Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Atatürk will remain a towering figure among Turks

    Atatürk will remain a towering figure among Turks

    Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    Houston, Texas
    [email protected]

    It has been a fashion in Turkish media in recent years to question and attack the ideology and accomplishments of Kemal Atatürk – a hero figure for the vast majority of Turks. Columnist Mustafa Akyol, who writes in Turkish Daily News, and who for years has been trying to discredit Atatürk, is one such media personalty.

    This disturbing trend gained acceptance in certain journalistic circles within the past decade, in particular after the AK Party’s second electoral victoy in 2007. The growing influence of the Gülen Movement has given impetus to the Atatürk-bashing trend.

    The attack comes mostly from radical conservatives and idealogs – some outright religious bigots -that cannot make peace with Atatürk’s legacy. These critics typically yearn for a “Second Turkish Republic” that have the markings of a bygone Ottoman era. In a conference held 3 months ago at the Kadir Has University in Istanbul, for example, Mr. Akyol reportedly expressed preference for the “democracy” of the Ottoman era!

    The putative reason for Atatürk’s failing, according to these circles, is that Atatürk was anti-Islam, depriving Turks of the freedom to practice their faith. There are even some critics who castigate Atatürk for abolishing Caliphate.

    It would be unrealistic to expect these critics, being imbued by religious prejudice, to appreciate what Atatürk has accomplished. Many of these critics like Mr. Akyol are apologists if not the products of the Gülen Movement, and they advocate an Islamist Turkey instead of a secular one. Most of them have joined hands with quack Creationists that assault Darwin’s Evolution Theory. All because it doesn’t fit with their religious dogma.

    To realize the hollowness of their arguments, and why Atatürk was not anti-Islam, these opponents should read the works of such researchers as Sinan Meydan (e.g., “Cumhuriyet Tarihi Yalanları”) and Professor Ethem Ruhi Fiğlalı (e.g., “Atatürk And The Religion of Islam”). They will learn, for example, that Atatürk tried to free Islam from the shackles of dogma and advanced the notion that religion is a matter between an individual and God. This is also what Islam teaches. Atatürk eschewed “false prophets” that stood between man and God. He held that Islam should be in conformity with reason and logic. He sponsored the construction of mosques in Tokyo and Paris.

    These are not the hallmarks of a leader who was anti-religion or anti-Islam.

    But Atatürk’s accomplishments go far beyond religion: He freed the Turkish nation from the shackles of imperialism and introduced reforms toward a civil society, science and modernity – from alphabet to secularism to women’s rights. Thanks to his reforms, the decadence and backwardness of the waning years of the Ottoman Empire was left behind.

    It was a call for the Turkish nation to catch up with the West in science and modernity. Turks could still practice their religion, but the State did not adopt or sponsor a particular religion.

    If the opponents of Atatürk like Mr. Akyol are breathing freedom in Turkey today, they owe it to the leadership of Atatürk.

    If Turkey has any realistic hopes to join the EU, it is because a measure of westernization that Atatürk’s reforms have ushered in. (Reversals in recent years notwithstanding ).

    The secular establishment Atatürk founded – through the Republic – was requisite for democratization in Turkey.

    It was for good reason that Professor Arnold M. Ludwig of Kentucky University, after 18 years of study of the world leaders of the 20th century (“King of the Mountain”), picked Atatürk as the top winner among the contestants. That makes Atatürk a towering figure in world history. Opponents of Atatürk would do well to read that seminal book.

    And it is also remarkable that the Greek Premier Eleftherios Venizelos, a former enemy of Turkey, nominated Atatürk for the 1934 Nobel Peace Prize.

    The bigotry and ignorance of these opponents – pathetic as they are in their efforts – could be ignored if it were not for the fact that they regularly pontificate in printed and visual media. It is lamentable that these opponents do not show greater respect for the legacy of a visionary figure beloved by the vast majority of Turkish people. In no major newspaper in the U.S., for example, would one find derogatory remarks about George Washington.

    Notwithstanding, there is little doubt that Atatürk will remain a towering historical figure among Turks. Reactionary forces that resist change and want to hold on to the past will not hold the Turkish nation hostage to their hatred and bigotry.

    The West fought a hard and grueling battle for Enlightenment, and it eventually won. Turkey eventually will also win; for it must. This is what progress is about.

  • Obama’s Lack of Credibility Undermines His Initiative on Genocide Prevention

    Obama’s Lack of Credibility Undermines His Initiative on Genocide Prevention

     

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian31
    If Pres. Obama ends up being a one-term President, he has no one to blame but himself. While it is true that he inherited the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a devastated economy, he has not only failed to lead the nation out of its quagmire, but in some respects has made matters even worse.
    Perhaps Pres. Obama’s biggest failure has been dashing the hopes and expectations of the American public. While most politicians routinely make promises they do not keep, voters trusted this particular President’s assurances that “Yes, We Can” bring about “Change.”
    Regrettably, within weeks of taking office, Pres. Obama proved that he is just another unprincipled politician by going back on his solemn promise of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide and playing immoral word games for which he had chided his predecessors. Since then, he has not kept his word on hundreds of other issues, thereby undermining his credibility and causing his popularity to plummet like a lead balloon.
    Having lost trust in Pres. Obama, most Americans no longer takes him seriously even when he attempts to do the right thing. Last week, he issued an important “Presidential Directive” on the prevention of mass atrocities and genocide, mandating the creation of an “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board” within 120 days. This new Board is to be composed of top U.S. government officials, including the Vice President, the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the National Security Advisor, and Directors of the CIA, National Security Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency, among others.
    In his Directive, Pres. Obama claimed that “preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” He went on to assert with a straight face that “history has taught us that our pursuit of a world where states do not systematically slaughter civilians will not come to fruition without concerted and coordinated effort.” Pres. Obama should be reminded of the wise words of philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” How could U.S. officials take any credible action to prevent future genocides when they refuse to acknowledge past genocides?
    For this new super agency on “Mass Atrocities” to have any credibility, Pres. Obama should stop playing political games with genocide, recognize previous “Mass Atrocities” and draw appropriate lessons from them. Otherwise, his new Directive becomes just another clever ploy to boost his poor rating.
    Actually, Pres. Obama came quite close to saying the right thing in his Directive, as he was citing historical examples of mass atrocities and genocide: “Sixty six years since the Holocaust and 17 years after Rwanda, the United States still lacks a comprehensive policy framework and a corresponding interagency mechanism for preventing and responding to mass atrocities and genocide.” Curiously, Pres. Obama started his historical narrative with the Holocaust and avoided any mention of the Armenian Genocide — the first genocide of the 20th Century! If the United States is serious about fighting mass atrocities and genocide, it should start by refusing to deny and distort historical facts in order to accommodate modern-day political considerations.
    In his Directive, Pres. Obama suggested that the proposed interagency board consider the recommendations of the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. This is a serious mistake because both of these cabinet members had sent letters to Congress opposing the adoption of a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. How could these genocide denialists serve as appropriate guides to prevent future genocides? These two former officials have lost all moral standing to make any pronouncements on the subject of genocide.
    Pres. Obama also issued last week a presidential proclamation banning the entry into the United States of individuals who have participated in “widespread or systematic violence” against civilians, and committed “war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights.”
    Here are my humble suggestions regarding the two foregoing presidential initiatives:
    1) Since descendants of genocide victims have a unique sensitivity regarding acts of mass violence, Pres. Obama should appoint one representative of each of those victimized groups to the “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board,” at least in an advisory capacity; and
    2) To prevent new genocides, Pres. Obama should ban the entry into the United States of not only those who have participated in gross human rights violations, but also those who are genocide deniers, because denial is the final step of the genocidal process, and a license to commit future genocides.
  • Village institutes’ (Köy enstitüleri)

    Village institutes’ (Köy enstitüleri)

    KY ENS1In the 40s, Turkiye experimented with elevating the education level in the countryside. `Village institutes’ (Köy enstitüleri) were founded according to the ideas of philosopher-educator John Dewey, who had visited Turkey in 1924. In his opinion classical education had to be combined with practical abilities and had to be applied to local needs. However, it was the central government which regulated this by law. Mid September lessons started for the pupils of the village institutes. They took theoretical and practical lessons which were supposed to be useful for daily life in the village. There was also resistance against this secular and mixed education. It was feared that it would educate ‘the communists of tomorrow’. In 1953 the village institutes were closed.
  • Erdogan Inadvertently Publicizes Armenian Territorial Claims from Turkey

    Erdogan Inadvertently Publicizes Armenian Territorial Claims from Turkey

    sassounian3
    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s hysterical outburst at Armenia’s President last week had the salutary effect of publicizing to a worldwide audience Armenian territorial demands from Turkey!
    By distorting and exaggerating Pres. Serzh Sargsyan’s remarks to a group of schoolchildren in Dsaghgatsor, Armenia, on July 23, Erdogan created a gigantic mountain out of a molehill! Anyone who reads the Armenian President’s actual words would find it hard to believe that they could be the cause of Erdogan’s foaming at the mouth!
    Krikor Hampartsumian, a Shahumian Middle School student from the Ararat Region, asked Pres. Sargsyan: “…I would be interested in knowing whether our future would be reminiscent of a German diplomat’s description of the Batum Agreement — they gave us enough room to swim in Lake Sevan, but not enough room to dry up — or a future that would see the return of Western Armenia along with Ararat?”
    Pres. Sargsyan calmly responded: “It all depends on you and your generation. I believe my generation fulfilled its task when it was necessary in the early 1990’s to defend a part of our homeland — Karabagh — from enemies. We were able to do that…. My point is that each generation has its own task, and it must be able to carry it out, and carry it out well. If you and your peers spare no effort, and if those older and younger than you act the same way, we will have one of the best countries in the world. Trust me, a country’s clout is not always measured by its land mass. The country should be modern, secure, and prosperous. These are prerequisites that allow a nation to sit along with prominent, strong, and reputed nations of the world. We should all fulfill our duties, be active, industrious, and engage in good deeds. And we can accomplish that very easily. It would not be the first time in our history that we achieve it. I have no doubts about it, and I don’t want you to have any doubts either. We are a nation like a Phoenix that always rises from the ashes.”
    This simple exchange between the President and the young student was blown out of all proportion by Azeri and Turkish officials. Journalists in both countries tried to outdo each other in their hysterical attacks on Armenia, accusing Pres. Sargsyan of “urging Armenian youth to occupy Mt. Ararat and Eastern Turkey.” Insulting adjectives were hurled at Armenia’s President by Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinch, Minister Egemen Bagis, Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, and the Foreign Ministries of both countries. To incite the masses, protests were organized in Turkish cities where photographs of Pres. Sargsyan were burned!
    Incredibly, Erdogan had the audacity of demanding an apology from Pres. Sargsyan. The Turkish Prime Minister’s score on failed demands for apology from the leaders of Israel, Germany, and Armenia now stands at 3 to 0. Erdogan should not hold his breath waiting for Armenia to apologize! Before making such an outrageous demand, Turkish leaders must first apologize for the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide, and return all confiscated Armenian properties, including Western Armenia and Mt. Ararat, as suggested by this erudite student who deserves to be honored by Armenian organizations as a role model for the young generation.
    What was the real cause of the Turkish and Azeri hysteria? Did Erdogan have a bad translator or simply bad intentions? It is probably the latter. He delivered his outrageous remarks while standing next to Pres. Aliyev during a press conference in Baku last week. Erdogan may have wanted to impress his “junior brother” with his anti-Armenian zeal and provide a false justification to the international community for not keeping his word on the Armenia-Turkey Protocols and refusing to open the border with Armenia. He may have also intended to be excessively harsh so that no Armenian official would ever again hint at territorial claims from Turkey.
    This episode demonstrates that papering over historical injustices by pressuring Armenia to sign defeatist Protocols will not eliminate the deeply-held grievances of a victimized people. The Armenian-Turkish confrontation will not be resolved until justice is done to the Armenian nation. Pursuing justice is the task of all Armenians, this generation and the next. There will be no peace for Turkey without justice for Armenians!
    In addition to their gratitude to the impressive youngster and Pres. Sargsyan, Armenians should be thankful to Prime Minister Erdogan for his hysterical overreaction which helped bring Armenian territorial demands to the attention of the international media and the world community!
  • Erdogan Responds to Sarksyan’s Remarks By Backing Azerbaijan

    Erdogan Responds to Sarksyan’s Remarks By Backing Azerbaijan

    Erdogan Responds to Sarksyan’s Remarks By Backing Azerbaijan

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 146

    July 29, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a one-day working visit to Baku, where he met the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to discuss various bilateral and regional issues. Erdogan deliberately chose Baku as the destination for his second official trip abroad, since he formed his new government after emerging victorious in the June 12 parliamentary elections. Erdogan’s first trip was paid to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) last week. The choice of these two destinations and the messages delivered during Erdogan’s contacts reflect Erdogan’s determination to stand firm on Turkey’s traditional position on the two important foreign policy issues. In TRNC, Erdogan drew red lines by saying that Turkey would not accept the EU’s terms, and a solution to the Cyprus issue will be based on Ankara’s own priorities. In Azerbaijan, Erdogan reiterated his determination to continue with Ankara’s Baku-centered policy in the South Caucasus.

    The improvement of economic ties between the two countries was a key item on the two leaders’ agenda. For his part, Aliyev highlighted the investments by Azerbaijani companies in Turkey, which has exceeded $4 billion, and added that Azerbaijan plans to invest another $6 billion in Turkey, especially in the petrochemicals industry. However, in the long-standing issue of the transit of Azerbaijani gas through Turkey to European markets, the two leaders failed to announce a breakthrough. Erdogan noted that the bureaucrats will continue to work on the remaining articles to finalize a deal, which was reached one year ago.

    A concrete outcome of the visit was the announcement of the parties’ determination to hold the first meeting of the High Level Strategic Cooperation Council (HLSC) in Turkey. This form of partnership has been a new instrument, which Turkey has developed to foster its bilateral relations with neighbors and countries deemed to be strategically important. Despite the initiation of such platforms with Iraq, Syria, Greece and Russia, the delay in the conclusion of the Turkey-Azerbaijan HLSC was an issue of concern for some time. To a certain extent, it reflected the ongoing disagreements, caused by Turkey’s thwarted rapprochement efforts with Armenia. Erdogan, thus, emphasized the importance he places on holding the first HLSC, which might be interpreted as yet another sign of a thaw between Ankara and Baku.

    An additional issue on which Turkey has sought a breakthrough for some time relates to Azerbaijan’s removal of visa requirements for Turkish citizens. Although Turkey unilaterally lifted visa requirements for Azerbaijani citizens and managed to sign mutual visa liberalization agreements with other countries, including Russia, a similar agreement with Azerbaijan has been on hold. During Erdogan’s Baku trip, Aliyev said that the Azerbaijani side was not ready to move to a visa-free travel regime and would need more time to complete necessary preparations (Anadolu Ajansi, July 27).

    Azerbaijani-Armenian problems and the recent developments in Turkish-Armenian relations also occupied a large part of Erdogan’s agenda in Baku. On the eve of Erdogan’s departure to Baku, Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan’s remarks about Mount Ararat (located within Turkey’s borders) shocked observers. Attending the Armenian Language Olympics, Sarksyan responded to a question from an Armenian youth as saying “I think my generation has managed to fulfill its debt when it was necessary to protect the part of our Motherland, [Karabakh], from the enemies. We managed to do it. … “[Any return of historic territories in Western Armenia] all depends on you and your generation” (Hurriyet, July 26).

    A statement issued by Turkish foreign ministry strongly condemned Sarksyan’s comments as “extremely irresponsible behavior,” and took them as an indication “that he does not intend to work for peace” (www.mfa.gov.tr, July 26). During his contacts in Azerbaijan, Erdogan also echoed similar messages, going as far as claiming that Sarksyan should issue an apology for his mistake (www.cnnturk.com, July 27).

    More importantly, Erdogan capitalized on this development to reiterate his earlier position on the complicated relations between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. On the one hand, he defined the situation in Karabakh as one of clear occupation by Armenia, which in his view has not demonstrated a constructive attitude toward the resolution of the dispute. Erdogan found Azerbaijan’s approach to the problem constructive, and called on the international community to take the necessary steps for the resolution of the dispute.

    On the other hand, Erdogan interpreted Sarksyan’s comments as indication of Armenian’s official position and criticized those who ask Turkey to take steps toward the resolution of its problems with Armenia. Turkish-Armenian normalization, which gained momentum in 2009, had to be stalled partly after Erdogan declared that Turkey would not proceed with its rapprochement unless progress was achieved in the Karabakh dispute (EDM, June 1, 2010). Some have asked Turkey to take limited steps to maintain the momentum in Turkish-Armenian normalization such as the partial opening of the border, even before a solution is reached in the Azerbaijan-Armenian disputes. Referring to these arguments, Erdogan reiterated clearly that Turkey will not proceed with the re-opening of border, before Armenia solves its problems with Azerbaijan (Cihan, July 27).

    Erdogan’s reiteration of Ankara’s position was important, especially considering that it was preceded by some positive remarks from Armenian NGO leaders – in Ankara to attend a civil society dialogue – following their meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Foreign Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu. Reportedly, Davutoglu painted an optimistic picture, expressing his hope that the border will be eventually re-opened and Armenians might even be able to buy homes in Turkey , July 20). Indeed, this was not the first time Davutoglu expressed his determination to pursue the Turkish-Armenian normalization efforts, despite many obstacles presented by the domestic politics in both countries and the tight coupling between this process and the Karabakh issue (Today’s Zaman, September 30, 2010).

    However, against the background of the failure of the Kazan summit to produce any progress on the Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute, Davutoglu has yet to formulate a genuine strategy to break the Turkey-Armenia-Azerbaijan stalemate so that he can proceed with Turkish-Armenian normalization, which would be a major victory for his “zero-problems-with-neighbors” policy. The statements by Sarksyan and Erdogan’s harsh response only add to the complexity of this already daunting task.

    https://jamestown.org/program/erdogan-responds-to-sarksyans-remarks-by-backing-azerbaijan/

     

  • Congressional Panel Urges Turkey to Return Church Properties to Christians

    Congressional Panel Urges Turkey to Return Church Properties to Christians

    sassounian32
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a strongly-worded measure on July 20, pressing Turkey to return all Christian church properties “to their rightful owners.”
    By an overwhelming 43-1 vote, the congressional panel adopted a sweeping amendment to the State Department’s Foreign Relations Authorization Act, urging “the Secretary of State in all official contacts with Turkish leaders and other Turkish officials to emphasize that Turkey should”:
    1) end all religious discrimination;
    2) allow the rightful church and lay owners of Christian church properties to perform religious and social services;
    3) return to their rightful owners all Christian churches and other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and other religious properties, including artwork, manuscripts, vestments, vessels, and other artifacts; and
    4) allow the rightful church and lay owners of Christian church properties to repair all churches and other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and other religious properties within Turkey.
    Despite intensive efforts by Turkey’s Ambassador in Washington, Turkish and Azerbaijani organizations, and lobbying firms hired by Ankara, almost all members of the Committee, including Turkey’s staunchest supporters, voted in favor of the amendment, dealing Turkey a devastating defeat. The single negative vote was cast by Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX) because of his isolationist ideology and not his support for Turkey!
    This near unanimous vote did not come as a surprise to me, as I had long advocated the passage of such a measure realizing that Members of Congress could not possibly vote against religious freedom. All fifteen Members of Congress who spoke during the hearing indicated their support for the amendment. Here are excerpts from some of their remarks:
    — Cong. Howard Berman (D-CA), who offered the amendment jointly with Cong. David Cicilline (D-RI), stated: “We want Turkey to return confiscated property to Christian communities and at a minimum to provide compensation for properties that can’t be recovered…. In this particular area, their [Turks’] practices for many years…have been atrocious.”
    — Cong. Brad Sherman (D-CA): “This amendment is urgently needed to address the vast destruction of Christian religious heritage as a result of the Turkish government’s theft, desecration, and disregard of ancient Christian holy sites and churches.”
    — Cong. Dan Burton (R-IN), one of the staunchest supporters of Turkey: “I do support the amendment. I do support religious freedom, and I hope that this amendment does pass.”
    — Cong. Gerald Connolly (D-VA), co-chair of the Turkish Congressional Caucus: “Religious freedom is a tenet of American philosophy and it is a cardinal of our American values. I look forward to supporting the language.”
    — Cong. Ed Royce (R-CA), co-sponsor of House Resolution 306 which formed the basis for the proposed amendment: “Turkey is identified as a country among the world’s top violators of religious freedom…. So we urge Turkey to return all confiscated church properties taken from these religions that were frankly stolen.”
    — Cong. Eliot Engel (D-NY): “Turkey is an ally in NATO, and we recognize that. I wish frankly that they would act more like an ally to the United States than they have lately. They really have gone astray…. Their Foreign Minister has set out a policy of Islamism and has moved away from the European Union, the West, and the United States, and has behaved very poorly frankly with the flotilla and Israel and the whole bit.”
    Turkey’s Ambassador to the U.S., Namik Tan, disingenuously attributed the setback suffered by his country to the work of “radical Armenians.” He must have forgotten that the Turkish government is the one paying millions of dollars to lobbying firms each year to influence Members of Congress, and that 43 out of 44 Foreign Affairs Committee members, including Turkey’s staunchest supporters, could not possibly be in the pockets of a handful of “radical Armenians.”
    Turkish leaders have not made a public statement after the adoption of the amendment, in order to hide this embarrassing episode. Surprisingly, Armenian government officials have not commented either on this issue. Obama administration officials have also remained silent and refrained from overt efforts to block the amendment in view of its overwhelming bipartisan support.
    While Armenian, Assyrian and Greek-Americans have won the first skirmish, they have not yet won the final battle. The Authorization Bill along with this amendment will next go to the full House for approval. A similar Bill has to be adopted by the Senate. A joint committee of both houses will then attempt to reconcile the differences between the two versions. Turkish lobbyists and the Obama administration still have an opportunity to remove the amendment from the larger Bill. Supporters of the amendment must remain vigilant, urging their House and Senate representatives to vote in favor of keeping the church amendment in the Authorization Bill.
    Even though the amendment has no legally binding effect, it is a moral victory for all those who cherish religious freedom, and a major political success for the Armenian-American community which went toe to toe against the mighty Turkish lobbying machine and dealt it a devastating blow. The amendment also exposes the alarming condition of Christian churches in Turkey, paving the way for other countries and international organizations, such as the Council of Europe and UNESCO, to support their restoration.
    Yet, the most effective way of forcing Turkey to return the confiscated Christian churches to their rightful owners is by filing lawsuits in the European Court of Human Rights. The Turkish government has accepted the jurisdiction of that court and has readily complied with its verdicts.