statement. The hard, bitter, factual, and practical reality is that the President is "the president of states", not of the people, plain and simple.

In fact, the preambular sentence of the Constitution clearly states, "in order to form a more perfect union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, the Constitution was established by the people for "the United States of America", not for the people. Let us not forget that the concept of governance "for the people" entered in the political jargon seventy-six years after the Constitution.

This fact has an added importance for an immigrants’ society that we are so proud of. The legal and political system forgets that the citizenry consists of a constant inflow of immigrants. Immigrants generally come from unitarian (non-federal) systems, and while becoming U.S. citizen they pledge allegiance to “the U.S.”, not to a given state within the Union. Accordingly, they conceive the country as a whole, and the states as local administrations, not entities hostile to the central authority. They cannot comprehend a system founded on distrust of the central authority, for which they came to trust their security and their future.

Informing citizens accurately of the peculiarity of the federal system during the campaign, and particularly on ballots, might greatly alleviate grievances and frustrations at the end of elections where “states’ vote” (electoral college vote) does not reflect the votes of the people. We should be at least honest if we cannot or are not willing to change the election system.

Nov. 12, 2016

Nuclear Diplomacy in the ME

The current US Administration has been pressing the international community to impose sanctions on Iran for dissuading it from developing nuclear weapons. Iran has been party to NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) all along. The Administration has, on the other hand, recently promised assistance to India’s nuclear energy program, although India is a nuclear power and is not party to the NPT. The distinction here is presumably one of military use as against peaceful use of the nuclear energy. Allegations regarding the Iranian program are suspect on the heel of the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) intelligence blunder in Iraq. If however the allegations happen to be true then we need 1) to understand the true meaning of nuclear weapons and of the NPT, and 2) to find the appropriate method for eliminating the aspirations of countries to acquire the weapon.

1)    After the genie came out of the bottle at Hiroshima and Nagasaki it became clear that it cannot be put back in the bottle. It became clear that outlawing nuclear weapons was not going to secure us against atomic warfare. Eisenhower’s Atom for Peace initiative became imperative. NPT ensured that the nuclear powers would keep their nuclear capability, and sell the technology and the fuel to non-nuclear states for peaceful uses only under the control of international safeguards, in order to keep under control any desire by other countries to develop this capability. Atom for Peace, NPT and other treaties that followed meant legitimization thus regulation of nuclear capability, not their prohibition (unlike in the case of biological and chemical weapons).

Nuclear bomb was not used since its first and only use in 1945. Nuclear powers hold on to this capability to assert their superiority, because they know that there is no real trust in international affairs. Nuclear power states do not only refuse nuclear disarmament, they also refuse to commit to “no first use”, to “no use on non-nuclear states”, to “Test Ban Treaty”, and to “the prohibition of stationing nuclear weapons in other countries, in international waters and space”, on grounds of the UN Charter Article 51 provision of Self-defense. Of course, the same UN self-defense rule applies to other states, non-nuclear states, as well. An arsenal of 70.000 nuclear bombs was produced between WWII and 1992. * Fear feeds insecurity, insecurity arms race, arms race arrogance, arrogance fear, and the cycle starts over again. Of the non-nuclear states, some took refuge against a nuclear attack in an alliance with a nuclear power, either because they willingly opted out of going nuclear or because of their technological or economic inhibitions. Some non-nuclear states chose to go nuclear for an alleged reason of security.

The good news is that, ironically, the fear from the atomic bomb deters the use of the bomb. Its use against a non-nuclear country will invite an international outcry. Its use against another nuclear power will invite a nuclear retaliation. Therefore, it renders its use almost impractical. This so-called principle of “mutually assured destruction” renders nuclear weapons a deterrent rather than a practical arm. For the same reason, umbrella agreements between nuclear powers and non-nuclear states are not worth the paper they are written on, because the experience shows that no nuclear power would take the risk of nuclear retaliation for the protection of a country that may be under the umbrella of another nuclear power. Therefore, nuclear capability may be characterized as strategically desirable but militarily unusable. The nuclear weapon is more of a diplomatic arm than a military one; more an arm to twist arms than an arm to kill. The danger is therefore real but not imminent.

2)    The question is how can we stop the proliferation of this arm, which is proliferating despite the NPT? We need to look first at the political motivation behind having the nuclear capability, specifically in the ME. While every nation in the ME has a real or perceived fear from their far or near neighbors, most of them do not have either the financial, technological or manpower resources to develop nuclear weapons. Those that have all or some of the resources are India, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran.

India, regionally, is the most advanced in nuclear technology, it even has a PU separation plant, and it stayed out of the NPT. It is the refusal of the nuclear powers to denounce the use of and to dispose of their nuclear weapons that led India to develop the weapon, more than its conflict with Pakistan. India consistently requested these guarantees unsuccessfully since the beginning of the NPT negotiations. India does not have an aggressive foreign policy but a defensive one, in particular, towards China. India’s action, therefore, is simply the result of the discriminatory nature of NPT between the haves and have-nots, the refusal by haves to extend a non-use guarantee to have-nots.

Pakistan also has the nuclear weapons technology; although it is based on the bulkier weapons grade U rather than the PU source. It does not have a PU separation plant to produce weapons grade fuel. Pakistan’s nuclear policy is predicated by that of India’s. Its nuclear weapons program is simply to counter the Indian diplomatic leverage over the unsettled territorial issue in Kashmir. Pakistan cannot economically afford an aggressive foreign policy at any rate.

As to the case of Israel, the stupidly arrogant old British policy is behind the history of Israel as it is in the history of all other ME countries. For it encouraged nationalism in Arab lands, of all the unlikely places, as a war tactic against the Ottoman Empire during WWI; and at the same time it made the Balfour Declaration that promised a “national home” for the European Jewry. The British intent was to get rid of the internationally successful Jewry out and away from Europe, but this was executed during their instigation of unrest in the area. This was tantamount to building a lion’s den and throwing the pray in it. Israel, outnumbered by Arabs, had no choice but to arm itself. Arm itself it did to the extreme by developing the nuclear weapon with all the knowhow and connections available to it from all over the world. Therefore, the Israeli motivation is defensive. (But, the use of nuclear bomb in such a confined area as Israel is situated makes its use somewhat risky for Israel, because of the possible environmental effects on Israel itself caused by the atmospheric conditions prevailing at the time of the blast.)

Iran is quite a different case. It does not have nuclear weapons, or commercial power reactors. It is building an enrichment plant, allegedly for fuel for power reactors. Of course, if the enrichment is high enough to reach the weapons grade, Iran can also become a nuclear power. Iran has tense relations with Israel, Turkey, and Arab countries. As to its relations with the West, the short answer may be, aggressive no, anti-Western yes. There is a long history of anti-Westernism in Iran. After Muzaffar al-Din Shah sold the exclusive rights of oil exploitation to the British financier D’Arcy, in 1901, Britain signed an agreement with Russia dividing Iran between them. The agreement was suspended after the Soviet revolution. Later during WWII, this avenue was used to supply 5 million tons of American war equipment to Russia. In his book All the Shah’s Men (1950) Stephen Kinzer writes, “Britain and Russia had trampled on Iranian sovereignty for more than a century, and many Iranians naturally came to detest them both.” This was not all, when the Iranian parliament decided to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. in 1951, Britain wanted to use military force to maintain its grip on the oil revenue, just as it would do a few years later after the nationalization of Suez Canal by Egypt. The U.S. intervened, as it would later in the Suez crisis, to apply a softer method; the Mossadegh government was overthrown by a CIA operation on the premise that it was leaning towards communist Russia. The Shah was reinstated to the throne, who resumed his dictatorship. Thus, the Iranian hatred of British was now joined with that of American. Secretary M. Albright, cognizant of this history, stated later in 1997, “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But, the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” D.F. Eickelman also states in his book The Other ‘Oriental’ Crisis, in Russia’s Muslim Frontiers, “The overthrow of Mossadegh and intervention elsewhere, however, shattered the image of the US as a supporter of democracy and national self-determination.” This is the history of the Iranian state of mind. Now, we further alienate Iran by declaring the Axis of Evil, they feel threatened by the presence of American troops on both sides of their country, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence, they put whatever technological and financial ability they have in the development of nuclear capability. Any forceful action on Iran now will only prove the Iranian claim of Western ill will, and will consolidate the Iranian people’s political will to resort to the alleged security of nuclear weapon.

In brief, the British foreign policy of WWI defined the current turmoil in the ME. Thereafter, the US has been perceived by Arabs as the successor to British ambitions and machinations. Therefore, the region’s countries are mistrustful not only of each other, but also of the West. Some ME countries may wish to resort to the development of nuclear weapons for the alleged security it provides. In reality, the nuclear weapon does not pose as great a threat as it is perceived, but is an effective deterrent. The West could help reduce the tension in countries that aspire to nuclear capability through diplomacy instead of use of force. We need to scale down the rhetoric of any real or perceived threat, and to adopt instead a policy that would offer to the region’s countries a reasonable amount of security.

September 2006

*Dismantlement since 1992 already cost billions of dollars, and a technological headache for the destruction and storage of the warheads. Existing few facilities in the world are enough to dismantle only about 2000 of them a year. It is estimated that it would take at least 15 years to dismantle the warheads beyond 3-5000 allowed to the US and Russia each. In addition, it would take 250 years to burn the material contained in warheads as reactor fuel in common reactors (1Gwe, 250 LWR reactors), excluding already existing stockpiles of Pu, and the 70 Mtons produced every year in the spent fuel of nuclear power reactors in operation. If the claims of both sides are believable, they stopped producing weapons grade material (PU and HEU) as of 1992. This would mean that they must have closed down the PU production plants and the Spent Fuel Reprocessing plants, and converted all the U Enrichment plants and the HEU power reactors to LEU facilities!!

A Parody of Comparing Tayyip with Atatürk

I hope the article by a Georgetown University doctoral candidate published in the European edition of Politico does not reflect on the academic level of the University, or on the editorial quality of Politico. For the author who seems to aspire to achieve the highest educational level is an obvious example of writing without sufficient knowledge and research. The faculty members who are guiding him towards his aspired degree may take note of his shoddiness. The author did not follow extensive media reports about Erdogan’s Islamist, Ottomanist, and contemptuous rhetoric on Western policies, some of which appeared even in the same publication as his was published, Politico (e.g. several Steven Cook articles).

The similarities alleged in the article to exist between the two Turkish presidents are “populist nationalism and aggrieved egalitarianism”. Since the author did not define these terms, we have to follow facts. There was no question of nationhood in the Ottoman “ummet” system of religious classification during the khalifate period from 1517 onwards. Atatürk had to revive Turkishness of the earlier Ottoman period in order to found a republic based on “nation-state”, the social cohesion for most states of that time. In other words, Atatürk did not need nationalism for being popular in a democratic competition; he simply introduced a national identity for a new Republic. It is true, however, that Erdogan exploits populist nationalism for his political ends; to fight against Kurds, and to attract votes which otherwise go to the extra-nationalist party (MHP).

As to “aggrieved egalitarianism”, again since the author did not provide his understanding from this term, we will proceed with facts. Atatürk did not have grievances against anything or anybody except against the disappearance of his country from the map due to the incompetence of the Ottoman rule and to the colonial invasion by world powers. He was a popular war hero and a popular reformer president. He tried to elevate the social status of the people, but never mentioned egalitarianism. Whereas, Erdogan is surely aggrieved, an angry, a jealous, a scornful, a vengeful, a half-educated man, who came out of nowhere. He exploits egalitarianism, like he does nationalism, for political means; and, he enriched himself and his cronies through illegal means, built for himself the biggest palace, while mistreating the underprivileged (slapping, degrading, kicking people).

The author’s claim that Erdoğan inherited these traits from Atatürk must be taken as a joke. It is known by the well-read world that Erdogan is the complete opposite of Atatürk. He clearly and loudly repeated, in words and in actions, that he is set out to undo the reforms introduced by Atatürk.

The comparison of “Erdoğan’s attacks on Ataturk’s regime bear an uncanny resemblance to Ataturk’s own attacks on the Ottoman sultans” is also ludicrous. Atatürk’s attacks were for saving the country. Erdogan’s attacks are for demolishing the country.

The statement, “the villagers were still waiting to become masters of their country, and they expected Erdoğan to deliver where Ataturk had failed” shows an obvious malevolence on the part of the author. Atatürk was president only fifteen years, yet his accomplishments from nought during a recession-filled inter-war years have been noted by numerous world leaders and thinkers. There were, no doubt, many failures in Turkey’s administration, but they must be attributed to the incompetent leaders who ruled for 64 years after Atatürk. Nevertheless, villagers became masters of their country in the course of that period, not because of Erdogan. Those “masters” elected and keep electing Erdogan to lead them.

The author’s last statement, “Ataturk’s elite ….. the unmistakable Hitler mustaches that many proudly wore as well. Now, as Erdoğan becomes increasingly autocratic, ….. Ataturk’s sins somehow excuse jailing journalists”, is proof of his real motive for writing the article. Because, the mustaches of some of Atatürk’s entourage have nothing to do with the author’s attempt to prove the similarities between the two men as regards “populist nationalism and aggrieved egalitarianism”. This must be a stretch of imagination in desperation to find an explanation for Erdogan’s autocratic rule, which even suggests that the article may have been written under contract, not on facts.

January 2, 2016

AFTER BREXIT

Invitation to the British to seize the opportunity to present the world with another gift

The British can take pride in being the first in quite a number of things that positively affected the lives of the rest of the world, leaving aside the harms they caused in other matters. The most prominent good deed they did was the industrial revolution of the early 19^th century (mostly dated as 1820). J. Watts’ steam engine spearheaded the development of transportation industry, and tools and machinery production brought the textile, coal, and electric power generation to an industrial level. As a result of these two innovations alone colonial practices, international trade, international communication and diplomacy became the backbone of world politics. Furthermore, this internationalization process made the English language the Lingua Franca.

Great Britain became the champion of another event last month by voting for Brexit, then leading the Brits in consternation to street protests and to petitions millions of signatures strong.

I am surprised at the British decision and their reaction to it; I expected the British to challenge the reasons behind the decision rather than demanding another referendum with the naïve expectation of replacing it. Their reaction appears like a third world country reaction.

There are several substantive political reasons for the Brexit decision that make reversal difficult, because they have been debated extensively already and voted upon. There is, however, a procedural reason for the unexpected (and apparently unwanted) result, which can be changed with effects on all democratic decision processes; it is the definition of the majority system.

Majority has always been understood to mean over 50%, except for pre-determined special cases. The silent 49% “minority” never challenged this definition and practice, though it must be outrageous to consider such a large portion of voters as minority. A very small margin of 1% (or sometimes even less) cannot possibly take into account human errors in judgment. It certainly does not take into account that 49% of “voters” may represent more than 49% in terms of the “population as a whole”. Referenda, elections, parliaments, corporate boards, etc. all make decisions that have very important consequences (sometimes unforeseen or unintended) on lives of a great number of people for a long time to come (considering that the reversal of decisions are much more difficult than making them in the first instance). Subjecting the 49% of a population to the preference of 51% is nothing else than unfair dominance by one group over a great portion of society (totalitarianism).

Decisions having lasting effects on social and/or economic conditions of a considerable number of people must be taken with a much greater margin than 1% or less, in order to avoid discrimination of or undue burden on the, so-called, “minority”. The practice of requiring 60% or more (qualified) majority on matters considered “important” attests to the validity of the above argument. Most political or corporate decisions taken by 50+% majority adversely affect the living conditions of millions of people. The determination of importance of issues is subjective. Ruling even by 60 or even 70% majority may still cause hardship on a large portion of the population. 40 or 30% of people cannot be ignored or alienated. A lone person of different opinion versus ten decision makers may be considered minority, and it may be fair to ask him/her to comply with the decision of the rest, because he/she does not have even one vote in support. Although even two out of ten may not be considered minority, admitting that extensive changes in society are not easily absorbed, a proposal of no less than 70% majority may be a cautious step towards achieving better justice. This also strengthens the argument that at least two out of ten supports the view of one, i.e. a solid view that must be taken with respect in any democratic, fair and humanistic society. Admittedly, such a large majority requirement will make decision making quite difficult; but, this is where and why lies the importance of better education and quality debate.

Now is an excellent opportunity for the British to score another first in history by questioning the wisdom of 50+% majority system, and to campaign for a majoritarian system with a much higher percentage. For this, they need to dig deeper than just protesting the Brexit decision and petitioning the renewal of the referendum. The disastrous results of majoritarian democracy in many countries like in Turkey, in some South American and African countries may sympathize the British to the idea of initiating such a change. If the British would pursue this proposed change with diligence and persistence, they will also help minimize unrests in many parts of the world due to political dissatisfaction of large groups in societies caused by the practice of the 50+% majority rule.

The triumph of rational thinking is rare because it requires also courage to win over the resistance of status quo, the establishment, the tradition.

July 2, 2016

Reason, a Prerequisite for Lasting Peace

Rationality, a Prerequisite for Lasting Peace

(Contribution in a Panel discussion titled "The role of secular governance in world peace") 

A discussion about the role of secular governance on world peace necessarily leads to the proposition that the meddling of religion in state affairs is, at the least, one of the sources of conflicts. This theory cannot be denied in light of the history of innumerable civil unrests and wars waged in the name of religion. However, the same history shows us that even secular states made wars, and many times over. Is it because secularism did not succeed to take religion out of governance? Is there a means to cleanse politics from religion?

Secular governance is not true separation, hence no peace

The term secularism is used generally to represent the principle of “separation of Church and state”. Secularism is no doubt the child of 16 and 17 centuries Enlightenment. But, the Church put up a fierce fight to deny the sovereignty of people, and to retain its power for another three hundred years. This tug of war gradually ended in a tie called “secularism”; sort of a balance, or a “separate but equal” dualism. It is a compromise in the absence of victory by either side. A couple of weeks ago I heard yet another description of secularism in a lecture at the Woodrow Wilson Center by a French professor , that “it is a relation between religion and politics”. I guess this may be another way of referring to what I call compromise.

Secularism has two major shortcomings. First, secularism is the child of “half-pregnancy”; because, secularism, as practiced, keeps the state out of religion, but does not keep religion out of the state. In our US example, the wording of the last provision of the Constitution, which led to the adoption of the first provision of the Bill of Rights, set the scene for this malpractice. For examples of the meddling of religion in political decision-making in the US, just recall what G. Bush II said at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention 2005, “I welcome faith to help solve the nation’s deepest problems”. No wander then, when asked whether he consulted the former President, his father, G. Bush I before going to war in Iraq, he answered he consulted his higher father; and the same year in an address to Palestinian leaders he said, “I am driven with a mission from God”. J. Carter stated in his book “Our Endangered Values” (2005), “religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political principles I have adopted”. Similar examples can be found for many presidents, and in our daily political life, or sadly even in Supreme Court decisions. Chief Justice W. Rhenquist, in a minority opinion, referred to the separation of church and state as, “a metaphor which has proven useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned”. If governance is tainted with religion where politicians struggle for power, religion becomes the power. Yet, we still try to spread secularism worldwide along with freedom and democracy. I would say secular governance is not true separation of Church and state; hence, No true separation, No lasting peace.

Secularism, not being universal, does not promise peace

The other problem with secularism is that it is the product of only the Christian culture. Its reference point was the biblical concept of separating Caesar and God. Accordingly, men’s rights and freedom were given recognition to govern their worldly affairs, while still clinging on to the spiritual power. This worldview, however, is absent, in particular, in the Muslim world. There was no such reference point as Caesar and God at the inception of Islam; there is only God, and the state is the guardian of his message, not of worldly affairs. God’s power cannot be shared or relinquished in Islam. While there is no institutional structure in Islam, every real Muslim is a soldier, a defender, and thus a loose cannon of Islam. This is what makes peace difficult to reach in today’s world. You will have to go to war if you are attacked, whether or not you are secular. Secularism, not being universal, does not promise peace.

Laic governance promises true separation, hence peace

The immediate remedy found for the shortcomings of secularism was a stricter separation of Church and State. Although, the separation concept was put on paper with the American Bill of Rights of 1791, and the French Constitution of 1795, religion continued to influence conservative representatives in both parliaments. This interference made it necessary to introduce a stricter separation . The concept of “laicism” was born in a 1905 law in France, and remarkably in the education system first.

The laic concept, in my own words, is “humans, being social animals, they get organized; THEY form the state, not God; therefore, the state may only be laic”.

Of course, we have to put laicism to the same test of whether it helps peace, as we do secularism. I will take the two best known and maybe the only examples of the relation between laic policies and peaceful international relations, the policies of T. Jefferson and Ataturk. I need not quote here documents, like Jefferson letters or Ataturk speeches, with which you all are familiar. I will refer to only some of their deeds to demonstrate my point. Of course, Jefferson preceded the emergence of laicism by about 100 years, but I believe he was the precursor of laicism, because of his famous and striking description of the “separation” concept as a “wall”. During his presidency, he did not go to war. He refused to go against France during the Napoleonic wars, despite all the domestic and foreign pressures, nor against Britain, which engaged in a trade war with the US. He achieved the largest territorial expansion in the US history, peacefully, through the famous Louisiana Purchase. Then, he opened the possibility of marching further West, by launching the Lewis and Clark expedition, instead of embarking on a military expedition. Ataturk did not go to war either during his presidency. He reversed, through skillful diplomacy, the Lausanne Treaty provisions that limited Turkey’s sovereignty over the Istanbul waterways. He achieved the accession of Hatay province to Turkey through diplomacy. During the inter-war period, he formed regional alliances, which included countries that fought against Turkey during WWI and even those that invaded it after the war, in both of which he had actively served as the victorious commander. Although one hundred years and thousands of miles apart, one common point between these two men was that they were both believers in reasoning, thus they both approached international affairs peacefully. Their examples of laic governance, therefore, may promise us peace.

Laic governance alone does not ensure sustainability of peace

However, although these two examples suggest that there may be a correlation between laic leadership and peace; their peaceful policies did not last long either, after their demise. Soon after the term of office of Jefferson expired, the U.S. went to war with Britain. Ataturk’s laicism fell victim to the vagaries of democracy. The religious majority delivered totalitarianism in Turkey. The current Islamist dictator of Turkey dragged a good part of the international community into the neighboring Syrian quagmire; the quagmire that was the extension of the one created in Iraq by the American leader, who took advice from his higher father. Medieval, barbaric, savage actions ongoing in the Middle East in the name of religion, are enough proof that secularism or even laicism in governance is not enough for achieving global peace. Laicity of governance alone does not ensure sustainability of peace.

Laic education is the prerequisite for sustainable peace

Jefferson and Ataturk examples show that peace achieved by laic governance is fragile if citizens, or at least a good majority of them, do not subscribe to laicism. The two leaders mentioned foreshadowed also a solution for this: education of people. The only war Jefferson declared during his presidency was against “tyranny over the mind of man”. He founded the University of Virginia, donated his library to the Congress which constituted the core of the Library of Congress. Ataturk’s only war in peace-time was for modern education, science and progress. He founded a laic national education system free of religious teaching.

A good majority of the population must be inquisitive, rational thus knowledgeable instead of blind believers for democracy and peace to succeed. A global peace will remain a distant ideal, without a true separation of Church and state generally accepted.

Before I conclude, let me share with you an experience of the Atatürk Society of America’s first president O. Tarhan, because I find it demonstrates so well the argument for laic education. He once asked a French Franciscan priest how he reconciled his priesthood with the Laic politics of his country. The answer was simple but striking, “I am a French citizen”. The priest’s answer shows that in a truly laic system even a cleric can be laic, as he must be, when it concerns politics. Laic education of people, as much as laic governance, is the prerequisite of a sustainable peace.

April 2016