SYMPATHY FOR THE TURKISH DEVIL

Spread the love

ERDOGAN3
By Spengler

The American commentariat is shocked, shocked , to discover that Turkey has abandoned the Western alliance for an adventurous bid to become the dominant Muslim power in the Middle East. Tom Friedman of the New York Times suggested on June 15 that “President [Barack] Obama should invite him for a weekend at Camp David to clear the air before US-Turkey relations get where they’re going – over a cliff.” Friedman blames the European Community for rejecting Turkey’s membership bid which, he says, was a “key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world”.

But it is not quite so simple. Friedman and the conventional wisdom are wrong, as usual. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is behaving dreadfully, to the point that a group of retired senior Turkish diplomats denounced him for “neo-Ottomanism”. But Turkey has not moved closer to Iran, except in tactical diplomatic terms. The problem is more subtle: America’s blunders in Iraq gave Iran the chance to become a regional hegemon, and Turkey must vie with Iran for this role as a matter of self-preservation.

It was not the European Community, but rather the George W Bush administration, that pulled the rug out from under Turkey’s secularists and built up Erdogan as a paragon of “moderate Islam”. America’s feckless nation-building policy in Iraq helped Turkey over the edge into Islamism.

In a recent essay [1], I portrayed the Mavi Marmara incident in which nine Turks were killed by Israeli commandos onboard one of the six boats attempting to breach the blockade on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, as a Turkish farce. It should be obvious to anyone with access to YouTube that Erdogan conducted an exercise in guerilla theater, which qualifies as a comedy of sorts unless you were one of the dead Turks on the boat. What has transpired over the past eight years, though, is a tragedy.

Turkey is held together by weak glue. It never was a nation-state, despite founding father Kemal Ataturk’s ferocious efforts to make it appear to be one. Kurds comprise somewhere between six million and 20 million (the Kurdish nationalists’ claim) of Turkey’s population, and Kurdish separatism poses a continuing threat to Turkey’s national integrity.

For the usual corrupt and foolish reasons, world opinion has focused on the nine dead Turks on the flotilla; of far greater consequence are the several dozen Turkish soldiers who died at the hands of Kurdish guerillas in the past two weeks. More important still are the 2,000 or so Turkic people who died in Kyrgyzstan in the past weeks. Much less distinguishes a failed state like Kyrgyzstan from an apparently successful state like Turkey than Westerners think.

America is about to leave Iraq; Iraq is likely to break up; and if an independent Kurdish state emerges from the breakup it will become a magnet for Kurdish separatists within Turkey. Erdogan has 1,500 Kurds under arrest, including the mayors of some Kurdish towns.

Ataturk’s post-war secularism defined “Turkishness” as a national identity that had never before existed. “Turkishness” is something of a blood pudding. Ottoman identity had nothing to do with nationality in the Western sense. It was religious and ethnic. A fifth of the population of Anatolia before World War I was Christian, mainly Armenian and Greek; virtually all were expelled or murdered. The Turks killed more than a million-and-a-half Armenians, employing Kurdish militia to do most of the actual dirty work (that is why what is now “Turkish Kurdistan” was until 1916 “Western Armenia”. The modern Turkish state was born in a bloodbath, and founded on massive population shifts. The enormous Kurdish minority got the southeast as a consolation prize but still longs for its own language, culture and eventual national state.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a monster, but for the Turks a useful monster. The 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq killed up to 180,000 of them, and the crackdown on the Kurds after the 1991 First Gulf War killed as many as 100,000. The Turks, by contrast, killed perhaps 20,000 to 40,000 Kurds during the 1980s and 1990s.

Turkey in 2003 refused America permission to open a northern front against Saddam out of fear that the war would destroy Turkey’s ability to control its restive border. The destruction of the Iraqi state, moreover, created a de facto independent Kurdish entity on Turkey’s border, the last thing Ankara wanted. If America had simply installed a new strongman and left, Turkey would have been relieved. But America’s commitment to “nation-building” and “democracy” in Iraq, to Ankara’s way of thinking, meant that Iraq inevitably would break up; the Kurdish entity in northern Iraq would become a breakaway state; and Iran’s power would grow at the expense of Turkey.

Turkey has many reasons to fear Iran, whose possible nuclear ambitions make it a prospective spoiler in the region. But there is another vital issue. Among the fault lines that run through the modern Turkish state is a religious divide. Iran exercises influence through the Alevi minority in Turkey, a heretical Muslim sect closer in some ways to Shi’ite than Sunni Islam. No accurate census of the Alevi exists; they may comprise between a fifth and a quarter of of Turkey’s population. The late Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared the Alevi to be part of Shi’ite Islam in the 1970s, and they have been subjected to occasional violence by Sunni Turks.

The Iraq war undermined the position of the Kemalist military, which had bloodied its hands for decades in counter-insurgency operations against the Kurds. Erdogan’s Islamists argued that the weak glue of secular Turkish identity no longer could hold Turkey together, and proposed instead to win the Kurds over through Islamic solidarity. The Kurds are quite traditional Muslims; unlike the Turkish Sunnis, the provincial Kurds of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq often practice female circumcision.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the George W Bush administration saw no reason to back the Turkish generals who had let them down in Iraq, and instead threw their backing to the Islamists, on the theory that Erdogan represented a sort of “moderate Islam” that would provide an example to other prospective democratic Muslim regimes. When Erdogan won parliamentary elections in 2003, Bush invited him to the White House before he took office, a gesture that persuaded most Turks that America had jettisoned its erstwhile secular allies, as I wrote in 2007. [2]

The Bush State Department stuck to the story of “moderate Islam” in Turkey even while Erdogan used outlandishly extra-legal methods to dismantle the secular establishment, as I wrote in 2008. [3] In fairness to the State Department, the idea that Turkey was home to a specially moderate strain of Islam was not the invention of American foreign policy analysts but of the Islam specialists of the Jesuit order. Father Christian Troll, a German Islamologist who advises Pope Benedict XVI, and his student Father Felix Koerner popularized the notion of a less virulent strain of Turkish Islam. I reviewed Koerner’s book on Turkish Islam in 2008. [4]

One cannot blame the Bush administration (nor the Jesuit Islamologists) for the person Erdogan has become. By the turn of the millennium, Kemalist secularism was a grotesque relic of 1930s European nationalism. Turkey’s leading novelist, Orhan Pamuk, evoked the spiritual misery of secularist Turkey and the attractions of radical Islam in his Nobel-prize-winning novel Snow, which I reviewed in this space in 2004. [5]

To the extent that there was some hope of keeping Turkey in the Western camp, though, the Bush administration’s nation-building blunders in Iraq and credulous admiration of “moderate Islam” in Ankara destroyed it.

Political Islam as a replacement for Kemalist nationalism is the glue that will hold Turkey together, in Erdogan’s view. It does not seem to be doing a good job. Islamic solidarity was supposed to persuade the Kurds to behave themselves, along with a few nods in the direction of the use of the Kurdish language, which the Kemalists tried to suppress. The killing of 11 Turkish soldiers in raids staged from Iraq and the bombing of a military bus in Ankara show that Kurdish resistance has not diminished. Erdogan, previously so concerned about human rights and the Biblical injunction against killing, raged that the Kurdish rebels will “drown in their own blood”.

Erdogan’s political Islam failed to stabilize Turkey. It will contribute to instability in the region to an extent that is difficult to foresee. Iran now has the more reason to assert its influence in Iraq, perhaps by encouraging the breakup of the country and the emergence of a Kurdish state that might threaten Turkey.

Turkey, in turn, has all the more reason to agitate among the Turkish-speaking, or Azeri, quarter of Iran’s population. Iran will use its influence among Turkish Alevis to challenge the Turkish Sunni establishment; Iran will encourage Turkish separatism. Meanwhile Erdogan’s alliance of opportunity with Hamas undercuts the American-allied Sunni Arab states, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestine Authority.

With the United States in full strategic withdrawal, a Thirty Years War in western and central Asia seems all the more likely.

Notes
1. Fethullah Gulen’s cave of wonders Asia Times Online, June 9, 2010.
2. Why does Turkey hate America? Asia Times Online, October 23, 2007.
3. Turkey in the throes of Islamic revolution? Asia Times Online, July 22, 2008.
4. Tin-opener theology from Turkey Asia Times Online, June 3, 2008.
5. In defense of Turkish cigarettes Asia Times Online, August 24, 2004.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, senior editor at First Things magazine (www.firstthings.com).

__._,_.___

Spread the love

Comments

3 responses to “SYMPATHY FOR THE TURKISH DEVIL”

  1. Gulsu Avatar

    I read this, and see even more reasons why Turkey should turn towards the East…and form stronger alliances with its immediate neighbours.

    Turks, Turks, those damn Turks. Since the 15th century…an icepick, up Europe`s ass.
    I don`t really like Erdogan.
    The more THEY hate him, the more I love him. After reading this, I LOVE Erdogan.

  2. fikret Esberk Avatar
    fikret Esberk

    In the years to come if you are a turk yo will love him more than you do now & you will be thankfull to him when you hear the bells of a church but not the voice of an imam & than if you are a muslim you will pray but not in a mosque , & if you are a person who is over seas you will be asked for a visa so you can get in to a country that you use to say my country it won,t be turkey it will be euroasia or what ever & wont be a muslim country anymore keep loving him keep praying for him .& if you are a kurd don,t worry your so called kurdistan the country to be will not have any better future in the future than turkey because you are a muslim to & those so called people of human wrights are not muslim & they don,t like muslim .Turkey was a country off Ataturk where no matter what your race or religion was questioned & nobody was worried if they were muslim , christian or jew or where & how they prayed .

  3. Ara Bilgin Avatar
    Ara Bilgin

    The United States (and its shadow the EU) are preoccupied with Iran with its ever growing anti-Americanism and with Iraq which used to be anti-American during Saddam’s time (but which still has the seeds of it). The common denominator in both cases is the Middle East oil or for that matter oil in the whole region including central Asia. It so happens that all the nations decorating this geography are regressive islamic masses. Saudi Arabia is also one of them but since it is subservient to the US they are considered good boys.

    Enter Turkey. The US has at least helped create a similar backward regime in Turkey 8 years ago. Turkey’s somewhat secular regime and its imitation democracy was too much for the US and its Western allies because it created problems every now and then. Add to this the historical hatred initiated by the unexpected and unbelievable defeat of the West by Turks under Ataturk after World War I. So Turkey had to be dismantled at all costs. Actually this was not going to be very difficult because Turkey accomodated an ample supply of residual Ottomans, sworn enemies of the new republic, who were waiting for the first opportunity that would allow their reincarnation.. This has been accomplished by the support of the US and Europeans to a great extent when with their support and advocacy islamic fascists were reinstated to power.

    What of the recent dogfight betweeen Turkey and Israel and Turkey’s alleged shift of policy from West to East. This is total nonsense. Erdogan et al will not and can not abandon their protegees in the West, because they owe their existence to them. But in order to make it easy for their ignorant constituents to understand how Erdogan can be both, subservient to the West and at the same time be a devote advocate of regressive Islam, he had to do something. An artificial conflict with Israel was a perfect choice. Because Turks (just as other Moslems throughout the world) are very much anti-Israeli if not antisemitic. Israel knows this also, but their greed (inherited from the West) to make money and always money override their own hate of a friendly moslem like Erdogan. Hence they trade with Turkey enthusiastically. This is also apparent from Israel’s indifference to Erdogan’s frequent insults to Israel. Erdogan has been attacking Israel not because he cares so much for moslems in Gazza (because he remained deadly silent or in fact took sides with the US when the US was annihilating 1.5 million moslems in Iraq and is remaining silent to the civilian casualties in Afghanistan) but because it is a perfect means to exploit the anti-Israel sentiment among its constituents at home who jubilantly support it.
    So Westerners who utter all kinds of stupid statements about this part of the world know next to nothing about the facts. They have been fooled by Erdogan’s seemingly contemporary attitudes toward the West but little did they know that age old primitive tricks are lurking in him. For example for Erdogan “democracy” is a vehicle which he can get off when he arrives at his destination. And also, nobody should ever forget that there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”.
    Presently Erdogan is up to another dirty trick. He is trying to fool Turkish people (by bribing them) with a “referandum” on changing some articles of the Turkish constitution for a better democracy! The proposed changes in fact are going allow Erdogan to freely manipulate the judiciary which has so far been the only institution which remained more or less (but not totally) free of Erdogan’s mutilation. So it is unbelievable how anybody in his right mind can sympathize with this man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *