Now that Turkey’s AKP is well and truly entrenched in power, voices issuing dire warnings have been popping up left and right. In Turkey as well as wider afield, many have warned of Turkey’s imminent “return to Islam” and Tayyip Erdoğan’s autocratic tendencies. And now, the leader of Turkey’s opposition has taken the bold step of publishing an op-ed in the venerable Washington Post.
As an alarmist pseudo-secularist also prone to employ an Islamic rhetoric to garner public sympathy, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu start his piece stating that “[m]any in Washington have been debating whether Turkey’s governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) could be a model for the Arab Spring , as our neighbors in the Middle East aspire to get rid of totalitarian regimes and become true democracies. But the reality in Turkey makes clear that the AKP model does not hold”.[1] Many Turks as well as many other observers have been talking about Turkey’s Secularism as a possible model for the Arab world. But, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the mere idea that Turkey is a secular state seems far-fetched, and not just because the ruling party hails from Erbakan’s notorious Refah Partisi (RP), but rather because the republican system present in Turkey has always viewed Islam as the nation’s state-religion to be controlled and imposed by the ruling elite of the country, turning the notion of the separation of politics and religion in Turkey into a mere fallacy.[2]
Turning his attention to the affairs of the day, Turkey’s opposition leader continues: “On Nov. 9 I visited the Silivri prison where hundreds of journalists, publishers, military officers, academics and politicians are being held. Trials were opened in 2007 on charges that an ultranationalist underground organization had plotted for years to overthrow the government. Many of those indicted have been detained for years without trial. There has not been a single conviction to date. Justice is at stake — and, so far, has been flagrantly denied. At work is an insidious attack on the rule of law by Turkey’s governing party. These trials could have been an occasion for Turkey to achieve a much-needed catharsis for correcting past wrongs, but they have been turned into instruments to silence the opposition and suppress freedoms. Among those being held are eight opposition members of parliament. Turkey’s high election board declared that these people were qualified to stand for elections, and all won seats in parliament. That they are incarcerated violates their rights under Turkish law as elected representatives of the people. A universal norm of the rule of law is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Another is that evidence leads to the arrest of a suspect. In today’s Turkey, however, people are treated as guilty until proven innocent. One gets arrested; then authorities gather evidence to establish an infraction. Presumed guilt is the norm. Sadly, all opponents of the government are viewed as potential terrorists or plotters against the state. The AKP is systematic and ruthless in its persecution of any opposition to its policies. Authoritarian pressure methods such as heavy tax fines and illegal videotaping and phone tapping are widely used to silence opponents. Even more disturbing is the AKP’s claim that such things are being done in the name of democratic progress. The latest government target is the primary vestige of our democracy, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which I lead. While at the Silivri center in November, I likened the conditions to those of a concentration camp and said that prosecutors and judges were not meting out justice and did not deserve to be called upholders of justice. This month, I learned that the prosecutor’s office had opened an inquiry into my comments, contending that I was ‘seeking to influence a fair trial’ and ‘insulting public officials’. Never mind that not a day passes without some comment by government officials, such as the prime minister, on the process of law and justice. Clearly, an effort to single out the leader of the main opposition party ratchets up the pressures on freedom of expression. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court penalized our party when we asked for the chief justice to recuse himself from particular cases. Our request was based on ill will, we were told when the $3,000 fine was levied, and the CHP was unnecessarily preoccupying the court’s time”, and ending his lament with, “It all boils down to this: In today’s Turkey, when one criticizes the justice system, one is prosecuted. When one appeals to the courts, one is penalized”.[3]
Even though his own party has been playing the nationalist and Islamic cards quite openly for quite some time now, Kılıçdaroğlu still feels at ease to say that “Our party [the CHP or Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi] stands for democracy, secularism, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms. We envision a progressive Turkey where citizens, regardless of their faith, ethnicity, gender or political view, are equal before the law. Building political, economic and cultural walls between people is not consistent with democracy or social justice. Only a nation at peace with itself can be a model for its neighbors. A nation plagued by multiple forms of division and polarization is doomed to failure”.[4] In fact, even though he Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has not explicitly accused the AKP government of turning Turkey into an Islamic state, his reiteration that the CHP stands for “democracy, secularism, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms” clearly implies that, in his opinion, the AKP as a political organization is synonymous with totalitarianism, Islamism, arbitrary rule, and a heavily constrained citizenry. In other words, Kılıçdaroğlu paints the spectre of a revived Ottoman state in the mould of Abdülhamid II (1876-1909), when Pan-Islamism and autocracy led to a veritable police state which was only overthrown by the Young Turk revolution of 1908 and the Second Constitutional period in Ottoman history (1908-1918) . . .
The sources of Ahmed Refik’s Lale Devri and the Paradigm of the ‘Tulip Age’: a Teleological Agenda’
This article looks at the source material used by the Ottoman historian Ahmed Refik in writing his book Lâle Devri. The book portrays the final 12 years of the reign of the Ottoman sultan Ahmed III, and the administration of the Grand Vezir Damad İbrahim Paşa (1718-30), suggesting that this so-called ‘Tulip Age’ was ‘the herald of the Tanzimat’, or the opening move of a policy of Westernisation that was to lead to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923.
The future of Libya still seems uncertain following the brutal execution of Colonel Gadhafi, killed by Libyan thugs and instigated by NATO bombs and a lone U.S. drone. According to the ever-contrary broadcaster RT, a “hellfire missile fired by a US drone hovering some five miles above in the skies of Libya made the kill – now, that’s how it’s done in the 21st century – clinically precise and from far away”.[1] The military intervention did apparently not require foreign boots on the ground, but a UN-mandated resolution to protect civilians lives – “resolution 1973, authorizing its member states to implement a ‘no-fly zone . . . [and] to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign
occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory’”.[2] On 19 March 2011, President Obama authorised the discharge of Operation Odyssey Dawn to implement this resolution, which gave the whole affair the gleam of a Just War, a concept that Barack Obama likes to bandy about a lot. After all, the NATO military intervention was aimed at preventing the wily colonel from killing his own people, but in the end, NATO bombers and U.S. drones turned out to have been deployed in an operation that was nothing but a veiled remote-controlled invasion to precipitate regime change. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reaction to the news of Gadhafi’s death was most telling in this respect: “we came, we saw, he died!”.[3]
Does the war in Libya represent the future of warfare in this century, remote-controlled arms that kill and local proxies doing the dirty handy-work??? And, as it turns out, there were nevertheless some foreign boots on the ground but they were not American or European. Instead two unlikely players have contributed to the Libyan war effort: Sudan and Qatar – the BBC notes that ‘Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir says his country gave military support to the Libyan rebels who overthrew Col Muammar Gaddafi’,[4] and ‘Qatar has revealed for the first time that hundreds of its soldiers had joined Libyan rebel forces on the ground as they battled pro-Gaddafi troops’, as reported by the news agency AFP.[5] For one thing, it seems more that ironic President Bashir, who is wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court in The Hague (ICC), in this instance assisted NATO and its Assisted Rebellion against Gadhafi and his troops. He explained that the Darfuri Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) succeeded in attacking the Sudanese capital three years ago as a result of Libyan aid and assistance, and that providence had now offered him the opportunity to reciprocate in kind. Addressing a crowd in the eastern Sudanese town of Kassala, Bashir stated: “Our God, high and exalted, from above the seven skies, gave us the opportunity to reciprocate the visit. The forces which entered Tripoli, part of their arms and capabilities, were 100% Sudanese”.[6] As for the Qatari involvement, from Tripoli the Guardian’s Ian Black reports that “Qatari special forces are reported to have provided infantry training to Libyan fighters in the western Nafusa mountains and in eastern Libya. Qatar’s military even brought Libyan rebels back to Doha for exercises. And in the final assault on Gaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli in late August, Qatari special forces were seen on the frontline. Qatar also gave $400m to the rebels, helped them export oil from Benghazi and set up a TV station in Doha”.[7]
In the early years of the 20th century Italy invaded Libya, forcing the Ottoman authorities in Istanbul to direct their attention to that faraway Ottoman province in Africa. Subsequently, the outbreaks of the Balkan Wars (1912-13) and the Great War (1914-18) meant that the Ottomans were in no position to oppose Italian control of the oil-rich coastal land became Rome’s colony between 1911 and 1947. And now that Colonel Gadhafi has been eliminated, will the different tribal groups that make up Libya unite under NTC leadership and allow for a peaceful transition to representative democracy??? The NTC has already indicated that previously agreed oil deals would be honoured, so that turning Libya into a de facto colony seems quite unnecessary. On the other hand, if civil strife and tribal rivalry were to usher in an all-out civil war would the U.S. and its NATO allies leave well enough alone, or would they become part of the civil war, as has been the case in Afghanistan??? Britain’s new Defence Minister, Philip Hammond declared that “Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya . . . I would expect British companies, even British sales directors, [to be] packing their suitcases and looking to get out to Libya and take part in the reconstruction of that country as soon as they can”. [8] And U.S. Ambassador, Gene Cretz turned out to be equally forthright, saying “We know that oil is the jewel in the crown of Libyan natural resources, but even in Qaddafi’s time they were starting from A to Z in terms of building infrastructure and other things. If we can get American companies here on a fairly big scale, which we will try to do everything we can to do that, then this will redound to improve the situation in the United States with respect to our own jobs”.[9]
Iran’s state-sponsored English-language broadcaster Press TV notes that ‘Gaddafi and his son Mo’tassim were buried in a secret location in the country’s Sahara desert [on Tuesday, 25 October 2011], Abdel Majid Mlegta, a senior National Transitional Council military official, said. Saif al-Islam is reportedly making his way towards Niger in an attempt to flee the country after the victory of the revolution. Former Tuareg leader Rissa ag Boula said on Tuesday that he is being ferried by Tuareg tribesmen’.[10] The report goes on to say that ‘South African mercenaries who allegedly participated in Muammar Gaddafi’s failed escape bid are now providing protection for his influential second son, Saif al-Islam. According to a report published by the Afrikaans-language Beeld newspaper on Thursday [, 27 October], the South Africans were hired by a company with close ties to the slain Libyan ruler, and were involved in training his presidential guard and handling some of his offshore financial dealings, AFP reported. They reportedly played a major role in helping Gaddafi’s wife Safia, his daughter Aisha, and sons Hannibal and Mohammed, flee Tripoli battle. Beeld said that the group of mercenaries was also was engaged in transporting Gaddafi’s gold, jewelry and foreign currency to the Western African country of Niger. The group is said to include former South African soldiers and policemen’.[11]
And finally, Al Jazeera reports that ‘Libya’s National Transitional Council has named Abdurrahim El-Keib as the country’s a new interim prime minister to replace Mahmoud Jibril. He won 26 out of 51 votes, and said that he expected to choose his cabinet ministers within two weeks. El-Keib is an award-winning electrical engineering professor who has taught at the University of Tripoli as well as numerous US universities. He most recently worked at the Petroleum Institute in the United Arab Emirates. Jalal el-Gallal, an NTC spokesman, said the council wanted to form a new interim government after the fall of Gaddafi because its initial members started out as an impromptu group. Hashem Ahelbarra reports from Tripoli’.
This article analyses the position of the Hittites in the theoretical development of Turkish nationalism in the 20th century. The piece provides an outline of the full content of the Hittite claim in a Turkish nationalist context, particularly its promulgation as part of the so-called ‘Turkish History Thesis’. Following this, I will give full weight to the historical circumstances surrounding the
emergence of the Hittite trope in Turkish writing . . . The article shows that the propagation of the Kemalist concept of Turkish nationalism in Anatolia dates back to 1922, a year prior to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.
When producer Ian Nagoski started collecting the 78′s that make up To What Strange Place, he initially thought he was collecting music of the former Ottoman Empire recorded in Greece, Turkey, and Syria. What he learned instead was that he was collecting some of the earliest recordings made in America — until now almost completely forgotten. This short film explores Nagoski’s search for the lives behind the music of “To What Strange Place,” and what his search says about his own need to reclaim these lost
voices from obscurity (4 July 2011).
In the aftermath of the Bush invasion of Iraq, the political balance has somewhat shifted in the Middle East. On the one hand, in direct consequence of the U.S. military action Iran has now emerged as a much more influential force in the region. Whereas Saddam Hussein had been vehemently opposed to the Tehran regime, the current leadership in Baghdad is all but cozying up to Iran. Last Tuesday, 21 June, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari flew to Iran’s capital to talk to his counterpart and make deals for a mutually beneficial future relationship. The Fars News Agency (FNA) reports that ‘Iranian and Iraqi officials said the two sides are working on a number of agreements to expand their mutual economic cooperation, and added that the documents of these agreements will be concluded and inked during an upcoming visit to Baghdad by Iranian First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi’.[1]
On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that “four agreements on avoidance of double taxation, customs cooperation, encouragement and support for joint investment, and economic and trade cooperation [are being considered] . . . The two countries’ capacities and potentials are beyond this level [of exchange] and we hope that Mr. Rahimi’s visit would open the way to increase the volume of exchanges to a remarkable amount”.[2] All in all, Tehran and Baghdad want to set up an Iran-Iraq Joint Supreme Economic Committee that would turn both countries into prospering partners arguably in a position to conomically dominate the Sunni Middle East. But at the same time, in its current pseudo-Ottoman guise Turkey is purportedly trying to strengthen the Sunni Arab world in such a way that would minimise Iran’s impact and influence . . . Are the Safavids (a common
slur to describe Shi’ite Iran) again emerging as a viable threat to peace and stability in the Sunni pseudo-Ottoman world??? After all, as long ago as November 2006, Mishaan al Jubouri, a former member of the Iraqi parliament and owner of the television station al-Zawraa, or Muj TV, referred to the Baghdad government as the “U.S.-backed Safavid occupation”.[3] In other words, memories run deep in the Middle East and this can only lead one to ask whether George W. Bush’s ill-conceived invasion of Iraq will eventually lead to a revival of open and/or veiled hostility between a Sunni and a Shi’a block in the Middle East??? Turkey was happily engaging Iran until fairly recently, but U.S. insistence now seems to have persuaded Ankara to look the other way . . .
From Beirut, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports that “[I]It’s the villages and hills to the east and north of Jisr al-Shughour that now seem to be the focus of the army’s efforts to re-impose the regime’s control over the defiant area. State media said the army was chasing what they called the “remnants of armed terrorist gangs” through the surrounding countryside. Activists said local men of military age were being rounded up, houses damaged and crops destroyed. The units involved in this assault are believed to be from the army’s much-feared 4th division, under the direct command of President Assad’s brother, Maher. This was the division that ruthlessly suppressed defiance down in the city of Deraa in the south, near the Jordanian border, where the whole uprising began in March and where dissent continues to smoulder”.[1] Turkey has defiantly opened its borders to refugees, set up tent cities, and urged the Syrian regime to exercise caution. As remarked by Sevil Küçükkoşum, “Turkey has begun a substantial re-evaluation of its Syrian policy, as more than 7,000 Syrians have now fled to Hatay while another 15,000 mass near the border, according to reports”.[2] But, as indicated by Iran’s Press TV, not everybody opposes President Assad.
Now that the world, in the shape of the UN and NATO, is intervening in Libya for the sake of “protecting civilians” and ensuring that Colonel Gaddafi leaves the scene, voices have emerged urging a similar approach to Syria and President Assad’s Baath regime. Even though the situation in Libya is far from clear, and Gaddafi appears more than unwilling to give up without a fight, the principle of “humanitarian intervention”, even if it might seem nothing but a hypocritical ploy to ensure that Libyan oil does not get lost and regime change usher in the demise of one of the West’s most persistent bogeyman, would also seem to be applicable to Syria. Still, as worded by the erstwhile career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service M. K. Bhadrakumar, “Russia is stubbornly blocking US attempts to drum up a case for Libya-style intervention in Syria”.[3] And why would Russia be blocking such attempts. As long ago as 27 February 2009, the state-sponsored news broadcaster RT (or Russia Today) reported that ‘Russian warships have returned to the naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, used by the Soviet Union since the late sixties, after more than a decade of absence’.
Last year the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported that ‘Russia will finish the fundamental renovation at its naval logistics base in the Syrian port of Tartus by 2011, said the Navy’s General Staff on Wednesday. Having been upgrading the Tartus port for several years, the Navy’s General Staff said in a statement that “the main purpose is to develop logistics . . . to upgrade the existing coastal infrastructures and create new ones that will provide convenient moorage and stable supply for Russian ships pulling into Tartus with fuel, water, food and other supplies. The bulk of the works is to be completed in 2011,” said the statement. The Navy’s General Staff also said that its fleet already had a functioning logistics facility at Tartus, whose condition and capabilities fell short of requirements’.[4]
The Americans are of course fully aware of Russia’s designs in Syria, and are now staging joint U.S.-Ukraine naval exercises in the Black Sea. Russia has been craving access to the Mediterranean since the days of Peter the Great (1682-1725). The Soviets finally succeeded in realising Tsarist ambitions in the 20th century, and in the 21st independent and “free-market” Russia is once again following the lead of its Communist precursor. As the largest country on earth, with untold energy reserves underground and a looming spectre of alcoholism above ground,[5] Russia today is once again engaged in challenging the U.S. in the region and further afield. Do these joint naval exercises make the Russians feel nervous??? Moscow’s Foreign Ministry has issued this official statement recently: “While leaving aside the unsettled issue of a possible European missile shield architecture, Russia would like to know, in compliance with the Russia-NATO Lisbon summit decisions, what ‘aggravation’ the US command meant by moving the basic strike unit of the regional missile defense grouping being formed by NATO in the region, from the Mediterranean to the East?”.[6]
These power games also affect another player in the region, attested by the following report from Jerusalem dating back to August 2008: ‘Syrian President Bashar Assad arrived in Russia . . . for a two-day visit during which he is seeking to purchase advanced weaponry from Moscow including the Pantsyr-S1 Air Defense Missile system, the BUK-M1 surface-to-air medium-range missile system and the sophisticated S-300 long range anti-aircraft missile system already purchased by Iran. Syria has also reportedly offered to allow Moscow to deploy its Russian Iskander missile system, an advanced short-range, solid fuel-propelled missile, in its territory. The new Russo-Syrian military cooperation comes in reaction to the recent US-Poland missile deal which positions NATO missile systems on Russia’s western front, eliciting harsh threats and criticism’.
A month later, the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRINN) aired this report. Israel’s current Premier Bibi is all but outspoken about his dislike for Iran’s regime and his desire to attack Iran unilaterally.
All the while, hapless Syrians keep pouring into the Turkish province of Hatay. A Turkish government insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Hürriyet Daily News that “Turkey will keep engaging with Syria [to urge it to enact reforms and abstain from violence], but Syria’s attitude will determine our position”.[7] The Associated Press remarked that “[t]roops led by President Bashar al-Assad’s brother regained control of Jisr al-Shughour on Sunday [, 12 June], sending in tanks and helicopter gunships after shelling the town. But residents were still terrified; Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday [, 13 June] that hundreds of Syrians have crossed over since Sunday”.[8] On the other hand, one should not lose sight of the fact that the conflicts in Libya, Syria and Yemen too are inter-connected and dependent upon a whole range of alliances and counter-alliance. For instance, last year, Xinhua also reported that ‘Russia did not exclude the possibility of building naval logistic facilities in Socotra Island, Yemen, as well as in Tripoli, Libya, but for now, the choice is limited to Tartus’.[9] As for Turkey’s southern neighbour, Bhadrakumar has this straightforward analysis: “Put simply, the US wants Russia to leave Syria alone for the West to tackle. But Russia knows what follows will be that the Russian naval base there would get shut down by a pro-Western successor regime in Damascus that succeeds Assad”.[10] And that would spell an end to Russia centuries’ old dream of having a steady access to the Mediterranean, given the equally uncertain future awaiting Gaddafi.
Below is a news clip aired by the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), which discloses how reporting on the workings of the democratic process can turn into outright propaganda. CBN actually accuses Tayyip Erdoğan and his party of intending to usher in a new worldwide Caliphate following Sunday’s elections . . .
(10 June 2011)
The fantastic report also receives a written form, available on the CBN website. CBN News Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Mitchell unashamedly titled his piece “Turkey Election Sparks Fears of Islamic Caliphate”, and writes that “Turkey will be a different country come Monday [, 13 June 2011]. What kind of country is still to be decided. That’s why many Christians in the Middle East are praying for Turkey and the future of the region”.[1] Following the establishment of the Turkish Republic,Mustafa Kemal Paşa and the Ankara government abolished the Caliphate in 1924. This did not mean that religion was banned from Turkish life. As I pointed out in my piece ‘Secularism, beer and bikinis’, “nowadays, the term [secularism], particularly in its French form of laicité (at the root of Turkey’s laiklik), denotes a strict separation of church (or religion) and state. And, the theory is that Turkey, as a result of the reform movement, known as the İnkılap, is a secular state. In reality, however, ever since the Turkish state abolished the Caliphate and the Ministry of Pious Endowments in 1924, the Turkish Republic has regulated its citizens’ religious life through the Religious Affairs Directorate, or Diyanet, a branch of government attached to the office of the prime minister”.[2] But now, fear-mongers like he Christian Broadcasting Network are trying to convince their audience that Erdoğan and his AKP are bent on re-establishing an institution that was primarily symbolic in nature in order to dominate the world and enslave Christians all around. All in all, Islamophobia is alive and well in the U.S. and the rest of the West.
Some members of the U.S. congress have reportedly received a letter from Colonel Gaddafi, saying he is ready to negotiate a ceasefire. The authenticity of the letter has not been confirmed. Meanwhile NATO air strikes continue to rock Tripoli. It comes as Gaddafi’s daughter filed a lawsuit against the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and NATO, for killing four members of her family in April’s military strike. Earlier an unnamed official confirmed that the alliance does consider Colonel Gaddafi a legitimate target. NATO has long insisted that regime change is not the military operation’s objective. Lecturer in Modern History at Oxford University – professor Mark Almond – says Gaddafi’s positions are not as weak as the West might may want to present it (11 June 2011).
At the moment the Oxford historian is a Visiting Professor in International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey). Almond points out that 2011 marks the 100th anniversary of the invention of aerial bombardment by Italy in Libya: “On 1st November, 1911, Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti dropped the first bomb from an aeroplane. According to the Ottoman authorities it hit the military hospital in Ayn Zara in the Libyan desert. The Italians strongly denied targeting an installation protected by the Geneva Convention”. When we nowadays hear talk of the Geneva Convention, we do not normally associate the treaty and its ramifications with the Ottoman Empire and its African holdings. Particularly as the ‘singular term Geneva Convention [in fact] refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty’, as pointed out by the requisite Wikipedia entry. But in fact, the Convention as well as the Red Cross date back to the 19th century and the Battle of Solferino (24 June 1859). And the first Geneva Treaty was accepted on 22 August 1864 and the second on 6 July 1906. Hence, the Ottoman denunciation of Italian abuses, so reminiscent of what is happening in Libya today. As Almond points out: “Modern aerial warfare and the propaganda battle which has accompanied it ever since was underway from the start”. Today’s aerial attacks take place under the shield of a UN Resolution that mandates “necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country”. In order to protect certain civilians in Libya today, it has now become necessary to kill others. In 1911, just like in 2011, as noted by the “British Arabist, G.F. Abbott who was [then] with the mixed Turkish-Arab forces resisting the invasion”, the Ottoman and Arab troops on the ground “soon recovered from their fear partly because bombs which fell into the sand tended to explode harmlessly”. In fact, Abbott remarked about the civilian casualties in the early 20th century, saying that “The women and children in the villages are practically the only victims” of Italian bombs. The Ottoman Empire went through a hectic period at the time, as the Italians plunged them into a war in Libya that was succeeded by the two disastrous Balkan Wars (1912-3), and eventually by the Great War (or World War I, 1914-18) itself that brought an end to the Ottoman existence and ushered in the Republic of Turkey as the successor state in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. Today’s intervention in Libya aims “to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country” and in actual fact seems to be primarily interested in ousting Colonel Gaddafi. But the Colonel is still able to send off his own mail, while no-one seems to write him anymore . . .
As a geographic location, the territories now occupied by the Republic of Turkey are no stranger to bouts of iconoclasm and wanton destruction of works of art. In the days before Turks ever tread on the soil of Anatolia and Islam had become the law of the land, the Byzantine Empire (to use that time-worn 19th-century coinage) went through a number of turbulent phases in its religious life. Phases in experiencing religiosity that were connected to the use and/or abuse of images, when believers were either iconodules or iconoclasts, loving or loathing icons or depictions of the deity and other holy figures. As such, in Byzantine history two bouts of image-breaking fervour occurred: the “First Iconoclasm”, lasting from approximately 730 till the year 787 and the “Second Iconoclasm”, between 814 and 842. The then-hotly debated issue was whether the worship of the deity through icons constituted idolatry or was a legitimate means of approaching the godhead. Of more recent memory and enjoying large international exposure is of course the Taliban demolition of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in the course of March 2001, an act of gratuitous iconoclasm based on a strict interpretation of Islamic precepts practised by the Taliban and their Wahhabi sponsors. In fact, the Saudis themselves have also committed their share of wilful destruction of cultural heritage. Early in 2002, they destroyed an 18th-century Ottoman-era fortress, al-Ajyad, overlooking a mosque in Mecca for the sake of progress, in order to erect 11 high-rise towers, consisting of apartments, a twin-tower five-star hotel, restaurants and a sacrosanct shopping mall in the holy city (at a cost of $533m), the latter ensuring that pilgrims and local contribute to the city’s economy by means of worshipping consumerism. At the time, the Turkish government “lodged a complaint with UNESCO, arguing that the Saudi move was a crime against humanity’s shared heritage and no different from the Taliban’s 2001 destruction of two massive Buddhist statues inAfghanistan”, as worded by the travel writer Michael Wise. Then-Turkish parliament speaker Murat Sökmenoğlu (member of the Turco-Islamist MHP), declared that a “Muslim country’s destruction of another Muslim country’s historic heritage on holy soil is a sinful behaviour in breach of the moral values of Islam, religious brotherhood and common sense”.
Now that Turkey is living in the grip of the AKP, one of the successors of the recently deceased Necmettin Erbakan’s Refah Partisi (RP), one would think that such Muslim sentiment reigns supreme. Currently, a symbolically-charged statue is being demolished as a result of Recep Tayyib Erdoğan’s statement in January 2011 that a “freak” had been erected in the vicinity of the tomb of Hasan al-Haraqani (963-1033). The Prime Minister was referring to the gigantic and as yet incomplete ‘Monument to Humanity’ (İnsanlık Anıtı), set up in 2008 by the sculptor Mehmet Aksoy. At the time of Erdoğan’s effusion, the Wall Street Journal’s Marc Champion opined that these words signaled “the depth of a freeze in efforts to reopen the border and improve relations between the two neighbors” of Armenia and Turkey. And now, following another round of 24-April trepidations, destruction work has commenced at full force, with the hope that work will be finished in ten days.
But what did Mehmet Aksoy’s gigantic sculpture attempt to do? It is a really huge human figure that is torn in two, with an equally enormous hand reaching out into the distance. The message seems rather obvious: Turks, or should we say Muslims?, and Armenians once lived side by side on these lands. They used to be one body. As a result of a brutal exercise of ethnic cleansing that once-unified social structure became ruptured. Yet, now as neighbour – the sovereign states of Turkey and Armenia– attempts should be made to overcome the legacy of the Great War (1914-18), hence the reaching out of an empty hand looking for friendship. But now, on account of government-sponsored iconoclasm, such feelings of solidarity and attempts at coming to term with one’s past no longer have a physical reminder in a region o f Turkey once heavily populated by Armenians.
And what would the dead saint, ostensibly at the centre of this affair, Hasan al-Haraqani, have said about all these things? After all, his final resting place seems to have provided the pretext for the current bout of iconoclasm in the geographic location of the Republic of Turkey. This saintly figure’s presence in Anatolia predated the Battle of Manazgirt (1077), which ushered in the Turkification and Islamification of Anatolia. Born in Khorasan, he left his home and came to Anatolia following the death of his Mürşid (spiritual teacher) Bâyazid Bistamî. Haraqani was known as a man who cared for the downtrodden and rejoiced in his love for God and mankind. His advice for reaching God was to practice generosity, and to be compassionate and contented. All in all, Hasan al-Haraqani would apparently not have approved of the wanton destruction of a symbol meant to bring people together and bring an end to a century of enmity. In fact, Turkey’s current favourite saint, Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumî, better knowns as just Rumi in the rest of the world, also wrote favourably about him. As a mystic who saw himself as a conduit to God for ordinary people, Haraqani’s life and teachings could serve as a cautionary tale for today’s policy-makers and business-leaders in Turkey trying to come to grips with the annually recurring 24-April crisis and the growing Islamophobia in this post-9/11 world of ours.
What lies behind the present destruction of the ‘Monument to Humanity’? Why did Erdoğan use the word “freak” (‘ucube’) in connection with Mehmet Aksoy’s sculpture? The Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu added that the modernist (or is it post-modernist?) sculpture clashes with the Seljuk and Ottoman heritage of the city of Kars, that it clashes with the architectural aesthetic present in the city. On the other hand, the upcoming elections should not be discounted either. Located on a spot that affords a view of the Republic of Armenia, removing the sculpture might send a message of Turkish determination in the face of Armenian desperation to have the G-word finally officially engraved on the history of 20th-century Turkey, from its Unionist beginnings, over its Kemalist heyday, and into its current post-Kemalist and pro-Islamic phase. Is the Prime Minister merely trying to have the AKP replace the MHP in the hearts and minds of Turkish nationalists by means of removing a symbolic gesture towards Armenia and its on-going struggle to come to terms with the past?
Another Point of View: Turkey as a Model of . . . Tyranny???
Now that Turkey’s AKP is well and truly entrenched in power, voices issuing dire warnings have been popping up left and right. In Turkey as well as wider afield, many have warned of Turkey’s imminent “return to Islam” and Tayyip Erdoğan’s autocratic tendencies. And now, the leader of Turkey’s opposition has taken the bold step of publishing an op-ed in the venerable Washington Post.
As an alarmist pseudo-secularist also prone to employ an Islamic rhetoric to garner public sympathy, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu start his piece stating that “[m]any in Washington have been debating whether Turkey’s governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) could be a model for the Arab Spring , as our neighbors in the Middle East aspire to get rid of totalitarian regimes and become true democracies. But the reality in Turkey makes clear that the AKP model does not hold”.[1] Many Turks as well as many other observers have been talking about Turkey’s Secularism as a possible model for the Arab world. But, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the mere idea that Turkey is a secular state seems far-fetched, and not just because the ruling party hails from Erbakan’s notorious Refah Partisi (RP), but rather because the republican system present in Turkey has always viewed Islam as the nation’s state-religion to be controlled and imposed by the ruling elite of the country, turning the notion of the separation of politics and religion in Turkey into a mere fallacy.[2]
Turning his attention to the affairs of the day, Turkey’s opposition leader continues: “On Nov. 9 I visited the Silivri prison where hundreds of journalists, publishers, military officers, academics and politicians are being held. Trials were opened in 2007 on charges that an ultranationalist underground organization had plotted for years to overthrow the government. Many of those indicted have been detained for years without trial. There has not been a single conviction to date. Justice is at stake — and, so far, has been flagrantly denied. At work is an insidious attack on the rule of law by Turkey’s governing party. These trials could have been an occasion for Turkey to achieve a much-needed catharsis for correcting past wrongs, but they have been turned into instruments to silence the opposition and suppress freedoms. Among those being held are eight opposition members of parliament. Turkey’s high election board declared that these people were qualified to stand for elections, and all won seats in parliament. That they are incarcerated violates their rights under Turkish law as elected representatives of the people. A universal norm of the rule of law is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Another is that evidence leads to the arrest of a suspect. In today’s Turkey, however, people are treated as guilty until proven innocent. One gets arrested; then authorities gather evidence to establish an infraction. Presumed guilt is the norm. Sadly, all opponents of the government are viewed as potential terrorists or plotters against the state. The AKP is systematic and ruthless in its persecution of any opposition to its policies. Authoritarian pressure methods such as heavy tax fines and illegal videotaping and phone tapping are widely used to silence opponents. Even more disturbing is the AKP’s claim that such things are being done in the name of democratic progress. The latest government target is the primary vestige of our democracy, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which I lead. While at the Silivri center in November, I likened the conditions to those of a concentration camp and said that prosecutors and judges were not meting out justice and did not deserve to be called upholders of justice. This month, I learned that the prosecutor’s office had opened an inquiry into my comments, contending that I was ‘seeking to influence a fair trial’ and ‘insulting public officials’. Never mind that not a day passes without some comment by government officials, such as the prime minister, on the process of law and justice. Clearly, an effort to single out the leader of the main opposition party ratchets up the pressures on freedom of expression. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court penalized our party when we asked for the chief justice to recuse himself from particular cases. Our request was based on ill will, we were told when the $3,000 fine was levied, and the CHP was unnecessarily preoccupying the court’s time”, and ending his lament with, “It all boils down to this: In today’s Turkey, when one criticizes the justice system, one is prosecuted. When one appeals to the courts, one is penalized”.[3]
Even though his own party has been playing the nationalist and Islamic cards quite openly for quite some time now, Kılıçdaroğlu still feels at ease to say that “Our party [the CHP or Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi] stands for democracy, secularism, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms. We envision a progressive Turkey where citizens, regardless of their faith, ethnicity, gender or political view, are equal before the law. Building political, economic and cultural walls between people is not consistent with democracy or social justice. Only a nation at peace with itself can be a model for its neighbors. A nation plagued by multiple forms of division and polarization is doomed to failure”.[4] In fact, even though he Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has not explicitly accused the AKP government of turning Turkey into an Islamic state, his reiteration that the CHP stands for “democracy, secularism, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms” clearly implies that, in his opinion, the AKP as a political organization is synonymous with totalitarianism, Islamism, arbitrary rule, and a heavily constrained citizenry. In other words, Kılıçdaroğlu paints the spectre of a revived Ottoman state in the mould of Abdülhamid II (1876-1909), when Pan-Islamism and autocracy led to a veritable police state which was only overthrown by the Young Turk revolution of 1908 and the Second Constitutional period in Ottoman history (1908-1918) . . .
[1] Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, “Opposition being silenced in Turkey” The Washington Post (06 February 2012). http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/opposition-being-silenced-in-turkey/2012/01/26/gIQA0uLfsQ_story.html.
[2] C. Erimtan, “Secularism, beer and bikinis” Hürriyet Daily News (10 March 2011). http://tiny.cc/6msiy; “The Turkish Army: Guardian of Turkish Secularism???” A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog (09 August 2011). http://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-turkish-army-guardian-of-turkish-secularism/; “An Academic Entry: Hittites, Ottomans and Turks” A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog (18 October 2011). http://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/an-academic-entry-hittites-ottomans-and-turks/.
[3] Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, “Opposition being silenced in Turkey”.
[4] Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, “Opposition being silenced in Turkey”.
Category:
Americana, Current Affairs, Current History, Democracy, Europe, Islam, Islamophobia, Middle East, Ottoman history, Political Commentary, Propaganda, Tayyip Erdoğan, Turcica, Turkey, Uncategorized