Tweet
FIGHT TERRORISM, NOT TERRORISTS
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 15 2007
Security and terrorism expert Deniz Ulke Arýboðan likens terrorism to
an apple tree with green leaves, red apples, branches and the body,
but with something more.
"When you kill terrorists, you simply cut off the visible branches.
Every time, new and stronger branches come out again. But if you
handle it from the root and the parts that are not visible, you would
have taken a more profound approach. A tree can only survive inside
its own ecosystem," she said. "If you take the issue detached from
the international environment, that would be a mistake. Also, there
are several parasites living on the body of that tree such as ants,
insects, birds or apple worms."
Professor Arýboðan warns that Turkey's fight with the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK) won't be successful if it ignores these parasites
and does not take parameters like political, psychological, economic
and diplomatic means into account along with military solutions.
Currently, the president of Bahceþehir University, Arýboðan became
well known after she wrote in 1997 that a new mass terrorist attack
on the World Trade Center in New York could be expected.
As the outlawed PKK terror escalates, Arýboðan. a professor of
international relations, puts the terrorism issue into perspective
for Monday Talk and advises not to retaliate immediately because
"terror aims at having you do something instantly."
Is the military doing its job fighting the outlawed PKK?
The military is doing its job in Turkey: it is fighting terrorists.
What the politicians should do is fight terrorism. These are two
different things. The military is one of the many small pieces in a
bigger fight. Violence is only the visible face of terrorism. When
you speak about terrorism as in Turkey that has mass support, you
will see that extensive methods to fight it should be developed.
Since we keep treating without making a diagnosis, we continuously
apply chemotherapy to the common cold. Things we could have handled
with aspirin have turned into deadly diseases. Turkey has a problem
of diagnosis. We come across this at every issue.
What should politicians do?
The most important aspect of terrorism is psychological and then
sociological. Those who choose to become terrorists see themselves as
self-sacrificing, self-giving people. Like the terrorist, the masses
that support terrorist organizations are also open to psychological
influence. [Land Forces Commander] Gen. Ýlker Baþbuð said, "We failed
to stop people from joining the organization." This was an important
finding. He saw there the psychology and the sociology behind it.
What is the psychology behind it?
We do not live in a world, but we live a world. We take whatever we
are offered. Terrorism is the instrument of the post-modern age. It
has an aspect of fear. You kill two people and create fear as if
2,000 had died. Terrorism is inside our heads. According to the 2003
Global Terror report, 725 people lost their lives because of acts of
international terrorism. The number of those who lost their lives in
anti-terrorism efforts is more than hundreds of thousands.
Anti-terrorism is more dangerous. However, people are afraid of
terrorism and that fear is irrational. Terrorism is used as an
instrument for political ends. Turkey is being forced to take a
stance and play a role such as being inside or outside of northern
Iraq, divided or retaining its integrity, Islamist or secular. Small
incidents are being created to make these plans real.
If politicians came to you and asked whether or not it's the right
time to enter northern Iraq to fight with the PKK terrorists, what
would you say?
I'd advise not to do the first thing that comes to mind, which is
to retaliate immediately. Terror aims at having you do something
instantly. You have to wait and weigh the situation. If necessary,
Turkey can enter northern Iraq. If necessary Turkey can take more
military measures. But Turkey should not do something coordinated
with the PKK because the terrorist acts provoke you to do the very
thing. Turkey should be able to determine its own timing. Not with
rage and not with the immediate urge to punish.
Do you see an immediate urge to punish?
For me, terrorism is like a tree. When you kill terrorists, you simply
cut off the visible branches. Every time, new and stronger branches
come out again. But if you handle it from the root and the parts that
are not visible, you would have taken a more profound approach. A
tree can only survive inside its own system. If you consider the
issue detached from the international environment, that would be a
mistake. This is part of a larger system. It necessitates not only
military, but also political solutions.
You say Turkey should think globally when it comes to dealing with
the PKK.
Turkey's anti-terrorism struggle should not be consist only of the
PKK. We need strategy, international relations and deep thinking to be
able to understand the issue. The region is the concentration center
of many powers. Plato says we won't have daylight until either kings
become philosophers or philosophers become kings. We have to instruct
our elected kings until they become philosophers.
What would you say about the attitude of Democratic Society Party
(DTP) members and the government's response?
There could be provocations in Parliament. The government should
stand strong. While you take strict measures militarily, you have
to be soft in Parliament or just the opposite. You have to have a
balance. If you ignore this balance, you'll have more violence.
Politicians have to live with the pain they feel as we lose our sons,
but they have to think clearly and decide accordingly. DTP members
have the most difficulty.
Why?
They might condemn the terrorist attacks, but they may not be able
to speak up against them because they may be shy to call the PKK a
terrorist organization. If they do, that would be against the people
who voted for them. However, the DTP members are not ordinary members
anymore. They are leaders. Plus, they are in the Turkish Parliament.
They should be able show that politics should be conducted on legal
grounds, even if they disapprove of the PKK.
What do you think of the agreement with the Iraqi government? As the
leaders held talks, the PKK staged attacks.
Terror is a political tool. It doesn't mean anything by itself.
Turkey's attitude toward Iraq, Turkey's attitude toward the Middle
East, even Turkey's attitude toward the world, are all determined by
the PKK. Turkey has been held prisoner by the PKK's mental games. But
the PKK is not the main actor -- it's only an extra. If Turkey can
place itself in the right direction within the global system, the PKK
can no longer function. If you give the PKK the utmost importance all
the time, you lose. You need to pull the PKK away from the northern
Iraqi context.
How could this be done?
The biggest tool to fight terrorism is the media. The fight can be
won in the media if the media support the state. The PKK's terrorist
acts should not be exaggerated. In the past, even a miniscule act of
terror would make headlines and such news was written in a way that
would stimulate the public's emotions. Now the media is more helpful.
Do you think the United States would support Turkey's possible
incursion into northern Iraq or turn a blind eye?
If the US government cannot prevent the passage of the Armenian
genocide resolution, it may support a cross-border operation.
Otherwise, the US would lose an important ally. A northern Iraqi
operation with the open support of the US is likely. Either that or
the US could turn a blind eye to a possible operation by Turkey.
What do you think about the US arms that were found in Turkish
territory?
Not surprising. There isn't only one America. The US is not made up of
the US government alone. There might be organizations out of the US
government's control. There could be American corporations which are
in a relationship with the Kurds. There could be some other apparatus,
other interest groups other than the US government and independent
of the US government. A globally important government like that of
the US could be pursuing its interests in many different areas for
different reasons. So one day you could find US arms in Turkey and
the next day you could have the US support against terrorism.
So does that mean the US is not supporting the PKK -- contrary to
Turkish public opinion?
Officially, the US government calls the PKK a terrorist organization.
And also the US government has declared its support for Turkey's
fight against the PKK many times. However, Turkish public opinion is
still suspicious about US policies. Since the authority in northern
Iraq is controlled by the US and the PKK terrorists are located in
that region, considered a safe haven by them, the Turks correlate
PKK activities with the US involvement in that region. And we know
that the arms they use, the logistics, the financial resources all
come from somewhere. If it is not the official US government, it is
someone from the invisible US.
When it comes to relations with the European Union, the fight against
terrorism seems to be an obstacle to democracy. Does Turkey have to
choose between democracy and security?
Democracy and security are perceived to contradict one another. But
according to some, real security is possible within a democracy. Some
other views support toughness, no matter what. For Europeans, except
for the United Kingdom, there was really no security threat. When
there is a threat, they are tough, too, like Spain. Europeans idealize
peace, but they don't have any ideas about how to guarantee continuous
peace. On the other hand, the US emphasizes security without taking
peace into consideration. I think there should be both security and
peace. However, Europe and the United States benefit both from a
peaceful and a secure environment. They created an enemy, a bogeyman,
called Islam. They know that a real security threat will not come
out of it, but the idea of a common enemy is a uniting force for
them. Turkey has not been able to find such an enemy yet.
Regarding the attacks on the World Trade Center, who do you think
planned and organized them? Do you support the conspiracy theories
that say they could have been organized by the US itself?
Conspiracy is something which we, the Turks like very much. But what if
there is a conspiracy in reality? If someone has the ability to kill
JFK, that means that there is enough power to change conspiracies
into realities. But, to answer the question specifically, I don't
think 9/11 was done by the US itself.
And about Turkey's enemies, Turkey shows usually "external forces"
as the "behind the scenes" enemy. Is it not a uniting force? Is it
not working?
Authorities always need enemies in order to legitimize their
policies. The enemies might be from inside or outside. If you call
them outsiders, it creates solidarity inside. Additionally, the best
enemy is the enemy which is not concrete. You can shape it any way
you like. Once you create the bogeymen, than you have the power to
help the ones who are scared.
What are Turkey's bogeymen?
Shariah, the PKK, the headscarf, etc. These all create an atmosphere
of fear and therefore prevent clear thinking. The bogeymen are not
real, but the fear is. A child thinks that there is a bogeyman in the
darkness. The bogeyman is not real, but the fear in that child is. It
does not have to be rational. You still have to help the child. In
Turkey, some say there is a threat of Shariah. It doesn't matter how
many times you say, "Don't be afraid of it, Shariah won't become the
law in Turkey." There is a real fear of it and the fear is politically
motivated. If you say do not fear, it doesn't really mean anything
for the child who is afraid of the bogeyman. You have to be beside the
child to be able to help it by making it feel secure. The feeling of
security is a cure. This is the psychological aspect of it. If people
think that the state is strong, you won't have any problems. The
problem is that people do not trust the state; they don't find it
strong enough and that's why they become afraid so easily.
So do you think the government should not feel that strong because
it received one out of two votes?
Not at all. The government and the state are not the same. The
government is only a part of the state. The state has to be strong
with all of its elements: the institutions, regulations, laws, etc.
In Turkey, a strong state means that it can really beat you up well.
It's like the father who beats up his child because the child fears the
bogeyman. However, that's a wrong way of showing strength. A real show
of strength is softness and caring. Unfortunately, our culture values
toughness over caring. A strong state never beats you up; rather, it
protects you against the ones who can. And you can sleep comfortably.
Is physical show of support for people enough in the Southeast?
The state should be there with all of its resources and strength,
be it financial, educational, psychological or judicial. This should
be done not because the people there are Kurdish but because they
are Turkish citizens. This would be Turkey's gain.
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
[PROFILE]
Deniz Ulke Arýboðan
A professor of international relations, she is the president of
Bahceþehir University. She has taught at Bilgi University and the
Ýstanbul University. Specializing in security and terrorism, she became
well known following the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks because
she wrote in 1997 that a mass terrorist strike could be expected
there. Among her seven books are "Actors of the Globalization Scenario"
(1998), "From Hate to Terror" (2004) and "International Relations
Thought" (2007). She was given the "International Socrates Award"
in 2006 by the European Business Assembly for "Personal Contribution
to Intellectual Development of Today's Society." She had a column in
the Akþam daily between 2005-2007.
--Boundary_(ID_Uw7zZOKJ2dJ07pdsOfdYRA) --
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 15 2007
Security and terrorism expert Deniz Ulke Arýboðan likens terrorism to
an apple tree with green leaves, red apples, branches and the body,
but with something more.
"When you kill terrorists, you simply cut off the visible branches.
Every time, new and stronger branches come out again. But if you
handle it from the root and the parts that are not visible, you would
have taken a more profound approach. A tree can only survive inside
its own ecosystem," she said. "If you take the issue detached from
the international environment, that would be a mistake. Also, there
are several parasites living on the body of that tree such as ants,
insects, birds or apple worms."
Professor Arýboðan warns that Turkey's fight with the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK) won't be successful if it ignores these parasites
and does not take parameters like political, psychological, economic
and diplomatic means into account along with military solutions.
Currently, the president of Bahceþehir University, Arýboðan became
well known after she wrote in 1997 that a new mass terrorist attack
on the World Trade Center in New York could be expected.
As the outlawed PKK terror escalates, Arýboðan. a professor of
international relations, puts the terrorism issue into perspective
for Monday Talk and advises not to retaliate immediately because
"terror aims at having you do something instantly."
Is the military doing its job fighting the outlawed PKK?
The military is doing its job in Turkey: it is fighting terrorists.
What the politicians should do is fight terrorism. These are two
different things. The military is one of the many small pieces in a
bigger fight. Violence is only the visible face of terrorism. When
you speak about terrorism as in Turkey that has mass support, you
will see that extensive methods to fight it should be developed.
Since we keep treating without making a diagnosis, we continuously
apply chemotherapy to the common cold. Things we could have handled
with aspirin have turned into deadly diseases. Turkey has a problem
of diagnosis. We come across this at every issue.
What should politicians do?
The most important aspect of terrorism is psychological and then
sociological. Those who choose to become terrorists see themselves as
self-sacrificing, self-giving people. Like the terrorist, the masses
that support terrorist organizations are also open to psychological
influence. [Land Forces Commander] Gen. Ýlker Baþbuð said, "We failed
to stop people from joining the organization." This was an important
finding. He saw there the psychology and the sociology behind it.
What is the psychology behind it?
We do not live in a world, but we live a world. We take whatever we
are offered. Terrorism is the instrument of the post-modern age. It
has an aspect of fear. You kill two people and create fear as if
2,000 had died. Terrorism is inside our heads. According to the 2003
Global Terror report, 725 people lost their lives because of acts of
international terrorism. The number of those who lost their lives in
anti-terrorism efforts is more than hundreds of thousands.
Anti-terrorism is more dangerous. However, people are afraid of
terrorism and that fear is irrational. Terrorism is used as an
instrument for political ends. Turkey is being forced to take a
stance and play a role such as being inside or outside of northern
Iraq, divided or retaining its integrity, Islamist or secular. Small
incidents are being created to make these plans real.
If politicians came to you and asked whether or not it's the right
time to enter northern Iraq to fight with the PKK terrorists, what
would you say?
I'd advise not to do the first thing that comes to mind, which is
to retaliate immediately. Terror aims at having you do something
instantly. You have to wait and weigh the situation. If necessary,
Turkey can enter northern Iraq. If necessary Turkey can take more
military measures. But Turkey should not do something coordinated
with the PKK because the terrorist acts provoke you to do the very
thing. Turkey should be able to determine its own timing. Not with
rage and not with the immediate urge to punish.
Do you see an immediate urge to punish?
For me, terrorism is like a tree. When you kill terrorists, you simply
cut off the visible branches. Every time, new and stronger branches
come out again. But if you handle it from the root and the parts that
are not visible, you would have taken a more profound approach. A
tree can only survive inside its own system. If you consider the
issue detached from the international environment, that would be a
mistake. This is part of a larger system. It necessitates not only
military, but also political solutions.
You say Turkey should think globally when it comes to dealing with
the PKK.
Turkey's anti-terrorism struggle should not be consist only of the
PKK. We need strategy, international relations and deep thinking to be
able to understand the issue. The region is the concentration center
of many powers. Plato says we won't have daylight until either kings
become philosophers or philosophers become kings. We have to instruct
our elected kings until they become philosophers.
What would you say about the attitude of Democratic Society Party
(DTP) members and the government's response?
There could be provocations in Parliament. The government should
stand strong. While you take strict measures militarily, you have
to be soft in Parliament or just the opposite. You have to have a
balance. If you ignore this balance, you'll have more violence.
Politicians have to live with the pain they feel as we lose our sons,
but they have to think clearly and decide accordingly. DTP members
have the most difficulty.
Why?
They might condemn the terrorist attacks, but they may not be able
to speak up against them because they may be shy to call the PKK a
terrorist organization. If they do, that would be against the people
who voted for them. However, the DTP members are not ordinary members
anymore. They are leaders. Plus, they are in the Turkish Parliament.
They should be able show that politics should be conducted on legal
grounds, even if they disapprove of the PKK.
What do you think of the agreement with the Iraqi government? As the
leaders held talks, the PKK staged attacks.
Terror is a political tool. It doesn't mean anything by itself.
Turkey's attitude toward Iraq, Turkey's attitude toward the Middle
East, even Turkey's attitude toward the world, are all determined by
the PKK. Turkey has been held prisoner by the PKK's mental games. But
the PKK is not the main actor -- it's only an extra. If Turkey can
place itself in the right direction within the global system, the PKK
can no longer function. If you give the PKK the utmost importance all
the time, you lose. You need to pull the PKK away from the northern
Iraqi context.
How could this be done?
The biggest tool to fight terrorism is the media. The fight can be
won in the media if the media support the state. The PKK's terrorist
acts should not be exaggerated. In the past, even a miniscule act of
terror would make headlines and such news was written in a way that
would stimulate the public's emotions. Now the media is more helpful.
Do you think the United States would support Turkey's possible
incursion into northern Iraq or turn a blind eye?
If the US government cannot prevent the passage of the Armenian
genocide resolution, it may support a cross-border operation.
Otherwise, the US would lose an important ally. A northern Iraqi
operation with the open support of the US is likely. Either that or
the US could turn a blind eye to a possible operation by Turkey.
What do you think about the US arms that were found in Turkish
territory?
Not surprising. There isn't only one America. The US is not made up of
the US government alone. There might be organizations out of the US
government's control. There could be American corporations which are
in a relationship with the Kurds. There could be some other apparatus,
other interest groups other than the US government and independent
of the US government. A globally important government like that of
the US could be pursuing its interests in many different areas for
different reasons. So one day you could find US arms in Turkey and
the next day you could have the US support against terrorism.
So does that mean the US is not supporting the PKK -- contrary to
Turkish public opinion?
Officially, the US government calls the PKK a terrorist organization.
And also the US government has declared its support for Turkey's
fight against the PKK many times. However, Turkish public opinion is
still suspicious about US policies. Since the authority in northern
Iraq is controlled by the US and the PKK terrorists are located in
that region, considered a safe haven by them, the Turks correlate
PKK activities with the US involvement in that region. And we know
that the arms they use, the logistics, the financial resources all
come from somewhere. If it is not the official US government, it is
someone from the invisible US.
When it comes to relations with the European Union, the fight against
terrorism seems to be an obstacle to democracy. Does Turkey have to
choose between democracy and security?
Democracy and security are perceived to contradict one another. But
according to some, real security is possible within a democracy. Some
other views support toughness, no matter what. For Europeans, except
for the United Kingdom, there was really no security threat. When
there is a threat, they are tough, too, like Spain. Europeans idealize
peace, but they don't have any ideas about how to guarantee continuous
peace. On the other hand, the US emphasizes security without taking
peace into consideration. I think there should be both security and
peace. However, Europe and the United States benefit both from a
peaceful and a secure environment. They created an enemy, a bogeyman,
called Islam. They know that a real security threat will not come
out of it, but the idea of a common enemy is a uniting force for
them. Turkey has not been able to find such an enemy yet.
Regarding the attacks on the World Trade Center, who do you think
planned and organized them? Do you support the conspiracy theories
that say they could have been organized by the US itself?
Conspiracy is something which we, the Turks like very much. But what if
there is a conspiracy in reality? If someone has the ability to kill
JFK, that means that there is enough power to change conspiracies
into realities. But, to answer the question specifically, I don't
think 9/11 was done by the US itself.
And about Turkey's enemies, Turkey shows usually "external forces"
as the "behind the scenes" enemy. Is it not a uniting force? Is it
not working?
Authorities always need enemies in order to legitimize their
policies. The enemies might be from inside or outside. If you call
them outsiders, it creates solidarity inside. Additionally, the best
enemy is the enemy which is not concrete. You can shape it any way
you like. Once you create the bogeymen, than you have the power to
help the ones who are scared.
What are Turkey's bogeymen?
Shariah, the PKK, the headscarf, etc. These all create an atmosphere
of fear and therefore prevent clear thinking. The bogeymen are not
real, but the fear is. A child thinks that there is a bogeyman in the
darkness. The bogeyman is not real, but the fear in that child is. It
does not have to be rational. You still have to help the child. In
Turkey, some say there is a threat of Shariah. It doesn't matter how
many times you say, "Don't be afraid of it, Shariah won't become the
law in Turkey." There is a real fear of it and the fear is politically
motivated. If you say do not fear, it doesn't really mean anything
for the child who is afraid of the bogeyman. You have to be beside the
child to be able to help it by making it feel secure. The feeling of
security is a cure. This is the psychological aspect of it. If people
think that the state is strong, you won't have any problems. The
problem is that people do not trust the state; they don't find it
strong enough and that's why they become afraid so easily.
So do you think the government should not feel that strong because
it received one out of two votes?
Not at all. The government and the state are not the same. The
government is only a part of the state. The state has to be strong
with all of its elements: the institutions, regulations, laws, etc.
In Turkey, a strong state means that it can really beat you up well.
It's like the father who beats up his child because the child fears the
bogeyman. However, that's a wrong way of showing strength. A real show
of strength is softness and caring. Unfortunately, our culture values
toughness over caring. A strong state never beats you up; rather, it
protects you against the ones who can. And you can sleep comfortably.
Is physical show of support for people enough in the Southeast?
The state should be there with all of its resources and strength,
be it financial, educational, psychological or judicial. This should
be done not because the people there are Kurdish but because they
are Turkish citizens. This would be Turkey's gain.
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
[PROFILE]
Deniz Ulke Arýboðan
A professor of international relations, she is the president of
Bahceþehir University. She has taught at Bilgi University and the
Ýstanbul University. Specializing in security and terrorism, she became
well known following the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks because
she wrote in 1997 that a mass terrorist strike could be expected
there. Among her seven books are "Actors of the Globalization Scenario"
(1998), "From Hate to Terror" (2004) and "International Relations
Thought" (2007). She was given the "International Socrates Award"
in 2006 by the European Business Assembly for "Personal Contribution
to Intellectual Development of Today's Society." She had a column in
the Akþam daily between 2005-2007.
--Boundary_(ID_Uw7zZOKJ2dJ07pdsOfdYRA) --
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress