Tweet
THE REGION: PERCEPTION AND IDENTITY
By Barry Rubin
Jerusalem Post
March 13 2007
Let's talk about two key issues concerning Turkey. First, in what
direction is that extremely important country going? Second, why are
US-Turkish relations about to face a very serious crisis?
In April, Turkey will choose a new president. In November, it will
pick a new parliament. If Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to
be president, it is hard to see who is going to stop him. The Justice
and Development (AKP) party government is in a very strong position,
with the opposition parties still very much divided, unable to offer
a common program or a single inspiring or charismatic leader.
So this raises once again the central question of Turkish politics:
Is the AKP a conservative, traditionalist party which is moderate
in pushing more Islam onto Turkish society, or is it an Islamist
party in moderate clothing, plotting the total transformation of
Turkish society?
There are many people on both sides of this argument, an issue which
is of the deepest and greatest importance for the country's future.
In some ways, perhaps, they are both right.
The AKP contains elements which understand that its success is
based on being a moderate party that wants to join Europe through
the European Union. It may be against the "Kemalist" elite which has
long dominated the country but stands for democracy and a largely -
if less completely - secular society.
At the same time, there are hard-line elements that want to take
Turkey, step by step, down a road that would undo the revolution of
Kemal Ataturk, turning Turkey into a somewhat more moderate version of
Iran. As the AKP conquers the key positions of Turkey - already the
parliament and prime ministership; soon the presidency? - it wants
to install teachers, judges, and laws which will make their social
domination comprehensive and irreversible.
The problem may be that the more power the AKP has, and the less
effective opposition it faces, the more tempting it will be to raise
its demands. If the AKP has to worry about being blocked or checked
by courts, criticized in the media, and defeated in elections, the
more cautious and hence moderate it might be.
At any rate, Turkey may be about to find out how an AKP whose control
is ever widening will act.
MEANWHILE, trouble is also brewing on the international scene. The
Democrats in the newly elected US Congress are promising to support
a resolution asserting that Turkey committed genocide during World
War I. If this passes, Turkey will be outraged - not just the
politicians, but the population in general - and will take strong
action. Anti-Americanism in Turkey, already at high levels, will
climb even more upward. The outcome will be a strengthening of more
extreme forces: the AKP (and more radical elements in that party) and
the nationalist plus semi-Islamist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
In the past, such an outcome was prevented by the White House, under
both Democratic and Republican presidents, quietly telling Congress
that passing such a bill was bad for US interests. Today, Congress
has no interest in listening to what the current president might say
on that matter.
Proponents of Armenian genocide claim that there could have been
anywhere from 600,000 to as many as one million Armenian casualties
of Ottoman soldiers or irregular units. If Armenian communities
and nationalist movements had focused attention in recent decades
on those massacres, instead of genocide (which is a far more grave
accusation), they would have won universal support. Turkey would
probably be facing far more criticism, damage to its reputation,
and pressure to apologize and pay compensation than it does today.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in these circumstances, such actions would
have become a condition for Turkey's membership in the European Union.
BUT THE Armenian groups chose a different strategy, summed up by the
word "genocide." They insisted that the Ottoman Empire had committed
this most terrible of all crimes and had to be found guilty.
Responsibility for this passed to Turkey, the successor state. It
is also worth pointing out, however, that the present-day republic
of Turkey arose by overthrowing the Ottoman Empire and those who had
governed it in World War I.
This strategy greatly raised the stakes while doing two things that
led to its relative failure.
First, the Armenians now had to prove that the Ottoman Empire had
consciously, deliberately and systematically decided to wipe out the
Armenians. And this they could not do because evidence was lacking. A
very high standard of proof is required for genocide. As a result,
an easy Armenian victory was turned into a far tougher struggle.
Second, the Turks can point to extenuating circumstances: it was
wartime, the first act of aggression was from the Armenians taking
arms against their own government; Armenian units were being raised to
fight against the Ottomans as part of the Russian army; Armenians also
massacred Turks; and indeed, close to 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims
died due to starvation, disease and fighting during this period of
Ottoman history.
EVEN IF one does not accept the plea of "self-defense," most of
the world is thus ready to acquit the Ottomans of first-degree
murder, while they might easily have convicted them on a charge
of manslaughter, a serious but lesser crime. The United States and
the West need Turkey today to deal with Iran, Iraq, Central Asia,
and lots of other issues.
It would be wrong to look the other way if Turkey was guilty of
genocide. But why should critical relations be sacrificed on the
basis of a wrongful accusation?
At the same time, of course, Turkey's number-one foreign policy
goal - full membership in the EU - is in jeopardy. The Europeans
are reluctant to admit Turkey for a long list of reasons including
religious, cultural, economic and political. Things have just reached
the point where it is starting to become clear that Turkey cannot
please enough Europeans to get in for a very long time.
So there are two issues right now for Turkey: One is how it sees
itself; the other is how others see it.
By Barry Rubin
Jerusalem Post
March 13 2007
Let's talk about two key issues concerning Turkey. First, in what
direction is that extremely important country going? Second, why are
US-Turkish relations about to face a very serious crisis?
In April, Turkey will choose a new president. In November, it will
pick a new parliament. If Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to
be president, it is hard to see who is going to stop him. The Justice
and Development (AKP) party government is in a very strong position,
with the opposition parties still very much divided, unable to offer
a common program or a single inspiring or charismatic leader.
So this raises once again the central question of Turkish politics:
Is the AKP a conservative, traditionalist party which is moderate
in pushing more Islam onto Turkish society, or is it an Islamist
party in moderate clothing, plotting the total transformation of
Turkish society?
There are many people on both sides of this argument, an issue which
is of the deepest and greatest importance for the country's future.
In some ways, perhaps, they are both right.
The AKP contains elements which understand that its success is
based on being a moderate party that wants to join Europe through
the European Union. It may be against the "Kemalist" elite which has
long dominated the country but stands for democracy and a largely -
if less completely - secular society.
At the same time, there are hard-line elements that want to take
Turkey, step by step, down a road that would undo the revolution of
Kemal Ataturk, turning Turkey into a somewhat more moderate version of
Iran. As the AKP conquers the key positions of Turkey - already the
parliament and prime ministership; soon the presidency? - it wants
to install teachers, judges, and laws which will make their social
domination comprehensive and irreversible.
The problem may be that the more power the AKP has, and the less
effective opposition it faces, the more tempting it will be to raise
its demands. If the AKP has to worry about being blocked or checked
by courts, criticized in the media, and defeated in elections, the
more cautious and hence moderate it might be.
At any rate, Turkey may be about to find out how an AKP whose control
is ever widening will act.
MEANWHILE, trouble is also brewing on the international scene. The
Democrats in the newly elected US Congress are promising to support
a resolution asserting that Turkey committed genocide during World
War I. If this passes, Turkey will be outraged - not just the
politicians, but the population in general - and will take strong
action. Anti-Americanism in Turkey, already at high levels, will
climb even more upward. The outcome will be a strengthening of more
extreme forces: the AKP (and more radical elements in that party) and
the nationalist plus semi-Islamist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
In the past, such an outcome was prevented by the White House, under
both Democratic and Republican presidents, quietly telling Congress
that passing such a bill was bad for US interests. Today, Congress
has no interest in listening to what the current president might say
on that matter.
Proponents of Armenian genocide claim that there could have been
anywhere from 600,000 to as many as one million Armenian casualties
of Ottoman soldiers or irregular units. If Armenian communities
and nationalist movements had focused attention in recent decades
on those massacres, instead of genocide (which is a far more grave
accusation), they would have won universal support. Turkey would
probably be facing far more criticism, damage to its reputation,
and pressure to apologize and pay compensation than it does today.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in these circumstances, such actions would
have become a condition for Turkey's membership in the European Union.
BUT THE Armenian groups chose a different strategy, summed up by the
word "genocide." They insisted that the Ottoman Empire had committed
this most terrible of all crimes and had to be found guilty.
Responsibility for this passed to Turkey, the successor state. It
is also worth pointing out, however, that the present-day republic
of Turkey arose by overthrowing the Ottoman Empire and those who had
governed it in World War I.
This strategy greatly raised the stakes while doing two things that
led to its relative failure.
First, the Armenians now had to prove that the Ottoman Empire had
consciously, deliberately and systematically decided to wipe out the
Armenians. And this they could not do because evidence was lacking. A
very high standard of proof is required for genocide. As a result,
an easy Armenian victory was turned into a far tougher struggle.
Second, the Turks can point to extenuating circumstances: it was
wartime, the first act of aggression was from the Armenians taking
arms against their own government; Armenian units were being raised to
fight against the Ottomans as part of the Russian army; Armenians also
massacred Turks; and indeed, close to 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims
died due to starvation, disease and fighting during this period of
Ottoman history.
EVEN IF one does not accept the plea of "self-defense," most of
the world is thus ready to acquit the Ottomans of first-degree
murder, while they might easily have convicted them on a charge
of manslaughter, a serious but lesser crime. The United States and
the West need Turkey today to deal with Iran, Iraq, Central Asia,
and lots of other issues.
It would be wrong to look the other way if Turkey was guilty of
genocide. But why should critical relations be sacrificed on the
basis of a wrongful accusation?
At the same time, of course, Turkey's number-one foreign policy
goal - full membership in the EU - is in jeopardy. The Europeans
are reluctant to admit Turkey for a long list of reasons including
religious, cultural, economic and political. Things have just reached
the point where it is starting to become clear that Turkey cannot
please enough Europeans to get in for a very long time.
So there are two issues right now for Turkey: One is how it sees
itself; the other is how others see it.