Tweet
STABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: AMERICAN HYPOCRISY, TURKISH PATIENCE
By Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D.
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 23 2007
Displaying a breathtaking combination of arrogance and ignorance,
the US has warned Turkey not to take unilateral action against Kurdish
terrorists in northern Iraq.
The US claims to be concerned that Turkish military incursions would
destabilize the region. I grant that the Bush administration has turned
destabilization into an art form and that it has destabilized the
lives of millions of people in the Middle East. The policies of the
US have resulted in the division and subdivision of one state after
another in the region. This has reached the logical conclusion of
retribalizing sections of Iraq in an effort to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Let us define our terms. For American policy makers, regional
stability means that all Middle Eastern states must support US
policies, especially its alliance with Israel. Stability means that
Middle Eastern states must follow the US when it ignores two of
the most destabilizing factors in the region: Israel's oppression
of Palestine and Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons. Instability
has many meanings in the vocabulary of US foreign policy: any act
which either the US or Israel disapproves of; any effort of the
Arab world to unify in the pursuit of long-term regional economic,
social and political development; any act which links Palestine to the
broader problems of the region; any effort by Iran to influence its
neighbors, including the healing of its wounds with Iraq; any effort
by Turkey to have good relations with its neighbors, especially its
former Ottoman peoples; any action which does not subordinate Turkish
interests and sensibilities to American objectives in the region; the
Turkish rejection of the label of "genocide," notwithstanding Turkish
admissions of needless deaths of Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman
Empire during World War I; any Turkish military action which secures
its borders and protects its people against the predations of Kurdish
terrorists supported by the de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
As the world's only superpower, the US apparently believes it can
define terms, like stability and instability, as it pleases. In
the process the US is demonstrating that the abuse of language and
the abuse of power are blood brothers -- or, as in George Orwell's
classic, "1984," big brothers. And it is necessary, after all, to
love big brother.
Let us consider what stability in the Middle East really means,
what the region requires if it is to have the opportunity to deal
with its many problems. First of all, let me mention a factor which
virtually all Western commentators ignore or misperceive: Stability
means encouraging and reinforcing the tradition of Islamic liberalism.
Islam from its beginnings has been an anti-tribal and progressive
force. As the region's leading secular, democratic Muslim state and
as the non-Arab nation with the deepest experience in the Arab world,
Turkey must play a positive and independent role in the region. This
cannot be done if Turkey is seen as a subordinate of the US.
Stability in the region will require several developments. First of
all, it will necessitate an end to the Israeli oppression of Palestine
as well as an end to Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the
region, either by unilateral disarmament or by nuclear guarantees to
other powers. The US issued such guarantees in Europe and in Asia,
to protect Germany and Japan. Does anyone believe that the US would
threaten to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack? Next,
stability will require the use of oil revenue to repair and unify
Iraq and to develop the region. It will also call for the generous use
of American aid -- far less than the 12 billion a month now expended
on combat -- to secure the compliance of those factions essential to
the reunification of Iraq. Stability means the respect of all Middle
Eastern electorates, not only those who meet the approval of the
US. Finally, stability entails a respect for the high civilizations
and vibrant contemporary cultures which have found their home in the
Middle East. Even if one excludes the Greeks, whose Middle Eastern
connections were profound, what other region can boast of Persia,
Egypt, Mesopotamia or Assyria?
In the current climate this list may seem daunting, unrealistic or
utopian. Given the damage which has been done and which is continuing,
perhaps it is. It should be remembered, however, that before World War
II, the US generally supported the policies for stability outlined
here. What is more, the region concurred with the efforts of the
US. Of course, the US did not have pure motives.
Nevertheless, it believed a stable and modernizing Middle East was
in line with US interests. I am not urging purity of motive, only
the end of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, while there seems to be no end
to American hypocrisy, the end of Turkish patience may be at hand.
*Christopher Vasillopulos is a professor of International Relations
at Eastern Connecticut State University.
By Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D.
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 23 2007
Displaying a breathtaking combination of arrogance and ignorance,
the US has warned Turkey not to take unilateral action against Kurdish
terrorists in northern Iraq.
The US claims to be concerned that Turkish military incursions would
destabilize the region. I grant that the Bush administration has turned
destabilization into an art form and that it has destabilized the
lives of millions of people in the Middle East. The policies of the
US have resulted in the division and subdivision of one state after
another in the region. This has reached the logical conclusion of
retribalizing sections of Iraq in an effort to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Let us define our terms. For American policy makers, regional
stability means that all Middle Eastern states must support US
policies, especially its alliance with Israel. Stability means that
Middle Eastern states must follow the US when it ignores two of
the most destabilizing factors in the region: Israel's oppression
of Palestine and Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons. Instability
has many meanings in the vocabulary of US foreign policy: any act
which either the US or Israel disapproves of; any effort of the
Arab world to unify in the pursuit of long-term regional economic,
social and political development; any act which links Palestine to the
broader problems of the region; any effort by Iran to influence its
neighbors, including the healing of its wounds with Iraq; any effort
by Turkey to have good relations with its neighbors, especially its
former Ottoman peoples; any action which does not subordinate Turkish
interests and sensibilities to American objectives in the region; the
Turkish rejection of the label of "genocide," notwithstanding Turkish
admissions of needless deaths of Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman
Empire during World War I; any Turkish military action which secures
its borders and protects its people against the predations of Kurdish
terrorists supported by the de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
As the world's only superpower, the US apparently believes it can
define terms, like stability and instability, as it pleases. In
the process the US is demonstrating that the abuse of language and
the abuse of power are blood brothers -- or, as in George Orwell's
classic, "1984," big brothers. And it is necessary, after all, to
love big brother.
Let us consider what stability in the Middle East really means,
what the region requires if it is to have the opportunity to deal
with its many problems. First of all, let me mention a factor which
virtually all Western commentators ignore or misperceive: Stability
means encouraging and reinforcing the tradition of Islamic liberalism.
Islam from its beginnings has been an anti-tribal and progressive
force. As the region's leading secular, democratic Muslim state and
as the non-Arab nation with the deepest experience in the Arab world,
Turkey must play a positive and independent role in the region. This
cannot be done if Turkey is seen as a subordinate of the US.
Stability in the region will require several developments. First of
all, it will necessitate an end to the Israeli oppression of Palestine
as well as an end to Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the
region, either by unilateral disarmament or by nuclear guarantees to
other powers. The US issued such guarantees in Europe and in Asia,
to protect Germany and Japan. Does anyone believe that the US would
threaten to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack? Next,
stability will require the use of oil revenue to repair and unify
Iraq and to develop the region. It will also call for the generous use
of American aid -- far less than the 12 billion a month now expended
on combat -- to secure the compliance of those factions essential to
the reunification of Iraq. Stability means the respect of all Middle
Eastern electorates, not only those who meet the approval of the
US. Finally, stability entails a respect for the high civilizations
and vibrant contemporary cultures which have found their home in the
Middle East. Even if one excludes the Greeks, whose Middle Eastern
connections were profound, what other region can boast of Persia,
Egypt, Mesopotamia or Assyria?
In the current climate this list may seem daunting, unrealistic or
utopian. Given the damage which has been done and which is continuing,
perhaps it is. It should be remembered, however, that before World War
II, the US generally supported the policies for stability outlined
here. What is more, the region concurred with the efforts of the
US. Of course, the US did not have pure motives.
Nevertheless, it believed a stable and modernizing Middle East was
in line with US interests. I am not urging purity of motive, only
the end of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, while there seems to be no end
to American hypocrisy, the end of Turkish patience may be at hand.
*Christopher Vasillopulos is a professor of International Relations
at Eastern Connecticut State University.