An important and urgent warning to the Europeans in particular, and to the civilized world in general

While the civilized countries have been fighting inaptly, thus ineffectively, against the jihadist terror for more than twenty years, their supposed allies Saudi Arabia and recently Turkey were covertly supporting the jihadists. Several inter-related news coming out of Turkey yesterday sounds like the latest alarm bells for the civilized world, as we know it.

The islamist government of Turkey formally added jihad teaching in the religious classes of 7^th to 12th grades, elementary school children are taken to streets  shouting the jihad slogan “Tekbir” (presumably to teach them to emulate the present youth), and the Religious Affairs Administration is given the authority to have precedence over the Ministry of Education in the administration of private “foundation schools”.

 Also in a speech condemning Israel’s decision to close the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem for three days, the Turkish President called on the “world community to action”. He said he spoke as the President of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Co-operation). Therefore, his call is none other than a call to the Muslim world for “action”. His method of calling people (some of whom are armed with long knives) to streets for action has proven to be effective (e.g. July 15, 2016 coup scenario). Hence, the call, with the backdrop of his incessant attacks on the West, should be taken as a chilling wake-up call.

These and similar actions and coded statements should be taken seriously and with due concern. The last twenty years’ terror is the costly consequence (in blood and in treasure) of our typical wait and see policy and overconfidence in our intelligence and power. Europe is warned in particular because of Turkey’s rigorous programs to brainwash the large Turkish population in Europe. The civilized world, beware; tolerance and civility should not become condonation, indifference or ignorance.

July 22, 2017

The Middle East Imbroglio

The Middle East Imbroglio

People and news around the world are concerned recently about the savagery perpetrated in the name of religion in and the consequential migration from the ME. The present thoughts are a contribution to the ongoing debate on how to deal with the situation. We need to seek first the possible causes of this outburst against the contemporary civilization -leaving aside, of course, the distant and unfortunate occurrence that all three main religions were borne at the same location causing an eternal enmity between people.

The history of the period leading up to and including the aftermath of WWI are more relevant. 19^th century European powers’ preoccupation with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire without prior due consideration to the consequential vacuum may be considered to be the foundation of the ongoing conflict; a warning that Napoleon gave to the other leaders one century earlier. The dismantling nevertheless occurred, and the vacuum was filled by an idiotic plan that Britain and France put into effect on the advice of a shady adventurer, Lawrence of Araby, as well as by the creation of Israel. Disregard for local social and cultural realities in favor of the victors’ strategic and economic considerations started boiling the Middle Eastern pot.  The savagery of ISIS in the areas it occupied, and of its followers in distant places around the world is reminiscent of medieval crusades. Jihad may be a reverse crusade.

When terrorists do us harm we must certainly hunt them down wherever they are in the world. If any of our friends is attacked by terrorists and asks us for help, we should join the hunt. What we should not do, however, is to intervene when the powers to be in a country, like the majority or military or the ruler, terrorize their own citizens. It is up to the citizens to rise against the oppressors. Otherwise, they will never appreciate and cherish freedom and human rights. If people would like to have democracy for their freedom and human rights, they have to own it, not to have it handed to them. They have to be let to stew in their own juice until they reach the boiling point of starving for democracy for whatever it costs, and how long it takes. The choice of governing style must arise from within the society concerned, for it to have a sound foundation. If democracy is imported, it is often interpreted as a foreign object, or as the rule by majority, which leads to totalitarianism. In the Muslim culture, where they believe in being led rather than in leading, the majority’s rule turns into autocracy. Examples of failures of forming free and democratic systems in Muslim countries, which ended up with chaos or autocracy abound: Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, all of Central Asian countries, more recently Yemen and Syria, and finally Turkey. This does not mean to exclude from these failures the effects of the cold war competition and the pursuit by world powers their strategic and economic interests. Especially, the double standard applied to dictators makes the Western interventions in the name of freedom and human rights suspect at best, and incredible at worst. Locals then understandably perceive the interventions as an invasion of their culture, or as designed to serve the West’s nefarious interests.

The current operation to take down Assad of Syria is a sad demonstration that we did not learn from these very recent experiences. The fact that Assad regime is not legitimate does not make our intervention legitimate, even if we intervene for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarianism alone, vaguely formulated in diplomatic language in some international covenants, does not give us mandate to intervene. It is absurd to try to topple Assad because he has committed atrocities against his people while the vacuum we created ourselves right next door in Iraq by removing Saddam is filled by the savages of ISIS.

Furthermore, it was a great mistake to think that we could bring down Assad without the involvement of Russia, who has a Middle East beachhead in Tarsus since the Cold War days of 1977. Blurring our focus on the fight against the Islamist terrorists by including another target called Assad gave a chance to Russia to expand its presence in Syria. Russia swiftly built an air base in Latakia between Tarsus and Turkey’s NATO border, a mere 30-40 miles away.

On the other hand, an operation in Syria or anywhere, for that matter, is justifiable if it is a hot pursuit of terrorists, who cause damage or constitute a threat to us or to our friends –when they ask for help. We were to focus on eradicating the radical Islamist terrorism that burgeoned in the vacuum in Iraq. Yet, we were distracted from focusing on terrorists when Turks cried wolf about threat from Syria. We were misguided as much by the false Turkish propaganda as by the fear from Iran’s expansion, thus threat to Israel. Turkey’s real motivation is, as we all know, to block the Kurdish spread along its borders, and its, not so well-known, desire to form a Sunni Syria under Turkey’s wing. Turks bomb Kurds, provide material support to Sunni rebels in Syria, and refrain from any effective action against the Islamist (Sunni) terrorists whose aim is to rule over Syria. Accordingly, Turkey became a thorn on the side of the coalition fighting the Islamist terrorists. Turkey’s several attempts to get NATO involved in an operation against Syria -not against Islamist terrorists-, like the positioning of Patriot missiles at its southern border under the false pretense of threat from Syria, and the unnecessary downing of the Russian military plane with a flimsy excuse, are dangerous and irresponsible use of its membership position in NATO. NATO needs to wake up to the reality that Turkey is no longer Turkey of 1952 or even of 1992. It has been, at least in the last fifteen years, an Islamist oriented country. It became a liability on NATO who could condemn, instead of oblige, deceptions by Turkey.

I might add that the most important aspect of fighting the radical Islamist terrorists is that it is not a strategic fight. It is simply a hot pursuit of criminals. They are not limited in space and time. They are not limited with a compact organization, to a leadership, to a line of command, to a given location. They are in fact a worldwide network of groups with a fanatical religious mind-set (even the term “ideology” loosely used by commentators is misplaced). This mentality cannot be changed by foreigners, whether by force or by teaching. Foreign involvement will only exacerbate this fanaticism. These perverted minds may be changed by the leaders of Muslim countries in general, and by the Saudi Arabian leadership in particular. Whereas, those leaders stayed on the sidelines, gave lip service, tried to pacify us by distinguishing Islam from terrorists, or provided a halfhearted support to the fight against the latter. Therefore, a wiser approach by us to this fight would have been to form a coalition composed solely of the Arab countries in the region, including Syria and Iraq, without any overt military involvement of the West except for a heavy logistic support. Unless all Arab countries in the region actively and decisively fight against radical Islamist terrorism, the latter will never be vanquished. If the Islamists’ terrorism is not what Islam is about, other Muslims have to get their hands dirty and prove it.

Once a relative peace is achieved in the Middle East, hopefully a new political rearrangement in the region may be sought through an international agreement between all countries of the region, to which a guarantee of implementation may be lent by organizations like the UN and NATO. The main objective of such an agreement must be the avoidance of forming once again artificial states that would eventually fail and cause conflicts, like the ones caused by the Sykes-Picot folly.

December 6, 2015

Public Diplomacy and Terrorism

Public Diplomacy and Terrorism

The September 1, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon were an eye opener. Firstly because of the extent of damage they caused, secondly because of the vulnerability of the best informed and equipped country in the world, and finally because of the extent of determination and savagery of the criminals responsible.

A lot has been debated by a proliferating number of “experts”. The official reaction ranged from “revenge” and “crusade” to “war against terrorism” and “criminal acts”. Other than what and how it happened, little has been said about why it happened. A correct diagnosis of this unjustified resentment of the US and an accurate definition of terrorism, for a long-term solution of the problem, are still missing.

To begin with, terrorism must be defined in a generally acceptable manner so as not to cause any consternation and frustration among people. Terrorism is perceived differently by different groups and in different circumstances. When Armenians waged terror against Turks from 1880s to 1980s, they were viewed as legitimate revenge and were cheered by Europeans who had ulterior motives. When Palestinians and Hamas terrorized us all, they were in fact called terrorists and were rightly condemned. When Northern Ireland resorted to terror against Britain, they were considered separatist nationalists and were called to negotiate. When PKK killed indiscriminately in Turkey, again the European liberals called for democracy and human rights without mercy to the victims and without regard to the consequences on the regional stability. When Chechens fight for their liberation from the Russian yoke, it is called terrorism but the world keeps quiet for fear of the Russian wrath. When Bosnians and Kosovars fought for their independence from disintegrating Yugoslavia, just as Croats and Slovenians did, they were branded as Muslim insurgents. The different perception of these and many other terrorist acts in Spain, France, Italy, Indonesia, South America for political convenience brought us to today’s disaster. Many countries in fact even gave refuge to, trained, financed, or encouraged specific terrorist groups as part of their foreign policy.

Current loose and irresponsible identification of terrorism with Islam is also wrong. It may even lead to more terror and to “a clash of cultures”. True, the current terrorists are Muslim, and they are inspired by their religion, but basically they are of Arab or Persian origin. They are using the religion as a weapon in the absence of any other power they possess. Religion is the cheapest effective armament. Our politicians and media have to stop emphasizing that the Chechen, Kosovar, or Iraqi and Afghani terrorists are Muslims. Terrorist is terrorist, no matter what religious, national or political affiliation. As we are sensitive to secularism in our domestic affairs, we should be equally secular in our international affairs. We should not be looking at everything through religious glasses. Even then, if by reference to Muslims we mean fundamentalists, we should not forget that we have in our midst fundamentalists as well. Several suicidal fanatics (fundamentalists) were killed in Guyana, San Francisco, and Waco in not too distant past. Terrorism, though an entirely different issue, we need to fight, like we have to fight against fundamentalism just as vigorously. We need, therefore, to define terrorism internationally, and be honest and consistent in its interpretation. Only then will we be credible in our war against terrorism.

As to the cause of systematic attacks on the US in particular, and of the US resentment in general, the apparent reason is claimed to be the presence of Israel on the so-called Arab soil. The real reason, however, lies in the frustration of the Arab and Persian world with their theocratic system. These masses are ruled by the Koran instead of civil codes. The non-secular system does not allow education, science, modernization and thus progress. In short, they still live with the medieval scripture and with anachronistic norms. Continued economic despair in the midst of a steadily prospering world makes these masses angry, intolerant and violent towards the rest of the world. Instead of getting to work to better themselves so that they can compete with the advanced nations, they do what they know best and easy: to destroy the challenger. The advanced world is of course represented by the US. Bin Laden’s reference to 80 years of humiliation in his recent video appearance was found by many commentators as puzzling. The reference is most probably to Ataturk’s abolition of the Caliphate and the Shari’a. This unique and courageous act by Ataturk lifted the Ottoman influence and control over the politically inexperienced and unprepared people, and exposed them to the British influence and control. That is why the original hatred is in fact against Ataturk and the British. Israel is an excuse, Islam is the weapon, and the high profile target is the US as the surrogate of British.

The US is unfairly identified with the historical wrongdoings of the old world, especially when the US is so closely associated with Britain. We have to admit that on occasions we unquestioningly followed the UK policies without taking into account that Europe’s imperialistic, colonial, nationalist, quarrelsome, selfish past still has an effect on the developing world, as well as on Europe’s policies. Our association with the problems of the old world have already cost us two world wars and several foreign policy failures. Until after WWII, the US was regarded as the young, idealist, just, and benevolent leader of the new nations, a savior for the poorer nations. Having associated itself too closely with the defunct imperialists of Europe in the Cold War period, the US came to be perceived as European ideology’s representative and protector.

Therefore there are two distinct aspects to this problem: the non-secular regimes, and the image of the US as the protector of the old colonial countries. We should pursue the following course:

1-      A campaign of secular democracy must be undertaken in the non-secular Arab and Persian nations. Although such reforms would best succeed if launched by a courageous national leader the possibility of a repeat of the genius of Ataturk is very remote. Therefore, the US could follow the same democracy campaign that it did to win the Cold War. However, in the Cold War the adversaries were non-democratic but secular countries. In the New War, secular regime and secular education must be the basic component of the campaign for democracy. Ataturk’s reforms implemented in founding the Turkish Republic could serve us as model.

2-      The US should play the role of a fair and independent advisor and helper of the world left behind our own fast pace. We should act as Americans, not as West in association with Europe in general and with Britain in particular. We should reassume our old image and role of neutral and helpful Americans. In doing so, we have to be careful not to appear as imposing our own culture (McDonalds, Disney, Hollywood, etc.) on the Muslims. -Furthermore, in order to be credible and to gain their trust, we have to be consistent in our policy of secularism. The use of double standards for political convenience or for short-term economic interests will defeat our efforts. We must stop supporting the autocrats of the Shari’a regimes, as we did not support communist dictators. -This will mean sacrifice on our part of oil products. But, no war can be won without sacrifices. There are other oil countries, in fact, with which we did not diligently pursue a closer relation after the demise of the Soviet hegemony. Closer ties with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan may also help us to win them away from the Russian influence, which Russia is already beginning to reassert. A case in point is Georgia where Russia was to close its military bases by last July. It did not. Instead, while taking advantage of War on Terrorism, it is preparing to invade Georgia on the pretext of Abkhaz and Chechen “terrorism”. -We have to be very cautious about not having an ulterior motive of establishing a political influence or of exploiting the local resources (just as the colonials did). -We also have to stay clear from appearing to help one local political faction or another. The recent history shows that involvement in support for independence or nation building catches us between two fires. Let us not have any illusion about it, by mopping up the Taliban we will be presenting Afghanistan to Russia in a silver tray. We are in fact fighting the war that they could not win, just as we did in Viet-Nam the one that French could not win. Therefore, we should not get in the quagmire of nation building in Afghanistan after we complete our operation. Our economic and financial aid policies must be contingent upon solely secular democracy and secular education.

October 15, 2001

Political Islam

Political Islam

The realization of the power of political Islam by the Western world occurred with the 9/11 carnage. Reactions to it ranged from the extreme of declaring crusade against Jihad (the so-called clash of civilizations) to the other extreme of courting Islam. Armed with Ataturk’s experience we know better that none of these reactions can eliminate the root cause of the problem. The only successful method is modern education. Militancy of Islam lies in its politicization, its relentless adherence to its dogmatic philosophy, and its refusal to accept others who do not believe in its ideology.

There is an excellent description of the contemporary world in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World penned by Gianfranco Pasquino: “Political ideologies may have crumbled away, but they are not necessarily replaced by rational criteria and rational processes of decision making. More important, powerful religious beliefs are still used to shape and justify the behavior of rulers both domestically and on the international scene. Twentieth-century fundamentalism has acted as a drag on secularizing tendencies…..Muslim fundamentalism worldwide and, to a lesser degree, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism are contemporary phenomena that underscore the fact that secularization has not been completed. The proliferation of religious sects all over the world testifies to the resurgence of fundamentalism and throws doubt on the prospect that complete secularization will ever be accomplished.”

We are of course familiar with the sad state of religion in politics in Turkey, but even in the US, political speeches are interspersed with subtle or direct references to the scripture. Policies are based on the beliefs of politicians. President Bush said in a speech in Istanbul NATO Summit of 2004, “Democratic societies should welcome, not fear, the participation of the faithful”. President Carter’s excellent book Our Endangered Values demonstrates how pervasive and intertwined these two concepts are in the American political system. After having complained on page 3 “these religious and political conservatives have melded their efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state”, he states on page 6 “I must acknowledge that my own religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political principles I have adopted”. The late US Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in a minority opinion “The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned”. So the U.S. Administration, being comfortable with mixing religion with politics at home, does not see anything wrong with the application of the same policy in other countries. Unfortunately, the American public opinion does not differ much either from the Administration’s religion-in-politics policy. In a recent poll carried out by the Associated Press/Ipsos the ratio of Americans who think that religion should not influence political leaders and their decisions is only 37%. This ratio is 75% in the UK, Germany and Spain.

Proponents of democracy rely on the Western experience as a solution. The Christian world found a modus vivendi for the co-existence of the religious authority and the public sovereignty, without either of them accepting the supremacy of the other. Although this so-called “Victorian Compromise” did not achieve the absolute and complete separation of Church and state, it struck a deal for the two powers to tolerate each other. This is a balance between two equal powers rather than a real separation of powers. The theory goes that democracy would allow also in the Islamic world equal participation of religious establishment in the decision making process and absorb rather than isolate the religion, as a function of the democratic process. After all, why could not there be an Islamic Democratic Party like a Christian Democratic Party? It is naïve to think that once in power a religiously oriented party will observe the principle of separation of powers. We witness the contrary all over the world. Islam in particular does not accept any sharing with, let alone surrendering to, public sovereignty.

The question should not be whether Islam can embrace modernization and democracy, but whether Muslims can embrace liberty and sovereignty as individuals. The answer to that question lies in replacing the religious teaching with a rational educational system. Reformation of minds must come first, before the reformation of religion. Teaching religion as a dogma must cease. Minds should be liberated from superstitions by Humanistic education and science. We must therefore formulate a policy as a counter force to Islamic fundamentalism as follows: not cultures or religions, but the intellect and science make up the civilization; and, civilization is the common heritage of mankind; it is universal in which everyone must participate. The singularity of civilization will bring peace, provided that all people are given the chance to secular education and a rational way of thinking. Are not these Ataturk’s words? Don’t these words summarize Ataturk’s political philosophy?

Eighty years of Turkish experience should have been an example for the world. Islamists take advantage of the war on Islamic fundamentalists, and try to promote Western style Islamic secularism under the disguise of democracy. Islamists argue that if you all want Westernization and democracy then Western democracy, including Western style secularism, should apply. Islamists are trying to redefine laicism as secularism. Islamists are not modernizing Islam, they are Islamicizing modernity. It looks as if the Islamists caught the Turkish modernists as well as the Western world by their tail. The West is not aware that the promotion of Western style secularism, of moderate Islam, and of democratic Islam, in fact legitimizes the role of Islam in politics, thus helping Islamists to come to power. That is why the war on “terror” is unsuccessful. The West is not aware that once in power Islam by virtue of its dogma will rule the daily life of individuals, i.e. sovereignty will belong to God not to the people. Only those enlightened by Ataturk’s philosophy are aware of what is going on.
October 12, 2006

Militant Islam and Atatürk’s political philosophy

Militant Islam and Atatürk’s political philosophy

The following excerpts from a paper presented at the 25th Energy Conference organized by the Global Foundation, Inc. on “Addressing Vulnerabilities: Science & Technology in Secure Energy Systems” in October 2002 in Washington DC are reproduced with his permission because of their relevance to the topic discussed in this issue.

“The antithesis of individual liberty, as the history abundantly taught us, is traditionalism, which gradually evolves into a dogmatic radicalism. Traditionalism against liberty has been encountered over the centuries of progress within the compound of Christendom, through the agonizing period of Reformation and Enlightenment. Nevertheless, peace was finally found in the tolerance achieved through the Victorian compromise. This compromise was, and still is, simply the coexistence of Church and public sovereignty, in other words the co-existence of traditionalism and modernity. This otherwise called tolerance served well to avoid obscurantism and violence, and to open the way to progress and modernity in the West. Although a complete superiority of civil order over the religious order was not achieved, this formula enabled the masses to think for themselves and revolt against the king, not against the religion, when they thought he misused his religious authority. William Ebenstein of Princeton allegorically wrote in Introduction to Political Philosophy “With the head of Charles I, the doctrine of the divine rights of kings rolled to the ground. His fate warned all rulers that political authority is closer to the earth and the people than to God and heaven”. But as Thomas Jefferson rightly reminded us, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”. The peace found in compromise in the Christian culture did not necessarily mean an inter-cultural tolerance. Traditionalism having been brought under control in the Christian world the antithesis of individual liberty had to grow elsewhere. Jewish philosophy does in fact favor individualism. Buddhism, Confucianism and other Eastern beliefs while traditionalist are open to tolerance. Islamic philosophy was the only one apt to provide the antithetic forces to individualism.

Islam did not have the benefit of the same reformation experience, as the West did. In the social order of Islam, the political authority is the same as the religious authority. The political authority, being divine, is supreme; it is unchallengeable. People cannot possibly be discontent with religion, thus with authority. In the absence of individual liberty, a self-analysis, course correction, or regeneration does not occur. Furthermore, there is no clergy in Islam, there was no accumulation of theological wisdom and reformation. Deprived of progress, Muslims found themselves in economic despair in the midst of a prospering world. The society necessarily became antagonistic to progressive and modernizing foreign cultures.”

“The real enemy of our liberty is unequivocally the state of mind, the ideology of Islamic fundamentalists. I find S. Huntington wrong, who writes in his famous Clash of Civilizations 'The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam'. He equates civilizations with cultures. Although he later agrees that civilization is 'singular', he still believes that cultures clash. Whereas there is sufficient evidence in history that cultures interact, they cross-fertilize may it be through armed conflict. It is the interaction of cultures that evolves into a universal contemporary civilization. Basically religions, which are the prominent part of cultures, do not cross-fertilize, because their puritans and fundamentalists cause human suffering.”

“The beginning of the modern day radicalization of Islam goes back to early last century, to the demise of the Ottoman Empire together with its earthly leader the Sultan and its spiritual leader the Caliph. The Muslim world, having unexpectedly lost leadership, was unprepared to lead itself; it fell into the hands of colonial powers. Turkey’s success over colonialism, sultanate and Caliphate should have motivated the Arabs also to challenge their leaders and Europe. Instead, they sought comfort in British colonial administration. This was a golden opportunity for Britain to promote modernization. But, as Francois Georgeon reports in his essay titled Kemalisme et Monde Musulman, after the 1908 constitution was declared by the Ottomans Britain of Magna Carta launched a propaganda campaign in Arab lands and other Muslim countries to the effect that constitutional rule was a Jewish and Masonic practice and it would not be religiously acceptable. Britain did not want liberty in the oil rich lands; she wanted to colonize them and to exploit their riches. Thus, she bears a heavy responsibility for the creation of Arabic fundamentalism. The inability of Arabs to reform and the consequent humiliation gave way to fundamentalism. A dogmatic teaching of fundamentalism took roots in the course of the last century during which the rest of the world was preoccupied with wars against other antithetic ideologies, namely National Socialism and communism. Once these political and economic ideologies were eliminated by the end of the last century the playing field became vacant for another ideology: the radical Islam as a religious ideology. That is why not the establishment of the state of Israel or the ensuing Palestinian struggle after the collapse of Nazism, but the 1991 Gulf War after the demise of communism in 1989 brought to the surface the violence of Islamic fundamentalists.

It is important to mention also that not only the traditionalism of Islam versus the modernity of Christianity, also the missionary and evangelical policies of the Church and, as identified by Pasquino, religious bias of governments led some Muslims to turn to the puritan basics of their religion. As recently as during the Serb atrocities in the Balkans British Prime Minister Major in a letter dated May 2, 1993 to his Minister of State Hogg outlined the British policy over Bosnia “in the best interest of a stable Europe in the future, whose value system is and must remain based on Christian Civilization and ethic” and claimed that this view was felt in other European and North American governments. Helmuth Khol’s statement that European Union is a Christian club is also still fresh in memories. It would be wiser for Europe to base its unity on economic, political and other realities than on medieval beliefs. But we need not look far. Political speeches in the U.S. are interspersed with subtle or direct references to the scripture, policies are based on the beliefs of the politicians, public funds are allocated to religious organizations, including Islamic organizations. Under this ruling, four hundred Koranic schools in the US may be eligible for assistance to teach hostility against infidels. Why should we allow Muslims in the US to teach fanatic ideology, including intolerance towards infidels, if Arab countries do not allow us to require rational education in their countries?

The West has to recognize the subtle distinction that it is not the Christian principles that led it to success but conversely it is the liberation of the individual’s mind from religious traditionalism, and the public sovereignty rather than religious sovereignty that put the people on the path to progress. It is the conquest of the people over theocratic oppression and the victory of science over dogma that made the Western transformation possible.”

“The believers of Islamic democracy overlook the fact that Islam being the sole political power cannot accept the supremacy of civil authority, nor sharing it like in the Victorian compromise. Although the modest Victorian compromise served well in the West, there is not a shred of evidence that it can succeed in the Muslim culture. Once a religion based party comes to power by democratic election there is no incentive for it to observe the principle of separation of powers and secularism. A change in the political system without changing the principles of Islam will not change the supremacy of religion in public affairs. It appears that the coexistence of religious authority with civil authority in a Muslim society simply creates dualism instead of tolerance and compromise; religion still stands in the way of individual liberty and progress. The failed modernization experience of the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century is the perfect example. Although some civil laws were enacted Sharia remained supreme over civil laws. There was no victory of civil authority, and not even a compromise between the civil and religious authority. There was no triumph of rational thinking and of humanistic education over religious teaching. The lesson to be drawn from this history is that unless Islam can go through a fundamental reformation and accept the supremacy of civil authority, freedom of thought, democracy and equality of genders will remain a rainbow for Muslims. Democracy and absolutism of Islamic philosophy cannot co-exist. As it currently stands the Islamic philosophy did not go beyond the 16th century Machiavellian or 17th century Hobbesian theories that there is no equality among people, there is always a condition of war in which the stronger will survive.

Having identified the antagonist of our individual liberties as being the Islamic fundamentalist ideology taught in Koran schools, our counter offensive must not target Islam, but the education system in Islamic countries. The question, therefore, should not be whether Islam can embrace modernization and democracy, but whether Muslims can embrace liberty and sovereignty as individuals. Whether they can change their state of mind for their own progress and prosperity. The answer to that question lies in replacing the religious teaching with a rational education system. In other words, reformation of minds is easier than and is a necessary element for a reformation of religion.

Men make wars to settle differences that they create, women make and raise children for tomorrow’s wars, but children can be taught to make peace. We have to address the intellect of young Muslims (the term intellect is used here to mean the ability to reason and to make a rational judgment). Teaching religion as a dogma must cease. If religion is allowed to teach perpetuation of old differences, and to develop a static instead of a dynamic mind, it has no educational value. The great British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who quit Oxford because of 'strong clerical influence that prevailed at both Oxford and Cambridge' and founded the University of London wrote “Religion also hurts society, because it creates animosity against unbelievers and dissenters and subsidizes a standing army of ‘wonder-workers’, the clergy, who deprave the intellect” (Ebenstein). Dogma creates ideology and radicalism. Humanistic education and science liberates the mind from superstitions. An ideology could be conquered by opening up the human mind to free and rational thinking.”

“We may, therefore formulate a policy as a counter force to Islamic fundamentalism as follows: not cultures or religions, but the intellect and science make the civilization; and, civilization is the common heritage of mankind; it is universal in which all participate. The singularity of civilization will bring peace, provided that all people are given the chance to secular education and rational thinking. We need the courage to put this powerful political philosophy to use, and to open a political front and a political offensive in the war against religious fundamentalism, in addition to the military offensive already launched. The enforcement of this principle will necessarily be by instructive rather than by destructive military methods. More specifically, the target must be religious schools that teach, raise and train fundamentalist militants." 

“Now we come to the question of whether such policy can really change the tide in Islamic countries. The short answer is a definite YES, because we have a laboratory test and a clear example of its success in not too distant history. Early in the last century, in Turkey, religious schools were closed and rational education was made compulsory and the only educational system. Among many other reforms that radically changed that nation the educational reform alone was responsible for a complete transition from theocracy to democracy and modernity. The man who led the country to that radical transformation, Kemal Atatürk, made abundantly clear that the ultimate purpose of the change was for the country to participate in the contemporary civilization. He strongly believed that civilization was universal, it was the duty of all nations to contribute to the contemporary civilization; therefore rational education and science were essential. Atatürk’s recent biographer, Andrew Mango, wrote, “True, rationalism had been advocated by some of Atatürk’s predecessors. But few shared his absolute belief in the primacy of rational scientific knowledge, as developed in the West”.
October 2002

THE CONCEPTS OF THE TURKISH MODEL AND THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE

A talk to the Congressional staff
At the Congress building on
May 25, 2004


THE CONCEPTS OF THE TURKISH MODEL
AND
THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE


I have chosen to talk to you today about The Greater Middle East Initiative because I know it is under preparation for consideration at the forthcoming G-8 and NATO summits. Being Congressional Staffers you may have sought information or have already been bombarded by massive unsolicited so-called “instant expertise”, which abounds in Washington. I will also offer you some thoughts, the expertise of which is based on being an “insider” in the ME.

Whether in greater or smaller terms, the ME has been a problem spot on the map since the British colonialism started to take over the area from the Ottoman Empire early in the 19th C. We in the US have taken it upon ourselves from the beginning of the 20th C. -since WWI- to try to fix the ills of the area seeded by the British colonialism and festered by the Russian expansionism. These facts have been repeated so often that their importance lost their effect. But the psychological influence of this history on the local people should never be forgotten in any undertaking concerning the ME. Prescriptions to cure these ills have admittedly changed several times in the course of history due to changes in the area dynamics and in international power politics. The current Initiative also is understandably conditioned by the contemporary Iraq war and the war on militant Islam. I distinguish between these two wars because, like many, I do not believe they are originally related: The Iraq war is more related to, so-to-speak, the Smaller ME question; War on militant Islam is related to the Greater ME question. If we are embarking on the GMEI with the expectation that it will also solve the Smaller ME questions we are in an allusion. Having made this distinction I will limit my remarks to the GMEI and specifically to Turkey’s place in this Initiative.

Some homegrown instant experts and the current Turkish administration promote the idea that a) moderate Islam would be the counter force to militant Islam; b) as a secular and democratic country Turkey could be a showcase for moderating Islam. These ideas should raise several questions, including but not limited to the following:
1- Should the modernization of Islam be an issue of a formal international agenda?
2- Is Turkey an example of a moderate Islamic state?
3- Could Islamic states, especially the Arab countries, accept Turkey as a model?

My answers to these questions are as follows:
1-Should the modernization of Islam be an issue of a formal international agenda?
Any suggestion by outsiders to moderate or to modernize Islam is a non-starter. No religion -and Islam is no exception- is amenable to change, much less to any advice given by the believers of another religion. Firstly, such suggestions imply condescension on the part of the “suggestor”, and humiliation on the part of the “suggestee”. And yet we often read in the newspapers that missionary organizations are active in the area under the disguise of humanitarian assistance. I concede that this well-meant action is based on the presumption that Christian tradition is compassionate and by proselytizing the Muslims they will also be rendered compassionate. Thus their antagonism will disappear. I claim that conversely this would create an instinctive reaction to change and a hardening of Puritanism and Fundamentalism. The non-Turkic and non-Sinic Muslim nations are particularly sensitive in this respect. I mean the Smaller Middle Eastern Muslims. We cannot even try to have control over a modernization effort in Islam. Any change in Islam, or in any religion for that matter, has to come from within the authorities of that religion itself.

At any rate, there is no guarantee that democracy and secularism would follow a modernized Islam. At this point you might suggest that democracy and secularism should precede the modernization of Islam. If we encourage democracy and secularism prior to modernizing Islam, democracy will bring back Islam to power, as we know it. Modernization of the religion will be shown the back seat. Islamic rule requires conformity of laws and of their application to the Koranic dicta. We observed the outcome of recently drafted constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a society ruled by Islamic principles the Book governs the public and private lives in detail. You may compare the Koran to a constitution. While any religion in politics is undesirable for its traditionalism, political Islam is nothing short of autocracy. The exception of Turkic and Sinic Muslim countries is based on their cultural difference from the Semitic Muslims. This is the crucial distinction between the Greater and the Smaller ME. The question should not be to moderate Islam or whether Islam can embrace modernization and democracy, but whether Muslims as individuals can embrace liberty and modernity. To achieve this we should rather look for means of educating, thus modernizing the minds of these people, rather than modernizing their religion. Transforming minds is an easier task than transforming a religion. Once people are transformed they may attempt to modernize their religion on their own volition, without the bloodshed that happened during the two hundred years of Reformation in the West.

Turkish modernization reform was a case in point. Ataturk’s reforms were subtle than most foreigners and even scholars seem to have understood. The success of the public acceptance of the fast and sweeping reforms was that they were not aimed at modernizing Islam, but rather modernizing the people. However, Turkey benefited from two ingredients to achieve this modernization: the guidance of a genius of a leader in the person of Ataturk, and the adaptability of the Turkish people to developments.
-The tactical key to Ataturk’s success was to isolate the issue of religion, and to lead the people to modernity, progress, education, and rationality.
-The substantive key to success was Ataturk’s understanding of Turkish people’s culture and mind. He ascribed the modernization process to the people themselves at every step of it. He was aware that for a social development to be well rooted it must be adopted by the people, it must belong to the people. Like any social element, if modernity and democracy were to be brought about by force they will create a counterforce.

Therefore, there should not be any reference to Islam or to any religion for that matter, much less any reference to its moderation or modernization, in any foreign policy design of the US in the Muslim world. In fact, even a perception of any religious element in any US foreign policy should be avoided at all cost for it would produce an entirely opposite effect in some Muslim countries.


2-Is Turkey an example of a moderate Islamic state?
The last time I read the Turkish Constitution it read: “The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, laic, and social State governed by the rule of law, respecting human rights within the concept of public peace, national solidarity and justice, loyal to the nationalism of Ataturk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.” The relevant preambular passage reads “In the understanding that …..sacred religious feelings shall in no way be permitted to interfere with State affairs and politics.”

Of course these provisions may have been changed overnight for all I know, since the current administration has 2/3 majority in Parliament (although the Constitution further provides that this Art.2 is unchangeable). Be that as it may, Turkey at this point in time is not an Islamic State. Not yet, anyway.

If we were to showcase Turkey as model to Muslim countries we should be showcasing the modernizing Turkey of 1920s and 30s. In fact, without any such effort from our side many Muslim countries and leaders in the past tried to take Ataturk’s Turkey as model and tried to emulate his modernization reforms: Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Tunis, Pakistan are a case in point. Instead, the EU and the US administration join in the proposal of diluting laicism in Turkey so as to conform Turkey to the Western understanding of secularism and most importantly to make Turkey a more acceptable model for other Muslim countries. The EU Parliament in its last report on Turkey found Turkey’s understanding of secularism not in line with European standards. Of course it is not, unless France is no longer considered to be part of the Union. I surmise that French delegates were out sipping their wine when this standard was under consideration. There is no secularism in France, or in Turkey. There is something more appropriate, especially for a Muslim society, and that is Laicism.

Statements like the one expressed by the EU are based on two facts: Firstly, a redefinition of Turkish laicism as secularism sounds legitimate because it conforms to the Western understanding of separation of church and state. Secondly, there is widespread ignorance of the distinction between laicism and secularism and of their history in the Muslim world.
a) The distinction between laicism, the term I have already mentioned several times, and secularism can be explained as follows: Laicism is the exclusion of religious authority over the public, while secularism is a contract of separation of authority over the public entered between two equals, church and state (called by some political philosophers the Victorian compromise). The former may be called a unitary, and the latter a dualist system. I illustrate them as CAIRA for Laicism, and CAIRA for Secularism. Where there is a wall between the Civil Authority and the Religious Authority in Laicism, and a balance between them in Secularism. The fact that secularism, i.e. dualism, brought about freedom and democracy in the Christian society does not necessarily mean that it would also do the same in an Islamic setting. The co-existence of religious and civil authorities in Islam inevitably results in autocracy.
b) The Ottoman regime that preceded the Turkish Republic was a seemingly secular state in its final seventy years in the Western sense. However, the timid, half-hearted modernization effort with its dualist approach could not save the Empire from collapse. Therefore, there is an historical example that secularism in Islam does not sustain democracy and freedom. But the success of the Turkish Republic proves that laicism does. Why then this longing for reversal to a failed dualism? As the old saying goes, If it ain’t broke why fix it?
c) If we can talk today about Turkey being a model at all it is because it has been a laic republic for the last seventy years, not because it has been an Islamic autocracy.

In defense of their attempt to dilute laicism, the political party currently in power in Turkey alleges that laicism suppresses religion in the country to the point that religion cannot be practiced freely, and it subordinates religion to the public authority. The first claim is not true at all. I can vouch for it as a first hand witness. Conversely, there is a subtle but uncomfortable pressure on non-practicing Muslims. The second claim however is true, and rightly so. Their target is really this second point. The proponents of political Islam want the religion to share the civil authority. There is no question that there is a great effort in Turkey to undermine “Turkish style secularism” i.e. laicism, by replacing the modern education system with a religious education system, and also by redefining “laicism” as “secularism” as it is understood in the West. The objective is to expand and reinforce the Islamist grassroots of the ruling party. The ultimate result will be the introduction of the religious authority into the political equation, into the public domain and private life of Turks. All the mental gymnastics to reinterpret laicism is nothing else than trying to sneak the powerful authority of Islam into public realm through the backdoor.

By supporting the Western style secularism and by showcasing Turkey as a model of modern Islamic country, the West is encouraging the influence of religion in politics without knowing its possible consequences in an Islamic society. Why adapting Turkey to the circumstances of the Muslim world anyway, instead of the Muslim world following in the footsteps of Turkish modernization of yesteryears, unless of course we have some ominous ulterior motives? I would have thought best we help Turkey to further its modernization efforts in order to keep it in our fold. Are we trying to introduce the heavenly authority of religion into Turkey for solving the worldly socio-political problems of the Middle East at the expense of modernization in Turkey? Are we out to promote modernity or religiosity in the world? We must have learned our lesson from the Green Crescent Project of 1970s designed to curb the spread of communism in the countries flanking the southern border of Russia. We need to wake up to the reality that the wars we are waging today are the consequences of that infamous misconceived project. Having assumed the responsibility of leadership in the world, we have to tread the waters very responsibly, thus with the knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the people of the regions concerned.

Therefore, we must conclude that neither Ataturk’s modern Turkey can be a model for Muslim countries, nor should we attempt to “secularize Turkey in the Western sense”, i.e. Islamisize it, in order to mold it into a model that we wrongly see fit for Muslims.

3-Finally, could the Arab countries accept Turkey as a model?
The answer to this question is a short, clear, and simple NO. Not, because of three hundred years of Ottoman rule over these lands as some so-called experts claim these days, but because of the Turkish reforms early in the last century that abolished Caliphate, introduced laicism, and gave Turkey a western orientation. Arab rulers consider Turkey a traitor of the religion, as having forsaken solidarity with the Muslim world, and as having joined the lines of the infidel Christians. Even if we succeed in transforming Turkey into a so-called moderate Islamic state, Arabs still would not buy it as being Troy’s horse, or a western wolf in a lamb’s skin. If you also factor in the difference in ethnicity and culture between the Arabs and the Turks you may as well show them Israel as a model, which at least has common ethnicity and destiny with the Arabs. At any rate, Middle Eastern countries are no USA. Our society may look for models to emulate or even to compete with. This does not mean that we should assume that Muslim societies are also so-called “role model” societies. In a Muslim world there is heavy reliance on communal leadership, there is blind obedience, and there is fatalism. A model is considered foreign, if not resented. It is this feeling of resentment that left the Muslim societies behind the Enlightenment, and then the Industrialization.

My conclusion is that we should meticulously avoid making any reference to religion in general, to Islam in particular, and to the Turkish model, whether as the modern Turkey of past years or as the envisaged Islamic Turkey, in a GMEI or in any other international initiative that may be considered for the future of the ME. The solution for the modernization of Muslim countries lies elsewhere, it lies in rational education. But this subject can be the theme of a separate discussion in itself. If there should be a GMEI at all it should include concepts other than the ones discussed here, among which modernization of education and gender equality must be the cornerstones. And, first and foremost we have to educate ourselves about the idiosyncrasies of the people of the region in question, where they differ even between the Greater and the Smaller sense.
May 2004