Turkish Forum

Tag: Neo-Ottomanism

  • Sultan Erdogan: Turkey’s Rebranding Into the New, Old Ottoman Empire

    Sultan Erdogan: Turkey’s Rebranding Into the New, Old Ottoman Empire

    In the eyes of secularists, the Europe-facing, Western-dressing, cocktail-toasting modern nation-state is being replaced by a religiously conservative one, headscarf by headscarf.

    CINAR KIPER
    Topkapi palace banner
    Sailing yachts cruise through Bosphorus waterways past Istanbul’s Topkapi palace, once a home for Sultans in the Ottoman empire, on July 25, 2000. (Reuters)

    The cities might not seem similar today, but one thing Tripoli and Thessaloniki, Basra and Beirut, Sarajevo and Sana’a all once had in common is that just a little over a century ago they were all part of the Ottoman Empire. A second thing they all have in common is that until just a few years ago they harbored a certain disdain for Turkey … due in large part to the aforementioned empire.

    Yet former rivals to the south, east, north and even west now attend Turkish business summits, watch Turkish shows, and purchase Turkish groceries. Interestingly and perhaps contrary to common sense, this recent shift seems to come not as a product of “time healing old wounds” but rather at a period when Turkey has embraced its Ottoman heritage to an unheard-of level.

    The most popular television show,Magnificent Century, is essentially a soap opera set in the court of Suleiman the Magnificent, a bit like the Tudors but with even more imposing facial hair.

    The foreign media loves to toss around the term “neo-Ottoman” when discussing the transformation of 21st century Turkey, particularly in reference to its increasingly assertive foreign policy and regional presence, much to Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s chagrin.

    The minister has time and again dismissed charges of neo-Ottomanism, pointing out that Turkey’s neighborly attentions are simply pragmatic foreign policy and do not harbor imperial ambitions. He scoffed at the idea yet again during a speech last month: “Why is it that when the whole of Europe is casting off its borders and unifying they don’t become the Neo-Romans or the New Holy Roman Empire, but when we call for the peoples who lived together just a century ago to come together once again, we are accused of being Neo-Ottomans?”

    But beyond foreign policy there lies a much more significant domestic transformation, one that is also driven by history. In that same speech, the foreign minister spoke of the need for a “great restoration” where “we need to embrace fully the ancient values we have lost.” Praising the historic bonds that connected the peoples of Turkey over the “new identities that were thrust upon us in the modern era,” Davutoglu maintained that the road to Turkey’s progress lies in its past – an assertion that has terrified the government’s detractors enough for them to make it a losing political platform each new election.

    Turkey’s new direction has become the topic of fervent internal debate, with tension growing between the secular establishment — in charge for the republic’s first 80 years — and the rising conservative bourgeoisie represented by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has ruled the country for over a decade. The term “neo-Ottoman” might not pop up as often in the Turkish press as it does in foreign media, but the prime minister and his party are often accused by opponents of a certain Otto-philia for their Islamic sentiments and sympathetic view towards the old empire — a disgraceful entity that represents every problem the modern republic was meant to solve, according to many secularists. After all, the past decade has had Erdogan and the AKP preside over (and according to critics, openly foster) an Ottoman cultural revival.

    The most popular television show, Magnificent Century, is essentially a soap opera set in the court of Suleiman the Magnificent, a bit like the Tudors but with even more imposing facial hair. The highest grossing film, Conquest 1453, is about Mehmed the Conqueror’s conquest of Istanbul in 1453 and features decadent Byzantines and an ambitious, albeit magnanimous, Sultan Mehmed. Just last month mock-ups of a potential redesign of Turkish Airlines’ uniforms were leaked, with one notably Ottoman redesign featuring fezzes and thick, conservative outfits for the female cabin crew, to replace their proudly secular pencil skirts. All these events, plus countless other Ottoman-inspired fashion shows, art exhibits, and university seminars have lead to the reestablishment of a brand forgotten nearly a century ago.

    And while the Ottoman brand might be on the rise, it is not without its critics.Conquest 1453 was panned by the liberal democratic intelligentsia for its two-dimensional portrayal of Mehmed’s enemies and the idea that peace comes only after subduing all opposition. Meanwhile, the secular establishment erupted in a furor over the Ottoman-esque airline uniforms, just the latest in a series of betrayals of the secular republic. In their eyes, the Europe-facing, Western-dressing, cocktail-toasting modern nation-state established in 1923 by founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is being replaced by a religiously conservative one, headscarf by headscarf. Many have even taken to calling the prime minister Sultan Erdogan.

    The prime minister, rarely holding back on criticisms himself, has in turn lambasted Magnificent Century from the other side of aisle: his issue being not that it is too Ottoman, but not magnificently Ottoman enough – too much soap opera, not enough might and traditional values. Such a sentiment, along with many others like it, are consistent with his opponents’ narrative of Erdogan as an archconservative who derives his motivation not from the West like Ataturk but from the East like, well, a religious Muslim would.

    Turkey’s current transformation in culture and foreign policy may very well be derived from the east, but further east than some may think. The drive for change comes not from the 16th century Middle East or even 7th century Arabia, but rather 19th century Japan.

    Japan’s Meiji Restoration of 1868 and Turkey’s Kemalist Reforms that followed the establishment of the republic in 1923 are both models of modernization adopted by lagging countries in the periphery of the West. Both ushered in new eras for their respective countries and both involved great risks, often implementing drastic measures and facing hostile opposition — the former even featured in a Hollywood blockbuster where a distinctly non-Japanese Tom Cruise stood up for traditional Japan.

    But the fundamental divergence between the two paradigms was in their disagreement over the role of culture. Adopting the slogan “Western technique, Japanese spirit,” the Meiji Restoration involved taking the technological, scientific, industrial and military advancements of the West but retaining Japanese values. Japanese culture needed not be sacrificed in adopting modern economic and military techniques and would in fact be the glue that kept a revolutionary society together.

    The Ottoman Empire had already tried, and failed at, something similar in 1839 with the Tanzimat Reorganization, so by the time Ataturk’s Kemalist Reforms rolled around 50 years after the Meiji Restoration, modernity and tradition seemed irreconcilable: modernization could not occur without Westernization. Almost everything was brought in line with the West; clothing was Europeanized, the alphabet was Latinized, numerals were – rather ironically – Arabized, and women could now not only display their hair but also vote and pursue professional careers, just to name a few. Turkey was to become a European country in mind, body and soul, preferably even more European than many countries in Europe at the time, and for the first eight decades of the republic even suggesting otherwise was unthinkable — which is why many in the secular establishment see the AKP’s efforts to the contrary scandalous at best and traitorous at worst.

    His vision was never one of reviving the “sick man of Europe,” but rather synthesizing the best of the West and the best of the East in order to strengthen his hand.

    Yet despite what critics, opponents and even outside observers might suggest, Erdoğan doesn’t seek a return to pre-revolutionary Turkey. His actions aren’t those of an overzealous Ottoman romantic but rather of a Meiji restorer, re-appropriating the republican revolution by redefining its spirit and essence to one that blends Western innovation with local culture, tradition and historic bonds — “Western technique, Ottoman spirit” if you will.

    He has never really been coy about this aspiration either, openly declaring “we cannot deny our Ottoman past” in an interview with TIME Magazine in September 2011, then adding “it’s a very natural right for us to use what was beautiful about the Ottoman Empire today. We need to upgrade ourselves in every sense: socially, economically, politically.”

    So it’s no surprise that Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s speech last Friday was held at a conference titled “The Great Restoration: Our New Political Approach from the Ancient to the age of Globalization.” There the minister would go on to proclaim, “Humanity is in need of a great restoration; our region is in need of a great restoration, and right in the center of all this great restoration, our very nation is striving for its own great restoration within itself.” One does not repeat with such fervor the “need to restore greatly” unless they are making a point about the distinction between restoration and reform: the former is about bringing back something essential that was lost, the latter is about changing that which exists.

    The Erdogan Restoration vs. the Kemalist Reforms is a lot more nuanced than simply “neo-Ottoman.” As the prime minister speaks of EU membership one day while boosting trade with the Middle East the next, he is not being hypocritical or deceitful . His vision was never one of reviving the “sick man of Europe,” but rather synthesizing the best of the West and the best of the East in order to strengthen his hand.

    Nor is this recent Ottoman revival necessarily about returning to an era of greater morality. If your country has spent the past nine decades claiming to be a copy of the West, then the West has no reason to see you as anything more than an inferior copy of itself. This might not be an issue for those satisfied with geopolitical irrelevance, but the more ambitious will want to figure out something new to sell, something better than a simple knockoff. And so Erdogan and the AKP are busy rebranding Turkey from its original rebranding in 1923. It is difficult to see how such a path will fare; after all, Japan might have had countless ups and downs in the century and a half since its own restoration, but at least no person can claim they haven’t been making headlines ever since.

  • Davutoglu Invokes Ottomanism As a New Order for Mideast

    Davutoglu Invokes Ottomanism As a New Order for Mideast

    U.S. Secretary of State Kerry shakes hands with Turkish FM Davutoglu at Ankara Palas in Ankara

     

    US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) shakes hands with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu after their news conference at Ankara Palas in Ankara, March 1, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Umit Bektas)

    Speaking of the international order or lack thereof has always been controversial. For Turkey to challenge the international order, however, carries some real risks — simply because it’s a NATO member country, and its objections raise questions as to whether it’s proposing an alternative foreign policy to this military bloc’s generally perceived worldview, and if so, whether it is diverging in its perception of security issues from the rest. NATO is also the most significant alliance Turkey has, anchoring it in the West.

    About This Article

    Summary :

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s suggestion of an Ottoman model for a new Middle East order is likely a misreading of regional politics that could prove hard for Turkey to back away from, writes Tulin Daloglu.

    Author: Tulin Daloglu
    Posted on : March 10 2013

    The ongoing criticism that comes out of Ankara to the international order is not news. The Erdogan government has been vocally asking for the enlargement of the UN Security Council, especially since the Russian and Chinese veto power has been presented as the main stumbling block before the international community to establish no-fly zones in the war-torn Syrian battlefield for the past two years.

    As setting a no-fly zone literally means for the international community to decide to go to war against Syria — since they need to knock down all the radar systems to do that, Ankara therefore has also been rallying for war against the Assad regime. While Turkey’s initiatives on that were not realized, NATO responded positively to Turkey’s request to install Patriot missiles on its territory as a precaution against an escalation of the Syrian fighting into Turkey. Yet Ankara has been tirelessly complaining about the lack of the international community’s moral obligation to Syrians, while being dreadfully dependent on it, maybe more than ever, for the protection of its eastern borders — not only with the Assad regime, but potentially with Iraq and Iran as well. And not that all this cooperation has to be about military engagement, but Ankara needs the political support of the countries that it criticizes to keep things under control and to its benefit.

    The reason for this entire introduction is simply this: It’s more than likely now than ever that Ankara has been misreading the current developments in its neighborhood, and the making of the new world order.

    Like Henry Kissenger, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, is also coming from academia — but it’s very likely that he is finding it way too difficult to admit that his academic theories actually has not been practically working on the ground — yet he keeps on dwelling in the same direction without any hope.  Kissinger, a former secretary of state, was more practical in that sense.

    Take Davutoglu’s recent remarks on two consecutive days, March 3 and 4 — as an example. First he claims that Turkey for the first time has finally been back to the lands that were lost during the Ottoman times, and he suggests that it’s time for Turkey to take the lead to set an order for these lands and re-connect them once again — “Without going to war, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum and to Batumi.”

    Before continuing with his following remarks though, two quick observations need to be made. First, there is nothing against these cities or countries to feel against being connected to one another. The world is a village, and who ever likes to join hands and work together may do that. Therefore, his remarks as such invite questions as to whether he is proposing an alternative foreign policy, and what that means exactly. Second of all, it may not be the place of Turkey’s foreign minister to suggest that Sarajevo to be tied to Damascus — especially at a time like this, when Syria is drowning in an unfortunate civil war, one needs to wonder as to what the people of Sarajevo think about such a proposal!

    But, let’s not linger on that point and get lost in the conversation. After all, Davutoglu is wondering why people use an accusatory rhetoric, as if his policy suggestions mean to suggest the refurbishment of Ottoman era.

    Here is why in his own words: “Last century was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any border, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power,” he said. “These may look like all different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the same country 110 years ago, or Erzurum and Benghazi. When we say this, they call it ‘new Ottomanism.’ The ones who united the whole Europe don’t become new Romans, but the ones who unite the Middle East geography are called as new Ottomanists. It’s an honor to be reminded with the names of Ottomans, Seljuks, Artuklu or Eyyubi, but we have never or will ever have our eye on anyone’s land based on a historic background.”

    On March 4, Davutoglu continued with his remarks: “The people who lived together throughout the history in this region were torn apart from each other in the last century; they grew distant from each other. Turkey was the central country at the time when borders were diminished, geography was divided, and economic spheres were separated. As if these are not enough, a new seed of division started to be planted in our country.”

    This new seed Davutoglu is referring to is the Kurdish nationalism that seeks some form of autonomy or recognition. He calls on everyone to grasp the importance of the moment, and be alert for those who might attempt to prevent Turkey from growing stronger as a country that has solved its Kurdish problem.

    “This current labor pain is the pain of gaining back that old historical nature. We have to get our act together both domestically and abroad. Surely, we have to first cure our own problem,” he says. “It’s time to think big. When I was an academician, I used to observe this country feeling scared of communism during winter, and division [of its land] during summer [i.e., creation of a Turkish Kurdistan]. It’s now time to solve our own problem. If this gets delayed, the traumas from the outside will inevitably play a negative impact on us, and that it will be likely that the opposite may also happen.”

    “What I have observed in foreign policy practice is that if you have a right reading, and presented a firm position, you may receive criticism in the first place, but you will get results in the mid- and long-term. What is important is to stand firm there. If you are confident of your policy, you should not give any concessions. What is important is not to be indecisive at a critical, decision-making moment.”

    Fair enough, but Turkey has not accomplished anything solid with Davutoglu’s policy except strengthening its trade ties with the Arab Muslim countries. That said, Europe still remains Turkey’s major trading partner. Yet for things where Turkey has put its political capital on the line in the region — whether siding with Hamas against Israel, or rallying the international community to use military force to end the Assad regime in Syria, it has not scored anything concrete to show as a Turkish victory. In that perspective, one has to ask — what happens if Davutoglu’s policies are actually wrong, and that his insistence on wrong policies exposes Turkey to new and unprecedented threats? Who would actually bear the responsibility for that?

    May he be humble enough to understand that he, or anyone else for that matter, won’t be able to bear the responsibility for it all when things get rough.

    It’s time for the Erdogan government to listen to the critics of its policies, and at the very least begin toning down these arrogant suggestions that Turkey be the core country for setting a new order for those once-Ottoman lands.

    That said, it may already be too late for Turkey to take a new direction.

    Tulin Daloglu is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse. She has written extensively for various Turkish and American publications, including The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, The Middle East Times, Foreign Policy, The Daily Star (Lebanon) and the SAIS Turkey Analyst Report. She also had a regular column at The Washington Times for almost four years. In the 2002 general election, Daloglu ran for a seat in the Turkish parliament as a member of the New Turkey Party. 

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/turkey-davutologu-ottoman-new-order-mideast.html#ixzz2NDrCWEvk

  • Resurrecting the Ottoman Glory of Istanbul?

    Resurrecting the Ottoman Glory of Istanbul?

    Resurrecting the Ottoman Glory of Istanbul?

    All current historical renovation-restoration efforts account to the reinvention of a neo-Ottoman eclectic style,” said Edhem Eldem, history professor at Boğaziçi University.

    Nilay VARDAR
    nilay@bianet.org
    İstanbul – BIA News Desk
    16 January 2013, Wednesday

    501-260

    “A new gigantic Sinanesque mosque, the restoration of an Orientalist style barracks building, popularization of “1453 conquest” mentality for Istanbul and of course the insertion of “Golden Horn” metaphor in the shape of a bridge…To make a long story short, all these account to the reinvention of a neo-Ottoman eclectic style,” said Edhem Eldem, history professor at Boğaziçi University.

    20 history professors from Boğaziçi University launched a petition against the environmental damage of Istanbul’s new gigantic construction projects, a campaign that has promptly been signed by at least 224 professors from other universities.

    The petition statement warns that Istanbul’s new construction efforts -including third bosporus bridge, golden horn bridge, intercontinental tube highway, Çamlıca Mosque and urbanization efforts in historical districts – might cause irretrievable damages on the city’s silhouette and integrity.

    Edhem Eldem, one of the petition initiators, told bianet about the relation between history and city in the context of urban transformation projects in Istanbul.

    “Academics’ opinions usually get ignored by municipalities”

    What brought 20 historians together to write a petition on Istanbul’s urbanization projects?

    We wanted to underline that Istanbul’s urbanization projects is heading towards a very dangerous direction. While urbanization projects relentlessly intervene Istanbul’s silhouette and integrity, officials always take the most crucial decisions without consulting non-governmental experts.

    They also ignore our ongoing criticism on these projects. Government officials, especially municipalities, consider academics’ opinions as legitimate only in the borders of academia. When we express our concerns over a project, we are usually ignored.

    In one of your articles, you wrote that the Turkish state’s desire to revive a sense of Ottomanism is fundamentally a dangerous phenomenon. Can you explain this in detail? How did the relation between city and history unfold Turkey?

    Following the military coup of 1980, a wave of conservatism invaded Turkey. First, it revealed itself as a counter-leftist argument. Then, it evolved into a Turkish-Islamic synthesis during PM Turgut Özal era. And now, we observe a Turkish nationalism in the challenge to revive a new sense of neo-Ottomanism by bringing together Ottoman and Republic era cultures.

    The biggest issue with this mentality is that it is highly nationalistic and tends to squeeze the plurality of an empire to the singularity of a nation-state. As a result, it doesn’t aim to praise the Ottoman Empire, but it simply praises the Turkish history from a nationalist perspective under the disguise of Ottomanism.

    The situation gets worse when we add the kitsch and nostalgic Ottominism that has emerged since 1990s. In a way, Panorama 1453 Museum and Hotel Les Ottomans represent two different aspects of the same idea.

    What about previous governments? Didn’t they affect Istanbul’s history?

    One way or another, all governments that Istanbul has seen – including Ottoman governments – have affected the historical texture of the city. In the early days of Turkish Republic, when the capital moved from Istanbul to Ankara, it also brought a sense of ignorance towards Istanbul. We also observe several interventions to the city from republican bureaucrats to establish the Kemalist icons by replacing Ottoman ones.

    “Praising the Turkish history under the disguise of Ottomanism”

    What was the purpose?

    This is not to say that every intervention on the city’s silhouette harbored a secret political agenda. We also observe a lot of changes due to economic motives or a desire to look more modern. Some changes in Istanbul’s landscape was pretty mild, while others had several negative consequences.

    The impact of these changes fundamentally depends on the economic resources and political authorities. For example, we can say that former PM Adnan Menderes and former Istanbul major Bedrettin Dalan initiated changes in the city with serious negative consequences.

    Do you believe the current government has a political agenda behind the construction projects?

    We are worried that the current construction projects have a political agenda and cause irretrievable damages to the city. It would be wrong to say that the government has a political agenda vis-à-vis Istanbul, but it is also true that the government aims to convey a political message through these projects.

    The very idea that every government desires to leave a mark during its ruling era is a very political idea. We don’t only trace these political marks through infrastructure repairs and various services, but also with buildings and artifacts “that speak for themselves”: A new gigantic Sinanesque mosque, the restoration of an Orientalist style barracks building, popularization of conquest mentality for Istanbul and of course the insertion of “Golden Horn” metaphor in the shape of a bridge…To make a long story short, all these account to the reinvention of a neo-Ottoman eclectic style.

    “New projects might leave a black stain on the city’s silhouette”

    So, do the efforts to reconstruct the history in Istanbul indeed cause the destruction of another “history” in the city?

    Istanbul has many historical, cultural and archeological layers and it is so hard to protect them at the same time. Sometimes for the preservation of one layer, you need to let go of another. In this sense, it is highly understandable that the Byzantine layer is facing the biggest danger now, but the negative impacts can be reduced to minimal through balanced preservation policies.

    For example, the municipality showed a remarkable patience on the subway construction in Yenikapi district where several ancient ruins were discovered. But at the same time, the municipality insists on the golden horn bridge project, which is not other than black stain on the city’s silhouette.

    The sad part is that these projects are inspired from Ottoman era marvels. In addition to that, we find it hard to understand why only Orientalist barracks and non-remarkable mosques benefit from renovation efforts. We know that a perfect planning doesn’t exist and you can’t preserve all the history of a vibrant city, but it is still possible to choose the best alternatives with a little but more caution and open discussion.

    “This nostalgia is more about a commodification of the city”

    As a historian, which historical building in Istanbul needs the most urgent attention?

    It is so hard to pick one! But I can give a few examples: Valide Mosque in Aksaray district with its ugly and inadequate renovation, or Mecidiye Kasri with a rococo style renovation that doesn’t fit to the rest of Topkapi Palace. These are previous mistakes, but I am aiming to underscore that these mistakes were made in the course of history.

    Nowadays, though, we have the Suzer Plaza which many people call “skycage” and “Holden Horn” Bridge. We can also count the classical style mosque made out of ytong material. Let’s not forget the kitsch Demiroren Mall in the heart of Istiklal Avenue. And lastly, the terrible restoration of ancient city walls in Ayvansaray district maybe.

    One of your articles trace the influence of nostalgia in the current construction efforts? Do you think they are re-honoring the history? But then, why are there so many deconstructions in districts like Tarlabaşı, Fener and Balat?

    This nostalgia was never innocent since it began in 1990s. It usually brings forth new speculations, profits and exchanges of property. Therefore, I would rather say that this nostalgia is more about a commodification.

    But let’s be realist, you can’t completely avoid these dynamics. I think it would be more constructive to look for ways to control these mechanisms before they invade the entire city. We, as Istanbuiots, need to find a way to preserve the history of our city without submitting to the economic pursuit of the few.

    Who are decisions makers in Istanbul? How do you rate Turkey in terms of transparency?

    Isn’t that so obvious with Turkey? We still don’t have a culture of transparency and participation. Therefore, it is hard to say that our urbanization movement could be transparent and participatory either. But at the same time, all this work can’t be done as if it was a referendum. It risks nothing getting done at the end of the day.

    The real issue is about creating a negotiation mechanism where non-government stakeholders and city resident would not feel excluded and uninformed. Ironic it seems, we are raising this criticism over AKP government because they made us feel more heard and participated in the construction efforts compared to previous administrations. But I should warn that they also started to resemble their predecessors by the time they stay in power. (NV)

  • Turkey Goes Retro With Blockbuster Ottoman Film

    Turkey Goes Retro With Blockbuster Ottoman Film

    By Dorian Jones

    059A92BD D89A 42BD BA30 45AE79479EFF w640 r1 s

    Turkish director Faruk Aksoy’s film “Conquest 1453” about the fall of Constantinople was lavishly produced with a budget of $17 million.

    ISTANBUL — After the formation of the Turkish secular state on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, reference to the country’s imperial era was generally frowned upon.

    But the days of Turkey ignoring its past are history.

    Turkey is no longer hesitant to put its former glory on display both at home and in its old imperial stomping grounds, where “neo-Ottomanism” is being employed as a foreign-policy tool.

    As one filmmaker puts it, the time has come to tell Turkey’s story to the world.

    And based on the record crowds who flocked this week to see his new film about the conquest of Constantinople, it’s a story people are eager to hear.

    Faruk Aksoy’s lavishly produced “Conquest 1453” relies on a heavy dose of violence, sex, and symbolism to remind viewers how Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II conquered the heart of the Byzantine Empire and renamed it Istanbul.

    Benefitting from a budget of $17 million — with a number of state-controlled entities chipping in to make it the country’s most expensive production ever — Aksoy was able to set his sights high.

    “The conquest of Istanbul is an extraordinarily spectacular event with all its outcomes,” he says. “It is an event that changed the course of world history and I want to tell this story to the whole world; not only to the Turkish people. Looking at the increasing demand from abroad we feel that we can achieve this.”

    Rediscovering The Ottoman Past

    In its home country 1.4 million people saw “Conquest 1453” in its opening weekend. It is predicted it will soon shatter all the country’s previous box-office records within weeks.

    The film’s success can, in many respects, be explained by the country’s ongoing love affair with its rediscovered Ottoman past.

    Turkish TV viewers have been tuning in en masse to watch “The Magnificent Century” (“Muhtesem Yuzyil”), a fictional account of the peak of the Ottoman Empire that has become the country’s most popular soap opera.

    WATCH: The Official trailer for “Conquest 1453”

    Moreover, many Turks have been flocking to Panorama 1453, a 2-year-old museum in the shadow of Istanbul’s city’s walls, which provides a vivid, panoramic view of the conquest of Constantinople.

    For many visitors it is all about rediscovering their history. “Our Turkish heritage has not been told to us and that should change,” one visitor to the museum told RFE/RL.

    Another visitor claimed the Ottoman Empire compared favorably to others. “We have been one of the great powers in the past, but unlike other great powers we have never been imperialistic,” he said.

    Such positive interpretations of history have flourished under the decade-long rule of the Islamic-oriented Justice and Development Party (AKP).

    With record economic growth transforming the country from the “sick man” of Europe to European tiger, a historical reawakening fits well with the AKP’s vision.

    “They are looking at the glory days of the empire, and a rather ‘ahistorical’ reading of that history prevails,” says Soli Ozel, an academic and columnist for the Turkish newspaper “HaberTurk.”

    “Basically, [they are giving] the message to society that we have now prepared the country for great days, just like the Ottomans did in the 15th and 16th centuries. It’s one way of legitimizing this current government and of allowing people to imagine its foreign policy in such grandiose terms.”

    ‘Neo-Ottomanism’

    The message extends far beyond popular culture.

    Turkish officials have been keen to employ “neo-Ottomanism” as a means of extending the country’s influence across Arab Spring countries.

    When addressing the Arab League in Cairo last year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was keen to remind those attending of their Ottoman past. “We share a common a history, faith and values,” he said. “We are all brothers.”

    And Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has gone further, arguing that under Ottoman rule the Middle East enjoyed peace and stability, in marked contrast to the region’s recent past.

    Such references may fail to resonate among many, especially those who consider the Ottoman era one of domination, not success.

    But buoyed by economic prosperity, growing regional diplomatic prowess, and blockbuster films that could do well internationally, Turkey appears only too happy to take its chances by drawing parallels to the last time it enjoyed such power and prestige.

    via Turkey Goes Retro With Blockbuster Ottoman Film.

  • Turkish Illusion Prone To Collapse

    Turkish Illusion Prone To Collapse

    Neo OttomanismPARTNERS | BEIRUT (LEBANON) | 21 JUNE 2011

    Editorial:

    Turkish illusion prone to collapse

    Neo-Ottomanism is the promotional cover chosen by the Justice and Development party to address the Arabs. By doing so it combined two ideas, the first being the symbolism of the cultural Islamic bind between the Turks and the Arabs and the second being the yearning for a Turkish role that dominates the Arab reality.

    The first idea was primarily embodied by the Turkish people through their live interaction with the struggles of the Arab resistance in the face of Israel and the emergence of a political and cultural environment inside of Turkey against Zionism and its hostility during the last few years. This imposed itself on the Justice and Development Party which was surpassed by numerous Turkish sides and parties in terms of their heated positions and the size of their initiatives. Therefore, the Justice and Development party was described as being the one with the least drastic positions, taking into consideration the pulse of the street on one hand and the Turkish strategic commitments that are guaranteed by the army command towards the United States and Israel. Consequently, the policy of the party remained linked to the reference of the alliance with Washington and the membership in NATO, and continued to be limited to a political opposition of Israel’s obstruction of the settlement projects in the region.

    As for the second idea, it recently surfaced through the eagerness of the Justice and Development party’s command to acquire an American assignment to manage important Arab files, based on its leading position in the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood and the political adoption of the Turkish model as a basis for the renewal of the political structure of the Arab regimes.

    This recipe is being tested in Egypt but it is clear that the Turkish wager on seeing it tested in Syria is obstructed by the fact that the Syrian Arab army is a national pan-Arab army in which there is no room for American and Western influence, as opposed to the situation in both Turkey and Egypt.

    The Turkish wager is also being obstructed by the fact that the Egyptian MB’s commitment to the protection of Camp David will probably not be able to guarantee this agreement’s survival in the face of the mounting popular action of the youth that is invading the ranks of the MB itself and calling for the closing of the Israeli embassy and the toppling of the agreement of shame.

    News analysis: Syria and the American September

    The West led by the United States is proceeding with its campaign against Syria under the headline of condemning the use of violence in the oppression of peaceful demonstrations. Consequently, the Western governments are adopting measures aiming at blockading Syria under this pretext.

    Firstly: The assumption that we are in the presence of peaceful demonstrations organized by political forces that are opposed to the rule in Syria – or are expressing a spontaneous rejection of social and political realties on the domestic arena – can no longer explain the course of events following the developments witnessed during the last few weeks, and after a number of Syrian oppositionists abroad who enjoy credibility within the Western circles recognized the existence of an armed activity undertaken by oppositionist factions that committed murder in a number of Syrian areas.

    Secondly: For a national centralized state to deter any armed rebellion or terrorist violence – being called for by the Takfiris in Syria on sectarian and denominational bases – is one of the simplest sovereign rights of the states and authorities and is even an obligation in light of such circumstances.

    Thirdly: It is clear based on the above that the West which is depleting all the pressure tools against Syria is facing a major strategic problem in moving towards a new stage that would open the door before direct interference. This problem is due to two factors, the first being Syria’s regional and international status and the Russian and Chinese positions that are refusing to collaborate with the West at the Security Council, and the second being the inability of the Syrian opposition groups to impose their control over any border regions in order to establish a bridge for foreign interference and repeat the Libyan model in Benghazi no Syrian soil, despite the deployment of massive financial, military, media and intelligence capabilities for that purpose.
    The Western determination to subjugate Syria is ongoing and the testing of different forms and levels of interference is proceeding and will probably continue during the next few months, considering that September constitutes an American time ceiling to face more than one event in the region, all of which intersect with the Syrian issue.

    The Arab file

    Syria

    • Return of stability to Jisr al-Shughour and the lifting of the largest Syrian flag in a pro-Assad demonstration

    Units from the Syrian Arab army cleansed the city of Jisr al-Shughour and its surrounding from the armed terrorist organizations that terrorized the population, attacked public and private property and spread destruction and corruption throughout the city. In the meantime, twelve martyrs from the security forces were found in a mass grave after they were brutally killed by the elements of the terrorist organizations. Media outlets took pictures of this crime and the horrors that were committed by these elements who mutilated the corpses and severed the heads and limbs of the security elements. One of those who participated in the latter massacre also admitted that he, along with others, raped several women, killed them and threw their bodies in Al-Assi River.

    • Thousands of young Syrian men and women – with the participation of hundreds of thousands of civil, youth and popular actors – raised the largest Syrian flag that was 2300 meters long and 18 meters wide to end the voluntary campaign launched by Syria’s youth under the headline “raise the biggest Syrian flag with us.”

    • Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said during his meeting with Omani Foreign Minister Youssef Ben Alwi he was confident “in the ability of the Syrians to exit the crisis stronger and more unified than ever before.” For his part, Ben Alwi confirmed “the total support of all the ongoing reforms in Syria.”

    Egypt

    • Egypt arrests officer in Mossad

    The Egyptian security apparatus arrested an officer in the Israeli Mossad who held dangerous and important secrets affecting the country’s national security in the second case of espionage to be exposed following the eruption of the January 25 revolution. According to the investigations, the security bodies were able to arrest the accused in a famous hotel in the capital. He had a laptop and three mobile phones that contained important and secret information about the country. The investigations added that the accused tried to recruit a number of Egyptians in order to acquire information affecting the country’s security, political, economic and social situation following the revolution. But also to follow a number of issues that have recently emerged in Egypt, namely the rise of the Islamists, the sectarian strife cases and the problems of the Copts.

    • Insecurity in Egypt threatens elections

    Asharq al-Awsat newspaper reported that the invasion by the Ittihad of Alexandria supporters of the field after their team lost a soccer game against Wadi Degla FC renewed fears over insecurity in the country. It added that the spectators invaded the field and attacked the players of their own team, thus forcing all the players to flee the stadium, assuring that clashes ensued between the police and the supporters and caused the injuring of twenty people, including 12 policemen. The paper then quoted an Egyptian journalist and a former police officer as saying in this regard: “These incidents reflect the state of insecurity prevailing over the country.” For his part, General Mohammad Kaderi Sa’id, a security expert at Al-Ahram Strategic Studies Center confirmed that the situation in the soccer stadiums reflected the entire security situation in Egypt, adding: “Our country has witnessed a revolution. But the outcome has not yet been seen on the ground and this is provoking the Egyptians’ frustration that is being evacuated in the stadiums.”

    Libya

    • The battles continued between the Libyan rebels and the brigades of Colonel Muammar Kaddafi in the Western parts of the Jamahiriya, and the rebels were able to gain control over a number of regions after Kaddafi’s Brigades withdrew from them. In the meantime, NATO’s aircrafts continued to bomb Tripoli’s suburbs, including the Mitiga international airport. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Africa to pressure Kaddafi to announce a ceasefire and step down.

    • On the other hand, Kaddafi’s son, Sayf al-Islam, announced his father’s willingness to organize elections within three months under the supervision of international monitors.

    • The Libyan television aired an audio message by Kaddafi in which he pledged to defeat the coalition that is led by NATO and is trying to remove him from power. Al-Kaddafi said: “They will be defeated. NATO will definitely be defeated. They will flee for their lives.” Kaddafi concluded: “Let them hit us with an atomic bomb. We are in our country. We did not invade or attack them.”

    Yemen

    • Collapse of truce in Yemen

    The Yemeni opposition met with Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and a number of senior state officials and agreed over the appeasement of the situation and the continuation of the talks.
    But a few hours later, the truce collapsed and the armed confrontations were renewed between the forces that are loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh and the armed men supporting the youth revolution, thus resulting in the fall of several dead and wounded.

    • In the meantime, conflicting reports emerged in regard to Saleh’s upcoming step. Indeed, while a Saudi official assured that Saleh will not be returning to Yemen, sources close to the president confirmed his imminent return to the country.

    Palestine

    • Israeli threat to cancel all the agreements signed with the Palestinians

    Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki called on the European Union in Madrid to “collectively” recognize the independence of Palestine on the 1967 border.

    Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman excluded for his part the resumption of the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis to resolve the Palestinian issue, threatening to cancel all the agreements that were signed between the two sides if the Palestinian command were to request Palestine’s accession to the United Nations.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his refusal to freeze the Jewish settlement activities in the occupied West Bank or to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 border with an exchange of lands, as it was proposed by American President Barack Obama.

    • Al-Hayat daily carried report headlined “Gaza population preoccupied with Dahlan case” by its correspondent in Gaza Fathi Sabbah.

    The paper said that Muhammad Dahlan’s case was the object of controversy on the Gaza street, between the man’s supporters who believe he defended Gaza and his detractors who are talking about his involvement in corruption and murder and his defeat by Hamas. It quoted two among his supporters in Gaza as saying they were afraid to voice their support of Dahlan in public, considering that Fatah’s Central Command could retaliate against them discontinuing the salaries they receive from the Palestinian Authority, as it would consider such a sympathy to be a defiance of its decision to exclude him from the movement and prosecute him on charges of corruption and murder.

    For their part, members in Fatah expressed their dissatisfaction toward the decision to oust Dahlan from the movement, saying it was a decision against the Gaza Strip itself. They assured that this step was an attempt to disregard Dahlan’s importance and supporters, at a time when figures close to the man pointed out he had recently met with a very respectable Gaza figure in Cairo and contacted a number of Gaza officials in order to inquire about the best way to deal with the current predicament.

    International affairs

    The Israeli file

    • Between Israel’s denial and Egypt’s confirmation of the obvious existence of an Israeli spy detained by the Egyptian security forces with a laptop and three cell phones containing highly dangerous information, it is certain according to the Jerusalem Post that this spy participated along with the Israeli army in its operation against Lebanon in 2006 during the battles of the town of Al-Taybeh in which he was injured. In 2008 he was a trainee in the so-called Israeli Project, which is an organization that aims at gathering support for Israel abroad.

    • Moreover, the Israeli papers issued this week tackled several important topics related to the secret military preparations to face the demonstrations and protests expected to be held in September, during the voting at the United Nations over the recognition of the Palestinian state. The training is focusing on the confrontation of several possible scenarios, while army units – especially the Israeli Navy – are conducting training and maneuvers to deter the Turkish fleet coming to Gaza.

    • On the other hand, Maariv assured that Israeli intelligence elements were cautioning that Hezbollah’s missiles were even directed toward the city of Eilat.

    Lebanese Affairs

    Editorial: The Syrian dimension in the Tripoli strife
    The formation of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government constituted a strong blow to the wagers of the March 14 forces over the continuation of the governmental vacuum that was used to exploit the state apparatuses and capabilities and to exercise a dangerous security and political interference in Syria from Lebanon.

    The new government relied in its formation on the parliamentary majority that includes the March 8 forces and centrist sides representing a wide Lebanese crowd from all the sects, while instead of accepting the logic of the transition of power and succumbing to the simplest rules of democratic parliamentary systems, the Future Movement and its allies launched a wide slander and instigation campaign which they led towards the security explosion in Tripoli under a clear headline featuring the intention to turn Tripoli and the North in general into a base for carrying out acts of sabotage in Syria. This would be done through the fueling of sectarian strife which the planners of this campaign wish to transfer to the neighboring Syrian areas after the armed terrorist groups failed to achieve this goal. The involvement by the Future movement and its allies in the Syrian crisis and especially its security incidents, has exceeded the level of media instigation and political statements, as Farid al-Ghadiri clearly revealed the implication of a Lebanese security apparatus in the incidents. He was pointing to services offered –as many believe- by the Information Branch through the facilitation of the entry of arms and armed men and the protection of the operations room funded by Al-Hariri inside of Lebanon to lead the armed rebellion inside of Syria. These Hariri and Bandari fingerprints were clear in Daraa, Baniyas, Homs and Tal-Kalakh in particular.

    The new government confronted the strife project in Tripoli with extreme stringency since the first moment, thus deploying the army in the city and assigning it to deter any attempt to generate turmoil.

    The Lebanese file

    • The birth of the Lebanese government and the repercussions it entailed. At a quarter to three on Monday June 13th 2011, the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati was born under the headline: “All for the country, all for action.” This occurred following a meeting held in the Baabda palace between President Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri who proposed the increase of the Sunni representation to seven ministers by relinquishing a Shiite minister from his share and the Youth and Sports portfolio that was given to Faysal Karame.

    • Following the announcement of the formation of his government Mikati delivered a speech in which he thanked Speaker Berri by saying: “This government would not have seen the light had it not been for the sacrifices and efforts of Speaker Berri.”

    • On the sidelines of the government’s birth, Minister of State Talal Erslan resigned from the government in protest against the fact that he was not given a ministerial portfolio.

    • Speaker Beri assured that the government was purely made in Lebanon, indicating that President al-Assad did not know what was taking place and that consequently the timing of the formation was not a Syrian one since Damascus had been pushing toward the formation of the government for months in order to have a reference in Lebanon with which it could cooperate to protect the border and prevent the smuggling of arms and anarchy into Syria.

    • The first government session was headed by President Michel Suleiman who said during the inauguration: “The government is purely Lebanese and without any foreign interference. During the first 20 years of the Taif Accord, we became accustomed to Syrian reference. But Syria did not interfere now. This is what is required since we proved we are able to resolve our problems by ourselves.”

    • March 14 reactions to birth of government

    The Future bloc believed that the government which was announced by Mikati was the government of March 8 and Hezbollah which decided through its one color and political tendency to head in a direction that is opposed to the general course in the Arab world and against the commitments of the prime minister-designate at the level of the national principles.
    Head of the Lebanese Forces Executive Committee Samir Geagea said that the government was completely loyal to the Syrian regime “Which brings back to mind the tutelage stage in its worst possible form.” He added: “Its formation placed Lebanon outside the Arab and international group, i.e. in a position of isolation and defeat.”

    • Security tensions and clashes in Tripoli

    The city of Tripoli witnessed clashes between the Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tebbene areas, leading to the fall of a number of dead and wounded, including a martyr from the army. Prime Minister Mikati gave clear instructions to Minister of Defense Fayez Ghosn and Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji saying: “Security is a red line. We will not accept the return of the scenes of war and the times of the thugs and militias, neither in Tripoli nor in any other Lebanese town or village.”

    Source
    New Orient News (Lebanon)