Category: Turkey

  • EU must not shut the door

    EU must not shut the door

    Ankara is not yet ready, but the benefits of such a union would be great

    [Leading Article]

    Tuesday, 7 April 2009

    Barack Obama yesterday wrote in the visitors’ book at the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of his hope to strengthen relations between Turkey and America. But, judging by Mr Obama’s speech the previous day, what the US President wants just as much is a strengthening of relations between Turkey and the European Union. The second wish is, by some distance, the more controversial.

    Mr Obama’s unambiguous expression of support for Turkey’s bid for EU membership in Prague on Sunday did not go down well in Paris or Berlin. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, were quick to pour cold water on the idea that this predominantly Muslim nation of some 80 million citizens is destined to enter the European family.

    It was unwise for President Obama, as an outsider, to wade into such rough waters. And Washington cannot easily gloss over the fact that Turkey has made little progress towards fulfilling the criteria of entry since the EU agreed to open accession talks with Ankara five years ago.

    It is true that Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has tried to inject some life into the process in recent months, travelling to Brussels for talks with the EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso and appointing a close aide to be full-time negotiator on accession.

    But the reforms Ankara needs to enact to prepare Turkey for EU membership remain on the shelf. The influence of the military within Turkey’s political institutions is still strong. Prosecutions against those deemed to have “insulted Turkishness” continue to be brought. And Ankara refuses to open Turkey’s ports and airports to traffic from Cyprus.

    There are doubts about the ruling AKP party too. The Turkish prime minister’s objections in recent days to the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the next secretary general of Nato send an unsettling message about Ankara’s willingness to play politics with religion. The Danish prime minister’s fault in the eyes of Mr Erdogan was his failure to be suitably condemnatory of the offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by some of his country’s newspapers in 2006. Turkey’s need to fall back on funding from the International Monetary Fund raises concerns about the ability of the EU to absorb such a potentially unstable new economic partner too.

    And yet Mr Obama was right to emphasise the desirability, in principle, of Turkey entering the European family. Turkish membership would be a tremendous boost for relations between Europe and the Muslim world. At a stroke, the EU would be transformed from looking like a white, Christian club, to an alliance of free-trading democracies.

    And the influence of the mostly moderate Muslims of Turkey might even help to counteract the spread of separatist Islamism in the likes of Britain and the Netherlands. Nor should we forget that the lure of membership gives Europe great scope to push for reform within Turkey, even if the results so far have been less than many hoped for. The process is almost as valuable as the result.

    President Obama might have been a little indelicate in throwing Washington’s full backing behind Ankara’s EU bid, but we should be in no doubt about one thing: it is not in the interests of a single European to see the door slammed in Turkey’s face.

    Source:  www.independent.co.uk, 7 April 2009

  • Obama’s speech to Turkish parliament

    Obama’s speech to Turkish parliament

    Text of President Barack Obama’s remarks to the Turkish Parliament on Monday, as provided by the White House.

    ___

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mister speaker, madam deputy speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.

    This is my first trip overseas as president of the United States. I’ve been to the G-20 summit in London, and the NATO summit in Strasbourg, and the European Union summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message to the world. And my answer is simple: Evet – yes.

    Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.

    This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. And I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble.
    His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong, vibrant, secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

    This future was not easily assured, it was not guaranteed. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control, and you founded a republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

    And there is a simple truth to this story: Turkey’s democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

    Now, my country’s democracy has its own story. The general who led America in revolution and governed as our first president was, as many of you know, George Washington. And like you, we built a grand monument to honor our founding father – a towering obelisk that stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington’s name. I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day.

    It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from all across the world who offered their own tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found.

    And one of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few simple words: “So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.” Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures.

    It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey’s freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself into the NATO Alliance. Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul. Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation in science and research.

    The ties among our people have deepened, as well, and more and more Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our borders. And as a basketball fan, I’ve even noticed that Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good basketball games.

    The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue, and that’s to be expected – no two nations do. But we have stood together through many challenges over the last 60 years. And because of the strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger and the world is more secure.

    Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of
    challenges: An economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men and women and children; strains on our energy supply and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons; and the persistence of tragic conflict.

    These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace.

    This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I’ve carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That is the message that I delivered when I had the privilege of meeting with your president and with your prime minister. That will be the approach of the United States of America going forward.

    Already, America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis. Now, this past week, we came together to ensure that the world’s largest economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressures of protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again.

    As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to serve prosperity for our people. The president and I this morning talked about expanding the ties of commerce and trade.
    There’s enormous opportunity when it comes to energy to create jobs.
    And we can increase new sources to not only free ourselves from dependence of other energies – other countries’ energy sources, but also to combat climate change. We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas.

    This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free.

    So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union.

    We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of both Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in trans-Atlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith – it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe’s foundation once more.

    Now, of course, Turkey has its own responsibilities. And you’ve made important progress towards membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good for EU membership, but because it’s right for Turkey.

    In the last several years, you’ve abolished state security courts, you’ve expanded the right to counsel. You’ve reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You’ve lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

    These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static – they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

    I say this as the president of a country that not very long ago made it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be president of the United States. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

    Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

    Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

    We’ve already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It is a cause worth working towards.

    It speaks to Turkey’s leadership that you are poised to be the only country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South Caucasus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long.

    Advancing peace also includes the disputes that persist in the Eastern Mediterranean. And here there’s a cause for hope. The two Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission. The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation.

    These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after issue, we share common goals.

    In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as president of the United States.

    We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome long-standing passions and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace.

    The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. So now, working together, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you’ve done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen their own institutions. We must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate.

    The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, as I made clear in Prague yesterday, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons, least of all Turkey. You live in a difficult region and a nuclear arm race would not serve the security of this nation well. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for an ever-more powerful tool of destruction.

    Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. We want them to engage in the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. But Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people.

    So both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe haven for terrorists. I know there were differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within my own country, as well. But now we must come together as we end this war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader region. As I’ve already announced, and many of you are aware, the United States will remove our combat brigades by the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, Turkey, and all Iraq’s neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security.

    Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al-Qaida terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation.

    As president, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK or anyone else.
    These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity and democracy for the Kurdish population here inside Turkey.

    Finally, we share the common goal of denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al-Qaida terrorists plot further attacks. That’s why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. That’s why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side not only of security, but also of opportunity and the promise of a better life.

    Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now we must achieve our goals together. I appreciate that you’ve offered to help us train and support Afghan security forces and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before.

    I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.

    In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.

    I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.

    Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.

    There’s an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire with flames.”
    America knows this. Turkey knows this. There’s some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

    I know there are those who like to debate Turkey’s future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples come together. They wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.

    But I believe here is what they don’t understand: Turkey’s greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide – this is where they come together.

    In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

    I am honored to stand here with you – to look forward to the future that we must reach for together – and to reaffirm America’s commitment to our strong and enduring friendship. Thank you very much. Thank you.
    Thank you.

  • Turkey’s Islamist Danger

    Turkey’s Islamist Danger

    A response to Rachel Sharon-Krespin’s ‘Fethullah Gülen’s Grand Ambition: Turkey’s Islamist Danger’ (2)

    GREG BARTON, Ph.D.

    ADJUNCT PROFESSOR

    Area of Expertise – Southeast Asia

    ——————————————————

    orijinal publication of Rachel krespin can be found with the following link

    https://www.meforum.org/2045/fethullah-gulens-grand-ambition

    Veya turkce icin asagidaki link e tiklayip turkce okuyabilirsiniz

    https://www.meforum.org/2071/fethullah-gulenin-buyuk-ihtirasi

    greg barton is A writer in fetullah gulen web side(*)

    It is deeply misleading and offensive to claim that “Fethullah Gülen is an imam who considers himself a prophet.” This is a very strong assertion but the evidence given in support of it does not go beyond hearsay and is certainly entirely out of keeping with the vast corpus of material published by and about Gülen.

    Were it to be true it would involve both a vast conspiracy of silence and profound doctrinal deviation on the part of the millions involved with the movement. This is frankly not plausible.

    It is also misleading to say that Gülen’s “formal education is limited to five years of elementary school.” It is true that his early classroom education was cut short when his family moved to the village of Alvarli in the impoverished province of Erzurum. Conditions in Turkey’s mountainous far east in the 1940s was difficult. But it is noteworthy that Gülen went on to complete the official imam hatip exams and graduate from secondary school. Gülen certainly benefited from his studies with well-established Islamic scholars, but he is also a voracious reader and autodidact. A prolific author accomplished at writing for both ordinary laypeople and for scholars his Quranic scholarship and studies of Said Nursi are highly regarded by academic experts.

    By any measure he is not just one Turkey’s most significant contemporary intellectuals but also one of the world’s leading modern Islamic intellectuals. It is, of course, reasonable to disagree with him, but it is foolish to dismiss him as a lightweight.

    Sharon-Krespin makes brief reference to Nursi. She is correct in associating Gülen with Nursi’s legacy, but the way in which she discusses Nursi’s views suggests either deep prejudice or deep ignorance.

    It is not clear where Sharon-Krespin gets the ideas that Gülen’s followers “even refrain from marrying until age fifty per his instructions.” Her account suggests a dour and joyless community earnestly following their leader’s instructions without thinking for themselves. As a scholar of religion, I fully acknowledge that such groups do exist (including within the world of Protestant Christianity with which I am associated), but in my observation the Gülen movement is not such a group. In my dealings with members of the movement, I am struck by their consistent good humor and occasionally even mischievous sense of fun. These are people who love life and enjoy each others’ company. Yes, they do tend to dress in a more conservative fashion — although not exclusively so — which is hardly surprising given the social origins of the movement and, like the vast majority of observant Muslims around the world, they do not drink alcohol. But to spend time in their company is to be reminded that one needs neither alcohol nor secular cool to enjoy laughter and good humor. Social conservatism is not necessarily a sign of fundamentalism.

    The Gülen movement’s contributions to education are indeed impressive but seem more than a little exaggerated here. And presenting them as being part of an “education jihad” based on indoctrination is more than a little unfair as it grossly misrepresents the consistently secular content of what is taught in the classrooms and the overall ethos of the schools. Different scholars will, naturally enough, have different positions on this. My own position, having observed the movement over the past five years is that it represents precisely the sort of non-Islamist, progressive, civil society movement that Muslim world needs at this point in history if it is to engage with democratic, secular, modernity. In my reading, the educational programs can be understood as broadly paralleling earlier examples of Christian and Jewish educational philanthropy in the West.

    Perhaps this makes me a non-credible observer as one of the many “friends, ideological fellow-travellers, and co-opted journalists and academics.” If that is the case, it would appear that I am in good company.

    [*] Professor Greg Barton is a Herb Feith research professor for the study of Indonesia and acting director at the Centre for Islam and the Modern World.

    11 February 2009, Wednesday
    GREG BARTON [*]
    (*)

    GREG BARTON WRITE UP IN FETULLAH GULENS WEB SITE

    Batı, İslamı Araplar Üzerinden Tanıyor!
    Aksiyon
    25.10.2004
    Dr. Greg Barton: “İslamiyetin temel bakış açısı Hıristiyanlık veya Yahudilikten çok farklı değil. Avrupa’da Yahudi ve Hıristiyan toplumlar demokrasiyi kurabiliyorsa, pekala İslam toplumları da bunu yapabilir. Bu mümkündür ve olması gerekir.”

    İslam—demokrasi ilişkisi birçok akademisyenin üzerinde kafa yorduğu bir konu. Özellikle 11 Eylül saldırıları, bu ilişki üzerindeki tartışmaları daha da yoğunlaştırdı. Sadece Müslüman ilim adamları değil, birçok Batılı akademisyen de “İslam demokrasiyi kapsar mı, yoksa onunla çatışır mı?” sorusuna cevap arıyor. Batı’daki siyasî kültürde önemli bir yeri bulunan Hıristiyan demokrat partilerin, Müslüman demokrat adıyla ülkemizdeki siyasal kültüre taşınıp taşınamayacağı da tartışmanın diğer boyutunu oluşturuyor. Hatta bu çerçevede AK Parti’nin, “muhafazakar demokrat” olarak belirlediği kimlik tanımı, Müslüman demokrat partiler tartışmasına da yeni bir boyut kazandırmış durumda.

    Bir süredir Türkiye ve ülkemizdeki Müslüman gelenek üzerine çalışmalar yapan Avustralya Deakin Üniversitesi Öğretim Üyesi Prof. Dr. Greg Barton, İslam ve demokrasi ilişkisine kafa yoran isimlerden. Onun konuya yaklaşımı basit, ama etkili: “Ben bir Protestan olarak kendi inancımın ışığında İslam—demokrasi ilişkisini değerlendiriyorum. Bana göre İslamiyetin temel bakış açısı Hıristiyanlık veya Yahudilikten çok farklı değil. Avrupa’da Yahudi ve Hıristiyan toplumlar demokrasiyi kurabiliyorsa, pekala İslam toplumları da bunu yapabilir. Bu mümkündür ve olması gerekir.”

    Barton’un İslam’a ilgisi lise yıllarında Hindistan’a yaptığı bir ziyaretle başlar. Doktora tezini Asya ülkeleri üzerine yapar ve Endonezya’daki İslamî hareketi analiz eder. Barton, bu ülkeyi Türkiye’ye benzetiyor ve toplumsal gücün yüksekliğine işaret ediyor. Portre çalışması yaptığı Endonezya Devlet eski Başkanı Abdurrahman Vahid’i İslam’la demokrasinin uyumuna örnek gösteren Barton, her iki ülkede de modern hareketin ve demokratik düşüncenin Müslüman gruplardan çıktığı tespitini yapıyor. Türkiye’den örnek olarak da Bediüzzaman Said Nursi ve Fethullah Gülen’i veriyor. Bu iki ismi, geleneksel İslam’dan gelen; ancak modern düşünceye sahip dinî önderler olarak tanımlayan Greg Barton, Abdurrahman Vahid’i de aynı kategoride ele alıyor.

    Her üç ismin, geleneksel İslamı temsil etmelerine rağmen moderniteye yakın görüşleri ile etkili olduklarını söyleyen Barton, Said Nursi, Gülen ve Vahid’in din—devlet ayrımını desteklemelerine dikkati çekiyor. 20. yüzyıldaki İslamî düşünürlerin devletin değişmesi, şeriatın gelmesi ve bir İslam devleti kurulmasını savunduklarını hatırlatarak ekliyor: “Halbuki Said Nursi ve Fethullah Gülen bireyin dönüşümünü önemsiyor, eğitime büyük önem veriyorlar. Böylelikle modern bilim eğitimini klasik İslamî bilimlerle birleştiriyorlar. Eski fıkhî konulara ve bunların yorumlarına takılıp kalmış değiller. Onun yerine iman ve inanç gibi İslamiyet’in asıl meseleleriyle ilgileniyorlar.”

    Greg Barton’un üzerinde durduğu konulardan biri de, Batı dünyasındaki İslam imajı. Bu konuda çok dertli. Batı’da İslam imajı denilince, hemen “İçine düştüğümüz çukur bundan kaynaklanıyor” diyerek söze giriyor. Onun şikayeti bu imajı belirleyenin büyük oranda Arap âlemi olması. Batı’da İslam’ın doğrudan Araplarla bağdaştırıldığını söyleyen Barton, ciddi bir reform sürecinden geçmeyen ve baskıcı rejimlere sahip Arap âleminin İslamiyet için bir imaj kırıcı olduğunu vurguluyor. İslam hakkındaki görüşünü Araplara bakarak belirleyen Batı’nın, bu dünyadaki İslamî hareketlerin tamamını radikal ve yer altı örgütleri olarak gördüğünü söylüyor. Prof. Dr. Barton, bu problemin çözülebilmesi için Batı dünyasının Türkiye ve Endonezya gibi ülkelerden öğreneceği çok şey olduğunu sözlerine ekliyor.

    Peki Arap ülkeleri dışındaki Müslüman toplumlar neden Batı dünyasında fazla tanınmıyor? Greg Barton, önyargılar ve subjektif yaklaşımlar dışında bu sorunun en temel sebebini dil problemi olarak görüyor. İngilizcenin halen bu iki ülkede yeteri kadar yaygın olmadığını hatırlatarak, “Geleneksel olarak Batıda bir araştırmacı İslamiyet’i öğrenmek istediğinde Arapça öğrenir. Bu yüzden de İslam dünyasını araştıran uzmanlar Araplar’a bakarak Türkiye, Malezya ve Endonezya gibi ülkeleri atlıyor” diyor. Samuel Hantington’ın medeniyetler çatışması tezini eleştiren Barton, Amerikalı akademisyenin İslam âleminde azınlığı temsil eden radikal gruplara yönelik değerlendirmelerini genele mal etme çabası içinde olduğunu söylüyor.

    Türkiye’de gerek dinler gerekse kültürlerarası diyalog konusunda büyük bir istek gözlemlediğini belirten Barton, “Gördüğüm kadarıyla Said Nursi Risale—i Nur ile çok güzel bir zemin oluşturdu. Fethullah Gülen ise bu zeminin üzerine taşları dikiyor. Said Nursi imkanları bakımından daha kısıtlıydı, dar ve küçük çevrelerde hayatını yaşamak zorunda kalmıştı. Fakat Gülen’in öğrencileri dünyanın her yerine dağılmış ve aktif şekilde diyalog çalışmalarını destekliyor. Bu gerçekten bütün dünyanın ihtiyacı olan bir çalışmadır” diyor.

    Türkiye’nin AB Üyeliği Avrupa’yı da Geliştirecek

    Türkiye’nin AB’ye katılımı için çok güzel gerekçeleri olduğunu söyleyen Greg Barton, bu üyelikten her iki tarafından da önemli çıkarları olacağı tespitini yapıyor. Türkiye’nin katılımının Avrupa’yı da geliştireceğinin atlanmaması gerektiğini vurguluyor. AK Parti hükümetinin Avrupa’ya yönelik çabalarını da olumlu buluyor. Greg Barton’un dikkat çektiği hususlardan biri de, sekülerizmle din ilişkisi. Ona göre İslamî toplumların yaşadığı modernleşme süreci sadece sekülerizme götüren bir süreç değil ve modernite de dinin bir alternatifi olamaz. Bu konuya en iyi örneğin eski Sovyetler Birliği olduğunu söylüyor: “Eski SSCB’de din yok edilmeye çalışıldı ama bunu kimse başaramadı. Komünizm dahi dini yok edemedi. Asıl soru şu: Din modernleşmeye yardımcı mı olacak yoksa bir engel mi? Gülen hareketinin önemi bu noktada ortaya çıkıyor. Bu gibi hareketler İslamî toplumların yaşadığı reform sürecinin devamlı olmasına katkı sağlıyor. Çünkü Gülen hareketi devleti değiştirmekten ziyade daha çok bireye yönelik çalışıyor. Savaş ve kavgadan yana değil, barış, uzlaşma ve diyalogdan yana tavır alıyor. Barışçı kavramları öne çıkarıyor ve bunları devamlı olarak savunuyor.” (Zafer Özcan)

  • Crossroads in Turkey

    Crossroads in Turkey

    Monday, April 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am

     

    Today the President continued a remarkable tour of Europe in which many of the great issues of our time have been taken on face to face, without hesitation or equivocation. It has been a tour that addressed a global response to the financial crisis at the G-20 Summit in London; a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in Germany with NATO; the turmoil of the past years in US-European relations in France; and earnestly turning our vision toward a world without nuclear weapons in Prague. 
     
    Today the President visited Turkey, a country that lies at the nexus of several cultures, and accordingly the President had several core messages. He emphasized his support for Turkey’s bid for membership in the European Union. In response to questions about whether there was a message being sent through the visit, he stated emphatically that there was indeed, namely that Turkey is a critical ally, vital in issues ranging from energy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And addressing another element of Turkey’s culture, he spoke to the majority-Muslim population in a speech to the Turkish Grand National Assembly:
     

    I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. (Applause.) In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.
     
    I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them. (Applause.)
     
    Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.
     
    There’s an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire with flames.” America knows this. Turkey knows this. There’s some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

  • Turkey Wants U.S. ‘Balance’

    Turkey Wants U.S. ‘Balance’

     

    Published: April 5, 2009
    cohen.190
    Roger Cohen

    LONDON — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is a man of brisk, borderline brusque, manner and he does not mince his words: “Hamas must be represented at the negotiating table. Only then can you get a solution.”

    We were seated in his suite at London’s Dorchester Hotel, where a Turkish flag had been hurriedly brought in as official backdrop. Referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the beleaguered Fatah leader and president of the Palestinian Authority, Erdogan said, “You will get nowhere by talking only to Abbas. This is what I tell our Western friends.”

    In an interview on the eve of President Barack Obama’s visit to Turkey, his first to a Muslim country since taking office, Erdogan pressed for what he called “a new balance” in the U.S. approach to the Middle East. “Definitely U.S. policy has to change,” he said, if there is to be “a fair, just and all-encompassing solution.”

    A firm message from Israel’s best friend in the Muslim Middle East: the status quo is untenable.

    How Hamas is viewed is a pivotal issue in the current American Middle East policy review. The victor in 2006 Palestinian elections, Hamas is seen throughout the region as a legitimate resistance movement, a status burnished by its recent inconclusive pounding during Israel’s wretchedly named — and disastrous — “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza.

    The United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization. They won’t talk to it until it recognizes Israel, among other conditions. This marginalization has led only to impasse because Hamas, as an entrenched Palestinian political and social movement, cannot be circumvented and will not disappear.

    Former Senator George Mitchell, Obama’s Middle East envoy, has expressed support for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. I think this should become a U.S. diplomatic priority because it is the only coherent basis for meaningful peace talks. Erdogan called Mitchell “perfectly aware and with a full knowledge, a very positive person whose appointment was a very good step.”

    The Turkish prime minister, who leads Justice and Development, or AKP, a party of Islamic inspiration and pragmatic bent, earned hero’s status in the Arab world when he walked out on the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a debate earlier this year in Davos. Any regrets?

    “If I had failed to do that, it would have been disrespectful toward myself and disrespectful of the thousands of victims against whom disproportionate force was being used,” Erdogan said. He alluded to the children killed in Gaza — 288 of them according to the United Nations special rapporteur — and asked: “What more can I say?”

    Erdogan, 55, urged Obama to become “the voice of millions of silent people and the protector of millions of unprotected people — that is what the Middle East is expecting.”

    He went on: “I consider personally the election of Barack Hussein Obama to have very great symbolic meaning. A Muslim and a Christian name — so in his name there is a synthesis, although people from time to time want to overlook that and they do it intentionally. Barack Hussein Obama.”

    I suggested that synthesis was all very well but, with a center-right Israeli government just installed, and its nationalist foreign minister already proclaiming that “If you want peace prepare for war,” the prospects of finding new bridges between the West and the Muslim world were remote.

    “Your targets can only be realized on the basis of dreams,” Erdogan said. “If everyone can say, looking at Obama, that is he is one of us, is that not befitting for the leading country in the world?”

    Dreams aside, I see Obama moving methodically to dismantle the Manichean Bush paradigm — with us or against us in a global battle of good against evil called the war on terror — in favor of a new realism that places improved relations with the Muslim world at its fulcrum. Hence the early visit to Turkey, gestures toward Iran, and other forms of outreach.

    This will lead to tensions with Israel, which had conveniently conflated its long national struggle with the Palestinians within the war on terror, but is an inevitable result of a rational reassessment of U.S. interests.

    I asked Erdogan if Islam and modernity were compatible. “Islam is a religion,” he said, “It is not an ideology. For a Muslim, there is no such thing as to be against modernity. Why should a Muslim not be a modern person? I, as a Muslim, fulfill all the requirements of my religion and I live in a democratic, social state. Can there be difficulties? Yes. But they will be resolved at the end of a maturity period so long as there is mutual trust.”

    The problem is, of course, that Islam has been deployed as an ideology in the anti-modern, murderous, death-to-the-West campaign of Al-Qaeda. But Erdogan is right: Islam is one of the great world religions. Obama’s steps to reassert that truth, and so bridge the most dangerous division in the world, are of fundamental strategic importance.

    Synthesis begins with understanding, which is precisely what never interested his predecessor.

  • U.S.-Turkish Relations: A Historic Era?

    U.S.-Turkish Relations: A Historic Era?

    Event Summary

    A positive, constructive relationship with Turkey has never been more important to Europe and the United States. Bordering Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Caucasus, Turkey also occupies the corridor between Western markets and the Caspian Sea energy reserves. A stable, Western-oriented Turkey en route toward EU membership would provide a growing market for exports, a source of needed labor, a positive influence on the Middle East, and a critical ally. An inward-looking Turkey, on the other hand, would be a disaster not only for the West but for Turkey itself.

    Event Information

    When

    Monday, April 13, 2009
    2:00 PM to 3:30 PM

    Where

    Falk Auditorium
    The Brookings Institution
    1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
    Washington, DC
    Map

    Contact: Brookings Office of Communications

    E-mail: events@brookings.edu

    Phone: 202.797.6105

     
    At the onset of what has recently been labeled by Turkey’s chief foreign policy adviser as a “historic era” in bilateral relations, President Barack Obama will visit Turkey in early April. Is the trip evidence that the once-fading relationship will be revived, and if so, will the stronger ties anchor Turkey decidedly toward the West?

    On April 13, the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) at Brookings will host a panel discussion on the future of U.S.-Turkish relations. Ömer Taşpınar, director of Brookings’s Turkey Project, will offer analysis and recommendations from his recent book, Winning Turkey (Brookings Institution Press, 2008). Soli Ozel of Istanbul’s Bilgi University will present the findings of a new report published by the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) entitled “Rebuilding a Partnership: Turkish-American Relations for a New Era – A Turkish Perspective.”

    Arzuhan Dogan Yalcindag, chair of TUSIAD, will make introductory remarks, and visiting fellow Mark Parris will moderate an audience question and answer session following the panelists’ remarks. 

    Moderator

    Mark R. Parris

    Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy

    Introduction

    Arzuhan Dogan Yalcindag

    Chair, Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD)

    Panelists

    Ömer Taşpınar

    Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy

    Soli Ozel

    Bilgi University, Istanbul