This book is a great work in its own right. In terms of real-world impact, it measures above Thomas Paine’s writings, having been used by non-violent movements in dictatorships around the world.
It is also a good introduction to study of nonviolent movements, before diving into all 902 pages of “Politics of Nonviolent Action”
Excerpts below are from an article in the Wall Street Journal, 13.09.2008:
Mr. Sharp’s writings on nonviolent resistance have been studied by opposition activists in Zimbabwe, Burma, Russia, Venezuela and Iran, among others. His 1993 guide to unseating despots, “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” has been translated into at least 28 languages and was used by movements that toppled governments in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.
Although nonviolent struggle has played a major role throughout history, Mr. Sharp was among the first modern scholars to take a comprehensive look at all the various movements, from the civil-rights struggle in the U.S. to uprisings in Eastern Europe.
In his writings, Mr. Sharp teased out common principles that make nonviolent resistance successful, creating a broad road map for activists looking to destabilize authoritarian regimes. Mr. Sharp’s magnum opus, the 902-page “Politics of Nonviolent Action,” was published in 1973. But the main source of his success is his 90-page “From Dictatorship to Democracy.”
This slim volume offers concise advice on how to plan a successful opposition campaign, along with a list of historically tested tactics for rattling a dictatorial regime. Aimed at no particular country, and easily downloadable from the Internet, the booklet has found universal appeal among opposition activists around the globe.
Though he warns readers that resistance may provoke violent crackdowns and will take careful planning to succeed, Mr. Sharp writes that any dictatorship will eventually collapse if its subjects refuse to obey.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin EROL, Gazi University, Deputy Head of International Relations Department
The “Millennium Development Goals” (MDG) project which is being implemented under the leadership of the United Nations (UN) focusing
to solve the eight fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level, regarded as a courageous step for the future. The realization of the goals
will be a historical turning point in terms of the great philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” which is still regarded to be a utopia today without any
doubt. In other words, the UN has undertaken a mission issued by the leaders in the Millennium Summit 11 years ago and targeting a more prosperous, just and
peaceful world.
Well, how much is it possible to implement this project which is almost challenging the next millennium in the name of improving the welfare and quality of life of
the humanity? Especially, how will this issue be solved when materialistic perception of globalism that is being made dominate the world and subsequent
problem of evaluating moral-subjective values are considered? Will the UN be able to get over this paradox in an atmosphere in which quantity forestalls
quality and, with regard to this, “imposing” proposed solutions are put on the market as “standard” packages under
different names and an atmosphere in which all these “standard” packages cause more problems?
No doubt neither at present nor in the medium-term it is easy to answer these questions. Especially approaching to the issue in this way and seeking for
“yes-no” answers to the said questions will mean dynamiting the way to the solution. Anyhow, such an approach will go against both the spirit of social
sciences and the methodological understanding. Our goal here is, through this kind of questions, to bring up the matters that should have been asked and
raised in the first place and to ensure the development of possible solutions, may be by saying “the Emperor is bare.” For this reason, there is no need to
enter into philosophical discussions and very complex methods. Even putting the reality of the world and the statements in the published declaration will be enough
to depict a certain number of challenges in front of the process. Accordingly, although the MDG are launched as a project to find a common solution to the
problems of the humanity at the global level, in practice they are open to be attributed different meanings as long as a common road map cannot be introduced.
Especially after the post-Cold War era within a context where some local issues which could be solved locally are globalized over the concepts are brought into intervention tools, so it is inevitable for some nation-states to consider this type of UN based projects cautiously. Therefore, it seems that it wouldn’t be so easy for our world experiencing ebbs and flows between the globalization and nation-state process to realize the targets set in the MDG in terms of the implementing developments and practices
about “human rights-democracy- governance” understandings on national, regional and global basis. In other words, this cautious approach will endure unless the
mentality does not change and an objective viewpoint considering the local in many respects and in this context balancing the local-global with collaboration
is not put forth instead of top-down approaches and interventions. On the other hand, as it is partially mentioned above, this is not a problem that
cannot be overcome. The key to overcome it lies in listening the local, trying to grasp its realities, and taking its journey, experience, values and
sensibility into consideration. Hence, it is time to recognize the local as a solution partner rather than taking it only as the source and field of
problems. After all, the locals are global in total and today goals stated with regard to the MDG are predicated on the solution of the problem that grows out
of the locals within the pioneering powers of the globalization. Additionally, it should be accepted that the problems formed with regard to the MDG are not
belong just to the century or millennium we live and that their roots originates in centuries before.
As of today, it cannot be a coincidence that almost the whole of the problems which are on the spotlight of the world agenda and tried to be solved in the
context of the MDG are seen in the former colonial countries, too. As a matter of fact, the said problems’ moving away from their limited and local image,
spreading, deepening, gaining a global character and, at the end, turning into threats to and elements of instability for the future of the whole humanity
have their roots in the centuries before.
In such an environment how can geographical discoveries, colonialism and, as an inevitable outcome of these, imperialism together with the globalization be
kept out of all these? What can be said for materialism that tramples all moral values-beliefs by making material forestall meaning and what can be said for
distorted understanding of modernization that turns people into consumption slaves? Today how many of the problems emerging in the context of the MDG has followed a development process independent from these mentioned points?
We know that projects are represented as they are very much humanistic in the global manner. However, since they are kept limited to certain regions for
certain reasons and are launched as peculiar to these regions, they can face some challenges in practice. As a result, in resolution of such kind of
problems it is necessary first to have a clear and well-intentioned position and second to take steps accordingly. Then, what can be done at this point?
There is no need to go so far to find an answer to this question. To find an answer, it will be enough to look at successful approaches and practices that this
region contains within and implements in line with its realities and values, that have their roots in centuries before, that maintain their existence today,
and that take human as its base. In this context, two leading practices of civil society perception and solidarity in Uzbekistan are noteworthy. Focusing
on these practices shows that indeed they are successful models for a significant part of the problems drawn out of the MDG.
As a result of the historical practices and experiments, the civil approach understanding in Uzbekistan is based on the protecting the people from many
difficulties and threats and aiming social justice, equality and healthy social structure in such an unstable region like Central Asia. It is known that these
human based practices have the capacity to solve many interdependent social-individual problems with on time interventions. This nongovernmental
approach which is taking the family as the base and the woman and the children in the family as the focus and imposing the necessity of all types of good education is a successful practice within the power of the local completely. These practices are called “Makhalla System” and “Kamalat Youth Movement” and as mentioned above briefly they have got human based nongovernmental understanding, a deep history and tradition in the country.
The governing idea of the “Makhalla System” that has been implemented after the independence of Uzbekistan as one of the most concrete examples of participationary and direct
democracy is making the system, in which the basis of social structure is formed, the ground which prepares the youth for the future. With another words, “Makhalla is a big family”, “Makhalla is the cradle of education” idea and together with “Economic development starts from the Makhalla” understanding constitutes the core of this model.
Constituting the first stage of the participatory administration, “Makhalla Foundations” started their activities in small Makhalla with 5000-7000 residents in which everyone knows each other. They have a spiritual, educational, informative and ability improving attitude. In this context, education, social assistance, environmental health and development; solution to social problems of the residents; help for the ill, aged and needy; employment and construction of social facilities for the youth; attachment of importance to women and their problems; and “Women Affairs Commission” working on a voluntary basis are outcomes of the “on-site and on time solution” perception of this model.
Moreower, “Kamalat Youth Movement”, formed in 2001, accepts young people aged between 14 and 28 as members and prepares them for the future with the necessary facilities. It is a civil society movement working actively on the issues such as unity of the youth, protection of their interests, improvement of their abilities, solutions to their problems, teaching them their social rights and guiding them in the way of entrepreneurship, and sport.
Therefore, as it is seen in this study primarily some problems emerged at the local-global basis from the aims put forth in the MDG and some concerns carried
by the local and ignored realities will be considered, firstly. Then, the importance and role of Uzbekistan will try to be emphasized in order to understand the
local very well and adaptation of successful practices of it into the global process. At this point, the contributions of “Uzbek Model” and its NGO understanding with “Mahalla System” and “Kamalat Youth Movement” which are based on their historical depths, strong tradition, experience and human based dimensions can be considered as a
successful example and experience in terms of challenging with the fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level.
Status and prospects of bilateral and multilateral cooperation were discussed at a meeting of the Tajik and German Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Khamrokhon Zarifi, and Guido Westerwelle in Istanbul, CA-NEWS reported referring to theTajikistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“The parties agreed that the existing potential for cooperation between Tajikistan and Germany is not fully implemented, so efforts should be made for more profitable for both countries cooperation,” the Foreign Ministry stressed .
Foreign Ministry notes that the parties reached an agreement on exchange of visits by delegations of two countries at a high level, which will give new impetus to bilateral relations.
“The two sides highlighted the cooperation between the two countries within international organizations and conference on Afghanistan. The Foreign Minister of Tajikistan told his colleague about the preparations for the V Conference of Regional Economic Cooperation on Afghanistan (RECCA), which will be held in Dushanbe in March 2012,” a statement said.
Zarifi confirmed Tajikistan’s participation in the conference on Afghanistan, scheduled for early December in Bonn. The sides also discussed the prospects of the project “New Silk Road” at the meeting.
“Westerwelle noted the importance of the accession of Tajikistan to the WTO, and assured his interlocutor that Germany would do everything to facilitate the early entry of the Republic of Tajikistan into WTO,” added the Foreign Ministry.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan is on a working visit in Istanbul to participate in the conference on Afghanistan to be held on Wednesday.
Do you have any feedback? Contact our journalist at agency@trend.az
via Tajikistan and Germany discuss bilaterial cooperation – Trend.
President Abdullah Gül gives a speech at an international meeting to mark the 20th year of the independence of Turkic republics.
As the 20th anniversary of independence arrives for the Turkic republics, Turkey is reviewing its connections with the countries it deems “brothers,” looking for a more institutionalized touch that speaks more to the mind than to the heart.
Although these countries, namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, have traditionally held priority of place amongst Turkey’s bilateral ties with other countries, the arrival of the 20th anniversary of their independence has prompted Turkey to review its long-standing policy toward them. What has been accomplished between the countries, popularly claimed to be “different states of the same nation,” in these 20 years is a clear indication that it might be high time for Turkey to build on the strong ties, but with solid accomplishment that speaks for the pledges.
Turkey has been reviewing its policy in a way that looks to balance ties with regard to past issues to give birth to solutions, Turkish officials told Sunday’s Zaman on the sidelines of an international meeting Turkey hosted in celebration of the anniversaries. These statements confirm the obvious fact that in spite of the great importance Turkey attaches to its Turkic brothers, relations with these countries have not always evolved into solid cooperation; to the contrary, the ties have loosened due to Turkey’s naïve and mistaken conviction that they can be maintained without much effort because of the historic and ethnic ties. Now Turkey seems to be aligning its foreign policy in a way that would close the gap and revive old partnerships.
Twenty years ago when the Turkic states acquired their independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkish political leaders were quite enthusiastic about the prospects this new state of affairs offered Turkey: The first initiatives towards the region were mainly based on emotions, in the process of which, Turkey emerged as a protective elder brother, which caused drawbacks over the long-run when the role was too much to deliver. Twenty years later, it is all the more clear for Turkey that it may not actually be the right way to build lasting relations, as for some time now the motivation behind relations between the “brotherly” countries has progressively evolved into a system where the interests of the parties involved are more important than emotions.
As a result, cooperation between the Turkic countries has increasingly gotten better, although some problems still persist between these countries themselves, as a result of which the Nakhchivan Agreement was signed between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, while the two others, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, remained outside, on Oct. 3, 2009. The agreement paved the way for the foundation of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States (CCTS), which became operational at a summit in 2010 in İstanbul, laying the groundwork to hopefully put the council on a more solid track.
The next step in the council meetings is scheduled for Astana, where ministers of economy come together on Oct. 13, followed by another meeting of foreign ministers on Oct 21. Also that month the heads of the Turkic states will meet at the first get-together of the CCTS, proving that the long-desired institutionalization may now be under way for the Turkic republics and Turkey.
Emotions cause for past disappointments
Since the countries enjoyed a close bond and a common world vision without much effort from either side, heartfelt expectations sometimes melted into disappointment — a feeling Turkey is trying to eradicate by putting affairs on solid ground to foster political, economic, cultural and social ties between the states.
The international meeting held in Turkey earlier this week on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the independence of the Turkic republics is a clear indication that the countries are eager to come together on the diplomatic track and alternative avenues, define problems and look for solutions to existing issues. “Turkey’s dream in the ’90s of forming an economic union with the newly emerged Turkic countries did not come true,” Halil Akıncı, secretary-general of the CCTS and a former ambassador, noted as he co-chaired a session during the Ankara meetings of Oct. 5 and 6. Akıncı added that the formation of institutional bodies between the states makes it easier to track progress and ensures that problems do not only get “whined about” but are put on an agenda to be solved. “Past issues stemmed from over-emotional reactions between the Turkic republics; it is high time we emerge from that,” Akıncı stated at an evaluation session on Thursday.
The Turkic Council, Akıncı noted, would initially deal with economic progress but continue with a second phase concerning the cultural and educational fields. To this end, Akıncı said a common history book would be published, presenting the shared history of the republics and that a Turkic Academy would be founded to study the culture of the Turkic republics. “The 20 years of relations between Turkic states have been fruitful,” commented Bülent Aras, chairman of Center for Strategic Research (SAM), a research body founded under the umbrella of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, in a quick interview with Sunday’s Zaman on the margin of the meeting. “There is a great tendency for cooperation, and steps we cannot downplay have been taken,” Aras noted but admitted that the current level of developments between the states was not enough. “We have developed a fresh perspective in our relations; more cooperation is sure to come in the future,” Aras added, hinting that Turkey is indeed changing its attitude toward the Turkic republics.
Obstacles
The bonds between the six states are also affected by a complex interwoven web of relations with each other, as well as with other parties, which have a claim on the dynamics of the region. The last instance of a dispute between Turkey and its major Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, erupted in 2009 when Turkey tried to normalize relations with Armenia through outlining a roadmap that would make the dysfunctional border between the neighbors operational again. However, Azerbaijan lashed out at the possibility of normalization before a solution is found to the Armenian occupation of a number of Azeri enclaves around Nagorno-Karabakh, which is why Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in the first place.
In the case of waiving visa requirements between Azerbaijan and Turkey, it was Iran that intervened and blocked the prospect, saying that it would ask to benefit from the same privilege if Turkey was given the green light.
An additional debate that usually comes up on the economic sidelines between the nations concerns energy prices, since Turkey is the buyer and transporter of large amounts of Azeri natural gas.
Touching on difficulties facing Turkic states in their quest for better cooperation, Mehmet Seyfettin Erol, a professor of international relations at Gazi University in Ankara, told Sunday’s Zaman in an interview that under the surface, there was much to be considered for relations to evolve to the desired level. Hailing the establishment of the CCTS, founded with the Nakhchivan Agreement, which is “the best move Turkey has ever made in Central Asia,” Erol stated most plans to increase cooperation have remained at their initial stages due to a large number of obstacles.
Lamenting difficulties the Turkic republics face in their diplomatic connections, Erol added that Turkey could only improve relations through deeply rooted diplomatic tracks, which necessitate more institutionalization from all ends. Although the academic stressed that the states wanted more institutionalization, he noted the current level of ties remained at the initial phase of intentions and should be backed by solid plans to move on to the next phase.
His words were confirmed by Dr. Aydar Amrebaev, deputy director of the Kazakhstan Institute for World Economy and Politics (IWEP), at the Thursday session of the international meeting, as he spoke of the problems within the Turkic states. “There are no representatives from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. As the Turkic world, we need to solve the problems of the Caspian region,” Amrebaev stated. Not only Amrebaev but also Associate Professor Bulat Sultanov, director of the Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Research, underlined that relations should be handled on an equal basis, implying that Kazakhstan has no need of aid from Turkey but needs cooperation in many fields, including defense and security.
Republic of Turkey , born from the ashes of a 600-year Empire and having the character of independence , has pioneered many freedom movements which resulted with the establishment of new free countries within the first half of 20th century . The founders of the Republic under the leadership of Ataturk set up this new state by giving the whole nation , desolated and impoverished , the spirit of resistance and by getting their rights with force against the Western Allies at that time ; therefore , they deserve our feelings of gratitude and respect .
Today , at this point , we , as Turkey , need to follow much more active government policies . Personally , I strongly believe that the nationalism concept taking place among the founding principles of the Republic should be considered as Imperial Nationalism . In other words , Turkey , will exert its power and authority in every piece of land which it already exists or existed before and which it strongly wishes to exist in the future . No need to say , this is not an enlargement basing on the military power , but on the contrary , an enlargement policy by using all the historical and cultural close relations and by creating a land of attraction for other states and people . Military power must always be respected and must create hesitation among the possible enemies .
First of all , I want to start wit a basic fact of creation : every entity in the universe has an energy and the power of this energy is directly proportional to its mass .
If we apply this fact to politics , the way to gain power in world politics goes through creating unity , as our ancestors wisely said “union makes us strong” . Examples are many : USA today , Ottoman & Roman Empires in the past … Of course , the age of empires ended long time ago , but there is always a future for the unions . Even the United States , despite its present power and influence , continuously brainstorms about establishing a One-World-Government under the authority of the United Nations controlled & directed by the USA .
Under the light of the basic reality above , Turkey , in order to be effective in world politics , needs to unite . The candidates for setting up a union stand next to us : Azerbaijan , Kazakhstan , Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan , Kyrgyzstan and , due to geographical and historical ties , Georgia and Tajikistan . Except the last two , all Turkish origin states … This unification process can first start with the establishment of confederation and may end up with a federation .
Due to its historical experience and the effectiveness in state establishment , Turkey must perform a leadership for establishing “Eurasia Federation” consisting of the eight states above . This new Federation will represent a union covering approximaely 5 million square kilometers and a population of 150+ million , which is hard to ignore .
It is obvious that many of the other actors in the world politics will try every way in order to prevent such a powerful union . Moreover , the present administrators in these eight countries will be reluctant in giving up the power they currently use . However , nobody can claim that it will be easy . I personally do believe that the people forming the nations of those states will look at this unification idea with sympathy .
Finally , the last but not least , this new “Eurasia Federation” will need a technology-creating reliable partner in order to set up a confederation . That partner is JAPAN . Imagine Japan and Turkey with their own distinctive and leading characteristics and , right beside them , all other participating countries with their natural and social wealth . The future lies in the united political and social entities .
Even the idea itself is exciting !… Don’t you think this is worth trying ???
(Editor’s Note: Since it turns out that “DTVAE,” our favorite Uighur restaurant in town, is closed while the Ottoman-era building it is in is being restored, we thought it might be worthwhile to again run this review of another excellent Uighur spot — which happens to be right around the corner from the closed one.)
It was a dark and stormy night. We found ourselves standing cold and shivering, stomachs growling, in the lobby of a shady hotel, our dining plans once again thwarted by the capricious nature of Istanbul’s restaurateurs. What was supposed to be a restaurant inside the hotel serving southeastern Turkish cuisine had now been turned into a forlorn spot devoid of customers and with an unappealing menu written in Russian.
What to do? We stepped outside and took a look around and saw few promising options in this part of town, known as Laleli, a wholesale clothing district dominated by shops selling cut-rate leather and fur coats and by cheapo kebab joints. That’s when we remembered a recent tip we had been given about a new “Uzbek” restaurant in the area. After making a few inquiries with some locals, we found ourselves inside the gleaming Mihman, a Central Asian restaurant that opened its doors only a few months ago.
Things looked promising right off the bat. The vaguely gaudy décor and the frilly tea cozies on the tables telegraphed Central Asian authenticity. This was quickly reinforced by the pot of steaming green tea that was brought to our table, to be drunk – Central Asian style – out of small bowls. The encyclopedic menu, meanwhile, promised a long list of tempting dishes, both familiar classics and intriguing obscure ones, that will make a return visit a must.
Perhaps overcome with hunger and a sense of nostalgia for previous meals we’ve had in the land of the ‘stans, we went ahead and ordered several things. Perhaps we were again overcome by hunger and nostalgia, but we can report that everything we ordered at Mihman – run by an Uzbek who hails from the Uighur city of Kashgar in western China – was a winner. The extremely fresh puffy little round loaves of Uzbek naan seemed as if they had been flown in from Tashkent that morning. The plump Uighur-style manti were superb. Çuçure, a soulful reddish broth that had tiny dumplings floating in it, hit the spot on a rainy night. The very tasty Kashgar kebab, grilled chunks of lamb flavored with an earthy-tasting mix of spices, took us back in time to a long-ago visit to the dish’s namesake city.
We ended the meal by renewing our plov affair with plov, the Uzbek rice dish that conquered Central Asia. Like any good plov, Mihman’s hid layers of complexity beneath a deceptively humble façade, with fragrant basmati rice, slivers of sweet carrot cooked until they are almost candied, assertive cumin seeds and chunks of flavorful meat all working together to create one of the more appealing comfort food dishes we know of.
We take the opening of this enticing plov shack (which is located near an excellent Uighur restaurant) as a very positive sign for Istanbul’s dining scene, which until recently had been devoid of good, authentic places serving food from other parts of the wider region surrounding Turkey, particularly east of the border. Considering how many Uzbeks, Uighurs, Iranians and others call Istanbul home, we’ve always found it a bit strange that it’s very hard to find any restaurants serving food that caters to them.
Much has been made recently about Turkey’s possible drift eastwards. We don’t like to comment on political matters here, but when it comes to culinary ones, we say: drift, baby, drift.
