Turkish Forum

Category: News

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

     

    Attribution from strafor.com

    Turkey and Russia on the Rise

    March 17, 2009

    By Reva Bhalla, Lauren Goodrich and Peter Zeihan

    Russian President Dmitri Medvedev reportedly will travel to Turkey in the near future to follow up a recent four-day visit by his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul, to Moscow. The Turks and the Russians certainly have much to discuss.

    Related Special Topic Pages
    The Russian Resurgence
    Turkey’s Re-Emergence
    Central Asian Energy: Circumventing Russia
    Russian Energy and Foreign Policy
    Russia is moving aggressively to extend its influence throughout the former Soviet empire, while Turkey is rousing itself from 90 years of post-Ottoman isolation. Both are clearly ascendant powers, and it would seem logical that the more the two bump up against one other, the more likely they will gird for yet another round in their centuries-old conflict. But while that may be true down the line, the two Eurasian powers have sufficient strategic incentives to work together for now.

    Russia’s World
    Russia is among the world’s most strategically vulnerable states. Its core, the Moscow region, boasts no geographic barriers to invasion. Russia must thus expand its borders to create the largest possible buffer for its core, which requires forcibly incorporating legions of minorities who do not see themselves as Russian. The Russian government estimates that about 80 percent of Russia’s approximately 140 million people are actually ethnically Russian, but this number is somewhat suspect, as many minorities define themselves based on their use of the Russian language, just as many Hispanics in the United States define themselves by their use of English as their primary language. Thus, ironically, attaining security by creating a strategic buffer creates a new chronic security problem in the form of new populations hostile t o Moscow’s rule. The need to deal with the latter problem explains the development of Russia’s elite intelligence services, which are primarily designed for and tasked with monitoring the country’s multiethnic population.

    (click image to enlarge)
    Russia’s primary challenge, however, is time. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the bottom fell out of the Russian birthrate, with fewer than half the number of babies born in the 1990s than were born in the 1980s. These post-Cold War children are now coming of age; in a few years, their small numbers are going to have a catastrophic impact on the size of the Russian population. By contrast, most non-Russian minorities — in particular those such as Chechens and Dagestanis, who are of Muslim faith — did not suffer from the 1990s birthrate plunge, so their numbers are rapidly increasing even as the number of ethnic Russians is rapidly decreasing. Add in deep-rooted, demographic-impacting problems such as HIV, tuberculosis and heroin abuse — concentrated not just among ethnic Russians but a lso among those of childbearing age — and Russia faces a hard-wired demographic time bomb. Put simply, Russia is an ascending power in the short run, but it is a declining power in the long run.

    The Russian leadership is well aware of this coming crisis, and knows it is going to need every scrap of strength it can muster just to continue the struggle to keep Russia in one piece. To this end, Moscow must do everything it can now to secure buffers against external intrusion in the not-so-distant future. For the most part, this means rolling back Western influence wherever and whenever possible, and impressing upon states that would prefer integration into the West that their fates lie with Russia instead. Moscow’s natural gas crisis with Ukraine, August 2008 war with Georgia, efforts to eject American forces from Central Asia and constant pressure on the Baltic states all represent efforts to buy Russia more space — and with that space, more time for survival.

    Expanding its buffer against such a diverse and potentially hostile collection of states is no small order, but Russia does have one major advantage: The security guarantor for nearly all of these countries is the United States, and the United States is currently very busy elsewhere. So long as U.S. ground forces are occupied with the Iraqi and Afghan wars, the Americans will not be riding to the rescue of the states on Russia’s periphery. Given this window of opportunity, the Russians have a fair chance to regain the relative security they seek. In light of the impending demographic catastrophe and the present window of opportunity, the Russians are in quite a hurry to act.

    Turkey’s World
    Turkey is in many ways the polar opposite of Russia. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Turkey was pared down to its core, Asia Minor. Within this refuge, Turkey is nearly unassailable. It is surrounded by water on three sides, commands the only maritime connection between the Black and Mediterranean seas and sits astride a plateau surrounded by mountains. This is a very difficult chunk of territory to conquer. Indeed, beginning in the Seljuk Age in the 11th century, the ancestors of the modern Turks took the better part of three centuries to seize this territory from its previous occupant, the Byzantine Empire.

    The Turks have used much of the time since then to consolidate their position such that, as an ethnicity, they reign supreme in their realm. The Persians and Arabs have long since lost their footholds in Anatolia, while the Armenians were finally expelled in the dying days of World War I. Only the Kurds remain, and they do not pose a demographic challenge to the Turks. While Turkey exhibits many of the same demographic tendencies as other advanced developing states — namely, slowing birthrates and a steadily aging population — there is no major discrepancy between Turk and Kurdish birthrates, so the Turks should continue to comprise more than 80 percent of the country’s population for some time to come. Thus, while the Kurds will continue to be a source of nationalistic friction, they do not constitute a fundamental challenge to the power or operations of the Turkish state, like minorities in Russia are destined to do in the years ahead.

    Turkey’s security is not limited to its core lands. Once one moves beyond the borders of modern Turkey, the existential threats the state faced in years past have largely melted away. During the Cold War, Turkey was locked into the NATO structure to protect itself from Soviet power. But now the Soviet Union is gone, and the Balkans and Caucasus — both former Ottoman provinces — are again available for manipulation. The Arabs have not posed a threat to Anatolia in nearly a millennium, and any contest between Turkey and Iran is clearly a battle of unequals in which the Turks hold most of the cards. If anything, the Arabs — who view Iran as a hostile power with not only a heretical religion but also with a revolutionary foreign policy calling for the overthrow of most of the Arab regimes — are practically welcoming the Turks back. Despite both its imperial past and its close security association with the Americans, the Arabs see Turkey as a trusted mediator, and even an exemplar.

    With the disappearance of the threats of yesteryear, many of the things that once held Turkey’s undivided attention have become less important to Ankara. With the Soviet threat gone, NATO is no longer critical. With new markets opening up in the former Soviet Union, Turkey’s obsession with seeking EU membership has faded to a mere passing interest. Turkey has become a free agent, bound by very few relationships or restrictions, but dabbling in events throughout its entire periphery. Unlike Russia, which feels it needs an empire to survive, Turkey is flirting with the idea of an empire simply because it can — and the costs of exploring the option are negl igible.

    Whereas Russia is a state facing a clear series of threats in a very short time frame, Turkey is a state facing a veritable smorgasbord of strategic options under no time pressure whatsoever. Within that disconnect lies the road forward for the two states — and it is a road with surprisingly few clashes ahead in the near term.

    The Field of Competition
    There are four zones of overlapping interest for the Turks and Russians.

    First, the end of the Soviet empire opened up a wealth of economic opportunities, but very few states have proven adept at penetrating the consumer markets of Ukraine and Russia. Somewhat surprisingly, Turkey is one of those few states. Thanks to the legacy of Soviet central planning, Russian and Ukrainian industry have found it difficult to retool away from heavy industry to produce the consumer goods much in demand in their markets. Because most Ukrainians and Russians cannot afford Western goods, Turkey has carved out a robust and lasting niche with its lower-cost exports; it is now the largest supplier of imports to the Russian market. While this is no exercise in hard power, this Turkish penetration nevertheless is cause for much concern among Russian authorities.

    So far, Turkey has been scrupulous about not politicizing these useful trade links beyond some intelligence-gathering efforts (particularly in Ukraine). Considering Russia’s current financial problems, having a stable source of consumer goods — especially one that is not China — is actually seen as a positive. At least for now, the Russian government would rather see its trade relationship with Turkey stay strong. There will certainly be a clash later — either as Russia weakens or as Turkey becomes more ambitious — but for now, the Russians are content with the trade relationship.

    Second, the Russian retreat in the post-Cold War era has opened up the Balkans to Turkish influence. Romania, Bulgaria and the lands of the former Yugoslavia are all former Ottoman possessions, and in their day they formed the most advanced portion of the Ottoman economy. During the Cold War, they were all part of the Communist world, with Romania and Bulgaria formally incorporated into the Soviet bloc. While most of these lands are now absorbed into the European Union, Russia’s ties to its fellow Slavs — most notably the Serbs and Bulgarians — have allowed it a degree of influence that most Europeans choose to ignore. Additionally, Russia has long held a friendly relationship with Greece and Cyprus, both to complicate American policy in Europe and to provide a flank against Turkey. Still, thanks to proximity and trading links, Turkey clearly holds the upper hand in this theater of competition.

    But this particular region is unlikely to generate much Turkish-Russian animosity, simply because both countries are in the process of giving up.

    Most of the Balkan states are already members of an organization that is unlikely to ever admit Russia or Turkey: the European Union. Russia simply cannot meet the membership criteria, and Cyprus’ membership in essence strikes the possibility of Turkish inclusion. (Any EU member can veto the admission of would-be members.) The EU-led splitting of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections was a body blow to Russian power in the region, and the subsequent EU running of Kosovo as a protectorate greatly limited Turkish influence as well. Continuing EU expansion means that Turkish influence in the Balkans will shrivel just as Russian influence already has. Trouble this way lies, but not between Turkey and Russia. If anything, their joint exclusion might provide some room for the two to agree on something.

    The third area for Russian-Turkish competition is in energy, and this is where things get particularly sticky. Russia is Turkey’s No. 1 trading partner, with energy accounting for the bulk of the trade volume between the two countries. Turkey depends on Russia for 65 percent of its natural gas and 40 percent of its oil imports. Though Turkey has steadily grown its trade relationship with Russia, it does not exactly approve of Moscow’s penchant for using its energy relations with Europe as a political weapon. Russia has never gone so far as to cut supplies to Turkey directly, but Turkey has been indirectly affected more than once when Russia decided to cut supplies to Ukraine because Moscow felt the need to reassert its writ in Kiev.

    Sharing the Turks’ energy anxiety, the Europeans have been more than eager to use Turkey as an energy transit hub for routes that would bypass the Russians altogether in supplying the European market. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline is one such route, and others, like Nabucco, are still stuck in the planning stages. The Russians have every reason to pressure the Turks into staying far away from any more energy diversification schemes that could cost Russia one of its biggest energy clients — and deny Moscow much of the political leverage it currently holds over the Europeans who are dependent on the Russian energy network.

    There are only two options for the Turks in diversifying away from the Russians. The first lies to Turkey’s south in Iraq and Iran. Turkey has big plans for Iraq’s oil industry, but it will still take considerable time to upgrade and restore the oil fields and pipelines that have been persistently sabotaged and ransacked by insurgents during the fighting that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion. The Iranians offer another large source of energy for the Turks to tap into, but the political complications attached to dealing with Iran are still too prickly for the Turks to move ahead with concrete energy deals at this time. Complications remain for now, but Turkey wi ll be keeping an eye on its Middle Eastern neighbors for robust energy partnerships in the future.

    The second potential source of energy for the Turks lies in Central Asia, a region that Russia must keep in its grip at all costs if it hopes to survive in the long run. In many ways this theater is the reverse of the Balkans, where the Russians hold the ethnic links and the Turks the economic advantage. Here, four of the five Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan — are Turkic. But as a consequence of the Soviet years, the infrastructure and economies of all four are so hardwired into the Russian sphere of influence that it would take some major surgery to liberate them. But the prize is a rich one: Central Asia possesses the world& #8217;s largest concentration of untapped energy reserves. And as the term “central” implies, whoever controls the region can project power into the former Soviet Union, China and South Asia. If the Russians and Turks are going to fight over something, this is it.

    Here Turkey faces a problem, however — it does not directly abut the region. If the Turks are even going to attempt to shift the Central Asian balance of power, they will need a lever. This brings us to the final — and most dynamic — realm of competition: the Caucasus.

    Turkey here faces the best and worst in terms of influence projection. The Azerbaijanis do not consider themselves simply Turkic, like the Central Asians, but actually Turkish. If there is a country in the former Soviet Union that would consider not only allying with but actually joining with another state to escape Russia’s orbit, it would be Azerbaijan with Turkey. Azerbaijan has its own significant energy supplies, but its real value is in serving as a willing springboard for Turkish influence into Central Asia.

    However, the core of Azerbaijan does not border Turkey. Instead, it is on the other side of Armenia, a country that thrashed Azerbaijan in a war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and still has lingering animosities toward Ankara because of the 1915 Armenian “genocide.” Armenia has sold itself to the Russians to keep its Turkish foes at bay.

    This means Turkish designs on Central Asia all boil down to the former Soviet state of Georgia. If Turkey can bring Georgia fully under its wing, Turkey can then set about to integrate with Azerbaijan and project influence into Central Asia. But without Georgia, Turkey is hamstrung before it can even begin to reach for the real prize in Central Asia.

    In this, the Turks do not see the Georgians as much help. The Georgians do not have much in the way of a functional economy or military, and they have consistently overplayed their hand with the Russians in the hopes that the West would come to their aid. Such miscalculations contributed to the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war, in which Russia smashed what military capacity the Georgians did possess. So while Ankara sees the Georgians as reliably anti-Russian, it does not see them as reliably competent or capable.

    This means that Turkish-Russian competition may have been short-circuited before it even began. Meanwhile, the Americans and Russians are beginning to outline the rudiments of a deal. Various items on the table include Russia allowing the Americans to ship military supplies to Afghanistan via Russia’s sphere of influence, changes to the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, and a halt to NATO expansion. The last prong is a critical piece of Russian-Turkish competition. Should the Americans and Europeans put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would be a logical candidate — meaning most of the heavy lifting in terms of Turkey projecting power eastward would already be done. But if the Americans and Europeans do not put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would fall by the wayside and Turkey would have to do all the work of projecting power eastward — and facing the Russians — alone.

    A Temporary Meeting of Minds?
    There is clearly no shortage of friction points between the Turks and the Russians. With the two powers on a resurgent path, it was only a matter of time before they started bumping into one another. The most notable clash occurred when the Russians decided to invade Georgia last August, knowing full well that neither the Americans nor the Europeans would have the will or capability to intervene on behalf of the small Caucasian state. NATO’s strongest response was a symbolic show of force that relied on Turkey, as the gatekeeper to the Black Sea, to allow a buildup of NATO vessels near the Georgian coast and threaten the underbelly of Russia’s former Soviet peri phery.

    Turkey disapproved of the idea of Russian troops bearing down in the Caucasus near the Turkish border, and Ankara was also angered by having its energy revenues cut off during the war when the BTC pipeline was taken offline.

    The Russians promptly responded to Turkey’s NATO maneuvers in the Black Sea by holding up a large amount of Turkish goods at various Russian border checkpoints to put the squeeze on Turkish exports. But the standoff was short-lived; soon enough, the Turks and Russians came to the negotiating table to end the trade spat and sort out their respective spheres of influence. The Russian-Turkish negotiations have progressed over the past several months, with Russian and Turkish leaders now meeting fairly regularly to sort out the issues where both can find some mutual benefit.

    The first area of cooperation is Europe, where both Russia and Turkey have an interest in applying political pressure. Despite Europe’s objections and rejections, the Turks are persistent in their ambitions to become a member of the European Union. At the same time, the Russians need to keep Europe linked into the Russian energy network and divided over any plans for BMD, NATO expansion or any other Western plan that threatens Russian national security. As long as Turkey stalls on any European energy diversification projects, the more it can demand Europe’s attention on the issue of EU membership. In fact, the Turks already threatened as much at the start of the year, when they said outright that if Europe doesn’t need Turkey as an EU member, then Turkey doesn’t need to sign off on any more energy diversification projects that transit Turkish territory. Ankara’s threats against Europe dovetailed nicely with Russia’s natural gas cutoff to Ukraine in January, when the Europeans once again were reminded of Moscow’s energy wrath.

    The Turks and the Russians also can find common ground in the Middle East. Turkey is again expanding its influence deep into its Middle Eastern backyard, and Ankara expects to take the lead in handling the thorny issues of Iran, Iraq and Syria as the United States draws down its presence in the region and shifts its focus to Afghanistan. What the Turks want right now is stability on their southern flank. That means keeping Russia out of mischief in places like Iran, where Moscow has threatened to sell strategic S-300 air defense systems and to boost the Iranian nuclear program in order to grab Washington’s attention on other issues deemed vital to Moscow’s national security interests. The United States is already leaning on Russia to pressure Iran in return for other strategic concessions, and the Turks are just as interested as the Americans in taming Russia’s actions in the Middle East.

    Armenia is another issue where Russia and Turkey may be having a temporary meeting of minds. Russia unofficially occupies Armenia and has been building up a substantial military presence in the small Caucasian state. Turkey can either sit back, continue to isolate Armenia and leave it for the Russians to dominate through and through, or it can move toward normalizing relations with Yerevan and dealing with Russia on more equal footing in the Caucasus. With rumors flying of a deal on the horizon between Yerevan and Ankara (likely with Russia’s blessing), it appears more and more that the Turks and the Russians are making progress in sorting out their respective spheres of influence.

    Ultimately, both Russia and Turkey know that this relationship is likely temporary at best. The two Eurasian powers still distrust each other and have divergent long-term goals, even if in the short term there is a small window of opportunity for Turkish and Russian interests to overlap. The law of geopolitics dictates that the two ascendant powers are doomed to clash — just not today.

    Tell STRATFOR What You Think

    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    © Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.

  • New Kind of Darwinian Struggle

    New Kind of Darwinian Struggle

    An Islamic Creationist Stirs

    a New Kind of Darwinian Struggle

    Mr. Oktar Has Plenty of Fans in Turkey, but Biologists Beg to Differ

    By ANDREW HIGGINS

    ISTANBUL — As scientists around the world celebrate the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s seminal work on evolution, Adnan Oktar, a college dropout turned theorist of Islamic creationism, is working on the fifth volume of a 14-part masterwork that he says will bury Darwinism once and for all.

    “Darwin and his theory are dead,” says Mr. Oktar, founder and honorary president of the Science Research Foundation, an Istanbul outfit dedicated to debunking the Victorian-era English naturalist. Darwin, says his 52-year-old Turkish scourge, is “Satan’s biggest trick on humanity.”

    Adnan Oktar

    Mr. Oktar, who briefly studied interior design, hasn’t had much success swaying scientists with the weight of his research. “He is a complete and utter ignoramus,” says Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor.

    The physical weight of Mr. Oktar’s work, however, is considerable. Each volume of his anti-Darwin magnum opus, “Atlas of Creation,” weighs more than 13 pounds. Also weighing in on his side are very aggressive lawyers. They’ve repeatedly gone to court in Turkey to silence critics whom Mr. Oktar accuses of spreading “lies and insults.” Scores of Web sites have been banned at his behest.

    These include the site of Oxford’s Prof. Dawkins, which Mr. Oktar — who writes under the pen name Harun Yahya — got blocked last fall after it posted an article entitled “Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya.” Prof. Dawkins responded to the ban by posting a Turkish translation of the article. Mr. Oktar derides Prof. Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, as “a pagan monk.”

    Mr. Oktar’s combative zeal has put him in the vanguard of what some secular-minded Turks lament as a dangerous phenomenon: a retreat from science into religious dogma. “We are trying to turn the trend back, but I’m not sure we’ll be successful,” says Aykut Kence, a biology professor at Ankara’s Middle East Technical University.

    Prof. Kence has worked with like-minded scholars on a series of conferences and other events marking Darwin’s birth 200 years ago and the publication, in 1859, of “On the Origin of Species.” He last week joined a chorus of secular outrage over a decision by the official journal of Turkey’s state scientific-research council to pull a planned cover story on Darwin.

    “If people can’t accept Darwin, they can’t accept science. They can’t think,” says Prof. Kence.

    A recent survey found that only a quarter of students entering Turkish universities accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and that the proportion is much the same when they graduate. The findings, says Prof. Kence, are “very depressing.”

    Islam, like Christianity, holds that God created the world and its creatures. But the Quran leaves more room for acceptance of evolution than does the Old Testament, which states that the world was created in six days. Creationism, says Prof. Kence, was originally a “Christian import,” but has gained traction among Muslims, thanks in part to Mr. Oktar.

    Mr. Oktar’s message has won support in some unlikely quarters, most notably among educated, wealthy Turks from secular families. Emre Calikoglu, a businessman in the construction industry, says he was “not interested in religious things before” he met Mr. Oktar but is now a devoted believer.

    View Full Image

    A volume of Adnan Oktar’s anti-Darwin magnum opus, ‘Atlas of Creation.’ He is working on the fifth volume of a 14-part work.

    His construction firm has been hit hard by the economic crisis, but he welcomes predictions by Mr. Oktar that capitalism will soon be replaced by a new, greed-free system. In his spare time, Mr. Calikoglu works for Global Publishing, the publisher of Mr. Oktar’s “Atlas of Creation.” It has translated Mr. Oktar’s works into 57 languages, including Swahili and Albanian.

    Mr. Oktar’s urbane and often multilingual fans serve as missionaries abroad. At a Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution earlier this month in Rome, a Turk who introduced himself as a brain surgeon took the floor to expound — in fluent English — on Mr. Oktar’s views on fossils. Organizers snatched away the microphone.

    How Mr. Oktar funds his global campaign is a mystery. He says only that he has various “commercial activities” and many businessmen friends. “My friends are usually rich people.”

    Over the years, Mr. Oktar has also gathered many foes.

    “He’s a megalomaniac. He worships the mirror,” says Edip Yuksel, a Turkish writer who got to know Mr. Oktar in the 1980s when he first began developing his idiosyncratic take on Islam. Now a bitter critic, Mr. Yuksel has written a Turkish-language book on Mr. Oktar — “The Cult of the Antichrist” — but says he hasn’t found a publisher willing to brave Mr. Oktar’s lawyers. His Web site is banned in Turkey.

    The 1980s were a period of political turmoil and also Islamic awakening in Turkey. A military coup at the start of the decade led to the arrest of many left-wingers but left Muslim activists mostly unscathed. Under their influence, the Ministry of Education in 1984 revised textbooks to include creationism alongside Darwinism.

    In 1986, Mr. Oktar published his first book, “Freemasonry and Judaism,” a tirade against the perils of atheism. He then spent 10 months in a mental hospital. Mr. Oktar says he was never mentally ill but was institutionalized to stifle his views. Military doctors later declared him mentally sound, he says, but he complains that Turkish media “propagated the idea that I was a lunatic.”

    Mr. Oktar has had various brushes with the law, including a 1991 drug-possession case in which, he says, security agents planted cocaine in his food. He was acquitted. A glamorous model then accused him of blackmail. The case collapsed. Mr. Oktar is now fighting to reverse a conviction last year of himself and six others for forming an unnamed illegal organization that Mr. Oktar says does not exist.

    “I have a great number of enemies,” says Mr. Oktar, who blames his troubles on a “Darwinist dictatorship.”

    Getty Images

    ‘The Atlas of Creation’ is the work of Turkish Islamic teacher Adnan Oktar, who over the past decade has published a flood of books under the pseudonym Harun Yahya.

    Unlike strict Christian creationists, who assert the world was created in six days around 10,000 years ago, Mr. Oktar allows for a far longer time period stretching back billions of years. But he agrees with those Christians who insist life didn’t evolve, asserting that animals and plants now are exactly as they were at the dawn of time.

    His “Atlas of Creation” produces thousands of pictures of fossils of birds, snakes and other creatures side by side with what he says are their identical modern kin. Prof. Dawkins derides the exercise as “total inanity” and says Mr. Oktar confuses snakes with eels and makes other elementary blunders.

    One of the pictures in the first volume of Mr. Oktar’s work features what is labeled as a caddis fly. It is in fact a man-made fishing fly with a metal hook clearly visible. Mr. Oktar says this is a “little detail” and believes that “just 10 pages of my book can defeat Dawkins.”

    He’s offered a reward of 10 million Turkish lira (around $6 million) to anyone who can produce a fossil that proves evolution. He has also invited his Oxford foe to a debate.

    Prof. Dawkins says he has no intention of accepting, as that would only “give legitimacy” to “this weird phenomenon.” Mr. Oktar, he says, “doesn’t know anything about zoology, doesn’t know anything about biology. He knows nothing about what he is attempting to refute.”

    Write to Andrew Higgins at [email protected]

    Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123724852205449221#mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one

  • Turkish Involvement Could Stimulate Middle East Development

    Turkish Involvement Could Stimulate Middle East Development

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) seems intent on increasing Turkey’s influence with such neighbors as Syria’s President Bashar Assad (2nd right).

    March 17, 2009
    By Abbas Djavadi

    In the Middle East, Turkey could play a leading role in resolving political conflicts; boosting economic cooperation and investment within the region; and supporting political, economic, and social reforms.

    As the most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East, one with rich experience dealing with and adapting to Western institutions, Turkey is the best-suited Middle Eastern country to lead the effort to advance regional stability and development. The European Union and the international community should support Turkey in this role.

    Ankara has demonstrated a consistent commitment to good relationships with all countries of the region, regardless of their domestic, regional, or international policies. Except for occasional military actions against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) pockets in northern Iraq that Ankara considers essential for its national security, Turkey has abstained from interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    After some years of hesitation, Ankara has begun improving relations with the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, a key factor in improving stability and security in that country. Turkey was also one of the first countries to contribute to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

    Turkish efforts over the last two years to mediate between Syria and Israel, the Lebanese groups, and, more recently, Palestinian organizations — as well as its offer to mediate between Iran and the United States — have met with limited success so far. But they have nonetheless underscored Turkey’s capability and potentially suitable positioning to act as a regional leader.

    While primarily leaning toward the West in the past, the Turkish government (controlled by the Justice and Development (AK) party) has — especially over the last few years — improved its relations and image among the Muslim countries of the region, occasionally at the cost of Western reservations or objections.

    Leading The Middle East

    Boosting economic relations and investment between Middle Eastern countries would — especially if accompanied by relaxation of travel, residence, and work-permit limitations — gradually contribute to the overall improvement of living standards, education, and social services in the region. The result would be the mitigation of the actual and potential dangers of extremism and ethnic conflict.

    With its experience with its own democratic reforms (free and fair elections, media, education, privatization, and modernization), Turkey is in a position to help other Middle Eastern countries implement reforms. Doing so could also help Ankara unblock its own reform process and move ahead with EU-required measures that have been bogged down considerably for the last two years.

    If the Middle East were developing economically and socially as a region and countries there had direct and growing interest in cooperation and integration, there would be much less grounds for repression, terrorism, and war.

    The modalities of EU involvement in such a regional initiative remain undetermined, but it seems evident that a leading role for Turkey would be one of the best guarantees of success. Many Turkish officials have expressed a desire for greater Turkish engagement in the region.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Ankara has signaled Washington’s support for Turkey’s role in the Middle East, and EU officials have seconded that support. The time seems ripe to build on these initiatives in order to keep the Middle East process active even as Brussels and Washington are preoccupied with immediate concerns closer to home.

    Abbas Djavadi is associate director of broadcasting with RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary, which is a summary of an address he gave at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (Metropolitan University, Prague) are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

  • Turkish Involvement Could Stimulate Middle East Development

    Turkish Involvement Could Stimulate Middle East Development

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) seems intent on increasing Turkey's influence with such neighbors as Syria's President Bashar Assad (2nd right)

    March 17, 2009

    By Abbas Djavadi

    In the Middle East, Turkey could play a leading role in resolving political conflicts; boosting economic cooperation and investment within the region; and supporting political, economic, and social reforms.

    As the most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East, one with rich experience dealing with and adapting to Western institutions, Turkey is the best-suited Middle Eastern country to lead the effort to advance regional stability and development. The European Union and the international community should support Turkey in this role.

    Ankara has demonstrated a consistent commitment to good relationships with all countries of the region, regardless of their domestic, regional, or international policies. Except for occasional military actions against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) pockets in northern Iraq that Ankara considers essential for its national security, Turkey has abstained from interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    After some years of hesitation, Ankara has begun improving relations with the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, a key factor in improving stability and security in that country. Turkey was also one of the first countries to contribute to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

    Turkish efforts over the last two years to mediate between Syria and Israel, the Lebanese groups, and, more recently, Palestinian organizations — as well as its offer to mediate between Iran and the United States — have met with limited success so far. But they have nonetheless underscored Turkey’s capability and potentially suitable positioning to act as a regional leader.

    While primarily leaning toward the West in the past, the Turkish government (controlled by the Justice and Development (AK) party) has — especially over the last few years — improved its relations and image among the Muslim countries of the region, occasionally at the cost of Western reservations or objections.

    Leading The Middle East

    Boosting economic relations and investment between Middle Eastern countries would — especially if accompanied by relaxation of travel, residence, and work-permit limitations — gradually contribute to the overall improvement of living standards, education, and social services in the region. The result would be the mitigation of the actual and potential dangers of extremism and ethnic conflict.

    With its experience with its own democratic reforms (free and fair elections, media, education, privatization, and modernization), Turkey is in a position to help other Middle Eastern countries implement reforms. Doing so could also help Ankara unblock its own reform process and move ahead with EU-required measures that have been bogged down considerably for the last two years.

    If the Middle East were developing economically and socially as a region and countries there had direct and growing interest in cooperation and integration, there would be much less grounds for repression, terrorism, and war.

    The modalities of EU involvement in such a regional initiative remain undetermined, but it seems evident that a leading role for Turkey would be one of the best guarantees of success. Many Turkish officials have expressed a desire for greater Turkish engagement in the region.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Ankara has signaled Washington’s support for Turkey’s role in the Middle East, and EU officials have seconded that support. The time seems ripe to build on these initiatives in order to keep the Middle East process active even as Brussels and Washington are preoccupied with immediate concerns closer to home.

    Abbas Djavadi is associate director of broadcasting with RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary, which is a summary of an address he gave at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (Metropolitan University, Prague) are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

    Source:  www.rferl.org, March 17, 2009

  • ”AGGRIEVED DARWIN” PROPAGANDA IS A TRICK

    ”AGGRIEVED DARWIN” PROPAGANDA IS A TRICK

    A new piece of propaganda has recently entered the agenda in the Turkish and international pro-Darwinist press. It has persistently been claimed that reports about Darwin are censored and that “science is therefore under pressure.” Under headlines such as “They have sent Darwin to the shredder,” the Darwinist dictatorship tries to give the world the impression that Darwinism is being “aggrieved.”

    But THIS IS AN UGLY TRICK BEING PLAYED BY THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP.

    For some two centuries now, Darwinism has been under the protection of freemasons and atheist zionists, who first proposed it.  This heretical ideology enjoys official protection in 95% of the states of the world. It is officially taught in schools. INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITIES AIMED AGAINST OFFICIALLY PROTECTED DARWINISM ARE PREVENTED THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS. Even the most dangerous ideologies – fascism and communism – can be criticized. But it is impossible to criticize Darwinism. One can only find work in official institutions or get on in school by appearing to espouse Darwinism. Otherwise, the Darwinist dictatorship immediately goes to work. People who speak out against it are silenced, pressurized, removed from their posts and deprived of all resources. This fact, which has been repeated time and time again, IS SHAMELESSLY AND BLATANTLY APPLIED BY DARWINISTS.

    Senior professors hurriedly removed from their posts for supporting the fact of Creation.

    The world’s greatest and highest-ranking universities are Darwinist. The world’s best-known publishing organs and scientific journals are Darwinist. Laws in Christian European countries frequently place Darwinism under close protection. Darwinist masonic lodges have entered all institutions, schools and universities, and have enshrined the religion of Darwinism there. DARWINISM IS THE ONLY IDEOLOGY IMPOSED AND DETERMINEDLY PROTECTED ACROSS THE WORLD.

    The Darwinist dictatorship has established such a dictatorship that not only official institutions and schools but also religious institutions have had to submit to this pressure. The way that churches have apologized to Darwin and that the Vatican has been pressurized into leading the way for Darwinist conferences are the results of this.

    Under the dominion of the Darwinist dictatorship, there is no permission for the fact of Creation to be taught, to appear in scientific publications or even to be discussed. The Atlas of Creation is full of thousands of fossils, meaning thousands of pieces of scientific evidence. Yet not one of these appears in Darwinist publications, which appear under a guise of being scientific. Because since this scientific evidence proves Creation it is banned by the Darwinist dictatorship, which is itself run by the freemasons. Even the teaching of Creations in schools is aggressively prevented. The Darwinist dictatorship is afraid of students learning about the fact of Creation and does all in its power to prevent it.

    The way that attempts are made use the idea of “aggrieved Darwin” to give the impression that Darwinists are being aggrieved IS A HUGE FRAUD AND TRICKERY. The Darwinist dictatorship intends to use this trick to muster support. This ideology, which cannot be questioned, rejected or criticized anywhere in the world, which dominates all official institutions and which constantly appears as a joke element in scientific publications, IS BY NO MEANS AGGRIEVED.  This trickery is intended to lay the foundation for the deceptive idea that “Darwin has been censored on his 200th anniversary, so greater coverage needs to be given him.” The aim is to ensure greater Darwinist propaganda by hiding behind the idea of “You are under pressure, so we must give Darwin coverage.” This is a false, cheap and ugly trick, aimed against our public in order for Darwin to be brought onto the agenda time and time again.

    But what matters is this: They can talk about Darwinism as much as they like, the result will still be the same. It was easy to deceive people with Darwinist lies before they had seen the truth. But people are now aware of the Atlas of Creation.  All they need is to be aware of a few fossils within it. LIVING THINGS HAVE NEVER CHANGED. ONE HUNDRED MILLION FOSSILS PROVE THE FACT THAT living things have never changed in any way over millions of years. BUT THERE EXISTS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL that might confirm Darwinism. In the absence of intermediate fossils, Darwinism has collapsed and it is no longer possible to espouse such a theory. That is the reason for the Darwinist panic not to allow Creation into schools and the way that proponents of Creation in official institutions are immediately silenced. Their aim is to prevent the emergence of evidence that proves Creation and discredits evolution. But with the Atlas of Creation their worst fears have come true.

    PEOPLE NOW KNOW THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. They have now seen the Sun. Closing the curtains and saying ‘It is dark outside’ is not going to convince them. Everyone, even those who say “I support evolution,” is aware of one thing in the face of the scientific evidence: DARWINISM IS DEAD!

    Mar 17, 2009

    Source: 

  • Science gives way to religious dogma in Turkey

    Science gives way to religious dogma in Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    The recent censorship of the Darwin story in the “Science and Technology Journal,” published by The Scientific and Technological Research Council (Tübitak) of Turkey, caused consternation in the scientific community in Turkey and beyond. Tübitak is the leading government agency established to advance science and technology in Turkey.

    The censorship, first time of its kind in Tübitak’s 46-year history, was an event that would shame any respectful scientific organization.

    The making of a scandal

    The event started innocuously enough when the chief editor of the journal, Dr.  Çiğdem Atakuman, decided to commemorate Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday by running a 16-page cover story on the scientist’s life and his theory of evolution in its March edition. Unesco, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, had declared 2009 as the Year of Darwin.

    By established protocol in Tübitak, Atakuman had the authority to decide on the contents of the journal. But when Prof. Dr. Ömer Cebeci, a vice-president and member of the governing Science Board, found out about the Darwin article while it was at the press, the article and the photograph of Darwin on the cover page were peremptorily removed.

    A revised March edition, missing 16 pages and one week late, was issued, and Atakuman was verbally fired from her editorial position (“re-assigned”). The cover page was replaced with one dealing with global climate change.

    What Tübitak did not realize was that its actions were a recipe for a scandal.

    Condemnation

    The reaction from various quarters in Turkey and abroad was swift. Academics and students from various universities in Turkey gathered in front of the Tübitak building in Ankara to protest the censorship. Amid calls for the resignation of the Science Board, other academics, journalists, nongovernmental organizations and opposition politicians condemned Tübitak’s action. Turkish media gave wide coverage to the incident, and newspapers abroad weighed in.

    Tübitak was caught in a storm it had not expected.

    Voices of concern came from the Royal Society in London, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), EU politicians, and other foreign sources. Bloggers wasted no time on the Internet to chime in.

    Science versus dogma

    What lay at the core of these criticisms, and rightly so, was that science was being subjugated to the dictates of religious dogma. Darwin’s theory of evolution, while it forms one of the building stones of modern science, is incompatible with Islamic faith that man was created by God.

    Data suggest that only 25 percent of Turks believe in evolution, some, including the education minister Hüseyin Çelik, associating it with atheism. Turkish theologians generally reject the idea that man evolved from lower beings.

    There is, of course, a similar quandary with the Christian and Jewish faiths, but in the Turkish case Islamic teachings never stood in the way of evolutionary science. The academics and scientists managed to separate or reconcile evolution and Islamic faith, and the government did not interfere. They were free to practice and teach science including the theory of evolution.

    That was in keeping with the secular fabric of the republic as established by Kemal Atatürk.

    Tübitak itself featured Darwin many times in its journal in the past, and the event passed without any incident.

    Islamic wind

    The changeover in Tübitak’s stance on science, in particular the theory of evolution, is no accident. After the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in November 2002, the government has undertaken a relentless campaign to undermine secular education in Turkey. Elements of Islam have been injected into the educational system in various degrees, and religious schools have been promoted. Evolution has been relegated to second status in favor of creationism.

    The government has implemented its Islamic policy through laws, regulations and partisan appointments (in some cases in “acting capacity’). The result is a highly politicized educational system from bottom up, including the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).

    The shift in Tübitak is part of this politicization process. Beginning in January 2004, when the current president of the Science Board, Prof. Dr. Nüket Yetiş, was appointed in acting capacity, most members in senior administration resigned or were forced out. Amendments made to Tübitak’s charter in August 2008 gave the government substantial control over the institution.

    Also in August 2008 Yetiş, whose appointment had previously been vetoed by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, was appointed as the president of Tübitak by President Abdullah Gül. Yetiş reportedly has ties to Islamists.

    Of the 12 members of the Science Board, 10 received their appointments during the AKP government.

    So, at the core of the Darwin scandal was political pressure coming from the AKP.

    Damage control

    To remedy the embarrassment, Tübitak issued a statement denying censorship of the Darwin article and attributing the incident to “miscommunication.” It said there would be a special issue of the magazine later in 2009 covering Darwin.

    A press release issued by Atakuman in reply, giving a detailed account of the events, however, left no doubt that censorship had taken place. Atakuman noted that after the incident she was reprimanded by Cebeci, her boss, in his office for pursuing a “provocative” subject in a “sensitive environment” – meaning the AKP rule.

    Tübitak would be hard put to explain why the Darwin article was provocative.

    Stung by criticism, the government, despite its well-known opposition to evolution, claimed it had played no role in the incident. Surprisingly – and perhaps not surprisingly – YÖK, the council overseeing higher education, declined to comment.

    More fallout

    What is most disconcerting about the Darwin incident is that it may stunt independent thinking and hinder science in Turkey. Science can only advance if it is free of ideology and religious dogma. Darwin’s theory of evolution is an integral part of science, and it must be disseminated, argued and researched without outside interference. Tübitak should promote, not hinder, such efforts.

    It is no surprise that Prof. Dr. Tahsin Yeşildere, Head of the Association for University Lecturers, commented that “Turkish science is in the hands of anachronistic brains who hold it in contempt,” while Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, called the Darwin incident an example of “cultural corruption and . . . intellectual dishonesty.”

    Nor is it a surprise that some EU politicians expressed disquiet, pointing out that the incident was a blatant violation of freedom of thought and scientific independence. Le Monde commented that Islamic groups in Turkey were waging war against Darwin.

    Turkey’s prospect to join the EU, already shaky, will no doubt be affected.

    What is also ironic, and disturbing, is that the Darwin censorship has taken place in a country that had benefited from Atatürk’s vision. Atatürk observed, eloquently, that “Science is the true guide in life.”

    A disquieting thought

    It has been 84 years since America had its bizarre “Scopes Trial” (“Monkey Trial”) in a Tennessee court. The trial was portrayed by some as a titanic struggle between good and evil, when in fact it was about truth and ignorance, or about light and dark.

    Is it possible that Turkey may soon have its own “Scopes Trial”? That would be most unfortunate. But if the AKP, with its Islamic agenda, continues to meddle with science, it may come to that.

    [email protected]