The Not-So-Sick Man of Europe Does Matter
As a teenager, I had the opportunity to spend two years (1975-1977) in Turkey, where my father, an active-duty Air Force officer, served as part of the Joint United States Military Assistance Advisory Team in the capital of Ankara. It was an exciting time for a number of reasons. First and foremost, experiencing a foreign culture firsthand (we lived among the Turks, not on a military base) was the opportunity of a lifetime. But what made it even more of an experience was the moment in history that these years represented. Turkey, a key NATO ally, had invaded Cyprus in 1974, an act which severely strained U.S.-Turkish relations. When we arrived in Turkey in the fall of 1975, the American flag was not permitted to be flown over the American installation at Balgat Air Base, on the outskirts of Ankara, where the American school and the U.S.-Turkish military logistics support establishment were located. There was one exception: July 4, 1976, when the flag was raised as part of the U.S. bicentennial celebration. But the flag came down the next day.
Everywhere one traveled in Turkey, the visage of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was visible. The “Father of the Turks,” Mustafa Kemal made modern Turkey out of the ruins of the defeated Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I. A strict believer in a secular constitutional republic, Mustafa Kemal tasked Turkey’s military with the defense of constitutional governance. Twice prior to our arrival in Turkey, in 1960 and 1971, the armed forces of Turkey made good on that commitment, removing governments from power that the military command felt had either deviated too far from the vision of Atatürk , or whose inability to govern threatened the Turkish constitution. Each time, however, the Turkish military served as a shepherd of democracy, giving up power once it had facilitated the transition back to civilian government.
The years 1976-1977 were extremely turbulent times to live in Turkey. Leftist groups protested in the streets, and right-wing “Gray Wolf” gunmen carried out targeted assassinations. Being nearby when a Turkish general was gunned down in front of your apartment (as happened to one of my friends as he was coming home from school) or watching a pistol-brandishing “Gray Wolf” charge after your school bus, only to be gunned down by Turkish police (as I myself witnessed) might have been the stuff of adolescent adventure, but it was symptomatic of an underlying instability which had gripped Turkey, and which the military could no longer stomach. In 1980 the Turkish military once again stepped in, throwing out yet another failed civilian government in the name of defending the mandate of Mustafa Kemal.
The decade of the ’70s saw other political turbulence as well. Turkey, in addition to being a staunch NATO ally of the United States, also served as part of what was then known as the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO. Organized in 1955 as a means of containing Soviet influence in the Middle East, CENTO was comprised of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. A military coup in Iraq in 1958 prompted the withdrawal of Baghdad from the organization, and the CENTO headquarters was moved to Ankara, where it was maintained until 1979. CENTO never really accomplished much as an organization (Iraq, after withdrawing, initiated close military ties with the Soviet Union). The refusal of CENTO to go to the aid of Pakistan during its 1965 and 1971 wars with India frayed the fabric of the treaty relationship, and Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974 likewise strained an organization which was failing in its ostensible role of containment of Soviet power. By 1970, the Soviet Union had thousands of troops in Egypt, a naval facility in Syria and strengthened military ties with Iraq and Yemen. The fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979 represented the death knell for CENTO, and it was formally abandoned that year.
One of the main reasons CENTO never succeeded is that its mission was really nothing more than an extension of a unilateral American policy of Soviet containment. Other than showing support for the United States, there was never any real value to CENTO’s membership. The ultimate testimony to the failure of the CENTO mission is found in an examination of the four regional powers that comprised its original membership. Iraq has been invaded and occupied by the United States. Pakistan is in a life-or-death struggle with extreme Islamic fundamentalists brought on by its support of the American decision to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban government in Kabul. Iran remains in the cross hairs of the United States, with a policy of regime change in Tehran openly embraced by policymakers in Washington. Of the four charter regional members, only Turkey remains as a staunch ally of the United States, and yet even this time-honored relationship is being severely tested by American unilateralism.
One of the major challenges facing Turkey in the period after the 1980 military coup was the need for radical political and economic reform. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 severely impacted the Turkish economy, as two of its largest trading partners were effectively nullified by conflict. Increasing difficulties with the Kurdish minority in Turkey manifested in guerrilla warfare and the declaration of martial law in Turkey’s eastern provinces and likewise strained the Turkish nation. The Persian Gulf war of 1991 against Iraq and the subsequent decade of economic sanctions against Iraq also retarded normal economic development. By 2002, however, internal reforms had progressed to the point that Turkey was turning the corner on issues such as inflation, trade balance and debt payment. Critical to the success of Turkish reforms were stable trade relations with Iran, a reduction of ethnic Kurdish violence and a normalization of trade relations with Iraq. Considerable assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also played a significant role.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States represented a key turning point in the souring of relations between Turkey and America. Turkey, a neighbor of Iraq, did not view the regime of Saddam Hussein as either a regional or global threat to peace and security. While Turkey had supported the military action against Iraq in 1991, and provided basing for American military aircraft enforcing the northern “no-fly” zone, it had paid a significant economic price in the process, losing billions of dollars per year in trade opportunities. Likewise, Turkey’s unhesitating support of the United States in pursuing military action against al-Qaida after Sept. 11, 2001, also hit the Turkish economy hard. Public indebtedness and inflation threatened the very reforms Turkey was trying to put in place. The U.S. decision to provide Turkey with $200 million in financial aid in 2002 was useful only in helping maintain the balance of payment on outstanding debt, and not in terms of engendering economic stability. Only the maintenance of normal economic ties with its traditional regional economic partners could accomplish that.
The U.S. rush toward war with Iraq in 2003 threatened the very foundation of stability Turkey needed to rise above its debt burden and emerge as a regional economic power. This, combined with the majority of the Turkish people opposing participation in what was viewed as a completely immoral and unnecessary war, drove Turkey to stand against the American-led invasion of Iraq. As predicted, the invasion has proved to be an economic and political disaster for Turkey. The billions of dollars in lost trade has created even more debt and fiscal instability, which can hardly be offset by the millions of dollars in financial aid the U.S. provides annually. Even more disturbing for Turkey is the prospect of another U.S.-led military action in the region, this time against Iran. Simply put, the Turkish economy would be severely stressed to the point of outright collapse should the U.S. intervene militarily against Iran.
American-Turkish relations have been further exacerbated by the re-emergence of Kurdish militancy based in northern Iraq. In this the Turks find common cause with the Islamic Republic of Iran. For some time now, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a terrorist organization violently advocating for greater independence for Kurds living in Turkey, and the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), a similar organization which carries the struggle for Kurdish independence in Iran, have been using northern Iraq as a base from which to carry out attacks against their respective enemies. The PKK and PJAK have cooperated to the point that they have, in many respects, become a single entity.
Not surprisingly, the United States has exploited this situation, with support from Iraqi Kurdish groups such as the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The U.S. has provided covert assistance, in the form of money, training, weapons and communications/logistical support, to the PKK/PJAK fighters in order to encourage destabilization operations inside Iran. To the horror of Turkey, and the embarrassment of the United States, PKK/PJAK fighters have used this covert largess to carry out bloody cross-border operations inside Turkey, where over 50 Turkish soldiers and scores of civilians have been killed in recent months.
Turkey was one of the first Muslim nations to provide material support to the United States’ “global war on terror” following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Turkish forces helped spearhead the NATO move into Afghanistan. But the call for global conflict against terror rings false in Ankara in light of the prospect of PKK terrorists operating with near impunity across the border in Iraq, a nation which since 2003 has been under the de facto control of the United States. Indeed, the discovery by Turkish security forces of U.S.-supplied weapons in the possession of Kurdish terrorists operating inside Turkey makes a farce of American claims of the phantasmal Iranian weapons alleged to be “pouring” into Iraq from Iran. If one were to take the case for military intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11 and the justification for targeting the Taliban as facilitators of the al-Qaida attack and compare these to the terrorist threat that Turkey faces in dealing with a U.S.-backed PKK, it would be seen that Turkey had a case (albeit unrealistic and impractical) for holding the administration of George W. Bush, as well as the government of Iraq, accountable in a similar manner. At the very least, Turkey has a valid case for self-defense through military operations in northern Iraq in order to neutralize a military threat which has manifested itself in real, as opposed to theoretical, terms. And yet both the United States and the European Union strongly oppose such action on the part of Turkey, despite their expressed support for the so-called global war on terror.
On the surface, at least, Turkey possesses strong pro-Western credentials. A charter member of the United Nations and a longtime member of NATO, Turkey was one of the first nations to align itself with the U.S. when war broke out in Korea in 1950. The performance of the Turkish Brigade in that conflict is legendary. In 1959 Turkey applied for associate membership status in the European Economic Community, and in 1963 an agreement was signed that formalized the process of customs union [a free trade area with a common external tariff]. Additional protocols were signed in 1970, and in 1973 the protocols entered into force. Turkey, it seemed, was well on the way to becoming a full-fledged member of the European community.
Then came the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey in 1974, the military coup of 1980 and the rise in Turkish-Kurdish violence throughout the 1980s. The reality of Turkey’s status as a “bridge nation” between Europe and Asia, replete with all of the problems associated with the melding of two historically disparate and incompatible cultures, was exposed, together with Europe’s unwillingness to recognize the uniqueness of Turkey’s situation. Negotiations between Europe and Turkey over customs union came to a halt and were revived only in 1986. In 1987 Turkey applied for full EEC membership, an application which was endorsed by the European Council in terms of eligibility but not necessarily viability. In 1995 Turkey seemed to make progress in its quest to become a formal member of the Western bloc when customs union was finally ratified, but two years later Turkey’s hopes were shattered when the European Union declined to offer candidate status. Under pressure from the United States, this decision was reversed in 1999, and since that time there has been hesitant progress toward the dream of European Union membership for Turkey.
Turkey has made huge progress in terms of financial and legal reform. Its parliament has passed sweeping legislation which more closely aligns it with the European Union in terms of legal structure and content. But the reality is that historical, ethnic and cultural prejudices within Europe, combined with Turkey’s “bridge nation” status between East and West, make union with Europe a near impossibility. One can see just how complex this situation is in how Turkey deals with issues along its borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Although a full-fledged member of NATO, Turkey excludes the operations of its forces in its eastern provinces from NATO command, control and oversight. Turkey is, in reality, two nations within a nation. One, looking toward the west, seeks union with Europe. The other, looking toward the east, seeks stability in a region clouded by history, ethnic diversity and religious fanaticism. Turkey’s status as a Muslim nation further complicates a union with Europe. While the United States and some European nations, Britain in particular, support European Union status for Turkey on the grounds that this would provide a foundation of stable relations between the West and the Muslim world, many European nations, especially France, the Netherlands and Germany, oppose Turkey’s membership on the basis that Turkey and Europe are incompatible entities not given to comprehensive political, cultural and economic union.
At least the French are honest in their approach. Europe, while labeling the Kurdish PKK as a terrorist group, is indifferent to the reality of PKK terrorism from the perspective of Turkey. While remaining mute on its own complicity in controversial anti-terrorism practices of the United States (rendition, illegal confinement and torture) carried out on European soil and with the assistance and permission of many European governments, the EU continues to condemn Turkey for human rights violations, limitations on free speech, and other political problems arising from its decades-long struggle against PKK terrorism. While every effort should be made to encourage Turkish conformity with the legal and moral practices set forth under international law, the hypocrisy of the European position is evident, especially to the people of Turkey, who have become jaded in recent years to the notion of union with Europe. While some 66 percent of the Turkish population supported entry into the European Union a decade ago, today the number hovers around 40 percent. This trend, if it holds, will make Turkish membership in Europe all but impossible.
The question, therefore, is what should be done about Turkey and the West? There is no doubt that both the West (Europe and the United States) are best served by maintaining the closest possible ties with Turkey. The problem is, does such a close relationship likewise benefit Turkey? At a time when the United States Congress foolishly debates whether to apply the label of “genocide” to events (i.e., the Armenian tragedy of 1915) nearly a century past, and Europe blindly repeats the mistakes of recent history (i.e., its complicit support for the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003) by rubber-stamping U.S. policy objectives vis-à-vis Iran, it can come as no surprise that Turkey finds itself feeling left out of the West at a time when events in the East consume its political and economic energy. The Turkish government’s recent call for the creation of a “Turkic Union” is but the most recent manifestation of a trend which has the Turkish sociopolitical-economic compass starting to swing away from Europe.
During the time of the Ottoman Empire, what is now known as Turkey was often referred to as “the sick man of Europe.” Today, it seems, many in Europe and the United States act as if this status still stands. But the fact is, Turkey today is neither sick nor European. It is a pro-West Muslim nation which not only physically bridges east and west but also serves as the conduit for social, economic and political intercourse. The key for the United States and Europe is not to keep trying to choose between forcing Turkey into becoming European and rejecting it for being too Asian, but rather to respect the progress Turkey has made in forging a Muslim nation with a secular government and democratic stability. Turkey today, as a bridge nation, holds the key for the peaceful resolution of many current crises (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran in particular), and most potential future crises involving East-West conflict. Properly nurtured and managed, the West’s relationship with Turkey can be beneficial to all parties in the long term.
However, a bridge runs two ways, and if the West, in particular Europe, continues to approach its relationship with Turkey with the arrogance and indifference it displays today, and if the United States continues to pursue imperial policies in the Middle East which act to the detriment of Turkish interests, rest assured that this critical Western ally will drift away from Europe and firmly into the grasp of the East and radical Islamic fundamentalism. This would be a disaster for both Turkey and the West. At a time when the search for stability represents such an important part of the West’s foreign policy objectives, the lack of attention given to Turkey is astounding. Far from being the modern incarnation of Europe’s “sick man,” modern Turkey is healthy and vibrant, and does matter. We need to formulate and implement policies that reflect this reality before it is too late.
Excellent article ! Scott Ritter is a real star !
These days Europe IS the sick man, with catastrophically low birth rates, emigrating populations, especially in the east, and rising Islamization.
The EU should exclude the Turks and say so now. When Turkey’s government led the charge against Denmark last year on behalf of the OIC’s Islamic censorship campaign (with the Jyllands Posten’s Muhammad cartoons as the pretext), it forfeited any pretense of supporting liberal values. Turkey’s threats against the U.S. this year over Pelosi’s Armenian Genocide resolution should also give pause to its friends. Why do we keep beating up Germany over its genocide and giving Turkey a free pass?
militantliberal quote:
“Why do we keep beating up Germany over its genocide and giving Turkey a free pass?”
……and our genocide in iraq?
Thanks! Scott,
As always, excellent, insightful reportage.
A KNESAL ………..’Liberal Warrior’
<<<<<<>>>>>
The above statement is oxymoronic. Obviously, the turks had a military dictatorship cosmetically dressed up as a democracy so as to provide the justification for the West to use it as a fortress against the challenges coming from the Soviet Union and the Pan Islamic re-awakening. And this near century-old fakery is coming unstuck inspite of the call of pro-West forces within and without Turkey for a return to the “good old days”.
This lattest ambitious push by the US imperial force in the Middle East, which the author declares was, as usual, for the purpose of maintaining stability in the region, showed a dire lack of consideration for the interests of the Turkish people.
What is worse is that this cavalier attitude towards the Turks is coupled with an overestimation of the US’s own national and imperial power in the region. As such, something which another imperial power in another age might have a chance of pulling off would now lead to loss of more US influence and a further strengthening of the process of the rejuvenation of Islamic civilization.
*******the armed forces of Turkey made good on that commitment, removing governments from power that the military command felt had either deviated too far from the vision of Atatürk , or whose inability to govern threatened the Turkish constitution. Each time, however, the Turkish military served as a shepherd of democracy, giving up power once it had facilitated the transition back to civilian government.*******
I am replacing the quote from the article for which my comment was made in the previous post. I hope this time the computer would not omit it again.
Dear Scott,
You cannot brush off an organization of several thousand members (the PKK), who have dedicated not only their own lives but also the lives of their families to a cause and enjoy the support of millions of their fellow countrymen, just by calling them “terrorists”. You should know better than that. To me, as a Kurdish-American, a PKK member is as much a terrorist as an American who fought the Revolutionary War against Britain some 240 years ago. Today, the Kurds in the Middle East are fighting against Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria for the same reasons that the Americans fought against Britain in those days. They are fighting to gain “FREEDOM and SELF-DETERMINATION” for their own people. I believe that our founding fathers were correct when they declared “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” And I also believe that they did not mean “ALL MEM” only here in America. They meant “ALL MEN” in the world; and “YES” even the Kurds (40+ million people ruled by others and denied even the most basic human rights of speaking and receiving education in their own language). I hope you are not one of those who are getting paid by the Turkish government to right this kind of articles.
Militant liberal there’s a huge difference between freedom of speech and hate speech and those cartoons were purposely meant to promote hate against Muslims and to provoke a negative reaction. Turkey was right to object to them and at least they reacted in a diplomatic way…unfortunatly some Muslims did not choose to react diplomatically and they reacted by burning things etc which was wrong. I applaud the Turks for standing up to hate speech in the way they did.
If only our policy makers had demonstrated this degree of knowledge & perception, the world would be different today. Instead, they disregard history and logic, despite their available resources. Worst of all, they either fail to learn from their errors and/or refuse to cottect them.
thank you Scott!
Ali Hassani is ignoring the current internal policies that the governing AKP party is has been implementing to include the Kurdish minority in mainstream Turkish life.
The PKK are nothing but terrorists who are now resorting to killing any Kurds who are cooperating with the overtures of the government.
I was idly wondering what, if any, meaningful role Turkey has in the economic life of the US and its citizens. I don’t know of a single product from that country that appears on the shelves where I shop. Are there strategic minerals we need from them?
Otherwise, why do I care about that benighted place?
“the Turkish military served as a shepherd of democracy”???
That must be one of the most nonsensical and indefensible statements I have ever read. Dictators who have taken over what were democratic governments universally make that or a similar claim: “I have to assume dictatorial powers to save the democracy.”
Preposterous.
twoblueday; Dried apricots and figs from Turkey are very good.
peaceman: there’s a strong strategic reason to cozy up to these folks, I suppose; I certainly know of no other.
I have commented on the hypocrisy and the “con-job” that the governments of the West had inflicted on common people of the West and the Turkish people with regards to the propaganda line that Turkey was highly valued as a “shepherd of democracy”. (the words of the writer of the article) Now I wish to point out the cummulative effects of this misguided and shortsighted strategy.
Under the guise of spreading democracy this Western strategy of containing and frustrating the healthy rejuvenation and evolution of Islamism from Algeria, Lybia, Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, etc., has resulted in the rise of Islamic obscurantism and the attendant wholescale outbreak of antagonism of the Muslims against the West. The rise of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are no accident.
Centuries of suppression inevitably brought forth this mass hysteria and “psychotic” release in the form of terrorism. The West must face up to this reality and its responsibility.
twoblueday; Airstrips and army bases closer to Russia. It’s funny, about world history. Borders, alliances, treaties, and political ideology change over time. Change is an absolutism. Consider this: Turkey supported Germany, (the alledged bad guy) in WW1, and was neutral in WW2, except near the end, they declared war on the Third Reich. Serbia, a country on our side in both world wars was bombed by ’slick willy’ himself. (I voted for him twice-for the record) Milosevich, like all others who oppose the ‘international bankers’, is demonized and described as Hitler.
I guess my answer is incomplete, twoblueday, but sincerely believe our strong ties to Turkey is because of the close proximity to Russia.
Kidding aside, the ‘old world’ trees produce high-quality fruit, and Turkey is known for its fine apricots.
Turkish food is delicious… you people are making me hungry :).
Twoblueday: In addition to dried apricots and figs that someone else mentioned, Turkey has real nice prisons as well. Have you ever seen the movie “The Midnight Express?” If not, I strongly suggest that you should.
By the way, in my previous message, I made a small typo and used the word “right”, instead of “write”. I apologize.
shuoshuokan;
Please explain to all of us what you find so healthy about the ‘rejuvenation’ of Islamism. You, an apparant progressive, supporting reactionary politics? Some aggressive, backward, supremacist throwback quack ideology? This is the same concept of ‘rejuvenation’ that was the centerpiece in Mussolini’s Italy. Please, if you feel I am wrong, defend it. Otherwise, see Islamism for what it is; milk long ago gone bad that needs flushed down the toilet.
I don’t eat dried apricots and figs.
I think the need for US military bases near Russia is some cold-warrior’s idea of a way to continue paupering the US for no good reason at all. Truth is, the chance of a land war with Russia is about as likely as a real agent of change getting elected president in the US.
I saw the move “Midnight Express” and have no idea whatsoever if it represents any reality in Turkey. It was just a bad movie as far as I could tell. Poorly written, acted, and produced. I had a bad seat when I saw it: it was facing the screen.
I really don’t understand why I should be too concerned about that country.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Massud. But just this once. I think perhaps you are not deliberately misreading my message and that all you need is some clarification.
Islam had never had a chance for a healthy rejuvenation. It never happened because the age of European Colonization is closely followed by the age of “Puppetism” after the so called decolonization and fraudulant “independence”.
These puppets, whether they appeared in a three-peice-suit or the traditional garb are fake Muslims with the slave mentality, slaving for the interests of the West.
Of course any real rejuvenation would have to go through a period of mistakes. But what you see now is not such genuine mistakes of revivalism but only what I called psychotic reaction to cultural oppression.
What you now see is not Islamic revivalism or rejuvenation but what the Americans called “blowback”. You are now experiencing the Muslim Blowback, the Mother of all blowbacks. Enjoy!
The fact of the matter is that, despite all the claims in the media and by the U.S. officials, Turkey is NOT a democracy. I say that because in that country 20-25 percent of the population who happened to be Kurds is not even allowed to declare their national identity. It is against the Law in Turkey for anyone to publicly call himself or herself a “Kurd.” It is against the Law for any Kurd to speak Kurdish in public; or give Kurdish name to his/her child; or to get education in his own language. Can you imagine in this country (the U.S.) black people be forbidden from calling themselves “Black” (or African-American)? Or Spanish people are forbidden from speaking Spanish? Or native-Americans be forbidden to give Indian names to their children or run their own affairs? I don’t understand why we call Turkey a democracy?
shuoshuokan;
Perhaps I misunderstood you, or maybe I am misunderstood. I’m still having a difficult time wrapping my head around what precisely is ‘islamic revivalism’? When I think revivalism, I think theists wagging their tongues and declaring a theocracy. And the name “islamic” implies religious affiliation, not national, racial or cultural affiliation. I must be misunderstanding you, as it almost sounds to me like you’re championing the cause of theocracy over reason.
to twoblueday,
Aside from the dried fruits mentioned Turkey is known for making cymbals, the most famous of which are made by the Avedis Zildjian Company. If you listen to music at all you are almost certainly listening to percussionists playing Zildjian cymbals.
fundamental difference in approach to the question between us.
For nearly five centurieTo discuss a topic as complex as “Islam” in such a forum it would be nearly impossible not to “misunderstand” one another.
Quote: “And the name “Islamic” implies religious afiliation, not national, racial or cultural afiliation”. This statement from you underlined the s the domination of the Western civilizatin is so complete that the histories of other nations, people and cultures for that same span of time can be summed up as little more than their reactions to this overwhelming and all pervading domination.
The Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, the people of Islam had each in their own way make peace and war mostly in reactions to this domination. These “reactionary” histories are still ongoing processes.
Christianity has gone through reformations, including that with the capital “R” and many with the lower casing “r”. The role of Islam in societies is very similar to the role of Christianity in societies. And yet Islam has not been given the chance to evolve in the same manner that Christianity had. This Sir, is the crux of my argument. No Muslim had ever gotten the chance to say something like “God is dead”, for example.
In recent years, with people like Samuel Huntington saying things like “The Clash of Civilization” one would have thought that Westerners would have been able to see Islam for what it is to the Muslim. It is not just “religious afiliation”, to say the least.
And yet, contrary to most expectation, you and many others chose to simplify this complex question into the so called “Islamic Fundamentalism” problem. Perhaps in so doing making it easier for you to formulate policies requiring only the simplest of solutions, namely, the military solution.
This Islamic “elephant” in the room, which you try not to notice is all encompassing. It is national, racial, political, economic, social, culture and religious. The religious part should be the least of your worries.
The Chinese had gone through the phases of the worshipping of the West, to the wrong headed, and calamitous “revolt” against it. They had believed that communism should save them from the domination of the West’s capitalist creed. Some now thought they had come a full circle with this present regime in Beijing. I beg to differ.
The Indians had their Hindu Revivalism. Like Christianity and Islam, Hinduism plays the same role. Now they had a see-saw scenario over there, with periodic changes with the Pro-West colonial leftover “Atarturk-Nehru Type” on top for one moment and the Hindu type taking over next.
In the Islamic world they don’t get as far as the Chinese and don’t even get the choice of the Indians. What they got are bastard of different stripes. All of them in the pockets of the “former” colonial masters, with the exception of Iran and maybe few others. Thus they are really stuck in the colonial mode with little hope of ever breaking freee.
To discuss a topic as complex as “Islam” in such a forum it would be nearly impossible not to “misunderstand” one another.
Quote: “And the name “Islamic” implies religious afiliation, not national, racial or cultural afiliation”. This statement from you underlined the fundamental difference in approach between us regarding the Islamic Question. For over five centuries the domination of the Western civilizatin is so complete that the histories of other nations, people and cultures for that same span of time can be summed up as little more than their reactions to this overwhelming and all pervading domination.
The Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, the people of Islam had each in their own way make peace and war mostly in reactions to this domination. These “reactionary” histories are still ongoing processes.
Christianity has gone through reformations, including that with the capital “R” and many with the lower casing “r’s”. The role of Islam in societies is very similar to the role of Christianity in societies. And yet Islam has not been given the chance to evolve in the same manner that Christianity had. This Sir, is the crux of my argument. No Muslim had ever gotten the chance to say something like “God is dead”, for example.
In recent years, with people like Samuel Huntington saying things like “The Clash of Civilization” one would have thought that Westerners would have been able to see Islam for what it is to the Muslim. It is not just “religious afiliation”, to say the least.
And yet, contrary to most expectation, you and many others chose to simplify this complex question into the so called “Islamic Fundamentalism” problem. Perhaps in so doing making it easier for you to formulate policies requiring only the simplest of solutions, namely, the military solution.
This Islamic “elephant” in the room, which you try not to notice is all encompassing. It is national, racial, political, economic, social, culture and religious. The religious part should be the least of your worries.
The Chinese had gone through the phases of the worshipping of the West, to the wrong headed, and calamitous “revolt” against it. They had believed that communism should save them from the domination of the West’s capitalist creed. Some now thought they had come a full circle with this present regime in Beijing. I beg to differ.
The Indians had their Hindu Revivalism. Like Christianity and Islam, Hinduism plays the same role. Now they had a see-saw scenario over there, with periodic changes with the Pro-West colonial leftover “Atarturk-Nehru Type” on top for one moment and the Hindu type taking over next.
In the Islamic world they don’t get as far as the Chinese and don’t even get the choice of the Indians. What they got are bastard of different stripes. All of them in the pockets of the “former” colonial masters, with the exception of Iran and maybe few others. Thus they are really stuck in the colonial mode with little hope of ever breaking freee.